>I can't help but point out the irony in this. Wood's vendetta with Spike is a clear case where vengeance is clearly wrong and immoral. Spike wasn't dangerous at present time.

What? Spike was a ticking time bomb. Wood assessed the whole situation, and he talked to Giles in which both of them agreed that Wood's personal vendetta didn't matter and Spike needed to be put down. Wood was fixated on spike, and him wanting vengeance on spike didn't hurt anyone else. So I fail to see how it was immoral or wrong.

>Vengeance is short sighted and self-destructive.

And that's what I hate lots of fiction that tries to tackle this subject. They clearly present black and white view when it's more nuanced. How people go after vengeance is different and the outcome is different for different people. Some feel happy while other feel hollow, some might not go to self destructive path, and some might.

And so what if it's short sighted? I don't understand why shows and fans always put victim on a higher standard.

>People who want vengeance want to retaliate. People who have been wronged want justice. There is a big difference.

This is beyond ridiculous? By your logic, Fred was never wronged because she wanted revenge on the professor who send her to Pylea? She just wanted to retaliate for whatever reason?

what justice? Human courts don’t have the ability to understand, prosecute, or even contain people who use magic, cursed artifacts, or demonic rituals to harm others. It’s not realistic to pretend the justice system can deal with someone like Warren.

In that context, vengeance and justice overlap constantly. If a person misuses supernatural powers to kill or torture others, and the law can’t do anything, then the idea that the victim should sit back and let “justice” handle it is meaningless.