The Trial of Garrosh, idiots.

A trial for Garrosh was bloody stupid. Likewise was any attempt to make the process fair and legitimate. I’m finding it hard to want to read the new Warcraft novel because I think the end of the Mists story and setting was utter balderdash. I like the Warcraft novels and can forgive a lot when it provides more lore to consume – but in all seriousness the axe should have fallen on Garrosh as soon as it could. Too many times inaction has let to disaster in WoW lore.

Has Warcraft become so soft that the heroes can only dispatch a foe if they are corrupted by an old god? It takes pervasive corruption to allow an execution, but the “heroes” can murder hundreds of opponents in daily quests with impunity? C’mon.

I think some players like to rationalise the setting to their own morals and ethics, but I think the setting has lost it’s way when a figure like Garrosh wasn’t killed at the first opportunity. That would make the setting less PG13 than probably desired, but it is needed. This is (was) Warcraft folks, and the idea that one faction or race has more claim to judge Garrosh is missing the point.

Those factions should be arguing about the division of the trophy head, axe and body, not still trying to for a delegate sub-committee to investigate the correct division of voting rights, for the membership to the partisan review group, in order to make a recommendation to the yet to be confirmed leaders…

Garrosh didn’t ask for permission to destroy Theramore with a mana-bomb. I’ll see if somebody I know grabs the book and perhaps I can borrow it for a while in a few months. It makes me wonder if the end of the Iron Horde will see them all placed in work programs to rehabilitate them back into “normal” society.

Grumble.

Advertisements

9 thoughts on “The Trial of Garrosh, idiots.

  1. Trial, not trail, I presume?

    By the same logic, why didn’t we simply execute the people put on trial at Nuremburg by firing squad ASAP instead of putting on a trial? The idea was to send a message to the world — that it wasn’t about losing the war, that it was about committing heinous actions.

  2. Exactly the point I was trying to make! Nuremburg is 500+ years “away” in terms of thinking and development. It is a incongruity in the setting that PCs can murder wildly in the world with no consequences, but Garrosh is considered a murderer. If Garrosh is guilty so are the players.

  3. The term I’ve seen used for PCs is “murder hobos” which is exactly right for what a typical player character can do in a setting… walk through the world killing anything they like and not be taken to account. Garrosh gets held accountable.

  4. Garrosh is held accountable as the leader of a faction/army. You’ll notice we don’t care what happens to Kor’kron grunt #413 who followed Garrosh and killed people? It’s a symbol — and also partly the Horde desperately trying to distance themselves from Garrosh.

    Also, technically speaking (aside from a few weird or bugged cases), anything killable in the world is MEANT to be killable — and aside from the opposite faction they’re either animals or effectively deserve it. An Alliance player cannot suddenly start murdering Stormwind Guards.

  5. So any yellow creature deserves to be killed? Because it can be? That is making the “sociopath murderer hobos” argument stronger.

    The wolven pups in Northrend are yellow? The entire neutral faction/cities deserve to be killed?

    By your measure I can murder as much as I like, whenever I like anything which isn’t a green creature – and that is OK within the setting. That view isn’t in line with the propensity for due process and reason which allowed Garrosh to be ported away.

    And its seems a double standard to say that we can kill nameless Horde because the Alliance think they deserve it, but then don’t kill Garrosh. He was a red mob.

    It is a feint within the setting to try to have a 21st century view of politics and accountability and also have half the game world be OK about wholesale murder of sentient life. Typically I don’t mind it too much until the setting does something as blatantly out of character/setting as the events around Garrosh.

  6. Maybe they’re just trying to bit of real world into WoW – if Hitler were alive today, he’d have a trial. Saddam Hussein, another example, and Osama Bin Laden too – even though he died in the attack. Perhaps there is a social responsibility to tell people we can’t just use our judgement and our feelings to kill someone even if they’ve done heinous crimes, because that makes us no better than them. I haven’t read the new book but I have been hesitant because reading about the trial of Garrosh does not sound entertaining to me.

  7. Yep, its that real world modern view that I think is incongruent to the rest of the game.

    To take a different approach – historically how much tolerance was there in the 10th through 12th century for this style of humanist compassion? WoW isn’t a 21st C setting, but we have the humanitarian ethics seeping in.

    Historically the Cathars were almost wiped out, the Templars were given no tolerance. How many Holy Crusades were there, where the actions of the soldiers were implicitly forgiven? Attempt genocide for your god and find salvation…

    The mix of ethics is what I dislike.

    If the game setting wants to have consistency then it needs to be fluffy and light at the top for Garrosh, and also alter the rest of the setting so that as players we can’t just run amok in the world killing anyone. If Garrosh faces consequences, so should the “unnamed heroes of the alliance” (the characters).

    Or accept that the characters are all but bloodthirsty murdering sociopaths, who will kill for gold, and get on with it. Doing both feels odd.

  8. “So any yellow creature deserves to be killed? Because it can be? That is making the “sociopath murderer hobos” argument stronger.”

    Do you think there’s some moral argument against killing that giant crab for experience or loot?

    If so, what?

    “The wolven pups in Northrend are yellow? The entire neutral faction/cities deserve to be killed?”

    Are we talking about the pups you save in the daily quest?

    And who said the entire neutral faction/cities deserve to be killed? I certainly didn’t — you’ll need to give some examples.

    “By your measure I can murder as much as I like, whenever I like anything which isn’t a green creature – and that is OK within the setting.”

    Murder is the unlawful killing of a person. When did you kill a person that was against the law?

    Maybe something like the DEHTA quests where you kill the poachers? Is that the kind of stuff that you’re worried about?

    “And its seems a double standard to say that we can kill nameless Horde because the Alliance think they deserve it, but then don’t kill Garrosh. He was a red mob.”

    It’s only a double standard if the two things are otherwise identical. Garrosh is not a town guard — he’s the leader of the faction/army. And he’s specifically known to have ordered/committed terrible deeds.

    I think the confusion seems to be that you think the game is saying that killing Garrosh would be ethically wrong. It’s not. Killing Garrosh at the end of SoO would have been valid. But the leaders thought Garrosh would be more useful to put on trial before sentencing him to death.

    Or, in other words, it is a fate WORSE than death for him.

Comments are closed.