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

[Nerovar]

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.

I didn't claim that this quote was presented as fact. I was merely contesting the claim that it was the playerbase and not the writers who brought up the term "genocide" as part of some tinfoil hat scheme to guilt trip the writers into making Sylvanas the bad guy.

You might as well read everything before making dumb claims.

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.

I'm pretty sure "legal definitions" don't apply to a world where these laws don't exist. Therefor it is logical to assume that they're referring to the broader (literal) definition of genocide ("race killing") which is not really debatable. Even if you want to appeal to the international law of our world, it's still a pretty asinine claim. But we can go down that road as well.

Article II
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with
intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as
such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its
physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

This is quoted from the "Case Law of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia" https://www.hrw.org/reports/2004/ij/...m#_Toc62882707

c) Mental state (mens rea): intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such

i) generally
“The specific intent requires that the perpetrator, by one of the prohibited acts enumerated in Article 4 of the Statute, seeks to achieve the destruction, in whole or in part, of a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such.”
“The Statute itself defines the intent required: the intent to accomplish certain specified types of destruction. This intent has been referred to as, for example, special intent, specific intent, dolus specialis, particular intent and genocidal intent.”
ii) intent to destroy, in whole or in part

(1) requires an intentional attack against a group, and the intention to participate in or carry out the attack
“[T]he Trial Chamber will have to verify that there was both an intentional attack against a group and an intention upon the part of the accused to participate in or carry out this attack.”
(2) even if destruction was not original goal, it may become the goal
“It is conceivable that, although the intention at the outset of an operation was not the destruction of a group, it may become the goal at some later point during the implementation of the operation.”
(3) destruction “in part”
“[A]ny act committed with the intent to destroy a part of a group, as such, constitutes an act of genocide within the meaning of the [Genocide] Convention.”
(5) distinguish intent from motive
The Appeals Chamber noted the “irrelevance” of motives in criminal law and highlighted “the necessity to distinguish specific intent from motive. The personal motive of the perpetrator of the crime of genocide may be, for example, to obtain personal economic benefits, or political advantage or some form of power. The existence of a personal motive does not preclude the perpetrator from also having the specific intent to commit genocide.”
(6) intent may be inferred
“As to proof of specific intent, it may, in the absence of direct explicit evidence, be inferred from a number of facts and circumstances, such as the general context, the perpetration of other culpable acts systematically directed against the same group, the scale of atrocities committed, the systematic targeting of victims on account of their membership of a particular group, or the repetition of destructive and discriminatory acts.”

In regards to the mental element of the crime (this is from "Report of the Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court Addendum Part II Finalized draft text of the Elements of Crimes") https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/...df?OpenElement:

Where no reference is made in the Elements of Crimes to a mental element for any particular conduct, consequence or circumstance listed, it is understood that the relevant mental element, i.e., intent, knowledge or both [...] applies.

I don't really understand what's so hard about this. I get that we didn't have the literal smoothbrain explanation of Sylvanas saying "Look, I'm going to commit genocide now!" and that seems to be a problem for some people here for some reason but her intent to destroy Teldrassil and with it the nation of Darnassus and its people in order to destroy hope (in the form of future generations) is beyond any doubt. We're also talking about a character who stated that she wants to kill every living being.

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.

Indeed. Almost makes you think these people have some ulterior motives...

[Skildar]

It does not matter one bit what her goal and aspirations are...
In the story, she hurt way too many civilizations at multiple times and broke the horde, there is nothing to be saved here. She is just evil. Whatever her intetions, she sees no limits that cannot crossed.

As a character, she is the worst. You do not set her to act the way she did for two expansions and ask players to follow her. The only reason I did it anyway on my char was because Saurfang was an even worst option...

Whatever they managed to unfold in shadowlands, it will excuse the experiences we had to bear with during Stormheim and BfA

[Mehrunes]

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.

Your sad attempt at a jab would be much less sad it it was actually rooted in what you were replying to, because I didn't say squat that would even remotely indicate I'm denying that war has been governed by customs prior to Hagenbach's trial. Or if you could even understand your own links for that matter. Because that wiki article quite clearly calls Grotius' work as a foundation for international law and not those ancient sources of his. And there's a reason for that.

Likewise, you shouldn't use terms you don't understand, because there was no goalpost movement "spiel" there. Pointing out lack of reprisal for massacres is precisely on topic. You know what would be much closer to a goalpost movement? Your attempt at arbitrarily narrow things down to international institutions. Could it have something to do with how things weren't exactly amazing on national level either?

Besides, you are throwing Grotius around without actually having a clue about this book. Or customs of war for that matter. Because customs of war is a much broader topic than war crimes. They also include (among many other things) topics like what constitutes proper justification for war. And that is what the stark majority of De jure belli ac pacis is actually about. That is the part of his book that serves as a basis for international law (as well as things like neutrality of nations in war, in general the rights of nations when it comes to the topic of war). And that is the subject of ancient laws. Conduct of military forces in war? That was at best subject to philosophical work in antiquity, not law. Let alone criminal law, at which point you need to be reminded that there' a reason why there's a word "crime" in the term "war crime".

Looping back to Grotius, said conduct of military forces is only a part of the topics covered in the third of the books that make De jure belli ac pacis. And the whole third book is less than one third of the entire work. Close to one fourth. And in that regard Grotius' views are much less important to modern international law and much more dated (not to mention the examples from antiquity he cited because as he himself noted in those examples slaughter of population of even cities that surrendered was cool and normal).

Way to shoot yourself in the foot while thinking you got yourself a gotcha here. Kudos for that, it was entertaining.

I didn't claim that this quote was presented as fact. I was merely contesting the claim that it was the playerbase and not the writers who brought up the term "genocide" as part of some tinfoil hat scheme to guilt trip the writers into making Sylvanas the bad guy.

You might as well read everything before making dumb claims.

Except the "everything" there includes your first line in which you claimed it is most certainly a genocide, which would make that quote a statement of a fact. Though the claim about guilt tripping writers and whatnot was indeed rather tinfoily.

I'm pretty sure "legal definitions" don't apply to a world where these laws don't exist. Therefor it is logical to assume that they're referring to the broader (literal) definition of genocide ("race killing") which is not really debatable. Even if you want to appeal to the international law of our world, it's still a pretty asinine claim. But we can go down that road as well.

Genocide is a legal concept. The "broader definition" is flat out meaningless, just like some people treating all vaginal penetration as rape and their "broader definition" of that concept are irrelevant to the topic of rape. And since authors use terms that don't fit particularly well (in this case because there is no established international law on Azeroth) to convey an idea that their contemporary readers would be familiar with, the definition that actually matters should be used by default.

This is quoted from the "Case Law of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia" https://www.hrw.org/reports/2004/ij/...m#_Toc62882707

And do you know where that definition comes from? I.e. what convention is it referring to? The 1948 Genocide Convention created by UN. Here's a UN's own article on the issue. And here's the relevant part:

Importantly, the victims of genocide are deliberately targeted - not randomly – because of their real or perceived membership of one of the four groups protected under the Convention (which excludes political groups, for example). This means that the target of destruction must be the group, as such, and not its members as individuals. Genocide can also be committed against only a part of the group, as long as that part is identifiable (including within a geographically limited area) and “substantial.”

None of your other links do anything to deny that (for rather obvious reasons). And the thing is, Teldrassil wasn't targeted because of any of these reasons. It was targeted because of it being a part of a specific international political faction to achieve specific results against said political faction. And political affiliation has been (for numerous reasons) deliberately not included in the Genocide Convention as a protected group. So, to quote you:

I don't really understand what's so hard about this.

[Vladier]

Your sad attempt at a jab would be much less sad it it was actually rooted in what you were replying to, because I didn't say squat that would even remotely indicate I'm denying that war has been governed by customs prior to Hagenbach's trial. Or if you could even understand your own links for that matter. Because that wiki article quite clearly calls Grotius' work as a foundation for international law and not those ancient sources of his. And there's a reason for that.

Likewise, you shouldn't use terms you don't understand, because there was no goalpost movement "spiel" there. Pointing out lack of reprisal for massacres is precisely on topic. You know what would be much closer to a goalpost movement? Your attempt at arbitrarily narrow things down to international institutions. Could it have something to do with how things weren't exactly amazing on national level either?

Besides, you are throwing Grotius around without actually having a clue about this book. Or customs of war for that matter. Because customs of war is a much broader topic than war crimes. They also include (among many other things) topics like what constitutes proper justification for war. And that is what the stark majority of De jure belli ac pacis is actually about. That is the part of his book that serves as a basis for international law (as well as things like neutrality of nations in war, in general the rights of nations when it comes to the topic of war). And that is the subject of ancient laws. Conduct of military forces in war? That was at best subject to philosophical work in antiquity, not law. Let alone criminal law, at which point you need to be reminded that there' a reason why there's a word "crime" in the term "war crime".

Looping back to Grotius, said conduct of military forces is only a part of the topics covered in the third of the books that make De jure belli ac pacis. And the whole third book is less than one third of the entire work. Close to one fourth. And in that regard Grotius' views are much less important to modern international law and much more dated (not to mention the examples from antiquity he cited because as he himself noted in those examples slaughter of population of even cities that surrendered was cool and normal).

Way to shoot yourself in the foot while thinking you got yourself a gotcha here. Kudos for that, it was entertaining.

So you don't deny that there has been an understanding that war should be governed by certain rules for pretty much as long as was has been such? Then fine, we don't have a quarrel. But then don't argue that Azeroth has no concept of war crimes, when those are explicitly mentioned in the book title or inner thoughts of characters. Because that alone proves that the people of Azeroth consider certain actions during a conflict so reprehensible that they label them as crimes, even though they may not be written anywhere. Concept of natural law exists in Azeroth as well, apparently.

[Mehrunes]

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.

You do realize it goes both ways? And if anything, even harder the other way around? Because no one (other than straw-men of people trying to force it into being a genocide) ever said that the act didn't make Sylvanas evil. Mass murder is already plenty bad, which is precisely what makes it a weird choice of a hill to die on.

So you don't deny that there has been an understanding that war should be governed by certain rules for pretty much as long as was has been such? Then fine, we don't have a quarrel. But then don't argue that Azeroth has no concept of war crimes, when those are explicitly mentioned in the book title or inner thoughts of characters. Because that alone proves that the people of Azeroth consider certain actions during a conflict so reprehensible that they label them as crimes, even though they may not be written anywhere. Concept of natural law exists in Azeroth as well, apparently.

At this point the things you quote and your replies to them are so disjointed they don't even exist on the same plane of existence.

[Ealyssa]

In a world where you can resurrect people

Gameplay mechanics are not lore. Resurrection is pretty much not a thing in Azeroth.

If it was Varyan would have saved his wife, Varyan himself would'nt be dead, Vol'jin, the list goes on. I actually can't think of any named character properly resurrected (aka not raised as something else).

[Ardenaso]

I like how everyone here is now arguing about the word "genocide" and setting aside the fact that Sylvanas practically murdered more than half of Night Elf and Gilnean innocents

[Maljinwo]

It's already been settled by the authors of the game that it was a genocide

That's pretty much decided in-universe

[Kumorii]

Gameplay mechanics are not lore. Resurrection is pretty much not a thing in Azeroth.

If it was Varyan would have saved his wife, Varyan himself would'nt be dead, Vol'jin, the list goes on. I actually can't think of any named character properly resurrected (aka not raised as something else).

Pretty sure Arthas and Argus killing us is canon, including Terenas ghost reviving us as well as Eonar.
We have forsaken faction which is all based on being revived with their mind intact. That's resurrection.

We have resurrection of Medivh. Kel'thuzad is another example in which was a big campaign plot back in wc3.
Sylvanas making a pact when dying etc etc.

Point isn't as much abut resurrection as the spell is named... but rather that people can and have come back from the dead throughout warcraft history. There is nothing stopping blizzard from giving a reason to make everyone who died from teldrassil to come back except if they want to or not. Especially now that we literally go to the shadowlands.

Then we have the fact that afterlife also cheapens death which makes it less impactful.

[Nerovar]

Except the "everything" there includes your first line in which you claimed it is most certainly a genocide, which would make that quote a statement of a fact. Though the claim about guilt tripping writers and whatnot was indeed rather tinfoily.

That has no relevance. The quote is part of a different post and brought up to make an entirely different point. You conflating the two points is obviously pretty disingenuous.

Genocide is a legal concept. The "broader definition" is flat out meaningless, just like some people treating all vaginal penetration as rape and their "broader definition" of that concept are irrelevant to the topic of rape. And since authors use terms that don't fit particularly well (in this case because there is no established international law on Azeroth) to convey an idea that their contemporary readers would be familiar with, the definition that actually matters should be used by default.

The definition "that actually matters" doesn't "actually matter" in the context of a different world though. Also you failed to make an argument for why it ought to be used by default when the only occurences of the term within the lore seem to disagree with your interpretation of that definition which would either mean that they're talking about a different definition or that the King of Stormwind doesn't know the "laws of Azeroth".

And do you know where that definition comes from? I.e. what convention is it referring to? The 1948 Genocide Convention created by UN. Here's a UN's own article on the issue. And here's the relevant part:


None of your other links do anything to deny that (for rather obvious reasons). And the thing is, Teldrassil wasn't targeted because of any of these reasons. It was targeted because of it being a part of a specific international political faction to achieve specific results against said political faction. And political affiliation has been (for numerous reasons) deliberately not included in the Genocide Convention as a protected group. So, to quote you:

The Night Elves were targeted by Sylvanas' military campaign for political reasons but Sylvanas had completely different plans for them back then. That also doesn't mean that she didn't specifically burn Teldrassil, the homeland of the Night Elves with the intent to pretty much annihilate them as a race and a nation and not just to destroy the Night Elves as a political faction (since their military was already very much beaten). I really don't see how you can make a case for this in good faith.
Again:

“It is conceivable that, although the intention at the outset of an operation was not the destruction of a group, it may become the goal at some later point during the implementation of the operation.”

[Darth-Piekus]

Let's not forget that by destroying the Helm she just releases the Scourge to create even more damage and then breaking the Veil which will also have consequences in terms of life and death. I don't see how she can be reedeemed at this point.

[Powerogue]

Given how AU Grom got out of the water scot-free, it's safe to assume that yes.

I mean he didn't, he's dead now (probably), rushing headfirst into suicidal danger to give his people enough time to escape, in a pretty nice parallel to MU Grom, dying to make up for his mistakes. Now we've got Not-Thrall the mag'har chick.

On another note not sure how people are still arguing whether teldrassil was genocide or not. "It was genocide, my dudes" -the tie-in books at the beginning of the expansion. https://worldofwarcraft.com/en-us/st...ry/elegy#tab=5

[Evilfish]

It's already been settled by the authors of the game that it was a genocide

That's pretty much decided in-universe

Even if it was stated by the authors, which it was not, only a character in the story said it once while in great distress and people took it as irrefutable proof , it's still not genocide if it does not fulfill the criteria to be genocide.

[formerShandalay]

I mean he didn't, he's dead now (probably), rushing headfirst into suicidal danger to give his people enough time to escape, in a pretty nice parallel to MU Grom, dying to make up for his mistakes. Now we've got Not-Thrall the mag'har chick.

On another note not sure how people are still arguing whether teldrassil was genocide or not. "It was genocide, my dudes" -the tie-in books at the beginning of the expansion. https://worldofwarcraft.com/en-us/st...ry/elegy#tab=5

Yea, but that is not the real world definition, and while we argue that the real world should not be taken into account when judging things that are in a game world, we still insist on only a real world definition applying

Also, never mind the fact that the actual deed surpasses 'genocide' by far.

[Powerogue]

Even if it was stated by the authors, which it was not

"Sylvanas Windrunner had committed genocide."
-the authors, Elegy

Your excuses might be referring to the second time they confirm it as genocide, by someone less levelheaded at the time. Probably because they were in the tree.

"This was more than war. More than cruelty. This was madness and genocide and hatred so extreme that Astarii could not understand it."

[Mehrunes]

That has no relevance. The quote is part of a different post and brought up to make an entirely different point. You conflating the two points is obviously pretty disingenuous.

Also there's no genocide. Some guy heard the word being flinged around and thought it would give his tears meaning if he used a word that inspires horror. The fact is Sylvanas did not care about nelfs as a whole, but rather their seat of power. This whole genocide thing is a dirty little trick they use to guilt the writers into giving in to ther demands. "WHAT YOU TRYING TO JUSTIFY GENOCIDE! I CANCEL YOU".

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.

The bolded part is what I was referring to. And as can be clearly seen, it's most certainly a part of the same exact post. The same exact part of that same exact post no less, i.e. your reply to one singular post by @Evilfish. And not just one post of theirs but one point as well as it's just one paragraph and paragraphs are units of discourse that convey a particular point. So literally everything you said here in defense of that is incorrect. Though that entire tangent is pretty inconsequential one way or another so I'm going to drop it.

The definition "that actually matters" doesn't "actually matter" in the context of a different world though. Also you failed to make an argument for why it ought to be used by default when the only occurences of the term within the lore seem to disagree with your interpretation of that definition which would either mean that they're talking about a different definition or that the King of Stormwind doesn't know the "laws of Azeroth".

Except I haven't failed to make an argument, you just covered your eyes and decided to pretend that by doing so you'll alter reality and magically unmake it. My argument is that in lieu of in-universe definitions (as is the case here) the definitions that matter are those that the contemporary reader would be familiar with. I.e. the definitions we use in real life. Because that's how books in general work. The author is communicating a specific message to the reader and that only works when they are on the same page as to what things mean. And if anything that is particularly true to terms that don't otherwise fit in-universe like anachronisms or using our legal definitions for other worlds. Because that eases the author-reader communication even if it may impose upon the internal cohesion of the work.

Seriously, if a fantasy story about a different world covers some legal topic like murder, do you honestly go "damn, murder isn't defined in this story and since its about another world I have no idea whatever the author could have meant"? And if some character in the story screams murder after being slapped in the face do you treat that as the meaning of the word for the story afterwards, even if that character is by no means presented as omniscient, or even an authority on the matter? Because by your logic that line of thought would somehow be sensible. Alternatively you could do what everyone else does and assume that the author is clearly referring to what you and they understand by murder.

And that's me being generous because limiting this to just legal matters is completely arbitrary on my part. But there's no reason to really do that. One could easily apply your reasoning to a sentence like "Thrall sat in a chair" and go on how neither sitting nor chairs have been defined in the story and since it's Azeroth and not Earth, using Earth meanings for those words is wrong. By this train of thought books about other words are absolutely devoid of meaning and you could replace the words inside them with gibberish and it wouldn't make any difference.

As for your argument about Anduin in particular, I'm sorry, but I was under the impression that you weren't treating that quote as factual? Yet here you are doing precisely that. Even though it doesn't make sense even in light of your own arguments as to what genocide is. Because each material you used to support your claims quite heavily pointed out (and rightfully so) that the issue of intent is crucial to the topic. Now, care you point out how Anduin could have known what Sylvanas' intent was moments after the fact, while he was on another continent?

Your retort there creates a false dichotomy between Anduin using other definitions or him not knowing the "laws of Azeroth" while the most obvious answer is that he was a shocked and distressed young adult that made an emotional statement that should by no means be treated as an authoritative treatise on the event. Because given the circumstances and the nature of that statement it can very well be wrong. And it being wrong doesn't somehow mean that Anduin doesn't know the law in general.

The Night Elves were targeted by Sylvanas' military campaign for political reasons but Sylvanas had completely different plans for them back then. That also doesn't mean that she didn't specifically burn Teldrassil, the homeland of the Night Elves with the intent to pretty much annihilate them as a race and a nation and not just to destroy the Night Elves as a political faction (since their military was already very much beaten). I really don't see how you can make a case for this in good faith.

If only we had a discussion between Sylvanas and Saurfang about the burning itself, in which the reasoning for it mirrored the one for the campaign as a whole word for word... It could be written in a story called "A Good War" in this totally hypothetical world in which such a dialogue took place.

And you apparently didn't understand the material I quoted before. Because the issue isn't about destroying something as a race. It's destroying them because of it. If every single Night Elf on the planet was a communist and Sylvanas killed every single on Night Elf on the planet because of their communism, they wouldn't be targeted because of their race, even if they were annihilated as a race. There wouldn't be a difference between genocide and mass murder otherwise. But there is, which is the very reason why genocide was made its own separate thing.

I mean he didn't, he's dead now (probably), rushing headfirst into suicidal danger to give his people enough time to escape, in a pretty nice parallel to MU Grom, dying to make up for his mistakes. Now we've got Not-Thrall the mag'har chick.

Grom dying decades after the fact because Yrel went on a Light crusade is neither here nor there in regards to what @Soon-TM was talking about.

Yea, but that is not the real world definition, and while we argue that the real world should not be taken into account when judging things that are in a game world, we still insist on only a real world definition applying

Your sarcasm would be more (as in, at all) warranted if you weren't conflating arguments of different people and pretending this constitutes a point. Or arguing against the very nature of books. Because if something is not alternatively defined within a books' universe the real world definition applies by default as there is no third option in which the book would continue to make sense.

[Evilfish]

"Sylvanas Windrunner had committed genocide."
-the authors, Elegy

Your excuses might be referring to the second time they confirm it as genocide, by someone less levelheaded at the time. Probably because they were in the tree.

"This was more than war. More than cruelty. This was madness and genocide and hatred so extreme that Astarii could not understand it."

This is the equivalent of having two characters in the story say that Sylvanas is a good person twice and that's how you are supposed to view her character. But unfortunately it does not work like that. She's not nice and it wasn't genocide.

[Mehrunes]

"Sylvanas Windrunner had committed genocide."
-the authors, Elegy

Your excuses might be referring to the second time they confirm it as genocide, by someone less levelheaded at the time. Probably because they were in the tree.

"This was more than war. More than cruelty. This was madness and genocide and hatred so extreme that Astarii could not understand it."

That was actually the first time. And let's not pretend Anduin was particularly level headed either. Especially when that same part of the story described him as rather shocked, to the point his vision was blurred. It's almost as if he was confronted by a distressing development that (also by that same part of Elegy) he was completely unprepared for or something.

On top of that, genocide revolves around intent and not even Astarii knew Sylvanas' intent. By your own quote here no less, as it flat out says she couldn't understand this. And unlike Astarii, Anduin was on goddamn other side of the world from where the event was happening. There is no way whatsoever for him to be able to properly judge Sylvanas' intent moments after the fact under those circumstances. And the story conveys that outright as well, by stating it was something unfathomable for him.

[DemonHunter18]

We liked Illidan and Arthas as villains because they were good written villains. Sylvanas was just wack.

even that's debatable.

WC3 Arthas was for sure but LK Arthas???

nah.

he was appearing here and there just to say we are lucky and that he will get us next time.

WC3 Illidan wasn't even a villain if you go by WoW standards.

in TBC, he didn't even appear, maybe once. you just fight him in the BT.

it was explained by Tyrande that madness consumed him.

[Varodoc]

This is the equivalent of having two characters in the story say that Sylvanas is a good person twice and that's how you are supposed to view her character. But unfortunately it does not work like that. She's not nice and it wasn't genocide.

The omniscient narrator said it was genocide, not a character in the story.

even that's debatable.

WC3 Arthas was for sure but LK Arthas???

nah.

he was appearing here and there just to say we are lucky and that he will get us next time.

WC3 Illidan wasn't even a villain if you go by WoW standards.

in TBC, he didn't even appear, maybe once. you just fight him in the BT.

it was explained by Tyrande that madness consumed him.

I feel like that's the point of Lich King Arthas. He's not Arthas. Or rather, he's just the evil Arthas. He's not the good Arthas, who had noble ideals but was misguided and ended up losing his soul because of it. He's a more generic villain, he's not the fallen hero that Paladin Arthas was.