Page 49 of 56 FirstFirst ...
39
47
48
49
50
51
... LastLast
  1. #961
    Moderator Aucald's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA-US
    Posts
    32,398
    Quote Originally Posted by Coconut View Post
    Is the Pantheon of Death responsible for the Jailer's actions? I think this is still an open question, actually.
    According to the Primus, it doesn't seem so, no. Although much of that hinges on what exactly the Jailer did to "betray" his brothers and sisters in the Pantheon of Death.

    Quote Originally Posted by Coconut View Post
    Assuming they are not, and he's just an imprisoned cosmic villain, having him imprisoned in the Maw still means if you're an Eternal One you're basically Mayor of Volcanotown. You're not responsible for his deeds, but you're still responsible for how you manage the potential threat.
    A volcano is a natural phenomenon with zero agency or will-to-self - the Jailer has both of those things. It's also an open question as to whether the Maw is something that can even *be* managed, so to speak. It'd be like having to manage the properties of a black hole, or a circumstellar envelope. It sort of is what it is, or at least it was, until the Jailer somehow managed to alter the equation in a way that no one could've accounted for.

    Quote Originally Posted by Coconut View Post
    If the Jailer was imprisoned unjustly, that means that the Winter Queen and the others might have built their realms with stolen capital, and are now reaping what they've sown. If it turns out you stole a property, your kids will still get kicked out of it, and it will be your fault they become destitute, not the owner's. Is the Jailer aware of what his anima-siphoning is causing in the other realms, of what they became since his imprisonment? Does he have an alternative, if he wants to free himself? Is it his fault if the Winter Queen holds the souls of Wild Gods hostage against anima that is rightfully his? This is a speculative scenario, of course, but it is worth considering.
    As you said, we have no knowledge of that scenario and can only really judge things based on what we *do* know. Right now, that means the Jailer has empowered himself as the enemy of all creation, and his release means that the metacosm will essentially die (including us). This means that regardless of the other Eternal Ones possible complicity in his capture and detention, he is still our direct antagonist. Our survival, and thus our loyalties, are manifest better suited in the hands of the other Eternal Ones such as the Winter Queen, the Primus, and the Archon - because alliance with the Jailer is tantamount to death.

    Quote Originally Posted by Coconut View Post
    The other thing is how it potentially frames other character arcs. There is the long going theory - so reviled around here - that Sylvanas is somehow doing all of this for the greater good, that she's either earning the Jailer's trust in order to pull a Snape on him, or that the Jailer is in fact the "good" guy who would oppose the forces that are currently behind the master plan of Death. Many people are extremely put off by a narrative which would frame the genocide of Teldrassil as "the right thing". Yet by the same logic used in the case of the Winter Queen, IF indeed Sylvanas is playing a long con against the conspiracy hinted at in the recently datamined journal, then Teldrassil was 100% justified, for what do those lives matter when Death threatens to consume all Cosmos anyway? Even more than that, the souls of most (?) Night Elves killed at Teldrassil were actually rescued and made it safely to Ardenweald, while Ursoc is completely and irrevocably gone.
    That's a lot of "if's" in a teetering construct that belies the more direct and likely rational take: the Jailer is bad, Sylvanas is bad, and both of them are working together to overturn all of creation because of their own petty grievances or desires. Now it's possible that either or both have some kind of justification for their actions - but what are you judging here, the means or the ends? Kind of goes back to the original thing that started this whole ball rolling. Sylvanas' wholesale slaughter of the innocent would require a *huge* justification in the end-result to possibly justify such acts, and that's even *if* you feel that an end can be justified by such horrid means. Multiply this by several orders of magnitude for the Jailer, whose end result is the annihilation of the metacosm itself, all of reality and every dimension in Warcraft. What can ever possibly justify the cessation of existence?

    Quote Originally Posted by Coconut View Post
    So I have to ask, would the people who think the Winter Queen did nothing wrong also forgive Sylvanas for the atrocities in BFA if it turns out it was all part of some heroic ruse to gain leverage against an already imminent threat?
    Possibly, *if* that were the case - which doesn't seem at all likely, though.
    "Here lies a toppled god.
    His fall was not a small one.
    We did but build his pedestal,
    A narrow and a tall one."

  2. #962
    Quote Originally Posted by Aucald View Post
    That's a lot of "if's" in a teetering construct that belies the more direct and likely rational take: the Jailer is bad, Sylvanas is bad, and both of them are working together to overturn all of creation because of their own petty grievances or desires. Now it's possible that either or both have some kind of justification for their actions - but what are you judging here, the means or the ends? Kind of goes back to the original thing that started this whole ball rolling. Sylvanas' wholesale slaughter of the innocent would require a *huge* justification in the end-result to possibly justify such acts, and that's even *if* you feel that an end can be justified by such horrid means. Multiply this by several orders of magnitude for the Jailer, whose end result is the annihilation of the metacosm itself, all of reality and every dimension in Warcraft. What can ever possibly justify the cessation of existence?
    I didn't really ask how likely it is, this isn't the place to dissect the details of the scenario, nor do I know exactly to what extent the Jailer has expressed his goals because I missed a lot of patch notes and discussions. I do remember that people were hostile to a redemptive master plan for Sylvanas though, specifically because they thought no end could possibly justify those means (meaning Teldrassil and the BFA campaign) in any sort of good taste.

    Yet the argument for the Winter Queen is exactly the same* and we are supposed to see her as a hero, which is puzzling. It makes me wonder if truly framing is more important than content in how the player base judges the story.

    * We have the destruction of Ardenweald vs the destruction of the Cosmos. We have the selective culling of lesser Wild Gods in order to fuel Ardenweald vs the killing of soldiers and innocents alike in order to fuel the Jailer and therefore gain his trust. In both cases, death would come for those victims anyway, since the Jailer's plans were already close to fruition, hence the argument can be made that these are "train track" scenarios, where the cards were already dealt and the characters merely had to pick a track.

    If anything, the recent reveal that the Nathrezim (?) are involved in the Conspiracy of Death and have already infiltrated the other five planes would explain why Sylvanas would choose to act alone instead of warning anyone else - the risk of tipping her hand would have been much too great.

  3. #963
    Aren't most of the races of shadowlands also made of anima? Couldn't some of them sacrifice themselves to save some of the beings they rebirth? Also do the loa and things they rebirth know of anything in shadowlands? Cause if possible they should try and res one on each planet or what ever with a warning so people know whats going on.

  4. #964
    Quote Originally Posted by Coconut View Post
    I'm talking about murder because that's what gives the ethical problem weight.

    If it's some fabricated scenario where someone is going to die anyway, and you have a binary choice imposed to you by some other force, obviously you will choose to save more lives in most cases. But when it comes to taking away a random, unrelated person's right to live simply because it would get you a net gain of lives, I am happy to see that you balk and consider that immoral, as most people would.
    To be clear, the ONLY reason I'm balking at all is because I don't think saving five random people, who could be in need of a transplant for reasons entirely of their own making, to be a good enough reason to literally commit murder. Without knowing SIGNIFICANTLY more information about the situation, it's impossible to make an informed decision. As I said, there may be a situation where it's acceptable and even justified. No decision like that is made without a significant amount of deliberation and information. With that said, decisions like that would never be made in today's society as it's completely illegal to MURDER a patient in order to save another patient or any number of patients. Letting a patient die, like what happens when choosing to save the baby over attempting to save the mother, or quarantining a severely diseased and contagious patient, that's something else entirely.

    Ironically, I am not a moral idealist at all. I believe ethics are a result of our social needs and experiences, and yes, I am well aware that horrible things still happen under the veneer of civilization. Still, you will find that as soon as society at large starts to put a price on human lives, they will soon become worthless, so we must have laws - yes - and social conventions that prevent that. And no, it's not entirely every man for himself, certainly not in the West, or even in most of the world, so dull that edge a bit. If it was truly every man for himself, you'd risk being shanked for a loaf of bread every time you exit your house. We should be mindful of the many limitations of society, but we should still respect what we do have.
    The world is every man for himself, including and IMO even ESPECIALLY the West, just not in a violence filled way. Capitalism is just a more structured and legal form of it. The rules, regulations etc... surrounding many cultures simply curtail any wholesale application of violence in that way. Power simply no longer means literal physical prowess. Money is power and might now. And as we can see happening everywhere...Might absolutely makes right, just like it used to be, that Might is just applied differently. But if you're going to try and pretend that if those laws and rules didn't exist that people wouldn't be doing anything and everything in their power to get what they want or what they think is best for their family/friends/etc... you're delusional. That's precisely why those laws exist in the first place, because we as a species knew what we're capable of and knew we needed those laws to prevent us from turning into animals. We simply live in a world that's had these laws for so long that they're practically second nature to us, so rather than get in physical fights to take what we want, we post shit online, doxxing people that cross us, cancel people who do something we don't agree with, and otherwise play by the rules of today.

    The "game" hasn't changed, but the rules absolutely have.

    Edit: To circle back to the original argument, by calling the Wild Hunt, the Winter Queen is essentially choosing who dies and who gets a chance to live, instead of leaving it to luck and the skill of individual grove tenders. The pods that are deemed important are moved to less affected areas, and not everyone is culled, so this is basically a scenario of the rich feeding on the poor on the Wild God hierarchy.
    Is there information on how and why she's making her decision? Is it based on importance of the souls in the grove or is it some other factor? Because if there's any triage happening regarding which groves to cull and which to save, that has nothing to do with importance and is instead based on the practicality and logistics around it, and has nothing to do with importance of the soul.

    Also, as implied in the cinematic, she gave the grove tenders a choice. There was no guarantee Ursoc would have survivied had that grove been left alone. But there IS a guarantee that his life could save others. In an already uncertain situation where lives and possibly the entirety of your "kingdom"are already at risk, you don't take chances on "maybes." It's a simple choice. It's not an EASY one to make, but it IS simple.

    You might think that Ursoc's pod was about to fade anyway, but the clip implies that, had Ara'lon chosen to keep caring for it, he might have still had a chance, so what happened there was murder. Murder for the good of others, but still murder, and a bit messed up in that the tender was faced with a choice, but the actual victim wasn't. This is why the scenario I discussed above applies better than the train track problem.
    Ursoc was already dead. We ARE literally talking about the afterlife here. So no it wasn't murder, it was a choice to not renew his life yet again for the benefit of the entirety of Ardenweald so that the countless other souls there could have a better chance at being renewed and for the infinite number of souls that may come there in the future.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Coconut View Post
    So I have to ask, would the people who think the Winter Queen did nothing wrong also forgive Sylvanas for the atrocities in BFA if it turns out it was all part of some heroic ruse to gain leverage against an already imminent threat?
    I don't see how the actions of Sylvanas and the actions of the Winter Queen are at all relatable to each other, even if they're somehow connected.

    If Sylvanas has been in league with the Jailer this entire time, she literally started a war to kill people to specifically send them to the Maw. She's the instigator of the entire war, every life lost as a result of this war is on her.

    The Winter Queen is having to cull groves in Ardenweald in an attempt to save it from dying from a situation that is almost entirely out of her hands.

    How are these two situations equivalent?

  5. #965
    Quote Originally Posted by Coconut View Post
    It makes me wonder if truly framing is more important than content in how the player base judges the story.
    Oh I think that has been true for a long time. As long as it's presented in a beautiful emotional cinematic with great music and direction the audience will go along with any idea

  6. #966
    Moderator Aucald's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA-US
    Posts
    32,398
    Quote Originally Posted by Coconut View Post
    I didn't really ask how likely it is, this isn't the place to dissect the details of the scenario, nor do I know exactly to what extent the Jailer has expressed his goals because I missed a lot of patch notes and discussions. I do remember that people were hostile to a redemptive master plan for Sylvanas though, specifically because they thought no end could possibly justify those means (meaning Teldrassil and the BFA campaign) in any sort of good taste.
    Dissecting the details of the scenario is pretty much exactly what we're doing here, though - right down to the ethical motivations of individual characters. As for a redemptive master plan for Sylvanas... well, odds are low. Very low.

    Quote Originally Posted by Coconut View Post
    Yet the argument for the Winter Queen is exactly the same* and we are supposed to see her as a hero, which is puzzling. It makes me wonder if truly framing is more important than content in how the player base judges the story.
    It's not really the same, though. The Winter Queen is having to make terrible decisions she doesn't want to have to make in order to safeguard her realm and save as many souls as she can - whereas Sylvanas destroyed Teldrassil and condemned countless souls to the Maw in her goal to "destroy hope." These are not even close to the same situations, or arguments.

    Quote Originally Posted by Coconut View Post
    * We have the destruction of Ardenweald vs the destruction of the Cosmos. We have the selective culling of lesser Wild Gods in order to fuel Ardenweald vs the killing of soldiers and innocents alike in order to fuel the Jailer and therefore gain his trust. In both cases, death would come for those victims anyway, since the Jailer's plans were already close to fruition, hence the argument can be made that these are "train track" scenarios, where the cards were already dealt and the characters merely had to pick a track.
    Again, not really. The Winter Queen is selectively sacrificing souls to safeguard others, trying to minimize total damage inasmuch as she can. The Jailer, by contrast, is consuming souls at a geometric rate with the end-goal of destroying the metacosm and everything in it. These are not the same outcomes on either the micro or macro level.

    Quote Originally Posted by Coconut View Post
    If anything, the recent reveal that the Nathrezim (?) are involved in the Conspiracy of Death and have already infiltrated the other five planes would explain why Sylvanas would choose to act alone instead of warning anyone else - the risk of tipping her hand would have been much too great.
    Which doesn't by any means absolve Sylvanas, or the Jailer. We know Sylvanas' motives, and they have nothing to do with this recently unveiled possible conspiracy of the ages. Barring significant and multiple retcons, there's no essential overlap between these two movements except in the most abstract and indirect of senses.
    "Here lies a toppled god.
    His fall was not a small one.
    We did but build his pedestal,
    A narrow and a tall one."

  7. #967
    All I really got from these is all the Afterlives are really shit and we should be killing the covenants, not joining them.

    Maybe Sylvanas was right after all.

  8. #968
    Quote Originally Posted by Aucald View Post
    Dissecting the details of the scenario is pretty much exactly what we're doing here, though - right down to the ethical motivations of individual characters. As for a redemptive master plan for Sylvanas... well, odds are low. Very low.

    It's not really the same, though. The Winter Queen is having to make terrible decisions she doesn't want to have to make in order to safeguard her realm and save as many souls as she can - whereas Sylvanas destroyed Teldrassil and condemned countless souls to the Maw in her goal to "destroy hope." These are not even close to the same situations, or arguments.

    Again, not really. The Winter Queen is selectively sacrificing souls to safeguard others, trying to minimize total damage inasmuch as she can. The Jailer, by contrast, is consuming souls at a geometric rate with the end-goal of destroying the metacosm and everything in it. These are not the same outcomes on either the micro or macro level.

    Which doesn't by any means absolve Sylvanas, or the Jailer. We know Sylvanas' motives, and they have nothing to do with this recently unveiled possible conspiracy of the ages. Barring significant and multiple retcons, there's no essential overlap between these two movements except in the most abstract and indirect of senses.
    Quote Originally Posted by Katchii View Post
    I don't see how the actions of Sylvanas and the actions of the Winter Queen are at all relatable to each other, even if they're somehow connected.

    If Sylvanas has been in league with the Jailer this entire time, she literally started a war to kill people to specifically send them to the Maw. She's the instigator of the entire war, every life lost as a result of this war is on her.

    The Winter Queen is having to cull groves in Ardenweald in an attempt to save it from dying from a situation that is almost entirely out of her hands.

    How are these two situations equivalent?
    The argument made in the Ardenweald short is that killing innocents is justified, even noble, if you do it to help save the world; their consent is not important. The specifics don't change the argument in any meaningful way. Whether it is the Winter Queen draining souls to fuel Ardenweald or Sylvanas hypothetically killing Horde and Alliance in order to get in a position where she can orchestrate a coup against the Jailer and save the Cosmos, the guiding principle is the same, everything else is just artificial framing.

    Now, I'm not saying the argument is correct. Far from it, I think it's as grey as it gets, and could just as easily be called evil. Because even if we accept the utilitarianism and the fact that the original existential threat came from an outside party, it is still presumptive and vain to decide that you are the one to implement a solution. One can easily argue that those lives could have been saved (or could have sacrificed themselves willingly) had you simply shared or deferred the burden. See how Illidan was still considered a Betrayer after the War of the Ancients even though his deception ultimately contributed to saving Azeroth. No doubt many - in and out of the world - would still call Sylvanas's actions evil and irredeemable even if they were ultimately aimed at foiling the Jailer. Nevertheless, that's the idea that the clip is trying to seed in the players' minds.

    And as much as I scoff at the writers and like to point out inconsistencies, I have to admit they're pretty clever at selling it. Visually speaking, Ardenweald is overwhelmingly framed as "good": blue, peaceful, pretty, natural and bathed in soft light, populated by kind, caring, selfless doe-like creatures like Ara'lon. The Winter Queen is elegant and beautiful, with a calm smile and a wizened voice, and this paragon of goodness who is the main character worships her, so she must be good too. If she has to make harsh choices, we are subconsciously convinced that it has to be a last resort, and that she is completely blameless of the situation.

    The most interesting part, however, is the devious, brilliant sleigh of hand in her exchange with to Ara'lon. "Your heart is pure. I will honor your choice". What does she seem to be doing here? Why, she is asking for consent. How noble and magnanimous of her to do that even in these trying times, even with the fate of Ardenweald at stake! Except she isn't really asking the right person, is she...? She is asking Ara'lon, when in fact she should be asking Ursoc. She gives the illusion that she cares about choice, when in fact the victim is completely commodified and used without having any sort of say in the matter. It's not about consent at all. What is the message the exchange actually sends? "Look, even this noble and adorable faun, who you empathize with by now and whose heart is pure, like I just said, agrees that non-consensual utilitarian sacrifice of defenseless innocents is good". *Cue uplifting music*

    Bam ! Blizzard has successfully incepted a line of reasoning that would very much suit an Illidan-esque, double agent Sylvanas. Who did they incept it to? Primarily to players who like the themes of Ardenweald, the ones who would naturally be most invested in this clip, an audience who is more than likely to have a significant overlap with Night Elf fans, due to the obvious aesthetic parallels. Hmm... a most peculiar coincidence. It's almost as if they want them to either be conditioned to sympathize with the Burning of Teldrassil if it is revealed that it was a necessary step of a counter-conspiracy ploy, or at the very least to contend with the same kind of immorality in their own camp, so to speak.

  9. #969
    Moderator Aucald's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA-US
    Posts
    32,398
    Quote Originally Posted by Coconut View Post
    The argument made in the Ardenweald short is that killing innocents is justified, even noble, if you do it to help save the world; their consent is not important. The specifics don't change the argument in any meaningful way. Whether it is the Winter Queen draining souls to fuel Ardenweald or Sylvanas hypothetically killing Horde and Alliance in order to get in a position where she can orchestrate a coup against the Jailer and save the Cosmos, the guiding principle is the same, everything else is just artificial framing.
    Justified? No, I don't think that is the argument being made - justice is framed by righteousness, but neither the sacrifice nor the tenor of the emotions surrounding their necessity are framed as righteous here. This is desperation, a solemn and somber undertaking, and everyone assembled radiates with the a sense of sorrowfulness that is easily translated from expression, posture, and general atmosphere. You can tell that no one assembled in Ara'lon's grove *wants* to do what they must do, most especially Ara'lon himself - but there was nothing for it. The Winter Queen even gives Ara'lon the choice, and says she will respect his choice - to die along with his charge when the anima runs out, or sacrifice his charge for the good of all. I think in trying to justify your impression that Sylvanas' course is at all comparable to what the Night Fae are being forced to do, you've missed the majority of tonal clues surrounding the fate of Tirna Noch.

    Quote Originally Posted by Coconut View Post
    Now, I'm not saying the argument is correct. Far from it, I think it's as grey as it gets, and could just as easily be called evil. Because even if we accept the utilitarianism and the fact that the original existential threat came from an outside party, it is still presumptive and vain to decide that you are the one to implement a solution. One can easily argue that those lives could have been saved (or could have sacrificed themselves willingly) had you simply shared or deferred the burden. See how Illidan was still considered a Betrayer after the War of the Ancients even though his deception ultimately contributed to saving Azeroth. No doubt many - in and out of the world - would still call Sylvanas's actions evil and irredeemable even if they were ultimately aimed at foiling the Jailer. Nevertheless, that's the idea that the clip is trying to seed in the players' minds.

    And as much as I scoff at the writers and like to point out inconsistencies, I have to admit they're pretty clever at selling it. Visually speaking, Ardenweald is overwhelmingly framed as "good": blue, peaceful, pretty, natural and bathed in soft light, populated by kind, caring, selfless doe-like creatures like Ara'lon. The Winter Queen is elegant and beautiful, with a calm smile and a wizened voice, and this paragon of goodness who is the main character worships her, so she must be good too. If she has to make harsh choices, we are subconsciously convinced that it has to be a last resort, and that she is completely blameless of the situation.
    The Winter Queen is essentially a goddess in her own right, an ancient power set over the land she rules to the point that she and the land are practically indivisible. It neither presumptive nor vain for her to decide on the course for a solution in Ardenweald, she *is* Ardenweald, and the process of its death just as surely spells her own death if a solution isn't found. The comparison to Illidan to Sylvanas is quite apt, assuming your characterization of Sylvanas here is correct (itself a very open question) - because while Illidan's goal was laudable, the means by which he pursued this goal were nightmarish and led the deaths and suffering of many, the worst being those innocents in Outland who didn't truly have a bearing on said goal (the protection and preservation of Azeroth). To "save" one world, Illidan essentially made another his private slave reserve and bitter fiefdom, and that's not a good thing either. One could also argue quite compellingly that it wasn't necessary, either.

    Quote Originally Posted by Coconut View Post
    The most interesting part, however, is the devious, brilliant sleigh of hand in her exchange with to Ara'lon. "Your heart is pure. I will honor your choice". What does she seem to be doing here? Why, she is asking for consent. How noble and magnanimous of her to do that even in these trying times, even with the fate of Ardenweald at stake! Except she isn't really asking the right person, is she...? She is asking Ara'lon, when in fact she should be asking Ursoc. She gives the illusion that she cares about choice, when in fact the victim is completely commodified and used without having any sort of say in the matter. It's not about consent at all. What is the message the exchange actually sends? "Look, even this noble and adorable faun, who you empathize with by now and whose heart is pure, like I just said, agrees that non-consensual utilitarian sacrifice of defenseless innocents is good". *Cue uplifting music*

    Bam ! Blizzard has successfully incepted a line of reasoning that would very much suit an Illidan-esque, double agent Sylvanas. Who did they incept it to? Primarily to players who like the themes of Ardenweald, the ones who would naturally be most invested in this clip, an audience who is more than likely to have a significant overlap with Night Elf fans, due to the obvious aesthetic parallels. Hmm... a most peculiar coincidence. It's almost as if they want them to either be conditioned to sympathize with the Burning of Teldrassil if it is revealed that it was a necessary step of a counter-conspiracy ploy, or at the very least to contend with the same kind of immorality in their own camp, so to speak.
    Your view of the writer's intent seems a bit... conspiratorial, almost? Almost as if you were trying to second-guess the plot as opposed to actually following it? I find that a kind of odd way to go about reading a particular story or narrative, as it kind of puts me manifestly above the actual storyteller, in a sense. I guess the only comparison I can think of is when a person isn't really listening to what another a person is saying except in the capacity of formulating their own counterarguments to what is being said - meaning you're not really listening to the story, you're more picking at it preparatory to fighting against it.

    Beyond that, though; I think your argument is a bit misplaced. No one is entitled to eternity, and Ursoc had already lived and died multiple times at this point. Not to mention that Ursoc is quite literally a spirit of the balance of nature and the wilds, and we don't really know to what degree he may well have consented to the process of surrendering his anima. The sense I got, and while it can't be conclusively proven without "word of god" from the developers, is that Ursoc choose his own fate - when Ara'lon touched his staff to the wildseed you get the sense that the anima isn't so much forcibly withdrawn as freely given - Ursoc choosing his own death over the death of Ardenweald so many other souls in the groves. I didn't feel as if Ursoc was made a commodity by an uncaring or subversively malicious Winter Queen, but that all present there was witness to a brave and heartfelt sacrifice, even a sense that Ursoc himself did not want Ara'lon to commit himself to an ultimately doomed endeavor, trying in vain to preserve the dying grove of Tirna Noch and himself.

    Perhaps that's what the writers and artists only want me to believe, as you put it, but I more see it as what they're trying to convey: solemnity of the sacrifice, the terrible sadness and desperation of Ardenweald's plight. The sorrow of the Winter Queen at having to forced the tenders to ensure so much pain, and the despair of Ara'lon at having to forsake the letter of his charge so that it's spirit might still be preserved. Instead of feeling the writers are trying to "incept" an idea, I more honor the idea of trying to hear the story as they seem to mean to tell it, without interposing myself into the process so to speak.
    "Here lies a toppled god.
    His fall was not a small one.
    We did but build his pedestal,
    A narrow and a tall one."

  10. #970
    You're still going at it? Lol Can't you just agree that it was good person doing a bad thing out of desperation and be done with it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Aucald View Post
    No one is entitled to eternity
    Such a worrying statement. In the context of WoW? Why do you think that? Then why should anyone be entitled to life either? Night Elves had already lived for thousands of years when they burned in Teldrassil.

  11. #971
    Moderator Aucald's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA-US
    Posts
    32,398
    Quote Originally Posted by bagina View Post
    You're still going at it? Lol Can't you just agree that it was good person doing a bad thing out of desperation and be done with it?
    Obviously not, as there's no agreement on that score.

    Quote Originally Posted by bagina View Post
    Such a worrying statement. In the context of WoW? Why do you think that? Then why should anyone be entitled to life either? Night Elves had already lived for thousands of years when they burned in Teldrassil.
    There is a vast chasm between life, which is a finite thing bookended by birth and eventual death, and true eternity - that you could confuse the two is itself somewhat worrying to me as it would be like confusing a puddle and an ocean, or the fire at the tip of a match with a supernova. When all you are concerned with is the furtherance and preservation of your own existence then simply existing is all you can ever have - no greater cause, no higher calling, no purpose and no point. That, in my view, basically underpins Sylvanas' nihilistic worldview - she'll tear down all of existence just so she can persist. A far cry from the brave Ranger-General of Silvermoon who laid down her own life as surety to protect a great idea: her people and her home.
    "Here lies a toppled god.
    His fall was not a small one.
    We did but build his pedestal,
    A narrow and a tall one."

  12. #972
    Quote Originally Posted by Coconut View Post
    [SNIP]
    I don't care enough about this to keep the discussion going.

  13. #973
    Quote Originally Posted by Aucald View Post
    There is a vast chasm between life, which is a finite thing bookended by birth and eventual death, and true eternity - that you could confuse the two is itself somewhat worrying to me as it would be like confusing a puddle and an ocean, or the fire at the tip of a match with a supernova.
    On the contrary, they make up a whole. I'm not confusing anything. They're not two separate things, they're just different stages of existence of every living being. Death is not the end of existence. It's another step. Every being that dies is reborn in Shadowlands by default. It's a natural occurence. Such soul will now exist for all eternity if not disturbed by any external force. And so its inherent goal is eternal existence. So eternity is not something the soul is granted by something, but rather it's the soul's natural state. The soul is as "entitled" to it as a living human is "entitled" to homeostasis. So if you're destroying a soul, you're disturbing the natural order.

    When all you are concerned with is the furtherance and preservation of your own existence then simply existing is all you can ever have - no greater cause, no higher calling, no purpose and no point. That, in my view, basically underpins Sylvanas' nihilistic worldview - she'll tear down all of existence just so she can persist.
    I don't see how's this part relevant to anything. If you're saying that a soul needs to have a higher goal to deserve to exist, then you're saying that 90% of the dead deserve to perish. The harsh truth is that most of the humans don't have any higher goals, most of them never find their calling. That doesn't make them any less deserving of life. A bum on the street deserves to live as much as a top heart surgeon. They don't gain the right to live through their ideals, they gain the right to live by sheer virtue of being born.
    Last edited by bagina; 2020-09-13 at 12:51 AM.

  14. #974
    Moderator Aucald's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA-US
    Posts
    32,398
    Quote Originally Posted by bagina View Post
    On the contrary, they make up a whole. I'm not confusing anything. They're not two separate things, they're just different stages of existence of every living being. Death is not the end of existence. It's another step. Every being that dies is reborn in Shadowlands by default. It's a natural occurence. Such soul will now exist for all eternity if not disturbed by any external force. And so its inherent goal is eternal existence. So eternity is not something the soul is granted by something, but rather it's the soul's natural state. The soul is as "entitled" to it as a living human is "entitled" to homeostasis. So if you're destroying a soul, you're disturbing the natural order.
    They do make a whole, yes; but that would constitute a severe parts-to-whole fallacy on your part if you don't differentiate them - a part is not its whole, after all; and a stage is not an entire sequence. Rebirth in the Shadowlands, too, is not an entitlement nor is it ultimately guaranteed - death in the Warcraft is a variable thing. You can die a true death with your soul consumed by Fel, or the Void, or contained for all time in a soulshard. You can be a trapped spirit, such as with undeath, or the incorporeal undead who litter Azeroth. Nothing is given, nothing is entitled. Homestasis is only a process, not an entitlement - it can easily be taken. As for the "natural order" of such a universe, who can really say? The Titan's set down the one true timeline that the beings within the physical universe live, and if your soul is taken and consumed by a Warlock to bind and summon a demon, with then that was your "natural" destiny, sadly enough. Fairness, too, is not an entitlement. Even the Arbiter of Souls can be denied (e.g. Arthas' fate).

    Quote Originally Posted by bagina View Post
    I don't see how's this part relevant to anything. If you're saying that a soul needs to have a higher goal to deserve to exist, then you're saying that 90% of the dead deserve to perish. The harsh truth is that most of the humans don't have any higher goals, most of them never find their calling. That doesn't make them any less deserving of life. A bum on the street deserves to live as much as a top heart surgeon. They don't gain the right to live through their ideals, they gain the right to live by sheer virtue of being born.
    You've crafted a transparently false framing, here. We're not talking about the individual "right to life," since I didn't say anything about a given life - I said no one is entitled to eternity. Eternity is an infinite life or lives, the ability to persist forever or to be reborn continuously, over and over. That's not a given, can't really be a given. A single life would be an entitlement to all beings, sure - and not all lives are destined to be fair in terms of comparison, sadly enough, but that person's life is their own to live and then to die in whatever capacity they so choose. But as I said above, a single life is not the whole, a link is not a chain, a moment in time is not eternity. Neither the bum on the street nor the top heart surgeon can claim eternity as if it were their birthright. And that's only when a concept like eternity truly exists, which experience had led me to believe only happens in fiction in any case.
    "Here lies a toppled god.
    His fall was not a small one.
    We did but build his pedestal,
    A narrow and a tall one."

  15. #975
    Quote Originally Posted by Aucald View Post
    And that's only when a concept like eternity truly exists, which experience had led me to believe only happens in fiction in any case.
    Not even a thousand mortals can have any type of experience to lead them to believe that eternity only exists in fiction. Or rather, the collective experience of a thousand mortals wouldn't amount to anything that could accurately lead them believe that eternity only exists in fiction. I know, it's a different thread But couldn't help to bite.

  16. #976
    Moderator Aucald's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA-US
    Posts
    32,398
    Quote Originally Posted by tommyhil622 View Post
    Not even a thousand mortals can have any type of experience to lead them to believe that eternity only exists in fiction. I know, it's a different thread But couldn't help to bite.
    Well then, let us say that the certainty of eternity as even a possibility is only a thing that happens in fiction, then. Beyond that we start to enter the murky grounds of real-world religion and spirituality, and that's not really a topic fit for this subforum.
    "Here lies a toppled god.
    His fall was not a small one.
    We did but build his pedestal,
    A narrow and a tall one."

  17. #977
    Quote Originally Posted by Aucald View Post

    Beyond that, though; I think your argument is a bit misplaced. No one is entitled to eternity, and Ursoc had already lived and died multiple times at this point. Not to mention that Ursoc is quite literally a spirit of the balance of nature and the wilds, and we don't really know to what degree he may well have consented to the process of surrendering his anima. The sense I got, and while it can't be conclusively proven without "word of god" from the developers, is that Ursoc choose his own fate - when Ara'lon touched his staff to the wildseed you get the sense that the anima isn't so much forcibly withdrawn as freely given - Ursoc choosing his own death over the death of Ardenweald so many other souls in the groves. I didn't feel as if Ursoc was made a commodity by an uncaring or subversively malicious Winter Queen, but that all present there was witness to a brave and heartfelt sacrifice, even a sense that Ursoc himself did not want Ara'lon to commit himself to an ultimately doomed endeavor, trying in vain to preserve the dying grove of Tirna Noch and himself.
    From my point of view, it seems like while a soul is within that pod/seed, they are in a dream like state. The Faun alludes to this. So I don't think there's any evidence that there's some sort of subconscious consent on the part of Ursoc. But imo someone like Ursoc would probably be willing to give his life for the "good of the realm" that's for sure.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Aucald View Post
    Well then, let us say that the certainty of eternity as even a possibility is only a thing that happens in fiction, then. Beyond that we start to enter the murky grounds of real-world religion and spirituality, and that's not really a topic fit for this subforum.
    That works for me.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by bagina View Post
    You're still going at it? Lol Can't you just agree that it was good person doing a bad thing out of desperation and be done with it?



    Such a worrying statement. In the context of WoW? Why do you think that? Then why should anyone be entitled to life either? Night Elves had already lived for thousands of years when they burned in Teldrassil.
    I know this wasn't directed to me but i felt compelled to answer.

    I don't view the afterlife in wow as an entitlement or something that's part of the natural order. It's comparable to a mortal life where you can live a normal life or get hit by a random chaos bolt and die. And after death, your soul can be siphoned as to become part of a soul shard or it can go to a rune blade, or maybe you get to go to shadow lands. One can never know what the fate may be. So the Winter Queen isn't disturbing the natural order anymore than any number of occurrences that can "deprive" a soul from an ideal afterlife. While i agree, what the Winter Queen is doing either directly or indirectly is morally grey at best, i have yet to see anything in WoW that points to a set of ideals that aren't morally grey. Hell if even the light is shady, what can actually be morally benign in the WoW universe.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Nelinrah View Post
    All I really got from these is all the Afterlives are really shit and we should be killing the covenants, not joining them.

    Maybe Sylvanas was right after all.
    Have you factored in that the covenants are in disarray because of what the Jailer has done and by extension Slyvanas because she's in league with him? If you really think about it, without the anima drought, half of the chaos we see wouldn't exist.
    Last edited by tommyhil622; 2020-09-13 at 02:27 AM.

  18. #978
    Epic! Bwonsamdi the Dead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Location
    De Other Side (Just kidding) Vancouver Island, BC
    Posts
    1,744
    Quote Originally Posted by Aucald View Post

    The Winter Queen is essentially a goddess in her own right, an ancient power set over the land she rules to the point that she and the land are practically indivisible. It neither presumptive nor vain for her to decide on the course for a solution in Ardenweald, she *is* Ardenweald, and the process of its death just as surely spells her own death if a solution isn't found. The comparison to Illidan to Sylvanas is quite apt, assuming your characterization of Sylvanas here is correct (itself a very open question) - because while Illidan's goal was laudable, the means by which he pursued this goal were nightmarish and led the deaths and suffering of many, the worst being those innocents in Outland who didn't truly have a bearing on said goal (the protection and preservation of Azeroth). To "save" one world, Illidan essentially made another his private slave reserve and bitter fiefdom, and that's not a good thing either. One could also argue quite compellingly that it wasn't necessary, either.
    Why dosen't she trust Bwonsamdi though? Does she see him as an 'intruder' in her realm?

    I'm a Girl by the way
    I see dead people.... Yes, kinda my ting, ya know

  19. #979
    Quote Originally Posted by Aucald View Post
    And that's only when a concept like eternity truly exists, which experience had led me to believe only happens in fiction in any case.
    Oh trust me, I knew for a fact that you think that from your previous posts. It's really obvious from the way you talk.

    Now, before I spend time writing a hugeass post, I want to make sure if we even understood each other. I replied to you because you'd used "no one is entitled to eternity" as an argument for sacrificing Ursoc, at least that's my understanding. In this context I understand "entitlement" as "natural right" and NOT as "guarantee". And this applies to my entire previous post as well. Whenver I used "entitled to" I NEVER meant it as "guaranteed". I meant it as "given as a natural right" more or less. Just wanted to make that clear.

    If you meant something else then I misunderstood your post. Now IF you did mean something else, then please tell me (concisely) what did you mean by that.


    Quote Originally Posted by tommyhil622 View Post

    I know this wasn't directed to me but i felt compelled to answer.

    I don't view the afterlife in wow as an entitlement or something that's part of the natural order. It's comparable to a mortal life where you can live a normal life or get hit by a random chaos bolt and die. And after death, your soul can be siphoned as to become part of a soul shard or it can go to a rune blade, or maybe you get to go to shadow lands. One can never know what the fate may be. So the Winter Queen isn't disturbing the natural order anymore than any number of occurrences that can "deprive" a soul from an ideal afterlife. While i agree, what the Winter Queen is doing either directly or indirectly is morally grey at best, i have yet to see anything in WoW that points to a set of ideals that aren't morally grey. Hell if even the light is shady, what can actually be morally benign in the WoW universe.
    Again, I only use "entitled" as a "(natural) right" to something. I was talking about the ideal, undisturbed state. Things you listed are not part of natural order, they are violations of such order or anomalies. NO ONE is guaranteed a long life or eternal life, I'm not denying that, and I never denied that. But it is a natural right of every living being. Of course those things will happen, of course people will get killed, mindraped, turned into an undead, get trapped in a crystal ball. But those violations are exactly that. No one tries to argue they were somehow okay just because they were allowed to happen. And similarly, a soul of the living can be trapped, consumed by other forces, used for some other purposes and not be allowed to arrive in Shadowlands, that's also a violation of a natural order. Whenever a soul arrives in Shadowlands, it is its natural right to exist.
    Last edited by bagina; 2020-09-13 at 08:28 AM.

  20. #980
    Quote Originally Posted by Aucald View Post
    The Winter Queen is essentially a goddess in her own right, an ancient power set over the land she rules to the point that she and the land are practically indivisible. It neither presumptive nor vain for her to decide on the course for a solution in Ardenweald, she *is* Ardenweald, and the process of its death just as surely spells her own death if a solution isn't found.
    If that is so, shouldn't it work the other way around, too?

    We know that the Primus is missing and Maldraxxus is in the same state it used to be.

    Not to mention that we're straight out going to kill Sire Denathrius in the first raid. Shouldn't Revendreth "die out" as well?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •