Ooh. Plot bunny.

I agree. And ensuring that he'd have to spend his eternal life guarding against ever being happy for even a moment would be a pretty good way to do that. They gave a a sadist every motive in the world to treat himself sadistically. And he's got a knack for it, so he'll probably think of much better ways to torture himself than they ever would.

But the thing is I don't think they expected Angel to ever actively seek amends or integrate having a conscience into his persona. Prior to Angel (as far as anyone knows) there was never a vampire with a soul before. I imagine the gypsies just expected to him to spend the rest of existance eating rats in alleys and bemoaning his fate as the soul tortured him with his sins. If Angel was going to intentionally make himself unhappy, it would mean he wanted to keep the soul, which he initially did not.

Which is where the curse becomes a nice catch-22. Any deliberate attempt to get rid of the soul is an acknowledgement that he's not happy about having it. Which means that he's not perfectly happy, which means it's not going anywhere. It's wonderfully self-defeating.

Maybe. But why to take the risk of him figuring a way out of it when they can just as easily leave him in the dark?

I don't know, maybe the gypsies did intend to tell him but he ran off into the night before they had a chance. But it falls in the category of Ethan's staying around to gloat coming back to bite him in the ass, for me.

But the thing is I don't think they expected Angel to ever actively seek amends or integrate having a conscience into his persona.

I don't understand what that has to do with what I've said. I haven't argued that Angel's desire to make amends was important or relevant to their intentions.

But why to take the risk of him figuring a way out of it when they can just as easily leave him in the dark?

Well, not telling him certainly contributed to the curse being broken. It seems unlikely that telling him could have a worse effect than total failure. Assuming they wanted the curse to remain unbroken.

Narrator and I have talked about Drac, before. There was a late-era Bronzer who had this theory that the monks magicked up Dracula (sort of in a "Superstar" way--which would cover why Spike and Anya thought they knew him from the past) in order to get Buffy's blood, and keep the Scoobies distracted while they created Dawn and channeled the key into her and made the entire world incorporate her into history.

The Bronzer in question was sort of an energy creature, and I wouldn't usually take his theories seriously, but enough happened in the Drac and Dawn stories lines, that if a similar backstory had ever been revealed, I could have bought into it.

YES!! If only the show had done that, Buffy's whole "Dawn has my/Summers blood" would have made some sense. Well, to me anyway. And it's all about me, after all.

Maybe there's something about Gypsy magic (in order to prevent the kind of rebound effect we see with other magic?) that you have to have an out written in, to negate the whammy a little bit? With the amount of magic-ness attributed to them, I'd think they'd be big on keeping balance without loosing effectiveness.

I don't understand what that has to do with what I've said. I haven't argued that Angel's desire to make amends was important or relevant to their intentions.

If he doesn't want to keep his soul, why would he intentionally try to stay unhappy. You argued that letting him know the exact nature of the curse would cause Angelus to unleash his sadistic nature on himself to keep himself unhappy. Why would he bother unless he wanted to remain cursed, which in the beginning Angelus clearly doesn't.

Maybe there's something about Gypsy magic (in order to prevent the kind of rebound effect we see with other magic?) that you have to have an out written in, to negate the whammy a little bit? With the amount of magic-ness attributed to them, I'd think they'd be big on keeping balance without loosing effectiveness.

Every spell we've seen had some way to break it, the Scoobs just had to figure out what it was., Idont' think that's necessarily a gypsy thing.

You argued that letting him know the exact nature of the curse would cause Angelus to unleash his sadistic nature on himself to keep himself unhappy.

Ahhh. Sorry, I think we're talking past each other; I don't consider his feeling guilty and torturing himself an attempt to make amends. Giving Angelus a soul meant giving him a conscience, meant giving him empathy, and meant that he would feel terrible about the things he had done without a soul. He didn't have to decide to do any of that. That's not atonement.

And it's not a matter of rationally deciding to torture himself so as to stay unhappy. Giving him a soul guarantees that much; it's in his nature. Telling him about the curse simply ensures that he can't ever forgive himself, which means the torture will last until he dies.

I don't think he decided to incorporate the soul into his persona, either; the way I look at it, that's like deciding to incorporate your kidney into your persona. So, yeah, I think our definitions at every level are different, hence my confusion.

Right, Vortex, but those were back-door ways, rather than "Oh, yeah, here's the undo button" ways.

Yeah, but how much of an undo button is the complete happiness clause?

This is a creature who is now tortured all the time. His conscience stops him from doing what his nature (vampyric nature) is driving him to do (kill and eat people), while he feels guilty over all the people he has already killed. He's got an insatiable bloodlust, an insatiable conscience, and a horrific past. How is this vampire, who needs blood to stay alive, and wants to kill, almost as much as he does not want to kill supposed to reach this level of happiness?