288
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 28 Sep 2025
288 points (100.0% liked)
movies
1903 readers
70 users here now
A community about movies and cinema.
Related communities:
- !television@piefed.social
- !homevideo@feddit.uk
- !mediareviews@lemmy.world
- !casualconversation@piefed.social
Rules
- Be civil
- No discrimination or prejudice of any kind
- Do not spam
- Stay on topic
- These rules will evolve as this community grows
No posts or comments will be removed without an explanation from mods.
founded 7 months ago
MODERATORS
It's a moraly gray situation, but he is a Paladin. His duty is to uphold a certain standard, no matter what. He should have let the knights do the genociding.
Someone needs to be there for you, to guarantee your rights. You need to be able to say: "our hero is here! He will never hurt us!".
Same reason the US army had a no one left behind policy. Less sodiers deserting, more fighting bravely, because they know their comrades would save them, even at a loss!
You know, the paladin code of ideals that are supposed to be embodied by those sworn to the light IS antithetical to Arthas' actions. I had not considered that.
So perhaps one could say that the cold pragmatism of his choice would not have been wrong for an ordinary general to make, but was against his code, and betrayed a weakening or abandoning of his faith.
I still don't think he was wrong broadly, but I think I agree with you that he was wrong with regards to being a paladin and a representative of what they are supposed to stand for.