I'm not sure my differentiating between the terms is that useful for anyone who isn't me. But I see a champion as someone who is fighting for a particular cause (be that another person, or some other reason dear to him). To me, a hero is fighting because of the rightness of it.

Buffy has this whole mystical-bloodline thing going. She was endowed with her powers, in order to fight evil. She was chosen, and when called, she answered the call, even though she didn't want to, because it was the right thing to do.

Angel got his powers because he gave into evil. When he was transformed by the Gypsy Curse, he was no longer happy doing evil. That's why he stopped. He didn't start fighting evil because evil is evil. He started fighting evil because he fell in love with Buffy.

That's why he started, but don't you think he got over that?

That's why he started, but don't you think he got over that?

I do. Once he realized he had to let Buffy go, that definitely redefined his purpose and his reasons for fighting evil became a lot more flexible.

I thought the structure of A:ts kept it going.

When City Of... begins, we see Angel killing vamps, etc., as he comes across them, but eschewing all involvement with people. In fact Doyle's little sales-pitch to him was that he couldn't keep playing the lone-avenger and remain all detached from the people he helps. His cravings for human blood will grow and without making that connection and seeing the helpees as real people, he's going to have less ability to resist cheating on his diet. As the series continues, Angel takes on cases. Buffy never took on cases in that way.

Buffy encountered evil, sometimes because she made a connection with evil's victims, but as often as not, because the evil-doers actions made the news, or a corpse was found, or evil was bent on destroying the slayer and/or the world.

Angel encountered evil by seeing how people had been victimized. The helpless came to him, and so he helped. One of the great elements of A:ts (to me) is that he fought evil because the victims mattered to him. It was a great pennance for someone who'd killed in cold blood, for over a century.

Well, the victims always mattered to Angelus. He didn't kill in cold blood so much as deliberately and with a flourish. Angelus sought to inflict maximum suffering. Barring the part in the middle where he's either withdrawn from people or crazy eating rats in alleys, Angel(us) has always been about the victim. The difference is Modern Angel seeks to alleviate suffering instead of cause it.

I don't think the victims mattered to Angelus as much as Angelus mattered to Angelus. I agree with everything else you said. But obsession isn't about the object of obsession, it's about the obsessor.

Right. Angelus viewed himself as an artist of pain and cruelty, but I gather that each victim was merely a blank canvas for him, rather than something to be valued in their own right.

I gather that each victim was merely a blank canvas for him, rather than something to be valued in their own right.

IIRC, Drusilla wasn't a blank canvas -- between her innocence, her piety, and her psychic gifts she was less a blank canvas to Angelus than a particularly glowing chunk of marble or flawless alabaster, raw material so exquisite as to demand many months of exacting and highly detailed craftsmanship and artistry. And it's entirely possible that she wasn't the only one; Angelus was more than creative enough to make art out of any hunk of meat he happened to find in an alleyway, but Drusilla was doubtless not the first time he'd ever noticed a victim who could really challenge him to his finest efforts.

And now, ugh. After crawling just far enough into Angelus's brain to write that paragraph, I have to go take a shower.

That said, he objectified her. Angel's obsession was never about Drusilla. It was about what Angel could do to her. Here was this pious, spiritually gifted, devout girl. He wanted to make her the opposite of that, not because of her, but because of what it meant about him.

He wanted to make her the opposite of that, not because of her, but because of what it meant about him.

But the opposite of her is intrinsically tied up in who she is.