Right! Yes! It’s even more explicit. I knew I was quoting it incorrectly somehow.
6 Likes
Genn Greymane:
You took my son’s future.
And now I’ve taken yours.
I guess the nature of English makes it possible to make this interpretation, but it’s not more valid, than “eye for an eye”. I’ll take a look at some other language.
In Russian, for example, he refers specificly to her.
I am not sure how many characters, other than Nathanos and dark rangers, know about the details of the pact.
gl hf
3 Likes
The problem is that the acts in question are not comparable, birth and becoming undead. Becoming undead is more akin to being infected with a disease. That person already exists, it is just changing aspects about them. Which is why is it meaningful to acknowledge the article is about birth.
I think it is pretty typical for people to think they live on through their children and the legacy they build. And how that helps build meaning to their time. To which he probably considers comparable to how Sylvanas views her own desire for immortality.
1 Like
Which is fair, but if he knew it meant her immortality then he knew it meant more Val’kyr - the things that resurrect her. Even if he didn’t, he saw her using it on a big chained-up Val’kyr.
And I think it is common knowledge that the Val’kyr were the cornerstone of Forsaken reproduction and an issue of concern for them.
1 Like
Being equal-opportunist still fits well within the definition you yourself provided:
As Sylvanas covered in an internal monologues in A Good War:
- This battle was not about a piece of land. Even Saurfang knew that. Taking the World Tree was a way to inflict a wound that could never heal. Losing their homes and their leaders would have ended the kaldorei as a nation, if not a people.
Using a genocide as a tool for even further purposes is still genocide.
3 Likes
I think that’s just prejudice talking. The Forsaken don’t talk about it in those terms, several explicitly talk about it as though it were the start of a new life in the literal sense. Many don’t even consider themselves human any more, it’s far from a continuation. It’s certainly far more transformative than a religious conversion - where there was nothing, now ‘life’ exists again, albeit with baggage.
I will accept that there are distinctions but for the purposes of ‘is trying to wipe out the Forsaken by preventing them from reproducing Genocide, as in the CPPCG?’, I am unequivocal about the answer being Yes. And I think anyone being honest with themselves can make that allowance in the light of this being a fantasy circumstance that obviously the original convention did not allow for.
Ah, fair, I haven’t read that one. Cheers. Although, to be cheeky, how reliable are Sylvanas’ internal monologues these days, eh? 
4 Likes
Well…she did lie in her own monologue already so…I would say not very reliable.
4 Likes
I think it is a pretty fair analysis. Factually speaking, these individuals were previously already individuals with personalities and lives. They were alive. They have since had a change of state, admittedly a significant one. Regardless of the significance of change, it is still a conversion at the end of the day rather than creating a truly new person wholesale.
I think if people could be brought back from the dead in real life as pseudo-immortal undead with confirmable connection to who they were before death (by confirmable I mean, these are the same souls, we know they share some memories) that it wouldn’t be considered protected by the legislation. Both by intent and language, I don’t think either would consider resurrection the equivalent of what it was protecting/criminalizing.
But would the forsaken consider it such? Keep in mind that the example I gave above, of the stolen generation in Australia, is not considered a Genocide by the Australian government. Nor are many other acts against natives across the world, from North America, to China, and many beyond. Also keep in mind that the CPPCG was an issue of major contention with Russia, given the exclusion of their own extermination attempts at the hands of Germany.
The CPPCG is a contentious document, like any legal text it masks its subjectivity and political dimensions in the language it uses. You have phrased your perspective in a compelling manner, but the phrasing is doing a lot of work there - you are deliberately not discussing that there were efforts made to wipe the Forsaken out as a people (and a distinct, readily classified people, at that) by explicitly denying them the ability to reproduce. As with real world exceptions as I listed above, my argument is not that there is no textual basis for their exemption - there is a textual basis for a lot with a document so compromised as this - but that intellectual honesty would lead one to conclude that the Forsaken have been targeted as a people for elimination fairly described as genocide. More than once, given the scarlets, etc.
Moreover, the narrative itself - which is the dimension in which we are arguing, by comparing these narrative elements - makes a clear distinction between Forsaken and Humans and presents the act of resurrection as substantially more than a mere continuation.
I need to leave the house, so I won’t be able to respond further, but thanks for your time and thoughts.
I don’t think that ultimately matters. A religious person might consider conversion ‘rebirth’ and they might claim stopping them from converting people (in any way) to be genocide. But I don’t think that means myself, others, the legislators, or enforcers would agree.
If you want to say stopping Forsaken from making new Forsaken should be considered genocide, that’s one thing. But a separate discussion from whether or not it is/would be under the CPPCG, which I don’t believe to be the case.
Well if I’m being frank, whether or not it is genocide (which I don’t specifically in the document at question) is secondary to whether or not I consider the action fine. I more-so corrected that point because I thought it was an incorrect technical aspect than defeating your broader point.
For example, say there was a race of bug-men that could only give birth by injecting eggs into a human brain that killed the human. There was no way to produce an alternative, the bug-men were highly aggressive, and would absolutely not cooperate in terms of peace. Would I consider it wrong to genocide them under the CPPCG by depriving them hosts? No.
To wrap this back into the topic, the Forsaken were trying to propagate their condition/race (to not be too pedantic) by enslaving a group (Odyn’s Valkyr). Whether or not this was genocide, I don’t think stopping the enslavement was wrong.
I disagree. I consider it a significant event. Arguably one of the most significant things someone could experience. But at the same time, not a whole new person. Just a person changed in many way, yet in many ways like who they were before death.
2 Likes
Sylvanas can lie not only to herself, but even more impressively she could lie to Anduin’s magic bones.
More realistically, I strongly suspect Blizzard never told Golden about the Jailer when she was writing Before the Storm.
8 Likes
Hawthorne is dead and Bael Modan is in ruin, I am not sure what other closure you want.
1 Like
C’mon. C’mon. You know they would.
Fixed that for you.
16 Likes
Also entirely plausible, yes. Though Blizzard claims that they know their stories two expansions in advance, supposedly.
2 Likes
There is another possibility.
What if she didn’t knew it was the work of the Jailer her becoming the Warchief? Maybe she is legit upset and preferred working in the shadows and the Jailer was like: yo Muezhala, make that Voljin dude die and put Sylvanas on the throne, i had this crazy idea it might just work.
2 Likes
I mean, isn’t that totally possible? Like, truly, do people not believe she’s getting played here? That her afterlife she’s been so terrified of (and so convinced she’s seen the truth of) was a lie fed to her to get her to move in a specific direction convenient for the one feeding her? Pretty clear by now at least that the Primes deal with her (that was always too good to be true) actually probably was too good to be true. Even Heyla’s mixed up in all this.
So, with that in mind, she could have had no part in becoming Warchief. She could truly curse the Loa for placing her in that spot. But she was placed in that position because it was assumed she’d continue on the direction she was pushed in with that added powerful tool.
2 Likes
It’s either a lie or they know where they want to go in the broadest of sense.(like ‘in two expansions we should be in the shadowlands’ kind of thinking. It would explain why if feels like we have filler expansions like wod and bfa.)
They been known to lie a lot so who knows.
That is true. Blizzard did find a way to technically make those whispers Vol’jin heard still be a loa.
That’d be possible if it weren’t for the interview at Blizzcon where they said Vol’jin’s death and her becoming warchief were part of her plan all along.
I remember this as the moment when I lost the last scraps of faith in the writing, and specifically Sylvanas story.
To be fair though, I’m not 100% sure if they said her plan or the plan, and I can’t check right now.
1 Like