FACTIONS AMONG THE ELDERS?

[vandergraafk]

When examining the Elders, especially from Season 6 onward, it seems as if at two distinct factions can be seen. There are those, led by Odin, who seem to take an especially hard line toward Leo and the Charmed Ones. Then, there is a group typified by Sandra who are sympathetic to Leo and the Charmed Ones.

Gideon, of course, is an oddity. Initially, he was sympathetic to the Charmed Ones. But, as the events of Season 6 exemplified, Gideon took a hard line towards baby Wyatt. He came to regret allowing Piper and Leo to marry and have children, especially one so powerful as Wyatt. He used any means necessary to prevent an evil Wyatt from emerging.

In the event, that's the issue. Here's some of the background, developed initially in the Charmed Cafe.

[vandergraafk]

In the thread - "Was Cole Evil?", whitelightertony made a comment in passing that seemed to demand further elaboration. In response to my query, whitelightertony offered Leo as an example of how our perceptions of good and shift are ever shifting.

Whitelightertony stated the following (reposted from "Was Cole Evil?":

"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."

In my response, I wondered whether whitelightertony's example illustrated precisely the point he seemingly wished to make. As a consequence, I posted the following:

"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."

In his usual way, whitelightertony parsed my comments carefully and offered the following:

Quoting me: "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?


Quoting me: "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."

My response elevated the debate to the present level:

"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."

"
Whitelightertony's response was yet another good parsing. It also cried out for the creation of a new thread. Once again, he wrote:

Quoting me: "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.


Quoting me: "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.


Quoting me: "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).


Quoteing me: "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).


Quoting me: "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).


Quoting me: "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"?"

So, that's where we stand, at the threshold of a debate about the Elders. Let's go for it!

[vandergraafk]

Charmedandhollyfan wanted to know why "also, if the elders are good and the Avatars are good as well then why couldn't the Elders believe in the Utopia that the Avatars wanted to make?"

I replied as follows:

"To keep it as simple as possible: there are at least two, possibly three approaches to good. One stems from Kant and involves what are called categorical imperatives. That is, one is not only compelled to do good, but one must always use means that are themselves good. Another approach stems from Jeremy Bentham and is called utiliarianism. That is, one is concerned that the net effects of one's efforts produce good, even though bad might have occurred in order to achieve good.

Odin, and his allies among the Elders, seem to be utilitarians. That is, it is okay to send Leo to "Texas" and rig his choice so that he chooses to become an Elder (and to abandon Piper) in the Seven Year Witch. If Leo had become an Elder, who could argue that good was the result, even though a fair amount of bad was used in the process (the devastation to Piper and her children, etc.).

The Avatars are even more extreme in their utilitarianism. However, their idea of good differs radically from the Elders's vision. Whereas the Elders (mostly) want to trust humans to choose good over evil, the Avatars insist that they do so. And, to maintain their demon-free state, they must constantly purge the world of dissent. Who chooses becomes a non-starter, as the Avatars clearly decide who lives and who dies. The Elders could never have accepted this, although Gideon, in his obsession to prevent an Evil Wyatt from emerging, asserts the right to do whatever he chooses in order to prevent Wyatt from growing up. Killing Sigmund, killing Chris, almost having Phoebe killed by upsetting the Grand Design, Gideon comes closest to what the Avatars are capable of and willing to do. Indeed, I would argue that we have in Gideon an example of how the Avatar collective might have started. Renegade Elders and Demons might have provided the wellspring of the Avatar collective.

Why the Elders would, then, no nothing of the Avatars is truly baffling. One possibility is that they were in extreme denial. Or, they truly did not know what became of renegade Elders such as Gideon. Besides, one question remains: what became of Gideon's vast powers when he was vanquished by Leo? Did they go into the void? There's no good equivalent of the Wasteland that we know of. Yet, shouldn't there be? Maybe the Avatars captured his powers?"