So when Kyrians are the souls of people, that have ascended...

[Destinas]

I think part of the issue in these discussions is discounting individual morality based on racial culture almost to exclusively playing off the culture.


as for guldan. Due to how he was shown doing his various things in pulling the orcs together and turning on his clan... I think he'd more likely wind up in the maw.

Well, morality is formed due to culture in real life and in WoW. Things considered just, noble, virtuous, honorable, and "good" can be quite different in each culture. And, notably in real life, different afterlives are believed to be earned differently based on what people think is "good" in their cultures - though there is, of course, overlap.

For Orcs, most of their clans praise war. They believe that the most honorable death is to die in battle. If they are born weak or sickly, they are berated, humiliated, and usually cast off - this happened with Gul'dan, and Draka had to prove to everyone else that she wasn't just a "runt" in their eyes. Every clan is mostly comprised of warriors and hunters, with shamans acting as their spiritual guides. Their version of honor is a fair fight on a battlefield - they don't believe that honor would be putting someone out of their misery, whereas another culture might think the opposite. They are so warmongering that their festival near Oshu'gun forbids fighting each other for the duration of the festival - meaning that war and fighting have always been common among even the clans. They of course also honor mak'gora for rights in leadership, which is meant to (usually) end in death for one of the participants.

Now let's look at, say, Nightborne. They have their own version of an honor duel - Tal'ashar, but most of their beliefs have little to do with battle other than that. They believe in honoring their ancestors, also similar to the Orcs - but they thank them for their "noble heritage" rather than the service of the ancestors in their lives. Their idea of nobility is simply how fancy, wealthy, and magically gifted they are, as opposed to a personality trait (which, the Orcs care about neither definition). The idea of someone being "good" in Suramar (pre-revolution) was policed wildly different for different people - the people in the cages were imprisoned for theft, speaking out against Elisande, illegal distribution of Arcwine, among others. We try to assist one Nightborne that was exiled for punishing her servants.

Other cultures measure their morality with religion (Trolls, Night Elves, Draenei, Tauren), riches/possessions (Kobolds, Goblins, Vulpera), technology (Gnomes/Mechagnomes, Goblins, Dark Irons), magic (Blood/High/Void Elves), a combination of all (humans), and more. There are of course individuals in every culture that may feel differently - Gul'dan is a perfect example of this specifically with Orcs. However, in WoW's lore, most people of a certain race are generically written - we see this with the souls/people specifically mentioned in relation to/appearing in the zones in Shadowlands (Uther/Bastion, Draka/Maldraxxus, Kael'thas/Revendreth, Tyrande/Cenarius/Ardenweald). So, it's perfectly fitting in these discussions.

[Garymorilix]

Look. I disregarded your original point on the subject cause It's a moot point...

Tauren 'paladins' are a thing because Sunwalkers are carbon copy paladins in literally every way.

The 'shadow casters' you refer to as 'not priests' are priest. They pray to a higher power and use it as a religious backing. The fact that they don't use or believe in the light isn't the issue there.

This is just nitpicking at this point. Are troll priest not priest cause they are adhering to loa and voodoo? Are gnomes not really hunters cause of their reliance on metal and machines? Were blood knights not paladins despite their use of the light? I mean hell, forsaken priests were previously almost exclusively shadow as well but that doesn't make them 'not priest' either.


Your examples are doing very little to explain your point.

I mean generally something like:

A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. He combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. He tells the truth, keeps his word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.

Might do more to explain why something is or isn't lawful or good. Typically some explanation of 'lawful' or what ideas of 'order' should be exemplified for lawful status to be determined (law and order typically being interchangeable as counter to 'chaos'). Thus far you've spent more time trying to say the orcs in general are chaotic or not good in roundabout ways. Uther was LG cause... i guess paladin. While Nazgrim wasn't because... "it was clear" was




That much is true... but no one is referencing anything beyond character names and doing very little to cite actions... maybe take another look at your post about Nazgrim and Uther....

Yes, but people aren't really explaining why they think someone was these things or blanket statements the entire group for poorly elaborated reasons or falling back on a specific trop.


Do you?

I'm more trying to figure out where this example comes from, but the example is present on all sides cause either side may see 'innocents' as something other than innocent. Our, the audiences, perspectives are also biased at times as well. You seem to already assume certain things about how one side might act based on the analogy you used...

This feels like a circular logic loop with a lot of information missing. We know nothing much about Draka except she is/was an orc and Thrall's Mom within the Frostwolves. That gives us very little information about who she is or what she did exactly so you'll need to do better to explain why you think she isn't lawful or good... please try harder than "Well Bastion is totally Lawful Good and she didn't get sent there"


The forum rules restrict me from commenting in the way I wish atm... just know I cannot put into words how much my desk has just been faced or my eyes that have rolled enough for jupiter to feel the rotational force.

The alignment chart is one thing, the way one defines the parameters or justification for placement on the chart is the issue... my questioning of others statements about it is not my inability to accept a chart... Your explanations as to why your interpretations are what they are... THAT is what I'm having a hard time accepting. Like this new Uther v Draka example where Uther is LG but draka isn't cause the arbiter sent her to not Bastion... Real top form for elaboration on what is or isn't Lawful Good. But you can't really say much since the character chosen here is rather lacking in backstory.


I was being tongue in cheek about non-humans since it seems only humans are the ones who get the varied perspective. Humans can do whatever... everyone else? pigeonholed by stereotype it seems.


You still have yet to point out what that is... maybe cite a source instead of telling someone to go research.

I think you're having trouble actually proving your point now.

You have yet to even define your idea of the components that make up an alignment chart and almost solely fallen back on citing Uther as your example of lawful good... using merely his name and not his deeds.

edit:

fyi:

I am more than familiar with alignment charts and what can wind up as various categories on said chart. The issue here is more about how some people are labeling various characters/groups based on what they believe determines the position on the chart.

You yourself have done little to elaborate why one might be lawful or good instead opting to say "Uther is"... or "Draka is not"

Are you implying that we are to just take Bastion as Lawful Good. Ardenweald as Chaotic Good. the others are somehow lawful evil and the maw is totes chaotic evil?

Sunwalkers are sunwalkers.
Blood Knights are Blood Knights.
Prelates are prelates.
Paladins are paladins.
Priests are priests.

You seem to confuse in-game descriptions with lore. Ofc a tauren sunwalker will be a 'paladin' ingame, but it's not a paladin.
Mag'har orcs are not priests. They are shadowcasters.

You may not like this, but even Blizzard sticks to this, even in-game when they use the respective NPC's.

Ok, here is the definition of Lawful Good:
"A lawful good character typically acts with compassion and always with honor and a sense of duty, though will often regret taking any action they fear would violate their code; even if they recognize such action as being good. Such characters include righteous knights, paladins, and most dwarves."

Ofc this doesn't mean WoW paladins and dwarves, but as WoW is basically based on this trope too, it's the same.

Uther is Lawful Good.
The most recognized action of his in this regard was the Purge of Stratholme: he refused because it wasn't an honorable or lawful deed to do, even if it was necessary.
Uther is the generic good-guy old paladin guy trope, the noble knight who guides the young prince so that he will be a good king to the people.
I really can't think of more ways to desrcibe such a generic good-guy character to you.

Nazgrim is Lawful Neutral.
He didn't follow good or bad, he just followed his Warchief. In the end, he turned against us because that was Garrosh's law. Now, as one of the four Horseman he doesn't question, he just does his duty.

If you are familiar with the alignment chart then I don't know what you don't understand. What source do you want if you say you are MORE THAN familiar with the chart? I don't play semantics here.
I will not copy-paste the whole alignment chart and it's definitions here for you, you can literally type it in google and click on the first option.

And yes, I imply that Bastion is Lawful Good from both the information we got, Uther being there and the whole visual language of the place that we saw in the trailer/blizzcon gameplay.

- - - Updated - - -

another thing. As for 'our perspective' being what determines good/evil and lawful/chaotic... that doesn't really explain anything except make it fall on our own bias. Remember your first analogy that wasn't name dropping uther was "Well maybe it's lawful for an orc to kill innocents". This analogy didn't really bring up anything about the situation except hey orcs slaughtering folks... no discussion of why or how. It could be movie styled gul'dan with his hundred/thousands or draenei locked up being used for fuel for all it mattered. This example does veyr little to explain why or how such an action might be deemed 'lawful' beyond maybe that's just orc culture... (another issue I have concerning people's interpretation of the entire race's culture vs some people's culture... like part of why defias or syndicate culture isn't indicative of Human culture... but somehow every little orc tribe is incredibly indicative of all orc culture)

I disagree that morality should be exclusively judged from one perspective on grounds that we, the audience, are not a unified group with a singular bias and feel that you're idea needs some work.

It doesn't matter what you think personally.
I already stated this: what IS in the story IS, what ISN'T in the story ISN'T.

'Our perspective' means the generally accepted reaction to any given activity.
This means, while you as an individual would consider genocide an acceptable form of dealing with a certain situation (like ending a war for example, or the Culling of Stratholme in WoW) that doesn't mean that that point of view is the generally accepted perspective on the situation.
In real life we call these 'unpopular opinions' so you can relate the idea to something tangible.

This is either a thing you can understand or not. I'm not a certified pshycologist to give you a signed form about why this exists, but if you possess literally any layer of cognitive thinking you know that this is real.

Many people have already explained how WoW is written, what cultures mean in WoW based on Warcraft tropes/stereotypes, at this point you are actively refusing to accept the fact that WoW races are written in a generic way.
The reason why they are written in a generic way is so they appeal to players who think it's fun to be that generic way in this world.
If every single race could be anything and didn't matter what they are we wouldn't even need races.

[mickybrighteyes]

Well, morality is formed due to culture in real life and in WoW. Things considered just, noble, virtuous, honorable, and "good" can be quite different in each culture. And, notably in real life, different afterlives are believed to be earned differently based on what people think is "good" in their cultures - though there is, of course, overlap.

the issue is then how does one's idea of 'good' become more valid than another's. NabyBro seems to think it's our perspective that determines such and that somehow explains everything...

It seems to me a lot of assumptions are made. Like desire for conflict is automatically shoved into a block without looking at why the conflict occurred. I'm not trying to say orcs are somehow all lawful, but the blanket statements like orcs have no principles seem ludicrous... nevermind such lovely examples of attempted explanations on morality like "Uther is Lawful good" cause... well... it's apparently "clear". I mean I know the paladin stereotype and there are more Uthers and Tyrions than there are Arthas and Kore Kore being a Lawful Evil paladin of a certain comic series based on D&D rules who's life's purpose was to imprison any and all 'evil' (read: Non-Human) souls....

In general it feels like a lot of posters are pointing out that morality does vary by culture but don't do much to point out why one perspective is more good or lawful than another. Citing paladin standing alone doesn't feel like it actually says anything... on it's own that is.

[Frontenac]

Service and Altruism are very different terms covering a wide range of subjects.

And I have to disagree that orcs aren't principled... Maybe the likes such as Kilrogg are heavil ends justify the means, but not every orc clan was lead by semi omniscient seers with 100% accurate visions of the future running things. This sounds like 'their principles aren't like [example] therefore they're not principled.

Or maybe I should ask how you're defining these terms since 'Service' clearly isn't just 'Service' but a specific kind of service.

Well, in Bastion "service" most probably does not mean to have served your master or served your Warchief or your clan. With all this emphasis on purity, principles and virtue, we are talking about being in service of the others, actively seeking their good, which is altruism. Let's remember that the Kyrians are not only ferrying souls for their own covenant, but for all covenants. They are actually in service of all of them.

And when I look at the Orcs history, if they ever were principled, if they ever had a strong set of ethics, they have seldom showed it. With the way they eagerly obeyed every crime or genocide asked by their leaders, with only a handful opposing them but usually ending up shutting their mouths and obeying anyway... or being exiled or killed. Orcish culture is all about "Might makes Right." I am right to do it because I can. That does not go well with the Kyrians. Now again, that does not mean that an Orc cannot be principled, be pure of heart and virtuous. Oddballs exist in every culture.

[Destinas]

the issue is then how does one's idea of 'good' become more valid than another's. NabyBro seems to think it's our perspective that determines such and that somehow explains everything...

In Shadowlands, that's why the Arbiter exists. She judges where people go based on their lives - which is meaningless and bare-bones so far. It's also similar to the "worthy" and "unworthy" Vrykul souls in Legion - which are also rendered meaningless, since the "unworthy Vrykul" were often worthy, but they were taken by Helya before Odyn's Val'kyr could get them first. Or, when an actually unworthy Vrykul (Ymiron) was taken to the Halls of Valor as punishment by Odyn. So, it didn't really matter what a Vrykul did in their lives at all, only who got to them first, or what Helya and Odyn think of them.

In the end, WoW's idea of the afterlife isn't deep, and it's based only off of a human perception of what an afterlife could be. Kael'thas is bad because the story demands it, so he will be punished in Revendreth. Draka is a warrior, so she goes to Maldraxxus, regardless of her morality. Uther is a paladin, which the story always dictates as "just" so he'll be going to Bastion which is like if the Halls of Valor took steroids, regardless of how many battles he fought. Cenarius spent time in Ardenweald because he's a being of nature, and there's nature there.

Granted, we aren't going to the Shadowlands in the way most others do, but players are still given the choice of which Covenant to join. Players are given the agency of choice because we're all different people. Uther and Draka are meant to simply be vehicles to tell the story of the Covenants and the overarching story of the Shadowlands itself. This is all despite the fact that there are billions of souls from all over reality that go to the Shadowlands constantly, since it's not just connected to Azeroth.

[chrisisvacant]

Well, morality is formed due to culture in real life and in WoW. Things considered just, noble, virtuous, honorable, and "good" can be quite different in each culture. And, notably in real life, different afterlives are believed to be earned differently based on what people think is "good" in their cultures - though there is, of course, overlap.

There has been no explanation for how the Arbiter makes her choices, just that she makes them and makes them quick.

There is absolutely nothing stating that there isn't some sort of supreme rule as to what makes a person's life truly virtuous, etc. Just that the Arbiter has had the power to decide since time immemorial. What a mortal being considers as virtuous may be entirely outside the bounds of what the person who metes out ultimate justice thinks is virtuous.

And given there are repercussions for living a life that is not deemed virtuous by the Arbiter that are not black and white, one might presume that even those who felt they were doing the right thing might find out the error of their ways.

[Destinas]

There has been no explanation for how the Arbiter makes her choices, just that she makes them and makes them quick.

There is absolutely nothing stating that there isn't some sort of supreme rule as to what makes a person's life truly virtuous, etc. Just that the Arbiter has had the power to decide since time immemorial. What a mortal being considers as virtuous may be entirely outside the bounds of what the person who metes out ultimate justice thinks is virtuous.

And given there are repercussions for living a life that is not deemed virtuous by the Arbiter that are not black and white, one might presume that even those who felt they were doing the right thing might find out the error of their ways.

I actually pointed out that right above your post. The story for Shadowlands, so far, is written simply in order to match the individual zones with people that we've seen so far.

In essence, every person's idea of morality and culture shouldn't matter at all with the idea of the Arbiter. An all-knowing being that has existed since time existed wouldn't care if an Orc meant well or not, if their actions were horrible in their eyes. However, the story being presented (so far) is meant only to match the story we've always known. Thus, warriors likely go to Maldraxxus.

It's one of the flaws about the idea of an afterlife in a video game, in my opinion. It could be much more varied, but it likely won't be.

[mickybrighteyes]

Sunwalkers are sunwalkers.
Blood Knights are Blood Knights.
Prelates are prelates.
Paladins are paladins.
Priests are priests.

You seem to confuse in-game descriptions with lore. Ofc a tauren sunwalker will be a 'paladin' ingame, but it's not a paladin.
Mag'har orcs are not priests. They are shadowcasters.

You may not like this, but even Blizzard sticks to this, even in-game when they use the respective NPC's.

So if the game says they are and aren't how are you determining which is 'correct'?

Ok, here is the definition of Lawful Good:
"A lawful good character typically acts with compassion and always with honor and a sense of duty, though will often regret taking any action they fear would violate their code; even if they recognize such action as being good. Such characters include righteous knights, paladins, and most dwarves."

OK here's mine:

A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. He combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. He tells the truth, keeps his word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
"Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.


I still personally feel like my idea is lacking cause it still refers to a lawful good being acting as "a good person is expected or required to act"

Uther is Lawful Good.
The most recognized action of his in this regard was the Purge of Stratholme: he refused because it wasn't an honorable or lawful deed to do, even if it was necessary.
Uther is the generic good-guy old paladin guy trope, the noble knight who guides the young prince so that he will be a good king to the people.
I really can't think of more ways to desrcibe such a generic good-guy character to you.

Nazgrim is Lawful Neutral.
He didn't follow good or bad, he just followed his Warchief. In the end, he turned against us because that was Garrosh's law. Now, as one of the four Horseman he doesn't question, he just does his duty.

So Nazgrim is forever not good because he wound up against us then. He followed his orders, upheld his honor and treated us and his adversaries with dignity and respect... but that's not good according to you.

If you are familiar with the alignment chart then I don't know what you don't understand. What source do you want if you say you are MORE THAN familiar with the chart? I don't play semantics here.
I will not copy-paste the whole alignment chart and it's definitions here for you, you can literally type it in google and click on the first option.

If you don't wish to copy paste you could link to cite your source... I was hoping you'd actually provide some discussion like how you just did for this post concerning Uther and Nazgrim. Cause previously using his name alone as evidence leaves a lot to be desired. I don't know what part of Uther's story you think makes his case more... whatever it is you're trying argue.

It doesn't matter what you think personally.

I think it matters, and you said it was our perspective that is a determining factor so that also implies it matters... or are you meaning something else now.

'Our perspective' means the generally accepted reaction to any given activity.
This means, while you as an individual would consider genocide an acceptable form of dealing with a certain situation (like ending a war for example, or the Culling of Stratholme in WoW) that doesn't mean that that point of view is the generally accepted perspective on the situation.
In real life we call these 'unpopular opinions' so you can relate the idea to something tangible.

Yes yes I get our perspective and all that. You seem to not grasp that the 'our' part of that includes a wide range of different people with different backgrounds and views and bias that alter how we all receive and perceive information. You might like to relegate something to merely an 'unpopular opinion' but this part of your point seems out of place and more about retelling what you think an evil act is. (because Arthas was far to premature in his culling to be ANYWHERE near 'good' as he almost gleefully killed innocents for the 'greater good'... a line I actually rather love had a D&D campaign where a bunch of goody two shoes all went full ham FOR THE GREATER GOOD to infiltrate an pirate organization... slaughtering women, children... none were spared )

I think you've missed my previous point as to what determines who's more correct in trying to break down 'perspective'... let me rephrase:
why one bias is a more correct? It seems that there is already a heavy bias in determining who is 'good' or how someone is 'good'.

Many people have already explained how WoW is written, what cultures mean in WoW based on Warcraft tropes/stereotypes, at this point you are actively refusing to accept the fact that WoW races are written in a generic way.

At this point I'm still trying to get you to better explain your idea of good vs evil and lawful vs chaotic.

cause you had me intrigued with how you think it's lawful for orcs to slaughter innocents with no context... and then question whether or not I have some misunderstanding about how real morality works

If every single race could be anything and didn't matter what they are we wouldn't even need races.

Well hey, something I agree with... but I also already think they've gotten to this point in the story but most people don't bother thinking about it.

[chrisisvacant]

I actually pointed out that right above your post. The story for Shadowlands, so far, is written simply in order to match the individual zones with people that we've seen so far.

In essence, every person's idea of morality and culture shouldn't matter at all with the idea of the Arbiter. An all-knowing being that has existed since time existed wouldn't care if an Orc meant well or not, if their actions were horrible in their eyes. However, the story being presented (so far) is meant only to match the story we've always known. Thus, warriors likely go to Maldraxxus.

It's one of the flaws about the idea of an afterlife in a video game, in my opinion. It could be much more varied, but it likely won't be.

You're right - it is definitely limited in the scope of a video game. I think the video game would have to solely revolve around the afterlife to really cover all the nuance. But sometimes Blizzard does okay with explaining a limited amount of nuance, so hopefully by restricting themselves to these 5 scenarios they are giving themselves the opportunity to tell stories that are not nonsensical. They may be rote, but at least they have the possibility of not being completely off-rails like, say, the War Campaign.

I like that they used the (admittedly lazy) option of saying all races eventually can become a Kyrian as opposed to having to chase their tails creating endless tertiary races we will never understand or see again - that means we have less chance to argue the point of morality across alien cultures that shouldn't/don't gel with the ones native to Azeroth or Draenor.

[mickybrighteyes]

In Shadowlands, that's why the Arbiter exists. She judges where people go based on their lives

Right now I find this part to be rather... poor. The Arbiter will have done things already that aren't yet fully understood because we got a few name drops.

[Fuze]

Imagine being an orc, dying, going to the Shadowlands, being put into Bastion, and then slowly ascending to become a Kyrian... and then you forever look like a human. Must be the ultimate punishment.

At least you'll have every man for himself and Diplomat

[mickybrighteyes]

Well, in Bastion "service" most probably does not mean to have served your master or served your Warchief or your clan. With all this emphasis on purity, principles and virtue, we are talking about being in service of the others, actively seeking their good, which is altruism. Let's remember that the Kyrians are not only ferrying souls for their own covenant, but for all covenants. They are actually in service of all of them.

So how is service to one's clan not service to their community? It seems like you're already assuming something about Service to clan not at all possibly being service to a community even though their community was their clan in almost every orcish clan. You seem to already disregard some principles as not principles for... well... reasons. I'm sure they're very good but

And when I look at the Orcs history, if they ever were principled, if they ever had a strong set of ethics, they have seldom showed it. With the way they eagerly obeyed every crime or genocide asked by their leaders, with only a handful opposing them but usually ending up shutting their mouths and obeying anyway... or being exiled or killed. Orcish culture is all about "Might makes Right." I am right to do it because I can. That does not go well with the Kyrians. Now again, that does not mean that an Orc cannot be principled, be pure of heart and virtuous. Oddballs exist in every culture.

I think we need to take a moment and discuss "Principles" and define this term. I know I typically view it as a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning. therefore to state that one is lacking principles means one is lacking a system of belief. But if we have an understanding that multiple individuals of a group have a shared pattern of behavior built on some sort of logic... that would indicate that something is there. "Might Makes Right" as much as we like to say is not principled, technically would count as such if many were taking that position. This goes in a similar vein as "Do as though will" which the individual either does whatever they please to the benefit or detriment (often detriment) of others... or they do what is right because that is what they wish. Overall this still only ever gets taken as only going one way for some reason.

Overall I just took issue with the apparent disregard of some actions and what seems to me an interesting view of "principles". It seems like you view them as not having principles or ethics because they don't have your principles or ethics.

- - - Updated - - -

At least you'll have every man for himself and Diplomat

nope, you don't even get those racials. You gotta be a LIVING human for those. You get Will of the Kyrian and Bastion Bound instead.

[Garymorilix]

So if the game says they are and aren't how are you determining which is 'correct'?



OK here's mine:

A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. He combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. He tells the truth, keeps his word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
"Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.


I still personally feel like my idea is lacking cause it still refers to a lawful good being acting as "a good person is expected or required to act"



So Nazgrim is forever not good because he wound up against us then. He followed his orders, upheld his honor and treated us and his adversaries with dignity and respect... but that's not good according to you.





If you don't wish to copy paste you could link to cite your source... I was hoping you'd actually provide some discussion like how you just did for this post concerning Uther and Nazgrim. Cause previously using his name alone as evidence leaves a lot to be desired. I don't know what part of Uther's story you think makes his case more... whatever it is you're trying argue.



I think it matters, and you said it was our perspective that is a determining factor so that also implies it matters... or are you meaning something else now.



Yes yes I get our perspective and all that. You seem to not grasp that the 'our' part of that includes a wide range of different people with different backgrounds and views and bias that alter how we all receive and perceive information. You might like to relegate something to merely an 'unpopular opinion' but this part of your point seems out of place and more about retelling what you think an evil act is. (because Arthas was far to premature in his culling to be ANYWHERE near 'good' as he almost gleefully killed innocents for the 'greater good'... a line I actually rather love had a D&D campaign where a bunch of goody two shoes all went full ham FOR THE GREATER GOOD to infiltrate an pirate organization... slaughtering women, children... none were spared )

I think you've missed my previous point as to what determines who's more correct in trying to break down 'perspective'... let me rephrase:
why one bias is a more correct? It seems that there is already a heavy bias in determining who is 'good' or how someone is 'good'.



At this point I'm still trying to get you to better explain your idea of good vs evil and lawful vs chaotic.

cause you had me intrigued with how you think it's lawful for orcs to slaughter innocents with no context... and then question whether or not I have some misunderstanding about how real morality works



Well hey, something I agree with... but I also already think they've gotten to this point in the story but most people don't bother thinking about it.

You can't be this backwards.
I assume (for your own benefit) that you know the difference between 'gameplay reason' and 'lore reason'. Go figure.

Exactly. So what don't you get about Lawful Good then?

Nazgrim was never 'good' because he never cared about being 'good'. All he cared about was orders from his warchief to keep his oath. If he cared about 'good' he would've deserted Garrosh. But he didn't. He's neutral in this sense because he doesn't care about morality, only duty.
Just cuz someone "upheld his honor and treated us and his adversaries with dignity and respect" doesn't mean they care about being good. This is the lawful part.

I use characters' names as evidence because I assume, on a lore discussion, that you know what those characters have done and why and how.
I didn't think I had to lecture you about the factual parts of the lore in order for you to understand whatever I'm trying to say.
I could write the whole story of both characters up to date but I won't, because I expect you to know what those stories are.
I guess I expect too much.

If you get the 'our' part then how do you manage to not get the 'our' part literally the next sentence?
We have in-game example of what a Lawful Evil paladin is like: the Scarlet Crusade.
There is your in-game contrast to Uther's Lawful Good alignment. Definitions are not yours to make, they are already defined in-game.
Uther is the 'correct' paladin type, Scarlet Crusade is the "incorrect' paladin type.
Again, I will not bother to tell you why or how they differ, I will just assume that you know WoW lore and to figure it out yourself.
I can't believe I have to say this disclaimer from now on every time I make a statement.

In orcish culture it's 'lawful' to destroy the weak. Simple as that.
In our culture, as in real life humans, it's not so much.

As in many times it is 'lawful' for police officers to use firepower to neutralize a threat, but not necessarily the 'good' move.

I really feel like you simply refuse to accept the fact that orcs behave in a certain way because they are meant to behave that certain way because you really need to stand up for them like some underdogs so they can go to WoW heaven.
I honestly can't care more. If you can't accept the fundamental writing techniques that this genre is written with then I won't be the guy who teaches you how fantasy tropes and stereotypes are made.

[mickybrighteyes]

Exactly. So what don't you get about Lawful Good then?

Nazgrim was never 'good' because he never cared about being 'good'. All he cared about was orders from his warchief to keep his oath. If he cared about 'good' he would've deserted Garrosh. But he didn't. He's neutral in this sense because he doesn't care about morality, only duty.
Just cuz someone "upheld his honor and treated us and his adversaries with dignity and respect" doesn't mean they care about being good. This is the lawful part.

You seem to be touching on one of the facets of a conflict a lawful-good character may face... but then say they entirely dump the good because of one reason. I think that makes them less good but doesn't entirely stop them from being good. on it's own.

The dignity and respect part would be a facet of 'good'... rmemeber when I shared my view on good? " concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others." Nazgrim still fought for what he was believing to be the right cause, the betterment of the horde. We, the players disagreed on that part. So yes he was more loyal to the laws and powers that be, but to entirely disregard his demeanor and actions as 'not good' seems woefully ignorant. Sure compared to a selfless paladin of teh highest order he isn't as good but that's like trying to compete with Ghandhi

I use characters' names as evidence because I assume, on a lore discussion, that you know what those characters have done and why and how.

You should cite exactly what parts you wish to use, not assume that simple name recognition is enough... especially for characters that have no real backstory known yet (*looking at Draka*)

If you get the 'our' part then how do you manage to not get the 'our' part literally the next sentence?
We have in-game example of what a Lawful Evil paladin is like: the Scarlet Crusade.
There is your in-game contrast to Uther's Lawful Good alignment. Definitions are not yours to make, they are already defined in-game.
Uther is the 'correct' paladin type, Scarlet Crusade is the "incorrect' paladin type.
Again, I will not bother to tell you why or how they differ, I will just assume that you know WoW lore and to figure it out yourself.
I can't believe I have to say this disclaimer from now on every time I make a statement.

You seem to be implying that a certain bias is acceptable but others aren't. And that you're expected bias is more correct cause the other option is clearly wrong but the basis of your reasoning seems unclear. This isn't uncommon generally, but really that first analogy about orcs lawfully killing innocents is a bit of a tell. Followed up on the example that all orcs are into killing the weak (despite lore indicating otherwise, that I'm sure you'll state is just token examples)

In orcish culture it's 'lawful' to destroy the weak. Simple as that.

And here we have the first little bit that isn't true for all orcs. Or maybe you just think some clans are token groups that don't count.

In our culture, as in real life humans, it's not so much.

except for when they can force their way militarily. But war tends to sway things due to the nature of war. The human morality in WoW has lawful killings occur and they aren't regarded as evil so much as retribution or justice.

I really feel like you simply refuse to accept the fact that orcs behave in a certain way because they are meant to behave that certain way because you really need to stand up for them like some underdogs so they can go to WoW heaven.

And I feel like you simply blanket them all despite sources indicating otherwise. Orcs have been shown as nuanced as humans but when the humans go to war for their hamfisted justice or night raids it's never "well humans are just like that" We don't sit here blanket labeling all humans for the views of Wyrbane, Rogers, or whatever bandit took over a region.

I honestly can't care more. If you can't accept the fundamental writing techniques that this genre is written with then I won't be the guy who teaches you how fantasy tropes and stereotypes are made.

Again I have nothing against such techniques as you seem to think I have issue with various parties using such techniques with all the grace and finesse of a drunkard who's consumed thrice his mass in his favorite poison and act like it's supposed to be acceptable.

Also blanket generalizations that are provably false are icing on the cake. So overall I come in expecting to see people act like their bias is more correct and their validation for this is their own bias (check) and that.

Originally I was just trying to get at why you seem to think following orders immediately removes all good. Cause IMO, Uther's actions at Stratholme also were rather chaotic in that he disobeyed royalty... but I also found that hit to loyalty do be about similar with the general hit to 'good' a soldier might have toward actually following orders. Now the Nazgrim example still seems 'good' in my eyes entirely because of the respect he maintains for his opposition (the horde at least when they encounter him), his dialogue holds no malice for our actions and almost regret for the situation. If you want to say he's not good for simply continuing to follow Garrosh? That's a bit harsh since it means his actions while following that leadership don't matter as well. I'm not going to say Nazgrim was as good as Uther but to state Nazgrim wasn't 'good' for that outcome seems, well, rather off. Though, if you're idea of neutral might just be far wider than mine.

[How dare you]

Only Draka?

We don't exactly know that she's the only one who went to Maldraxxus to begin with.

I didn't say that she was the only one that ever went to Maldraxxus, clearly she isn't. I just mean don't assume all orcs go to Maldraxxus by default just cause the one that they featured in the presentation does. They just picked her as an example of a character we will meet there. The zone will probably focus a lot on her. Honestly the connection between orcs and undeath here is flimsy anyway. That whole "survival of the fittest" thing is dumb to be honest. I mean you are not surviving when you are already dead anyway.

[Nomads]

Not all of them. Some become Val'kyr's.

- - - Updated - - -



Only Draka.

- - - Updated - - -



I mean that's just because Kyrians were invented recently and Spirit Healers originally had nothing to do with it. I mean they are basically just there for gameplay reasons to begin with. To even put them down in lore is dumb but whatever.

It's much more dumb for something to exist in game without any lore to support it...

Only Draka? Lol, ok, that makes literally no sense.

They don't become Val'kyr. We already know how Val'kyr are created as we've seen it happen first had. They come from the living realm using undeath magics.

[How dare you]

They don't become Val'kyr. We already know how Val'kyr are created as we've seen it happen first had. They come from the living realm using undeath magics.

They literally said that Kyrians either become spirit healers or Val'kyrs

- - - Updated - - -

Parrot? Already out of arguments? So we are supposed to follow your head canon?

What you should do is use your own head and try to use logic and reason instead of just repeating what Blizzard tells you.

The Scourge never had a "survival of the fittest" vibe. It doesn't even make sense, because if you are undead, you literally already did not survive.

And there is no connection between Draka and undead.

- - - Updated - - -

Orc priests are not a thing tho.

there are no orc "priests".

You should look at the character creation screen.

[derpkitteh]

You should look at the character creation screen.

as i explained to you, they are shadowmoon voidweavers. not priests.

they're priests due to gameplay, lorewise they do NOT use the light.

however, i am somewhat wrong. whether or not this is just a product of random spawning or intentional, there are orc priests in service to shattrath in the shadowlabs dungeon.

[Frontenac]

So how is service to one's clan not service to their community? It seems like you're already assuming something about Service to clan not at all possibly being service to a community even though their community was their clan in almost every orcish clan. You seem to already disregard some principles as not principles for... well... reasons. I'm sure they're very good but

Service to your community or service to your group does not mean that you are good towards your neighbours. A lot of soldiers and patriots are real dicks.

I think we need to take a moment and discuss "Principles" and define this term. I know I typically view it as a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning. therefore to state that one is lacking principles means one is lacking a system of belief. But if we have an understanding that multiple individuals of a group have a shared pattern of behavior built on some sort of logic... that would indicate that something is there. "Might Makes Right" as much as we like to say is not principled, technically would count as such if many were taking that position. This goes in a similar vein as "Do as though will" which the individual either does whatever they please to the benefit or detriment (often detriment) of others... or they do what is right because that is what they wish. Overall this still only ever gets taken as only going one way for some reason.

Overall I just took issue with the apparent disregard of some actions and what seems to me an interesting view of "principles". It seems like you view them as not having principles or ethics because they don't have your principles or ethics.

Principles are set rules of conduct. Being principled means "acting in accordance with morality and showing recognition of right and wrong." Being principled, being a man of principles, means that you will follow these rules even though there is no benefit for you, even if breaking them could be profitable. Because the outcomes of an action are less important than doing what's right. Like Uther the Lightbringer and Jaina who refused to obey Arthas to scour Stratholme because they thought it was evil to kill innocents without even trying other ways. Orcs would have done it without thinking twice. Orcs in general are not written as "beings of principles." They don't have set moral rules. Their spirituality is not founded on a strict code of ethics, like the Church of the Holy Light. Individual orcs may have individual principles, but it is not how their society is geared.

[How dare you]

as i explained to you, they are shadowmoon voidweavers. not priests.

they're priests due to gameplay, lorewise they do NOT use the light.

however, i am somewhat wrong. whether or not this is just a product of random spawning or intentional, there are orc priests in service to shattrath in the shadowlabs dungeon.

Priests are priests. Orcs have holy and shadow priests.