![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
In a world where Vampires can work for corporations and drink bottled pig, what's the role of the slayer?
We've seen a few things. Vampires need to drink blood to survive. Vampires prefer human blood to animal blood, both in terms of taste and nutrition. Most vampires seem to enjoy hunting for humans to eat, many enjoy the violence of the hunt, and quite a few enjoy playing with their food. As a result, Vampires tend to kill a bunch of people, engage in violence, and generally cause a lot of mayhem wherever they go.
By human moral standards, this is considered "evil" and "wrong" - and is largely the justification for why one slays them.
So, what's the deal with Vampires that don't kill people or don't engage in violence and mayhem? Such creatures wouldn't pose a clear and present threat to society. Is it just to slay them? Is it just to slay the newly risen? For me, a lot of the answers to those questions build upon my earlier essay: The Grand Unified Theory - Human, Vampire, Soul, Redemption.
For vampires, the procreative act is murder. And given that it is a primary instinct for the soulless vampire to kill humans and drink their blood, one has to question why a vampire wouldn't do so.
Reason 1: because it's morally wrong to kill and eat humans. To this point, that's been something soulless vampires have been shown to recognize that humans feel, but do not actually feel themselves.
Reason 2: because it's unwise to kill and eat humans: Soulless Spike refrains from killing and eating humans because he has something to gain. He doesn't kill the cop because he wants Buffy to help him fight Angelus. He doesn't feed on disaster victims because Buffy would disapprove, and he seeks her approval.
Harmony doesn't drink human blood because Angel would kill her. And because she prefers the priviliges provided by W&H to the joy of the hunt. (Which she's not entirely competent at.)
In neither cases, are these soulless vampires shown to be trustworthy. Spike has a chip in his head preventing him from violence against humans. Harmony works under the daily threat of death for drinking human blood. If she could retain the benefits of W&H and still drink human blood, there is no reason to believe Harmony wouldn't follow her instincts. Spike, when he thought his chip was failing, tried to drink a human woman. He had to psyche himself up to do so, but at no point did he see doing so as "morally" wrong. Should the slayer spare such a vampire, she would be responsible for some not-unexpected future crimes.
So there's a dilemma. The soulless vampire might not always pose a clear and present threat to humanity. In many cases, they may have interests which are of more value to them than killing and feeding from humans. The soulless vampire might, on occasion, prove a useful contributor to society. So there's less inherent imperative to kill all vampires indiscriminately. But there's also still little ground to trust them implicitly
What is the modern slayer to do? IMHO, the chief mission of the slayer is not to kill demons - it's to protect the public. Sometimes, slaying a demon would not support the mission of protecting the public. Buffy didn't kill Whistler or Clem. Buffy Summers didn't kill Werewolf Oz - but she also didn't let him run wild either. Oz spent his days locked in a cage, and under supervision for first year. The difference between the werewolf and the vampire, is just how much trust the slayer should have.
Will that vampire willingly enter the cage? How much supervision is necessary? How much "tolerance" should the slayer extend? The sad fact is, given the number of vampires and the number of slayers, the slayer's job is very hard and puts a lot of strain on them for judgement. A slayer can't supervise and spare every vampire.
Is it morally acceptable to stake a rising vampire? Probably. Is it morally acceptable to slay a vampire on the spot if it attacks a human? Almost certainly. Is it morally acceptable to slay a vampire on the spot, if like Harmony, she's trying to fit within human law? I don't think it is.
But at the same token, I don't think it's morally acceptable for the slayer to let a Vampire walk unsupervised. Spike had a chip. Harmony has daily tests. From the slayer's perspective, it's still on the soulless Vampire to justify the value of their continued existence, given what is still known about their biological drives. Some of them can do so.
In the beginning, Buffy was taught that vampires and demons were evil monsters, and that she was supposed to slay them all. Angel being the first case - and even then she defended him before she knew of the soul not simply because of her emotional ties, but on of practical grounds as well (he's helping). Clearly, "slay every demon" was an oversimplification. Over time, Buffy (and Kendra and Faith) learned to spare some and slay others. The future of the Vampire Slayer, lies in determining how to make such judgements - ideally cultivating a body of knowledges and best practices for future slayers to learn from. Not every slayer will have perfect judgement, and such a body of intellectual capital could prove invaluable. It seems to me, the future of Slaying is in going away from the old "Vigilante Hero" archetype and moving closer to the "Military-Police" archetype. I don't think that's a bad thing, or a canon destroying thing at all.
But then, I also don't think "In Harm's Way" tells us anything about soulless vampires and demons we didn't already know in "Becoming".
We've seen a few things. Vampires need to drink blood to survive. Vampires prefer human blood to animal blood, both in terms of taste and nutrition. Most vampires seem to enjoy hunting for humans to eat, many enjoy the violence of the hunt, and quite a few enjoy playing with their food. As a result, Vampires tend to kill a bunch of people, engage in violence, and generally cause a lot of mayhem wherever they go.
By human moral standards, this is considered "evil" and "wrong" - and is largely the justification for why one slays them.
So, what's the deal with Vampires that don't kill people or don't engage in violence and mayhem? Such creatures wouldn't pose a clear and present threat to society. Is it just to slay them? Is it just to slay the newly risen? For me, a lot of the answers to those questions build upon my earlier essay: The Grand Unified Theory - Human, Vampire, Soul, Redemption.
For vampires, the procreative act is murder. And given that it is a primary instinct for the soulless vampire to kill humans and drink their blood, one has to question why a vampire wouldn't do so.
Reason 1: because it's morally wrong to kill and eat humans. To this point, that's been something soulless vampires have been shown to recognize that humans feel, but do not actually feel themselves.
Reason 2: because it's unwise to kill and eat humans: Soulless Spike refrains from killing and eating humans because he has something to gain. He doesn't kill the cop because he wants Buffy to help him fight Angelus. He doesn't feed on disaster victims because Buffy would disapprove, and he seeks her approval.
Harmony doesn't drink human blood because Angel would kill her. And because she prefers the priviliges provided by W&H to the joy of the hunt. (Which she's not entirely competent at.)
In neither cases, are these soulless vampires shown to be trustworthy. Spike has a chip in his head preventing him from violence against humans. Harmony works under the daily threat of death for drinking human blood. If she could retain the benefits of W&H and still drink human blood, there is no reason to believe Harmony wouldn't follow her instincts. Spike, when he thought his chip was failing, tried to drink a human woman. He had to psyche himself up to do so, but at no point did he see doing so as "morally" wrong. Should the slayer spare such a vampire, she would be responsible for some not-unexpected future crimes.
So there's a dilemma. The soulless vampire might not always pose a clear and present threat to humanity. In many cases, they may have interests which are of more value to them than killing and feeding from humans. The soulless vampire might, on occasion, prove a useful contributor to society. So there's less inherent imperative to kill all vampires indiscriminately. But there's also still little ground to trust them implicitly
What is the modern slayer to do? IMHO, the chief mission of the slayer is not to kill demons - it's to protect the public. Sometimes, slaying a demon would not support the mission of protecting the public. Buffy didn't kill Whistler or Clem. Buffy Summers didn't kill Werewolf Oz - but she also didn't let him run wild either. Oz spent his days locked in a cage, and under supervision for first year. The difference between the werewolf and the vampire, is just how much trust the slayer should have.
Will that vampire willingly enter the cage? How much supervision is necessary? How much "tolerance" should the slayer extend? The sad fact is, given the number of vampires and the number of slayers, the slayer's job is very hard and puts a lot of strain on them for judgement. A slayer can't supervise and spare every vampire.
Is it morally acceptable to stake a rising vampire? Probably. Is it morally acceptable to slay a vampire on the spot if it attacks a human? Almost certainly. Is it morally acceptable to slay a vampire on the spot, if like Harmony, she's trying to fit within human law? I don't think it is.
But at the same token, I don't think it's morally acceptable for the slayer to let a Vampire walk unsupervised. Spike had a chip. Harmony has daily tests. From the slayer's perspective, it's still on the soulless Vampire to justify the value of their continued existence, given what is still known about their biological drives. Some of them can do so.
In the beginning, Buffy was taught that vampires and demons were evil monsters, and that she was supposed to slay them all. Angel being the first case - and even then she defended him before she knew of the soul not simply because of her emotional ties, but on of practical grounds as well (he's helping). Clearly, "slay every demon" was an oversimplification. Over time, Buffy (and Kendra and Faith) learned to spare some and slay others. The future of the Vampire Slayer, lies in determining how to make such judgements - ideally cultivating a body of knowledges and best practices for future slayers to learn from. Not every slayer will have perfect judgement, and such a body of intellectual capital could prove invaluable. It seems to me, the future of Slaying is in going away from the old "Vigilante Hero" archetype and moving closer to the "Military-Police" archetype. I don't think that's a bad thing, or a canon destroying thing at all.
But then, I also don't think "In Harm's Way" tells us anything about soulless vampires and demons we didn't already know in "Becoming".
no subject
Vampires have shown that humans are considered prey for the most part. Hunting and feeding is natural to them. Remember the self help vamp in Disharmony? Turn two and the rest are food was the motto, and they were all for it. Even the nice vamp shrink that Buffy had a chat with in season 7 -- ok so I forget the epi name can you blame me -- tried to kill her. Was he toying with his food first?
I agree with a comment I saw in one of the posts that Buffy is like the law and the law isn't always about justice. Her job is to kill vamps, not to judge if they're bad or good. Doesn't mean she hasn't done just that from time to time. She didn't go after Angel right away, tho she did go after him with the intent to kill him later in that epi. I'd have to go watch Angel again to see if she put the crossbow down before or after his revelation of a soul. *grin*
I think Buffy's job has gotten less clearly defined as time went by. In the beginning it was all demons are bad. And then there started to be qualifiers for certain demons. However, when it comes to the greater good then it falls back into black and white. Clem is a nice guy for a demon but if killing him meant saving people then I think she'd kill him. When the chips were down, you have to remember that Buffy put a sword through Angel -- not Angelus -- and sent him to hell to save the world.
Hmm.... think I rambled a bit OT here... lol
no subject
I don't think your sentiments are really all that out of line from what I've posted. Buffy doesn't have to kill Wolfy-Oz as long as he's safely locked up in a cage. It's nearly impossible to keep most soulless-vampires in a metaphorical cage over a longer period of time. Which is why there's not really anything wrong with staking a rising vampire.
If you get an already existing vampire that wants to play ball, the Slayer can give it the chance to do so, with the proviso that she's prepared to stake it should the vamp chow on people. That's what W&H is doing with Harmony. There's still no real trust, nor should there be.