I have some issue with the definitions that Bearfoot uses of Good and Evil. If “good” doesn’t need a reason – is it then not “good” to defend your family against someone trying to do them harm? If not, then “doing good” becomes “being a doormat” – because obviously fighting is done for a reason. The quote is nice – but it doesn’t approach the hard questions of ethics with nearly enough flexibility/complexity.
Nitpicky little arguments aside, there are times that you can paint both sides with the “evil” brush, and no faction has a stronghold on “good”. Even the peace-loving Tauren are focused on revenge against the Centaur. Lying down and playing dead doesn’t make “good” any more than defending one’s homeland makes “evil” (Vengeance may be bad, but is it wrong to take back something someone has stolen from you?).
Obviously, it’s a MUCH bigger question.
Plus at this point, the Alliance/Horde war is approaching Hatfield/McCoy proportions, and in those situations I don’t think anyone is right.
Is Thrall a more noble leader than Varian Wrynn? Probably (I definitely think so). He’s also a more noble leader than Garrosh Hellscream, the hot-headed leader of Horde forces in Northrend. Fortunately, a leader does not the entire faction make, or we’d get to judge the factions on the actions of Staghelm/Wrynn and Sylvanas/Garrosh instead of keeping Tyrande/Magni and Thrall/Cairne in the mix. I’d venture to say that there are both “good” and “evil” elements of both Factions (Plz to have Bolvar back, kthx?), especially with the growing influence of the Argent Crusade and the Knights of the Ebon Blade – and their cooperation with both factions.
And nobody has a stronghold on Evil except Sargeras.
- Godmodding and Griefing (116)
- On Privacy, Real ID’s and Roleplay (49)
- XX and XY in RP (47)
- Population Disparity (34)
- Tanking Perceptions (33)