Then she started to order him around which he did not take kindly to. He talks down to her because he does not liked to be ordered, then she attacks him.
I guess Sorin would indeed see being called out on his bull***** as "being ordered around", so yeah.
He was told there was minor trouble but it was fixed. He was concerned until told it was fixed. Then he was asked to go admire the handy work and he said later when he regains himself and makes sure what he just did works. Promises were not broken.
That's not quite what happened. When Nahiri mentioned her grievances he first talked down to her, then dismissed her completely, told her her that he "had no obligation to her" when she mentioned their agreement and finally told her to bugger off. After all that he mentioned that maybe, maybe he would go to Zendikar later.
The story development was super disappointing. They had the chance to create much more complex and compelling characters and blew it (as far as we know).
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.
...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).
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.
Agreed on Lilliana. Its funny how you phrased it, because I'm sure Gideon isn't too happy about conflict, but I know what you mean - that it'll make for interesting interactions.
We've seen that Gideon inspired a sense of responsibility and leadership within Jace. It will be funny to see what kind of effect Liliana has on Jace and Chandra.
When you say logical do you maybe mean "fair" or "measured" or "proportional" or "calm"? Because again those are different things than logic and reason.
If we're going to shoot for "fair", most retributive schools of justice call for a punishment commensurate to the crime; Sorin condemned Zendikar to destruction and inflicted its loss upon Nahiri. It's only fair that he suffers the same. Innistrad's denizens, in this case, are merely collateral damage.
She's going nuts over Sorin "damaging" her world, yet completely ignoring the fact that she was part of the Eldrazi getting planted on Zendikar.
Well, there's the fact that she was led to believe that was the only way to deal with the Eldrazi (Ugin kinda omitted the fact they could be killed, and she probably still doesn't know the truth) so they wouldn't end up omnomnoming the multiverse. And the fact that Sorin and Ugin had promised they'd be there in case anything went wrong, a promise both broke.
Trying to do the right thing and then getting screwed over kinda sucks.
Blind Justice. Ensuring promises come to bear, that no misdeed goes unpunished, that no damage is inflicted without the same being suffered. No rest for the wicked.
What bearing do the answers to those questions have on the morality of her actions and your judgment of her as character?
I don't think she's evil. She's been acting out of hurt, righteousness and ignorance, and that scarcely makes one evil. Insane, sure. The morality of dealing with Eldrazi will always be grey, since it's merely a choice of what kind of destruction you'll cause. That said, the choice here was of doing it to a plane you figure has some rudiments of a mechanism to trap them and potentially avoid bigger multiplanar devastation. Not a good deed, but the lesser of two evils.
To make a real world comparison, it's kinda like the choice of dropping the A-bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The morality of the acts is very debatable, as is the "damage done vs. damage potentially avoided" comparison, but the fact is that it was a defining act in defusing that aspect of the war.
You're still basing your statement around the assumption that her primary goal was dealing with Emrakul. It isn't, her goal was making Sorin suffer.
What if I told you that these two can be the same? What if I told you that forcing Sorin to deal with Emrakul (and, by extension, dealing with Emrakul) fullfils both criteria?
I very much doubt that Sorin would need to die to achieve whatever she had planned if she had one anyways, if her plan involved Sorin doing something with the moon I don't see why his death would be needed.
That's taking the whole "sacrifice" thing literally, whereas coming from her comparison (i.e. her sacrifice was being bound to a single plane, deathless and without contact with her peers, for 5 thousand years), I feel what would be required of him would be a similar or equal commitment. "We find a way to bind this thing in your crib, you keep watch this time" kinda deal. One that, obviously, was asking way too much from Sorin.
I don't think that the sacrifice Nahiri was expecting from Sorin was literal - I feel that it was more of the "you'll have to dedicate yourself to this task or condemn your plane" kind. When he went "this plane is condemned already" she goes "since you're a big jerk, you'll die here, then", which is a very appropriately White thing to do, since Sorin crossed the moral horizon showing that he cared more about his hurt ego than the plane he supposedly cared for.
Now, she's most probably insane. Both Sorin and Nahiri are awful people, but I, for one, am at least somewhat sympathetic to Nahiri. Her character is a bag full of hurt and betrayal, angry, misguided and confused. Sorin's just an egomaniac ********.
Which only really leaves Boggarts(their versions of Goblins) and Flamekin, either of which would be interesting but I don't think Wizards decided how they left Lorwyn and the whole aurora so that would have to be hammered out before hand.
I guess Sorin would indeed see being called out on his bull***** as "being ordered around", so yeah.
That's not quite what happened. When Nahiri mentioned her grievances he first talked down to her, then dismissed her completely, told her her that he "had no obligation to her" when she mentioned their agreement and finally told her to bugger off. After all that he mentioned that maybe, maybe he would go to Zendikar later.
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.
You call it being blind, I call it not being a moral objectivist. It's something you usually pick up when you educate yourself.
...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).
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.
We've seen that Gideon inspired a sense of responsibility and leadership within Jace. It will be funny to see what kind of effect Liliana has on Jace and Chandra.
If we're going to shoot for "fair", most retributive schools of justice call for a punishment commensurate to the crime; Sorin condemned Zendikar to destruction and inflicted its loss upon Nahiri. It's only fair that he suffers the same. Innistrad's denizens, in this case, are merely collateral damage.
Well, there's the fact that she was led to believe that was the only way to deal with the Eldrazi (Ugin kinda omitted the fact they could be killed, and she probably still doesn't know the truth) so they wouldn't end up omnomnoming the multiverse. And the fact that Sorin and Ugin had promised they'd be there in case anything went wrong, a promise both broke.
Trying to do the right thing and then getting screwed over kinda sucks.
Blind Justice. Ensuring promises come to bear, that no misdeed goes unpunished, that no damage is inflicted without the same being suffered. No rest for the wicked.
She had part of a plan. Say, 12%.
I don't think she's evil. She's been acting out of hurt, righteousness and ignorance, and that scarcely makes one evil. Insane, sure. The morality of dealing with Eldrazi will always be grey, since it's merely a choice of what kind of destruction you'll cause. That said, the choice here was of doing it to a plane you figure has some rudiments of a mechanism to trap them and potentially avoid bigger multiplanar devastation. Not a good deed, but the lesser of two evils.
To make a real world comparison, it's kinda like the choice of dropping the A-bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The morality of the acts is very debatable, as is the "damage done vs. damage potentially avoided" comparison, but the fact is that it was a defining act in defusing that aspect of the war.
The hero we deserve.
What if I told you that these two can be the same? What if I told you that forcing Sorin to deal with Emrakul (and, by extension, dealing with Emrakul) fullfils both criteria?
That's taking the whole "sacrifice" thing literally, whereas coming from her comparison (i.e. her sacrifice was being bound to a single plane, deathless and without contact with her peers, for 5 thousand years), I feel what would be required of him would be a similar or equal commitment. "We find a way to bind this thing in your crib, you keep watch this time" kinda deal. One that, obviously, was asking way too much from Sorin.
Now, she's most probably insane. Both Sorin and Nahiri are awful people, but I, for one, am at least somewhat sympathetic to Nahiri. Her character is a bag full of hurt and betrayal, angry, misguided and confused. Sorin's just an egomaniac ********.
And Giants.