Blizz Officially Says Horde Is Evil. Or Not.

Story Forum
Prev 1 4 5 6 8 Next
04/16/2018 12:23 PMPosted by Roderiick
But Gilneas was ALL you...
Gilneas was a Garrosh led invasion and objective. How far back does Garrosh sin absolution for the Horde go?
04/16/2018 12:38 PMPosted by Threeslotbag
04/16/2018 12:23 PMPosted by Roderiick
But Gilneas was ALL you...
Gilneas was a Garrosh led invasion and objective. How far back does Garrosh sin absolution for the Horde go?


Chronicles Volume 3 clearly established Sylvanas would attack Gilneas, with or without Garrosh's involvement.
04/16/2018 12:41 PMPosted by Roderiick
Chronicles Volume 3 clearly established Sylvanas would attack Gilneas, with or without Garrosh's involvement.
That's a pretty bold retcon if it does.

Since Garrosh invaded Gilneas while Sylvanas was busy committing suicide in Northrend and had no plans to attack it whatsoever. Then she had a vision that she needed the Forsaken, and Garrosh was going to kill them all in his Gilneas invasion. Then she took over from Garrosh halfway into the war and kinda half-assed it until she was able to make a temporary peace treaty with some dogmen.
04/16/2018 12:38 PMPosted by Threeslotbag
Gilneas was a Garrosh led invasion and objective. How far back does Garrosh sin absolution for the Horde go?

Didn't they blame Garrosh for Alexstrasza's enslavement during Warcrimes? That would make the sin absolution stretch back at least to the second war.
04/16/2018 12:41 PMPosted by Roderiick
Chronicles Volume 3 clearly established Sylvanas would attack Gilneas, with or without Garrosh's involvement.


Not quite. Chronicles doesn't say what Sylvanas would or wouldn't do.

The only mention is that she had wanted Gilneas for some time. That's it. Nothing else, as far as I am aware. Everything else is the same thing.

It was still Garrosh who started the conflict and decided Gilneas would be invaded. And Sylvanas still had to convince him to hand her control of the invasion.

The fact that she had wanted Gilneas is not proof that she was going to invade.
04/16/2018 12:51 PMPosted by Éamon
04/16/2018 12:38 PMPosted by Threeslotbag
Gilneas was a Garrosh led invasion and objective. How far back does Garrosh sin absolution for the Horde go?

Didn't they blame Garrosh for Alexstrasza's enslavement during Warcrimes? That would make the sin absolution stretch back at least to the second war.
And there was that time that Garrosh corrupted the Titan Sargeras.
04/16/2018 12:41 PMPosted by Roderiick
Chronicles Volume 3 clearly established Sylvanas would attack Gilneas, with or without Garrosh's involvement.


No it didn't? It was still Garrosh's war and done on his orders, the only thing it added was "Sylvanas also wanted to bring the kingdom under her domain so she convinced him to let her take over" which is just a reference to the ending of EoN. There is no evidence that she would've invaded if Garrosh didn't order it.
04/16/2018 12:23 PMPosted by Roderiick

As well as you kinda made it your problem after killing Garithos, who despite being the Twin Brother of Garrosh, was gonna let them walk away.


"Let them walk away"...from their homes, that they died fighting for?

Tempting offer! Is it really surprising that they chose option B: "Kill this jerk and keep our lands"?
04/16/2018 12:48 PMPosted by Threeslotbag
That's a pretty bold retcon if it does.
I don't have the book. But from what people say, it says something like, 'Garrosh ordered it, but she wanted to do it for a while anyway.' I'm not sure it says she would have done it anyway, just that she wanted to.
04/16/2018 12:51 PMPosted by Éamon
Didn't they blame Garrosh for Alexstrasza's enslavement during Warcrimes?
I think she was just a witness on Orcish history, not an indication that Garrosh was responsible. On that note, she actually said she'd forgive her captors if they asked for it.
04/16/2018 12:56 PMPosted by Carmageddon
04/16/2018 12:23 PMPosted by Roderiick

As well as you kinda made it your problem after killing Garithos, who despite being the Twin Brother of Garrosh, was gonna let them walk away.


"Let them walk away"...from their homes, that they died fighting for?

Tempting offer! Is it really surprising that they chose option B: "Kill this jerk and keep our lands"?


Firstly, I was probably mistaken to the extremes Sylvanas would go. I know it stated she wanted it, though to how fair lengths she'd want to make it reality I'm uncertain.

As for homes? Garithos and his People had just as much right as the Forsaken did. They were living Lordaeron people fighting for the capital. The deal they made was the Forsaken would depart AFTER the capital was taken, and Sylvanas still kileld him. But hey, mass slaughter of Garithos' men is so ok.
04/16/2018 12:41 PMPosted by Roderiick
Chronicles Volume 3 clearly established Sylvanas would attack Gilneas, with or without Garrosh's involvement.


Woah, this changes everything... what an interesting way for Blizzard to advance the story...

04/16/2018 12:55 PMPosted by Hackbrew
Not quite. Chronicles doesn't say what Sylvanas would or wouldn't do.


No wait... never mind.

04/16/2018 01:36 PMPosted by Roderiick
As for homes? Garithos and his People had just as much right as the Forsaken did.


Since Sylvanas was not demanding they leave, this could only be less relevant if you had managed to talk about Stormwind. And even then, it would only be marginally less relevant.

This isn't a topic about competing claims or legitimacy. It's a topic about the morality of killing someone who stands between you and the life you wish to live in the home that you've known for your entire life.
04/16/2018 01:36 PMPosted by Roderiick
Garithos and his People had just as much right as the Forsaken did. They were living Lordaeron people fighting for the capital. The deal they made was the Forsaken would depart AFTER the capital was taken, and Sylvanas still kileld him. But hey, mass slaughter of Garithos' men is so ok.
Garithos wasn't a person in WC3, he was specifically created to be hated by, betray, and gotten revenge on by The Player. He had no character traits other than racism and backstabbing The Player. Then The Player killed him in revenge. And it was sweet.
04/16/2018 01:36 PMPosted by Roderiick
04/16/2018 12:56 PMPosted by Carmageddon
...

"Let them walk away"...from their homes, that they died fighting for?

Tempting offer! Is it really surprising that they chose option B: "Kill this jerk and keep our lands"?


Firstly, I was probably mistaken to the extremes Sylvanas would go. I know it stated she wanted it, though to how fair lengths she'd want to make it reality I'm uncertain.

As for homes? Garithos and his People had just as much right as the Forsaken did. They were living Lordaeron people fighting for the capital. The deal they made was the Forsaken would depart AFTER the capital was taken, and Sylvanas still kileld him. But hey, mass slaughter of Garithos' men is so ok.


My point is that Garithos should have known the Forsaken would never hold to that deal any more than he would agree to give up Lordaeron to them.

I'm not arguing that the Forsaken are nice. Quite the contrary. I am arguing that it was unreasonable to think that the zombies were ever going to give up their homeland. That situation was always going to come down to violence. Garithos badly misread the situation. Which is in character, because as Threeslot points out, he was essentially written to be a narrow-minded jerk.

Had he been less of a jerk, he might have actually been able to ask himself whether expecting the Forsaken to abandon their homeland was reasonable. He then would have been more properly suspicious of Sylvanas for agreeing to something that *he* would never have agreed to.
04/16/2018 11:56 AMPosted by Ronstin
I think it's fine to prevent them from continuing to do so and to try and rehabilitate them so that they can be with regular society without trying to inflict pain or damage on others I think a penal system focused on punishment instead perpetuates such cycles of action.
Fair enough. I would largely agree. By punishment, I mainly meant, we can enact measures against someone that would normally be unacceptable on others. Like imprisonment.
Methods to prevent and rehabilitate might range from moral to immoral. Immoral actions might be fine and acceptable if they are effective and themselves minimize harm, to those they're inflicted on and on the rest of society. Morality is not the be-all end-all. Effectiveness is, but I think effectiveness can be tempered by morality. As such, it is critically important that if and when immorality is called for, we don't lose sight of that fact that it remains immoral.
What do you mean by fine/acceptable in this context?
Especially in regards to your last sentence, I always feel like I don't see eye to eye with other people on this. If something is called for, if that's the correct thing to do in that instance, then I wouldn't consider it immoral. Unless I'm just not following.


You wouldn't call something immoral if it's called for? So you go for straight pragmatism and functionalism then. Not much morality there at all. But I don't think you were trying to claim that.

What MAKES something called for, then? This is going to get way murkier and convoluted than I'm interested in getting into. I'm not going to sit here and try and built a list or create a moral framework out of whole cloth.

So let's pick one example. Killing. Killing people is wrong, correct? "Do no harm" being a common moral and ethic dictum. Murder is evil, we all agree. Is all killing murder? Well murder is defined as unlawful killing, so no. But if you kill someone you're still definitely going against the "do no harm" idea. What is it about something being "lawful" that makes this no longer apply? Authority can be bad and do bad things themselves, after all, so why should "well someone with more power said to do it" flip a switch from immoral to moral? Me, I'm willing to call executions and other examples of "legitimate" killing immoral, but potentially acceptable anyway, as the most effective means of accomplishing something without being too immoral. But we can't just go and call it the moral decision to make because even if it's the correct or necessary decision, we're still inflicting harm, grievous harm, and we need to be mindful of that. Calling it moral would be inviting complacency about doing harm like that, at the very minimum.
Garithos and Sylvanas make a deal. He helps her kill a dreadlord, she helps him get the capital city back.

He fulfills his part of the deal and then tells Sylvanas to leave the city. Note: not "their lands" only "THE CITY".

Sylvanas instead has him cannibalized by ghouls.

Sylvanas' first interaction with the living involves her backstabbing someone willing to work with them.

And this is some how Garithos' fault?

The WoW forums really boggle the brains.
04/16/2018 03:58 PMPosted by Erinesong
Garithos and Sylvanas make a deal. He helps her kill a dreadlord, she helps him get the capital city back.

He fulfills his part of the deal and then tells Sylvanas to leave the city. Note: not "their lands" only "THE CITY".

Sylvanas instead has him cannibalized by ghouls.

Sylvanas' first interaction with the living involves her backstabbing someone willing to work with them.


Third interaction. First she rescued him, 2nd she worked alongside with him, third she backstabbed him. She was willing to work with him so long as it coincided with her goals and he used the exact same metric, he was willing to work with her so long as it coincided with his goals. Once they both achieved the goal, neither was willing to work with each other anymore. He was saying "I'll kill you if I see you again" and she said "why wait?"
He was saying "I'll kill you if I see you again" and she said "why wait."


Total head cannon.

It's funny, Undead apologist constantly whine about how none of the humans would be willing to trust or work with them. But even Garithos, who is bandied about as an example of "Extreme Alliance Evil" by these forums is perfectly willing to trust and work with them even when his advisers said he shouldn't. But you know, Garithos kept his word, Sylvanas didn't.
04/16/2018 04:27 PMPosted by Erinesong
He was saying "I'll kill you if I see you again" and she said "why wait."


Total head cannon.


No it's not. I went and double checked the material via WoWpedia before I posted. The line is right there.

IconSmall Garithos.gif Grand Marshal Garithos: There, your business is done. Now, I want you wretched animals out of my city before I--
IconSmall Sylvanas.gif Sylvanas Windrunner: Kill him, too.


Threat to attack them, interrupted by Sylvanas beating him to the punch. Are you going to pretend that he was saying "before I. . . throw a tea party"? Or maybe "before I. . . chew the scenery some more"?
04/16/2018 04:34 PMPosted by Ronstin
"before I. . . chew the scenery some more"?

Given our knowledge of Alliance negotiating tactics following SoO, you should admit that this one is in fact a possibility.
<span class="truncated">...</span>

Total head cannon.


No it's not. I went and double checked the material via WoWpedia before I posted. The line is right there.

IconSmall Garithos.gif Grand Marshal Garithos: There, your business is done. Now, I want you wretched animals out of my city before I--
IconSmall Sylvanas.gif Sylvanas Windrunner: Kill him, too.


Threat to attack them, interrupted by Sylvanas beating him to the punch. Are you going to pretend that he was saying "before I. . . throw a tea party"? Or maybe "before I. . . chew the scenery some more"?


You do of course realize that "I will kill you if I ever see you again" and "I will kill you if you don't honor your side of the deal" carry two VASTLY different implications and are completely different statements right?

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum