If Buffy was in "Reunion" with Angel, would she had allowed Darla and Drusilla slaughter the lawyers at Wolfram and Hart? Or would she had saved them even though they had it coming in the first place? I mean they resurrected Darla and then had Drusilla sire her, what did they think what was gonna happen?
Would Buffy had allowed Darla and Drusilla massacre Wolfram and Hart?
- Thread starter Joshua
- Start date
white avenger
white avenger
Buffy would probably have stopped them at that time, the same as she would probably have stopped Giles from killing Ben at the end of Season 5. By the time that Season 7 rolled around, however, she would have let the vampires do their worst, then probably staked them once the slaughter was over.
thrasherpix
Scooby
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2016
- Messages
- 5,314
- Age
- 43
brinkster130
Riley's BFF
Assuming W&H had been messing with Buffy the way they had been with Angel, she probably would have.
What I meant was if that episode had Buffy as Angel's sidekick as a crossover episode would she had saved the Wolfram and Hart people?
brinkster130
Oh, well without the history with W&H she probably would have tried to save them
Ethan Reigns
Scooby
In the first season, one of Buffy's first kills was the zookeeper, a human who had done things that were not subject to the law. Wolfram & Hart were also above the law (or had bought it off) so I doubt Buffy would stop the massacre. But she might have staked Darla and Drusilla after they had finished.
RomanticSoul
Frell Me
Early Seasons Buffy it would depend on the circumstances I think. Later Seasons Buffy would absolutely let the girls have their fun, probably giving them a 'have at it girls' as she leaves the room.
Kana
Soulless human
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2007
- Messages
- 1,305
I'd doubt it. Buffy had less moral flexibility than Angel. Keeping in mind some of the people in that cellar may have been the dates of the lawyers and therefore innocent. I think she would have dusted them straight away or least attempted to. Individual human life was always important to her and she rarely let people die if she could help it. Most of her human body count came out of self defense or necessity (in Lie To Me for example, the odds were against her with Spike and his minions). Even killing Faith was partly about preserving the life of another.
Buffy's slaying policy wasn't the most consistent... But I think she would have stopped Darla and Dru. If Buffy was willing to fight for Warren's life in 'Villains', then she wouldn't allow Darla and Dru to slaughter a whole bunch of lawyers.
Buffy didn't intend to KILL the zookeeper, he just sorta died by accident. I don't think she wanted him to get eaten by the hyenas.
Klaus Kartoffel
Scooby
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2016
- Messages
- 610
- Age
- 42
No, not in that timeline under the present circumstances. Right circumstances could be "no one messes with my boyfriend" types of situations, a S07/08 war scenario, or S06-like nihilism.
Buffy has killed humans in self-defense or in protection of her loved ones(whose lie were actively being threatened). But unless she had an extensive history to justify hatred intense enough, she'd rather see human criminals/wrongdoers to justice than kill them or let them be killed out of cold blood. Especially by her enemies.
thrasherpix
Scooby
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2016
- Messages
- 5,314
- Age
- 43
I'm not sure a law firm using demons and sorcery to corrupt and kill counts. Even if it did, she'd have to know her chances to bring even a bunch of mundane (but wealthy and well-connected) lawyers to justice was virtually nil, let alone one with the extensive supernatural contacts and resources of W&H.
And in addition to giving Ford to the vampires in season 2 (though that's not exactly the same thing since Ford wasn't trying to escape, and Buffy was outmatched), she also wanted some kind of permission in season 3 to kill (and didn't sound in the passive "if I find them in a room with vampires I'll lock them in" way) child killers when she thought cultists had killed Hansel & Gretel (hopefully you know which ep I'm referring to). W&H went about ripping off homeless teen centers, facilitated child sacrifice, sent thugs to brutalized (adult) teens like Beth (even if it was to drive them to kill and thus corrupt them), and sent a deadly assassin to kill 3 blind children, so I expect she'd feel about the same toward them. I bet W&H also facilitated the operations that Buffy encountered that was enslaving the homeless youth and then spitting them out to die when they were too old.
She would probably try to save them and then give an annoying speech about it and redemption... to a bunch of people who had willingly signed on to be agents of evil in the world, and - if saved - would already have been planning how to kill her.
Angel is the one who gives annoying speeches about redemption... Buffy would just stake Dru and Darla and go away. And probably quip something cool right before leaving.
thetopher
Member of the Church Of Faith
Season 1-5 Buffy? She would've saved them (reluctantly) just like she saved other evil human types- such as Ethan Rayne from demon-Giles (who had a history of messing with her).
Season 7 Buffy didn't seem to care about human life that much (see her behavior around trigger-Spike) so she probably would've 'let' Dru and Darla have their fun, just like she would've let Spike kill Wood.
Season 7 Buffy didn't seem to care about human life that much (see her behavior around trigger-Spike) so she probably would've 'let' Dru and Darla have their fun, just like she would've let Spike kill Wood.
RomanticSoul
Frell Me
*snort*
You mean like she just stood there in 'Crush' and let Dru, Harmony and Spike just go without even so much as bothering to remember that she is a vampire SLAYER? That Buffy? Just like Buffy let Harmony walk previously? Or that Spike remained un-staked for S2-6 despite all the evil he deserved to die for? I'm sorry but canon tells me differently than what you are suggesting.
AnthonyCordova
By suffering, learning
I would not think Buffy would kill them. I also think it speaks more highly of her: to stick by one's principles in easy scenarios is easy; to stand by one's principles when it is difficult to do so (like allow the lawyers to be killed-fighting that urge to make an exception would be difficult of course) shows how much those principles mean to you. Protecting principles when the going is good means absolutely nothing; only standing by one's principles when it is very hard to do so or when standing by them requires a real sacrifice of your own is the only proof that you believe in your principles to begin with: my problem with my fellow Americans also.
I agree with @thetopher that early Buffy obviously would have done so, but late Buffy would have felt more challenged. I still think S7 Buffy would have saved them: not because that it would be right per se but because of what I said above. I feel early Buffy knew my post about principle intuitively, and that her moral choices were (in part) anchored by an implicit understanding of that, but I think for late Buffy it must be a conscious choice; if it wasn't a conscious thing for her at that stage she probably would have let them die (not to mention she would have shown more of a decline than she had in the late seasons: it was largely what was keeping her together). But I feel late Buffy does a lot of things purely on principle, or mostly on principle (consciously). And not surprisingly, she has had it hard and stands to lose a lot more, e.g. her faith/love of humanity, herself, her happiness, etc. so ultimately, it is a demonstration of her growth and maturity. I also agree with @Taake that she would have expressed cynicism about it though (saving the lawyers anyway) through bitter sarcasm (late Buffy bitterness and sarcasm).
Her development side by side with Angel's on these issues is interesting to think about. They are not on the same moral path/trajectory at all, I feel (not in the specifics and details).
I agree with @thetopher that early Buffy obviously would have done so, but late Buffy would have felt more challenged. I still think S7 Buffy would have saved them: not because that it would be right per se but because of what I said above. I feel early Buffy knew my post about principle intuitively, and that her moral choices were (in part) anchored by an implicit understanding of that, but I think for late Buffy it must be a conscious choice; if it wasn't a conscious thing for her at that stage she probably would have let them die (not to mention she would have shown more of a decline than she had in the late seasons: it was largely what was keeping her together). But I feel late Buffy does a lot of things purely on principle, or mostly on principle (consciously). And not surprisingly, she has had it hard and stands to lose a lot more, e.g. her faith/love of humanity, herself, her happiness, etc. so ultimately, it is a demonstration of her growth and maturity. I also agree with @Taake that she would have expressed cynicism about it though (saving the lawyers anyway) through bitter sarcasm (late Buffy bitterness and sarcasm).
Her development side by side with Angel's on these issues is interesting to think about. They are not on the same moral path/trajectory at all, I feel (not in the specifics and details).
Last edited:
Harm and Dru mostly survived due to plot-armor. Spike survived because of plot armor too at the beginning, and later survived because of the chip/soul, which is a whole other discussion.
Anyway - even if she wouldn't stake Dru and Darla in the wine cellar, Buffy still wouldn't let them kill the lawyers.