I don't think Sylvanas is really the bad villain you think she is

[Yarathir]

Well, this is awkward. Looks like the first international war crime trial was in 1474, well before the 20th century. Per your source. The concept of war crimes has been around forever. The formalizing of war crimes is newer.

Not like real life chronology matters any, considering it's a fantasy universe with space ships that exist simultaneously alongside airships, which in turn exist alongside people riding horses and using catapults. The concept of war crimes could come to be at any point in the story, and it does. That's all that matters.

"This was a genocide and a war crime."
"Uhm it's a fantasy universe, so the moral compass and laws of people in Azeroth don't follow ours."
"Yeah, well the writers say those concepts do exist and Teldrassil was considered both."
"Uhhhh.. it's a pre-modern universe!"

[Torgent]

Not like real life chronology matters any, considering it's a fantasy universe with space ships that exist simultaneously alongside airships, which in turn exist alongside people riding horses and using catapults. The concept of war crimes could come to be at any point in the story, and it does. That's all that matters.

"This was a genocide and a war crime."
"Uhm it's a fantasy universe, so the moral compass and laws of people in Azeroth don't follow ours."
"Yeah, well the writers say those concepts do exist and Teldrassil was considered both."
"Uhhhh.. it's a pre-modern universe!"

No, he stated that war crimes as a concept were a liberal thing.

[Ielenia]

Funny enough now shes just a worse version of Arthas, as it turns out he believed that only in undeath could we beat the legion and old gods. He launches his campaigning to try and bring everything into the fold so we can turn to the grater threat. Now we have Sylvanas who I think was trying to do much the same but we have since conquered both the legion and the last old god, and now she is just doing it for da power I guess....

As an aside my bet is Arthas helps us kill her in the end in a weird twist of fate.

Just curious, but when did this happen?

[Yarathir]

No, he stated that war crimes as a concept were a liberal thing.

Which is also silly.

[Evilfish]

Well, the writers brought it up.

And you had to advertise it even if you can actually think for yourself and notice there's no genocide, right? They can't argue with us if we accuse them of defending genocide.

In reality the only time the word was brought up was during a dialogue with a really upset nelf. And that still does not make the burning of the nelf tree, genocide.

[Kumorii]

Guys, Hitler didn't do anything wrong. He had ironclad reasons to do what he did, he was nice to animals and he loved his country. He had his reasons, so he's actually kinda not fully evil you guys.

Stop trying to justify bad people with "They had a good reason" An evil deed is still evil, even if bathed in good intentions. (Not saying Hitler had good intentions. Hitler sucked.)

Big difference in justifying someone and saying they have their reasons... Hitler had his reasons wether you like them or not. In fact I would say that being blind to it and acting like they are the same is hurtful. Lets take murder cases for example, one of the biggest factors that makes them solvable is finding the MOTIVE, aka the reasons as of WHY it was happening. Imagine if we did the same to murder cases like you described it in your post... amount of solved cases would drop dramatically.

To circle back to Sylvanas, she will have her reasons for what she has done. Because any character written to do things for the sake of doing things is just an awful character to begin with and most no matter how bad of a writer they are, tend to give characters reasons as of why they act like they do. Will it be good reasons? Who knows, I personally doubt it, doesn't change the fact that there will be reasons.

[HitRefresh]

Guys, Hitler didn't do anything wrong. He had ironclad reasons to do what he did, he was nice to animals and he loved his country. He had his reasons, so he's actually kinda not fully evil you guys.

Stop trying to justify bad people with "They had a good reason" An evil deed is still evil, even if bathed in good intentions. (Not saying Hitler had good intentions. Hitler sucked.)

- - - Updated - - -



Emet-Selch is the best Villain, such a well written character.

Yes, Hitler did technically have a good intention, which was to get Germany out of the shithole it was in.

[Nerovar]

And you had to advertise it even if you can actually think for yourself and notice there's no genocide, right? They can't argue with us if we accuse them of defending genocide.

In reality the only time the word was brought up was during a dialogue with a really upset nelf. And that still does not make the burning of the nelf tree, genocide.

So... You don't know the meaning of the word 'genocide' then and are talking out of your ass?

Why would you think it doesn't fall under the definition of genocide?

[Varodoc]

Yes, Hitler did technically have a good intention, which was to get Germany out of the shithole it was in.

And to eliminate the lesser races, but we don't talk about that.

[Hyeonh]

The real evil isn't her but the writers who are bastardizing the character, I rather her die at silverpine forest than see them continue to ruin her like with Kerrighan from starcraft.

[Mehrunes]

Well, this is awkward. Looks like the first international war crime trial was in 1474, well before the 20th century. Per your source. The concept of war crimes has been around forever. The formalizing of war crimes is newer.

Did war start in 1474? Also, Hagenbach's trial is seen as the first case only in retrospect. And I don't mean this only because the term "war crimes" itself is newer than that. I mean that as per @Soon-TM's source and the part of it you yourself chose to quote, the case against him relied on notions of chivalry and the duties of a knight in particular, not war crimes per se. I.e. if Hagenbach was a bishop leading bishopric's forces the case against him wouldn't have existed. As most "first cases" of legal and social concepts, Hagenbach's trial is only tangentially related with it. Plus there's the whole part of @Soon-TM's examples of how massacres of population continued to happen between Hagenbach's trial and the rise of the actual term of war crimes with complete impunity. Which, even putting aside everything I added above, your Hagenbach's example does nothing to address.

[Fetus Rex]

She is not a villain at all. If she wants to free people from mortality then it is a respectable approach. Killing is a neutral action after all, goal paints its character.

[Mehrunes]

It falls under the definition of genocide. What's the point of this incoherent rambling?

It's also not "a trick to guilt the writers"
It's the term that was used by the writers in the Elegy short story. Here's the quote if you're too lazy to read:
"The world tree was more than a city, it was an entire land, home to countless innocents. How many night elves were elsewhere in Azeroth? Too few. Now they were all who remained of their people. Sylvanas Windrunner had committed genocide."

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Says the person that left the next paragraphs talking about how Anduin didn't expect "that". With "that" referring to the line about Sylvanas committing genocide you quoted. Making it clear it was a description of his views (just like it's also a description of Astarii's view in the other case of that word being used in Elegy). And Anduin isn't exactly the be all, end all of Warcraft.

Well, the writers brought it up.

The writers don't get to alter legal definitions unless they make their own in-universe ones. And they kinda didn't do that in this case.

Not like real life chronology matters any, considering it's a fantasy universe with space ships that exist simultaneously alongside airships, which in turn exist alongside people riding horses and using catapults. The concept of war crimes could come to be at any point in the story, and it does. That's all that matters.

"This was a genocide and a war crime."
"Uhm it's a fantasy universe, so the moral compass and laws of people in Azeroth don't follow ours."
"Yeah, well the writers say those concepts do exist and Teldrassil was considered both."
"Uhhhh.. it's a pre-modern universe!"

It was considered genocide by two non-infallible character and I can't think of any case of the term war crimes being used in WoW since the kangaroo court trial of Garrosh.

So... You don't know the meaning of the word 'genocide' then and are talking out of your ass?

Why would you think it doesn't fall under the definition of genocide?

You could always explain that meaning to @Evilfish yourself.

[Vladier]

Did war start in 1474? Also, Hagenbach's trial is seen as the first case only in retrospect. And I don't mean this only because the term "war crimes" itself is newer than that. I mean that as per @Soon-TM's source and the part of it you yourself chose to quote, the case against him relied on notions of chivalry and the duties of a knight in particular, not war crimes per se. I.e. if Hagenbach was a bishop leading bishopric's forces the case against him wouldn't have existed. As most "first cases" of legal and social concepts, Hagenbach's trial is only tangentially related with it. Plus there's the whole part of @Soon-TM's examples of how massacres of population continued to happen between Hagenbach's trial and the rise of the actual term of war crimes with complete impunity. Which, even putting aside everything I added above, your Hagenbach's example does nothing to address.

You do realise that the laws and customs of conducting war go all the way to at least the antiquity?De jure belli ac pacis by Hugo Grotius (1625) cites even the ancient authors when discussing what was and was not allowed in a war, and is regarded as foundation for international law. I had assumed someone claiming to be a lawyer would be expected to read something like that during their education. Unless, of course, someone invented their degree to argue on video game forums.

And when you go back to moving the goalposts with claiming that "but atrocities happenned and were unpunished" spiel, let me remind you that international institutions supposed to deal with such levels of misconduct did no exist for most of human history. One could argue that they still don't exist up to this day, based on their effectiveness, at least.

Infracted.

[omeomorfismo]

Wrong. To be "textbook 'just for copper'", the quest giver would have sent us to kill murlocs for no other reason because he wanted to. Instead, this is his livelihood we're talking about, plus the fish that Lakeshire eats.


Except it's not Stormwind, it's Lakeshire.

sorry kingdom of stormwind, such difference!

no, "just for copper" means just for money, and the seller is sending us genociding entire tribes only to mantain his trade. ally here arent saving anyone, they are litteraly hired to make money. the trader want money, the adventure want money (and humanoid soup btw). textbook "just for copper"

[Evilfish]

So... You don't know the meaning of the word 'genocide' then and are talking out of your ass?

Why would you think it doesn't fall under the definition of genocide?

Apparently you don't know. Probably why you are flinging that word around thinking... what? That's woke. That nobody can argue with you. Give me a break.

Sylvanas wasn't specifically targeting the nelfs trying to end their culture, she was focused on neutralizing their capacity to fight in one zone specifically. That's what she was aiming for when she burned the tree and that's what Saurfang was planning when he talked big about killing their leaders and taking the city hostage.

Also allow me to laugh my ass off at the inevitable invocation on Godwin's law. You people are really desperate, aren't you?

Infracted.

[Ielenia]

sorry kingdom of stormwind, such difference!

Yes, it is "such difference". The Kingdom of Stormwind can easily live without the supply of fish from that single village, yes. But can Lakeshire survive without one of its source of food and income?

no, "just for copper" means just for money, and the seller is sending us genociding entire tribes only to mantain his trade. ally here arent saving anyone, they are litteraly hired to make money. the trader want money, the adventure want money (and humanoid soup btw). textbook "just for copper"

His trade, which allows him to put food on the table for himself and his family (if he has one). That's not "just for money". This isn't a rich noble from Stormwind we're talking about, but a simple fisherman from a small village.

And I'm ending this discussion here since it's off-topic.

[keldarepewpew]

Not another he/she was trying to save us all along generic redemption story please. We had enough of those and they were all written by 12 year olds.

[Sharby]

So... You don't know the meaning of the word 'genocide' then and are talking out of your ass?

Why would you think it doesn't fall under the definition of genocide?

And regardless its still a silly, pedantic point to argue to accomplish... what exactly? That somehow burning children and sending them to hell doesn't make you evil? That somehow because its not officially genocide it makes it better? Such an awkward hill to die on.


This is why Blizzard shouldn't ever make faction-aligned characters do anything of this caliber, especially if its a heinous act, and even worse if it targets the opposing faction. It just leads to awkward mental gymnastics to rationalize it.

[Varodoc]

Technically it's true, it's not genocide. It's omnicide... or mundicide... either way, with Sylvanas, it's not even just genocide anymore, since she wants EVERYONE to serve Death. Her hatred is not directed at a single race, but at the very framework of the cosmos.