Wasn’t she rather unforthcoming about her activities when she returned to being a vengence demon?
Could be! I hope the 7th season is released on DVD soon…
A point of expansion - I was watching my 6th season DVDs… Willow, after getting all dark and setting out after Warren, is told by Buffy that ‘we don’t kill Humans.’ (It’s either ‘Two to Go’ or the one before it… I believe it’s the one before - the ep name escapes me… I think the comment is after the crushing of the Warren-bot.)
Not ‘We don’t kill humans for revenge’, simply that ‘we don’t kill humans.’
So… Still evolution of theme? Chalk it up to Buffy being a bit crazed at the end of season five? Internal inconsistency of the series?
Sorry, but are you suggesting that she should’ve broken into a whispered aside of fasttalking fine print, like a prescription drug commercial? "We don’t kill humans–Unless said humans are in the process of, or imminently in the process of, harming, hurting, killing, or otherwise endangering anothe human being. Exceptions to this rule shall include, but are not limited to . . .
She was stating the philosophy, not the law with footnotes. Someone who believes strongly in not killing humans could hardly be condemned for defending herself against a lethal attack.
Hypocracy? 
“We don’t kill humans” is older than season six. You see it in season 2? The “Ted” episode, where Buffy thinks she kills Ted, who she thinks is a human being, and then is torn up about it. It’s made pretty clear in that episode that killing people is something a slayer isn’t supposed to do.
In general, in the Buffyverse, there’s a line drawn between the supernatural world and the real world. Slayers can kill vampires, but not people, magic can bring Buffy, who was killed by supernatural means, back to life, but not Tara, who was shot.
Well, two points. One - “We don’t kill humans for revenge.” or “We should only kill other humans in self-defense.” would suffice for the purpose. Two - Buffy has repeatedly demonstrated the ability to non-lethally disable human combatants. The one Knight of Byzantium we see her kill wasn’t even near her at the time - he was at the other end of the RV - so why didn’t she disable him rather than kill him? Heck, toss the axe with the blade backwards and KO him.
That’s kinda my point. Buffy’s beliefs seem inconsistent. It might be the actions of a hypocritical person, certainly - if the writers mean for her to be hypocritical and did these things intentionally - or it may be an inconsistency in the writing. Or maybe there’s an explanation I’m missing. I do know Buffy’s behavior seems self-centered and hypocritical to me, though.
You mention “Ted” though, and that brings up a point - she accidentally “killed” someone in self-defense and was horrified about it.
If anyone would like to read more on this topic, this is a fabulous resource.
As for killing vamps “that aren’t hurting anyone”, IMO in the Buffyverse vampires are abominations. They are perversions of humanity in that they look like humans, and can have human traits like jealousy and vanity, but they are missing the essence of human goodness: the soul. This makes them fair game.
Yeah, but this is really comparing apples to oranges here. As far as Buffy knew, Ted was just an asshole she was looking for an excuse to hit. Hence, her reaction to the accidental kill scenario would be contrasted to Faith’s reaction to her accidental killing. The S5 knights, though, are a totally different ball of wax. First, they know what they’re doing: going up against the slayer in an attempt to kill the key (a human, but mostly irrelevant). Second, I believe they made it quite plain what they would do in order to achieve that end. Third, we’re not talking about a little scuffle in an alley (like before she tells the Council what’s what and who has the power) with three guys that have poles (big deal), we’re talking about guys with arrows and swords, mounted on horseback, going into a battle with the expectation of their own possible death/defeat. From their perspective, and probably Buffy’s, they were at war, even if their goal was ultimately the same (stop Glory from getting the Key). Apart from Miller’s points on a refined sensibility on her part, I think that it is unfair to compare this situation to any of the fights she would normally be in with people, including these very knights in different circumstances.
So it’s okay to kill them because they come expecting to die? :dubious:
I don’t buy that. I think she could have easily chosen to disable her foes in this circumstance. They don’t pose a serious threat to her - Buffy can handle extremely well-trained Vampires with swords… (Season 3 had the Vampire Dueling society - a society whose name escapes me) well-trained humans with swords, especially with only two and three getting to the RV at a time, aren’t a serious threat.
At this point, honestly, you’re no longer looking for an answer; you’re looking for an argument.
No, it was ok to kill them because they were battling a life and death battle; neither side had any illusion about this, and their tactics against the knights were far closer to a small battle than they were to any other scenario. What was she supposed to do, temporarily cripple knight after knight, protecting the disabled ones from falling of the RV while disabling the rest in an attempt to protect herself and Dawn? I don’t buy it. The knights brought the battle to Buffy. The knights made it a killing kind of battle. The knights tried to set the terms. Buffy responded, not in kind (could you imagine a slayer truly rampaging with equal fervor?) but doing what she felt, at the time, was the best course of action: get to safety with a minimum of casualties.
I haven’t seen this ep since around Christmas time. Were the knights coming after her a factor in her decision to split town, or was it just her attempt to hide from Glory until it was too late to use the key, or…? Can someone refresh my memory?
No, I’m looking for a plausible alternate explanation. But hey, nice conclusion-jumping. Would you prefer I just reject the explanation I find implausible without explaining why?
Buffy had decided she couldn’t defend Dawn from Glory, so that running was their only alternative. The Knights rode up on them after they left the city limits.
And let’s not exaggerate… I’m not saying Buffy has to take special care to make sure each and every Knight has a gentle landing on the ground behind the RV - deaths by sloppiness or carelessness aren’t really my point. (I only picked up on the Ted thing because she demonstrates clearly that at that point she has remorse for EVEN an accidental death in the course of a fight) No, the big one that sticks out in my mind is burying the axe in the guy’s chest. That’s not “Well, he might get hurt if I knock him off the roof”… that’s “I’m aiming for his heart with this deadly weapon because it’s expedient.”
I gotta say, CG, **Otto ** said what I was keeping to myself. Your dancing around to find a point, any point, to hang a hook on is growing far more illogical than any behavior of Buffy’s. Either you accept that things happen in the heat of battle that one might later rethink or even regret, or you don’t accept this. Nothing that you’ve pointed out proves that Buffy’s philosophy is inconsistent; only that things don’t always happen as one would wish them to, and that one must therefore stick as closely to one’s philosphy as possible. Buffy’s record of sticking to her own rules of conduct is impressively consistent, considering what’s thrown at her on a daily basis. To chew over each and every exception, especially when those exceptions tend to happen in the heat of a battle to save the frickin world, as if any single one of those exceptions proves some kind of overall hypocrisy, strikes as the height of smallmindedness.