I agree with pretty much everything you just said at least in the spirit of why you believe this to be true, and that’s part of why I find this conversation difficult to have and why I hesitated to post this. Because there’s not a good way to say someone may of participated in an act of genocide, or that if they didn’t something that happened to them with a lot of emotional significance(Like Darnassus.) would no longer count as the thing they say it does.
It’s almost hyperbolic to do that on it’s face, a strawman if you would, but it’s something that(unfortunately.) because of the severity of the story Blizzard has chosen to tell should be discussed. I personally classify it as such under Democide in the same way I do Darnassus, but I don’t begrudge anyone else for having a different perspective.
Because largely this comes down to how you value intent, which is something our legal system will always struggle to unravel because there are a lot of people who feel only results matter and a lot of people who feel what you hold in your heart is what matters.
In a way I think that the best we can do with the term is try not to immediately associate the other people with National Socialists just because we feel the G word is applicable or not with a situation, and that will let us argue from a more objective standpoint.
Not only HypocriteFang was instantly reminded of his first genocide, a ton of them died and (if you want to get into the more nuanced defenitions of it) their culture will be irrevocably changed much like the vuperas’ will be.
Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, God calls it a duck… it’s probably a duck.
Welp, it seems we have reached an impasse here. I dont think we can get anywere if dont agree what genocide is in the first place. You’ve gone at length about your personal experiences/culture/history/etc here and im guessing its due to that that you consider it a G-word if the culture but not necessarily the people dies out
On my end due to my own personal experiences/culture/history/etc I use the simpler defenition of “if most of them died then its a G-word”. Its kind of like “we dont have a geneva convention on azeroth so who knows what even is a warcrime” type of deal.
I dont know why you and Aurirel (who removed her post but thats neither here nor there) and others always bring up this.
As much as Anduin would like to pretend otherwise, this is a no quarters given all out war. But yes, the irony that the Alliance leadership its pretty much “Hippies + Tyrande” while the lower echelons are slowly turning into Rogers is not lost on me.
I mean, why should random Alliance middlemen care about the morality of going all out against the horde or collateral damage when they are fighting for their very survival (and/or their afterlives, if they’re human since thats Sylvanas endgame)? The Horde certainly doesnt. Its only natural that the bloodier the war gets the faster inhibitions go out the window.
I mean yes, destroying the culture would also count as genocide, but i’m pretty comfortable saying the Vulpera themselves would also probably die without help from the Horde or the Sethrak. I don’t object so much to the difference between culture and people, so much as I object to the idea that if you do something that in the end accomplishes the goal of killing people then you should still be charged of that crime. The Vulpera at this point are at the mercy of their allies, if for whatever reason those allies don’t provide they would die.
As should’s, would’s, do’s and don’ts, generally speaking soldiers tend to become numb and callous as war goes on and as they lose friends. Yet no matter how many friends and family you lose, if you choose to shoot a child in revenge? Ya still shot a child and should be charged as such, that’s just the nature of free will.
And freedom is what you do with what’s been done to you.
I would like to say that I did ask specifically that this remain respectful precisely because I knew this would be something of a hot button topic. So if we could not accuse people on the Alliance of pretending or inherently arguing in bad faith that would be preferable, and in reverse.
That’s the same vibe I get from the Zolaco in Zul’dazar. Anduin didn’t want to kill civilians but wound up funneling them into a dangerous warzone in the process of executing his plan.
The problem is that that the Quillboar have been replaced with Allia-
I am of the opinion that Brennandam did happen because someone touched up the journal dropped by Captain Lockjaw to make Sylvanas less villainous, yes what you got in Brennadam is a touched up version.
But the NPCs largely remained just as psychotically insane, I chalk that up to time restraints because it’s literally so poorly coded that Captain Lockjaw is hostile to both Alliance and Horde which to me points to them readding the NPC with his base settings when they changed his journal.
Are these hard facts? No, do I have any hard evidence? Not really.
I mean, of they REALLY wanted to canonically depower the players they shouldnt have given us THE heart of azeroth you know? Or maybe make it less of a big deal
I largely agree with the sentiment. I feel if we were seen as equals to other big name characters it would, ironically, pull the power levels back into control. If we could wound the A-tier characters and fight the B-tier to a standstill or even win then maybe the writers would be more inclined to give creative narratives to battles then just go ‘Well the PC is helpless now!’
I feel like there’s a bit of cross-talk going on whenever these kinds of awful events are compared, and this hyper-factionalized narrative just makes it worse.
A lot of arguments like this seem to eventually fall into the same rut:
“Look at this terrible thing the Alliance did!”
What they probably mean: “The Alliance does bad things, too. It’s not just the Horde, and the Alliance isn’t perfectly squeaky clean. It’s not a black and white fight.”
What the other side often hears: “Look at this! The Alliance is clearly just as morally bad as the Horde!”
(and in some bad cases: “Maybe even worse! I’m sure the Alliance dead deserved it somehow!”)
So, what they counter with: “Well, the Horde has done worse than that!”
What they probably mean: “Okay, yes, the Alliance does bad things. But one side kicks a puppy while the other murders people - the factions are far from equal right now!” (possibly with “ideally, they should be more equal, but they clearly aren’t.”)
What the other side often hears: “Anything the Alliance does is automatically excused by this thing the Horde did! Stop whining about your piddly losses, and how dare you besmirch the glorious perfect Alliance!” (spontaneously turns into male human paladin with a Garithos moustache)
And then this cycle repeats until everyone is too angry to keep talking to each other because they feel the other side is dismissing or ignoring their real argument.
Or, worse, one or both sides gets pushed far enough that they turn into that extreme perception of their argument.
Sounds like the smallest amount of actual moral greyness managed to find its way into BFA.
The Alliance most likely doesn’t understand the full implications of what they’re doing. Destroying caravans is not just destroying trade vehicles, it’s destroying Vulperan homes. They’re a poor people, barely scrapping by.
The Vulpera, however, are aiding the Horde in a war campaign against the Alliance. The Alliance has every reason to assume Sylvanas will kill, raise, or enslave all of them. The Alliance should attempt to disrupt Horde trade routes.
![:skull_and_crossbones:](https://d38bqls1q93fod.cloudfront.net/en/wow/images/emoji/twitter/skull_and_crossbones.png?v=6" ":skull_and_crossbones:")
![:crossed_swords:](https://d38bqls1q93fod.cloudfront.net/en/wow/images/emoji/twitter/crossed_swords.png?v=6" ":crossed_swords:")
![:stuck_out_tongue:](https://d38bqls1q93fod.cloudfront.net/en/wow/images/emoji/twitter/stuck_out_tongue.png?v=6" ":stuck_out_tongue:")