Buffy's idealogy about killing humans

[RogueDemonHunter]

Okay, first off, this thread is about pointing out a continuity error, not complaining about Buffy's idealogy.

Think back to all the times that Buffy has stated her opposition to killing humans. I mean, when Willow killed Warren, Buffy made it clear that she is against killing humans. But here are some intsances where she violated that:

-In the episode "The Pack" she threw a human (albeit EVIL) human (but so was Warren) into a pit of hyenas to be killed.

-In the episode "Go Fish", she throws the coach into the hole where his "swim team" are being kept. Obviously, when he was thrown in the pit, he was killed. (Also I would like to point out thta in this instance, Buffy actually tried to stop him from falling in after kicking him in, so she tried to save him, but when he fell in she didn't show any signs of guilt.

-And lastly, in the episode Seeing Red when Buffy is fighting Warren w/ the orbs of power, she kicked him and eventually got him into a position where she got a bunch of rocks to fall on him (with the intention of killing him). Now I know this was self defence, but it seems weird that right before she goes into full on "Lets protect the trio mode", the tries to kill Warren


Of course theres a whole lot more than just killing humans in these examples, but the point of the message that Buffy embodied when she protected Andrew and Johnathan was that that doesn't matter.

Any thoughts?

 

[dexeded]

All of those instances were accidents. In The Pack, she threw him, but didn't aim for the pit. He just happened to fall in, courtesy of the writers. As you say, Go Fish and Seeing Red were accidents too.

The only bit where she went directly against this ideology would be her attempted killing of Faith.

 

[Robb Stark]

I think that Buffy has almost no intentions to kill, but when circumstances are dire and leave no other option, she will.

The examples you chose though, she didn't kill any of those guys with intent. The guy from "The Pack" charged her, she side-stepped him and he fell into the hyena cage. In "Go Fish", I clearly remember her trying to save the coach. I haven't seen "Seeing Red" for a while though, so I can't really comment on that one. I think that it would be fair to say that Buffy doesn't intend to kill people in situations like those, but she's not quite like Batman either. She's not going to always risk her life to try and save them.

I mean, she has shown that she'll kill when she absolutely has too. When the Scoobies are running from Glory in S5, she starts chucking those Knights of Byzantium guys off the roof of Spike's RV, and I'm pretty sure they died. And of course, the one time where there was virtually no reasonable doubt, at the climax of S3, when she clearly tries to kill Faith (and would have, if not for blind luck) to save Angel.

 

[EVIL UU]

It's not about protecting the trio, it's about keeping her big gun.

Buffy doesn't mind killing humans, she's slaughtered a whole lot of them in season 5 and they weren't even evil. The Knights were actually quite honorable. She doesn't mind vengeance either, she gutted Faith after all.

What she does mind is Willow's rise to power because Dark Willow is independent. She could break away and leave her and Buffy can't allow that to happen. Willow's her best soldier, too valuable to loose. Watch their fight scene, listen to the dialogue.

I'm not coming back.

I'm doing fine on my own, thanks

.

Come on! This is a huge deal for me! Six years as a side man. Now *I* get to be the Slayer.

That's a declaration of independence and Buffy's very much against it. The Trio, Tara, morality? It doesn't matter.

ideology

Buffy doesn't have an ideology. She does what she feels is right. That's one of my biggest problems with the character, she doesn't try to approach what it means to be the slayer in an intellectual way. She doesn't think and she doesn't analyze. It's weird considering how intelligent she is.

 

[whitewolf]

[MENTION=11194]EVIL UU[/MENTION] I just finished watching the Dark Willow episodes and I don't agree with your interpretation. Buffy did protect the trio because she didn't want to lose Willow, but your view that she just sees Willow as a soldier is a rather cynical one and doesn't match up. It's pretty clear that Buffy is concerned about losing her best friend, not a solider. She even says "I hate losing friends." She said nothing about losing a solider. She even tried to get Willow to give up magic, something that would greatly weaken her effectiveness to fight evil. If Buffy wanted a solider she would never have tried to get Willow to quit magic.

I also disagree with the knights being honorable. To me they came across as nothing more than religious zealots willing to murder the innocent in the name of their God. Buffy was write when she asked what kind of God they worshiped. I had no use for them.

 

[EVIL UU]

[MENTION=12094]whitewolf[/MENTION]

Buffy did protect the trio because she didn't want to lose Willow, but your view that she just sees Willow as a soldier

It's not my view, I never said that.

It's pretty clear that Buffy is concerned about losing her best friend, not a solider.

You're making it sound like there's a difference between being Buffy's friend and being Buffy's soldier. There isn't one. All of her friends, sooner or later, fight for her and follow her lead. Even Anya.

She even says "I hate losing friends."

Yeah, well, and what is she supposed to say? "I hate loosing my minions?" That would work. Look, I'm not saying that Buffy doesn't view Willow as her friend, the problem is what she expects from her friends goes far beyond what most of us understand as friendship. Buffy wanted power ( notice what happened between Buffy and Willow the second someone more powerful and Bostonian showed up ) she wanted a big gun so Willow became one. Dark Willow is Buffy's creation.

She even tried to get Willow to give up magic, something that would greatly weaken her effectiveness to fight evil. If Buffy wanted a solider she would never have tried to get Willow to quit magic.

What's better, a less efficient but a still controllable, still genius or a completely out of control magical juggernaut? Buffy's smart.

I also disagree with the knights being honorable.

Allowing Buffy to call for a medic in such circumstances was extremely honorable.

willing to murder the innocent

Kinda like when Buffy killed Angel, don't you think? But that was OK, because it was Buffy and everything Buffy does is OK, right? The Knights want to do exactly the same thing Buffy did in season 2. Sacrifice an innocent to save the world.

what kind of God they worshiped

Considering their byzantine origins and the costumes of their clerics, I'd say they're Christians.

 

[Robb Stark]

Kinda like when Buffy killed Angel, don't you think? But that was OK, because it was Buffy and everything Buffy does is OK, right? The Knights want to do exactly the same thing Buffy did in season 2. Sacrifice an innocent to save the world.

You know, I never thought of this. We typically don't agree on much (which is pretty fun most of the time), but this is a really, really good point. I'm still not saying that the Knights of Byzantium were "good" people, they could have hid Dawn (which Buffy couldn't have done with Angel, as the end of the world was imminent), or killed Glory, which Buffy (or I guess Giles) did in the end. But in theory, Buffy did make a strikingly similar call with Angel, who was an innocent too.

I hadn't thought of that.

 

[WallflowerBitca]

I think Buffy's only 'human' kills stemmed from a need to save other (nicer) humans. She never killed an innocent, as Faith did. And Buffy felt guilty about it. As for the trio, I think she was trying to protect them to save Willow the pain of killing them. If Willow had killed them, then it would have hung over her head forever, and Buffy still loved her friend, even if she was evil, and she wanted to protect Willow from that if they ever did get her back.

 

[whitewolf]

[MENTION=11194]EVIL UU[/MENTION]

Kinda like when Buffy killed Angel, don't you think? But that was OK, because it was Buffy and everything Buffy does is OK, right? The Knights want to do exactly the same thing Buffy did in season 2. Sacrifice an innocent to save the world.

Angel and Dawn aren't completely fair comparisons. Angel still caused the world to be in danger as a direct result of his actions. Dawn was truly an innocent, while Angel is a debatable one. He may have regretted it and you could make a case that he wasn't responsible, but it isn't as clear cut as Dawn who was purely innocent.

As for the Knights being Christian, you are correct, but I'm going to drop that topic because it would open a huge can of worms that probably isn't appropriate here.

P.S. I hope I'm not coming across as rude or antagonistic here because I'm actually really enjoying this debate. We don't agree, but that's the fun.

 

[SlayerFest]

Kinda like when Buffy killed Angel, don't you think? But that was OK, because it was Buffy and everything Buffy does is OK, right? The Knights want to do exactly the same thing Buffy did in season 2. Sacrifice an innocent to save the world.

Sure, he didn't have a soul when he opened the portal but he got his soul back literally seconds before Buffy was about to kill Angelus, what the hell was she supposed to do? She had no other option. The Knights could have tried to work with Buffy to kill Glory but no. Those situations are pretty different in my opinion.

 

[white avenger]

[MENTION=11194]EVIL UU[/MENTION]



Angel and Dawn aren't completely fair comparisons. Angel still caused the world to be in danger as a direct result of his actions. Dawn was truly an innocent, while Angel is a debatable one. He may have regretted it and you could make a case that he wasn't responsible, but it isn't as clear cut as Dawn who was purely innocent.

.

Bad comparison there, since so many people (not me, but a whole bunch of others) see Angelus and Angel as two separate entities, so Angel may regret what Angelus did, because he's such a sweet, sensitive soul, but it really wasn't HIM who did all that stuff, it was evil ol' Angelus.

Lighten up, folks, that was a JOKE.

Seriously, Buffy wasn't all that opposed to taking human life when it became absolutely necessary, or at least when she interpreted the situation as such. It was a last resort, but still sometimes unavoidable. In fact, the biggest reaction that we ever saw from her concerning the death of a human was when Faith killed the Assistant Mayor, and I've always been more than a little bit suspicious that it was Faith's "I don't care" attitude than the actual action that upset her so. (On that subject, I think that if Faith had just gone to Giles and said, "Listen, G, I screwed up last night. I was in the process of dusting vamps, and all of a sudden I noticed that one of them didn't dust. Oops!" instead of trying to blame it on Buffy, he would have just said something like. as regrettable as it had been, the guy was obviously NOT just an innocent bystander but was, in fact, Mayor Wilkins' right hand man and therefore just as evil as any vampire or demon that she was ever likely to encounter. Don't make a habit out of things loke that, but don't beat yourself up about it either. And that would have been the end of the matter. Faith screwed herself by trying to screw Buffy)

Even if Buffy actually did feel adamant about the taking of human life being totally inexcusable, it was just her own personal belief, and certainly not Watcher policy or most likely even Slayer tradition. Humans can be just as evil and just as aligned with dark forces as any demon, and should be, therefore. fair game.

 

[whitewolf]

@ white avenger I know you were joking, but still I want to address your point. I have to say I'm not convinced about that argument about Angel and Angelus being completely different entities. Of course, I'll freely admit to anti-Angel bias. I've never liked the character except as a villain.

 

[BlessedLunatic]

I think the killing of humans is seen as a bit of a tricky thing to them - the "good" guys.

Giles says something along those lines once (not sure which episode or the exact quote)...that a demon is a creature of pure evil and must be stopped, but humans CHOOSE to do evil, and that's bit different and a bit tricky.

Buffy has taken human lives when necessary, and preserved lives as well. In each instance it's more about the circumstances surrounding the death. There have been accidental deaths, there have been deaths in battle (the Knights would fall under this, and, seeing as how THEY attacked Buffy and Co. and threatened the life of her sister, her throwing a few of them off the top of the RV would, I believe, classify as defense).

In most cases, Buffy does not take the offensive with humans. She defends her family and friends, and will fight humans who are hurting others. She doesn't go around slaying everyone who does evil. Even in the case of Ben, who she knew could potentially become Glory again, she doesn't act because it's not in her nature to kill someone who isn't fighting back. In most cases, Buffy only causes harm to humans while defending herself or others.

I believe her defense of Jonathan and Andrew had more to do with protecting Willow from brutally murdering those who couldn't fight back, because of how it would hurt Willow. But, also, Jonathan and Andrew, while not exactly innocent, were Warren's lackeys. Warren was, I'd argue, the worst of the three, and the only one who was out to do actual evil and not just cause some mischief. Warren killed his ex. Warren killed Tara and tried to kill Buffy. Not that that justifies his death, but it was easier for the audience (and probably Buffy et al) to accept Willow's murder of him, considering all he'd done and what a jerk he'd been in general. To see her do the same thing to Jonathan and Andrew would be a bit more...difficult (but maybe that's just me). They weren't innocent, but they hadn't murdered anyone (not yet, anyway), and had begged Buffy to help. Disgusted though she may be by them, she wasn't going to stand back and let her high-on-dark-magic friend flay them alive for something they hadn't actually had a part in while they were whimpering and cowering in the corner. She's not that callous with life, even pathetic life.

 

[Robb Stark]

@ white avenger I know you were joking, but still I want to address your point. I have to say I'm not convinced about that argument about Angel and Angelus being completely different entities. Of course, I'll freely admit to anti-Angel bias. I've never liked the character except as a villain.

Being honest here, I've never understood, at all, how people can relate Angel and Angelus as the same person/vampire. Beyond just not liking the character (like you said) or having some sort of shipping bias, I just don't understand the argument. It's pretty established that Angel and Spike are different people/vampires with their souls restored. As such, and for whatever it's worth Buffy has stated this numerous times in defense of both of them, you can't blame either of them for what they did without souls. I'm not saying that it isn't complicated, but it just doesn't make any sort of sense to me why people link Angel-Angelus and Spike-...um...ensouled Spike. Don't get it.

Back to the thread question though, I think that Buffy, at the end of the day, is human. She does what she has to do, not what she wants to do. And her views change. She sacrifices Angel to save the world, then later on won't do the same with Dawn. However, by S7 she says clearly to Giles that if the situation repeated itself, she was prepared to kill Dawn to save the planet. I don't think this is a scenario with her that comes with a set and defined ideology. Every situation is unique, and she goes by that. I mean, she would kill Faith to save Angel, but not Dawn to save the world. I know that's oversimplifying it, and that there were a load of other factors to consider, but my point was more to show that situations are never the same, and therefore her reactions aren't always the same.

 

[dexeded]

Being honest here, I've never understood, at all, how people can relate Angel and Angelus as the same person/vampire. Beyond just not liking the character (like you said) or having some sort of shipping bias, I just don't understand the argument. It's pretty established that Angel and Spike are different people/vampires with their souls restored. As such, and for whatever it's worth Buffy has stated this numerous times in defense of both of them, you can't blame either of them for what they did without souls. I'm not saying that it isn't complicated, but it just doesn't make any sort of sense to me why people link Angel-Angelus and Spike-...um...ensouled Spike. Don't get it.

We've talked about this in another thread, right? Since I'm going to get back to the original topic in this post, I'm just going to talk a bit of my view, which is that they are the same being. Simply put, Angel's and Spike's journeys for redemption would make zero sense if they were not accountable for their actions.

I also disagree with the knights being honorable. To me they came across as nothing more than religious zealots willing to murder the innocent in the name of their God. Buffy was write when she asked what kind of God they worshiped. I had no use for them.

They let Buffy bring Ben in to care for Giles. That's very honourable. Plus, 'murder to innocent in the name of their God' works if there's an almost absolute chance that said innocent will be instrumental to the end of the world.

Sure, he didn't have a soul when he opened the portal but he got his soul back literally seconds before Buffy was about to kill Angelus, what the hell was she supposed to do? She had no other option. The Knights could have tried to work with Buffy to kill Glory but no. Those situations are pretty different in my opinion.

The best way to stop Glory is to either kill Ben or Dawn. Anything else, like Buffy managed to pull off, would have an extremely high chance for failure, and failure in this case means the apocalypse. I mean, as weakened as she was, Glory was a god. They had no reason to think that they could possibly defeat her.

It's not about protecting the trio, it's about keeping her big gun.

Buffy doesn't mind killing humans, she's slaughtered a whole lot of them in season 5 and they weren't even evil. The Knights were actually quite honorable.

They were trying to kill her, so it was self-defense. She never directly sought out the knights to kill them, nor did she ever kill them without provocation. Not to mention, the monks made it Buffy's priority to protect Dawn.

She doesn't mind vengeance either, she gutted Faith after all.

Faith is a valid point, but I wouldn't put it under vengeance. Had Angel not needed Slayer's blood, she wouldn't have killed Faith simply for vengeance, so the aspect of saving Angel played a big role, not to mention Faith was already evil, and technically not entirely human.

What she does mind is Willow's rise to power because Dark Willow is independent. She could break away and leave her and Buffy can't allow that to happen. Willow's her best soldier, too valuable to loose. Watch their fight scene, listen to the dialogue.

I'm not coming back.

I'm doing fine on my own, thanks.

Come on! This is a huge deal for me! Six years as a side man. Now *I* get to be the Slayer.

That's a declaration of independence and Buffy's very much against it. The Trio, Tara, morality? It doesn't matter.

No. Willow being independent takes a backside to Willow being freakin' evil. Or at least crazed with power. Buffy is concerned with (a) her friend (so she to protect The Trio, preventing Willow from sliding down the slippery slope further) and (b) saving the world/innocents.

Buffy doesn't have an ideology. She does what she feels is right. That's one of my biggest problems with the character, she doesn't try to approach what it means to be the slayer in an intellectual way. She doesn't think and she doesn't analyze. It's weird considering how intelligent she is.

Aren't ideologies generally just what people think is right? Anyway, yeah, she doesn't approach being the Slayer very intellectually. Just want to address this because I'm wondering why you say she's very intelligent.

 

[SlayerFest]

Aren't ideologies generally just what people think is right? Anyway, yeah, she doesn't approach being the Slayer very intellectually. Just want to address this because I'm wondering why you say she's very intelligent.

Yeah, wasn't that a running gag on the show? Buffy was so clueless about the technical aspects of slaying...and she sucked when it came to pronouncing things correctly, I mean, "The Chaka Khan" anyone? Or "kissing toast" haha. I'm not saying that she was unintelligent, but *very* makes her sound like Willow or something.

 

[EVIL UU]

[MENTION=11975]Always Bangel[/MENTION]

they could have hid Dawn

They key had been hidden before and it didn't stop Glory.

or killed Glory

They don't have the means to do that, they're humans.

The Knights don't really have a choice. Like Buffy, they are protectors of the world and the stakes are simply too high to take a risk.

Buffy did make a strikingly similar call with Angel

There's one more similarity. Both The Key ( fake memories ) and Angelus ( soul spell ) were brainwashed.

[MENTION=12094]whitewolf[/MENTION]

Angel and Dawn aren't completely fair comparisons. Angel still caused the world to be in danger as a direct result of his actions. Dawn was truly an innocent, while Angel is a debatable one. He may have regretted it and you could make a case that he wasn't responsible, but it isn't as clear cut as Dawn who was purely innocent.

I think it's more important how Buffy sees their innocence, not their objective innocence ( as that's debatable and we don't know enough about The Key ) Buffy felt horrible after killing Angel, she felt like she's killed an innocent, she brings that in "Selfless" as an example of her ruthlessness. From her point of view, there's no difference between them.

P.S. I hope I'm not coming across as rude or antagonistic here because I'm actually really enjoying this debate. We don't agree, but that's the fun.

Chill. Also, if you want to be rude towards me, be rude, I don't mind, I'm pretty thick-skinned.

[MENTION=11500]drizzlydaze[/MENTION]

Just want to address this because I'm wondering why you say she's very intelligent.

Silly valley girl? It's just an act, a mask, it's Buffy's way of pretending coolness. Look past that. It's not even in her school test results or in her choice of friends or in her incredible memory ( I wonder where I've seen this before? Where else? The place I spend most of my waking hours memorizing stuff of the sides of mausoleums, big freaky cereal boxes of death. ) it's the little things, like when she figures out how to defeat Kindestod ( The fever. That's how you see the Kindestod. That's why Celia could see it. That's why Ryan still can. It's the only way. ) or when she dresses Willow in vampire's clothes to easily contain the situation and boost Will's confidence.

Buffy's smart, just not in an obvious way.

Aren't ideologies generally just what people think is right?

Not exactly. Buffy does what she feels is right. People who follow an ideology may do something they feel is not right, but they will do it anyway because the ideology they think is right deems that act as right.

The Knights follow an ideology ( and there's nothing inherently wrong with that, for instance, rule of law is also an ideology ) Buffy does not.

Faith is a valid point, but I wouldn't put it under vengeance. Had Angel not needed Slayer's blood, she wouldn't have killed Faith simply for vengeance, so the aspect of saving Angel played a big role, not to mention Faith was already evil, and technically not entirely human.

not to mention Faith was already evil, and technically not entirely human.

Faith not entirely human.

Faith not human.

Aha! *grins mischievously*

 

[dexeded]

Silly valley girl? It's just an act, a mask, it's Buffy's way of pretending coolness. Look past that. It's not even in her school test results or in her choice of friends or in her incredible memory ( I wonder where I've seen this before? Where else? The place I spend most of my waking hours memorizing stuff of the sides of mausoleums, big freaky cereal boxes of death. ) it's the little things, like when she figures out how to defeat Kindestod ( The fever. That's how you see the Kindestod. That's why Celia could see it. That's why Ryan still can. It's the only way. ) or when she dresses Willow in vampire's clothes to easily contain the situation and boost Will's confidence.

Buffy's smart, just not in an obvious way.

No, I didn't mean silly valley girl, just that--well, she's bright, but I wouldn't list intelligence as one of her fortes (that goes to physical strength etc.). Like all heroes, she has her epiphanies and shining moments, but her intelligence was never passed off as a significant strength.

Faith not human

Aha! *grins mischievously*

I said 'not entirely human', not 'not human'. (It goes back to the crux of our conflict in you thinking there's only human or not, and I thinking there's half half.) My point there was moot anyway, since Buffy clearly thought of Faith as human. I only added it because of your fixation with demon/human.

 

[whitewolf]

No, I didn't mean silly valley girl, just that--well, she's bright, but I wouldn't list intelligence as one of her fortes (that goes to physical strength etc.). Like all heroes, she has her epiphanies and shining moments, but her intelligence was never passed off as a significant strength.



I said 'not entirely human', not 'not human'. (It goes back to the crux of our conflict in you thinking there's only human or not, and I thinking there's half half.) My point there was moot anyway, since Buffy clearly thought of Faith as human. I only added it because of your fixation with demon/human.

Wait, isn't it pretty clearly established that there can be half human/half demons in the lore? I mean Doyle is a prime example it's stated several times that he's half human. Cordy is turned into half human/half demon by the Powers so her visions won't kill her.

 

[EVIL UU]

[MENTION=11500]drizzlydaze[/MENTION]

No, I didn't mean silly valley girl, just that--well, she's bright, but I wouldn't list intelligence as one of her fortes (that goes to physical strength etc.). Like all heroes, she has her epiphanies and shining moments, but her intelligence was never passed off as a significant strength.

Strength, toughness and whatnot, that's supernatural demonic crap. It's what she is but it's not hers. Strip it away and what is left is intelligence and a heart the size of a galaxy cluster. Those are the things that I believe define Buffy.

I only added it because of your fixation with demon/human.

So what you're saying, openly admit even, is that you trolled me? That's pretty cool and I'm flattered.
[MENTION=12094]whitewolf[/MENTION]

Wait, isn't it pretty clearly established that there can be half human/half demons in the lore? I mean Doyle is a prime example it's stated several times that he's half human. Cordy is turned into half human/half demon by the Powers so her visions won't kill her.

See, that's what we've been bickering about. I think that "human" and "demonic" are disjointed sets and one cannot be a half-human. Those with inherent demonic supernatural abilities are not human. Because if Doyle and Cordy are half-humans then so has to be Anyanka.

drizzlydaze doesn't share that opinion.

But let's not pollute another thread with our little dispute.