Sylvanas is totally not evil

Lore Story
221

Not really, using absurd and impossible examples doesn’t justify anything. I mean, you can toss up ridiculous scenario’s and draw any conclusion from it if you want to, but that doesn’t make your fascist argument any more truthful.

Give me a call next time when you encounter baby Hitler, or baby Mass Murder #2.

You see, here is another of those examples, funnily enough also as unnuanced as it can be. I mean, sure, you can only take the Lannister’s wishes into account, or the stability of the Seven Kingdoms (which turned out not to be that stable after the Red Wedding at all, no?), but you should also take into account that the Kingdoms were ruled by an illegitimate king, and that the King in the North had quite some support from the houses in The North. In what way is anyone justified to finish this war by purging the key opponents to the throne, while you have no way to justify your own cause?

You see, that’s the problem of this arguments based on examples. You just take the context you might want or prefer and you go with them. Meanwhile, you are ignoring the action itself, the intention of the moral actor and the consequences.

10 Likes
222

Please leave babies alone. I know they give headaches by constantly crying in the morning, or changing their diapers, but they’re still treasures.

5 Likes
223

Zarao, you have a twisted view of what a “morally grey act” is. Morally grey acts are still evil things. Just look at the Red Wedding, the best example of a morally grey act. That doesn’t mean it’s not evil. It’s still evil, but it’s evil done for valid reasons, it’s justified evil, which is why it’s morally grey. It doesn’t mean that it’s not really evil and so Walder Frey did nothing wrong when he literally butchered his guests after promising them safety. No. It was still evil. In season 7 you have Tarly, a horrible racist dude, remind Jaime of the evil and treacherous act that his father supported.

I also find your logic hypocritical. It’s stupid to classify every single act as either “good” or “evil”… and yet it’s supposedly fair to use a third label, “morally grey”.

4 Likes
224

An example where killing X translates into saving copious amounts of Y, isn’t absurd nor impossible.

Regardless of what exactly X is (a baby, a pregnant woman, an old man, a particular civilian, or whatever case you think is horrible enough).

The baby example was but the most radical and exaggerated case one could think of. A way to show that there are times when a certain act can’t be categorically labelled in either way.

Point remains, that in war times it’s rather hard to label categorically any action. Not impossible, but rather hard.

Whats a fascist argument?

Assuming you are to label the whole Lannister cause as evil, instead of taking it as another point of view in a war that had several segments fighting over their interests, that might be the case.

Now, if you aren’t as biased or skewed as to take a side in said conflict, you see a side taking measures (for egotistic reasons), that tried to halt the war that meant death for thousands of soldiers, by killing but a few selected targets.

Is that reasoning evil per se? Even if it means killing them while unarmed and unsuspecting?

Isn’t that the reasoning the Alliance had for example when they attacked Zuldazar and tried to draw the military out into Nazmir forehand? That was evil too?

Morally gray, refers to situations where you can’t really pinpoint whether an act can be labelled as moral or not. Hence the term halfway between black and white.

By definition, morally gray refers to a situation that mixes both good and evil aspects. It’s not evil entirely, nor completely good, but a mixture that often shifts depending on perspective (usually).

1 Like
225

Oh ok, so it’s not fine to label an act as good or evil, but it’s fine to labet it as “stage between good and evil”. Thanks for the confirmation of your hypocrisy, and for the confirmation that you think killing a baby can be anything but an evil act.

Also, funnily enough, the first definition I found of “Morally grey” on the internet is this one: "An unfortunate meme among the World of Warcraft community involving the Horde’s warchief, Sylvanas Windrunner, doing incredibly evil things while the game’s creators, Blizzard Entertainment, defend her actions as being “morally gray”.

According to the definition of morally grey, then Sylvanas’ acts are indeed evil (not that you needed a definition to know that, dummy).

226

Regarding certain acts? Yes. Not all, but most, depend on a series of factors that go beyond the act itself.
Namely, the consequences it has.

Never said that.
And if I took said example with any more seriousness than I had, i would’ve entered the spiky grounds of euthanasia and abortion.
But won’t go there.

The point is, that there are enough circumstances and elements at play regarding most acts, that debating or judging their morality often becomes but a heated debate.
And seldom invite to an unanimous agreement regarding how it can be categorised regardless of its circumstance.

That’s the meme it mockingly is referred as with increased frequency.
A way of pointing the fact that it’s supposed existence in the game…lacks precisely that which it refers to (specially regarding Sylvanas and the Horde).

227

Do you know how could justify everything? What is if I kill a ancestor of a unborn evil? Does it justify that I killed him? Zarao please help!

2 Likes
228

Yes, and since Sylvanas had no good reasons to burn Teldrassil, her act is evil as she is, especially since she is a sadist who tortured that dying elf. Easy.

1 Like
229

Its ok Stea, it is ok, I am here! The definition is simple, anything done by Sylvanas is justified, even if it is not, anything done by someone else is not justified, even if it is!

3 Likes
230

As a matter of fact, “morally grey” is usually referred to people, not actions. The Culling of Stratholme was an evil act. Arthas, when he did that, was morally grey, because he had a very valid reason to do the things he did. Sylvanas however is evil, and her act is evil, because she had no valid reason to do that, and we know her reasons so, No, a random asspull won’t suddenly redeem her. We factually know she did not do that for her “5000 iq Shadowlands plan against N’Zoth”.

1 Like
231

Don’t understand what you are trying to say here. Can you rephrase or check if there are any typos? I really can’t understand what you are aiming at there.

Ok, if we are to judge the specific act of burning Teldrassil, and the circumstances around it ingame, i do agree with you that it was evil.
Given the motives, and reasoning we know of so far, that act definetly seems evil to me.

Not only because of the act itself, but because I too feel that the circumstances and reasoning behind it were wrong.
It’s a similar case to Nagasaki and Hiroshima for me.

232

Of course it is hard, but there are certain actions, and that includes killing children and babies, that require such a strong justification that it is almost impossible not to think of it as evil. Besides that, there are actual ethical theories (e.g. deontology or rule consequentialism) that do defend the existence of certain actions that are evil, whenever committed, under whatever circumstances.

Not to mention that if we do base the morality of an action around ad hoc decisions about context, we need to ask ourselves: what context is relevant? And where do we draw the line? Something I haven’t seen you nor Mooyie explain or elaborate.

Needless to say, I haven’t seen any arguments except a few vague and obscure, and yes, impossible examples to defend this theory you’re proposing. So that is another problem you have as well.

The whole totalitarian idea of killing babies for the greater good or whatever. I know it’s a bit unnuanced of me to instantly call it fascist, but you’re getting close to it at least. So congratulations with that.

5 Likes
233

You don’t need to judge the circumstances around it. It’s genocide. Genocide is always evil.

1 Like
234

Is it really, though? Just wait how Blizzard will explain to us how it isn’t, in the inevitable Kerrigan moment.

8 Likes
235

Which is the moment we will all say adios.

I am not going to play some game with obvious morally corrupt writers.

7 Likes
236

It’s evil to actively seek and aim for it.
Sylvanas didn’t aim at accomplishing such with Teldrassil. It became but a consequence of her actions (that still were evil for another set of reasons, regardless).

Teldrassil was evil for me, because of what it ended up causing, the reasoning for doing it, and the circumstances where it took place.

237

No. It’s evil to do it. It really isn’t as complicated as you make it out to be.

2 Likes
238

Stalin did not aim to kill millions of farmers, guys! Those were just the unfortunate results of his economical reforms!

8 Likes
239

Are you saying that aiming to improve one’s economy is evil? Are you saying that adapting your country to more modern standards is evil? You can not use such vague and strange categories, that’s just careless.

Further more, what if Baby Hitler was among those farmers? WHAT THEN?!

Ps. I actually need to take a step back, reading the discussion here legit made me feel sick.

5 Likes
240

Really? Not a sociologist here, but I don’t think it’s hard for me to find a reasoning where killing children and babies isn’t considered downright evil. Again, certain circumstances for euthanasia and abortion come to mind.

Again, won’t go there, so maybe we should drop that line of questioning.

It’s not a theory. I named several examples where it could apply.

I also drew the parallels between the reasoning the Lannister may have had (the one several considered downright evil), and the reasoning the Alliance had to kill Rastakhan.
Unless you are implying both are evil, I’d stand by my point that it’s rather hard to automatically label certain war acts in either fashion, as they are often contingent to stuff like perspective.

And now you are being disingenuous.

Sylvanas stated motives for burning Teldrassil were about inflicting a wound that would last and aim at splitting the Alliance by demoralising them.
It was an evil act because she was willing to accept (or simply didn’t care) the consequences it would cause: genocide.
And because of another set of reasons that go beyond that.

Not because she specifically aimed for genocide. Because she didn’t.