Is there any real honor in PvP?
by Amanda Rivera 
May 11th 2007 at 5:48PM
Interesting to contemplate really. The notion that our battle has no consequence to the real world is valid. We run our battles either in instances, or in the world. In the instances, we have no context as to why we must kill, only know we are there to defeat the enemy. We hate them, therefore they must die. The NPCs will respawn, the opposing faction will resurrect, no harm done. We perform brutal acts that have no affect on our environment. If we raid Crossroads or Lakeshire the towns do not burn, the landscape remains unchanged.
We therefore receive "honor" from the kill itself, or for capturing objectives on the battlefield, objectives that will just as swiftly be retaken once the instance resets. Exactly how honorable though are the actions we take in PvP really? Andrew suggests we have built as a society and notion of honorable war, war for a greater cause, and that this idea is what fuels the concept that what we do in PvP is honorable. He ends his article thusly:
I imagine, one day, an
If we lay these actions at the feet of social context, they appear horrible and gruesome. But we play within a game, and we can at any time walk away from the game. So in essence, we are twice removed from the effects of what we do. Not only does the instance reset, but so we.
Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, Virtual selves, PvP
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Nails May 11th 2007 6:07PM
no, maybe there is no real honor
but it is fun as hell! :)
ajpally May 11th 2007 6:26PM
we are talking about a video game right?
What a lame topic from Andrew Whelps >.
Pritchard May 11th 2007 6:39PM
Next he will examine the morality of the mage's polymorph as an affront to God.
SymetriX May 11th 2007 7:09PM
It's a game. This article = FAIL.
amasen May 11th 2007 7:16PM
I often think how much Blizzard squanders their influence. Their game has exploded upon the world as the single most dominant form of entertainment (in income, in comparison to any other single title of entertainment in Movies/TV/games).
Blizzard should be taking a cultural stance. Defining a future. Honor. Righteousness. Fair and reasonable treatment. They should promote working with your fellow man -- cooperating with them. There needs to be even more incentive to create honorable behavior amongst fellow players. Create a game and entertain people, Create a society and mold peoples beliefs, behaviors and future.
Arturis May 11th 2007 7:19PM
Sometimes its a good thing to think beyond the words on the screen, beyond the graphics and game mechanics that we flood ourselves with each day. Yes, its just a game. No where in this article is that denied. The point of this post is to encourage a little bit of (possibly existential) thought, and by ignoring that entirely it is the reader that fails, not the article.
Rich May 11th 2007 7:35PM
/slap amasen
Blizzard has no place forwarding any kind of societal agenda.
tallguy59 May 11th 2007 8:37PM
@7. Perhaps not - but I think, if anything can be considered an art form if done correctly, it must be videogames; because you have to take so many disparate elements - 3D modeling, skinning, concept artwork, writing, voice acting, and so on - and merge them into a unified whole. Therefore I would not object to Blizzard trying to impress some sort of message upon us. We wouldn't necessarily have to agree with it, but if there's a chance they can try and change a few of their players' views for the betterment of society, why not take it?
amasen May 11th 2007 8:24PM
^^
haha :D
Boonie May 11th 2007 9:42PM
This is all true but as (6) encouraged s to do it is about creating the best game environment. I personally find (5) to have missed blizzards point in WoW, which is to create a place where you can do/think/be/express how ever you want. There's RP server for total separation from real life... escapism at it's purest... or PvP or PvE server where you can role play but it's not expected (or
recommended on other servers).
In WoW one is free to explore elements of ones own beliefs and physic (sp?) to explore (or not) what makes you as person... by allowing you to 'try' different beliefs and practices as your own. OR NOT... you can just escape school/work/life in general and have fun meeting people from other parts of the world and sitting around a campfire in the wetlands comparing life stories with someone you may never meet again. This topic opens up a chance for people to discuss what they have learned from playing this game and what lessons they have applied to their lives outside of WoW.
Now I realise this previous statement might get a few flames, but in a previous WI article (that I couldn't find despite trying) referred to some movie producer who took simple agreed WoW principles... follow the quest...etc... and applied them to his Real life.
The nature of EVERYTHING in this world is that there is a lesson to be learned if you look hard enough and are able to see outside our own pre-judged positions of superiority.
SO to those of you who've posted that this is a silly topic etc, in the nicest way go anywhere else and let others who might look at WoW from a different perspective that you think about the philosophical implications of a 'causality' free world where our actions have no implications on any aspect of the world around us.
To both Amanda and Andrew I thank you... my friends and I are already discussing this over lunch... WoW LAN at my place... all Uni Students or graduates... most of us did some level of philosophy too... so this is great.
Ailya May 11th 2007 9:55PM
No, no honor. :)
Rich May 11th 2007 10:17PM
Honor is another name for Pride.
And really who cares? Its Hella fun and I'd rather fight another person than the AI.
Sky_Paladin May 12th 2007 1:42AM
IIRC, earlier incarnations of WoW earned you dishonor for killing low level players and npc's. Why was this dropped?
Are the Alliance and the Horde at war? I'm not sure becuase I'm not 100% with the Warcraft lore. If we're at war, I see no reason why players shouldn't be encouraged, nay, rewarded for crushing their opponents - and the supporters of their opponents - without pity or regret.
But if not, then what are the PC's? Freelancers? Mercenaries? Vigilantes? If their role is defined, then it becomes easy to determine what is 'honorable' conduct and what is not, and provide rewards or punishments for certain behavior. Should they have to enlist with their capital cities army (and recieve a bounty for killing enemy pcs, for example) before being allowed to attack opposing faction npcs? And if a players character is unable to attack enemy npc and pc's because they are not allowed to by the agreed upon rules of war, should that mean players should be free to roam and explore the enemy capitals, also...?
There could be so much more to the game than only war. But we need to know what the situation is between the Alliance, the Horde - and even some of the nuetrals like the Dark Iron dwarves - and exactly where we, the players, fit in to this jigsaw puzzle. To the vast millions of npc citizens that we never see - are we heros, or villians?
Krianna May 12th 2007 3:10AM
Geeze, talking about honor in a fight. How dare he bring the actual meaning of the word when so many prefer to just go about being dishonorable? Shame on him for bringing it up and maybe making them think about what they do....
/sarcasm
Yes, I roll Horde on an RP sever, and no, I don't gank, I don't kill those who are in a fight, and if an allie is fighting a demon, I'll *attack the demon* not the allie.
bluebottleblues May 13th 2007 4:37PM
Meh I see no honour in 5 level 70s jumping onto one level 70 when the level 70 is attacking a mob.
They say ====>PvE that way if you complain. Meh more like ====>RP that way if you take the Alliance Vs Horde too seriously. PvP servers are ment to be fun :) Not an excuse for packs of players to hunt other players who prefer to solo content :P
RogueJedi86 May 12th 2007 4:58AM
I'm a Lore fan, and I believe currently it's an unsteady truce. Both sides are at a stalemate, with a few random skirmishes between soldiers(the players mostly). But technically, we're not at war. The Horde Versus Alliance thing is mostly for PvP action between players. Jaina Proudmoore and Thrall are close allies in fact. And I recall a quest in Hellfire Peninsula where Alliance players have to destroy some Burning Legion cannons aimed at Thrallmar, because "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", united against the Burning Legion. But yeah, the players are the few Alliance/Horde forces still duking out.
Vykromond May 12th 2007 11:26AM
>In the instances, we have no context as to why we must kill, only know we are there to defeat the enemy.
Actually, this is completely wrong. You're given context for each of the BGs (I'm not sure about EotS but I am sure about the other three). It's not at all a matter of just "I hate them, so they must die."
Chives May 14th 2007 8:09AM
@17 a good point, but not really what we are talking about here.
I agree with 15, because if you read the lore or if you played the previous warcraft games, Jaina and Thrall do have strong ties. However, in the opening WoW cinematic we hear that the peace between the two factions has "all but evaporated." I'm thinking that this is just an excuse to allow pvp to take place, but what roguejedi said makes sense. AV, AB, and WSG are all factions fighting for small areas, in other words, they are isolated incidents. The players are the extremists that still want to fight.
Anroth May 14th 2007 10:50AM
Nothing in the lore substanciates the general "If it's red, it's dead." attitude that is common to everyone in PvP servers.
But if PvP wasn't an option or if there were just BG's, the game wouldn't be so great.
My main is a Druid in a normal server, but i have a warlock in a PvP server gaining levels fast because it's so much more thrilling than the regular questing on carebear servers. :D
Thing is, PvP freaks take things a bit too far, lorewise: one thing is to attack a ally/horde who is going for the same objective. Other is to random attack wevery red name you see on screen...