Jasmine's baddie ??

I fail to see why anyone who was willing to mess around with an already messed up minded kid's mind and suck an innocent's life force (Cordelia) to give oneself a life, get called Good in whatever terms!

Jasmine not only violated Cordy's mind and body (to enforce yourself inside another's body against their wish is *Rape*) she violated everyone's mind by making them into her "robots"!

I'd say that to do evil in order to do "good" is just not on, and is evil in my book.
 
Well, it seems to me, if Angel's beating the crap out of her and she has Fred running and hiding underground, forcing everyone to bend to HER will and eating people, that's bad....even if the brain washed people were happy while under her spell.
Glory had her lackey's too, I bet they liked her. Doesn't make her good.

Besides, how many subcategories do the Avatars on a message board need? There's already a zillion. Should we really have baddies and "not so baddies", "more bad than goodies", "50-50 baddies"? Wonder where the mayor fits in there or Faith...ACK, what about Harmony!?!?! No one would ever be able to find who they're looking for. Guess "baddies" will just have to cover it.
 
Jasmine was the turning point for Angel and co. (especially Angel himself.) She WAS a Power, she was the epitome of what the Powers were: higher beings who sat back on their lazy asses while their champions did all the hard work, and suffered, occasionally lifting a finger to nudge their champions in the right direction. Jasmine claimed she had come to put a stop to all that, but she was enslaving them and making them do her work for her just as the Powers have been. Therefore, sick of the Powers and their inability to act, Angel allies himself with Wolfram & Hart instead.

So, to answer your question: Evil. Apathy is a sin. (As is mass mind control and body and mind rape!)
 
I would say that Jasmine is a baddy hands down. I think the point is that sometimes the most evil ideas can be packaged in a way that makes them seem great (at first).
 
she in theroy was ment to be good, as she brought on world peace and that is why in the end angel was given wolfram and hart as he destoryed it
how ever agreeing with dlou444 about making fred hide, she was bad, you could also think of it as a end of seson boss which are always evil and they have to defeat...so in conclusion she should have been killed 😀
 
Blondie Bear said:
It wasn't just about people dying. It was about the loss of self-determination, self-control, and free will. In order to be a peaceful world, everyone had to stop being human. Kind of like Invasion of the Body Snatchers.
Click to expand...

QFT, you pretty much nailed it right on the head.
 
well

yes i think she is Evil and the right to be in the baddies , controlling everyone like a God, eating people for the greater good?? ( bit wesely eh??) plus look what she did to Cordy come on totally evil x
 
Not only is she evil, but also the crappest big bad theres been. id have prefered it if it was the beast as the big bad.
 
season 6

season 6 of buffy had no Big bad apart from themselves and Willow being a magic junkie and that was far better than season 4s jasmine x
 
I still really liked the concept of Jasmine. I find it hard to simply cast Jasmine as the bad guy. Ok so she killed people. As she pointed out many people would die as the result of Angel's decision. Angel admitted in The Thine Dead Line, he can live with people dying as long as their civil rights remain intact. Ok so she messed with free will and personal identity. Hello! Angel did that in Home anyway. He changed everyone's identity and messed with their free will by raping them of their memories. Why? Because he cared about Connor, the same way Jasmine said she cared about mankind. Jasmine was the lie but Angel also created a lie and violated the friends who trusted him in the worst way.

Now I understand Angel's actions but I can't then say that Jasmine was simply evil if she was essentially doing the same thing. I don't agree with either action but I can understand both of them. I think even Angel tried to connect with Jasmine in that way...

Angel: Ok, so maybe it's not the world you wanted but maybe you can still help to make it better (paraphrased, maybe).

Of course Jasmine was a little pissed when her world order was destroyed and doesn't believe that makind can save itself. She doesn't believe Angel is right in saying there is an absolute good. Perhaps she was somewhat of an emotivist and believes it's all about how one feels. If people are mostly happy then that's good. Like I said earlier, in terms of practicality there is always going to be a price.

I like Jasmine, to me she is interesting and ambiguous. Angel made a grand decision that affected free will but he did because he cared. This could apply to Jasmine but ultimately, I agree with Angel, not because he's simply right because he's the good guy. I admire him for places faith in mankind even when Jasmine was right that he couldn't prove objectively that mankind wouldn't rape, torture themselves to death or suffer in the cess pool that is the apocalypse largly because of our weakness, apathy nd greed. He was willing to give us a chance even though he didn't know if we could pull it off and make the world a better place.
 
I agree that i dont think she was the most evilist. She thought she was doing the right thing like, as Kana said, Angel. and Jonathan done it in Superstar. im trying to remember if anyone else messed with peoples free will! theres probably a couple more. Anya...
 
I think Willow messed with people's free will a lot with the memory spells and the like.
 
oh yeah, thats right, willow was such a bitch in s6, got too big for her boots.
 
I think that Jasmine was a great idea. She wasn't as "exciting" as other baddies but I think the concept of her was very humanistic because everyone always talks about peace on earth, which is what she was bringing, but I think that it shows that peace on earth comes with a price and that it's not all glitz and glamour. I also kinda got the sense of the "anti-christ" theory about her. Like, she was all beautiful and what she was offering was wonderful, but that there was an evil plan behind the wonder.
 
It's a difficult case... (and anyway, I've said more than once that I'm not big on the "good-evil"-dichotomy.)

I don't think what she did to come into this world (all the Beast stuff, but even more so manipulating Connor into killing the virgin) can be justified. However, from the moment she's born, I can't deny that I'm with her; she would have a willing slave in me, and I so understand everyones adoration for her even though her godly thrall didn't work over my TV set (I guess :biggrin🙂. I'd throw my "free will" (a concept I don't believe in IRL anyway) out of the window any time if I had the chance of trading it in for happiness, peace and unity with all humankind. Heck, even if I get eaten, I'd die happy. If I had the misfortune of getting infected with her blood, I'd BEG her, on my knees, in tears, to eat me to end my suffering (having lost my best chance for The Good Life, and doing the best I could still do to uphold the Greater Good). I guess that means I consider the concept of "direct theocracy"/"benign dictatorship" - which I regard as utterly unfeasible with a human dictator, as I share Jasmines pessimism about humanity - as superior to democracy (don't get me wrong: IRL, democracy, second best as it is, still wins out any old day against any feasible alternative).

Yes, it's Bodysnatchery. Yes, it creeps me out when she speaks to the mouth of her "Hive" (especially that burning guy in the carwreck or that sewer kid). But in all honesty, I'd pretty much do anything to belong to the Shiny Happy People.

So she's one of the ABSOLUTE BEST Big Bads for me (second only to Dark Willow - but I'm a Willoholic - and maybe Angelus)... as she's about the only one who's so totally morally ambiguous that she gets me deep into moral-philosophical debating and rooting for her against the heroes of the show. I can't call her evil if I want to pretend being one of the good guys.
 
L
Lindsey McDonald
I think you are spot on with this assesment. I totally agree.
palabravampiress
palabravampiress
Mucho agreement.
InsaneMystic said:
It's a difficult case... (and anyway, I've said more than once that I'm not big on the "good-evil"-dichotomy.)

I don't think what she did to come into this world (all the Beast stuff, but even more so manipulating Connor into killing the virgin) can be justified. However, from the moment she's born, I can't deny that I'm with her; she would have a willing slave in me, and I so understand everyones adoration for her even though her godly thrall didn't work over my TV set (I guess :biggrin🙂. I'd throw my "free will" (a concept I don't believe in IRL anyway) out of the window any time if I had the chance of trading it in for happiness, peace and unity with all humankind. Heck, even if I get eaten, I'd die happy. If I had the misfortune of getting infected with her blood, I'd BEG her, on my knees, in tears, to eat me to end my suffering (having lost my best chance for The Good Life, and doing the best I could still do to uphold the Greater Good). I guess that means I consider the concept of "direct theocracy"/"benign dictatorship" - which I regard as utterly unfeasible with a human dictator, as I share Jasmines pessimism about humanity - as superior to democracy (don't get me wrong: IRL, democracy, second best as it is, still wins out any old day against any feasible alternative).

Yes, it's Bodysnatchery. Yes, it creeps me out when she speaks to the mouth of her "Hive" (especially that burning guy in the carwreck or that sewer kid). But in all honesty, I'd pretty much do anything to belong to the Shiny Happy People.

So she's one of the ABSOLUTE BEST Big Bads for me (second only to Dark Willow - but I'm a Willoholic - and maybe Angelus)... as she's about the only one who's so totally morally ambiguous that she gets me deep into moral-philosophical debating and rooting for her against the heroes of the show. I can't call her evil if I want to pretend being one of the good guys.
Click to expand...

I totally agree with you. People get far too hung up on the concept of free will. The truth is if it was taken away, we wouldn't miss it. And I mean truly taken away, not suppressed. I think Jasmine could have created a Utopian society. So she might have killed thousands. She might have liked her temples. She might actually be all maggoty. She also might have made every single person in the world utterly and completely happy. In the Buffyverse order of things, everyone would have gone to a paradise after death, because their would be no sin (and if there was, it would be Jasmine who would be responsible, not them). The world would become completely equal, and evil would be eradicated.

People wouldn't have their own ideas and opinions, but so what? They would be completely and utterly happy and fulfilled. Think about it: if people lived already in Jasmine's society, and someone had been going about injecting them with her blood then they would have been seen as the series' big bad. What use is free will if it only brings pain?

Also, as IM said, this isn't some human or demon getting uppity with the magicks: Jasmine is a "Power that Was". She is a God in its purest form - not like Glory. She has the power to create an actual, uncorruptible utopia. I can't help but see this as a good thing. And the people who die to sustain her? They feel happy to do it. Their families feel happy to let them. Death is only a bad thing to those left behind, and if everybody was eternally happy, we would have a totally different concept of life and death.

I loved Jasmine as a parralel to Glory also. Joss realy played on our expectations, which had us assuming she was evil from the start. Essentially, Jasmine was the ultimate Big Bad, simply because she was the Big Good. The fact that this was playing against the rise of the First Evil in Sunnydale was sublime. You really need to think this through before you jump on the free will bandwagon - what exactly would you loose? Absolutely nothing you would miss, and a whole lot you could do without.
 
The thing about forcing utopia on us is: We weren't MEANT to live in utopia. We weren't MEANT to be at peace. If we were meant to be free of conflict or any negative emotions, we would've been wired to do so in the first place. We would've never been designed to be angry. We would've never been designed to be sad. We would've never been designed to be annoyed. If we were meant to be at peace, we wouldn't have these emotions in the first place. But we do, and there has to be a reason for this.

The thing is: what right does Jasmine have to force utopia on us? What right does she have to tell us that we're not living our lives the way we should? She was interfering with our nature. Is it ridiculous for me to be against the fact that I could be, say, saved from a serial killer or theif thanks to Jasmine? Perhaps. It's not my fault that someone wanted to kill me/steal from me, so why should I be against an act of God to help save my life? The thing is, I shouldn't have to justify myself to some self-proclaimed higher being. Neither does humanity.

Sure, you can say "But if you were under Jasmine's spell, none of the things you complained about would matter. Because under Jasmine's spell, you wouldn't care about those things anymore". You can also apply that same logic to murder. Why should we care if someone decided to murder every single being on the planet? Whatever we have against that, it's not like it's gonna matter once we're dead. Kinda hard to care when you're ability to have emotions are no longer existant, right? That's basically what Jasmine did to us. Jasmine murdered humanity, because inside, we were truly dead.

I'm not saying Jasmine counts as a villain, more like an anti-villain. She had good intentions, but essentially what she was doing was interfering with nature. If we truly want the world to become a better place, we have to improve ourselves. Our technology, our knowledge, our act, our education, you name it.
 
Five by Five said:
I totally agree with you. People get far too hung up on the concept of free will. The truth is if it was taken away, we wouldn't miss it. And I mean truly taken away, not suppressed. I think Jasmine could have created a Utopian society. So she might have killed thousands. She might have liked her temples. She might actually be all maggoty. She also might have made every single person in the world utterly and completely happy. In the Buffyverse order of things, everyone would have gone to a paradise after death, because their would be no sin (and if there was, it would be Jasmine who would be responsible, not them). The world would become completely equal, and evil would be eradicated.

People wouldn't have their own ideas and opinions, but so what? They would be completely and utterly happy and fulfilled. Think about it: if people lived already in Jasmine's society, and someone had been going about injecting them with her blood then they would have been seen as the series' big bad. What use is free will if it only brings pain?

Also, as IM said, this isn't some human or demon getting uppity with the magicks: Jasmine is a "Power that Was". She is a God in its purest form - not like Glory. She has the power to create an actual, uncorruptible utopia. I can't help but see this as a good thing. And the people who die to sustain her? They feel happy to do it. Their families feel happy to let them. Death is only a bad thing to those left behind, and if everybody was eternally happy, we would have a totally different concept of life and death.

I loved Jasmine as a parralel to Glory also. Joss realy played on our expectations, which had us assuming she was evil from the start. Essentially, Jasmine was the ultimate Big Bad, simply because she was the Big Good. The fact that this was playing against the rise of the First Evil in Sunnydale was sublime. You really need to think this through before you jump on the free will bandwagon - what exactly would you loose? Absolutely nothing you would miss, and a whole lot you could do without.
Click to expand...


People get far too hung up on the concept of free will
Click to expand...

With the freest of will that I possess I wholeheartedly disagree with you. Free will makes you who you are. Every choice you make determines who you were and who you will be. You take that away and you are a puppet. Happiness would cease to exist if our right to choose was taken from us. We only recognise joy becuase we have sorrow to compare it to. If you take away that bad then you also take the good. Free will is ESSENTIAL to who we are as people. There is a reason people have fought so doggedly for it since the dawn of time. Free will is like oxygen. We need it to survive.


There were 5 times in your post where you expressed how you felt or thought. Without free will you would not have been able to do that.
 
Ooh, post dissection time. Love it. :biggrin:

Keanoite said:
With the freest of will that I possess I wholeheartedly disagree with you.
Click to expand...
No need to give you bad karma for it, but I'm destined to (read: have my most unfree will bent to the inevitable conclusion of) wholehearted disagreement with your opinion. 🙂

Keanoite said:
Free will makes you who you are. Every choice you make determines who you were and who you will be. You take that away and you are a puppet.
Click to expand...
It's fully the other way around - who you are determines the choices you make.

I'm convinced to be a puppet, not only of God in the metaphysical sense, but also of my genes and the results of my socio-psychological upbringing. If you were able to know all the variables, I am convinced that you could always, with 100% accuracy, foretell how any one given human being would act in any given situation. There's nothing "free" about that, it's pretty much just a complex mathematical formula arriving at one and only one result.

In order for your will to be "free", there should, for a starting example, be nothing inherently objectionable for you to toss a coin upon returning home, with heads meaning you kiss your spouse, tail you stab them to death. If you belong to the est. 99.99% of people who find that difference to be meaningful, that means you have your decision process tilted to a preference already, so your will to decide is not free.

If free will made you who you are, there would be no possibility, ever, of describing "who you are". You would have no noticable traits of character, no social role with expectations to fulfill, no stable history of behavior in relation to people in your life. Interaction with you would equal playing a game of (multi-sided) dice. You would be unbelievably screwed up, and in all likelihood end up locked away, very securely, in a mental ward for the rest of your life, as you'd be an inconceivable danger to both yourself and anyone you get in contact with.

Keanoite said:
Happiness would cease to exist if our right to choose was taken from us. We only recognise joy becuase we have sorrow to compare it to. If you take away that bad then you also take the good.
Click to expand...
Happiness is not a result of free will. Happiness is a result of happiness-inducing circumstances. Insert a chip into someone's brain to make it churn out endorphines and serotonin, and you've got happiness at the touch of a button, who- or whatever the buttontoucher may be.

Keanoite said:
Free will is ESSENTIAL to who we are as people. There is a reason people have fought so doggedly for it since the dawn of time. Free will is like oxygen. We need it to survive.
Click to expand...
What people have fought doggedly for is not free will. It's freedom from oppression by people who force you to bend your actions to their will. (The difference to Jasmine being here, Jasmine doesn't bend your actions to her will, she decides what your will is. She's, so to say, the "super-determiner", overruling the determiners you already have - genes, character, societal role etc.). If free will were reached (thankfully, there's no way that could ever happen), society would utterly collapse, as every decision would be randomized, making anarchic chaos ensue the likes of which noone can imagine.

Keanoite said:
There were 5 times in your post where you expressed how you felt or thought. Without free will you would not have been able to do that.
Click to expand...
Even without going deep into the solipsism debate (whether or not the source of my feelings/thoughts/convictions is "me" or someone/something else, and how the hell anyone could ever know the answer to that), I see no connection between the act of expressing thoughts and opinions and the question whether or not you "freely" arrived at them. If you brainwash someone into believing propaganda, they can most definitely express "The Truth" you made them believe, even though there's nothing "free" at all about their arriving at those points of view.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom