Should they be killed?

[kana]

Haven't got oogles of time so I'll try and explain this the best way I can.

Basically this is a overall thread on whether Spike, Angel(us) and Anya should have been or even should be killed.

The debate can be in general or at different points in the show. For example, should the Scoobies have been focusing on killing Angelus and reensoulling him in Season 2. Should Spike have been killed from seasons 2-7 (for various reasons)?

What about people's various arguments: Kendra, Buffy, Xander, Faith, Justine, Wood/Giles etc.

So should these have been killed over the years? Also look at the argument from the point of view of the time. (For example in Season 2 Angel had done good but he hadn't become the champion he had become when he went on to his own show.)

[vampmogs]

Nice thread

I've started talking about this in another thread which kind of deals with some of the same issues but I'd be happy to share my opinions briefly again on these characters. What I'll basically do is do them under sub headings by name and share my opinion on each of them. I'll also add what timeline for each character I am working with here, because time in the Buffyverse can change a character with a click of a finger, so it's important people understand when I'm talking about a character.

Spike: (Btvs) S2-26

In my opinion Spike should have been killed any time between season two and season six. Not a popular theory I know, but one I strongly believe in and always will. Spike was a killer, a killer who enjoyed brutally killing slayers and one of the worst vampires on record, second only to Angelus. He deserves no more special treatment than any other soulless vampire, the fact of the matter is, is he is a killer. When Spike gets his chip he is broken down and tries to commit suicide because he can't kill, that's how important killing is to him. He plots to kill Buffy as he teams up with Adam the whole time he has his chip even when Buffy spared his life because he was neutered. When Spike claims to have changed he allows Dru to kill two people and then proceeds to feed off one of them. He threatens to allow Dru to kill Buffy if she doesn't admit she has feelings for him and threatens the scoobies lives time and time again, as for example when he tells Riley he would have killed him long ago if the chip wasn't in his head. When Spike believes the chip is removed, after claiming to have changed, he immediately goes on the hunt and tries to kill a girl. There is nothing to suggest that Spike is good, he's simply unable to act out on his desires. Spike should have been dusted.

Anya: (Btvs) s3, s7

With Anya I have mixed feelings on the subject. In season three when she's been a demon for a thousand years I would have had no problem with her being killed, she was so invested in the demon world there was no humanity left within her, up until she lost her powers of course. In season seven Anya made the choice to cross the line again, and as a slayer Buffy's job is to protect innocents from the forces of darkness. It would have been incredibly neglectful of Buffy not to go and kill Anya, especially when she should have learnt her lesson after the Angelus ordeal. I completely accept Buffy's decision, so did Anya. However, Anya demonstrated she could change, she found a way to reverse the effects and whilst this doesn't mean all should be forgiven she was human once again and sorry for her actions. I don't believe Buffy should kill a human that poses no threat.

Angel(us): (Btvs) S2-s3

Straight up I believe Angelus should have been killed if he posed an immediate threat to innocent people and eventually Buffy supported that- something I have no problem with. I completely stand by Buffy's decision to kill Angel in order to save the world and I don't understand how anyone could ever argue differently; the entire world was at risk. However, I will never believe Xander had the right to try and kill Angel after his return based purely on the fact he is a vampire. Angel had a soul, he wasn't Angelus he was Angel and had no control over what he did after loosing his soul. Xander understood on a logical level the circumstances of the curse, but through his hatred of the vampire species in their entirety, failed to differentiate Angelus from Angel. Angel was a warrior of good, rather than trying to kill Willow as Angelus he saved her from Post as Angel; there is an obvious distinction here. Angel had a soul, in his own words "a human heart." If he can feel human emotions in their entirety, if he wants to help innocent people and does good then Xander has no right to kill him; no matter what creature he is.

There has been an argument that Angel posed a continuos risk, if he did loose his soul he'd kill again. I counter this argument by making a comparison with Angel's situation to that of an aid's sufferer. Now they in some ways pose a risk to those around them. If they were to accidentally cut themselves and if they were to drip blood into someone's wound it is entirely possible that person could become infected. Does this mean we have the right to kill this person based on the risk they MAY bring to society; of course not. So why does Angel deserve to die from a situation he has no control over? Sure he may loose his soul, but he tries anything to prevent this from happening and the circumstances of the curse aren't at all his fault. So should he die; of course not.

I will never believe anyone, including Xander, has the right to kill Angel (not Angelus) based purley on the fact he is a vampire. That's the Buffyverse equivalent of racism, it is seperating one type of person for the other and Angel had humanity in him. Such predjuice views will never be supported by me.

Faith: (Btvs) s3

I have never had a problem with Buffy going to kill Faith in 'Graduation Day' as Faith hardly falls into the humanity category here. Buffy's obligations as a slayer are to protect the world from the forces of darkness, a slayer has the capabilities to do some major damage to innocent people. Faith was going to attack Sunnydale High the very next day, imagine the lives under threat by Faith if she had been at that ceremony, imagine how differently things could have turned out. I wouldn't support Buffy's actions if she hadn't tried with Faith, but she had, so much so Faith began mocking her for her efforts. Faith posed an immediate threat and couldn't be contained by human law which was clearly demonstrated in Ats s4. Furthermore, she then poisons Angel and the only cure is her blood, or Buffy's of course. Now why should Buffy put herself in massive risk by allowing Angel to feed off her when the very person responsible can do the same thing?

[ykickamoocow]

I have stated this somewhere else but i truly think Buffy would have been a better show if Spike died in the final battle with Glory in season 5. I quite liked his character from seasons 2 to 5 but in season 6 i felt that his character had a very negative impact on the show. In season 6 he was a major contributor to the dark story lines and in season 7 he seemed to have to much story and they may as well have renamed to show and called it "Buffy and Spike." I think killing Spike at the end of season 5 would have been good as it would have been a good character arc to end on.

[Ojuice5001]

Angelus: Angelus definitely should have been killed. If the criterion is how much threat he poses to innocent people--well, you really can't get any worse than sucking the entire Earth into a dimension where people will suffer eternal conscious torment. (And that's probably why he was doing it.:eek: ) Weighed in the scales against that, the impulse to bring back the old, good Angel is mere sentimentality. This is especially clear when we consider that killing Angelus does no harm at all to the good aspect of Angel, the soul. Angel's soul was probably enjoying a state of relative peace until it was forced back into Angel, and immediately thereafter into Hell.

Anya: I am definitely of the opinion that Anya should not have been killed in Selfless. The debate about whether to kill her is most often compared to the debate over Angelus, but for me, the truly appropriate analogy is Dark Willow.

Dark Willow and Anyanka are both examples of the same kind of evil: Both of them are about vengeance. (And I've always taken Dark Willow seriously as an example of Willow's dark side, of just what she has always been capable of.) At the same time, they both have a human side who is a close personal (girl)friend of Xander's. Xander knew Willow very well, and he was able to reach through to her, to get her to abandon her vengeance. If he thinks that something like this is possible with Anya, shouldn't Buffy have given him the chance?

Buffy thinks Anya isn't capable of redemption, while Xander thinks she is. Xander was the one who was right about her, and it seems clear that Buffy wasn't thinking about the matter as much as she should have; wasn't bothering to consider a non-slaying solution to the problem.

Yes, it's true that in the fight between Anya and Buffy, Anya was just as bloodthirsty as her opponent. All this means to me is that she was failing to know her true self, just as Buffy was failing to know her. Even when it comes to her decision to become a vengeance demon again, it's still true that she stuck to milder forms of vengeance--the kind that doesn't kill people and may not be any worse than they deserved--as long as she could restrain herself. These arguments don't persuade me that Buffy was right to try to slay her.

Spike: Well, I'll say one thing: Stopping him from committing suicide was a little extreme. And yet, it's probably for the best that all the Scoobies felt it would also be an extreme action if they were to kill a creature that can't defend itself and won't become dangerous in the immediate future.

[vampmogs]

Angelus: Angelus definitely should have been killed. If the criterion is how much threat he poses to innocent people--well, you really can't get any worse than sucking the entire Earth into a dimension where people will suffer eternal conscious torment. (And that's probably why he was doing it.:eek: ) Weighed in the scales against that, the impulse to bring back the old, good Angel is mere sentimentality. This is especially clear when we consider that killing Angelus does no harm at all to the good aspect of Angel, the soul. Angel's soul was probably enjoying a state of relative peace until it was forced back into Angel, and immediately thereafter into Hell.

Well we've never known really what happens to a person's soul if they were sired by a vampire. Angel never really spoke of being in heaven or hell whilst Angelus was free. All we know is that his soul goes up into the 'ether' whatever that is. I think Angel would say something if he had been to heaven.

Anya: I am definitely of the opinion that Anya should not have been killed in Selfless. The debate about whether to kill her is most often compared to the debate over Angelus, but for me, the truly appropriate analogy is Dark Willow.

I think comparisons can be made towards both, depending on what you are talking about whilst on this issue. If you want to say Xander's being hypercritical than there can 100% be a comparison made between Anya and Angelus. Afterall, when Buffy's lover turned into a 'demon' and killed innocent people (technically he already was one but you get the idea) Xander expected Buffy to slay. When Anya turns back into a demon, which might I add was by choice Angel wasn't, and murders innocents he believes Buffy is wrong for wanting to kill her. Buffy had every right to snap at Xander like she did.

Dark Willow and Anyanka are both examples of the same kind of evil: Both of them are about vengeance. (And I've always taken Dark Willow seriously as an example of Willow's dark side, of just what she's capable of.) At the same time, they both have a human side who is a close personal (girl)friend of Xander's. Xander knew Willow very well, and he was able to reach through to her, to get her to abandon her vengeance. If he thinks that something like this is possible with Anya, shouldn't Buffy have given him the chance?

But Buffy had given Xander a chance, she'd given Anya a chance as well. It's not as if Buffy tried to slay Anya the second she found out she was a demon again. Buffy never did anything, she stated her concern but never actively went after Anya. Even after Anya had turned Ronnie into a giant slugoff demon Buffy didn't decide she needed to be taken out. Killing twelve people; well then the slayer needs to do something. Xander told Buffy earlier that episode that Anya wasn't into the vengeance anymore, he was clearly wrong so why would Buffy trust he knew her better than anyone now?

Buffy thinks Anya isn't capable of redemption, while Xander thinks she is. Xander was the one who was right about her, and it seems clear that Buffy wasn't thinking about the matter as much as she should have; wasn't bothering to consider a non-slaying solution to the problem.

Buffy was looking at Anya the same way she had viewed the Angelus situation, clearly indicated not only by her opinion on the matter but the direct distinction she makes. Buffy believes Anya was a human and has now reverted into a demon, "Willow was human, Anya's a demon!", "Anya's chose to be a demon, twice!" Buffy doesn't believe there is any hope for redemption because Anya has lost her humanity, she is now a demon; a demon who just killed twelve people. In all fairness Xander had no idea wether or not Anya had a soul either, or was capable of compassion, he clearly didn't realise she was capable of murder again.

I think it is also a little unfair to suggest Buffy hadn't considered other possibilities. It was obvious Buffy had been thinking about the situation prior to this scene, she brings it up at the beginning of the episode. Buffy also states in this very scene that it has crossed her mind and Xander doesn't deny that it has crossed his mind to. Buffy's given it a lot of thought and never acted, being the slayer and with the obligations and duties she has it'd be neglectful of her to allow Anya to remain alive. Her job is to slay demons, Anya was killing again. Perhaps the best option was to simplify this and not let anything cloud her judgement; by now Buffy had come to realise that.

Yes, it's true that in the fight between Anya and Buffy, Anya was just as bloodthirsty as her opponent. All this means to me is that she was failing to know her true self, just as Buffy was failing to know her. Even when it comes to her decision to become a vengeance demon again, it's still true that she stuck to milder forms of vengeance--the kind that doesn't kill people and may not be any worse than they deserved--as long as she could restrain herself. These arguments don't persuade me that Buffy was right to try to slay her.

But Anya clearly proved that she couldn't stick to those milder forms of vengeance, if she had done than Buffy would have never tried to slay her. Anya was responsible for nearly killing a man after Spike impaled him and then was responsible for the death of twelve more. Anya clearly couldn't restrain herself and no one forced her to become a demon; twice.

Spike: Well, I'll say one thing: Stopping him from committing suicide was a little extreme. And yet, it's probably for the best that all the Scoobies felt it would also be an extreme action if they were to kill a creature that can't defend itself and won't become dangerous in the immediate future.

Spike clearly illustrated that he could be a danger though. He plotted behind their backs with Adam to have them all killed, even after Buffy showed him leniency and allowed him to live. Spike then teams up with Dru and stands by and watches her kill two innocent people and he then tries to kill again in Smashed. I would have had no problem with Buffy or any Scooby dusting Spike, regardless of the chip.

I also believe that stoping Spike from committing suicide was an extreme and apparently Buffy did too when she clearly lacked any compassion when she asked why Willow and Xander did this, "and that's bad because?"

[KingofCretins]

Angelus: definitely should have been killed. I think Buffy is morally culpable for what happened to Theresa, to Ms. Calender, by passing up the shot at him in "Innocence". It's just something for which she can be forgiven.

Spike: Could have and probably should have been staked really at any time up until getting his soul. Buffy herself didn't seem inclined to stop anyone from staking him until "Entropy", and I don't think Xander would have been wrong to ignore Buffy's wishes and go stake him after the AR. He may have still intended to, but things moved very fast after that.

Anya: "Selfless" is really the only time at which it was a legitimate topic. Even after she turned back into a vengeance demon, she didn't harm anyone substantially until then. There was nothing wrong with giving her the benefit of the doubt that, say, Clem gets until then. I mean, she's the demon that was comforting Giles when he was possibly dying on the floor of the Magic Box. But it wasn't out of line to try to kill her in "Selfless". That was a great episode in part because Buffy and Xander (and Anya) all had valid points.

[Thomas]

ANGELUS/ANGEL: In season two when he became Angelus, yes. The moment he went bad, they should have killed him. In season three, Buffy should have killed him after she chained him up when she discovered he was back. Yeah, he became the old Angel again, he was very animal-like when he first returned. He was dangerous to a lot of people.

SPIKE: Yeah. In season two and three, and four before he got his chip. After that he wasn't dangerous until the rape, then Xander or Buffy should have staked his ass.

ANYA: No. She granted wishes, should she be held responible for doing what people, ones who have souls, ask? They're just as guilty. Though, some people did get tricked into, but when she was at full power (Season 7) she still had some humanity. She felt bad for killing those frat boys.

[Dorian's Kitten]

Angelus- While he was hurting people, yes. Though I think trying to come up with a way to restore his soul would also have to be considered reasonable. But I generally think that killing vamps is ok if they are a danger (which, of course, most are).

Spike- Season 2:yes, post chip: no, Buffy can't kill for revenge or justice, she can only kill to protect. Judgment/punishment has to come from another source. Once he had the chip he just wasn't anymore dangerous than a human.

Anya: Yes, but only if they really had to. I for one think they should have checked some alternatives before Buffy marched over there. That being said, Anya had been given a second chance at humanity and she chose to become a demon again. Yes she was in extreme duress, but she was killing. The slayer needs to protect the innocent, even if that meant killing Anya. I'm so glad she didn't have to.

[vampmogs]

Anya: "Selfless" is really the only time at which it was a legitimate topic. Even after she turned back into a vengeance demon, she didn't harm anyone substantially until then. There was nothing wrong with giving her the benefit of the doubt that, say, Clem gets until then. I mean, she's the demon that was comforting Giles when he was possibly dying on the floor of the Magic Box. But it wasn't out of line to try to kill her in "Selfless". That was a great episode in part because Buffy and Xander (and Anya) all had valid points.

I agree, the writers all stated this in the commentary as well, what was great was that each character had a valid viewpoint although I tend to agree with Buffy's more than Xander or Anyas.

ANGELUS/ANGEL: In season two when he became Angelus, yes. The moment he went bad, they should have killed him. In season three, Buffy should have killed him after she chained him up when she discovered he was back. Yeah, he became the old Angel again, he was very animal-like when he first returned. He was dangerous to a lot of people.

I don't agree, why should Buffy kill Angel because he was animal-like? Given some time (and not much time considering what he had been through) Angel could get back to what he once was, if Buffy hadn't even given him this chance it'd have been extremely bad to dust Angel when he was chained up. If Angel was attacking someone then yes if needn't be Buffy should have staked him, but he wasn't.

SPIKE: Yeah. In season two and three, and four before he got his chip. After that he wasn't dangerous until the rape, then Xander or Buffy should have staked his ass.

Spike was dangerous right up until when he got his chip. He plotted with Adam, sided again with Dru, and tried to kill that guy. He had dangerous intentions; not to mention how unstable he was, like considering shooting Buffy to death because she rejected him.

ANYA: No. She granted wishes, should she be held responible for doing what people, ones who have souls, ask? They're just as guilty. Though, some people did get tricked into, but when she was at full power (Season 7) she still had some humanity. She felt bad for killing those frat boys.

Well I don't believe they are just as guilty, because many of them were tricked into it. Besides, if a woman had wished to Buffy that her boyfriend was dead; Buffy wouldn't go kill him. Anya tricked, she imbelished to make things worse than what they were, no one forced her to do those things. And whilst she may feel bad the fact of the matter was that she did it and could do it again, after all she felt bad for turning Ronnie into a slug and ended up killing twelve people.

Spike- Season 2:yes, post chip: no, Buffy can't kill for revenge or justice, she can only kill to protect. Judgment/punishment has to come from another source. Once he had the chip he just wasn't anymore dangerous than a human.

It wouldn't be justine or revenge if she had dusted Spike, it would have been smart. He was an evil soulless vampire constrained only by a chip, a chip he constantly tried to have removed.

[Ojuice5001]

It wouldn't be justine or revenge if she had dusted Spike, it would have been smart. He was an evil soulless vampire constrained only by a chip, a chip he constantly tried to have removed.

Keep in mind that he did turn down a chance to have the chip removed--in Crush. There's not much question that Drusilla intended to get the chip out of Spike's head, and probably had a plan for doing it. But Spike ultimately rejects this opportunity--no matter how many times you point to his human-blood-drinking relapse in the Bronze. And he never again launches another plan for removing the chip (until after he has his soul again).

It's hard not to see the ending of Crush as some kind of critical moment in the progress of Spike's redemption, no matter how conflicted and dangerous Spike still is. And when Spike turned against Drusilla, one of the things he was giving up was the goal of getting the chip out of his head.

[KingofCretins]

Drusilla's plan appeared to be nothing more than positive thinking. She seemed to think his animal nature could overcome the 'lies' the chip was telling him. And he immediately jumped aboard that idea and went under her wing and cooperated with her in murdering two kids in the Bronze.

[vampmogs]

Keep in mind that he did turn down a chance to have the chip removed--in Crush. There's not much question that Drusilla intended to get the chip out of Spike's head, and probably had a plan for doing it. But Spike ultimately rejects this opportunity--no matter how many times you point to his human-blood-drinking relapse in the Bronze. And he never again launches another plan for removing the chip (until after he has his soul again).

Yeah I agree very much so with what KingofCretins has said, never did Drusilla intend to have the chip removed, rather she wanted Spike to overcome the chip through the way he thought. Dru states "Electricity lies Spike, it tells you your not a bad dog but you are" in which Spike then happily agrees with a growl. Dru wanted Spike to be by her side again, she could kill the victims and he could feed off them, which is exactly what they did in the Bronze. Never did she suggest removing the chip, Dru states she doesn't believe in science, she believes with her heart; and her heart tells her Spike's evil.

Spike may never launch another another plan to remove the chip after season five, basically he'd given up on that option. He does however, go hunting straight after he believes the chip has stopped working, pretending that it did to Buffy so he is free to kill again. Spike tells Anya he would do the damage to Xander himself it weren't for the chip, tells Riley he would have killed him long ago if it weren't for the chip and tried to kill again when the chip had been removed. He was still a threat, he nearly killed all the Scoobies by working with Adam.

The gang owe him nothing they could have and should have dusted him, they spared his life and he tried to have them killed in return, he's like "a serial killer in prison"; something he doesn't deny.

[kana]

Wow, lots of great arguments so far. So what about soulled Spike and Angel? Is there a case for their staking for the good of mankind? Spike makes a case for his own staking in First Date I think(?) and indeed Wood/Giles give a Utilitarian argument for killing Spike.

Was Buffy wrong for wanting to 'cure' Angel in Becoming?

Should Cordy have let Harmony go in Disharmony? And was Angel wrong for letting Darla go after his Epiphany (Keeping in mind he didn't know about the conception of Connor at this point)? Should Buffy be blamed for taking so long for eliminating Angelus?

[Dorian's Kitten]

Harmony and Darla are both fair game as far as I'm concerned.

I don't, however, think you can make a sound case for killing a souled vamp. The best argument would have to be based on the chance of them becoming dangerous again, However that risk is there for humans too. We wouldn't kill Willow because she could lose control of the magic again. We wouldn't Kill Xander because he might get vamped someday. We can't kill Spike/Angel-post soul because they represent a risk; all people represent a risk.
The only other argument I could see would be based upon revenge, and I feel strongly that Buffy's role is one of protector not judge and jury.