Those six skeletons sure were popular.
![:smirk:](https://d38bqls1q93fod.cloudfront.net/en/wow/images/emoji/twitter/smirk.png?v=6" ":smirk:")
6 Likes
Game scale is smaller than actual lore. The Alliance came with such massive forces that they created a Dread Scar. Those large massive forces, who were winning, got driven back by the skeletons (which were also Alliance) and the Blight.
1 Like
What an idiotic statement.
That is not so.
You view Sylvanas as evil. I do not. Others do not. Evil is based on what individuals view it as.
You are being very hypocritical by claiming Sylvanas is evil as a fact, while calling those who say Saurfang is a traitor insulting whiners.
You asked why people chose her, and you jump down their throats, while you call the path they chose evil.
You just wanted to post “nuh uh! I think she ebul! So she is!” over and over again. You wanted a thread to call the other side evil while having a sanctimonious fit when they criticize the side you chose.
I am not going to harp on it. I will leave you to it.
If you find it idiotic, further proof I am right.
You can barely count passed one. You say there is only one line of dialogue showing the Horde is losing - when there were clearly more.
If someone as moronic and wrong as you, who can not even count passed one to two, finds me idiotic - I am OK with that.
2 Likes
There is only 1 definition of evil, wicked and immoral, two words that desribe her to a tee. But is Saurfang factually treacherous? On one hand, he betrayed the Horde by leaving during war-time to consult with the very enemy they’re fighting. But on the other hand, he seeks to make peace with his enemy and save the Horde from being annihilated by them.
Treachery is based on perspective, evil is not. Every villain is the hero of their own story, whether they believe what they’re doing is correct or not.
Sylvanas can go kill some people and raise them from the dead claiming that it’s for the greater good, but is it actually a good act? Did those people want this for themselves? No, we call this a “necessary evil”, an act of evil comitted out of the in pursuit of the greater good. But it is still evil, by definition.
Greymane can go unprovacatively attack Sylvanas and her fleet, resulting in the death of soldiers. Another necesary evil, the he believes is in the interest of the greater good. He believes its a good act, but it’s not. It doesn’t matter what he thinks it was, it was still evil.
Don’t, cuz you can’t change the definition of evil, whether you or any other fan sees it that way or not.
Now if you’ll excuse me, i still have to read your own opinion on the matter. Hopefully it’s as interesting as it usually is. I found some elightenment out of DiF (after much goading), perhaps ill find some new insight from yours.
1 Like
I dont need to. Because if I accept your line of thinking I would also be considering that when the Jewish refugees were fleeing Germany that countries like US or Canada were right to turn them away because they would have then been involved because Hitler viewed the jewish people as his enemies.
So no.
I wont follow your idiotic logic.
Because this line of thinking is dangerous.
Wicked and Immoral are synonyms of ‘Evil’. This is a straight up tautology - She is Evil because she is [Evil] and [Evil]. Do you know the original definition of Evil, as far back as we can trace the word, is ‘transgressing the due measure’?
And are you really saying that ‘evil’ as a quality isn’t up to debate? Plenty of people you and I would agree are totally evil justified their atrocity (or tried to) based on the ‘Evil’ of their victims. Witch hunts, anyone?
Not only is this straight up wrong, it pretends that there is no subjective element to the labeling of others as Evil, which history proves wrong so often as to be nauseating.
8 Likes
I am pretty sure burning down an entire city deliberately falls into that sort of evil category. Especially considering the city is at your mercy and completely defenseless.
You cant even use collateral damage as an excuse so…
At some point you got to ask yourself. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck then it is indeed a duck.
I can’t believe I’m defending the Burning, because I think it was stupid and pointlessly cruel (And if Blizzard has a context for it that changes this, they have held that card to their chest for WAY too long), but the quality of the discourse here is not up to scratch.
Sylvanas burns the tree when she learns Malfurion isn’t dead. A major part of her rationale is precisely that it is no longer defenseless and at her mercy as she expected.
Again: Still dumb and cartoonish. But let’s not lose our minds here.
1 Like
Before everyone gets completely carried away in their quarreling, I’m just going to quote Maziodyne in full, because the thread was won on the fourth post and there’s nothing more I could say better or differently than this.
9 Likes
Like most comparisons between the WW 2 era and Warcraft, it does not hold true.
Another irrelevant point out of you.
For one thing, the Jewish people were living in Europe in various nations. In Warcraft, the Gilneans had their own nation and were forced out. Totally different.
Also - The Alliance and Horde were fighting together at the Broken Shore against a common foe. Genn was the first to strike against the other Faction and renew hostilities.
In contrast…
Prior to WW 2, the Jewish people in Europe were NOT using Allied forces to assassinate leaders of foreign nations - like Genn and the Worgen were.
Even if people like you enjoy accusing them of such things. That is how Hitler came to power. With false accusations similar to the ones you are making.
You are not making a good case that the act was not evil.
Correct me if I am wrong but Sylvanas was worried they would take the city back and free everyone so in her infinite wisdom rather than retreat and think of another brilliant plan she decided to kill them all.
Not sure what military objective this achieves as we see from Darkshore the Night Elves are perfectly capable of attacking Darkshore.
I do not care if the situation is not exactly the same.
Your comment was suggesting that she attacked Teldrassil because of Genns actions which isnt true but whatever. Regardless in your argument both Hilter and Sylvanas view a people as their enemy.
You blame Tyrande for accepting these refugees.
So you must hold a similar view on any sort of other refugee.
It is a foolish stance. And you dancing around the main argument by pointing out how they are not exactly 1:1 situations doesnt help you.
When was it stated that this was my intent? I don’t use ‘Evil’ as a phrase because, as I have shown, it is not reliable or particularly useful as anything but a value qualifier, but I freely admit that it was stupid, cruel and malicious (barring a reveal that Sylvanas had some good reason hidden in her bodice). Words which I think have far more practical meaning.
But bleating that she killed the defenseless when her rationale was largely informed by the fact that their greatest defender was still at large is outright false.
That is complete nonsense.
Tyrande and the Worgen are one specific scenario. Feelings on that relationship do not translate to all refugees.
The King of Gilneas tried to kill the Warchief and was living in Teldrassil by the permission of Tyrande. The civilians who died have Tyrande and Genn to thank.
One reason Saurfang gives for conceding to Sylvanas is because the Alliance never made a public statement rebuking Genn’s actions.
Your completely irrelevant WW 2 comparison just does not fit the situation.
I know you dont care - you always make totally incorrect and irrelevant statements lol. But I am going to point out how you are wrong.
A more fitting comparison would be one where the refugees used other people’s military to assassinate heads of state and sparked a war to begin with …
2 Likes
Which only further enforces my point, all of those qualities boils down to 1 thing. Regardless of what different words you want to use to describe it. It’s all beating around the same bush.
I just stated an example that America would be considered evil due to our reaction to Japan in WW2. Did we think it would benefit the greater good? Yes. But an evil act it still was. Yes, witch hunts were an act of evil, and people knew ot was. They abused it to dispose of any who they disliked. They can try to justify it all they want, was still evil.
How so and when? It isn’t subjective, it doesn’t mean anything else in any other language on the planet. No matter how many times it’s translated, it still describes the same traits. Only difference is how its’ spelled. Doesn’t mean anything else on Azeroth either, it’s the same regardless.
So you are viewing this as a philosophical question regarding the word itself?
Alright. Thats an opinion I guess.
It isnt. You literally said.
Followed by.
I think your statements speak for themselves.
You are blaming civilians and people that had nothing to do with their leader as the sole, valid, targets for Sylvanas’ retaliation that you head canoned.
Well thx. I dont always agree but I do take some value from informed posters who have relevant information.
But I part with people who make such broad judgements and act as if they are a universal. Posters who make claims of pure opinion as fact.
No. People use different words for a reason. Because they have different meanings, even if they are similar.
If you tell on your neighbor for having a satellite dish, and he gets fined, you can be totally malicious but not evil.
I never once said it was Sylvanas’s reason.
I said the deaths of Alliance civilians were Genn and Tyrande’s fault for putting the civilians under their charge into a War of Alliance Aggression.
Genn for provoking it and Tyrande for harboring him and his people.
Saurfang is the one who sees the Allliance aggression and refusal to publicly acknowledge Genn’s wrongs as a legitimate reason to concede and plan the War of Thorns.
Genn and Tyrande gave Saurfang good reason to plan the War of Thorns and
good reason to throw his support behind it. Their people paid the price.
1 Like
Which means you are making a tautological argument. You are trying to demonstrate that evil is an objective quality, and your proof for it is tautological (She is [Evil Synonym], therefore she is Evil). That means it’s not very good, for reference.
Kant was an 18th century philosopher, dude. There’s a reason he’s influential, which is that his ideas were a change in how we think. A change from what was, implying there were two different conceptions of those ideas he examined when developing the idea of universal law - and if there were no viable contest to his conclusions then and now, philosophy would have been over a long time ago. And if you have no idea what I’m talking about with this paragraph then I’d suggest hitting up the wikipedia for ‘Categorical Imperative’ at the least.
My point was that they justified it by saying the women they persecuted were Evil. Which is to say, they had an interpretation of ‘Evil’ that clearly differs from the one you say is absolute. The difference is based in perspective.
We now use this as the definition for ‘Excessive’, which is not a synonym for Evil. The definition of Evil has changed so much we had to invent a new word to cover its original meaning. Like literally every word, its meaning is subject to change based on the perspective of the speaker and the society in which they live. That’s linguistics, for you.
You are not an absolute moral authority. Your perceptions of evil are not universal. Other people think as richly as you do and can rationally disagree on things related to the scale of moral transgression.
2 Likes
What does that even mean? It is their fault for living in their city and accepting refugees?
ROFL.
Gonna need a source for that.
That Saurfang is attacking them specifically because of Tyrande and Genns misdeeds against the Horde.