Was Cole Evil?

[whitelightertony]

Vandergraafk, to illustrate my point, allow me to use Avatar Leo in S7 as an example:

Leo accepted his transformation to Avatar status both to save the lives of Piper and Phoebe, and, subsequently, because he thought he would be making the world a better place. Up until he saw that the Avatars planned to "eliminate" anyone who didn't fit into their Utopia, he remained fairly consistent in his motivations and mindset (with occasional uncertainty).

Once Leo's secret was out and everyone knew he was an Avatar, his morality was viewed in different ways by different factions.

--- The Elders viewed Leo as "Evil" because he had betrayed them.
--- Zankou and the Underworld viewed Leo as "Evil" because his goals conflicted with their interests.
--- the Charmed Ones viewed Leo's morality shift as a "gray area," because they were undecided on what to make of the Avatars and because Leo was family to them and they were so personally close to his situation
--- the other Avatars viewed Leo as "Good" because he appeared to have embraced their agenda
--- Brody saw Leo as "Evil" because he believed the Avatars were threat to the rest of the world

However, magically speaking, Leo also possessed dual identities.

--- he still possessed the powers and privileges of a whitelighter (orbing, healing, his other whitelighter powers, and presumably, access to the heavens), meaning he possessed "Good" magic
--- he also acquired all the powers available to Avatars, making him "Evil" from the perspectives of anyone who viewed the Avatars as evil (or "doubly Good," from the perspectives of those who viewed the Avatars as good)

Okay, now put aside Leo in early-to-mid Season 7.

Substitute any other character in any other season who experienced a shift in their morality and in their threshold for magic (either power advancements, power regressions, or power morphing) in a given situation. Then analyze how other factions within the Charmedverse would have viewed that particular character in that specific context.

[vandergraafk]

Does this illustrate your point? What you have provided is an external view of a character whose actions have an internal consistency from the character's point of view. However, other characters view the effects of those actions and rate them differently. Good intentions only get you so far.

My question remains how this example illustrates your larger point, namely, that good and evil have been defined in dissimilar ways in Charmedverse. What we have here it seems is the kind of cardboard characterization that begs analysis.

Why do the Elders view the Avatars as evil? Is it because innocent lives are lost because they are square pegs that do not fit round holes? Is it because there is seemingly no room for the Elders in a society that is beyond good and evil? Is it because no one bothered to ask the Elders for their opinion?

Any one of these could be the motivation for the Elders to generally condemn the Avatars and Leo specifically. One would hope that their condemnation emerged out of a concern for the innocent lives lost. Yet, given the picture we have of the Elders, especially as it relates to Gideon and Odin, one cannot gloss over crasser motives.

[pubesy]

alright, vander,
add this somewhere in my analogy


boy almost finally kicks habit, yet is constantly bombarded with previous, and new and more powerful drug lords to continue buying substance of addiction.
drug lords spike boys drink, allowing him to unwillingly consume substance of adddiction.
girl finds out and is further disappointed in boy... regardless whether it was boys fault or not.

[whitelightertony]

My question remains how this example illustrates your larger point, namely, that good and evil have been defined in dissimilar ways in Charmedverse. What we have here it seems is the kind of cardboard characterization that begs analysis.

Although this may sound like a regurgitation of my earlier post, characters in the Charmedverse may commit actions viewed as "good" by some but simultaneously "evil" by others. And yet, they may still be allowed to retain powers or privileges typically reserved for those who belong to either Good or Evil.

Is there a specific portion of my view that you wanted to hear me clarify or elaborate on, to a more thoughtful extent?

Why do the Elders view the Avatars as evil? Is it because innocent lives are lost because they are square pegs that do not fit round holes? Is it because there is seemingly no room for the Elders in a society that is beyond good and evil? Is it because no one bothered to ask the Elders for their opinion?

Any one of these could be the motivation for the Elders to generally condemn the Avatars and Leo specifically. One would hope that their condemnation emerged out of a concern for the innocent lives lost. Yet, given the picture we have of the Elders, especially as it relates to Gideon and Odin, one cannot gloss over crasser motives.

I believe that the Elders view themselves as self-appointed guardians of humanity; they may not have known specifically that the Avatars would disintegrate the "difficult" humans from existence in their Utopia, but they probably suspected something along those lines would come to pass if the Avatars reigned supreme.

In addition, I believe you also raise another layer to the perspectives of the Elders; they don't want the Avatars to control Earth because the Elders will end up losing power. The whitelighters will no longer be able to "guide" witches, because witches will no longer listen to their whitelighters. Furthermore, the Elders probably view themselves as superior to demons and warlocks and other Evil creatures, and thus don't want to see a world where Evil goes unpunished.

And, as you alluded to -- yes, the Elders are probably somewhat bitter that the Avatars received the green light to create Utopia without the Elders having any say whatsoever in the matter.

[vandergraafk]

What I am suggesting is that without an elaboration of the moral position of the Elders - or the Avatars, for that matter - it is difficult to accept on its face the contention that good and evil have been defined in dissimilar ways. In fact, I would argue the opposite. Good and evil are only vaguely defined in Charmedverse. Indeed, without the white or black outfits we might be at a loss to explain who is whom.

As for Leo's transformation into an Avatar, I would protest this use of language. Leo embraced the Avatar cause; he was not transformed by it, unless we restrict transformation to mean only the enhancement of powers. For that matter, Cole was not transformed into an Avatar either. (Nor did he embrace their cause!)

Leo's moral stance, as you noted, remains intact despite his alliance with the Avatars. Indeed, it is his unwavering moral stance that causes him to "betray" the Avatars. That the Elders, apart from Sandra and her supporters, failed to "see" this is astonishing and causes us to question the motives of the majority of Elders who did not embrace Sandra's position.

Perhaps what I "object" to most is your willingness to discuss morality in perceptual terms. That this conjures up images of 60s era situational ethics or "moral relativism" (whatever THAT is) is troubling, especially since I don't believe this is your intention.

One way of this perceptional trap is to become clear about the moral stance embraced by each of the actors in Charmedverse. In this respect, the Elders are a curious amalgam. Perhaps their own moral perspective was altered substantially by the Titan attack that nearly wiped them out. Thus, among the survivors, there emerged Elders such as Gideon who embraced an instrumentalism that pitted the Greater Good, as defined by Gideon, above and beyond any of the normal protections of the innocent. To have been willing to kill colleague (Sigmund), whitelighters (Chris) and a baby (Wyatt) in order to save the world from an evil Wyatt is incomprehensible from a moral point of view that assigns the Elders the unchallenged role of Good. That the Charmed Ones were punished for their abuse of magic, but no mention is given to any ramifications for Gideon's betrayal besides an "Ooops!" is absurd.

If anything Sandra represents what is left of the Good in Elderdom. It is certainly not represented by Odin who continues the instrumentalism embraced by Gideon as he manipulates the events in Seven Year Witch.

[vandergraafk]

Pubesy, your modification addressed my criticism. And, it may be extended to suggest that the drug lords are so successful that the boyfriend comes to believe that what they want is what he wants. (His will is subverted.) However, that causes problems with your overall willingness to blame the boyfriend. The girlfriend embraces what her boyfriend has been duped into believing is true (We're Off to See the Wizard). Had she remained steadfast, she would have spared herself, her sisters and her family much grief. In other words, we have a co-dependency here!

[whitelightertony]

What I am suggesting is that without an elaboration of the moral position of the Elders - or the Avatars, for that matter - it is difficult to accept on its face the contention that good and evil have been defined in dissimilar ways. In fact, I would argue the opposite. Good and evil are only vaguely defined in Charmedverse. Indeed, without the white or black outfits we might be at a loss to explain who is whom.

Well, specifically focusing on the Elders, for the purposes of this post:

My position of the Elders' morality is as follows: they care deeply about humanity and its future. They want powerless mortals to make good decisions for themselves, and they want creatures of Good to help influence human beings to make those decisions. However, they don't want to force those decisions onto mortals as they would view that as morally stepping outside of their self-imposed limitations.

On the other hand, the Elders are perfectly willing to impose rigid rules and expectations upon magical creatures of Good (including the Charmed Ones and whitelighters). They see this as necessary because, if creatures of Good step outside those established boundaries it could generate chaos, allowing Evil to have an easier time gaining the upper hand.

So that means that not all of the Elders' apparent benevolence toward humanity is due to strictly altruistic motivations. They also have a stake in letting powerless mortals retain their free will, but making sure the Good magical community "stays in line," in order to preserve their existing power structure.

This double standard is what prevents the Elders from being "good" (at least, in traditional terms) IMHO.

An Elder such as Odin is probably one of the more stringent adherents to this party line, while Sandra and her ilk are a bit more liberal within the Elders' hierarchy.

You also raise an excellent point that the Titans' mass decimation of the Elders' ranks may have altered the Elders' overall perception of themselves as gatekeepers of morality; however, I would posit that the aftermath of the Titan attack only hardened (and polarized) the divergent positions of individuals such as Odin and Sandra.

As for Leo's transformation into an Avatar, I would protest this use of language. Leo embraced the Avatar cause; he was not transformed by it, unless we restrict transformation to mean only the enhancement of powers. For that matter, Cole was not transformed into an Avatar either. (Nor did he embrace their cause!)

I disagree on both counts. First, post-"There's Something About Leo," Leo had access to (and was part of) the Avatar collective...it's almost impossible to imagine he would have been able to tap into their collective unless he had made the full physical transformation into an Avatar. But, creating somewhat of a paradox, he somehow managed to retain his whitelighter powers (although he limited his visits to the heavens to fraternize with his fellow Elders, for obvious reasons).

The same goes for Cole. At the beginning of "Centennial Charmed," Cole makes his "deal" with Alpha and the Avatar of Force. He promptly uses his newfound Avatar power for insidious purposes: to create an alternate universe where Paige was killed before she could become Charmed. Cole wouldn't have had access to such great power -- with such a concentrated amount of his own discretion driving it -- unless he had been elevated to Avatar status. Granted, he is an Avatar for a much shorter period of time than Leo is, but the evidence suggests that he does become a physical Avatar.

Leo's moral stance, as you noted, remains intact despite his alliance with the Avatars. Indeed, it is his unwavering moral stance that causes him to "betray" the Avatars. That the Elders, apart from Sandra and her supporters, failed to "see" this is astonishing and causes us to question the motives of the majority of Elders who did not embrace Sandra's position.

First, I believe the "Odinites" probably outvoted the "Sandristas" when the Elders were deciding Leo's punishment, but perhaps with such an underwhelming plurality (including some Elders who couldn't make a decision one way or another), that Leo's "test" in "The Seven Year Witch" was the closest thing to a compromise they could agree on (which both Odin and Sandra proceeded to attempt to manipulate, according to what each of them believed would be the ideal outcome).

Also, while Sandra was probably more sympathetic to Leo than Odin was, I'm sure she still felt hurt and betrayed that Leo had hid his Avatar promotion from the rest of them -- so those emotions prevented Sandra from taking the position that Leo should go completely unpunished (although she didn't believe Leo's punishment should be as harsh as Odin wanted).

Perhaps what I "object" to most is your willingness to discuss morality in perceptual terms. That this conjures up images of 60s era situational ethics or "moral relativism" (whatever THAT is) is troubling, especially since I don't believe this is your intention.

But I think that Charmed does touch upon moral relativism (maybe not to the extent that Ljones would prefer, but moreso than critics are willing to acknowledge). You have Good, and you have Evil. And then you have members of the Good and Evil communities who step outside of the accepted parameters of each side of the dichotomy (i.e. the Charmed Ones, Leo, Cole, Wyatt, Chris, Billie, Christy, Gideon, Bianca, Zankou, Brendan Rowe, and even Sandra and both Seers, to an extent).

One way of this perceptional trap is to become clear about the moral stance embraced by each of the actors in Charmedverse. In this respect, the Elders are a curious amalgam. Perhaps their own moral perspective was altered substantially by the Titan attack that nearly wiped them out. Thus, among the survivors, there emerged Elders such as Gideon who embraced an instrumentalism that pitted the Greater Good, as defined by Gideon, above and beyond any of the normal protections of the innocent. To have been willing to kill colleague (Sigmund), whitelighters (Chris) and a baby (Wyatt) in order to save the world from an evil Wyatt is incomprehensible from a moral point of view that assigns the Elders the unchallenged role of Good. That the Charmed Ones were punished for their abuse of magic, but no mention is given to any ramifications for Gideon's betrayal besides an "Ooops!" is absurd.

Gideon clearly veered so far away from the Elders agenda that none of them would have approved of his actions (even those Elders who sympathized with his sentiments). But Gideon was vanquished by Leo before the rest of the Elders had a chance to punish Gideon. Also, while Gideon blatantly strayed outside the parameters of conduct set by Good, he never embraced the common agenda of Evil (in terms of trying to intentionally corrupt powerless mortals).

If anything Sandra represents what is left of the Good in Elderdom. It is certainly not represented by Odin who continues the instrumentalism embraced by Gideon as he manipulates the events in Seven Year Witch.

Sandra also manipulates events in "The Seven Year Witch," although in a more subtle way than Odin. So who's to say which Elder is "right"?

[vandergraafk]

I can see the need for a more fundamental theory about the Elders, one that embraces the entirety of Charmedverse. I am working out some of this in my forum. May I suggest that we continue the debate here in another thread. I have reposted our mutual positions to serve as a launching point, as it were. Whatever I work out in my own forum will be posted here as well. see new thread in VIP: The Elders: Paragons of Goodness.

[pubesy]

yes. phoebe i agree. it was entirely phoebe's fault that she made the initial choice to continue to support cole and become the queen of all evil. that cannot be blamed upon cole.

and i agree, had she remained steadfast in the initial finding of cole's demonic nature and vanquished him like she should have, rather than allowing him to escape and lying to her sisters that he was dead, she would have saved herself years of heartache and disappointment! sure she would have been heartbroken initially, but that heartache and torture would have been nothing compared to what she had to endure accordingly.

and vander, i may appear to enjoy blaming the boyfriend, yet i disagree.

cole was my favourite characters. julian played him brilliantly.

it is not that i blame cole. i don't blame phoebe either.

put yourself in phoebe's shoes. you have tried to trust this guy hundreds of times. you family keeps telling you to be weary of cole. he then becomes the source of all evil. and you for some stupid reason decide to follow. you later come to your senses and band together with your family and vanquish your husband. you finally think it is all over ... but wait. you are pregnant. excitement follows until you find out your baby is evil hand have to destroy it. ... once again you finall think it i all over and you have time to grieve and gain clarity by believing what you have done to your husband and baby was the right thing.

but wait.... you husband comes back from the dead with more power than anyone you have ever met... and you can feel the cycle starting all over again.

Phoebe's two greatest fears became a reality in the space of days
1. she was tempted to become evil due to wanting to stay with cole (though that is not entirely cole's doing)
2. she became pregnant (her greatest desire) and had to destroy the baby

sure it was not cole's fault that he became the source. but it was the straw that broke the camel's back. phoebe refused to allow herself to become evil again. she broke ties. as she rightfully should have.

when cole came back more powerful than ever, it just confirmed phoebe's belief that cole would never be the husband she dreamed of. he could never belong in the family.

[vandergraafk]

Well, after his encounter with Bacarra, I believe that Cole began to understand that even with his tremendous powers he could not dissipate the possibility that he might cause harm to Phoebe or her family. Nor could he rule out the possibility that this future Bacarra might be correct, that one day Cole would rule the underworld not because he was possessed by x or y, but because his powers commanded, nay demanded, respect. That Cole chose suicide by witch as his way out is understandable. Yet, even this proved futile. As Centennial Charmed demonstrates, Cole had to make one last attempt to re-write all that had gone wrong. His supposition that with the power of three broken forever, he and Phoebe might have a chance was dashed by fate. It was not destined to be whether Paige made the leap or not. With Paige dead, Cole and Phoebe were not happy. Theirs was a marriage of convenience. With Paige alive, Phoebe found the courage and the power to vanquish Cole.

[whitelightertony]

It was not destined to be whether Paige made the leap or not.

So, even in the absence of Paige's accidental orbing into Cole's alternate universe, do you believe that Cole-as-Belthazar would have eventually destroyed himself (and thus, the alternate reality along with him) anyway?

And would the previous universe have been restored upon Cole's self-destruction (sans Cole, of course)?

[vandergraafk]

Well, at the risk of extrapolation, yes! But, to support this contention is extremely difficult. Cole clearly would have seen the futility of this alternative world. Would he have solicited advice from Avatar Alpha in order to undo it? What if that came with the price of joining the Avatar collective lock, stock and barrel? Clearly, Cole had already reached a certain peace with his own demise. Suicide by witch clearly had demonstrated that. Yet, I find it difficult to accept Cole willing submitting to the Avatar collective, an allegiance that was above and beyond anything he had ever experienced with the Brotherhood of the Thorn.

Fortunately, fate had other plans. I, for one, do not believe that Paige accidentally orbed into this other universe. Supposing, for the moment, that her severe head cold was no accident - did fate accelerate her sneezing? - why should we assume that Paige would orb precisely into this alternative world. Yes, I know the simultaneity and all that. Yet, in Charmedverse there are many planes of existence, ones that whitelighters orb through all of the time. Why this one in this instance? Fate waving its hand?

[whitelightertony]

What if that came with the price of joining the Avatar collective lock, stock and barrel? Clearly, Cole had already reached a certain peace with his own demise. Suicide by witch clearly had demonstrated that. Yet, I find it difficult to accept Cole willing submitting to the Avatar collective, an allegiance that was above and beyond anything he had ever experienced with the Brotherhood of the Thorn.

Well, if Cole had abandoned his alternate universe and agreed to rejoin the Avatars on a permanent basis, I would guess that his ultimate fate would depend on how cooperative he was with them.

Remember, in Season 5, the Avatars didn't yet have the power to remake the world. It was only when Leo tried to undo Utopia (in "Charmaggedon") that the rest of the Avatars combined enough of their collective power to eliminate one of their own (Avatar Leo). And even then, I doubt they were able to do so effortlessly.

In absence of the Charmed Ones' cooperation, would the Avatars have had enough power within their collective to "eliminate" an Avatar Cole, lest Cole decided to "go rogue" and operate outside of the Avatar collective which he would have become a part of?

[xoFeliciaFinleyxo]

Cole was evil when he first meet Phoebe. Near the end of season three and the start of season 4 he wasn't really that evil until the seer sort of made him evil. Or it might have been because The Charmed Ones vanquished the Source Of All Evil.

[whitelightertony]

The Source possessed Cole's body.

[kiriashra]

Cole was half evil, and always would be. It was his human side that the love came from, but the other half would always be demonic.

I never thought he was good for Phoebe for that reason. Her main job was to kick evils butt and he just got in the way.

I liked it when she got with Coop because then she could finally do what she was meant to (defeat evil) and have a partner that actually helps her instead of holds her back.

[ljones]

and i agree, had she remained steadfast in the initial finding of cole's demonic nature and vanquished him like she should have, rather than allowing him to escape and lying to her sisters that he was dead, she would have saved herself years of heartache and disappointment! sure she would have been heartbroken initially, but that heartache and torture would have been nothing compared to what she had to endure accordingly.

Or . . . Phoebe, Paige and Piper could have taken the trouble to find out how Cole became the Source and saved him through an act of exorcism. If they had the ability to vanquish him, they could have found a way to exorcise the Source's spirit from him . . . instead of succumbing to their own prejudices and fears by killing him in the end. I once read an article on Wicca and morality that ignorance is not an excuse. If one has a brain, one should exercise it by learning the truth about any certain situation. Phoebe and her sisters did not bother to learn the truth. Instead, they jumped to conclusions and acted.

Cole was half evil, and always would be.

One can say the same about the Charmed Ones, Leo, Darryl and every other sentient being - magical or otherwise - in existence. The rest of the series certainly proved that the Halliwells and Leo were half evil.

[*Sammi!*]

Jul 1, 2008 17:55:42 GMT -5 ljones said:

Or . . . Phoebe, Paige and Piper could have taken the trouble to find out how Cole became the Source and saved him through an act of exorcism. If they had the ability to vanquish him, they could have found a way to exorcise the Source's spirit from him . . . instead of succumbing to their own prejudices and fears by killing him in the end. I once read an article on Wicca and morality that ignorance is not an excuse. If one has a brain, one should exercise it by learning the truth about any certain situation. Phoebe and her sisters did not bother to learn the truth. Instead, they jumped to conclusions and acted.

Oh come on, when do you think Phoebe would have exercised any type of compassion with Cole besides when it came to herself.
Youre forgetting that we are talking about the late Piper and Phoebe, that we came to resent for not doing things the way they should and thinking about themselves. Ofcourse they just wanted to take care of the "mess" i.e. Cole was obviously evil, therefore, he couldnt, or rather shouldnt be saved, simply because they were too damned lazy and arrogant to get to the bottom of what had happened to Cole.
Phoebe was the Queen was ignorance when it came to Cole. If it wasnt about her, she didnt want to know.

[pubesy]

Quote:
and i agree, had she remained steadfast in the initial finding of cole's demonic nature and vanquished him like she should have, rather than allowing him to escape and lying to her sisters that he was dead, she would have saved herself years of heartache and disappointment! sure she would have been heartbroken initially, but that heartache and torture would have been nothing compared to what she had to endure accordingly.

Or . . . Phoebe, Paige and Piper could have taken the trouble to find out how Cole became the Source and saved him through an act of exorcism. If they had the ability to vanquish him, they could have found a way to exorcise the Source's spirit from him . . . instead of succumbing to their own prejudices and fears by killing him in the end. I once read an article on Wicca and morality that ignorance is not an excuse. If one has a brain, one should exercise it by learning the truth about any certain situation. Phoebe and her sisters did not bother to learn the truth. Instead, they jumped to conclusions and acted.

NO NO NO NO NO!

you have got it all wrong ljones...... i am talking about when phoebe INITIALLY found out cole was a demon! when she found out he was belthazor and protected him, lying to her sisters that she was dead. season 3.

oh.... and another thing.......stop using wicca as evidence for your arguments of the show..... we have been through this. the girls are not wiccan.

Oh come on, when do you think Phoebe would have exercised any type of compassion with Cole besides when it came to herself.

phoebe did care about cole. she protected him on numerous occasions.
and as far as the breakup goes... since when is it wrong to consider your own needs and own safety in a relationship?? if my best friend was in a similiar situation.... i would tell her to dump the guy and she could do better.

[vandergraafk]

Maybe it's wiser not to play the blame game. Whatever its causes, the relationship was not meant to be. Indeed, it might even have been doomed from the get go.