Soul restoring spell

[Blaze]

So once in a while I get thinking about what ifs in the series. I was reading the Jenny topic, and I'm curious, why did Willow never use the Gypsies soul restoring spell on other vampires? I'm guessing it would have been hard to do on a large scale, but why not at least restore Spike's soul when they decide not to slay him because of the chip. I get that it's easier to just kill the vamps, but when it comes to big players it could have been useful.

Am I missing something? Couldn't they have learnt to do it on other vamps? It seems curious that they never brought it up or even tried.

 

[Lyri]

There's been a lot of debate recently about the Restoration Spell and whether it was created to be used on Angelus and Angelus alone - meaning, it won't work on another vampire. I don't know if that's all that true, but it certainly lends weight to why it was never used on anyone else.

The other theory - the one I sort of lean towards - is the curse. It IS a curse with a pretty huge buyout clause. One moment of perfect happiness and the curse is removed and the vampire's back to doing what it does best. Angel proved that happiness can't be avoided forever and he slipped up and the curse was broken. Even with the knowledge of the perfect happiness clause, you can't expect someone to just hole themselves up somewhere, never facing the outside world so that he won't lose his soul. That no way to live - or unlive. Death is better than that.

So I always assumed that there wasn't a way to rework the spell to remove the curse clause and so they never tried. And even if they did find a way to remove the curse portion of the spell, it's still a very not-humane way of dealing with a vampire - forcing them to live their lives remembering what they did as a vampire, killing dozens, maybe hundreds of people. It's torture, Angel has said that before. I think most of them would prefer just to be staked and have it over with than live like that.

 

[Still a Scoobie]

That's kinda the point though, they'd be easier to stake if they had a soul, because they'd be less likely to fight back or at least less likely to use deadly force when fighting back, and some may even welcome the staking or do it for you if they had a soul. It's be a neat way of removing a more powerful vamp, although surely too much hassle for just your common or garden bloodsucker, the kind Buffy might kill three of in one patrol.

 

[white avenger]

In the first place, it would have almost certainly never have occurred to Willow to return Spike's soul, and it would have never occurred to him to ask her to. At that point, a soul wasn't anything that Spike wanted.

Secondly, it's possible that creating an original soul restoration spell might be much more difficult than simply restoring one that was already cast by someone else. At least, I've always assumed that that's what Willow actually did. If it were a new spell of her own creation, I would think that she would have left out the "moment of perfect happiness" clause.

As for restoring the souls to other various vampires, once more, it probably just never occurred to Willow to try it.

 

[Lyri]

That's kinda the point though, they'd be easier to stake if they had a soul, because they'd be less likely to fight back or at least less likely to use deadly force when fighting back, and some may even welcome the staking or do it for you if they had a soul. It's be a neat way of removing a more powerful vamp, although surely too much hassle for just your common or garden bloodsucker, the kind Buffy might kill three of in one patrol.

They'd be killing an innocent person if they did that, which I find a little unseemly. Returning someone's soul so that they remember every horrible, evil, murderous thing they did as a vampire only to kill them anyway?

Cruel and unusual punishment if you ask me.

 

[Still a Scoobie]

More like a mercy killing, to my mind. From what I recall, the soul of a person who has their body turned into a vampire does not go anywhere, it is lost, so returning it to the body and then destroying the body at least sets it on its way to where it should have ended up. This may be a wrong recollection; I'm quite tired and may be confusing Buffy mythology with other vampire stuff. Either way, if the vamp in question was a big enough threat to enough people/the world, you'd have to at least consider the possibility of giving them their soul back as a way of making them more killable.

 

[Blaze]

In the first place, it would have almost certainly never have occurred to Willow to return Spike's soul, and it would have never occurred to him to ask her to. At that point, a soul wasn't anything that Spike wanted.

I agree that Spike would not have wanted it at all, but that fact that it never even occurred to the gang is a bit odd. At the time, Spike was honestly the best guinea pig to do such a thing.

Secondly, it's possible that creating an original soul restoration spell might be much more difficult than simply restoring one that was already cast by someone else. At least, I've always assumed that that's what Willow actually did. If it were a new spell of her own creation, I would think that she would have left out the "moment of perfect happiness" clause.

This I agree with. I've sort of assumed that the restoration spell was easy since it was already casted. I can just imagine that later season's Willow wouldn't have much of an issue studying and reproducing the spell.

[MENTION=6332]Lyri[/MENTION], you have a good point, the fact that it IS a curse is a big downfall. But looking at Angel, he would still rather have the curse than have no curse, knowing the consequences of being un-souled. I completely agree that it shouldn't be performed on any vampire, way better off to just kill them. But when they choose to keep one alive, as they did with Spike, it still seems like a curse would be better than nothing, even if it means doing something unethical.

Thinking about it now, the backlash may be an issue. It took Spike a few months to adapt to the soul, it took Angel much longer than that. So were speaking of a huge adaptation period, which might not be the most brilliant idea.

---------- Post added at 08:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:02 PM ----------

More like a mercy killing, to my mind. From what I recall, the soul of a person who has their body turned into a vampire does not go anywhere, it is lost, so returning it to the body and then destroying the body at least sets it on its way to where it should have ended up. This may be a wrong recollection; I'm quite tired and may be confusing Buffy mythology with other vampire stuff. Either way, if the vamp in question was a big enough threat to enough people/the world, you'd have to at least consider the possibility of giving them their soul back as a way of making them more killable.

The issue with this is that such a big star vamp upon regaining a soul could become as useful as Angel and Spike in the fight against evil. Killing them after restoring their soul would not only be extremely cruel (since the person has the feelings of a human now), it might be detrimental to the world as a whole. If this was possible, I don't think they'd kill the vamp after restoration, just like they didn't kill Angel, Darla or Spike.

 

[Lyri]

More like a mercy killing, to my mind. From what I recall, the soul of a person who has their body turned into a vampire does not go anywhere, it is lost, so returning it to the body and then destroying the body at least sets it on its way to where it should have ended up. This may be a wrong recollection; I'm quite tired and may be confusing Buffy mythology with other vampire stuff. Either way, if the vamp in question was a big enough threat to enough people/the world, you'd have to at least consider the possibility of giving them their soul back as a way of making them more killable.

I don't recall anyone ever saying the soul was 'lost', permanently, when they become a vampire - I just took that to mean that the demon doesn't get to twist it into something evil. When Angel tells Buffy that 'the soul is gone', I just assumed that meant that it went where other souls of people who've died in this verse go. (No heaven or hell was ever explicitly mentioned, just 'heavenly dimensions', so this is up for debate.)

There was nothing ever said about a soul lying in limbo. The person, the human, is still dead. A vampire setting up shop in its corpse shouldn't affect the soul. A person has to be dead before a vampire can possess it, meaning the soul is already gone to wherever souls go.

But looking at Angel, he would still rather have the curse than have no curse, knowing the consequences of being un-souled. I completely agree that it shouldn't be performed on any vampire, way better off to just kill them. But when they choose to keep one alive, as they did with Spike, it still seems like a curse would be better than nothing, even if it means doing something unethical.

The problems I have with this issue are two-fold.

Yes, Angel might argue that people would rather have their soul - curse or not - than the idea of a vampire killing people wearing their face. But not everyone who is turned into a vampire is like William, or Drusilla, you know? They're not all nice when they're human. There are some bad people who get sired, like the Gorches - returning their soul won't always make much of a difference and then all that energy is wasted just to kill them anyway.

The other thing is - perfect happiness is different for everyone. Perfect happiness could be something as simple as looking at a rainbow or reading a good book, something innocent that we do every day. Angel - before he knew about the curse - didn't know what his one moment of perfect happiness was going to entail and the same can be said for anyone, even if they know about the curse. I think it would be considered too risky.

In order to be able to do this spell on someone who isn't Angel, I think they would have to find a way to remove the curse part of it.

 

[AnthonyCordova]

One thing I've never understood is how a curse (like Angel's) is fair punishment. Angel was a bit of a scoundrel before he became a vampire, but not evil. He gets turned into a vampire, and when this happens the human is replaced by an evil demon, someone completely different. The gypsie curse is punishment to the human Angel...but he was never the guy who killed anyone. The person the gypsies really wanted to punish (Angelus) isn't being punished. I know Angelus is kind of in there still, but he isn't the one feeling terrible guilt, and he isn't the one being kept from being happy. The curse punishes the wrong person.

Whether it was possible or not, I could never put a curse like that on most vampires for that reason. It's completely unfair. I would only support a method for turning a vampire into a human if it didn't come in a form like the gypsy curse.

 

[white avenger]

One thing I've never understood is how a curse (like Angel's) is fair punishment. Angel was a bit of a scoundrel before he became a vampire, but not evil. He gets turned into a vampire, and when this happens the human is replaced by an evil demon, someone completely different. The gypsie curse is punishment to the human Angel...but he was never the guy who killed anyone. The person the gypsies really wanted to punish (Angelus) isn't being punished. I know Angelus is kind of in there still, but he isn't the one feeling terrible guilt, and he isn't the one being kept from being happy. The curse punishes the wrong person.

Whether it was possible or not, I could never put a curse like that on most vampires for that reason. It's completely unfair. I would only support a method for turning a vampire into a human if it didn't come in a form like the gypsy curse.

The whole idea of imposing a soul on a vampire (Angelus) as punishment for his crimes never made any sense whatsoever to me if one accepts the concept that Angel, with a soul, is a totally different being than Angelus, without a soul. If Angelus did the crime, there's no reason whatsoever for Angel to feel any sort of guilt for what his evil counterpart did.

The only way that there could be a fair punishment in this case would be if Angel actually IS Angelus, and the soul is imposed upon him, with its accompanying sense of guilt for crimes that he actually committed. Punishing Angel for Angelus' crimes accomplishes nothing whatsoever, not revenge, and certainly not justice. It's pure cruelty, knowingly punishing an innocent man for crimes he never committed.

 

[Blaze]

You guys are right, it is not fair punishment, but at that time the Gypsies I'd imagine didn't really know what would happen after restoration. I'm not sure if the curse had been done before, but at the time no one could have known that Angelus and Angel were two different people.

Also, we acknowledged that they aren't the same, but it's very possible that the Gypsies didn't view it that way. In their culture, the spell most likely made sense. I actually think that the spell is pretty clever. We know that Angelus hates having a soul and shares his memories with Angel, so he is being punished. And at the same time, Angel has to make up for what Angelus did, him being punished is a bit of a side-effect. The spell is pretty cruel, but it is clever nonetheless.

[MENTION=6332]Lyri[/MENTION], I agree, the spell wouldn't work, or would be too dangerous without removing the curse part.

 

[Ethan Reigns]

I seem to recall in Ats when Angel's soul is restored, there is a vampire beside him whose soul is also restored, but we never get any further insight into him. Therefore, the restoration may have been used for Angelus originally, but it is not specific to him. It would have been interesting to see what happened to the other vampire who was restored by mistake. There was the same blazing light from the mouth and eyes in both of them that occurred when Spike's soul was returned. Interestingly enough, this light did not occur with the original curse or the restoration at the end of Season 2 of Buffy.

It could have been an interesting story - the vampire whose soul was restored by mistake becoming an AI employee or a W&H employee.

 

[Xin Rong]

I seem to recall in Ats when Angel's soul is restored, there is a vampire beside him whose soul is also restored, but we never get any further insight into him. Therefore, the restoration may have been used for Angelus originally, but it is not specific to him. It would have been interesting to see what happened to the other vampire who was restored by mistake. There was the same blazing light from the mouth and eyes in both of them that occurred when Spike's soul was returned. Interestingly enough, this light did not occur with the original curse or the restoration at the end of Season 2 of Buffy.

It could have been an interesting story - the vampire whose soul was restored by mistake becoming an AI employee or a W&H employee.

I don't remember this other vampire at all? Who was he/she?

 

[white avenger]

I seem to recall in Ats when Angel's soul is restored, there is a vampire beside him whose soul is also restored, but we never get any further insight into him. Therefore, the restoration may have been used for Angelus originally, but it is not specific to him. It would have been interesting to see what happened to the other vampire who was restored by mistake. There was the same blazing light from the mouth and eyes in both of them that occurred when Spike's soul was returned. Interestingly enough, this light did not occur with the original curse or the restoration at the end of Season 2 of Buffy.

It could have been an interesting story - the vampire whose soul was restored by mistake becoming an AI employee or a W&H employee.

That's one that I totally missed. There aws the restoration by Willow in Season 2, then the one in Season 4 of Angel's show, neither of which involved any other vampire. Did Angel lose his soul a third time that I've forgotten about? If so, when, how, and who restored it?

 

[Fuffy Baith]

The curse itself doesn't make sense. I suppose it punishes Angelus because when he comes back we find out that he hates all the good that angel does but can't do anything about it until the curse is lifted. I don't know if that's really punishment though, but it definitely is punishment for Angel. What I don't get is why there is an out clause. We're going to punish you with a soul but if you get to happy and content then it will unleash Angelus again, doesn't make sense. In doing so I would say the gypsies are responsible for everything Angelus does in season 2 BtVS and 4 AtS. They would rather have vengeance on Angel then have him be happy.
Also if Spike can get a soul without a curse then why can't Angel? Surely all powerful Willow of season 7 should be able to find a way to restore his soul in season 4 without a curse. I suppose Angel is all about redemption and would not allow it, but once he finds out Spike has a no-cursed soul I;m sure he thought about it. At the least he could be with Buffy physically.

 

[white avenger]

The curse itself doesn't make sense. I suppose it punishes Angelus because when he comes back we find out that he hates all the good that angel does but can't do anything about it until the curse is lifted. I don't know if that's really punishment though, but it definitely is punishment for Angel. What I don't get is why there is an out clause. We're going to punish you with a soul but if you get to happy and content then it will unleash Angelus again, doesn't make sense. In doing so I would say the gypsies are responsible for everything Angelus does in season 2 BtVS and 4 AtS. They would rather have vengeance on Angel then have him be happy.
Also if Spike can get a soul without a curse then why can't Angel? Surely all powerful Willow of season 7 should be able to find a way to restore his soul in season 4 without a curse. I suppose Angel is all about redemption and would not allow it, but once he finds out Spike has a no-cursed soul I;m sure he thought about it. At the least he could be with Buffy physically.

My guess would be that the clause in Angel's curse was put there by accident, the way that Willow sometimes messes up her spells. Most likely the spell was kind of slapped together in a hurry (I doubt that the Gypsy witch could have bought such a spell ready made at a magic shop somewhere. Most likely, nothing like that had ever been done before) The Gypsies probably figured that Angel would be so overcome with remorse for what he had done that he would somehow kill himself, so the spell didn't have to be in effect over a very long time, anyhow. Once it became obvious that Angel wasn't the suicidal type, they organized their own version of the Watchers just to keep track of him and make sure that he stayed unhappy and suffering all the time.

As for Spike's spell, the Cave Dweller demon was almost certainly a far more powerful practitioner of magic than any human, which might have made its spell stronger and more complete

 

[EVIL UU]

[MENTION=8404]Blaze[/MENTION]

why did Willow never use the Gypsies soul restoring spell on other vampires?

Because there was no other vampire Buffy was in love with. Willow cursed Angelus for Buffy, it's the only reason she did it.

Personally, I think it's just a waste of time. Why bother with a curse when you can just slay them? Undead bastards are not supposed walk this earth anyway.

 

[Ethan Reigns]

I checked out Orpheus again and found what I had forgotten about the re-ensoulment of Angelus. Angel and Angelus were both separate but in the same scene and they both got their souls reinstated at the same time with Willow's spell. Screen capture:

Xin Rong and White Avenger are correct in that there was only one vampire where Angel and Angelus became two separate people, so there was no other vampire.

 

[EVIL UU]

[MENTION=12171]Ethan Reigns[/MENTION]

Drama depends on things not working the way they are supposed to. Doing everything right = no drama.

I think that drama works best when it rises from a conflict of people who are right. I see no such conflict when it comes to slaying or cursing Angel/Angelus. Imagine a situation when Willow, even though she can, refuses to curse Angelus. Now that is a conflict. That is drama.