[Spoilers] Shadowlands: Afterlives Cinematic Discussion

[CalamityHeart]

No, it’s shows her vision of the future. These are not the same. Many terrible things have been done, even if you just stick to WOW, simply because someone with power believed something would happen. That vision shows nothing more then the Queens presumption of what would happen.

The thing is, it's not just a vision of something that believably might happen. What the Winter Queen showed Ara'lon was the end result of something that was already happening. The death and destruction of Ardenweald was in-progress, and clearly visible all around them. It's not just what the Winter Queen thinks is going to happen. She's more than likely better attuned to the state and health of her own realm than literally anyone else in the Shadowlands. Ardenweald is dying and she knows it clearly.

I might also point out, she was wrong. We are riding into Shadow Lands to fix everything. Her vision is simply one in which she was unable to envision the assistance of outsiders.

I don't see your point here. What she saw was a vision of the future in which nothing was done to stop it. So of course she didn't foresee the aid of the Maw Walker. I don't understand where the fault lies with the Winter Queen here. If she'd seen the ordained future that was destined to happen with the aid of the Maw Walker, then the presumption is that steps still need to actively be taken to keep Ardenweald alive so that the good future can come to pass, which still means sacrificing slumbering souls to use their anima to slow the death of the realm.

What... What's the problem here, exactly?

[Aucald]

Incorrect, the only evil in this scenario is the deity.

That depends on whether the deity has any agency in its actions, and it's also not the thing under discussion. If you were to use that analogy, then the Winter Queen isn't evil at all - the Drought is.

[Combatbutler]

In a scenario where there is no unsullied act that could be construed as good, the lesser evil is the greater good.

No it is just the lesser of two evils and not good. Just less shitty.

- - - Updated - - -

It's a clinical, cold and pragmatic decision she has to make to save the whole of Ardenweald but it's not "Evil."

Clinical cold pragmatic decisions are usually evil, since they often decide who lives and who dies.

Again, Evil isn't the correct term to apply. Intention matters. Her intentions are not evil. Are doctors evil for advocating the removal of a limb to save the patient? Are health officials "evil" for quarantining the sick and diseased, basically forcing them to die in isolation, in order to prevent the spread of the disease and death of the larger population? The same logic applies here.

Intentions make these decisions more relatable, but do not absolve them of being evil.

Lets say a pest strain immune against antibiotics breaks out and a city is put under quarantine, a family fearing for their safety tries to break out, thus endangering potentially millions of lives. They do not stop running despite being told to do so, then by all means they should all be gunned down, this would have been a necessary decisions but an evil one.

[Katchii]

Clinical cold pragmatic decisions are usually evil, since they often decide who lives and who dies.

No, they're not. Evil is in the intent. You're labeling anything that takes away an individual's agency, evil, which is not the definition of evil. It's evil to YOU, but that doesn't make it so.

Intentions make these decisions more relatable, but do not absolve them of being evil.

Evil is in the intent. Just because someone dies, or because that person had no say in the matter, doesn't make the decision evil.

Again, just because you define it as evil, doesn't make it so.

[Aucald]

No it is just the lesser of two evils and not good. Just less shitty.

That's not really how any models of morality actually function, and "shitty" isn't an ethical or moral stance one way or the other. The situation that Ardenweald is in is shitty, I agree; but that's neither here nor there when discussing the morality of the Winter Queen's actions.

[Combatbutler]

No, they're not. Evil is in the intent. You're labeling anything that takes away an individual's agency, evil, which is not the definition of evil. It's evil to YOU, but that doesn't make it so.

Evil is doing something morally reprehensible, which killing innocents is.

Evil is in the intent. Just because someone dies, or because that person had no say in the matter, doesn't make the decision evil.

Again, just because you define it as evil, doesn't make it so.

I disagree

- - - Updated - - -

That's not really how any models of morality actually function, and "shitty" isn't an ethical or moral stance one way or the other. The situation that Ardenweald is in is shitty, I agree; but that's neither here nor there when discussing the morality of the Winter Queen's actions.

She kills thousands of innocents to sustain potentially millions of others and killing innocents is reprehensible as such I call it evil ,agree or not at this point I don't care.

[Katchii]

Evil is doing something morally reprehensible, which killing innocents is.

It very heavily depends on the context.

I agree that it's a terrible decision to have to make, but if it saves more lives and in some situations prevents the deaths of even more innocents it's not morally reprehensible. In fact, it would be reprehensible to do nothing, and therefore allow even more innocents to die.

I disagree

Which is fine, but context, intent and the overall outcome absolutely matter. You're completely disregarding those things.

[bagina]

No it is just the lesser of two evils and not good. Just less shitty.

- - - Updated - - -



Clinical cold pragmatic decisions are usually evil, since they often decide who lives and who dies.



Intentions make these decisions more relatable, but do not absolve them of being evil.

Lets say a pest strain immune against antibiotics breaks out and a city is put under quarantine, a family fearing for their safety tries to break out, thus endangering potentially millions of lives and they do not stop running despite being told to do so, then by all means they should be gunned down, this would have been a necessary decisions but an evil one.

When everything else fails, a good rule of thumb is the mindset of the person. If the person in question recognizes an act as evil (according to their own conscience) but commits it anyway then it's simple. Of course, sometimes good people do evil things against their conscience, I'm not denying that. The Winter Queen obviously knew it was a bad act from her reactions but she did what she deemed necessary. So, necessary evil.

That depends on whether the deity has any agency in its actions, and it's also not the thing under discussion. If you were to use that analogy, then the Winter Queen isn't evil at all - the Drought is.

Well some things need to be assumed for the sake of discussion otherwise we'll be just walking in circles. xd

[Combatbutler]

Which is fine, but context, intent and the overall outcome absolutely matter. You're completely disregarding those things.

I don't, I just reached a different conclussion your bar for evil is just set higher than mine, that is all there is to it.

[david0925]

Evil is doing something morally reprehensible, which killing innocents is.



I disagree

- - - Updated - - -



She kills thousands of innocents to sustain potentially millions of others and killing innocents is reprehensible as such I call it evil ,agree or not at this point I don't care.

what is your stance on the railroad dilemma, and is there an action that's not evil in this case. This is not a gotcha question, just wondering where you stand.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

[Combatbutler]

what is your stance on the railroad dilemma, and is there an action that's not evil in this case. This is not a gotcha question, just wondering where you stand.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

Kill one person.

[Coconut]

The Wild Hunt itself is not the only thing we should consider when debating the Winter Queen's guilt.

We also have to wonder to what degree her passivity (and that of the other Eternal Ones) allowed the Jailer to go through with his plans. They are the keepers of the Shadowlands and the ones who imprisoned him, after all. They are responsible for the solution they used to contain him.

Other aspects are her reaction speed at the start of the drought and her communication with her followers. Ara'lon was not aware of the Wild Hunt in spite of the fact that the drought had gone one for several seasons. He was left pretty much to fend for himself, until the Winter Queen's posse came to take his stuff. Nor did he have a say in the first pods they claimed while he was away (Urson was merely the last one left).

Then, there is the fact that she failed to ask another Covenant for help for the longest time. From what I understand, at the end of the zone campaign she sends the PC to Revendreth (sure, Denathrius is in league with the Jailer, but she didn't know that). We also don't know whether or not she has any extra power of her own that she could sacrifice for Ardenweald. I mean, is it really an impossible choice, or is it just bad management...?

Finally - and again I might have a faulty understanding of what transpires in the quest line - couldn't she give an option to the sacrificed Wild Gods to remain bound to Ardenweald and fight for it one last time instead of simply being consumed? Of course, the flip of that argument could be that the Wild God souls are not owed resurrection. That seems more like a privilege than a right, but we don't know how the practice came to be (now that I think about it, Ardenweald could exercise HUGE political influence over the tribal races on mortal worlds by choosing which of their gods to revive faster and which ones to cull altogether... another element that makes them kind of creepy, although, like everything else, it all depends on whether or not the writers are aware of the implications).

[Aucald]

Well some things need to be assumed for the sake of discussion otherwise we'll be just walking in circles. xd

Granted, but *which* things are actually assumed in any given scenario is an important factor is determining ultimate outcomes.

[Katchii]

Kill one person.

By your own definition that is evil..... because the person is an innocent and didn't get any say in the matter.

How is it not evil in this Trolley problem case, but evil in the Ardenweald case?

[Combatbutler]

By your own definition that is evil..... because the person is an innocent and didn't get any say in the matter.

How is it not evil in this Trolley problem case, but evil in the Ardenweald case?

Yes it is evil and I would be evil for doing it.

[Katchii]

Yes it is evil and I would be evil for doing it.

Well, OK then...

Moving on.

[Combatbutler]

Well, OK then...

Moving on.

I don't know what you expected, me to say it wouldn't be evil? Why would I say that because it would affect myself, what kind of flimsy worldview would that be?

[Katchii]

I don't know what you expected, me to say it wouldn't be evil? Why would I say that because it would affect myself, what kind of flimsy worldview would that be?

The question was specifically which choice is NOT evil, and you made a choice. Your initial response didn't indicate you thought the choice was still evil. So was just checking.

Am glad you're consistent. Some people aren't. /shrug.

Moving on because you and I disagree, as you said, so there's no point on continuing the discussion. That's all.

[Houle]

The Wild Hunt itself is not the only thing we should consider when debating the Winter Queen's guilt.

We also have to wonder to what degree her passivity (and that of the other Eternal Ones) allowed the Jailer to go through with his plans. They are the keepers of the Shadowlands and the ones who imprisoned him, after all. They are responsible for the solution they used to contain him.

Other aspects are her reaction speed at the start of the drought and her communication with her followers. Ara'lon was not aware of the Wild Hunt in spite of the fact that the drought had gone one for several seasons. He was left pretty much to fend for himself, until the Winter Queen's posse came to take his stuff. Nor did he have a say in the first pods they claimed while he was away (Urson was merely the last one left).

Then, there is the fact that she failed to ask another Covenant for help for the longest time. From what I understand, at the end of the zone campaign she sends the PC to Revendreth (sure, Denathrius is in league with the Jailer, but she didn't know that). We also don't know whether or not she has any extra power of her own that she could sacrifice for Ardenweald. I mean, is it really an impossible choice, or is it just bad management...?

Finally - and again I might have a faulty understanding of what transpires in the quest line - couldn't she give an option to the sacrificed Wild Gods to remain bound to Ardenweald and fight for it one last time instead of simply being consumed? Of course, the flip of that argument could be that the Wild God souls are not owed resurrection. That seems more like a privilege than a right, but we don't know how the practice came to be (now that I think about it, Ardenweald could exercise HUGE political influence over the tribal races on mortal worlds by choosing which of their gods to revive faster and which ones to cull altogether... another element that makes them kind of creepy, although, like everything else, it all depends on whether or not the writers are aware of the implications).

all of this is prety much true.
from what we've seen, the eternal ones stopped giving a real fck about the jailer once they imprisoned him. no way to guard what hes doing in there, in an ENTIRE REALM FILLING WITH SOULS, JUST FOR HIMSELF. its downright dumb of them, and makes them all at least partially guilty
also, the fact that she sends us at the end of the qusting to go to revendreht and ask denathrius for anima. she didnt do that sooner, she just decided to sacrifice countless souls first.
granted, its all for the sake of having drama and a plot, but that doesnt change anything in-lore

[Coconut]

It very heavily depends on the context.

I agree that it's a terrible decision to have to make, but if it saves more lives and in some situations prevents the deaths of even more innocents it's not morally reprehensible. In fact, it would be reprehensible to do nothing, and therefore allow even more innocents to die.

Let me put it this way. You are the director of a hospital and you have multiple patients in need of various transplants. Assuming you could save several of them with organs from one other patient who entrusted their life to you for an unrelated reason, would it be morally acceptable to kill that patient in their sleep and scavenge them for parts?