I prefer to think of my actions as "liberating the blind."
If my target reticule is a sword, I kill the thing it's pointing at....Also, I assume all critters will want to attack me some day, so I Consecrate their faces.One day people will see their uprising...one day there will be a critter rebellion. While the rest of the world hides beneath the icy crag of Northrend, I face the many...the mighty...the critters...ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL... ThatIsEpic...
I would like to see more quests with choices other than "kill the enemy". Or maybe a DK starting chain that gives you your ability points, but lets you play like Fraser's "Flashman" character ( OK ... my boss is a vicious psycho. I'll play along with this crap, pretend to do the work, and either kill his ass, or just get the F out the second I get a chance ).
Most classes and even races have their morals "kind of" placed upon them. Like NE being told not to kill the peaceful critters in Darnassus, druids curing critters and plants, warlocks having to track, summon, enslave and kill demons, rogues stealing, and so on. I'm sure there are a great number of PCs that hang around the cities shopping and making things and priests that spend most of their days healing and trying to "save" the baddies from evil. This is World of WARcraft after all- and so there is a war to be waged- the question is do you wage that war against the the true evils or every critter and misunderstood murloc and elemental out there.I've grown my druid to respect the natural as much as possible and I've given him a hell of a back story to motive my play- and believe me when he reached a task/enemy too strong to be whipped he will return with vengeance! Is he a hero? Hell yes! And I too have stopped taking many of the kill semi-innocent animal quests for this very reason. If some nut ball NPC wants me to go kill 20 bears for some burgers because he is "too busy" well he's not going to get my time- but that scourge camp over yonder? Yeah- give me minute I'll bring you some heads.
Well, one "main" is a Prot Paladin. I would say the way I play him is not violent as much as my other "main" a fire mage. The prot pally is about defense and "paying back" the mob or character attacking me, and so is more of a "I can take more than you can dish out" playstyle. The fire mage is a /violent/ spec to play, focused on dealing as much damage as quickly as possible and moving on to another target. I play that character with bad intent toward all the mobs and enemy players around me. It even feels different in the decisions I make about how to approach similar encounters. I enjoy both playstyles immensly. I've never been a healer-type, but I'd imagine that's a totally different ball of wax.
Totally. Each of my characters tend to take on a personality of their own, and I can say without a doubt that my rogue lusts for blood.
From Wictionary:AdjectiveViolent Involving extreme force or motion. A violent wind ripped the branch from the tree. Involving physical conflict. We would rather negotiate, but we will use violent means if needed. Likely to use physical force. The escaped prisoners are considered extremely violent. Intensely vivid. The artist expressed his emotional theme through violent colors. My charachter does use extreme force, and motion. My charachter is involved in physical conflict. My charachter is likely to use physical force. My charachter's tabard is intensely vivid. By every definition, my charachter is violent.
I think getting hung up on the connotations of the word "violent" are a bit silly, especially in the context of a video game. The very fact that one of the key divisions in the game structure is "Combat vs. Non-Combat" means that the game is violent by definition. Whether that combat is lethal or not may determine whether or not the actions are "moral" or "evil," but those are separate issues.Unless you're deliberately playing the game as a Pacifist, it's a violent game. But so what? If there were no violence, it would be Second Life, not World of WARCRAFT.
I play Gloam of Aman'Thul as a non-violent Rogue and frankly it's the most challenging fun I've ever had with a character. She's never killed anything, nor done any damage and I intend to keep her going like that.Oh and those bandits: they'd still provoke a violent response with their own violence which they'd regard as being justifiably provoked by the 'intruder'. An entrenched culture of violence toward outsiders does validate it. It's like the promiscuity VS rape argument.This is something I have been wanting to do, but haven't gotten to it yet. Just one thing I wonder about... how do you get enough XP to level up, as many (I reckon most) quests involve killing?Ask Noor the Pacifist.I am actually more impressed with Gloam. It doesn't look as though Noor has been much of a pacifist lately. However, Gloam has yet to do a single point of damage. I certainly would not have the patience for that.
When I'm questing and I see a Horde and Alliance player fighting, I watch. However, if the Horde player is losing, I help out. Now maybe the Horde player deserved to die and the Alliance player was just defending himself from the jerk. Who knows./shrug
Now, replace “bear” with “bandit”. It's no surprise that the morality of the situation shifts significantly when you're dealing with sentient creatures, fault and responsibility aren't concepts that can be easily applied to a bear. But if you go into “bandit territory”, and get attacked by bandits, fault clearly lies with the bandits, right? Well, if you know that bandits are going to attack you when they see you, and you know that this area is bandit country, is it still the bandit's fault for attacking you? It's... unclear at best.You have equated the term "bandit territory", a statement indicating their presence, with their right to be there. Were it "invader territory" you would probably not make this association. Bandit is generally defined as an outlaw who lives by plunder ; especially : a member of a band of marauders. So they do not hold rightful domain over that territory, rather they are there because of a lack of sufficient lawful authority. Nothing unclear about it. You go there to kill the bandits in the name of the lawful authority that sent you. They prey on the civilians that you are protecting. Whether you kill one or thousands make no difference in this case they are the bad guys.
Unless you're deliberately playing the game as a Pacifist, it's a violent game. But so what? If there were no violence, it would be Second Life, not World of WARCRAFT.Now there is a good idea. An instance portal where we can enter some Second Life server and start ganking.
So they do not hold rightful domain over that territory, rather they are there because of a lack of sufficient lawful authority. Who decides what constitutes "lawful authority"? Some king? Some tart in a pond throwing someone a sword?Heh.If you look at the lore for both Defias and Syndicate, they were both started by nobles who were displaced when the Menethils fled Lorderon, went south, and took their huge freaking army with them.
it depends on how you view the factions involved. This.The number of alliance players who would declare the Horde the epitome of evil is huge. But you dont have to be the Brain of Britain to work out that Horde players like myself have just as much validity to view the Alliance as "evil".Just as in the real world, nothing is black and white. It depends on how you look at it.
mmy char is a mas murderer, he has commited acts of genocide wiping out entire settlements, even cities, he should not be trusted by anyone, and should be put in prison, however they couldnt keep him there long, as the only way to keep him from attacking gaurds and inmates would be to kill him, but then he would just res at the spirit healer, hide for 10 mins and be free once again and would return to killing innocent people and animals (and evil stuff too)
I think it's important to remember why our characters do the things they do. My main is a Shaman, so a lot of the animal slaying can be easily justified by "for the preservation of the balance". But a better reason is given to us in the opening sequences right after creating a character. Admittedly, I haven't created and watched every race's opening sequence, but the six or seven I have give a perfectly good reason for all the killing: Survival.None of these cut scenes depict a race happy and content, "living off the fat of the land" and spending lazy afternoons lounging by the Loch. Everyone in Azeroth would be born into a world of fierce competition and ever-present danger. The hundreds or even thousands of animals my main has killed all died for a purpose. Whether my character is bringing food, clothing, or tools back to his community, It's done in the name of preserving the Darkspear tribe. It's the animal nature we're all born with and can never escape, no matter how many lofty ideals we try to uphold. The human brain, apart from an enlarged frontal lobe, remains remarkable similar to brains of much more "primitive" animals.Even the Nesingwary quests seem reasonable. Besides the fact that sports like hunting keep societies skilled enough to survive, much in the way religious and spiritual beliefs are typically rooted in sound advice for ancient man. If a type of animal is deemed "sacred", at one point in time it was essential for the people that this animal survived. It's the same with cultural norms and taboos. Promiscuity (while skewed significantly in the favor of us men) was/is taboo because it's generally not healthy for the society.Or even reasoning that, in order for your character to reach and stop the Lich King, he/she has to work hard and learn as much as possible. If a thousand bears, wolves and deer have to die to stop the Lich King from turning us all into zombies, so be it.Sorry for the wall of text =D
The way I see it, if it's red, it's going to come after me whether I want it to or not.Yellow mobs I leave alone.
I think of this like this: My char didn't signed for that. He just wanted to live peaceful life with his family and friends just like we want. But then Athras came to Quel'thalas, destroyed Sunwell and killed much of his best friends, his mother and one of two brothers. So now he's seeking revenge and to do this he must train, wheter it's on target dummies, animals or humans and elves. Is he violent? Yes! Is he evil? Probably yes as he cares about nothing besides revenge. But he wasn't violent and evil from start of his life, maybe if he was living somewhere else he wouldn't become who he is now?
I present Planning for the Future. A quest that asks you to search out and slay mothers, kidnap their children, and deliver them to a hated enemy. All for a pet penguin.
I had to reroll Gloam three times due to various mishaps. In the late 20s she reached a point where there were no more quests available and got mothballed for months until the fire festival came around and I could squeeze out a few more levels.Then achievements and statistics were introduced and in the Stalvan Mistmantle quests she got credited for the killing of a ghost which appears when you open a crate and got killed by a Stormwind guard. So, back to rerolling.Cut to a month ago and I heard about the recruit a friend program. I did a bit of research, crunched some numbers and decided it would be feasible to level her up on non-violent quests, which would grant triple experience and enable me to reach the early 60s without having to wait around for seasonal dailies to level.I'm not sure if she'll make it to the first pacifist dailies available, without the help of seasonal quests though. But that's fine with me.