They had no proof and didnât know the Hordeâs situation at all. Besides, if weâre running with the idea that someone believing something justifies their actions, doesnât that exonerate Sylvanas?
To be clear, I donât have a problem with Genn pursuing revenge against the Horde for their slights, real or imagined. My issue is that it was a betrayal of his word. To both the Horde, and to Anduin, given heâd always intended to attack on the mission from the start.
In Anduinâs case thatâs what makes the situation grey. In the Hordeâs case, heâs never given an official word about peace with them. He was just never acknowledged at all for agreement with peace talks because he doesnât have any political power or weight to be allowed to challenge such notion.
No⌠thats not what happened. You are making quite a leap there.
Sylvanas, on the battlefield, betrayed the Alliance by retreating her army and using the Alliance as meatshields.
Thats a betrayal.
It was on her to prove her innocence.
In war you dont just leave without telling your allies. There are communication tools and methods. âHey alliance. We are being overrun! Fall back!â
But she didnt.
The only reason why the Alliance was not at war with Sylvanas was because they had bigger fish to fry. Otherwise? Totally justified.
Real life wars have started for less.
You understand now?
Setting aside that we donât actually know the details of the peace talks and who was or was not personally involved in them, Iâm fairly certain that Genn was de-facto part of the peace by virtue of being a member of the Alliance.
No, not even slightly. The Horde retreated because it was being absolutely decimated and itâs Warchief had been taken down. They didnât âuse the Alliance as meatshieldsâ, they just sounded the call to retreat. Youâre talking as though they didnât even have the autonomy to make that decision.
Was the dead Warchief not evidence enough that they retreated because the situation was FUBAR?
Thatâs what sounding the horn was for. The Alliance certainly wasnât confused about it meaning retreat. Should they have tried yelling over the clamor of battle and the three spaceships lasering their forces?
No, your position is silly. Itâs understandable that Genn might think it was a betrayal in the moment, as he lacked perspective on the field. But as soon as they boarded the gunship it should have been obvious that the Horde position was gutted. Beyond that we have Baine outright telling Anduin it wasnât a betrayal, and Shaw having known it was all a huge trap. Itâs asking a lot to think that everyone ignored all of this information and continued to blame the Horde.
Firstly, I specified heedless self-interest and a specific scenario. Not a general âself-interest at the expense of othersâ.
Secondly, it did answer the question. Now youâre asking what amounts to a followup as to how this wouldnât lead to a good outcome. âWhy shouldnât Sylvanas enslave Eyirâ, well, âbecause itâll lead to a worse outcome.â Now, how it would lead to a worse outcome, in my view, is that continuing to signal your society is fine enslaving people for immortality will hurt any moral defense against someone else enslaving them. As well, lower overall empathy towards your group, probably also going to cause worse outcomes.
So Veloran, Iâm asking you a fifth time. Please show me the respect and honesty by trying to answer. Do you or do you not agree with the idea that it is ok TO YOU PERSONALLY to enslave someone to obtain immortality.
This is, to my understanding, considered a vacuous position in philosophy (and is somewhat circular). Whether or not all decisions are ultimately self interested doesnât defeat the notion that we can have varying preferences/priorities and different ways of judging how to go about ensuring them. Hence why I specified âheedless self-interestâ and not merely self-interest. One may still pass moral judgement on another based upon whether or not their actions comport to their own personal preferences and morality.
So based on your own preferences and morality, you should be able to address whether or not you agree with the idea of it being ok to enslave someone for immortality.
Can I? ![:grin:](https://d38bqls1q93fod.cloudfront.net/en/wow/images/emoji/twitter/grin.png?v=6" ":grin:")
Edit:
I was chanting submit submit submit.
To put it bluntly, I would rather the Forsaken enslave Eyir than to die out.
It is a valid view. I donât necessarily agree depending on what you mean by âdie outâ. But it is valid none-the-less.
Then perhaps we should just leave it at that because Blizzard themselves donât care to explore intricacies like that.
Just wanted to clarify on this. I donât really have a leg in this overall debate, though itâs been an interesting read.
The forces Sylvanas sent to Stormheim were divided into 2 groups. One group was The Oblivion, which was sent straight to the Temple of Eyir ahead of the main fleet. The Oblivion and the forces within were the only ones Sylvanas had pulled to help her capture Eyir.
The rest of the fleet is group 2. And their only goal was to help the PC get the Aegis, a plan that falls apart when the Alliance attacks and decimates the fleet.
The Forsaken forces we see her leading at the Temple were already in Stormheim, and were meant to siege the temple from the very beginning. She didnât pull them from the forces meant to help get the Aegis, because there werenât really any to pull.
But Sylvanasâ undertaking in Stormheim wasnât heedless. She went out of her way not to get the rest of the Horde involved in the expedition, not to get the Forsaken involved in her dealings with Helya, and to have the PC be focused on the primary mission of acquiring the Aegis. Contrary to this, Genn pulled the entire Alliance into a major incident which would serve as an impetus for a world war out of his desire for revenge.
The answer of why it would lead to a worse outcome is pretty relevant to answering the question of why Sylvanas shouldnât have done it.
Empathy towards the Forsaken has been rock bottom since their inception. Beyond that, I donât think the Forsaken require a moral defense against someone enslaving them - Both because nobody else is trying to enslave them, and because I donât consider a moral defense to be worthwhile or useful from the outset. Additionally, again, the idea that Eyir being enslaved was wrong and should be stopped on moral grounds was not a notion taken up by anybody involved in the situation, nor referenced since - It was not at all the reason why Genn set out to stop Sylvanas.
Also, if the idea is that practicing slavery would make others think less of their group, the Horde has been failing that litmus for years, because slavery - For the purposes of entertainment, even - is common within the Horde. In fact we have a particular High King, who was a slave to the Horde, who really did not care and was even good friends with his owner. So Iâm not sure that argument is actually grounded in the views people on Azeroth have been shown to have.
Again, I continue to be confused as to why youâre so insistent on my personal opinion. The fact is the Horde - And the Alliance, seemingly - is fine with the Horde enslaving people for purposes as meaningless as watching them kill each other in an arena. Comparatively, enslaving someone so as to give your people a much higher standard of living and counteract the effects of rotting away into nothing (Not necessarily âimmortalityâ) is positively benevolent behavior.
How do you define something as being âheedlessâ? I agree that actions should be undertaken with consideration and a weighing of consequences. But I do not agree that the weight of anotherâs moral judgement, particularly from an enemy, particularly in a setting like Warcraft where so many different races and organizations have such wildly differing beliefs and priorities, should bear as being taken into serious consideration.
As shown in BtS, the Forsaken are quite literally falling apart. In the 13 or so years since they were raised as Undead, many have become so frail that to simply touch them runs the risk of serious and permanent injury, and to even function in daily life they need to constantly replace their failing body parts with fresher ones. Itâs no small situation either. Even Nathanos had decayed to the point where his skills were heavily waning. And as early as Cataclysm we see Forsaken who are deteriorating to the point of becoming mindless Undead.
Do you not think a leader has a responsibility to alleviate this situation for their people, even through drastic means? Why should anyone care about some theorized moral condemnation when they may not even exist in a few more short decades?
Because I have doubts you even agree with the loaded descriptive claims you were making. Before this goes further, Iâve asked five times. And Iâve answered at least two of your questions.
Are you going to answer or not? Because I donât want to keep discussing this topic with you if not.
Because it was a betrayal. Yes.
Or at least thats how anyone else would view it.
Or it means the Horde left their position and their entire position was overrun.
If there were no enemies on that cliff why would they be up there fighting in the first place?
That was MUCH later. Genn was still under the impression the Horde had betrayed them and the war was already being waged even if Andiun was unwilling.
What part of this do you not understand? Am I going too fast? Do you need me to slow down?
Iâd only be good with losing stormwind for a patch or so, not an expansion. The horde has taken enough alliance territory. Give them the exodar. Weâll take silvermoon. Call it a day.
And why does it matter if I do or donât? Whatâs relevant is the arguments being made.
I also think itâs funny youâre characterizing my statement of Genn sentencing the Forsaken to a degrading death (Which, unless another solution for their situation is found, is literally the case) as âloaded descriptive claimsâ while having described the Stormheim situation as âa right to immortal lifeâ despite having ignored multiple arguments as to why those are not the stakes at play.
Itâs not much of a discussion if you just keep passing over what Iâm saying in favor of asking irrelevant moral questions.
Again, no. Even in the case that the Alliance never found out the Hordeâs situation, their insufficient knowledge doesnât make a falsehood become true.
They were only there to âcover the flankâ. Of course, it was a pointless endeavor considering that the terrain didnât really allow for a flanking maneuver from that direction, the Legion had spaceships from which they could bombard the army from the air without the need of the cliffâs height, and the Legion was literally teleporting demons in willy-nilly wherever they wanted anyway.
I suppose the Alliance cause was lost without Sylvanasâ eight archers to âclear the skiesâ? If that was considered a critical tactical advantage, it should have been a heads up that it was way past time to pull out.
Was it? Thereâs no timeline of when Stormheim happens relative to everything else, Shaw being freed or Baineâs message to Anduin or the Alliance finding out about Volâjinâs death, or any other inter-faction communication that could have relayed what happened.
Alright so you are in denial.
Got it.
#blueguysbad.
I donât enjoy arguing with people who donât believe what theyâre saying.
So you wonât even tell me for sure you wonât answer my question? I specifically answered several of your questions after you asked âanswer mineâ. Whereas youâve refused to answer me five times, and now wonât even confirm you wonât answer.
If I may butt in, sometimes things âworkâ in fiction that would be awful in real life.
Up until wrath (cemented in cata) the alliance hub was ironforge. I only used stormwind as an example since it could get us an ironforge update and Iâd love some alliance transmogs. I also think the story needs a real mix up! And also maybe weâd stop seeing threads about balance over substance heh.
I guess Iâm not precisely following your point. Can you clarify with an example?
Sorry, the best the Alliance was going to get in the middle of being completely overrun was the retreat horn. We were allies at the time but that doesnât mean Volâjin or Sylvanas should put the well-being of the Alliance over their own faction. Not a betrayal and I would expect the Alliance to have done the same exact thing.