Andrew is a cuddly puppy who needs more love.

thrasherpix said:
Punishment doesn't mean much to me. I prefer genuine remorse (which is its own punishment). Andrew...once he could accept the reality of his situation...did show that. The time he cried tears of remorse and then continued the fight while accepting he was going to do die (which removed doubts that he was simply crying because of a knife to his throat) doing so showed genuine remorse.
Click to expand...

If the writers would have given that rule to every character then I'd be fine with it but they seemed to have different requirements for redemption for different characters. That did annoy me because they set high standards of redemption for some and then I was left with what felt like rip off redemption arcs where the characters essentially just felt sorry for what they did and promised not to do it again. It was underwhelming for me 😀
 
True . Some people seemed to get a get out of trouble card & others had to do the whole thing. It was very uneven I thinking .
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bop
I guess I base that on myself. I had no respect for my alcoholic parents, and even when they punished me for stuff I really did do, the only thing I regretted was getting caught, not that I did what I did. However, I did hold my grandmother in high esteem, and when I rarely did wrong while living with her I'd feel terrible even if she never found out and I was never punished. (Btw, this also taught me the difference between respect and fear. I feared my parents but did not respect them. I respected my grandmother but did not fear her--though she did use corporal punishment when she felt it was needed, including on me. I was also much more well behaved when with my grandmother than with my parents.)

But there's a pragmatic side as well. Billy was horribly tortured but still a dangerous monster with no remorse for what he had done. Others who had remorse could make amends and were generally tormented themselves, and the world would be a worse place if they simply went away (though it was a necessary first step for Faith).
 
There were a lot of people in Buffy/Angel who had no remorse & so they should just be put down . You have to draw the line somewhere .
 
T
thrasherpix
Yep, Spike was such a character for a long while. ;-)
It's just for the scale of murder and trying to end the world, saying sorry and promising to never do it again isn't good enough for me. And why should it be?
It was rather annoying because you have Faith who went to prison, you have Angel who dedicates his life to making up for what he's done.
Then you have characters that are sorry and make a deal with themselves to never do it again and then they just get on with their lives. How's that fair?
By that standard Faith was clearly sorry for what she did by 'Sanctuary' and I don't think she would have killed anybody else from that point on, so should she have been free to live her life as normal from there?
Could Warren just be sorry and not kill anyone again and then that's fine, he doesn't need to be punished?
 
Why should he get off on killing 2 people just because he said he sorry while Faith has to go to jail for the same reason when she was really tormented over what she did unlike Faith .
 
Bop
Bop
Exactly! It's really frustrating :(
Athene said:
Then you have characters that are sorry and make a deal with themselves to never do it again and then they just get on with their lives. How's that fair?
Click to expand...

Andrew didn't do that. He stayed to fight which was the beginning of his redemption arc, and what Andrew considered a death sentence for having done what he did (that is, he was willingly heading to his own execution, and he also told the First that he was going to make himself pay for what he had done). He didn't just get away with it by shedding crocodile tears.

And why would punishment even matter if Andrew didn't give a damn, anymore than it would matter if he got away with it with a promise to not do it again?

And I don't think the Buffyverse ever makes the claim that life is fair.
 
Btw, going back to Billy Blim, I consider the Powers that Be (or whoever was torturing Billy in Hell) to be responsible for everything Billy did once he was brought back. Punishing him was pointless. The threat he represented needed to be destroyed once and for all, and it was Lilah who did the right thing (if for her own self-serving reasons) when TPTB screwed it up. I suppose some of his victims may have taken a pleasure in Billy's torture (just as Lilah took pleasure in killing him), but it was the wrong thing to do...not for moral or ethical reasons, mind you, but pragmatic ones. I do not sympathize with Billy in any way. He should've just been destroyed, and his punishment served no higher purpose at all, nor made the worlds a better place. Punishment for its own sake is just nonsensical to me.
 
Agreed . I think myself that the Buffyverse has not only not made the claim that life is unfair but shown a number of times that it is unfair .

Also you right in that TPTB screwed up with Billy . He was like a mad dog & just like a mad dog he should have put down. Punishing him just made him want to hurt people more for going through that so he should have just been killed .
 
ChaseRules said:
Ander
Click to expand...
goodcop.jpg
 
Xander & Andrew are closer then Xander will admit .
 
Yeah, only vampires who are actively murdering and creating more vampires even despite a chip should be accepted into the Scoobies, and even allowed to roam free where the Scoobies and Potentials sleep despite these bad habits.

Or maybe it's not being a vampire that gives you a pass, but looking hot without a shirt on.
 
So that brings up the question then does Andrew look how without a shirt on 😱
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom