PSA: Genocide is wrong

Story Forum
08/11/2018 11:23 AMPosted by Shadowbreakr
08/11/2018 11:15 AMPosted by Myrothan
...

How many ogre hovels have you cleared, bud? Or how about the Murlocs, or the Furblongs? !@#$ outta here with this false high horse.


You might have a point if this post was from an RP standpoint but since it's not you don't. Killing innocent Murlocs is morally wrong just like killing the night elves would be.


So killing non innocent people is okay? Interesting morals you have their body.
You do understand it's a bit different when you're talking about nameless NPCs that died for Big Drama than when you're talking about the genocide of living, breathing people, right?

Especially when the game fails so badly in it's execution that what's supposed to be a tragic event ends up feeling like a ridiculously stupid plot device. There's pretty much no emotional effect at all there.
08/11/2018 11:28 AMPosted by Neutralwalu
You do understand it's a bit different when you're talking about nameless NPCs that died for Big Drama than when you're talking about the genocide of living, breathing people, right?

Especially when the game fails so badly in it's execution that what's supposed to be a tragic event ends up feeling like a ridiculously stupid plot device. There's pretty much no emotional effect at all there.


Yes of course there's a difference but the justification people use are exactly the same as RL events. That is what I am taking issue with not anything in game

08/11/2018 11:26 AMPosted by Dittrazkalok
08/11/2018 11:23 AMPosted by Shadowbreakr
...

You might have a point if this post was from an RP standpoint but since it's not you don't. Killing innocent Murlocs is morally wrong just like killing the night elves would be.


So killing non innocent people is okay? Interesting morals you have their body.


Of course? Unless you think all killing is wrong in every scenario you probably believe the same. If the murlocs attack a town and my character kills those murlocs it isn't in any way morally wrong.
08/11/2018 11:35 AMPosted by Shadowbreakr
Of course? Unless you think all killing is wrong in every scenario you probably believe the same. If the murlocs attack a town and my character kills those murlocs it isn't in any way morally wrong.


But it would be morally wrong to go then go to their village and stamp the rest of them out, which we routinely do in game. Also you enter in the problems of what does it mean to be innocent, an who decides this.

Killing in self-defense is morally okay only when you absolutely need to. Killing non-innocent people when you have the means to detain is still morally wrong.
08/11/2018 11:23 AMPosted by Shadowbreakr
You might have a point if this post was from an RP standpoint but since it's not you don't. Killing innocent Murlocs is morally wrong just like killing the night elves would be.


The difference is that Night Elves don't reproduce as quickly. Not to justify the brutalization of Murlocs, Quillboar and Harpies. Those creatures are shown to reproduce at an accelerated rate. Similar to Goblins. The only reason they don't overwhelm the playable races is because they're periodically culled. Is that fair? Of course not, but it does explain the cullings especially when we also factor their aggressive nature and unwillingness to negotiate or even trade. Often times the Centaur or Gnolls they're simply too "barbaric" or "unwilling" to sit at the table.

Kal'dorei are unable to reproduce quickly. They are capable of having treaties and even gave up Azshara their ancestral capital lands to the Goblins and the Horde. That's the difference. The Night Elves sat with the Horde in the past and traded and even gave up land. The Horde still committed genocide in spite the history and the differences. Saying, "It's equivalent to wiping out ogres." Isn't fair. Anyways that's my input.
08/11/2018 11:37 AMPosted by Willfred
Kal'dorei are unable to reproduce quickly.


Can I get some sauce on their inability? I thought it was just a cultural thing for the elves.
08/11/2018 11:37 AMPosted by Dittrazkalok
08/11/2018 11:35 AMPosted by Shadowbreakr
Of course? Unless you think all killing is wrong in every scenario you probably believe the same. If the murlocs attack a town and my character kills those murlocs it isn't in any way morally wrong.


But it would be morally wrong to go then go to their village and stamp the rest of them out, which we routinely do in game.


I mean in game what we usually do is go in and kill some of their soldiers and their leader things which are generally considered morally fine especially if we do it in response to an attack. Now if it's unprovoked that would be morally wrong and it would become genocide if we went out of our way to kill as many murlocs as possible. However most quests that I remember mostly just have us go in beat down the leader and some soldiers so that they aren't a threat and leave.
08/11/2018 10:35 AMPosted by Shadowbreakr
I didn't realize this would have to be stated but I guess it does. Genocide is not a justified action. Genocide is "the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation". The writers have explicitly used this word to describe the burning of Teldrassil. The destruction of the night elven people is a morally heinous action. It's stated that the night elven people are unlikely to ever recover.

I've seen many people try and defend Sylvanas's actions through various ways. Whether it be by claiming that "it's just a part of war" or "not every night elf died so it isn't genocide" or even worse "well they had plenty of time to evacuate so it's the night elves fault for staying". These claims are wrong and many of the defenses of Sylvanas used are the same used to justify actual atrocities IRL.

I realize and hope that many of these people are just trolling or RPing but for those who aren't it's a problem. I never thought saying genocide is bad and not justifiable would be a contentious topic even in a fantasy setting like WoW but yet here we are.


I agree, genocide is wrong. It's wrong when the Horde does it. It's also wrong when the Alliance does it. This goes for its close cousin "ethnic cleansing" as well Unfortunately, you can't ever get an Alliance poster to cop to it being wrong when the Alliance does it. They think it's justified so long as the characters it's being done to are "baddies" from their chosen tribe's perspective.

<span class="truncated">...</span>

How many ogre hovels have you cleared, bud? Or how about the Murlocs, or the Furblongs? !@#$ outta here with this false high horse.


You might have a point if this post was from an RP standpoint but since it's not you don't. Killing innocent Murlocs is morally wrong just like killing the night elves would be.


Objection! Point of order! Genocide is still genocide even if you consider a race "guilty" rather than innocent. It's also still genocide if they were the initial aggressor, have green skin, engage in cannibalism, economically exploited you, raised your dead relatives as zombies, or just object to you digging up their graveyard in search of Titan facilities. It's even wrong if they engaged in genocide against you first. It is telling that within an hour of making your OP saying "Genocide is not a justified action," you were yourself trying to justify it.
There're a few situations where genocide could be justified. I.e. Killing demons that are innately evil, destructive, and incapable of peace.

But burning Teldrassil was not justified. It simply killed a lot of people and ruined the Horde's advantage in the war.
08/11/2018 11:44 AMPosted by Shadowbreakr
I mean in game what we usually do is go in and kill some of their soldiers and their leader things which are generally considered morally fine especially if we do it in response to an attack.


I mean no it's not. If we stopped the attack, and than go attack with the intent to kill, this would be considered morally wrong.
08/11/2018 11:57 AMPosted by Dittrazkalok
08/11/2018 11:44 AMPosted by Shadowbreakr
I mean in game what we usually do is go in and kill some of their soldiers and their leader things which are generally considered morally fine especially if we do it in response to an attack.


I mean no it's not. If we stopped the attack, and than go attack with the intent to kill, this would be considered morally wrong.


Are all wars morally wrong then to you? Because that is needless to say an incredibly rare viewpoint.
08/11/2018 11:41 AMPosted by Myrothan
Can I get some sauce on their inability? I thought it was just a cultural thing for the elves.


Having been previously immortal and having lived millennia where the male druids slept in the dream and the women took the position as sentinels over their territories. It became common for Night Elves to reproduce rarely. This was compounded when they lost their immortality. The Kal'dorei even started to feel their age for the first time. It's why we don't see Kal'dorei children models in game. It was a rarity for this brand of elf to reproduce let alone in large numbers. So again, the genocide of the Night Elves would be cruel and unusual even by Warcraft standards. Every Kal'dorei killed is a biological record spanning millennia each death a myriad possibility. Not easily recoverable or reproducible. Hence, the tragedy of Darnassus being unequaled.

They may never recover because they would have to dramatically change who and what they are as a people and reproduce in a fashion unknown to them for several millennia. Maybe in time, but not anytime soon and very likely so far into the future as to be unlikely to be seen in game.
08/11/2018 12:09 PMPosted by Willfred
Having been previously immortal and having lived millennia where the male druids slept in the dream and the women took the position as sentinels over their territories. It became common for Night Elves to reproduce rarely


So it is cultural, just like the belfs. I just wanted to clear that up out of curiosity really.
08/11/2018 12:09 PMPosted by Willfred
08/11/2018 11:41 AMPosted by Myrothan
Can I get some sauce on their inability? I thought it was just a cultural thing for the elves.


Having been previously immortal and having lived millennia where the male druids slept in the dream and the women took the position as sentinels over their territories. It became common for Night Elves to reproduce rarely. This was compounded when they lost their immortality. The Kal'dorei even started to feel their age for the first time. It's why we don't see Kal'dorei children models in game. It was a rarity for this brand of elf to reproduce let alone in large numbers. So again, the genocide of the Night Elves would be cruel and unusual even by Warcraft standards. Every Kal'dorei killed is a biological record spanning millennia each death a myriad possibility. Not easily recoverable or reproducible. Hence, the tragedy of Darnassus being unequaled.

They may never recover because they would have to dramatically change who and what they are as a people and reproduce in a fashion unknown to them for several millennia. Maybe in time, but not anytime soon and very likely so far into the future as to be unlikely to be seen in game.


While this is all true I think what they wanted was a reason biologically why the night elves couldn't reproduce. We already know the culture is such that children are rare but if the night elves are physically incapable of having children except very rarely they're truly screwed.
08/11/2018 12:03 PMPosted by Shadowbreakr
<span class="truncated">...</span>

I mean no it's not. If we stopped the attack, and than go attack with the intent to kill, this would be considered morally wrong.


Are all wars morally wrong then to you? Because that is needless to say an incredibly rare viewpoint.


In a real life, you have he defensive war, e.g. you're attacked You can fight back and kill. But if you're the defender and you won, to then go into the attackers land with the intent to kill is morally wrong.

Any attacking nation would be considered morally wrong.
08/11/2018 12:41 PMPosted by Dittrazkalok
08/11/2018 12:03 PMPosted by Shadowbreakr
...

Are all wars morally wrong then to you? Because that is needless to say an incredibly rare viewpoint.


In a real life, you have he defensive war, e.g. you're attacked You can fight back and kill. But if you're the defender and you won, to then go into the attackers land with the intent to kill is morally wrong.


Under that viewpoint WWII the war against al queda and most any war that did not take place solely on the defenders soil is morally wrong. That is needless to say an unrealistic viewpoint to hold and one which would result in agressive countries dominating those who merely defend. It's admirable to not want war but war is sometimes necessary to protect a nation.
I see ppl all the time killing boars to finally get the Sword of a Thousand Truths to drop...this "genocide" must stahp!
Burning of Terdrissal is not a genocide anymore than the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagaski were genocide of the Japanese people...stop being overly dramatic...
08/11/2018 10:35 AMPosted by Shadowbreakr
I realize and hope that many of these people are just trolling or RPing but


RPing in the Story forums should be a bannable offense.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum