By: Nomad
If you like, the ensouled and the soulless have opposite (to use the RPG term) alignments. Their reactions in a given situation are the pretty much the opposite of a human being's. The automatic reaction is to say that makes them completely evil - but follow that hypothesis a little, and you realise you've started from the premise that all humans are completely good. Oopsie.
Imagine a person's good qualities could somehow be rated with a value from zero to ten. Somebody 'good' wouldn't necessarily get tens all the time; they'd get values ranging all the way from only a little bit good up to saintly. Similarly, an 'evil' creature might range from only a little bit bad down to, well, Angelus on a bad day. And there'd be plenty on both sides who hit the average mark, and some who cross over into the opposite section.
By this reasoning, all demons and vampires have exactly the same emotions as we do; it's just they get them in different amounts, and react to them in different ways. Remember Angelus in "I Only Have Eyes For You", sickened by the thought of having been touched by love?
It follows that the soulless would probably see love the way we see hate. They all experience it, to a greater or lesser extent, and are sometimes guided by it, though they won't always admit it. But they're also aware that it's something they're not supposed to feel, or not supposed to give in to, and try to stop themselves from feeling it.
So what does that make somebody like Spike, who doesn't seem to be at all disturbed by his own ability to love, in fact is even proud of it? He would be something like the vampire equivalent of a sociopath; someone who is ruled by 'wrong' or misplaced emotions and isn't bothered by that.
The view of the soul as an indicator of alignment rather than an absolute allows for a great deal of complexity and shades of grey. Is it realistic to believe that humans come in all shades of the moral spectrum and yet all demons are only pure evil? No.
Realistic, no, but a convenient generalisation, yes. It's probably as well for the peace of mind of those that fight the good fight that they cling to the concept of "we are good, they are bad". For what it's worth, that's broadly true.
I think all but the most die-hard pessimists would agree that whilst all humans have the capacity for doing evil, only the tiniest, tiniest fraction - if any - become so far gone to the dark side that they cannot be saved. Therefore, of the soulless, only that same tiny tiny fraction - if any - are capable of being brought over to the good side and staying there.
The argument over vampire redemption is, in fact, the flip side of the argument about human criminals. Is there such a thing as an irredeemably evil person? Not insane, but having actively embraced evil in full knowledge of what they're doing. If so, such an individual is incredibly rare - and so would be a vampire capable of embracing good.
If a man commits a evil act thinking of his loved ones, do we say "Oh, well, in that case, it wasn't actually a crime?" No. We say we understand why he did it, but that doesn't change that fact that it was *wrong*. And yet when Spike does something good because if his misguided feelings for Buffy, hardly anybody's willing to say that no matter why he did it, it was still *good*.
Opposites, people. If the road to hell is paved with good intentions, the road to redemption is paved with bad ones. If you can fall into evil from an innocent start, you can rise into good from a selfish one.
I don't think anybody anywhere has ever tried to claim that Spike *is* already redeemed. I don't think anybody has ever tried to claim that he's sure or even likely to get there. All we're saying is that from where he is, there's a path that can be taken.
Some people mistake that idea for something that will shake the whole framework of good and evil as we know it. The idea has been put forward that if Spike could be redeemed, then that makes Buffy's slaying genocide. Flip that one over, too, and suddenly you find you're saying that the existence of sociopaths means that treating the people you meet from day to day as good people is a hideous mistake.
The other fallacy is saying that allowing Spike to reach redemption is to cheapen Angel's struggle. This is something of a fine distinction, so don't nit-pick with the vocabulary, but what Angel is doing is *atonement*, rather than redemption.
Think of redemption as a step-by-step process, if you will. First you have to comprehend that there *is* another way. Then you have to accept that your way is the wrong way. Then you have to commit yourself to following the other way. Then - and only then - you can choose to acknowledge the things you did wrong before, and try to atone for them.
It is possible to commit yourself to the path of good without ever addressing the wrongs of your past; give yourself a blank slate and say "I've changed, and that's all that matters". That's basically what Anya's done, and very few people have jumped on her for it.
Angel, on the other hand, is taking that final step, going above and beyond the call of duty. He doesn't need to keep saving lives to qualify as 'good' - he's that at heart. He's trying to fix things that he's not truly to blame for. That's like the difference between trying to be a good person and becoming a nun. (Even as I type this, I'd like to apologise for giving you the mental image of Angel as a nun.)
The redemptionista argument is that Spike could take steps to become a good person; he could turn his back on evil and come to join the right side. If he could do that first, *then* we can open up a whole new can of worms about atoning for his past sins.
People have been saying Spike needs to atone for his evils. Get your priorities straight, people! I appreciate his evils need to be addressed, but he can't do anything about that until he's firmly signed up as a member of the good guys.
For the record, I personally would like to believe that Spike can get there, that he can do it. But he needs to make a definite commitment and, more importantly, that commitment has to be acknowledged. He needs someone there to guide and encourage him, because he's never going to get *anywhere* if every step towards good he takes the Scoobies turn their backs and say "we don't believe you and we don't care".
Sorry to all the shippers out there, but I don't think Buffy's the one to be doing the acknowledging. It's going to take one hell of a lot to convince her of any change in him, and right now she's not exactly in any position to be caring about other peoples' problems. So I'm resting my hopes on Dawn, who seems have formed some kind of a bond with him, or failing that Willow, who sees the good in everybody.
We redemptionistas have always said we thought Spike was capable of change. We never tried to promise you it was going to be easy.
First released Monday March 12, 2001 at The Buffy Cross and Stake Spoiler Board.