Is It Me Or?

[LordKain]

Is Doyle the only one from both shows to die a "TRUE" hero.

[Angela]

It's you.

[Mr.Brightside]

Originally Posted by Angela

It's you.

[brownsbros3]

Both of Buffy's deaths were pretty heroic in the sense that she died trying to save the world. I would also consider Anya's death heroic.

I thought Darla's last death was pretty heroic. She gave up her life to save her son.

[TeSjah]

Originally Posted by brownsbros3

I thought Darla's last death was pretty heroic. She gave up her life to save her son.

Well, but you left out that she's the evil bitch whore of death. Oh, and she was dead already. And you have to consider that the was just high on Connor's humanity, else she wouldn't have done that.

To me, Darla's death is not heroic.

[MissWera]

Originally Posted by TeSjah

Well, but you left out that she's the evil bitch whore of death. Oh, and she was dead already. And you have to consider that the was just high on Connor's humanity, else she wouldn't have done that.

To me, Darla's death is not heroic.

Yeah......I think Spikes death was heroic.....

[brownsbros3]

I think they prefer the term living impaired.

[Dannyblue]

Originally Posted by TeSjah

Well, but you left out that she's the evil bitch whore of death. Oh, and she was dead already. And you have to consider that the was just high on Connor's humanity, else she wouldn't have done that.

To me, Darla's death is not heroic.

I consider Darla's death heroic. I think a lot of (formerly living) people in her place wouldn't have done what she did no matter how "high on humanity" they were. I also think it's possible for a being, no matter how tainted their past is, to perform a truly heroic act, even if they only ever do it once in their whole lives. That doesn't suddenly erase all of their bad deeds, or mean they can be considered true heroes. Just that anyone is capable of heroism. Which I think is pretty cool.

[TeSjah]

You're right. I think I didn't put my opinion right. I think that it was astounding and miraculous what Darla did for Connor, after all she is a vampire at nature. But it doesn't make her a heroine.

I don't think non-hero's can do something that's truly heroic. They can do soemthing completely against their nature; selflessly save someone else's life, stop genocide, or any other thing you'd normally call heroic. (For Example; Spike helping Buffy to fight Angelus. He helped stopped the world from being destroyed. But his intentions weren't heroic; he's just love's bitch.)

But heroic, to me, applies to heroes. And not to evil fiends who may or may not have seen the light.

[Bert]

For Example; Spike helping Buffy to fight Angelus. He helped stopped the world from being destroyed. But his intentions weren't heroic; he's just love's bitch.

This brings up an interesting question. Just what it is it that makes someone a hero? Is it quantative (the amount of good deeds done) or is it qualatitive (the nature of the deed)?

A thousand heroic acts, chalked up in succession before they die could make a person a hero, but what if they were like Anya and Angel? Both having performed a thousand or more decidedly unheroic acts before their redemption, can they still be classed a hero?

When they died - assuming Angel is now dead - they were both fighting for good. So, if Angel had performed 1050 good deeds compared to 850 he could be counted as a hero. But what if he'd commited these 'heroic' acts in the first 8 years of his life and then followed it up with 250 years of 'unheroic' acts. Would he then still be a hero when he died?

I think not. A hero needs to be a hero at the end, or they're a failed hero.

So, we then turn to the likes of Darla and Spike; Darla staked herself to give life to her son, and Spike sacrificed himself to destroy the Hellmouth. Does the nature of their acts make them a hero?

Both of them died, in the midst of their heroic act - something which is not necessary for them to be considered a hero (for example, a man lives his life slaying dragons rescuing princesses and being an all round good egg, but dies in his sleep of old age, no less a hero than he would have been had he died in the middle of a great fight) but certainly gives them major points. At that time, the good thing that they believed in, inspired them to kill themselves to help that thing continue. EG, Connor & Buffy.

But before that one act, both Darla and Spike lived evil, vicious lives, even if thier acts weren't always evil, they were most certainly self-serving. Can one act make up for the thousands of deaths they caused and were responsible for?

Not really. So, this dismisses the qualatative theory.

The intention is a major thing in deciding whether something is heroic. If somebody saves the world, but it is only a by-product of a self serving act, then this person can't be heroic.

But if their intentions are heroic and they fail in whatever it was they were trying to achieve can they still be called a hero?

A good example of this is Jenny Calendar. She was trying to do the right thing, she was trying to stop Angelus from being released. She failed, her intentions were good, but she did it the wrong way. She also tried to turn him back and Angelus turned up, ready to kill her. She ran, to save her own life, sure, but to save others. She failed and was killed. Though eventually her information, her work was discovered by the others and ultimately she suceedeed in turning him back.

Jenny Calendar was unsuccesful, but her intentions were good. I would say she's heroic.

Spike was succesful, and his intentions were good. Yet, Tessa says that Spike didnt do it to save the world, he was just loves bitch. Now, this I have an issue with.

If we'd discovered that Spike had done it because he knew he wasn't really going to die, and was going to be magically transported to another place filled with golden honey and beautiful naked people with long tongues, then yeah, I'd be the first to stand up, point and shout "Not a hero!" But, he's done it for love.

You say he was love's bitch like it's a bad thing.

If you showed me a person who had saved the world because they felt they had to, because it was their duty, because it was the right and proper thing to do - and then you showed me Spike who had saved the world because he loved someone and didn't want them to die. I'd probably admire Spike more.

In this example, Spike seems more human, he has emotion. The former person seems almost sterile. They haven't made a choice, there were no other paths for them to folllow.

If their is only one thing to do, and not even a consideration that there's another possible opportunity or this is no possible opportunity, there is no heroic act.

If you have no cold, there would be no hot. Without any unhappy, there is no happy. Without evil, there is no good. A good act is only good when compared with the other choices that could have been made, the bad choices. Without these bad choices in the frame, there is no good act, just an act.

Not that I'm saying this makes them unheroic. It just doesnt make them heroic.

So, is it necessary to save a life to be heroic? We've seen that the sterile person in relation to Spike who has saved the world may not be heroic, what makes Spike heroic is the choice to do the act, not the act itself.

By that reasoning, it doesnt matter what the heroic acts were, just that the right choice was made. Or even as we've seen with Jenny that an attempt was made at the right choice.

Two of the biggest heroes in the Cordyverse, did next to no fighting, independently saved no lives, yet heroes they are. Joyce and Tara. They performed no large heroic acts, no grand gestures, they just both consistently chose to do the right thing.

So, what is needed for someone to be a hero? Simply to try and do the right for a selfless reason.

Does it matter if this person has intentionally made a lot of bad choices? No. As people, we are shaped by our experiences, by our choices, good and bad. It may take one bad choice before we learn or change, it may take a thousand.

A person's life isn't judged on what they were at the beginning, but what they shaped themselves into. Each decision is based on a thousand previous decisions, based on an education that a person has built up over years.

If you judge a person based on a bad decision a bad ac they made ten years before they died, then you're not judging what that person became.

Of course, take into account the previous actions of a person, but the best judgement, what represents a person's life experiences, their life choices, is the last choice they make. The choice to do the right thing in the end.

So, in response to the original poster, yes, it is just you.

Doyle died a hero. So did Jenny, Cordelia, Tara, Anya, Joyce and Darla. As will the rest of the characters when they die, so long as they do the right thing at the end.

ETA: Apologies for this ramble, went on a lot longer than I expected. But the question really made me think...

[LordKain]

maybe I should of named the title of the tread the most emotional in both shows.

[califi]

<-- *points to icon*

Nuff Said.

[Gabriella]

Depends on what you mean by 'true' hero. If you mean that he was only in 9 episodes and therefore Whedon never had the chance to fuck up his character with a million and one negative attributes [eg: evil alter ego, generally selfish personality, mary-sue], then yes.

If not, then no.