I’m not the one making suggestions on what closure is for The Alliance. I’m simply refuting what Alliance posters are suggesting for The Horde.
1 Like
Nope, I didn’t put any narrative, I was reffering to this specific post of yours :
And I was refering to this specific post of yours:
I was not talking about narrative, but about factual clarity. For example, if you’d like to know Dragons Origins you’d like to learn that they came from Galakras. It has no negative or positive narration, it’s a matter of fact which is important information if you care about the genesis of stuff.
As long as you agree there’s no narrative importance to the Centaur being Cenarius’ grandchildren as far as the Tauren relations with the Night Elves go.
1 Like
Well of course, there is no proof that nelves were even aware where centaurs came from, and there is no information - at least that I am aware of (correct me if I am wrong) of nelves clashing with centaur.
But at the same time I’ll argue that nelves are overall better partners to Tauren than the Horde is, because some people claimed that Tauren would be better off with nevles.
1 Like
I think the Tauren are hearty enough to be well with almost whoever they are friendly with.
Even in Desolace, a Cenarion Circle Tauren end up making peace with the Centaur.
2 Likes
I didn’t switch until after BfA. But yes, this is why I switched. And that fact that clearly Blizzard isn’t going to ever change anything. Though the fact that, in BFA, Blizz had even Horde leaders moralize about how bad the horde was would have made it a clear choice (if I hadn’t already unsubbed).
4 Likes
I do find it pathetic that Cenarius only becomes relevant to the night elves when his grandchildren who are far separated from him cause havoc, but not when he is completely absent in actually defending night elves in their own homeland, from a genocidal invasion.
And let’s be honest here, the centaur are accountable for their own actions. Or is it right to hold Sylvanas accountable for Vereesa’s actions? How about Cairne for Baine’s?
Night elves clash with centaur in Desolace. And all Alliance night elves have been attacking centaur clans too. The only reason they don’t have a history is an obvious one- they are geographically separated.
Yes, but that was in Vanilla, and we’re talking about events going back to WC3 period to draw some clarity on Tauren/ Centaur/ Nelf relations.
You know Genn destroying the lantern to stop the Forsaken reproducing is literally genocidal, right? He says directly that it’s to ‘destroy [their] future’. Acts to prevent a group from reproducing are genocidal according to the CPPCG, which is… you know, where it was defined? It’s actually more directly genocidal than Teldrassil, which arguably was not done with genocidal intent - just for total bodies, given Sylvie’s motives. If anything, the Alliance deserves some more.
If you actually read the Genocide Convention and what it defines as genocidal, you see pretty quick that BFA is only exceptional because we actually linger on the events. In Wrath we stole children so they could be ‘raised better’, an act which raised eyebrows for any Australian player, as that was the excuse our government used to abduct a generation of aboriginal Australians - a deeply traumatic cultural act, and literally genocidal according to the CPPCG: “Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”
So yeah. It costs me nothing to be over it. All it costs you is your high horse, but three minutes of thinking shows that the high horse doesn’t exist either. You can choose to get over it whenever you please.
10 Likes
Yeah but forsaken are icky and not big blue mary sue elves so their lives don’t matter.
10 Likes
Oddly, would that mean Sylvanas was genocidal against the Forsaken as well when she took the Val’kyr with her?
1 Like
If the intent was to destroy the Forsaken with that action, then yes. “Any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such”
You can google ‘CPPCG’ and read it yourself. It’s the ‘Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide’.
It doesn’t reflect well on any of the factions in WoW.
2 Likes
Oh I have cited that many times when people claim the burning of Teldrassil wasn’t genocide, but for some reason people still come around from time to time to say it wasn’t.
2 Likes
I am rather confident that Genn mentions that Sylvanas was on the “quest for immortality”. So, that was not the motive.
He says it to Sylvanas specifically.
It could be discussed with the details like forced raising, etc., if that would ever happen. But there is nothing to discuss. Sylvanas did not prioritise survival of the dark val’kyr, and, for example, in Dark Mirror, “squeezes” one of them to near death state, to power up Nathanos. Since the ritual requires their essence when they did not have extra power from the Lich King, possibly that val’kyr could never recover. Such is the real care of Sylvanas when it comes to “reproducing”.
gl hf
4 Likes
He’s says ‘now I’ve taken yours’ to Sylvanas, not ‘theirs’.
It says ‘Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group’ not ‘preventing reproducing’.
Interestingly, Sylvie’s immediate motives were to generate deaths. What her ultimate aims were we still (frustratingly) don’t know. I think that, explicitly, her intent to prolong the war and kill even her own side, and the opportunistic nature of Teldrassil, means that Teldrassil wasn’t targeted at the Nelves specifically. Which is not lessening it, but it’s a point of curiosity - she’s an equal-opportunity slaughterer.
He says ‘my future’ directly in reference to the death of his child (kind of rude to his daughter, tbh), and then says ‘and now yours’. The context of the conversation is expressly related to their ‘offspring’. It doesn’t make sense for him to be talking about immortality, what immortality did she steal from him?
EDIT: Above paragraph was edited as I sais ‘he steal from her’ at the end, incorrectly.
He may well have known that it was denying her Val’kyr support but that’s not the motive he chose to gloat with at the time. He, ruler of Gilneas, could hardly be ignorant of what the lantern meant to Forsaken reproduction.
See above.
The CPPCG says ‘births’, but new resurrections are the equivalent for Forsaken. Their story explicitly concerns their worries about dying out as a people. I will admit that ‘births’ as a word does not apply, however that is because there are no zombies IRL. The intent of the article is the same, I think you would have to be deeply disingenuous to say otherwise.
2 Likes
He actually says You took my sons future, now I’ve taken yours
4 Likes