Arthas and the morally gray question of a burning world tree

[plz delete account]

Now that I've had time to analyze the War of Thorns, I thought it'd be appropriate to make a post concerning my thoughts.

I'm going to be completely honest here.
During the culling of Stratholme, Arthas was in quite the moral quandry. He had the choice between letting an entire city turn into zombies (bad), or trying to mitigate the number of people who ultimately turned undead (also bad.).

Each decision had its pros and its cons, but it was completely a no-win situation for Arthas.

Now with Sylvanas' allegedly morally gray moment in Darkshore, She had already won. Either way she decides to go, she's already won in that situation. There's nothing morally gray about burning the world tree when you have already won. There was the morally better situation of occupying Tel'drassil, and the morally worse situation of burning it. If she had occupied the damn overgrown thing, that would have been such a great situation for Sylvanas. instead, on a whim, she burns the tree to kill hope.

In a more tragic, yet morally gray situation, Arthas decided to try to mitigate the number of undead that would pour out of Stratholme. But he did not take joy in it. He even questioned himself multiple times while doing it. Arthas was seriously a 3-space(/dimensional) character during the Culling of Stratholme.

Sylvanas had the opportunity to not kill thousands of civilians in a situation that was already a win for her. She had her opportunity to not have her own Culling of Stratholme moment, but decided to have it anyways.

Arthas? Was definitely morally gray.
Sylvanas? Not so much, and did plenty of mustache twirling while being the baddie by choice.

Arthas followed up Stratholme with the Borean Tundra, where he does PLENTY of morally gray things to try to get his army to help him end the Scourge once and for all.

And then we have Lordaeron. Sylvanas again has the opportunity to redeem herself and do something morally gray or potentially morally good, but instead, knowing she could probably lose the battle, doesn't plan on how she could possibly defend Capitol City, but rather, how she could kill as many Alliance forces as possible. She had multiple opportunities to do the right thing, or at least a morally gray thing, and chooses outright to not be morally gray, but to be the outright villain. Again. Chemical weapons such as the plague, kill thousands of Horde and thousands of Alliance soldiers. That's not really morally gray, but "Kill as many Alliance soldiers as possible with any means and at any cost", but short of manabombing the damn city.

[Peacehagen]

My thought on it, right or wrong, is that if she did occupy it the alliance would just take it back eventually since they have much better knowledge of the area. By burning it the alliance has no real fortification left on kalimdor. Though they way she did it is indeed questionable.

But on another note didnt she shoot herself in the foot by burning it down though? Thinking burned bodies cant be raised as new forsaken (might be wrong). For war strategy it would probably be better to just capture all civillians, kill them and raise them. That would probably not be morally grey either though :P

[plz delete account]

My thought on it, right or wrong, is that if she did occupy it the alliance would just take it back eventually since they have much better knowledge of the area. By burning it the alliance has no real fortification left on kalimdor. Though they way she did it is indeed questionable.

But on another note didnt she shoot herself in the foot by burning it down though? Thinking burned bodies cant be raised as new forsaken (might be wrong). For war strategy it would probably be better to just capture all civillians, kill them and raise them. That would probably not be morally grey either though :P

I think she did shoot herself in the foot by burning the tree.

[pay928]

I think she did shoot herself in the foot by burning the tree.

Her actual plan was probably to either divide the alliance or piss them off so much that they would attack Undercity and she could set off her blight trap. If her goal was to have each faction on their own continent, then trading the cities and destroying both would go along with that. When Saurfang asks "Was that your plan all along?" after leaving the throne room and seeing the explosive the obvious implication is the plan for defending Undercity. However, what if Saurfang meant that was her plan all along from the start when they first attacked Darnassus. And all of the words she used to convince him were nothing but manipulation. If her plan succeeded, she would've killed Anduin and whoever he brought with him. Her plan failed because Jaina replaced Khadgar as the "Well this is a trap better bubble and mass port out" character.

[Re4leader1]

Thing is tho arthas did what he thought was right and was willing to loose everything to stop what was ALREADY happening. Sylvannas is sacking cities and committing genocide for what she fears MIGHT happen in the future.

[Nnyco]

Thing is tho arthas did what he thought was right and was willing to loose everything to stop what was ALREADY happening. Sylvannas is sacking cities and committing genocide for what she fears MIGHT happen in the future.

nightelfs attackin horde in ashenvale since warcraft 3 and alliance attacked the horde in stormheim and in silithus, war is ALREADY happening

[Sarange]

Have you read the novella "A Good War"? It answers why she burned it, and it was not just because she got triggered by the night elf.

[plz delete account]

Her actual plan was probably to either divide the alliance or piss them off so much that they would attack Undercity and she could set off her blight trap. If her goal was to have each faction on their own continent, then trading the cities and destroying both would go along with that. When Saurfang asks "Was that your plan all along?" after leaving the throne room and seeing the explosive the obvious implication is the plan for defending Undercity. However, what if Saurfang meant that was her plan all along from the start when they first attacked Darnassus. And all of the words she used to convince him were nothing but manipulation. If her plan succeeded, she would've killed Anduin and whoever he brought with him. Her plan failed because Jaina replaced Khadgar as the "Well this is a trap better bubble and mass port out" character.

So basically her mustache twirling was for naught and would have been better if she had tried to be the morally gray character, which was stated in the OP.

[Voltsmasher]

I think people are under estimating how big a pain it is to occupy an unwilling populace. Especially in an honorable fashion. It's impossible to tell the rebels from the regular and would be a drain on resources and a security risk for military secrets.

Please do not misunderstand this for it not being an attrocious decision to make. But simply "occupying" it isn't as easy a choice to make or as necessarily smart in a war effort as you would seem to believe.

[Sigxy]

It's hard to really compare what Arthas did in Stratholme with Teldrassil. I mean... if anything Arthas did the right thing. Either they can kill off the plagued victims BEFORE they hurt someone - or wait for them all to turn into mindless undead and kill off others, before Arthas stops them. *shrugs* Either way they were all dying anyway.

[Cradyz]

I'm going to be completely honest here.
During the culling of Stratholme, Arthas was in quite the moral quandry. He had the choice between letting an entire city turn into zombies (bad), or trying to mitigate the number of people who ultimately turned undead (also bad.).

Each decision had its pros and its cons, but it was completely a no-win situation for Arthas.

Now with Sylvanas' allegedly morally gray moment in Darkshore, She had already won. Either way she decides to go, she's already won in that situation. There's nothing morally gray about burning the world tree when you have already won. There was the morally better situation of occupying Tel'drassil, and the morally worse situation of burning it. If she had occupied the damn overgrown thing, that would have been such a great situation for Sylvanas. instead, on a whim, she burns the tree to kill hope.

It's already been revealed that it wasn't a whim. She had won the battle, but thanks to her misplaced trust in Saurfang the larger plan failed. Occupying the city would be pointless, burning the tree was the more effective option. This was all explained in the book thingies. Immoral yeah, but this is Sylvanas, she doesn't care about what you think is moral. She cares only about achieving her goals, whatever the means. Though she probably does care somewhat, those feelings are less important to her than reaching the goal.

Arthas btw, had no grand plan, he acted on instinct. Probably the wrong choice since it set him on the lich king path. The decision to cull stratholme was pivotal for him as a character, defining his path going forward. Burning the tree is nothing Sylvanas wouldn't normally do really, it's just the scale that has gotten people all upset. She isn't any different after it (from what we've seen so far anyhow).

In a more tragic, yet morally gray situation, Arthas decided to try to mitigate the number of undead that would pour out of Stratholme. But he did not take joy in it. He even questioned himself multiple times while doing it. Arthas was seriously a 3-space(/dimensional) character during the Culling of Stratholme.

Sylvanas had the opportunity to not kill thousands of civilians in a situation that was already a win for her. She had her opportunity to not have her own Culling of Stratholme moment, but decided to have it anyways.

Arthas? Was definitely morally gray.
Sylvanas? Not so much, and did plenty of mustache twirling while being the baddie by choice.

It's not the same situation really. Stratholme was lost regardless, what happened there was about developing Arthas. Burning the tree wasn't Sylvanas' plan, it was the option left to her. It's explained in the novellas. Killing civilians wasn't the point of the burning, not that Sylvanas would care really. The point was to remove this now problem in achieving a peace on the horde's terms. Once more, she thinks about what is best to reach the goal, not what is moral.

Also Sylvanas isn't gloating after the burning. When she isn't dispassionate she's mostly snarky or mocking (like in the latest cinematics). I wouldn't call that mustache twirling.

Arthas followed up Stratholme with the Borean Tundra, where he does PLENTY of morally gray things to try to get his army to help him end the Scourge once and for all.

And then we have Lordaeron. Sylvanas again has the opportunity to redeem herself and do something morally gray or potentially morally good, but instead, knowing she could probably lose the battle, doesn't plan on how she could possibly defend Capitol City, but rather, how she could kill as many Alliance forces as possible. She had multiple opportunities to do the right thing, or at least a morally gray thing, and chooses outright to not be morally gray, but to be the outright villain. Again. Chemical weapons such as the plague, kill thousands of Horde and thousands of Alliance soldiers. That's not really morally gray, but "Kill as many Alliance soldiers as possible with any means and at any cost", but short of manabombing the damn city.

Why would Sylvanas do something to 'redeem' herself? She doesn't think she needs redemption, what she did all made perfect sense. What would be the point of this character doing something the Alliance or Saurfang thinks is morally good? She burns the tree, she knows they will come for the undercity, she knows she can't hold it, she evacuates the population and traps and kills as many enemy troops as possible. A sound tactical move, why would she ever let the Alliance win?

Also don't bring IRL morals into this that is so pointless. This is a world where people routinely set others on fire, bleed them to death and slowly destroy their minds, bodies and souls in regular combat. The blight isn't on some unique level of awfulness.

Meh, there is just no point talking about the moral ambiguities of a charcter that doesn't care about them. Some nelf may think she's evil, some undead forsaken may think she's bloody wonderful, she doesn't care, she just does what needs to be done (according to her).

Also, if anything Arthas shows us that the 'the end justifies the means' mentality leads to bad things. BUT, Arthas was guided all the way, being manipulated by others. Sylvanas is doing this herself. Unless N'Zoth is pulling the strings, then whatever this story can go burn with teldrassil.

[pay928]

So basically her mustache twirling was for naught and would have been better if she had tried to be the morally gray character, which was stated in the OP.

Not every character has to be morally gray for an overall story to be morally gray. She accomplished one of her goals if it was to have each faction on its own continent which the lack of 'moustache twirling' would not have accomplished.

She has fought using chemical weapons and questionable methods since vanilla, she has no reason to change now just because she's warchief. The horde's morals as a whole are grey since some feel obligated to follow Sylvanas since she is their chosen warchief due to their honor or nowhere else to go.

[Topornic]

Now that I've had time to analyze the War of Thorns, I thought it'd be appropriate to make a post concerning my thoughts.

I'm going to be completely honest here.
During the culling of Stratholme, Arthas was in quite the moral quandry. He had the choice between letting an entire city turn into zombies (bad), or trying to mitigate the number of people who ultimately turned undead (also bad.).

Each decision had its pros and its cons, but it was completely a no-win situation for Arthas.

Now with Sylvanas' allegedly morally gray moment in Darkshore, She had already won. Either way she decides to go, she's already won in that situation. There's nothing morally gray about burning the world tree when you have already won. There was the morally better situation of occupying Tel'drassil, and the morally worse situation of burning it. If she had occupied the damn overgrown thing, that would have been such a great situation for Sylvanas. instead, on a whim, she burns the tree to kill hope.

In a more tragic, yet morally gray situation, Arthas decided to try to mitigate the number of undead that would pour out of Stratholme. But he did not take joy in it. He even questioned himself multiple times while doing it. Arthas was seriously a 3-space(/dimensional) character during the Culling of Stratholme.

Sylvanas had the opportunity to not kill thousands of civilians in a situation that was already a win for her. She had her opportunity to not have her own Culling of Stratholme moment, but decided to have it anyways.

Arthas? Was definitely morally gray.
Sylvanas? Not so much, and did plenty of mustache twirling while being the baddie by choice.

Arthas followed up Stratholme with the Borean Tundra, where he does PLENTY of morally gray things to try to get his army to help him end the Scourge once and for all.

And then we have Lordaeron. Sylvanas again has the opportunity to redeem herself and do something morally gray or potentially morally good, but instead, knowing she could probably lose the battle, doesn't plan on how she could possibly defend Capitol City, but rather, how she could kill as many Alliance forces as possible. She had multiple opportunities to do the right thing, or at least a morally gray thing, and chooses outright to not be morally gray, but to be the outright villain. Again. Chemical weapons such as the plague, kill thousands of Horde and thousands of Alliance soldiers. That's not really morally gray, but "Kill as many Alliance soldiers as possible with any means and at any cost", but short of manabombing the damn city.

Occupation would've been a gamble and it wouldn't drag the Horde into war so much. Also it would've drained resources, while the Night elves would probably put up some nice tree guerrila warfare and insurection, not to mention whole Alliance trying to undermine the occupation and maybe retake it by force no matter the cost.

The Horde could have just left Undercity but I think Sylvanas tried to trap Alliance leaders and execute them in the throne room but she had overlooked that Jaina might come on a magic ship and then bubble + hs the whole party (obviously they would've probably died in that room but Blizzard can't just outright kill over half of the Alliance leaders).

[Fetus Rex]

Na. She is pretty morally grey alright. She does not things for shit and giggles. Her actions serve greater good. She alright, my kind of lass. Wombastic.

[AcidicSyn]

Every time I see a night elf in game. I run over to them, /wave, /comfort, then place a basic campfire in front of them, /cheer and continue on with my day.

I regret only that there is a 5 minute cd on the campfire.

[pay928]

Every time I see a night elf in game. I run over to them, /wave, /comfort, then place a basic campfire in front of them, /cheer and continue on with my day.

I regret only that there is a 5 minute cd on the campfire.

https://www.wowhead.com/item=34686/b...dancing-flames can help fill in the gaps. Can also use the pet and and some others from https://www.wowhead.com/midsummer-fi...rning-blossoms

[AcidicSyn]

https://www.wowhead.com/item=34686/b...dancing-flames can help fill in the gaps. Can also use the pet and and some others from https://www.wowhead.com/midsummer-fi...rning-blossoms

I freakin' love you, ty!

[Thimagryn]

If there's anything we can take away from this, it's that you can't make peace with the Undead.

[The Stormbringer]

@Lilithvia I agree with you on this. Arthas had a terrible moral quandary of killing his own people to prevent them from becoming undead, to keep the city from being overrun and spilling out into the rest of Lordaeron. Sylvanas just murdered a bunch of people 'to kill hope', which is bullshit reasoning, especially since they were all prepped and ready to invade. It was also a huge waste of potential resources.

nightelfs attackin horde in ashenvale since warcraft 3 and alliance attacked the horde in stormheim and in silithus, war is ALREADY happening

Maybe the Orcs should stay out of Ashenvale? It's not their forest, it belongs to the Night Elves. It has for over 10,000 years.

[Nnyco]

[MENTION=1417461]
Maybe the Orcs should stay out of Ashenvale? It's not their forest, it belongs to the Night Elves. It has for over 10,000 years.

all they needed was wood and malfurion literally showed in their first confrontation that he could just regrow the trees easily