UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone!
  The StakeHouse
  Mythos & Morality (SKY)
  Should demons and vampires have rights?

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   Should demons and vampires have rights?
Vox
Scooby Gang Member
posted 13-04-2000 03:33 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Vox   Click Here to Email Vox     Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
There's a bit of a difference between the demons in Buffy and the demons in Angel, while for Buffy demons remain little better than predatory animals which must be destroyed or neutered to protect humanity, for Angel demons can be valuable productive members of society.

Increasingly we've seen the softer side of the demonic in LA. This all started back in Becoming with Whistler, a demon that fights for the side of good. Then, in Enemies, we met a more human demon who wasn't interested in killing, but instead wanted to offload the books of Ascension. Though Buffy threatened him with her stake, this was to get him to stop wasting her time rather than a serious attempt to kill him.

In LA we've met more of this new friendlier demon, right from the start we were introduced to Francis Doyle, a half-demon that acted as a medium through which TPTB could assign Angel tasks. He ran into some trouble with the Straleys from The Bachelor Party trying to eat his brains, but despite this slight cultural mix-up, the Straleys were fully integrated members of society. They married humans, owned restaurants and worked their way up the property ladder. In Hero we were introduced to a whole new concept, a demon species bent on purging their half-bred demonic brethren. Now they weren't particularly friendly, but the little grey guys were, more demons who lived within society. The Kungai from Parting Gifts seemed to have its human supporters, Barney quickly gained the sympathy and aid of Angel, and, well, who couldn't feel sorry for the poor Ethros demon, trapped night and day within that Macaulay Culkin-a-alike.

In Angel we've increasingly seen demons being portrayed as sympathetic characters. As people, deserving of consideration and fundamental rights to life and liberty so long as they don't transgress the 'rules' of society. Buffy, however, there has been a long established, 'if it ain't human then the Slayer got to kill it' attitude. This position has not as of yet appeared unreasonable because every single demon has weighed into attacking her or some other innocent before they were killed. But what if this didn't always happen?

Let me introduce you to a character, he's a vampire (through no fault of his own), let's call him Vince. Say hello, Vince.

"Hello"

Vince is a bit of a spod, he was doing a degree in criminology and punishment before he was vamped. And, like vampHarmony, he is little changed from when he was mortal. As has happened to many of his kind, he has been set upon by the Slayer. He was minding his own business, walking along when this small, blonde girl started hitting him.

Buffy: "When are you fang-features going to learn that Sunnydale isn't good for your health?"

Vince: "Why are you hitting me?"

B: "Cos it makes it easier to stake you if you're not walking any more."

V: "Why do you want to stake me?"

B: "What? You're a vampire! I'm a vampire slayer. Stakage kind of goes with the job."

V: "But what have I done?"

B: "I don't know. Suck blood, kill people, terrorising children blah, blah, blah."

V: "No I haven't."

B: "Of course you have, you're a vampire."

V: "I know I'm a vampire, but I haven't hurt anyone."

B: "How do you feed then?"

V: "I buy my blood from a slaughterhouse."

B: "Where do you get the money from? Bet you steal it from your victims, huh?"

V: "Not at all, because my body was never found I was never declared legally dead. I'm still living off my student loan."

B: "Well you better liquidate your assets, 'cos here comes Mr. Pointy."

V: "Wait a minute, why do you still want to kill me?"

B: "Even if I believed you (which I don't by the way)..."

V: "I swear I'm telling the truth."

B: "Whatever, you're still a vampire, you've either done or you're going to do something evil."

V: "Now wait there, you have nothing to say I have done anything evil at all, have you?"

B: "Apart from those two pointy teeth that say 'I've done evil things' to me."

V: "Have you?"

B: "No... But I know you're gonna."

V: "I say I won't do anything evil, and anyway you can't punish me for something I might do in the future. We all might do something in the future, you can't have prospective punishment for potential crimes. Everyone would be guilty. The police could go round gunning people down and say they were justified because of the crimes the people might have gone on to commit!"

B: "Listen, buddy. Vam-pire Slay-er, that's what it says on my resume. I slay vampires. You vampire. I slay you. Kabbisch?

V: "So, your entire argument for ending my existence relies on semantics? I'm going to be killed over my label?

B: "Would you just try and fight back already?

V: "No."

B: "Go on!" *whack*

V: "Ow! No!"

B: "Giiiiiles! This one's not playing fair!"


All of a sudden routine patrol has turned into a philosophical nightmare.
<Needless to say, Joss Whedon will not be ringing me, desperate for ideas for season 5>

So should Buffy stake Vince? She has no way of telling whether he is telling the truth, whether he's just come from a soup kitchen where he feeds the homeless or whether he's just come from a soup kitchen where he feeds on the homeless. But can she justifiably stake Vince without knowing that he has done something wrong?

Staking is permament, she has to be sure. But if she lets him go and he goes and feeds on people, then their deaths will be equally permament.

What if Vince wasn't a vampire but another sort of demon, should that affect her decision?

Should demons and vampires have rights?

IP: Logged

Joe
Scooby Gang Member
posted 14-04-2000 04:17 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Joe   Click Here to Email Joe     Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
As far as I know, Buffy's strategy is to wait until she's attacked by the vampires (she seems to be be able to distinguish them from muggers), and then stake them. Their own actions condemn them. Anyway, 'you cannot kill what doesss not live...'
As for demons, things seem very confused in Whedonia. One can speculate that, like the Taelons from 'Earth; Final Conflict' when they're separated from the 'commonality' (I think that's the phrase), some demons just succumb to an incurable condition (possibly due to exposure to humanity) that involves loss of higher brain functions. They then run amok, and have to be killed. That's one theory, anyway.

IP: Logged

MonSTeR
Scooby Gang Member
posted 18-04-2000 11:04 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for MonSTeR   Click Here to Email MonSTeR     Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
ooh I just LOVE Vox's posts

Okay applying US federal and California state law to demons?

Erm? Vince HAS rights having never been declared legally dead?

Once a human/vamp is declared legally dead, he's got about as many rights as any other corpse. And it's not like they're gonna find a body when he's been dusted is it?!?!?

I'm sure the EXACT terms of slayage are written in black and white somewhere in one of Giles's books. They're probably in the "Slayer's Handbook" but Buffy never got her copy

IP: Logged

Byron
Scooby Gang Member
posted 19-04-2000 01:03 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Byron   Click Here to Email Byron     Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Geeze Vox, I thought MY posts were long! Seriously though, I've been thinking much the same thing (see my post in the Mythos and Morality forum, 'Importance of a Soul') The vampire 'Vince' sounds much like my quandary over whether the loss of the human soul necessarily equates to certain evil. I know Joss sees our soul as equating to goodness, but does it? (As I said, see my other post) As you said, what would Buffy do to a vamp quietly going about their business, & harming nobody?

[This message has been edited by Byron (edited 19-04-2000).]

IP: Logged

Alex
Scooby Gang Member
posted 19-04-2000 01:18 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Alex   Click Here to Email Alex     Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
I have to agree with Monster - vox, your posts are great!

I don't think Buffy always waits for vamps to attack before she stakes them. In the pre-credits opening scenes of some episodes we see her staking vampires as soon as she sees them, or even when they've just climbed out of their graves.


There is a big difference between demons and vampires though - if we accept the line "You're not looking at your friend, you're looking at the thing that killed him" which Giles said in one of the first two episodes of Buffy, any vampire has already murdered at least one person.

Buffy seems to work on the premise that a vampire like Vince is impossible, and any vampire without a soul will inevitably try to kill people. I don't think we've seen anything that suggests that isn't true, but it creates its own problems as there are time swhen Buffy could kill vampires but she doesn't. Spike is the most obvious - at first there were pragamatic reasons for keeping him alive, but letting him live on his own away from the scooby gang is really no different from letting a newly risen vampire go. He's still going to try to kill people, it's just a bit more difficult for him. Leaving him alone because he's probably harmless only makes sense if vampires do have rights. Otherwise Buffy is going to be responsible for anybody that Spike kills in future. Then again Buffy and the SG seem to be letting themselves think Spike is "good" now in recent episode, so it is possible that they will eventually realise that she really should have killed him.

IP: Logged

Missmalkin
Scooby Gang Member
posted 19-04-2000 11:12 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Missmalkin   Click Here to Email Missmalkin     Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
A wonderous post Vox
Raises all sorts - like if Buffy had killed Angel when he first turned into a vampire before he got his soul, we would have denighed him the potential to gain a soul and become a good guy and influence the world in a good way - but Buffy is born a 'slayer' which means the existance of a Providential type 'character/force' controlling fate and thus giving her the duty/role to kill vampires pell mell and perhaps exonerating her from the responsibility/chances of actually killing a good vampire that might turn out to be Nelson Mandella vampire..

Vox is your first name Bono?

IP: Logged

Alf
Scooby Gang Member
posted 20-04-2000 01:18 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Alf   Click Here to Email Alf     Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Vampires are evil, by definition of the being they feed on the blood of the living (bad for us by any reasoning). Therefore no rights for them!!
Angel was given a soul after he had risen as an evil vampire (or should I say "normal vampire"?).
Vamps just rising from the grave are therefore fair game for a Slayer, as none of them will be good.

However Giles says the Scooby Gang would never kill a defenceless being, which gives them a dilema over Spike. Do they wait until he kills or harms someone before they dust him?!? Will they be able to live with themselves? Letting him roam free was probably a big mistake!

By the way I am begining to feel somewhat uncomfortable with all the talk of "lets solve the problem by killing ..."
Look at the calm way Joyce tells Faith she expects her daughter to kill a human (ie Faith)! Does Faith have rights?

IP: Logged

ASH
Scooby Gang Member
posted 20-04-2000 06:43 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for ASH   Click Here to Email ASH     Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote

Just thought I`d say thats one hell of a homepage you`ve got there Vox, talk about your Labour`s of love.
Your dissection of Faith`s morality 9Or lack thereof ) was amazing.

And I thought I was the only one who thought that way about the characters.

IP: Logged

Joe
Scooby Gang Member
posted 21-04-2000 12:43 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Joe   Click Here to Email Joe     Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
I've been thinking (which is never a good sign), and I'm not sure if vampires come about through possession at all. Vampirism may be a demonic version of a biological weapon, with two particular strains (which may have mutated over time. Firstly, one that transforms victims into demonic dopplegangers with a pre-programmed appetite for mayhem and murder. They wouldn't be very smart, but in the right circumstances, they could cripple the enemy's moral. The other type would be more cerebral and less aggressive, capable of being trained to perform complex tasks. Either way, these 'conscripts' would be cheap to produce, and looked down upon by demons because they're really no more than animated corpses (I've only heard vampires being referred to as 'undead'). Apart from their bloodlust, they'd be irksomely human (especially if some kind of soul could be fashioned to counter the influence of the virus).
Anyway, those are my thoughts. Vamps have as much rights as small pox.

IP: Logged

Stake
Scooby Gang Member
posted 25-04-2000 07:03 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Stake   Click Here to Email Stake     Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
OK I think you all gave that a little too much thought.

IP: Logged

Vox
Scooby Gang Member
posted 25-04-2000 11:05 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Vox   Click Here to Email Vox     Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Joe ~
I assumed vampires were dead too, but then someone asked if Angel and Buffy could get married and have babies (aaaaaaahhh) and I had to look into it. You can see my finished result at: http://www.geocities.com/voxsententia/abovethelaw/dead.html

Or perhaps the proximity of the Hellmouth 'makes them do the wacky' KKND thing.


MonSTeR ~
Vince, not being declared legally dead is alive and does have rights. Ooops. Buffy's legally a murderer. But the question is whether the demons or vampires should have rights.

I'd, personally, like to have a quick flick through the Slayer Handbook, maybe I can get one on that 'Is there a real Watcher's Council thread?'

Byron ~
In the Buffyverse the soul seems to be an analogy for the conscience. We've seen soul-less creatures do things that might be considered good, the real distinction is that they feel no pangs of guilt when they do something wrong.

Alex ~
Buffy's assumption that Vince is impossible has stood her in good stead so far, but one of the points about Vince is that she has no way of knowing whether or not what he's saying about himself is true. He could be lying through his fangs, but if she has no evidence apart from his species can she really consider herself justified in staking him? Because it is possible for a vampire to survive without killing (our friends Angel and Spike are examples).

Buffy's justification for not staking Spike is that she has reason to believe he presents no immediate threat. While I applaud this safeguard to her approach to Slaying, I agree that allowing him to live (and I love Spike to bits) is morally dubious. Even if he remains harmless he has still killed hundreds of times in the past, do those deaths count for nothing?

Missmalkin ~
I had a few thoughts about how little we know about the force that provides Buffy her powers:

"For all we know the Slayer powers could come from a demon, a demon who instead of using tainted lackeys like vampires instead chooses its champion from among mortals and uses that champion to defeat its rivals. Why does it allow Buffy to go around saving the world? Well maybe its motives is slightly different from its fellows. Maybe, for reasonable reasons of its own it doesn't particularly won't Hell on Earth, or at least only on its own terms. Maybe it has a monopoly on human flesh down there in the dark dimensions and doesn't want its customers getting a free nosebag. Maybe it owns all the property and is making a bomb on the rent. It's a demon, and as many have demonstrated before, they each have their own agenda and some, like Spike, kind of like the world as it is."

This idea has been reinforced by Ethan's words of the 'worlds falling out of balance' if neither the forces we call 'good' aren't going for the ultimate win but are instead manipulating their players to achieve a balance then what's so damn good about them? Maybe there is no 'good' or 'evil' just different agendas who fight their champions off against each other for the sport of it more than anything else.

Achieving a balance, hmmm, can anyone say 'Vorlons & Shadows'?

And no, I'm not off U2. It's the sideburns, right? I'm often confused...


Alf ~
Vampires do feed on blood, but that doesn't make them evil. We feed on meat, but that doesn't make us evil (well, it does in some people's eyes).

Faith most certainly does have rights but unfortunately for her she's also a murderer which means the proper enforcing body (Buffy in this case or the Police as well would be appropriate) has the right to infringe her rights so that she doesn't have the ability to stop other people exercising their rights. Right?

ASH ~
Thanks, I waiting to see how Faith turns out before adding to that srticle (plus I've got finals and all which eat into my time, hence no updates for what seems like forever...)

Joe ~
If only vamps were as widespread as smallpox, then Buffy could finally retire and begin the road to her true calling as one of the guests on Celebrity Squares.


Stake ~
You might not want to read any of my posts in the future. The trick is to look for the orange arrow (I haven't seen anyone else using it so far) so, if in doubt, remember this little rhyme:

"Orange arrow on post,
Vox is your host."

and you'll know to steer clear.

IP: Logged

Joe
Scooby Gang Member
posted 26-04-2000 04:02 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Joe   Click Here to Email Joe     Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
The rarity of the smallpox virus (I'm not sure if they've destroyed the last lab specimens or not)is irrelevant. One could as easily substitute the measles virus. The point is that the 'vampirus' invades a human as a virus does a cell, absorbing the basic materials and then cloning them with a set of additional instructions, such as bloodlust and improved physical/mental faculties, which encourage the spread of the infection (it is also possible that, especially outside the hellmouth, the process sometimes fails, preventing the world from being swamped). That would make vampires nothing more than bad ass zombies, unless someone went to all the trouble of creating a soul for one, and *really* giving the Slayer a moral dilemma.
The 'you're looking at the thing that killed them' argument works for me, though.

IP: Logged

Joe
Scooby Gang Member
posted 26-04-2000 04:05 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Joe   Click Here to Email Joe     Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
P.S. I may not have the process of viral infection down to a tee, but then, vampiral infection is still an infant pseudo-science

IP: Logged

All times are GMT

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | BuffyUK.org

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.43d
© Infopop Corporation (formerly Madrona Park, Inc.), 1998 - 2000.