Revendreth doesNOT mean a soul is redeemable or did nothing wrong

[Super Dickmann]

I didn't really feel that the narrative ever made Uther's grievance with Arthas seem irrational or petty - I actually thought it cast the Kyrians in a bad light instead, and I definitely feel that Uther depositing Arthas in the Maw is definitively closer to justice than it is vengeance (though I can't deny it contains a bit from both column A and B). Given the general arc of the Bastion zone and Kyrian Covenant, I think the above takeaway is probably closer to the intended one.

My impression is that the narrative is casting the idea that letting go of all memories is bad, since you might find strength in some of them. But there's an overall thematic direction of the expansion and BFA as well that grievance against a party that wronged you is vengeance, and vengeance is bad. Hence why Uther has to be pushed by Devos to drop Arthas and later on, he draws a line between vengeance (bad) and justice (good) when it came to dealing with Arthas.

[Super Dickmann]

There is what I assume to be an unintentional link between Taoist philosophy and the Kyrian. The importance of impartiality not to mention all the common imagery in bells and empty vessels. THat is, it's not about vengeance being bad, it's about the importance of judgement unencumbered by any mercy and taken only at an absolute distance to the object.

Disregarding all personal thoughts on the philosophy as applied to real life, I actually find the baseline Kyrians very interesting and a great concept. It's the 'fighting against the party that wronged you for personal reasons is wrong' element that I truly despise and makes for extremely boring story beats. Ditto I don't like that the Kyrian change track. Especially since Devos eventually degenerates away from ideology to interest in power. A variety of perspective, some less pleasant than others are key to fantasy.

[formerShandalay]

There are literal quests in game in which you are tasked with helping the Royal Apothecary perfect a plague that turns living beings into undead. It has nothing to do with the Scourge.

Wiping out whole populations is not what gets you sent to the Maw. There is at least one character in Revendreth who did that and got their punishment and redemption in Revendreth. As I already said further up: "These sins include murdering thousands in pursuit of knowledge, treating others as expendable, documenting suffering without attempting to stop it, producing perfect toxins that desolate entire species (These are the sins Herald Temel proclaims to have been Inquisitor Stelia's sins)." The way it sounds it was also not done for any kind of 'greater good' and she still didn't go to the Maw. So I don't think Sylvanas was supposed to go to the Maw after Wrath and she was tricked.

The thing that will get Sylvanas sent to the Maw (in my opinion) is her choice to join the Jailer and destroy the cosmos, because it was unfair to her.

[Narwhalosh Whalescream]

Arthas did nothing wrong really. His will was not his own when he took up frostmourne. I mean ok he did some things wrong like burning the ships but aside from that his cause was just. That is up until he took frostmourne which at that point his will was not his own.

[Aucald]

My impression is that the narrative is casting the idea that letting go of all memories is bad, since you might find strength in some of them. But there's an overall thematic direction of the expansion and BFA as well that grievance against a party that wronged you is vengeance, and vengeance is bad. Hence why Uther has to be pushed by Devos to drop Arthas and later on, he draws a line between vengeance (bad) and justice (good) when it came to dealing with Arthas.

Vengeance, in general, typically is bad - both in real life and in the Warcraft universe, not because the idea of revenge or justice is itself bad but because the impetus that drives vengeance seekers (hatred, anger, and rage) tend not to end when vengeance is attained if it can be attained at all. Speaking purely for WoW, this was true all the back in WC3: TFT with Maiev is its standard-bearer, who was so consumed by the need for vengeance that she lost her sanity as a result. Uther specifically doesn't want to act solely on rage or the hatred he understandably feels for Arthas, and so walks a fine and precarious line between what he understands as justice and what he desires as vengeance.

Psychologically speaking, vengeance rarely grants even partial catharsis - those who acquire it often profess to feeling hollow and decidedly less than satisfied. It is only when someone fully integrates their own trauma and comes to understand it and accept it that they can start to feel catharsis, whether or not vengeance is attained or even a factor.

[Super Dickmann]

Heck they don't even purge memories actively. It just happens over time. There is no malice on their part. I just looted a necklace in Maldraxxus from a Kyrian who was like Uther only he never forgot his wife and found a keepsake of hers.

Realistically what should happen post Uther is that people should not even get to Bastion before their memories fade. Either in Oribos or another realm, memories should be processed and written down but NEVER make it to Bastion to keep the psychopomps impartial. It was a mistake to ever even allow for Devos to be able to interact with a soul's memory at any point in the process of Ascension.

That's a good point and one I found an interesting tidbit in the cutscene. Since the rando takes issue with Devos when she even brings up that maybe he shouldn't have been picked out for Bastion in the first place, implying that not just the process but the selection itself is considered culturally beyond reproach.

I like how it's not too caricaturized. The benefit of that kind of unburdening mentality is actually taken into account.

@Aucald

It's not so much vengeance itself being laudable that's the issue, more so that the narrative treats justice and personal grievance as mutually exclusive. Arthas and Sylvanas's actions ,as those of the Horde are heinous - someone who takes issue with them is not wrong, they're understandable and human. To remove such things and lambast them is to limit the available perspectives. It's like how Genn letting go of his issues with the undead is theoretically laudable, but it's also illogical and cheap and makes for a less interesting narrative. People motivated to pursue others only for impersonal motives of justice and alleviating future harm make for insanely dull protagonists.

[Aucald]

Devos made it into an act of vengeance.

Even more than that, Devos tried to take ownership of Uther's own sense of justice - unintentionally (or perhaps pointedly intentionally) manipulating him into an action he may well have not chosen to do had she not been putting her hand on the scale.

[StillMcfuu]

I though all undead go to the Maw? I think that's why Sylvanas went there, because she's undead

The Undead's role in the afterlife has been retconned a bit so it's hard to really say what will happen to them. Initially the Undead were technically in their "afterlife" and would see nothing after dying again. It's why the punishment in the Forsaken "true death" was actually a real punishment. It was also one of the reasons why Undead were essentially damned, once they "died" as an undead they were out.

That's been changed now, well it seems around Cata it was changed when recently brought back dead could be "sent back" to death if they wished.

Also Sylvanas is a different situation, she doesn't represent the Undead, while her Elf body died, her soul was bound to this world and corrupted as a Banshee. Even now back in her own body it's still more of her choosing, hence many of her banshee abilities are still present. Normal forsaken have died, and had their souls haphazardly reattached to their bodies.

[Aucald]

It's not so much vengeance itself being laudable that's the issue, more so that the narrative treats justice and personal grievance as mutually exclusive. Arthas and Sylvanas's actions ,as those of the Horde are heinous - someone who takes issue with them is not wrong, they're understandable and human. To remove such things and lambast them is to limit the available perspectives. It's like how Genn letting go of his issues with the undead is theoretically laudable, but it's also illogical and cheap and makes for a less interesting narrative. People motivated to pursue others only for impersonal motives of justice and alleviating future harm make for insanely dull protagonists.

I don't really think so, although there are cases where *characters* do that (e.g. treat justice and redress of grievances as mutually exclusive) - and they can be said to be wrong depending on whether you agree or disagree with them on that point or moral philosophy. I would view Genn's extension of hatred to the Forsaken people as wrongheaded, myself; understandable perhaps but still morally dubious. His hatred of Sylvanas, however, is more directly understandable and sympathetic - she killed his son right in front of him, after all. I can definitely get behind Genn's personal vendetta as a narrative point, and I don't think the narrative it is all saying that I shouldn't or can't.

[Super Dickmann]

What I am expecting is that the First Ones just drew up how things should work (The Purpose), gave it to the Arbiter, Primus, Denathrius, Kyrestia and the Winter Queen and the five of them have just kept going at it unquestioningly for ages because to them it is literally god's will that things function this way. It makes sense that Denathrius was the first one to crack because first he had access to the most anima and thus most power and second he actually had to do all the torture which kind of shapes people. For Kyrestia in her literal ivory tower and pristine fields, there was never a reason to question everything because everything was built to look perfect.

I maintain that the Arbiter is more of an automaton. There's no greater thing there except adherence to the particular task set forth to her and her followers. Hence them questioning themselves once she goes inert. Bastion has an ethos and it's the way that ethos doesn't deal with extant threats that has Devos question it. By contrast, while I may not have seen much of them yet, so correct me if I'm wrong, nothing really implies the Primus or the Winter Queen were doing it wrong and Denathrius' decadence seems more born of his realm's culture, one devised by him, than something left by a higher power.

@Aucald

As @Nymrohd says, it's something running through Blizzard's works, especially recently, that fighting against someone who wronged you for reasons that pertain to your personal grievance with him, say, Genn's issue with the Forsaken at large or Tyrande's hate for Sylvanas for what she did is somehow wrong. They instead prefer to raise up those who have no personal grievance with anyone, like Anduin, who does things solely out of the goodness of his heart. Voss - someone driven previously solely by revenge on the Scarlet Crusade, for wholly understandable reasons, now doesn't want to harm Sylvanas, only wants to set things right. It's trite and dull. It removes the personal element from interpersonal conflict, leaving us left with people who react in irrational and inhuman ways. Genn letting go of his dislike for the Forsaken after they, not just Sylvanas, do terrible things to his home, leaves him a less nuanced character. Ditto Tyrande being condemned for her desire to see Sylvanas personally punished or Uther with Arthas.

[Aucald]

As Nymrohd says, it's something running through Blizzard's works, especially recently, that fighting against someone who wronged you for reasons that pertain to your personal grievance with him, say, Genn's issue with the Forsaken at large or Tyrande's hate for Sylvanas for what she did is somehow wrong. They instead prefer to raise up those who have no personal grievance with anyone, like Anduin, who does things solely out of the goodness of his heart. Voss - someone driven previously solely by revenge on the Scarlet Crusade, for wholly understandable reasons, now doesn't want to harm Sylvanas, only wants to set things right. It's trite and dull. It removes the personal element from interpersonal conflict, leaving us left with people who react in irrational and inhuman ways. Genn letting go of his dislike for the Forsaken after they, not just Sylvanas, do terrible things to his home, leaves him a less nuanced character. Ditto Tyrande being condemned for her desire to see Sylvanas personally punished or Uther with Arthas.

I view more as underscoring that the targets of vengeance need to be kept in scope, and when it telescopes out to an entire people then perhaps your ethical compass has started to lose its true north. Genn hating Sylvanas or the Deathguard soldiers who attacked his home is understandable - a hatred of Alonsus Faol or Elsie Benton would be less so, as neither of those individuals had anything to do with what happened in Gilneas, despite being Forsaken. The same applies to Tyrande, whose desire for vengeance against Sylvanas is both understandable and (in my view) laudable, but her attack on Calia during the Shadowlands intro is less so as Calia both had nothing to do with Teldrassil and would've never agreed to nor implicitly or explicitly allowed it had it been her choice. This sort of underscoring what we know now about the Night Warrior transformation and how it is perhaps not the best thing for one's continuing sanity.

[Aucald]

It is also deeply immoral from a deontological perspective. Abdicating your responsibility to fight for justice in the semblance of peace is immoral. The entire message reeks of equivocation and pseudo-centrism and it cannot help but feel poignant when it is framed by our current zeitgeist.

One has to keep in mind that the philosophical rule-set of the Warcraft universe and our universe are very different. The Warcraft universe has axiomatic rules in place that actually predicate reality in the metacosm - you *will* be judged for the content of your actions by an external sentience whose edicts cannot be gainsaid, and the cosmological forces inherent in the universe itself have some degree of sentience and sapience. Unlike our universe, where all morality is essentially abstraction and has no material existence beyond the ephemeral, morality in the Warcraft universe actually does have a degree of material existence and the spiritual aspect of life and death has attendant machinery that can actually be perceived.

Whether or not this is a mitigating factor in the narrative itself is anyone's guess, but it can't actually ignored when you start discussing deontological matters.

[Super Dickmann]

I view more as underscoring that the targets of vengeance need to be kept in scope, and when it telescopes out to an entire people then perhaps your ethical compass has started to lose its true north. Genn hating Sylvanas or the Deathguard soldiers who attacked his home is understandable - a hatred of Alonsus Faol or Elsie Benton would be less so, as neither of those individuals had anything to do with what happened in Gilneas, despite being Forsaken. The same applies to Tyrande, whose desire for vengeance against Sylvanas is both understandable and (in my view) laudable, but her attack on Calia during the Shadowlands intro is less so as Calia both had nothing to do with Teldrassil and would've never agreed to nor implicitly or explicitly allowed it had it been her choice. This sort of underscoring what we know now about the Night Warrior transformation and how it is perhaps not the best thing for one's continuing sanity.

The entire attack on Calia by Tyrande seems to be pre-engineered and written to try and have a dig at Tyrande as a character and artificially stunt her position. Calia is wholly innocent and uninvolved and Tyrande is cast as a cruel and irrational actor. This is then used in a sort of motte and bailey routine to cover for the Horde that has done a lot to help Sylvanas out, but is now meant to be read as a passive victim of Sylvanas's manipulations, with her as an ultimate evil and them as lemmings. In reality, while we might hold it against Genn to want to take out the Faols and Bentons of the world, we might understand his apprehension for the undead as a whole given his history. The narrative doesn't - it eliminates this whole aspect of his character in a half-hearted moment and leaves him poorer for it.

@Nymrohd

The narrative's take on cultural self-determination or judging other cultures is so schizophrenic and poor that it doesn't bear examining. Suffice to say I could write paragraphs on how confused it is, but there's no real point. I do agree with you though that there's an essential cowardice, and I say this as someone who I suspect has very different political positions from you. In either case I think it's just narratively boring because a core aspect of storytelling is personal grievance and the conflict it springs and the narrative wants to downplay it as best as possible. It's why one of my most welcome surprises in Shadows Rising was when Talanji didn't abruptly decide that she was fine with Jaina.

[bagina]

There are literal quests in game in which you are tasked with helping the Royal Apothecary perfect a plague that turns living beings into undead. It has nothing to do with the Scourge.

Uhhh I know? I leveled an undead. And exactly from those quests I know you're full of shit. The first fucking quest in the chain mentions the Lich King

Lady Sylvanas has called upon the Royal Apothecary Society. The Dark Lady believes our knowledge coupled with the newfound magic will provide the key to Arthas's demise. She has challenged us to concoct a new plague, a plague deadlier than any ailment on Azeroth. This new disease will bring Arthas's Scourge Army to ruin.

So yeah, time to refresh your memory.

[Aucald]

Calia still tries to claim that it all has to be left behind though. The intrinsic concept is that peace is a supreme ideal and every grievance has to be sacrificed for it. And there is also the postmodernist desire to place all cultures in a pedestal. When Varian or Tyrande are attacking the Horde, it's not about racism but rather about their valuation of Horde culture and how it is inimical to good neighborhood. Genn's grievances are not just with Sylvanas personally because her actions are in accordance with the culture the Forsaken have chosen to build.

Calia reminds Tyrande that her people need her, both literally and symbolically, warning her that if she imperils herself due to her own personal need for vengeance then that too comes at the expense of her already beleaguered people. She's not wrong on that score, even if she is somewhat diminishing the ardor Tyrande has for vengeance. It's not just peace she's referring to here, although she may not recognize that it's also immaterial as Tyrande is well past rational entreaty in the first place. A culture can also change where individuals may not or cannot - the Horde is already showing this to be true with the abolishing of the Warchief position, and the Forsaken showed it in Before the Storm.

[Super Dickmann]

Peculiar then that most of the testing is done on the living instead of the readily available Scourge.

We know Sylvanas didn't give a flying fuck about this from her own perspective. Whether the living lived or died was immaterial, it was just a propaganda line implied to the RAS for public consumption. Her objective was Arthas before Cata and self-preservation in the Cata-Legion period. The most rational reading is that she's responsible for the Wrathgate in so far as she fostered a narrative that she didn't believe in, but others bought into wholesale.

[Super Dickmann]

And also, she believed a Dreadlord would not betray her (or at least that his betrayal would not cost her plan anything). Her greater crime has always been incompetence.

There is a hidden, better narrative never told, where Sylvanas's turn to the Jailor is caused not by retroactive continuity, but by her excessive trust in people who then fuck her over. I.e, that she bought into her own ideology on free will too much and then Varimathras, Putress Godfrey, his associates, Galen etc. don't align to that. She projects her own values on them and they don't match up, leading her to seek out a relationship that's wholly transactional, where there's easily followable input (souls) and output (power).

[Aucald]

The entire attack on Calia by Tyrande seems to be pre-engineered and written to try and have a dig at Tyrande as a character and artificially stunt her position. Calia is wholly innocent and uninvolved and Tyrande is cast as a cruel and irrational actor. This is then used in a sort of motte and bailey routine to cover for the Horde that has done a lot to help Sylvanas out, but is now meant to be read as a passive victim of Sylvanas's manipulations, with her as an ultimate evil and them as lemmings. In reality, while we might hold it against Genn to want to take out the Faols and Bentons of the world, we might understand his apprehension for the undead as a whole given his history. The narrative doesn't - it eliminates this whole aspect of his character in a half-hearted moment and leaves him poorer for it.

I think you read a bit too much into the narrative's goals here, and perhaps misattribute character-based intent as authorial intent. Tyrande is hyper-focused on vengeance, and Calia calls her out on her apparently recklessness - that *is* a dig, sure, but not one intended to undermine Tyrande's very character or "stunt her position." It's an understandable reaction from someone like Calia, reserved and often introspective, to Tyrande's apparent bloodthirsty zeal (which is also very out of character for her, as observed by her own adopted daughter Shandris). Tyrande's proceeding callout of Calia plays into this, as Calia had both nothing to do with the Forsaken's actions in Darkshore, and nothing at all to do with the Horde's campaign in BfA - she only formerly joined at the end of BfA, and then only with an eye toward fostering peace and amity (themselves laudable goals both in-universe and realistically). Similarly, I don't view Genn's evolution of character i.e. the Forsaken as an elimination of an aspect anymore than I would view a character's ultimate catharsis as "destroying their previous characterization." Genn changed organically as a result of things happening to him, which is what realistic characters ought to do. An unchanging character isn't very realistic, unless they're insane and wholly incapable of recognizing the world outside of their own minds. Now you may not subjectively *like* a given change in a character, perhaps because you favored an original aspect of a given story - but things do change, sometimes for the better, and sometimes for the worse.

[Hekazi]

Uther deserves the Maw.

[Aucald]

I don't follow. It is clear that the Arbiter is not intrinsic to the cosmology. She is not representative of a greater truth simply because she was not always there. She was PLACED to serve the Purpose at a time well past creation and she was given a guidance in the Purpose which she follows. That does not suggest any intrinsic moral values in the cosmos. Even the Light and the Void are not about moral right or wrong but rather about order vs chaos.

We actually don't have any idea how long the Arbiter has existed or judged the souls of the dead, but that's not really material - the point is more that she's there, and her reality is concrete and confirmed, which automatically contrasts with our universe pretty markedly. Even the notion that the WoW universe has a confirmed afterlife, long before Shadowlands, paints it as very different from our universe. Not to mention the fact that the beings of Azeroth have literal creators that we've actually encountered (e.g. the Titans and the Old Gods). The very notion that energies like the Light and Void exist, have intelligence, and actively participate in life in the physical universe is a huge departure from our philosophical models.