Is there passive evil in buffyland?

[goldenboy]

I don't want to seem like I'm trying to pick apart and destroy the buffyverse with all my questions here. I critique and analyze because I love! Maybe you're getting sick of all this, more moral questions. The Lilah thread got me thinking.

Lilah didn't "pull the trigger" so to speak. Did she murder anyone besides her fellow bastard lawyers at WR&H? Can't recall. Oh yeah, that Billy guy. You might call that a vigilante execution, revenge. At any rate, she's an employee of WR&H. A passive, indirect accomplice in evil is still guilty of something, right? Or not?

Jonathan felt guilty of murder though he was just a passive accomplice, a member of the nerd triad.

Another thing. Faith killed the Mayor's flunky, believing him to be a vamp. You might say she was guilty of involuntary manslaughter, she didn't know he was a human. Or would it just be considered a tragic accident, as she tried to argue? Later, she actually off'ed that professor for the Mayor. That's true, premeditated murder.

Xander brought that musical demon (what's his name again?) to Sunnydale. That demon killed people in Sunnydale. Is Xander an indirect, passive accomplice to murder? Or is he somehow guilty of involuntary manslaughter? Extreme negligence like a drunk driver? Just a tragic accident?

I realize these are utterly earthly, human considerations...

 

[eponinethen]

We discussed this a little in a season 7 thread, hm.. There was someone who suggested that Willow, Tara, Anya and Xander were all responsible for everything that happened because of The First since they were the ones bringing Buffy back, giving The First the oportunity to do all the things it did.

I think that yeah sure, you're always somewhat responsible if you do things without really considering what could happen because of the things you do. But seriously, I wouldn't blame whoever did the first thing, if they didn't know what would happen.. And I wouldn't say Xander is guilty for the people that died in OMWF, that will always be Sweet even though Xander was responsible for bringing Sweet to Sunnydale and so on..

 

[Xin Rong]

Ok but what about Gunn in angel, he signed that customs form thing and his excuse was that he knew something bad would happen to someone but he just didn't think it would be one of them

With willow, tara anya and xander in the long rn it probably lead to more lifes being saved as otherwise there wouldn't be like hundred if not thousands around saving people

 

[pyromaniac]

looking at it in the large scale sure you could say that the scoobies were indirectly responsible for the First etc. But every choice made along the lines has consiquences, most we can't control. I mean if you let an old lady on a full bus to wait for the next one, and that bus later crashed and that lady died. Would that be classed as murder/manslaughter?

 

[goldenboy]

I wonder, assuming the courts aknowledged the existence of demon dimensions of course, I wonder if Xander couldn't be charged with something like "extreme negligence resulting in bodily injury or death". He's a Scoobie, he's well aware of the potentially extreme danger posed by demons, even seemingly innocuous ones. I'm half joking here, but it seems to me he maybe deserved a little more than just an irritated scolding from Anya.

 

[eponinethen]

I agree that Xander's mistake was actually a big one. If you think about it. The show doesn't really focus on that at all since it's not what matters in that episode but he definitely should've known better, and people died because he wanted some fun and didn't consider the fact that there could be consequenses (as there almost always are)..

 

[goldenboy]

Who would you say were the most moral characters in the Buffyverse? I'd say Tara, for one. One of the least morally confused. Acted as a surrogate conscience for Willow at times. And interestingly, Cordelia. She always struck me as the moral center of Team Angel.

 

[Jacklyn]

I fully agree with this. Tara always seemed to understand the best way to go about things-or rather the way that would hurt others the least. She has a great moral compass. And Cordelia as well-Cordy's motto seemed to be, if it's evil stay the hell away from it-and really REALLY don't strike a deal with it! Which is one of the things I loved about the chick!

 

[eponinethen]

I definitely agree about Cordelia.. But I think they're all pretty moral in one way or another, depends on how you look at it.. And I would answer differently every day since I'd look at it from a different view and so on.. hmm..

 

[goldenboy]

You could also say that Tara and Cordelia were two of the most passive characters too, at least early on. They didn't neccessarily have to make the hands-on moral decisions like Buffy and Angel. Like, should I throw this guy off a cliff, slit this guy's throat, dust this ambiguously evil vamp. They acted like clerics, the King's advisors.

 

[eponinethen]

Yeah that's why I didn't really think Tara was That moral that way. Cordelia was though, later on Angel. She did get to make decisions. But then again, somehow I feel that making the decisions is the moral thing, just being able to make them.. Not necessarily making the "right" ones morally. Because it depends on how your morality works and who you're supposed to be loyal to and so on...