So let’s say there’s this orc woman who was partially gnawed by a rabid thunder lizard back in Vanilla and now cannot fight or ride. She makes a few coppers a day as a streetsweeper, just enough to keep food on the table for herself and her two small children. She’s heard that over on the other side of the continent, Sylvanas burned down Teldrassil, and she disapproves of this. If the topic comes up in conversation, she’ll say it was a dishonorable act. But mostly, she’s worried about managing the pain of her old injuries and hauling herself out of bed each day to sweep the streets and feed her children.
Warchief supporter who deserves to be slaughtered without remorse–yes or no? If yes, why?
So you think someone actively funding the army and trying to recruit people into it is of equal culpability as any person whose sole involvement is participating in the nation’s economy at all?
Is she a supporter of the Warchief? She claims Teldrassil was dishonorable, but does she believe the WArchief should face any sort of repercussions for it? Does she express shame in her current faction?
Yes. Unless they are engaging in some sort of activism against the evils of their nation.
What I’ve given you is all you, as an Alliance PC with the job of slaughtering all whom you find unworthy, know about her. What’s your judgment based on that?
I am not talking form the perspective of an Alliance PC. I was talking from my perspective, as a player with an objective perspective. I have no reason to feel empathy for people who support Sylvanas.
So it’s not enough for you that this hypothetical orc woman hasn’t defected to the Alliance or started agitating for Sylvanas to be deposed? You need to know more about her views?
An awfully strange way to weigh moral actions. To entirely disregard passive versus active involvement, as well as any degree of significance between the level of impact/consequence, and seemingly throwing out intent.
Yes… Now I see what you are trying to do here, and my entire point is that right now, with the narrative we have been given, we don’t see anyone speaking out against the Warcheif. We don’t see anyone any social outcries in Ogrimmar. We see idle chatter… nothing substantial, nothing that would note that what happened to Teldrassil cause any sort of outrage among members of the Horde, or to suggest their values have been violated because of it.
We see the opposite of that. We see the Horde killing civilians in Kul Tiras, we see Baine and Lor’themar and Saurfang defending Sylvanas when the Alliance game for her. They could have easily just not have gone to her defense, but they chose to defend her with their own lives. We see people like Etrigg, an orc defined by his honor, waging war on Sylvanas’ behalf.
This hypothetical orc woman, if she were to exist in the narrative, is likely to be complacent with the genocide of the Night Elves like the rest of the Horde. Unless Blizzard did something to suggest otherwise. This isn’t just about the individual at this point, this is about the culture of the Horde… A culture that has been complacent with consistent War Crimes over the last 10 years.
I’m not trying to trap you. There isn’t a “gotcha!” coming. I just want to know what you think of this hypothetical situation.
You’re talking about the macro level. I’m asking you a question about the micro level. Does this specific orc woman I’ve mentioned deserve to die or not? I might as well give her a name to make this easy, so let’s call her, uh, Mokra.
Mokra doesn’t like what Sylvanas has done, but she’s not “engaging in some sort of activism against the evils of her nation.” She doesn’t have the time or strength for that, because Sylvanas is a long way away and it basically takes all her energy just to tend to her needs and the needs of her family. Nor is she making any plans to flee, for basically the same reason.
I mean, going by what you said above, I kind of expected you to say Mokra and her kids deserve to die because they’re contributing to the economy and not actively rebelling.
If you need to know more about what Mokra thinks, what would be the requirements for you to say she doesn’t deserve to die?
I did specifically say that she disapproves of the burning of Teldrassil. Is that enough to not call her complacent? If not, what more would you need from her?
I just want to say that a number of horde posters I’ve seen that hate the Teldrassil stuff, myself included, are equally frustrated that nobody else seems to be arguing against it. I guess Saurfang’s supposed to be a figurehead for all of the pushback against it, but all it really looks like is that he’s a lone dissenter and it’s depressing. This kind of thing is among the reasons why I and other people feel like this story sucks and we’d rather not have one at all over this.
That’s complacency. Granted, her opinion would be a silent minority, and I would suspect the Horde acting much like a police state. That is how Garrosh ran things for so long, and it’s not beyond the likes of Sylvanas. However, we have not actually seen that in the narrative, so I am acting under the assumption the most people within the Horde support Sylvanas for what she has done to Tedrassil. I think her only hope would be Saurfang at this point, however, I am not convinced that orcs aren’t just blood lusting monsters. Or perhaps just of a low intellect. At this point, the Night Elves would be will within their rights to burn Ogrimmar to the ground, and banish the Horde from Kalimdor completely. The Horde has had countless opportunities for peace, and has proved time and time again that they can’t be trusted.
So, just to be clear, yes, you consider Mokra to be a warchief supporter who deserves to die? And her children too?
If we say that she thinks Sylvanas deserves to suffer repercussions for burning Teldrassil and also feels ashamed of the Horde, does that change your answer?
If you actually read all my posts, you would have seen that I don’t believe children to have the mental development to make decisions such as these. So no, they do not deserve to die.
But this comes back to my Goblin Slayer reference. Say if orcs are genetically evil… As their tendency for violence and conquest is any indication. Then, the issues gets a lot more difficult to swallow. Goblin Slayer spoiler warning, there is a moment in that show where the Goblin Slayer slaughters goblin children, saying there is no such thing as a good goblin, and that they hold grudges for life. Assuming his reasons were factually correct, then it’s hard to argue, even if it makes the act itself no less harder to witness. This is mostly why I subscribe to the idea of objective morality… It seems, to me, more honest to say that people can do evil things for good reasons, than to say something is not evil due to circumstance.
Mokra could have left, she could have spoken out against Sylvanas. She chose not to. Her injuries make things difficult by not impossible. As uncompassionate as that may sound, it is difficult for me to come from a place of compassion when thousands of innocent people have already been burned to death.
From an objective player perspective. Yes. From the subjective perspective of an Alliance PC, it is more difficult. The Horde has proven itself to be untrustworthy, and the Alliance has already suffered much for being forgiving.
As for leaving, just to be clear: she has no savings, has two small children who are dependent on her for food, and cannot ride or fight to defend herself. I just want to be sure you are accounting for all of that when you say she could have left. Does that change your answer at all, or do you still feel that she should have made the effort if she is to be worthy of not being killed?
Also, she has (in this scenario) said that she disapproves of the burning of Teldrassil. I get that you don’t consider that to be speaking out against Sylvanas, but where would you draw the line? What would be a sufficient level of “speaking out” to make you think she could be allowed to live?
You are giving Aki way more labor than they deserve. The fact that you have to go through any gymnastics at all to get to a “no, this disabled civilian does not deserve to die” tells you how much of a monster they are.
Yes, clearly the answer is the entirety of the Horde, down to the lowliest civilian is actually an empathy starved monster worthy of nothing less than annihilation.
Not that Blizzard is lazy and has NEVER been good at conveying what civilian populations may be thinking.
There were plenty of disabled Na zis. SS officers who lost their legs early in the war. People who supported Hitler and everything he was trying to do to the jewish people, to the Slavic people, and to gay people. I would not consider those people to be worth saving, I don’t care if they are disabled or if they have a family.
Let me try and break down my thought process here. As I said above, I don’t really care of their financial position, physical condition, nor about their family, if they were firm supporters of genocidal maniacs.
So let me try and put together a criteria.
Objective Criteria:
Morally appalled by the actions of her leader(s)
Openly spoke out against it with a desire or willingness to fight back or flee.
Genuine shame of her faction.
Genuine sympathy for the Kaldorei.
Acknowledgment that the Alliance is in a position of more uprightness in this current situation, and an Alliance victory would be in the benefit of Azeroth as a whole.
Subjective criteria:
Is more difficult to determine. Imagine yourself as a Night Elf warrior. You saw Teldrassil burn with your own eyes, maybe you lost friends and/or family in the blaze. You are very emotionally charged in this instance. You stand in a just conquered Ogrimmar and now you have to decide what to do with the orcs that are left.
The last time the Alliance was in this position, they were forgiving, and that ultimately lead to the burning of Teldrassil.
Killing civilians is the evil you are fighting against.
Revenge is sweet, and people who are hurting tend to express a desire to hurt others.
Mercy will not make the Horde hate you any less, it will just make them not hate you any more.
So, you have my personal answer, but I want to know how you would expect the Alliance to act at the end of all this? Should there be something like the Neremberg trials where justice is delivered systematically through due process? Should the Horde be dismantled? Because clearly this isn’t just Sylvanas’ fault… the burning of Teldrassil was a joint effort across many eager and willing members of the Horde.
Your “objective” criteria No. 5 is literally the type of messed up stuff done in Versailles that made possible WW2. That’s just ammo for future genocidal dictators.
![:roll_eyes:](https://d38bqls1q93fod.cloudfront.net/en/wow/images/emoji/twitter/roll_eyes.png?v=6" ":roll_eyes:")