You see cupcakes, imo Sylvanas was right and got portrayed as a villain.
It’s all about perspective.
I mean you can be a Sylvanas fanboy all you want, but burning thousands of defenseless civilians alive 
Ehhhh. Whatcha gonna do eh?
A race that’s been around for 10k years, a few genocides here and there is inevitable.
The way I see it, population control.
With the ultimate goal of killing everything that isn’t her, and judging from the vision of her deal with Azshara, eventually usurping Death.
1 Like
afaik, she also wanted the heroes (PCs) to be killed by Azshara, but that part of her plan failed.
Thing is, they will never let us kill Nathanos and Sylvanas anyway.
Name checks out.
Interesting that you can’t concede that in our terms (and the writers terms) what happened is considered a “genocide” but wouldn’t be in the culture of Azeroth?
You can however, make that separation when it comes to murder across cultures or even between Azeroth and Western Civilization.
I guess my question is, why do you allow flexibility on one front to prove a point while proving to be inflexible on another front simply to win a point? Is your only adherence to ethics simply whatever works to win a point?
dueling hasn’t historically been murder, murder is specifically the unlawful killing of another human with intent
unlawful being the key bit there
if they changed the laws that say…people over 50 were allowed to be killed it doesn’t matter if i killed millions, it’s not murder
genocide refers to a specific thing
the intentional effort to destroy a group
it’s not about ethics, the banshee queen is evil and how anyone ever supported her is…beyond me
however genocide requires a specific intention
what is and is not genocide doesn’t vary by what is and is not lawful
it is entirely up to intentions
it doesn’t matter if 1 person dies or 1.7 billion people die , it is genocide based upon intent not outcome
and it has always been that way since the term genocide was coined in 1944
Its about ethics in debate.
Saying I can see the difference between Azeroth and IRL in x and y because they are different realities but saying there is no difference between z and a on azeroth and IRL because they have to be the same.
You show you can see the difference in one area and point it out. In another area, you say there can be no difference. This discussion is about debate tactics not the actual item being discussed.
Why do people still devote so much energy to debating the semantics over a year after the War of Thorns? Elegy outright calls it genocide. A Good War has Sylvanas thinking that burning the tree will be the definition of the term. Regardless of what your opinion on the usage of the term is, Blizzard has defined it as a genocide in the context of the story.
3 Likes
i’m holding both circumstances to the exact same standards
mok’gra’s aren’t murder because murder has a specific meaning that does not apply to the circumstance
genocide has a specific meaning and thus a criteria that needs to be met…just like murder does
the Mok’Gra can even become murder when one deviates from the agreed upon terms and thus it becomes the unlawful killing
but the Mok’Gra by default is a legal action that has the consequence of death
if we’re not using the irl meaning of genocide to mean the intentional effort to destroy a people
then it becomes abit of a problem where alot of the race engage in genocidal acts as it’s being used purely on the basis of mass murdering of ones enemies
because not using the definitions of words means they can call anything…anything they want to
it’s like saying that “malfurion and tyrande hate each other”
technically sure they can use words however they want, but in doing so it causes the story to make no sense
since what they’re calling hate we already have a word for…and it’s not hate
It already doesn’t make any sense. That tends to happen when you have the mindset of adhering to canon doing nothing but limiting creativity.
yeah…the story and motivations can be disjointed sometimes
but they haven’t stuck to canon, they retcon on a regular basis
but seriously…if you read a story about how say…the void is consuming
if the word consuming in this case means that it allows one complete freedom from it
would it make sense or would you have to question everything that is written to try and figure out what it means?
sylvanas nuked stormwind!
…and by that we mean she helped build it to be better than ever
why does it makes no sense? The majority of the night elf population was in Teldrassil and many also died in Ashenvale and Darkshore.
Since she killed most night elves (most members of a race) during that event, how can you disagree with the term “genocide” when blizzard explicitly calls it that and also mentions that there are barely any night elves left?
because as far as has been presented the motivation wasn’t to destroy the night elves as a people
with intent being required for genocide
by calling it a genocide not only do we negate the entire reason for the war of thorns, but force sylvanas into having her actions being one dimensional
and the darkshore campaign wasn’t that fast…why didn’t they withdraw their citizens at all?
y’know…like most people would do when they know the enemy is at the gates
intent
intent
intent
intent
it doesn’t matter if no elf survived or if every elf in the tree survived
the intention is the determining factor in if something is genocide or not, and it has ALWAYS been so
and like i said before, if they show her intentions were indeed to destroy them as a people i’ll happily call it genocide
so because it wasn’t her original plan to genocide the night elves in the war of thorns, it’s not a genocide? What? Her original plan was to do it eventually, but not in the war of thorns.
That makes absolutely 0 sense.
If I didn’t intent to drop my food on the ground but I still did, does it mean that I did not drop it on the ground?
They were evacuating, but it was only possible to rescue a few night elves in the short time window the war of thorns lasted.
And yes, when she burned the tree, she knew exactly what she was doing as Delaryn even told her that it was full of civilians.
The definition of genocide:
“the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular nation or ethnic group.”
and that’s exactly what she did.
1 Like
her orginal plan never included destroying the night elves as a people, nor did the occurance that came to be
in any case he intention with burning the tree wasn’t to destroy the night elves as a people (atleast not as it has been presented)
no, because dropping means…well to drop
genocide means to intentionally seek to destroy a group
a close example would be murder vs manslaughter
which one you get will vary by intent when the individual died
you still killed someone either way but whether or not it is murder is determined by intent
in that case, did you know that during WW2 the allies commited genocide against the germans? who knew!
every school shooter, every bomber, every terrorist
weee genocide is almost as common as cake!
guess the u.n and every nation on earth was wrong then, poor fellas
as for delaryn, i’m sure no one would ever lie about who’s defending/in a sacred location…that would never happen elves don’t use deceit at all do they?
Okay man you seem very lost and since nobody has managed to convince you of the actual facts in this story yet, I’m not going to bother anymore.
3 Likes
no one has yet to present evidence that she intended to destroy the elves no.
and instead of doing that y’all get caught up on it not being genocide somehow meaning it’s good and justified
even though knowing some of the things in the kaldorei past it could be argued that nature is better off if they were, y’know since they’re controlling and kill anything they dislike
when even treants that oppose are killed there’s a fundamental problem calling themselves guardians