Was Angel A Good Man?

[Robb Stark]

This pretty much sums up why I don't think he is good at all. He's a crappy human and then a crappy ensoulled vamp: a statutory rapist with a rather flexible concept of morality. His work to help the helpless is to work towards redemption, to clear his conscience, because guilt's a bitca: no more, no less in my view. He's excessively condescending, and makes decisions for others without their knowlege, consent or input more than once (to Buffy and Connor). His continued arrogance that he knows better than everyone one else bugs me to no end, but that is more of a personality fault than a respresentation of goodness (or lack thereof).

Sorry, but I couldn't disagree with this more (I hate hitting the "disagree" button though). I know some people get touchy about Buffy being 16 when she starts dating Angel, but by the time they sleep together she's 17, legal in almost every country in the world (including Canada) and clearly, clearly not of an age where Angel is taking advantage of her. To call him a rapist is just absurd. It's clear that he loves her and she loves him.

I'm not sure why working towards redemption, even when he freely admits that it doesn't matter if he ever attains it, is seen as a bad thing. I've gone over this in above posts, but I really do not understand the perception that saving lives and fighting the good fight (which he shouldn't even have to do, but does anyways) is somehow a bad thing. The only logical explanation I can figure is that it's simply a case of not liking the character and looking for flaws where few exist.

Does Angel act unilaterally from time to time? Of course he does, just like Buffy and almost every other main character in television history. He's not condescending at all. The fact is, he does know better than Conner, his son who grew up in a hell dimension with a crazed, vengeance driven murderer and who happens to be 17 years old. Connor makes unbelievably horrible decisions that quite literally almost end the world. Sorry, but Angel does know better than Connor. As for Buffy, everything he does he does to protect her. I'm not saying he always makes the right call with her, but his intentions with Buffy are always pure. Always.

 

[white avenger]

I also have a feeling that the PTB wouldn't say ''hey now...that "L'' actually looks like an "R"...congrats! Your handwriting is terrible so you get to be human."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it revealed that the Shanshu would be granted by Wolfram & Hart,not the Powers, for Angel helping THEM in some future apocalypse? It was, I think, in the episode that ended with Angel and Darla spending the night together that wound up making Connor, and was, in fact, part of the reason for the fit of depression that motivated him to go to Darla in the first place, after which he came up with the famous line, "If nothing that we do matters,then the only thing that matters is what we do."

Or did I just imagine it? It's been a long time since I watched "Angel."

 

[Robb Stark]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it revealed that the Shanshu would be granted by Wolfram & Hart,not the Powers, for Angel helping THEM in some future apocalypse? It was, I think, in the episode that ended with Angel and Darla spending the night together that wound up making Connor, and was, in fact, part of the reason for the fit of depression that motivated him to go to Darla in the first place, after which he came up with the famous line, "If nothing that we do matters,then the only thing that matters is what we do."

Or did I just imagine it? It's been a long time since I watched "Angel."

I don't think so. I don't really remember anything to do with the Shanshu and Connor being wrapped up together. I know Connor played a big part in the Jasmine arc (which is so convoluted and screwed up I don't know where to begin), but to my knowledge that had nothing to do with the Shanshu. I mean, he signs it away at the end of the series, right? And it's W&H, or at least W&H agents, making him do so. If the Shanshu was ultimately a W&H deal, why would they do that?

 

[Taaroko]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it revealed that the Shanshu would be granted by Wolfram & Hart,not the Powers, for Angel helping THEM in some future apocalypse? It was, I think, in the episode that ended with Angel and Darla spending the night together that wound up making Connor, and was, in fact, part of the reason for the fit of depression that motivated him to go to Darla in the first place, after which he came up with the famous line, "If nothing that we do matters,then the only thing that matters is what we do."

Or did I just imagine it? It's been a long time since I watched "Angel."

No, the big reveal in that episode was that everything Angel had been doing to destroy Wolfram & Hart was basically futile, because W&H would exist as long as humans kept being jerks to each other. Holland Manners told Angel that W&H had an apocalypse scheduled, and asked Angel if that's what he was so keen to prevent. There was nothing about the Shanshu.

 

[Moscow Watcher]

I have the impression that in season 6 Angel thinks it was W&H who gave him Shanshu. He says "they" in the context that suggests either W&H or The Circle of Black Thorn

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v671/MoscowWatcher/Comics_s9/07-1.jpg

 

[Black Eye Guy]

I have the impression that in season 6 Angel thinks it was W&H who gave him Shanshu. He says "they" in the context that suggests either W&H or The Circle of Black Thorn

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v671/MoscowWatcher/Comics_s9/07-1.jpg

He does imply that it's because of W&H in that piece that he's not a vampire, but also says it's nothing to so with the Shanshu.

W&H always pointed out that the shanshu is for the Vampire that plays a big part in the Apocalypse, but it's ambiguous on what side he's on.

 

[EVIL UU]

[MENTION=11975]Always Bangel[/MENTION]

As for Buffy, everything he does he does to protect her. I'm not saying he always makes the right call with her, but his intentions with Buffy are always pure. Always.

Here's a thing. Buffy does not need to be protected. She's the slayer, one of the most powerful beings that walk the Earth, there's nothing she can't handle on her own. Angel doesn't believe that, he thinks that Buffy just can't menage without a big, strong man who'll make decisions for her. That's condescending and kinda sexist. Also, he never actually saves her. Ever. There are two instances in the series when Buffy really needs help, in "Prophecy Girl" when she's saved by Xander and in "Bargaining" when she's saved by Dawn. Thats it.

And you know what they say about good intentions, the road to hell is paved with them. That's where Angel is going, and boy, will I cheer when he finally reaches his destination.

 

[ladydorotea]

Here's a thing. Buffy does not need to be protected. She's the slayer, one of the most powerful beings that walk the Earth, there's nothing she can't handle on her own.

She might be powerful, yet as we also know Slayers don't live long. In fact, that was the premise of the whole S1 of the show and Buffy's big internal conflict through the series. She herself died twice during the series. So, no there are plenty of things she cannot handle on her own, and that's beside the 'death is your gift' clause.

Angel doesn't believe that, he thinks that Buffy just can't menage without a big, strong man who'll make decisions for her. That's condescending and kinda sexist.

Considering that she died right before his eyes once, and he saw her risking her life every night for all the time they were together in Sunnydale I would find it weird if he believed that she is perfectly safe all the time and does not need any help. I guess if Angel would just go around whistling and twiddling his thumbs while applauding her every kill and doing nothing to help and - yes- protect he would be prefect.

Also, he never actually saves her. Ever.

Actually he does. When he hunts the demon that gave her telepathic powers, kills it and brings its heart so she can be cured - in Earshot. But of course the point of the series is that he does not do it too often - exactly because he is not supposed to.

I am not saying Angel's not a flawed character, nor that Buffy is a damsel in continuous need of protection. What I am saying is that love is blind, and it is natural to want to protect someone you love, regardless of their physical strength and gender. Impulsive protectiveness does not make one desiring to protect into a sexist moron. In fact you can make the same case about Giles and his continuous urge to protect 'his Slayer', even though in his case the power balance is completely off.

 

[EVIL UU]

[MENTION=9316]ladydorotea[/MENTION]

In fact you can make the same case about Giles and his continuous urge to protect 'his Slayer', even though in his case the power balance is completely off.

No I can't, because protecting the slayer is Rupert's job he's paid very well for and because Buffy accepts his role. Moreover, until season 7 ( with the exception of "Helpless" ) he doesn't really work behind her back, Angel on the other hand.... Check out this dialog from "Pangs"

ANGEL: Well, maybe I'm wrong, but I gotta try something. I can't just keep watching.
GILES: I'm glad that you're watching out for her, but I feel I should remind you that she's not helpless and it's not your job to keep her safe.
ANGEL: It's not yours anymore, either. Are you going to walk away?
GILES: All right. But I feel we should tell her. I don't like keeping this secret.
ANGEL: No. If she knew I was here, it would distract her. It could get her hurt. I don't want to get in the way.

Telling her that she's in danger would distract her? What kind of ass backwards bullshit is this? It's Angel's ass backwards bullshit. Can't he just, I don't, talk to her? Give her a call or something? Yo Buffy, watch your self, 'K? No, of course not. He wants to play the hero, save his poor, helpless damsel. It has nothing to do with wanting to protect a loved one, it's all about his gargantuan ego. He's a sexist moron because he doesn't treat her as an equal, he doesn't believe she can make decisions and deal on her own. It's already bad in the series, not to mention the comics.

What I am saying is that love is blind

I disagree. Being in love doesn't excuse anybody from using a brain, thinking rationally and respecting their loved ones. Angel, being a vampire, is kinda brain-dead so I don't expect him to understand that but still. Love is not an excuse.

She might be powerful, yet as we also know Slayers don't live long.

Yeah, but that's how it's meant to be. Death is the best thing that can happen to the slayer. It's peace and heaven. Slayers live alone for a reason.

 

[ladydorotea]

[MENTION=11194]EVIL UU[/MENTION],

I feel your heart is not in this discussion at the moment, since you are less feisty than usual and even your most cynical arguments sound kinda self-defeating. RE: Slayers are supposed to die young, it is a natural order of things, therefore trying to help them to avoid this fate is moronic and sexist, and or - evil. LOL I read this and all I can bring up myself to do is chuckle and shake my head. If you think this way - let us agree to disagree on this one. I kind of find this amusing and I am not in the mood to try disparage you from thinking this way. Bizarre Darwinism is funny.

 

[KellGreen]

Sorry, but I couldn't disagree with this more (I hate hitting the "disagree" button though). I know some people get touchy about Buffy being 16 when she starts dating Angel, but by the time they sleep together she's 17, legal in almost every country in the world (including Canada) and clearly, clearly not of an age where Angel is taking advantage of her. To call him a rapist is just absurd. It's clear that he loves her and she loves him.

Sex, even what is perceived as consensual, is statutory rape if one party is under the legal age of consent and the other party is an adult.

I'm not sure why working towards redemption, even when he freely admits that it doesn't matter if he ever attains it, is seen as a bad thing. I've gone over this in above posts, but I really do not understand the perception that saving lives and fighting the good fight (which he shouldn't even have to do, but does anyways) is somehow a bad thing. The only logical explanation I can figure is that it's simply a case of not liking the character and looking for flaws where few exist.

The fighting for good and saving lives is a good thing. The siring of a person, enabling the death of a bunch of people you don't like, etc., is not.

Does Angel act unilaterally from time to time? Of course he does, just like Buffy and almost every other main character in television history. He's not condescending at all. The fact is, he does know better than Conner, his son who grew up in a hell dimension with a crazed, vengeance driven murderer and who happens to be 17 years old. Connor makes unbelievably horrible decisions that quite literally almost end the world. Sorry, but Angel does know better than Connor. As for Buffy, everything he does he does to protect her. I'm not saying he always makes the right call with her, but his intentions with Buffy are always pure. Always.

I can find numerous quotes wherein he condescends to Buffy as though she is a naive child. You don't do things like that to protect a love interest. Either you view them as a child needing protection, and therefore WAY off limits sexually, or you treat them as an equal, and ask for and honor their input in decisions regarding their life.

 

[EVIL UU]

[MENTION=9316]ladydorotea[/MENTION]

RE: Slayers are supposed to die young, it is a natural order of things, therefore trying to help them to avoid this fate is moronic and sexist, and or - evil.

I think you need to read my post again. Also, it would be cool if you'd actually addressed some of my points instead of resorting to juvenile internet abbreviations. I don't mind that Angel tries to protect Buffy, what I mind is how he does it, with no trust and no respect towards her.

Also, cynical? Slayers' lives suck, it's canon. Happiness is not an option, everybody who believes so is naive and needs to re-watch the show. Buffy will not get a happy ending with your vampire of choice, she'll die, hopefully painlessly and before she goes completely insane because BtVS is not that other popular vampire franchise.

I kind of find this amusing and I am not in the mood to try disparage you from thinking this way.

Then why do you even reply? I don't get it, you're just wasting your time. Prove me wrong if you have arguments or don't reply at all. What's the point of a Ha Ha LoL You suck! post? We're cool so at least call me an idiot, geez 😀

And don't you question my feistyness, my feistyness is fine, I'm super-feisty, I'm beyond feisty, feistyness personified.

 

[white avenger]

I can find numerous quotes wherein he condescends to Buffy as though she is a naive child. You don't do things like that to protect a love interest. Either you view them as a child needing protection, and therefore WAY off limits sexually, or you treat them as an equal, and ask for and honor their input in decisions regarding their life.

In point of fact, Buffy WAS a naive child, and Whistler specifically recruited Angel because, "She's gonna need a lot of help, that Slayer." Nothing was mentioned or implied about her also needing a lover, especially one two hundred years older than she wa, and who might revert to a soulless monster the morning after the night before, a possibility of which Whistler, if no one else, was almost certainly aware.

I know that it makes a great story in the Harlequin Romance tradition, but if we look at the entire situation realistically (okay, Slayers, vampires, and hellmouths aren't realistic in the first place, but that's not my point) any Higher Power or representative thereof who screwed up and allowed a situation like that to take place should have been stripped of his status and sent to the hell with no shrimp for the next few dozen centuries.

That, or be forced to serve on Obama's cabinet as Hilary's assistant for the next 4 years.

But none of that either affirms or denies whether or not Angel actually was a good man or not, it merely reveals that he has very little good sense when it comes to dealing with Buffy and things that concern her, which we basically knew already. Even he basically admitted that and tried to solve the problem by moving away. Maybe he would have been better off by actually staying away,but that is only a personal observation.

Angel TRIED to be a good man. He truly wanted to be one, and to in some way atone for the pain and suffering that he had caused in his bad old days. (An impossible dream worthy of Don Quixote) Unfortunately, sometimes someone can want something so badly that they make mistakes in judgement, mistakes that actually move them further away from their goal rather than coming closer. That's Angel. He may never actually get there, but he'll always be trying.

Sometimes VERY trying.

A beautiful song and sentiment, no matter how impossible. And this scene would be just as perfect for Angel and Buffy as it ever was for Don Quixote and Dulcinea.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6QCg8IG8Nc"]The Impossible Dream ~ Don Quixote ~ Heart Of Steel - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Black Eye Guy]

Sex, even what is perceived as consensual, is statutory rape if one party is under the legal age of consent and the other party is an adult.

AB already pointed out she was over the age of consent so I don't think you have a valid on point on this at all?

 

[Icarium]

Sex, even what is perceived as consensual, is statutory rape if one party is under the legal age of consent and the other party is an adult.

I am not a fan of Buffy/Angel at all and I find the idea of someone who is 200+ years old dating a high school student ridiculous on many levels, but if we trust Buffy to take the right decisions how to save people on a regular basis and save the world sometimes, we sure as hell shouldn't demean her by saying she isn't yet mature enough to pick whom she wants to date. So screw the law in this case.

 

[KellGreen]

I am not a fan of Buffy/Angel at all and I find the idea of someone who is 200+ years old dating a high school student ridiculous on many levels, but if we trust Buffy to take the right decisions how to save people on a regular basis and save the world sometimes, we sure as hell shouldn't demean her by saying she isn't yet mature enough to pick whom she wants to date. So screw the law in this case.

Emotional and sexual maturity do not either necessarily stem from the level of responsibilities Buffy has as the Slayer (see: Parker). Also, I'm not demeaning her. I just happen to abhor, based totally on just my own experiences and those of numerous friends and acquaintances of mine, that teenage girls really shouldn't be emotionally manipulated by men with far more life experience than they have, which creates a major power imbalance. To each their own, though, of course.

 

[Icarium]

Emotional and sexual maturity do not either necessarily stem from the level of responsibilities Buffy has as the Slayer (see: Parker).

It doesn't but it has very much to do with dealing with crushing responsibility very well for the most part. Most people wouldn't be able deal with the pressure Buffy was facing at 16 even when they are 30 or 40, which is why I find the idea that she isn't mature enough to handle sex rather unconvincing.

Also, I'm not demeaning her. I just happen to abhor, based totally on just my own experiences and those of numerous friends and acquaintances of mine, that teenage girls really shouldn't be emotionally manipulated by men with far more life experience than they have, which creates a major power imbalance.

Yet you apparently don't seem to find anything problematic in the "power imbalance" between 20 year old Buffy and 100+ year old Spike? As I said I do find it silly that men who have lived so long would be so fascinated by a woman so young (and that happens way too often in supernatural shows and books) but for my money Buffy of S2 is no less mature than Buffy of S5 and actually behaves more maturely than Buffy of S6-7. Maturity isn't a function of age. And in any event, for various reasons Spike and Angel are nowhere near as mature as one would expect from someone their age. Life as a soulless vampire is basically indulging your base instincts non-stop, no responsibilities, no growth, nothing. Their real-life experience is actually smaller than Buffy's in many respects. So in the myriad of problems I have with those two relationships the notion of a girl being manipulated by men with far more life experience than she has doesn't really figure much. And as much as I hate the idea of making this thread even more of a shipping war than it already is, if anyone manipulated Buffy it was Spike's "You belong in the dark with me" mantra, not Angel. The latter's problem for the most part was being too weak to say no. Which isn't commendable at all, mind you but I can't call it manipulation either.

 

[Robb Stark]

Emotional and sexual maturity do not either necessarily stem from the level of responsibilities Buffy has as the Slayer (see: Parker). Also, I'm not demeaning her. I just happen to abhor, based totally on just my own experiences and those of numerous friends and acquaintances of mine, that teenage girls really shouldn't be emotionally manipulated by men with far more life experience than they have, which creates a major power imbalance. To each their own, though, of course.

Despite the last comment, this is pretty offensive. I obviously have no idea what you've gone through in your life, as I'm positive you have no clue about what's gone on in mind. There was a thread that was active a month ago or so where I brought up the subject of dating someone younger than you. I had a girlfriend last year who was 16 while I was 22.

With zero knowledge of circumstance (and there are almost always circumstances) though, to say that just because you're older you're "manipulating", is idiotic. I'm not saying that doesn't happen, it does, but I never had anything but the best of intentions when I dated that girl, and when it ended, it wasn't because I wanted it too, and if anything I was the one more broken up by it. I dated her because I really liked her, and treated the same as if I were dating someone my own age. There was no "power imbalance" because I respected her and valued her, just as she did to me. Angel always respected Buffy. Sometimes he worried about her and did what he felt was best, just as Buffy did with him, and I'm not saying he was always right, but saying he had no respect for her is more than a stretch.

You're right, in California the age of consent is legally 18. However, this clearly is not a clear-cut morality law where you're either right or you're wrong. Everywhere in Canada, the age of consent is 16 or 17. So if Angel sleeps with Buffy in California he's a rapist, but if he does it in Toronto everything's perfectly fine? You can't realistically say there isn't some ambiguity there.

And if age difference and manipulation by older guys is your argument, you completely skate over everything Spike does with Buffy. Buffy is what, 20 when she sleeps with Spike? Emotionally that's not much older, at all, in comparison to when she was with Angel. If anything, it's worse, because Spike was fully aware she was in a horrible state of mind coming back from heaven. Not only that, but he tries to manipulate her into believing she's broken and should live in the dark. Come one.

But then again, you obviously like Buffy/Spike, so I guess it's easier to just avoid the logic in that.

 

[Black Eye Guy]

Sex, even what is perceived as consensual, is statutory rape if one party is under the legal age of consent and the other party is an adult.

Emotional and sexual maturity do not either necessarily stem from the level of responsibilities Buffy has as the Slayer (see: Parker). Also, I'm not demeaning her. I just happen to abhor, based totally on just my own experiences and those of numerous friends and acquaintances of mine, that teenage girls really shouldn't be emotionally manipulated by men with far more life experience than they have, which creates a major power imbalance. To each their own, though, of course.

Ok grand I didn't know the age of consent in CA, but that also means that Xander, Cordielia, Faith, Willow and Oz are all possibly "statutory rapists" to, since we aren't exactly clear on their ages.
I think just throwing out the words statutory rapists is just desperate Spike fans (not just yourself I've seen others make the same case) finding a way to connect the word rape since it applies to Spike.

 

[EVIL UU]

[MENTION=5973]Black Eye Guy[/MENTION]

but that also means that Xander, Cordielia, Faith, Willow and Oz are all possibly "statutory rapists" to, since we aren't exactly clear on their ages.

Not quite like Angel. From California Penal Code Section 261.5:

Any person who engages in an act of unlawful sexual
intercourse with a minor who is not more than three years older or
three years younger than the perpetrator, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

For Angel it would be a felony, except Angel cannot commit a felony because he's not a human being. No personhood, no legal ability to commit a crime so as far as law goes, this entire discussion is RIDICULOUS.

I think just throwing out the words statutory rapists is just desperate Spike fans (not just yourself I've seen others make the same case) finding a way to connect the word rape since it applies to Spike.

Yeah, except according to canon comics Angel is a rapist. Also, dude, not everything is about shipping, no, really, take off your shipping goggles. That goes to all of you people, you're just partaking in another mind-bogglingly pointless shipper war.

Get back on topic and chill out.