AuntEverest

I have noticed a trend in action TV shows, in which the main protagonist(s) will commit an act that is considered wrong or a crime and is usually excused by the shows' fans. Acts such as Angel arranging for Buffy, Connor and the Fang Gangs' memories to be wiped and ordering Lorne to kill Lindsey MacDonald, Buffy killing that vampire whore who had been used by Riley and molesting Spike, Spike's near rape of Buffy, Wes murdering Knox and stabbing Charles, both Charles and Fred being involved in Professor Siedel's death and etc. Many of these actions have been condoned or excused by the fans, because these characters are supposed to be the "good guys" or the victim was a "bad guy". The heroes. And many fans seem unwilling to accept their actions as bad, or realize that these characters need to pay a price for their actions.

Scythe

That's very clever of you to have noticed that!

But... I can't see how doing those things are bad if it's better for the world...

Ragnarok

I think the point is that heroes aren't perfect. They're fallible and (at least partly) human, and they sometimes don't do the right thing. Most of the acts you cited fall into that category, but not all of them, and in most cases the perpetrator did pay a price for their action.

- Angel erasing Buffy's memory (IWRY) -not evil. Angel agreed to the Powers' act of erasing the day. He wasn't given the option of letting Buffy keep her memories, he didn't even ask to be allowed to keep his - the Powers decided to do that on their own.

- The Connor mindwipe - I call it evil, others don't, since his motivation was to give his son a better life. Price: Angel lost the trust of his fellow FGers when they found out what he had done and had to earn it back.

- Angel orders Lorne to kill Lindsey - Questionable, but not clearly evil. Lindsey had agreed to help Angel, but had been attacking Angel all season and couldn't be trusted.

- Buffy killing the vampire whore - nothing wrong with that. The whore may have been pathetic and weak, but she was a vampire and was with the gang of vamps that attacked Buffy. Killing vamps is Buffy's job.

- Buffy molesting Spike - Very wrong, and she recognized that (Dead Things) and paid a high emotional price for it. I think her willingness to take serious risks to help Spike in S7 was at least partly due to her recognition that she owed it to him since she shared the blame for the horrible mess they created in S6.

- The AR - obviously very wrong. Spike recognized that and went and suffered torture to get his soul back as a result, then came back to try to help Buffy even though he had to know she might kill him as soon as she saw him.

- Wes killing Knox and stabbing Charles - I don't call those evil. Borderline at worst. Knox had murdered Fred, and more importantly intended to help Illyria conquer the world. He was just as evil (and human) as the Necromancer in Just Rewards, and I don't hear anyone saying Angel was wrong to kill that guy. Stabbing Charles was a bit extreme, but Charles had contributed to Fred's murder, and Wes deliberately did not kill him. If he'd only slugged Charles I doubt anyone would have even worried about it.

- Charles and Fred killing the Professor - Wrong, and they both knew it. Charles committed the murder specifically to spare Fred the guilt of becoming a murderer. And they did pay a price, since it destroyed their relationship.

I won't make excuses for fans who blow off wrong/evil acts committed by the good guys. I think those fans are losing out, frankly. I like the fact that these shows had "heroes" who were capable of giving in to their weaknesses and doing wrong. In most cases, the "good guy" in question recognized they'd done wrong and tried to make things right - that's what makes them good guys. Bad guys wouldn't care, or would be glad that they'd done wrong.

Generally speaking, I think both shows did a pretty good job of showing us that the good guys did, in fact, recognize when they'd done wrong and tried to fix it. Since "perfect" people are painfully boring, I'm generally pretty happy with the result.

Scythe

Good post Rob

Everything isn't black and white, as Buffy/Angel have proven again and again over the years.

Cruel Irony

What's wrong with Buffy killing the vampire whore? I mean, she's a vampire slayer. She slays vampires. I don't see what's wrong with that.

Jaime Bee

Very True. Angel having Lorne kill Lindsey did bother me because I just felt it wasn't right for Angel to ask Lorne to commit murder.

AuntEverest

-Buffy killing the vampire whore - nothing wrong with that. The whore may have been pathetic and weak, but she was a vampire and was with the gang of vamps that attacked Buffy. Killing vamps is Buffy's job.

In other words, you're saying that it's okay for Buffy to kill that vampire whore, because the latter was a vampire. You're saying that it's okay for someone to kill another being, because the latter is an "Other" and nothing else. In my eyes, that is WRONG. What bothered me about this killing was Buffy's reasons for killing the vamp whore - revenge and anger. She wasn't doing it to protect the innocents of Sunnydale. She did it because she was angry, she wanted to use the vamp whore as a punching bag to let out her anger and she was also probably jealous. Sorry, but the victim being a vampire doesn't let Buffy off the hook in my eyes.


-Wes killing Knox and stabbing Charles - I don't call those evil. Borderline at worst. Knox had murdered Fred, and more importantly intended to help Illyria conquer the world. He was just as evil (and human) as the Necromancer in Just Rewards, and I don't hear anyone saying Angel was wrong to kill that guy. Stabbing Charles was a bit extreme, but Charles had contributed to Fred's murder, and Wes deliberately did not kill him. If he'd only slugged Charles I doubt anyone would have even worried about it.

Charles and Fred killing the Professor - Wrong, and they both knew it. Charles committed the murder specifically to spare Fred the guilt of becoming a murderer. And they did pay a price, since it destroyed their relationship.

You're favoritism toward Wesley over Charles is very obvious in these statement. You're willing to excuse Wesley, because revenge is okay. Yet, you're willing to condemn Charles for both Fred and Siedel's death. This reeks of hypocricy. If Charles and Fred's murder of Siedel was wrong, so was Wes' murder of Knox and his stabbing of Charles.

Charles' reason for killing Siedel was wrong. Fred's desire to destroy Siedel and her attempt to stop Charles from saving the guy was wrong.

Wes' murder of Knox and stabbing of Charles, all in the name of revenge for Fred's death was wrong. You may love Wesley as a character (your post seemed to hint this strongly), but that is not a reason to condone his actions. He committed murder, just like Charles and Fred. Your defense of Wesley only proved what I had stated in my original post - about fans willing to condone a character's criminal deeds, because that character is either a hero or a favorite.

Scythe

Giles said that it is very dangerous for people to go into a vamp lair and get suck jobs *snickers* from the Vampires:

"But still, it can be terribly dangerous for humans. I mean, people can end up dying accidentally, or meeting a vampire who only pretends to play by the house rules."

Now I don't know about the rest, because I'm not really into Angel that much... But I know that what Buffy did in 'Into The Woods' was acceptable.

AuntEverest

"I know that what Buffy did in 'Into The Woods' was acceptable."

Getting away with murder, because the victim in question is regarded as a dangerous being doesn't hack it. Sounds like an excuse made up by humans to indulge in their blood lust. And that was what Buffy was doing in "Into the Woods" - indulging in her blood lust. And because the victim in question was a vampire, everyone is saying that it was okay for her to get away with it. Sounds hypocritical to me. And it smacks of bigotry.

Scythe

Vampire's are soulless! It's for the good of man-kind! If you say it was bad for her to kill that one vampire then you're saying it's bad for her to kill all of them and that's just... Not right at all! It's not murder! All animals kill for survival. Buffy slays Vampires for the survival of others.

racerkatbat

I agree with some of the stuff you said, but I highly disagree with Angel having Lindsay killed. If Angel's motivations for killing Lidsay was that he didn't trust him, then Angel should have been dead years ago. Giles, Xander, Gunn, etc defenitely didn't trust Angel when they first met him, but they were willing to give him the benefit of the doubt in his quest for redemption. And Angel has done horrendous deeds...both with and without the soul. With the soul, he locked all those lawyers up with the blood-thirsty vamps, did the Fang Gang mind-wipe, almost killed Wes, killed Drogyn, etc. Angel expects others to 'trust' him and give him the benefit of the doubt, yet he is unwilling to do the same thing for others in return. Lindsay claimed to be working to 'better' himself...the same as Angel, and Angel has him killed. Is that not hypocricy on Angel's part? Perhaps Lindsay really was working for his own redemption, but now we will never know. And Angel didn't even have the gutts to pull the trigger himself.

And if all the characters that certain people haven't trusted over the years were killed, we'd have quite a tally of dead folks. Let's count...Angel, Spike, Lorne(he is a demon after all), Clem(another demon), Doyle(half-demon), Willow(she tried to destroy the world), Gunn(they didn't treally trust him after he had the brain thing done), Cordy(after she went bad), Wes(when he went bad), Buffy(she went to a very dark place after getting yanked out of heaven), and I could go on and on. Basically, most of the people on the show would be dead. Not trusting someone is never a sound reason to kill someone.

Bronson

I am surprised that you did not mention Giles killed Ben/Glory at the end of Season 5 or Angel leaving the lawyers of W&H at the mercy of Drusilla and Darla. Both of which I understand.

racerkatbat

I understand why Giles killed Ben. It had to be done to kill Glory. As long as Ben was alive so was Glory. But I don't agree with Angel killing all the lawyers. Even Buffy balks about killing humans yet Angel seems to sometimes have no qualms about it at all. And maybe you didn't have a problem with it but the Fang Gang was unhappy with his actions there. This was during Angel's going dark phase when they kicked him out til he sorted himself out which is exactly what they should have done *shrug*

AlexEvans

Neither Charles killing the professor nor Wesley killing Knox was murder.

What Wesley did was great. Knox was dangerous, deserved death, and was beyond the reach of the criminal justice system.

The same apply to the professor, but I blame Charles for interfering with Fred. She was the victim, she had the right to take care of it herself - and it would not have made her a murderer. So what Gunn did was wrong, but it wasn't murder.

Dazzling

I kind of have a problem with people taking it upon themselves to be judge, jury and executioner...

I'm pretty much with Buffy on this one.. look at Warren.. what he did was horrible. He killed Tara, almost killed Buffy, killed Katrina and tried to frame Buffy for it.. but in the end Buffy would not condone Willow's need for revenge.. she was right about their being limits to what they should be allowed to do. Her being the slayer didn't give her the lincense to kill or give her the right to deem who was beyond saving..

From an emotionally standpoint.. I hated Knox for what he did to Fred, I hated Warren for what he did to Tara, I hated the Professor for what he did to Fred and so on and so on.. and I understand why the characters sought revenge, why they were driven to do what they did.. doesn't mean I condone it in each in everyone of those cases.