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?

I'm saying it seems like a technical undo button that you'd put there because there was some benefit to having a built-in undo button and a reduction of The Consequences of Magic is the best reason I can come up with.

Oh, I think I see the escape clause differently. I don't actually see it as an escape clause even, I just use those terms, because that's how it's always discussed.

To me, the soul-losing seems more like a result, rather than an undo button. In other words, it just happens. The curse fails if the vampire gets completely happy. The curse is fueled by vengeance, and the point of the curse--vengeance's aim--is to make the vampire suffer for his crimes for all eternity. If he gets happy, he defeats vengeance. Vengeance is the power that summoned the soul from the ether in the first place. Once it's defeated, the soul goes back out.

That probably makes no sense to anyone other than me.

edited to speak English good.