I liked the new cinematic. Even if their animation is still worn and torn from like 10 years ago. Not sure if they send their cinematics to the past through a time machine or something to make because the quality still seems to be the same. Staying strong though. Anyway coughs back to topic.
I liked the cinematic. Wasn’t bad. Atleast she’s got a reason to not be branded as an outright villain and can get a chance at redemption / being accepted back into the fold. i.e Bliz might still get some of their Sylvanas fans back into the flock.
Not quite. Planned shooter? Jaina shot. Better example would be attempted murder by someone firing a semi-automatic rifle at point blank range and having Superman jump in front of it and stop the bullet.
I started examining your logic, and said I disagree with your final assertion. So I feel like there may have been a miscommunication.
No, my argument is that intent that is somehow heroically stopped doesn’t make something lessened significantly in comparison to something that wasn’t heroically stopped. Trying to do something but failing because of your own incompetence can make something laughable. Requiring someone to come and save the day to save everyone is another matter, in my view.
No. Just no.
My point was you can’t have it both ways, either everything we do to fix and prevent someone’s evil makes it less evil, or it doesn’t. I believe that it’s wrong to suggest that us saving souls makes Sylvanas’ actions less evil. That applies to Thrall stopping Jaina as well. My belief is pretty consistent there. If you believe it applies to Jaina, then it applies to Sylvanas as well.
No, I’m pretty sure it qualifies as morality.
For me, actions matter more than solely (or even significantly) relying on outcomes. Releasing a deadly gas that Superman inhales and saves everyone before a single death doesn’t change anything about how evil the person’s action is (in my view). To me, us saving souls in the Maw doesn’t change the evilness of Sylvanas burning Teldrassil, just as Thrall magically (literally, not sarcastically) holding Jaina’s wave of watery death at bay, doesn’t make the act of launching said wave, less evil.
For you, the opposite is true. The fact that Thrall jumped in front of the wave that Jaina sent at Orgrimmar and held it at bay reduces the evilness of her action dramatically for you.
I’m not sure how significant (we might disagree in degree) but I do agree that context matters. The context that the losses Jaina suffered at Theramore does play a role. That coupled with her personal loss - Rhonin - impacted her.
Unfortunately, there are few, if any, main characters who can claim to have gotten a worse hand dealt than Sylvanas. She’s been killed, risen as a banshee with only part of her soul, forced to watch helplessly as she murdered her own people under the Lich King’s control, considered a monster after she broke free. After the death of the Lich King, she committed suicide, where she ended up being tortured in the Maw, at which point she accepted a deal to escape the Maw and returned with a (pretty legitimate) grievous regarding the system of life and death. In her mind, she believed rewriting the system would fix the suffering of everyone, no matter the cost.
I don’t believe that Jaina’s argument that murdering the Horde’s capital (not even a race’s capital, nor the most militarized base on a content) regardless of the civilian casualties (which is why Dalaran didn’t pursue the strategy even after the loss of Rhonin) was for the greater good, therefore justifying the action, makes it significantly less evil.
I don’t believe that Sylvanas’ argument that fixing the system of life and death, even at the cost of murdering those in Teldrassil, was for the greater good, therefore justifying the action, makes it significantly less evil.
I also don’t believe that Sargeras’ actions are significantly less evil because he believed that scouring the universe of life was for the greater good in preventing the Void from controlling it. I’m not suggesting you do (I don’t know how you feel on the subject), it’s taking an argument to an absurd degree, but I am following a logically consistent arc.
I don’t believe that Thrall stopping Jaina’s wave makes it less evil, just as I don’t believe that us saving souls from the Maw, or (eventually) preventing the Jailer’s plan, makes it less evil.
The facts aren’t being disputed in any (significant) way. My moral compass weighs things differently than yours, and there’s no way to bridge that gap. Hence, good luck to you. There’s really no point in discussing it further.
So you genuinely don’t differentiate an action done in a moment of time out of rage and loss from an action that was calculated, preemptively planned for a self-serving goal?
Jaina preemptively planned and executed her strategy. She buried the mana-focusing iris beforehand. She tried getting Dalaran to burn Orgrimmar down, then went to study in a library for a way to pursue it on her own, and then finally went to cast the spell. That’s an awful lot of time to consider it “a moment of time” or consider it not planned.
As for rage and loss, that’s been Sylvanas’ entire arc. Regardless of the cost and consequences, she’s been following a path that is entirely set on “fixing” (whatever that means) the system of life and death, after she’s been killed, risen without part of her soul, forced to kill her own people, and then killed herself and was tortured in the Maw. I’m not sure how much more rage and loss there can be.
Just to clarify, I don’t think either plays much role in mitigating the evilness of their actions. It’s why I said I don’t agree with the idea that it’s hardly comparable.
Regardless, I said context does matter, just as the specifics of an action do matter in judging how relevant and important the context is. Context is fixed, while the scale of the evil action is not. The more significantly evil, the less of a role context can play (once again, for me). Others can (and clearly do) view it differently.
Anakin Skywalker slaughtered a village of Tusken Raiders after his mom died at their hand. If he blew up Tatooine in response, it’s a different story. The first action, including murdering women and children, was still evil, but the mitigation of context plays more of a role in evaluating the action, when it comparison to blowing up the whole planet. Again, that’s just my morality.
Killing someone because they killed someone you cared about, is less evil than killing an entire planet because someone there killed someone you cared about. The context of the murder of a loved one, just doesn’t matter very much (to me) in that case.
Others may disagree, believing that the death of a loved one mitigates any action to an equal degree (consider it percent application to any evil that follows). I don’t. I give it a flat value.
I did not compare what Jaina went through to be akin to a road rage my guy.
The events that Jaina went through and finally put in place was in couple of weeks or months after the loss of everyone she knew and her entire country.
And the focus of her wrath were people directly responsible.
Except she has not and did not accomplish this. Her plan… as far as we know so far seems to be giving power to a guy called the jailer ruling over super hell.
And she accomplished this goal by attacking people completely unrelated to her plight.
And you would be wrong in saying so. You are making a false comparison and then pretending to be impartial. It’s akin to people I have previously talked to that equated Taurajo with Teldrassil.
False equivalencies aside you would be wrong.
Jaina Targeted Garrosh. She targeted the Horde army inside Orgrimmar. The Horde that were celebrating and torturing the surviving Theramore citizens inside orgrimmar.
Sylvanas died to Arthas. The she started working for the very man APPARENTLY who made the scourge and Arthas in the first place. And what she proceeded in doing is to screw over anyone who believed in her (Forsaken and Horde) to screw over complete bystanders (Night Elves and Alliance) who had nothing to do with her issues.
And you tell me these two events are one and the same? Please…
Correct, Sylvanas didn’t fix the system of life and death, though I’m not sure the relevance. Even if she had, I don’t think the context of her life significantly reduces the evilness of the actions she took to achieve her goal. It was based on an ends-justify-the-means rationale and usually those are based around an evil means.
Her plan was to help the Jailer rewrite reality (apparently using Zereth Mortis) to fix what she considers to be an unfair system of life and death. She seemed to believe fixing that was worth the cost of murdering however many. Jaina seemed to believe that murdering all of Orgrimmar was worth the cost to achieve her goal. I don’t believe either context, or their ends justify the means arguments, do much to mitigate the evilness of their actions.
You believe my moral compass is wrong. People have different belief systems.
By saying that neither Jaina’s, nor Sylvanas’, context play much of a role in mitigating the evilness of their actions? I really don’t follow that analogy, but I don’t know who you’ve argued with so I can’t speak to it.
In the same manner that destroying an entire planet, or the largest city on a continent, qualifies as targeting someone, yes.
Maybe she should’ve targeted a significant military-base with access to the sea that wasn’t heavily populated with civilians due the fact that it wasn’t a racial or faction capital … oh. That’s awkward.
Sorry but you’re trying to play a game of “YOUR MORALITY IS WRONG.” You can’t really win, a screen name talking about a fictional video game is really not going to change my perception and beliefs about right and wrong.
The relevence is there was no greater good reason or goal.
One is born out of vengeance on people directly responsible.
The other is a goal where out of selfishness and in defiance of your own failures and fate decided to sacrifce people who are completely blameless.
A false equivalency is a false equivalency. Regardless of your belief system.
No I am saying you are equating those directly responsible getting a consequence for their decisions is not the same as a crazy lady thinking she can rewrite reality and sacrificing anyone she can get her hands to further that goal are not infact… equivalent.
Another false equivalency. Garrosh AND his entire Horde army at Orgrimmar were not mere singular resident of a planet hiding within.
Orgrimmar is the significant military base with the war leader, the officers and the entire army responsible for all the evils that happened to Jaina.
It also has a symbolic value because both Orgrimmar and Theramore were built at the same time and their proximity a symbol of peace and cooperation between Humans and Orcs.
The Orcs destroyed Theramore and so it only follows that Jaina make the same gesture in revenge.
You are making a false equivalency, thats all I am pointing out, I don’t really care about your morality.
You are equating what Sylvanas did with what Jaina did. That is false.
It’s hard to judge the evilness of Jaina as for both Orgrimmar and the purge of Dalaran:
Orgrimmar: It’s a retalation against the complete destruction of a city because the warmonger that was Garrosh launched a war.
Is “An eye for an eye” truly evil in this case?
The purge of Dalaran is because of an apparent betrayal of the Blood elves (while only a few did really that).
That was the last straw and she goes on a rampage to kick out the Horde from Dalaran and has probably imprisoned / killed innocents Blood elves in the process.
Jaina has attenuating circumstances that Sylvanas hasn’t, the later became a genocidal maniac because she followed the plan of someone else.
She did not hesitate to kill /raised from the deads as many people as possible just for the Jailer (if we follow the writers narrative).
Regardless of her reasons, Sylvanas has done the same actions as Arthas.
So i tend to think that the level of evilness of Jaina’s actions is nowhere close to Sylvanas.
Except Jaina not only stood down, but had she carried out that action, the resulting self guilt would likely have killed her. Why? Because she was acting from a position of instability and rage.
What did Sylvanas feel? Nothing, no remorse at all, just satisfaction and snark at the brutal murder of thousands of civilians including children. Not only did she carry out said action, but doubled down with zero remorse.
Sylvanas’ every action came from a position of the universe trying to serve her. Jaina acted out of trying to make the universe a better place, however misguided she was at the time. Jaina stepped down when she realized she was wrong, but Sylvanas didn’t care that she was wrong. Because in her eyes, she was more important than everyone else in the universe.
The two scenarios are not even comparable tbh. The fact that you’re willing to take part in the mental gymnastics to equate them is weird.
Except you’re taking it to some drastic, unrealistic place. You’re saying the moral equivalent of someone stopping a bomb from killing everyone in a hypothetical building is someone else going into that hypothetical building after it was successfully blown up and gathering the bodies.
You’re saying that actually deaths are equal to potential deaths.
Oh, I wish you were saying that. Because that is something I can debate.
But you can’t be saying that at all. If you were, you’d fully understand why the action of murdering thousands of night elves is not comparable to the action of not murdering thousands of orcs.
You’d agree that the **action and the intention of murdering thousands of night elves to send to Necro-Thanos so he can use their souls as part of his plan to murder the universe and replace it with one he controls is not at all equivalent to the action of attempting and failing to take out an enemy state that had just in fact blown up a city themselves, filled with your loved ones, an action that would also end a massive war and prevent future deaths.
No, you’re arguing the actions do not matter. The intentions do not matter. Even the circumstances do not matter. Because if those did matter, then there is no rational way you could equate what Sylvanas did do with what Jaina was going to do until Thrall held her back long enough for Jaina to think it through.
What you are arguing, even if unintentionally, is that the only thing that matters are hypothetical numbers and actual numbers, and as long as those numbers are relatively close, then that is all that matters.
But even that doesn’t work. Because if we’re just looking at the potential of their actions and what might have happened had nobody stopped them (literally your arguments vis-a-vis Thrall stopping Jaina), then Sylvanas gets to add the entire Warcraft universe to her tally. Her actions to aid the Jailer, knowing and intentionally, were to aid him in his goal. That goal was to rewrite the universe and put it under his control. We inevitably stop the Jailer, whose plan was only possible due to her help.
Therefore, if we use your logic, Sylvanas must be held accountable for attempting to destroy or enslave all life in the cosmos.
Which is certainly worse than a single, small, insignificant Orgrimmar by comparison.
Every time someone brings up the soul split thing as an excuse for Sylvanas’ behavior I can’t help but hear “Ethriel was correct all along” when she kept saying Blizz would whitewash Sylvanas’ crimes.
Perhaps Ethriel’s next alt will be named Cassandra.
Remember, Jaina sent two assaults to destroy Orgrimmar that Thrall exerted his power to thwart. It isn’t that Thrall talked her down so she decided against even trying to destroy Org. She did try twice and was thwarted.
To work in your “bombs in a building” metaphor :
It is like a terrorist who put multiple bombs in the building with the full intent to kill everyone and turn the building and corpses into ash and rubble… but then the bomb squad deactivates them and thwarts her.
Except in this case, the bomb squad disarmed some of the bombs, the terrorist still had bombs, and in the end the terrorist decided not to detonate the remaining.
VS
The terrorist did detonate the bombs, then sent assassins to kill the bomb squad, then set the police to war with the fire department, all so that the terrorist’s pal Steve Zovaal could destroy the world.
IDK, maybe I’m missing some subtext that makes the former equal the latter.
So maybe on the evil scale from 1 to 10, what Jaina tried and failed at doing is an 11, and what Sylvanas did was a 12. They are still both evil.
I think there is honest confusion here. They do not equal each other. At the same time, one does not diminish the other.
Taken by itself, Jaina did try and fail to wipe out a city. A bad thing, to most folk.
Does Sylvanas attempting to unmake existence make Jaina’s action less bad, just because Sylvanas does worse?
Jaina did something bad. Sylvanas did bad things. Those statements are not mutually exclusive. Both can be true.
Does Thrall stopping the first two waves mean that Jaina is absolved of attempting the mass murder of civilians? Do people who use this argument think criminals are free to do as they please, depending on if they can be stopped? Are these same people suggesting Sylvanas is not evil, it’s just that the forces for good failed to stop her like they stopped Jaina?
There is confusion here, Curse. It’s coming from you. Zarrin is stating Jaina’s actions are the equivalent of Sylvanas’s actions.
It’s not whether or not what Jaina was going to do and did not do is evil; that’s not the debate. It is.
The debate is about whether or not actually murdering tens/hundreds of thousands of people, with the full intent and knowledge that their souls will go to the Maw to power up Zovaal so that he can destroy all reality and remake it as he wants it (thereby killing even more people)…
Is the moral equivalent…
Of almost killing tens/hundreds of thousands, all to get revenge against the hundreds/thousands of soldiers and their leader after they killed tens of thousands of her people, but not doing that because first Thrall stopped her twice and then in the end she chose to not continue trying because it’s bad. Killing no one in the end.
So. When discussiong morality.
Is actual murder the equivalent of almost-but-not-murder?
Are circumstances irrelevant?
Are intentions irrelevant?
Are numbers irrelevant?
Are actual crimes irrelevant?
Because you have to answer yes to all of that to reach a point where Jaina’s acts and Sylvanas’s acts are remotely comparable.
