BSV Forum - General - The Bloodshedpub

Gem of Amara

Apr 22 2009 07:10 am   #1Guest
I was watching In the Harsh Light of Day and something struck me.

How in the nine hells is giving Angel a ring of immortality considered a good idea!?

Angelus was bad enough when he had a sunlight allergy and his natural cowardice against direct confrontations to reign him in...

... and Buffy risks an totally uninhibited, unrestrained Angelus by giving the cursed vampire the Gem of Amara

I never realized until now just how badly Angel (yes ANGEL) had succeeded in completely screwing Buffy up with anything that involved her "true love" (although now makes more sense why Buffy is so adamant about a so-called "normal" life and why she practically jumped Angel just before Chosen)
Apr 22 2009 01:06 pm   #2slaymesoftly
Totally agree that it was a bad idea. However, since Angel chose to deal with it by smashing it at the end of the episode, I presume that is intended to demonstrate that she did the right thing.  Of course, smashing it themselves would have made more sense, and I would think that Giles would have wanted to do that.
I am not a minion of Evil...
I am upper management.
Apr 22 2009 02:19 pm   #3Guest
Agreed, I never thought that was a good idea, there was no telling when he would lose the soul again.  When I've written stories that involve the Gem of Amara, my Buffy isn't stupid enough to send it to Angel.  Although I can understand why she did it, she was blinded by her love for him, even when he left her.  I don't think Spike should have had it, either, maybe if it showed up a year later.

-Tammy
Apr 22 2009 09:59 pm   #4Scarlet Ibis
I didn't have a problem with it.  A moment of pure, perfect happiness isn't a dime a dozen.  If it's only good for vampires, why not give it to one who's on a quest to save others, and more importantly, one you trust?
"Just when the caterpillar thought the world was over, it became a butterfly."
https://www.facebook.com/FangirlNovel
Apr 23 2009 12:48 am   #5Guest
I didn't have a problem with it. A moment of pure, perfect happiness isn't a dime a dozen. If it's only good for vampires, why not give it to one who's on a quest to save others, and more importantly, one you trust?

Yeah, well everyone trusted Angel up until the point the curse was broken the first time and look how that worked out.

I can't believe that Giles (or Xander for that matter) would just sit by and let Buffy do that when there was the slightest possibility that Angel could once more lose his soul. Giles should know better: that some things are too dangerous to be in anyone's hands, let alone a one of the world's most monstrous vampires and both of them knew full well that Buffy's judgment of all things regarding Angel was spotty at best.

I agree with the others, Buffy is both blind and stupid whenever it comes to Angel. That bastard did a real number on that poor girl. One of my biggest disappointments about the show was that Buffy could never to get past her juvenile "Angel's my one twrue love and soul mate" crp. It wasn't being the Slayer that doomed her relationships, it was the fallout from Angel and his "you should have a normal life" spiel.

Apr 23 2009 12:58 am   #6Sensei
ok, both sides make good arguments.  I didn't think about the bad of sending it to Angel at the time, but now that you point out the Angelus factor, it does sound waaaaaay wrong.  On the other hand, someone else pointing out that it was totally in character for Buffy means that in the context of her obsession for Angel, in the show it does make sense that she would do it.  (And, yes, I agree that her youthful crush on Angel did mess up every relationship that ever followed.  I'm so sorry Joss wrote it that way because she was otherwise a strong character and the potential for taking the show other directions was huge--preferably in the direction of Spike!)

I'm not a writer but I've always wished someone else would write a version where Buffy/Angel did not destroy the Gem and she was able to return it to Spike in season 7 when she realized he had a soul.  Think of the possibilities that would have opened up.  (Yeah, I know his being willing to sacrifice himself in Chosen is what really showed how he had evolved into a good man, but I still would like to explore the timeline where the sunlight from the amulet couldn't dust him. )

Apr 23 2009 01:15 am   #7Eowyn315
However, since Angel chose to deal with it by smashing it at the end of the episode, I presume that is intended to demonstrate that she did the right thing.
Well, Angel doesn't smash it because he's afraid of losing his soul and having an invincible Angelus. He smashes it because he doesn't want to lose touch with the people who need his help - those in the daytime already have people to help them, but who will fight the monsters of the night? So yeah, it's the "right thing" in that he's nobly sacrificing invincibility in order to continue helping the people that need it, but it has nothing to do with Angelus.

Honestly, I think in terms of Buffy's judgment, the chances of Angel ever losing his soul again are so slim that the benefits Angel could've reaped from being invincible would've outweighed the small risk that someday Angelus would get loose. Or, you know, he could just take the ring off before he has sex, just in case. :)
Writing should feel easy, like a monkey driving a speed boat.
Apr 23 2009 01:19 am   #8Scarlet Ibis
I can't believe that Giles (or Xander for that matter) would just sit by and let Buffy do that when there was the slightest possibility that Angel could once more lose his soul.
The loss of his soul was under the rarest of circumstances.  I mean, seriously.

Also?  The final nail on the coffin of Buffy's heart condom was Parker and not Angel.  I know he was a loser, but why does everyone forget about how he screwed Buffy over two times?
"Just when the caterpillar thought the world was over, it became a butterfly."
https://www.facebook.com/FangirlNovel
Apr 23 2009 02:24 am   #9Guest
Maybe I'm overly cautious, but when it comes to the prospect of creating an invincible Angelus, one of the worst vampires in history whose last act was trying to suck the entire world into hell, I think any risk is too much.

I think of i kind of like this: After you load a pistol, you set the safety and then you put the barrel of a gun to your head and start squeezing the trigger. Yes, the safety should keep the gun from going off and blowing your brains out but do you really want to chance it despite how small the risk the safety failing is supposed to be? 

However,I do agree about Buffy not thinking that.
Apr 23 2009 02:29 am   #10Scarlet Ibis
Maybe I'm overly cautious, but when it comes to the prospect of creating an invincible Angelus, one of the worst vampires in history whose last act was trying to suck the entire world into hell, I think any risk is too much.
Well, if she really wanted to eliminate any risk, she'd have had to kill Angel.  As in dust him once he got back from hell, or before he left Sunnydale.  Angelus is dangerous with or without an invincible ring, and if Buffy was really concerned about him resurfacing and being a threat again, she'd have to straight up kill Angel.  But Angelus wasn't an issue when Angel left Sunnydale, and he wasn't an issue at that point in time, which is why Angel got the ring.
"Just when the caterpillar thought the world was over, it became a butterfly."
https://www.facebook.com/FangirlNovel
May 23 2009 08:10 pm   #11Guest
Angelus is dangerous with or without an invincible ring,

Everyone raises good pts but IMHO the risk of Angelus is bad enough on it's own, but giving Angel (and thus Angelus) the means of becoming invincible is just plain idiotic.

But Angelus wasn't an issue when Angel left Sunnydale, and he wasn't an issue at that point in time, which is why Angel got the ring.

I disagree, Angelus was ALWAYS an issue (remember, all it took was a happy pill and WHAM, instant Angelus).

However, I do agree that Buffy probably believed that Angelus wasn't an issue because she was selfish enough and self-centered enough to believed that:
1) Only she could bring Angel that moment of true happiness
2) Angel was going to spent the rest of eternity alone and never going to stop pining over their "tragic true love" (even though she was moving on with Parker and Riley)
May 24 2009 05:22 am   #12Scarlet Ibis
(remember, all it took was a happy pill and WHAM, instant Angelus)
Seriously, who would have seen that as a possibility?  Not to mention he didn't take the drug willingly... Besides, the drug wore off.

And a moment of perfect happiness isn't easy to come by.  Still, I agree, Buffy thought he'd been the rest of his days alone and pining for her, and in fact rubbed it in his face in "Sanctuary."  But this is all completely moot anyway, since Angel was responsible enough to destroy the ring.
"Just when the caterpillar thought the world was over, it became a butterfly."
https://www.facebook.com/FangirlNovel
May 24 2009 06:47 pm   #13Guest
Seriously, who would have seen that as a possibility? Not to mention he didn't take the drug willingly... Besides, the drug wore off. And a moment of perfect happiness isn't easy to come by. Still, I agree, Buffy thought he'd been the rest of his days alone and pining for her, and in fact rubbed it in his face in "Sanctuary." But this is all completely moot anyway, since Angel was responsible enough to destroy the ring.

Plus it emphasised that Angel was on his own path away from Buffy - his "Redemption Road" - The ring was always going to be vulnerable to theft  unless there was some way to restrict the magic to only Angel/Angelus and only if Angel/Angelus had his souled anchored.

Did Willow ever anchored Angel/Angelus soul in the last "lose-a-soul escapades?"  was the theory for Angel/Angelus soul anchorage ever discussed  in the series?
May 24 2009 06:48 pm   #14Guest
quoted]Seriously, who would have seen that as a possibility? Not to mention he didn't take the drug willingly... Besides, the drug wore off. And a moment of perfect happiness isn't easy to come by. Still, I agree, Buffy thought he'd been the rest of his days alone and pining for her, and in fact rubbed it in his face in "Sanctuary." But this is all completely moot anyway, since Angel was responsible enough to destroy the ring.

Plus it emphasised that Angel was on his own path away from Buffy - his "Redemption Road" - The ring was always going to be vulnerable to theft  unless there was some way to restrict the magic to only Angel/Angelus and only if Angel/Angelus had his souled anchored.

Did Willow ever anchored Angel/Angelus soul in the last "lose-a-soul escapades?"  was the theory for Angel/Angelus soul anchorage ever discussed  in the series?
May 24 2009 06:53 pm   #15Scarlet Ibis
Did Willow ever anchored Angel/Angelus soul in the last "lose-a-soul escapades?" was the theory for Angel/Angelus soul anchorage ever discussed in the series?

No, she didn't.  Angel's soul being anchored was never discussed in the actual series, but lives in fan fic.  I don't think the writers would ever have wanted a way to be rid of Angelus indefinitely.
"Just when the caterpillar thought the world was over, it became a butterfly."
https://www.facebook.com/FangirlNovel
May 24 2009 08:41 pm   #16spikes_wish
Never had a problem with it- Angel knew the only way to lose his soul was in 'perfect happiness', and as far as Buffy was concerned, she was it. Plus as far as the show was concerned, up until that point he'd proven that he would rather have died than risk himself slipping (see Season 3). However, retrospectively I can see why we could suppose that it could become a problem (Epiphany)- however, we hadn't seen anything in either show to suggest that Angel would make a slip. I think from Buffy's POV, she was doing the right thing, and if Giles had thought there was even the slightest chance Angelus might return, he would have said no.
May 24 2009 10:27 pm   #17Guest
Plus as far as the show was concerned, up until that point he'd proven that he would rather have died than risk himself slipping (see Season 3). However, retrospectively I can see why we could suppose that it could become a problem (Epiphany)- however, we hadn't seen anything in either show to suggest that Angel would make a slip.

Except for the "minor" fact that Angel returned to Darla (and was constantly murdering innocent men to stay with her) after he got his soul and after Darla drove him away, Angel spent a century not caring one bit about redemption or being a "champion". Giles knew that Angel spent all those years doing nothing (Giles discovered that in "Angel"), and I don't think Giles was stupid enough not to put two and two together realize that Angel's motivations were as altruistic as he claimed.
May 24 2009 10:48 pm   #18Scarlet Ibis
Except for the "minor" fact that Angel returned to Darla (and was constantly murdering innocent men to stay with her)
Yeah, I think you need to rewatch "Darla".  Angel didn't kill innocents--Darla makes a comment about him in fact not killing innocents, but murderers and rapists.

DARLA: Rapists and murderers, thieves and scoundrels. Did you think I wouldn't notice? Only evildoers, that's all you hunt now. You swore to me. You said, if I took you back you'd prove yourself.

And he didn't prove himself.  Instead, he flees her after failing to save the missionaries from her, and saves the baby instead when she challenges him to feed.

Yes, for a century Angel was lost, not caring about much of anything (though he did help people here and there, though most of the time was coerced into it), but he spent his time living off of rats and away from civilization.
"Just when the caterpillar thought the world was over, it became a butterfly."
https://www.facebook.com/FangirlNovel
May 25 2009 05:18 am   #19Guest
Yeah, I think you need to rewatch "Darla". Angel didn't kill innocents--Darla makes a comment about him in fact not killing innocents, but murderers and rapists. DARLA: Rapists and murderers, thieves and scoundrels. Did you think I wouldn't notice? Only evildoers, that's all you hunt now. You swore to me. You said, if I took you back you'd prove yourself. And he didn't prove himself. Instead, he flees her after failing to save the missionaries from her, and saves the baby instead when she challenges him to feed.

<Scoff>

Justify his actions however you like but even though he was ensouled and therefore automatically "good": Angel still killed and feed off people!

It's the whole "I'll just have one drink" pitfall that alcoholics fall into, hell it's the same slippy slope that real people in fall down all the time: I'll just do this one "little" crime and everything will be okay. But's it's not okay, one thing leads to another and another and another...
May 25 2009 05:44 am   #20Scarlet Ibis
Justify his actions however you like but even though he was ensouled and therefore automatically "good": Angel still killed and feed off people!
Yeah, and you used the word "innocents."  And they weren't.  Just wanted to make that clear.  They were soul having, human evil doers, and Angel offed them.  Big whoop.  They harmed humans, and Angel eliminated them.  That isn't a slippery slope at all. 
"Just when the caterpillar thought the world was over, it became a butterfly."
https://www.facebook.com/FangirlNovel
May 25 2009 06:32 am   #21Guest

May 25 2009 06:45 am   #22Guest
Yeah, and you used the word "innocents." And they weren't. Just wanted to make that clear. They were soul having, human evil doers, and Angel offed them. Big whoop. They harmed humans, and Angel eliminated them. That isn't a slippery slope at all.

Umm... quite frankly I'm speechless.

Angel killed people that they bumped into and he merely believed were "rapists and murderers, thieves and scoundrels" since when was Angel all-knowing?

You just said that summarily executing on every kind of criminal is not a slippery slope. Yeah, I think that hardcore rapists and murders deserve death... but every person who harms another "human" ? I know of about 6.8 billion people that fall under that category... nobody is innocent.

And but you're own reasoning, everyone who's stolen a candy bar, or downloaded illegal music, or even cheated on a math test (intellectual theft) automatically deserves to be executed.
May 25 2009 06:45 am   #23Guest
Yeah, and you used the word "innocents." And they weren't. Just wanted to make that clear. They were soul having, human evil doers, and Angel offed them. Big whoop. They harmed humans, and Angel eliminated them. That isn't a slippery slope at all.

Umm... quite frankly I'm speechless.

Angel killed people that they bumped into and he merely believed were "rapists and murderers, thieves and scoundrels" since when was Angel all-knowing?

You just said that summarily executing on every kind of criminal is not a slippery slope. Yeah, I think that hardcore rapists and murders deserve death... but every person who harms another "human" ? I know of about 6.8 billion people that fall under that category... nobody is innocent.

And but you're own reasoning, everyone who's stolen a candy bar, or downloaded illegal music, or even cheated on a math test (intellectual theft) automatically deserves to be executed.
May 26 2009 02:56 am   #24Scarlet Ibis
And but you're own reasoning, everyone who's stolen a candy bar, or downloaded illegal music, or even cheated on a math test (intellectual theft) automatically deserves to be executed.
Yes.  That's absolutely what I said. 

Yes, that was sarcasm.

Being a vampire, or hey, just being observant, I'm sure Angel knew which were the murderers and rapists.  Otherwise, why would Darla bother pointing it out that he was picking specific people--horrendous people, just so he wouldn't feel bad about feeding off of them?  It was for a reason.  It's unfortunate you didn't comprehend the point of what was said in that episode, or my comment.
"Just when the caterpillar thought the world was over, it became a butterfly."
https://www.facebook.com/FangirlNovel
May 26 2009 03:33 am   #25Guest
And my point was that Angel, with his shiny soul, was justifying murder on a large scale (at least one person a night). I don't care how observant a person is, nobody short of God can merely look at people they see on the street and immediately know with absolute certainty whether or not they are a murderer or a rapist.

It's not like Angel could interview his victims before he decided whether it was "okay" for him to kill them.. all he had was his suspicions to justify him killing people that he really knew nothing about. How do you not think such a thing is wrong?

I guess you better hope a cop never finds you standing next to a dead guy with blood on your hands and and thinks that you must be a murderer whom he should shoot as soon as he sees you. Because by your reasoning, the cop should even bother to consider that you might have been acting a self defense.

You see that's why police investigate crimes and why we have courts to determine punishments.
May 26 2009 03:43 am   #26Scarlet Ibis
all he had was his suspicions to justify him killing people that he really knew nothing about.
And you're assuming he didn't see the acts take place, or assuming that the characters were either lying, or just plain wrong, when in fact, the point of those few lines was to make it clear to the audience exactly what Angel had been up to, and exactly why Darla was hesitant to accept him back, and demand that he kill that baby.  The writer's intent for that episode was clear--that Angel had been feeding on the wrongdoers (rapists and murderers) of humanity, and not innocent people.

And if I ever did find myself in such an unfortunate situation, I'd hope to high heaven that someone who actually comprehends what they hear takes my statement.  I'd end up in prison for sure if it were you.  No offense.
"Just when the caterpillar thought the world was over, it became a butterfly."
https://www.facebook.com/FangirlNovel
May 26 2009 07:13 am   #27LisFayte
LOL Scarlett, you sure love your debates :D
I remember when I watched Chosen the first time thinking that if Buffy had just held on to the gem, Spike wouldn't have had to die. Buffy should have just hid the darn thing in the first place. BTW, Angel destroyed the ring partly so that he wouldn't have had to keep fighting for it.
The most wasted of all days is one without laughter.--- e e cummings

Come to challengespuffy  post Spuffy fic challenges or find something to write about
May 26 2009 07:23 am   #28Scarlet Ibis
LOL Scarlett, you sure love your debates
Eh, a gal's gotta have a hobby ;)

At that point in time, if Buffy didn't give it to Angel, I doubt she would have held onto it, cause she had no reason to (well, other than Angel).

And "Chosen"?  If all it took was for a soulled person with super strength to wear, she could have wore it herself or made Faith do it, since Angel told her it was volatile and all.

Also, I think it's pretty neat that Angel was able to give Spike back the sun :P
"Just when the caterpillar thought the world was over, it became a butterfly."
https://www.facebook.com/FangirlNovel