Is the attack on teldrassil really that unjustified?

[Daevelian]

It seems to me that the intended leveling flow remained exactly as it was originally intended, they just decided to open all the zones up to avoid funneling everyone in to a single zone at launch. The narrative flow still exists, the quest flow still exists, the professions and order halls follow this same flow. It is nowhere near farfetched to draw the conclusion that the original flow will exist for canon purposes. The ONLY evidence against this is the gameplay based mechanic of opening all 4 zones up at once to avoid the launch clusterbomb of players in the zone.

Really, the only thing we can do is wait until a dev comments on the canon timeline for Legion, but the evidence so far is heavily stacked in favour of the original flow still being there. One gameplay mechanic change does not equal nuking the canon story progression. Unless we'd like to now debate the legitimacy of WotLK occuring after BC in light of the leveling changes?

Also... Mehrunes, i just want to chime in with something for you specifically, a bit of friendly criticism. Do not infract Aucald, this is not meant to be offensive, purely advice on improving conduct.

A: It does not matter how right you are or how good a point you make, no one is going to care about what you say if you sound like an egotistical tool when you say it. You need to figure out how to talk on these forums without dropping insults on anyone who happens to have a different view or opinion to you. Discussing things politely and openly, without resorting to belittling insults, is how people should be discussing things on this forum.

B: You have a habit of dismissing anything people will say if it happens to prove your point wrong, claiming it is irrelevant. Try not resorting to this born-of-ignorance tactic, it just makes people hate you even more.

C: Please try to avoid writing short novels of multiquoted replies to comments made days before you decide to respond to them, most of the time the comments you are addressing have been resolved in later replies so you are doing nothing but cluttering pages with walls of text.

Edit: Wow, you got infracted while i was writing that out. That's one scary way to prove my point. =\

[Deleted]

Ok, then by your logic the blood elves have every right to hunt and kill members of the Alliance, even members of species who'd never even heard of the Alliance at the time, because Garithos, who was an Alliance leader, tried to unfairly genocide them.

What the fuck? What is this logic? I you kinda...I don't want to say stupid, but...I mean, your post is beyond stupidity and any kind of human logic I know. Especially since I don't know what the entire Alliance has to do with the Blood Elves. Garithos was a Lordaeronian Leader, so he has nothing to do with Stormwind and his nation state is not existing anymore, the official successor is Undercity, i f anybody would have any responsibilities, than its Undercity. you could also put a blame on Dalaran, but they as well have nothing to do with Stormwind and most of the other Alliance nations and aren't even a member of the Alliance.

And the Alliance would have to tear down all the statues in the valley of heroes and the one of Lothar in Burning Steppes.

This is on a level of logic and stupidity as one would say britain isn't allowed to honor Winston Churchill anymore.

And offer reparations and land for the orcs to live in in exchange for Medivh, best friend of the human king at the time, opening a portal and basically mindraping kidnapping them from their homes and families.

Do you even know the Lore or do you simply not understand how states work and are grasping for straws? Fuck, I feel like I am talking with a little child. First, Medivh is not an official representative of Stormwinds government. Second, he was an ally to the Orcs in Draenor and only opened a portal for the Orcs to invade. He didn't kidnap them in any capacity, the orcish government, in the form of the Warchief, decidied to invade.

See what I did there? If you go extreme pro-Horde or extreme pro-Alliance you end up with absurd idea like what you said and what I just typed. Moderation is key.

You brabbled nonsense on a level where you have proven yourself to have a lower grasp on politics and how states work than a Gradeschooler. What I said is simply what would be the reasonable thing to do for the Horde to differenciate itself from the old Horde. Make a clear cut and show that you are distancing yourself from the acts of the old Horde. This would include apologies from Orgrimmar to the nations that were attacked without provocation by the Horde as well as pay reparations to the biggest victims of the orcish Horde, Stormwind and the Draenei and rename objects that were named in order to honor war criminals. I mean, this is how you act to show off that you have changed. What do you think Germany after WWII did? Simply state that we are the Federal Republic now and everything in the past doesn't matter? We paid our reparations to our victims, we honor and memorize the victims of the former government and condemned the former government. These are the steps you go to rebuild trust with nations and peopel you attacked without a reason. I mean, Thrall was simply an idiot and this fucked the entire Horde up. Instead of going for Durotar, he should have decided to pay reparations for Stormwind and build some monument for the victims of the Horde and then settled in the barrens, Mulgor or any other place in Kalimdor. This wouldn't only have been more moral, because it shows the victims that the Horde is changing now and it would have bulding diplomatic bridged with Stormwind.

[Aucald]

That they don't represent Alliance position is also neither here nor there to my point that they fucked the Forsaken race over. Which is what Sylvanas would argue after the apology to win the Forsaken over. Which would be really easy to do, being the truth. As opposed to the idea that Genn or Rogers would ever feel remorse for Stormheim. And the moment Sylvanas would use that to rally them, the apology would become meaningless.

Except Sylvanas doesn't want to admit what she was up to in Stormheim (evidenced by the fact that she's not told anyone), including the notion that she failed in her objective in any case. So no, it seems doubtful Sylvanas would contest this hypothetical admission of guilt in such a way.

Because even if they are not representative of the Alliance as a whole, not only was their transgression against Forsaken too great to be brushed under the carpet with a mere apology, they are still the living proof that some elements of the Alliance, going as high in hierarchy as racial leaders, are so anti-Horde they will attack them despite not being sanctioned by the High King. Which isn't exactly reassuring. Especially in light of them omitting a crucial detail of what they did.

Whether or not it would be construed as a transgression in any form is up to debate given the position of the Desolate Council and the unknown positions of the Forsaken as a whole (which are presumably as conflicted as the Council itself ultimately proved). And an apology coming from the High King of the Alliance would carry weight all on its own, whether or not it is universally accepted.

And since the apology would also showcase to the world how limp-wristed Anduin is towards Alliance members acting without orders and how deep up his ass he has diplomatic relations with the Horde if he's going to pretend a mere apology that means jack shit (especially if it's not genuine, like would be the case here) is somehow sufficient remedy for Alliance's actions, the Forsaken and the Horde at large would be offered zero guarantees that the likes of Genn would not attack them again, even without being sanctioned to do.

It would be genuine, and probably quite meaningful to the Forsaken who feel overlooked and generally reviled. Sylvanas might not share in that feeling herself, but Sylvanas (as has been duly demonstrated) is not herself the Forsaken people. As for Anduin being "limp-wristed," this would actually be *more* than he actually did in the story, as he doesn't even acknowledge the Alliance's actions to Sylvanas in his letter about the Gathering or offer any form of recognition that the Alliance bear the responsibility for the attack in Stormheim.

Now try to quote the part of the Chronicles that say that the otherwise totally super-duper powerful humans merely underestimated the Gnolls. Oh, right, you can't, because it doesn't exist. Just the opposite, the Gnoll threat was so significant Stormwind even asked other nations for help. Gnolls won numerous battles and raided a third of all of Stormwind's settlements with total impunity. They were only defeated in the final battle. Just because their leader died and they turned against each other in struggle for control. So not only did you try to falsely downplay Gnoll war as a result of humans merely underestimating the Gnolls, which in itself is an implied admission that the Gnolls were not exactly a significant force from an outside perspective, but you're still comparing apples to grasshoppers.

I can't quote that from "Chronicle Vol. 1", and I also don't think I said that, nor did I mean to otherwise imply it. I already said Stormwind came very close to losing the Gnoll War, so I'm not sure what else you're looking for in this capacity. But if you're claiming that Gnoll thread was legitimately significant then doesn't that undermine your entire original point? You wanted to say that the Humans and Stormwind were weaklings cowering before an insignificant threat, did you not? But you're building the Gnoll threat up more than I ever did. Stormwind did, however, vastly underestimate the Gnolls, much as you did previously by implying that they couldn't be a legitimate threat to a young kingdom. Levels don't exist in terms of the lore or the narrative of the story, after all, for all we know these could've been the equivalent of max-level Gnolls under a cunning and vicious leader that organized them efficiently for brutal raids. So... what is it exactly you're trying to say?

Because no matter how many times you repeat yourself, you won't force a non-existent similarity here. Garrosh almost dying in a personal skirmish against a larger army on their turf with a handful of troops on his side is not comparable to Stormwind losing numerous battles against Gnolls on their turf and, as a whole nation, almost getting obliterated by them. Especially since like I tried to futilely point out to you an equal amount of times, even if Garrosh died, the Horde would not get overrun by Quillboars. Or anywhere close to that. Unlike Stormwind in the Gnoll Wars. The position of the Horde in light of that small fight is not even remotely similar to the position of Stormwind in Gnoll Wars. You trying to now rest the comparison of a false claim of humans underestimating the Gnolls "just like Garrosh" only shines more light on that.

Well, if you want to say it's not an apt point that we'll let it drop - I don't agree, but it doesn't honestly matter (and I think you've already reversed your position on the Gnoll threat in any case).

Really now, WWI and WWII lit fire of US' expansionism? The US that already expanded across half a continent by that time, having taken land from Mexico on numerous occasion, obliterated the natives, as well as defeated one of the world's mightiest nations (at the time) at the very dawn of their existence by that time? And was engaging in fuckery of all sorts of fuckery across the entire South America in early 20th century? And how comes US was a deciding factor in WWI if their industry was only kickstarted by that war?

You have an odd penchant for creating false dichotomies. The fact that military and technological expansion after WW's I and II was increased neither claims nor implies that expansion somehow didn't exist beforehand? I don't even understand the relevance of what you're trying to imply here - perhaps the real world comparison has derailed this aspect of the conversation.

On the other hand, Stormwind was in no major conflict for over 1100 years between their founding and the Gnoll war, yet despite over a millennium of peace and prosperity they still got almost obliterated in a devastating war against the Azerothian equivalent to Swaziland. Yup, totally the same as US. Just as is the fact that after that they waged two more devastating wars on their turf, one of which saw the utter destruction of their nation and exodus of their people merely a generation ago. The similarities to US keep on piling up right here.

The "Chronicle" series only notes major conflicts such as wars, I'm sure the fledgling kingdom of Stormwind has all kinds of minor issues and conflicts throughout its history. Remember too that Stormwind was less of a country (like the US) and more a city-state, like the Roman Londinium. It had far less people and far less resources than a burgeoning country composed of a coalition of functional city-states (like the US).

How weird that the part where you're quoting things does not mention them growing outward (especially at the expense of the Trolls which your post indicated) and you only mention that in the part after you ended the quote. Chronicle is weirdly silent about that. Because, like I already said, humans expanding after the Gnoll Wars (not the Gurubashi War) all the way to Gurubashi border in Stranglethorn is what sparked the Gurubashi war in the first place. And the humans did not expand into Stranglethorn after that. Chronicle says nothing about it and all they have in northern Stranglethorn even years later in WoW is a logging camp. So their expansion south ended even before the Gurubashi war. I can't find anything about them expanding either east or north after that war either.

So your claim is that Stormwind expanded down to Stranglethorn, encountered the Gurubashi, fought the Gurubashi, destroyed the entirety of their combined army at the gates of Stormwind, and then just *stopped*? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense on the face of it, does it? My general rule of thumb is that if the "Chronicle" series positively mentions something, it is incontrovertible canon. But if it goes entirely unmentioned or non-detailed, then it is left to us to imply, speculate, or theorize. In this case, I highly doubt Stormwind would expand down to Stranglethorn, defeat the enemies it garnered in that expansion, and then leave the territories it wanted fallow and unclaimed after being victorious - that makes no sense to me. The state of them following the First and Second Wars is duly explained by Stormwind's destruction by the Horde and the exodus of the Stormwindian populace to Lordaeron. The colonies and outposts would've been cut off from the parent stem, and likely were either lost or simply dried up due to lack of support from the defeated kingdom.

Not as weird that you tried to downplay the Gurubashi War in the previous post, yet when confronted of that you offered nothing to defend your claim. Then again it's indefensible (especially since I just reread Chronicle v2 and it even mentions how the king of Stormwind, before his desperate charge, thought that Stormwind needed a miracle to survive), so I guess it makes some sense.

What Llane thought, and the reality of the situation, might not be the same thing. Mind you, I didn't remember that specific passage in "Chronicle Vol. 2," so I guess I'll have to go back and read it myself to verify - but even still, Stormwind received a miracle (in the form of the Guardian's intervention) and still won the war. The desperateness of the situation is kind of a minor detail, all told - more mountains out of molehills than anything else. The larger point is that neither the Gnoll War, nor the Gurubashi War, were defeats for Stormwind - they were situations in which the kingdom emerged victorious (and did so against overwhelming odds, apparently). These aren't black marks on its history or examples of weakness - it's a sign of its growing strength and prosperity. Your examples don't help the greater point you've been trying to make.

[shise]

Please... Sylvanas is out of control, she should be slaughter for the sake of both, the Horde and the Alliance.

[Doffen]

Again: if the video doesn't show them saying anything about the story path in either way (which includes the story path being the same as the leveling path before the change, which is a part of your claim, or it not changing when the leveling path changed, which is also a part of your claim), how exactly is you making conclusions about the story path off of this video supposed to work?




Except the discussion started with Tabrotar making claims about how Blizzard stated Azsuna took place before Stormheim in context of @Steampunkette's claims of what the canon story of Stormheim is, particularly by trying to prove her wrong with their claim about Blizzard's statements. So I'm not sure how you "not trying to engage in a discussion on what is or isn't canon" is supposed to even work here.

Also, as has been pointed out numerous times, your video shows Blizzard making no claims about the story order (which is what the topic was about) is or ever has been. So you not "engaging in a discussion about what's canon" by actually engaging in a discussion of what is canon (however that's supposed to work) by providing a source that doesn't prove Tabrotar right (on the grounds of not talking about the story order, which was the topic) and as such does not prove @Super Dickmann wrong offers nothing to sway that discussion one way or another.




When do they even use the word "story" in there? Because it's not at the time-stamp you keep mentioning whenever you link that video.

Already talked to Super Dickmann about this. And we came to an agreement.

Since they didn't mention the story at all during that clip, but they just changed the scaling so you could level in whatever zone you liked, after they had the intended route, as in AZSUNA first before scaling came into the game. So then they say that it works allright to do whatever zone, but they don't mention that the story was changed. My logic(and others) might be off the scale here, so we are completely wrong, and you are completely right, which might be the case. But that's the thing, it's opinions we have based on what's given us. You can't say for sure that you are correct, and I can't say that either.

I think both me and Super understood what the other meant in the end.

The reason why I didn't want to explore the whole canon thing, is because me and you have been there already. My initial response was that Tabrotar didn't take stuff out from the ass, but that the video would be the explanation. That's all.

Everything points to the fact that Aszuna were the first zone we were supposed to start with before the scaling. Since they haven't touched the story part at all in any video or text I've seen, I come to the conclusion that the story wasn't changed. But then me and Super talked about how it is strange that Genn doesn't know shit in Stormheim, but in the Alliance scenario they are so certain Sylvanas is up to no good. It changes like that. And he explained so nicely that I almost turned to the point that they might have changed the story a bit in the middle of it all, so it worked better with the scaling. But no one can really know.

[Steampunkette]

Ultimately the order of leveling and zone story does not matter.

Even if Genn knew that she intended to steal power from the vrykul, her intentions do not warrant his actions. He attacks her well before she commits any Act which would justify his attack, and disobeys Anduin's orders in the process. His decision results in the deaths of uncounted innocent soldiers whose only crime was being present when he decided he would initiate his Massacre in order to get to Sylvanas in order to murder her. A direct assassination attempt of a foreign head of state while under a ceasefire.

If he had followed Anduin's orders then he still would have been able to stop Sylvanas when the time came, without killing a bunch of forsaken and causing the deaths of his own troops, the destruction of his airship, and the scuttling of The Forsaken Fleet. All important assets in the war against the Legion.

The argument is ultimately a red herring, one which distracts from Genn's wrongdoing in favor of arguing sophistry.

[Doffen]

Ultimately the order of leveling and zone story does not matter.

Even if Genn knew that she intended to steal power from the vrykul, her intentions do not warrant his actions. He attacks her well before she commits any Act which would justify his attack, and disobeys Anduin's orders in the process. His decision results in the deaths of uncounted innocent soldiers whose only crime was being present when he decided he would initiate his Massacre in order to get to Sylvanas in order to murder her. A direct assassination attempt of a foreign head of state while under a ceasefire.

If he had followed Anduin's orders then he still would have been able to stop Sylvanas when the time came, without killing a bunch of forsaken and causing the deaths of his own troops, the destruction of his airship, and the scuttling of The Forsaken Fleet. All important assets in the war against the Legion.

The argument is ultimately a red herring, one which distracts from Genn's wrongdoing in favor of arguing sophistry.

You are right, it does not matter. However, in the concluding cinematic you understand that Genn has a hatred towards Sylvanas and the Forsaken for what happened with his son and Gilneas. This is a character vs character situation. He finally got his revenge. His action was more than justified(even we players can understand that) She took away his son, his future, he took away hers.

Again you are saying people are innocent. They were soldiers. Not innocent civilians. From a player perspective, yes it was stupid of him, but you got to see it from his point of view. He had this raging hatred, something he have had for a while. Emotions affects our judgement. If you see it from the characters perspective, they all understand the reasons for most of the stuff that happens in Azeroth. Sylvanas and the Forsaken know that Genn had(still have) thirst for blood towards them.

In BtS he get some compassion for said Forsaken. But Sylvanas will always be his target.

[Jastall]

A distraught guy trusting his advisors and not really minding if they act out against a woman he believes contributed to his dad's death makes sense.

That's because the army at that point is gutted. The Forsaken bring you back after the battle. Afterwards they're forced to defend themselves from Genn. As for leaving you to rot in Helheim, that's always been one of the most disingenuous arguments this forum has produced. Sylvanas has no power in Helheim. To leave, she had to make an agreement with Helya, the same thing you have to do. There's nothing she can do there and by the point you speak with her, she's already disappearing because her bargain is concluded. There's literally nothing she can do to help you out, so holding her responsible for that is asinine.

I think an issue with the way you go over things over all is that you consider any misjudgment that a character does that doesn't gel with an omniscient viewpoint to be bad writing because they're being stupid, when characters making errors are essential to storytelling and politicians making errors is among the most realistic things you could have.

For Helheim, she doesn't even try and that's more my beef. That's a Horde champion down there, one on a mission she hopefully considers important, and for all she knowns Helya will just keep them imprisoned and thus potentially allow the Aegis to fall in the hands of the Alliance or the Legion. Which is what Helya actually does before Odyn (?) saves you. She made a deal, she has some pull and could make another. Would be a good way for the lambda player to actually start caring about Sylvanas if she saves our bacon instead of a literal beam of light from the sky resolving that plot point.

If you speak of Genn in regards to misjudgements, I hardly call deciding to re-ignite the war in the middle of a giant Legion invasion a lapse of judgment. It's pure, unadulterated stupidity. It's in character for Genn to be stubborn to the point of making stupid decisions, but that doesn't make the decisions less stupid.

[Aucald]

In terms of the timeline of events in the story as concerns the Broken Isles questing flow, I like to think of all the zones' stories as pretty much occurring concurrently (save Suramar as a max-level zone). So in terms of Aszuna and Stormheim, let's say, the events would go like this.

Aszuna: The Champion lands at the Illidari camp and aids in the clearing of Faronaar, facing Cordana Felsong and the Legion.
Stormheim: At the same time, the Champion joins Nathanos at the Forsaken Fleet or Genn/Rogers in the Alliance airship and aids in the assault/defense of the Fleet.

Aszuna: Near the end of the zone story, the Champion happens upon the intelligence from the Queen's Gambit.
Stormheim: Near the end of the zone story the intelligence falls into the hands of the Alliance leadership, which informs them on Sylvanas' destination (but is sketchy on her overall plan).

So all the zones' stories occur concurrently and (mostly) unconnected with one another, and as you clear Stormheim the timeline basically "resets" when you go to the next zone and deal with its attendant drama. When you've finally wrapped up all the storylines and secured each zone's Pillar Suramar opens up as the last in the introductory timeline, leading to the Nightmare and the Nighthold, and securing the last of the Pillars to close the portal in the depths of the Tomb of Sargeras (which opens the way to Argus, etc. etc.)

In this chronology, Genn/Rogers still act without due intelligence (purely on high emotions stemming from the Broken Shore), but later find evidence that justifies their actions against the Forsaken and/or Sylvanas after the fact. It is purely subjective to the player as to whether or not this is sufficient mitigation and/or justification for future hostilities.

[Steampunkette]

You are right, it does not matter. However, in the concluding cinematic you understand that Genn has a hatred towards Sylvanas and the Forsaken for what happened with his son and Gilneas. This is a character vs character situation. He finally got his revenge. His action was more than justified(even we players can understand that) She took away his son, his future, he took away hers.

Again you are saying people are innocent. They were soldiers. Not innocent civilians. From a player perspective, yes it was stupid of him, but you got to see it from his point of view. He had this raging hatred, something he have had for a while. Emotions affects our judgement. If you see it from the characters perspective, they all understand the reasons for most of the stuff that happens in Azeroth. Sylvanas and the Forsaken know that Genn had(still have) thirst for blood towards them.

In BtS he get some compassion for said Forsaken. But Sylvanas will always be his target.

As I have stated before and shall State again, now: I entirely understand Genn's motivation. In his situation I may have done the same thing. That does not make what he did right. Or just. Or good. His actions in the fight against Sylvanas over the lantern were morally fine.

It is the sneak attack that was morally unjustifiable. His later actions do not justify his earlier mistakes. Had he not attacked her he could still have followed her and stopped her. His rage may be understandable, but it is not justification for his actions.

As to the soldiers they were innocent. I did not say they were civilians I said that they were innocent. Innocent refers to crimes, refers to actions that people have taken which are justification for treating them in different ways. Nothing those soldiers had done up to that point Justified murdering them in order to get to Sylvanas.

In the context of moral responsibility they were innocent. Even if every single one of them we're guilty of some crime at some point in their past, they were innocent in this situation. Killed not for what they had done but because they were in the way.

Why do people seem to have so much trouble understanding morality? Even if someone's actions make sense in the context of the situation it does not mean that their actions are correct, moral, or proper.

[Doffen]

As I have stated before and shall State again, now: I entirely understand Genn's motivation. In his situation I may have done the same thing. That does not make what he did right. Or just. Or good. His actions in the fight against Sylvanas over the lantern were morally fine.

It is the sneak attack that was morally unjustifiable. His later actions do not justify his earlier mistakes. Had he not attacked her he could still have followed her and stopped her. His rage may be understandable, but it is not justification for his actions.

As to the soldiers they were innocent. I did not say they were civilians I said that they were innocent. Innocent refers to crimes, refers to actions that people have taken which are justification for treating them in different ways. Nothing those soldiers had done up to that point Justified murdering them in order to get to Sylvanas.

In the context of moral responsibility they were innocent. Even if every single one of them we're guilty of some crime at some point in their past, they were innocent in this situation. Killed not for what they had done but because they were in the way.

Why do people seem to have so much trouble understanding morality? Even if someone's actions make sense in the context of the situation it does not mean that their actions are correct, moral, or proper.

For me it's never about the morality in the game. It's World of Warcraft we talk about. It's attack, retaliate, kill, be killed, ressed again and so on. Yes, Genn did a stupid move. But a very understandable one. For his character.

You are saying that the Forsaken did nothing? For Genn they did everything. They were the ones that killed his son. Whether the soldiers name was Peter, James or Genna, for him they are all the same. People that killed his son and lots of Gilnean people. They were not innocent, they were responsible for all that.

Just to add from BtS. Seemed the meeting with the Forsaken softened his hatred towards them. We'll see were it ends.

[Steampunkette]

For me it's never about the morality in the game. It's World of Warcraft we talk about. It's attack, retaliate, kill, be killed, ressed again and so on. Yes, Genn did a stupid move. But a very understandable one. For his character.

You are saying that the Forsaken did nothing? For Genn they did everything. They were the ones that killed his son. Whether the soldiers name was Peter, James or Genna, for him they are all the same. People that killed his son and lots of Gilnean people. They were not innocent, they were responsible for all that.

Just to add from BtS. Seemed the meeting with the Forsaken softened his hatred towards them. We'll see were it ends.

This Thread is about morality. that's what the title is. It's questioning the moral implications of the attack on Teldrasil.

[Doffen]

This Thread is about morality. that's what the title is. It's questioning the moral implications of the attack on Teldrasil.

Being justified or not doesn't always have something to do with morality. My morality doesn't really matter now does it. If you go from a character's perspective, I can give you that. Sylvanas wants to stay alive, she wants the Forsaken and the Horde(somewhat) to rule the world. And to get there she will use anything. For her the attack on Teldrassil is justified because of these reasons. Same as the attack on Undercity is justified from Anduins point of view.

[Steampunkette]

Being justified or not doesn't always have something to do with morality. My morality doesn't really matter now does it. If you go from a character's perspective, I can give you that. Sylvanas wants to stay alive, she wants the Forsaken and the Horde(somewhat) to rule the world. And to get there she will use anything. For her the attack on Teldrassil is justified because of these reasons. Same as the attack on Undercity is justified from Anduins point of view.

Justification has to do with morality or with HTML coding, and pretty much nothing else.

I get that it's not about morality for you but this is a thread for discussing the morality of the situation.

Your argument about justification from each person's perspective is moral relativism, which is at least on topic I guess. Though I think the main focus is external morality rather than internal morality relative to the narrative.

[Doffen]

Justification has to do with morality or with HTML coding, and pretty much nothing else.

I get that it's not about morality for you but this is a thread for discussing the morality of the situation.

Your argument about justification from each person's perspective is moral relativism, which is at least on topic I guess. Though I think the main focus is external morality rather than internal morality relative to the narrative.

Don't really think that was the OP's proper intentions, but sure :P

[Osiria]

If your idea of justified is throwing shit on a fan to fix the previous shit you've thrown on that same fan multiple times in the past, then sure!

[Steampunkette]

Don't really think that was the OP's proper intentions, but sure :P

The first post of the thread is an outlining of various crimes the Alliance has recently committed against The Horde in an attempt to justify the Horde's actions leading towards Teldrassil.

In this case justify meaning "to make just"

It is entirely about morality.

[Kaprin]

Do I understand that Sylvannas has reasons behind what she's doing? Yes. Do I think she's justified in destroying Teldrassil? No. I disagree that anything the 'Alliance' or people affiliated with the Alliance has done so far is enough to justify the destruction of an entire region. Even if something is 'little' justified or 'not that unjustified' at some point you have to decide whether it's justified or not. To me it is not justified.

[Steampunkette]

Do I understand that Sylvannas has reasons behind what she's doing? Yes. Do I think she's justified in destroying Teldrassil? No. I disagree that anything the 'Alliance' or people affiliated with the Alliance has done so far is enough to justify the destruction of an entire region. Even if something is 'little' justified or 'not that unjustified' at some point you have to decide whether it's justified or not. To me it is not justified.

Based on what we've seen, it doesn't look like Sylvanas destroyed Teldrassil or even intended to. In the beta and on the PTR she explains that she intends to take Darnassus and hold it as an occupied city. Her reasons being that it is the largest port on Kalimdor and the primary method for the Alliance to get Azerite from the continent.

By occupying the city she intends to keep the Alliance from attacking by essentially holding the night elves hostage. Even Tyrande at the end of the questline acknowledges that it will be an occupation rather than the destruction of the city.

At the moment it looks like Azshara is the one who sets fire to the tree in order to enflame the war between the Horde and Alliance.

[Aucald]

Based on what we've seen, it doesn't look like Sylvanas destroyed Teldrassil or even intended to. In the beta and on the PTR she explains that she intends to take Darnassus and hold it as an occupied city. Her reasons being that it is the largest port on Kalimdor and the primary method for the Alliance to get Azerite from the continent.

By occupying the city she intends to keep the Alliance from attacking by essentially holding the night elves hostage. Even Tyrande at the end of the questline acknowledges that it will be an occupation rather than the destruction of the city.

At the moment it looks like Azshara is the one who sets fire to the tree in order to enflame the war between the Horde and Alliance.

Azshara? That is news to me - do you have a source on this? So far from the PTR/Beta, it's still unknown what happens between the Darkshore campaign and the burning of Teldrassil (the cutscene is intentionally missing until it hits Live).