You are not playing a Pandaren but an bloody elf on horde? My heart is broken dramatic exit
1 Like
Pandas canāt be dks. And belf racial is op for mythic keystone right now.
You are speculating, Panda.
This is how sympathies and antipathies work, I assume. Some people you like, some you donāt like.
YEEEEEEEEEEES!
Show me a scene that could somehow redeem her. Every time she is shown, she is presented as blatantly evil (MY SUBJECTIVE OPINION).
You are one speculative Panda, arenāt you, Panda?
Stop the hate.
She isnāt.
Why not strong independet male this time?! Like Baine!
1 Like
In the fact that the dev himself states the tribe is no more.
I fail to see how someoneās past actions might influence how certain act is seen, or judged in a vacuum.
If I kill someone, given Iāve never killed anyone, my actions are marginally less evil than the ones of a serial killer that stabs his fourth victim?
If I save someone, given I saved someone before, are my actions better or worse than the ones a serial killer did to mirror me?
Thatās what I meant. And that leads again to my question:
Do people simply fear what would Sylvanas do with said power and thatās why they judge harshly every mild act she did regarding stuff like this, or is it because of some past grudge that makes them hate her every move?
Is it plain prejudice? Even if itās explicitly stated the purpose for it?
Like, making a deal with Helya is bad, even if we are explicitly told it followed a āgoodā purpose for the Forsaken, but making a deal with some dark power and vow to slaughter the Horde is objectively good regardless of the negative consequences it may cause for someone else?
I just showed you the dev quote, and it does not say what you claim it says. And I must be blind, but I see the tribe in this expansion. Go check the quote on wowpedia.
You are aware no one lives in a vacuum? Further more, I can not even comprehend your line of thought.
Like, what?
1 Like
Just to throw it in again: Much is about the presentation. If we got expressions of shock and disgust every time someone killed a kobold for the lols, we would be primed to see it as evil.
When we see Sylvanas making the decision to burn Teldrassil not after some emotional struggle or in a moment of wekness, but to prove a point and in a video that set her up as paralleling Arthasā¦ we know she is evil. When We see children running from Horde troops and crying in front of their killed patents, while the Horde is looking through cellars for doctorsā¦ we know the Horde is evil. When Saurfang is disgusted and outraged at Sylvanasā plans in Lordaeronā¦ we know we should condemn it. When Sylvanas spouts dialogues that are reserved for super villainsā¦ we know she joined the villain club.
The acts are almost secondary. What is important is how they make us feel. Why else would anyone ever mention Taurajo?
The story isnāt told in a neutral way. It is meant to move us, and when we are meant to feel like heroes, they will leave nothing that makes us feel like villains, and when we are meant to doubt our own actions, they will consciously include morally dubious elements.
Soā¦ it really isnāt about Sylvanas, in great parts. It is about what they set us up to feel about Sylvanas. Anyone might get away with the acts Sylvanas has doneā¦ if it was presented in a way that would make us sympathize with them.
3 Likes
Which similar circumstances? Tyrande doesnāt wanted to let the NE be imortal.
Except that Tyrande is undergoing the ritual voluntarily, and she retains her, uh, state of being alive.
Welcome back Xiao!
Iām not sure about that. I think most people are outraged over the fact that the whole war feels unjustified, and not that Sylvanas is so evil. Also, if the Alliance attacks first, and itās well-written, I am fine with that, and most of the complaints would be about how the Alliance is not morally superior anymore, and how this is so out of character, and so forth. Not necessarily about Sylvanas.
3 Likes
How dare the Alliance defend themselves against Horde aggression?!
4 Likes
From people that are known to commit evil acts, you expect to commit more of them. From people who are not know for that, you might still expect they would do something good with such power.
In my opinion, no.
The outcome would matter to me. Still, I just wouldnāt trust a known serial killerā¦
I would. She seeks to destroy the Alliance at the moment. She stated that herself. Therefore, her gaining any power is a threat because she will use this power to slaughter the Alliance. Thatās her current goal, stated very clearly.
Is it prejudice to hate someone who invaded you unprovoked, butchered your people, killed your son, drove the remnants of your population into exile, blighted your homeland with a lethal poison and mitigated ANY consequences for those acts? (given, I would roleplay a Gilnean)
If Forsaken āgoodā is supposed to be based on slaughtering living people in order to raise them then I would refrain from calling that āgoodā but we are encroaching on a moral relativismās ground here and wonāt reach any conclusions if we delve deeper into that.
No, it is not good. Itās not about Tyrande being āgoodā. Itās about Tyrande finding back her will to fight and about the Alliance NOT being rainbow-good for once!
At least for me.
Tyrandeās will to slaughter the Horde has nothing to do with GOOD.
GOOD is Anduin. Tyrande, in this scenario, is supposed to be vengeful and bloodthirsty. These are not āgoodā traits.
3 Likes
Retribution is something for Paladins 
Btw. We shouldnāt forget that the most races mistrust Undead because theyāre wellā¦ Undead. We know what Sylvanas is able to do with Valākyr. We know thatās Unholy & Unnatural. We imagine what she could do with much more power. Tyrande isnāt so. She never done such stuff. You just canāt compare the reputation of Tyrande and Sylvanas together because there are many levels between. Many many levelsā¦
I gave several examples.
When judging X action, is the background of the person doing it relevant?
I kill someone. You kill someone.
Iāve killed several people before, this is the first one you kill.
Is the act of killing someone any better when you do it opposed to when I do it?
And again, we circle back to the question:
Why is the fact that Sylvanas committed genocide in the past, something relevant when judging that are unrelated to those acts?
Is it because:
- You donāt trust her with that sort of power.
- You donāt want to give her that stuff.
I mean, is it because of prejudice? Or punishment that demands she should have her hands tied regarding any or all actions she does?
Even bad people can actually do bad stuff for the greater good. The judgement of the ābad stuffā thatās done, isnāt dependant on the background of the one doing it.
Unless you either think itāll forcefully have some additional innuendo in someoneās case, or donāt want then doing it out of mere spite.
So which one is it.
1 Like
But we already know that she do it in the future?
After Gilneas, Hilsbrad, her treatment of living Lordearonians and Wrathgate, I am going with āI do not trust someone known for committing vile acts with such power.ā
Stated that before already.
I dislike Sylvanas because of her acts you know, not because sheā¦ Is Sylvanas. If she was designed in another way, I could like her.
I donāt want vast power in the hands of Arthas, I donāt want vast power in the hands of Nomi, I donāt want vast power in the hands of Sylvanas, same thing. Donāt trust them.
2 Likes
They need someone to lead the Night elves when the true lords of the Night Warrior turns out to be Nāzoth and Tyrande kills her husband.
Or they want to make sure we know that many Night Elves did not undertake the darkening. So we donāt believe all Night Elves look like this from now on.
Who knows.
Enjoy
https://imgur.com/a/7FDBX6h?fbclid=IwAR21qmpcbF9nacO-E931zf0alpNoZQO6ILD3_aQAZHd_fV-_NAXcSzwJkQY
And thatāll be fine from an ingame point of view.
But falls quite short regarding player debates that know the meta reasoning for it.
And still, itās players the ones that seemingly add some additional charge to any act based on personal preferences.
Again, thatās great for judging from an ingame perspective. But feels rather lacking when judging from a meta point of view.
Saying āthis is only evil if someone I see as evil does itā, is hypocrisy of the top quality.
An act isnāt categorised as evil or acceptable depending on who does it. It depends on the nature of the act itself.
And as of now, the recurrent argument that is being brought, is that these acts would be considered evil because they are done by someone you consider evil.
If I kill someone itās fine, if a serial killer does it, it turns something evil.
How would you feel about someone evil doing something bad, for the greater good of their faction?
- Tyrande looks adorable in this picture.
- Entire Night Warrior scenario is about Elune finally doing something of value for the living.
- OMG this teeths on the left side are horrible.
I donāt get it.
I never said that.
I even elaborated on how, what Tyrande is about to do is NOT goodā¦
Again, no.
I said that what Tyrande is about to do is not goodā¦
What theā¦?
Are you sure, youāre arguing with me? I said I donāt like Sylvanas and I donāt trust her and that what Tyrande is doing is not a āgoodā thing.
Sylvanas also ordered Wrathgate (so we were told) so even if she works for the good of the faction, she is still untrustworthy in MY SUBJECTIVE OPINION.
1 Like