I see that the op quoted me again but never answered my question…
If you think what happened was wrong but you can’t offer a better solution you’re really just complaining. If you think there was a better option to the things that both the Alliance and the Horde did maybe you should tell us. Because right now your just saying “they did this and it was wrong” and “they did that in return and it too was wrong”. Instead of being counter productive and just pointing out the issues, how about offering an alternative solution.
This is the Story Fourm, where we discuss the stories and delve into the lore of the game. There was nothing wrong with your original intention of gathering the crimes of the listed races and factions. Your mistake was trying to place real life values and situations as a moral standard for WoW and that doesn’t always work when you have huge the extenuating circumstances that are in the gane and would never happen in real life. Now obviously forced labor camps and the like are wrong, no question, but at are not talking about the real world we’re talking about Azeroth. If you are unable to discuss this game in the contexts of what happens in the game without needing to put a real life moral justification on EVERYTHING you probably should stay off of the forums. You’ll just end up disappointed.
To be completely fair to the OP, a lot of the discussion that goes on in this forum do not take the in game context and instead apply real world morals and the like to justify rather extreme and hilarious notions.
Like for example, if I were to apply only in game logic to things. Every Horde character that didn’t turn on Sylvanas at Teldrasiil was just as honorable as those that did. Because loyalty to the Warchief and the Horde is honorable for the Horde just as much as believing that fighting against what you see as a corrupt warchief for the good of the Horde is honorable.
It’s why we consider Nazgrim a hero despite him explicitly staying by Garrosh’s side because at the end of the day he remained loyal to the oath he made.
That’s very true. And in some situations it does work but not always. I felt the need to say that here because the OP seems to be unable to look at the situations in the game for what happened in the game without the influence of a rl moral standard and based on his post count he seems to be new to the forums so I thought it needed to be said.
Hhhhng, I find this so annoying because I think there’s a lot of potentially neuanced and interesting aspects to this type of “honor”, but we can’t have that for several reasons. One of them being that WoW players are, apparently, really simple.
I mean we technically do. There’s a reason why Saurfang decided to fight a mak’gora he knew he couldn’t win to save the Horde from fighting itself again; as Thrall put it everyone on those gates swore loyalty to the Horde, just as Saurfang did. They simply disagreed with whom to follow.
The problem is that will never get the focus, because everyone and their mama jumped on the “Sylvanas is the scapegoat” angle. Which fair enough, I would expect Alliance characters to laser focus on that. It’s easier to get riled up with that than to look at how the narrative of the Horde works and accept that it is honorable to follow a bad warchief, because they swore loyalty to them and the Horde just like it is just as honorable to turn against that Warchief when you believe they no longer serve the best interest of the Horde.
No, it was punished for directly siding with the horde. This would of happened whether they were a part of the Alliance or not. And that punishment was total decimation of the kingdom.
Stormwind was still rebuilding. Kul Tiras was dealing with the Orcs. Ironforge was cut off from the same chain as was Gnomergan.
As far as anyone knew, all the leaders were dead or missing. Garithos’s leadership wasn’t earned, but it rightfully his.
——
Either way, we’re done here. I’ve made my case and you have failed to make yours. You’re just trolling now, and ignoring anything that doesn’t agree with you. Just like any conversation involving you.
The Gnome wasn’t doing it to cure the prisoner, he didn’t have anything. It was just experimenting on him too see if it worked.,
Because he was afraid of what she would do to his people. Really, this refusal to acknowledge the realities of dealing with dictators makes all these claim unrealistic.,
Well, this is aside form my point, but again, if you won’t acknowledge that they were forced to do something or be killed, you can’t realistically talk about it.
But yes, I did misspeak. The mages who opposed Azshara turned into both the Highborne and the Nightborne.
The Gnome wasn’t doing to cure the prisoner, he didn’t have anything. They were just experimenting on him to see if it worked.
Because he was afraid of what she would do to his people. Really, this refusal to acknowledge the realities he was dealing with make these claims unrealistic.
Well, this is aside form my point, but again, if you won’t acknowledge that they were forced to do something or be killed, you can’t realistically talk about it.
But yes, I did misspeak. I meant to refer to the Highborne. Of course even Nightborne opposed the demons also, just in a selfish way.
In the end, every supported Azshara before the demons came. Afterwards, everyone (except those who become the Naga) opposed them.
I dunno if I’d count King Mechagon’s plan to screw the world as something the playable Mechagnomes took part in, especially if the playable Mechagnomes were all part of the Rustbolt Rebellion.
So, the main reason for that was that I counted the actions of the previous ruling government as a crime committed by the race. I probably should include the stuff Elisande did looking back on it. Just didn’t cross the mind when I was writing that out under Nightborne. But that’s a fair point.
If what worked? If he didn’t have the plague, it wouldn’t of “worked” anyway.
How does testing on an uninfected subject test if it cured the plague?
The quest didn’t go into enough details but it’s implied he was probably from Halgrind which the Forsaken were Plaguebombing. The Horde’s version of that same quest has you trying to help tailor the Plague to the Vrykul and bombing the Village but not before their first attempt only caused panic (and the second was a total failure.)
Oh he was definitely thinking of his people. Doesn’t mean he did still follow orders.
Don’t get me wrong, I doubt blame him for that. But his hands are still dirty regardless.
Well, this first stage of testing is usually to see if a drug is dangerous to take. I mean clearly they were experimenting on the Vrykul to see if it might harm someone. And since it killed him, they got their answer.
Not sure of your point here though. They were experimenting on a people, not matter what they were testing. Unless you think they just gave it to him as a some form of torture or murder or something.
Well, we agree he was forced into it.
One of the general questions in morality is people being forced into having to choose between two bad courses. I have to say, that is one might argue whether someone took the best course or how they chose, but a sincere effort to do the right thing not regarded as a moral failing. Especially since, as here, it isn’t clear that any thing effective could have been done.
My point is context. While the story remains completely unchanged, certain facts misrepresented leads to false conclusions.
Moral of the story, don’t trust medical science to inebriated alchemists and Kill-for-hire Adventurers.
Not really a question of which choice is the most moral but rather which is the most selfish. For example, a Collaborator working for a side he knows is wrong, doing horrible things to countless innocents because they are holding their family hostage may be doing it for understandable reasons but not justified.
I disagree with this only because we’re still counting precursor events that lead to the modern dynamics of horde and alliance. I do think we have to disregard everything that the orcs did pre orgrimmar if we disregard arthas, and that just leaves a lot of gaps I think.
Another reason why I think we need to count arthas is because he’s almost entirely responsible for what Sylvanas became, and I have no doubt that lordaeron would have been a part of the modern alliance had they not been turned forsaken.
Not sure what false conclusions you are referring to. I mean, the first stage is to see it is kills or harms people. So they made the prisoner take it to find out.
And the Alliance keep that let it happen without objection.
Not really a question of which choice is the most moral but rather which is the most selfish. For example, a Collaborator working for a side he knows is wrong, doing horrible things to countless innocents because they are holding their family hostage may be doing it for understandable reasons but not justified.
[/quote]
Not sure we have any info that it was a “selfish” decision. For all we know, freeing Derek Proudmoore was the first chance he had to do something meaningful.
The Guards responses varied each time you did it, from mild amusement to flat out objection, but they didn’t have the authority to stop you. Because, apparently as adventurers, we have run of the place.
And the Commander of the Fort was furious. Not a lot of sympathy for the lost but he was noticeably upset.
WHAT?!! A Forsaken super plague that melts you in no time?
You oozed my vrykul prisoner?
<The captain looks almost sad and spits in disgust.
But I take the “sad” part as showing a bit of remorse.
But he has greater concerns and immediately turns but to the crisis at hand, like a good commander would.
Thus, selfish.
I agree that he was in a bad spot and didn’t have much of a choice.
But choose he did regardless and those choices are his burden to bare.