I understand it’s pretty yikes-y that Blizzard has a baffling habit of including genocides in their story, then partially justifying them and/or just wiping them away with a quick-and-easy redemption and not even an apology. This has happened like four times already.
Thankfully, most functional adults can distinguish fiction from reality, though sadly some people’s internal prejudices against seven foot tall purple elves might be vindicated by Sylvanas’s redemption.
Maybe it’s a little worse because the genocide itself has never been so on-screen and explicit before, but what I’m trying to say is this isn’t anything new.
I agree.
I think drawing parallels with reality is useful for making certain comparisons, like between technology levels, history, or behavior. Discussing the likelihood of certain outcomes based on historical precedent, that kind of thing.
I have a problem with moral comparisons, like saying “X character is just like Hitler”, because it’s just ridiculously disrespectful and dismissive of the suffering Hitler and his ilk inflicted on the world. Simply saying a character is evil is enough without flippant mentions of IRL atrocities.
No. You don’t. It didn’t make it into live. For all we know, it was just a gimmick to build hype and drive people nuts. Either way, it didn’t make it into the game.
What the heck? I am guessing English is your 8th language, since your posts are always full of crazy typos and hardly make sense. Are you suggesting this poster is disgusting for pointing out your little death camps were never implemented? It is just a fact.
If only that were so…
When puke pukes, is that like a form of reproduction?
I agree certain things can’t just be swept under the rug. The intentional near extinction of an entire race is no small thing and I like to believe Blizzard won’t be as dumb as to try to pull the ‘‘Higher purpose’’ card.
There’s a difference between a character doing something evil, later regreting and taking actual steps and effort to try and atone the best way they can, against trying to JUSTIFY it.
Explaining where it comes from is different from justifying it, justifying it implies on trying to argue there’s a good moral and logical reason for it, which Teldrassil’s burning clearly didn’t have.
Now, in Saurfang’s case. He took part on a lot of war crimes, but the narrative did a good job on portraying him as a traumatized old soldier filled with regret and bitterness from what he did and ultimately he was working towards trying to stop that kind of stuff from happening.
He wasn’t just ‘‘sad’’, he was in fact trying to stop that kind of stuff from happening again, so much he rebelled against Garrosh in the past and lead the rebellion against Sylvanas now.
Now Sylvanas? Absolutely no regret or shame for what she did, on the contrary, she bailed on the Horde and even now Shadowlands is trying to hard to make her look cool instead of villanous.
I don’t think they will pull the ‘‘higher purpose’’ card, but they sure look like they are not gonna adress the fact she’s not the Sylvanas we knew and sympathized with in the past.
Or it is that some people can’t grown beyond their trauma and some people do grown beyond their trauma. Example being people like Jaina and maybe Tyrande.
Sylvanas should be a warning that you can end up being the very monster you were fighting(she even told Garrosh once that what made her different from the Lich King is she served the Horde).
xD or maybe they just have no idea where they’re getting at and are reacting to public outcry and changing stuff acording to it with no regard if it makes sense on the big picture or not.
The TE is right, it would be a horrible message. But the Reason it would be a horrible message is not because the Teldrassil story per se.
The message of the Story would be: “You can do what ever you want, and if you are powerfull enough, you get away with it”
And thats not true. Maybe you could go untouched in the first place, but it will comes the time, in which the past hunts you down, and even if you try to avoid it, you will fail.
Sylvanas will fail too, she must fail, and if she fail, i see many tears here in the forum. Maybe she´ll not die, but she will fail.
Blizzard will not do the Kerrygan number a second time, it was a bad story then as it is now, I think they have learned from that.
I agree, if they try the ‘‘Oh it’s ok cause she has a higher purpose’’ thing. It would be a horrible horrible message.
Also Blizzard has two choices on this thing.
Having Sylvanas fail and hear her childish edgy fanboys whine about how their dead waifu got screwed
Having Sylvanas get away with it and have this awful message that she can get away with unexcusable things.
I think out of those two options, the first is the one that’s gonna have the least colateral damage cause at least it’s not gonna send the wrong message and it would prove us wrong on the whole ‘‘Sylvanas never answers for her actions’’ thing. And I want them to prove me wrong on this cause BfA can be resumed to ‘‘Sylvanas does whatever evil crap she wants and gets away with it with only a scratch on her face and her feefees hurt by Saurfang.’’
“Even if you have the greater good in mind, not everything is excusable and you have to answer for it”
Give Sylvanas a reason to do all this things, but in the end, she must still fail, maybe she is able to return in the future, but see illidans story, he did it aswell, have a good reason, but he got hunted, and died for his ignorance, even if he have good reasons to do it.
he returned a few years later, and end his “story”, once and for all, his fight against the legion, but that doesn´t excuse his wrong deeds.
Yeah but given Blizzard s track record i doubt they would be this deep.
Also i wouldn t use Illidan as an example cause. Well back on Burning Crusade he was doing a ton of evil things and on Legion all that was missing was to make a statue of him crucified and say “He died for your sins”.
The flippant “feel sad about it” remark not with standing…
a) Rejection of an evil past doesn’t validate that past. The opposite. Even the person who committed has acknowledge its immorality.
b) This isn’t what the OP referred to (in spite of the term “redemption”.
c) It comes down to whether you can accept people changing or a desire for revenge is paramount.
But not everything can be redeemed. Something must be punished, not redeemed.
A redeemed person accepts that there are consequences of their actions. The only difference between that and “punishment” is the willingness of the person to accept it. Redemption doesn’t, in any meaningful way, invalidate “punishment” except it use as an act of revenge.
