Nicholas
Descendant of a Toaster Oven
One Good Scare
Tonight I'm Dancing.[Mo0:16]
Posts: 656
|
Post by Nicholas on Feb 25, 2009 12:09:32 GMT -5
Is there Genocide within the Buffyverse?
With vampires clearly able to redeem themselves (Angel and Spike) and not all demons being bad...is Buffy slaying actions a form of genocide?
|
|
|
|
Post by Skytteflickan88 on Feb 25, 2009 13:00:06 GMT -5
Definitely, in the sense that;
'Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group.'(wikipedia definition)
I can't say that it's wrong tough. But I would feel better if all the vamps Buffy killed had to do a lie-detector test or something. Killing vamps that attack you on patrol is fine, but of all those nests that are attacked when found, without further evidence, I wonder;
Did one of all those dusted vamps not deserve to die?
However, I have so far not seen a soulless vampire not being dustable. Spike, the "nicest" vamp around, would probably have made Buffy his love-slave had she not had slayer-powers. It was just because of luck (and his belief that one day he could convince Buffy to accept him) that his love took a less violent way. I bet he had tons of times to turn her in Season 6, and wanted to, but since she might not be able to feel love if she turned into a vamp, he didn't do it. To sum up, I'm pretty sure the nicest vamp in the whole Buffyverse, is still too selfish to not be called evil, so not killing vampires because they might be redeemed is a lost cause.
So I gotta say; Burn vampires, burn.
While having a guilty conscious, of course.
EDIT- I just remembered a thought that's been haunting me since Season 2 of Buffy; Why not put souls in all vampires? Atleast the ones you could afford to catch (un-)alive?
Was the gypsy-curse a one time thing, made specially for Angel? Darla, Spike & Dru did kill a lot of the tribe that cursed Angel. Maybe the knowledge died with them. Maybe every curse has to be individual, made specially for one vampire? So Angel's curse is... Angel's?
And the way Spike used might have to be voluntary from the vampire's side, since there are trials.
So no solution there, but I wanted to point out that genocide might be the only way to go.
|
|
|
|
Post by wenxina on Feb 25, 2009 13:06:15 GMT -5
I take it that this is another topic of interest that came up from reading BtVS and Philosophy?  The way I see it, vampires kill for food, and some for pleasure. How many vampires have you seen redeemed on both BtVS and AtS? Angel and Spike were exceptions; both had souls, and before getting his soul back, Spike had a chip that caused debilitating pain if he directly tried to harm a person. But in general, I'm yet to see a truly benevolent regular vampire. Buffy doesn't slay vampires because they're vampires. She slays because they harm those that she's charged to protect. Same with demons. If the MO were as easy as to kill anything that isn't human, Angel or Spike wouldn't have been allowed to linger, and Clem would have been killed pretty quick. Therefore, it's not technically genocide... she isn't targeting demons, just demons that harm people. Maybe the original intent of creating a Slayer was for genocide, since the Slayer is merely the tool by which the Watchers' Council acts, or at least that's Travers' arrogant claim. But Buffy is no ordinary Slayer. |
|
|
|
Post by dragonweaver on Feb 25, 2009 17:42:13 GMT -5
Well put wenxina.
One thing that was made clear in the Buffyverse, especially in the Angel series, is that there are various degrees of evil within the demon world. Some demons are completely evil and will kill without prejudice. Others are somewhat evil, they kill but only to eat or only if they feel they have a good reason. Then you have the demons who keep to themselves.
So with that I don't think Buffy's intends to wipe out the demon population. She kills demons who she deems to be threats. She has rarely gone out of her way to hurt down vampires or demons who had not demonstrated themselves to be a danger.
Digging deeper, if you look at specific types of demons (i.e. vampires) as a race then some could argue that Buffy is guilty of genocide. Of course Buffy's actions are only wrong if vampires are as redeemable as you say. I say not. While vampires can avoid killing if they so choose and even develop emotions and attachments, at their core they have no real regard for human life. In the words of Spike, to vamps humans are "happy meals with legs". Some vamps, like Harmony, may not go on killing sprees but that doesn't make them any less dangerous or any less of a threat.
|
|
Saturn 5
Descendant of a Toaster Oven
[Mo0:0]
Posts: 638
|
Post by Saturn 5 on Feb 25, 2009 18:17:45 GMT -5
them or us and them doesn't even got a look in!  |
|
|
|
Post by snizapman6294 on Feb 25, 2009 21:10:26 GMT -5
i mean Harmony would tell Larry King that Slayers genocide...ed? the vamps...
|
|
|
|
Post by wenxina on Feb 25, 2009 22:07:15 GMT -5
Harmony wouldn't know the difference between "genocide" and "denim suicide".
|
|
|
|
Post by Skytteflickan88 on Feb 26, 2009 5:42:47 GMT -5
Harmony wouldn't know the difference between "genocide" and "denim suicide". Lol |
|
Nicholas
Descendant of a Toaster Oven
One Good Scare
Tonight I'm Dancing.[Mo0:16]
Posts: 656
|
Post by Nicholas on Feb 26, 2009 13:59:54 GMT -5
I think its an intresting theory that Buffy and her crew were able to cook up a spell to make all Potentials throughtout the world, into actual Slayers but not something to reensoul all vampires.
An argument that would counter that is the balance between good or evil. It was made pretty clear that had there not been a balance between good and evil, the world would go out of whack. So maybe thats why Buffy simply has to kill them.
|
|
Paul
Ensouled Vampire
[Mo0:34]
Posts: 1,173
|
Post by Paul on Feb 26, 2009 16:55:59 GMT -5
This is a problem that arose from Angel and Spike being popular characters. Originally Joss wanted demons to be purely evil, but Angel was popular so he stuck around. Same with Spike, he was popular so he stuck around and was eventually redeemed. Demons in general were gradually humanised in both shows, but this also presented a moral dilemma that wasn't considered when Joss came up with the original concept of a Vampire Slayer.
Now you have Harmony, a soulless but fairly innocent vampire who just wants to live her life without hurting anyone. She hasn't killed anyone without provocation in years, so how many other Harmonys are blowing in the wind right now because Buffy staked first, asked questions later? It's an delicate issue, and I think Buffy's reluctance to slay demons that she knows personally like Spike and Harmony shows that she herself is uncomfortable with it. She probably tells herself that all vampires are bad because it helps her sleep at night. Is she right to slay indiscriminately? Or should she try and rehabilitate or imprison every dangerous demon she comes across? The former is probably more effective at saving innocent lives in the long run. At the end of the day it's a dirty job but someone's got to do it.
|
|
Nicholas
Descendant of a Toaster Oven
One Good Scare
Tonight I'm Dancing.[Mo0:16]
Posts: 656
|
Post by Nicholas on Feb 26, 2009 22:53:55 GMT -5
I disagree with your point on the Harmony being such an innocent vampire, she clearly fed off of Andy Dick which is what initially got her noticed in the first place. She attacked Cordelia in the first place which is what got her tossed back on her ass until she showed up at W&H, when the only reason she didnt harm humans there was because she was under obligation with Angel not too, or else she gets the big DUST. She sold Angel out at the end to Hamilton, and went and outed all of the Slayers. The only reason she is acting goody-goody is because right now, that is what she needs to do to keep the anti-Slayer parade moving along.
|
|
Paul
Ensouled Vampire
[Mo0:34]
Posts: 1,173
|
Post by Paul on Feb 27, 2009 1:08:43 GMT -5
I disagree with your point on the Harmony being such an innocent vampire, she clearly fed off of Andy Dick which is what initially got her noticed in the first place. She attacked Cordelia in the first place which is what got her tossed back on her ass until she showed up at W&H, when the only reason she didnt harm humans there was because she was under obligation with Angel not too, or else she gets the big DUST. She sold Angel out at the end to Hamilton, and went and outed all of the Slayers. The only reason she is acting goody-goody is because right now, that is what she needs to do to keep the anti-Slayer parade moving along. She never killed Andy Dick, at least as far as we know. As for staying off the blood for Angel's sake, she still doesn't kill of her own free will. As for those moments she betrays Cordy and Angel, those weren't motivated by evil so much as her "sheep"ness, always following the popular and powerful crowd. We've never seen Harmony do anything truly malicious and evil; even when she was trying to kill Buffy in Sunnydale, she was just doing it to "fit in" rather than because she wanted to. |
|
|
|
Post by wenxina on Feb 27, 2009 9:33:36 GMT -5
She betrayed Angel's trust, just as he knew she would. While it was played off as a rather humorous last exchange between boss and employee (he already had her letter of recommendation written), it does speak of Harmony being less than a stellar character.
The only interesting thing about Harmony now is that she now blurs that line about harming people. Is it technically harming a person if they offer themselves up for the chomp? Should the Slayers not kill vampires as long as people are offering themselves up willingly? Or should they do it anyway because they know that it's for the shared good of mankind, regardless of whether or not people realize it? That's the bit which Anderson Cooper was talking about: who decides what is good, and who gets to uphold that?
Other than that interesting philosophical footnote, I could care less about Harm. Sure, she's a great comic character, but I tire of her very quickly.
|
|
Paul
Ensouled Vampire
[Mo0:34]
Posts: 1,173
|
Post by Paul on Feb 27, 2009 10:34:26 GMT -5
She betrayed Cordelia's trust in "Bewitched, Bothered and Bewildered", and for the same reasons. Cordelia/Angel was no longer the queen bee, and Harmony has to follow the queen bee. It was entirely motivated by her human flaws, nothing whatsoever to do with a lack of a soul or being an evil demon.
I adore Harmony precisely because she has no depth whatsoever. In the 10+ years since Buffy started, all the characters have grown up and changed so much. Harmony, however, remains exactly the same as she started out despite generous screentime (except she's a vampire now, and even that didn't change her) and I find that hilarious. She's just too stupid to learn from anything, so she just breezes through life being dumb and blonde. She doesn't need character development, she's Harmony!
As I've said before, I'd love Harmony to appear as a Fray villain if/when they continue that title. Seeing her behaving the exact same way 200 years into the future would be the ultimate punchline to the character.
|
|
Malsad
Descendant of a Toaster Oven
Attack Attack!
[Mo0:37]
Posts: 684
|
Post by Malsad on Feb 28, 2009 15:50:16 GMT -5
that would be great
|
|
|
|
Post by wenxina on Feb 28, 2009 16:54:16 GMT -5
She betrayed Cordelia's trust in "Bewitched, Bothered and Bewildered", and for the same reasons. Cordelia/Angel was no longer the queen bee, and Harmony has to follow the queen bee. It was entirely motivated by her human flaws, nothing whatsoever to do with a lack of a soul or being an evil demon. Touche. But trying to kill Buffy with her insidious "plans" was her way of trying really hard to be evil. She even had diagrams didn't she? I mean, she failed horribly at trying to be an evil leader, but that doesn't meant that she wasn't trying. Back to the topic at hand, I think the point made is that there are no upstanding vampire citizens out there (with the exception of Angel and Spike, at least that we know of), and the reason they get dusted is not because they're vampires but because they are inherently evil. Or try to be anyway. Meaning that getting the pointy end of the stake is not about genocide, but rather based on merit, or lack of. |
|
|
|
Post by Skytteflickan88 on Mar 2, 2009 7:52:19 GMT -5
An argument that would counter that is the balance between good or evil. It was made pretty clear that had there not been a balance between good and evil, the world would go out of whack. So maybe thats why Buffy simply has to kill them. In case that is why Buffy doesn't try to reesnoul, because it would upset the balance, now, when there are so many slayers, it's time to reensoul. |
|
|
|
Post by kittyfantastico on Mar 2, 2009 11:38:06 GMT -5
Speaking of there being so many slayers-- ever since Season 2, I always thought the logical thing to do would be to get some really good doctors to stop each slayer's heart for a minute so that a new slayer would be called. You could build up a huge number of them and they could each protect different parts of the world. I know Buffy is guarding the Hellmouth or whatever, but now who protects the people in China since Spike killed that Chinese slayer? It makes sense to have more than one.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skytteflickan88 on Mar 2, 2009 14:10:39 GMT -5
Speaking of there being so many slayers-- ever since Season 2, I always thought the logical thing to do would be to get some really good doctors to stop each slayer's heart for a minute so that a new slayer would be called. You could build up a huge number of them and they could each protect different parts of the world. I know Buffy is guarding the Hellmouth or whatever, but now who protects the people in China since Spike killed that Chinese slayer? It makes sense to have more than one. I used to think that too. But 1) I guess that the council likes to have the power and 2) they might not have dared to try. Magic is tricky. Maybe they have tried, had a bunch of slayers and the other slayers got mad when one of the girls turned 18, got powerless and was killed by a vampire. |
|
|
|
Post by kittyfantastico on Mar 2, 2009 16:26:43 GMT -5
Why would they lose their power at 18?
|
|
