More sorry for Lorne or Lindsey?

[JCC]

Was there any confirmation that it was indeed Angel that made Lorne kill Lindsey? Could it not be that Lorne did it on his own whim?

 

[SonOfBathory]

Well, to my mind there was, yes. If you remember, in Wolfram and Hart, when Eve asked where Lindsey was, Angel said he wasn't coming back. The others were not back at that time. The only way he could have known is because he knew what Lorne was going to do. Also the Lorne seemed very unhappy when he parted company with Angel after talking about "the plan". He said he would do this one last thing and then that was it, he would not join them in the alley afterward, and would go his own way. To me that was clearly Lorne being very unhappy with Angels plan to kill Lindsey.

 

[JCC]

Yeah. I guess I was just too taken aback by the imagery of Lorne shooting Lindsey to look into the events of the episode. I was just kind of like "Aw, isn't that cute they're fighting togeth- OH GOD!!!"

 

[SonOfBathory]

I know what you mean! It still sticks in my mind as the oddest part of the entire series.

 

[rickmaniac]

Having just watched this episode for the first time a few days ago, all my emotions are still fresh in my mind. I was completely and totally heartbroken and devastated for Lorne. Lindsey, I honestly could have cared less. IMHO he got what was coming to him. Yes, he had "converted" to the "right"side and all, but you have to look at his past. There was most definately a chance that Lindsey would have gone along with Angel, but who is to say that he wouldn't have done something to stab them in the back? That is pure Lindsey behavior. Lorne on the other hand, I honestly couldn't believe it! I had tears in my eyes watching that scene. Throughout the whole series Lorne was anti-violence. Although, he was more against violence at the beginning and you could see him slowly getting darker as the series progressed. However, I am not too sure I buy into the whole "it's all Angel's fault".... a person can make their own decisions right? I dont completely understand why Lorne went through with it.....
GAH! It just bothered me so much! I was yelling at the television.... He seemed so torn when he did it, like he was having an inner battle as to whether he should do it or not....

Sorry, Im starting to ramble here lol. I tend to ramble when something makes me bitter

 

[GATEGOD]

Haha but Lindsey's morals in the past, why he left Wolfram in heart in the first place and his final few eps, I can easily see him fighting with Angel and crew. But you are right he could have stabbed them in the back down the road. Still that doesn't give them the right to make Lorne kill the guy. They are supposed to fight after the person doeas something bad... not guess and hope it was the right decision. Lorne shoulda shot Angel for making him do it! :silly: Aww but then Angel would be dead 🙁 Lorne shouldn't have shot anyone then! haha I still feel bad more for Lindsey cause HE'S DEAD. But also for Lorne for having to do it.

 

[palabravampiress]

You ask a good question, rickmaniac. Why DID Lorne agree to it? He could have refused.

Lorne said it was because he heard Lindsey sing. Since Lorne is an empath demon, the thought here is that Lorne either knew that Lindsey was plotting against them or saw a future in which Lindsey did something so terrible that Lorne felt compelled to shoot him rather than to let that happen.

But here's what I don't get: didn't Lorne see L.A. being sucked into Hell? What could Lindsey have done in Lorne's vision to be worse than THAT? And why didn't Lorne tell Angel about hell?

What do you think Lorne saw when Lindsey sang?

 

[alexa]

Actually this is the main thing in Not Fade Away that I don't really understand. Why would Lorne agree to kill someone.. I guess we're meant to read into when he says 'I've heard you sing'.. so he knows Lindsay's path. And instead of what he usually does, of stepping aside, he helps out Angel.. decides he's gone too far and leaves. And Fred dying really effected him. Oh well Lorne's end in NFA just felt a bit unsatisfying, although that was the point of the episode.
Anyway as for the question I felt more sorry for Lorne, but also for Lindsay a little... always enjoyed Lindsay.

I wonder if Lorne realized what was going to happen to LA... wont say anymore about that in case I spoil peeps for After the Fall. 😉

 

[rickmaniac]

I think that when Lindsey sang, Lorne saw some doubt and not really confusion, but some kind of ambiguity as to Lindsey's true loyalty. Seeing that uncertainty could possibly have made Lorne slightly more willing to follow the path that Angel had (supposedly) set for him. Also, were there not references to how Lorne didn't trust Lindsey? Perhaps Lorne had seen this doubt and the possiblity that Lindsey could turn on them and Lorne thus didnt trust him, just waiting for that crucial moment where Lindsey might bail on them?
I honestly don't know lol. Forgive my feeble attempts at this sort of thing - I've never really had the chance to analyze a show like this. I love this stuff!

Edit:

the one and only alexa did - Isn't it beautiful?!

 

[Kana]

Yeah it's a difficult one but Lindsay is power player. He seemed to buy into Holland Manners Master/Slave morality and someone like Lindsay would be a threat in that situation. Well in any case Lorne doesn't trust Lindsay anymore than Angel does. However Lorne is still pissed with Angel but more importantly with himself. He feels the lines have been crossed by Angel and himself. Maybe Spike was right W&H changes you.

ANGEL
He brought Drogyn.

WESLEY
To the circle... so you could kill him to prove you'd gone over.

LORNE
Yeah. Say, any other tips on how to be a hero we could share with the boys and girls at home?

Also with what happened to Fred, it's all too much for Lorne. His own flirtation with moral ambiguity is too much. Maybe he agreed with the Lindsay plan because he thought despite the moral dilemma of killing a human, he may have a positive consequence.

 

[tearsong]

You know i thought about this a bit, came to the thread read and left and thought some more.... Lorne doesn't seem to be the follower type... he'll tell someone to step off if the action is questionable. I think with his reading, he KNEW that Lindsay was gonna mess things up for Angel and gang, or the world.
Lindsay has this terrible tendancy to feel temporarily bad about something Wolfram Hart are doing and then turn about and play bad when the options suit him....
And I personally think it was cheap of Lorne, who KNEW this needed to be done or he wouldn't have agreed, to make this his final scene with angel and the gang.... I get boundaries, but how many times have others sacrificed to do ultimate good? And Lorne gets his panties in a twist 'cause no one ese can be in 2 different places so he's NEEDED to handle this issue??
I ADORE Lorne, don't get me wrong, but he shoulda been there for the last battle... it seemed cheap and cowardly for him to bow out this late in the game... So while I feel a little bad for both of 'em, I'm also a little anger at them too.

 

[JCC]

Eh, I guess I sympathize for Lindsey more because he's dead just because Angel couldn't look away from his past, but looking at Angel's past is hardly sunshine and roses.

 

[rickmaniac]

And I personally think it was cheap of Lorne, who KNEW this needed to be done or he wouldn't have agreed, to make this his final scene with angel and the gang.... I get boundaries, but how many times have others sacrificed to do ultimate good? And Lorne gets his panties in a twist 'cause no one ese can be in 2 different places so he's NEEDED to handle this issue??
I ADORE Lorne, don't get me wrong, but he shoulda been there for the last battle... it seemed cheap and cowardly for him to bow out this late in the game... So while I feel a little bad for both of 'em, I'm also a little anger at them too.

I kinda agree, but - I dont recall seeing Lorne as particularily violent throughout the show. I mean, yes he's helped out and all that, slayed some things and all that jazz. But this was the first time (if Im not mistaken) that he was asked to do something like this to someone he knew. Albeit, he didnt trust Lindsey as far as he could throw him (and its not the hulk!Lorne doing the throwing lol) but this was a human being that he knew personally. It's a whole different ball game when youre asked to do that to someone you know. And to make matters worse, it seemed like Lorne knew that this had to be done. It went completely against who he was as a "person".

 

[tearsong]

I know he's not the most violent in the group.... however adults know that there's crap you end up doing because you HAVE to, not because you WANT to. I don't think Angel would have ignored the fact that this was against Lorne's normal thing, but it must have been THAT important for him to do so.

 

[Tranquillity]

i sympathise for Lorne more because he got so totally turned around by there tenancy at Wolfram and Hart and it was quite tragic. He was introduced to Angel as this peace-lovign demon who didn't like fighting and violence, who escaped his home dimension so he could sing and gradually he becomes this jaded, weary, accepting guy who kills because that's what he's asked to do. i do feel sorry for Lindsey too, i mean, he's the one who gets killed 'just in case' he does something sometime in the future and Angel decides he's not part of the solution. i love Angel but man, he can be dictatorial!

 

[palabravampiress]

i love Angel but man, he can be dictatorial!

That's what I keep saying!


I guess this brings up an interesting debate, then: what's more important; the crime, or the intent?

Let's assume that, because Lorne's a reader and he referenced his visions, Lindsey at least intended to do something dastardly enough to warrant the killing of an ensouled human. That's always been a non-no in the Buffyverse except in cases of apocalypse, so I think it's fair to assume that either Lindsey's continued life accidentally ensures apocalypse or he intends to do something that will ensure apocalypse. Is it consistent with the ethics of the Buffyverse to take action before that intent can take root and flourish, or do proper Buffyverse ethics dictate that the hero must wait until the eleventh hour? Basically, what I'm asking is a two-parter: First, do the lives of those who would potentially be lost if one person lived justify the preemptive murder of that person? Secondly, does intending to do something wrong warrant the same punishment as actually doing something wrong?

What do you guys think?

I, for one, don't question the fact that Angel really and truly thought he was saving lives - and that Lorne did, as well. But I'm bugged by "what if?" The team has used Lorne's insight to avoid disaster before. What if what Lorne saw could have been averted by some other means? By taking this action, Angel and Lorne sort of played God and vigilante all rolled into one. I think it was wrong. I think the ethically correct hero must always wait for the villain to actually do something wrong. Otherwise, the hero becomes just as bad as the villain.

 

[Kana]

Let's assume that, because Lorne's a reader and he referenced his visions, Lindsey at least intended to do something dastardly enough to warrant the killing of an ensouled human. That's always been a non-no in the Buffyverse except in cases of apocalypse,

You see I'm not one of those people who believe in 'Buffyverse' ethics. To me they can easily be identified by and/or associated with real world ethics (aside from the vampire thing...) however it is presented as "what would people do if this situation were real?" That's how I prefer to read it. So it becomes a "real world" hypothetical if you will. That is to say, would you kill someone, or if vampires existed would you etc....

so I think it's fair to assume that either Lindsey's continued life accidentally ensures apocalypse or he intends to do something that will ensure apocalypse. Is it consistent with the ethics of the Buffyverse to take action before that intent can take root and flourish, or do proper Buffyverse ethics dictate that the hero must wait until the eleventh hour?

Based on what I just said, I would read this simply as a hypothetical question...

Basically, what I'm asking is a two-parter: First, do the lives of those who would potentially be lost if one person lived justify the preemptive murder of that person? Secondly, does intending to do something wrong warrant the same punishment as actually doing something wrong

The interesting thing about this question is that it reminds me of both the "How should we judge vampires?" question and the "Minority Report" issue. It also questions what Lorne actually reads and free will itself.

I'll try and look at this one by one. I once wrote a little mini-essay on how one should judge vampires. If vampires have a psychological alteration so profound from human beings then we can probably say that we shouldn't judge them the same as humans. If we did then this makes Buffy's job morally complex. If we killing them because they are evil then, does that mean Buffy kills all beings she deems as evil or all killers. This is dealt with in Graduation. Now Buffy wouldn't kill most humans because as Giles said, humans are not inherently evil as vampires etc. But then this brings us to our next issue free will.

Buffy may justify her actions by saying vampire will kill people. They mostly do. But she kills a lot of them before they get to do so. Is this right? There are two issues to this. Killing a vampire as judgement becomes murky. Many vampires do not choose to become vampires but they take on characteristics of that species. However we know that killing them makes our world safer for us. (see The Wish). This does not necessarily equate to judging them, merely protecting our lives.

But if vampire pretty much are going to kill people, do they have free will? Well we all have some kind of psychological constraints. What about humans? How much free will do we have? Now Cassie Newton could tell the future. Does this mean the future is fixed? If you kill someone to prevent what they are definitely going to do, then they will not do it, so how can they be about to do something when they didn't end up doing it? If that were fixed then they wouldn't have been allowed to be killed because they would have to fulfill their destiny.

This makes Lindsay's deal difficult because if things are fixed, all that was going to happen is that he was going to die at the hands of Lorne. This also makes the whole deal of judging all of them difficult because no one has free will, we are all slaves to what we are going to do.

If we do have free will then Lindsay wasn't definitely going to do anything, because nothing is fixed. So what does Lorne read? If "nothing is written in stone" (Lorne's own words) then what future can Lorne possibly see. Well we know that Lorne can be described as an empath demon. So therefore what it's likely he reads, is people's intentions and inclination to do something. A sort of path but this path is changable, surely. Lindsay had bought into Holland Manners master/slave philosophy and if he sticks with it, he'll be that threat.

If Lorne can predict that Lindsay will do what he may do based upon his ability then it would save many lives. He can perhaps do it with the same certainty that Buffy can (and we've just justified her actions, just about) so maybe this may be the same thing: killing to save others but not judging that they have no right to life.

If we wait and let them do that thing or try to reason with them vainly (if we can see far enough to know that won't work, perhaps the same as believing a vampire cannot be reasoned with) then we would be responsible for letting the so called bad thing happen. It's a tight rope.

I, for one, don't question the fact that Angel really and truly thought he was saving lives - and that Lorne did, as well. But I'm bugged by "what if?" The team has used Lorne's insight to avoid disaster before. What if what Lorne saw could have been averted by some other means? By taking this action, Angel and Lorne sort of played God and vigilante all rolled into one.

Well having the gift that Lorne does and doing something based upon that knowledge in itself is playing beyond the scope of what is nomrally humanly possible. With technology and even medicine, we push these boundaries everyday. The unnatural becomes natural by it's very seeming mundaneness.

I think it was wrong. I think the ethically correct hero must always wait for the villain to actually do something wrong. Otherwise, the hero becomes just as bad as the villain.

We have the issue of cost and choice. If one has knowledge then we are responsible with what we do with it. If many are killed and we believe we could have done something to stop it becomes difficult, but if we take action without knowing something is an absolute certainty then again we have a moral problem.

If Angel is to believe in his mission then he has to be able to jusitify his actions as does Buffy. Any moral point can be argued, pulled apart and the mission statement has to be the core of what the hero is. If Angel really does believe in the 'end justifies the means' then was his power play speech a total fake out? Maybe it depends on whether a hero thinks the price for his mission statement is worth it. It remains to be seen whether Angel can justify the death of Drogyn and Lindsay.

 

[LadyLavinia]

I don't think that Angel had any real justification for ordering Lindsay's murder. I'm sorry, but since Lindsay had yet to become a real threat, it was nothing but cold blooded murder to me. And if I must be honest, I feel the same about those vampires that Buffy had killed - the ones who had yet to kill anyone. I don't see any justification in killing someone in cold blood, because they MIGHT be a future threat. Sometimes I feel that humans come up with many excuses to inflict their will upon others or indulge in their aggressiveness and blood lust.

 

[celestialarrow]

okay im not trying to attack anyone on this threat but you guys have to be naive if you think that angel didn't have the right to have lindsey killed just because he's a HUMAN. so what how many countless times has lindsey attempted to have angel and the fang gang killed. i mean the guy went away to find himself and as soon as he gets back not only do he manipulate certain events to have angel doubt himself but lindsey tries to kill angel lindsey would have turn on angel at anytime his whole purpose was to kill angel. sure he said he'd fight by angel's side but he would have turned in a heartbeat.

 

[Hello Cutie]

Lorne... for the reason's everyone else has said. 🙂

I feel for Lindsay too, because he was becoming an ally at that point, but more because the least he deserved was to be killed by Angel (as he pointed out), but for Angel to ask one of his closest friends to do something like that?? It's just not fair, and completely inconsiderate, given that Lorne doesnt like fighting and violence etc, let alone the empath in him being able to sense all the pain and hurt going through Lindsay, as well as whether or not he really was an ally, or if he was planning to turn on them (i.e. i think Lorne could tell Lindsay really was helping cuz he wanted to).