The thread is called “Sylvanas is totally not evil”. What were you expecting?
1 Like
Best case scenario: the arguments used here by the sylvanites are just used for the sake of winning the discussion, and they don’t actually believe it themselves.
3 Likes
No you.
Was it a human baby? It would have probally grown big, becoming a soldier and then start murdering trolls in their sleep, in their own city. Can’t risk that.
A true war criminal.
She said while spreading moral perspectivism of her favs.
In all seriousness. Where is that coming from? I watched all videos where the burning is shown and nowhere does she smile. She just stares.
Wrong. I clearley remember a fat Kul Tiran woman with brownish long hair holding a gun to her head. Legit happened kay?
Oh, the bait worked. Good to kniw, but I didn’t except that we discuss if it would be evil to kill baby Hitler…
1 Like
To be fair, there is a perfect comic for this.
I will ask Haiete to post it.
7 Likes
Let’s assume is a certainty. That baby Hitler is the same one that would grow to do what we know.
Would the act of killing that particular baby be still categorised as evil? Even if done to save millions of other people?
The example itself is rather absurd, but the point is that there are certain acts that when judged in context, may not be as black and white as people think.
The Watchmen movie finale for example, is an act that delves in the morally grey area, even if there are certainly firm advocates to label it as evil or good.
I don’t know exactly what sparked this derailment, but felt like pointing out the above.
1 Like
Even if we should go for Hitler, you don’t have to kill him because you have the opportunity to change his mental condition.
1 Like
A true icon taken after the example of Baine x Anduin. 
6 Likes
You know what? No, I wouldn’t kill him. I would instead try to take him under my care and turn him into a good man. This way, I get to save millions and an innocent baby.
As I’m writing this post, the idea of Garrosh comes to mind. We know that Garrosh could have been the greatest warchief in history with the proper care.
5 Likes
Ok, now let’s make something clear here.
No moral action as… complex as killing baby Hitler can be judged simply by looking at the action itself, of course not. But trying to justify it, painting it as less evil because it was done under very specific circumstances (btw, these circumstances aren’t even relevant because none of this actually happened during the War of the Thorns or whatever the f is being discussed here), now that is a very weird way of looking at it.
The only conclusion we can draw from it, is that the intention of the moral actor might differ, but that it only makes it understandable, not justifiable.
And, as Lady Daelinna points out, it indeed is not as black and white as you make it out to be, you can make different choices.
9 Likes
Just going to point out this. Even if I thought killing baby Hitler were necessary, I’d vomit soon after, because I can’t stomach killing a baby who technically did nothing wrong yet.
That is very clearly not what Sylvanas did after burning Teldrassil. She smiled, didn’t feel conflicted at all (that was Nathanos), and even forced a dying elf to watch it burn, because she is a sadist who thrives in the pain of others. So again, these examples are inappropriate.
6 Likes
https://gamepedia.cursecdn.com/wowpedia/thumb/5/5a/Sylvanas_Old_Soldier.jpg/432px-Sylvanas_Old_Soldier.jpg?version=c6155110dd30782bb3a7e072a2fee601
This is not smiling by any means.
Whatever, she doesn’t seem upset with her choices.
Also, no, there is no point in having a discussion about her actual facial expressions, I know how it will go here. Although, everything’s better than what Mooyie and Zarao were deploying as arguments.
9 Likes
Fair enough.
1 Like
Yes it is. She is very clearly not showing any remorse, stress, shock, or guilt in her face. And her lips are slightly turned upward. And given how she was smiling after she literally nuked her own home, It would only be in-character for her to smile at Teldrassil too. She is a sadist.
1 Like
I am not having this conversation with you. She is NOT smiling. You are projecting.
“SHE IS NOT SMILING!!! GOT IT???”
Your argument right now. Would it be better if I used the word “smirk” instead, little Erevien?
1 Like
It’s not weird. Categorically labelling any act, under every circumstance, in one way or another, now that’s weird. (Generally speaking here, there are certain things that aren’t as tied to perspective as others)
As far fetched or as unlikely as certain scenarios are, they might still occur.
And this circles back to the conflict itself.
During war times, most decisions rely on a heavy speculative component. Weighting outcomes, and hypothetical results for every action.
Pardoning a general, that might or might not end up ordering the deaths of a good chunk of your people, by gambling on his mercy.
Or being willing to inflict a devastating, and morally challenging, blow to demoralise the enemy and prevent further casualties.
The Red Wedding in GoT: was it better to bleed the kingdom in a prolonged war, or kill a few dozen at a wedding?
The point is, that during war times it becomes harder to categorise certain acts solely because of the act itself.
Not talking about any specific one, just speaking generally.
Given how the Red Wedding ended the war while the Burning of Teldrassil started the war, No. Find another example. Actually, you said we shouldn’t judge the act itself, but the context too. There you have it. The Red Wedding ended up doing some good, while the Burning of Teldrassil very clearly did not.
Also, the Red Wedding is infamous as an evil act, since they betrayed their guests after assuring them that no harm would come to them.
1 Like