This site will work and look better in a browser that supports web standards, but it is accessible to any browser or Internet device.

Whedonesque - a community weblog about Joss Whedon
"Cup of tea, cup of tea, nearly got shagged, cup of tea?"
11945 members | you are not logged in | 20 October 2014




Tweet







October 10 2010

(SPOILER) BuffyFest interview Scott Allie at NYCC 2010. Some spoilers about things to come... with yet another one word encapsulation of the notorious #39. Some announcements about other Whedonverse stuff too, including Dollhouse comics. Some more details on the Dollhouse book can be found HERE. Also some stuff about the Guild.

Great interview Buffyfest. The new word for issue 39 is devastating.
And don't worry Scott, it didn't feel like pandering. You did a great job with 37.
Faith series as far as we are aware of isn't happening at the moment. But for all those Faith fans i would say don't lose hope. It's a long time before season 9 will start and Scott himself said that they are still very early in development. What we know so far is that there will be 2 ongoing's, Buffy and Angel. And 2 spinoffs of Buffy being Spike and Willow.
Also confirmation that Buffy and crew will interact with Angel's gang(Illyria and Connor were mentioned).
You know, as much as I prefer happy endings, I hope they're not overdoing the "it's going to be baaad" hype. I'd hate to be prepared for devastation and illness but having to settle for simple sadness ;p
I think it would be interesting if it was Xander who died. It'd be a nice twist to everyone he's with dying. Not that I'd want him to die. But still, that would be the biggest twist, since we're all thinking Giles or Dawn anyway it seems.
In case there was any confusion about how many Dollhouse comics we'll be getting, @MoTancharoen just tweeted THIS. Looks like we'll be getting quite a few books.
So, fan speculation about his absence on the cover aside, a Spike spin-off would imply not a dead Spike. Deader Spike?
Has there actually been any definitive confirmation that there will be a Spike spin-off/miniseries/whatever from someone at DH? Because all I've heard them say is "a few other characters will get their own titles as well," one of them would be Willow, and "*maybe* Spike *maybe*".
Yes there will be a Spike spinoff. It's confirmed several entries down the front page.
"So, fan speculation about his absence on the cover aside, a Spike spin-off would imply not a dead Spike. Deader Spike?"

I don't know ...it still makes me worried.
I mean I suppose there could still be a Spike mini-series even if they decide to 'off' Spike...like a 'memorial' or flashback type of thing I guess, but I sure don't see that as very rewarding to Spike fans.
Maybe it's all a misdirect to throw us off the finale.

I really hope DH will do a Spike series, but I have to admit his absence on the cover makes me feel...well..'ill' and I'd definitely be 'devastated' if he's the one who dies.
I'm not happy about any of the characters dying, but losing Spike would pretty much ruin it all for me.
I really doubt Joss would off Spike, simply because he is SO incredibly popular and it would be an awful business decision. Out of all the characters he is probably the biggest fan favorite. That said, I do still worry sometimes... I mean.. It is Joss. And the lack of Spike on the cover is making me antsy. Which is probably exactly what it's intended to do.

Season 9 sounds a lot more interesting than 8 so far. I'm trying not to get my hopes too high though, because Season 8 has been such a disappointment to me in so many ways.
Simon, that's the same article I was looking at, and that's where I got the "*maybe* Spike *maybe*" and "some characters will get their own titles" thing. I didn't hear Scott Allie actually say one of those characters would be Spike in that video. There was that one part where the audio cut out, and then he said "some other characters" while the Jo Chen 36 cover was on the screen, but he didn't actually *say* Spike, so unless he's said it elsewhere, it seems like it could still be a mislead of some kind.
Did you see the ICV2 news that I added to that entry yesterday? The Spike spinoff is confirmed.
Simon is right, the Spike series is confirmed.
The Faith series was the 'maybe one' and that got debunked by this interview.

[ edited by Vergil on 2010-10-10 20:33 ]
Oh, okay. Yeah, missed the ICV2 thing. Thanks.
Well, theoretically Spike miniseries could be another historical project. But I agree with optimists - Joss won't kill Spike. At least, permanently.
You don't give someone a bug-crewed steam-punk ship just to kill them off before having any fun with the shiny new toy. Spike is gonna be fine.
Hugs you Moscow. :)
I'll try to be optimistic too, but I just can't help worrying since the overall theme of this comic seems to be so ominous.
Spike just came back...I'd hate to lose him again. I was kinda hoping he'd get a lot of new adventures in his own series and that news gave me a bit of relief, but Allie's newest cryptic remarks about Spike and Dawn's absense on the 40 cover seem awfully foreboding.
Time will tell I guess. Let's just hope he makes it out of S8
The whole theme of Season 8 is actually how the universe corrects itself after Buffy upset the balance in Season 7 when she created an army of Slayers. I think that by issue 40, other than Buffy and Faith, all the other slayers that she activated will be either dead or inactivated as a result of Buffy's actions (thus fulfilling that part of the Fray future) and that Season 9 will once again revolve around the core group from the first three seasons (including Spike but not Dawn).
Yeah no way that Spike will be killed off.
There could however be a big change up ahead for Spike because Scott said in a past Q&A that the end of season 8 will bring about massive change for slayers and vampires. Right now Spike is the only vampire around in the group so this will very much effect him. I'm really hoping that there will be some inter-dimensional traveling done in season 9 and that Spike's ship will be the vehicle and homebase for it. Captain Spike, stardate 9.8745...
Dawn i really do think is screwed, simply because she's happy with Xander and they were thinking about the future. Two very big no no's in the Whedonverse.
Hmm, just total off the top of my head thought here, but we sort of know Willow is safe since we've seen her future self before, and I just don't think Xander is in trouble here. The very fact so many people are saying Spike is obviously safe is what is raising an eyebrow with me. Dawn and Giles seem like obvious choices. On the other hand... maybe it's Buffy.

Well, again...

...for the third time.
I don't think Spike can be killed off for the third season finale in a row.
My tv mind says he got killed off at the end of Not Fade Away, my comic book mind says he survived.
I kind of wish that the Dollhouse comic wasn't just based on the Epitaph world, but I'll take what I can get at this point.
Epitaph world most suited for comics. Couldn't exactly do Echo-Of-The-Week in comics.
Spike will not be killed off. Only persons who could be would be Dawn, Giles, or Faith. If we end magic, there should really only be one Slayer, even if Aluwyn suggests that the ones left alive will remain as slayers. No Faith comic, could mean no Faith.
I actually think the Spike theory fits the available data well - Joss never does anything predictable in this sort of situation, and Dawn/Giles are both a bit obvious at this point. Can't kill Angel, and it wouldn't make sense with his arc anyway. Faith would be boring. Xander is possible, I suppose. And Willow...

Wait, that one actually fits well too! Since so much of the season/show is about bucking destiny, wouldn't the best way for that to happen be killing someone we've been shown is supposed to be in the future? After all, the future's never guaranteed, and can always be altered by present actions. That would certainly be a curveball right up Joss' alley (and yes, I love mixed metaphors). Further, as someone else noted above, the fact that she's getting her own comic or going to be in Spike's isn't evidence that either of them is immune now. So yeah - Willow's as possible as anyone else.
Great interview.I love the idea of Buffy finally meeting Illyria and Connor.
If we end magic, there should really only be one Slayer..

If that would be the case, then it would be Faith, the Vampire Slayer. Not Buffy.
Second the love for Buffy/Connor and Illyria! Been wanting this for ages. Lorne would've been amazing on Buffy too but not sure they'll go there.
Ooooh. I wonder if they'll 'ship Buffy & Connor. That'd really mess with Angel. hahaha.
They've already done something at that level of gross. I think they learned their lesson.
Buffy/Connor? I'm sorry, but I don't Connor on some sort of quest to hook up with every woman Angel has slept with. I don't mind him MEETING her... but please. One Season 4 ATS was enough for me.
Third the love and interest for a Buffy and Connor introduction, it would be so cool to hear what he thinks of Buffy. Especially with the way he was taken with Faith...if he thought SHE was something...meet Buffy. :)

Anything that continues to weave these universes together is fine with me. I just wish Wesley was still around.
Wesley. *sobs*
Every Angel character I ever really cared about is dead. Wesley and Cordy were my favorites and they're both dead. I was never much of a fan of Gunn or Fred. I like Illyria though, that could be interesting. Still, I always wished Wes and Cordy could cross over when the shows were on, because they have an actual history with the Scoobies.
Yes. Wes and Cordy's death stick out all the more now that both titles are back with Joss as creator on the same "network". What a shame, I loved them both so. RIP Cordy & Wes. Same goes for Lilah. A Buffy/Lilah interaction could've be interesting.

Can't wait for Illyria's presence, though. Wonder how Willow will react to Fred's death? She knew her and was crushing on her a little bit. I can only assume the Buffy characters don't know about the deaths of Cordy/Wes/Fred.
Same. Cordy and Wesley were both in my top 5 Buffyverse characters. Along with Spike, Willow, and Anya. Yeah, I really enjoyed Lilah's character as well. *sigh*

I agree, they probably don't know about their deaths. How many of the Buffy characters actually know about Connor? Does Buffy? I feel like she must. We know that Willow and Faith do. Hmmm. Also, I apologize for any bad grammar. It's 1 AM where I am, and I'm super tired.
Somehow I feedl Buffy will go out of season 8 as a mere human, not a slayer.

For the reconnection of the two great story worlds in the Buffyverse: Too many deads to me to handle it.
I think Buffy does know about Cordy's death, as evidenced by what she tells Willow in the issue, After these messages.

Aside from Angel, obviously, Wes and Lilah are two of my favorites, it really would have been great to see a reunion, especially with Buffy and Wes.
I don't think Conner would be very impressed with Buffy- I think he'd think she was a goody-goody. He liked Faith cause she was tough and had attitude. Not that Buffy isn't tough- but i see Conner being more impressed with Faith.

God I love Lilah. Really my favorite ATS character. Would always be happy to see her again, interacting with anyone! Dawn? Kennedy maybe? Could be funny....
You know who I think would be a great title character for her own spin-off? Kate.

Her story doesn't even have to be connected to the overall season 9 story arc. I mean, we can assume that Buffy and Angel and Spike and Willow and the Scoobies are all going to be busy fighting the big bad of the season - and I'm sure it'll be an epic story, so Kate could be the girl on the streets of LA getting back to the basics - fighting vampires and demons, and protecting the innocent. Everyone else is off saving the world and no one is protecting the people.

I know it'll never happen. But I kind of like the idea. The Buffyverse is just so full of untapped potential that it's kind of frustrating. haha.

[ edited by jesse on 2010-10-11 07:04 ]
I'd like that too, jesse, and I think it'd be a great chance to catch up on some of the supporting characters throughout Angel's run. A miniseries with Anne, Gwen, and Nina would be a great chance to explore the Angelverse without getting caught in the heavy mythological trappings of the series. You could even call it "Angel's Angels" ;)
It'd be nice just to see a Buffy/Illyria showdown or a Dark Willow/Illyria showdown. Just cause.
I would love to see an Illyria/Glory or Illyria/Jasmine fight. I wonder who would win... if, of course, Illyria was at full power - I doubt it (she?) could win either battle if she was in her current reduced-power state.
He is a god-king.
That would be interesting a god vs an old one
Illyria i could very much see working. Definitely in clashing with Buffy or Willow. Connor not so much, all it would show to Buffy is what a terrible father Angel is. I think it would have been much better if they had left Connor alone after season 5 instead of dragging him into the whole mess in Atf.
I don't see how Angel's been a bad father. He's tried to help Connor as much as possible, it was getting kidnapped and brainwashed by Holtz that was the problem. And I'm glad he was drawn back into the fight...I think he had a destiny with it.
Well i was talking more about how Angel is acting over at DH now. Where he only cares about Buffy, Connor doesn't seem to matter to him one bit.
But yeah the same can be said about the past, if Angel had truelly loved his son then he would have done the right thing which was pack up and retire. His only troubles would be making sure Connor was raised well. The world would continue going on without champion Angel, it has survived long without him anyway and there are plenty of other champions to pick up the slack. I would even argue that Angel has done more damage to the state of the world then good.

Angel didn't do this, Angel wanted to be a champion and a father. It just doesn't work like that, if it wasn't Holtz it would have been someone else that went after Connor to hurt Angel.
Champions don't quit. Thats what makes them champions.
Angel quit in season 2, his "gray" period was a fascinating arc.
The moment in season two where Angel shut the doors on the lawyers - "I just can't seem to care" - is probably the highlight of that entire series. For me.
Everything about Angel is fascinating *g* The world might "go on without champion Angel" but it would sure be a heck of a lot less interesting. Angel is one of the most complex and is probably more unique than just about anybody, Buffy aside.

Not seeing Angel as a bad father either and the thing about protecting the people that you love, from evil at every turn? There has to be a world for your loved ones to LIVE IN, which is something that Angel fights for. Angel is a hero who has always done the best he can with the circumstances in front of him. I don't know how you could ask for more from a character.
I don't think Angel could think about Connor in the Buffy comic, because he didn't exist there until DH had the rights to Angel.

Because they're different shows with different characters (including Angel and Cordelia, who were written differently on the two shows while being played by the same actors). I for one don't like them being all mashed together.
Connor was kidnapped by Holtz and raised hating his father. When he returned he sent this mentioned father at the bottom of the ocean... who was terrible? Angel? Please! He did the only possible thing in the attempt to save his son from despair, hatred and crazyness.

And champions don't quit.

As for DH ... well, this is my problem. Angel is OOC in s8.. It seems to me almost an attempt to destroy an amazing and fascinating character.
I've never been able to get past the third season of Angel, so work to combine these two shows would likely put me off Buffy for good. As to the books coming, I could see Willow getting killed off, but if she did, she'd be back by the end of S9. Right now, even odds on Dawn, 3-1 Giles, 5-1 Faith, 10-1 Willow. Spike 50-1, Angel 50-1, Xander 40-1 and Buffy 99-1.
I don't see it that way, Angel can't have it all. You can't be both the best father and the best champion. He wanted both and paid the price for it. At the very least he could have made sure that his innocent son was adopted in a loving,safe family. Angel could provide for the love, with his line of work he was unable to provide a safe enviroment. He eventually comes to realize this and has Conner adopted in a loving family but at the price of corrupting himself and his friends.

And i think it is very much possible for a champion to stop fighting for the right reasons. There isn't a single champion in the verse that has been fighting evil forever. I see no shame in hanging up the cape to raise your child. Willow touched on this too this season when she was allowed to hold Oz's child, she wants to have her own but realizes that the life Buffy and scoobies lead is incompatible with it. Or at the very least much more dangerous. When Xander and Dawn talked about moving into their own place after the war it is the same thing, there is more to life then being a champion.

True champions don't quit but they also don't kill and hurt innocent people and Angel has done more then enough of that.
As i said Angel couldn't choose between his son and being a champion. Nikki Wood however very clearly did, she chose the mission over her son. It didn't mean that she didn't love Robin, it just meant that her nr1 priority was the mission.

[ edited by Vergil on 2010-10-11 17:02 ]
Uhm, I'd sure put a little something on Xander with those odds.
Feels pretty much like time to quit the comics for me.
Dorotea, I completely agree.
Angel quit in season 2, his "gray" period was a fascinating arc.

But then he came back. All heroes quit from time to time.

I find Angel's entire journey "gray". Right from his beginning in Buffy. I'm one of those people who see the characters as the same, whether they have a soul or not, so I don't necessarily separate his actions as Angelus. Maybe thats why I'm don't find him to be that OOC in S8. Mixed-up and confused maybe, but not completely OOC. The problem is that there's a decided lack of context within S8, in many areas of the story.


Nope, Angel can't have it all. You can't be both the best father and the best champion. He wanted both and paid the price for it.

I don't think that's what he wanted at all. He wanted to fight the good fight, to atone for his crimes, and try to be the best possible father he could be to Connor. Thats it. I've never seen Angel as wanting or needing to be the "best" at anything, except for the moral standards he places on himself.
I don't think that's what he wanted at all. He wanted to fight the good fight, to atone for his crimes, and try to be the best possible father he could be to Connor. Thats it. I've never seen Angel as wanting or needing to be the "best" at anything, except for the moral standards he places on himself.

His desire to do both was unrealistic and dangerous. And some would say that it was impossible for him to atone for his crimes or that he has atoned by accepting his crimes and thus he's free.
Well then Angel is beyond dumb because he should have realized that because of his line of work he was exposing his son to some very dangerous things. I am very well aware that this wasn't the writers intent, they wanted Angel to have a kid and then have him suffer through massive amounts of pain by taking him away. Yet i always look at things from a different point of view and instead of feeling sadness and pity for Angel, i feel nothing but contempt. What else did he think would have happend, the verse isn't a happy fairytale verse were everyone can enjoy life. No, he was a demon in a demon infested world. Danger was everywhere. Willow made my point by expressing the same fear in season 8. The life of an active champion is hard and dangerous.

Moral standards, are you serious? Angel probably has one the lowest moral standerds out of all the champions in the verse. The one willing to kill thousends of innocent people to save the world, the one willing to set up and kill an innocent fellow champion in cold blood to make a point which had further consequences of damning the whole city to hell.
I'm thinking I should quit the DH comics before they sour all of Buffy for me. It could happen - I used to be a Star Wars fan until those last three travesties. Now I can't watch Star Wars at all. :(

At least the comics aren't the show. So hopefully that won't happen.

[ edited by redeem147 on 2010-10-11 17:35 ]
Vergil I FEEL your hatred for Angel, so it is unproductive to opinate with you, but... "The one wiiling to kill thousands of people to save the world..."? For me Angel was willing to let die a friend because didn't want to kill thousands of people. .. and as moral standard .. he didn't harm Holtz even if he had kidnapped his son, whereas Spike harmed Robin and said to him: " I don't give a piss of your mother!"
Counter to "Angel's a bad father": Who else, really, was better equipped to teach Connor about what he was and could do? And to keep him safe from the dangers that were bound to come after him?
True, Angel could have given up the hero gig but then he'd look like something of a hypocrite when training his kid to take on that work.
Vergil I FEEL your hatred for Angel, so it is unproductive to opinate with you, but... "The one wiiling to kill thousands of people to save the world..."? For me Angel was willing to let die a friend because didn't want to kill thousands of people. .. and as moral standard .. he didn't harm Holtz even if he had kidnapped his son, whereas Spike harmed Robin and said to him: " I don't give a piss of your mother!"

I was talking about Droghyn, you are talking about Fred. But sure Fred works for me too. While he did stop himself from killing thousends by saving Fred. Fred being in that situation was in part his fault. It was him that made the final decision in the beginning to move to W&H, the others were easily convinced and they wanted to. But as the leader Angel could have stopped them. He was thinking about his son and was willing to sacrifice his friends for him. By taking away the memory of Connor, the team was weakened and thrown in the lion's den. Never underestimate what learned experiences could do to change how you would act in a certain situation, best example being Wesley. And most of all Angel admited later on in the season that he knew it was a bad call coming to W&H.

I'm not talking about Spike, two very different vampires and two very different situations.
Angel was under the illusion that he could reason with Holtz, he was wrong. It didn't matter that Angel was reformed, it didn't matter that Angel said that he was sorry. For people like Holtz there can be no reason, they will have their revenge and in the end he did get. And if it hadn't been Holtz it would have been another enemy. Because looking at it from your enemy's point of view baby Connor was easy picking. A perfect way to hurt and destroy your enemy.

Counter to "Angel's a bad father": Who else, really, was better equipped to teach Connor about what he was and could do? And to keep him safe from the dangers that were bound to come after him?
True, Angel could have given up the hero gig but then he'd look like something of a hypocrite when training his kid to take on that work.

Angel himself was quite in the dark about Connor's abilities. Most important factors were that he grew up with love and in safety. The latter Angel could not provide while still being in the thick of things.
Who said anything about Connor taking on that work when he grew up? Heroes are created, they aren't born. Buffy wasn't born a slayer, Spike wasn't born a vampire with a soul,ect. And Connor is hardly a superman, he didn't need a supernatural individual/parents to raise him. Holtz and the new family he got in Home did just fine.
Vergil I FEEL your hatred for Angel, so it is unproductive to opinate with you

This.
I think is pointless now to argue. we have very different point of view.
For you Angel is the worst evil in the world, for me he is the opposite . An amazing fascinating character, full of complexity and contrast, who knows despair, guilty and who tries his best to atone and redeem himself. Sometimes he succeed, sometimes he fails, but always tries. Don't point single example, it is, you see, an endless line. Try to remember that people, only humans and not with a demon within, did horrible things (Willow, for instance,Faith, even Fred and Wesley and Connor..Andrew)and are whitehats: Not to mention Anya, demon with a soul for hundreds years who, turned human, chose to become a demon again .But they all are safe.
But in the Holtz example, don't you think he would have come after Connor anyway, even if Angel had given up the champion life and tried to find somewhere safe and secure?

Holtz found out about Connor moments after his birth, and seems to have come up with the first inkling of his Connor based revenge then and there.
He definitely would have.
With all due respect, Vergil, the case you're making would also tend to indict Buffy who puts her family and friends in jeapordy because of her mission (but no one steals Dawn for sixteen years of abuse.) Which is interesting, since the distancing of the Slayer from her family and friends by the "evil watchers" is supposed to be one of the stock evil things they do.

It would also indict Buffy, who basically said the entire world can burn so Dawn could live (but she gets a loophole out of it.) But I guess there was no flying in that episode, so I guess that's ok.

And then it would indict Buffy again for drafting potentials into being Slayers to serve HER fight and effectively getting them killed (and for that she gets the MESSAGE exemption.)

These are both charecter's who have had no power and a lot of power and I think Joss has been pretty evenhanded in his dealing out the reality of how even the best intentions don't always provide the best results. Buffy and Angel both fail miserably either out of personal or situational failing.

I'm not saying this to tear down Buffy. I'm doing this to point out how subtly a dramatic situation can be shifted to create "the lowest moral standards in all the 'verse." And why I would say that you are incorrect in your statement. Angel, more than any other charecter in the 'verse, is the one who is forced to pay for the stands he takes.

[ edited by azzers on 2010-10-12 04:12 ]
I'm not sure if I agree with that last sentence, but your post was very well-written and thought-provoking, azzers.
I should clarify, I don't mean in terms of the "scales of justice" version of pay. I mean in terms of the actions he takes, when morally grey tend to have very negative effects with no easy escapes.

Whereas those same types of decisions from other charecters may have negative effects, but they don't seem to happen with the same frequency and often come with a moral "easy out."

But I always appreciate the kind words.
Don't point single example, it is, you see, an endless line. Try to remember that people, only humans and not with a demon within, did horrible things (Willow, for instance,Faith, even Fred and Wesley and Connor..Andrew)and are whitehats: Not to mention Anya, demon with a soul for hundreds years who, turned human, chose to become a demon again .But they all are safe.
That is exactly what i'm doing, i don't judge Angel because of one action, i judge him for all the continues actions he's done. I remember very well what the others have done even with a human soul, i haven't made them out to be saints because they aren't. I was only talking about Angel and out of all the champions his morality is one of the lowests if not the lowest. His words might be grade A material to hear but his actions are usually questionable.


Alex J.
But in the Holtz example, don't you think he would have come after Connor anyway, even if Angel had given up the champion life and tried to find somewhere safe and secure?

Holtz found out about Connor moments after his birth, and seems to have come up with the first inkling of his Connor based revenge then and there.

Good point Alex. I would have to say yes and no. Holtz was a very clever man and hunter. But on the other hand he wasn't invincible or all omnipotent. And then you have to remember how diffecult it was for evil forces to track slayers when their identity were hidden. Spike a slayer expert took more then seventy years to find his second slayer and said that she was very diffecult to find. Slayers only got found because they are still in the action. A retired Angel with Connor would be almost impossible to find. In part because Angel did have plenty of worldly experience.

I mean would it really be that unreasonable for Angel to retire for 18y? Raise Connor to be a strong young man and then Angel can come out of retirement. I mean he's fricken vampire, what the hell is 18y to him? Nothing that's what.

With all due respect, Vergil, the case you're making would also tend to indict Buffy who puts her family and friends in jeapordy because of her mission (but no one steals Dawn for sixteen years of abuse.) Which is interesting, since the distancing of the Slayer from her family and friends by the "evil watchers" is supposed to be one of the stock evil things they do.

That's different, the sccobies are like the fang gang. Through the bonds of friendship they chose to stick beside their leaders and fight. I don't think the scoobies were well prepared and have gotten a lot of luck in surviving but they chose to stand with her by their own freewill. Buffy's mother is an interesting example, Joyce was always a weakness that any lowlife enemy with half a brian should realize that where he/she to kill Joyce it would destroy Buffy. Again pure luck that that didn't happen even if there were some really close calls. Buffy i feel got away with making mistakes like that because she was still "growing up". Angel once he had his own show always got judged as an adult which is the same reason why i'm much more severe with judging Angel. At the end of the day it always comes back to "He should have known better.".
Let's do some math on this "18 years" point. If Angel saves, say, 1 person a week (and that's probably lowballing it) as a detective/champion/whatever, that's 52 people a year. 52 times 18, the number of years you want Angel out of the game, is 936. Essentially, then, what you're saying is that Angel should have condemned at least 936 people to die horribly on the off chance that someone might be marginally more likely to harm 1 person because Angel is out there saving 936? You really think that's the right call? Remember, there's certainty that Angel's career saves lives, and substantial uncertainty about whether continuing his career really makes a significant difference in terms of Connor's safety (if we're deliberating from Angel's standpoint before he knew what Holtz was planning, as we'd have to do judge him fairly).

And as for your other somewhat tortured examples, I'd submit that they're proof of Angel's superior moral reasoning abilities to almost every other character on the show (especially, I might add, Buffy, who royally screws up - twice! - at the end of Season 5, and gets a lot of people killed). Destroying the Circle of the Black Thorn wasn't just a symbolic gesture - they were not only actively working to bring about an apocalypse, but they kill people *every day.* What, you think that a demonic Senator and her vampire minions are all holding off on murder until the apocalypse bell rings? Killing Drogyn to get to them was exactly the right call - there was no saving him, and his sacrifice ensured that the Black Thorn couldn't harm anyone else. As for W&H's revenge, it was again reasonable to assume at the time that they would go after Angel & Co. I don't think it's fair to fault anyone for failing to guess that they'd have a "do not pass go, go directly to Hell" spell in their pocket for an entire city.
Speaking of the demonic senator, whatever happened with the candidate made to think and confess that he's a pedophile? I don't remember to be "unmade" it would revealed the plot of attacking the Black Thorn. So is that man a permanent damage or not?
Let's do some math on this "18 years" point. If Angel saves, say, 1 person a week (and that's probably lowballing it) as a detective/champion/whatever, that's 52 people a year. 52 times 18, the number of years you want Angel out of the game, is 936. Essentially, then, what you're saying is that Angel should have condemned at least 936 people to die horribly on the off chance that someone might be marginally more likely to harm 1 person because Angel is out there saving 936? You really think that's the right call? Remember, there's certainty that Angel's career saves lives, and substantial uncertainty about whether continuing his career really makes a significant difference in terms of Connor's safety (if we're deliberating from Angel's standpoint before he knew what Holtz was planning, as we'd have to do judge him fairly).

That is absolutely one of the worst things you could do, degrade it into a numbers. Killing even 1 person in cold blood to save a 100 isn't even ok. Not if you want to call yourself a hero and a champion which Angel does.
Furthermore you have no idea how many lives Angel would save or destroy in that span of time. As it stands right now, he has damned as much as he has saved.
And as i already explained Angel fighting the good fight isn't needed for the world to keep on going, there are plenty of other champions that can do just as much if not better then him.

And as for your other somewhat tortured examples, I'd submit that they're proof of Angel's superior moral reasoning abilities to almost every other character on the show (especially, I might add, Buffy, who royally screws up - twice! - at the end of Season 5, and gets a lot of people killed). Destroying the Circle of the Black Thorn wasn't just a symbolic gesture - they were not only actively working to bring about an apocalypse, but they kill people *every day.* What, you think that a demonic Senator and her vampire minions are all holding off on murder until the apocalypse bell rings? Killing Drogyn to get to them was exactly the right call - there was no saving him, and his sacrifice ensured that the Black Thorn couldn't harm anyone else. As for W&H's revenge, it was again reasonable to assume at the time that they would go after Angel & Co. I don't think it's fair to fault anyone for failing to guess that they'd have a "do not pass go, go directly to Hell" spell in their pocket for an entire city.

Wow, that's weak. Where exactly did Buffy screw up in season 5 as big as Angel continues to do? Where was Buffy responsible for hunderds,thousends of deaths?
No, Angel himself said that it was more about the symbolism of it, they would make the wheel stop for a second to make the point clear that they would never give up. He understood that they would easily replace the Circle. And they weren't out there killing massives amount of people, it was the corruption of mankind that was going on and that isn't something that Angel can fight, atleast not the way he goes about it.
There was no saving Drogyn because Angel set him up, when he did eventually kill him it was more a mercy kill then anything else but it had been Angel all along that set him up. It wasn't a sacrifice, that would mean the victem chooses to lay down his/her life for the cause. Droghyn never got that choice, Angel set him up but was caught unaware with Hamilton going after him. He'll do it again with the apocaylpse in Not Fade Away except on a much larger scale, not anticipating W&H taking out their anger on humanity by sending the city to hell as punishment.

Edit: There you go.

[ edited by Vergil on 2010-10-12 17:45 ]
Typical Angel stupidity.


Comments like that could be viewed as inflammatory and character bashing, which is something we try to avoid here. So it might be an idea if you toned it down a bit to prevent unnecessary confrontation.
Vergil, the reason you're seeing such resistance is because the points you're making tend to switch ethical reasoning or at the very least beg the question, is Buffy that good or is she allowed to be good because the people around her make tough decisions? If you're going to call Angel the worst of the lot, then Mal and Buffy enter the discussion and most of us LIKE them. And Mal, I'd argue would have been as gray or grayer than Angel if Joss had had the chance. He did basically kill an innocent in cold blood in Serenity on the off chance it might be too much weight.

Back in season 5, we have Giles who kills Ben for her. Glory is cut off from the world because of an evil act. We don't blame Buffy, but would we if Giles had not acted and Glory came back and started killing again?

Also back in season 5, we have Buffy's sacrifice. I *LIKE* that move. But, it also precipitates the First when she is reincarnated, who precipitates the calling of all slayers, that precipitates Twilight. All that death and killing doesn't happen if Buffy is willing to be a little evil or allow Dawn to do what could be argued Dawn was already willing to do on top of that tower. Or if her friends had been willing to not violate the laws of nature according to the mythology.

And yet again, I'm NOT bashing Buffy on this. I'm simply stating that you are holding Angel accountable for actions that Buffy is either not required by her friends to take or that she takes anyway and is absolved for some reason.

To your point about her friends are willing participants, you're partially correct. But she didn't tell her Mother about being a Slayer for quite a while. And I forget what episode Dawn finds out. In both cases, there is a period where they have no consent, much like Conner. And in that period of non-consent, an evil Spike enters her mother's home and is in a position to do major damage. It's only because of the STORY, that she does not pay for that.

I think your read on Angel is much like the early "Ballard is a skeezy perv who wants to murder Echo because he's a bad, bad, man who's an affront to all women everywhere" meme that was fairly pervasive at one time. That was, before I'd argue Joss & Co., although unable to rescue the character in the fan's eyes, emphatically wrote into the text that that was at least an incorrect assumption.

Angel, IN THE TEXT, has been shown as an imperfect being who is able to be tricked or jaded to the point that he does bad things, but that the Angel with a conscience is somehow a tick short of Genghis Kahn seems a bit of a stretch. But look at it this way, Joss has been writing this way for a while and loves BSG so I don't think it's a stretch to say he actually likes the fight between pragmatism and ethics. If you've heard any of his thoughts on being a leader, they can be quite depressing at times. And I don't think we're all meant to agree.

[ edited by azzers on 2010-10-12 18:52 ]
Azzers, i'm not feeling any resistance against my points. I see people argueing with me but i don't find anything wrong with that.
I'm not going outside the Buffyverse so Mal doesn't count for me. And liking a character should not make you blind to their faults. I used to like Angel until a certain point i just had enough and couldn't admire,respect the character anymore. Then looking back on previous seasons i found faults i hadn't seen before.

We don't know what Ben/Glory would have done, i don't make assumptions on where the story would go. It could have just as easily been that Buffy was eventually forced to kill Ben and did so. Or it could be argued that Glory could do nothing after the time of opening the portal has passed Glory. As it stands i don't hate Giles for doing it because unlike Angel he accepts that this is his role. He doesn't view himself as a pure white hat/hero/champion. He understood that killing Ben would taint his hands. And he did it for the right reasons, for love, the love he had for his 'daughter', so she wouldn't have to.

Yes and Buffy paid for it. She didn't allow the world to be destroyed and wasn't willing to sacrifice Dawn for it and in the end she paid the price with her life.
It's a far cry different then what Angel did in season 5.
The First returning, you said it yourself, that was her friends. Buffy herself had no part in that what so ever, just like the newborn baby Connor had no sins, he was forced to bear those of his father's.

The early years with Buffy, not telling her mother about being a slayer and such. As i said i account that to her being young. Because Angel is centuries old i judge him more harshly.

One of my problems with Angel is not that he can be tricked, it's that he continues to be tricked and it has the worst of consequences. For me the word redemption is meaningless when talking about Angel. How many chances will he get to 'redeem' and find another way to screw it up and hurt massive amounts of people.
And i don't compare the scoobies to Angel because Angel is the leader therefor i only judge him against the other leader we have which is Buffy and for me she has done a much better job in almost everything.

I do agree Azzers that it seems that Joss left it open to people having their own opinion on the show,characters. Which he seem to do with all of his work. The new Cbr monthly also shows this in that Scott wanted to explain more and Joss refusing that. He doesn't want to tell us what to think, he wants us to think for ourselves. Angel just happens to be a character i'm against.

[ edited by Vergil on 2010-10-13 08:22 ]
"That is absolutely one of the worst things you could do, degrade it into a numbers. Killing even 1 person in cold blood to save a 100 isn't even ok. Not if you want to call yourself a hero and a champion which Angel does."

But if those two options are all you have, then what would you say is the right move for a champion, Vergil? If you have to go with one choice or the other, then surely the numbers have to matter. It wouldn't necessarily make that decision morally okay, but it absolutely would make it logical and, in my opinion at least, correct. Especially in the instance we are discussing here, where the life of the one is not actually in any certain peril.

Bringing things away from the Buffyverse for a moment, how do you feel about police officers, lawyers or judges choosing to have a family? Each one of those professions is likely to make you a target, and therefore put your family in danger should one of the bad guys you help put in prison decide to get a little payback. Maybe not the same degree of danger that having demons and vampires after you might create, but hardly a safe situation to raise a child in. If we extend what you are saying about Angel to them, are you really willing to tell them that they are wrong to want a family? Seems to me that they deserve that right, same as anyone else.
But if those two options are all you have, then what would you say is the right move for a champion, Vergil? If you have to go with one choice or the other, then surely the numbers have to matter. It wouldn't necessarily make that decision morally okay, but it absolutely would make it logical and, in my opinion at least, correct. Especially in the instance we are discussing here, where the life of the one is not actually in any certain peril.

Because there is never only two options. The hero just doesn't know the other options or can't see them. And yes if you decide to call yourself a hero,champion then murdering that 1 person to save a 100 will never be right. If you do such things then the person doesn't deserve that title and all it stands for, which Angel has done many times in the past so therefor i don't believe he deserves it.
Like Spiderman 1(not my favorite movie or anything just the best example that comes to mind) movie ending, Green Goblin gave Spiderman only 2 choices, Spiderman chose a third. Angel however would have done it by the numbers and 1 life compared to 20, he would let the love of his life die. Same with Buffy in The Gift, Buffy only got 1 choice, kill Dawn. Buffy chose another choice, sacraficing herself. True heroine.
Being a hero/champion isn't about being logical, the whole idea of a hero is illogical, putting yourself in harmsway to save others,complete strangers. Yet that's exactly what defines them, unwilling to give up. A true hero chooses to save as many as he/she can without corrupting one's self which Angel also has done many times.

Bringing things away from the Buffyverse for a moment, how do you feel about police officers, lawyers or judges choosing to have a family? Each one of those professions is likely to make you a target, and therefore put your family in danger should one of the bad guys you help put in prison decide to get a little payback. Maybe not the same degree of danger that having demons and vampires after you might create, but hardly a safe situation to raise a child in. If we extend what you are saying about Angel to them, are you really willing to tell them that they are wrong to want a family? Seems to me that they deserve that right, same as anyone else.

Sorry i can't compare real life to fiction. There are no heroes like that in real life, the whole supernatural aspect makes it too different.
And for me it's also not so much about the profession as it is about the person.
"Because there is never only two options. The hero just doesn't know the other options or can't see them."


Which therefore means, at the time of making the choice at least, the hero in question would in fact only have the two options he or she was aware of. Saying that there may well be an unknown third or fourth choice is entirely beside the point.

Sure, if there was a known third choice that would mean no one had to die at all then it's obvious to say that any champion worthy of the name should go with it but that's not what I asked you.

Believe me when I say, that better third option is not always available. Sometimes the only choices you have are bad ones. In those cases you simply have to go with the lesser of two evils. To suggest otherwise is simply naive.

"Sorry i can't compare real life to fiction. There are no heroes like that in real life, the whole supernatural aspect makes it too different. And for me it's also not so much about the profession as it is about the person."


But surely the principal is exactly the same? A person choosing a lifestyle/career that may well put his family in danger, sooner or later? As you said yourself...

"Being a hero/champion isn't about being logical, the whole idea of a hero is illogical, putting yourself in harmsway to save others,complete strangers."


How is that not what the average police officer does, every day? Just because the threats they face are not supernatural based makes them no less dangerous. In fact, maybe more so.

"A true hero chooses to save as many as he/she can without corrupting one's self which Angel also has done many times."


This is probably where we disagree the most. True heroes don't set out with the intention of corrupting themselves, but sometimes it's a necessary evil. A person who does morally questionable things for the greater good is no less heroic to me. Your Jack Bauer/Michael Weston/Nate Ford types. people who do what needs to be done to ensure that the good guys come out on top and that the innocent get the justice they deserve, EVEN at the expence of the hero's own integrity.

Don't get me wrong, I respect your stance and your opinion that a hero should be some sort of morally incorruptible saint who only ever does exactly the right thing and always saves the day with not a drop of bloodshed, but I don't agree with it. Even in fiction, it's not that kind of a world.
Which therefore means, at the time of making the choice at least, the hero in question would in fact only have the two options he or she was aware of. Saying that there may well be an unknown third or fourth choice is entirely beside the point.

Sure, if there was a known third choice that would mean no one had to die at all then it's obvious to say that any champion worthy of the name should go with it but that's not what I asked you.

Believe me when I say, that better third option is not always available. Sometimes the only choices you have are bad ones. In those cases you simply have to go with the lesser of two evils. To suggest otherwise is simply naive.


It is not beside the point, it is the point. There isn't even a third or a fourth option, there are 1000's of options.

And i don't doubt that there would be people that died. But the hero that tries to save as many as he/she can out of a 100 and only manages to save 80 is every bit of a hero to me. The weakling that chooses to kill 1 innocent life(let's make it extreme and say the innocent life he/she needs to kill is a baby) in cold blood to save a 100 isn't a hero in my book.


But surely the principal is exactly the same? A person choosing a lifestyle/career that may well put his family in danger, sooner or later? As you said yourself...

No the principal isn't even close to being the same. A hero in the verse is determined because of their character. Being a cop,lawyer,judge,ect does not equal being a hero. That depends on the person. And the real world has well established rules,laws. The buffyverse does not, everything is possible there.


This is probably where we disagree the most. True heroes don't set out with the intention of corrupting themselves, but sometimes it's a necessary evil. A person who does morally questionable things for the greater good is no less heroic to me. Your Jack Bauer/Michael Weston/Nate Ford types. people who do what needs to be done to ensure that the good guys come out on top and that the innocent get the justice they deserve, EVEN at the expence of the hero's own integrity.

The difference for me is that Jack Bauer doesn't consider himself a hero, he does very bad things. As you put it, necassary evils. But he never calls himself a champion,hero or pretends to be one. Angel on the other hand does, and i don't believe he is one.
What i do find very naive of you is that you think the good guys are really good guys and the bad guys are the evil ones. In the world of 24 there are no pure white hats. And justice is not always served. Jack Bauer is fully aware that he lowered himself to the bad guy's level of operating. Another thing i like more about Jack is that he usually has to clean up the messes others make, like trying to preven a nuclear bomb going off. Unlike with Angel, he is responsible for the whole works and kick started LA going to hell(comperable to a nuclear bomb) and always gets off with a simple redemption card which i find meaningless for that character.


Don't get me wrong, I respect your stance and your opinion that a hero should be some sort of morally incorruptible saint who only ever does exactly the right thing and always saves the day with not a drop of bloodshed, but I don't agree with it. Even in fiction, it's not that kind of a world.

No, i never said that he/she should be a morally incorruptible saint. Saints don't excist imo. Batman in the Dark Knight was morally incorruptible, he instead sacrificed his own reputation. If Joker had made Angel choose between the 2 boats, Angel would have no doubt blown up the prisoners boat.
I never said that there wouldn't be any bloodshed. But the foundations of lasting peace can not be made with lies,murder and hatred. Which are the things i believe Angel's methods represent and result in.
"It is not beside the point, it is the point. There isn't even a third or a fourth option, there are 1000's of options."

Except that, again, I asked you a very specific question in my first comment above. That being, what about when there really are only two options? No third. No fourth. No thousands.

Okay, an example using your baby suggestion, and I'll even throw in an option number three. The hero is put into a room with nothing inside other than a big red button on the wall. He is told that if he presses the button once, a baby will die. If he presses the button twice then the baby will live but instead one hundred other people will die in it's place. If he does nothing, they all die. In this scenario the hero has three choices. Press once, press twice or do nothing at all. Each one will result in someone's death. One choice, however, will mean only one life is lost. What should the hero do in that situation, would you say?

"No the principal isn't even close to being the same. A hero in the verse is determined because of their character. Being a cop,lawyer,judge,ect does not equal being a hero. That depends on the person. And the real world has well established rules,laws. The buffyverse does not, everything is possible there."

I think it's fairly obvious that I'm talking about a certain type of cop here, but I'll be more specific again. How is a guy who has chosen to be a cop because he wants to be a hero and has the appropriate character to play that role, putting his life on the line every day to save innocent lives, any different to Angel? The rules of the world he lives in may well be real but that doesn't change the fact that he could easily die doing his chosen job, all for the sake of his decision to live the life of a hero. Does that cop have any more right to have a family and children than Angel does, in your eyes?

"What i do find very naive of you is that you think the good guys are really good guys and the bad guys are the evil ones."

Aah, but if you read what I said again, you'll see that that wasn't what I meant at all. And it's certainly not what I believe. I'm all about the grey areas, trust me on that. I said that the heroes I mentioned, such as Jack Bauer, do what they do so that the good guys come out on top, meaning the innocent people they protect, rather than themselves. I don't for one second think that a hero is necessarily a good guy. In truth, being too good is a limitation, in my mind. Always trying to do the right thing for everyone can stop you thinking clearly and make you second guess every decision you make. That's when numbers often have to come into the equation, like it or not.

I do agree with you on one aspect of Angel, though. The redemption issue. I've always believed that he should quit worrying about being redeemed and just do what he does because he wants to, rather than because it might earn him a reward. Spike's motivations for choosing to fight the good fight may not be so high minded, but they are a hell of a lot more realistic. He does it because he enjoys it and because he can. My kinda thinking.
Except that, again, I asked you a very specific question in my first comment above. That being, what about when there really are only two options? No third. No fourth. No thousands.

Okay, an example using your baby suggestion, and I'll even throw in an option number three. The hero is put into a room with nothing inside other than a big red button on the wall. He is told that if he presses the button once, a baby will die. If he presses the button twice then the baby will live but instead one hundred other people will die in it's place. If he does nothing, they all die. In this scenario the hero has three choices. Press once, press twice or do nothing at all. Each one will result in someone's death. One choice, however, will mean only one life is lost. What should the hero do in that situation, would you say?


I give you simlear situations that have happend in tv,movies and you give me a situation that would never happen. And no that is way too easy. The hero needs to make a choice by personally killing one of his options. Any idiot can push a button but ask them to kill a baby with their own hands in cold blood. I don't doubt for a second that a person like Jack wouldn't kill the baby(or the 100 people for that matter) because Jack still has morals and there is no justifying slithing a baby's throat. Jack still has morals that stop him from doing something like that. Now about what i think the hero should do? Well you kinda of cheated, situations like these don't happen as cut and clear as you've made them to be. You've given me minimal info on why,how,when the situation came to be. One of these would give more info and possible other options. You can try and limit it by saying 1 room, two buttons, choose. But the basic fact of it is, it's not realistic. And it is all that extra information that could change everthing. We never saw any situation as simplistic as your example. Angel kickstarted the apocalypse, nobody made him do it. Angel was responsible for thousends of deaths by turning and releasing Lawson. Actually that would be a good example, he killed 1 person(Lawson) to save the rest of the group, Lawson wanting to sacrifice himself ofcourse made it much easier for Angel. It's after the situation was averted that i believe he made the biggest mistake by letting Lawson loose instead of simply staking him. Lawson told us in the present time that he had done everything a vampire could(1000's upon 1000's of deaths, families tortured,ect) do and found nothing. 1000's of meaningless deaths all on Angel's hands.

I think it's fairly obvious that I'm talking about a certain type of cop here, but I'll be more specific again. How is a guy who has chosen to be a cop because he wants to be a hero and has the appropriate character to play that role, putting his life on the line every day to save innocent lives, any different to Angel? The rules of the world he lives in may well be real but that doesn't change the fact that he could easily die doing his chosen job, all for the sake of his decision to live the life of a hero. Does that cop have any more right to have a family and children than Angel does, in your eyes?

Obviously he would have the right to a family as does everyone else. But how many times was Jack's family not in danger because of his work? And what did Jack try? He tried to retire.
Now i do believe what Jack did, Angel could have pulled off and should have done. Because in the buffyverse you have unlimited options, Angel could have provided a new life for Connor, raised him well and come out of retirement when Connor was 18. That would have been more realistic then actually thinking he could raise Connor while still being in the thick of things.
About your example, it's not so much the right to have a family, which he and Angel do have. It's about them having the realization that if they are really good at their jobs, then there's a big risk that their family will become a target. Just watched Street Kings again yesterday which totally made point, the naive good hearted rookie cop with a fiance got killed off midway the movie. You are not getting in the pool with dolphins, you're getting in it with sharks. And it's not just criminals that are the sharks, there are plenty of corrupt cops too. Training day, equally awesome movie. I very much see Angel as the Denzel Washington character except he knew and accepted that he was corrupt,evil. Angel keeps using the fake redemption card.



Aah, but if you read what I said again, you'll see that that wasn't what I meant at all. And it's certainly not what I believe. I'm all about the grey areas, trust me on that. I said that the heroes I mentioned, such as Jack Bauer, do what they do so that the good guys come out on top, meaning the innocent people they protect, rather than themselves. I don't for one second think that a hero is necessarily a good guy. In truth, being too good is a limitation, in my mind. Always trying to do the right thing for everyone can stop you thinking clearly and make you second guess every decision you make. That's when numbers often have to come into the equation, like it or not.


You could just as easily make the case for the "bad guys" whoever they are. They didn't just wake up one day and decided to attack the US or Bauer. Ever action has a reaction, maybe they lost their loved ones in a brutal black ops. And they are out for justice,revenge. There are plenty of examples like that in 24 were nobody was really right, they just do what they have to do to try and come out on top.
I think Bauer is awesome, one of my favorite character because as i said he realizes that he isn't a hero and realizes that all blood on his hands will never wash off. For that fact alone i consider him a hero. Angel? Never.
I agree, the ones that operate in the grey areas are the ones that get the most done. But with that i also believe should come the self realization that you are grey and not like Angel keeps deluding himself that he's a hero/champion/white hat. That's why Bauer,Spike>>>>>>Angel by far for me.

[ edited by Vergil on 2010-10-17 09:54 ]
"You've given me minimal info on why,how,when the situation came to be. One of these would give more info and possible other options. You can try and limit it by saying 1 room, two buttons, choose. But the basic fact of it is, it's not realistic. And it is all that extra information that could change everthing."

It's a theoretical dilemma. One in which you have all the information that exists. It's not supposed to be realistic. It's purposely straight forward to demonstrate a situation where all the options you have are bad ones. There is no extra information to change anything. Those are the facts at hand. You have to make a choice.

Look, I'm not going to drag this out any longer (hate it when a debate turns into two people repeating themselves over and over again) but I'll just say one further time that no matter how much you might like to think otherwise, sometimes bad choices are all you've got. It would be amazing if we lived in a world where you could always count on new information getting to you in time but sometimes, to be honest a lot of the time, you can't wait around hoping for that intel to arrive. You're there in the thick of things. You have two choices. Both not good. You make one. That is reality. Believe me when I say I know.

As for the fatherhood issue, again we'll have to agree to disagree. My only final point would be that Angel was, by the time of Connor's birth, already living with a target painted on his back. Sure, he might have decided to try and retire. Run and hide. But given that he had both the PtB and Wolfram and Hart intent on keeping him in the action, how long do you think that would have lasted? Wasn't as if they were going to want to give the guy eighteen years of maternity leave.

Beyond that, I think we agree more than not, particularly on our choice of 'good guy'! Spike and Jack Bauer very much>>>>> than Angel, for me too! ;)
Well then it's a flawed theoretical dilemma one i do not find realistic or can be applied to real life. As long as your enemy is another human being and not a perfect computer,alien then there will always be more then 2,3 choices. Flaws are the nature of man.

Yes, i hate it too. Seems we have talked to a stand still.
No, what you described wasn't my point. It's not about living in a world where you get to make all the perfect decisions and you have all the time in the world. It's about realizing that there are no limitations. As i said, as long as you are going up against another humanbeing there will always be cracks.
Sorry, i don't believe you. I don't know you and you don't know me, so i would have to take your word for that and i don't know you enough to do that.
Your example situation happens all the time in wars, in the heat of battle, a soldier having to make decisions fast. He/she is pressured and must quickly deduce what action will lead to the least of casualties. Again my problem with Angel is that he creates these situations. A soldier going off to war didn't create,start the war. He/she is sent to fight/defend. Angel in comparison made the whole finale situation happen. He was the creator of that whole situation. He only got a glimpse of the circle from the ptb's, it was his plan and his exacution.

That's Angel's fault. The world he lives in is limitless in possibilities. It was/is his own fault that he was not smart enough to realize that. And the Ptb and W&H seemed pretty relaxed when it came to Angel, i don't think they would have any problem waiting 18 years for Angel to re-emerge. What is 18 years to an entity that has excisted for possible millenia's, nothing.

Yeah i think we do agree on that. There really isn't a perfect good guy, plus he/she would be very very boring. The defenition of hero/champion changes throughout the ages. And usually who we define as a hero speaks of our own moral codes, what is acceptable and what isn't.

[ edited by Vergil on 2010-10-18 12:32 ]
I'll apologise straight away for dragging up an old topic that probably should have remained buried in the archives but this is the first chance I've had to respond to the comment above. Real life keeping me away from online activities, I'm afraid.

I usually wouldn't have bothered returning to such an old conversation but I wanted to reply to the quote below, more than anything else.

"Sorry, i don't believe you. I don't know you and you don't know me, so i would have to take your word for that and i don't know you enough to do that."

Vergil, it's true that we don't know each other but that really shouldn't prevent you from giving somebody the benefit of the doubt. Innocent until proven guilty, and all that. I have no personal axe to grind with you and nothing to gain from our previous discussion other than to better understand your point of view. As such, I have no reason to lie when putting my point across to you. Therefore, I would hope that common courtesy would allow you to believe me. I have to say, I consider it quite rude that you chose not to. I suppose I'm just not used to having my word questioned. Especially over something as unimportant as an online discussion.

Additionally, I'm not entirely certain how you can first claim that my theoretical dilemma is entirely unrealistic and cannot be applied to real life and then go on to say that it happens all the time in war and in the heat of battle. As much as I would love to be able to tell you otherwise, for some of us at least, war has been very much a part of real life.

Anyway, I have no idea if you or anyone else will bother to read this but I felt it needed to be said. Thanks again for the otherwise polite back and forth.
Vergil, it's true that we don't know each other but that really shouldn't prevent you from giving somebody the benefit of the doubt. Innocent until proven guilty, and all that. I have no personal axe to grind with you and nothing to gain from our previous discussion other than to better understand your point of view. As such, I have no reason to lie when putting my point across to you. Therefore, I would hope that common courtesy would allow you to believe me. I have to say, I consider it quite rude that you chose not to. I suppose I'm just not used to having my word questioned. Especially over something as unimportant as an online discussion.

No, it's not that i should give you the benefit of the doubt, this isn't about being guilty/innocent. I do not know you, it's as simple as that. I do not agree with your opinion which again brings us to issue nr1, i don't know you.
It's not meant to hurt your feelings, it's not an insult, it's the truth. I gave you the same common courtesy we all give one another which is being accepting/open to people having different opinions. It is not common courtesy to simply believe the other's opinion which in turn would pretend that i actually agree with your opinion, which i obviously do not. As this is the internet i would give you the advice of being prepared of your word not being good enough for the majority of disscusions(if with strangers). And it's nothing personal, for many the internet is anonymity. I think it's quite rude and naive of you to actually think you(a total stranger to me) saying something would automaticcally result in me believing it. Nothing you have said or presented in the debate made me rethink my opinion/stance on things.
Additionally, I'm not entirely certain how you can first claim that my theoretical dilemma is entirely unrealistic and cannot be applied to real life and then go on to say that it happens all the time in war and in the heat of battle. As much as I would love to be able to tell you otherwise, for some of us at least, war has been very much a part of real life.

I fully explained this in my previous posts. Yours was an entirely theoretical dilemma that don't happen in real life. Where you give absolute power to the evil bad, such control in the real world is impossible. I gave you examples of real life situations that do happen, the war and heat of the battle ones.
And the situation Angel is in does not comply with either your theoratical dillema or my heat of battle example. Angel had plenty of time to come to his senses, he never had only 2 choices and to me bears the full responsibility of his actions.
There you go again, i said nothing about your life and what you and others have or have not been through. That was my point all along. I don't know you and you don't know me. Therefor things like trust me i know/believe me,ect don't work.

Anyway, I have no idea if you or anyone else will bother to read this but I felt it needed to be said. Thanks again for the otherwise polite back and forth.

You too, i hope you don't take it too personaly because i did enjoy talking to you.
Y'know what? I completely disagree. It's exactly that you should be willing to give somebody the benefit of the doubt when they ask you to believe them. Especially when they have absolutely no good reason to be deceiving you. The fact that you use the excuse that "this is the internet" as a reason to not believe somebody who you are not entirely familiar with says a lot more about you than it does the other person. Of course, you are taking the risk that you will be believing a lie, but then that's life, right? I prefer not to think that there is no middle ground between trust and naivity. It's a shame that you don't. But fair enough.

I'm afraid that you're going to have to take this on faith too (or not, as the case may be) but I don't waste my time getting involved in discussions where I would need to lie about something to make a point. It's not my style. If I offer an opinion there is pretty much always a solid reason or some sort of personal experence behind it. That's just who I am. As such, I hold others to the same standard and give them the benefit of the doubt that they are being honest with me, at least until I have good reason to believe otherwise. For me, that really is basic common courtesy.

The majority of my above argument as to why I believe with absolute certainty that sometimes life will put you into situations where the only available options are bad ones is based upon personal experience. As that is clearly not enough for you to take as evidence then I'm afraid we are going to just have to agree to disagree on the matter. All I will say is that I truly hope that it won't take you finding yourself in one of those no-win situations to open your mind to the possibility that they exist.
You seem really touchy about this issue, i can't help you with that. It's not that you are not entirely familiar to me, it's that you aren't familiar to me in absolutely any way. I also did not call you a liar/deceiver. I don't know, maybe you have a habit of ending discussions/debates by declaring the other debater should take your word for it and it actually working but me, no i need actual valid reasons.

Wether it's a lie does not matter which i also didn't accuse you of being. Great but when you say "That's just who i am", i do not know that as i do not know you. Exellent, i would advise you to not try to enforce your basic common courtesy on others as we clearly have very different ideas on what that entails.

You again did not give me valid reasons on those kind of situations. The ones where you give all the power to the maker of the dillema. I did give you examples of soldiers in the heat of battle and making decisions fast. Which falls in line that it might appear he/she only has 2 options, both of them being bad. Time being so limited, he/she might have to make a bad choice in any regard. My point which i had been stressing was that neither baddy in full control choice or the limited time choice apply to Angel. Almost with all his bad decisions that cost 1000's if not millions of deaths were done over a pretty big period of time, given him more then enough time to come to his senses or realize the flaws in his plans which never happend ofcourse?
Yes, i think we will have to just agree to disagree.
As i said several times i do believe in bad/bad situation. I do not believe in bad guy in full control and is unstoppable situations, those only happen in movies,tv.
"I don't know, maybe you have a habit of ending discussions/debates by declaring the other debater should take your word for it and it actually working but me, no i need actual valid reasons."

Okay, I think I see where we are discussing this on two slightly different levels now, which may be why the things you said before came across as unintentionally rude. I was never asking you to take my word as a means to winning this discussion. I actually don't think that this discussion is one that can be won either way, as it's entirely a matter of opinion. What I said was this...

"You have two choices. Both not good. You make one. That is reality. Believe me when I say I know."

To which you replied...

"Sorry, i don't believe you."

Now, to me, that was rude. I'd have been perfectly happy with you saying that it wasn't necessarily a valid argument in the debate. That's fine, as it is a purely subjective opinion based on purely personal experience. But you said that you didn't believe me, which basically suggests that what I said was untrue, rather than simply not something you can take for granted.

I think what it boils down to for me is that it's not what you said, it's how you said it. I'm more than happy to agree that anything I may have seen or done in life is not something you would necessarily be willing to take as valid evidence for my side of this discussion, but then if it were not for those same experiences being true, I probably wouldn't have discussed this topic with you in the first place, ironically enough. The reason I raised this point with you is simply that it's one thing to disagree with an opinion and argue the opposite but it's another thing entirely to say 'I don't believe you', if you see what I mean? Again, not what you said but how you said it.

Just to clarify one other last thing, the 'pressing the button' example I gave a good few posts further up was an extremely simplified way of demonstrating the exact heat of battle scenario that you yourself accept exists. It wasn't meant as a real world example itself, but rather a theoretical situation to demonstrate the times where a soldier only has a number of bad options to choose from. Switch the theoretical button for a gun and the theoretical bad guy for a ticking clock and we have the same no-win situation. As I said before, it's a fictional dilemma simply meant to demonstrate a usually more complicated real world dilemma, made overly simple so as to get right down to the basic idea that I wanted to put across. That sometimes there really are no other alternatives available to you than bad ones. If that has been the sticking point in this issue we've had then I apologise for not making that more obvious to begin with.

Anyway, all good, I guess. Until next time. :)
Exactly, i didn't mean to imply that you are untrue or a liar. Your way of saying it would have been better. That it is your subjective opinion based on purely personal experience.

And i see how badly it can come across which was not my intention. No, your experience has nothing to do with it, nor did i say that it wasn't enough. But see i cannot change that because it is the truth, i do not believe you. It has nothing to do with your personal experience or you as a person, you could be Jezus reborn and i still wouldn't take your word for it over the internet.

You can simplify a dillema all you want, the truth is that any situation with humanbeings in conflict will always be amazingly complicated as is the nature of a humanbeing.
And while your theory is sound for reallife, it is not correct in using it as an example for Angel's situation. Which was your original arguement, that Angel found himself in a bad/bad decision situation. Time nor the resources at his disposal were limited yet he still caused the suffering and killing of millions.
Vergil and Highlander - you would be better off emailing each about how you come across and carry on the Buffy discussion as normal.
Fair enough. Just so you don't misunderstand though, I never intended to apply the 'pressing the button' example to the original Angel/Connor situation that was being discussed earlier in the thread. By that point in our specific back and forth I felt we had moved into a more general debate on the broader topic of making a choice with only ethically questionable outcomes possible. I absolutely agree that it does not apply specifically to Angel decisions regarding Connor.

Thanks again for the conversation. :)

ETA: Oops, sorry Simon. Pretty sure we've exhausted this topic now anyway.

[ edited by Highlander on 2010-12-06 14:36 ]
Thank you Highlander, ditto and thanks for the clarification.

You need to log in to be able to post comments.
About membership.



joss speaks back home back home back home back home back home