So if Calia wants to be queen of Lordaeron, she can either take it back for herself or build it somewhere else.
But I know I won’t be a part of it.
You know, honestly Calia’s story with the Forsaken could be a good one. But it has been ruined by how Sylvanas has been portrayed in BfA and also Legion. How the Forsaken’s story seems to have changed from being a somewhat evil faction to a group of former humans that need to be pitied.
It’s too much ‘the evil queen is gone let the good guys swoop in to save the Forsaken’
Spare me this nonsense. If people don’t like what Forsaken stand for let them play another race.
You won’t like it, but you will be part of it, coz that’s how factions work in the game and the lore. It sucks, but sections of the Night Elf fanbase have been dealing with it for several expansions now so you won’t be alone in your disgruntlement.
I would have no need for that if others didn’t keep writing that some land belongs to them because of “history of that zone” that both made us and you make these useless and in your case already extremely well known comments.
Regardless of how much of the “conquest” element we have, there is still certain degree of actual “Inheritance” in the Forsakens claim over said land.
Hard to say how much of each is to be taken into account regarding their “rights” to said land, but certainly enough to discard being categorical in either direction.
Well, I would grant none whatsoever. Without even bringing feudal land ownership into it. Being from a country does not might it rightful to usurp its rule or take the parts you personally didn’t own. And you aren’t making your case any stronger by starting your rule by murdering other potential heirs.
That’s why I said that their right came from a mix of both conquest and actual inheritance. Not everything they claim as theirs was taken from others.
Regardless of how morally flawed said reasoning is, that doesn’t erase your own rights.
It’s not as if rival heirs haven’t historically often had certain tendency to kill each other over any particular claim.
True.
In the ottoman empire it was traditional for the chosen heir to kill all his brothers at his succession, to prevent civil wars in the future. In other parts it wasn’t as prevalent, but certainly not uncommon to kill rival claimants, or otherwise dispose of them (monestaries, exile etc.). So in history it wasn’t really uncommon
If it’s common and if it’s rightful are kind of different ideas. Sure, law and morality both historically bow before political convenience. But law and morality are the only contexts where a “right to something” has a meaning at all.
And even Anduin accepting the Forsaken claims wouldn’t make it international law, nor would it affect the morality of their claim in any way. The rightfulness would just become irrelevant to the situation.
The problem is, for most of history the one who ruled in the end, was the one who decided what was rightful.
Morality is an entirely different thing here, it’s common and depending on the victor rightful, but it’s definitely not moral to kill rivaling claimants to something. Killing (at least in my oppinion) can never be moral. (please don’t start another discussion about my stance here, I’ve had enough for a livetime )
What does rightful mean in this context? We can argue about the details of the definition of legal and moral rights, but finding any definition of what is meant isn’t so hard. But if somebody says “they are the rightful holders of Lordaeron”… are they saying anything more than “they are the holders of Lordaeron”? If so… what ARE they saying that isn’t referencing morality, or legal systems that apply to them?
And if there is no additional meaning: Just stop using the frickin’ term. It’s confusing.
Having certain heir murdering potential rivals doesn’t erase the fact that by law he indeed has said rights.
Unless you are to throw around an amendment that states that once you kill your brother, your succession rights are in some way invalidated, doing such doesn’t magically erase the fact that you are indeed an heir.
And having just Anduin accepting the Forsaken claims doesn’t make it international law, but it carries additional weight if it becomes widely accepted amongst the humans he represents.
…what law? Except the one you are making up right now, I mean. Lordaeronian law is unlikely to have provisions for some lowblood farmers and their elven leader to hold all the land, even if they were legal owners of the lands they held in life, which is kind of dubious already. It seems quire likely to me that indeed, lordaeronian inheritance law would be firmly on Calia’s side. So, really… what law?
“The Forsaken law states they have a right to that land”? Well, probably true. just totally meaningless for anyone not part of Forsaken society. Including forum posters.
It has relevance, sure, but not for the question of rightfulness.
The whole issue of what’s moral and what’s legal folds into insignificance before the fact the Forsaken hold the region and nobody has dislodged them for whatever reason - their opponents are either capable but unwilling (Alliance, potentially) or willing but incapable (Scarlet Crusade).
Wether the Forsaken have a right to be there or not is immaterial. They are there, and will be until someone removes them.
I certainly agree. But that’s exactly why I object if someone interjects that their claim is in any relvant way “rightful”. Being the undisputed holders of the land should not be confused with having a moral or legal claim to them.
