Should Angel and Spike be held accountable for their soulless actions?

Because this thread was getting off track, lol. Here you go, [MENTION=6758]white avenger[/MENTION] and [MENTION=8557]Skytteflickan88[/MENTION] ^^

I posted this in "Inside Out" and not "Multiple Characters" because this is more of a question of the significance of souls rather than Angel and Spike specifically (though it's natural that we should use those two as examples).

In the earlier seasons of BtVS, it seems like the soul automatically ensures a vampire is 'good', and the loss of such a soul would immediately drive him to... well, evilness, as seen by Angel-Angelus. But later on, we see Spike actively trying to be good, though for selfish reasons (Buffy). Whether this means he would continue doing good actions if he lost his soul is debatable--I think he would, but you can argue the point in this thread too (if you've read the Spike miniseries, which is canon, he does remain good while soulless)--but it showed that vampires can change and that they can be good. And while there is a marked difference between Angel and Angelus, soulless Spike and soulful Spike are, while different, much more similar. In AtS, Angel does not remember the Beast, but Angelus does, something I was always confused and agitated about. The showrunners seemed set on establishing them as two different beings, even after showing us that Angel had a dark side too--'perfect despair', what he did to the W&H lawyers. So there's inconsistencies about the difference a soul makes. I think that it's pretty clear that souls, at the very least, act as a sort of moral compass, allowing beings to do good because it's right and not for personal motivations. Therefore, as a soulless being, vampires can't really do good, primarily because their motivations are largely bloodlust and general mayhem, barring extreme circumstances like Spike. Does this inability to tell right from wrong, or to care about right and wrong, mean that they are not responsible for their actions?


I'd say they're still fully responsible and accountable. As I wrote in another thread:

What puzzles me about this thread is the lack of responsibility people seem to thrust upon Spike for his actions in his pre-soul period. I don't distinguish Spike as soulless 'Spikelus' and ensouled Spike. He's just Spike. In the later seasons of BtVS, my preconceived notions of souls making all the difference, like it was implied with Angel, were abolished. Spike sought out his soul. That's different from Angel have been cursed with one. Spike wanted a soul. He wanted to be good. If he ever lost his soul, I'm sure the guilt made possible by the moral compass would've been gone, but he wouldn't have been evil. And even as a soulless being, he would've still felt guilt for what he did to Buffy, not because it was inherently, morally wrong, but because he hurt the one he loves. Soulful Spike should still be held responsible for his soulless actions, but actively getting his soul would set him ahead in redemption.

Click to expand...

Thoughts?

When Angelus was first cursed with a soul, wasn't that the Romanis' way of holding Angelus accountable for his actions?

No.

As Angel said to Buffy, "The demon gets your body, not your soul" so effectively it's like having someone else inside you with your body. Angelus and Angel pretty much refer to there selves as different people.

Angel also said that that when your a Vampire without a soul there's no conscience or remorse and it's an "easy way to live".

So i wouldn't say that they are responsible no.

Hey, hang 'em both from the highest yardarm and leave 'em dangling there til high noon, then scoop up their ashes and feed 'em to the fish.

Or pat both men on the head, shake their hands, and say, "Come on in to supper, ol' son. We're havin' fried chicken and biscuits for dinner. Everything's forgiven, water under the bridge, swept out with the morning trash. We're all good guys here."

Just as long as the same consideration is given to Buffy's attempted rapist and Jenny Calendar's murderer, no free passes or special consideration for either man, one way or the other, I'm just plumb happy.

But don't say, "We can't blame Angel for what Angelus did. They're two separate people, one a monster, one a champion, who just happen to share the same body," and, in the same breath. "Spike is the monster who killed two Slayers and tried to rape another. Nothing will ever change that."

Use the same rules for both men, admit that both were worthy of the title "champion," and, in the end, both men did what was right simply because it WAS right.

That's all that I ask, and all that I have ever asked.

Well, that and winning the Lottery, but I'll settle for the Angel/Spike thing.

Does this inability to tell right from wrong, or to care about right and wrong, mean that they are not responsible for their actions?

Click to expand...

Yes, if this inability is forced upon you. If you seek to become a vampire like Ford did, you are responsible but the vast majority of vampires did not seek that.

If he ever lost his soul, I'm sure the guilt made possible by the moral compass would've been gone, but he wouldn't have been evil.

Click to expand...

Why the hell not?

In the earlier seasons of BtVS, it seems like the soul automatically ensures a vampire is 'good'

Click to expand...

It doesn't. It merely gives the vamp in question the ability to be good. Whether they decide to actually use that ability or continue "the easy way to live" is up to them.

Icarium said:

If he ever lost his soul, I'm sure the guilt made possible by the moral compass would've been gone, but he wouldn't have been evil.

Click to expand...

Why the hell not?

Click to expand...

Because, as I wrote in the other thread... "even as a soulless being, he would've still felt guilt for what he did to Buffy, not because it was inherently, morally wrong, but because he hurt the one he loves." Ergo, he would've continued to do good, though not for selfless moral reasons. This is proven in the canon SPIKE miniseries. (If you haven't read them, he basically loses his soul and then gives this big speech about why he's not going all Angelus 2.0 on them.)

It doesn't. It merely gives the vamp in question the ability to be good. Whether they decide to actually use that ability or continue "the easy way to live" is up to them.

Click to expand...

Agreed, but the ensouled vamps probably wouldn't go back to "the easy way to live", because of the crushing guilt. They might not start on the path of good right away, but I think majority would act like Angel after he was ensouled. First trying to go back, but being ultimately unable to because of the newfound conscience, then some variation of the alley and the rats, and then, depending on their character and circumstances (in Angel's case, it was through Whistler's intervention and Buffy as motivation), try for redemption.

drizzlydaze; said:

Agreed, but the ensouled vamps probably wouldn't go back to "the easy way to live", because of the crushing guilt. They might not start on the path of good right away, but I think majority would act like Angel after he was ensouled. First trying to go back, but being ultimately unable to because of the newfound conscience, then some variation of the alley and the rats, and then, depending on their character and circumstances (in Angel's case, it was through Whistler's intervention and Buffy as motivation), try for redemption.

Click to expand...

The crushing guilt was the motivator for Angel. It barely touched Spike. His motivator was Buffy, and the life of glory and companionship that "her way" offered. The two things Spike hates the most are boredom and solitude, and that was all that was left to him once he lost Buffy, so wanting a soul, in his case, had nothing to do with morality. It was simply a creative approach to his big dilemma.

What the soul gives a vampire or human is free will, which is the ability to make a choice for reasons beyond personal gain. This definition holds throughout the series. Spike could never have sought a soul if he didn't anticipate some improvement in his unlife once he received it.

They should not be held responsible. An evil possesses them and they have no desire other than to do wrong and they feel no remorse for their actions. As [MENTION=8821]Icarium[/MENTION] mentioned - getting your soul back only means that can distinguish right from wrong and make a choice. If you were evil before you became a vampire then you will still be evil if you get your soul back.

Spike and Angel were good people before they became vampires. But seeing as how a vampire still remembers all of the evils they committed without a soul, it changes them permanently. Angel may try and do good while he has a soul, but as a vampire he will still always have impurities.

First of all, the comics aren't canon. For reasons like the contradictions you pointed out. Spike without a soul, and without a chip, would kill. Because he's a demon, basically. He'd still love Buffy, because he's unique that way. But he would still kill, simply because he could.

---------- Post added at 07:17 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:14 AM ----------

WWGD said:

They should not be held responsible. An evil possesses them and they have no desire other than to do wrong and they feel no remorse for their actions. As [MENTION=8821]Icarium[/MENTION] mentioned - getting your soul back only means that can distinguish right from wrong and make a choice. If you were evil before you became a vampire then you will still be evil if you get your soul back.

Spike and Angel were good people before they became vampires. But seeing as how a vampire still remembers all of the evils they committed without a soul, it changes them permanently. Angel may try and do good while he has a soul, but as a vampire he will still always have impurities.

Click to expand...

Very well said. I agree.

Dagenspear said:

First of all, the comics aren't canon.

Click to expand...

Er... the comics are canon. They are tied into S8, and Joss said they were canon. I personally can't stand the S8 comics (still holding the verdict on S9), so I try not to relate them too much to the show, but it doesn't change the fact that they are indeed canon.

For reasons like the contradictions you pointed out. Spike without a soul, and without a chip, would kill. Because he's a demon, basically. He'd still love Buffy, because he's unique that way. But he would still kill, simply because he could.

Click to expand...

Yeah, he'd still love Buffy, so why would he jeopardize his chances with her by killing? His path to goodness was also hinted at in "Crush", when he hesitates--him, a not-yet-reformed William the Bloody--before drinking from the person Dru killed. So 'hesitation' doesn't sound so convincing, but considering his bloody past and rejection from Buffy, you'd think he'd jump at the chance. He's a totally different case from any other ensouled vampire--well, I guess there is only one other ensouled vampire, Angel--because he started on the path to good while soulless, though for selfish reasons. He wanted to be a man that Buffy deserves. Why would he throw all that away?

WWGD said:

As [MENTION=8821]Icarium[/MENTION] mentioned - getting your soul back only means that can distinguish right from wrong and make a choice.

Click to expand...

Getting your soul back does give you the ability to distinguish right from wrong, but that's not all it does. With it comes the crushing guilt and pain of what you've done as a vampire, which is a powerful motivation to, at the very least, refrain from more killing.

If you were evil before you became a vampire then you will still be evil if you get your soul back.

Click to expand...

I partially agree. If you were a sociopath with little guilt and morals, yeah, you'd still be evil. But as I wrote above, guilt and remorse come with the soul package too. So it depends on evil to what extent.

Spike and Angel were good people before they became vampires.

Click to expand...

Er, Angel was a good person? He wasn't an evil person, per se, but I wouldn't say he was good, what with the whoring around and drunkenness. Still, that's just nit-picking, so...

But seeing as how a vampire still remembers all of the evils they committed without a soul, it changes them permanently. Angel may try and do good while he has a soul, but as a vampire he will still always have impurities.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

---------- Post added at 10:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:33 PM ----------

Kairos said:

The crushing guilt was the motivator for Angel. It barely touched Spike.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't say it barely touched Spike. Maybe less than Angel--Angelus did do more evil than Spike, for one thing--but he was certainly very guilt-ridden. Two weeks in a basement vs a century(?) of brooding doesn't compare, but some of that was for plot purposes. But yes, it didn't affect Spike as much as Angel, but it still played a large factor.

His motivator was Buffy, and the life of glory and companionship that "her way" offered. The two things Spike hates the most are boredom and solitude, and that was all that was left to him once he lost Buffy, so wanting a soul, in his case, had nothing to do with morality. It was simply a creative approach to his big dilemma.

What the soul gives a vampire or human is free will, which is the ability to make a choice for reasons beyond personal gain. This definition holds throughout the series. Spike could never have sought a soul if he didn't anticipate some improvement in his unlife once he received it.

Click to expand...

As I wrote in my previous post, a soul also brings a lot of crushing guilt and remorse for evil you've done as a vampire, in addition to the ability to make a choice for more selfless reasons. I agree that Spike sought the soul for selfish reasons, but part of it was also because he felt guilty for hurting Buffy, a guilt made possible because he hurt the one he loved, breaking his ironclad rule of never hurting her. It's not guilt for doing something wrong, per se, but guilt for bringing harm to Buffy, doing what he said he'd never do, even as a soulless being. He got a soul to be someone that Buffy deserves. It's also not just a question of being bored without Buffy. It had to do with making it up to Buffy, getting her to forgive him (which is, I admit, selfish) based on her forgiving Angel for Angelus' actions, for getting another chance. So his reasons are manifold, and I don't think avoiding boredom is one of them.

drizzlydaze said:

Er... the comics are canon. They are tied into S8, and Joss said they were canon. I personally can't stand the S8 comics (still holding the verdict on S9), so I try not to relate them too much to the show, but it doesn't change the fact that they are indeed canon.

Click to expand...

So Joss says jump, and we say "HOW HIGH?!" basically? No actors, no live action, no canon.

Dagenspear said:

So Joss says jump, and we say "HOW HIGH?!" basically? No actors, no live action, no canon.

Click to expand...

To me, it's not something that can be left to interpretation. Like if Joss said, totally seriously, "Warren is Buffy's soulmate" I wouldn't believe him. But as the creator, saying a long series is canon is something I'll accept. I may not like it and my headcanon may be different, and I might just ignore them, but I'd know that they were canon. Depends how you see things, I guess.

Kairos said:

The crushing guilt was the motivator for Angel. It barely touched Spike. His motivator was Buffy, and the life of glory and companionship that "her way" offered.

Click to expand...

I don't call being a babbling, wild eyed cellar dweller "barely touched." If anything, regaining his soul was a much greater shock to Spike, simply because of the type of man that he had been before Dru turned him. I think that the most obvious reason why it took Angel the better part of a century to come to terms with his soul, while Spike pretty much managed it in a matter of months was the fact that Angel had the most important person in his life, Darla, telling him that having a soul destroyed him, made him less than he had formerly been, and rejecting him. Spike, on the other hand, was praised for what he had done, assured that he could be, and, in fact WAS a better man because of his soul, and was believed in and defended by the most important person in his life and the motivation for regaining his soul in the first place.

In fact, it would be safe to say that Buffy was the initial motivation for both vampires to become better men, the major difference being simply that Buffy was there sooner for Spike. By his own admission, Angel's inspiration for coming to Sunnydale and actually, willingly, becoming a better man, was his first sight of Buffy. Before that, as far as we can tell from flashbacks, he was either still with Darla, feeding on only murderers, rapists, and the like, people who DESERVED to die, or was a recluse, only associating with people when literally forced to do so. Like Spike, Angel's life was literally changed when he met Buffy. Before that, he was just one step above nothing. I would go so far as to say that, while the Gypsies gave Angel a conscience and a sense of guilt, and the cave demon did basically the same thing for Spike, Buffy, at least in the figurative sense, was the one who actually gave a soul to both men, because she gave them an actual motivation to be something better than what the formerly were.

First and foremost, as WA as said, to me the most important thing here is consistency. If the characters in the show, and the fans in the fandom could at least be consistent about the degree to which both vampires are responsible for their actions both pre and post soul, I would be very happy. In terms of how the story progresses and how we both judge and relate to the actions of the characters, I believe that comparing the two justly is paramount.

As for whether they are responsible or not-- I think the best way to make sense of it, for me, is to compare vampires to murderers who have, say, a mental disease which makes it possible to be able to kill without remorse, and to be compelled to do so. Or animals who kill to survive; for whom the need and ability to kill is inherent and undisputed. In this case, it's obvious how incredibly complicated this becomes; to what standards should you hold such a person/creature, and to what standards do you hold them, if they come after you or your family. In theory, I could argue for example that a lion can't be held responsible for the people/animals it kills when it is in his very nature to do so. In reality, if the lion took my leg off, I'm sure I'd be screaming out that I hold him accountable for his actions. But if I encountered the lion years later and he'd been trained and domesticated and now somehow had the ability to feel remorse for what he'd done and the perspective to decide not to do so again, (I know it's a lion, but stay with me for the sake of the analogy), I would certainly be able to forgive him. He is, in every way, a different creature than the one who took my leg. This of course can be applied to a reformed killer, as well.

Now all that being said, we have to account for the fact that before Spike gets his soul, he does choose to do good. Numerous times. Sometimes clearly in the interest of winning Buffy's approval, but quite often in her absence as well. We are now faced with indisputable proof that a vampire can sometimes choose to do good things, (in Spike's case, most notably, to get his soul). And we ask, "why didn't he, before?" But there is a formula at work, here. Spike didn't wake up one evening and decide to pursue this path. He was chipped. Forced to interact with humans. Forced to get in touch with his inherent, retained humanity. To feel and think in ways which he was not able, previously. Forced up on him was a form of behavioral therapy: at first, one is merely going through the motions-in his case, to survive. In Spike's case, to exist among humans peacefully in order to have some protection, then to do so to try your hand at winning the object of an obsession, then--eventually as those muscles are flexed and practiced--doing and thinking of others can become automatic. So much so that when he is pushed to reflect upon the depth of his capacity to do all of this, he is able to to take that final action toward ultimate redemption and win a soul. Had the humanity not been there, within Spike, I don't think all of this could have transpired.

So now we get into whether he should be able to stay "good" or be inclined to do good, if he loses his soul in the future. As has been said, in cannon, Spike is good when he loses his soul leading into season 8. But as that is being debated, and called OOC, I will lend my perspective. Ok. Why would it be possible for Spike to be good upon losing his soul in the future? First and foremost, he was able to do good things for others and exhibit empathy on countless occasions, and was absolutely developing the ability to tell right from wrong, (see his remorse in SR as a perfect example), before he won back his soul. Take the soul away and at the very least he should be able to act within the capacity that he had, right before it was put in. So that's the foundation he'd be working with. Then we add to that the insight, clarity, and guilt he'd experienced while in possession of a soul. The only way this would not work is if, like Angel, upon losing his soul he "blacks-out" and becomes unable to remember the things he thought and felt while in possession of a soul. Ifand only if that were to happen, it could be argued that his ability to be good would be just as limited as it was before the end of season 6. But until that happens, I have no reason to believe that the newfound clarity and morality that the soul brought him could be retained in its absence because Spike would remember how important it was for him to gain that insight in the first place. How he fought for it. Why would it be easy for him to give that all up?

Kairos said:

The crushing guilt was the motivator for Angel. It barely touched Spike. His motivator was Buffy, and the life of glory and companionship that "her way" offered. The two things Spike hates the most are boredom and solitude, and that was all that was left to him once he lost Buffy, so wanting a soul, in his case, had nothing to do with morality. It was simply a creative approach to his big dilemma.

What the soul gives a vampire or human is free will, which is the ability to make a choice for reasons beyond personal gain. This definition holds throughout the series. Spike could never have sought a soul if he didn't anticipate some improvement in his unlife once he received it.

Click to expand...

You must also remember the important fact that Spike chose to have a soul. Angel was cursed. That says a lot to me. Spike knew what he was getting himself into, because he saw that on Angel. Yet he chose to do it. Angel without a soul would NEVER choose to gain his soul back, no matter for what reason. Spike is probably the only vampire in the history who suffered trials to get a soul. Doesn't matter what the reason was, he still did it, Angel without a soul would have never ever.
You think Spike didn't feel guilty after his soul getting? What about "Beneath you" for example? It made him crazy, literally. He felt so guilty, he didn't feel his physical pain. He leaned on the cross. He punched himself. The physical pain meant nothing compared to his remorse pain.

I think Spike proved that a vampire can be good, as he being soulless, went out to get a soul for Buffy.

So I think that Angel and Spike should be held accountable for their soulless actions.

Spike was able to be good even without a soul. Maybe it was just because of his chip, but he became good nonetheless. That shows that even while being a soulless vampire, you still have a bit of humanity in you. You still have memories, opinions, feelings, just a drive of evilness. Angel should be held accountable for killing Jenny and refusing his cure. It was still him, just more evil. Just like Spike to be held accountable for attempting to rape Buffy.

But at least Spike tried to get his soul back. 😉

This has always bothered me. I understand the guilt Angel and to a extent Spike feel about their past deeds...(the memories of them) but they shouldn't be blamed. It's like entirely different people.

Since both Angel and Spike had their demons forced onto them I don't hold them personally responsible for their soulless actions. While neither of them were particularly great humans before, I doubt either would have become ruthless murders, like they did when they lost their souls. That being said, I do find it honorable that they feel responsible and are making an attempt to atone for their actions.

As far as holding vampires responsible for their actions, my biggest problem is when people want to credit Spike for the "good" things he did pre-soul and then later use the lack of a soul as an excuse for his behavior. The way I see it, he is either responsible for it all or not responsible for any of it.

Chosen Enemy said:

You must also remember the important fact that Spike chose to have a soul. Angel was cursed.

Click to expand...

Yes, he made the decision to get a soul, but he made this decision after having a chip forced upon him that essentially trained him not to harm humans. I think it is debatable whether or not Spike would have wanted a soul had he never been chipped.

It is my opinion that they are both equally responsible for their actions pre-soul.

They lack conscience without a soul, but still are aware of societal rules about right and wrong. They simply do not care...except sometimes Spike does, indicating (regardless of why he was motivated to care) that their behavior was still a result of choice. The demon and lack of conscience are an impairment to making what I would deem to be good decisions, but not an excuse for not being responsible.

In the research done with sociopaths, who by definition lack empathy and moral conscience, we are seeing that there is an organic basis for the sociopathy. So, one could argue that the lack of "soul" is also forced on these individuals since it is an element lacking in their brain chemistry...however, it is popular opinion (at least in the American judicial system) that Sociopaths are responsible for their actions. Spike and Angel have a decreased capacity for Empathy and decreased respect for morality as a result of their soulless-ness, but it is my opinion that they are still liable for their actions.

My bottom line is: if you do bad stuff and know it's bad stuff but don't care...you are responsible for what you did. Empathy/conscience or not.

Do they hold themselves accountable for their soulless actions?

Yes.

Should they?

Apparently, yes, because, without them being accountable for their evil deeds their respective character journeys don't make sense.

Should we judge Spike more harshly than Angel because the latter spent 1000000% more time "trying to come to terms with infinite remorse"?

I think not, because Spike's "three weeks in the basement" was a plot necessity.