You know…
… The dumbest thing about the “Killing hope” rationalization is Sylvanas knew that it wouldn’t work.
Here’s my absolute favorite bit from A Good War.
Burns tree
That seems honorable and unlikely to unite the enemy against us!
2 Likes
Ok, I get it. That could certainly be a compelling narrative, of how trauma victims end up inflicting more trauma on their path to recovery. I see what you would like about that story. However, while you might not be trying to justify the Forsaken’s actions, some people, including some people in this thread, do try to do that. That is what I am pushing back against.
3 Likes
Sure, again just pointing out here that while Blizzard writing tends to be painfully simple, they do attempt to add some complexity to their narratives. Regarding Odyn/Eyir and Sylvanas/Helya dichotomy, I view both sides as flawed and as such either one is valid to align yourself to. Decrying one as “absolute evil” or “absolute good” is what I take issue with as it immediately takes out any semblance of complexity for these simple absolutes.
I’m not trying to oversimplify the narrative, though I see why you may have thought that. I honestly was making no attempt to discuss the morality of Odyn, or Helya, or any of that. I am just arguing that Sylvanas’ actions, though they may have interesting and relatable motivations, were pretty clearly evil, in that they involved forcing her will upon and dominating another being against her will. I don’t think that is an unfair, or overly-simplified statement.
3 Likes
I’d argue that it is. The mere act of forcing your will upon another isn’t inherently wrong, that’s how basic authority works. The government your under will force its will on you to pay taxes. The education system will force its will on you to attend school. But then you’d probably counter “but those are for good causes!” Sure, but the government can be corrupt and direct taxes elsewhere, the school system can be inefficient or teaching the wrong material.
Now going back to the Forsaken viewpoint. Would forcing your will on some entity for the benefit/procreation of your people be a bad thing for the Forsaken?
That is a ridiculous question and nothing I said even suggests that. You were making sense to me before this post…
You seem to be projecting some crazy image you have in your head on to me. Which is kind of funny, but just not so.
Read that recent post of mine you quoted. Read any of my posts in this thread. I certainly never said anything of the sort. Why do you ask such a silly thing?
Did I ever say Teldrassil burned because the Alliance refused to help the Forsaken. No. I don’t even know what universe you are in…
Before, the Alliance simply ignored or shunned Forsaken pleas for diplomacy. Until the Horde accepted them.
Genn’s assassination attempt on the Horde Warchief proved that the Alliance will not simply cast aside pleas for diplomacy, they will attack the Horde at any whim.
And Teldrassil burned for that aggression. It wasn’t the “lack of help” part … It was the “trying to kill the Warchief” part…
1 Like
Governments in real life derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, through democratic institutions that afford the citizens the opportunity to participate in governmental decision making. Even without democratic institutions, governments in WoW control territory, and exercise authority over those who exist upon that territory. Governments use their power to provide services, and ensure security. Governments are only legitimate insofar as they respect the rights of their citizens.
Sylvanas used a magic artifact to try to enslave another being, over whom Sylvanas had no legitimate claim to exercise authority. She attempted to violate Eyir’s autonomy, her rights, in a profound way. She did this as part of what Genn calls “her quest for immortality” a supremely selfish motivation.
With regards to Forsaken procreation, I don’t want to go down that road all that much. That being said, the Forsaken do not have the right to harm others, or infringe upon their rights, in order to propagate a condition many of them still see as a curse.
You said Sylvanas’ actions in Stormheim were good from a certain point of view. I read your statement about not receiving help as connecting back to your previous argument. If that reading was mistaken, I apologize.
As for Teldrassil, Genn foiling Sylvanas’ scheme in Stormheim in no way justifies Sylvanas’ act of genocide. She butchered countless innocent people, after she had already won a great victory, in order to kill the hope of her victims. That is total, unjustifiable, evil. If you cannot see that, than you and I do not have much left to discuss.
4 Likes
Fair enough, it was a poor example anyway, I apologize. But on that note I will insist that “having the right” isn’t relevant for the Forsaken viewpoint, let alone a Horde viewpoint. We are in a world with differing nations of differing cultures of differing codes of morality (or lack thereof) belonging to differing superpower factions.
There is no universal code of conduct in Warcraft that every nation agrees to. Not even universal codes of consent.
The troll who wishes to mutilate your body in service to their loa doesn’t need the right to do so, even if the non-troll who is killed protests.
1 Like
The whole idea of natural rights is, inherently, a universal idea. It does not matter which rights a government or society respects; all people are imbued with rights by virtue of their very existence, by virtue of their intelligence, and their capacity to reason. All people, through their own reason, are able to exercise autonomy over their bodies, their minds, and their property, and that autonomy should be respected. I know you may not like universal codes of morality, but I am comfortable viewing Azeroth through the lens of natural rights, and judging people or factions as moral or immoral based upon their respect for those rights. i think it s a very fair and reasonable way of assessing morality.
2 Likes
Sure. I was addressing two different events and two different posters, this thread went all over the place rapidly.
I was more making a point that even if you ask for help, some people ignore it while others listen. I was not suggesting a lack of help should cause any repercussions. I want to make that clear.
No. It is the aggressive attitudes of Genn and the Alliance displayed at Stormheim that led to the current state of affairs.
Why stop the chain of causation with Genn? Why not go back to Sylvanas’ decision to kill Liam Greymane, and Blight Gilneas? Surely that played a role in Genn’s decision to attack Sylvanas in Stormheim?
3 Likes
And again, we’re in a fantasy world which is very much different from real life. What is “natural” in Azeroth may not (and often doesn’t) apply to what is “natural” on Earth. More on that point, those natural rights is a fairly relatively new thing in course of our RL history where multiple nations/thinkers had a precedence of history to rely on, Azeroth doesn’t have this.
5 Likes
Natural is a slight misnomer in my opinion, and sort of an artifact of history. The key point is that people, both in our world and in Azeroth, have intelligence and reason. This reason gives people the capacity to make decisions, and to live their lives in such a way as to avoid harming the persons or rights of other people. Therefore it is reasonable, “natural”, and right for people, and governments, to respect the independence and autonomy of other people. I don’t see why that reasoning could not apply to Azeroth, as well as our own world.
Because it only applies to our world in relatively recent times. Take a look at history, particularly the age of empires. No one wanted to be conquered or colonized, did empires care? No they didn’t. Were they punished for it? Not really. In terms of Azeroth we are still very much in this “empire” phase, we are not in the modern time equivalent. It’s foolhardly to apply modern moralities from real life in a fantasy setting based on warfare.
3 Likes
The reason I think the chain starts there?
The High King of the Alliance, Varian Wrynn, Sylvanas, and the Warchief of the Horde,
Voljin, fought together at the Broken Shore. Along side leaders and soldiers of both Factions.
All the reasons you listed were a personal vendetta between the Worgen and the Forsaken. The High King and the Warchief put those issues aside at the Broken Shore.
Genn is the first to strike after the High King and Warchief fought together and died. The two leaders of the two Factions did not see the past as reason enough for war. They fought and died from wounds at the same battle, on the same side.
Anduin forcefully rebuked Genn. Genn’s actions convinced Saurfang to concede to Sylvanas.
Basically everyone other than Genn put the past events you listed aside to face the Legion. Genn was the first to break that consensus, and even Anduin and Saurfang felt it was out of line after he struck at Stormheim.
So, that’s why I start there.
I walked into this thread and saw something I never thought I’d see in the Story forums; people justifying enslaving a sentient being.
Guys, I know it’s cool to be extreme edge nowadays, but still. You can have some limits.
3 Likes
Hue hue hue, no one is justifying anything. Not to mention the conversation has moved passed that. But sure, drive-by posting is great and constructive.
3 Likes
Characters in Azeroth may not see things this way, but we are not characters in Azeroth. We are nerds on the internet debating the morality of fictional characters. I think we can use real life ideas as a starting point, rather than immediately diving into the morass of contradictory moralities held by the various races and characters in the story. Essentially, I’m saying that it doesn’t matter whether Sylvanas is justified from her own POV, or from the POV of the Forsaken. She cannot invoke her own lack of morality as an excuse for her actions, in my opinion.
Didn’t Sylvanas also put Genn’s actions aside, when she negotiated with the Alliance in Before the Storm? Wasn’t that her deciding to let go of her grievance against Genn, in order to pursue a long-term relationship with the Alliance? If she meant to carry that grudge, wouldn’t that have been the time to resolve it?
1 Like
It would seem Sylvanas and Anduin did attempt mild diplomacy. Anduin broke the terms by having Calia there, and Sylvanas did not break any of her terms. Which Genn and Anduin noted.
She allowed every living human who was on the list to walk away with their life. Even Anduin.
So, it would appear she has played a bit of diplomacy, and the Alliance broke the terms before it could even begin.
2 Likes
And I’m calling that such a debate is useless, because, again, applying real life moralities in a fantasy setting based on warfare is not only useless but I’d argue negative for the narrative overall. I play Warcraft, and video games in general, as an escapist fantasy, not for a reflection of real life of our contemporary year of 2018.
Even if we do call real life ideals/concepts as starting point (which we do, and Blizzard does) they are still tempered through the forge that is the fantasy setting we are in. We only call war crimes “war crimes” because we had a worldwide convention to agree on such things not even a 100 years ago in RL. In our 4000-5000 years of recorded human history it was only in the last 100 that we’ve established moral guidelines on how we should act because it took a worldwide war to have us recognize “this is some bad crap, let’s not do this again.”
Azeroth lacks this catalyst. It lacks the scenario/spark to drive the factions/nations of the world to actually get together and agree on things. And until we reach a point where Alliance and Horde can get together and agree on things what should be done and what shouldn’t be done, then everything’s fair game.
5 Likes