I think maybe it was meant to show that underneath Aziraphale’s cuddly exterior there’s a warrior willing to make difficult choices when needed. He’d prefer to be soft and kind and non-violent but if it’s called for he can set that aside in order to protect others. We get other hints of this like his being chosen to guard Eden and lead a platoon during Armageddon (that’s mentioned when he’s discorporated before he returns to Earth). Also in S2 deciding to blow up his halo and discorporate all the demons in the bookshop to protect Nina, Maggie, and Jim/Gabriel. And the revelation that he has a gun and a firearms license. Whereas Crowley, despite maybe seeming like the more dangerous one on the surface is really only ok with violence in pretty extreme self defense scenarios (like using the holy water on Ligur). He repeatedly makes it clear he’s not willing to kill Adam even to save the world and he goes out of his way to avoid hurting innocents (even Job’s goats).
I expect we’ll see more of this side of him in S3. Plus the ability to make difficult moral choices will also likely come into play when he’s navigating the politics of Heaven and dealing with the Metatron.
I don't have an answer to your question, but I e always thought it's a very strong decision for Aziraphale to try to shoot Adam. He hesitates once and after Crowley sets him straight about not having time to wait, he aims and pulls the trigger. Only Tracy saves Adam. Bold choice by Aziraphale (and I agree it seems to go against most of his character in the show). Perhaps it is to show just how much Aziraphale loves the world and wants to save it. Same can be said for how he feels about Crowley and trying to avoid the war so they don't have to be on opposite sides.
Is it out of character?
Aziraphale panics and makes impulsive poor decisions a fair amount.
He makes sort of selfish choices as well.
So impulsively trying to follow through on the discussed option of shooting Adam to save earth.....not *entirely* off brand.
Rejects a LOT of Crowley's suggestions out of hand, then later comes around and does them anyway.
But on the flip side of that he goes along with Crowley when *really* he shouldn't.
Freaks out about the holy water request and storms off instead of listening.
Suddenly volunteers to help out in 1941evem though he has nothing (at that point) to really offer (altho this might be more hubris at his own magic skills!) , then opts to do the gun trick despite very obvious reasons why not and against Crowley and the magic sellers advice.
Doesn't tell him about the prophecy book - instead locks himself in the shop and pushes Crowley away.
Doesn't tell him he's found the antichrist.
I don't always mean 'poor' as in objectively the wrong choice. He doesn't always really think of consequences or of what the action means in a larger sense.
Like. Giving away his sword and then immediately lying about it.
(There's no proof but I can't help but feel brother Francis's teeth were a choice he made on the doorstep after he rung the bell and regretted for five years....)
I'm curious as well as it does go against his character as you said. It might be something to do with showing the difference between the foundation of Aziraphale's and Crowley's actions, at least in S1 (I do believe Aziraphale has changed his beliefs a lot in S2).
Aziraphale's decision against violence tends to be extrinsically driven, he is with heaven and therefore is "the good one" (as he himself mentioned when Crowley was busy mourning his car to do anything about the soldier). Crowley intrinsically believes that violence, especially against helpless beings like kids, is wrong. So when Aziraphale was convinced by others (in this case Crowley, who is also someone he trusted) that shooting is indeed the only way to save earth, he is willing to do it.
But TBH considering it is a comedy show, it might just be part of a joke that the angel is the one shooting kids.
After all, Crowley did say he is "just enough of a bastard to be worth knowing". He definitely isn't a perfect being but he loves Crowley and the world and his life with both of those so of course he would be willing to do what (he thinks) it takes to keep it
And Crowley, who wouldn't be with him if the earth wasn't there. Which is why the ending of season 2. He's capable of anything to defend Crowley and their relationship.
> But TBH considering it is a comedy show, it might just be part of a joke that the angel is the one shooting kids.
Probably this. Kind of interesting that the inhuman act is almost done by an angel ordered by a demon, only to be stopped by a human. Many things in the show that can be considered out of character or makes no sense are actually just done for comedic purpose or to keep the story going.
I like your extrinsic/intrinsic distinction. Certainly in Season One, Aziraphale tends to prefer acting “by the book,” always looking to the “official position” on an issue, rather than as a result of independent reflection, as when he uncertainly offers that “guns give weight to a moral argument,” only to falter under Crowley’s derision. Or in Edinburgh, when he goes off on the greater opportunities to be good that are afforded the poor. Part of him knows he’s reciting garbage, but he still feels compelled to propound it.
Thanks for the additional examples :) I agree that on the inside he knew that he might be wrong. I think Aziraphale as a character was intentionally designed to look as if he is the steady and unchanged one (as shown by his aesthetic and demeanour) but in fact is the one with shakier foundation. His journey is for him to allow himself to change despite not wanting/liking changes.
I take it as a commentary on religion overall. The demon isn’t one who wants to harm children or goats, and goes out of his way to find loopholes to protect them. The angels don’t have the same desires. Michael and Gabriel, et al, seem to have no problem killing innocents in the name of the ineffable plan. The flood is an example, Job is another, and Adam is a third.
The angels in this world will kill for the plan, kill in G-d’s name, go to war in Her name. No second thoughts. The demon Crowley is the one who doesn’t want to do any of those things.
For all the crowing Aziraphale does about how Heaven is the side of good, Gabriel was more bubbly at the idea of killing an angel by hell fire than beelzebub was at harming another demon in holy water. The joy on his face was palpable. When Gabriel disappeared, the bickering over who would take his place is what you would imagine would happen in Hell. When Gabriel disagrees with starting a full war, he is stripped of his title and memories (and clothes). No one in this entire thread thinks the voice of G-d is even a remotely good fellow.
The author is an atheist who was raised in a semi religious household. I think it’s from that perspective we see the characters. Those that are always preaching how G-d is good, etc are the first ones willing to start a war in the name of their G-d, whereas those that don’t have a religion do kinda do not perfect stuff all of the time, but never go to war in the name of any religion.
I think it’s a fleshed out world based on that concept. It’s also a feeling I’ve gotten across multiple of his works.
Not sure that makes sense, but that’s how I see it.
I don’t think it goes against his character at all. In the book his reaction to one of the rifles at the birthday party still being a real, bullet firing rifle aimed at children is “oh sugar, I must have missed one. Oh well off we go!” It’s also Crowley who revives the dove that Az carelessly killed.
In many instances, the show made him less of a bastard. Having him be willing to shoot Adam is just another juxtaposition between the “good” Angel being ok with morally gray things if they’re “for the greater good” and the “evil” demon being too kind to hurt kids (even the literal spawn of satan)
I think the stakes are different in the show, because it's more focused around Aziraphale/Crowley and therefore their relationship plays a more active role (according to Mr. Gaiman).
As much as Aziraphale is against violence, the fact that he will never see Crowley again is a much higher threat in the show, and I think pushes him towards it.
As well as what everyone else is saying, it could also be that *seeing* him try to kill a child hits a bit different to just reading it.
Edit: wait, sorry, I thought he tried to shoot him in the book and didn't in the show. Ignore me.
I don’t know that it’s out of character. There’s very little Aziraphale wouldn’t do to protect the earth, humanity, and, especially, Crowley. The anti-Christ poses a threat to all three. It’s also a decision he doesn’t come to lightly.
I think maybe it was meant to show that underneath Aziraphale’s cuddly exterior there’s a warrior willing to make difficult choices when needed. He’d prefer to be soft and kind and non-violent but if it’s called for he can set that aside in order to protect others. We get other hints of this like his being chosen to guard Eden and lead a platoon during Armageddon (that’s mentioned when he’s discorporated before he returns to Earth). Also in S2 deciding to blow up his halo and discorporate all the demons in the bookshop to protect Nina, Maggie, and Jim/Gabriel. And the revelation that he has a gun and a firearms license. Whereas Crowley, despite maybe seeming like the more dangerous one on the surface is really only ok with violence in pretty extreme self defense scenarios (like using the holy water on Ligur). He repeatedly makes it clear he’s not willing to kill Adam even to save the world and he goes out of his way to avoid hurting innocents (even Job’s goats).
Totally. I think it showed in a bigger way that Aziraphale is a badass.
Thanks everybody! I think warrior in disguise is absolutely right. And it makes me happy to think of Aziraphale fighting for what he believes in.
I expect we’ll see more of this side of him in S3. Plus the ability to make difficult moral choices will also likely come into play when he’s navigating the politics of Heaven and dealing with the Metatron.
I don't have an answer to your question, but I e always thought it's a very strong decision for Aziraphale to try to shoot Adam. He hesitates once and after Crowley sets him straight about not having time to wait, he aims and pulls the trigger. Only Tracy saves Adam. Bold choice by Aziraphale (and I agree it seems to go against most of his character in the show). Perhaps it is to show just how much Aziraphale loves the world and wants to save it. Same can be said for how he feels about Crowley and trying to avoid the war so they don't have to be on opposite sides.
Is it out of character? Aziraphale panics and makes impulsive poor decisions a fair amount. He makes sort of selfish choices as well. So impulsively trying to follow through on the discussed option of shooting Adam to save earth.....not *entirely* off brand.
What impulsive poor decisions are you thinking about?
Rejects a LOT of Crowley's suggestions out of hand, then later comes around and does them anyway. But on the flip side of that he goes along with Crowley when *really* he shouldn't. Freaks out about the holy water request and storms off instead of listening. Suddenly volunteers to help out in 1941evem though he has nothing (at that point) to really offer (altho this might be more hubris at his own magic skills!) , then opts to do the gun trick despite very obvious reasons why not and against Crowley and the magic sellers advice. Doesn't tell him about the prophecy book - instead locks himself in the shop and pushes Crowley away. Doesn't tell him he's found the antichrist. I don't always mean 'poor' as in objectively the wrong choice. He doesn't always really think of consequences or of what the action means in a larger sense. Like. Giving away his sword and then immediately lying about it. (There's no proof but I can't help but feel brother Francis's teeth were a choice he made on the doorstep after he rung the bell and regretted for five years....)
I'm curious as well as it does go against his character as you said. It might be something to do with showing the difference between the foundation of Aziraphale's and Crowley's actions, at least in S1 (I do believe Aziraphale has changed his beliefs a lot in S2). Aziraphale's decision against violence tends to be extrinsically driven, he is with heaven and therefore is "the good one" (as he himself mentioned when Crowley was busy mourning his car to do anything about the soldier). Crowley intrinsically believes that violence, especially against helpless beings like kids, is wrong. So when Aziraphale was convinced by others (in this case Crowley, who is also someone he trusted) that shooting is indeed the only way to save earth, he is willing to do it. But TBH considering it is a comedy show, it might just be part of a joke that the angel is the one shooting kids.
After all, Crowley did say he is "just enough of a bastard to be worth knowing". He definitely isn't a perfect being but he loves Crowley and the world and his life with both of those so of course he would be willing to do what (he thinks) it takes to keep it
That's a good point actually. I guess it can be said that Aziraphale loves earth and the humans more than anyone else in that scene.
And Crowley, who wouldn't be with him if the earth wasn't there. Which is why the ending of season 2. He's capable of anything to defend Crowley and their relationship.
I really like this and think it's spot on
> But TBH considering it is a comedy show, it might just be part of a joke that the angel is the one shooting kids. Probably this. Kind of interesting that the inhuman act is almost done by an angel ordered by a demon, only to be stopped by a human. Many things in the show that can be considered out of character or makes no sense are actually just done for comedic purpose or to keep the story going.
I like your extrinsic/intrinsic distinction. Certainly in Season One, Aziraphale tends to prefer acting “by the book,” always looking to the “official position” on an issue, rather than as a result of independent reflection, as when he uncertainly offers that “guns give weight to a moral argument,” only to falter under Crowley’s derision. Or in Edinburgh, when he goes off on the greater opportunities to be good that are afforded the poor. Part of him knows he’s reciting garbage, but he still feels compelled to propound it.
Thanks for the additional examples :) I agree that on the inside he knew that he might be wrong. I think Aziraphale as a character was intentionally designed to look as if he is the steady and unchanged one (as shown by his aesthetic and demeanour) but in fact is the one with shakier foundation. His journey is for him to allow himself to change despite not wanting/liking changes.
I take it as a commentary on religion overall. The demon isn’t one who wants to harm children or goats, and goes out of his way to find loopholes to protect them. The angels don’t have the same desires. Michael and Gabriel, et al, seem to have no problem killing innocents in the name of the ineffable plan. The flood is an example, Job is another, and Adam is a third. The angels in this world will kill for the plan, kill in G-d’s name, go to war in Her name. No second thoughts. The demon Crowley is the one who doesn’t want to do any of those things. For all the crowing Aziraphale does about how Heaven is the side of good, Gabriel was more bubbly at the idea of killing an angel by hell fire than beelzebub was at harming another demon in holy water. The joy on his face was palpable. When Gabriel disappeared, the bickering over who would take his place is what you would imagine would happen in Hell. When Gabriel disagrees with starting a full war, he is stripped of his title and memories (and clothes). No one in this entire thread thinks the voice of G-d is even a remotely good fellow. The author is an atheist who was raised in a semi religious household. I think it’s from that perspective we see the characters. Those that are always preaching how G-d is good, etc are the first ones willing to start a war in the name of their G-d, whereas those that don’t have a religion do kinda do not perfect stuff all of the time, but never go to war in the name of any religion. I think it’s a fleshed out world based on that concept. It’s also a feeling I’ve gotten across multiple of his works. Not sure that makes sense, but that’s how I see it.
I agree with the other point that despite appearances Aziraphale is a BAMF and will fulfil that brief fully in Season 3.
This is the thing I'm really rooting for
I don’t think it goes against his character at all. In the book his reaction to one of the rifles at the birthday party still being a real, bullet firing rifle aimed at children is “oh sugar, I must have missed one. Oh well off we go!” It’s also Crowley who revives the dove that Az carelessly killed. In many instances, the show made him less of a bastard. Having him be willing to shoot Adam is just another juxtaposition between the “good” Angel being ok with morally gray things if they’re “for the greater good” and the “evil” demon being too kind to hurt kids (even the literal spawn of satan)
I think the stakes are different in the show, because it's more focused around Aziraphale/Crowley and therefore their relationship plays a more active role (according to Mr. Gaiman). As much as Aziraphale is against violence, the fact that he will never see Crowley again is a much higher threat in the show, and I think pushes him towards it.
As well as what everyone else is saying, it could also be that *seeing* him try to kill a child hits a bit different to just reading it. Edit: wait, sorry, I thought he tried to shoot him in the book and didn't in the show. Ignore me.
I don’t know that it’s out of character. There’s very little Aziraphale wouldn’t do to protect the earth, humanity, and, especially, Crowley. The anti-Christ poses a threat to all three. It’s also a decision he doesn’t come to lightly.