"Kick his ass:" Xander was right

[Parcae]

OK. So far I've seen three arguments against Xander:

1. Lying is not acceptable under any circumstances.

2. Xander was being manipulative. If he didn't want Buffy to hope Angelus would return, he could have kept silent.

3. Xander was motivated by jealousy.

...

1. The first objection is ... well, I don't want to be offensive, but I really don't think that anyone can support this idea if they've examined it even a little. We're talking about six billion people being banished to an eternity of pain and suffering, here. If you have never, ever told a lie with worse motives than preventing that - well, you're a better man than I am, Gunga Din. I'm curious: if you were told that you could tell a lie which might help the Allies to win World War Two, and that there was a chance, even a small one, that they would lose if you don't tell that lie - would you tell it?

A less extreme example: When Ford, Buffy's old flame from her previous high school, witnesses her slaying a vampire, she lies to him, claiming that the disturbance was caused by a cat. Do you like Buffy less as a character because of this?

2. This objection has more substance. It's true that Buffy might have fought just as well without the reassurance that her friends approved of her actions. But, from Xander's point of view, why take the risk? The worst-case scenario for the lie is that Buffy does exactly what she would do anyway. The worst-case scenario for failing to report anything from Willow is that Buffy fights with that little bit less enthusiasm that would make the difference. The moral cost of a white lie is so utterly trivial compared to what is at stake if Buffy loses - not just for the Scooby Gang but for everyone on earth - that Xander simply has no reason to pass up anything that might help.

(Side note: I think that Xander started to tell the truth, suddenly realized that Buffy had proven herself to be unreliable with regard to Angelus, and needed something to fill the gap. And "Willow hopes you liked the pancakes Joyce made for breakfast" wouldn't really work in context. But that's a matter of opinion.)

3. In the first place, Xander's motivation is irrelevant. The question is whether his actions constitute a crime from an objective moral standpoint; if they do, then a good motivation would help excuse them. But, as previously demonstrated, Xander's actions are not a crime and do not need to be justified.

In the second place, while we cannot prove Xander's motivation based on the evidence available, it is very hard to believe that jealousy was in any way important by that point. His mentor is being tortured. His best friend is on a hospital bed. He is talking about the monster who has repeatedly threatened to kill him and who has forced him and all his friends to live in mortal terror for months. Do you honestly believe that Xander is still thinking with his dick at that point?

And one final note. To argue that anything Xander could do with mere words undermines his moral superiority vis a vis Angelus - well, words fail me. If Xander had raped and murdered Willow after killing all of her family and friends, he would still only be repeating what Angelus did to Drusilla, who was one victim from a hundred-year reign of carnage.

 

[sosa lola]

However, I think you're reading good intent into an action that was inherently bad-intentioned. I doubt Xander was thinking that deeply about it. He just didn't want to see Buffy and Angel get back together. He wanted Angel to die. He was perfectly willing to sacrifice Buffy's happiness--or force her to sacrifice her own happiness--for his own ego. Not only did he lie, he lied about Willow, putting words in her mouth that never would have actually passed her lips.

Do you honestly believe that Xander only did it motivated by jealousy and hate for Buffy/Angel? You don't think that the horrible things Angelus had done to them had anything to do with his reasoning?

If Xander wanted Angel dead because of jealousy and so not to have Buffy/Angel anymore, he'd have wanted it before Angel became a serial killer. He'd have backed Kendra up when she had stated that Angel must be killed. Instead he defended Angel by saying, "Angel is our friend. Except I don't like him."

When Angel became Angelus, Xander had the decency not to say "I told you so." In Phases, when Buffy was about to be killed by a vampire sent from Angelus until she was saved by Xander, he had done the supportive-friend thing where he hugged her close and gently reminded her that Angel isn't the same guy she knew.

Angelus had killed innocents, terrorized Joyce, broke into Buffy's room and left a picture of her, almost killed Willow (Innocence) and Xander (Bewitched, Bothered and Bewildered) and Xander still kept his mouth shut about Buffy's inability to stake him.

But he lost his patience when Angelus finally succeeded on killing someone they knew: Jenny.

So no, jealousy and Bangel weren't really the reason he had lied. Sure, he resented that the gang will get Angel's soul back and all be forgotten, which is understandable.

I think when Xander went to tell Buffy about Willow's message, he had no intent of lying. It was when he saw the fire in Buffy's eyes fading and replaced with hope that he was reluctant on telling her the truth. Without her fighting spirits, Buffy will be killed and what are the chances that Willow, who just survived a major concussion, and was no witch by any means (she did no spell before this one) would succeed on bringing Angel back. Not to mention that Giles was still captured by Angelus. All good reasons to want him dead sooner than later.

I found this quote by Joss which was said after Becoming was aired:

joss says:

(Tue Oct 20 21:42:20 1998 205.188.193.153)

"The Xander betrayal issue. It hasn't come up with us, and here's why. Xander made a decision. Like a general going into battle, he had to keep Buffy's fighting spirit strong and he felt telling her the truth would blunt it. And Angel needed to be stopped. It was a tough decision, and an unpopular one, but I'm not sure it wasn't the right one. I'm on the fence, and that's what makes it FUN! So there."

 

[hazzard]

a lot of this has been said...but i'll go ahead and put in my two cents anyway.
i understand why xander said what he said. i understand his motives, including his jealousy. but that still gave him no right to warp the truth in the way that he did. buffy needed to go into the situation with angelus being completely informed of what was going on, and because of xander, she wasn't. whether or not that would have changed the outcome is doubtful, but i still believe that she should have known. it was not xander's call to make--it was not xander's lover who went evil and killed close friends. it's not xander who has to make the hard choices. it's buffy. buffy is the one that had to make the ultimate sacrifice and she deserved to know exactly the situation. xander's intentions were good but his motivations and his self-righteous attitude are troubling and uncalled for, on more than one occasion throughout the seven seasons.

 

[InsaneMystic]

1. Lying is not acceptable under any circumstances.
...
1. The first objection is ... well, I don't want to be offensive, but I really don't think that anyone can support this idea if they've examined it even a little. We're talking about six billion people being banished to an eternity of pain and suffering, here. If you have never, ever told a lie with worse motives than preventing that - well, you're a better man than I am, Gunga Din. I'm curious: if you were told that you could tell a lie which might help the Allies to win World War Two, and that there was a chance, even a small one, that they would lose if you don't tell that lie - would you tell it?

A less extreme example: When Ford, Buffy's old flame from her previous high school, witnesses her slaying a vampire, she lies to him, claiming that the disturbance was caused by a cat. Do you like Buffy less as a character because of this?

Regarding scenario one: no, I would not tell that lie. If the Allies were indeed be unable to win with me remaining honest, then fate obviously smiles on Hitler. (And I'm an avid fatalist.) Keeping my personal conscience clear matters more to me than world politics, anyway.

Regarding scenario two: It's a reason why I could never be either the Slayer or a Watcher (or, for that matter, member of the Initiative, etc.pp.). Dishonesty (in the form of secrecy) is part of the job, and I couldn't bear that.

Note that this does not mean that I had never lied in my life (and for less important reasons than Xander). It does mean, however, that I feel horrible about it and try not to do so again in the future.

2. Xander was being manipulative. If he didn't want Buffy to hope Angelus would return, he could have kept silent.
...
This objection has more substance. It's true that Buffy might have fought just as well without the reassurance that her friends approved of her actions. But, from Xander's point of view, why take the risk? The worst-case scenario for the lie is that Buffy does exactly what she would do anyway. The worst-case scenario for failing to report anything from Willow is that Buffy fights with that little bit less enthusiasm that would make the difference. The moral cost of a white lie is so utterly trivial compared to what is at stake if Buffy loses - not just for the Scooby Gang but for everyone on earth - that Xander simply has no reason to pass up anything that might help.

(Side note: I think that Xander started to tell the truth, suddenly realized that Buffy had proven herself to be unreliable with regard to Angelus, and needed something to fill the gap. And "Willow hopes you liked the pancakes Joyce made for breakfast" wouldn't really work in context. But that's a matter of opinion.)

For the sake of argument, let's assume something like a "white lie" even exists (I would usually argue otherwise, of course...)
Even then, Xander's lie does not register as "white", because it involves a third person, who would definitely strongly object if she knew what she is said to have said. Your justification leaves out the most important point - he betrays Willow with what he says.

To use an analogy admittedly as far fetched as your previous one: Let's say your lie that might stop Hitler from winning the war includes framing an innocent bystander for something that will get him sent to a death camp (and he's guaranteed to die there sooner than the Allies will arrive). Would you tell it? And, more importantly: would you consider it a "white lie"? (after all, you could save hundreds of thousands by offing one...)

"Why take the risk?" means that a definite (almost libelous) betrayal of Willow's trust weighs more lightly than a possible gain of Buffy's fighting morale. That's quite lightweight for the close friendship we are to assume between Xander and Willow!

3. Xander was motivated by jealousy.
...
3. In the first place, Xander's motivation is irrelevant. The question is whether his actions constitute a crime from an objective moral standpoint; if they do, then a good motivation would help excuse them. But, as previously demonstrated, Xander's actions are not a crime and do not need to be justified.

In the second place, while we cannot prove Xander's motivation based on the evidence available, it is very hard to believe that jealousy was in any way important by that point. His mentor is being tortured. His best friend is on a hospital bed. He is talking about the monster who has repeatedly threatened to kill him and who has forced him and all his friends to live in mortal terror for months. Do you honestly believe that Xander is still thinking with his dick at that point?

The motivation is certainly not irrelevant, as his behavior has not been objectively proven ethically sound (indeed, this can not be done, ever - due to the inherent subjectivity of any ethical system thought of by human beings. The only one who could do so would be God - and He/She/It/They ain't telling, so far. 😛 ).

And while I already said above that I don't consider it his main motivation here, I steadfastly hold that Xander's personal dislike for Angel (and that one is based firmly in jealousy, "thinking with his dick", as you put it) does still figure into the situation. Compare the situation to "Selfless". We have, in both cases, a formerly human, now demonic entity that has previously killed hundreds or thousands of people, and is now killing again. Does Xander cheer on Buffy to go and kill Anya? Hell no he doesn't, he whines and b*tches to stop her from doing so. The only real difference in the situations is Xander's feelings for the demon - jealous dislike on the one hand, love and guilt on the other. When it comes to Angel, you can never call Xander's behavior unbiased.

And one final note. To argue that anything Xander could do with mere words undermines his moral superiority vis a vis Angelus - well, words fail me. If Xander had raped and murdered Willow after killing all of her family and friends, he would still only be repeating what Angelus did to Drusilla, who was one victim from a hundred-year reign of carnage.

Please note that Xander's behavior was compared to Angel's, not to Angelus'. Of course unethicalwise Angelus "plays in such a different league that you can't call it the same game anymore". Angel, however, is often - rightfully - blamed that his main flaw of character is the habit of making life-altering decisions over the heads of others involved - and with "Kick his ass", Xander proves to be quite a capable player on the same field.

 

[palabravampiress]

Well... I'm on the Xander was right side of the fence. I'm not even sure Xander's reasoning was as well-thought-out or as complicated as some folks seem to consider it. Honestly, I think he was a boy who knew the world was at risk of going to Hell in a Handbasket at any moment and his reaction was the common reaction that one might have to an evil lunatic bent on literally destroying the planet he calls home: "kick his ass." Actually, with the fate of the world hanging in the balance, I think that was a rather mild reaction. Personally, I would have told her not to bother with kicking his ass or any other part of him and to go straight for one of the much more effective options of staking, beheading, or engulfing in flames. If time hadn't have been of the essence, I would have thrown in some suggestions for fun new torture methods, as well.

Xander lied about the origin of the message, but let's face it: Willow's message was crap. It wasn't helpful in the least and was potentially harmful to boot. The message that Xander delivered was his own opinion, and it was very much true. The world needed Buffy to kick Angelus' ass. Everyone on the face of the planet needed Buffy to dust Angelus so as to prevent the world from being sucked into Hell. That's no time for sympathies or vengeance. It's just time for Buffy to do her job, and that's slaying vampires. I'm not sorry that Xander cut through the emotional, morally gray crap and got right to the point. Buffy had to win. Nothing on Earth was more important. With such high stakes, I think Xander might be forgiven for attributing his own opinion to Willow. I was right there with Xander on that one. I wanted Buffy to kick Angelus' ass before he succeeded in destroying humanity.

Wow. This got me all fired up. I'm gonna go watch Becoming I & II now.

 

[caitaintdead]

As far as I'm concerned this argument goes back to exactly what I think about Xander. I don't like him because he does stupid, stupid things and he is a nasty thoughtless person that is permanently making mistakes. Majority of people like these traits about him because they think that it makes him 'real'. I don't like these things. So I'm not going to argue my point.

Although in my opinion this is not the worst thing Xander has done on the show by a long shot, but people saying that Xander thought about it and thought that it was the best option to tell Buffy so she would fight harder? Do people really think that Xander was that deep and smart in the earlier seasons? I can see that as time goes on he gets a more level head and has some moments of insight, but high school Xander having enough brain cells to think about someone else? Sif.

Once again though, I don't like Xander for the exact reasons that everyone likes Xander, so I won't go into this much more.

 

[Anya2012]

Angelus does deserves to suffer but not Angel. He cant be responsible for what Angelus does or did.

Xander knows this too, he knew very well its not Angel and just said it out of jealously and spite.

My hate for Xander is growing....

 

[BuffyElevated]

Angelus does deserves to suffer but not Angel. He cant be responsible for what Angelus does or did.

Xander knows this too, he knew very well its not Angel and just said it out of jealously and spite.

My hate for Xander is growing....

But everyone seems to be missing the point that at the moment Buffy was going in to fight, he was still ANGELUS, not Angel. Why shouldn't he hate this murderous fiend who killed someone they all cared about and did other horrible things directly to them (stalking Buffy and drawing those creepy pictures to freak her out, Willow's fish, torturing Giles...) and want Buffy to put a stake through his heart once and for all? Why is Xander so wrong to hate Angelus? Everyone seems to be thinking that Xander said what he did out of jealousy and feelings for Buffy but I honestly think it had VERY little to do with that. I think he saw what Angelus was capable of and was scared of what else he could do and just wanted him dead so it would all stop.

 

[InsaneMystic]

I have no problem at all with Xander wanting Angelus dead. Heck, it might even be a relief for Angel if Angelus gets dusted (Amends, anyone? everyone with that amount of depression/guilt complex is bound to have a death wish).

I will however always hold it against Xander pulling Willow into it, and "Selfless" proves IMO that Xander's dislike for Angel factors in, even if it surely isn't his main motivation here (yes, I realize I sound like a broken record now... but no one manage to refute my points yet, so there. 😛 ).

And to palabra's point of "Willow's message was crap"... perhaps it was, but even so, he had no right to change it, be it to save the world or for whatever other reason. And he did have other options... just stay silent, for goodness sake! Or if he started to talk and then changed his mind, what about: "Willow told me to tell you... ah nothing, can wait for later. Go kick his ass now!" (I can't see Buffy starting to press the point in that situation, given how much time is of the essence here.) I find it strange that you, who often (rightly) criticizes Angel for his attitude of "I know better what's good for you, so I decide in your name, end of discussion", give Xander a pass at that?

 

[sosa lola]

Do people really think that Xander was that deep and smart in the earlier seasons? .

Yes, I do. I get that you hate Xander and think he's this shallow kid who thinks only with his dick. But do you seriously think he's stupid? Joss has said that Willow is acadamically smart and Xander is clever. Example of Xander being insightful: Watch "When She Was Bad", the last scene when Willow, the smart girl, thought everything was fine because The Master was defeated. Xander insightfuly tells her that "No, we're not done yet." And he's right, because Buffy needs to smash his bones to feel safe.

So the argument about him not being deep and smart falls flat. Just because you don't get good grades in school doesn't mean you're stupid. Xander had proven at many points before Becoming that he can be smart and clever. His idea in Innocenece was what had saved them.

Yes, Xander lying had so many reasons: he wants Angelus dead, he doesn't trust that Willow could pull her first spell off especially with her state, and he doesn't want Buffy to stall.

If disliking Angel was the reason, then he would have cheered Kendra on when she wanted to kill him.

Compare the situation to "Selfless". We have, in both cases, a formerly human, now demonic entity that has previously killed hundreds or thousands of people, and is now killing again. Does Xander cheer on Buffy to go and kill Anya? Hell no he doesn't, he whines and b*tches to stop her from doing so.

I get Xander's argument in this scene, even though I'm siding with Buffy.

But the Anya thing is different from the Angelus one. They can reason with her just like they did with Willow. You can't reason with Angelus. And there was no apocalypse to avert, with Angelus it was either a life or death situation. With Anya, there was still time to get her to switch sides, and she had previously shown that she can change for the better: In Beneath Me, Xander had succeeded in having her reverse the spell.

Not to mention that Xander had changed and developed by that time, he's not the same kid who sees things in black and white anymore. And he had seen people he liked turn bad: Willow. Plus, he needed the situation with Anya to understand how Buffy felt with Angelus. It was the defining moment for his character. Notice how his attitude changes toward Spike after that.

 

[Parcae]

Regarding scenario one: no, I would not tell that lie. If the Allies were indeed be unable to win with me remaining honest, then fate obviously smiles on Hitler. (And I'm an avid fatalist.) Keeping my personal conscience clear matters more to me than world politics, anyway.

In that case the difference between us is a matter of first principles and cannot be resolved by debate. All I can say on this matter is that you are in a very small minority (which doesn't necessarily make you wrong, of course).

But it annoys me that Xander seems to take more flack for his choice than other characters do for their morally grey decisions. I have yet to see anyone say that they hate Giles for his decision to murder Ben, for example, yet surely murder ranks above misquoting a friend.

Xander's lie does not register as "white", because it involves a third person, who would definitely strongly object if she knew what she is said to have said. Your justification leaves out the most important point - he betrays Willow with what he says.

To use an analogy admittedly as far fetched as your previous one: Let's say your lie that might stop Hitler from winning the war includes framing an innocent bystander for something that will get him sent to a death camp (and he's guaranteed to die there sooner than the Allies will arrive). Would you tell it? And, more importantly: would you consider it a "white lie"? (after all, you could save hundreds of thousands by offing one...)

First, the analogy is far-fetched in the opposite direction from the one you seem to imply: Angelus wants to consign every human on earth to an eternity of torment, making Hitler, Stalin, Caligula and every other evil ruler in history cuddly bunnies compared to him. Second, Willow is in no way placed in personal danger by Xander's lie - in fact, hers would be one of the lives saved if it proved to be helpful. A better analogy would be "Would you be willing to tell your teachers that your mother gave you permission to stay home from school (when in fact she said the exact opposite) if you are using the time spent home from school on a project which has a small chance of helping defeat the Nazis?" Which, incidentally, is the kind of lie which every single member of the Scooby Gang uses on multiple occasions to prevent their parents from checking up on them.

But there is another, more important issue here, which is whether Xander has the right to twist hist best friend's remarks because he thinks that doing so might save the world. Here I can only revert to the argument proposed in my last post:

1. In sufficiently extreme cases, betraying the trust of a friend can be morally right.
2. Since the preservation of human life is the highest good, no more extreme case can exist than a matter in which all human life is at stake.
3. Therefore, in cases where all human life is at stake, betraying the trust of a friend can be morally right.

The motivation is certainly not irrelevant, as his behavior has not been objectively proven ethically sound (indeed, this can not be done, ever - due to the inherent subjectivity of any ethical system thought of by human beings. The only one who could do so would be God - and He/She/It/They ain't telling, so far. 😛 ).

Of course ethics cannot be proven, but they can be demonstrated from first principles in the same way as any other logical system. One of the problems here is that we are reasoning from different first principles.

And while I already said above that I don't consider it his main motivation here, I steadfastly hold that Xander's personal dislike for Angel (and that one is based firmly in jealousy, "thinking with his dick", as you put it) does still figure into the situation. Compare the situation to "Selfless". We have, in both cases, a formerly human, now demonic entity that has previously killed hundreds or thousands of people, and is now killing again. Does Xander cheer on Buffy to go and kill Anya? Hell no he doesn't, he whines and b*tches to stop her from doing so. The only real difference in the situations is Xander's feelings for the demon - jealous dislike on the one hand, love and guilt on the other. When it comes to Angel, you can never call Xander's behavior unbiased.

But we're talking about Angelus, not Angel. (On a side note, I view Xander's conduct in "Selfless" as completely morally bankrupt for the same reason that I view Buffy's conduct throughout Season 2 as completely morally bankrupt. The best that can be said for Xander is that he enjoys the irresponsibility of impotence - Buffy has to be held to higher standards because she is more powerful and therefore needs to be more responsible).

Please note that Xander's behavior was compared to Angel's, not to Angelus'. Of course unethicalwise Angelus "plays in such a different league that you can't call it the same game anymore". Angel, however, is often - rightfully - blamed that his main flaw of character is the habit of making life-altering decisions over the heads of others involved - and with "Kick his ass", Xander proves to be quite a capable player on the same field.

I have no objection to putting Xander on the same moral plane as Angel. Both are flawed characters trying to do the right thing in a world full of grey areas. The only question here is the extent to which Angel is responsible for Angelus (and for that matter, the extent to which Xander is responsible for hyena-Xander). That is a question too broad to be discussed here, and, indeed, it is probably not one which can ever be answered, since the show is not consistent about the moral results of soul-having.

As far as I'm concerned this argument goes back to exactly what I think about Xander. I don't like him because he does stupid, stupid things and he is a nasty thoughtless person that is permanently making mistakes. Majority of people like these traits about him because they think that it makes him 'real'. I don't like these things. So I'm not going to argue my point.

Well, I can't really refute that without specific examples. In any case, a refutation would be too broad for this thread. I will limit myself to remarking that I don't like Xander for his flaws; I like him for his consistent efforts to do the right thing without regard for his personal safety.

Although in my opinion this is not the worst thing Xander has done on the show by a long shot, but people saying that Xander thought about it and thought that it was the best option to tell Buffy so she would fight harder? Do people really think that Xander was that deep and smart in the earlier seasons? I can see that as time goes on he gets a more level head and has some moments of insight, but high school Xander having enough brain cells to think about someone else? Sif.

Oh, yes. I definitely think that 1. he had the brain cells and 2. he thought about other people (which are not the same thing).

First, I don't think that any elaborate process of reasoning was required to come to the conclusion that the entire human race was about to experience an infinity of torment and that any means were justified that might prevent this.

Second, in the earlier seasons, Xander thinks about other people all the time, to the point where I would view it as the main defining feature of the character. The very first choice Xander makes on the show is his decision to go after Jesse with no weapons and no idea of how to fight vampires. Meanwhile, Angel twiddles his thumbs and Willow goes to class like a good little girl. Re-watch "Harvest" and you'll see that Willow obviously disapproves of Xander's choice to try to help their friend, as you can tell by her tone when she corrects his Freudian slip - "You'll be in class" instead of "we'll be in class." At that point, Xander is actually the most selfless of the Scoobs, incapable of sitting back when a friend is in danger. I would argue that he becomes less mature in this regard in later seasons, not more so, but that's an argument for another thread.

Angelus does deserves to suffer but not Angel. He cant be responsible for what Angelus does or did.

Xander knows this too, he knew very well its not Angel and just said it out of jealously and spite.

My hate for Xander is growing....

But, as others have pointed out, we aren't discussing what Xander said about Angel. We're discussing his decision to misrepresent his friend's words in the hope of strengthening Buffy's resolve to kill Angelus.

And to palabra's point of "Willow's message was crap"... perhaps it was, but even so, he had no right to change it, be it to save the world or for whatever other reason.

Once again, if there was ever a case of "the end justifies the means," it's saving the world.

 

[AgentX7k]

He did the right thing for the wrong reasons

 

[InsaneMystic]

He did the right thing for the wrong reasons

LOL, I'd put it entirely the opposite way around! 😀

 

[Fake Shemp]

id say right thing for right reasons... he wanted the bad guy killed.... shocker!

 

[palabravampiress]

Umm, I'm a little late in replying here, but as for why I would give Xander a pass while I never give Angel one...

1. Good point. Why would I do that? Hypocrite, thy name is Palabra.

2. Because Xander's lie helped get the bad guy killed so as to save the world. I'm gonna take a stand and say that's good. Angel's lies and manipulations usually wipe folks' memories and get folks killed or sucked into Hell or some other such craziness. It's kind of a question of scale.

 

[AgentX7k]

id say right thing for right reasons... he wanted the bad guy killed.... shocker!

I agree he shouldn't have told her about the spell to keep her level headed, but it just seems like his main motivation was based on his past issues with Angel (him being a vampire, being jealous that he got Buffy)

 

[Kean]

I'm just going to jump in with my two cents here guys. The way I saw it Xander wanted Angel/Angelus dead. He viewed them with equal amounts of disdain regardless of how guilty one was over the other.

Do I think he told Buffy to kick his ass just so Buffy would fight harder? Absolutely not.

There is nothing in the episode to even suggest that. I'm sure Xander knew that it would cause Buffy to stall and hold Angelus off longer, that's without question but to not fight as hard as she normally would? That would have been suicidal, the only time we see her do that is in seaosn 5 when she gets staked in the gut by a vamp, Buffy still the fought the same way in season two except she was missing the killing blow, exactly what Xander wanted. Realistically if he had told her, all Buffy would have to have done was fight Angelus the same way she had all season. Also, the reason she ultimately beat Angelus back was her realisation that she had something to fight for; herself. If she had known about the spell she would have been fighting for Angel. I think that would have been incentive enough for her.

I really do not believe Buffy or Willow were even considerations of Xander's when he made the choice to not give the real message. He wanted Angel/Angelus dead, by any means necessary.

 

[sosa lola]

I really do not believe Buffy or Willow were even considerations of Xander's when he made the choice to not give the real message. He wanted Angel/Angelus dead, by any means necessary.

I agree about him wanting Angelus dead. I disagree that Buffy wasn't on his mind, when he found her, he started with the intention of telling her the truth: Willow said...

Buffy stopped him with a hopeful, "What?"

Looking into Buffy's hoping gaze, he changed his mind.

Why would he change his mind? Because like Joss had said, "Xander made a decision. Like a general going into battle, he had to keep Buffy's fighting spirit strong and he felt telling her the truth would blunt it. And Angel needed to be stopped. It was a tough decision, and an unpopular one, but I'm not sure it wasn't the right one."

 

[Skanky Vamp]

There is also hardly anyway you'd convince me it was premediatated or he hatched this idea on the way to her. The way the line was delivered you can almost see the spontanity of it.

I concur with that assessment; yet it was not his decision, as he was but a lackey and not the Slayer.

 

[Kean]

I agree about him wanting Angelus dead. I disagree that Buffy wasn't on his mind, when he found her, he started with the intention of telling her the truth: Willow said...

Buffy stopped him with a hopeful, "What?"

Looking into Buffy's hoping gaze, he changed his mind.

Why would he change his mind? Because like Joss had said, "Xander made a decision. Like a general going into battle, he had to keep Buffy's fighting spirit strong and he felt telling her the truth would blunt it. And Angel needed to be stopped. It was a tough decision, and an unpopular one, but I'm not sure it wasn't the right one."

The same results could have been achieved by telling the truth. I get why it happpened and Xander's reasoning but Buffy had resolved for this battle to be the end no matter what. Xander telling her 'to kick his ass' didn't change that. He made a decision he had no right to and essentially played a huge hand in destroying two lives.