We shouldn't use ''real world'' vs ''fantasy world'' arguments because they can escalate quickly and can easily be twisted and manipulated to suit either sides needs.
Just because a character doesn't see his/her actions as evil due to oldwalker status, insanity and lack of empathy, it doesn't make those actions any less evil. It doesn't matter if we can't relate to a character because we, with working moral compass, can still point out things that are right or wrong. Killing an innocent, for example, is evil. It has always been evil and it will always be evil, no matter what fantasy setting you are talking about.
You've mentioned in the previous post that Sorin and Nahiri don't see their acts as evil so there is no ''right'' or ''wrong'' about calling them evil. Their acts are ''evil'' from out mortal point of view. I am sorry, but that is probably the most flawed logic that I have ever seen. If I, for example, am a sociopath and I kill your friends who are completely innocent, but I don't see my act as an act of evil (for literally any reason at all) it doesn't make my act any less evil. Just because I am screwed in the head and don't see my actions as evil doesn't make them not evil. It doesn't matter if you can't relate to me, my actions are still evil. Do you understand what I'm saying? If I want to give you a real world example then I can say something along the lines of ''sociopath murderers who suffer from some sort of mental illness and don't see their murders as acts of evil'' are not evil and we can't call those acts as acts of evil because they don't understand that concept. Hell, I can go one step further and say that, by this logic, Hitler wasn't evil. I am quite sure that Hitler didn't see his actions as evil.
If I am going to use a fantasy example, one more closely tied to these character, I will bring up Yawgmoth. Yawgmoth is so ancient that he comes from a time before there were colors of mana (at least on Dominaria). Yawgmoth is far above a planeswalker as he is a god and he has murdered oldwalkers with ease. Yawgmoth is more of a monster with absolutely no moral compass at all. This guy murdered millions, tortured and transformed his prisoners, had spread an uncureable sickness across the multiverse, used others for his vile experiments, tried to destroy Dominaria and was the single biggest threat to the multiverse in mtg history. Yawgmoth didn't see his acts as acts of evil. They were perfectly justified in his eyes. We, mortal, saw them as acts of evil. By your logic it is now not ''right'' or ''wrong'' to call Yawgmoth evil.
Do you see the flaw in that logic?
That's only a flaw if you take "From our mortal's point of view" and "Killing an innocent is evil, has always been evil and will always be evil" as an absolute. It feels logical because in the real-world, that is more or less the absolute. But why should that translate to "no matter what fantasy setting you are talking about" - fantasy doesn't have to hold to the same levels of morality as real life. Recently Magic (and in fact Comic Books) have started to align their products to those moralities, that I won't deny. But in the older ages, those weren't much of a consideration, and Oldwalkers fall under that category. Besides, Nahiri just woke up about a year ago from a 1,000 year seal (that included the mending), that'll be like waking up some Warlord in some feudal times...
I hate arguing this point, because the longer I drag, the more it sounds like I'm saying Nahiri is not evil, which is not what I meant. What I meant (right from the earlier post when I said "I hate to say this"... and now I know why) is precisely what you've said: There can be no "absolute evil" because the person doing the deed may not think as such. All because the majority think one is evil does not invalidate the opinion of that one and neither does the fact that the one is the one doing said action invalidate it either.
We all see Yawgmoth as evil. Yawgmoth sees himself as not evil. How does that equate to him being evil? How does our opinion override his in the first place? Because we are the majority? Because he is wrong and we are right? Once again, on what basis are we correct and he is wrong? Sure, you can raise up more examples of "what if you were the victim?". Yes, with no doubt if I was the victim, the perpetrator of the crime will always be evil to me. But here's the point: "Why must we always be / side with the victim?" In fact, on what basis are they even qualified as victims? If the "victims" retaliated with a force greater then the perpetrator, at what point does it turns them evil, or are they innocent forever?
Imagine Innistrad's citizens miraculously managed to throw Emrakul back at Zendikar, destroying it after the Gatewatch saved it, does it qualify them as evil, considering Zendikar has its fair share of citizens as well?
I'm trying to say that effectively the whole Eldrazi fiasco is like a war - both sides (Sorin, Nahiri) are evil in the eyes of the other, and both sides are not evil in their own eyes. By telling me there is flaw in that logic is merely telling me that I refuse to take a side of the war (other than for the Eldrazi themselves), which while I do not deny (because in my eyes, they're actually both evil), I do not side with a side simply because they are the victims (Innistrad itself) - that is not a flaw, that is a stand. Evil is ultimately an opinion, and not a fact. Both Sorin and Nahiri are evil, but that is an (my) opinion, but by what definition is that a fact (since well, at least two parties - Sorin and Nahiri themselves don't agree. Do I say both of them are delusional fools?)
That's only a flaw if you take "From our mortal's point of view" and "Killing an innocent is evil, has always been evil and will always be evil" as an absolute. It feels logical because in the real-world, that is more or less the absolute.
As I pointed up before, that's not even true of our own real world. We've repeatedly killed innocent people in various kinds of conflicts throughout history, like warfare and crime combat. Doing it is always morally debatable and contingent to the purpose and end goal of the action. It's usually seen as "acceptable" when it's done for the "greater good", but that's also a very subjective measure.
So, not only is Yawgmoth not evil because that is his point of view and ours can't override his opinion, every single character is of the morality that they claim they are. If Sorin had claimed that he was good, despite doing awful things, he is good because who are we to say that his not and how does his opinion override his in the first place. If Ugin suddenly kills half of the Jacetus League, but still claims that he is the good guy and that his act was not one of evil, we can't call him out for being evil because we can't override his opinion.
It doesn't matter how you see yourself. It matters how society sees us and judges us. I can claim that I am the most righteous good willed person on the entire planet despite the fact that I'm killing puppies, burning children and molesting the disabled, and I will still be that good person that I claim that I am because the opinion of the rest of society doesn't matter. It can't override my opinion, they aren't right, I am, and I am the best judge of my character.
That is because generally speaking, even the most powerful of humans in the real-world are bound by societies (although like AlukSky mentioned above, there are some discrepancies in our own history, although to re-clarify, I'm not going to go into any actual real-world details, because that's a huge mess that doesn't relate to MTG fiction discussion here in any way). The opinions of society matters to us because we are "weaker" than our societies. Planeswalkers are not. They have the power to leave/end any society that don't agree with them (e.g. Jace/Chandra) and while I won't deny ending societies gives them the image of a tyrant, but that is only because we are sitting in the spectator's seat and aren't exactly a valid "functioning society of planeswalkers' opinions" in-universe (otherwise, by right no one would be left to know of Ob-Nixilis) - only other fictional planeswalkers are, but they aren't societies (nor representative).
But I'm digressing from the main point. I never said you couldn't call Nahiri/Yawgmoth/Ugin evil because they'll overwrite you. I'm just saying people/society can call them evil, but that doesn't make them evil, the same way they don't think themselves as evil/call themselves good don't automatically make them good either. You say my logic has a flaw, but you bring in the "assumed absolutes" of a non-planeswalker society (the real-world) into the MTG world, which isn't a valid point, we may all be planeswalkers in flavor as well, but nowhere in lore states that we all together form some sort of society whose opinions regulate/determine the behavior of those planeswalkers who only exist as words/cardboard, let alone the "values of our society".
Yes, but by your logic, no character can be qualified is neither good nor evil because if we call them that, but they don't see themselves as such, that doesn't make them that. However, if they call themselves that, but we don't see them as such, that still doesn't make them that. So no character is good and no character is evil. There is no good or evil because no one can really judge. That is absurd.
That's right. Nothing is inherently good or evil. They may be seen as good or evil depending on the perspective of viewing it (including societies), but that is all it is - a perspective. In the real world, said perspective (especially of societies) have repercussions on us and that is why they seem and feel a lot more factual. But in fantasy and to beings of planeswalker caliber, those perspectives mean nothing (which would explain why so many planeswalkers, including new ones, are so self-centered).
Why is that absurd? Must everything be classified into the two groups of "good" or "evil" in order to have meaning? Must they fall under the opinionated forms of society in order to be valid? Especially, in the case of planeswalkers (oldwalkers in particular), where they transcended into beings beyond humanity and can actually be no longer classified to be "human"? If anything, they're a lot closer to the Eldrazi than humans actually, why should they actually be bound to "human" societies when they are much more and can just conveniently leave?
Nothing is inherently good or evil. That doesn't mean that actions one take can't be good or evil. Murdering one's family and trying to murder a whole plane filled with innocents is an evil act. There is no way around it. It is simply an evil thing to do. No one is arguing that she is 100% evil. Nothing is absolutely good or evil.
I'm still baffled that people are going to such lengths to try to justify Nahiri's actions (which are clearly evil actions). I am sorry, I don't want to offend anyone, but if you're going out of your way to try to justify Nahiri's actions as being those of a ''misunderstood'' or ''not evil'' or ''righteous'' person, despite being shown and told time and time again that her actions are all but ''good'', then there is something very wrong going on with you. I find it fascinating that people would jump through every hoop imaginable to defend her (most likely because it is a she. Sorry but at this point I really can't find any other reason at all for a person to defend such action without having to resort to calling that person morally unstable) but Sorin is clearly in the wrong and he had most definitely deserved everything that happened to him because he was a jerk 1000 years ago. That is sad. (Yatsufusa this part of the post isn't aimed at you)
Don't worry. I think we're actually on the same boat, more or less. It's the specifics that we don't quite agree on (and have to agree to disagree). I'm not denying that what Nahiri did on Innistrad isn't an evil action, especially when it's outright stated she did it for revenge and secondly, from what I see, she didn't quite have the intention to personally seal Emrakul on the plane either (nor did she plot it with the intention of the Gatewatch doing it at all). The trolley problem with the Eldrazi doesn't even justify her actions, mainly because we don't know what the actual trolley track (meaning Eldrazi's natural meals) would result in - for all we know the Eldrazi actually feed on planes that "deserve to be eaten" for whatsoever multiuniversal ecosystem reasons (which would actually make all the trio's actions in sealing the Eldrazi the real unnatural "evil" action, but that's another matter altogether).
What we were arguing about is whether it would be fair to call Nahiri "evil" solely because of one action, especially when planeswalkers (oldwalkers in particular) transcend humanity as a whole. Sure, that one action was "genocide", and by "human society" standards that would almost be enough for humanity to deem that person as "evil"... but planeswalkers don't work on that level. Bluntly put, humanity is "below" them. A concept a bit hard to digest since we're the top of the food chain in the real world, but as much as I hate to use real-world examples again - it's like whether one decides whether Zoos/Aquariums are "evil" for "enslaving" creatures below us, or some companies for killing them for whatsoever reasons (please don't go into specifics on the argument here, it's just an example) The victims are not of the same species as the perpetrators in these cases and because of that, even human societies' opinions are a lot more divided. I'm trying to establish that this is the case for planeswalkers and pretty much anything beneath them... and doubly so because they can easily free themselves by leaving/destroying all that goes against them with literally no repercussion. If you asked animals the same question of the example I just stated and they could answer, no doubt we'll be seen as "evil beyond redemption".
Oh, and we're not the victims - the game explicitly states we're planeswalkers, so there's the parallel to why it feels so awkward (like I said, we're technically killing everything beneath us whenever we play a game of Magic, if you think about it). That's why I said we can't just apply it directly, because the "Food Chain" is all sorts of screwed up.
I agree with you on Sorin for sure, except 1 tiny factor - it wasn't because he was a jerk 1000 years ago. It was because he was a jerk for 1000 years (a lot of difference). Sealing Nahiri out of partial self-defense and bad mood is "bad", but purposely leaving her sealed inside for 1000 years, that's just callous there, even by planeswalker standards, if you ask me.
...but I'm going to offend you people who disagree with me.
No action is inherently evil or good, even because morality itself is a socio-cultural construct made by and for humans - and even among us there's a myriad of interpretations and variations to this set of values. Some cultures view all human life as holy, others have much more granularity to this sanctity. Some cultures have no qualms with taking a life when a life was taken, eye for an eye. Some cultures took lives for religious purposes, some viewed cannibalizing their enemies as an act of honor to the one being eaten, because they'd "live" through the survivor.
Nature has no morality. This is the baseline. Applying human morals no non-human beings is foolish. Just because you can apply your personal set of morals to something, doesn't make something more or less moral.
(This is probably the part where I should note that I'm a pacifist that thinks that any act of violence, even retributive, is unwarranted... but this is my personal set of morals that i'm not willing to judge the world through).
People keep raising the "thousands of innocents lives lost" argument, but Nahiri (and Sorin) were oldwalkers. Ageless beings that have seen plenty of thousands of lives lost, innocent or not, probably a lot more than once. To the "mortal" us (and the current planeswalkers), we would always see "causing thousands of innocent lives lost" as an act of evil for all our lives, but to them, that is no longer a valid viewpoint. Give Gideon the same agelessness and when he fails to save some groups of thousands over the next few millennia, watch his apathy grow slowly. You can't save everything in the multiverse (A stark contrast to the Gatewatch now, but they just got started), so when the time calls, exactly what will be your priorities?
It's easy to say "It's impossible for someone to feel they're not evil when they did what Nahiri did", but then again can anyone prove that one's sense of morality would stay intact had the oldwalker status/logic been applied to us in the real world? In fact, if anything, most of the oldwalkers have proven at within MTG, they probably won't see it as "evil".
You seem to be implicitly treating something like Neitzche or Rand's view of ethics as a given "What's good is whatever feels right to the individual." which is certainly a form of ethics but I doubt you're going to find many people who will accept that. I'd also criticize is as being strongly inconsistent. If Nahiri is good simply because she believes she is good then isn't she also evil simply because we believe she is evil? An ethical system that does not give a way to produce moral judgments is the same as no ethical system at all.
You seem to be implicitly treating something like Neitzche or Rand's view of ethics as a given "What's good is whatever feels right to the individual." which is certainly a form of ethics but I doubt you're going to find many people who will accept that. I'd also criticize is as being strongly inconsistent. If Nahiri is good simply because she believes she is good then isn't she also evil simply because we believe she is evil? An ethical system that does not give a way to produce moral judgments is the same as no ethical system at all.
Nietzschenian morals are a bit more complex than that, but I get what you're saying. A system modeled after individual morality probably would end up with some form of transactional ethic framework, not completely unlike what happens between inter-cultural relationships. Essentially, an agreed upon code of conduct that requires no internal moral judgement.
It's worth noting that Nahiri has started to be referred to by wizards as a villain, whether that means she's just an antagonist or an actual villain remains to be seen.
It's worth noting that Nahiri has started to be referred to by wizards as a villain, whether that means she's just an antagonist or an actual villain remains to be seen.
I'm going to take that as an endorsement of divide command theory.
It definitely sounds like Nahiri will be added to the villain roster from here on out. Not sure when she will pop up again or what she will do, but doesn't sound very much like a positive outcome. Guessing her next act would be involving Tarkir, but hard to tell.
It also seems rather hard to argue moral relativity when we are talking about something of this magnitude. I doubt the people who originally argued it thought destroying the Earth was appropriate for revenge.
You can try to say Nahiri is "misunderstood" or she is "evil" but neither work because this logic is the white and black versions of morality. She acted like any character would do: I will create my own justice for that which has wronged me and no matter at what cost. Were her actions of questionable morality? Yes.
Was the day still saved? Yes.
Would innocents have died if Nahiri hadn't summoned Emrakul for revenge? Yes.
Why? Because when trying to seal Emrakul there could always have been a flaw, misstep, a whoopsie daisy. Something that prolongs the story but the day is ultimately saved in the end. Innocent lives still being lost in the process.
Did you know that each character is the hero of their own story? That only the self-aware would even consider themselves the villain or a tragic hero of their own story.
Nahiri, like Sorin, are both a villain and a hero of their own stories. Both acted as the Antagonist of the other while also being the Protagonist at the same time.
Welcome to gray morality. Where nothing is what it seems for a character and their actions. Where questionable morality reigns supreme.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Peasant: Storm (UR) Commander:Hazezon Tamar (GRW), Arjun, the Shifting Flame (UR), [Waiting on Amonkhet] Tiny Leader: [Waiting on Amonkhet] Peasant Dragon: [Waiting on Amonkhet] Modern: Orzhova Spirits (WB) Legacy: Burn (R) Vintage: Bazaar Dredge (B)
there's nothing grey about Nahiri. She drops a Cthulhu mushroom on a planet with full intent on that planet being destroyed for no motive other than revenge on one guy. She is very clearly evil.
You can acknowledge grey morality and still have clear examples of black and white. Acknowledging that morality is complex and not always easy to read doesn't mean that every act is grey. It's like saying Gilles de Rais is somehow in the grey, which is rather absurd.
If anything, the recent developments showed us the easiest, pop-friendly explanation is probably the correct one: as people who initially hinted at Emrakul because a soldier had a purple tentacle coming out his sleeve were right, it is likely that Nahiri has no elaborate plans or deep motivations, she just wanted plain old revenge, eye-for-an-eye style without caring about the consequences. The Gatewatch will clean up the mess afterwards anyway.
there's nothing grey about Nahiri. She drops a Cthulhu mushroom on a planet with full intent on that planet being destroyed for no motive other than revenge on one guy. She is very clearly evil.
You can acknowledge grey morality and still have clear examples of black and white. Acknowledging that morality is complex and not always easy to read doesn't mean that every act is grey. It's like saying Gilles de Rais is somehow in the grey, which is rather absurd.
Nahiri did indeed do an act of evil that is also a good action; a grey action ultimately. It did cause immediate damage to Innistrad but it also prevented longterm damage that Emrakul could have caused to any plane. There is no arguing that no matter what plane Emrakul would have been summoned to, she would have caused damage one way or the other and always had the potential to destroy a plane. Worst case scenario its a Lose/Lose situation, but if the outcome if replicated by the actions of Liliana and the Gatewatch again in stopping the threat like Emrakul on Innistrad it would result in breaking even at best. The lives lost because of the revenge and the eldritch threat are unfortunate but ultimately unavoidable. The End justified The Means on how to beat Emrakul. For the opposite to occur, The Means Justifying The End, no lives could be lost as a result which as stated already is impossible.
Next: A single action of evil does not make an evil person. As each person on this planet earth has made both white and black actions they have committed. Some lean towards one side but are still ultimately gray despite their actions whether good or ill. The concept of a person who is strictly of "good" or "evil" alignment is quite frankly naivete that is told only to the youngest of a generation. Does that mean we cannot strive to do better/worse in our lives? No. We can certainly try but we cannot truly escape the gray morality of who we are as individual persons.
Finally: I am just your friendly spider letting you all know in the web that all of you seem to have entangled yourselves in. Even the earliest of philosophers have tried to come up with an answer and failed many times for situations like this on the debate of Good vs Evil. The true answer is that there is no real answer as a specific corner case can be both framed in a "positive way" or in the fashion of a "negative way". Arguing the semantics of it is splitting hairs.
TL;DR: "All players cannot win the morality game and they cannot lose it either."
Nahiri did indeed do an act of evil that is also a good action; a grey action ultimately. It did cause immediate damage to Innistrad but it also prevented longterm damage that Emrakul could have caused to any plane.
if the new details from the artbook are correct this was not her intention, if anything positive comes from this it won't be because Nahiri wanted it to, and it doesn't matter if Nahiri only committed one evil act, if that evil act is attempted genocide I think it's pretty safe to label her as evil.
Nahiri did indeed do an act of evil that is also a good action; a grey action ultimately. It did cause immediate damage to Innistrad but it also prevented longterm damage that Emrakul could have caused to any plane.
if the new details from the artbook are correct this was not her intention, if anything positive comes from this it won't be because Nahiri wanted it to, and it doesn't matter if Nahiri only committed one evil act, if that evil act is attempted genocide I think it's pretty safe to label her as evil.
Inadvertently helping is still helping a cause; regardless of morality. She had the knowledge and means to locate and summon Emrakul. This service was very much needed for the members of Gatewatch. The Gatewatch sealed Emrakul and cleaned up after the mess Emrakul made. No matter how you flip the morality the outcome is the same.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Peasant: Storm (UR) Commander:Hazezon Tamar (GRW), Arjun, the Shifting Flame (UR), [Waiting on Amonkhet] Tiny Leader: [Waiting on Amonkhet] Peasant Dragon: [Waiting on Amonkhet] Modern: Orzhova Spirits (WB) Legacy: Burn (R) Vintage: Bazaar Dredge (B)
Inadvertently helping is still helping a cause; regardless of morality. She had the knowledge and means to locate and summon Emrakul. This service was very much needed for the members of Gatewatch. The Gatewatch sealed Emrakul and cleaned up after the mess Emrakul made. No matter how you flip the morality the outcome is the same.
her actions incidentally ending Emrakul does not excuse her. You do not confront the person who tried to destroy an entire world and say, "Well I guess it all worked out in the end so nbd, fam" no she brought Emrakul with the intention of destroying Innistrad for petty revenge, she is very much evil regardless of how the situation turned out.
Yeah, viewing Nahiri as good based off of the outcome of her action, not the action taken or her intent, is a really narrow way to view morality. Especially given we don't know what the Eldrazi do normally, we can't even say she necessarily prevented greater damage. Maybe the Eldrazi only naturally eat uninhabited planes, in which case by forcing Emrakul there she made it worse.
Inadvertently helping is still helping a cause; regardless of morality. She had the knowledge and means to locate and summon Emrakul. This service was very much needed for the members of Gatewatch. The Gatewatch sealed Emrakul and cleaned up after the mess Emrakul made. No matter how you flip the morality the outcome is the same.
her actions incidentally ending Emrakul does not excuse her. You do not confront the person who tried to destroy an entire world and say, "Well I guess it all worked out in the end so nbd, fam" no she brought Emrakul with the intention of destroying Innistrad for petty revenge, she is very much evil regardless of how the situation turned out.
By using your logic Jenoz, I can frame Urza as evil despite the fact that he saved the world from an ancient threat like Yawgmoth through his undeniable morally questionable actions; his means to reach the ends.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Peasant: Storm (UR) Commander:Hazezon Tamar (GRW), Arjun, the Shifting Flame (UR), [Waiting on Amonkhet] Tiny Leader: [Waiting on Amonkhet] Peasant Dragon: [Waiting on Amonkhet] Modern: Orzhova Spirits (WB) Legacy: Burn (R) Vintage: Bazaar Dredge (B)
By using your logic Jenoz, I can frame Urza as evil despite the fact that he saved the world from an ancient threat like Yawgmoth through his undeniable morally questionable actions; his means to reach the ends.
by using my logic attempted genocide is a crime
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
That's only a flaw if you take "From our mortal's point of view" and "Killing an innocent is evil, has always been evil and will always be evil" as an absolute. It feels logical because in the real-world, that is more or less the absolute. But why should that translate to "no matter what fantasy setting you are talking about" - fantasy doesn't have to hold to the same levels of morality as real life. Recently Magic (and in fact Comic Books) have started to align their products to those moralities, that I won't deny. But in the older ages, those weren't much of a consideration, and Oldwalkers fall under that category. Besides, Nahiri just woke up about a year ago from a 1,000 year seal (that included the mending), that'll be like waking up some Warlord in some feudal times...
I hate arguing this point, because the longer I drag, the more it sounds like I'm saying Nahiri is not evil, which is not what I meant. What I meant (right from the earlier post when I said "I hate to say this"... and now I know why) is precisely what you've said: There can be no "absolute evil" because the person doing the deed may not think as such. All because the majority think one is evil does not invalidate the opinion of that one and neither does the fact that the one is the one doing said action invalidate it either.
We all see Yawgmoth as evil. Yawgmoth sees himself as not evil. How does that equate to him being evil? How does our opinion override his in the first place? Because we are the majority? Because he is wrong and we are right? Once again, on what basis are we correct and he is wrong? Sure, you can raise up more examples of "what if you were the victim?". Yes, with no doubt if I was the victim, the perpetrator of the crime will always be evil to me. But here's the point: "Why must we always be / side with the victim?" In fact, on what basis are they even qualified as victims? If the "victims" retaliated with a force greater then the perpetrator, at what point does it turns them evil, or are they innocent forever?
Imagine Innistrad's citizens miraculously managed to throw Emrakul back at Zendikar, destroying it after the Gatewatch saved it, does it qualify them as evil, considering Zendikar has its fair share of citizens as well?
I'm trying to say that effectively the whole Eldrazi fiasco is like a war - both sides (Sorin, Nahiri) are evil in the eyes of the other, and both sides are not evil in their own eyes. By telling me there is flaw in that logic is merely telling me that I refuse to take a side of the war (other than for the Eldrazi themselves), which while I do not deny (because in my eyes, they're actually both evil), I do not side with a side simply because they are the victims (Innistrad itself) - that is not a flaw, that is a stand. Evil is ultimately an opinion, and not a fact. Both Sorin and Nahiri are evil, but that is an (my) opinion, but by what definition is that a fact (since well, at least two parties - Sorin and Nahiri themselves don't agree. Do I say both of them are delusional fools?)
EDIT: Phrasing errors.
As I pointed up before, that's not even true of our own real world. We've repeatedly killed innocent people in various kinds of conflicts throughout history, like warfare and crime combat. Doing it is always morally debatable and contingent to the purpose and end goal of the action. It's usually seen as "acceptable" when it's done for the "greater good", but that's also a very subjective measure.
That is because generally speaking, even the most powerful of humans in the real-world are bound by societies (although like AlukSky mentioned above, there are some discrepancies in our own history, although to re-clarify, I'm not going to go into any actual real-world details, because that's a huge mess that doesn't relate to MTG fiction discussion here in any way). The opinions of society matters to us because we are "weaker" than our societies. Planeswalkers are not. They have the power to leave/end any society that don't agree with them (e.g. Jace/Chandra) and while I won't deny ending societies gives them the image of a tyrant, but that is only because we are sitting in the spectator's seat and aren't exactly a valid "functioning society of planeswalkers' opinions" in-universe (otherwise, by right no one would be left to know of Ob-Nixilis) - only other fictional planeswalkers are, but they aren't societies (nor representative).
But I'm digressing from the main point. I never said you couldn't call Nahiri/Yawgmoth/Ugin evil because they'll overwrite you. I'm just saying people/society can call them evil, but that doesn't make them evil, the same way they don't think themselves as evil/call themselves good don't automatically make them good either. You say my logic has a flaw, but you bring in the "assumed absolutes" of a non-planeswalker society (the real-world) into the MTG world, which isn't a valid point, we may all be planeswalkers in flavor as well, but nowhere in lore states that we all together form some sort of society whose opinions regulate/determine the behavior of those planeswalkers who only exist as words/cardboard, let alone the "values of our society".
That's right. Nothing is inherently good or evil. They may be seen as good or evil depending on the perspective of viewing it (including societies), but that is all it is - a perspective. In the real world, said perspective (especially of societies) have repercussions on us and that is why they seem and feel a lot more factual. But in fantasy and to beings of planeswalker caliber, those perspectives mean nothing (which would explain why so many planeswalkers, including new ones, are so self-centered).
Why is that absurd? Must everything be classified into the two groups of "good" or "evil" in order to have meaning? Must they fall under the opinionated forms of society in order to be valid? Especially, in the case of planeswalkers (oldwalkers in particular), where they transcended into beings beyond humanity and can actually be no longer classified to be "human"? If anything, they're a lot closer to the Eldrazi than humans actually, why should they actually be bound to "human" societies when they are much more and can just conveniently leave?
Don't worry. I think we're actually on the same boat, more or less. It's the specifics that we don't quite agree on (and have to agree to disagree). I'm not denying that what Nahiri did on Innistrad isn't an evil action, especially when it's outright stated she did it for revenge and secondly, from what I see, she didn't quite have the intention to personally seal Emrakul on the plane either (nor did she plot it with the intention of the Gatewatch doing it at all). The trolley problem with the Eldrazi doesn't even justify her actions, mainly because we don't know what the actual trolley track (meaning Eldrazi's natural meals) would result in - for all we know the Eldrazi actually feed on planes that "deserve to be eaten" for whatsoever multiuniversal ecosystem reasons (which would actually make all the trio's actions in sealing the Eldrazi the real unnatural "evil" action, but that's another matter altogether).
What we were arguing about is whether it would be fair to call Nahiri "evil" solely because of one action, especially when planeswalkers (oldwalkers in particular) transcend humanity as a whole. Sure, that one action was "genocide", and by "human society" standards that would almost be enough for humanity to deem that person as "evil"... but planeswalkers don't work on that level. Bluntly put, humanity is "below" them. A concept a bit hard to digest since we're the top of the food chain in the real world, but as much as I hate to use real-world examples again - it's like whether one decides whether Zoos/Aquariums are "evil" for "enslaving" creatures below us, or some companies for killing them for whatsoever reasons (please don't go into specifics on the argument here, it's just an example) The victims are not of the same species as the perpetrators in these cases and because of that, even human societies' opinions are a lot more divided. I'm trying to establish that this is the case for planeswalkers and pretty much anything beneath them... and doubly so because they can easily free themselves by leaving/destroying all that goes against them with literally no repercussion. If you asked animals the same question of the example I just stated and they could answer, no doubt we'll be seen as "evil beyond redemption".
Oh, and we're not the victims - the game explicitly states we're planeswalkers, so there's the parallel to why it feels so awkward (like I said, we're technically killing everything beneath us whenever we play a game of Magic, if you think about it). That's why I said we can't just apply it directly, because the "Food Chain" is all sorts of screwed up.
I agree with you on Sorin for sure, except 1 tiny factor - it wasn't because he was a jerk 1000 years ago. It was because he was a jerk for 1000 years (a lot of difference). Sealing Nahiri out of partial self-defense and bad mood is "bad", but purposely leaving her sealed inside for 1000 years, that's just callous there, even by planeswalker standards, if you ask me.
EDIT: Wording Errors
...but I'm going to offend you people who disagree with me.
No action is inherently evil or good, even because morality itself is a socio-cultural construct made by and for humans - and even among us there's a myriad of interpretations and variations to this set of values. Some cultures view all human life as holy, others have much more granularity to this sanctity. Some cultures have no qualms with taking a life when a life was taken, eye for an eye. Some cultures took lives for religious purposes, some viewed cannibalizing their enemies as an act of honor to the one being eaten, because they'd "live" through the survivor.
Nature has no morality. This is the baseline. Applying human morals no non-human beings is foolish. Just because you can apply your personal set of morals to something, doesn't make something more or less moral.
(This is probably the part where I should note that I'm a pacifist that thinks that any act of violence, even retributive, is unwarranted... but this is my personal set of morals that i'm not willing to judge the world through).
You call it being blind, I call it not being a moral objectivist. It's something you usually pick up when you educate yourself.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
You seem to be implicitly treating something like Neitzche or Rand's view of ethics as a given "What's good is whatever feels right to the individual." which is certainly a form of ethics but I doubt you're going to find many people who will accept that. I'd also criticize is as being strongly inconsistent. If Nahiri is good simply because she believes she is good then isn't she also evil simply because we believe she is evil? An ethical system that does not give a way to produce moral judgments is the same as no ethical system at all.
Nietzschenian morals are a bit more complex than that, but I get what you're saying. A system modeled after individual morality probably would end up with some form of transactional ethic framework, not completely unlike what happens between inter-cultural relationships. Essentially, an agreed upon code of conduct that requires no internal moral judgement.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
I'm going to take that as an endorsement of divide command theory.
It also seems rather hard to argue moral relativity when we are talking about something of this magnitude. I doubt the people who originally argued it thought destroying the Earth was appropriate for revenge.
Was the day still saved? Yes.
Would innocents have died if Nahiri hadn't summoned Emrakul for revenge? Yes.
Why? Because when trying to seal Emrakul there could always have been a flaw, misstep, a whoopsie daisy. Something that prolongs the story but the day is ultimately saved in the end. Innocent lives still being lost in the process.
Did you know that each character is the hero of their own story? That only the self-aware would even consider themselves the villain or a tragic hero of their own story.
Nahiri, like Sorin, are both a villain and a hero of their own stories. Both acted as the Antagonist of the other while also being the Protagonist at the same time.
Welcome to gray morality. Where nothing is what it seems for a character and their actions. Where questionable morality reigns supreme.
Commander: Hazezon Tamar (GRW), Arjun, the Shifting Flame (UR), [Waiting on Amonkhet]
Tiny Leader: [Waiting on Amonkhet]
Peasant Dragon: [Waiting on Amonkhet]
Modern: Orzhova Spirits (WB)
Legacy: Burn (R)
Vintage: Bazaar Dredge (B)
Nahiri did indeed do an act of evil that is also a good action; a grey action ultimately. It did cause immediate damage to Innistrad but it also prevented longterm damage that Emrakul could have caused to any plane. There is no arguing that no matter what plane Emrakul would have been summoned to, she would have caused damage one way or the other and always had the potential to destroy a plane. Worst case scenario its a Lose/Lose situation, but if the outcome if replicated by the actions of Liliana and the Gatewatch again in stopping the threat like Emrakul on Innistrad it would result in breaking even at best. The lives lost because of the revenge and the eldritch threat are unfortunate but ultimately unavoidable. The End justified The Means on how to beat Emrakul. For the opposite to occur, The Means Justifying The End, no lives could be lost as a result which as stated already is impossible.
Next: A single action of evil does not make an evil person. As each person on this planet earth has made both white and black actions they have committed. Some lean towards one side but are still ultimately gray despite their actions whether good or ill. The concept of a person who is strictly of "good" or "evil" alignment is quite frankly naivete that is told only to the youngest of a generation. Does that mean we cannot strive to do better/worse in our lives? No. We can certainly try but we cannot truly escape the gray morality of who we are as individual persons.
Finally: I am just your friendly spider letting you all know in the web that all of you seem to have entangled yourselves in. Even the earliest of philosophers have tried to come up with an answer and failed many times for situations like this on the debate of Good vs Evil. The true answer is that there is no real answer as a specific corner case can be both framed in a "positive way" or in the fashion of a "negative way". Arguing the semantics of it is splitting hairs.
TL;DR: "All players cannot win the morality game and they cannot lose it either."
Commander: Hazezon Tamar (GRW), Arjun, the Shifting Flame (UR), [Waiting on Amonkhet]
Tiny Leader: [Waiting on Amonkhet]
Peasant Dragon: [Waiting on Amonkhet]
Modern: Orzhova Spirits (WB)
Legacy: Burn (R)
Vintage: Bazaar Dredge (B)
if the new details from the artbook are correct this was not her intention, if anything positive comes from this it won't be because Nahiri wanted it to, and it doesn't matter if Nahiri only committed one evil act, if that evil act is attempted genocide I think it's pretty safe to label her as evil.
Inadvertently helping is still helping a cause; regardless of morality. She had the knowledge and means to locate and summon Emrakul. This service was very much needed for the members of Gatewatch. The Gatewatch sealed Emrakul and cleaned up after the mess Emrakul made. No matter how you flip the morality the outcome is the same.
Commander: Hazezon Tamar (GRW), Arjun, the Shifting Flame (UR), [Waiting on Amonkhet]
Tiny Leader: [Waiting on Amonkhet]
Peasant Dragon: [Waiting on Amonkhet]
Modern: Orzhova Spirits (WB)
Legacy: Burn (R)
Vintage: Bazaar Dredge (B)
her actions incidentally ending Emrakul does not excuse her. You do not confront the person who tried to destroy an entire world and say, "Well I guess it all worked out in the end so nbd, fam" no she brought Emrakul with the intention of destroying Innistrad for petty revenge, she is very much evil regardless of how the situation turned out.
By using your logic Jenoz, I can frame Urza as evil despite the fact that he saved the world from an ancient threat like Yawgmoth through his undeniable morally questionable actions; his means to reach the ends.
Commander: Hazezon Tamar (GRW), Arjun, the Shifting Flame (UR), [Waiting on Amonkhet]
Tiny Leader: [Waiting on Amonkhet]
Peasant Dragon: [Waiting on Amonkhet]
Modern: Orzhova Spirits (WB)
Legacy: Burn (R)
Vintage: Bazaar Dredge (B)
by using my logic attempted genocide is a crime