The Kul Tiran and the Drust

[Florena]

The Drust were the only sentient race on Kul'tiras before the settlers came, the Drust settlements were in drustvar that doesn't mean they would be fine with others settling on "their Island".

Well when your first contact is violence, you kind of forfeit the moral high ground. At that point I have no problem with the Kul'Tirans fighting back, whether the Drust were there first or not. Just as in WC 3 I don't fault Grom for fighting back against the Night Elves when their first reaction was to just attack them.

[Magnagarde]

Well when your first contact is violence, you kind of forfeit the moral high ground.

He, like so many others in this subsection, tends to completely ignore the moral aspects when it comes to the actions of various characters and races. This is the crux of the problem.

Just by the end of the last page a comparison was drawn between the settlers and the naga.

[Izalla]

If they had no problem with strangers on their island yes, but apparently they had one and the humans decided to ignore the very clear message the drust gave them and decided to solve the matter differently, the Humans too had a choice and that was pack up and leave but they didn't want to, so they chose to fight back.

Sorry you don't get sympathy from me if your solution is to slaughter everyone as a first option. The Kul Tirans defended themselves against unprovoked attackers (you say setting foot on the island counts as provocation, I say that's ridiculous). If they didn't want violence, they shouldn't have engaged it in from the very start against unarmed and non-hostile settlers. Clearly some Drust did not feel that was the proper way to behave according to their culture. They picked a fight they ended up losing, with people who didn't even want to fight.

- - - Updated - - -

Well when your first contact is violence, you kind of forfeit the moral high ground. At that point I have no problem with the Kul'Tirans fighting back, whether the Drust were there first or not. Just as in WC 3 I don't fault Grom for fighting back against the Night Elves when their first reaction was to just attack them.

Yep. The orcs had no way of knowing the big apparently empty forest was considered sacred, and the nelves didn't even bother to tell them so before opening fire. Would it have changed anything? Probably not. But that doesn't mean it wasn't a shitty way to handle things.

[Combatbutler]

These are different aspects to consider. Strenght and morality. Strenght can be used as tool to enforce morally benevolent actions, not just for conquest. It can definitely be used to survival, but survival doesn't exclude previously trying to sort things out for the best of all sides.

You called arrogance on my take that the naga can't keep their land for what they've done in the past, but you are intentionally ignoring what I've stated above.

Yes I called you out on you saying the naga had no right to anything, because they are the way they are, but as a matter of fact they have been like that,since the ancient night elf empire, the naga are the direct continuation of that empire and have rebuild much of it on the ocean floor. That mindset did not hinder them in the slightest, other who preached morality where utterly decimated, like the draenei, others were not like current Stormwind.

Morality, justice etc. are all privileges you can afford if you have the strength to back them up, if you lack the strength you can be as righteous and kindhearted as you want to be, someone with a different concept can easily walk over you.

And the reason I called you out on the Naga, is because you consider coexistence is the only viable way and I disagree completely. The only viable way is for a fully awakened Azeroth to enforce peace, no mortal kingdom and empire has ever managed to really coexist with the others on that world or any other world. Conflict has been a constant, it is the very fabric of the universe after all.

- - - Updated - - -

Sorry you don't get sympathy from me if your solution is to slaughter everyone as a first option. The Kul Tirans defended themselves against unprovoked attackers (you say setting foot on the island counts as provocation, I say that's ridiculous). If they didn't want violence, they shouldn't have engaged it in from the very start against unarmed and non-hostile settlers. Clearly some Drust did not feel that was the proper way to behave according to their culture. They picked a fight they ended up losing, with people who didn't even want to fight.

Sympathy what a foolish notion, the drust tried to drive off invaders and they failed, just like the trolls before, just like Ogres, the Draenei the Quilboar the elves etc. such is the way of life. The Kul'tirans won that day and if they are wiped out one day, well then tough luck. What I tried to get out of people throughout this entire thread is the core issue does might make right? The answer is yes it does on Azeroth and always has.

[Magnagarde]

Morality, justice etc. are all privileges you can afford if you have the strength to back them up, if you lack the strength you can be as righteous and kindhearted as you want to be, someone with a different concept can easily walk over you.

Then how did the human settlers, offering peace and asking for coexistence - who clearly managed to beat the Drust and were therefor clearly stronger - manage to uphold some basic righteousness and ask the Drust for coexistence at first? They could've gone in and just torn them a new one instead of attempting to forge peace.

[Combatbutler]

You asked whenever peaceful coexistence happened. I gave you an example of it. You moved goalposts and then involved another party to somehow make it a trilateral arrangement. You could then make it quadrilateral, pentalateral and so on untill at least one of the involved sides had conflict with one of the parties involved.

Peaceful coexistence can happen, but it takes giving and taking with compromise.

Meaningful peaceful coexistence, a fragile peace between two races is hardly meaningful, heck I don't consider the current Alliance or Horde as meaningful, since there are still constant wars, it is but a drop in the ocean and so fickle it could break apart in the next few hundred years.

[Magnagarde]

And the reason I called you out on the Naga, is because you consider coexistence is the only viable way and I disagree completely. The only viable way is for a fully awakened Azeroth to enforce peace, no mortal kingdom and empire has ever managed to really coexist with the others on that world or any other world. Conflict has been a constant, it is the very fabric of the universe after all.

Peaceful coexistence is something I called out for in the example of the Drust and the human settlers. There is obviously no way that everyone can coexist peacefully, but that is why those that can coexist peacefully seem to end up winning and remaining as the last ones standing.

The naga are the first example that everyone can't coexist peacefully, which is exactly why I said that they lost their land.

You brought the naga up to say that they have rights over unused lands.

[Combatbutler]

Then how did the human settlers, offering peace and asking for coexistence - who clearly managed to beat the Drust and were therefor clearly stronger - manage to uphold some basic righteousness and ask the Drust for coexistence at first? They could've gone in and just torn them a new one instead of attempting to forge peace.

Because they wanted their cake and eat it too, just like the drust they wanted this land, they wouldn't let the drust drive them off. They offered a compromise the drust declined and as a consequence the Kul'tirans wiped them out, once they figured out their magic. The drust had more than one choice, but so had the humans. End of story because are greedy pieces of shit.

[Magnagarde]

Meaningful peaceful coexistence, a fragile peace between two races is hardly meaningful, heck I don't consider the current Alliance or Horde as meaningful, since there are still constant wars, it is but a drop in the ocean and so fickle it could break apart in the next few hundred years.

If there was no Horde and no Alliance, then there'd be multiple wars between the various races that comprise it. Sometimes even between those that are now allied. There's no denying that, yes.

- - - Updated - - -

Because they wanted their cake and eat it too, just like the drust they wanted this land, they wouldn't let the drust drive them off. They offered a compromise the drust declined and as a consequence the Kul'tirans wiped them out, once they figured out their magic. The drust had more than one choice, but so had the humans. End of story because are greedy pieces of shit.

The humans settled to live and to exist. They meant to coexist too. The Drust wouldn't let it happen. Both are not greedy pieces of shit in this case; only the Drust are. If we ultimately had to classify both as greedy pieces of shit(which humans at times undeniably have been, but in other examples), then it is safe to say that the Drust are the greedier pieces of shit in this case.

[Florena]

Then how did the human settlers, offering peace and asking for coexistence - who clearly managed to beat the Drust and were therefor clearly stronger - manage to uphold some basic righteousness and ask the Drust for coexistence at first? They could've gone in and just torn them a new one instead of attempting to forge peace.

The Kul'tirans were initially losing, until House Waycrest developed means of countering the Drust death magic with the original Order of Embers, which allowed them to turn the tides.

[Combatbutler]

Peaceful coexistence is something I called out for in the example of the Drust and the human settlers. There is obviously no way that everyone can coexist peacefully, but that is why those that can coexist peacefully seem to end up winning and remaining as the last ones standing.

Tell that to the Alliance of Lordaeron, whose core members now are part of the horde, the draenei that were butchered to the infinity and beyond, the high elves, that were sacked despite only ever meddling with the amani

The naga are the first example that everyone can't coexist peacefully, which is exactly why I said that they lost their land.

But they didn't, they got it pretty much all back after their transformation, in contrast to those that fought them.

You brought the naga up to say that they have rights over unused lands.

Because you said unused lands is up for grabs, what would happen if orc villagers settle in a spot of westfall and don't want to bow to Anduin but don't bother the natives, to the point that they are the majority there?

[Magnagarde]

The Kul'tirans were initially losing, until House Waycrest developed means of countering the Drust death magic with the original Order of Embers, which allowed them to turn the tides.

I know they were initially losing, but the point I tried to get across is that they didn't storm the shores killing any Drust they encounter, even though they could've done that untill the Drust fully mobilize.

- - - Updated - - -

Because you said unused lands is up for grabs, what would happen if orc villagers settle in a spot of westfall and don't want to bow to Anduin but don't bother the natives

Isn't that what happened in the majority of the Alliance lands anyway?

- - - Updated - - -

But they didn't, they got it pretty much all back after their transformation, in contrast to those that fought them.

What exactly did they get back, except for a few beachheads and settlements in which the playable character usually absolutely decimates them for being up to no good and having nothing but evil intentions for the rest of the world?

[Combatbutler]

The humans settled to live and to exist. They meant to coexist too. The Drust wouldn't let it happen. Both are not greedy pieces of shit in this case; only the Drust are. If we ultimately had to classify both as greedy pieces of shit(which humans at times undeniably have been, but in other examples), then it is safe to say that the Drust are the greedier pieces of shit in this case.

They came primarily there to settle coexistence was an option but not what they really wanted, otherwise they could have left, but they wanted the land and knew coexistence would not work out, so they decided to take down the drust, just because the drust were a tad greedier, doesn't make the Kul'tirans not assholes up for a land grab if things don't work out like they want.

[Florena]

I know they were initially losing, but the point I tried to get across is that they didn't storm the shores killing any Drust they encounter, even though they could've done that untill the Drust fully mobilize.

- - - Updated - - -



Isn't that what happened in the majority of the Alliance lands anyway?

- - - Updated - - -



What exactly did they get back, except for a few beachheads and settlements in which the playable character usually absolutely decimates them for being up to no good and having nothing but evil intentions for the rest of the world?

Yeah, they initially just set up farms and hamlets and then retaliated when the Drust attacked. Heck we don't even have any indication they knew the Drust were even there at all.

[Combatbutler]

Isn't that what happened in the majority of the Alliance lands anyway?

Nope, their usually was conflict over the territory, like arathi basin or the Alterac valley etc. neither side wanted the other there.

What exactly did they get back, except for a few beachheads and settlements in which the playable character usually absolutely decimates them for being up to no good and having nothing but evil intentions for the rest of the world?

Much of the world sunk beneath the ocean and they rebuilt their empire on the ocean floor for 10.000 years. And half the night elf ruins at the coasts.

[Every Pwny]

The Drust went through and attacked and slaughtered unarmed villages, weird you left that out in the OP, I guess not really weird since it was most likely intentional. This was never really about discussing the lore, it was about talking about how evil the early Kul'tiran settlers was.

[Magnagarde]

Nope, their usually was conflict over the territory, like arathi basin or the Alterac valley etc. neither side wanted the other there.

You made an example of Horde settling into Westfall. Then I draw a comparison to the Horde settling on another Alliance(and specifically human) land, this time Arathi, Hillsbrad and so on. It's the very same thing.

[Combatbutler]

The Drust went through and attacked and slaughtered unarmed villages, weird you left that out in the OP, I guess not really weird since it was most likely intentional. But then this was never really about discussing the lore, it was about talking about how evil the early Kul'tiran settlers was.

There is no such thing as evil, it is about interests and ultimately what is most important with these interests in mind, the drust wanted the Kul'tirans gone at any cost. The Kul'tirans wanted that land and were willing to compromise the drust were not, but wanted to keep there land at any cost, so they decided to wipe them out. That is all there is to it really.

- - - Updated - - -

You made an example of Horde settling into Westfall. Then I draw a comparison to the Horde settling on another Alliance land, this time Arathi, Hillsbrad and so on. It's the very same thing.

Your point was coexistence was it not and I said that didn't happen there the result was conflict. The horde has that territory today because they had the strength to keep it. Alliance had crumbled and was beaten to a bloody pulp after the third war , too weak to keep much of the territories it once had Dominion over.

[ArguesWithStrangers]

Ugh, this stupid argument again. Let me make it perfectly clear for all of you hand-wringers out there. There is not a square foot of either Earth of Azeroth that wasn't occupied by someone else before the current inhabitants got there. Just because you choose to draw the line at a particular moment in time does not mean that line isn't as arbitrary as anyone else's. The right to call a place your own stems entirely from your ability and will to enforce that claim. Whining about your moral right to a land is generally done by either those who didn't have the strength to protect the land they had or affluent westerners who feel as though offering sympathy for the other from the safety of their secure, stable, wealthy nation states somehow makes them a morally superior person.

[micwini]

You have to understand how much time is between the humans driving out the drust and the present time. You can't really blame the people that live there today.