Warcrimes on civilians

[Naramag]

When discussing the war, very often acts of war are labeled crimes. And I have to say, I get sick of it. I understand that the world we play in isn't really comparable to our world. That's the thing with fantasy settings and fiction in general. It's fictional.

But yet, things like the attack on teldrassil are called to be warcrimes because it targeted civilians. But in the context of the world, killing civilians is not a thing. It is not who you killed, but how many. When the roman Legions under Varus where killed by germanic tribes, it was horrific for the romans. It didn't matter if it were soldiers or noncombatants. The sheer number of man killed made it so terrible.

In medieval times, noncombatants were vital for the function of armies. Targeting civilians - to use the modern term - was a valid tactic to deny supplies and support for the enemy.

If you like, read here: http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/...91279-0033.xml

But please, stop call everything a warcrime, just because noncombatants were targeted.

[Deleted]

But yet, things like the attack on teldrassil are called to be warcrimes because it targeted civilians.

It targeted ONLY civilians, the dying Delaryn outright said that there were no soldiers left in Darnassus, only innocents.

In medieval times, noncombatants were vital for the function of armies. Targeting civilians - to use the modern term - was a valid tactic to deny supplies and support for the enemy.

They could at least try to give civilians a quick and peaceful death. Instead of burning them to a crisp, like they did in Darnassus. Or in Brennadam, when they incinerated many civilians using flamethrowers, or laughed as they held them by their throat, or turned them into a fish so that they would die slowly on the mainland, or let little children see the impaled bodies of their parents, or used the carved remains of the civilians to create a disgusting abomination ala Thaddius.

No one would be complaining about Brennadam if the Horde forces clearly weren't taking pleasure in slaughtering farmers in front of their young children. But that is not the case. They were enjoying it, because one of the idle animations for orcs and trolls in Brennadam is the laugh emote. That was just gratuitous violence. I thought that the Horde were better than Daelin Proudmoore. I guess that I was wrong.

Or to mention another instance of orcs acting in a bloodthirsty and shameful manner, would you say that the Old Horde did not commit a heinous war crime, when they butchered every man, woman and child in Karabor and Shattrath City, and used their souls to fuel the Dark Portal, and their bones to build the Path of Glory?

[Highlord Hanibuhl]

Seeing as Warcraft does not have a Geneva Convention, there is no such thing as a warcrime.
There is only honorable combat, and honor is in the eye of the beholder.

When MU Gul'dan ordered the rape of countless draenei women, this was considered abominable... but was it a warcrime? Technically not...
Same goes for Theramore, Orgrimmar, The Undercity and Teldrassil.

We have no global Azeroth council that stated laws to specify honor (that I know of)

Therefor, people are still allowed to condemn the acts of violence or not. Sure.. destroying the supply lines of your enemy is a smart tactic and sure, torture could be used to extract information... Some even say 'All is fair in love and war'


I for one like the fact that shit is hitting the fan atm. It's just more fuel for the fire that sparks the faction-conflict! It's WARcraft after all!

[Hottage]

In medieval times, noncombatants were vital for the function of armies. Targeting civilians - to use the modern term - was a valid tactic to deny supplies and support for the enemy.

But please, stop call everything a warcrime, just because noncombatants were targeted.

In medieval times it was considered legitimate to target civilians who were assisting in combat activities and it still is today.

As soon as a civilian picks up a weapon or helps reinforce / rebuild defenses, they become a combatant and lose their protected status.

However, even in medieval times, it was considered morally unacceptable to pillage cities, murder unarmed civilians or take civilians as slaves.

In Warcraft it's not about what's legal within the framework of the Laws of Armed Combat. It's about what each faction stands for in regards to honour and the traditions of their warrior class.

The Horde have traditionally been a warrior race, fighting for the ability to survive in a hostile environment, however their sense of honour and justice in the field of battle is what separated them from all the other orcs, gnolls, pirates and other countless NPC factions we've righteously slaughtered over the years.

With Sylvanas' order to pillage Teldrassil, and her Hordish commanders willingness to carry out such a dishonourable act, the Horde have devolved into nothing more than another comic-book villain faction with no moral superiority to the Defias Brotherhood.

[Naramag]

I am not saying anything. If I look at this or any historic events on earth with my point of view, my sense of morale and my opinion on justice and so on, I could only wish for the human race to vanish from this planet. But if I set it in context, if I take my emotions about it out, it's different.

To make an example, let's look back at the roman empire. If you were an enemy of the empire, you had to rights. There was no proper way to treat you, exept kill you any way possible. Why? Because you were an uncivilized barbarian. It was the right thing to kill you, enslave your family, sell your kids and so on. Once your land was conquered and brought in the empire as a province, you might be lucky... after the soldiers conquering your land got their share of farmland, you might get roman citizenship. Only then you are granted rights. To give you These rights before was unthinkable. It was something not even considered, because it simply made no sense.

So yeah, if you wipe out a town, make sure to kill the kids. Because else they will be the fighter you face tomorrow. And you could even consider it an act of mercy to not let them grieve over their slaughtered parents.

From todays point of view a ludicrous thing. But there were times in human history, were this was totally okay.

And to be fair, the Defias Brotherhood were the guys who rebuild Stormwind and didn't got paid for it, if I remember correctly. So, moral is a very subjective thing, even in the game.

[Utigarde]

Seeing as Warcraft does not have a Geneva Convention, there is no such thing as a warcrime.

While I agree here, and think that's the rationalization Blizz seems to use, there are war crimes.

[bufferunderrun]

There are warcrimes and those are punished with death penalty. Garrosh has been executed, same as arthas and so on the problem is putting the players in all of this cuz we cannot be trialed or executed.


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

[Deleted]

So yeah, if you wipe out a town, make sure to kill the kids. Because else they will be the fighter you face tomorrow. And you could even consider it an act of mercy to not let them grieve over their slaughtered parents.

Aside from the fact that this comment is downright creepy, the orcs were merciless and evil then. Because they let the grieving children look at their impaled parents and cry, instead of just putting them out of thier misery and avoiding the eventuality of those children taking up arms against them.

[Arrashi]

Its only warcrime if there are pandas who can trial you nearby.

- - - Updated - - -

Aside from the fact that this comment is downright creepy, the orcs were merciless and evil then. Because they let the grieving children look at their impaled parents and cry, instead of just putting them out of thier misery and avoiding the eventuality of those children taking up arms against them.

Its logical tho. Saves you from entire "Im a batman" thing kids can pull off 15 years later. And if you don't care about kids you can use much funnier weapons.

[faithbane]

In medieval times it was considered legitimate to target civilians who were assisting in combat activities and it still is today.

As soon as a civilian picks up a weapon or helps reinforce / rebuild defenses, they become a combatant and lose their protected status.

However, even in medieval times, it was considered morally unacceptable to pillage cities, murder unarmed civilians or take civilians as slaves.

Yea, I don't know where you get your bullshit information but your Hollywood fantasy of the "medieval times" is completely wrong.

They used to target civilians ALL THE TIME. Raids from rival factions/cities/territories/kingdoms happened all the time and when the "knights" entered the enemy settlements not only they raped and pillaged but they intentionally maimed a few civilians just to make them a burden on their lord/kings for the rest of their lives.

That is just "Common" thing that happened during those times.. there are a lot more extreme cases such armies desecrating nearby graveyards while they siege a city to drop the morale of the defenders, anywhere from raping recently buried corpses of their dead relatives in front of the city walls, cut them to pieces and even hurling their chopped heads back over the city walls..

WOW wars are quite "vanilla" compared to medieval times.

[Naramag]

Aside from the fact that this comment is downright creepy, the orcs were merciless and evil then. Because they let the grieving children look at their impaled parents and cry, instead of just putting them out of thier misery and avoiding the eventuality of those children taking up arms against them.

It is only evil and cruel from the Alliance point of view. Killing the children to eradicate the enemy completely is fine. Using psychological warfare and shock tactics is fine to. So killing them or letting them live doesn't really matter. Both tactics can serve a purpose.
The point is, the victims were "only humans". From Alliance point of view it's evil. If it was a murloc village raided by alliance soldiers, the alliance would be evil from a murloc point of view.

Even as a bloodelf, who was once close to humans I could stand there say "Well, that wasn't really neccessary, but alas, it were only humans. They let us suffer in our hour of need... and those people down there would mostly be dead in fifty years anyway."

Humans in history had no problems to do these things to each other and they were the same species. Why should one species care about another in a setting like WoW? We, the players, don't care about murlocs, centaurs, dragons and other intelligent species we kill or almost wipe out. Why should the Horde care for the Alliance or vice versa?

[Deleted]

Seeing as Warcraft does not have a Geneva Convention, there is no such thing as a warcrime.

Garrosh's Trial is Azeroth's Geneva Convention.

[steelballfc]

Its only warcrime if there are pandas who can trial you nearby.

it's not a crime if no one saw you.

[Nerovar]

Yeah... What is this thread about again? Because Warcraft obviously isn't set in medieval or ancient times. It is a product of modern times, modern morals and modern norms that seep through every inch of the world.

Let me guess... Student of history just finished second semester?

[Naramag]

You guessed wrong.

But you are right, Warcraft is obviously not set in medieval times. But on the other hand, it isn't modern. It's fiction. Therefore it is, what the autors want it to be. And we can only interpret the things we see by the things we know and understand.
So this thread is about broaden the things we know to shed a different light on it and move our interpretation more in a direction in line with the autors intention. At least, what I think the intention was. But as we do not know about that, any discussion about it is a waste of time.

[Deleted]

Yeah... What is this thread about again? Because Warcraft obviously isn't set in medieval or ancient times. It is a product of modern times, modern morals and modern norms that seep through every inch of the world.

Let me guess... Student of history just finished second semester?

Not really, it's a mismatched fantasy concept, with medieval and modern basis. Warcrimes weren't a thing on Azeroth until Garrosh's trial. And it's still not a thing since there is no diplomatic organization to uphold the international laws.

[Nerovar]

Not really, it's a mismatched fantasy concept, with medieval and modern basis. Warcrimes weren't a thing on Azeroth until Garrosh's trial. And it's still not a thing since there is no diplomatic organization to uphold the international laws.

What's your point? That (moral) laws don't exist without a higher authority? That there's no consistent (moral) law that can be broken in the first place? Furthermore why is the term "war crimes" even used then?

[Naramag]

The term is used because it easier to understand than atrocities of war or something like that. It make a good book title. And the point is: In a fictional setting, it is possible, that there is no consistent moral law. Even in our time, on our planet something like this don't exist. It is a totally manmade concept. Why else is it possible, that you have something like a death sentence in some countries? And why is it, that in some countries it is only okay to sentence a murderer to death and in other countries it is okay to do the same to a homosexual? Because the concept of what is good and what is bad is not universal, it is subjective.

Therefore it is wrong to try and enforce our concept of morale in a fictional setting, were certain acts sometimes are bad and sometimes the only right thing to do.

[The Stormbringer]

Seeing as Warcraft does not have a Geneva Convention, there is no such thing as a warcrime.
There is only honorable combat, and honor is in the eye of the beholder.

Then explain this!



EDIT: Crap! I got Imp'd.

[NutellaCrepe]

As many have pointed out, the argument "This isn't the real world so the concept of war crimes does not apply" is false by the very iteration of the canonical title of the book "War Crimes." There, members of the Horde AND the Alliance effectively prosecute Garrosh for acts during warfare that they themselves consider to be crimes in times of war, establishing that the characters within both factions understand and agree to the general concept of things not to do even in time of war.

Whether you yourself believe the burning of the tree is a warcrime does not matter. You may want to read the book and analyze what the characters that are an actual part of this war and part of the decision making feel about the threshold.