On Daniel, the Goa'uld, and the Tok'ra

[fignewton]

In the discussion on Dominion, I raised the objection that Daniel would never condone the deliberate implantation of a Goa’uld in anyone, even Adria. A lot of people made some very insightful comments in disagreeing with that statement. Since this is a little too long to go into a comment in reply, and the chance to write some long-held meta is always fun, I’m going to explain my reasoning here. While most of this is based on canon, some of it is based on how I interpret canon, which of course moves it into the realm of personal fanon. With that caveat, anyone is welcome to disagree, and discussions are always a good thing. 

Let’s set aside for the moment how Daniel perceives Adria in comparison to other corrupted children/innocents he has known in the past, as all of us agree that by this point Daniel sees her as irredeemable. The argument I’m making is that Daniel has such a visceral horror to the Goa’uld and what they represent that he would never advocate using a symbiote to control a host – even the Orici in such extreme circumstances. I could see Daniel protesting the idea, then reluctantly stepping aside when others insist; however, Dominion gives us Daniel actively promoting the concept, and that’s what I see as going against his nature.

It’s true that the Ori and the Goa’uld are after the same thing (the Goa’uld just did it with more style), as the characters themselves observe in Dominion. And much of what they represent – subjugation, the tyranny of forbidden education and technological advancements, the loss of freedom of religion – are equally abhorrent to Daniel, and he would do anything to prevent either one from coming into power. Both the Goa’uld and the Ori have made the battle personal for Daniel – Apophis by taking Sha’re, and Adria by targeting Daniel personally and the abduction and Priorization. Daniel also feels, whether or not he is right to do so, that he is responsible for unleashing both on Earth – the Goa’uld by his unlocking the secret of the Stargate, and the Ori by his accidental knocking on the Ori’s door and letting them know that humans exist in the Milky Way. Going by these criteria, we might say that Daniel sees both of them as evils that need to be stopped… and while it’s not something earlier seasons Daniel might advocate, isn’t it something that this wearier, more jaded Daniel might do?

I still say no. I maintain that to Daniel, the Goa’uld not only attacked him, but violated him deeply on a personal level far beyond anything the Ori have ever done.

Let’s start with the basics: unlike the Goa’uld, the Ori have never actually killed Daniel. (I take a moment to control my inevitable stupid grin at being so attached to a fandom where a statement like that is taken for granted.) Ra killed not only Daniel, but also Sha’uri. And when Daniel revived Sha’uri in the sarcophagus and tried to make it off the ship, Ra came within a hair of killing Daniel with the ribbon device – he was bleeding from the nose before he managed to escape. Apophis killed Daniel with a staff weapon, along with Jack and Sam; it’s only thanks to the Nox that Teal’c was saved, and the others revived.

That’s only a superficial look at things, though. (Controls the stupid grin again.) On a personal level, the Goa’uld have violated Daniel’s life’s work, his wife, his body and will, and his adopted planet.

Daniel has been called archeologist, anthropologist, Egyptologist, linguist… His official degrees notwithstanding, we can all agree that Daniel’s deepest academic roots are in Egypt. And the Goa’uld, by their very existence, have destroyed Daniel’s love and absorption in Egyptian culture, because everything about Egypt mythology and history is based on a lie. And while Daniel’s passion for the pursuit of knowledge and truth was what led him to question the assumptions of others in the first place, the discovery that everything about Egypt is based on the Goa’uld is a terrible blow. The subsequent realization that Goa’uld influence stretched across the planet makes it even worse. Daniel’s first love has been history and how cultures have been shaped and changed; his journeys through the Stargate force him to reevaluate every historical monument, every cherished artifact and shard of human history, as something corrupted by an alien presence determined to enslave humanity.

When Apophis abducted Sha’re, he didn’t just take Daniel’s wife. He took the woman who, in essence, instigated the revolt against Ra – she rebelled first by daring to draw symbols in the sand, then showed Daniel the drawings in the catacombs and helped him learn Abydonian, then dragged Skaara and the boys back to the catacombs to show them what she’d learned and convince them to help Daniel, Jack, and the others escape. Sha’re’s subjugation by Amaunet wasn’t just the suffering of a single woman; it represents the destruction of that first, glorious victory against Ra. And, of course, what it means to Daniel on a personal level – the woman he loves for all her fire and courage, reduced to a silent scream pounding impotently on the walls of her own pysche, raped by the man who took her. Daniel’s love for Sha’re was intense enough to allow him to deliver Apophis’ baby and love that child for Sha’re’s sake. The intensity of that love can be matched only by his anguish and his hatred for the creatures that stole him from her.

Then, considering that level of hatred – which is vividly illustrated by that intense scene in Bloodlines, when Daniel calmly destroys a tank of symbiotes without more than a sidelong glace at Sam in reaction – there is Hathor, who sapped him of his will and forced him to be her mindless slave. Beyond even the shame of rape (and I’m not suggesting that should be taken lightly; on the contrary), Hathor forced Daniel to help her produce more of his most hated enemy. That is a horror even beyond the abuse of body and will, and I think it’s something that Daniel has never truly moved past. I know a lot of people complained about the lack of follow-up to Hathor and what Daniel and Jack suffered (I agree with that), and that Daniel barely seemed to react when he met Hathor again in Out of Mind/Into the Fire; but I’d say that the “lack of reaction” was actually a forced layer of numbness that Daniel used to protect himself, because if he’d really allowed himself to react as he wanted, he would have been cowering in the corner of the Gate room, curled up in fetal ball and screaming on the top of his lungs. (I have no proof for that statement, I know. As I stated earlier, some of this is my personal interpretation.)

When it comes down to it, Daniel is fiercely loyal to those he loves, and can be downright scary when those people are threatened. Consider how, in crisis, he was able to use a staff weapon accurately enough to kill a Jaffa only a few feet away from Sam (in the Nox); his drive to save the planet from Apophis’ imminent invasion, and the personal aspect of the appeal in terms of those that he knew that were dead; his quietly-voiced threat to Apophis in Serpent’s Song, when he demanded that Apophis tell him where to find Sha’re or he would kill him right there, as he lay helpless in the infirmary; that pivotal moment in Beast of Burden, when, after seeing Jack tortured and the Unas killed, he is no longer asking Jack to find a peaceful solution; the underlying concept of Absolute Power, that a Daniel wanting to protect his planet and strongly convinced in his own moral certitude would be capable of ultimately destroying the Earth.  So while the show never bothered to show us what happened when Daniel discovered the destruction of Abydos, how do you think he would react? Sha’re’s grave gone. Skaara, Kasuf, the people that he helped liberate from millennia of slavery and taught and loved and lived with – all irrevocably gone, and all because of Anubis.

[Yes, there were other factors, not least of which was Daniel’s own actions and Oma and the Others. But I would strongly assert that the destruction of Abydos would drive Daniel’s hatred to the Goa’uld to even greater levels.]

So much for the Goa’uld. But the plan in Dominion wasn’t to deliberately implant Adria with a Goa’uld, right? Ba’al had already done that on his own. The plan was to bring in a Tok’ra symbiote – one who would temporarily override Adria’s control for the duration of the emergency, just long enough to order the Ori armies to stand down and leave the Milky Way. If my arguments have been against the Goa’uld, not against the Tok’ra, why do I feel that Daniel would disagree?

The truth is that I think it makes it even worse.

While Daniel has never shown any real discomfort in dealing with the Tok’ra – outside Anise, of course, and their initial meeting, when Garshaw asked if he would be willing to serve as a host – I have always believed that the Tok’ra make Daniel truly uncomfortable. Yes, they’ve done a lot for Earth (although much less after S3). Their intentions are admirable, true. But the methods the Tok’ra choose to use are a marvelous example of nature vs. nurture – and when philosophical beliefs are overridden, what’s left that makes a difference?

The Goa’uld are symbiotes – parasites, really – that infiltrate a person’s body, using that person’s thoughts and abilities for their own purposes. The Tok’ra depend mostly on infiltration – they plant spies within Goa’uld ships and powerbases, using what they find and the positions they gain to try and undermine them. Their regular dealings with the SGC in the later seasons, when they used the Tau’ri without offering much in return, fit the same pattern.

The Tok’ra are Goa’uld, but with the genetic memories of Egeria, herself a Goa’uld with a different philosophical view. And when that philosophical view is ignored? You get Sam, taken as a host without consent, by a Tok’ra who didn’t hesitate to ruthlessly manipulate Daniel’s emotions by offering to tell him where to find Sha’re in return for her freedom. And you get Jack, literally hijacked by Kanan to retrieve Ba’al’s lotar. Kanan never even bothered to tell Jack what he was doing; all Jack had were vague flashes of the lotar. And Daniel watched as Jack was tortured to death over and over again, because a Tok’ra betrayed its most basic belief – first by taking Jack on a suicidal rescue mission, and then by abandoning him to his death.

ETA: as aurora_novarum points out, we don't actually know that Daniel remembers what happened in Abyss. In fact, I've always assumed that he doesn't remember anything from his first ascension. OTOH, Daniel certainly read the mission reports enough to know the basic facts: that Jack agreed to take a symbiote to save his life, that Kanan skipped out with Jack on a suicidal rescue mission, that Kanan abandoned Jack on Ba'al's planet, and that Jack was subsequently tortured to death multiple times. That, I think, would be enough, even if he doesn't have the personal memory of having been there.

Coupled with Daniel’s fierce loyalty and love for his friends, and his deep, visceral hatred for the Goa’uld, I would strongly suggest that Daniel is even more repulsed by the idea of a Tok’ra acting Goa’uld-like than by the Goa’uld themselves. And if that is the case, I cannot see Daniel ever, under any circumstances, being comfortable enough with the idea of a forced Tok’ra implantation.

Would he step aside and let others argue for it? Yes, I can see that. But that’s not what we saw in Dominion – we saw him arguing in favor of the idea. That was what I saw as being too OOC for our Daniel. And even now, after all the choices he’s made and the new, unhappy cynicism of his S9-10 personality, I still like to think of him as our Daniel. :)

ETA: There's a rather long discussion in the comments that really takes the whole thing off-topic. I always welcome digressions and even civil rants, but I do want to emphasize that the point of this essay is not to suggest that Daniel can't work with the Tok'ra or has to struggle not to hate them; instead, I am suggesting that considering Daniel's history, his acceptance of the Tok'ra had to be a conscious effort, that he would feel doubly betrayed if they betray their own ethical stand, and that it's hugely OOC for Daniel to not only approve the suggestion, but to advocate it.

Comments

[maevebran.livejournal.com]

I see your argument but I also see Daniel capable of a lot of things that he wasn't in seasons one and two.

Like being the first to suggest killing Khalek.

I see Daniel's suggestion as what he saw as the way to get verifiable information. It was a tactical practibility because what Ba'al was saying about sharing Adria's mind and the intel availible that way is a valid point. Daniel would never trust what Ba'al had to say but he would a Tok'ra.

While you point out most of the times Daniel had problems with the Tok'ra, what about all the times he saw what made the Tok'ra different. The fact that they removed the snake from Skaara. Daniel was probably deeply affected by the fact that his brother in law had been saved. (I've always gotten the vibe that Daniel would forget the "in law" part of the relationship with Skaara and see him as the brother he never had.) Or all the times Jacob/Selmak helped out. Daniel must have had some interesting times in the cargo ship with them.

Not to mention who knows what kind of Ancient practicallity might have been dug up by Merlin. I can believe Merlin is gone but there must be some lingering memories left. Merlin stuck me as a ruthless SOB.

[nomadicwriter]

I think you're projecting your personal feelings onto Daniel. :)

Not that you're necessarily wrong, mind, but reading through a lot of this argument seems to hinge on, "well, there's no evidence that he's feeling like this in canon but I'm sure he should be."

I haven't seen the episode so I can't really argue from a position of knowledge here, but I do think that A, Daniel is less inclined to hate and distrust Tok'ra than you suggest (personal distaste at the idea of being a host aside, he's pretty big on the "don't judge the group on the actions of a few" theory) and B, once he's decided that somebody is irredeemable, he pretty much places them outside of the sentient being category and doesn't seem to have any problem using methods he would otherwise consider totally abhorrent. It takes a lot to make Daniel place somebody in the "evil" category, but once they're there he doesn't seem to consider them to have any rights at all, and turns all his focus on the most ruthlessly efficient way of saving innocents from them.

[rydra_wong]

Oooh, excellent topic.

While Daniel has never shown any real discomfort in dealing with the Tok’ra – outside Anise, of course, and their initial meeting, when Garshaw asked if he would be willing to serve as a host – I have always believed that the Tok’ra make Daniel truly uncomfortable.

Hmm. See, I would tend to agree with this interpretation - as a writer, it's what I tend to find most plausible as an extrapolation of Daniel's response to the Tok'ra. But on the other hand, I'm not sure if that discomfort is something he would or could consciously acknowledge or embrace, and it's certainly not something we've seen him articulate.

I think it takes a lot for him to put any group in the category of "irredeemable". The Goa'uld clearly are, for him, but I really doubt that he'd be happy to think "the Tok'ra are physiologically Goa'uld, therefore they're no different" - all his good liberal impulses would cry out at that (whereas Jack has a lot less trouble starting from the default position that they're "snakes", even if he'll make exceptions for people like Jacob&Selmak).

Similarly, Daniel believes in not judging groups on the basis of a few individuals; he'd be the one to ask whether we'd be okay judging all humans on the basis of, say, the rogue NID.

He does think Adria is irredeemable (he was prepared to kill her in Flesh and Blood). And of course she's already been taken as a host, by Ba'al; you could argue that a Tok'ra would at least be marginally preferable to that.

So, discomfort aside, I do buy Daniel as being prepared to use the Tok'ra like this. And of course he knows all about their willingess to "make exceptions" to their fundamental beliefs ...

[cyren-2132.livejournal.com]

My read on this is that you kind of feel like the Goa'uld actions have crippled Daniel, not in the sense that he's all afraid of them and blah blah, but in the sense that he hates them so much that he's blind to any emotion but "EVIL! GRRRR! DIE DIE DIE! GET AWAY!" I know those feelings are there, but I think those experiences, and his experiences with the SGC as a whole, have enabled him to shift his perception of duty, so that now he not only accepts the distasteful things that have to happen for the greater good, but he suggests them, because he knows just how bad not doing it can be.

Of course, it's possible that I'm just off when it comes to my interpretation of other people's interpretations, given the throwdown I just had with a critic who said his story meant something entirely different from what I got out of it as a reader, but whatever.

As for the Tok'ra, I pretty much agree with ryda_wong, but I must say that the parallels between Goa'uld and Tok'ra regarding infiltration are quite interesting and something I had never thought about.

I have this half-formed though about Ma'chello, and how Daniel's statement that he was, in effect, a Goa'uld is kind of an example of his assigning evil on a case-by-case basis against the yardstick of The Big Evil, but I haven't gotten very far on it.

[redbyrd-sgfic.livejournal.com]

So while the show never bothered to show us what happened when Daniel discovered the destruction of Abydos

True- and yet, I see in his attitude toward Khalek a reflection of that reaction. Anubis proved that he could never be dealt with other than by neutralizing him when he destroyed Abydos. Remember that the Tau'ri have made deals with other Goa'uld- Yu, Ba'al, Chronos. But Daniel never considers trying to make a deal with Khalek, even though Khalek has never personally done anything to them (at least at the start).

In a way I'm actually more apalled that the Tok'ra are willing to go with this. This is a blending, after all- aren't they worried about the Orici manipulating them? And if their philosophy of never taking an unwilling host is that important to them, they shouldn't be making exceptions. Okay, you can say that Jolinar was an exception in a desperate moment. And Jack *did* consent to the blending with Kanan, sort of. I kind of picture him mentally stuffing his fingers in his ears and going la-la-la through the whole thing- I don't think Kanan really had much opportunity to consult him. But to decide that this is an acceptable thing to do to a prisoner who has intelligence you need? We never never do it, except when it's expedient? Um, no.

I really sit on the fence on this one. I think it bothered Daniel a lot. But if he's sitting there picturing hundreds of thousands of people being killed or enslaved by the Priors, vs. temporarily compelling Adria to tell them to stand down? I think I can see him concluding that his scruples are not worth those hundreds of thousands of lives that will be lost- on both sides.

[green-grrl.livejournal.com]

I agree. I would have preferred someone other than Daniel advocate for it, though I'm not sure who, really.

Daniel had a fine working relationship with many freely chosen blended Tok'ra, but advocating the forced implantation of anybody with a snake? Ew. No. Teal'c may or may not have, depending on how pragmatic he was at the moment, but he'd have problems with it, too. Possibly Sam. She was, after all, temporarily forced to be a host, and came out of it on the other side, eventually, with positive memories. Vala might see a Tok'ra as preferable to a goa'uld. Maybe. Cam could do it, and just be making a practical suggestion, no emotional attachment.

[sg-fignewton.livejournal.com]

I've agreed that Daniel wouldn't hesitate to kill Adria. And certainly he has an amicable relationship with many of the Tok'ra, particularly Jacob, Martouf, Persus, and so forth. I've never suggested otherwise. What I do suggest is that Daniel is always consciously, or perhaps only subconsiously, aware that the Tok'ra are still symbiotes, and that he would percieve any violation of the Tok'ra's code as an utter betrayal. And because of that perception, I think it was wrong of the writers to make Daniel one of those who advocated a Tok'ra forcing Adria to do its bidding.

I've always gotten the vibe that Daniel would forget the "in law" part of the relationship with Skaara and see him as the brother he never had.

Oh, definitely. "Good Father," and likely "Good Brother," although Skaara refers to Daniel as "husband of my sister" in Pretense.

Not to mention who knows what kind of Ancient practicallity might have been dug up by Merlin.

Always a possibility, yes. As I've said before, Daniel's mind has been tampered with so often that it's sometimes difficult to say how much of it is wholly his.

[sg-fignewton.livejournal.com]

I think you're projecting your personal feelings onto Daniel. :)

Heh, well, I did say that it was more my fanon than actual canon at the beginning, didn't I? :) But to be honest, I don't dislike the Tok'ra at all. I do think they weren't very good allies after S4, but I'm quite fond of any number of individual Tok'ras, and I was as frustrated at the loss of their alliance in Death Knell as I was by the stupid destruction of Tollana. The writers seems to HATE leaving the SGC with any useful allies.

a lot of this argument seems to hinge on, "well, there's no evidence that he's feeling like this in canon but I'm sure he should be."

There's no evidence of how he feels about the Tok'ra, no. There is, on the other hand, lots and lots and lots of evidence of how much he despises the Goa'uld. Carrying that over to a Tok'ra who acts Goa'uldish is my own interpretation, certainly.

It takes a lot to make Daniel place somebody in the "evil" category, but once they're there he doesn't seem to consider them to have any rights at all, and turns all his focus on the most ruthlessly efficient way of saving innocents from them.

Hmm. I agree that it takes something pretty drastic for a sentient being to be moved into Daniel's "irredeemable" category, but that's quite a step of your own, there, to suggest that he subsequently classifies them as "outside of the sentient being" category, and therefore no entitled to any rights at all. Could you give me an example?

I do agree that Daniel is incredibly capable of being "ruthlessly efficient" (nice turn of phrase, there).

[sg-fignewton.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure if that discomfort is something he would or could consciously acknowledge or embrace, and it's certainly not something we've seen him articulate.

I did say it was my interpretation, here. :) And I agree that it is probably something operating on a subconscious level for him. He would not, as you say, be happy with himself if he realized that he was thinking "the Tok'ra are physiologically Goa'uld, therefore they're no different." I'm not suggesting he would consciously think that at all. What I am suggesting is that the Tok'ra really are Goa'uld by nature - as I said, their methods of warfare follow Goa'uld instinct - and that Daniel is aware enough of that fact to be seriously squicked by any Tok'ra that betrays the philosophical principle of only taking hosts by consent.

And of course he knows all about their willingess to "make exceptions" to their fundamental beliefs ...

And I would expect that to disturb him, quite seriously. Especially as Daniel's most ruthless instincts are aroused when the people he loves are endangered, and Jolinar and Kanan both did a lot of lasting damage to Jack and Sam.

I guess it comes down to the "personal fanon" thing in that you accept Daniel as being willing to use the Tok'ra like this, and I... don't. :)

[sg-fignewton.livejournal.com]

Er. No, I don't think Daniel is incapable of rational thought around the Goa'uld. He managed to "grovel" for the System Lords in Fair Game; he was capable of negotiating with the System Lords in New Order. Nevertheless, I still think that the idea of a Tok'ra deliberately planning to act as a Goa'uld would horrify him, even if the prospective victim was the Orici who most definitely needed to be stopped as quickly and efficiently as possible.

a critic who said his story meant something entirely different from what I got out of it as a reader

And he was angry at you for not automatically reading his mind to know what he wanted you to get out of the story? :) Believe me, I'm happy to debate! But I certainly didn't intend to suggest that Daniel has a knee-jerk reaction to anything symbiote-related; what he does have is an instinctive disgust at the idea of a Tok'ra taking an unwilling host.

Machello as Goa'uld. Yes, nice point. And I hope I didn't imply that Daniel paints all Tok'ra with a Goa'uld tarbrush. Jolinar and Kanan, though, are never going to be on his birthday card list.

[sg-fignewton.livejournal.com]

I see in his attitude toward Khalek a reflection of that reaction. Anubis proved that he could never be dealt with other than by neutralizing him when he destroyed Abydos.

Oh, this is interesting! I like this. You're really good at ferretting out little bits of canon that actually reflect on previous bits of canon. :)

In a way I'm actually more apalled that the Tok'ra are willing to go with this. ... We never never do it, except when it's expedient? Um, no.

Yes. I have to go back and check who initially suggested it. And while my initial reaction was revulsion at the Tok'ra coolly suggesting euthenasia for Adria, writing this meta post has consolidated that feeling into a sort of horrified fascination at the utter disinterest in the welfare of the host. What about Tanith's host, poor guy? I don't even remember his name. The Tok'ra had no qualms whatsoever about allowing him to suffer for months with a Goa'uld supplanting his will.

I can see Daniel weighing the needs and the costs, as you say. My problem isn't so much with him accepting it as a necessity; I'm seriously unhappy that he seconded the suggestion, essentially giving active approval.

[sg-fignewton.livejournal.com]

Oh, good point! Who would be the right one to advocate it?

Teal'c lost his trust in the Tok'ra after the debacle with Shau'nac and Tanith. I don't think Vala likes the Tok'ra at all, but she knows Ba'al from her days as Qetesh, and she might see it as a lesser evil. Sam would have her happy memories of who Jolinar really was, when she wasn't panicked, but she also would have the memories of being locked in a cell and distrusted by her teammates. I think you're right: it would have to be Mitchell.

Who made the initial suggestion? I've been trying to remember.

[aurora-novarum.livejournal.com]

Let’s start with the basics: unlike the Goa’uld, the Ori have never actually killed Daniel.

First, I'd argue your assertion that the Ori never killed Daniel. It's not for want of trying. They tried to burn him at the stake (quasi-literally), then blew up the ship he was on ("Camelot"), then Adria ordered Tomin to kill him (when Vala took the shot), and I'm not entirely convinced she wasn't going to kill Daniel in a fit of pique before Vala distracted her. (Mind you that was before she got creepy "plans for you").

I agree with you in Daniel's hatred of the Goa'uld. But I think he has hate for the Ori as well, but that's a horse of a different color.

Now to the Tok'ra. I don't share your idea that Daniel remembers "Abyss", and that odd comment in Shroud was from what he heard elsewhere. But I agree with you about Jolinar. However, I thought Daniel was honestly fascinated by the Tok'ra's symbiotic relationship and tried to be open about it. Not so open he wanted a symbiote, but he didn't have the visceral hate that Jack and Sam did about the experience. I don't think that was entirely a front for Garshaw's benefit.

So I don't see that he sees the Tok'ra as more evil than the Goa'uld.

As for the Tok'ra implantation, I don't know that he would've ever suggested the idea. But the fact is, Ba'al was in Adria already, and his plan as a way to stop these prior led ships was sound. But Ba'al couldn't be trusted. They needed Ba'al out. The Tok'ra could do that, and Sam pointed out they could have a Tok'ra, an ally make the plan work.

I can see Daniel being convinced by that, and yes, even backing Sam up in advocating it. Adria was not human (and as you know, my belief is Daniel never thought her to be), she was half Ori. So I don't know that he would have the same qualms as with a human. Daniel also experienced the mental powers of Adria first hand. He knows how dangerous she can be. I'm not saying it's an easy decision for him, but I'm saying Daniel's fear and hatred of the Ori is almost as much as the Goa'uld, and I don't see the Tok'ra as being the same thing as goa'uld to them.

But that's just my humble opinion on it. ;-)

[aurora-novarum.livejournal.com]

Here you go:

CARTER
There's no guarantee that her army would stop fighting even if she was dead. The only way to be certain is for her to order them to stand down.
MITCHELL
Then how do we get her to do that?
CARTER
Well, if Ba'al's symbiote is suppressing Adria's consciousness, we should be able to do the same thing.
DANIEL
Swap Ba'al out for someone we can trust.
TEAL'C
The Tok'ra.
VALA
Doesn't suppressing the host go against their fundamental beliefs?
DANIEL
Well, I'm sure they'd make an exception in this case.
CARTER
We've been trading intelligence with the Tok'ra since the Ori ships first arrived. They wanna get rid of them just as much as we do.

[sg-fignewton.livejournal.com]

It's not for want of trying.

That made me get my stupid grin again, because for Daniel? Trying to kill him is just "pffft!"

I never suggested Daniel didn't hate the Ori; just that it's not on the same deeply personal level. You disagree with that - no problem.

Hm. You're right about Abyss, most definitely. I also believe that Daniel has never really remembered what happened back then, and that it was Merlin talking during the Shroud, not Daniel - or, as you suggest, that he's seizing on something he's heard somewhere. (I prefer the Merlin version, though, because it was such an odd choice to bring up; Daniel, who knows Jack only too well, would never imagine it would help convince him, but Merlin might make that mistake.) OTOH, I certainly do believe that Daniel is aware that Jack was taken captive by Ba'al after a botched attempt by Kanan to rescue the lotar, and that Jack was tortured during his captivity. He would have gotten that much out of reading the mission reports, after all. So I would have to revise that - he didn't watch Jack being tortured, no. But he does know that it happened.

I don't see that he sees the Tok'ra as more evil than the Goa'uld.

Whew! Am I really giving that impression? So many commenters seem to think I'm implying that Daniel equates the Tok'ra with the Goa'uld. Not at all! I'm suggesting that Daniel is conscious enough of the Tok'ra's genetic make-up to be seriously disturbed at a Tok'ra that breaks the "willing host" rule, because that puts them on a similar footing to the Goa'uld.

I don't know that he would have the same qualms as with a human.

Fair enough. I think Daniel thought of Adria as partially human for the first... oh, half hour or so. :) Certainly, by the time he aimed a weapon at her, he'd already equated her with Khalek. I still think he would pity her, though. Not enough to stop him from shooting her... But enough to be repulsed at the idea of a Tok'ra deliberately acting Goa'uld-like? My personal opinion says yes. And it wouldn't be much fun if we always just agreed. :)

[sg-fignewton.livejournal.com]

Thank you very much for the quotes! Hurray for Stargate Wiki. :)

Reading it as dialogue makes it only worse for me. Daniel is actively suggesting that a Tok'ra be asked to betray their most fundamental belief... ::shivers:: Nope, sorry. To me, it's wrong.

[redbyrd-sgfic.livejournal.com]

RE: Anubis- well, I did write a fic about this! Which involved watching Prototype a dozen times and agonizing about motivations a lot *g*.

I'm seriously unhappy that he seconded the suggestion, essentially giving active approval.

I'd certainly have preferred him to have at least questioned whether there were any other options, and if he's then approving, say reluctantly, "Unfortunately I don't have any better ideas."

But honestly? I think that active approval vs silent consent is splitting a hair that Daniel would find dishonest. He takes responsibility for his own decisions.

And ooh, good point about Tanith's host. That's probably the incident that tells Daniel (and the others) that the Tok'ra would be pragmatic enough to go along with this. From the transcript, I do kind of read the scene as it being Sam's suggestion, and Daniel and Teal'c are just outlining the implications of her idea. (Would have to rewatch the ep to see if they played it this way.)

Clearly, there is a missing scene needed here!

[aurora-novarum.livejournal.com]

Whew! Am I really giving that impression? So many commenters seem to think I'm implying that Daniel equates the Tok'ra with the Goa'uld.

Here's where the impression is coming:

If my arguments have been against the Goa’uld, not against the Tok’ra, why do I feel that Daniel would disagree?

The truth is that I think it makes it even worse.

You're arguing so strongly (hee! excellent!), but it gave the impression pushed the tok'ra into the same goa'uld boat...if not worse because they claim to be symbiotic, but are willing to push it aside.

But I see the distinction you're making. Asking, advocating the Tok'ra go against their concept would be something under normal circumstances, would not be Daniel. But this "fundamental belief" is more of a guideline. As katie_m puts it, they don't take unwilling hosts, except when they do. The Tok'ra also know the threat of the Ori.

From the introduction, Daniel knows that the Tok'ra make exceptions to the "no unwilling hosts" rule. Carter knows it firsthand! And they're working under a tight timeline here. Ba'al/Adria and/or Adria will soon be able to overcome that anti-prior device. Daniel knows that part firsthand. They need to act quickly.

So yeah, we may just end up agreeing to disagree. I don't see it as completely out of character for Daniel to go with Sam/Teal'c's plan.

and that it was Merlin talking during the Shroud, not Daniel - or, as you suggest, that he's seizing on something he's heard somewhere. (I prefer the Merlin version, though, because it was such an odd choice to bring up; Daniel, who knows Jack only too well, would never imagine it would help convince him, but Merlin might make that mistake.)

Oh! That's an interesting interpretation of it! Hee hee hee.

[aurora-novarum.livejournal.com]

are you suggesting fig write it, or are you getting the plot bunny?

Or better yet! Both!

**whistles innocently and walks away** :-D

[redbyrd-sgfic.livejournal.com]

for Daniel? Trying to kill him is just "pffft!"

See, I don't see Daniel getting all that excited anymore at people trying to kill him. Or even succeeding in killing him. It's so-o-o last season! Killing his friends, now...that he'd take personally.

But yeah- while he may feel a degree of personal culpability in the matter of the Ori, I don't think he hates them the way he does the Goa'uld.

[redbyrd-sgfic.livejournal.com]

Hey, there are no exclusive bunnies- feel free to take this one on, Aurora!

[sg-fignewton.livejournal.com]

Yes, I remember your Lam fic! I'll have to read it again to see if we got that aspect of things, since it was all from her POV. :)

I think that active approval vs silent consent is splitting a hair that Daniel would find dishonest.

Oh, yes, I think you're right. Reluctant approval, as you say, would be much more Daniel like. So, yes! Go right ahead and write the missing scene! ::bounces excitedly::

[sg-fignewton.livejournal.com]

it gave the impression pushed the tok'ra into the same goa'uld boat...if not worse because they claim to be symbiotic, but are willing to push it aside.

Ah, okay. Thanks for the clarification. And in a way, you are interpreting it as I meant it - that the Tok'ra's claim to being the Good Guys is because they don't take unwilling hosts, so how Good Guy can they be, if they do it whenever it's convenient?

they don't take unwilling hosts, except when they do

But that's wrong. And I can certainly see Daniel being horrified by it. (Succintly put, though!)

[sg-fignewton.livejournal.com]

I don't see Daniel getting all that excited anymore at people trying to kill him. Or even succeeding in killing him. It's so-o-o last season! Killing his friends, now...that he'd take personally.

Hee! Yes, exactly! And besides, Daniel has always been so much better at dying for people than at living with the grief of others being lost.

[never-at-home.livejournal.com]

>>Reading it as dialogue makes it only worse for me. Daniel is actively suggesting that a Tok'ra be asked to betray their most fundamental belief... ::shivers:: Nope, sorry. To me, it's wrong.<<

The Tok'ra have asked Daniel to take a load of symbiote poison to a Goa'uld System Lord summit and he was given every opportunity to say "no". He was given time to decide and even Teal'c wanted to make sure he had thought it through. Daniel went into the summit knowing that he was going to kill not only the symbiotes, but also the hosts and any Jaffa who might have been at the space station.

Daniel was not offended when "asked to betray his most fundamental belief" in purposefully going in to kill the enemy in an ambush. He even agreed to it. What if the Tok'ra had not asked and just had come to the conclusion that he'd never go for it at all? They were willing to take the risk that he would agree to do it, even knowing how much he valued the lives of the host and of the Jaffa.

The Tok'ra have been giving the SGC intelligence on space anomalies since the Ori's first attempt at building a Supergate. It was their intelligence that got them to Anubis's planet that led to the discovery of Khalek. The Tok'ra were most likely present with the Supergate was finished in "Camelot" -- it is very possible that they lost some of their own in that battle -- and they can't afford much loss because they are the last of their kind.

I believe that the Tok'ra were given the opportunity to say "yes" or "no" to the proposal and were given all of the intelligence they needed to make their decision -- Adria would overcome the Anti-Prior Device soon enough and everyone was aware of what would happen once she did, but it would be Ba'al at the helm in this case. They didn't have a lot of time to take advantage of this opportunity, just like the opportunity of getting rid of the System Lords at that one summit. At the end of the day, one of them was willing to take the risk to see to the safety of the galaxy and the preservation of several races that they had pledged their very lives to protect.

The Tok'ra are good at infiltration -- using the enemy's technology and culture against them. According to Teal'c's assessment of the Tok'ra in "Abyss", the Tok'ra would do almost anything to see to the objective of their mission (including having a sexual relationship to obtain information and then leaving that person behind when the mission was completed -- the Tok'ra didn't frown on this when they spoke of Kanan's having completed his mission to Ba'al's fortress).

I don't see the Tok'ra as being manipulated or victimized by Daniel's assertion that one of them would probably consider the opportunity a risk worth taking, even if it meant going against their original fundamental belief of not staying in an unwilling host. In their past dealings with the Tau'ri, however, they have consistently been shown to be willing to leave a host, even if it meant their own death. Even a Goa'uld was willing to do this in "Fallout". So, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that the Tok'ra would have left Adria after obtaining the information, but I honestly believe that the Tok'ra would have been willing to obtain the information and then kill both itself and Adria after the order was given to the army. She was the enemy and the possibility that they'd have to kill Adria was always on SG-1's minds.

Was the Tok'ra willing to act like a Goa'uld? Yes. Was it forced to? No. It, like Daniel regarding the summit, was given a choice, knowing that it most likely would have to sacrifice its own life in doing so.

[nomadicwriter]

I suppose I'm thinking of the tankful of symbiotes, Khalek, and his threats to Apophis off the top of my head. Daniel is the first to argue for the right to life of everybody - Reece, the Unas, the Gadmeer - even when that right is directly and obviously threatening the lives of hundreds or thousands of other innocents. But once he has mentally declared somebody "evil", he flips directly into "murder them while they're helpless" mode without any visible qualms about that. ("Helpless" being the key element here, rather than just the fact he's willing to kill them.) Which to me says that he's ceased to regard them as belonging to the "people" category, and no longer considers them to have the basic rights that he would accord anyone else.

I don't feel that Daniel has much room for shades of grey in his moral code. I think that if he's at the point where he's declared it reasonable to kill someone in cold blood, he must consider that person to be effectively "outside the rules", and he probably wouldn't have much qualm about doing anything else to them if it would reduce their capacity to do evil. So I don't have much trouble believing that while he would never countenance using a symbiote against someone who was merely an enemy, he would be willing to do it against someone he considered irredeemably evil.

[aurora-novarum.livejournal.com]

okay, now *this* I agree with. :-)

[sg-fignewton.livejournal.com]

Hey, thanks for chiming in! Although I have to admit, your observations make it pretty clear that I'm not doing a very good job of expressing myself today. :(

Let me try this again. The theory I'm expounding here - and it's only a theory, based on canon, but not canonical - is that Daniel's visceral loathing for the Goa'uld makes it very difficult for him to deal with any incident in which the Tok'ra break their "willing host" rule. With that theory in mind, I reject the idea that Daniel would actively argue in favor of having a Tok'ra implanted to replace Ba'al, for the specific purpose of keeping the host under the Tok'ra's control.

The difficulty is all from Daniel's POV, not the Tok'ra's. We've seen over and over again that the Tok'ra themselves aren't quite so adamant about what they claim to be their fundamental belief: Jolinar had taken at least one unwilling host before Sam, Kanan didn't hesitate to drag Jack off on a crusade without consulting him first, and the Council allowed Tanith to stay within a host who had expected a true symbiotic relationship, apparently without much caring about anything the host might suffer during those months. My argument is that Daniel really, really despises these breaks in the Tok'ra's philosphies, since it makes them little better than the Goa'uld; and if that's the case, it's hard to fathom him advocating that very process for Adria.

You make some interesting points in your arguments. But I'm not quite sure how they relate to what we're discussing here. No one has suggested that the Tok'ra wouldn't be able to do the job well; as you say, infiltration is their thing. But it's not a question of whether the Tok'ra will be offended to be asked to do this. It's a question of whether Daniel would advocate it. And no one is suggesting that the Tok'ra are being, as you put it, "manipulated or victimized." Not only are they all grown up, they were a lot more grown up than we were from Day One! They can surely make their own decisions. :)

I wondered about this: Daniel was not offended when "asked to betray his most fundamental belief" in purposefully going in to kill the enemy in an ambush. What, in your opinion, is Daniel's "most fundamental belief" that is being betrayed, here? The victimization of the hosts? His preference to look at killing as only a last resort? My personal take on Summit/Last Stand is that it's a prime example of how much flailing Daniel was doing at that point. His sense of identity was such a mess by the end of S5 that ascension really didn't come as a surprise, did it?

I like the Tok'ra, I do. As you say, they do believe in self-sacrifice; as you also say, though, they have no qualms about sacrificing others, either. But really, this isn't about the Tok'ra. It's about how Daniel perceives them, and whether it's in character for him to suggest that they act like a Goa'uld in taking an unwilling host.

[aurora-novarum.livejournal.com]

Oh! I never thought of "Summit". Creepy, and good point.

[sg-fignewton.livejournal.com]

Okay, this is interesting. I love when comment threads make me go all thinky. :)

The tankful of symbiotes has always struck me as one of the most powerful Daniel moments of the first half of S1 - that ruthlessness that allows him to say, "These things are going to destroy people's lives one day. Sam calls them innocents now. I don't care." And his threat to Apophis is also a favorite powerful Daniel moment, especially coupled with his willingness to give last rites to the host in the same episode. In both cases, as you say, the "victim" is relatively helpless. I would put Khalek in a different category, though; his helplessness was dangerously temporary.

OTOH, I'm not seeing it quite the way you do. I don't visualize those incidents as Daniel thinking, "Let me kill them while they're helpless; they don't deserve a fighting chance." (That is what you're suggesting, isn't it?) I see it as Daniel thinking, "I have to kill them before someone else suffers. I have an opportunity. I'm not stupid enough to be chivalrous about this. I'm killing them now."

Maybe that's the same thing, or two sides of the same coin? I think I'm just a little taken aback at your suggestion that Daniel is consciously reclassifying them as "non-sentients."

Daniel definitely doesn't have rooms for shades of grey! It's what makes him so delightfully dangerous. :) Still, I think that we'll have to agree to disagree about this one, because while I'm following you and nodding up to a point: I don't have much trouble believing that while he would never countenance using a symbiote against someone who was merely an enemy, he would be willing to do it against someone he considered irredeemably evil. That one, I don't agree with. So I guess we'll leave it at that. :)

[nomadicwriter]

"Let me kill them while they're helpless; they don't deserve a fighting chance." ... "I have to kill them before someone else suffers. I have an opportunity. I'm not stupid enough to be chivalrous about this. I'm killing them now."

Maybe that's the same thing, or two sides of the same coin?

It is basically the same thing, I think. (I'm not thinking that Daniel's all, "Yay, helpless things! Squish 'em!" or anything.) It's just that, "I'm killing them now because at some point in the future they'll do evil," is quantifiably different from killing in self-defense or in another's defense. That was my point. Possibly.

I think my main problem trying to get my ideas across here is that I keep bumping up against the word "human" and then thinking, "aargh, no, they're aliens!" Which complicates the discussion a bit because I end up substituting terms that aren't quite what I mean.

No, I don't think Daniel consciously classifies evil things as non-sentient. But I think he has a set of moral rules on How People Should Be Treated, and it's an inflexible rule set, one that he sticks to rigidly even when it bumps up against other very valid concerns or the rights of other people (as in "Scorched Earth", "Menace" and the like). And at some point when he decides someone is irredeemably evil, he simply stops applying those How People Should Be Treated rules to them.

It's the black and whiteness of it, I suppose, that I'm trying to get at in my flailing around. There's a point where the switch flips between "even though this person has done evil things I will fight to my last breath to defend every one of their rights" and "this person is evil and I will use any means necessary to stop them". Unlike Jack's morality, which is a very kind of greyscale "you do this, you get treated like this," sliding scale, Daniel's goes "deserving of full human rights, deserving of full human rights, deserving of full human rights... Evil! Kill it now." And I guess that's what makes me think that once that switch has been flipped, there's very little that he wouldn't be prepared to do.

Part 1 - Daniel's "visceral loathing of the Goa'uld"

[never-at-home.livejournal.com]

>> The theory I'm expounding here - and it's only a theory, based on canon, but not canonical - is that Daniel's visceral loathing for the Goa'uld makes it very difficult for him to deal with any incident in which the Tok'ra break their "willing host" rule. With that theory in mind, I reject the idea that Daniel would actively argue in favor of having a Tok'ra implanted to replace Ba'al, for the specific purpose of keeping the host under the Tok'ra's control.<<

Let's look at your assumption that Daniel has a "visceral loathing for the Goa'uld" in the context of Season Ten by looking as his history in dealing with the enemy.

First of all, this is the definition of “visceral” that I’m using: “characterized by or proceeding from instinct rather than intellect” (from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/visceral)

What drove Daniel to make his decision to go on the mission at the summit in Season Five? Was it his loathing, or hatred, visceral or otherwise, for the Goa'uld?

When he shot that tank full of baby Goa’uld back in Season One, he said, “Just that every single one of these infant Goa'ulds will one day take a human life. And all I have to do is…” He didn’t act with instinct, but with careful thought. He weighed his options and chose to kill the Goa’uld before they could inflict harm on humanity. According to Daniel himself, back in Season Three, he chose his path to honor Sha're's strength ("Absolute Power"). Always, his primary goal has been to assist the Goa'uld's victims in their fight for freedom (from the beginning in the movie). His experiences to that point taught him that the System Lords meant to continue enslaving races and couldn't be persuaded to stop. He saw no other options in dealing the System Lords a serious blow but to assassinate the Goa'uld, their hosts, and the Jaffa in the station. He kept Sha're's picture in with the System Lord data as a way of giving himself balance -- that he was willing to do this on behalf of the Goa’uld’s victims.

Once at the summit, Daniel aborted the mission. Why? I don't see his love for Sarah as the reason, but the fact that there was a more powerful enemy out there that could easily overcome the System Lords and the galaxy if he used the poison. He actually prepared to release the poison against Sarah/Osiris until he heard about Anubis. Which motivator drove him more in that decision? His love of the host or his love of humanity as a whole? Or, as you argue, was it his “visceral loathing of the Goa'uld”? I see it as his thinking through the situation and realizing that if he eliminated the System Lords, there would be no hope for the galaxy because Anubis would quickly take their territories and armies, becoming too powerful too quickly to ever recover. With the System Lords acting as a buffer, they had more of a chance to devise another plan. At that point, I'm sure that Daniel realized that there would still be victims, slaves, and unwilling hosts, but he was somewhat consoled with the fact that the System Lords were nearly wiping themselves out by cannibalizing their competition.

My point is that Daniel thought the situation through to its outcome as it related to the galaxy, not as it related to him or to any particular victim or host. He did not make the decision to stop the mission based on instinct, but on intellect and reason. There was nothing visceral about his treatment of the Goa’uld at the summit. If he had had a visceral loathing for the Goa’uld at this point, he would have used the poison and be happy that they were gone. It would have been a temporary and hollow victory though. Instead, he reasoned this out and decided not to go that route.

To Be Continued

Part 2 - Daniel's fundamental beliefs, his ascension, and Adria as the evil enemy

[never-at-home.livejournal.com]

>>I wondered about this: Daniel was not offended when "asked to betray his most fundamental belief" in purposefully going in to kill the enemy in an ambush. What, in your opinion, is Daniel's "most fundamental belief" that is being betrayed, here? The victimization of the hosts? His preference to look at killing as only a last resort? My personal take on Summit/Last Stand is that it's a prime example of how much flailing Daniel was doing at that point. His sense of identity was such a mess by the end of S5 that ascension really didn't come as a surprise, did it?<<

First off, I made that statement from the Tok'ra's point of view as it applied to what their assumptions were about Daniel at the time that they asked him to go on the mission to the summit. It was to counter your statement “Daniel is actively suggesting that a Tok'ra be asked to betray their most fundamental belief” concerning taking an unwilling host and controlling her entirely.

As far as what I perceive Daniel's "fundamental beliefs" were at the time of "Summit": I think that he might have seen himself as a moral voice and going in and assassinating living beings pretty much went against the "Thou shall not murder" rule. But, he had reached the point that there is a time for negotiations and there is a time for war, especially with so much at stake. He had to carefully weigh his motivations, but I don’t see that as “flailing” (do you mean “faltering” or “hesitating”?). When making the decision, he reviewed the facts and thoughtfully considered his options. Never did he show panic or any second thoughts once he had made up his mind. He did, however, abort the mission, but that was after careful reasoning, as I presented earlier.

He still proved that he had it in him to try and negotiate with Reese a few episodes later in "Menace". His primary motivation there was to help the Asgard and the rest of the galaxy, as well as possibly save the young woman he perceived Reese to be, consistent with his character.

As far as Daniel's choice to ascend, it came as no surprise to me, but for a different reason -- physically he would not be able to continue the fight, but as an ascended, he thought he could. He told Jack that he was not giving up and that he believed he could do more as an ascended (as opposed to crippled or dead). I have no reason to doubt what he told Jack was the truth. He chose ascension to move forward, not to give up or run away from anything. I’ve seen it put forward by some fanfic writers that Daniel ran away by ascending, but that, in my opinion, is incorrect and even more inconsistent with his character. And, that fanon just goes against what he told Jack when he asked Jack to help him to ascend.

Daniel described himself so well in "Ethon" when asked if he ever gave up -- "Not until I'm dead and sometimes not even then." When asked why he gave up his ascension and all its knowledge and powers and returned to human form in "Threads", Daniel said it was to help humanity any way he could. This has been his primary motivator more than anything else -- his love of humanity, not his hatred for the Goa’uld or any other enemy. Daniel had a purpose – to make a difference – he has stated this early on (see “Need”) and it was stressed again in “Fallen” and in “Orpheus”. Daniel knows who he is, but he often underestimates his contribution and significance in the extraordinarily big picture of the universe. Oma helped Daniel realize that it was not the success or failure of his deeds that measured him as a man, but that he was using his talents, knowledge, and power for good and not abusing that power for his own evil purposes. Season Ten Daniel believes that the Ori are using their power for evil and not for good (as he said in "The Powers That Be"): "But killing someone for not worshiping you, regardless of your power, IS wrong. Very wrong. Knowledge is power, but how you use that power defines whether you are good, or evil."

Daniel clearly sees Adria as evil -- and she is the evil enemy. She is to become the unwilling host you are discussing here, so I'll touch on that in my next comment.

To Be Continued

Part 3 - Adria is the evil enemy

[never-at-home.livejournal.com]

>>My argument is that Daniel really, really despises these breaks in the Tok'ra's philosphies, since it makes them little better than the Goa'uld; and if that's the case, it's hard to fathom him advocating that very process for Adria.<<

I see Season Ten Daniel kind of like Michael Shanks described him: "What the show's writers have done with my character, and which I really appreciate, is that they've made him a bit darker. He's grown a little less tolerant of the enemies that they face, and even of the Ancients. Daniel is no longer just sitting there asking too many questions. Basically, he's pissed off and wants some results." (TV Zone Special #74)

“He’s grown a little less tolerant of the enemies that they face” goes with this whole issue of asking the Tok’ra to take Adria as an unwilling host and control her entirely.

Daniel knows Adria like no one else, even Vala doesn't know her as well as Daniel does. He lived with her, acted in a way to promote trust, deceived her on several levels, planned against her to destroy an entire group of ascended beings whom he has seen clearly as evil and who will destroy lives with no remorse, and allowed her to convert him into a Prior to meet the objective of a mission. He had at that point, gone the distance and proved that he was willing to sacrifice himself for the good of the galaxy, even if it meant using Adria to get to those objectives, and perhaps, even if it meant that he would rely on behavior that he would have never considered himself capable of before. She was the enemy, pure and simple. And like Khalek, she couldn't stop being what she was. Daniel said, "She's not a child. She's an Ori in the body of a human." Here, he separated the enemy from her appearance.

Daniel has shown in the past that he can separate himself from the enemy and not let his emotions get in the way or let their appearances deceive him.

For example, Daniel was very much able to separate the host from Apophis, and Amaunet from Sha're, before his ascension. After his return from ascension, when Replicator Carter wore the face of a friend and even had her personality as a foundation, Daniel was clearly able to separate the Replicator from his friend -- he never tried to appeal to the-Sam-inside in his encounter with Replicator Carter even while she claimed she was essentially Sam and had the same love for Earth as Sam did. To him, she was just a Replicator with a familiar face – “In that you're a Replicator, bent on galactic domination at the expense of all living things…” and “you're an evil killing machine.”

So, Daniel of Season Ten has been through the fire (both literally and figuratively). He has been beaten down, risen up, beaten down, risen up, and beaten down even more, but still and through it all, he consistently values life, but has learned to separate the enemy from their appearances. No longer is he willing to trust in any possibility of "humanity" in enemies that have shown no aspect of it in how they treat others.

To be concluded -- I promise

Part 4 - Daniel and the Tok'ra (the end)

[never-at-home.livejournal.com]

Continuing on Michael Shanks’ quote about Daniel:

"Daniel is no longer just sitting around asking too many questions" strikes me as what allowed Daniel to move beyond the Tok'ra-host issue because he is "pissed off and wants some results." The Ori are about to overcome the galaxy and he had a role in that, unwittingly of course, but still he had a role in that. No longer is there time to contemplate philosophies when galactic-wide death is at the door. Adria is not an unwilling host in Daniel's eyes, but "an Ori in the body of a human" -- the evil enemy, pure and simple.

Concerning “Dominion”, your argument is that Daniel would never advocate the Tok’ra taking an unwilling host and controlling her entirely, but you also stated that the Tok’ra have been known before to do “un-Tok’ra-like” things when it comes to taking unwilling hosts and using them for a purpose. What we have to do is examine what the Tok’ra’s motivations were in each case, and Daniel must have done that and decided that they were not motivated by evil intent, but by some greater good. Usually with the Tok’ra, the greater good is to not reveal their fellow Tok’ra’s identities and to save the rest of the galaxy from those who would oppress or destroy entire civilizations – to protect the galaxy from enemies such as the Goa’uld, the Replicators, and the Ori and their representatives.

They have the same motivation as Daniel does, it appears to me. Daniel was willing do to whatever it took to defeat the enemy and I think that he saw that the Tok'ra were willing to do the same. Mitchell told Merlin that the team was willing to go to whatever lengths were necessary to defeat the Ori in order to save the galaxy, and I believe that Daniel feels the same about the Tok'ra's commitment.

Daniel has the ability to separate his enemies from possible friends, and in the same way, I think that he has the ability to separate the Tok’ra from the Goa’uld. I think this separation is made by analyzing the intent of their actions, and in this case in deciding to ask the Tok’ra to take Adria as a host and use her to save the galaxy, it is whether their intentions are good or evil. I think Daniel relied on Sam’s lead in this case because she was the one who originally proposed asking the Tok’ra to take Adria as a host. Sam was once the unwilling host to Jolinar and had first-hand experience in relating to the Tok’ra and was still willing to ask that a Tok’ra be implanted into Adria to save the galaxy. Don’t you think that he used her expertise and recommendation, as well as the fact that they were still allies, as a guide? The Tok’ra were still the SGC’s allies even after what happened with Jolinar and Kanan. The SGC would not continue their alliance if there were any indication that the Tok’ra were untrustworthy. Although the Tok’ra often come across as arrogant and sometimes dismissive of the Tau’ri’s efforts, they have shown fairly consistently that they are not evil and that they wish to save the galaxy just as much as the SGC, even going as far as sacrificing their very lives in order to do it.

I’m done and thanks for the topic. Blame aurora_novarum for showing it to me. ;)

[abyssinia4077.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure I have much of a coherent reply here but...

I pretty much agree with what you say about Daniel and the Goa'uld (though I also think there are levels of hatred within the Goa'uld - he certainly hates Apophis *more* than other Goa'uld for instance) but I'm not sure about the Tok'ra. I never felt Daniel was all that uncomfortable about the Tok'ra - in fact, after Sam, I think he most respected/admired them. (if you think about, he's always trying to redeem people - make them behave "better" in a way, and the Tok'ra have done that - improved themselves to be not-Goa'uld) (I don't know that I'm quite getting across what I mean there).

With Adria - it didn't feel terribly out of character for post-descended Daniel. I agree early Daniel would have been fidgety, but later Daniel is much more lenient about the means and more focused on the ends. He still has a strong moral compass, but he's developed an understanding about necessity.

I still argue (as, I think Random said) that he categorizing Adria as Evil and Irredeemable (similarly to how he categorized Apophis - though certainly differently) and was okay with more drastic means for her (also, Khalek - he didn't complain with them poking at super soldiers in "Evolution" or look at "Summit"). I think he also, more than any of the rest of them (even Vala), has the greatest understanding of exactly what Adria is capable of.

That said, if Ba'al stays in her body, there is no question they would have to kill her quickly. If a Tok'ra replaces Adria - first they can get needed intel (and much of that intel is related to Daniel and Daniel's arrogant plan and he's got to want to know if all he suffered was worth it - you get a hint of it being a bad memory when he tells Adria/Ba'al that he knows the chair isn't comfortable) but also, she can stay alive. And while she is alive, there is still the chance she could be brought over to good. Plus, I can't help but think he might still think being controlled by a Tok'ra would be preferrable to Ba'al.

I waver on whether this is out of character for the Tok'ra but ... they've generally been unflinching in using desperate or ruthless measures when necessary. Perhaps they see this as an interrogation method, not as the creation of a host-symbiote partnership. Certainly it wouldn't be fun or easy for the symbiote.

[sg-fignewton.livejournal.com]

I'm not thinking that Daniel's all, "Yay, helpless things! Squish 'em!" or anything.

Unlike Jack's morality, which is a very kind of greyscale "you do this, you get treated like this," sliding scale, Daniel's goes "deserving of full human rights, deserving of full human rights, deserving of full human rights... Evil! Kill it now."

Hee! I have to convince you to join these discussions more often.

I do like the way you put this: that it's not so much "sentient being" as much as "deserves to be treated as a creature that has rights." And I can see your POV. A lot of people seem to share it, actually. :) I'm going to stay in my minority corner and maintain it's OOC for Daniel, but I certainly understand why your opinion is otherwise!

[sg-fignewton.livejournal.com]

Daniel was most definitely uncomfortable the first time they met the Tok'ra, stammering when Garshaw asked if he wanted to be a host and amazingly inarticulate when the situation demanded a passionate defense. He stayed mostly silent.

I think Daniel is comfortable around the Tok'ra, yes. I still maintain that he's appalled when they act like the Goa'uld.

later Daniel is much more lenient about the means and more focused on the ends. He still has a strong moral compass, but he's developed an understanding about necessity.

All this is true, yes. It's not a direction I like very much, especially because a Daniel who accepts that the ends justify the means is a Daniel headed towards Absolute Power at full speed. Many people observed that Prior!Daniel sitting in the captain's chair of Odyssey was framed the same way Absolute Power!Daniel sat in his command chair when he was taking out Moscow. I wonder if that's why this is bothering me so much?

You're right that the situation called for drastic measures, and this was the idea that they came up with. But that Daniel should be the one to help shape it and promote it...? I know I'm in the minority, but I just can't seem to accept it.

they've generally been unflinching in using desperate or ruthless measures when necessary. Perhaps they see this as an interrogation method, not as the creation of a host-symbiote partnership. Certainly it wouldn't be fun or easy for the symbiote.

You're right about that the distress for the poor Tok'ra who risked his life and died here. I've never questioned that the Tok'ra would be willing to do it; I'm questioning Daniel's willingness to push for it.

Your icon, however, is most appropriate. :)

[abyssinia4077.livejournal.com]

Right, but being uncomfortable over the idea of being a host isn't the same idea of being uncomfortable about the Tok'ra. He could be fine with their way of doing things and not want it himself - sharing your body with someone else isn't an easy proposition - and, for Daniel, even more so sharing your mind is almost unthinkable.

I don't know that I like it either - but it's still a change we do see in him over the years - and I think an inevitable one given everything that's happened. And good point about the Absolute Power connection! I didn't quite make the mental leap, but it is the same pose. (you know, I know Daniel is tall, but something about his body language in Absolute Power and Shroud, even sitting slumped in the chair, makes him seem MUCH larger, taller, more menacing). I totally understand why it's bothering you, but I think we're doomed to disagree about Daniel and his willingness to drag a magnet under his moral compass.

I do wonder about the Tok'ra symbiote in Dominion. They said it couldn't last long in the storage container - but they never implanted it in Adria. Did it die? Did they get it back to a storage tank that could keep it alive? How did they make sure it knew what it was getting into? (did it have to leave a host to come to the ship - cause it seems you'd have to warn someone they were going to be battling wills with Adria). I know this is completely off topic, so I'll stop.

[sg-fignewton.livejournal.com]

sharing your body with someone else isn't an easy proposition - and, for Daniel, even more so sharing your mind is almost unthinkable.

And yet it's happened, over and over and over again... Poor guy.

I think an inevitable one given everything that's happened

No, not inevitable, but the way the writers (and MS) have chosen to portray him. It's not the choice I would have made for Daniel, but I'm not writing for the show, so that's relatively moot.

I think we're doomed to disagree about Daniel and his willingness to drag a magnet under his moral compass.

Such a lovely, lovely turn of phrase! Thank you for sharing. :)

[abyssinia4077.livejournal.com]

I know! The universe just cannot stop messing with him.

No, not inevitable, but the way the writers (and MS) have chosen to portray him. It's not the choice I would have made for Daniel, but I'm not writing for the show, so that's relatively moot.

Okay. Now I'm curious. I assume you agree that those years/events would have somehow impacted/changed him. How do you think it should have gone down? (not this episode, but in general Daniel's personality) (and I realize I'm probably asking for an essay here so feel free to not bother, obviously)

[sg-fignewton.livejournal.com]

Put it on the "someday" list, along with the next Canon vs. Fanon meta, the Sha're essay, the NID essay, the snatching defeat from the jaws of victory essay... and don't hold your breath. :)

Re: Part 4 - Daniel and the Tok'ra (the end)

[sg-fignewton.livejournal.com]

This is a lovely, articulate essay, and I would strongly urge you to repost it on your own LJ so it can enjoy a wider audience!

I agree with many of your points, and I don't see them contradicting my own views at all. I don't think we've ever going to agree about this. :) I do want to comment on a few things, though.

Was it his loathing, or hatred, visceral or otherwise, for the Goa'uld?

You return to this point over and over again in the course of your essay, by pointing out that Daniel is usually cool and rational when he deals with the Goa'uld. However, I never suggested otherwise. I said Daniel has a visceral reaction. Reaction does not equal action. Daniel is intelligent, practical, and more in control of his emotions than most people could ever hope to be; having an instinctive surge of disgust doesn't mean that Daniel has to act mindlessly on that reaction, and I've never implied that he would.

Summit/Last Stand: by "flailing," I meant that in my opinion (and as I said at the beginning, this essay is based on my own fanon views), Daniel has lost much of the certainty he'd always had over his actions and worldview. He's been whumped emotionally too often, and his greatest beliefs too often challenged, to be very sure of anything any more. You say he perceived himself as being the "moral voice"; I suggest that he might not have thought of himself that way any longer. You will note that Jacob repeatedly asked Daniel if he was really willing to go through with it; I always thought that Jacob recognized that this wasn't the actions Daniel would usually choose to take.

Osiris. No, I don't believe Daniel canceled the original mission because he wanted to save his girlfriend! As you say, he recognized that the intel about Anubis was much more urgent. However, I think you also have to consider Sarah's status - not as Daniel's old flame, but as a new host. When Daniel questioned the loss of the hosts' lives, the Tok'ra reminded him that the poor hosts were centuries or millennia old, and wouldn't survive anyway. Sarah, OTOH, had only been a host for a little more than a year; Daniel would be troubled not by her death as his former girlfriend, but by the unnecessary death, period.

I’ve seen it put forward by some fanfic writers that Daniel ran away by ascending, but that, in my opinion, is incorrect and even more inconsistent with his character.

No, I wasn't trying to imply that. I meant that Daniel's confusion and frustration - by what he's needed to do to stay at the SGC, by how his priorities have been forced to change, the continued interference of the NID that has changed the SGC's direction - has reached the point where yes, "I can do more this way." Because he can't be who he wants to be in the SGC any longer, and he can accomplish a lot more with the freedom of the ascended plane. (Or so he thinks, until he gets the fine print shoved in his non-corporeal face... and he comes back a lot calmer and clearer, so at least he used the year off to get his priorities rearranged to his own satisfaction.)

What we have to do is examine what the Tok’ra’s motivations were in each case, and Daniel must have done that and decided that they were not motivated by evil intent, but by some greater good.

On this point, too, I think we'll have to agree to disagree. Because one of the most basic differences between the way the Tok'ra and the SGC do things is that the Tok'ra are wholly comitted to the larger picture, at the expense of their own people and allies, while the SGC "don't leave our people behind." And even when there's a "greater good" involved, the SGC doesn't abandon its people - consider Teal'c's rescue of the team from Netu, the rescue of Teal'c in Within the Serpent's Grasp," Jack's refusal to allow Jacob's "greater good strategy" in Reckoning to essentially abandon the Free Jaffa fighting around Dakara.

Thanks for joining in like this! I hope you'll stick around for more. :)

Re: Part 4 - Daniel and the Tok'ra (the end)

[aurora-novarum.livejournal.com]

I think whether or not the SGC doesn't leave people behind could be a canon v. fanon subject.

Because it's their oft repeated mantra, but even in canon, there seems to be exceptions to the rule.

Sorry, that's just an aside. And a poke to do another fanon v. canon thing sometime soon. *eg*

And I see never_at_home outed me as sending her your way (she's even more er...devoted to sg-1 trivia detail than I am).

Re: Part 4 - Daniel and the Tok'ra (the end)

[sg-fignewton.livejournal.com]

I think whether or not the SGC doesn't leave people behind could be a canon v. fanon subject.

Because it's their oft repeated mantra, but even in canon, there seems to be exceptions to the rule.

It is their mantra, though. Violations of it don't make it any less canon. And I'd say their record is pretty good, for the most part. Yes, there are some egregious lapses, but can we call it canon vs fanon? Unless there's a large amount of fic out there that insists that they never ever ever leave anyone behind, I don't think it's a fanon violation at all.

And I'll consider myself poked. :)