devamp

Angel - a duty to devamp?

The implications of I Will Remember You

VOX

As many of you might have gathered from my law pages, I live in the UK. That means I haven't seen the episode that this entire article is written around, and so I am much obliged to Diandra and Tim for acting as my sounding boards and most of all to Carrie for suggesting it in the first place.

Carrie S.
Angel has discovered how to make a vampire mortal again. He's the only "person" (as opposed to the Powers that Be and such beings) in the world who knows this. Does he now have a duty to "heal" other vampires?

So Angel knows of a cure for vampirism--specifically the blood of a *mohra* demon--but he's the only one who remembers. Also it is not made clear whether the cure would work for a vampire who has not been 'resouled.' It is specifically stated that the blood of the demon regenerated his (un)dead body to its mortal state, but of course we don't know whether the process would restore the human soul as well in a normal vampire.

What does the blood of a mohra demon actually do?
It's apparent from the episode that the blood of a mohra demon turns the vampire's body in a human body, reversing the changes that occurred when they were vamped. But what affect does this have on the soul? Is the demon removed? Is the human soul restored? Both? Neither?

Diandra
First, when I watched the show in which Angel turns mortal again, I understood it to be a physical manifestation only. The demon goo got on him, he told Buffy he felt weird, and then after she left, his heart started to beat again. I didn't understand it to mean that the demon in him (yeah, he has a conscience, but you'll remember from The Dark Age that he still has a demon in him too) went away, or that he was restored to what he was before he got vamped. My fear would be that if the demon-goo only physically revived the vampire's dead body, with most vampires, who don't have a soul, you'd just have the nasty demons walking around in mortal form. And since mortals have always shown themselves to be capable of a lot of violence anyhow, I don't really see that it would be advantageous to take the demon-dead body and make it a demon-live body.

Tim W.
I'm fairly certain that the blood-cure would work on a pure vampire too. I believe Angel said something along the lines of his being a pure human now, free from vampirism and cursing which was proven when he and our favourite Slayer got--ahem--horizontal … All this seems to indicate that blood not only de-vamps vamps but also eliminates any curses floating around as well.

Carrie S.
I don't think the demon can inhabit a mortal body; hence the need to drain someone to the point of death before they can be turned.

What does the blood of a mohra demon actually do? Your opinion

Introduction

I think that this changes a lot.

We don't know whether this would work on a souless vampire, from what it sounds like it might be that it would make the vampire mortal but with the demon still in control...

However!

We already have a way to resoul a vampire, the gypsy cure has been performed twice. Once by the original gypsy and once by Willow (or whatever possessed her in Becoming II). Even if it wasn't really Willow who restored Angel's soul, we have every reason to believe that Jenny Calender's research was accurate, that the spell can be performed (albeit possibly not by such a low-grade wicca as Willow was at that time).

There may be two stages to devamping but the end result is the same. The human soul back within a mortal body.

Should Angel pass on the news about devamping?

Tim W.
Morally and legally, I don't think it affects Buffy's actions at all, as she doesn't know about the (possible) cure.

Right at the beginning let's make it clear when we're talking about whether or not Angel has a duty to devamp others, we're not talking about a legal duty but a moral one. And let's also state that Angel really should spread this news around, certainly to Buffy and to any other vamp hunters he deems appropriate.

Carrie S.
Although then he'll have to tell her how he knows...

Tim W.
Actually, if Angel thinks its impractical (perhaps because mohra-demon blood is too tough to get a hold of--they do seem to *very* rare and **very** tough) then I could see how he would feel its better off to keep it a secret. Especially for Slayers like Buffy. Right now, they have a simple decision: kill vamps or let them kill innocents. This allows them to do what they have to. But, what if these vampire hunters knew that there was a way, however impractical, to save these vamps in this lifetime? They would become hesitant, torn, and less efficient in combat, wouldn't they? In that case, Angel could easily have a moral case for keeping it to himself.

Should Angel pass on the news about devamping? Your opinion

The aims of Slayage

This change has the most impact in the area of Slayer (and I suppose now also Warrior for Good) jurisdiction, and, more accurately, to the proportionality of the punishments they dole out.

There are five aims which penal theory has traditionally held out as proper objectives to be pursued: retribution, deterrence, reform, condemnation and incapacitation.

Some of these bear little relevance to our situation

Deterrence Killing vampires will not deter others from killing as it is necessitated by their physiology (though see Angel’s eating habits for an account of someone really trying to avoid it (and the horrendous moral dilemma of stealing from blood banks(?))).

Reform see above for the chances of that happening (then again we have Angel, and it’s never been adequately explained why vampires have to kill their victims rather than suck a pint and run).

Condemnation by others vampires aren’t going to get riled if they hear of one of their own draining blood from mortals.

Retribution This is more like it. Vampires inevitably inflict immense pain and suffering in their feeding. Societal revenge for the wrongs they have committed is easily understandable. - Though note this doesn’t explain the dusting of vampires who have never harmed another (and I’m really talking about new-borns here e.g. Andrew the gymnast)

Carrie S.
With humans it's unreasonable to punish someone for something that they have not yet done (unless you catch them in the preparations), but vampires are different; it is a *certainty* that a vampire will kill people, even if it has not yet done so.

Vox
Should vampires be killed for what they 'are' as opposed to what they've done? Should they be treated as animal pests rather than as moral persons? Should a soul be the only criteria or should we treat each vamp as though there is a presumption that it should be staked which the vampire must then rebut by its actions?

Incapacitation or ‘social defence' ultimately Slayer punishment is based upon protecting of society. Vamps by their very nature will harm society and the individuals within it, there a no real chances for reform or rehabilitation and so the most extreme of measures must be utilised.

As you will no doubt have gathered all of a sudden, the basis of justification for staking vamps (i.e. because they will harm society and there are no real chances for reform or rehabilitation) just went out the window. Now there is a real possibility of reform, and complete and total reform at that!

The proportionality of staking as a punishment

I'd like to draw an analogy (as I often do) between Slayers and the Police. We would rarely censure a cop who killed a criminal in the middle of a heated gunfight, instead we might applaud him for his bravery or accuracy just as we would applaud Buffy for staking a vampire who was attacking her or someone else. But only when there was no reasonable alternative. We expect the police to restrain themselves from lethal force where possible, because every human life is valued in our society.

We haven't had a problem with Buffy staking vamps because they're not alive (well, certainly not human, I'm still working on whether or not they're legally dead) and they never will be. But now we know there's a cure, that a vampire might someday become human again, and so every time Buffy stakes a vampire she is denying the human from which the vampire was created the possibility of life in the future.

Staking is no longer a proportional punishment in every circumstance.

This doesn't mean she can't stake them in dire circumstances, but it does mean that she cannot stake them as a matter of course. Countless times in the series Buffy has fought with a vampire one on one, with no time pressure and no other life at risk, now she should be morally obliged for the sake of the human host to restrain the vampire and perhaps even incarcerate it by some means, until it can be cured.

Carrie S.
Can we safely restrain a virtually unlimited number of vampires? Who's going to do it? Buffy can't; she's got to go out and catch more. The Watchers have been shown to be pretty damn bad at it, too.

A mortal equivalent might be that we feel we should imprison violent psychopaths, or those with brain disorders that make them a danger to other people, even those with genetic disorders such as men with an additional Y chromosome, rather than kill them out of hand because medicine tells us that reform would be extremely difficult.

Is staking a proportionate response in every circumstance now?

Was it ever?

Your opinion

The practicalities of devamping
How such incarceration and cure might be achieved are more difficult questions. The Watchers have imprisoned demons, as have others. But how are we to get the two components of the cure?

The curse
Presumably we still have Jenny Calender's notes on the gypsy curse (what a gal, that little bit of research could change the face of the undead world, a posthumous Nobel Prize should be awarded immediately). Even if difficulties do emerge in recreating it, there would still be a point in devamping, since so many vampire attacks (especially by the younger stake-fodder vamps) are related to food requirements. Once they are mortal they no longer have any need for blood and can gain nutrition the old fashioned way. Yes, they would still need to be imprisoned until the soul was returned but they would be far less powerful (and therefore less dangerous) and it would be easier to keep them fed.

Diandra
The resouling seems more of a dilemma. The primary problem is that the ritual seems to be pretty tiring so that it's not truly viable. Yeah, I know Willow wasn't up to her full strength, but it seemed to take more out of her than you would expect from the mere recitation of incantations.

Tim W.
An idea I've long held about Angel's re-souling: Firstly, its a very complicated spell, and thus carries a larger risk of things going wrong (I believe Giles hinted at this when Willow said she wanted to try it, ….) This is why Buffy and Angel didn't even think of just resuming a normal relationship and having Willow re-soul Angel after...momentous evenings.
(I think that we would all agree that treating the curse as a sort of 'morning after' pill for Angel would be asking too much of Willow J )
Secondly, and, I believe, most importantly for the series as a whole, a spell this complicated is not a general use spell. Each spell probably has to be crafted to fit a specific individual, a very complicated process, no doubt far beyond Willow's abilities, and, perhaps, even beyond Amy's (assuming the poor girl ever gets de-ratted for more then ten seconds) and thus is an Angel-only spell and not applicable to the general vampire population as a whole.

Carrie S.
Maybe you have to be a gypsy? In which case Willow would have had to be possessed by a gypsy spirit (like Jenny's recently-deceased uncle?) and it wouldn't work well on any vampire who had not made the gypsies unhappy. I've thought all along that they should be resouling vampires as much as they can--the fact that they're not indicates that it's not practical for some reason. The reason may be as simple as the fact that the resouling process includes at least one rare and hard-to-find component [an Orb of Thessala] that appears to be consumed or used up after one use.
As a note about the scarcity of orbs of Thessala, the gypsy had one, Jenny picked one up at the local magic shop and I think I recall that Giles was using his as a paper weight.

The 'happiness' clause
There is the question on whether or not the 'happiness' clause is still part of the gypsy curse, though surely a reference to a more powerful magic-user (possibly even the Oracles, skilled in the practice of time-origami) to remove that clause.

Carrie S.
It's stated that Angel's curse has been removed

Mohra blood
We would need more of the mohra blood, it might possibly be synthesised by medical and/or magical means. Though even if it couldn't be, all we'd have to do is to capture one of them (not too harsh given that the alternative is destroying them) and collect occasional donations. Just because they're rare, just as a corrective psychological procedure might have a very small chance of success, doesn't necessarily mean that it shouldn't be attempted and certainly does not mean that the person should be killed out of hand.

Tim W.
The demons are so rare that Angel had never even heard of them in his hundreds of years. They were so tough that two of the best fighters the side of light has (Buffy and Angel) were each hard-pressed to defeat them. And the demon's blood looked to be more than just plasma, leukocytes and eurythrocytes (specifically, it was a glowing blue, sort of a toxic waste look) and it also quickly was absorbed into Angel. This indicates volatility, and if it evaporates or absorbs into something as quickly as appears, then storing it even when one can get a hold of it is very tough.

Further, the demon heals it self. As long is its forehead jewel isn't shattered, it can heal from anything. This is what gives the blood its healing properties. When the jewel is shattered, presumably these magical properties fade.

So, the only way to get some of this stuff is to find an extremely rare demon, over-power despite its incredible fighting skills, take its blood, keep it alive but somehow incapable of taking vengeance (and, probably, also from hurting others, which leads towards incarceration), preventing it from escaping until all the blood is used (the jewel-shattering doesn't alter the effects the blood already used), and, lastly, one must prevent the volatile blood from evaporating or otherwise dispersing.

Carrie S.
What is the ritual for summoning a mohra demon and does it involve any nastiness like, say, human sacrifice? They are basically supernatural assassins, so I suspect it might. Even in that case, however, if one demon can supply enough blood for more than one vampire we might use people condemned under mundane law.

How practical is devamping?

Does it make a difference to the ethical choice?

Your opinion

Could mohra blood be used to cure Oz?

Tim W.
Angel has little sympathy for vampires, but he has empathy for Buffy and her friends. One wonders if this blood would have been effective at curing Oz? Angel knows how much the lycanthropy is hurting his friend's friend Willow from his trip to Sunnydale in Buffy's Thanksgiving episode. This is a whole 'nother can of worms.

Your opinion

Or you can
Email the Webmaster