You were literally talking about it still just a few minutes ago. Try again.
So, now Sylvanas committed Genocide because Anduin let his idealism get the better of him, and allowed Calia to go to a reunion of her own people? Sylvanas had cause to be upset, but that is a pretty damn weak casus belli.
Thats fair. I would just say that using this as an excuse for an anything goes moral relativism, where Sylvanas can be justified simply because she thinks she is justified would also be negative for the story. I donât know if that is what you are advocating for, but it is where we would be without some objective moral ideas. We need some objective moral foundation upon which other moral codes can be built.
More like Genn broke the relative peace between the Alliance and Horde that the High King and the Warchief had secured at the Broken Shore, before they fell.
After the Legionâs defeat, when the new Warchief and High King attempted to broker diplomacy following Gennâs assassination attempt, the Alliance broke the terms of the Gathering.
Genn broke the peace and Anduin ruined any diplomacy that was attempted. What else should a Warchief do? You escape an assassination attempt, agree to a diplomatic event, and the Alliance breaks the ground rules of that event as well.
1 Like
How about refrain from butchering countless people after her offensive had already succeeded? You know, like Saurfang and Nathanos expected her to?
1 Like
Okay, youâre literally the only one referencing the topic of enslavement between me, Curse, and Aedren who are the current active participators, save you. So⌠go you?
Iâm advocating for not applying our real world moralities into a video game narrative that hasnât reached a point to consider such. We are free to call things out as bad/good under whatever immersion we are under, sure, but what might find bad/good on your immersion within Warcraft may not necessarily apply to whatâs bad/good to another, even moreso if the person you are addressing is on the other faction.
4 Likes
I have to reject the idea that Sylvanas can reasonably call herself justified because she has constructed a warped worldview for herself under which her actions are justified. I may not be a Forsaken, and I may not be able to fully understand the experience of being undead, but I can objectively see the pain, suffering, and death Sylvanas has brought to this world. That should matter.
Well, thereâs plenty of options on the table other than âburn the night elvesâ. Iâll give you a few.
Break off all diplomatic ties, reminding Anduin that that this world is under constant attack and the Alliance will need the help of the Horde again.
Send in assassins to take out Genn. When Anduin takes offense, remind Andy that Genn tried to kill her during a war.
Attack Stormwind, where Genn actually lives, and not Teldrassil.
tencharacters.
It should matter and it does. Undeath is a bad thing in context for one that is alive. Likewise, the implicit/explicit judgement of the living looking down upon undead matters as well for the undead. You are free to look upon Sylvanasâs actions as horrid, fellow Horde players are as well, hell, even Forsaken players are. This does not negate that Sylvanasâs atrocities are unfounded nor necessarily bad under her and/or the Forsakenâs PoV, let alone the Horde.
Ten characters of what? Another driveby post of yourâs?
4 Likes
I guess I am saying those different perspectives should not have the same weight. Sure, the undead have their own perspective, but when that perspective justifies genocide, Blight spreading, and environmental destruction, I have the right to say that that perspective is invalid, and does not justify all of the evil the undead perpetrate.
1 Like
The former might be correct, but not the latter. The non-forsaken Horde can certainly claim what Sylvannas is doing is wrong, and we already see that with characters questioning the morality of their actions. Clearly the Horde POV isnât necessarily the same or even similar to Sylvannasâs. For every major named NPC voicing complete loyalty to Sylvannas, we have one showing that distaste.
Yâknow what? I give up. Try again some other time.
1 Like
I already prefaced my opinion in that I donât even agree with the direction that Blizzard is taking Sylvanas/the Forsaken in BfA, so Iâm not touching genocide in any discussion, forgive me. Regarding Blight and environmental discussion, this is interesting as undead in general tend to thrive on ruined lands. Not to mention undead/the Forsaken arenât even the sole offenders of this. Goblins exist, so does industrialism in Warcraft.
I never implied the Horde PoV is the same, Iâm stating that her actions/views arenât necessarily bad for the Horde on an inherent level. Since we were on Stormheim, just take a look on how âA Good Warâ had Saurfang agree, on his own accord, that Sylvanasâs fear/preparation of conflict was justified on Gennâs attack alone.
You should, because I have no idea where youâre going with this tangent. And I reckon neither does Aedren, or Curse, or literally anyone else present in this thread.
5 Likes
I understand your concerns about BfA, but even before that you can see the sort of behavior Iâm objecting to. What Sylvanas tried to do to Gilneas, and what she did to Southshore were not terribly different from what she did to Teldrassil. I would say that those previous two events are just as evil, just a different scale of atrocity.
Invalidate a perspective? I see how that can work on a forum, but that seems unrealistic in Warcrafts setting.
Without a hint of RP, simply keeping the setting in mind, I think the Forsaken have a valid point of view, as does Sylvanas.
Bwonsamdi makes a point. She keeps what she kills. Those who oppose her Forsaken army will be slain and made one of them. Then they will truly know the might of the Forsaken and learn what they fight for. Sounds good to me.
2 Likes
Sylvanasâ perspective can easily be invalidated, by killing her as a raid boss or by exiling her from the Horde. Either way would be the narrative saying very clearly that Sylvanas was in the wrong, just like SoO showed conclusively that Garrosh was in the wrong.
The Forsaken do have a valid POV, but their POV becomes invalid when they try to use it to justify crimes like mass murder, at least in my opinion.
2 Likes
Gilneas is quite funny as I believe the Forsaken had quite the understandable position to invade Gilneas even without Garroshâs insistence. Do note that Lordaeron and Gilneas were once allies as part of the Alliance. The Greymane Wall came up and was never bothered to be let down/opened while Lordaeron had to fend off, die, and raised as Scourge. While not state explicitly, I like to head-canon Forsaken/Worgen rivalry goes beyond a simple relation of invader/defender. Southshore I see as a consequence of war, while it made the land uninhabitable, its not like the Forsaken were just going to leave it like that; Cataclysm Hillsbrad questing even has you work to clean up the area so the land can eventually be reconstituted.
The crux of this view relies solely on Sylvanas becoming a raid boss. I donât see this, atleast not in BfA, where she is making ties with Void Lords/Old Gods. Disregarding potential raid-boss status, your example of Garrosh is also flawed in that while Garrosh was ultimately slain, his death/argument against Thrall rings true as its the main reason (narrative-wise) that Thrall is having a hangup as has been missing since the start of Legion.
5 Likes
I mean, I think anger would be understandable against Gilneas, but to invade a neutral country? And then to deploy WMDâs in order to kill the defenders of that country? I donât see that as being justified at all. That is an incredible amount of damage to inflict upon a nation, all for the crime of inaction.
I donât agree that Southshore is just a consequence of war. The Forsaken used a WMD to kill the entire civilian population of a town. Wars are messy, and civilian deaths are inevitable, but to kill an entire town in such an intentional way is pretty beyond the pale.
Garrosh was right in that Thrall should never have made him Warchief. However, no one legitimately believes that Garrosh was right to go Orc fascist on everybody; that part of his perspective was definitely made invalid.
As a comparison, Sylvanasâ perspective might live on, in part, as not all of it is invalid. I imagine her cunning, her ruthlessness, and her battlefield effectiveness will be well-regarded in Forsaken society regardless of what happens to her. And I donât think anyone would try to invalidate the heroism of her sacrifice in Quelâthelas, or the tragedy of her fate at Arthasâ hands. That part of her perspective would continue to be valid, within the narrative. Just not the part with all the war crimes and mass killings and such.
Every time this gets brought up I wonder why trying to kill a war criminal should be punished by wiping out an allied population.
8 Likes
And as Iâve stated, neutral or not, the (potential) Forsaken view upon Gilneas isnât one typically reserved for standard neural nation. Thereâs history there and it was eventually to be answered. Youâre fine to call Blight a WMD I suppose, but then youâd have to call firebombing (a Wildhammer tactic), Iron Stars, and the like as WMDs as well. Not to mention âWMDâ isnât even a term that exists in Warcraft, because, again, there doesnât exist an agreement between Horde/Alliance on such matters.
Sure, but again this relies on a prediction that Sylvanas will eventually become a raid boss to kill. In the context of a world in continuous warfare that never agrees on anything, Sylvanasâs view/actions will only be invalidated if
A) she gets killed off for retaliation of such actions
B) she willfully agrees/is persuaded that what she does is wrong
Because, how morality is generally established is, again, people have to agree on such things. Since I donât necessarily believe Sylvanas isnât going to end as a raid boss of a faction conflict we are in right now, that leaves the second option in that Sylvanas herself needs to recognize/realize her actions being bad. Which could happen, it might happen even. But it hasnât. As as long as it hasnât her views/actions still stand.
6 Likes
I was using WMD because it is an easy shorthand for the sort of destructive weapon I am talking about, not necessarily as a reference to a legal principle. However, I think the Blight is distinguishable from the other weapons you mention, in that it leaves the target area a toxic wasteland after use. Fire doesnât do that, nor do Iron Stars. And still, the point remains, in both cases Sylvanas was willing to kill large numbers of innocent people. Sylvanas might not care about that, or about neutrality, but I am saying that just because Sylvanas doesnât care doesnât mean that she gets a pass, or that her uncaring cruelty is morally valid.
I donât think Sylvanas will be a raid boss this expansion, but that isnât necessary. If Saurfang rises against her, and has the support of the general Horde population and government, and she is forced to flee Orgrimmar, I think the effect would be the same. The Alliance and the Horde would both have rejected her morality, and she would retreat to lick her wounds, and maybe have some character development in a later expansion. Regardless, her morality would have been rejected by both factions, and rendered invalid, just as Garroshâs Orc supremacy was rendered invalid.
1 Like