Oh I didn't mean for Profit himself, but the characters around him -- after all, to have a moral dilemna, you have to have morals.

The discussion about how they can't possibly kill Willow comes after Willow has threatened to kill Dawn. Or at least, to stop her from whining, which I think must mean killing her, because what else would work?

Profit had plenty of moral problems. It's just that they're not exactly the same when you know that the character making the decision is utterly unconcerned with doing what is morally right. But he certainly enjoys presenting other characters with dilemmas. The finale, in particular, has a doozy. Hilarity ensues.

(x-posting 'cause I'm very slow...)

The discussion about how they can't possibly kill Willow comes after Willow has threatened to kill Dawn. Or at least, to stop her from whining, which I think must mean killing her, because what else would work?

I don't think death could stop Dawn from whining. Her whines were immortal (but not "The Immortal", whoever-the-heck he's supposed to be, besides a plot device to make Spike and Angel jealous and even so, who cares and ... oh look, a shiny nickel!).

I'm now imagining a little green ball of energy shrieking "Get out! Get Out! GET OUT!!!" and trying in vain to swipe shiny objects from countertops when no one is looking.

That makes me wonder if crazy people still see her as a big green ball of energy.

Maybe the writers of BtVS and Angel (and other shows that don't seem to let their characters suffer the consequences of their choices) aren't really cheating, or being lazy; maybe they really believe that there is always another choice. That one never truly has to choose between destroying your sister or destroying the world, period. It reminds me of something from ST:TNG--a show that liked to have it both ways, I think--when Worf said that what he had learned from Picard is that there are always options. The same idea is explored in what, the Wrath of Khan, with the Kobiyashi Maru test. Or whatever the heck it's called. Kirk chews out Saavik for not recognizing that there may be no-win situations but it turns out he solved it by changing the computer program. I'm not saying I believe this, but I can see a defensible point of view that there's always a way out of the moral dilemma.

I hate there always being an option. Sometimes, the sister needs to bite it.

However, I can buy Buffy being so traumatised by having made that decision once that she'd never "kill" or kill another loved one to save the world, and would rather die than sacrifice any single other person.

It seems to me that the idea of not having to accept arbitrary duality -- the idea that there's always a third option if you're willing to look for it -- was one of the ongoing themes of the show. It's an idea both the series and the central character regularly bucked.

However, I can buy Buffy being so traumatised by having made that decision once that she'd never "kill" or kill another loved one to save the world, and would rather die than sacrifice any single other person.

This I think is very true, and true to the character. But I think the con argument - or at least the "cost" argument - really needed to be made to show the cost of that decision - and by someone other than the then-outsider Wes.

I think the con argument - or at least the "cost" argument - really needed to be made to show the cost of that decision

I think it was made, at times. I think the bounding condition was that she had to be pretty shiny, still. Angel was willing to go pretty dark, but even after Giles left, Buffy wasn't a Ben-killer.