Was Spike A Good Man?

[ladydorotea]

So, not accountable for unconsionable actions = no notice of good actions done whilst lacking a soul/conscience/morality/etc.? The baseline for vamps per the show has been atrociously amoral behaviour, so anything above that, is admirable. That he was able to do good without the capity to fully understand good is worthy of note.

I shall therefore happily join you in admiring Harmony in all her 'good person' splendor. See - she was able to do good without a soul as well. For like entire half an episode. And she was not even chipped - which makes her even more admirable because there is not a smidgen of suspicion of the free will violation in her actions.

 

[Icarium]

I would think you have to take the one with the other, if he's responsible for good then he should have to take full responsibility for the bad

Yes, I know I have repeated this like a hundred times in different threads on this forum, but I still don't get it how each and every Spiek fan is perfectly willnig to give him full credit for the good deeds while souless while excusing everything bad with "but, but poor bastard didn't have a soul, so he didn't know better". It's totally contradictory to me. Spike can't just turn on his altruism, conscience, innate goodness, whatever you want to call it, from time to time and be fully evil the rest of the time. Either he has the capacity to do good all along but chooses to use it only very rarely or he doesn't have it at all.

 

[Gum Gnome33]

Why do you think he wasn't going to go through with what he started... From what he says, it's incredibly clear what his intentions are, and it's not till Buffy physically kicks him off that he snaps out of it. Now I think he did snap out of it came to his senses and didn't keep trying, but thats not the same thing and stopping, he was caught up in a moment there and wouldn't have stopped?

The truth is that it's essentially a moot point that I think he would've stopped, since we don't know for sure. It's really important for me to say, however, that just because I think that, doesn't mean I excuse him for what he actually did, absolutely do, which is assault Buffy.
I did have my reasoning typed out here, originally, but then I was afraid I'd just be called an apologist again, this time for stating that I didn't think he would do it, and I really don't want to deal with that again.

All I'll say is--and this is a controversial opinion-- but I compare it to Angel sucking from Buffy in Grad Day. When he started, he was delirious and overcome with the inner demon which needed to take something from Buffy to survive, at her expense. But he did stop himself before he killed her; the man within him won out over the demon. He loved her so much that even though his demon was in control at the time, he could stop himself. And yes, I know, Spike had no soul whereas Angel did. But I claim that Spike had the capacity to do good at this point, and that he loved Buffy to the extent that he too could catch himself before it was too late--and if you buy that, then the analogy holds.

That being said, I would never tell a woman in the real world, "Oh you should keep on dating so and so because he clearly would've stopped himself, he's a good guy." No way. As I've said, the reason I continue liking Spike after this is because of the fact the he goes to get a soul in order to ensure this won't happen again, (at least, he believes that having a soul makes things that simple, at the time). Point is, had Spike not reacted that way after what he did, I wouldn't continue to like Spike.

but I still don't get it how each and every Spiek fan is perfectly willnig to give him full credit for the good deeds while souless while excusing everything bad with "but, but poor bastard didn't have a soul, so he didn't know better".

If you say "each and every" I have to assume that includes me, and as I've said many times, I don't excuse anything bad that he did. Look, here's how it goes, ok? The bad that Spike did is attributable to the fact that he is a vampire. It's not an excuse, but it's a reason, and he is still fully responsible for each and every one of those actions, in as much as a vampire is responsible for the things he/she ever does after being forced to turn into an evil predator. The good that Spike did is a measure of the progress he made since deciding he wanted to be good to impress the woman he loved, and realizing that he actually could.
This isn't science, or mathematics, or even the real world in which generally what you see is what you get from people. It's a love story, in which a demon was inspired for the first time to try doing good--at first to impress a girl, learning the difference between right and wrong from observing her and actively wanting to change. What developed from there, those natural impulses--were they inherent within him? Were they something that was there the whole time? I don't know, but I know that I don't need a perfect formula to explain it, either. I like my fiction, you know, fictitious.
I'll save worrying about how someone could be X and Y and the same time, (and doubting very much that they actually are), for the real world.

 

[Icarium]

It's not an excuse, but it's a reason, and he is still fully responsible for each and every one of those actions, in as much as a vampire is responsible for the things he/she ever does after being forced to turn into an evil predator.

Which basically means "it wasn't his fault, he was soulless", doesn't it? What I am saying that once one accepts that Spike had capacity for goodness he automatically becomes more responsible for his crimes that the average Joe Evil Vampire. Joe basically doesn't know better- he revels in being evil because he has no conscience, no desire to give a damn about anything but satisfying his every whim. It's an easy way to live, as Angel put it. Now, Spike however (people argue) did know better, so it can be argued he was closer to Anya who just didn't care about details like the wrongness of killing people for fun than Joe Evil Vampire who kills in the same way as a rabid dog would - because he can't help it.

This isn't science, or mathematics, or even the real world in which generally what you see is what you get from people.

Stories need internal consistency, otherwise they become just a series of random events that can be interpreted in whatever way one pleases. Even love stories - if one episode Spike is madly in love with Harmony, the next with Andrew and the next with Clem for no apparent reason, people probably wouldn't just say 'Well, it's a love story, I will accept the inconsistencies", you know. 🙂

 

[Gum Gnome33]

Which basically means "it wasn't his fault, he was soulless", doesn't it? What I am saying that once one accepts that Spike had capacity for goodness he automatically becomes more responsible for his crimes that the average Joe Evil Vampire. Joe basically doesn't know better- he revels in being evil because he has no conscience, no desire to give a damn about anything but satisfying his every whim. It's an easy way to live, as Angel put it. Now, Spike however (people argue) did know better, so it can be argued he was closer to Anya who just didn't care about details like the wrongness of killing people for fun than Joe Evil Vampire who kills in the same way as a rabid dog would - because he can't help it.

And that's all true if you believe that Spike a)knew that he had the capacity to do good earlier or b)had any desire to discover that he did. In other words, I don't think he did know better, until he realized that he wanted to do better, which never would have happen had he not been incapacitated by the chip and forced to live among humanity, (well not so much "forced" but given the opportunity to quell his boredom and financial issues by joining humanity, with the added bonus of joining a family which he wouldn't have admitted to wanting, regardless of who was in it).

And as I've acknowledge here before, in order for that to be acceptable, you have to wonder if other vampires could get there too, were they exposed to the same things Spike was, and if they were to experience the same things Spike did. And I have to argue that they could, in order for my point to hold. Spike is a "special snowflake" who is a mess in season 6: "can't be a monster, can't be a man." But it's only because of what's happened to him that he's in that predicament; otherwise, he'd have gone on doing what his instincts told him to do without questioning them , like any other vampire.
I mean one day he essentially opened his eyes, (after that dream), and said "what am I doing with my life? Now that I have this chip, what path do I choose, and what are my values? I'll start with Buffy--there's something there."

So anyway, it's not that he could always choose to be good, any more so than any other vampire. And conversely, it's possible that a great many other vampires might have found themselves in a similar place had circumstances been similar to his. Vampires who'd retained enough humanity, that is.

Stories need internal consistency, otherwise they become just a series of random events that can be interpreted in whatever way one pleases. Even love stories - if one episode Spike is madly in love with Harmony, the next with Andrew and the next with Clem for no apparent reason, people probably wouldn't just say 'Well, it's a love story, I will accept the inconsistencies", you know. 🙂

Believe me, I am completely on board and agree with you 100%. The difference is, I don't view Spike's development as "random." The "one episode he wants this, the next he want's something completely different" is so hyperbolic of a description of what actually happens that of course, were it the case, I would happily dismiss it.

The sequence of events isn't just "one day he's evil, another day he's good." There's a development there, a progression. And then there are slip ups--a reversion back to his natural state which makes quite a lot of sense and really should be expected. In fact, that's one of the things that grounds the story: the very fact that he can't just be evil or just good once he decides to make a change. Of course if he were suddenly helping random people off the street and riding a white horse as soon as he realized that he had feelings for Buffy, and never once fell back into bad habits--never once needed a soul in order to truly control himself--then I'd be right where you are, saying "this is ridiculous, I'm changing the channel."

Ultimately, is story as I said is not analogous to much that takes place in the real world and it doesn't add up perfectly and fit into a nice little box. Nor is it entirely ludicrous and beyond explanation. For that reason, it is sensible enough for me.

 

[Icarium]

And that's all true if you believe that Spike a)knew that he had the capacity to do good earlier or b)had any desire to discover that he did. In other words, I don't think he did know better, until he realized that he wanted to do better, which never would have happen had he not been incapacitated by the chip and forced to live among humanity, (well not so much "forced" but given the opportunity to quell his boredom and financial issues by joining humanity, with the added bonus of joining a family which he wouldn't have admitted to wanting, regardless of who was in it).

Sorry, I just can't be expected to believe that anyone can spend more than a hundred years in which he committed horrendous crimes all the time, before discovering he had conscience (or partial soul or whatever you want to call it). Nobody except for the clinically insane is that deluded about themselves. The only scenario I can accept is if Spike miraculously grew some semblance of conscience once he was chipped. Hey, Anya did it, so why not? 🙂

Moreover, this still doesn't get him off the hook for the attempted rape, attempted murder when he thought the chip didn't work or kidnapping Buffy, yet every time those issues are raised people immediately bring the "he was soulless card". All I am saying that this means this means those people are trying to have it both ways. It's annoying.

 

[Gum Gnome33]

Sorry, I just can't be expected to believe that anyone can spend more than a hundred years in which he committed horrendous crimes all the time, before discovering he had conscience (or partial soul or whatever you want to call it). Nobody except for the clinically insane is that deluded about themselves. The only scenario I can accept is if Spike miraculously grew some semblance of conscience once he was chipped. Hey, Anya did it, so why not? 🙂

I understand where you're coming from--I think that "it took him 100 years to feel that way about someone before he made a change" is a stretch, but it's a stretch within the realm of what I'm comfortable with, for a story. But remember, the chip is key. If he'd suddenly decided to change, not having had that exposure to life without killing, I'd also have been turned off by his sudden desire to change just because he met the right person.
In any case, this falls into the "doesn't fit into a nice package but makes enough sense for me to embrace it as fiction" for me. *Shrugs.*

Moreover, this still doesn't get him off the hook for the attempted rape, attempted murder when he thought the chip didn't work or kidnapping Buffy, yet every time those issues are raised people immediately bring the "he was soulless card". All I am saying that this means this means those people are trying to have it both ways. It's annoying.

I know... I mean I still maintain that I haven't seen a lot of fans here say flat out, "he's not responsible for those things." I mean of course we can say that he's not responsible for the things he did when soulless once he has a soul, but he has to own up to the good and the bad that he does without a soul.
For my part, I think a solution is to acknowledge that while fully responsible for those acts, Spike was at those points in the story essentially reduced to acting upon learned behavior. He has to cajole himself into trying to bite the woman. He thinks kidnapping Buffy is totally fine, (here it's important to note that this is not a soulless creature doing something he believes is evil, but rather neutral.) He thinks this is an acceptable way to have a conversation, because that is more or less a learned habit as well. Vampires do it all the time. He's completely accountable for it, but for the first time ever willing to change it based on Buffy's reaction--and that's where the problematic duality comes in.
But even without trying to have it both ways, there is that inherent duality that he calls out once he realizes he'll never be able to completely control himself, in "Seeing Red." "Can't be a monster, can't be a man." Both extremes exist within one being--essentially that's unheard of, even in this 'verse. That's inherently problematic, logically. Spike himself doesn't understand it. Buffy and Dawn don't either--why do they feel affection toward him? It it because there's something wrong with them? Or is it that there's something wrong with him--it's a total mess.

Anyway, what makes me particularly fond of Spike though is that in light of that discovery, he takes the best way out. He could
1)Stake himself, (cowardly)
2)Become a monster, by choosing to do evil either by getting the chip removed or committing himself to a life of crime outside Sunnydale with the help of minions which he could easily gain given his power
3)Get a soul.

And yes, a huge part of the motivation is so he can be with Buffy, and I see nothing wrong with that. He looks at Angel, realizes that one can be absolved for his crimes as long as he is ensouled. And more importantly, Buffy will forgive him. This is undoubtedly a large part of his reasoning, and I think there's nothing wrong with it.

 

[KellGreen]

Yes, I know I have repeated this like a hundred times in different threads on this forum, but I still don't get it how each and every Spiek fan is perfectly willnig to give him full credit for the good deeds while souless while excusing everything bad with "but, but poor bastard didn't have a soul, so he didn't know better". It's totally contradictory to me. Spike can't just turn on his altruism, conscience, innate goodness, whatever you want to call it, from time to time and be fully evil the rest of the time. Either he has the capacity to do good all along but chooses to use it only very rarely or he doesn't have it at all.

It's a basic philosophical principal I adhere to. Example: person A was raised that beating rabbits is ok, even admirable. His family regularly does it and he hears them referred to rabbits in a constantly demeaning fashion. In addition, he's homeschooled, and not allowed to interact with "rabbit lovers." He has no awareness that this behaviour is cruel and socially reprehensible. Any innate morality he may have had regarding rabbit abuse was overwritten by a lifetime of family teachings that rabbits are nothing more than little fluffy punting toys. So if, one day, he sees a cat attacking a rabbit and goes to the aid of the rabbit..? Under the opposing concept of things (to mine), since he had no pre-existing comprehension of morality regarding said rabbit, anything good he does for it is immediately discounted? You wouldn't, say, give extra note to something good done not only when there is a lack of existing developed morality such action, but there is the presence of beliefs that are solidly amoral?

 

[ladydorotea]

Anyway, what makes me particularly fond of Spike though is that in light of that discovery, he takes the best way out. He could
1)Stake himself, (cowardly)
2)Become a monster, by choosing to do evil either by getting the chip removed or committing himself to a life of crime outside Sunnydale with the help of minions which he could easily gain given his power
3)Get a soul.

The problem that every other poster here tried to point out to you is that here you are once again *projecting* morality onto a soulless being incapable of making a moral choice by virtue of not being to comprehend morality. Spike could not have made choice 1 - because why would he ? A soulless being would not get the idea of self-punishment for transgression against another. Gosh, even ensouled Spike does not get why here and now he should feel sorry for killing Niki there and then. I was a vampire she was a Slayer - end of story. Same with him originally shrugging off responsibility in Damage A5. But a bit of projecting makes you come up with soulless Spike feeling guilty for something he did that was for him as a vampire normal way of expressing his obsession. It is plain bizarre to think that his post AR frenzy had anything to do with guilt - when it was clearly all about yet another failed attempt to get Buffy back at any price.

Choice 2 is also unacceptable - because he *just tried* to get the girl back by becoming a monster and forcing her - and got his ass kicked for his trouble as well as been reminded that she never loved him.

Logically therefore Choice 3 is Spike's only recourse and I am really puzzled as to why getting to this extreme of virtual self-mutilation coupled with jealous memory ( she loved *that other* vampire) causes all the warm and fuzzy feelings. This path is dark, controversial, twisted and yes, provocative - but by no means 'good' or 'moral'

And yes, a huge part of the motivation is so he can be with Buffy, and I see nothing wrong with that.

See, the problem with it that this is not *huge part* of the motivation - it is the only possible and logical one. Otherwise we have to go over the entire discussion again - reciting all the way as to *why* a soulless vampire cannot make any moral choices, and if it/he /she does - then they should be capable of making a choice *not to* torture, rape, kill etc all the way.

He looks at Angel, realizes that one can be absolved for his crimes as long as he is ensouled. And more importantly, Buffy will forgive him. This is undoubtedly a large part of his reasoning, and I think there's nothing wrong with it.

And here we are hitting the hugest stumbling block of them all stumbling blocks - and the number one difference between a Spike/Spuffy fan ( as I see it) and the rest of us.

No, Angel does not believe for a second that he can be absolved for his crimes as long as he is ensouled. In fact the entire point of his character is struggling with this fact and refusing to ever letting go of guilt. Believing that Buffy should forgive AR for the mere fact of getting a soul is equally twisted and horrible. She does forgive in the end - but it is her choice. What is the most appalling though to me in this situation is that you believe that it is OK for Spike to believe it and to accept it (ie forgiveness) and to feel like 'I have a soul now' == I am entitled to get back with her despite the AR. There is a a huge chunk of wrong with this, but it is hard to explain - after you made all of the above reasoning.

 

[Gum Gnome33]

Ok, I will just ignore the personal attacks vis à  vis morality and interpretation and just move on to defending my points.

The problem that every other poster here tried to point out to you is that here you are once again *projecting* morality onto a soulless being incapable of making a moral choice by virtue of not being to comprehend morality.

I'm not projecting any more than you are when you watch the show and deem any particular actions made by a character to be one thing or another. We experience things as we see them, yes. You decided Spike is incapable of doing anything good simply because he lacks a bright shiny ball in his chest, and others decided that he can do good things, because we've assessed the things he does in the show and come to that conclusion. We're all projecting on various levels--that's what this whole shebang is about.

Spike could not have made choice 1 - because why would he ? A soulless being would not get the idea of self-punishment for transgression against another. Gosh, even ensouled Spike does not get why here and now he should feel sorry for killing Niki there and then.

Attacking Buffy and killing Nikki Wood are not analogous scenarios. Spike's point is that, (as crass as it is), he killed Nikki not merely for fun but because she would have killed him. They were "both doing their jobs." Not fun to think about, but there it is. On the other hand he attacked Buffy--obviously--unprovoked, to control her for his own pleasure. And, yes, he was undoubtedly, unquestionably remorseful for this. There is no doubt in my mind--watching the scene it is quite clear.

Same with him originally shrugging off responsibility in Damage A5.

No, his point in Damages is that his ensouled self is not accountable for what his soulless self did. He acknowledges that soulless Spike did terrible thing to a lot of people, and wishes not to be punished for those things.

But a bit of projecting makes you come up with soulless Spike feeling guilty for something he did that was for him as a vampire normal way of expressing his obsession.

Actually, it was just a bit of watching the show that brought me to that conclusion. 😉 And, again, it's not a "normal" vampire way; as I've said many times, nothing about Spike is normal. That he feels guilt is entirely atypical for a vampire.

It is plain bizarre to think that his post AR frenzy had anything to do with guilt - when it was clearly all about yet another failed attempt to get Buffy back at any price.

Well no, it's the other way around--it was a failed attempt to get Buffy back which he realized after it was over, hence the guilt.

Choice 2 is also unacceptable - because he *just tried* to get the girl back by becoming a monster and forcing her - and got his ass kicked for his trouble as well as been reminded that she never loved him.

Sorry, but you're missing my point. Obviously he was a monster when he attacked her. I'm saying that after that, he could have gone on to stay that way, permanently. He could have decided to really embrace who he was by nature and start hurting some folks, starting with Buffy, and this time without stopping. Or getting a buddy to kill Anya, Xander, Dawn, etc, then have a big party. Why didn't he do that? Fear of the wrath of Buffy? Then he'd be in the same club as every other vampire, and he could just leave town, as he did twice before when he feared the same thing.

Logically therefore Choice 3 is Spike's only recourse

HOW is going to Africa and enduring torture in order to get a soul, (guaranteeing a lifetime of more torture), his "only recourse?" Might as well argue that Angel had no choice but to help the helpless. In addition to what I listed above, Spike could also have wallowed around in a sewer for 100 years or whatever, moping about what he did. Again, how is doing what he did his only recourse?

Otherwise we have to go over the entire discussion again - reciting all the way as to *why* a soulless vampire cannot make any moral choices,

The only argument I"ve heard so far as to "why a soulless vamp can't make moral choices" is that he is soulless, which sounds like circular reasoning to me--perhaps that's why I have trouble buying it.

and if it/he /she does - then they should be capable of making a choice *not to* torture, rape, kill etc all the way.

I'm confused--Spike makes the choice not to do all of these things once he decides to change for Buffy, as we've discussed. He screws up and reverts to his former self, yes. I get that. But along the way, he absolutely does choose not to do those things, and not to get other people to do them either. Every day in which Spike the soulless vampire does not do one of those things, he is making the choice not to. We're supposed to just ignore that?

And here we are hitting the hugest stumbling block of them all stumbling blocks - and the number one difference between a Spike/Spuffy fan ( as I see it) and the rest of us.

Um...ouch??

No, Angel does not believe for a second that he can be absolved for his crimes as long as he is ensouled. In fact the entire point of his character is struggling with this fact and refusing to ever letting go of guilt. Believing that Buffy should forgive AR for the mere fact of getting a soul is equally twisted and horrible. She does forgive in the end - but it is her choice. What is the most appalling though to me in this situation is that you believe that it is OK for Spike to believe it and to accept it (ie forgiveness) and to feel like 'I have a soul now' == I am entitled to get back with her despite the AR. There is a a huge chunk of wrong with this, but it is hard to explain - after you made all of the above reasoning.

Ok, relax, that's actually not my point--or what I was trying to say. I'm not talking about what Angel believes. We all know Angel doesn't believe he can be absolved. I'm talking about what Spike, from his perspective, observes about Angel. Because truth is, Buffy does forgive him, like *that,* once his soul is intact.
What he sees is that Angel not only is forgiven by Buffy for his crimes as Angelus but specifically for killing her friend, trying to kill her, and attempting to suck the Earth into hell just months earlier. I do think that Spike is inspired by this; it gives him hope.
Is that the most noble inclination of all time? No. He loves Buffy, ok? He wants to be with her--wants a future with her--and I hardly think that makes him evil. So yes, PART of his motivation is the thought that things will happen for him as they did for Angel. As you said, he was right. And it was Buffy's choice. What's wrong with that?
Most importantly, I said that I see nothing wrong with Spike wanting Buffy to forgive him. Meaning that part of his reasoning which is inspired by Buffy's forgiveness. That is to say nothing of his specific reasoning, itself. Whether or not I think it's wrong or undesirable specifically that Spike thinks he can earn that forgiveness in the same way Angel did is another matter, and to be honest I haven't given it much thought, though I can at least understand how he'd think that whether or not I like it. Also, I never said it was "I have a soul now, I'm entitled to get her back."
This is a huge leap that you made. Spike thinking he's ENTITLED to anything is a horrible notion. Watch Beneath You--he doesn't believe she'll ever forgive him but a)he's back to help her against the thing that eats you from beneath and b)he as to try, right?

Being hopeful that someone will one day forgive you and assuming that you're entitled to someone's forgiveness are so many worlds apart, I don't even know where to begin. One is a perfectly acceptable way to feel as I see it, the other one is what complete jerks are made of. I would never have said that I think it's dandy that Spike feels entitled to her forgiveness, nor will I. What I said--what I'm saying, is that I am ok with the fact that he seeks it out--hopes for it.

 

[ladydorotea]

Attacking Buffy and killing Nikki Wood are not analogous scenarios. Spike's point is that, (as crass as it is), he killed Nikki not merely for fun but because she would have killed him.

Actually, he came to NY actively seeking Nikki, because after killing his first Slayer he got high on her blood and was very much 'into' Slayers. There a re a few sources that point to this - interviews, novels and S9 mention. And if you look the episodes involving Nikki it is rather obvious that Spike seeks her out on purpose - she would hardly go hunting for him with her child in tow.

On the other hand he attacked Buffy--obviously--unprovoked, to control her for his own pleasure. And, yes, he was undoubtedly, unquestionably remorseful for this. There is no doubt in my mind--watching the scene it is quite clear.

As I said, in the context of Spike being addicted to Slayers and their blood his attack on Nikki and his crush on Buffy are the of the same basic origin - that by the way, stems with his mommy issues, and resulting mild case of misogyny after being continuously rejected/cheated on by various girlfriends. To quote from the source : "What the bleeding hell is wrong with you bloody women?! What the hell does it take?! Why do you bitches torture me?" A s such I don't see much of a difference between his attack on Chinese Slayer, attack on Nikki and his later abuse of Buffy.

No, his point in Damages is that his ensouled self is not accountable for what his soulless self did. He acknowledges that soulless Spike did terrible thing to a lot of people, and wishes not to be punished for those things.

Yup. Basically he denies responsibly and refuses to take ownership of the deeds. Glad we agree on that one.

Actually, it was just a bit of watching the show that brought me to that conclusion. 😉 And, again, it's not a "normal" vampire way; as I've said many times, nothing about Spike is normal. That he feels guilt is entirely atypical for a vampire.

Glad we agree on the fact that you see Spike as a 'special snowflake of a vampire' and base your sympathy for him entirely on this little notion of him 'being special' - this confirms my point of the 'Draco in leather pants ' clause.

Sorry, but you're missing my point. Obviously he was a monster when he attacked her. I'm saying that after that, he could have gone on to stay that way, permanently. He could have decided to really embrace who he was by nature and start hurting some folks, starting with Buffy, and this time without stopping.

And what - give up on getting into her pants permanently ? If he was less obsessed with her maybe that would have been the case. Since his obsession with Slayers and Buffy at that point was major driving force in his unlife - the resulting crisis produced an 'epiphany' or sorts. As Spike says himself in S7 he got a soul 'to be hers' - and I read it as 'to be her lover again' not to atone or to make up for what he did. He wants to become a 'better man' - but from his soulles perspective 'better' only means somebody who can be potential lover. If that was not his only goal he could have indeed wallowed in guilt for 100 years or asked to be cursed, etc. But no, wallowing or being cursed did not move him any closer to 'getting into the pants' point. Therefore these avenues were never even explored.

HOW is going to Africa and enduring torture in order to get a soul, (guaranteeing a lifetime of more torture), his "only recourse?"

Se above. From the perspective of gaining any potential of getting back 'into the pants' - right after trying to rape and being thrown out - his only recourse was to try and achieve the same by literally changing himself into something she could accept. And the one example he had of Buffy loving a vampire meant soul - but of course the soul had to be attached in a way that allowed for plenty of sex without Buffy being cautios. Therefore Africa was the only way to go to 'get to the sex part' the quickest - and from his PoV the most reasonable way.

The only argument I"ve heard so far as to "why a soulless vamp can't make moral choices" is that he is soulless, which sounds like circular reasoning to me--perhaps that's why I have trouble buying it.

Gosh , do I have to dig out that old quote from Joss Whedon again? I guess I do.

"The soul marked the real difference between somebody with a complex moral structure and someone who may be affable and even likable, but ultimately eats kittens."

Every day in which Spike the soulless vampire does not do one of those things, he is making the choice not to. We're supposed to just ignore that?

Nope, we are supposed to remember that Spike the soulless vampire has a behavior modification chip embedded in his brain that basically makes those choices for him. When the chip malfunctions, the writers are more than happy to remind us just how 'true' the change in Spike is by making him instantly revert.

He loves Buffy, ok? He wants to be with her--wants a future with her--and I hardly think that makes him evil.

For Gad's sake, he tried to rape her, he abused , manipulated , stalked, and beaten her for few years - and was abused by her in turn. She finally threw him out. And instead of trying to snap out of it the moment he gets a soul - ' he continues to want a future with her!' That is probably the most offensive part of the Spike with the soul ( to me) there is. The fact that even with a soul he never gets why exactly he should just leave her be and go try to atone for what he did to her. That is the most offensive and problematic part for me in the whole affair. Yes, that makes him even more creepy - and that's with a soul.

Watch Beneath You--he doesn't believe she'll ever forgive him but a)he's back to help her against the thing that eats you from beneath and b)he as to try, right?

Sorry, what I see in that scene is a guy in a lot of trouble coming back to the side of the person he terribly abused - to ask her to take care of him . He is in a bad place, mentally unstable and all - but he is definitely there not so much to help as to whine and to show off and to eventually - worm his way into 'becoming hers'. Of which dream/plan he finally wakes up only after Chosen, by admitting 'no you don't' and by later confirming that he 'never had a chance' Before that his entire parade of various melodramatic performance with cross-hugging and etc is aimed to make her feel sorry fore him for his suffering. Otherwise why do all the suffering on public so theatrically - making sure she finds him first thing in that basement, etc.

Being hopeful that someone will one day forgive you and assuming that you're entitled to someone's forgiveness are so many worlds apart, I don't even know where to begin. One is a perfectly acceptable way to feel as I see it, the other one is what complete jerks are made of. I would never have said that I think it's dandy that Spike feels entitled to her forgiveness, nor will I. What I said--what I'm saying, is that I am ok with the fact that he seeks it out--hopes for it.

As I said , the whole 'to be hers speech' added with the 'can we rest Buffy?' theatrics points out to a poorly disguise belief of the entitlement to forgiveness to me.

And she shall look on him with forgiveness... and everybody will forgive and love. And he will be loved. So everything's okay, right? C-can we rest now? Buffy?

And you can look at that scene and honestly tell me this is not once again shedding of responsibility and waiting for forgiveness - practically the first thing out of his moth , before the First Evil thing even becomes plausible threat ? I rest my case here.

 

[Gum Gnome33]

Actually, he came to NY actively seeking Nikki, because after killing his first Slayer he got high on her blood and was very much 'into' Slayers....
As I said, in the context of Spike being addicted to Slayers and their blood his attack on Nikki and his crush on Buffy are the of the same basic origin - that by the way, stems with his mommy issues, and resulting mild case of misogyny after being continuously rejected/cheated on by various girlfriends. To quote from the source : "What the bleeding hell is wrong with you bloody women?! What the hell does it take?! Why do you bitches torture me?" A s such I don't see much of a difference between his attack on Chinese Slayer, attack on Nikki and his later abuse of Buffy.

But the point of the Nikki Wood/attack on Buffy comparison that you brought up was to show that he felt guilt for neither. My point is that in one case, regardless of whether he sought her out--which I don't doubt he did--ultimately it was kill or be killed for both of them. He says he doesn't feel guilty for something he did as another being entirely, when it was technically his job to do so anyway, as a vampire. When he attacked Buffy however, he had attacked someone he loved. I know you don't believe a soulless being can feel guilt, but I'm sure you can imagine that if he were to do so, it'd be far more likely for him to feel it toward the person he loved than his mortal enemy. And yes, I know, Buffy is supposed to be his mortal enemy too, but that is very obviously not the case by this point in the story.

Additionally, this was ensouled Spike was considering something he, himself did not actually do. With Buffy, however, he felt guilty over the thing he had just done, which he was accountable for at the time when he felt that guilt, being soulless in both cases.

Yup. Basically he denies responsibly and refuses to take ownership of the deeds. Glad we agree on that one.

No, Spike very much owns his soulless past--it very clearly haunts him. But he won't accept blame for it--going forward he'll make good choices and join the fight against evil but he won't try to make up for the specific things which a demon did in his body.

Glad we agree on the fact that you see Spike as a 'special snowflake of a vampire'

Ok...

and base your sympathy for him entirely on this little notion of him 'being special' -

Ugh, I don't base my sympathy for him on the fact that he's special. I don't care that he's special. The fact that he's special is merely part of his story. If he weren't special, it would mean that Buffy is a murderer who kills potentially innocent vampires who could all change just as easily as Spike does, (it's bad enough that she doesn't question whether other vampires with enough humanity could change given exposure to the same things). That's why it's significant that he's unique.

this confirms my point of the 'Draco in leather pants ' clause.

Yeah, this is starting to freak me out. Again, I don't satisfy the theory about only liking Bad Boys or whatever, simply because you've established one case in which I like a character who is a "bad boy." I can't name one other character of which I'm particularly fond who fits into that trope, which I've told you several times before. So how can it be an underlying truth that defines my preferences if it is the exception and not the rule? Makes no sense.
In any case, if I view Spike to be a unique character then I, by definition, am not finding a bunch of similar characters fitting into his trope with which to sympathize.

And what - give up on getting into her pants permanently ? If he was less obsessed with her maybe that would have been the case.

It's funny; if you take out "get in to her pants" and "obsession" and replace it with "love," then we agree.

As Spike says himself in S7 he got a soul 'to be hers' - and I read it as 'to be her lover again' not to atone or to make up for what he did.

But being her lover again would require atoning for what he did--for her benefit. I'm not arguing that Spike wishes to atone for everything he did as a vampire--and definitely not by this scene in Beneath You. But he wants to get her to forgive him, yes. Absolutely. Making up for it by getting the soul is how he hopes to do that.

He wants to become a 'better man' - but from his soulles perspective 'better' only means somebody who can be potential lover.

I mostly agree with you about that.

If that was not his only goal he could have indeed wallowed in guilt for 100 years or asked to be cursed, etc. But no, wallowing or being cursed did not move him any closer to 'getting into the pants' point. Therefore these avenues were never even explored.

Right, he didn't wallow in guilt because he wanted to make it up to the woman he loved. That doesn't make him a hero, sure. But it was a good thing to do--to try to make amends with Buffy. Of course, if you see it as only trying to have sex with her, you'll disagree.

Se above. From the perspective of gaining any potential of getting back 'into the pants' - right after trying to rape and being thrown out - his only recourse was to try and achieve the same by literally changing himself into something she could accept. And the one example he had of Buffy loving a vampire meant soul - but of course the soul had to be attached in a way that allowed for plenty of sex without Buffy being cautios. Therefore Africa was the only way to go to 'get to the sex part' the quickest - and from his PoV the most reasonable way.

Again, you say "sex" and I say "love..." And again, if you think all he wanted was sex from Buffy, then yeah, getting a soul wouldn't be a noble or good act.

But I have to ask: why do you think he wants to have sex with her that badly? I mean she's hardly the only woman on the planet and yes, vampires are known for their sick obsessions, but do you really think he'd go to the ends of the Earth and endure torture for one woman if there wasn't more to it than the sex? I mean, after Intervention, he won't even touch the 'bot--won't even let it flirt with him. Is sex from Buffy really all he wants?

"The soul marked the real difference between somebody with a complex moral structure and someone who may be affable and even likable, but ultimately eats kittens."

Yup. And I'm not arguing that Spike has a complex moral structure. Like I"ve said, he isn't a good man, pre soul. His drive to do good things and refrain from doing bad hinge on his love for a person, and were inspired by the habits he developed from the chip. Many of his acts are reactionary as he learns what is and isn't acceptable. But he very clearly makes choices for the better--for good--until it's clear that that's not enough--that's what the AR scene is for. That's what Joss means by "ultimately eats kittens,"--I mean, both literally and metaphorically.
But why is Spike affable and likeable? Would he be either of those things if he actively tried to hurt people? People witness the good things he does, and that endears them to him. It's like putting a bandaid on a wound that needs stitches. It's progress--a step in the right direction. But ultimately isn't enough. And Spike realizes that. He can't be the right man for Buffy--"a kind of man who would never--" unless he finds a permanent solution. All checks out just fine.

For Gad's sake, he tried to rape her, he abused , manipulated , stalked, and beaten her for few years - and was abused by her in turn. She finally threw him out. And instead of trying to snap out of it the moment he gets a soul - ' he continues to want a future with her!' That is probably the most offensive part of the Spike with the soul ( to me) there is.

Ok...how do you feel about season 3? Take out one of those verbs, add "tried to kill, end the world, killed her friend," and "in the past few months" instead of "years" and you have Angel. Wanting a future with Buffy. With his restored soul. In spite of what he did in the past. Is it offensive that Angel wants all of this from Buffy after what he did to her as Angelus? Personally, it doesn't bother me all that much, because he--the man asking for forgiveness--didn't do those things. And it doesn't bother me when Spike does the same.

The fact that even with a soul he never gets why exactly he should just leave her be and go try to atone for what he did to her. That is the most offensive and problematic part for me in the whole affair. Yes, that makes him even more creepy - and that's with a soul.

Spike begs Buffy to kill him twice, after getting his soul. And that's after trying to rip out his own heart. Then, he says, "I should leave." Each time, Buffy refuses to take him/let him out of her life, and add an impending apocalypse to that. Finally, he agrees to stay--literally. Only to leave, to save her, by dying.
Even after W and H bring him back, he doesn't go after her.
How exactly is he creepily hanging around, then?

Sorry, what I see in that scene is a guy in a lot of trouble coming back to the side of the person he terribly abused - to ask her to take care of him . He is in a bad place, mentally unstable and all - but he is definitely there not so much to help as to whine and to show off and to eventually - worm his way into 'becoming hers'.

I'm just wondering if that exact same scene bothers you in "Amends," (when it happens twice--with both Giles and Buffy?) Personally, I don't mind it very much in either episode. The idea of a newly ensouled vampire asking for forgiveness for something he didn't even technically do just doesn't turn my stomach. It's definitely upsetting, but I don't think either is in the wrong for doing it.

And you can look at that scene and honestly tell me this is not once again shedding of responsibility and waiting for forgiveness - practically the first thing out of his moth , before the First Evil thing even becomes plausible threat ? I rest my case here.

Wait--shedding responsibility and asking for forgiveness are 2 totally different things. He is not denying responsibility for what he did to her, even though it technically wan't he who did it. Leaning on the cross to let it burn him is quite a visual representation for admitting his guilt. He is saying, "I went to get a soul to ensure it wouldn't happen again. Can you forgive me?" Not "Now I have a soul, you need to forgive me."

 

[EffyStonem]

Was Spike A Good Man?

Without a soul, absolutely not, but that goes without saying. So I’m going to concentrate on Spike with a soul. Was he a good man? I believe that he became a good man. I’ll expand.

When Spike first received his soul he, understandably, goes insane from the guilt. This does not indicate goodness per se but it does show that he can now recognise his evil acts and empathise with his victims. Much like both Angel and Darla, he now feels the impact of what he did as a soulless creature. He cares. This helps to lay the foundation upon which he can start rebuilding himself to become a good man. However, given the overwhelming feelings of guilt and the decades of evil he has to deal with, he’s hardly in his right mind and can’t start his journey yet. This, I believe, is why he returns to Buffy. In his confused and delirious state, he needs to find something constant, something to ground him. And, again much like Angel, this person becomes Buffy.

Over Season 7 it’s hard to tell which way Spike will go, due to the high volume of activity going on around him and with him personally. After being used as a pawn in the First’s game, his chip then starts malfunction, then once it’s removed he’s getting used to letting the soul, rather than the chip, guide him. He appears to be remorseless over killing Wood’s mother which indicates that he still has a way to grow. I believe that the fact that Nikki was a Slayer allows Spike to hide behind the excuse kill or be killed, preventing him from feeling the full guilt of her death.

As we all know, Spike ends up going out in a blaze of glory in the finale, sacrificing himself to save the world. I’ve never believed this sacrifice to be as clear-cut as it appears to be. Did Spike do this “for the greater good”? I don’t know. What I do know is that in the moment when he’s burning he tells Buffy that he can feel his soul and the look on his face has always told me that he truly has felt the weight of his full soul for the first time. And in that moment, maybe he decides that it’s the right thing to do – to stay until the end. Maybe it’s Buffy’s “I love you”. Maybe it’s Spike desperately looking for an escape from the pain of having a soul. Whatever his reasons, his does make the sacrifice.

When he returns on AtS, he spends a good portion of his early episodes very indignant and very lost. In his mind, he was done. He saved the world. He doesn’t deserve to be trapped as a ghost. This is Petulant Spike rearing his head and shows that he’s still growing and learning. He doesn’t quite understand yet that there is no redemption for him. That if he chooses to fight, it should be for the greater good, not the “greater good for himself”. This is a lesson that Angel has had to learn slowly and harshly and now Spike needs to learn it too.

Spike fumbles around for awhile, not entirely sure of where he fits in. When Lindsay shows up as “Doyle” Spike seems to go along with his “visions” to fill the void. He is unsure of what is expected of him and unsure of what his place is. He saves people and goes out patrolling but he doesn’t seem to be learning anything from his experiences or growing as a person. Then we have the horror that is Destiny where Spike seems to forget everything he’s learned in the last year and a half and reverts to a petulant child, unwilling to take responsibility for his actions. The way he tries to pin the blame for his monstrosities on Angel shows how far Spike still needs to go.

Luckily a turning point arrives in the form of Damage. This is where Spike truly starts to recognise why there is no redemption for him. He recognises that while he wasn’t the one who hurt Dana it makes no difference, given how many like Dana he has hurt. He and Angel have a (quite moving) talk about redemption and why they fight and after this episode Spike truly starts to become a good man. He is now motivated by the desire to do good. He wants to help, to be a part of something.

He continues to grow over the second half of AtS. Fred’s death has a profound effect on him and further helps him along his path. In the final three episodes we get to see how far he has truly come. He refuses to believe that Angel has gone to the “dark” side and actively joins the others in trying to persuade Angel back. He is the first to put his hand up for Angel’s suicide mission, acting not for Buffy, for glory or for redemption, but because he finally knows and understands what it is to be good, and to fight for good. In the end he is there, shoulder-to-shoulder with Angel, ready to fight to the death. He has evolved into a good man and will probably continue to evolve and grow as one.

Wow, this ended up very long and rambly. Hopefully it still makes sense.

 

[OutForAWalk]

When you look at Spike and Angel, before being souled, they were always polar opposite. Angelus displayed the true nature of what a vampire was, along with Darla and Drusilla, Spike was to over emotionalized and I think thats the problem. He became a vampire and still cared for his mother? That shouldn't even be possible. Then he cried after staking his own mother? It doesn't make sense. Angelus killed his own family and could've cared less. I think this is where things get questionable in regards to Spike. "They" made him to humanized even prior being en-souled.

This always confused me, too. According to the lore in the first few seasons, a vampire is a demon inhabiting a corpse, and is not at all the person they were before. Why did Spike retain his feelings toward his family? Why was he so emotional? Are we to believe that the demon in Spike had a very similar personality to his own? Or is he just special? If he is just special, why and how did this happen? Every other soulless vampire on the show is beyond redemption.

---------- Post added at 10:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:59 PM ----------

More importantly, he can't make up his own damn mind. That's just so unmanly. He dumps her, he comes back, he leaves, he shows up again. What is wrong with that asshole? You love her, become a human again and be with her, you don't love her, piss off.

I love this, lol! You've summed up the exact reason why I stopped liking Angel's character.

 

[Robb Stark]

I love this, lol! You've summed up the exact reason why I stopped liking Angel's character.

Well, while I know this is a little off topic, he's trying to do right by her. Buffy and Angel's relationship is incredibly complex. It's not as simple as him saying "okay, now I'm going to stay". There's more to the situation than that.

 

[OutForAWalk]

Well, while I know this is a little off topic, he's trying to do right by her. Buffy and Angel's relationship is incredibly complex. It's not as simple as him saying "okay, now I'm going to stay". There's more to the situation than that.

Yep, sorry for getting the conversation off topic, but I honestly think that Spike was the better man in that case. After he fell in love with Buffy, he never left her and always helped her, even when he was angry at her. My favorite line is from OMWF, in the song "Walk Through the Fire," when Spike sings, "I hope she fries; I'm free if that b**** dies; I better help her out..." Cracks me up every time, but it summarizes the fact that he will do the best he can for her always, and not let other things get in the way. This shows that he was trying to be a good man the best way he knew how.

 

[EffyStonem]

[...] After he fell in love with Buffy, he never left her and always helped her, even when he was angry at her [...] he will do the best he can for her always, and not let other things get in the way. This shows that he was trying to be a good man the best way he knew how.

Sometimes when you love someone, the best thing to do for them is actually to walk away. Loving someone selflessly, entirely, means putting them before yourself even if this means losing them in process. This is something that Angel has the strength to do but Spike never does.

Spike may do good for Buffy, but he is never motivated by the desire to do good (not without a soul, anyway). Yes, he loves without a soul, but too often love is thought of as a "good" emotion when in reality it is a nuetral emotion that can turn people either way. In Spike's case, if he loves someone, he will protect them. That's the bottom line. It's in his nature, he has always been like this. However this does not make him a good man, nor does it make his love for Buffy greater than Angel's.

If Spike truly loved Buffy selflessly and without thought of himself or what he believed she "owed him", he would have left town. He would have realised (especially once he had a soul and especially in light of the attempted rape) that he was not healthy nor good for Buffy, that he had victimised her beyond belief and that he did not deserve nor had no right to demand anything from her. He unfortunately never learns this lesson and it is not until AtS that he begins to grow as a good man.

 

[white avenger]

If Spike truly loved Buffy selflessly and without thought of himself or what he believed she "owed him", he would have left town. He would have realised (especially once he had a soul and especially in light of the attempted rape) that he was not healthy nor good for Buffy, that he had victimized her beyond belief and that he did not deserve nor had no right to demand anything from her. He unfortunately never learns this lesson and it is not until AtS that he begins to grow as a good man.

I'm not sure just where the logic might lie in this. In the beginning, Spike was pretty well under the First's thumb, and almost certainly couldn't have left Sunnydale if he had tried. By the time that he actually could have left, the apocalypse was looming on the horizon, Buffy needed all the help that she could get, and he was the most powerful fighter anywhere in the vicinity with the possible exception of Buffy herself.
Spike stayed because Buffy NEEDED him there. Or, to use her own words, she "wasn't ready for him not to be" there. Take that as a declaration of undying love, an appeal from one warrior to another for help, or simply Buffy's acknowledgement that she preferred to keep an eye on him either because she didn't want to be taken by surprise if or when the First evil asserted control over him once more, or because she didn't want to have to always wonder whether or not Giles and Wood had tried a second time with more success, she said it and I believe her The point is, Spike offered to leave as soon as Wood revealed who and what he really was (a poor trade, in my opinion,giving up one super powered, highly skilled vampire whose loyalty she had no doubt of, while receiving one highly typical human, who she knew absolutely about only a few weeks, previously, so no surprise that Buffy chose not to make it)

Spike stayed in Sunnydale because that was where he could do the most good. There was a crisis to avert, and he did his part, just like Angel did in Season 3. Whether he would have still been there for a televised Season 8 is anyone's guess.

 

[EffyStonem]

My problem with Spike is not so much him and more the way he's written in Season 7. I absolutely loathe that they tried to redeem him for everything he put Buffy through in Season 6 (in particular the attempted rape). I hate that they wrote the scenario as such that Buffy seemed to have no choice but to forgive him/take care of him. I hate that he is written in such a way that he feels entitled to her simply because he has a soul. I hate that she never confronts him with what he did to her. I hate that he manipulated her into forgiving him. And I truly, violently hate the fact that they had her fall for him after he sexually assaulted her.

I still believe they should have had Spike realise how bad he was for Buffy and that he shouldn't be romantically involved with her. So perhaps my issue is not that he didn't leave, but that he didn't leave her alone. He continued to profess his love for her and continued to tell her that he got the soul for her (ugh, I hate the way he got his soul, it is too much like the boyfriend who beats his girlfriend then buys jewellery or flowers to say he's sorry). He calls her out for her treatment of him in Season 6, which, post the sexual assault, he had no right to do.

Look, I believe that Spike became a good man. I believe that with a soul he would never sexually assault Buffy. But I also believe that he should not be anywhere near her after the way he violated her, and it horrifies me that fans can so easily overlook that violation.

 

[Gum Gnome33]

I hate that he is written in such a way that he feels entitled to her simply because he has a soul.

I see no point in season 7, (or beyond), in which Spike feels entitled to Buffy. From the second he comes back to Sunnydale, he makes very clear that he expects NOTHING from her, but that he's there to protect her, and to help her fight whatever this "from beneath you it devours" creature might be.

Buffy makes very clear in "Beneath You" that it's insane for Spike to expect anything from her, and he vehemently agrees. When the First begins to control Spike, he begs Buffy to kill him. Twice. In "First Date," he tells Buffy he thinks he should leave town. "I'm not ready for you to not be here," she says. So he stays.

"When I say I love you... it has nothing to do with me," he says.

Where is the notion that he thinks he's entitled to her coming from? He doesn't ask her for anything.

I hate that he manipulated her into forgiving him.

You mean by showing up and helping her? I mean sure, he wanted her to forgive him, but how exactly did he manipulate her? He was there to help protect her, until, as I mentioned earlier, he discovered that the First was controlling him and then begged to be staked.

He calls her out for her treatment of him in Season 6, which, post the sexual assault, he had no right to do.

I agree with the sentiment behind this, but I think the reason he brought it up was to illustrate the fact that without a soul, he couldn't understand how much she was disgusted with herself for being around him. In short: he couldn't see how truly awful he was--he didn't truly hate himself until he had a soul; he couldn't understand that Buffy was using him until then. It wasn't to shame her or to compare violations, but rather to make a point. Though I agree he probably shouldn't have mentioned it at all.

But I also believe that he should not be anywhere near her after the way he violated her, and it horrifies me that fans can so easily overlook that violation.

I just have to bring up the glaring analogy here: how do you feel when this scenario occurs, with Angel? After the soulless version of him had just killed Jenny, tried to kill Buffy, and attempted to destroy the world, Buffy and co forgive him, (Buffy enters into a relationship with him again), when he shows up with a soul. He is very much more than just "anywhere near her." I'm genuinely curious to know if this bothers you, too. Personally, I am not bothered by either scenario. I find it perfectly acceptable for both vampires to ask for, (and receive), forgiveness for the things they did while under the control of the demon that inhabited their bodies. I mean geez, I don't know what I would have done if it happened to me, personally, but I have no issue with the fact that Buffy could forgive them both. What I don't understand, (and please don't take this personally--it's more of a general observation), is when fans strongly believe that Buffy should never forgive Spike and yet take no issue with the fact that she does so with Angel. I'm not saying that you are one such fan, but I have seen this particular contradiction many times here on the boards.

And to take it even further: should Angel have immediately left Sunnydale upon healing and getting his bearings again, in season 3? After the horrendous things he did to Buffy, should he have realized that he was no good for her, and left her alone, as soon as he returned? He stuck around for the rest of the season, to help her. That's exactly what Spike did. Stuck around for one more season. Why is Angel lauded for suddenly realizing he should leave Buffy, while Spike is looked down upon for the fact that he stayed, (incidentally for almost the exact same number of episodes as Angel once returning with a soul), in spite of the fact that he left too--only in his case the exit was made literally to save Buffy's life?

The reason I bring up Angel's actions, is because I genuinely want to know, from those who think Spike shouldn't have stayed in season 7 and who believe Spike should never have been forgiven--what the preferable course would have looked like? Because it certainly isn't Angel's, given the striking similarities in both deeds, and reactions.