08/01/2018 11:04 AMPosted by
Ayaani
I struggle to see a reasonable reason why the Alliance would send archeologists after killing some Horde there and leave themselves open to reprisal. No, the goblins murdered the Dwarves first.
This is just you giving the benefit of the doubt to the Alliance. There is no way of knowing who attacked first based on the novel, so we have to go by the events of the game, in which the Alliance clearly strikes first in Silithus. And they don't say that they're doing it because some Explorer's League dwarves were murdered by goblins.
08/01/2018 10:48 AMPosted by
Ayaani
The second those "Goblin civilian miners" murdered the Dwarves from the Explorer's League, they stopped being civilians.
The book absolutely mentions it so I would agree with that. When the Alliance players are sent on their merry way to kill the goblins it is pretty much explained because they're goblins it is fine. This is a general baseline operating procedure for the Alliance. They hardly agreed to working with the night elves leading up to WoW and shunned an entire race that got decimated because they thought they were betraying them. This war has fault on both sides. Sylvanas just shortened the fuse.
08/01/2018 11:10 AMPosted by
Loukas
Except that everything you said was factually wrong, so no, 99% of my defense of Sylvanas's action's can't be applied to any evil character in WoW.
It was parody to illustrate key points, I thought that was fairly obvious. I'm sorry you wasted your time reading into it literally.
Let me outline the troubling ideologies instead;
1. Saurfang; you seem to think of the Warchief's law (which would say he's a traitor) as more absolute than moral law (which says he's rightfully remorseful.) The only place in the world this holds true is in dictatorships and authoritarian governments. i.e, I'm in sole charge so my word is law > we all agree x is bad so we'll make it a law.2. The Alliance started it; both sides were already aware Azerite had potential as a weapon. The goblins were the first to attempt to do so. You also chide the Alliance for not giving the Horde the benefit of the doubt in terms of weaponizing Azerite without giving the context that the Horde's current Warchief has a long and violent history of creating and deploying WoMDs, even when told not to. The Alliance would've been right to fight over the Azerite because, shockingly, weaponizing it is exactly what Sylvanas planned to do.3. Sylvanas' choice to attack Teldrassil; her strategy to take the World Tree as a potential exporter of Azerite to the Eastern Kingdoms was a sound one. She acknowledged its predominately civilian population and her plan was to take out few but powerful targets to make the rest fall in line. Then she set said civilians on fire. That's where strategy turned to genocide.4. It wasn't emotionally driven; the fact that Sylvanas hadn't originally planned to burn Teldrassil down and the way she angrily screams 'BURN IT!' implies otherwise. The elf's words got to her, and she threw her plan out the window. Sylvanas is not some flawless calculating mastermind. She has been spiteful, hateful, and fearful in the past. Those flaws showed here.5. Slyvanas' rightness is justified by her success; the ends justify the means etc. All villains believe their cause is good. The Burning Legion was trying to save the universe from the Void. The Lich King was just trying to make Azeroth stronger. The AU Lighforged are trying to build a utopia. All bad guys think what they're doing is for the greater good. The end doesn't justify the means. The means are what determine you who you are in the end.6. It was the Kaldorei's decision to keep their civilians in the same place as their military target and the shock of burning Teldrassil was necessary; Teldrassil was their home. It wasn't their military base. It was simply their most populous city. Wholesale slaughter and indiscriminate destruction is the reason chemical and nuclear weapons are illegal, despite being effective for shock-and-awe tactics.Think about that; the entire world in all its thousands of cultures, religions, people can't agree on anything but they're all in agreement that
these things are bad warfare because death is bad. Sylvanas thinks death is good. And you, mister supporter of a deliberately-written evil character, are attempting to defend her and that reflects poorly of you.
Supporting the Edgy Elf Warmonger.
How bold and controversial.
08/01/2018 12:19 PMPosted by
Aurael
1. Saurfang; you seem to think of the Warchief's law (which would say he's a traitor) as more absolute than moral law (which says he's rightfully remorseful.) The only place in the world this holds true is in dictatorships and authoritarian governments. i.e, I'm in sole charge so my word is law > we all agree x is bad so we'll make it a law.
He disobeyed a lawful order from a superior officer in a time of war, letting an enemy general walk away from the battlefield. How many more will die as a result of that decision? There is no absolute moral law. There is no universally accepted set of morals. Saurfang placed more importance on his own feelings about an "honor" he can't even define than he did on the Horde lives that could be saved by removing an extremely powerful enemy from the war.
08/01/2018 12:19 PMPosted by
Aurael
2. The Alliance started it; both sides were already aware Azerite had potential as a weapon. The goblins were the first to attempt to do so. You also chide the Alliance for not giving the Horde the benefit of the doubt in terms of weaponizing Azerite without giving the context that the Horde's current Warchief has a long and violent history of creating and deploying WoMDs, even when told not to. The Alliance would've been right to fight over the Azerite because, shockingly, weaponizing it is exactly what Sylvanas planned to do.
What the Alliance suspected the Horde would use the azerite for is irrelevant. The Horde is not under the Alliance's jurisdiction. If you want to say that the Alliance feared the weapons that the Horde would create with the Azerite and they started the war in order to prevent those weapons from being made or used, that's all well and good. But that still means that the Alliance started the war. The act of first aggression was theirs.
08/01/2018 12:19 PMPosted by
Aurael
3. Sylvanas' choice to attack Teldrassil; her strategy to take the World Tree as a potential exporter of Azerite to the Eastern Kingdoms was a sound one. She acknowledged its predominately civilian population and her plan was to take out few but powerful targets to make the rest fall in line. Then she set said civilians on fire. That's where strategy turned to genocide.
Sylvanas's goal was to remove Darnassus as a strategic asset for the Alliance. Her original plan was to kill the NIght Elves' leaders and occupy the city in the belief that the Alliance's morale would be broken and that they would not risk their own people's deaths to retake the tree. No plan survives contact with the enemy. A week of fighting defiant Night Elves in Darkshore convinced her that the Alliance would never stop trying to take the tree. Her goal still being to eliminate it as an asset, she destroyed it instead.
08/01/2018 12:19 PMPosted by
Aurael
4. It wasn't emotionally driven; the fact that Sylvanas hadn't originally planned to burn Teldrassil down and the way she angrily screams 'BURN IT!' implies otherwise. The elf's words got to her, and she threw her plan out the window. Sylvanas is not some flawless calculating mastermind. She has been spiteful, hateful, and fearful in the past. Those flaws showed here.
Her decision not being emotionally driven does not mean that she does not have emotions. She is allowed to be angry that her original plan wasn't working. She's allowed to be angry that her people did not follow her orders the first time she gave them. That doesn't mean that her decision was made because she was angry.
08/01/2018 12:19 PMPosted by
Aurael
5. Slyvanas' rightness is justified by her success; the ends justify the means etc. All villains believe their cause is good. The Burning Legion was trying to save the universe from the Void. The Lich King was just trying to make Azeroth stronger. The AU Lighforged are trying to build a utopia. All bad guys think what they're doing is for the greater good. The end doesn't justify the means. The means are what determine you who you are in the end.
All bad guys believe that they are the good guys. That's a truism that's as obvious as it is irrelevant. The Alliance believe that they are the good guys; does that automatically make them the bad guys? Sylvanas's rightness is not justified by her success or failure. She has thus far made decisions that were entirely justified by the situation at hand. Her means are sound.
08/01/2018 12:19 PMPosted by
Aurael
6. It was the Kaldorei's decision to keep their civilians in the same place as their military target and the shock of burning Teldrassil was necessary; Teldrassil was their home. It wasn't their military base. It was simply their most populous city. Wholesale slaughter and indiscriminate destruction is the reason chemical and nuclear weapons are illegal, despite being effective for shock-and-awe tactics.Think about that; the entire world in all its thousands of cultures, religions, people can't agree on anything but they're all in agreement that these things are bad warfare because death is bad. Sylvanas thinks death is good. And you, mister supporter of a deliberately-written evil character, are attempting to defend her and that reflects poorly of you.
Teldrassil was, in fact, a military port. It's where the Night Elf fleet sailed from to attack the Horde in Silithus. In a fantasy universe where people can be raised from death in a hundred different ways, saying that Sylvanas is "against life" because she prefers the kind of life that she and her followers have is as inane as saying that Anduin is "against life" because he prefers the kind of life that he and his followers have.
Wholesale slaughter and indiscriminate destruction have been the modus operandi in every war in history. Those things have only ever been declared "illegal" after the fact by the winning side in order to make themselves seem more justified and their enemy seem less so. When you are in a war, you fight to win. If you're not fighting to win, you're fighting to lose.
There is no absolute moral law. There is no universally accepted set of morals.
Stopped reading there. If you don't believe in right and wrong, no amount of pedantics will matter to you, and therein lie the core of the issue.
You don't believe in bad behavior. I do.
I was questing in ashenvale today and the elves murder your scared peons when they go for lumber so who cares about their civilians, they do the same to horde ones.
Peons, trespassing into enemy territory and armed with axes.
Peons, who if caught and asked to stop illegally logging, will either attack on sight or call for the grunts to help them.
The night elves have made it clear many, many times before that the Horde is not welcome in their lands, and any attempt at logging will be met with force.
How many warnings do you get before it's officially your own fault for endangering your own life?
How many warnings did the Elves of Darnassus have to give before they were shut up, cast out, and left without trees to warn anyone about?
08/01/2018 12:52 PMPosted by
Aurael
Stopped reading there. If you don't believe in right and wrong, no amount of pedantics will matter to you, and therein lie the core of the issue.
You don't believe in bad behavior. I do.
Morals are just your subjective feelings. Every person's morals are different. Expecting every person and group to abide by your personal moral code is both pointless and destructive.
08/01/2018 01:02 PMPosted by
Loukas
08/01/2018 12:52 PMPosted by
Aurael
Stopped reading there. If you don't believe in right and wrong, no amount of pedantics will matter to you, and therein lie the core of the issue.
You don't believe in bad behavior. I do.
Morals are just your subjective feelings. Every person's morals are different. Expecting every person and group to abide by your personal moral code is both pointless and destructive.
I'm sorry but complete moral relativity is crap. "Well according to me murder isn't that bad" good luck with that one in court. Societies have a base guideline of what's right and wrong.
08/01/2018 01:14 PMPosted by
Ayaani
I'm sorry but complete moral relativity is crap. "Well according to me murder isn't that bad" good luck with that one in court. Societies have a base guideline of what's right and wrong.
Societies do have internal moral standards, yes. And one society trying to impose its morals upon another is considered an act of aggression.
When you go to war with an army, you agree to abide by the leader's moral decisions. That is the agreement that Saurfang made when he marched with Sylvanas. If he didn't trust her to make decisions in line with his personal morals, or if he didn't plan on following her orders even when he had misgivings about them, he should have stayed home. That is why there is such a thing as a conscientious objector.
08/01/2018 01:18 PMPosted by
Loukas
08/01/2018 01:14 PMPosted by
Ayaani
I'm sorry but complete moral relativity is crap. "Well according to me murder isn't that bad" good luck with that one in court. Societies have a base guideline of what's right and wrong.
Societies do have internal moral standards, yes. And one society trying to impose its morals upon another is considered an act of aggression.
When you go to war with an army, you agree to abide by the leader's moral decisions. That is the agreement that Saurfang made when he marched with Sylvanas. If he didn't trust her to make decisions in line with his personal morals, or if he didn't plan on following her orders even when he had misgivings about them, he should have stayed home. That is why there is such a thing as a conscientious objector.
No. People have often revolted against awful moral decisions / behavior throughout history. See : French Revolution, American Revolution, etc.
You are pretty much suggesting that the leader should have unrestricted power over morals and decisions and no one should be able to challenge her.
Sylvanas fans sure love 'muh moral relativity' arguments
08/01/2018 01:25 PMPosted by
Ayaani
No. People have often revolted against awful moral decisions / behavior throughout history. See : French Revolution, American Revolution, etc.
You are pretty much suggesting that the leader should have unrestricted power over morals and decisions and no one should be able to challenge her.
I am saying that if you go to war with a leader, you agree to follow that leader's orders within the parameters of your specific society's laws and customs. Sylvanas's order to execute Malfurion was not contrary to any law or custom of the Horde. Saurfang disobeyed it because he personally disagreed with it. That's treason. And yes, rebellion is treason right up until the point where the rebels win. So if Saurfang wants to gather likeminded individuals and try to overthrow Sylvanas, he's welcome to try. But staying in her military while undermining her orders is and will only ever be treason.
08/01/2018 01:26 PMPosted by
Multke
Sylvanas fans sure love 'muh moral relativity' arguments
As opposed to Sylvanas haters, who think the universe is a hive mind which they control. No other opinions are fathomable.
I will take my relativity over your biased whims and wishes as to what is universal.
08/01/2018 01:26 PMPosted by
Multke
Sylvanas fans sure love 'muh moral relativity' arguments
It's just a fact. The United States and Saudi Arabia have different morals. If the United States went to war with Saudi Arabia on the grounds that the Saudis were not following American law, that would be seen as an evil act of agression of the part of the United States, and the same applies in reverse. Each society creates their own moral framework that works for them.
08/01/2018 01:54 PMPosted by
Multke
Legality =/= Morality
Then replace "law" with "morality" and my statement still stands.
08/01/2018 11:04 AMPosted by
Ayaani
08/01/2018 10:56 AMPosted by
Loukas
...
It's not clear in the novel when this takes place in the timeline, before or after the Alliance attacked the goblins in Silithus.
I struggle to see a reasonable reason why the Alliance would send archeologists after killing some Horde there and leave themselves open to reprisal. No, the goblins murdered the Dwarves first.
The player is sent to Silithus (Where we see the Goblin's operation being attacked) later in the same day as the Legion epilogue cinematics, which occurs many days prior to the Goblin attack on the Alliance encampment, as seen in the book. So yes, the Alliance did attack first here.
Also all of this ignores the fact the Alliance attacked first in Stormheim anyway.
08/01/2018 02:09 PMPosted by
Veloran
Also all of this ignores the fact the Alliance attacked first in Stormheim anyway.
Why did Genn have such a vendetta against Sylvanas in the first place?