Why Spike getting his soul back shouldn't stop Buffy killing vampires.

[elisi]

A lot of people have been discussing whether Spike's soulquest means that all vampires are potentially redeemable in AOQ's review threads. Having written down my thoughts, I thought I might re-post them.

Basically I don't find it problematic at all. Spike's circumstances were so very particular, that it's doubtful they'll ever be reproduced. So saying that Buffy should worry about staking vampires ‘because they might turn out good’ is pointless (for her anyway - such pondering is for The Council). Anyway, here’s my reasons:

1) The Initiative is gone, and Buffy has neither the means nor the time or the resources to chip vampires herself.

2) Although the chip inhibited Spike's vampire nature, he did not start doing good until he fell in love with Buffy. What if Dru had arrived at the end of S4 instead of S5? Very different outcome I think. The chip only stopped him from doing active evil - and someone like Angelus could still have caused incredible damage, even if chipped. Spike helped the bleeding disaster victims because of Buffy - and we know that if she wasn't around, the temptation (to feed) could get overwhelming.

3) Spike didn't go get his soul because he 'wanted to be good'. (Although it could be argued that in loving Buffy he was in love with goodness itself and wanted to attain that. This bit's a little muddled, sorry.) He knew that getting it might entail that goodness (becoming a 'fluffy puppy with bad teeth'), and it pissed him off royally (William the bloody awful poet not someone he welcomed). He was pretty much committing demonic suicide (and choosing to be 'Uncle Tom', like he once accused Angel of - not something to celebrate), and the circumstances were pretty extraordinary. He got the soul for Buffy - so he could be 'good enough' (and because he wanted to make sure he wouldn’t hurt Buffy again, and because he’d come to a dead end and couldn’t go back to being just a demon, etc, etc. Hugely complex matter! )

4) A soul doesn't make you good, it only creates a possibility. Vampires are evil, and that is where their nature will lead them. Having a soul only put Spike on the same level as ordinary humans - he could still have turned out like Warren. Look at Angel (in S2 of AtS particularly).

5) Vampires change all the time, just consider Spike and Angel and who they used to be. Liam, the boorish drunk, became Angelus - refined artist, revelling in the destruction of humans and rather pretentious. William, the soft hearted poet, became Spike, the Slayer killer and reckless fighter. Vampires change, but only once have we seen someone change towards being 'good' - and even then it was all for the sake of Buffy.

Doing the percentages, 99.99% of the vampires Buffy meets are evil fiends (who would stay that way whatever happened), and she should stake them - with Spike as the variable 0.01%. But - if Buffy had succeeded in staking Spike pre-chip she would have been perfectly justified in doing so. I would under no circumstances say that letting Spike live 'because he might turn out good' would be a sane or wise choice.

Or turning the argument on its head, some people Buffy has met are evil - should she automatically assume that every human she meets is a potential murderer? Should she sit down and quiz them or lock them up until she finds out? This is obviously ridiculous, even if Buffy is *a lot* more likely to meet an evil human than a potentially good vampire.

I know I still have comments to reply to and I hang my head in shame. I just seem to be behind on everything at the moment. *sigh*

Comments

[frenchani.livejournal.com]

Spike is just the exception that makes the rule. Even William's lovely mother behaved agaisnt her sweet nature once she was turned. LMPTM pointed out how special Spike was, he remained a fool sentimental, a fool for love. He was evil but at the same time he was still driven by his heart above all, whereas vampires are mostly driven by bloodlust and "revenge". In "Lie To Me", Buffy's instinct was right when she threatened Dru.
Spike could even still feel empathy as "Tough Love" showed (towards Dawn)whereas vampires are basically self-centred, deceitful and selfish creatures. He was a true anomaly because he kept the potential to become a good man again while he was evil.

[elisi]

::nods::

'Lie To Me' is pivotal - because it shows so clearly that Spike prizes love above all else, even killing a Slayer. Compare and contrast with Angelus/Darla who happily left each other to die! (Not that Angelus/Dru didn't have very strong bonds, but self-preservation came first.)

[aycheb.livejournal.com]

I completely agree with all your points. A lot of these arguments also seem to be based on the impression that Buffy routinely stakes "innocent" vampires i.e. ones that aren't doing anything bad at the time and presumably might be just about to redeem themselves. However, I think the show generally makes it clear than when she does that sort of thing it's an aberration. When she and Faith make a daytime raid on nest of sleeping vamps in Bad Girls, or when she hunts down a fleeing vamp in Buffy vs Dracula or when she takes out the junkie vamp girl who'd been servicing Riley these actions are all clearly set up by the story as Not-Good-Or-At-Best-Dubious-Things. For non-morally ambiguous slays it looks more as if Buffy's policy is to go for vamps that are coming on aggressively towards her - even the newly risen/rising ones are shown to be growling at her or in game face. When she lets the nesting poofter vamps run off in Crush there's absolutely no indication by the show that this represents a dereliction of duty.

[bogwitch.livejournal.com]

Arguing for the rights of potentially redeemed vampires is very dangerous thinking. What about all the people who would die 'just in case' vampires could be good? It's like not imprisioning criminals because they might stop of their own accord.

I'm not sure I agree with your #3, or maybe just the way you phrased it. You said that his reasons are complex, but I think a choice to be good [a man] was in there. It's all part and parcel of wanting be be a fit mate for Buffy, though it's muddied with a few less altruistic reasons, but he doesn't want to be the person he was anymore. William is a safe answer to that.

[elisi]

It's like not imprisioning criminals because they might stop of their own accord.
Ah, now that's a good analogy. Thank you. And yes I think it's dangerous thinking too - as I pointed out, Spike never tried to save any other vampires. And he should know.

Re. #3, then I've altered it slightly - this was originally written as a reply to someone who thinks Spike went to Africa to get the chip out so he could punish Buffy for dumping him. It's not easy to talk to such people.

[elisi]

Buffy routinely stakes "innocent" vampires i.e. ones that aren't doing anything bad at the time and presumably might be just about to redeem themselves.
Re-watching S7 I think they deal with this at the very start of 'Lessons' where Buffy is teaching Dawn. The vampire is stuck in the ground and very politely asks Buffy to help him up. A second later he thanks her by trying to eat her - the lesson being: 'Vampires are *always* evil, even when they look helpless'.

When she lets the nesting poofter vamps run off in Crush there's absolutely no indication by the show that this represents a dereliction of duty.
Well... according to some people it does! But yeah, Buffy tends to let the pathetic/harmless ones (mostly demons generally) hang around.

[rahirah]

I always thought that the "Oh noes, if all vampires are potentially redeemable, Buffy is a murderer!" argument was a straw man. But a lot of people are wedded to it.

[mikeygs.livejournal.com]

Vampires are intrinsically evil. I really don't think the story ever contradicted that at all.

[spikewriter]

6) By the time Buffy's worked through all the possibilities, the vampires had his snack? (There's a reason aside from not having the slayer think about it that the watchers advocate "Plunge and move on.")

[liliaeth]

Agreeing with most of this, said what I thought about this in my own lj a while back:
http://liliaeth.livejournal.com/208155.html

[femmenerd.livejournal.com]

Very clear. I totally agree. :)

[elisi]

Oh yes, this is a straw man alright! The guy I'm 'discussing' this with is one of the 'Spike was tricked into the soul' crowd. I thought that suddenly being so concerned about soulless evil things was rather odd and asked him if he'd changed his mind. (According to him vampires can't change, not even Spike, so why did he bother discussing it?) He replied that Joss implying that evil vampires *could* change was one of those things that ruined the show. *shrug*

(He also has no sense of humour. It's tragic really.)

[elisi]

Except to people like this guy. But then he lost all respect for Buffy when she smiled at Spike's joke about killing her friends in 'Flooded'. It's really, really hard not to bang my head into the wall repeatedly!

[elisi]

Hehehehehe! I like that. :)

[elisi]

Thanks for the link - I've been meaning to read that post!

And that's why a soldier shoots.
Not because the enemy is evil, but because there are people who need to be protected.

Well said. Except of course a vampire *is* evil, even if there is the faint possibility of redemption.

[thedeadlyhook.livejournal.com]

Good arguments all, but to me it all comes down to vampires presenting an active danger - chipless, they will kill, so Buffy has to be proactive to protect their potential victims. Spike was an experiment that she can't replicate. Although... hmm... interesting plot bunny for a fic, almost, in the idea of a restraining spell on all vampires, something like the Slayer activation spell. Although one shudders to think of the consequences, given all those suddenly starving vamps...

[deborahc.livejournal.com]

The chip only stopped him from doing active evil - and someone like Angelus could still have caused incredible damage, even if chipped.

This has always made me crazy been a real sore point for me, as so many people, including (or should I say, aided and abetted by) various characters characters on the show from time to time, dismiss any good pre-soul Spike did as inconsequential, attributing it to nothing more than the chip's influence. I've no doubt that we're in agreement with the limited functionality and power of the chip and Spike's continued latitude to commit indirect harm to people (The Yoko Factor and Crush, spring immediately to mind), but to say that the chip only stopped Spike from committing active evil is still giving the chip more power than it possessed. Call me anal (I do, anyway), but I like to be very specific about this. The chip activated when it perceived Spike attempting to do direct, physical harm to a human being. Evil, direct or indirect, is broader in scope.

Aside from that oh so petty difference which comes down to nothing more than semantics, I wholeheartedly agree with every word you said.

[elisi]

Thanks. :)

[deborahc.livejournal.com]

Another thought, Barb is exploring the very question of how other vampires react to being chipped in POM, with her OC "Eve" (If I recall her name correctly; it has been a while long :(). Before Spike takes her on, we learn she has survived by becoming what Spike once characterized to Riley as an "undead lady of questionable reputation" or, "two-bit vampire troll" - biting thrill-seeking humans ostensibly for money but really, just so she can continue to get the good stuff on tap. No butcher's leavings for her.

I think that Angelus would have stopped at nothing to get the chip removed, and would have devised and engineered a terrible retribution against the Initiative.

[elisi]

chipless, they will kill, so Buffy has to be proactive to protect their potential victims.
Exactly.

the idea of a restraining spell on all vampires, something like the Slayer activation spell.
Magic always has consequences...

[elisi]

The chip activated when it perceived Spike attempting to do direct, physical harm to a human being. Evil, direct or indirect, is broader in scope.
Very well put. I was of course just being quick, but that's what I meant. The chip stopped Spike from actively harming and feeding, and - I think - curbed his inherent vampire nature in the process (Pavlov's bell and all that).

Anyway, glad you liked the post. :)

[elisi]

One day I'll get round to reading all of Barb's stuff... *sigh* But that sounds like a good premise.

Angelus would have had the chip put in no time. And then the 'fun' would begin...

[deborahc.livejournal.com]

Angelus would have had the chip put in no time.

In, or did you mean out?

[elisi]

Damn, that should have been 'out'. *facepalm*

He would have had the chip out in no time!

[spikewriter]

Although, if he found a way to put it in someone else he didn't like, he would.

[elisi]

Oh the fun he'd have... there's a fic in that! ;)

[kikimay]

I agree.
Especially when you talk about Angelus and the damages that he still can make, even with a chip. He's a psycopath, he can easily manipulate people even in a cage (like Season 4 proves) so Spike is really an exception among the vampires.

[elisi]

Our boy is SPESHUL! *firm nod*