Was Cole Evil?

[jate88]

Yeah that can be a good thing sometimes but other times facts are good as well.

Facts are instructions and opinions are insights into people's minds

[PAIGE IS THE BEST!!!!]

yea,
but sme people prefer to think there own way and not know the way it's meant to be just how they think it should.

[ljones]

but sme people prefer to think there own way and not know the way it's meant to be just how they think it should.

I'm a little confused. Are you saying that those who prefer to think their own way, are supposed to think the same as others?

[PAIGE IS THE BEST!!!!]

sometimes, while others a bit of imagination is needed

[*Sammi!*]

Iv campaigned this factor before... Feel I must again...
Cole wasnt evil, just simply misled.
When he was the Source, he was tricked into becoming so.
Yeah, so he should have told the sisters, but the Source wouldnt let him.

[pubesy]

OR

was he trying to be good, yet the evil inside somehow always got the better of him?

would the source have been as successful in possessing another body had it been "entirely good" ie the possession of an elder.....or a charmed one? would the source have been able to invade a good body at all?

[ljones]

Jun 25, 2008 7:07:21 GMT -5 *Sammi!* said:

Iv campaigned this factor before... Feel I must again...
Cole wasnt evil, just simply misled.
When he was the Source, he was tricked into becoming so.
Yeah, so he should have told the sisters, but the Source wouldnt let him.

Yes, Cole was evil. He was also good. He had both good and evil within him. So did the Charmed Ones. So did Leo. So did Darryl and etc.

When Phoebe told Cole that he would always have evil within him, she was right. However, Phoebe was also describing every living being on the planet and God knows where else - including herself, her sisters and anyone else close to them.

[*Sammi!*]

This is true ljones, and surely Phoebe should have been able to see this, but she couldnt look past herself and see that his love for her was obsolite, and that he would do everything in his might to stay good!

[vandergraafk]

So, ljones, what do you make of your "revelation" that we all have a proclivity towards good and evil? Wasn't that the point that Prue made in Bride and Gloom? It's not what lies within; it's what you do in given circumstances. You may choose good or evil or a course of action that is neither obviously good nor obviously evil.

In short, if we consider only your statement, stripped of context and circumstance, we are left with only a tautology. How do tautologies help us one bit?

[pubesy]

exactly.


and if we further take vander's statement and say that YES there is the potential for good and evil in everyone; then we can say it is the CHOICES people make, that make them either good or evil!


Since cole had been making EVIL CHOICES for 100 years, is it fair to assume that since ALL his choices prior to phoebe were evil, hence Cole IS evil prior to meeting phoebe?

and After meeting phoebe, yes, Cole does successfully implement some good acts, but yet, he is CONSTANTLY persuaded to return to evil. he is even stripped of his powers to prevent him returning to his former self. Does that mean that due to his unsuccessful attempts at being "good" that he could never be a "good" being? Does that then make him evil?

Is it fair to assume that there is a "point of no return" per say, in that after you commit a certain number of Evil acts, then that person could never be truly "good?"
or vice versa?
could the most they hope for be "neutrality"?


and and did phoebe have the right to end the relationship with cole because cole DID constantly make evil choices? even if they were under the guise of good? or cole believed them to be good?

[vandergraafk]

I would scarcely wish to place the reason for Cole and Phoebe's breakup squarely on the shoulders of logic and reason. The point of no return is not determined by the commission of x number of "evil" deeds whilst professing one's commitment to "good". Rather, in the case of Phoebe, it is the extreme sadness, frustration and disappointment that surely has welled inside her heart as she contemplates the probability that Cole, however well-intentioned he might wish to be, will be tempted by evil, be a magnet for evil, or be a danger to the forces of evil. Under any of those scenarios, the Halliwells, and especially Phoebe, would be in danger.

Yes, Cole displayed a willingness to fend off evil attacks on the Charmed Ones. He also was a conduit for attacks on the Charmed Ones. The emotional cost to Phoebe had to have been enormous. And, I believe she only reluctantly - very reluctantly - came to the conclusion that it wasn't meant to be. It was not because Cole had pushed past a point of no return. It was because Phoebe could no longer bear the emotional toll of standing by her man.

[whitelightertony]

Also, I think "Good" and "Evil" in the Charmedverse has been defined in dissimilar ways...according to one's morality, but also based on dichotomous alliances (The Elders vs. the Underworld).

That lack of coherence between what is Good or Evil complicates things.

[vandergraafk]

Whitelightertony, that contribution requires some explanation. Care to elaborate?

[pubesy]

vander, i agree. I was not looking for a number, or approximation of the quantity of evil deeds a person needed to commit before being considered evil. there is no such thing.

it was more expressing that - is there a point of no return for cole...and did he cross that line long ago.....before phoebe?

OR... was cole "evil" because he did not truly UNDERSTAND how do be good? was good never in his moral vocabulary, per say? considering he was raised by evil, it is a fair assumption!

there were plenty of times where even though cole thought he was using his powers for the greater good....in reality he was committing evil instead.


and as far as the emotional burden on phoebe... i agree completely.
it just became too much for phoebe to burden herself with... her sisters disapproved as whether they voiced their opinions or not, phoebe knew they could never completely accept cole as part of the family. and with cole constantly turning back to evil..(through fault of his own or not) it was hard for phoebe to keep giving cole the benefit of the doubt all the time...... actions speak louder than words!

but i think the major part of the emotional burden phoebe had was the denial she carried that cole could one day be a good character. through cole becomming the source (through no fault of his own) and dragging phoebe along for the ride... phoebe saw how dangerous loving an evil being could be, being torn away from her sisters etc.
Once she was no longer in denial, and was able to accept that cole could NEVER be that good person she hoped him to be, that burden was lifted, and phoebe could see clearly that they were never meant to be.

[vandergraafk]

In other words, this is really about relationships. The guy, Cole, wishes to do well in the marriage. But, because of his bad bachelor ways, he stumbles and bumbles while aiming to do the right thing. Phoebe, on the other hand, thinks she's found the one, but realizes that the edges need to be polished. Only the more she peels off, the more vexing the finish appears. She can never quite mold Cole the way she wishes him to be. Frustrated, the artist jettisons her creation. And, he, the sculpted one, seeks an end to it all.

[pubesy]

yes, and no.

the drama between phoebe and cole was always about relationships, good and evil was just the problem in the relationship. but seeing that this is a was cole evil? thread, i think i is relevant to discuss the good and evil aspect.

i guess we differ in terms of analogies!

see my analogy would go along these terms. . .

boy meets girl. boy likes girl.
girl finds out he is a drug abuser. girl hides boy's drug abusing from family
Family finds out, attempts to make girl dump boy. Boy tells girl he can change his drug abusing ways.
girl believes boy. girl and boy agree boy should attend rehab.
boy attends rehab, but constantly relapses into abusive ways.
boy each time tells girl "next time will be different"
girl and boy go on holidays with boys friends, which she finds out LATER are also drug abusers.
in a moment of weakness, girl agrees to take drugs.
family finds out and forces girl to make a choice between boy and family.
girl choses family over boy.
girl dumps boy.
girl (who has always wanted a baby) finds out she is carrying a drug addicted baby, and has to terminate pregnancy.
boy comes back high on drugs telling girl he can change.
girl finally accepts that boy will never change. girl refuses boy.

[*Sammi!*]

Good metaphor, and kind of rings true though it just doesnt mean that Cole couldnt have been good eventually.

[vandergraafk]

On one level your analogy works well. Drug addiction is an evil of sorts, one that has ruined many individuals, relationships, and entire families. However, one should not overlook the obvious: drug addiction emanates from a physical need produced by a body whose abuse has led to unfettered craving of the very drug that has upset the chemical balance of the body in the first place.

For the sake of argument: let's agree that Cole came into his relationship with a physical propensity towards "evil". The Belthazor "half" of his body craved the use of violence. Indeed, Cole fears that unleashing Belthazor in Black as Cole will push his hybrid self beyond a point of no return.

Cole, however, attempts to hold this craving in check. For one, he will never get close enough to the Charmed Ones if he merely gives full reign to Belthazor. Second, his attraction to Phoebe, tactically as well as amourously, compels him to reign in Belthazor. In short, he is a powerfully addicted hybrid who must keep his addiction in check in order to function in society.

Yet, at a critical juncture (Power Outage), Cole is able to will himself free of his craving. Despite every advantage and opportunity, he cannot bring himself to kill Phoebe. He risks the wrath of the TRIAD and the scorn of Andrus, who reveals his secret ability, the ability to possess an entity such as Cole, in order to complete what Cole refuses to execute in its entirety.

This is where the addiction analogy breaks down completely. Yes, there may be some drug addicts who can will themselves to break free of the craving. Still, even a willful rejection of addiction requires cold turkey, the breaking of the phsyical craving that compels continued drug usage. And, even this might require the use of another drug, say methadone, to prevent the craving from roaring back.

Many reformed addicts are unable to continue in their recovery. They regress and many succumb anew to the evils of their previous addiction. In part, this is testament to the power physical hold that drug addiction has on the body. But, it also is a function of the milieu in which many recovering drug addicts find themselves in: a social scene that encourages drug abuse (take that Britney, Lindsay or any of the other myriad "stars" prone to repeated abuse of drugs and alcohol) or the true grit of an impoverished envirnoment where the use, abuse, and distribution of drugs is an everyday fact of life. It's not easy resisting temptation.

As a reformed "addict" to evil, Cole is constantly tempted. Yet, he wills himself free from the use of "evil" in the service of the TRIAD, evil incarnate. He escapes punishment by flitting through various planes of existence and remaining out in the cold for a while. Such reprieve isaves his from retribution. It also removes him from his milieu. Yet, salvation is only temporary. The Zotars have the capacity to hunt him down and are hot on the trail. Other bounty hunters, perhaps lured by the prospect of currying favor with the Source, seem equally motivated. In short, Cole has the will to shake his drug dependency; he cannot avoid the drug dealers, and their henchmen, who have every interest in keeping him hooked.

I challenge anyone to find one instance in Charmed where Cole willfully chooses to use his powers for nefarious purposes between the events of Power Outage and Sam I Am. Yes, he does resort to evil, does bring along Phoebe into his underworld, does sire an evil offspring, and does everything a not to be trusted drug addict would do. However, all of this occurs when Cole is possessed by the Source or Frankie or mindmanipulated by Fear. This is why the analogy breaks down and is completely misleading.

[ljones]

But we're all addicts, are we not? We face the temptation of evil almost on a daily basis. One can say the same about Cole, the Charmed Ones, Leo, etc.

I think one of the main reasons I had a problem with most of the show's handling of Cole's relationship with the Charmed Ones is that his character represents the combination of good and evil . . . or light and darkness within all living beings or forms of nature. It was through Cole that Prue discovered how much of a monster she could be in "Death Takes a Halliwell". Instead of insisting that Phoebe push him away so that reminder would no longer be with her, Prue eased up her hostility toward Cole. It seemed as if she finally recognized that the two paths of darkness and light that were within him, were also within her.

Unfortunately for Phoebe and her sisters, they proved to be more immature than Prue. Phoebe has spent most of her life being reminded of the potential darkness within her . . . to the point that she practically became fearful of this other side of her. And when she made the decision to become the Source's Queen, she blamed her decision on Cole, instead of acknowledging that she made this decision with whatever limited free will she had. And Piper and Paige also blamed Cole. Like Prue, Cole's laspes into evil reminded Phoebe of her own inner darkness. But instead of acknowledging this, she pushed Cole away in the hopes that she would not have to be faced with this reminder. And Paige and Piper were guilty of helping her. And they did this, because they don't want to be reminded of their own inner darkness anymore than Phoebe did.

I am aware of the episode "Sand Francisco Dreamin" in which Phoebe was willing to acknowledge a little darkness within her. But acknowledging a little darkness and acknowledging the fact that one can be a monster are two different things. And this is a fault that Phoebe, Piper and Paige all share. This is why I can never feel anything but contempt toward their self-righteous attitude toward Cole.

The main problem with the Charmed Ones is that they're always trying to reach for the ideal or the illusions, instead of facing their realities . . . about other people and especially about themselves.

[vandergraafk]

According to ljones, "we're all addicts, are we not? We face the temptation of evil almost on a daily basis." How quaint and utterly vapid at the same time.

Geez, I'm addicted to dark chocolate. Once again, you manage to sweep away any and every distinction to salvage an unsalvageable position. It's not necessarily what we face daily that matters more. It's how we respond. True, some of these responses are "automatic" if fueled by physical dependencies. Others, however, do allow us to use our limited freedom to choice.