|
|
Post by tissuepaper on Apr 26, 2018 12:58:42 GMT
I haven't watched episode 2 yet, but I'm pretty sure that Hope was responsible for Hayley's capture. So I'm curious, if Hayley dies as a result (which will provide major angst since Hope killed one parent to get another one back in her life) would this trigger her werewolf curse?
If she finds out that Hayley dies, would she got into werewolf mode? And would this still allow her to use her witch powers?
|
|
|
|
Post by daydreamer on Apr 26, 2018 13:44:00 GMT
I haven't watched episode 2 yet, but I'm pretty sure that Hope was responsible for Hayley's capture. So I'm curious, if Hayley dies as a result (which will provide major angst since Hope killed one parent to get another one back in her life) would this trigger her werewolf curse? If she finds out that Hayley dies, would she got into werewolf mode? And would this still allow her to use her witch powers? Hmm - that's a really good question. I don't think so. Because doing what Hope did (trying not to spoil it for you) didn't put Hayley in direct harm. Now that Hayley has been captured, they're responsible. They took that responsibility off of Hope. Now, if Hayley had died because of what Hope did before her capture - say, the roof caved in and the falling debris managed to decapitate her - then, yes. I think that would have triggered Hope's curse. Honestly, I won't be surprised if the writers throw out all the rules regarding Hope. I'll be curious to see what happens. I don't think she has access to her wolf powers while she's still human. I don't think she can vamp speed or has vamp strength while she's still human. She's a witch with an untriggered wolf gene and vampire blood (which still makes no sense to me, but whatever). Technically, if she triggers or dies and returns a vampire or hybrid, she should lose her witch powers. But it's Hope and she's special, so... OH. Yeah, no. Hope's not going to trigger. I just realized why. I won't spoil it for you, but come back after you've seen the episode and I'll explain. |
|
|
|
Post by tissuepaper on Apr 26, 2018 17:27:38 GMT
OH. Yeah, no. Hope's not going to trigger. I just realized why. I won't spoil it for you, but come back after you've seen the episode and I'll explain. I watched it, so feel free to spoil away. Hope was freaking out, but since they don't know whether Hayley's dead or not I'm not sure if my theory proves right or not. What did you just realize though? |
|
|
|
Post by daydreamer on Apr 26, 2018 17:52:01 GMT
OH. Yeah, no. Hope's not going to trigger. I just realized why. I won't spoil it for you, but come back after you've seen the episode and I'll explain. I watched it, so feel free to spoil away. Hope was freaking out, but since they don't know whether Hayley's dead or not I'm not sure if my theory proves right or not. What did you just realize though? I was thinking it could kind of be argued that Hope is responsible for Henry's death, even though he died at another's hand. But she wasn't held responsible for that (she didn't trigger when he was killed), so she wouldn't be responsible for Hayley's death now that she's been taken. Someone else stepped in and relieved Hope of the responsibility. I think the rule is you have to be directly responsible. Like, when Damon left the Hunter to die in a pit on Mystery Island. Damon didn't directly kill him, so he didn't suffer the Hunter's Curse. Even though Damon left him there to die, and the Hunter died of starvation, Damon wasn't the direct cause of his death. TBH, I always found that one a little shady/convenient. I personally think Damon should have suffered the curse, but... And Francesca ordered the bombing in the bayou (IIRC), but someone else carried it out. |
|
|
|
Post by tissuepaper on Apr 26, 2018 18:21:16 GMT
I watched it, so feel free to spoil away. Hope was freaking out, but since they don't know whether Hayley's dead or not I'm not sure if my theory proves right or not. What did you just realize though? I was thinking it could kind of be argued that Hope is responsible for Henry's death, even though he died at another's hand. But she wasn't held responsible for that (she didn't trigger when he was killed), so she wouldn't be responsible for Hayley's death now that she's been taken. Someone else stepped in and relieved Hope of the responsibility. I think the rule is you have to be directly responsible. Like, when Damon left the Hunter to die in a pit on Mystery Island. Damon didn't directly kill him, so he didn't suffer the Hunter's Curse. Even though Damon left him there to die, and the Hunter died of starvation, Damon wasn't the direct cause of his death. TBH, I always found that one a little shady/convenient. I personally think Damon should have suffered the curse, but... And Francesca ordered the bombing in the bayou (IIRC), but someone else carried it out. I never watched TVD, but could the rule be that you have to also feel directly responsible as well? Francesca (gosh I miss her, she was a proper baddy with nice build up) acted like the mob head, so I can understand that she wouldn't feel like she's directly responsible for killing people since it was her men who carried it out. But with Hope, even though someone else might be the cause of Hayley's death, Hope might feel responsible because she's the one who caused it. I'm not too familiar with this rule though, so I don't know. She didn't feel responsible for Henry, because she knew he was going to come back and he killed himself. With Hayley, I think it might be different. |
|
|
|
Post by Allison on Apr 27, 2018 0:27:54 GMT
It's a direct cause of death. Hope wouldn't be directly responsible so no curse but she would feel responsible for her mother's death and will probably feel bad about Henry's.
|
|
