Daddy, can I kill the Bad Vampire?

[dlgood]

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".

Comments

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

I'm in total agreement. That's actually why I was thrilled when Buffy when the word 'Guardian' was introduced, via the First Watchers and the Guardian in End of Days, because that's much more of what Buffy is to me.

Thanks for this

[masqthephlsphr.livejournal.com]

I am likely quotage-ing you in my ep analysis

[dlgood.livejournal.com]

Yeah. Which is why I don't think that S5 of AtS has "destroyed" canon or rendered the slayer a serial killer or obsolete or any of that sort of stuff. More and more, the slayer is going from the "vigilante hero" archetype to the "military-police" archetype. I don't think that's a bad thing, if followed through properly.

Re: Thanks for this

[dlgood.livejournal.com]

Go for it! Of course, you gotta quote Doug too.

[stephanierb.livejournal.com]

But in "Becoming", wasn't Buffy choosing the lesser of two evils? Spike was helping her so he could get Drusilla back and continue to kill humans and drink their blood, something he would no longer be able to do if the whole world got sucked into Acathla's vortex. Buffy was left with little choice but to work with Spike, his refraining from killing the police officer was a temporary thing.

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

I think this is the part that bothers me the most. The idea that a vampire can have interests that are of greater value to them then killing and feeding, at least on a long term basis. We have seen that there are instances in the short term where this is true. I've always been under the impression that murder and mayhem is what it's all about for vampires and that their demon nature compels them to commit evil, it's not a maybe/maybe not proposition.

IMHO, the chief mission of the slayer is not to kill demons - it's to protect the public.

True, but I think she does this by killing vampires, hence her title, the vampire slayer. She's the one girl in all the world who has the strength and skill to defeat the vampires and that's how she saves the world. The slayer is needed because vampires are a perpetual threat to the safety of humanity.

This is the issue that I'm struggling with and I don't know if I can accept any grayness within it, at least not in this particular universe.

[kita0610.livejournal.com]

I disagree...not with your assessment of souless vamps, but about what the Slayer's role is. According to Joss (because Buffy herself IS Joss' mouthpiece, whether we like her or agree with her or not) the Slayer is The Law. The Law is NOT the same as Justice, or mercy.

Buffy in S7 would have killed her *sister* for the greater good. I seriously doubt she would make time to supervise unsouled vampires before deciding whether or not to stake them. Do I agree with that moral paradigm? No. But that doesn't matter, because Joss says it's so.

And because in the beginning of BtVS, Buffy was held up as the "one girl in all the world who stood between us and darkness", and now she clearly is NOT, and because in subsequent seasons we were shown no mercy from her to *any* unsouled vampire, even those she interacted with (CwDP springs to mind, what the hell was the shrink vampire's name??) and now we're supposed to buy that Harmony is ok people-

I disagree in a big way that Joss has not turned his entire mythology on its ass. And for no reason other than because he can't be arsed to keep continuity on a show he no longer even watches.

[dlgood.livejournal.com]

Buffy was left with little choice but to work with Spike, his refraining from killing the police officer was a temporary thing.

And her decision to spare him, temporary as well. It read to me as being not unlike a DA offering one criminal a spot in the witness protection program in return for turning "State's Evidence" against a bigger threat.

The idea that a vampire can have interests that are of greater value to them then killing and feeding, at least on a long term basis.

I haven't seen that either. Hence, W&H tests their Vampires every single day. Hence nobody even thinking of letting soulless Spike have his chip out. They don't let Oz lock himself up unsupervised until S4, and he's got a soul. The point is - a Slayer shouldn't necessarily kill a vampire immediately. It doesn't mean they should be trusted long-term.

True, but I think she does this by killing vampires, hence her title, the vampire slayer.

"Slayer" is a catchy title, but I don't think it's entirely accurate. Certainly not in a post-Council, post-Chosen era. Maybe they should rename themselves "guardians" to better represent the mission.

Sometimes, Council Ideology must bow to necessity. Protecting humanity, and upholding such laws, is more important than killing a vampire. "Becoming" was a classic case where sparing a vampire could, under certain circumstances, benefit humanity. It would be unwise to disregard that lesson completely. It would be violating the purpose of her calling in order to fulfill the letter.

This is the issue that I'm struggling with and I don't know if I can accept any grayness within it, at least not in this particular universe.

I can understand that. But to me, that universe became morally gray when Buffy intended to spare Angel the Vampire before she knew he had a soul - not simply because she cared for him - but because she saw that he was helping. In order to save lives, and fulfill her duty, sometimes the slayer has to "play ball".

Personally, I don't think JW's world is any more or less morally gray than our own.

[dlgood.livejournal.com]

I disagree in a big way that Joss has not turned his entire mythology on its ass. And for no reason other than because he can't be arsed to keep continuity on a show he no longer even watches.

Dammit, Kita! You weren't supposed to tell the nice people that I'm quite clearly wanking my ass off.

[kita0610.livejournal.com]

It's cool. I'm a slasher. Men wanking makes me happy. Carry on. ;}

[dlgood.livejournal.com]

the Slayer is The Law. The Law is NOT the same as Justice, or mercy.

And the Law exists to benefit society. And there are certain cases, "Becoming" for instance, wherein sparing a vampire can benefit society. It's up to the slayer to act as Judge, Jury and Executioner of the Law - and to know how to make those decisions.

and now we're supposed to buy that Harmony is ok people-

Huh? No. They check Harmony for blood drinking every day. Spike had that chip in his head every day for years. And it still didn't equate to having a soul. I've not said Harmony was a "good" person. Just that, if she can abide by Human Society's ruiles, it's not required to kill her. Doesn't make her "good".

None of this is a long term solution. And it would require a pretty labor intensive-effort on the part of either the slayer, or some other social institution. Like a huge law firm. There are really only two valuable equilibrium points. The Vampire gets a soul. The Vampire gets dusted. And even souled Vampires probably need the slayer as a check.

[maquisleader.livejournal.com]

I think that in the case of Harmony abstaining from human blood and Spike working with Buffy to keep Angelus from dragging the world off into hell, these are isolated cases.

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

[ludditerobot.livejournal.com]

In Angel, as well as some eps of Buffy, vampires are seen as being inferior to other types of demon life. The Slayer is called to kill vampires. I'm thinking that "pest exterminator" is perhaps the most appropriate metaphor for the Slayer. B)

[dlgood.livejournal.com]

However, when it comes to the greater good then it falls back into black and white.

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.

Really nice

[londonkds.livejournal.com]

I haven't seen Harm's Way yet but early reports of the plot definitely worried me. This definitely reassured me. This should be on the ATPO board for those who still aren't on LJ.

Re: Really nice

[dlgood.livejournal.com]

In harm's way is still very fluffy. I don't think it's bad. It's jsut that it's been 9 episodes and the season's story really hasn't moved very far, and most characters haven't really had much development.

[dlgood.livejournal.com]

Well, there is that OrkinBuffy option.

[a2zmom.livejournal.com]

Well said. In fact, I don't believe Harmony is all that unusual - remember the vampire "suck" houses. Presumbably these were vamires that were either inept or lazy, but the fact remains that they existed within human society, got their needs met and din't kill anyone. Giles stated that he didn't see them as a threat.

The biggest imperiatve anyone has it to stay aline (or unalive, as the case may be). If Harmony figures her chances increase if she works at W&H and drinks pigs blood, that's what she's going to do.

[bhadrasvapna.livejournal.com]

You can't take what any characters says at the beginning of the season for what *is* in the Buffyverse. Often what a character believes is drastically changed by the end of the season. That is what the arc does. It sets up all these lies (some told to us by our parents) that the characters have to not only learn that they are lies, but how those lies have affected them. Season 5, Buffy doubted her ability to love. Does that mean, as mouthpiece of Joss, that she had actually lost her ability to love? If Buffy would kill her sister, then why does she have Xander try to take her to safety. The only actual mouthpieces of Joss are things like the Spirit Guide, the Oracles and the story itself. When a character says something, you can't take it out of context of the story and say, well Buffy said, so it must be true. If everything that Buffy said was true, then she wouldn't have needed to grow up.

I think what is going on in AtS has been a wonderful expansion of the mythology that is the foundation for the Buffyverse. Caritas has always been crucial to this universe. Harmony really affected Angel when she said that she had to work harder because she didn't have a soul. "Harm's Way" did a good job with this. There is a difference between how Angel deals with demons and how Buffy does. Tends to come from Angel being a demon. Buffy has grown and as she has, she had developed discernment more. She has learned to question the dogma of the watchers council and what the Shadowmen made the Slayer for.

It doesn't matter what the Shadowmen created the Slayer for. She has no obligation to fulfill their agenda. She is a warrior for the PTBs every bit as much as Angel is. The lesson she ultimately learned wasn't about her role as protector, but her role as empowerer. THAT is how she protects others. She empowered Angel. She empowered the Scoobies. She empowered the Potentials. She empowered Spike. Angel also empowers others, though it is referred to as "saving souls." What happens with soulless vampire Harmony completely fits with this.

[dlgood.livejournal.com]

The lesson she ultimately learned wasn't about her role as protector, but her role as empowerer. THAT is how she protects others.

It's only part of how she protects others. While "empowerment" is certainly an important part of her work, fundamentally her mission is still first and foremost to protect. Where empowerment serves that role, it is a valuable tool. Sometimes, she just kills monsters. That serves the mission too.

[dlgood.livejournal.com]

Thanks. Society, in general, is built upon collective self-interest. If a vampire can see fitting within the rules of human society as within their interest, and has the requisite willpower to do so, there's no pressing need to slay them. Assuming of course, that willpower holds up under stress. (Although, in the absence of daily blood-testing and government chips, it doesn't seem to be a 100% reliable solution - so the slayer's job certainly isn't over.)

[auroramama]

Yeah, I thought Glory's reaction to being told Buffy was the Slayer was very much "I was arguing with the *help*? Yuck!" (I thought of Terry Pratchett's Tooth Fairies too -- just a lower-class girl with her assigned chore -- but not everyone reads Pratchett.)

Seeing Buffy from that angle makes me feel terribly tender toward her. It's one thing to be chosen to save the world, and another to be saddled with the necessary but unglamorous job of keeping down the skunk population (not that I have anything against skunks.)

It's probably both. I like Guardian. The Slayer is supposed to protect people against the supernatural, whether it's vampires, which she is reasonably capable of slaying, or a hell god, which will get her killed.

the biggest imperative

[auroramama]

I've said before: I think Harmony is unusual. Her need to be accepted is almost as strong as her survival instinct. She's not just working at W&H to up her chances of staying undusted. She's there because she thinks she might be able to fit in.

For what it's worth, I think Harmony is strong and fierce enough to survive quite a while as your basic evil vampire. She's not a fragile junkie like the suckhouse vamps seemed to be. She's not very bright, but she got herself minions somehow, suggesting that there are even dumber vamps out there. And she does have a good instinct for when to run. (This makes me think of Buffy launching that rocket at the Judge, and the look Angelus and Dru exchange. Gosh, aren't we suddenly sane!)

Good Thoughts

[dlgood.livejournal.com]

In a comment to your earlier post, while the job title "Vampire Slayer" is romantic and catchy, I do think it's a bit outdated. Her "mission" runs from pest exterminator, savior, general, protector, nurturer, etc.

---

I'm not entirely certain exactly how unique Harmony is, and how much of it is due to circumstances - given how few vampires we've really seen over any extent of time. Mr. Trick, for example, is a vampire that I think could exist in the Human world if he felt it advantageous. Unlike Harmony, however, Trick seemed a bit too competent to need to forego the joy of killing people. I think the modern world, and W&H in particular, offer a Vampire opportunities that might well prove preferable to hunting for food. Particularly for a Vampire like Harmony, who so heavily values creature comforts and social standing. And even then, it does seem a daily death threat seems necessary to keep them in line.

How different that was to the societal rules the Master had for his clan, I'm also not sure. Humans and vampires, do seem to have a social nature - and while not feeding on humans is clearly suboptimal - I don't think it's entirely out of the locus of options.

That said, I do think it takes an extraordinary set of circumstances, and a relatively unusual vampire, for this to be a reliable social arrangement. To the extent that Harmony & Spike are such outliers, I think it's a combination of both their human desires and the circumstances they face as vampires.

By and large, I think stable equilibrium between Vampire & Human society (to the benefit of humanity) in general means either Souled Vampire or Dusted Vampire.

You really should go check out my previous post in the Memories section on "Vampires & Metaphysics".

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

Right, Buffy shifted the meaning of what a Slayer is. Which is what I love about her. And it'd be interesting to know how things changed.

[dlgood.livejournal.com]

Yup. Now they've got to come up with a new job title. Because "Slayer" sounds catchy, but it's not entirely accurate.

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

I rather like 'Guardian'.