ArchonTremaine

have to say the EU does a better job of the jedi and sith, (mind defiling buggers that they both are) making it clearer and obvious how they are two sides of the same coin. Which leads me to a 'fridge' moment: Autonomy and Harmony, could we be looking at two definitions of free will clashing?

why do people keep saying she was insane? She HAD 2 spikes, the mystery spike and the elemantic spike, just not two Sazed could use. Being wrong or even evil does not make her mad (and I do not think she was wrong), it makes her ruthless and driven, something that perfectly sane people have always been capable of, don't diminish what she chose to try to achieve, or the methods she used, for blaming them on mental illness.

Yes, she did. she makes it clear 'he's back. I'd rather be dead than his slave' (having to paraphrase from the Audiobook.) Then she suicides, that does imply control, on the second point ,for some reason I thought you had made the point about soldiers.

because that is what she claimed, at the end. No way to know if it's true, and way to dodge the main point.

It was not only Harmony who could mind control Kandraa, they may have developed the suicide switch in case of a Ruin type situation as well. Meaning any attempt at mind control no matter the source, rather than being aimed at Harmony in particular.

1) My main issue is the destruction of free will (apart from a suicide switch developed to work regardless of that free will being crushed) that Harmony performs on Lessie, and his apparent constant mental harassment of her, which had a large part to play in driving her mad, if it was as constant and unending as she claims 2)Soldiers volunteer, and know they are soldiers, Harmony's agents do not, (not all of them) huge difference.

Actually thinking about this, it becomes murkier for me, Harmony's best option? Maybe, but that doesn't necessarily mean that he did the best he could for the people involved, only that he did what was best for Him. To clarify, maybe he sees that if he did something different he butterflies an event in a hundred years that diminishes Him, or has people turn away from Him..or some other result in the future that is not great for Harmony. Then you get the question of the morality of that....

Let's say I remain to be convinced on that point, or rather she had some valid points, and went to far.

Thanks.

I do not understand why Autonomy is viewed as bad, do we have sources for that conclusion?

Why wouldn't he be? Sazed would not, but Harmony? New tools for him.

Resignation, acceptance and accommodation to a forced outcome? Like how people can be happy and content after discovering they have a serious illness. As another option to love, not claiming it is always that, but Stockholm syndrome could also be described as getting along fairly well (for another example). So in answer; it's not love it either acceptance at one end or stockholm syndrome at the other. And very rarely it's actual love, but given that is so rare in the historical record as to actually be noteworthy, I'd say the other options are more likely. Given that having an arranged marriage turn out happily is far from the most fantastic thing that happens in the series however, not going to loose sleep over it.

Possibly, it is certainly out of character for his era 1 personality, but we have different takes on how callous his Harmony incarnation has become.

Given that the trope 'perfect arranged marriage' is pretty much canon for Mr Sandersons books, I think I can guess how this turns out.

He has taken on the roel of Harmony, and claims to stand for free will, but he takes it away at will. But that actually doesn't matter, enslavement in and of itself is and unforgivable act. So no matter the reason or rationale find another way.

the enslavement. Killing is better than that.

I am still going to avoid the possiblity of starting a religous discussion, they become very heated very fast.

Fair enough.

You present a mortons fork, do evil or let another do evil, that is the two evils I meant.

I assume this board has a no real world dicsussion rule, so I will not answer that.

Tell an agent (or set of agents) what needs doing, and let them chose. Simple. So to your question: yes, two evil acts do not make a good act.

I don't buy his explanation (or impled explanation) his actions do not match it, he doesn't give his agents a real choice for a start. Again he does not live up to his claims about free will, that being true everything else is suspect, his motives are suspect, so look at his actions and see: a stagnant society with an oppresive class system that destroys people who try to change things, and a divine figure who uses coercion and enslavement to maintain that system. HE could prove me wrong, proof comes out of a gun barrel at mach 1 and hits his temple on it's way in. He enslaved multiple people, he deserves nothing but death. But I am the type of guy who stopped buying anything by Jim Butcher after Changes, so that may shed some ligh on things.

Why? They both dominate 'for the greater good', they both force a direction they want on society, they both manipulate and brutalise in equal measure any who disagree, Lord ruler was less subtle about it, yes, but both do it, so the comparison seems fair.

done.

Except the one desribed is in stasis, and stagnating towards a slow oblivion, so mercy kill it and hope something better comes along. Without anyone oneying Harmony, who deserves the sam scorn Lord Ruler did.