Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How far can they go?

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

  • How far can they go?

    My question is how far can our good guys go?

    We saw Willow and Wesley kill the murderers of their lovers, Angel kills sometimes evil humans, Giles killed the 'innocent' Ben, we saw Fred and Gunn kill the man who sended Fred to Pylea,
    Spoiler:
    Buffy robes banks
    , The scoobies used 20 slayers to force Angel to do what they wanted, Anya wanted to become a killing demon again etc.

    Where are the lines for you?

    Can they kill humans? Are they above the law or the law ... or should they respect the law? Can they torture innocents to get information to save people/the world? How important is the mission and when do the other teammembers have to stop their friend? And when they did bad things, should the pay for it or do they have enough credit to be forgiven right away? Do some characters deserve more credit than others?


  • #2
    Originally posted by Nina View Post
    My question is how far can our good guys go?
    I think this is kind of a follow on from my post in the Buffy vs Angel thread. . So let's see.


    We saw Willow and Wesley kill the murderers of their lovers,
    With Willow the question was based upon what sort of justice should be meeted out on Warren. To be honest, he can eaten by weasels but the consequences, psychological and otherwise of what she was doing may have a detremental affect on her. So I say let Warren rot in some prison.

    Knox was also pretty low but it only served to add to Wes' mental instability.

    Angel kills sometimes evil humans Giles killed the 'innocent' Ben, we saw Fred and Gunn kill the man who sended Fred to Pylea,
    Spoiler:
    Buffy robes banks
    , The scoobies used 20 slayers to force Angel to do what they wanted, Anya wanted to become a killing demon again etc.

    Where are the lines for you?

    Can they kill humans? Are they above the law or the law ... or should they respect the law? Can they torture innocents to get information to save people/the world? How important is the mission and when do the other teammembers have to stop their friend? And when they did bad things, should the pay for it or do they have enough credit to be forgiven right away? Do some characters deserve more credit than others?

    To be honest, I think one should look more at protecting the public than slaughtering those who wronged them. I think it's healthy and also natural not to totally remove personal bias, Buffy afterall is a feelings girl. In such situations seen as the law doesn't talk about champion's jurisdiction they would have to use their own discretion. Killing vampires I generally support because they kill humans. Human bias but there it is. Killing humans is always going to be complex because as Giles says, what drives a human to kill is more complex.

    EDIT BECAUSE BACK:

    Following on what I said, I don't believe the mission should be first and foremost above anything else.

    If possible letting the law deal with humans who can be dealt with is pat but if not and there is no other option then killing them to prvent more deaths may be a necessary evil. Unfortunately this is the burden of the champion. I think I wouldn't want to remove my personal bias because it informs my morality, how I connect, what is important. I'm weird in that equating human life into some sort of mathetical equation irks me. I suppose that's why I'm not a champion.

    Are they above the law? Unfortunately they have to set their own guidelines and look at what they are trying to acheive. One way or another there is always a price. Sometimes law is a technicality and if it comes down to lives in critical condition and breaking the law on a technicality, I'd squirm a bit but live with it. You'll always be breaking some sort of law be it demon or otherwise. What's your mission? What are trying to acheive, is there another option. Can you live with the consequences.

    Torturing people to save the world? Careful. Who is it. It gets dangerously close to quantifying human life again. If we cross such lines are defeating the purpose of the world we are trying to save? Not entirely comfortable with that one. But if someone's actions directly caused it and certainly knowingly, I'd look at it differently.

    when do the other teammembers have to stop their friend?
    If it goes against their mission. How is question though.

    As for forgiveness? I look more at intent. I wouldn't forgive Giles for killing Ben really because of the intent, for me there is no need for him to seek forgiveness. He'll deal with the emotional consequences that come with it even if he doesn't mope about it every five minutes. As for others. How should they pay for it. If they truly not sociopaths they will pay for it, the emotional consequences will be there. If they are not, are you on the page morally? I don't see the point of flogging Willow and Faith etc, when they actively fighting for the cause.
    kana
    Angel's Therapist
    Last edited by kana; 08-04-08, 09:42 PM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Okay so I'm just gonna go throught your paragraph and just answer your questions.

      I think the good guys can kill humans if they have a reason. An example being Buffy trying to kill Faith in Grad Day. I was rooting for her the entire time. Faith was more evil than Angel was at that time so I saw no problem with it. We can all agree that if Angel was doing the same things as Faith, Buffy would've have tried to take him out too. I don't think we can use Angelus as an example of Angel doing the same things as Faith since he didn't really want to do those things because it was the unsouled vampire that was doing them. I think for some things, yes they need to respect the law but when it came to Faith and Willow it was a little more supernatural than natural (ie: witch, slayer) they needed to be dealt with in a different way. If they needed to torture someone for info, then I wouldn't consider that person to be an innocent so I would say yes they can do that. The mission is important but I think they need to think of the consequences before they go through with it. They would need to stop their friend when the stakes become too high to deal with them in a nice non violent way. Umm depending on what they did they should pay for it. I mean I don't want them to be forgiven right away but I think there comes a time that they should be forgiven. Yes some characters deserve more credit.
      T _A _T _E _R _S'____ W _O _R _L _D

      Proud recipient of the "Vagenis Award of Excellence"

      Comment


      • #4
        Nice posts both.

        To answer my own questions,

        Can they kill humans?
        Yes, it shouldn't be the first option, but killing W&H lawyers (the real evil ones) or Ben (who shared a body with a hellgod) isn't a bad thing to so in my opinion.

        Are they above the law or the law ... or should they respect the law?
        They can't always listen to the law, I mean killing is a crime ... but like I said above, sometimes it has to happen. But I don't think that they are above the law in their 'normal' lives, the characters with superpowers can do what they want ... but I think that is wrong. And if it's stealing money, kick somebody out of his home or start a fight without good reason ... If it isn't for the mission, it shouldn't happen.

        Can they torture innocents to get information to save people/the world?
        This is about what Wesley did when they tried to find Angelus. I think that Wes was to quick with hurting the girl ... but I'm not against it if it's really important.

        How important is the mission?
        Priority number 1, but it's important to keep your humanity.

        When do the other teammembers have to stop their friend?
        Angel should've stopped Wesley in season 5 ... the guy wasn't bright anymore. And he did things that he really shouldn't do, like killing Knox and what he did to Gunn was really bad. Also Willow and Faith needed to be stopped, they were stopped, but too late in my eyes.

        And when they did bad things, should the pay for it or do they have enough credit to be forgiven right away?
        Depends on the crime, but I think that every member should be 'punished'. And sometimes they punish themselves a lot or too much like Angel, but sometimes there is no real guilt like with Wesley or Andrew and than there should happen something. Wesley became a danger for the whole team.

        Do some characters deserve more credit than others?
        No, I don't think that Xander and Cordelia deserve more credit than Lorne or Wood.
        Nina
        and her haircut.
        Last edited by Nina; 06-12-08, 11:46 AM.

        Comment


        • #5
          We saw Willow and Wesley kill the murderers of their lovers.

          Technically Illyria was Fred's murderer, but considering Knox set the whole thing into motion, then he was technically the killer. But I think in terms of Willow and Wesley it was a choice they made based on their feelings at the time, they were both grief stricken and I think it makes a lot of sense for them to want to kill the person who caused their loved one's death, (Okay, not many people would go completely off the deep end like Willow), but I think in fairness what they did was reasonable. An eye for an eye, that kind of thing.


          Angel kills sometimes evil humans, Giles killed the 'innocent' Ben, we saw Fred and Gunn kill the man who sended Fred to Pylea.

          All three of these killings were for the greater good. I mean, Angel would only kill humans if he knew that if he didn't then that person would keep causing bad things to happen, the same with Giles he knew that killing Ben was wrong, but he knew that if he didn't Glory would come back and "make Buffy pay for that mercy". (I think Dawn has a point in The Gift when she says that Ben's a monster and at least Glory's up front about it). And Fred and Gunn killed the professor because Fred knew what he did and wasn't going to let him do it again and Gunn killed him because he didn't want Fred to have to bear that cross, but also they knew he had sent other people to other dimensions, so again for the greater good, although Fred and Gunn may not have seen it like that.

          Spoiler:
          Buffy robs banks


          Okay, so I can't really justify this because nobody really knows why Buffy chose to do this, but she probably had a good reason, not just for the fun of it.


          The scoobies used 20 slayers to force Angel to do what they wanted.

          At this point all Buffy knew was that Angel was working for Wolfram & Hart which is an evil law firm, Buffy probably didn't know what would happen to Dana if she'd let Angel keep her. For all she knew the time could've came where Wolfram & Hart ran the world and she had to kill Angel, so I think when she had these slayers do that it was for Dana's best interests.


          Anya wanted to become a killing demon again.

          The only reason Anya wanted to do this to begin with in Season 3 was because she was stuck in the persona of a teenager and she didn't want to be like that, it was only then because she developed her thing with Xander that she didn't want to go back to being a demon and then the second time she wanted to become a demon was because she had been jilted at the alter and she was in a great deal of pain and I think the scene in Entropy shows that the only reason Anya got her powers back was because she planned on cursing Xander, but didn't know she couldn't.


          Can they kill humans?

          I think they can if they have a reason to, like I said before, if the human's gone evil or is using the black arts or something then I think it is justified if they do something that could hurt a lot of people and if it's for the greater good.

          Are they above the law or the law ... or should they respect the law?

          They should have respect for the law, but I think from Buffy's only experience the only time the law has been helpful is when they caught Jonathan and Andrew, both of whom weren't the worst of the Troika. I mean, how many times has Buffy said about cops not being helpful because they' only bring guns? Also I think the fact that Wolfram & Hart is an evil law firm speaks for itself.

          Can they torture innocents to get information to save people/the world?

          No, that would be completely unethical. I don't think they'd really be innocents though if they had information that could save the world and if they were innocents I think they would want to help. But tortuing innocent people to benefit the world isn't a good move.

          How important is the mission and when do the other teammembers have to stop their friend?

          Ultimately the mission is vital, it's the only thing that really matters, but I think the team members would have to stop her if she went completely off the deep end like Willow did or if she started doing things like killing innocents for the fun of it, basically doing a Faith, going evil.

          And when they did bad things, should the pay for it or do they have enough credit to be forgiven right away?


          They should pay for it to a degree, but I think there is a limit to how much they have to pay for it, they should completely hate what they did, but I think forgiveness could be given to somebodyif they gave something big, like a grand gesture, ie arriving in the midst of a really huge apocalyptic battle and make it end.

          Do some characters deserve more credit than others?

          I think some characters, like the whiter than white ones (If there are any) deserve a little credit because it's not like they make a habit of doing badness, but I think if they've done the same something wrong multiple times then it would get harder to forgive.
          sigpic

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Matt View Post


            Anya wanted to become a killing demon again.

            The only reason Anya wanted to do this to begin with in Season 3 was because she was stuck in the persona of a teenager and she didn't want to be like that, it was only then because she developed her thing with Xander that she didn't want to go back to being a demon and then the second time she wanted to become a demon was because she had been jilted at the alter and she was in a great deal of pain and I think the scene in Entropy shows that the only reason Anya got her powers back was because she planned on cursing Xander, but didn't know she couldn't.
            That whole plot in Entropy makes no sense. I have long noticed that Anya could have made a wish to Halfrek (or any other vengeance demon) to get her vengeance on Xander. She didn't need to go to all the trouble of getting someone else to make the wish for her. And in the same way, the text definitely portrays Anya as having forgotten that a vengeance demon can't grant her own wish like she was trying to do. And how plausible is that? Anya was a vengeance demon for a thousand years, but she was unclear on a rather basic point like that one? Being ignorant of that finer point is like if an obstetrician didn't realize that a woman can't get pregnant by herself!

            I have always tended to assume that Anya didn't really have a wholehearted desire to hurt Xander, and she was just confused about what she wanted, in general. She just wanted to go back to vengeance because that was familiar to her, it was what she was used to. The scenario makes little sense, and I'm not sure whether it helps matters or makes them worse to assume that Anya was motivated by a desire to inflict vengeance on Xander.
            "When you have an obsession you pretty much fit it into your schedule no matter what." --Cordelia

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Ojuice5001 View Post
              That whole plot in Entropy makes no sense. I have long noticed that Anya could have made a wish to Halfrek (or any other vengeance demon) to get her vengeance on Xander. She didn't need to go to all the trouble of getting someone else to make the wish for her. And in the same way, the text definitely portrays Anya as having forgotten that a vengeance demon can't grant her own wish like she was trying to do. And how plausible is that? Anya was a vengeance demon for a thousand years, but she was unclear on a rather basic point like that one? Being ignorant of that finer point is like if an obstetrician didn't realize that a woman can't get pregnant by herself!
              Now, I've always felt that Anya tried to get everyone else to make the wish because she wanted to be the one to do it herself! She wanted to hurt Xander and who could blame her?

              Originally posted by Ojuice5001 View Post
              I have always tended to assume that Anya didn't really have a wholehearted desire to hurt Xander, and she was just confused about what she wanted, in general. She just wanted to go back to vengeance because that was familiar to her, it was what she was used to. The scenario makes little sense, and I'm not sure whether it helps matters or makes them worse to assume that Anya was motivated by a desire to inflict vengeance on Xander.
              And I've always felt exactly the opposite! I've always thought Anya's lonely walk down the aisle to be one of the most heart wrenching moments in 7 seasons of eps. I think Anya really, really wanted to hurt Xander and would have gladly taken the chance if it had been offered. I also think she would have been hugely sorry afterward. IMHO, one of Anya's problems is that she still feels human feelings even AFTER she isn't human anymore!

              For the questions:

              How far can the good guys go?

              As far as they have to. I've always felt that if the circumstances involved with Glory/Dawn, etc., etc. were in S7 and not earlier, she may have made a different choice. By S7, Buffy is showing more maturity than we've ever seen. Leaders do have to make hard, unpopular choices.

              Willow and Wesley kill the murderers of their lovers.

              Willow and Wesley both had huge problems BEFORE their lovers were killed. Losing their lovers was like the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back.

              Certainly, we all know that human evil can be greater than any demon evil we've seen. Sometimes, there is no other way.

              Giles killing 'innocent' Ben.

              I don't view it that way and never will. That Ben was 'nice' isn't the point, it's a distraction from the point. GloryisBen, BenisGlory. Glory wants to take over the world. The 'White Hats' can't allow that. Giles did what needed to be done. Period.

              Scoobies used 20 slayers to force Angel to do what they wanted.

              I've always hated that ending to an awesome ep! I didn't think it made any sense, then or now, for Buffy's character as we know it to assume that because Angel was running W&H that he was evil. The Buffy we know would jump through flaming hoops to give Angel the benefit of the doubt. I've always hoped that we would find out that Andrew was delivering his own message there and not one from Buffy!

              Can they kill humans?

              Yes, if they have to. 'The evil that men do', and all.

              Are they above the law?

              Above the law, no. I would more say they are beyond the law. Most situations and circumstances Buffy et al. find themselves in aren't covered by the law. Any law, except the slayer's. I find myself agreeing in principal with Buffy in Selfless about the slayer's law. Perhaps not exact agreement about the application of the Slayer Law in that precise circumstance, but in principal.

              Torture innocents to get information.

              Agree with the masses here - how 'innocent' can one be if they possess information that vital to the cause and don't want to help?

              How important is the mission and when do team members have to stop their friend?

              The mission is everything. It's what matters. It's ALL that matters. That being said, each person has to decide for themselves how far TOO FAR is. 'Stopping their friend' is a little too vague for me to say black or white on. Xander was certainly right to stop Willow, but IMHO, should not have stopped at killing her if all other options were gone. I mean, she was going to destroy the world! Sometimes, the unthinkable is all that is left.

              When they do bad things, should they pay for them?

              I sound like a skipping CD here, but 'bad' is a judgment that is individual to each person. As I said above, I believe that Xander should certainly have killed Willow when all other options for stopping her were gone. I am a HUGE Willow lover and would have missed her character in a huge way, but when your plan is to end the world, you shouldn't be surprised when you receive violence in return!

              Do some characters deserve more credit than others?

              Yes. Clear cut, in my mind. We all deserve the credit we've earned. If you haven't earned any, you shouldn't get any.
              Cinderela
              Renegade Angel
              Last edited by Cinderela; 22-04-08, 01:07 AM.
              sigpic

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Nina View Post
                My question is how far can our good guys go?
                Depends on what the cause is I suppose.


                Where are the lines for you?
                Killing without cause would be number one.

                Can they kill humans? Are they above the law or the law ... or should they respect the law?
                They should avoid killing humans at all costs. Unless it is self defense. No one is above the law. They should always try and respect the law, if possible.


                Can they torture innocents to get information to save people/the world?
                No. If they are innocent they would be more than willing to tell all without anyone getting..... rough. The bad guys... yes, when nessecary.


                And when they did bad things, should they pay for it or do they have enough credit to be forgiven right away?
                No one is above consequenses even the hero. Of course, they are always forgiven.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Can I add a footnote to what Immortal says?
                  Until recently at any rate, torture went out of favor among civilized powers because it did not work. People will say what they need to say just to stop the pain. Nazi Germany and Stalin's Russia made use of torture and it did them no real good even in the short run.
                  Other forms of interrogation have been developed which do not rely on physical pain.
                  Torture can become an addictive pleasure for the torturers, and in some regimes an end in itself. I am sure that by abstaining from torture the good guys will not lose any wars.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Michael View Post
                    Can I add a footnote to what Immortal says?
                    Until recently at any rate, torture went out of favor among civilized powers because it did not work. People will say what they need to say just to stop the pain. Nazi Germany and Stalin's Russia made use of torture and it did them no real good even in the short run.
                    Other forms of interrogation have been developed which do not rely on physical pain.
                    Torture can become an addictive pleasure for the torturers, and in some regimes an end in itself. I am sure that by abstaining from torture the good guys will not lose any wars.
                    True enough - but there are a lot of kinds of torture - physical pain is just one kind!
                    sigpic

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Michael View Post
                      Can I add a footnote to what Immortal says?
                      Until recently at any rate, torture went out of favor among civilized powers because it did not work. People will say what they need to say just to stop the pain. Nazi Germany and Stalin's Russia made use of torture and it did them no real good even in the short run.
                      Other forms of interrogation have been developed which do not rely on physical pain.
                      Torture can become an addictive pleasure for the torturers, and in some regimes an end in itself. I am sure that by abstaining from torture the good guys will not lose any wars.
                      I Definately agree with you. Physical torture is a bit primative. One of the fastest ways to ensure that you won't get the information you want is to torture. It's the will to live and survive that takes over a person then and it's impossible to overcome it. Simply human nature. Gladly, they have stopped torturing people (physically).

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X