When Sylvanas commits psycological torture we all go “omg that’s horrible, the end doesn’t justify those means.”
But when Alleria does the exact same thing suddenly the ends do justify the means and torture in this way is just part of the story…it leaves me scratching my head. The double standards here…
In some ways a few of you are no different than Erevien with just a different colour background.
I don’t agree with Zerde but he’s no Erevien.
Zerdrevien would be gushing over how the draenei need to take over the Burning Legion and take their place as kings of the universe while stomping everything in their path because it’s their birthright as ascended demons.
Sylvanas was doing what she does to promote whatever hair brain scheme she planning with the Jailer. Alleria is doing what she does to try to bring Sylvanas to justice and to prevent her from causing more harm to the world.
What happens when Alleria’s actions can no longer be defended as ‘For the greater good’ will you join the side against her or be an Alleria loyalist?
That’s just some food for thought. BfA asked the Horde to draw a line in the sand about what is and isn’t moral. The Alliance may be made to make that choice too soon enough.
Where is the crime? If you are starving, homeless, wondering war refugee struggling just to keep yourself and your little boy alive, you may feel compelled to take an oath of silence demanded from a Dark Ranger you are powerless against.
At least she had the moral fortitude to stand by her principles once she made the oath. Unlike Turalyon and Alleria who simply abandon their principles.
Their “principles”…do you know their Principles?
Alleria, the woman, who was such a devil against the orcs in the war, that she not even frighted the orcs to death, but her own man were demoralisied by only WITNESSING her wrath and rage against them.
Turalyon, fought against the horde and in his principles…the horde don´t belong to the light, have no place in it …and so its only RIGHT to kill them.
That are the principles of both of them…
AKA the end justify the means.
I hope you’ve changed your stance because its something you genuinely believe vrs another attempt to white knight the blue.
Least I forget your countless post about Sylvanas means to kill Arthas; pre-Zovaal. A time when her only goal was to kill Arthas by any means necessary.
And yet he still let them live. At least those that surrendered.
You do realize the book ends with her dealing with most of her issue and deciding to focus herself on the task of stopping the Horde from invading other world.
And that’s exactly why they are both dangerous. Thank you Zahir.
Dangerous? hrmm, not more or less dangerous as the horde 
Thats not right entirely, she dealed with it…because she start to selfdestroy herself and turalyon stop her by doing so, BUT, he never stops her wrath or rage phase, he even said she have every right to hate them, but she should stop threat her own life by doing so. Thats everything he said.
As a fellow Loyalist I’m with you. This behavior screams Sylvanas in WoLK and we know where that went…
You do realize I answered that:
You mean the Sylvanas that was willing to steam roll anyone to try and get her way? That would potentially have raid the plague on all our heads just to get a shot at killing Arthas? And the different as I mentioned is the the use of torture has to very limited.
One more time, Turalyon says…
This is in specific reference to using the void to torture the woman. So yes, they abandoned their principles.
Yeah but the thing is, Sylvanas didn’t want to steam roll anyone in her way. She had a legitimate grievance against Arthas. Just like Alleria has a legitimate grievance against the Horde (well mostly orcs, but she conflates the new Horde with the Old Horde and that’s problematic.)
YOU DON`T KNOW HIS PRINCIPLES!
Thats the funny thing, you read only Principles and…“BAM” he forgot his principles 
But you know, if you want to know turalyons principles…then you must reader the wc2 novels
As a paladin we can assume his priciples are paladin principles and he ain’t acting like a good paladin rn.
I have no idea why I had a southern drawl just now.
Respect, Tenacity and Compassion are the priciples of the Faith of the Light. He’s not acting as a good paladin with paladin values and Alonsus Foal would be ashamed of him.
Well, I may not know all his principles, but the principles he is referring to in that statement are his and they are telling him torturing the refugee orc mother is wrong and immoral, but he does anyway.
The librams were some of the most ancient relics. Each libram represented what Faol saw as a core trait of the Silver Hand: retribution, holiness, protection, justice, and compassion.
The guiding principle as I see in Turaylon’s decision is protection, justice and retribution.
Or you know there are several CONFLICTING principles and Turalyon made a choice on the principle he thought was most important at the time.
And the Librams are always being debated on how they should be interpreted. Take Uther as an example. He thought what he was doing to Arthas was retribution but it wasn’t it was straight up vengence.
I can’t remember it offhand but Boros also makes really good comments on Retibution and the fallacy of the Librams on Argus. The tenants of the Light are supposed ro be used in tandem with the Librams to steer the paladin in the right direction. Turalyon should have trusted his gut that compassion here was better than torture, although it would have taken longer. He strayed from the Light for expedience of information, but make no mistake he strayed from the Light.
I am not sure that is totally a bad thing especially with the current lore not painting the light as some purely altruistic force of good.