The Light/Naaru being hyped as a future villain? (spoilers)

[Easo]

This had very little to do with the light. Scarlet Crusade was created and led by one of the dreadlords.

The usual argument is that Light can be used by basically anyone with enough conviction and will. And that includes fanatics under dreadlord too, for evil purposes.

[procne]

The usual argument is that Light can be used by basically anyone with enough conviction and will. And that includes fanatics under dreadlord too, for evil purposes.

Yes, but this thread seems to be about Light not as a tool, but as a villain doing things of its own volition

[procne]

I don't think the Light was planned to be bad guys in the past, and I doubt we would find any indications. In fact, Blizzard seems to be retconning some stuff since Legion causing some confusion. They wanted to give Illidan a redemption story so they added X'era telling Illidan, during TBC, he would be leading an army of light. Which doesn't make much sense with Illidan trying to attack A'dal in Shattrath, and then then Naaru taking part in the assault on Black Temple.

[Easo]

Yes, I mean, this forum is split too, part want the old "Light is good, by default" vs retcon of "anything can be bad aka X'era/Light is very strict obey or burn".

Personally I want the old version, with the deviation of SC - they thought they were right, therefore they could wield it. But not the "Light "cleansing" whole worlds with fire".

[Soon-TM]

But not the "Light "cleansing" whole worlds with fire".

Well, we learned in WotLK that the Titans, who were once supposed to be the ultimate good guys, have put countless worlds to the torch because they found signs of imperfection/corruption. Which leads me to think that perhaps Sargie boi wasn't the outlier he was made to be - maybe a bit more radical than his fellow Titans but not THAT different, in the end.

[Holysquall]

Don’t forget Turalyon is set up to be a major 10.0 baddie . Bet he kills Genn while Anduins gone .

[Soon-TM]

Don’t forget Turalyon is set up to be a major 10.0 baddie . Bet he kills Genn while Anduins gone .

Do you honestly think that they will drop the Stupid Evil™ bat on a major Alliance character*? Such a fate is reserved to us lowly Hordies

*: inb4 Fandral or Benedictus, they never played an important role whatsoever during WoW, and their deaths went practically unnoticed.

[deviantcultist]

Frankly speaking i dont understand why they have to go for that angle when universe “worked” before just fine with Void being bad and Light being good but both forces having some exceptions - like Scarletts for example being evil light worshippers with delusion.
But noooo, have to try and turn everything evil because Light resembles Church and has to be smeared in same shit. Why every fictional church has to bear the same corruption and grime Vatican has? Why cant they instead try and show something... actually original instead of always going for “early stage of the game: Light good, priests good. Medium stage: add some bad priests. Late stage: Light bad, priests bad.”
Its literally the same in 90% of fantasy games/MMOs.
And i am not doing this out of some love for clergy, i just starting to get tired of repetition of the same trope.

This is just wrong. The cliche is the priest pretending to be "good" while actually being "evil" and using dark powers behind the scenes.

The concept of the Light and holiness being capable of evil in their pure form, now that's something I can get behind and what I hope to see more of in the future. I understand how "morally grey" can be done wrong, but having objective "Good vs Evil" is worst when it comes to mature world building.

[Aurabolt]

Righteously evil is a good way to put it. I've heard the same thing described as being "meaner than evil". How do you beat evil? By being meaner than evil.

I think you mean Lawful Evil: Using an existing system, ruleset, guidelines or code of conduct for morally questionable or evil acts.

Also: The concept of Good and Evil is a matter of opinion.

It just makes me wonder what the Draenei think about them now... or did they know about the Naaru way of doing things and found it okay?

I assume you mean Velen's Draenei who've been on Azeroth since TBC. They're much more mellow than their Lightforged kin. Plus, Velen personally learned from Illidan that sometimes you need to take matters into your own hands.

[Naruto is stooopid]

I think you mean Lawful Evil: Using an existing system, ruleset, guidelines or code of conduct for morally questionable or evil acts.

Also: The concept of Good and Evil is a matter of opinion.

The concept of Evil is not an opinion.

Evil: Sentient intelligence expending purposeful effort in order to artificially manufacture unnecessary suffering onto another sentient intelligence for the sole purpose of it's own pleasure. In true evil a cost of time/resources to the perpetrator is incurred and nothing is gained in producing the suffering onto another save for the joy brought about by the subjects suffering.

[TigTone]

I like to think blizzard goal is set up an extremist faction within the light as a future enemy.

The Naaru in Revendreth can’t return to the light because it would be killed for being slightly changed from the experiments conducted on it.

So that could refer to an extremist example of the light. Still doesn’t mean the light as whole would behave in the same way.

[jurgenaut]

There is the whole debacle of draenei defeated the remaining orcs on alternate Draenor and forcibly lightforged them. Lux vult!

I get that Grom's stupid "Draenor is free!" schtick wasn't very convincing, but the fact is that we left alternate draenor with the war ended, all the warmongers gone. Yrel was the one who set about to push the Light on the orcs after that. No longer could the orcs be trusted to their shamanistic ways - everyone had to submit to the light.

The only survivors were the few mag'har lead by Geya'rah who went back to Azeroth. And Geya'rah still hasn't talked to Thrall about it.

[Aurabolt]

The concept of Evil is not an opinion.

Evil: Sentient intelligence expending purposeful effort in order to artificially manufacture unnecessary suffering onto another sentient intelligence for the sole purpose of it's own pleasure. In true evil a cost of time/resources to the perpetrator is incurred and nothing is gained in producing the suffering onto another save for the joy brought about by the subjects suffering.

Again, opinion ^_^

[Naruto is stooopid]

Again, opinion ^_^

Evil being only an opinion exists exclusively in 2 dimensions i.e. on paper.

You can be cute here online with thought experiments about how evil is only an opinion.

In practice and application Evil is inescapably, and undeniably real.


When you encounter evil in the living world there is no question about it's existence. If you don't believe it's real, all that means is that you've been so far fortunate never to look it in the eye.

[procne]

Evil being only an opinion exists exclusively in 2 dimensions i.e. on paper.

You can be cute here online with thought experiments about how evil is only an opinion.

In practice and application Evil is inescapably, and undeniably real.


When you encounter evil in the living world there is no question about it's existence. If you don't believe it's real, all that means is that you've been so far fortunate never to look it in the eye.

I believe his point was not whether evil is real, but the fact the whole "evil" and "good" are manmade concepts, and their definitions differ from person to person, from society to society. It's not something you can objectively measure or quantify. Therefore it's all an opinion ^^

[Naruto is stooopid]

I believe his point was not whether evil is real, but the fact the whole "evil" and "good" are manmade concepts, and their definitions differ from person to person, from society to society. It's not something you can objectively measure or quantify. Therefore it's all an opinion ^^

When speaking of Evil, we are not speaking of: Poor taste, Jealousy, betrayal, violence, off color humor, murder, destruction, hate, vicious or vile behavior or even malice. All of those things one could describe as morally relative if one were so inclined. Though, time is better spent on other endeavors.

Evil is different.

Kidnaping 7 year old children, freezing portions of their limbs, shattering them off, allowing time to heal so they can be frozen and shattered again and again for the sole reason that the Perpetrator of such evil is somewhat amused by the children's screams.

Such activity can be classified in no other way but to be called Evil.

Saying Evil isn't real is akin to trying to convince the young victim who's limbs are being frozen that their pain isn't real, and that their suffering is really just a matter of their own opinion. I mean after all it can't be objectively measured or quantified as it's just relative to their own experience.

The only people who say Evil isn't real, or that it's subjective, or variable are those who haven't had Evil touch them. It's all fun and games with little internet debates about Evil not being real until you feel it's hand on your shoulder.

[Soon-TM]

Evil being only an opinion exists exclusively in 2 dimensions i.e. on paper.

You can be cute here online with thought experiments about how evil is only an opinion.

In practice and application Evil is inescapably, and undeniably real.


When you encounter evil in the living world there is no question about it's existence. If you don't believe it's real, all that means is that you've been so far fortunate never to look it in the eye.

Much like beauty, evil (or good, for that matter) is in the eye of the beholder. For example, Native Americans were pretty much exterminated, the surviving ones having most of their ancestral lands forcibly taken away (i.e. stolen) in a manner eerily similar to the Nazis' Lebensraum doctrine. Yet the mainstream historical narrative almost never talks about it, or if it ever does, it deems it a necessary evil in order to unify the country in order to industrialise it and thus be able to complete in the international markets against the superpowers of that time, like France or the UK.

[procne]

When speaking of Evil, we are not speaking of: Poor taste, Jealousy, betrayal, violence, off color humor, murder, destruction, hate, vicious or vile behavior or even malice. All of those things one could describe as morally relative if one were so inclined. Though, time is better spent on other endeavors.

Evil is different.

Kidnaping 7 year old children, freezing portions of their limbs, shattering them off, allowing time to heal so they can be frozen and shattered again and again for the sole reason that the Perpetrator of such evil is somewhat amused by the children's screams.

Such activity can be classified in no other way but to be called Evil.

Saying Evil isn't real is akin to trying to convince the young victim who's limbs are being frozen that their pain isn't real, and that their suffering is really just a matter of their own opinion. I mean after all it can't be objectively measured or quantified as it's just relative to their own experience.

The only people who say Evil isn't real, or that it's subjective, or variable are those who haven't had Evil touch them. It's all fun and games with little internet debates about Evil not being real until you feel it's hand on your shoulder.

When you're subjected to suffering you don't really care whether it's evil or something else, and how you call it. And especially you don't care about what "objective" is. The only thing you care about is your subjective feeling of suffering.

And hey, you're the one who started this "internet debate" on how to name it. And then proceed to come up with some edgy examples and capitalizing "Evil", which is pretty funny.

[Naruto is stooopid]

When you're subjected to suffering you don't really care whether it's evil or something else, and how you call it. And especially you don't care about what "objective" is. The only thing you care about is your subjective feeling of suffering.

And hey, you're the one who started this "internet debate" on how to name it. And then proceed to come up with some edgy examples and capitalizing "Evil", which is pretty funny.

It is well documented that victims of trauma have a more difficult time in recovery if their trauma was caused by malevolent intelligence vs natural tragedy. It's a different thing altogether to be nearly suffocated by a falling boulder than it is a grinning fiend.

My "edgy" hypothetical was drawn from history. Look up Unit 731 if you can bear it.

Those who attempt to deny Evil are often those who seek to justify it.

[Super Kami Dende]

Hardly really see it as villainous to want to spread the light and punish the darkness.