Atonement, Redemption, And Appropriate Punishment

[white avenger]

Can I forgive Angel? Yes I can

He wasn't 100% himself, he wasn't making decisions he normally would. Joss screwed Angel, but it wasn't his fault

But isn't that like saying that a drunk driver shouldn't be held responsible for the hit and run that he committed while under the influence of alcohol? It's probably an oversimplification of the issue, but the drunk driver chose to drink in the first place. Whether the alcohol impaired his judgement in deciding to drive in that condition is meaningless and no defense whatsoever. Likewise, the fact that Angel was under the influence, or even the direct control of the REAL Twilight is moot, because he willingly, and quite stupidly in my opinion, chose to play that part. Once that decision was made, "the Devil made me do it," is no defense whatsoever. Angel did it, and Angel should have to atone by paying a price equal to, if not greater than, the death and destruction that Twilight caused.

Angel did the crime, now he has to do the time.

 

[Gideon]

There is some continuity for Angel being a rather ruthless and Machiavellian figure when need be. We see in S3 of Buffy that he is a superb actor, capable of adopting the Angelus persona and fooling everyone; we see in S5 of Angel that he's capable of manipulating the Fang Gang (including Spike) and deceiving Hamilton and lest we forget the lengths to which he was willing to go in order to cement his "performance," all, of course, in the name of the greater good.

I absolutely consider Angel both a true hero and one of Whedon's finest characters. The reality is, however, being a hero requires difficult choices and there is no universal standard on what decisions constitute heroism. Some could successfully argue that dropping the atom bombs on Japan in WWII was an act of heroism, as it spared both nations the bodycount of protracted war; others could successfully argue it was an act of brutality by what is supposed to be a civilized nation.

What is clear is that Angel did not act out of sadism or selfishness or the desire to hurt others, nor was he completely his own man at the time. He's certainly not a saint, but he is a hero, and he's hardly the only Buffyverse character who has made morally ambiguous or repugnant decisions.

 

[citiegal17]

There is some continuity for Angel being a rather ruthless and Machiavellian figure when need be. We see in S3 of Buffy that he is a superb actor, capable of adopting the Angelus persona and fooling everyone; we see in S5 of Angel that he's capable of manipulating the Fang Gang (including Spike) and deceiving Hamilton and lest we forget the lengths to which he was willing to go in order to cement his "performance," all, of course, in the name of the greater good.

I absolutely consider Angel both a true hero and one of Whedon's finest characters. The reality is, however, being a hero requires difficult choices and there is no universal standard on what decisions constitute heroism. Some could successfully argue that dropping the atom bombs on Japan in WWII was an act of heroism, as it spared both nations the bodycount of protracted war; others could successfully argue it was an act of brutality by what is supposed to be a civilized nation.

What is clear is that Angel did not act out of sadism or selfishness or the desire to hurt others, nor was he completely his own man at the time. He's certainly not a saint, but he is a hero, and he's hardly the only Buffyverse character who has made morally ambiguous or repugnant decisions.

I don't know my definition of hero does not include someone who murders innocents so that he and his girlfriend can ascend to daffyduck land, and then tries to keep his ex-girlfriend from helping his family, and I consider the twilight thing incredibly selfish. I think there has to be standards to what makes a hero, and I haven't considered Angel a true hero since the end of ATS 4, maybe a fallen hero sure but him mind raping his friends and murdering and manipulating others is what I think makes him a fallen hero, since he basically can't stick to his morals and often time he does it when it can benefit himself like the W&H diaster, the black thorn thing, and the twilight diaster.

 

[Joan the Vampire Slayer]

We throw this word around here a lot - "Hero."

What does it mean? Who does it apply too?

he·ro   
[heer-oh]
–noun, plural -roes; for 5 also -ros.
1.
a man of distinguished courage or ability, admired for his brave deeds and noble qualities.
2.
a person who, in the opinion of others, has heroic qualities or has performed a heroic act and is regarded as a model or ideal: He was a local hero when he saved the drowning child.
3.
the principal male character in a story, play, film, etc.

Notice the different definitions. One one hand, a hero can be defined as someone who is merely brave and courageous with noble qualities. Another definition says a hero is someone who has performed a heroic act. Yet, the last one stats that a hero is the principal character in a film.

My point here is that in the Buffyverse everything is very complicated. No one here can argue that Angel HAS performed heroic acts time and time again, that he has shown bravery, and that he has sacrificed his own happiness for others. This by definition makes him a hero.

Yet, he was also done terrible things. So is he a hero? You tell me. The definitions are blurred. His actions don't always make sense, and we don't always know his intentions.

What we do know if that Angel is gullible - it's his "tragic flaw" - and he's weak. He is very human in a lot of ways.

and I agree with Gideon that Angel is a terriffic character. Now, that doesn't mean I like him. I think he's interesting, and most of the time I hate him, but that doesn't mean he isn't as well-thought out, complicated, and interesting as any other Jossverse character.

 

[Hale Caesar]

But isn't that like saying that a drunk driver shouldn't be held responsible for the hit and run that he committed while under the influence of alcohol? It's probably an oversimplification of the issue, but the drunk driver chose to drink in the first place. Whether the alcohol impaired his judgement in deciding to drive in that condition is meaningless and no defense whatsoever. Likewise, the fact that Angel was under the influence, or even the direct control of the REAL Twilight is moot, because he willingly, and quite stupidly in my opinion, chose to play that part. Once that decision was made, "the Devil made me do it," is no defense whatsoever. Angel did it, and Angel should have to atone by paying a price equal to, if not greater than, the death and destruction that Twilight caused.

Angel did the crime, now he has to do the time.

I understand where your coming from. But, I just see it as Angel was told the only way for Buffy to live was to become Twilight and he tried to stop the Twilight dimension from destroying the world when it happened. So, he screwed up, he killed one person on top of the hundreds he already did. I guess i'm biased because I can relate more to Angel because he screws up, but at the end of the day his intentions were good, so I can forgive him.

 

[Gideon]

I don't know my definition of hero does not include someone who murders innocents so that he and his girlfriend can ascend to daffyduck land, and then tries to keep his ex-girlfriend from helping his family, and I consider the twilight thing incredibly selfish. I think there has to be standards to what makes a hero, and I haven't considered Angel a true hero since the end of ATS 4, maybe a fallen hero sure but him mind raping his friends and murdering and manipulating others is what I think makes him a fallen hero, since he basically can't stick to his morals and often time he does it when it can benefit himself like the W&H diaster, the black thorn thing, and the twilight diaster.

I preface this with the reiteration that the majority of my knowledge on the circumstances of S8 are second hand (from this site, Buffy's wiki, etc.).

With that necessary disclaimer out of the way, my understanding is that Angel didn't murder innocents for his benefit or for Buffy's, but in order to save the world from an even greater threat. In fact, the idea that Angel would do such a thing is entirely out of character: Remember "I Will Remember You" in which he sacrifices his happiness with Buffy in order to spare her and the countless innocents whom they swore to protect? The idea that he would assume the mantle of Twilight for his own interests stands in stark contrast with souled!Angel's M.O.

 

[ticonderouga]

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

I think one of the whole points with the whole Twilight story arc, and indeed much of the arc for season 8, is that the difference between a hero and a villain is often razor thin, sometimes its no more then a point of view.

After all, in Season 8 Buffy and the rest of the slayers are considered by the world at large, to be dangerous vigilantes. I don't see Angel as a character going away any time soon, so Joss will undoubtedly find some way for him to make amends and indeed to get back onto the road to redemption. I am not sure what form that will take but knowing Joss Whedon it will be a long and painful ordeal.

 

[Gideon]

Yet, he was also done terrible things. So is he a hero? You tell me. The definitions are blurred. His actions don't always make sense, and we don't always know his intentions.

What we do know if that Angel is gullible - it's his "tragic flaw" - and he's weak. He is very human in a lot of ways.

Agreed, but with regards to both ambiguous intentions and "weakness," Angel isn't the only Buffyverse character to whom these traits are exclusive. In many ways, I'd argue that when it comes to sacrifice, the only character who can compete with Angel's strength is Buffy herself.

and I agree with Gideon that Angel is a terriffic character. Now, that doesn't mean I like him. I think he's interesting, and most of the time I hate him, but that doesn't mean he isn't as well-thought out, complicated, and interesting as any other Jossverse character.

😉

This is a good point BUT how many times will we forgive Angel for his bad decisions? In my opinion, he's a tragic hero, meaning that it's only a matter of time until he falls. And that he has.

What you choose to forgive and what you choose to not forgive is up to you. Personally, I'm not ready to lock Angel up and throw away the key anymore than I was ready to condemn Spike up for trying to rape Buffy; Buffy for allowing a First-controlled Spike and soulless Angel to run amok because she was too immature to prioritize the safety of others before her faltering love life; etc. etc.

Each and every main character has screwed up tremendously and, in Buffy's case with Angelus and First!Spike, not even with the best intentions in mind. Does that mean I approve of their actions? Absolutely not, but that's why I let the story continue before condemning a character entirely.

 

[Icarium]

With that necessary disclaimer out of the way, my understanding is that Angel didn't murder innocents for his benefit or for Buffy's, but in order to save the world from an even greater threat.

I hate to invoke Godwin's law but Hitler also (apparently) thought he was doing the world a favour by killing millions of people. Many atrocities are done with good intentions in mind. This doesn't make them any less horrible.

The idea that he would assume the mantle of Twilight for his own interests stands in stark contrast with souled!Angel's M.O.

Maybe, maybe not. But it's not as if Joss hasn't written characters as OOC to get the plot from point A to point B many a time. It's a fact that Angel wanted to remain in the paradise she and Buffy created while the world was literally burning.

Personally, I am long past the point of giving a damn about the million "redemption" storylines in the Buffyverse. The word has been abused so much it has lost all meaning and by now it's pretty much a way to have the "good guys" go dark for a while, mostly for the coolness and shock factors and then have them return to the fold. Only the shock factor is getting exhausted and the coolness is quite hampered by the sheer repetitiveness of it all. "Oh, Angel gone bad again? Yawn. Wake me up when they "redeem" him."

 

[Gideon]

I hate to invoke Godwin's law but Hitler also (apparently) thought he was doing the world a favour by killing millions of people. Many atrocities are done with good intentions in mind. This doesn't make them any less horrible.

We don't exactly know what went through Hitler's mind, though. Angel is a fictional character and we're able to get inside his head to a far greater extent than someone like ol' Adolf.

More importantly, there isn't any proof that a nigh-unstoppable paranormal entity was, in any way, influencing Hitler's decisions and actions, is there? 😛

Maybe, maybe not. But it's not as if Joss hasn't written characters as OOC to get the plot from point A to point B many a time. It's a fact that Angel wanted to remain in the paradise she and Buffy created while the world was literally burning.

I stand by my assessment of the man and the character. We see many more examples of his selflessness and dedication to others than him pursuing his own selfish interests. That's more of Spike's territory. 😀

Personally, I am long past the point of giving a damn about the million "redemption" storylines in the Buffyverse. The word has been abused so much it has lost all meaning and by now it's pretty much a way to have the "good guys" go dark for a while, mostly for the coolness and shock factors and then have them return to the fold. Only the shock factor is getting exhausted and the coolness is quite hampered by the sheer repetitiveness of it all. "Oh, Angel gone bad again? Yawn. Wake me up when they "redeem" him."

I don't fully support the revelation that Angel was Twilight, but I see where aspects of his character would make that fit into the continuity.

 

[kndizzle]

Agreed, but with regards to both ambiguous intentions and "weakness," Angel isn't the only Buffyverse character to whom these traits are exclusive. In many ways, I'd argue that when it comes to sacrifice, the only character who can compete with Angel's strength is Buffy herself.

I can't karma you anymore, but let me just say - WORD. I've always felt like that's an overlooked quality in Angel.

What you choose to forgive and what you choose to not forgive is up to you. Personally, I'm not ready to lock Angel up and throw away the key anymore than I was ready to condemn Spike up for trying to rape Buffy; Buffy for allowing a First-controlled Spike and soulless Angel to run amok because she was too immature to prioritize the safety of others before her faltering love life; etc. etc.

Each and every main character has screwed up tremendously and, in Buffy's case with Angelus and First!Spike, not even with the best intentions in mind. Does that mean I approve of their actions? Absolutely not, but that's why I let the story continue before condemning a character entirely.

Agreed 100%. Did Angel screw up? Royally. But this is a culminating, evolving character. He progresses and regresses, like we do. He can and will atone for what he's done, but condemning him is ridiculous, especially while the story is still in progress and by my counts no where near over. Its not like he's the only Joss character to do something seemingly unredeemable, and he won't be the last.

 

[Gideon]

Thanks.

Angel and Spike number among my very favorite Whedonverse characters and while they should always be held accountable for their actions, such draconian standards (applied equally) would dictate that both of them deserve "sunbaths." 😉

I say we wait a little before condemning a character to languish in the hellpits of our hearts. (Unless, of course, you've already hated Angel.) 😀

 

[white avenger]

In many ways, I'd argue that when it comes to sacrifice, the only character who can compete with Angel's strength is Buffy herself.

No doubt, Angel is quite willing to make sacrifices in the service of what he interprets as the "greater good." However, I find his tendency to put at risk or even sacrifice others as quickly (albeit without either their knowledge or forewarning) less than admirable. After the fact, it's easy enough to look at his actions and say, "Well, it was for the greater good. Somebody had to make the tough choice," but the fact remains that he stole, without her permission, memories of and the very day itself, everything that he and Buffy shared in "I Will Remember You." He stole the memories of his friends and his son, and he even put the entire population of Los Angeles at risk, not to mention sending them all to hell, for no more reason than what he himself described as being little more than a token, suicidal gesture.

And coming very close to destroying the entire universe for little more reason than to create a new one where he and Buffy could live happily ever after isn't self sacrifice, it is the action of a selfish, irresponsible, self centered egotist. But then, it wasn't REALLY wasn't our Angel who did that, it was evil ol' Twilight who corrupted and took possession of him in order to commit all of that death, destruction, and chaos. Or, as the late Flip Wilson would have said, "The DEVIL made me do it!" That excuse just doesn't work for me.

At least when Buffy made the sacrifice, it was her jumping off of that tower so that her friends, and the rest of the world, could survive. What Angel tried to do was exactly the opposite: sacrifice his friends and the rest of the world so that he and Buffy could survive.

 

[ticonderouga]

No doubt, Angel is quite willing to make sacrifices in the service of what he interprets as the "greater good." However, I find his tendency to put at risk or even sacrifice others as quickly (albeit without either their knowledge or forewarning) less than admirable. After the fact, it's easy enough to look at his actions and say, "Well, it was for the greater good. Somebody had to make the tough choice," but the fact remains that he stole, without her permission, memories of and the very day itself, everything that he and Buffy shared in "I Will Remember You." He stole the memories of his friends and his son, and he even put the entire population of Los Angeles at risk, not to mention sending them all to hell, for no more reason than what he himself described as being little more than a token, suicidal gesture.

And coming very close to destroying the entire universe for little more reason than to create a new one where he and Buffy could live happily ever after isn't self sacrifice, it is the action of a selfish, irresponsible, self centered egotist. But then, it wasn't REALLY wasn't our Angel who did that, it was evil ol' Twilight who corrupted and took possession of him in order to commit all of that death, destruction, and chaos. Or, as the late Flip Wilson would have said, "The DEVIL made me do it!" That excuse just doesn't work for me.

At least when Buffy made the sacrifice, it was her jumping off of that tower so that her friends, and the rest of the world, could survive. What Angel tried to do was exactly the opposite: sacrifice his friends and the rest of the world so that he and Buffy could survive.

This why I think Spike makes a better hero and indeed a better champion then Angel does. Spike is far more willing to sacrifice himself for the "greater good" but he never he even tries to sacrifice others no matter what the stakes are. He seeks out his soul in order to become a man that Buffy deserves. He sacrifices his own life to save Buffy and the world at the end of Chosen. So while Angel make a lot of noise about doing whats right, and will often make that choice for others, Spike will simply do the right thing, but doesn't make choices for other people. So at the end of the day Angel may look and talk more like a champion, but Spike simply acts like a champion, but looks and talks like a villain.

 

[Kean]

No doubt, Angel is quite willing to make sacrifices in the service of what he interprets as the "greater good." However, I find his tendency to put at risk or even sacrifice others as quickly (albeit without either their knowledge or forewarning) less than admirable. After the fact, it's easy enough to look at his actions and say, "Well, it was for the greater good. Somebody had to make the tough choice," but the fact remains that he stole, without her permission, memories of and the very day itself, everything that he and Buffy shared in "I Will Remember You." He stole the memories of his friends and his son, and he even put the entire population of Los Angeles at risk, not to mention sending them all to hell, for no more reason than what he himself described as being little more than a token, suicidal gesture.

1. He didn't take memories from Buffy's mind. He begged for her life. The Oracles handed him the time fold. They made the terms; not Angel. If you have beef with that, at least direct it in the right direction.

2. If we are talking about memories being messed with than the fact of the matter is that the only person whose memories were actually altered were Angel's. That version of that day exists in his mind only.

3. Those memories that he "stole" from his son were the same memories that led said son to try and blow up himself and a shop full of people. When those memories were returned to his friends, was there a single one who was happy for them? Better for them? I see very little difference in what the Monks did with Dawn and what Angel did with Connor. He gave up his son even knowing him so he could have a good life. And yeah, it didn't work out and the lesson that you cannot mess with those things was clear. But so too was his motivation: love. It wasn't the same as Willow masking Tara's memories for her own gain.

If it was my child and I had the option of taking away the kind of pain that Connor was feeling, I wouldn't even hesitate.

4. Was it a suicidal mission? Absolutely. But if you are trying to bring down one of the most powerful forces of evil on Earth, well...the mission tends to be of that nature. He had no idea that L.A. would go to Hell because of it. No more than Buffy et al had any idea what devastating effects creating all the slayers would have. They were acts of sincerity and conviction. Never was Angel's intention to hurt people. In fact, his entire MO has been to avoid that as much as possible.

And coming very close to destroying the entire universe for little more reason than to create a new one where he and Buffy could live happily ever after isn't self
sacrifice, it is the action of a selfish, irresponsible, self centered egotist.

He was told, by arguably his most trusted source, that if he didn't become Twilight the entire world would go to Hell.

I have yet to see any evidence that that was not true.

But then, it wasn't REALLY wasn't our Angel who did that, it was evil ol' Twilight who corrupted and took possession of him in order to commit all of that death, destruction, and chaos.

No, it was Angel. Right up until Kitty!Twilight took over his body, it was all Angel. Was he operating under questionable advice? Absolutely. But like I said, he is loathed now for his choices, but that doesn't mean they were not the right choices to make.

 

[white avenger]

1. He didn't take memories from Buffy's mind. He begged for her life. The Oracles handed him the time fold. They made the terms; not Angel. If you have beef with that, at least direct it in the right direction.

2. If we are talking about memories being messed with than the fact of the matter is that the only person whose memories were actually altered were Angel's. That version of that day exists in his mind only.

3. Those memories that he "stole" from his son were the same memories that led said son to try and blow up himself and a shop full of people. When those memories were returned to his friends, was there a single one who was happy for them? Better for them? I see very little difference in what the Monks did with Dawn and what Angel did with Connor. He gave up his son even knowing him so he could have a good life. And yeah, it didn't work out and the lesson that you cannot mess with those things was clear. But so too was his motivation: love. It wasn't the same as Willow masking Tara's memories for her own gain.

If it was my child and I had the option of taking away the kind of pain that Connor was feeling, I wouldn't even hesitate.

4. Was it a suicidal mission? Absolutely. But if you are trying to bring down one of the most powerful forces of evil on Earth, well...the mission tends to be of that nature. He had no idea that L.A. would go to Hell because of it. No more than Buffy et al had any idea what devastating effects creating all the slayers would have. They were acts of sincerity and conviction. Never was Angel's intention to hurt people. In fact, his entire MO has been to avoid that as much as possible.



He was told, by arguably his most trusted source, that if he didn't become Twilight the entire world would go to Hell.

I have yet to see any evidence that that was not true.



No, it was Angel. Right up until Kitty!Twilight took over his body, it was all Angel. Was he operating under questionable advice? Absolutely. But like I said, he is loathed now for his choices, but that doesn't mean they were not the right choices to make.

In order:

1) Granted, Angel was manipulated by the Powers into believing that he could somehow alter Buffy's fate (that she would die protecting a loved one) by renouncing his humanity. Over the course of the series, Angel has been manipulated be the Powers That Be, The Senior Partners, and Twilight into doing some very extreme and somewhat questionable things, most of of which involved his takinng freedom of choice away from others.

2) You have this one backwards. The only one who's memories weren't altered by "taking back the day" were Angel's. Everyone else lost theirs.

3) "Stealing" Connor's memories, regardless of whatever nobel excuses that Angel might have come up with, is exactly the same thing, for arguably the same purpose, and on a far greater scale, as Willow stealing Tara's memories, and we know where that led. We would all like to make the bad memories go away, and having the power to do so would be awesome, and a terrible temptation to use in order to protect our loved ones, but it is as much, or maybe even more, from the memory of those bad memories that we learn and grow.

And, finally

4) By his own admission, Angel knew that attacking, even destroying, the Circle of the Black Thorn, would in no way change the Senior Partners' plans, and would, at best, only delay them slightly. Destroying the Circle was Angel's way of spitting in Wolfram & Hart's collective eye, a gesture, most likely as futile as a gnat attacking a grizzly bear. If the end result had only effected himself and the members of his crew who were given the choice as to whether or not to share that risk with him, fine. However, Angel's gesture resulted in placing every man, woman, and child on the Los Angeles area at risk andm in fact, sending them to hell. And the fact that he managed, later, to correct his mistake (using, ironically, the same method used in "I Will Remember You," though without the instant memory wipe this time)

Angel's "most trusted source," who he has known for only a matter of minutes, tells him that the only way to save the world is to destroy the entire universe, leaving Buffy and himself the soul survivors, and, hopefully, the new Adam and Eve of the Twilight Universe. THAT most trusted source. Right,

And, as for whether or not Angel's choices were the right ones to make, I fail to see how total genocide could be considered right or even expedient by any interpretation.

 

[Gideon]

The fears you have for W&H removing the Fang Gang's memories about Connor are pretty vague. Angel wanted to give his son a life much preferable to the horrors he experienced (and performed) in Angel's supernatural world. Removing his friends' memories made the separation clean cut and tied up a lot of loose ends.

I fail to see the danger or problem in removing these memories which didn't do any of them good.

 

[white avenger]

The fears you have for W&H removing the Fang Gang's memories about Connor are pretty vague. Angel wanted to give his son a life much preferable to the horrors he experienced (and performed) in Angel's supernatural world. Removing his friends' memories made the separation clean cut and tied up a lot of loose ends.

I fail to see the danger or problem in removing these memories which didn't do any of them good.

What Angel tried to do for Connor was to shield him from life, not help him adjust to and live through it. And while his intentions might have been pure, his actions were nothing more than stealing memories from his son and closest friends. The fact that those memories were less than pleasant, were even in part, as you describe, horrible, gave Angel no right whatsoever to manipulate them, especially without his friends' permission. As I pointed out before, it was wrong when Willow did it with Tara, wrong when Angel did it to Buffy, and wrong when he did it with his friends. Beyond wrong, it is in each case betrayal of trust, for which there can be no excuse.

Also, I might point out, in neither of the cases mentioned, did there anything positive come from the action. Tara found out what Willow had done, Buffy wound up dying under almost identical circumstances anyway, and Connor most certainly would have been killed by Sahjahn (?) if he had not regained all of those "horrible" memories of fighting and killing.

We learn from our experiences, both the good ones and the bad ones, and that knowledge serves to make us the people who we are. Taking away part of that knowledge and experience, while it might sound desirable initially, in the long run, it's almost a certainty that more harm than good will have been done.

This same debate has run here and on other forums in the past about the basic premise of the show "Dollhouse." Robbing Echo and the others of their memories, of their very identities, for whatever reason, is nothing short rape, prostitution, criminal endangerment, and identity theft, used almost exclusively to gratify the fantasies and perversions of paying customers. That changes the not one iota that the end result (supposedly) is to help that person deal with tragic experiences in their past. Those events still happened, and the results of those of those actions will still have to be faced and dealt with eventually.

While Angel's decisions were always arrived at with the best of intentions, they always came down to his trying to shield his friends and loved ones from life rather than help them face it, learn from it, and move on, and the end result was never as beneficial as he had hoped. Unfortunately, he never seemed to learn from his mistakes, but rather continued to make the same ones, over and over again, each time on a larger scale, each time with worse results than the previous one. Hopefully, by Season 9, Angel will begin to see that. But I'm not holding my breath waiting for it to happen.

 

[Hero]

As much as I want to read Angel & Faith, I'm going to skip it. I'm soooo over the whole "angel messed up, now he must redeem himself" storyline. I really, really, really am just over the whole thing. It's like when you watch a soaop opera and every other week someone is "dead" but really they're in a coma. As much as people can say, "he was twilight because he thought it would save buffy," BS, at the end of the day he killed hundreds of Slayers and humans (though not physically, but he was the cause) and he killed Giles. Nope, nope, nope, nope...Soooo over Angel's redemption. David is good to look at on my tv screen, but his character is doooone for me after season 5 of Angel.

 

[kndizzle]

Angel doesn't voluntarily take away Buffy's memories. He wanted her to survive, and this was the first of many hoops The Powers make him jump through to ensure that future is (at least in Angel's eyes) possible. Can he really be faulted for doing what he believed was necessary to save the woman he loves, especially when he knew the person who would be hurt the most by it was him? Would any character in the Buffyverse really done it differently in that moment? I think not. And its not like he was jumping for joy when he explained to her that he alone would carry the knowledge of that day. He wasn't basking in the glow of having information she didn't. He was devastated. But he didn't turn back because he believed it to be the only way. I'm sorry, but no argument can convince me that was anything but a selfless decision on his part.

If we judged every action of every character in the Buffyverse based solely on outcome alone, every character would be guilty of some kind of sin. If you walk up to someone and say, "Hey, feel like committing altering someone's mind today, or Oh! How about sending a whole city to Hell, that could be fun!!!" Of course they'll say no. But say instead, "Yeah, the woman you love is gonna die if you stay with her." or "World is going to Hell, wanna join?" The answers aren't so clear. Everyone hates Angel for these decisions but he made them because he believed them to be the best ones. Not because of a God complex or egotistical nature, but because he was trying to do the right thing. Concequences cannot always be predicted before you act, sometimes you have to go in blind. That's what Angel did, and that's what he's paying for. Judging by outcome alone isn't fair, not when the decision leading to the outcome is from profound circumstances.

There's a difference between saying "Willow skinned a guy." and "Willow was grieving the loss of the love of her life and retreated so far into her self-hatred for her role in that death that she lost herself." Decisions lead to outcomes and sometimes they are messy ones, this is a fact of life. How cruel life we would be if we were only judged by by the outcomes of our decisions and the information given to us leading to those decisions were disregarded.

If he had sat on his hands, everyone would have hated him for that, too. Make no mistake, Angel is paying for what he's done. He has long before this, and will continue to.