Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Buffy killing the Knights of Byzantium (or did she?)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • HardlyThere
    replied
    Originally posted by Nothing13 View Post
    This is the point for me, writers since Buffy was a teen show tried to and romanticize with speeches things and avoided showing completely the harsh reality.
    Like when Wesley shoots his father in order to save Fred, however after writers tried to reduce the impact with the story of the robot's father.
    Writers sometimes try to reduce the emotional impact of harsh events.
    You confuse what you want to happen with what did. Just a few eps later Wes kills Knox and attempts to kill Gunn.

    Sometimes the death of civilians happens and isn't consider necessary war crimes. There is the process and after if the situation was unavoidable, these aren't defined war crimes. But these things can happen in reality and even worse things.
    Moving goalposts. You weren't referring to collateral damage. You were referring to the deliberate, cold blooded killing that you deem necessary. Executing POWs, which would be the closest analogy here, is definitely a war crime.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nothing13
    replied
    Giles' statement is simply wrong and therefore *bad writing* that sounds like romantic twaddle.
    This is the point for me, writers since Buffy was a teen show tried to and romanticize with speeches things and avoided showing completely the harsh reality.
    Like when Wesley shoots his father in order to save Fred, however after writers tried to reduce the impact with the story of the robot's father.
    Writers sometimes try to reduce the emotional impact of harsh events.
    Yeah, they're called war crimes.
    Sometimes the death of civilians happens and isn't consider necessary war crimes. There is the process and after if the situation was unavoidable, these aren't defined war crimes. But these things can happen in reality and even worse things.

    Leave a comment:


  • HardlyThere
    replied
    Originally posted by Nothing13 View Post

    Yes, sometimes there is a situation where you can capture the criminal and put him in jail, sometimes don't and he gets killed. Both these cases must be showed for coherence like it is/was in reality
    The times they don't and get killed are what you call justified.

    It would be too absurd and irrealistic in a war battle, they already didn't show almost anything
    The insistence is that for me writers since Buffy was a teen show avoided showing scenes too crude/harsh reality (and it is comprehensible for the target). Like showing, Buffy kills in cold-blood a human for a necessity like she has done with demons. Buffy is like in a situation of war, these situations can happen and must be shown (i know that in a teen show). In reality, these kinds of things happen and have always happened. There aren't only indirect death or half showed self-defense probable death like in the show of Buffy. This is what soldiers do in war has always done in past times during war times.
    Simply I don't think that the comparison demon's life and human's life is coherent in the show, also the vampire thing isn't explained
    Doesn't matter what was shown. It's what happened. Buffy killed humans.

    Ben wasn't killed out of necessity. I don't know why you keep repeating it.

    This is what soldiers do in war has always done in past times during war times.
    Yeah, they're called war crimes.

    Leave a comment:


  • DeepBlueJoy
    replied
    Giles' statement is simply wrong and therefore *bad writing* that sounds like romantic twaddle. Buffy has killed humans, including some not too long before the final fight with Glory.

    What she does not do is exact human justice for human crimes. She doesnt kill Warren bc Warren is a human primarily using human means, and she is not appointing herself police over the human world.

    She does kill humans in self defense. She might have been shortsighted about Ben as a threat in the heat of the rush to save Dawn (since canon did happen, we must account for it) but not because she cannot kill a human.

    Buffy is very self-controlled. She also does not kill demons who are not a threat. I think she is aware of her power and just how easy it would be to misuse.

    Over time we see her come to see herself as a protector, not an exterminator of all beings demon. The Buffy of season 7 views Clem as a friend/associate, but even early in the series she goes to the demon bar and does not try to kill everyone inside. It is a process, but one that got started with Angel and then the truce with Spike.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nothing13
    replied

    So the human world has it's own rules for dealing with people like him-
    Yes, sometimes there is a situation where you can capture the criminal and put him in jail, sometimes don't and he gets killed. Both these cases must be showed for coherence like it is/was in reality
    Originally posted by HardlyThere View Post
    If the writers didn't want Buffy killing humans, they'd have conveniently had the Knights live or wouldn't have the tally said on camera. What exactly is the insistence that the gang should kill humans for things that *might* do when they don't even do that for demons aside from vamps? Buffy doesn't kill Clem or close down Willy's. [/FONT]
    It would be too absurd and irrealistic in a war battle, they already didn't show almost anything
    The insistence is that for me writers since Buffy was a teen show avoided showing scenes too crude/harsh reality (and it is comprehensible for the target). Like showing, Buffy kills in cold-blood a human for a necessity like she has done with demons. Buffy is like in a situation of war, these situations can happen and must be shown (i know that in a teen show). In reality, these kinds of things happen and have always happened. There aren't only indirect death or half showed self-defense probable death like in the show of Buffy. This is what soldiers do in war has always done in past times during war times.
    Simply I don't think that the comparison demon's life and human's life is coherent in the show, also the vampire thing isn't explained

    Leave a comment:


  • HardlyThere
    replied
    Originally posted by Nothing13 View Post
    So what was the point of the entire speech between Buffy and Xander and Dawn in season 6 in relation to killing Warren after he killed Tara?
    Buffy said: Being a Slayer doesn't give me a license to kill. Warren's human.
    Why she can't kill Warren like she killed demons?
    Why writers don't show a situation where Buffy must kill a human in cold-blood for a necessity as she does with demons?
    So the human world has it's own rules for dealing with people like him-


    If the writers didn't want Buffy killing humans, they'd have conveniently had the Knights live or wouldn't have the tally said on camera. What exactly is the insistence that the gang should kill humans for things that *might* do when they don't even do that for demons aside from vamps? Buffy doesn't kill Clem or close down Willy's.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nothing13
    replied
    It only doesn't make sense because you insist your logic onto the writing instead of letting it speak for itself. We know from Gregor Exposition that Glory will fade. Killing Ben is not necessary. Giles (or Buffy) saying something doesn't make it a fact. Giles' statement is factually wrong. Because she does kill humans.
    So what was the point of the entire speech between Buffy and Xander and Dawn in season 6 in relation to killing Warren after he killed Tara?
    Buffy said: Being a Slayer doesn't give me a license to kill. Warren's human.
    Why she can't kill Warren like she killed demons?
    Why writers don't show a situation where Buffy must kill a human in cold-blood for a necessity as she does with demons?

    Leave a comment:


  • HardlyThere
    replied
    Originally posted by Nothing13 View Post

    I know that Buffy kills humans for self-defense the point is that writers are carefully attended to show these deaths only for self-defense, indirectly. The entire situation of Giles-Buffy-Ben was set up in this way by writers in order to avoid the emotional impact of seeing Buffy to kills Ben in a direct and cold-blooded/but necessary way. They also made Giles (Ben isn't innocent and Giles know it, he heard him talk to glory) do the speech "She is a heroine, she doesn't kill humans". These aren't my words but the words of Giles/Writers. I know that that doesn't make sense but writers did this in order to create a false image in order to avoid the emotional impact
    It only doesn't make sense because you insist your logic onto the writing instead of letting it speak for itself. We know from Gregor Exposition that Glory will fade. Killing Ben is not necessary. Giles (or Buffy) saying something doesn't make it a fact. Giles' statement is factually wrong. Because she does kill humans.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nothing13
    replied
    Originally posted by HardlyThere View Post

    Giles in that scene does not know the full story. You can't say Buffy doesn't kill humans when the topic of discussion is her doing just that. It's established that 10 men died in the chase. It was self-defense, but they're still dead. She does, in fact, kill humans. What she doesn't do is kill innocent beings which she views Ben as (whether he is or not is irrelevant, since she likely doesn't know Ben isn't totally innocent).

    It then progresses into a discussion of what makes a hero.
    I know that Buffy kills humans for self-defense the point is that writers are carefully attended to show these deaths only for self-defense, indirectly. The entire situation of Giles-Buffy-Ben was set up in this way by writers in order to avoid the emotional impact of seeing Buffy to kills Ben in a direct and cold-blooded/but necessary way. They also made Giles (Ben isn't innocent and Giles know it, he heard him talk to glory) do the speech "She is a heroine, she doesn't kill humans". These aren't my words but the words of Giles/Writers. I know that that doesn't make sense but writers did this in order to create a false image in order to avoid the emotional impact
    Last edited by Nothing13; 21-07-21, 11:44 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • HardlyThere
    replied
    Originally posted by Nothing13 View Post
    I agree that in the shows (principally Angel) the problem of a demon's life is analyzed:
    However, for example in season 5 Ben chose his side helping Glory at the end, and writers decided to show Giles to kill him in order to avoid the emotional impact to show Buffy to kill him, implicitly valuing human life (not killable by Buffy) more important than demon life (killable). The entire speech of Giles was: "She is a heroine, she doesn't kill humans". So Buffy can't kill evil humans because otherwise, she ceased to be a heroine?
    Giles in that scene does not know the full story. You can't say Buffy doesn't kill humans when the topic of discussion is her doing just that. It's established that 10 men died in the chase. It was self-defense, but they're still dead. She does, in fact, kill humans. What she doesn't do is kill innocent beings which she views Ben as (whether he is or not is irrelevant, since she likely doesn't know Ben isn't totally innocent).

    It then progresses into a discussion of what makes a hero.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nothing13
    replied
    I agree that in the shows (principally Angel) the problem of a demon's life is analyzed:
    However, for example in season 5 Ben chose his side helping Glory at the end, and writers decided to show Giles to kill him in order to avoid the emotional impact to show Buffy to kill him, implicitly valuing human life (not killable by Buffy) more important than demon life (killable). The entire speech of Giles was: "She is a heroine, she doesn't kill humans". So Buffy can't kill evil humans because otherwise, she ceased to be a heroine?
    C'mon, there wasn't a single direct kill of Buffy of humans serial killers because of this reason:
    -if a demon is evil and kill, Buffy go to search for him and kill him also in cold-blood
    -if a human is evil and serial killer, Buffy doesn't kill him. Writers at the best show her to kill him only in the case of possessed, self-defense or by accident. Why?
    (obviously, if we enter in a psychiatric and neuroscientific argument we have to deal with mental illness and responsibility for example of Psychopaths: are they mentally ill or evil? The discussion is too long)

    Like you said Angel was deeper in this aspect and dealt with this thematics in a better way, however, I think that Buffy matured a lot in the course of 7 seasons, and in season 7 she was at her best in terms of experience, understanding, and maturity in relation to this aspect.
    As a matter of fact, she said:
    -She was ready to let Dawn die in order to save the world (Big Picture), something she wouldn't have done in season 5
    -She was ready to let Spike kills Wood, something she wouldn't have done in previous seasons

    As a matter of fact, the point of the show was also the journey of Buffy through seasons and her maturation seasons 2-5-7 are specular in different ways; there is always a most important/loved character for Buffy that is always the "key" in the final battle of the season finale:
    1. Season 2: Angel was the most loved person by Buffy at that time, and his blood was "the key" to open the Hell (Mouth) of Achatla. Buffy kills Angel saving the world
    2. Season 5: Dawn was the most loved person by Buffy at that time, and her blood was "the key" to open the Hell of Glory. Buffy sacrifice herself to save Dawn and the world
    3. Season 7: Spike was the most loved/cared person by Buffy at that time (for this reason she always defended and sided with him against everyone in that season: Giles, her friends, Angel) and He (his soul) was"the key" to activate the amulet and have direct contact with Heaven and Divine Power and destroy the Hellmouth. Spike sacrifices himself to save Buffy and the world

    Leave a comment:


  • HardlyThere
    commented on 's reply
    Agree; I would not say it's prevalent on AtS, but you have TOGoM and Angel killing the champion and having to stand in for it. In both cases the behaviors are shown to be wrong, much like Riley and the Initiative.

  • Stoney
    commented on 's reply
    Agreed, although I think we see it in AtS as well. Again not huge amounts as seeing the demons they don't fight a lot doesn't make much sense. But it's seen at Caritas, with Lorne and through the contrasting behaviour in That Old Gang of Mine.

  • HardlyThere
    replied
    Originally posted by flow View Post
    Nothing13

    I am not sure Patrice is human (just like the ice rink guy I always assumed she was a demon) but apart from that, there is an inconsistency that's difficult to explain in a plausible or convincing way. I usually go with "The lore of the show tells us it's okay to kill or slay (evil) demons." However, I am not too happy with that explanation myself.



    We often see Buffy slay newly risen vampires. it is my understanding that vampires - unless they have a soul - don't actually have a choice between good and evil. They are drawn to evil or maybe you could say they are inherently evil. However, I don't think we ever see her slay a demon who hasn't attacked her first, meaning unlike with vampires she usually kills demons in self-defense. That means Clem - and every other demon who does not attack her or other humans - is save.

    I also think humans who are possessed by a demon have to be treated as if they were demons, not humans. After all, vampires are humans who are possessed by a demon too. That means the zookeeper counts as a demon and so does Caleb. But compared to Gwendolyn Post or the German brothers my answer would in fact be yes, their life is more valuable than that of an evil demon.

    flow
    For the most part the only demons shown to be inherently evil are vampires. It's never really explained why, but we know it's the case from Holden.

    I think there's a fundamental difference in each case. There's willfully possessed or altered like Gwen Post or Pete(?) or the Zookeeper and then there are rare cases of someone having no say in the matter like when one of the Scoobs is possessed or example. I can't think of any non-Scoob possessions aside from Joyce's numerous altered-state adventures, but you get the idea. When you put on the black hat of your own free will, you're signing on to be dealt with by demon-world rules.

    The notion that the Scoobs are anti-demon is one of those things just isn't supported by the show. It's usually tossed out to show that Angel was deeper, but that show tends to be more kill first/ask questions later than BTVS. There's an entire demon underworld in SD that Buffy and the gang leave alone until they make themselves a problem. I'm not sure I'd say Buffy and the gang value human life more than demonic, it's just that they separate when their responsibilities are. Makes sense for many reasons, not least of which not ending up in jail.

    Leave a comment:


  • flow
    commented on 's reply
    Not everyone of us can be a hero though ...

  • flow
    commented on 's reply
    Never thought about it that way ...

  • DeepBlueJoy
    replied
    Originally posted by flow View Post
    Nothing13

    I am not sure Patrice is human (just like the ice rink guy I always assumed she was a demon) but apart from that, there is an inconsistency that's difficult to explain in a plausible or convincing way. I usually go with "The lore of the show tells us it's okay to kill or slay (evil) demons." However, I am not too happy with that explanation myself.



    We often see Buffy slay newly risen vampires. it is my understanding that vampires - unless they have a soul - don't actually have a choice between good and evil. They are drawn to evil or maybe you could say they are inherently evil. However, I don't think we ever see her slay a demon who hasn't attacked her first, meaning unlike with vampires she usually kills demons in self-defense. That means Clem - and every other demon who does not attack her or other humans - is save.

    I also think humans who are possessed by a demon have to be treated as if they were demons, not humans. After all, vampires are humans who are possessed by a demon too. That means the zookeeper counts as a demon and so does Caleb. But compared to Gwendolyn Post or the German brothers my answer would in fact be yes, their life is more valuable than that of an evil demon.

    flow
    But we are not just weighing their lives compared to demons - - we are weighing Buffy and her choices and if they are righteous. Buffy never kills humans involved in purely human fights, only those who are part of demonic fights - tje Germans, the knights, Gwendolyn - all were a) a major threat b) part of the supernatural fight c) potentially or directly trying to hurt her and those under her protection. Therefore righteous kills. Ben IMO was in this category and had she killed him it would have been just. I dont consider Ben fully human innocent or no - if only b/c he would still contain (be possessed by) a failed, greivng Glory, who would have gone after Buffy and co. Even if they had no chance of succeeding in her quest. Think Willow sized grief with god strength.

    Do i feel sympathy for Ben? Little bit. He did not have a good choice. He did have a choice. The same one BUFFY made and DAWN was willing to make - and Dawn was a teenager. But, teenage Dawn WEIGHED THE WORLD and decided her life was worth sacrificing. So, yeah, Ben had a choice. He did not look for a solution. Did not take a flight to the African bush or the wilds of Alaska where there would be fewer people to brainsuck - he did NOTHING. He had years to fight this. This showed his 'quality'. Buffy was a hero and Dawn was a kid. And a hero.

    Leave a comment:


  • KingofCretins
    replied
    I'm not unsympathetic to the expectation that Ben could have killed himself rather than turn on Dawn. That should be a "thank you, but I'd rather die behind the chemical sheds" kind of moment.

    Leave a comment:


  • flow
    replied
    Nothing13
    -Patrice and Norman Pfister (the worm), in a hypothetical situation where both attack Buffy and Buffy kills them in self-defense, what makes Patrice human's life more valuable than Norman demon's life? killing Patrice (an assassin/killer human) generates numerous moral and philosophical questions but killing Norman (an assassin/killer demon) doesn't?
    I am not sure Patrice is human (just like the ice rink guy I always assumed she was a demon) but apart from that, there is an inconsistency that's difficult to explain in a plausible or convincing way. I usually go with "The lore of the show tells us it's okay to kill or slay (evil) demons." However, I am not too happy with that explanation myself.

    -Clem's life (a good demon) is less valuable than Caleb's life before he was possessed by the First (a human misogynist serial killer)? or Gwendolyn Post, the zookeeper, Greman Brothers?
    We often see Buffy slay newly risen vampires. it is my understanding that vampires - unless they have a soul - don't actually have a choice between good and evil. They are drawn to evil or maybe you could say they are inherently evil. However, I don't think we ever see her slay a demon who hasn't attacked her first, meaning unlike with vampires she usually kills demons in self-defense. That means Clem - and every other demon who does not attack her or other humans - is save.

    I also think humans who are possessed by a demon have to be treated as if they were demons, not humans. After all, vampires are humans who are possessed by a demon too. That means the zookeeper counts as a demon and so does Caleb. But compared to Gwendolyn Post or the German brothers my answer would in fact be yes, their life is more valuable than that of an evil demon.

    flow

    Leave a comment:


  • HardlyThere
    replied
    Originally posted by Lostsoul666 View Post
    You make it sound so simple. If you were in Ben's shoes would you kill yourself?
    .One of Glory's minions says that Glory's too powerful for drugs to work.

    I always saw Ben killing the crazy people as a form of mercy killing. As far as Ben knew they couldn't be restored. Also Ben was also skeptical about their family members being able to look after them 24/7.
    [/QUOTE]

    It's always interesting to consider who is expendable for the greater good and how that changes. The irony of Giles killing Ben is that if Buffy used his logic, she'd have never called Ben to save him and the entire thing could have been avoided.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X