Who is the biggest woobie in the Buffyverse?

[white avenger]

I tend to agree with Angel more than I do @white avenger. The soul opens your eyes to what you did do, but it does not absolve you of blame. What has been done, what harm, what torture - it has already been done. I don't really see a get out of blame card.

I would tend to agree with you, except for the fact that, within the Buffyverse, Angelus and Angel are two completely separate beings who just happen to share the same physical body and the same memories. Angel is no more Angelus than Angelus is Liam, even though they share the same memories and even the same body. Therefore, since Angel is not Angelus, he is not responsible in any way for anything hat Angelus ever did. The fact that he feels somehow responsible for Angelus' crimes might be commendable, but, in the universe that Joss created, it is strictly a self imposed burden, commendable, but unnecessary.

So, the get out of blame card has Joss Whedon's smiling face on it.

 

[gite63]

ANGEL You think any of it matters? The things we did? The lives we destroyed. That's all that's ever gonna count. So, yeah, surprise. You're going to hell. We both are.

Who told that to Angel? So, do all people who are killed by a vampire go to hell after their former bodies are dusted? Their souls are damned?

 

[Ember]

Yea, I have no idea why Angel is trying to atone for the sins of Angelus. Although I can see why he would take on some slay age work, unrelated to his alternative persona.

I also don't get how a relationship with cordelia would work isn't sex off limits for them too?

 

[Samuel Reyes]

I also don't get how a relationship with cordelia would work isn't sex off limits for them too?

Well, a moment of true happiness is so rare that it's unlikely (not, however, impossible) that Angel would lose his soul again. He was with Darla for over a century and did not revert to Angelus when they slept together in AS2. Simply put, Buffy was special.

 

[bespangeled]

However, that would imply that one's eyes were previously closed. So you're basically saying that if you're blind to what you're doing, you should be blamed for it?

So all vampires are blameless? Of course you should be blamed for it. Let's say a local guy decides to kidnap, rape and kill a kid - and since he's got some brain issues he doesn't see anything wrong with it. Would he be blameless? Regardless of his state of mind, the child has already been terrorized and killed. If medication brings him to a to place where he is aware that what he did was wrong - is he now blameless? At what point does the torture and murder of so many victims mean nothing?
 

I would tend to agree with you, except for the fact that, within the Buffyverse, Angelus and Angel are two completely separate beings who just happen to share the same physical body and the same memories. Angel is no more Angelus than Angelus is Liam, even though they share the same memories and even the same body. Therefore, since Angel is not Angelus, he is not responsible in any way for anything hat Angelus ever did. The fact that he feels somehow responsible for Angelus' crimes might be commendable, but, in the universe that Joss created, it is strictly a self imposed burden, commendable, but unnecessary.

So, the get out of blame card has Joss Whedon's smiling face on it.

They are all over the wall on that one - in early BTVS Angel talks of having a demon inside him that is always trying to get out. When Angel has his moment - he calls himself Angel, and in fact declares he is Angel at last. Giles is the only one who brings up Angelus - Angel does not speak of any separation between the two.

There are no different bodies, only one body that changes. The psyche goes from Liam- wh is absorbed into Angelus (and I used that name as a fan term for unsoulled Angel though it was not used in the BTVS). Liam 's personalit trait became part of Angelus - then the curse, and Angel has a soul. He even continues killing after that. The changes he makes are very slow - in early BTVS he is still drinking human blood. There really isn't a strong dividing line until Ats.

Back to what I said earlier - or a version. If the guy who went into the theater in Aurora and killed multiple victims blameless because he was unable to see what he did was wrong? Or did he become blameless when he realized he was wrong?
 

Who told that to Angel? So, do all people who are killed by a vampire go to hell after their former bodies are dusted? Their souls are damned?

Theoretically the soul leaves the body when it is changed. It is pointed out in Hellborn that the very soul Spike fought to get now condemns him to hell.
 

Well, a moment of true happiness is so rare that it's unlikely (not, however, impossible) that Angel would lose his soul again. He was with Darla for over a century and did not revert to Angelus when they slept together in AS2. Simply put, Buffy was special.

I'd say that it was that one time with Buffy - her absolute trust in him. Having seen what one moment of pure happiness will d, I doubt Angel could have another on.

 

[white avenger]

They are all over the wall on that one - in early BTVS Angel talks of having a demon inside him that is always trying to get out. When Angel has his moment - he calls himself Angel, and in fact declares he is Angel at last. Giles is the only one who brings up Angelus - Angel does not speak of any separation between the two.

There are no different bodies, only one body that changes. The psyche goes from Liam- wh is absorbed into Angelus (and I used that name as a fan term for unsoulled Angel though it was not used in the BTVS). Liam 's personalit trait became part of Angelus - then the curse, and Angel has a soul. He even continues killing after that. The changes he makes are very slow - in early BTVS he is still drinking human blood. There really isn't a strong dividing line until Ats.

Back to what I said earlier - or a version. If the guy who went into the theater in Aurora and killed multiple victims blameless because he was unable to see what he did was wrong? Or did he become blameless when he realized he was wrong?

I agree, the whole idea that having a soul makes Angel a different person, entirely, than Angelus makes little or no sense. It was used in Season 2 as a way of not portraying Angel as simply Angelus with a muzzle. It was just a way of avoiding the old good and evil twin brothers ploy, and retaining Angel as a viable love interest when he returned later in Season 3, and it was both lazy writing on Joss' part and a clever way of making the final scene of the Season so heart breaking. I think that it's safe to say that neither of us like it as a plot element. However, it is what Joss chose to use in this case, so we really have no choice but to accept it. Personally, if he had to go with a cliche' in this matter, I would have voted for the one where Angel was possessed by some evil spirit. We would have gotten the same results, without all of the confusion.

 

[bespangeled]

I agree, the whole idea that having a soul makes Angel a different person, entirely, than Angelus makes little or no sense. It was used in Season 2 as a way of not portraying Angel as simply Angelus with a muzzle. It was just a way of avoiding the old good and evil twin brothers ploy, and retaining Angel as a viable love interest when he returned later in Season 3, and it was both lazy writing on Joss' part and a clever way of making the final scene of the Season so heart breaking. I think that it's safe to say that neither of us like it as a plot element. However, it is what Joss chose to use in this case, so we really have no choice but to accept it. Personally, if he had to go with a cliche' in this matter, I would have voted for the one where Angel was possessed by some evil spirit. We would have gotten the same results, without all of the confusion.

I'm close to where you are but I see canon allowing for there to be co-present personalities. I do accept the earliest version of Angel - that he is a being with both an active demon and an active soul - and the soul restrains the demon. This is how he describes himself early on. Yes, the soul is sort of a muzzle - but this is a sacred muzzle that causes much pain and guilt - not a bit of technology.

Angel suffers, and is punished by a century in hell for his crimes. I'd say it is the suffering that purifies Angel so he can once more be a love interest. In fact, it is suffering and brooding that really indicate there is a soul for the first century after he was cursed.

ANGEL
When you become a vampire, the
demon takes your body. But it
doesn't get the soul. That's gone.
No conscience, no remorse . . . it's
an easy way to live. You have no
idea what it's like to have done
the things I've done, and to care.
I haven't fed on a living human
being since that day.(which is a lie, actually)

*****

ANGEL
I didn't bite her.
But I wanted to. I can walk like a
man but I'm not one.

Angel accepts responsibility for the things he did - the only difference he sees is that now he cares. He doesn't absolve himself on that basis of not caring (if) they were wrong.

 

[thetopher]

Angel and Angelus are two seperate beings- that's made clear enough when the writers realize that their not going to kill Angel off post-S2 (which is what was originaly planned) so they clarified the demon/soul paradigm.
Everything Angel says before that is from Angel's pov- nothing wrong with that but doesn't make it truth- so he does blame himself because all those memories/emotions are forced on him by the gypsies. I find that to be a rational act of a moral man- 'Oh my god what have I done!?'

Remember that the gypsies serve vengeance, not justice. What they do to Liam's soul is in no way just or fair- but it is a way of punishing the monster Angelus by locking him away in purpetual misery.

Also Angelus sure as hell knows the difference between himself and 'rat-boy', he makes all that clear when he reemerges in Season 4.
Angel almost constantly gets punished because of Angelus' actions- hence he woobie-kinghood.

 

[Kana]

So all vampires are blameless? Of course you should be blamed for it. Let's say a local guy decides to kidnap, rape and kill a kid - and since he's got some brain issues he doesn't see anything wrong with it. Would he be blameless? Regardless of his state of mind, the child has already been terrorized and killed. If medication brings him to a to place where he is aware that what he did was wrong - is he now blameless? At what point does the torture and murder of so many victims mean nothing?

I think the problem is how ill defined the soul is. I've previously described it as a conscience but perhaps that wouldn't fulfill the true understanding of the ontology. Before we get into these defintions we need to clarify what we mean when we talk about "being blind to what they were doing". By definition, if someone is blind to what they are doing then, yes, they should be blameless because they are missing a faculty that is crucial for making what one would describe as a moral decision. I refer to those who subscribe to this theory as the Purists. They would posit that a vampire should not be blamed for not using a moral faculty they do not possess. However this is a double edged sword as they also cannot be praised for any actions that may appear "good" because it would be impossible for them to make a moral decision (think Spike) and they would go further to say that not needing a soul for such decisions, undermines having a soul.

The Graylings, as I like to call them, take a more nuanced approach. They take it that the soul is not the be all and end all individuals like Angel and Spike cannot fit into these neat little boxes. While not having a soul may be seen as a mitigating factor, it doesn't render them utterly without responsibility.

The problem is that both theories are flawed. The Purists' argument is often circular. Simply labeling them as without moral reason because they don't have a soul doesn't address their behaviour or even their motivations. The Graylings however are willing to assign blame willingly without a solid understanding of what having a soul actually means.

So it goes back to the original point: What do we mean by "being blind to what they were doing"?

Angel and Angelus are two seperate beings- that's made clear enough when the writers realize that their not going to kill Angel off post-S2 (which is what was originaly planned) so they clarified the demon/soul paradigm.
Everything Angel says before that is from Angel's pov- nothing wrong with that but doesn't make it truth- so he does blame himself because all those memories/emotions are forced on him by the gypsies. I find that to be a rational act of a moral man- 'Oh my god what have I done!?

From a Cartesian dualist perspective, there is nothing rational about it. Either Angel did those horrible things, or he didn't. If he didn't, then he's blameless and anyone blaming him is either being irrational or is simply mistaken.

Remember that the gypsies serve vengeance, not justice. What they do to Liam's soul is in no way just or fair- but it is a way of punishing the monster Angelus by locking him away in purpetual misery.

Gypsy Man: You don't remember... everything you've done for a hundred
years. In a moment, you will. The face of everyone you killed... our
daughter's face... they will haunt you, and you will know what true
suffering is.

I don't think I'm being notpicky here, but this is extremely important. Who is the Gypsy talking to??? Under the "Angel and Angelus are seperate" theory, he's talking to Angel. However Angel didn't do those things!!!!

To answer the original question, I'd say Wesley or pre-Season 5 Connor. Of course, we have to mention Angel.

 

[thetopher]

If he didn't, then he's blameless and anyone blaming him is either being irrational or is simply mistaken.

Yeah, I'd say that sums up the behaviour of high school Xander, Kate Lockley and Daniel Holtz- an imbalanced view of Angel/us and his actions that is, on the whole, irrational.
Everyone else (at least on AtS) comes to view them as two entirely separate beings. Cordelia certainly knows the difference, as does Wesley. Even Gunn slowly comes to accept that Angel- fearsome vampire- is not like other vampires.

I'd also point out that Angel doesn't help people just to atone for past actions that he remembers doing, he does it because he can- he has the power to 'do real good in this world', and because he doesn't want people to suffer, or perhaps so that one day he'll become human.
He sat by for a hundred plus years without doing much of anything, so what else is he gonna do?

Who is the Gypsy talking to???

He's talking to Jenny Calander, not Angel. This is the gypsy POV between themselves- they know what they did to Angel is unjust, it is simple vengeance.

 

[Kana]

Yeah, I'd say that sums up the behaviour of high school Xander, Kate Lockley and Daniel Holtz- an imbalanced view of Angel/us and his actions that is, on the whole, irrational.

Xander doesn't seem to seperate Angel and Angelus and laterly neither does Buffy (Judging from what she says in Amends and Season 7 in regards to Spike). Holtz actually calls Angel, Angelus, so cleary he believes he's the same person and Kate called Angel, "Angelus".

Everyone else (at least on AtS) comes to view them as two entirely separate beings.

I'd certainly agree that those on AtS subscribed to that theory.

Cordelia certainly knows the difference, as does Wesley.

Yet both of them have talked about Angel either not being Angelus "anymore" or Angel changing or things he done before as Angelus.

Even Gunn slowly comes to accept that Angel- fearsome vampire- is not like other vampires.

Saying Angel is not like other vampires is not the same as saying he and Angelus are not the same Cartesian "I".

I'd also point out that Angel doesn't help people just to atone for past actions that he remembers doing, he does it because he can- he has the power to 'do real good in this world', and because he doesn't want people to suffer, or perhaps so that one day he'll become human.

If that were not the case, Angel wouldn't be one of the favourite characters from the televised show. 🙂. My point of contention is not why Angel is motivated to do good, it's the concept that if Angel and Angelus are seperate, when Angel says "I did this" in regard to what Angelus did, he is simply deluded. It doesn't make him a bad person, just wrong.

He's talking to Jenny Calander, not Angel. This is the gypsy POV between themselves- they know what they did to Angel is unjust, it is simple vengeance.

The quote was from Becoming and it was from the flashback in 1898. I'm pretty sure Jenny wasn't born yet 😉. It was taken from when Angel(us) was first cursed. He appears to be addressing Angel rather than Angelus (under the theory that they are seperate.), so they are under the impression they are the same person and even Enyos' conversation in Surprise implies they are the same. Either they are right or simply mistaken.

 

[thetopher]

Xander doesn't seem to seperate Angel and Angelus and laterly neither does Buffy (Judging from what she says in Amends and Season 7 in regards to Spike). Holtz actually calls Angel, Angelus, so cleary he believes he's the same person and Kate called Angel, "Angelus".

Both Xander amd Buffy evenually 'get over' the distinction, it just takes a little time. So does Giles after what Angelus did to him personally. They see Angel as another person- distinct.

I'm not commenting on the whole Spike matter because that is a lot murkier given his behaviour.

Yet both of them have talked about Angel either not being Angelus "anymore" or Angel changing or things he done before as Angelus.

And they also at various times refer to them as separate beings. In fact so does Angel 'You think he's smarter than me,' in S4 and Angelus refers to Angel as entirely separete from himself after Buffy S2.
We can go back and forth about what people say about Angel/Angelus dependant on what lines you want to cherry pick- the whole thing is pretty problematic.

But the clincher for me will always be Orpheus- two individuals fighting for control. Demon and soul- not demon WITH a soul.

If that were not the case, Angel wouldn't be one of the favourite characters from the televised show. 🙂. My point of contention is not why Angel is motivated to do good, it's the concept that if Angel and Angelus are seperate, when Angel says "I did this" in regard to what Angelus did, he is simply deluded. It doesn't make him a bad person, just wrong.

Deluded yes, but also sympathetic. I can't imagine NOT having that reaction. When you have the memories of doing those things (and the emotions to go with them) why wouldn't you associate yourself with those past actions and voe never to do them again.
Also Angel has killed when he first got his soul (albeit it was evil people for a few months) so atonement makes even more sense in this case.

The quote was from Becoming and it was from the flashback in 1898.

I was quoting Enyos in 'Surprise'. You might think he's mistaken but it is his pov and its a valid one- accordingly gypsies are about vengeance, not justice.

Put it this way- if Angel WAS straight up morally responsible for everything Angelus did then he is in no way a woobie. He's probably got more coming to him and justifiably so.

 

[Kana]

Both Xander amd Buffy evenually 'get over' the distinction, it just takes a little time. So does Giles after what Angelus did to him personally. They see Angel as another person- distinct.

Do they? Perhaps in the comics ( I'm somewhat behind), but I don't remember it happening in the televised show. Buffy talks about how Angel did all those horrible things to her, while addressing him.

I'm not commenting on the whole Spike matter because that is a lot murkier given his behaviour.

Her position is still logically consistent with her position in Season 3 in regards to Angel. She could be wrong, but from Season 3, she's consistent.

And they also at various times refer to them as separate beings. In fact so does Angel 'You think he's smarter than me,' in S4 and Angelus refers to Angel as entirely separete from himself after Buffy S2.

Oh they are wonderfully inconsistent (I blame the writing) and yes Angel himself talks about Angelus in the third person. Then in Season 5 he goes right back to referring to Angelus as himself in respect to his past deeds.

We can go back and forth about what people say about Angel/Angelus dependant on what lines you want to cherry pick- the whole thing is pretty problematic.

Oh trust me, I've mentioned many time how inconsistent they are. I actually posted about the two basic theories of vampirism on this very forum, God, over 7 years ago!

But the clincher for me will always be Orpheus- two individuals fighting for control. Demon and soul- not demon WITH a soul.

See the link above. "Angel" and "Angelus" start interacting when the soul is still in the jar and impervious to magic.

Deluded yes, but also sympathetic. I can't imagine NOT having that reaction. When you have the memories of doing those things (and the emotions to go with them) why wouldn't you associate yourself with those past actions and voe never to do them again.

It would be sympathetic, but also incorrect under "Theory 1"

Also Angel has killed when he first got his soul (albeit it was evil people for a few months) so atonement makes even more sense in this case.

Metaphysically, I don't have a problem with that 🙂.

I was quoting Enyos in 'Surprise'. You might think he's mistaken but it is his pov and its a valid one- accordingly gypsies are about vengeance, not justice.

I'm saying he's only wrong under the assumption that Angel and Angelus are seperate. Under Theory 2, whether you agree with him morally or not, it fits the metaphysics.

Put it this way- if Angel WAS straight up morally responsible for everything Angelus did then he is in no way a woobie. He's probably got more coming to him and justifiably so.

Even Theory 2 depends on whether Angel can make a real moral decision without a soul or if he can, how much not having one affects his decisions.

 

[bespangeled]

But the clincher for me will always be Orpheus- two individuals fighting for control. Demon and soul- not demon WITH a soul.

Yes - exactly. There are two beings - self aware - sharing one body. It is only because of the drugs that they are able to be seen as, and perceive themselves as, separate. Normally there are not two bodies. Yet both the soul and the demon are completely aware of what the other is doing and thinking. This awareness exists even when they inhabit the one body.

Both Xander amd Buffy evenually 'get over' the distinction, it just takes a little time. So does Giles after what Angelus did to him personally. They see Angel as another person- distinct.

They don't get over the distinction, or Buffy would be sleeping with Angel.

Put it this way- if Angel WAS straight up morally responsible for everything Angelus did then he is in no way a woobie. He's probably got more coming to him and justifiably so.

He is, and he does - which is why he tells Spike that they will both burn in hell.

The logic of separating the two easily falls apart. Take Adam Lanza. He was autistic, had severe OCD, and was schizophrenic for his last years. He live in a room with the windows covered with garbage bags and communicated with his mother (in the same house) only via text messages. He took a gun to Sandy Hook and murdered 20 kindergartners, as well as 6 adults. Is he blameless because h had lost any sense of right or wrong? Had he not killed himself - if he were finally medicated so he knew what he had done was wrong - would that make him a completely separate person?

Better yet - take Faith. Once Faith knew that she was wrong - once she wanted to die because she had killed people - didn't that realization make her into a different person? What did she need to atone for - she committed the murders at a point in her life when she lost track of why murder was wrong? Now she knew - now she had a conscience. Why do she and Angel talk about redemption being a rocky road? Is Faith more guilty than Angel?

 

[thetopher]

They don't get over the distinction, or Buffy would be sleeping with Angel.

One- the curse. Two- Angel left Buffy despite her wanting a relationship. I think the mature Buffy knows the difference between Angel and Angelus pretty well because they are so distinct.

Yes - exactly. There are two beings - self aware - sharing one body. It is only because of the drugs that they are able to be seen as, and perceive themselves as, separate.

From Angel's perspective sure, he rarely differentiates between himself and Angelus. Angelus on the other hand is all 'Angel thinks this, Angel's stupid dream', rat boy' etc. Angelus knows he is different from that jerk with a soul.

He is, and he does - which is why he tells Spike that they will both burn in hell.

Maybe, maybe not. Maybe Angel will get that shanshu.
Angel is not the ultimate arbiter of his own guilt, just as Spike isn't of his own guilt- which is why they both act so differently.

Better yet - take Faith. Once Faith knew that she was wrong - once she wanted to die because she had killed people - didn't that realization make her into a different person? What did she need to atone for - she committed the murders at a point in her life when she lost track of why murder was wrong? Now she knew - now she had a conscience. Why do she and Angel talk about redemption being a rocky road? Is Faith more guilty than Angel?

On the one hand Faith murdered with a soul- she made a choice. She had a hard life, had a demonic essence inside her and nobody giving a damn about her but in the end she made an informed choice that Liam did not. She was the same person BOTH times, more mature afterwards, less reckless, but she always had that sense of right and wrong even in the midst of all she was doing - which is why she felt self-loathing even when she was evil ('Enemies/Choices/This Year's Girl,).
Denial is not the same as ignorance.

Liam thought he was going to get lucky with a pretty noble lady and then woke up in a field 120+ years later with a lifetime of slaughter on his conscience. How is Angel responsible for any of that? He had no moral capacity when he was a vampire because Liam did not exist- 'the demon gets your body (and memories) but it doesn't get your soul'- not who you truly are, just a twisted reflection.

However, Angel is responsible for going back to Darla and (trying) to continue his monstrous ways for a while. He has killed many more people than Faith and also been complicit in the deaths of others, sometimes understandably, sometimes not.
So yes, they both need to atone because of the evils they have committed and also consequently they tend to both get hosed by life in general for the sake of drama/karma.

 

[gite63]

Is Faith more guilty than Angel?

!!! Of course she is! She is a murderer - she regrets that now, but she killed knowing exactly was she was doing, she killed because she had a crappy life, she killed because she didn't care! Unless you are talking about the times Angel - and not Angelus - killed or caused death, including the time as Twilight in the comics, then Angel has much more to answer for.
 

Better yet - take Faith. Once Faith knew that she was wrong - once she wanted to die because she had killed people - didn't that realization make her into a different person? What did she need to atone for - she committed the murders at a point in her life when she lost track of why murder was wrong?

So what it takes is a murderer have a crisis, cry a little, and say I didn't know better? Faith was human, she lived in this world, she was brought up with our laws and morals - and her excuse is that she didn't know that murder was something wrong?

Very different from a being who has no soul, who is a monster. And even a monster can, ultimately, learn the difference between right and wrong - take Spike as an example. Once he was chipped and lived among humans and fell in love, the excuse of not knowing didn't stand anymore - he attacked Buffy, he knew he was wrong, he took immediate action to fix and prevent that to ever happen again.

 

[bespangeled]

!!! Of course she is! She is a murderer - she regrets that now, but she killed knowing exactly was she was doing, she killed because she had a crappy life, she killed because she didn't care! Unless you are talking about the times Angel - and not Angelus - killed or caused death, including the time as Twilight in the comics, then Angel has much more to answer for.
 


So what it takes is a murderer have a crisis, cry a little, and say I didn't know better? Faith was human, she lived in this world, she was brought up with our laws and morals - and her excuse is that she didn't know that murder was something wrong?

Very different from a being who has no soul, who is a monster. And even a monster can, ultimately, learn the difference between right and wrong - take Spike as an example. Once he was chipped and lived among humans and fell in love, the excuse of not knowing didn't stand anymore - he attacked Buffy, he knew he was wrong, he took immediate action to fix and prevent that to ever happen again.

Then where does Bundy fit in - a psychopath with no human sensibilities? What about Dahmer? Lanza?

Basically what I read is not being able to understand that killing is wrong makes you blameless for the killing. I've brought up several examples of individual murderers who - because of brain issues - have no idea what is right or wrong. Does this absolve them - make them blameless? If any one of them were able to understand what they had done, would that make them a different person who is completely blameless? No one seems to want to address this issue - so is anyone here willing to say the Ted Bundy is an innocent man because he was a psychopath?

This is all part of my shanshu argument:
SIRK
The vampire will have his past washed clean.

ANGEL
And live again in mortal form. Yeah, that part I know.

The past cannot be washed clean. Those who were tortured and murdered are still dead, and will always be dead. There is no way that can be undone. For me it's immoral to say everyone is blameless. Was what happened to Dusilla simply an accident? Or does it no longer count against Angel, even though Dru is still insane and will always be so? It seems a very convenient world where one can chose to become a vampire, and then be rendered completely blameless because he know understands what he did. It's as if the sudden understanding wipes all the horror clean.

The combined creature with a soul is more than he was without one, but if the soul is a totally different entity completely separate from the demon, then that can only make the soul blameless. It can't wash the demon clean. If they are simply different facets of the same identity, then the demon is still responsible.

 

[thetopher]

Then where does Bundy fit in - a psychopath with no human sensibilities? What about Dahmer? Lanza?

Basically what I read is not being able to understand that killing is wrong makes you blameless for the killing. I've brought up several examples of individual murderers who - because of brain issues - have no idea what is right or wrong. Does this absolve them - make them blameless?

Psychologically speaking a lot psychopaths absolutely know about right and wrong but are compelled by a variety of factors to kill anyway. In fact some of them eventually want to be caught by the authorities so they can be stipped/fixed or whatever, but they don't have the will to stop themselves- its a compunction.
Society stops them by either imprisoning them or executing them dependant on the level of culpability that they are judged to have about their actions. Some psychopaths are executed by the state (in whatever country thet reside- or prison if the death penalty is not available) whilst others are put in a mental institute and treated. Some are even cured.

On the other hand Buffy stakes all vampires unless they are soulled/chipped. Nothing else matters about a vampires level of compunction- they are deemed simply as 'evil'. That's fine, that's her job.

So, to take your hypothetical and compare it to a real life 19th century case (Australia I think)- there is a man, a killer, who has no empathy- no moral sense of right or wrong. He has a mental disorder (classified as delusion at the time) but then in the course of his crimes he suffers a serious brain injury (head impaled with a rail road spike), survives and is a completely changed individual due to the damage to the frontal lobe.
He is now non-violent and, although he remembers his past actions, has no desire to repeat any of that.

Now the man still went to jail but served a reduced sentence because he judged to be less of a threat/ to blame (psychlogy was in its infancy as was any understanding of how the brain worked- there was a great debate at the time about whether this man was faking or whatever. He wasn't as it turned out)- and I would agree with that.
Jail is not only punishment for past crimes but also a way to prevent future crimes from that same person. But if there was some way to be assured that the criminal has been 'reformed' and will never again repeat past sins then yes, they are absolved to an extent.

The past cannot be washed clean. Those who were tortured and murdered are still dead, and will always be dead. There is no way that can be undone. For me it's immoral to say everyone is blameless. Was what happened to Dusilla simply an accident? Or does it no longer count against Angel, even though Dru is still insane and will always be so? It seems a very convenient world where one can chose to become a vampire, and then be rendered completely blameless because he know understands what he did. It's as if the sudden understanding wipes all the horror clean.

As I remember Sirk was lying through his teeth about that particular translation- Shanshu is basically 'you atone enough and you get to become human'. The demon is cleansed from you (you're no longer a vampire) and the soul part of you gets a second chance at life. That's how Wesley translated it.

The point of Shanshu is not 'washed clean' but to do enough good to balance those scales (that whole Shanshu ressurection is easily one of the weaker parts of S5) and to make amends.
But again that is pretty pointless- lives can't be bartered like that. The dead are still dead and there's no replacing them. All anyone can do is strive to do as much good with the power they have.
Ultimately that's the point of AtS- fighting for the sake of it with no hope of some fluffy happy ending- because that's not on the cards for a lot of the protagonists.

 

[gite63]

Then where does Bundy fit in - a psychopath with no human sensibilities? What about Dahmer? Lanza?

Basically what I read is not being able to understand that killing is wrong makes you blameless for the killing. I've brought up several examples of individual murderers who - because of brain issues - have no idea what is right or wrong.

Buffy is not a killer.

I'm talking about vampires in the Buffyverse; they are monsters, it's much more than knowing or not knowing. They are creatures born to kill, it's their nature. The human soul left the body, it cannot be accountable for the crimes the vampire committed. Do vampires go to hell when they are dusted? And if they go, should their souls go to hell (not just Angel's and Spike's) too because of the murders of the demons that took their bodies?

 

[bespangeled]

Buffy is not a killer.

I'm talking about vampires in the Buffyverse; they are monsters, it's much more than knowing or not knowing. They are creatures born to kill, it's their nature. The human soul left the body, it cannot be accountable for the crimes the vampire committed. Do vampires go to hell when they are dusted? And if they go, should their souls go to hell (not just Angel's and Spike's) too because of the murders of the demons that took their bodies?

I never said that she was - nor do I believe she is one. No idea where vampire souls are stored - limbo. purgatory, a very large storage space with file cabinets?