What I wanted was, once he had a soul for him to come back and start killin' people willy-nilly.

Yes. That's what I wanted, and was quite disappointed when it became obvious that wasn't going to happen.

Given his history of evil, though, him looking after Dawn for no other reason than "a promise to a lady" definitely points to him trying to be good.

Yes. I think he tried like crazy. I think the 'verse rules are such that you need the raw materials, and he didn't have them.

Cindy, doesn't Giles fail your "good" test?

When judging an act (like killing Ben--I'm assuming that's what is in your mind), there are different standards than judging a person (overall) as good vs. bad. Good people do bad things in the 'verse, and bad people can do good things. But people are using Spike's good deeds (and I agree they were good) as proof he was good, when it seems to me there were probably an equal number of bad deeds done during that good period.

Giles act with Ben was bad from a hero's POV, but was rational, and sort of him leaping to the conclusion. Glory made that decision understandable. For me, it falls—at worst—on the harsh side of pragmatic, because (at least to me) it seemed to be the only way out. When Glory/Ben healed, she would have come back to kill them all. If she ever got her way, Ben was was going to die (wasn't that their specific mythology? Did it change? It's all a jumble). If she came back, and Buffy found a way to kill her, Ben would die. Ben was most likely a goner, and Giles was protecting his family in war. Ben, in the end, wasn't completely innocent, either. He wasn't a demon, but he gave up Dawn to Glory's minions (was it in a bargain to save his own skin? It's been a while).

OK, we're getting into moral definitions of the universe. Too subjective for my blood.

OK, we're getting into moral definitions of the universe. Too subjective for my blood.

I'm coming at it as moral definitions/framework for a fictional universe. Occasionally applicable in the real universe, and real universe examples can be applied where needed for clarity, but when I'm talking about the moral definitions in BtVS, it's far less subjective than real life.

Occasionally applicable in the real universe, and real universe examples can be applied where needed for clarity, but when I'm talking about the moral definitions in BtVS, it's far less subjective than real life.

More like the fictive framework as established within the show. Vampires can't be redeemed or good without a soul. Some demons can be good without a soul.

I don't see how saying Giles is a good person who has done some bad things, and Spike (pre-soul) was an evil creature who did good things is subjective. Isn't it canon? I can see where you wish it had gone another way, but doesn't canon bear out (particularly the rape attempt) that it didn't go that way? Perhaps I'm missing what's subjective. Sounds like I upset you connie. I didn't mean to, and am sorry if I did. I just think he tried like crazy to be good (before the soul) but couldn't even really comprehend it entirely, because he didn't have the raw materials necessary for doing so.

But, more seriously, I've seen a couple of arguments where I now have sort of an idea as to *why* redemption sans external forces was so very important to a certain breed of Spike fan, and while I think I see where they're coming from, and am far more sympathetic to it than I would have been a year or two ago, it is still an alien concept to me.

Well, speaking as one of them, one of the central tenets of my worldview is that we don't live in a deterministic universe. We can't control everything, but we're moral agents with meaningful choices entirely under our control. I liked where I thought Spike's story was going in early S6 because it played so nicely into that part of my worldview. Of course, the fact Spike chose a soul rather than having one thrust upon him still works in that framework, but I'd still kinda like to see how the story I expected would've played out. Which is what fanfic's for, I suppose.

(And no, I'm not confusing the fictional and real world here, just saying that I tend to enjoy fiction that illustrates the most important parts of my actual worldview/philosophy/theology.)

My take with Harmony is that she's so incompetent at evil, that being neutral is generally the easy way out for her .

That was whitefonted for possable spoiler for current Angel.

ETA: Slumbernut!

It was important for Joss - particularly in the early years - to make the vampires Evil Without Qualification. He wanted this for two reasons: (1) so people would be sympathetic with the young girl who was going around murdering vampires; (2) to distinguish from the Anne Rice canon of superduper romantic hero Byronic vampires.

But Joss could not resist the allure of Byronic vampires (if you're thinking about Steve Austin now, you've taken a wrong turn) and that wound up muddling his cosmogony. On the plus side, more complex moral choices. On the downside, mixed messages on the soul-having issue. Joss famously resisted nailing down the canon for fear of limiting his storytelling choices, but I do think the waffling about souls wound up being a detriment rather than a plus.

Ultimately, Joss stuck to plan A: No Soul, No Damn Good. Spike cannot be redeemed nor act selflessly without a soul. But Joss didn't make that explicit until after he'd wrapped Spike in all kinds of saintly suffering that made folks confuzzled.