Lack of Moral Ambiguity?

[Zulkhan]

Guldan. He as times doubted himself, he at times wondered what he could do, at first i thoguht him 1 dimensional, but then look back at the audio book about the tomb of sargeras, where his inner monologue goes mental, he decides if or if not he stilll wishes to work for the legion, or control them. that and also back the original guldan who betrayed the legion

It doesn't seem like most people understand the meaning of moral ambiguity. Because yes, Gul'dan shown things like doubt and fear but had never to do with the weight of his moral choices, all his fears and doubts were constantly tied to his single-minded drive to become a godlike being and all the scheming and decisions meant to better support that one and only path. He may have doubted himself and what he could do alone or not but he never doubted his ways and perceived righteousness of his actions.

Gul'dan, be it MU or AU, kept committing atrocious crimes, betraying and deceiving and backstabbing people and never felt the barest hint of remorse and self-doubt about that. If something like that is lacking than talking of moral ambiguity is pointless.

Really now? and how do you know this
do you personally know sargeras?

Illidan is a mortal with mortal attachments. He shared a love/hate bond with his brother Malfurion and utterly loved Tyrande. This humanizing factor is exactly what made some of his choices so controversial and difficult, often paying the price and consequences for that (like being imprisoned for 10.000 years or being banished by his own homeland).

Sargeras on the other hand...he's a freaking Titan who was supposed to be naturally "benevolent" but on the end of the day he possessed no real attachment to any of the things mortals usually care about. The thing coming the closest to a "struggle" is when he roflstomped the Pantheon, aka the only people he had a true attachment with, yet apart from one "howl of sorrow" when he cut Aggramar in half, he literally looked like crazy murderer gone mad (imagine Arthas fucking slaughtering Uther and Jaina for standing in his way of purging Stratholme, that wouldn't have been "morally ambiguous" but just outright deranged). And after that, for Sargeras, cleansing the universe effectively meant the same as cleaning our bedrooms during spring.

Same for Gul'dan as was posted earlier. Sure, he had a history which explained how he became what he was, but he was still a total asshole who would rule the world(s) or see it all burn out of sheer spite, there wasn't much ambiguity about him. Which is fine, not every villain needs to be tragic if you ask me.

Which is why the Freudian Excuse worked decently with Gul'dan. It made you understand the way he was without triggering misplaced feelings of pity.

hey garrosh did it and people still think the horde doesent spawn countless maniacs

1. Garrosh never burned ships full of kids;

2. Technically speaking, the Horde didn't spawn anything. Garrosh was, by all means, an outsider. You know, one of the main reasons for why he was kind of disconnected with our Horde and followed the path he did.

[Arrashi]

i was more of pointing out how he went under extreme pain and a corruptive transformation so he could gain the legions power
but yeah i guess him also choosing to be the fighter of the pantheon and fight demons for milnennia works aswell
but seriously im done here. How you see illidan as this all mighty morale ambiguity charecter but sargeras as a one dimensional being who is 100% pure evil.
also i rather not argue with someone who thinks teenagers are god level compared to homeless people. you're sick.

Man, what can i say, if those are the best arguments you can come with, then perhaps its for the best.

- - - Updated - - -

The Titans aren't unemotional, that much as been proved by their various interactions and by "Chronicle Vol. 1" if nothing else. Not sure on their intelligence - they definitely have wisdom and experience far outstripping mortal beings by dint of being ageless celestial demigods. Their relative intellect might be tied into their purpose or design, with Aman'thul and Norgannon being more intelligent than Aggramar or Sargeras, but this would be more difficult to compare to a mortal with a more limited scope or capacity. But you also have to remember that Sargeras brooded over his decision for an unknowable amount of time as well, it's not a snap-decision he made without consideration or evidence. He'll likely be proven wrong in the final accounting, given that the Titans have a predilection for completely discounting mortal capabilities or the resolve for life in general to go on living in defiance of the "gods," as it were. Sargeras is less one-dimensional a villain than most think - though I wouldn't argue that he is definitely and ultimately a villain nonetheless.

It's also worth note that the Titanic Keepers didn't start off with complex emotions like love, hate, vainglory, or stubbornness. They evolved over their time on Azeroth and due to encountering and working with other intelligent lifeforms.

And the point still remains - titans as species acknowledged basic set of morals - morals that sargeras broke without a single exception.

Being morally ambiguous at one point, doesn't mean a character will remain like this as the story goes. Arthas purging stratholme "because there is no other way" was morally ambiguous. Arthas killing his own mercs, lying to his men, and sinking their ships to get his personal revenge was not.

[Melius]

not much to add here but i found Prince Farondis quite interesting

[Aucald]

And the point still remains - titans as species acknowledged basic set of morals - morals that sargeras broke without a single exception.

Being morally ambiguous at one point, doesn't mean a character will remain like this as the story goes. Arthas purging stratholme "because there is no other way" was morally ambiguous. Arthas killing his own mercs, lying to his men, and sinking their ships to get his personal revenge was not.

We're not talking about individual acts, we're talking about morally ambiguous characters (e.g. their morality in the general sense). I don't know what the Titans' moral standards even were - they disagreed with Sargeras, definitely, but given their own viewpoint on annihilating indigenous lifeforms in pursuit of Ordering creation is Sargeras' proposal really beyond the pale for them? Not really sure, so hence there is ambiguity in his nature and in theirs. Even still, simply breaking a moral compass isn't the end-all, be-all for purposes of establishing moral ambiguity - if the morals themselves unwittingly facilitated evil to thrive, would their breaking not ultimately be a good thing (e.g. the Titan's plan to rehabilitate Azeroth's world-soul could have backfired, and may still, causing them to inadvertently give rise to a creation-ending abomination of a Dark Titan)? Just like Sargeras, the Pantheon also wasn't omniscient - so despite their collective disagreement on the issue they could still themselves be entirely wrong about the Void since Sargeras wss the "expert" on the matter Titan-wise.

I don't think Arthas was really morally ambiguous as a character - he started off that way, perhaps, but following his corruption by Frostmourne settled deep into the villain groove and never really deviated from it. Moral ambiguity isn't the only form of villain complexity, however; and I think Arthas was complex enough without necessarily being morally ambiguous. Sargeras' destruction of the Pantheon also wasn't a morally ambiguous act - at least not in and of itself. But his greater scope reasons behind those actions feel like they are, more or less.

[DeltrusDisc]

Emperor Thaurissan's plot was cool, and seemed to shape modern Ironforge. Kael'thas' line about fair treatment and, later, explanations for why he resorted to fel elves were cool. Gul'dan and Kil'Jaeden weren't too bad. But those do feel like exceptions to the rule when Deathwing and Arthas can just be attributed to being driven insane by cursed blades and alien monsters.

Chaotic evil (old gods, void lords, Rag) is fun occasionally, but only if there is plenty of neutral and lawful evil to draw contrast. What made the undead such compelling enemies is that they had once been real people with complex lives; and there's little complex or relatable about a kalimag-speaking fire elemental eternally fighting for dominance. I'm not even sure how they could go about introducing lawful evil in wow short of an empire on the other side of Azeroth.

I think you'd like Final Fantasy XIV, have you looked into it at all?

It has some incredible depth to most of the characters, good and bad! If you really get into the story there's some serious wtf moments, too.

[FelPlague]

We're not talking about individual acts, we're talking about morally ambiguous characters (e.g. their morality in the general sense). I don't know what the Titans' moral standards even were - they disagreed with Sargeras, definitely, but given their own viewpoint on annihilating indigenous lifeforms in pursuit of Ordering creation is Sargeras' proposal really beyond the pale for them? Not really sure, so hence there is ambiguity in his nature and in theirs. Even still, simply breaking a moral compass isn't the end-all, be-all for purposes of establishing moral ambiguity - if the morals themselves unwittingly facilitated evil to thrive, would their breaking not ultimately be a good thing (e.g. the Titan's plan to rehabilitate Azeroth's world-soul could have backfired, and may still, causing them to inadvertently give rise to a creation-ending abomination of a Dark Titan)? Just like Sargeras, the Pantheon also wasn't omniscient - so despite their collective disagreement on the issue they could still themselves be entirely wrong about the Void since Sargeras wss the "expert" on the matter Titan-wise.

I don't think Arthas was really morally ambiguous as a character - he started off that way, perhaps, but following his corruption by Frostmourne settled deep into the villain groove and never really deviated from it. Moral ambiguity isn't the only form of villain complexity, however; and I think Arthas was complex enough without necessarily being morally ambiguous. Sargeras' destruction of the Pantheon also wasn't a morally ambiguous act - at least not in and of itself. But his greater scope reasons behind those actions feel like they are, more or less.

hey aucald, can we get a upvote system? (No need for downvotes) cause i would upvote your post so god danm hard

[Arrashi]

We're not talking about individual acts, we're talking about morally ambiguous characters (e.g. their morality in the general sense). I don't know what the Titans' moral standards even were - they disagreed with Sargeras, definitely, but given their own viewpoint on annihilating indigenous lifeforms in pursuit of Ordering creation is Sargeras' proposal really beyond the pale for them? Not really sure, so hence there is ambiguity in his nature and in theirs. Even still, simply breaking a moral compass isn't the end-all, be-all for purposes of establishing moral ambiguity - if the morals themselves unwittingly facilitated evil to thrive, would their breaking not ultimately be a good thing (e.g. the Titan's plan to rehabilitate Azeroth's world-soul could have backfired, and may still, causing them to inadvertently give rise to a creation-ending abomination of a Dark Titan)? Just like Sargeras, the Pantheon also wasn't omniscient - so despite their collective disagreement on the issue they could still themselves be entirely wrong about the Void since Sargeras wss the "expert" on the matter Titan-wise.

I don't think Arthas was really morally ambiguous as a character - he started off that way, perhaps, but following his corruption by Frostmourne settled deep into the villain groove and never really deviated from it. Moral ambiguity isn't the only form of villain complexity, however; and I think Arthas was complex enough without necessarily being morally ambiguous. Sargeras' destruction of the Pantheon also wasn't a morally ambiguous act - at least not in and of itself. But his greater scope reasons behind those actions feel like they are, more or less.

Apparently their moral code was something like "Not commit galaxy wide genocide due to personal middle-age crisis". Given the fact that they build containment facilities for old gods we can assume that nuclear option was actually only for most extreme cases, and not regular occurence. Hell, we can assume that alot of reorigination happened due to titan absence and lack of direct supervision.

On the other hand sargeras had no objections to go to the very deep end. He never considered anything other his crusade to compensate for personal failure TO SAVE UNIVERSE !!!!!! by destroying it. And hoping for the best.

You yourself said, there are ambiguous actions and characters. And just how arthas started ambiguous and ended as straight villain so did sargeras. There are no signs of inner conflicts, he had no issues turning on his own kin, nor did he with mindbreaking them into obedience. Or you gonna say that enslaving someone is also ambiguous because he had "noble" intentions.

He did alot of bad without doing..any good ? I mean amount of tentacled planets we seen in skyboxes shown his crusade wasn't doing too well. It was mostly about killing innocents now that i think about it.

Again, his having his freudian excuse doesn't make him ambiguos character. Especially since he literally never did, said or thought anything that wouldnt be one dimensional evil.

[Aucald]

Apparently their moral code was something like "Not commit galaxy wide genocide due to personal middle-age crisis". Given the fact that they build containment facilities for old gods we can assume that nuclear option was actually only for most extreme cases, and not regular occurence. Hell, we can assume that alot of reorigination happened due to titan absence and lack of direct supervision.

That was the Pantheon's plan, and Sargeras demurred. Reorigination was part of the Titans' scheme of Ordering - both used as a means to eradicate Old God corruption as well as to sterilize an existing world's surface in preparation for it to be reordered by the Pantheon (hence the "worlds bathed in the Makers' flames, their denizens fading without so much as a whimper" part of Algalon's speech). Azeroth was an experiment to contain the corruption as opposed to eradicating it completely, due to the presence of Azeroth's immensely powerful world-soul and the promise of its potent addition to the Pantheon's ranks in the future. I would say the Pantheon's ambitious plan at containment was an exception as opposed to the rule - the rule being re-origination and completely starting with seeded life.

On the other hand sargeras had no objections to go to the very deep end. He never considered anything other his crusade to compensate for personal failure TO SAVE UNIVERSE !!!!!! by destroying it. And hoping for the best.

He was definitely committed, of that there is no doubt. He would no doubt see that as a merit given his view on his own duty to the universe - regardless of how we might see it as the lifeforms being destroyed in the process.

You yourself said, there are ambiguous actions and characters. And just how arthas started ambiguous and ended as straight villain so did sargeras. There are no signs of inner conflicts, he had no issues turning on his own kin, nor did he with mindbreaking them into obedience. Or you gonna say that enslaving someone is also ambiguous because he had "noble" intentions.

Sargeras' brainwashing of the Patheon's remaining essences seems like an evil act to me, but it was still in the commission of a goal he at least viewed as noble or desirable - the protection of the universe from the Void. You could also argue that he saved them from what was previously thought to be their complete annihilation at Nihilam, opting only to destroy their physical forms and try to bring them around to his way of thinking (literally). You seem to be trying to angle towards having his acts be justified by some intrinsic rightness - I don't think they are justified, but that's not a requirement to have them be morally ambiguous. If his actions were fully justified they wouldn't be ambiguous in any case - the claim is merely that he's not a focused and single-minded evil in the same fashion as Gul'dan, for example, or Deathwing. His intentions aren't entirely noble, but neither are they outright evil or self-serving.

He did alot of bad without doing..any good ? I mean amount of tentacled planets we seen in skyboxes shown his crusade wasn't doing too well. It was mostly about killing innocents now that i think about it.

Sargeras' first goal is the destruction of life that the Void Lords and their Old God infestation vectors can turn against creation. Sargeras likely doesn't find Void-corrupted planets without life or a nascent world-soul to be a threat - he can easily destroy those worlds after the Burning Crusade has been completed. We know for certain he has the power to do so, still possessing his original Titan form and capacity of planetary obliteration. If Azeroth weren't host to a powerful world-soul he covets for completely ulterior reasons it would've long ago been decimated in all likelihood.

Again, his having his freudian excuse doesn't make him ambiguos character. Especially since he literally never did, said or thought anything that wouldnt be one dimensional evil.

Wait, are arguing about moral ambiguity or dimensionality here? Sargeras isn't a complex character, and you probably could call him "one dimensional" pretty fairly but that's also neither here nor there concerning his morality. You seem to be conflating the two terms - a character can be simple but still morally ambiguous, just as they can be complex and lack moral ambiguity entirely. Sargeras is mostly unexplored (insofar as his thoughts and feelings go) so in that sense, sure, he's a bit one-dimensional - but his goals and their morality are still debatable and thus have some ambiguity. Contrast this to Arthas, a character that has a lot of complexity in terms of his thoughts, feelings, and motivations but still isn't very morally ambiguous at the end of the day.

- - - Updated - - -

hey aucald, can we get a upvote system? (No need for downvotes) cause i would upvote your post so god danm hard

I think a system like that is being internally reviewed, but there have been questions and issues with its scope and implementation. There's no ETA on it that I'm aware of, though.

[FelPlague]

That was the Pantheon's plan, and Sargeras demurred. Reorigination was part of the Titans' scheme of Ordering - both used as a means to eradicate Old God corruption as well as to sterilize an existing world's surface in preparation for it to be reordered by the Pantheon (hence the "worlds bathed in the Makers' flames, their denizens fading without so much as a whimper" part of Algalon's speech). Azeroth was an experiment to contain the corruption as opposed to eradicating it completely, due to the presence of Azeroth's immensely powerful world-soul and the promise of its potent addition to the Pantheon's ranks in the future. I would say the Pantheon's ambitious plan at containment was an exception as opposed to the rule - the rule being re-origination and completely starting with seeded life.



He was definitely committed, of that there is no doubt. He would no doubt see that as a merit given his view on his own duty to the universe - regardless of how we might see it as the lifeforms being destroyed in the process.



Sargeras' brainwashing of the Patheon's remaining essences seems like an evil act to me, but it was still in the commission of a goal he at least viewed as noble or desirable - the protection of the universe from the Void. You could also argue that he saved them from what was previously thought to be their complete annihilation at Nihilam, opting only to destroy their physical forms and try to bring them around to his way of thinking (literally). You seem to be trying to angle towards having his acts be justified by some intrinsic rightness - I don't think they are justified, but that's not a requirement to have them be morally ambiguous. If his actions were fully justified they wouldn't be ambiguous in any case - the claim is merely that he's not a focused and single-minded evil in the same fashion as Gul'dan, for example, or Deathwing. His intentions aren't entirely noble, but neither are they outright evil or self-serving.



Sargeras' first goal is the destruction of life that the Void Lords and their Old God infestation vectors can turn against creation. Sargeras likely doesn't find Void-corrupted planets without life or a nascent world-soul to be a threat - he can easily destroy those worlds after the Burning Crusade has been completed. We know for certain he has the power to do so, still possessing his original Titan form and capacity of planetary obliteration. If Azeroth weren't host to a powerful world-soul he covets for completely ulterior reasons it would've long ago been decimated in all likelihood.



Wait, are arguing about moral ambiguity or dimensionality here? Sargeras isn't a complex character, and you probably could call him "one dimensional" pretty fairly but that's also neither here nor there concerning his morality. You seem to be conflating the two terms - a character can be simple but still morally ambiguous, just as they can be complex and lack moral ambiguity entirely. Sargeras is mostly unexplored (insofar as his thoughts and feelings go) so in that sense, sure, he's a bit one-dimensional - but his goals and their morality are still debatable and thus have some ambiguity. Contrast this to Arthas, a character that has a lot of complexity in terms of his thoughts, feelings, and motivations but still isn't very morally ambiguous at the end of the day.

- - - Updated - - -



I think a system like that is being internally reviewed, but there have been questions and issues with its scope and implementation. There's no ETA on it that I'm aware of, though.

very well put.
They seem to be arguing "one dimension" not "moral ambiguity"
so i gave up on it.

[Zulkhan]

very well put.
They seem to be arguing "one dimension" not "moral ambiguity"
so i gave up on it.

Are you at least willing to admit that Gul'dan is not, in any shape or form whatsoever, a "morally ambiguous" character? Because when it comes to him it was you who described multi-dimensionality rather than moral ambiguity.

[FelPlague]

Are you at least willing to admit that Gul'dan is not, in any shape or form whatsoever, a "morally ambiguous" character? Because when it comes to him it was you who described multi-dimensionality rather than moral ambiguity.

yeah i did earlier, i said "eh now that i think about it hes not really but i still put him under it on my side because of his past, but yeah illidan, arthas (not lich king) and sargeras for sure"

[Arrashi]

snip

The issue is that what you saying is "He is morally ambiguous even without ever doing a single truly ambiguous thing because his freudian excuse, excuses that".
And yet a base of his character is "Everyone is disagreeing with me - clearly they are wrong and im right" one of the most unambiguous things to do. His entire arc is him disregarding everything and everyone to push personal agenda no matter the cost.

You also seem to be greatly overestimating him, when it comes to his struggle against void lords. You ignore that as shown in antorus, Sargeras was pretty much complete idiot whos only real ability was to bribe naive guys with power. Given the void infestation OF HIS OWN GODDAMN WORLD, we can see that his struggle against void wasnt going so hot. As we discussed earlier, majority of legion victories was insasion points aka squirrel worlds.

And given the fact that void never seemed to directly oppose him, we can assume it didnt felt THAT threatened by him.

Hell, given how miserable his crusade was, one could even go for interpretation where he destroys those planets only so he can lie to himself "at least im doing something right?"

And...uhm...i see you got yourself a fangirl.

[cparle87]

Oh? Are there more prominent characters with seemingly no internal conflict?

So you're forgetting Kalec's long and tragic love life, gaining and losing the powers of an Aspect, and his people looking extinction right in the face. Farondis and his entire people cursed to never be able to be at rest, his people mind you, blamed him for this and hated his guts to the point where he was virtually an outcast. And Jarod's giving up a chance at a family for duty, the shame of having a traitor for a sister, and being called upon again to help lead his people when all he wants is a quiet life. I'd say all three of these characters have a great deal of emotional turmoil.

[Aucald]

The issue is that what you saying is "He is morally ambiguous even without ever doing a single truly ambiguous thing because his freudian excuse, excuses that". And yet a base of his character is "Everyone is disagreeing with me - clearly they are wrong and im right" one of the most unambiguous things to do. His entire arc is him disregarding everything and everyone to push personal agenda no matter the cost.

What I'm saying - and what I've said multiple times, is that the entirety of the Burning Crusade is itself morally ambiguous. There's nothing Freudian about it, and I'm unsure why you keep coming back to this "Freudian" thing. His stated goal is literally to preserve the universe from the Void, which in his mind requires the annihilation of all life (especially nascent Titan world-souls) in the hopes that life will safely flower once more in a more secure universe. He's not doing it because he's power-mad, or out of greed, or out of a single-minded need to destroy things for its own sake. His Burning Crusade is a perverse extension of his desire to protect the universe from the Void, and that is the morally ambiguous element which underpins Sargeras' entire focus.

You also seem to be greatly overestimating him, when it comes to his struggle against void lords. You ignore that as shown in antorus, Sargeras was pretty much complete idiot whos only real ability was to bribe naive guys with power. Given the void infestation OF HIS OWN GODDAMN WORLD, we can see that his struggle against void wasnt going so hot. As we discussed earlier, majority of legion victories was insasion points aka squirrel worlds.

His intelligence, or his victory, is secondary to the primary thrust of the debate - whether or not he is morally ambiguous. You keep bringing in distractions like dimensionality or his success or failure in the task itself. Yes, you can positively claim he's not succeeding; it's very obvious he quite literally *can't* succeed due to the nature of the game and his metric of success requiring our complete annihilation. Invasion points also have nothing to do with his moral ambiguity, either.

The thesis is that I think Sargeras' motives (and thus his morality) are more complex than a being devoted entirely to destruction like Deathwing, or one driven by powerlust like Gul'dan, or a being with an overriding desire to rule an undead world and/or live forever such as Arthas.

And given the fact that void never seemed to directly oppose him, we can assume it didnt felt THAT threatened by him.

Hell, given how miserable his crusade was, one could even go for interpretation where he destroys those planets only so he can lie to himself "at least im doing something right?"

We don't know the Void Lords' views on the matter - it's quite possible they don't consider him a threat at all. I'm of a mind that Sargeras is unfortunately playing right into their hands with his Burning Crusade, but he's unaware of it or hasn't considered it as of yet. Turning powerful beings against themselves and/or perverting their goals seems to be the general M.O. of the Void, and I think the chaos and destruction of the Burning Crusade is feeding the Void as opposed to stopping it. But that also doesn't change the moral ambiguity of Sargeras or his Crusade, his intentions (insofar as he is aware and understands the nature of his opponent) could be seen as noble from his perspective as he still wants to preserve the intrinsic safety of the physical universe.

[Arrashi]

snip

If one and only argument for is moral ambiguity is "he thinks he is doing the right thing" then its pretty much worthless.

What makes character morally ambiguous is not only their goal, but also how they want to achieve it. If on the way to that goal you commit only evil deeds then you are not ambiguous.

If literally everyone tells him he is wrong and he ignores it and goes his way he isn't ambiguous.

If his only way to defend his ideology is killing everyone who disagrees he isn't ambiguous.

Him having mid-life crisis, going berserk and backing off on all his ideals doesn't make him ambiguous.

There is literally not a single instance where any sort of ambiguity, moral dilemma, or any further development.

All you say is "But he has his excuse, his excuse is here". And ? There is no further buildup. All there is, is he has a excuse so its ok, he is deep character.

If a psych-artist kidnaps, mutilates and killds people and then turns their corpses into art, it doesn't make him ambiguous because he thinks he is presenting world with beauty. And his excuse of "i didn't get to art university because everyone is ignorant of my talent" doesn't make him any more ambiguous. He is just psycho.

If a cop decides to completely disregard safety of civilians to do his job, he isn't morally ambiguous, he is just a dick who gonna get quick disciplinary action.

And sargeras going on a rampage because he is disappointed with the world, doesn't make him ambiguous regardless of what excuse his tormented mind created.

[Beloren]

I can't decide what's worse, that you think a lawful-good character is the same as mary sue, or that you don't understand that moral ambiguity and complex character are NOT the same thing.

I was wondering the same thing about the OP

[Aucald]

If one and only argument for is moral ambiguity is "he thinks he is doing the right thing" then its pretty much worthless.

What makes character morally ambiguous is not only their goal, but also how they want to achieve it. If on the way to that goal you commit only evil deeds then you are not ambiguous.

If that was the only part of the argument, you would be correct. It isn't, though; as not only does Sargeras think he's doing the "right thing" but there's also a more empirical rationale present for his viewpoint. The open question being whether or not he's essentially correct about his chosen path, and whether or not the mortals' desire for alternatives is based on what's best for the universe, or what's best for their continued existence. Sargeras prioritizes the universe over mortal life in the universe, do we consider ourselves so important that we would risk the universe? That's the essence of the ambiguity.

If literally everyone tells him he is wrong and he ignores it and goes his way he isn't ambiguous.

Consensus doesn't always equal correctness - that's just another form of "might makes right." Fiction is full of examples of heroes who pursue a goal against the better judgement of literally everyone around them.

If his only way to defend his ideology is killing everyone who disagrees he isn't ambiguous.

Ambiguity is present in the desired outcome of his goal, not in its commission.

Him having mid-life crisis, going berserk and backing off on all his ideals doesn't make him ambiguous.

Calling it a "mid-life crisis" is disingenuous classification. Sargeras reacted from profound horror at what he saw in a corrupted world-soul as well as the beings worshipping the Void. This wasn't the Titanic equivalent of getting hair restoration and buying an expensive sports car - he quite literally endured a traumatic experience that set him upon a completely new course.

There is literally not a single instance where any sort of ambiguity, moral dilemma, or any further development.

All you say is "But he has his excuse, his excuse is here". And ? There is no further buildup. All there is, is he has a excuse so its ok, he is deep character.

It's not an "excuse," it's his stated goal as a being. As for further buildup, Sargeras has pretty much been the prime mover of the story of the Warcraft universe up until this point. The entire story has revolved around him like planets orbit the sun.

If a psych-artist kidnaps, mutilates and killds people and then turns their corpses into art, it doesn't make him ambiguous because he thinks he is presenting world with beauty. And his excuse of "i didn't get to art university because everyone is ignorant of my talent" doesn't make him any more ambiguous. He is just psycho.

I would agree, but this is also an invalid comparison. Beauty is subjective, and no one but an insane person would see beauty in the corpses of those violently killed. But Sargeras' goal isn't subjective in the same sense - he means to create safety and security, a new universe safe from the Void threat. And without corruptible beings, especially world-souls, he could truly bring that outcome about (which despite the cost of it, would objectively be a good thing for the universe as a whole).

If a cop decides to completely disregard safety of civilians to do his job, he isn't morally ambiguous, he is just a dick who gonna get quick disciplinary action.

Depends on the outcome and the context, actually. If the cop in question disregards the safety of a few to save far more people from danger, is he still a bad actor? What's the ratio to determine good vs. evil? These are moral quandaries still being debated today - and so they remain ambiguous in nature.

And sargeras going on a rampage because he is disappointed with the world, doesn't make him ambiguous regardless of what excuse his tormented mind created.

You're assuming Sargeras' stated intentions here contrary to established canon. We *know* his goal and his reasoning from "Chronicle Vol. 1," and it doesn't involve disappointment with the universe. That's actually a product of his original story, where he did possess far less ambiguity in a moral or ethical sense.

[Arrashi]

snip.

Given that literally noone shared his vision, sargeras goal is as subjective as you can get.

His "goal" also doesn't justify the means when you realise that:
a) he has no guarantee other than gut feeling that it will give him expected results
b) fighting a force that wants to consume all, and end all in nothingness by....purging galaxy from all life isn't the best idea once you think about it for more than 5 minutes
c) there is no guarantee you can starve void
d) there is no guarantee that universe will be reborn
e) there is no guarantee that if universe will be reborn the void won't be reborn with it
f) there is no guarantee he can stand against void, which given what we saw, legion even fighting them was pretty rare.

All of those points he choses to completely ignore and just yell "NANANANAN I KNOW THE BEST" - not very ambiguous. So is, once again, defaulting to most extreme solution without ever considering anything else make it even less ambiguous.

And given how all his actions are result of him getting triggered by void and acting out of trauma one can wonder if they really were for "the best of universe" or was he just flailing trying to cry out in his helplessness and feel better by doing anything. Which given his treatment of other titans seems to be the case.

But alas, we talk for quite long now, and i doubt we will change each other opinion so lets come to agreement that he poses "peanut" kind of moral ambiguity. Aka he may contain traces of it, stay away if you are alergic for good characterisation.

[Aucald]

---snip---

As you wish, but as a more or less concluding statement I might add that you're forgetting those who *did* share in his vision - namely the generals and lieutenants of the Burning Legion, although each for their own reasons. He ignored the Pantheon's proclamations, but they're pretty far from everyone and no one else has really had the chance to ask or question him on his motivations.

Good vs. bad characterization is a more subjective determination, and I won't fault you if you think Sargeras is a bad character. I agree he could've used some work, and I would've actually liked to see his motivations and personal views on the matter explored before being effectively stuffed in the cooler at the Seat of the Pantheon.

[Hellrime]

Archmage Kalecgos, Prince Farondis and Jarod Shadowsong are three characters who absolutely poison my immersion in Legion. Their self-righteous scripts and voice acting are just too much, and reek of absolutist, puritanical, Knaakian mary-suedom; building an unrelatable world where good intentions and idealism are all that are required to triumph against insurmountable odds.

Conversely, the grizzled veterans Greymane and Saurfang are intricate and wonderfully flawed characters with rich, gripping back stories; though Kael'thas is probably my all time fav. Shattering the benevolent persona of the Naaru with X'era is the best move they've made in a long time.

I just wanted to throw some opinions out there and open the floor for discussion, and the possibility for someone to change my mind so that this isn't so immersion killing.

I always prefer the grey characters. Warcraft has a problem with turning grey characters into bad guys in favor of promoting the line between good and evil is black and white, it isn't. The troubled hero or the fallen from grace are the ones I like, it creates something that is relate-able, human almost. I liked Arthas most of all, a shining beacon of moral righteousness but with a terrible flaw, hubris. This lead to his downfall. That or Illidan who was doing the right thing, but did it the wrong way. Saurfang has depth on the Horde side, a seasoned veteren with a reason he fights. I absolutely hate the flawless characters doing the right thing, especially because it is easy for them. Kind of like the trust fund kid that grew up to make six figures, big deal.