Are you upset because you feel it won’t follow the lore or you just upset because it has black and brown people in it? 
“You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.”
1 Like
Agree with the statement. Not with the example.
The biggest skate is Jaina who tried mass murder (just like Sylvanas), and ordered the purge of Dalaran. Or maybe one can put to Uther who denied Arthas a chance at redemption or even judgement. But nobody seem to even mention it.
Give that the story has Sylvanas’ good condemning what part of her did and saying she had become bad as Arthas, I don’t see that she is much of an example at all.
2 Likes
People on these forums are obsessed with the term “genocide”. But that seems have generated the view that it isn’t evil if it isn’t “genocide”. I’ve never understood why people got so work up about whether the burning of Teldrasil was called genocide. Its not like the mass killing of people is any better if you are doing it “to kill hope”.
The purge of Dalaran wasn’t genodice. But it was ethnic cleansing. And that is considered a crime again humanity.
4 Likes
No I am not. I wish the show was going to be good, but from what I’ve seen so far it’s not.
They don’t understand the characters. For example, Galadriel wears Feanor’s symbol on her armor despite her hating Feanor for very good reasons (being the closest thing to an evil elf in Middle-Earth, responsible for more elf deaths than anyone except Melkor AND being a creepy incestuous uncle to her). She also gets flirty with the human character Halbrand despite her being married to the elf Celeborn at the time.
The quality of the costumes looks more like cosplayers, as you said.
And then there’s the cringe “superfans” trailers…
That is wrong, Renautus. For one, if you actually believed that, you wouldn’t have condemned me so viciously when you thought I was being sexist, and you’d have no grounds to oppose sexism.
“You understand sleep when you are awake, not while you are sleeping. You can see mistakes in arithmetic when your mind is working properly; while you are making them you cannot see them. Good people know about both good and evil; bad people do not know about either.”
It was a Nietzsche quote, because I know how much you like him.
That’s not the whole quote, I would not peg you as a person who would cherry-pick. /s
The whole quote is as follows:
“One last point. Remember that, as I said, the right direction leads not only to peace but to knowledge. When a man is getting better he understands more and more clearly the evil that is still left in him. When a man is getting worse, he understands his own badness less and less. A moderately bad man knows he is not very good: a thoroughly bad man thinks he is all right. This is common sense, really. You understand sleep when you are awake, not when you are sleeping. You can see mistakes in arithmetic when your mind is working properly: while you are making them you cannot see them. You can understand the nature of drunkenness when you are sober, not when you are drunk. Good people know about both good and evil: bad people do not know about either.”
Proper context is everything.
4 Likes
Then your Nietzsche quote says a lot about Nietzsche’s character and how little he understood of good and evil. And what you shared from C.S Lewis doesn’t disprove my point, it only elaborates on it.
It’s funny how people who deny the existence of good and evil change their tune as soon as someone acts against them.
I don’t think you do actually understand that C.S. Lewis quote at all.
It actually runs counter to your entire stances on most things. The core message of the quote is in order to be good you have to understand evil, those that think they are without a doubt good, or have zero moral awareness are truly evil. It actually is very similar to the quote I shared the other day from JP on why Sylvanas is a redeemable character.
Who here denies the existence of good and evil?
Are you trying to use Neitzche’s criticism of morality as a gotcha moment?
Nietzsche believed two things, one, there is no objective truth and, secondly, that we are all individually responsible for what we do because we have free will. He rejects archaic views of morality because it has little value. Stealing is morally wrong, for example, but a poor man stealing to feed his starving family may be not evil to the man, but evil to the shopkeeper who is losing profit.
Both Nietzsche and C.S Lewis are pushing an idea of self-realization.
5 Likes
Or she had prepared that as a contingency if they had attacked her she might have suspected. After all she commanded a demon to kill IT’S brothers
It is you who doesn’t understand me or that C.S Lewis quote.
The main message I - and that quote - had is that good people are able to understand both good and evil, bad people are unable to understand good or evil. That reinforces my stance, not counters it, despite what you say in your latest attempt to dilute good and evil.
Nietzsche denied good and evil when he pushed his “master and slave morality” ideas, for one. Nietzsche wrongly assumed the views he opposed were “archaic” because it didn’t appeal to his tastes and he was shooting the message due to his issues with some of the messengers. If there was a “gotcha” moment, it was against Nietzsche’s ideas on morality.
Try to twist Lewis all you want, for one, Lewis and Nietzsche were on opposite sides regarding objective truth, and you know it.
“A thoroughly bad man thinks he is all right.”
2 Likes
She actually wanted to kill her sisters. She wanted them all to be united in death so they could all rule together.
I just called it genocide because it is much quicker than calling it mass killing of innocent civilians and huge incalculable cultural and infrastructure damage for no damn reason than hate and fear.
1 Like
Always said that she was a woman of family values.
And yet she called it off. Despite their departure on less than wholly accepting terms.
I think deep down, she actually doesn’t want to kill her sisters, because she loves them and doesn’t want to do the same thing to them what happened to her.
She’s torn.
1 Like
What is the nuance that separates Sylvanas from Arthas?
Arthas became what he was purely as a product of his own deliberate choices.
Sylvannas’ role and incarnation of the Banshee Queen was forced upon her.
6 Likes
That she was a victim of him.
That’s the difference. He chose to pick up a sword. He chose not to give her a clean death.
Alternatively, he chose to put on a helm, she chose to break it.
3 Likes
It’s simple. Arthas had a choice in the matter and should’ve listened to his superiors, but chose not to. Sylvanas was forcibly turned into a banshee for daring to stand against arthas 
3 Likes
Choice in which matter, exactly? I’ll copy and paste one of my posts from another thread because I’ve said this several times now, but TLDR is Arthas was never fully in control of his own actions past a very early point in the story thanks to retcons in Shadowlands.
Knowing how mourneblades work and the fact that domination magic is now for some reason it’s own thing, the only crimes Arthas committed under his own power were the culling of Stratholme and burning his men’s ships and killing the mercenaries they hired in Northrend. Everything he did after taking up Frostmourne and wearing the Helm of Domination is straight up not his own will. And if Mal’Ganis is to be believed (and he doesn’t have any real reason to lie), Arthas was already chosen by Lich King Ner’zhul (and by proxy, the Jailer), to become the Lich King and do all of the terrible things he did from birth or even sooner, so an argument could even be made as Arthas just being screwed from conception. Shadowlands took a dump all over Arthas already by making all of those things I mentioned not-really-his-fault, coupled with the aforementioned thing with Uther giving the finger to the Arbiter and putting him into the Maw with Devos, and now they’re not going to follow through on everything they’ve introduced from 9.0 to now and just have him disappear. A bunch of setup with no payoff. No point in mentioning Arthas so many times, AND saying that mourneblades possess you (and that Frostmourne was the most evilest of them all), AND having the Jailer be the big man behind the Lich King, AND have the name of his signature technique straight up be the same as the ****ing helmet that Arthas wore around his head. Pointless retcons are bad enough, but at least follow through and fire your Chekhov’s Guns. And compare this to Sylvanas. Her new plague, her burning Teldrassil, her working with the Jailer and trying to genocide the universe, all of that was done well after she regained her ability to think independently, and she was never dominated like Arthas was.
And even then, while Arthas may have had “a choice” in his actions whilst he was still a living human… that’s not how he saw it. The Culling of Stratholme has a cold sort of logic to it, and Arthas was acting quickly in response to a very sudden and very rapidly spreading problem within spitting distance to his home. He’s not acting just as a Paladin, but also as the future king of Lordaeron, he has double the investment in not just the people living in Stratholme itself, but the entire region. He sees, in his eyes, a rapidly spreading zombie plague that’s already nigh consumed the city and shows no indication of slowing down. There’s no time to stop and analyze the situation, there are zombies eating people and a demon in the center of town seemingly leading them.
As for Frostmourne, Arthas didn’t go to Northrend looking for it, or anything for that matter. He only went to kill Mal’Ganis. Muradin was the one that brought Frostmourne to his attention, so if it weren’t for that, Arthas would have probably just been killed. It is also framed as a self sacrifice. He takes Frostmourne knowing that it’s cursed and consumes the wielder (again, Muradin’s words) but sees it as an appropriate risk to take to rid the world of Mal’Ganis and defeat the Scourge (so he believed).
It’s only what happens AFTER that point when Arthas becomes totally evil, and due to my above mentioning that the Jailer is now behind everything that’s ever happened, it’s not really Arthas’ fault due to retcons. He’s effectively been double mind-controlled, both by Frostmourne and more directly by the Helm of Domination. And even after his own death in ICC he’s never given a chance to repent or demonstrate what kind of person he’d be free of outside corruption because Uther hijacks his soul and tosses it down to the Maw before it could reach the Arbiter.
Arthas as a child and young adult was a good kid who was kind to the servants and soldiers stationed at the Capital City, bringing them hot drinks in the winter and going out of his way to talk to people and spend time with them even if they were of “lesser” station than he was. Quite literally, he only began to change when the Jailer, the Nathrezim, the Scourge, every intermingling outside party began to influence him and either force or coerce certain actions from him.
Right, Sylvanas was a victim and shouldn’t be held accountable for what she did when she was under outside influence. But neither should Arthas, because he WAS under outside influence, even before becoming a death Knight and before the Lich King, to differing degrees. But the key differences are that Sylvanas didn’t stop her atrocities after breaking free, and in fact arguably just went on to do worse things, while Arthas never had a chance to break free in the first place. And this bit is honestly neither here nor there, but from the very little bit of info on Sylvanas when she was still alive, she was kind of unpleasant anyway. At the absolute very least Arthas has “he was a good kid” good boy points.
6 Likes