How much of the Vampire comes from the human?

[white avenger]

Oh yeah I agree with that in regards to their all consuming guilt, the living on the streets and basements guilt. But when I'm saying Spike still doesn't show enough guilt I'm talking about after that, the day to day. Angel feels the need to do good for the sake of good, to right his past wrongs, Spike doesn't really give a toss and is still focused on the same thing he wanted without a soul, getting his prize is still his redemption (to him) not doing good.

So, Spike has to be a smaller version of Angel in order to be convincing or sincere? This is something that we're gonna just have to agree to disagree on, because it would be more unbelievable to me if he DID react in the same way that Angel did. And as to what the hypothetical "goal" for either character is, all that I can say is that different people react differently and have different priorities. If Angel feels that he can somehow atone for all of the pain and death that he caused over the course of his evil career, that's fine, and I say, "Go for it." He's immortal, after all. Maybe he can exist long enough to get the job done. But doing good in order to make up for his past wrong doings isn't really doing good for the sake of good. It's doing good for the sake of atonement. His goal might seem a little more noble, but it's still him doing what he does for the sake of a what he wants.

Spike got his soul in order to be the kind of man that Buffy could love. That's not as lofty a reason as Angel might have, but does it really have to be? There's a line from an old western movie that goes something like, "I'm not like you. You dream of running the whole Montana Territory. Me, I dream small. Just a simple little cattle spread in Texas, with the right woman to love, that suits me just fine." (That's from "The Tall Men," starring Clark Gable, Robert Ryan, and Jane Russell. If you like westerns in the old tradition, I highly recommend it) Spike's dreams are smaller than Angels, his goals, if you care to define them as such, are smaller and more personal, but they are still his dreams, and he has remained true to them. No, he doesn't aspire to be some kind of superhero, the way that Angel apparently does. He's perfectly happy being the Robin to Buffy's Batman. What's wrong with just wanting to be a sidekick?

 

[Black Eye Guy]

So, Spike has to be a smaller version of Angel in order to be convincing or sincere? This is something that we're gonna just have to agree to disagree on, because it would be more unbelievable to me if he DID react in the same way that Angel did. And as to what the hypothetical "goal" for either character is, all that I can say is that different people react differently and have different priorities. If Angel feels that he can somehow atone for all of the pain and death that he caused over the course of his evil career, that's fine, and I say, "Go for it." He's immortal, after all. Maybe he can exist long enough to get the job done. But doing good in order to make up for his past wrong doings isn't really doing good for the sake of good. It's doing good for the sake of atonement. His goal might seem a little more noble, but it's still him doing what he does for the sake of a what he wants.

Spike got his soul in order to be the kind of man that Buffy could love. That's not as lofty a reason as Angel might have, but does it really have to be? There's a line from an old western movie that goes something like, "I'm not like you. You dream of running the whole Montana Territory. Me, I dream small. Just a simple little cattle spread in Texas, with the right woman to love, that suits me just fine." (That's from "The Tall Men," starring Clark Gable, Robert Ryan, and Jane Russell. If you like westerns in the old tradition, I highly recommend it) Spike's dreams are smaller than Angels, his goals, if you care to define them as such, are smaller and more personal, but they are still his dreams, and he has remained true to them. No, he doesn't aspire to be some kind of superhero, the way that Angel apparently does. He's perfectly happy being the Robin to Buffy's Batman. What's wrong with just wanting to be a sidekick?

Yeah we do just have to agree to disagree. For me, any normal person who has killed for hundreds of years and thinks it's good enough to get a soul and call it even, is odd.

The only other example is Anya, and we dont know were she stands on having a soul or not. The series implies she did have a soul, cuz she's the same person after being made mortal, so there's a change she did all her evil while having a soul and she's just a bitca, she also feels remorse as a demon, so either she's similar to Spike in that having a soul or no soul doesn't really change her, or she had a soul the whole time - but Anya is odd,whereas Spike gets this blank slate even though it's the same slate he used as Spike.

What about demons and souls, do some demons like Clem have a soul, or just a conscience?

(Dont want this turning into Spike vs Angel, but Angel didn't have a goal, he was told of a possible goal at the end of season 1, but started out on his mission with no goal in mind.)

 

[white avenger]

What about demons and souls, do some demons like Clem have a soul, or just a conscience?

I would say that demons, at least the sentient ones as opposed to the supernatural mindless killing machined like dragons, fire worms, and such, do have a soul, just not necessarily the same set of moral guidelines that humans do.

 

[AndrewCrossett]

The only other example is Anya, and we dont know were she stands on having a soul or not. The series implies she did have a soul, cuz she's the same person after being made mortal, so there's a change she did all her evil while having a soul and she's just a bitca, she also feels remorse as a demon, so either she's similar to Spike in that having a soul or no soul doesn't really change her, or she had a soul the whole time - but Anya is odd,whereas Spike gets this blank slate even though it's the same slate he used as Spike.

Pretty sure Anya had a soul all along... D'Hoffryn told her the price of "breaking her contract" was the life and soul of a vengeance demon, and then he took Halfrek's. So, I assume vengeance demons just keep their human souls when they change.

As for whether other types of demons have souls... my theory is that they don't, and they don't need them. Souls are a specifically human thing, which enable us to connect spiritually to other people and thus experience empathy and the capacity for non-selfish good. Demons, on the other hand, have other ways of accomplishing that (or not).

 

[Kana]

As I said in my post, different individuals will deal with different situations in a variety of ways. I don't think Angel or Spike have 'got it down' so to speak, but both handle their guilt in different ways.

I do think Spike feels guilt for what he has done with soul, but he tends to rationalize it. For example, he said that killing Nikki was part of a game, however he gave Wood 'a pass' on account of what he did to his mother. By saying that, he's acknowledging that although he saw it as a game as a soulless vampire, he no longer sees it as a game as a soulled vampire.

Another way was of course blaming Angel 😉.

However in episodes such as 'Damage' we clearly see he does feel guilty for what he has done, he just doesn't express or show it as much as Angel. There are different ways of demonstrating guilt.

However, who cares? Why focus so much on Spike getting a soul or on Angel feeling more guilty? Isn't it enough that both vampires are fighting to save humanity? In my experience, for some fans, it isn't.

 

[Buffyverse Fan]

The Judge claimed there was no humanity in Angelus.

Spike seemed to almost entirely retain William's personality with a confidence boost.