Is the attack on teldrassil really that unjustified?

[Raetary]

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).

there is no source.

its speculation based on the 2019 calendar.
the picture with azshara with the red background, you can see ember floating in front of her.

http://wow.zamimg.com/uploads/screen...mal/752859.jpg

[Aucald]

there is no source.

its speculation based on the 2019 calendar.
the picture with azshara with the red background, you can see ember floating in front of her.

http://wow.zamimg.com/uploads/screen...mal/752859.jpg

Oh, well, possible but I think it's probably a stretch to assume that just yet. I guess we'll see what shakes loose next Tuesday.

[Steampunkette]

Oh, well, possible but I think it's probably a stretch to assume that just yet. I guess we'll see what shakes loose next Tuesday.

It'll probably be 3 weeks before we see who ever burned down the tree. 1 week for part 1 of Darkshore, 1 week for part 2, a week for Lordaeron. And then the Azshara animatic just before BFA launches.

[Super Dickmann]

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.

I don't think we can infer much about Sylvanas' character over her not helping you there. Firstly because as I said, she really can't do much, but also because if she did try to help you out, she might piss Helya off. She threatens Sylvanas not to break her deal and later when you and Ashildir make the deal she wants to break it but she's forced by the rules of Helheim(?) to go through with it. Had Sylvanas tried to bargain more she might've offended Helya who believes all souls there are hers to claim.

And I mean Anduin more than Genn. I think Genn's decision was also stupid but perfectly in character, just like how I think at that point Anduin would've been in character to send Rogers and Genn on the mission, knowing the risks. He's a kid who just lost his dad and Genn as a surrogate father figure and Rogers as a strong voice would have a lot of pull on him.

[Tabrotar]

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.

Shure it was justified they are Forsaken nuff said. Undead abominations which should never ever had walked earth and have no right to do so.

There you have your justification.

[Logwyn]

God forbid someone likes an ok character instead of shit presented as Alliance "leaders".

I suppose it boils down to would you rather be Luke or Vadar. Really.

[Jastall]

I suppose it boils down to would you rather be Luke or Vadar. Really.

Well Vader is a more interesting character for most people when all's said and done.

The issue is probably more that for some it looks like you have to choose between Luke and Palpatine, which are both ends of the extreme and thus unappealing unless you like really Lawful Good characters or just straight up evil bastards with few chances for an in-between.

[mickybrighteyes]

I suppose it boils down to would you rather be Luke or Vadar. Really.

the issue is that the major characters are more like Rose vs Hux...

- - - Updated - - -

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.

yeah except he lost his nation's assets and personnel and the face of his High King for the BAREST, slightest, most miniscule amount of retribution (which is still not enough for him)... to break a lamp he wasn't aware of the nature or function of because he shows up seeing it in use. Thanos' line in Infinity war works wonderfully here "..should have gone for the head."

[Steampunkette]

Shure it was justified they are Forsaken nuff said. Undead abominations which should never ever had walked earth and have no right to do so.

There you have your justification.

Upon what principle are you basing that justification? Exclusively from the idea that as a thing that disgusts you or inspires hatred, which is the definition of abomination, they are in some way and lesser than other things? If hatred is the basis of your moral understanding of The Forsaken does it also apply to other things which disgust you or that you hate? Is it for example morally Justified to destroy any pizza with pineapple on it because that disgusts me?

If a person were to find me to be an abomination would they be morally justified in destroying me? I ask because this is particularly relevant to my situation as there are people who find me to be an abomination.

I would say that if that is the principle upon which you base your moral decision then your morality is at best questionable.

[Feanoro]

HTML coding

Admittedly completely off topic, but as a software developer... LOL html "coding". Sorry, you may resume now.

[Super Dickmann]

Upon what principle are you basing that justification? Exclusively from the idea that as a thing that disgusts you or inspires hatred, which is the definition of abomination, they are in some way and lesser than other things? If hatred is the basis of your moral understanding of The Forsaken does it also apply to other things which disgust you or that you hate? Is it for example morally Justified to destroy any pizza with pineapple on it because that disgusts me?

If a person were to find me to be an abomination would they be morally justified in destroying me? I ask because this is particularly relevant to my situation as there are people who find me to be an abomination.

I would say that if that is the principle upon which you base your moral decision then your morality is at best questionable.

I'll play devil's advocate here, it's not really all that hard a case to push.

For a start, undeath by default delays someone going to the afterlife in a setting where such an afterlife exists and is generally pleasant if one is a Light worshipper, which most of the Lordaeronians are. Once you're actually undead, your positive emotions are dulled and your negative emotions are expanded. Depending on the form of undeath, you hunger for flesh or to inflict suffering, making you unable to coexist peacefully with any other people. You either shamble endlessly before you give out and, like Sylvanas, go to hell, or you choose your only means of reproduction, which is murder to damn someone else to the same existence.

And those are just the arguments about being undead as a state of being, disregarding the many, many crimes of the Forsaken as a political group.

[Steampunkette]

Admittedly completely off topic, but as a software developer... LOL html "coding". Sorry, you may resume now.

Admittedly off-topic, but a software developer who doesn't know that hypertext markup language is by definition a coding language? Lulz.

[Feanoro]

Admittedly off-topic, but a software developer who doesn't know that hypertext markup language is by definition a coding language? Lulz.

No, it's a declarative markup language, i.e. describes data. You cannot write executable code with it. It has absolutely no logical controls to manage input, output, or data structures. It doesn't have logical basics such as iteration or conditional branching (e.g. loops or switches). It is not turing complete. No, by the IEEE's formal definition, it is not a programming language.

Maybe an outsider like HR or other management might think it's programming, but calling it a programming language will get you laughed out of the room by any serious developers.

[Tabrotar]

Upon what principle are you basing that justification? Exclusively from the idea that as a thing that disgusts you or inspires hatred, which is the definition of abomination, they are in some way and lesser than other things? If hatred is the basis of your moral understanding of The Forsaken does it also apply to other things which disgust you or that you hate? Is it for example morally Justified to destroy any pizza with pineapple on it because that disgusts me?

If a person were to find me to be an abomination would they be morally justified in destroying me? I ask because this is particularly relevant to my situation as there are people who find me to be an abomination.

I would say that if that is the principle upon which you base your moral decision then your morality is at best questionable.

Shure because morality is only formed by a society and the human society have seen what undead have done (all i say is Arthas) and know what they´re still doing and that´s all the justification they need aka most of the undead known to the masses are cold blooded killers who kill their family members and realitives and have done inexpressible deeds and that´s enough to form a conclusion.

[Steampunkette]

I'll play devil's advocate here, it's not really all that hard a case to push.

For a start, undeath by default delays someone going to the afterlife in a setting where such an afterlife exists and is generally pleasant if one is a Light worshipper, which most of the Lordaeronians are. Once you're actually undead, your positive emotions are dulled and your negative emotions are expanded. Depending on the form of undeath, you hunger for flesh or to inflict suffering, making you unable to coexist peacefully with any other people. You either shamble endlessly before you give out and, like Sylvanas, go to hell, or you choose your only means of reproduction, which is murder to damn someone else to the same existence.

And those are just the arguments about being undead as a state of being, disregarding the many, many crimes of the Forsaken as a political group.

The Devil doesn't need an advocate. He does a fine job on his own.

So let's break you argument down bits by bit.

1) We have no way of knowing whether the afterlife is generally pleasant if you're a Light Worshipper. Uuna was a Light-Worshipper and she wound up in the same Hell-Dimension that Sylvanas described. This point is speculation.

2) Okay... and? Who cares if positive emotions are weakened or negative emotions are 'expanded'? A blow to the head can cause the same situation. Or a person can be -born- Anhedonic (Incapable of experiencing pleasure). These things do not in and of themselves mean much of anything.

3) We are referring to the Forsaken, here. Who neither hunger for the flesh of the living or need to inflict suffering to survive. They're capable of eating human flesh to sustain themselves, but so is literally every animal on the planet including people.

4) Hell? Again, Uuna went to hell as a light worshipping Draenei -child- who was innocent, sweet, pure, and kind. There's no evidence that you go to hell for being undead, it's pure speculation.

5) A person does not need to reproduce, nor does a Forsaken need to kill to do so. Accidents, Illnesses, Old Age. All of these things claim people, and any of them could be raised as a new Forsaken.

You're not making arguments about undeath being morally bad. Just that it sucks with some speculation about heaven and hell. But while it sucks, it really just sucks in some ways that being alive doesn't while also -not- sucking in ways that being alive does.

Now you could go into the argument of choice. People not -choosing- undeath... But they also didn't choose to be born. And in most cases they didn't choose to die. Why should being raised into undeath be any different? You could make the Existential Argument that the rotting corpse that comes back isn't "Really" the same person, but the universe has confirmed honest to god SOULS. Reality doesn't have those. The whole Transporter Problem wouldn't -exist- if we could be certain we had a continuing soul that went from molecule-cloud to molecule cloud...

As to the Forsaken as a Political Entity: I say thee 'Meh'. Humans have committed similar or greater atrocities in their existence but I don't see people arguing that killing humans is somehow morally justified because they're human.

- - - Updated - - -

Shure because morality is only formed by a society and the human society have seen what undead have done (all i say is Arthas) and know what they´re still doing and that´s all the justification they need aka most of the undead known to the masses are cold blooded killers who kill their family members and realitives and have done inexpressible deeds and that´s enough to form a conclusion.

Moral Relativism and Racism as Moral Imperative. Reprehensible as -fuuuuuuck-.

Anywho the question isn't intra-lore, it's extra-lore. Within the canon destroying the Alliance is justified from the Horde's perspective by countless actions, and vice versa. But from an external perspective we can actually make some kind of logical decision.

[Super Dickmann]

The Devil doesn't need an advocate. He does a fine job on his own.

So let's break you argument down bits by bit.

1) We have no way of knowing whether the afterlife is generally pleasant if you're a Light Worshipper. Uuna was a Light-Worshipper and she wound up in the same Hell-Dimension that Sylvanas described. This point is speculation.

2) Okay... and? Who cares if positive emotions are weakened or negative emotions are 'expanded'? A blow to the head can cause the same situation. Or a person can be -born- Anhedonic (Incapable of experiencing pleasure). These things do not in and of themselves mean much of anything.

3) We are referring to the Forsaken, here. Who neither hunger for the flesh of the living or need to inflict suffering to survive. They're capable of eating human flesh to sustain themselves, but so is literally every animal on the planet including people.

4) Hell? Again, Uuna went to hell as a light worshipping Draenei -child- who was innocent, sweet, pure, and kind. There's no evidence that you go to hell for being undead, it's pure speculation.

5) A person does not need to reproduce, nor does a Forsaken need to kill to do so. Accidents, Illnesses, Old Age. All of these things claim people, and any of them could be raised as a new Forsaken.

You're not making arguments about undeath being morally bad. Just that it sucks with some speculation about heaven and hell. But while it sucks, it really just sucks in some ways that being alive doesn't while also -not- sucking in ways that being alive does.

Now you could go into the argument of choice. People not -choosing- undeath... But they also didn't choose to be born. And in most cases they didn't choose to die. Why should being raised into undeath be any different? You could make the Existential Argument that the rotting corpse that comes back isn't "Really" the same person, but the universe has confirmed honest to god SOULS. Reality doesn't have those. The whole Transporter Problem wouldn't -exist- if we could be certain we had a continuing soul that went from molecule-cloud to molecule cloud...

As to the Forsaken as a Political Entity: I say thee 'Meh'. Humans have committed similar or greater atrocities in their existence but I don't see people arguing that killing humans is somehow morally justified because they're human.

Devil's advocate is a strong term here. While I find the Forsaken interesting and undead a fun story element, and I like their interaction and conflict with the Horde and Alliance, it is my genuine position that morally the Forsaken are evil and that undeath in general is not preferable to being killed.

1. Uuna had her soul forced into an undead hellbeast for however long, not exactly conductive to a nice afterlife. The quest confirms that at least her parents went to heaven and she has a spot there too, directly caused by the Light. If anything she's proof having your soul messed with by evil magic is bound to get you into hell over your preferred afterlife.

Uuna says: The light... it's telling me to follow it...
Uuna says: Mama! Papa! They're waiting for me!

2. Their ability to feel core emotions or things conductive to existing within a functional society such as empathy, love, etc. are actively reduced in the undead. There's a reason every one of them except a handful characters relish violent and reprehensible acts and why there's all of zero in-game societies where undead walk among the living and people get along.

3. If we're referring to the Forsaken, we have much bigger problems, namely that they're evil. From their inception they've been a net negative for living things all around them, beginning with the remnants of the Alliance of Lordaeron, the farmers in Tirisfal, the people of Hillsbrad, those of Gilneas etc. They cheerily take part in the worst atrocities of the setting, among them chemical warfare specifically made to wipe out the living, experimentation with captives, lobotomies (see the brainwashed girl in Vanilla), stitching them into abominations and by Cataclysm, raising others into undeath. The Forsaken are an interesting faction and they have a fair few grievances, but they're a net negative for literally everyone else they encounter.

4. Refer to 1.

5. A society needs to reproduce in order to persist as such. That's the whole reason Sylvanas raises people into undeath. They don't need to, yes, but the Desolate Council, by far the most sympathetic portrayal of undeath we've seen want to die, because even they recognize their existence is harmful to those around them and wish for the peace of the end rather than being forced to go on against their will in a pantomime of their previous lives where they can enjoy a fraction of the things they previously did and the vast majority of them can't intermingle with those they loved before, if they're lucky enough to be able to feel love at all.

The issue with undeath isn't only that it damages the undead one, it's that by existing, they're a net negative on everyone else. Virtually all undead factions have been hostile to the living and their nonexistence would be a positive for the societies around them. More so, the undead aren't a race or a people, they're the remnants of one, afflicted in such a way that they cannot continue their existence as they could before and harm everyone around them by default. Choice and birth are immaterial here. By nature and empirically, the undead are an issue for those around them and their absence would improve the lot of everyone, including they themselves as they might, like Uuna, move on into a preferable afterlife, rather than continue existing in a fashion those most human of them agree is inferior to the possibility of a final death.

Any real life racism analogue is bunk because of the way fantasy races work and it's why fantasy race analogies are invariably bullshit. For the undead, we know for a fact that they are less than the living - their souls and bodies are misaligned, resulting in the qualities I already described. Judging them on the basis of objective truth applicable to their entire group by nature is thus valid.

[Feanoro]

If a person were to find me to be an abomination would they be morally justified in destroying me? I ask because this is particularly relevant to my situation as there are people who find me to be an abomination.

More arguing in bad faith from a Sylvanas supporter, this time in the form of a "clever" trap. Anyone says yes, you can run to the mods sobbing that you were threatened. They say no because they aren't blurring lines between the real world and WoW, and you can say "So you admit I'm right!" Pathetic, but expected from someone who's repeatedly had the arrogance to judge people as personally "morally questionable" because they disagreed with an opinion on morality in a fantasy setting.

Let me try again to explain to you what people keep saying between your lectures. The average Joe human in WoW has either direct or indirect experience (stories from survivors, etc) of undead brutally mutilating, torturing, murdering, and otherwise committing atrocities, regardless of their status of mindlessness or full intelligence. As such, the only sane thing to do to ensure survival is to assume they're all a threat, not go hug that one over there and hope you picked right. That's not racism, nor is it any of the other real world politically correct nonsense you keep pushing. For someone so interested in debating morality of a fantasy setting, you sure do like violating the divide between fantasy and reality.

[mickybrighteyes]

1. Uuna had her soul forced into an undead hellbeast for however long, not exactly conductive to a nice afterlife. The quest confirms that at least her parents went to heaven and she has a spot there too, directly caused by the Light. If anything she's proof having your soul messed with by evil magic is bound to get you into hell over your preferred afterlife.

speculation at best with no real proof indicating either way. So either being good doesn't really hold much baring, or any tampering voids warranty, or this is a special case where the chosen magic had the effect, or #plot...

as to real world racial analogies... I personally think they still work because people are trying their damnedest to render the target as less than other groups and thus make it more palatable to cope with the destruction of the target group. Hell this talk of souls in perticular reminds me of old school subject matter concerning understanding the make up of the negro where 'learned' people of scholarly origins deemed non-whites as lacking souls and thus were less than people.

[Super Dickmann]

speculation at best with no real proof indicating either way. So either being good doesn't really hold much baring, or any tampering voids warranty, or this is a special case where the chosen magic had the effect, or #plot...

as to real world racial analogies... I personally think they still work because people are trying their damnedest to render the target as less than other groups and thus make it more palatable to cope with the destruction of the target group. Hell this talk of souls in perticular reminds me of old school subject matter concerning understanding the make up of the negro where 'learned' people of scholarly origins deemed non-whites as lacking souls and thus were less than people.

Yes, except this is fiction where it's factually true that undead have misaligned souls and bodies leading to the reason they lack certain elements of humanity. If it was merely claims by the Scarlet Crusade then it'd be an appropriate analogy, but we know it from CDev themselves. The main story conceit of undeath is that it's worse than life and a perversion of how things should be. That's even the gist of the Forsaken to start with, that they must cope with finding a place despite their existence being a torment and being shunned for what they are. Characters like Bartholomew or the Desolate Council struggle with their nature and succeed in doing good regardless. Then it became about their slide down the slippery slope. I think both are good stories to tell.

[mickybrighteyes]

Yes, except this is fiction where it's factually true that undead have misaligned souls and bodies leading to the reason they lack certain elements of humanity. If it was merely claims by the Scarlet Crusade then it'd be an appropriate analogy, but we know it from CDev themselves. The main story conceit of undeath is that it's worse than life and a perversion of how things should be. That's even the gist of the Forsaken to start with, that they must cope with finding a place despite their existence being a torment and being shunned for what they are. Characters like Bartholomew or the Desolate Council struggle with their nature and succeed in doing good regardless. Then it became about their slide down the slippery slope. I think both are good stories to tell.

yes this is fiction... and the fiction your citing is also aimed at more than just forsaken. They're not the only monstrous abomination that are misshapen humans... now you can brush them off as being broken less than human things.... but that doesn't make the statement less racist because you deem it as such.