View Single Post
Old 09-09-2013, 11:30 AM
Valtheria Valtheria is offline

Priestess of the Moon
Valtheria's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 507
BattleTag: Frostbane#1378

Undead Icon (War3)

Originally Posted by Kynrind View Post
The wall problem can be fixed easily enough. But I do agree that the Alliance should have Durnhold and Dun Garok. I think the Alliance should get Caer Darrow too. It's not as vulnerable as you seem to think it is TB. It's would be extremely easy to refortify it and as a fort, it would have stores against a siege. It would also be invulnerable from poisoned water (it's in a huge lake...) and it's not like the pass to the Hinterlands would be unfortified by the Wildhammer. Only a military idiot would not reinforce that.

I also think that the Alliance would be loath to let Uther's tomb and the graveyard there be held by the forsaken, who show a disturbing tendency to violate every graveyard they find.

That's a large part of the problem with the forsaken and Sylvanas. They keep desecrating the dead. THAT is what should be sticking in the craw of a lot of people. The forsaken are literally pulling people back from their deserved afterlife, cursing them with undead and ensuring that the new undead will almost never ever experience -anything- positive again.

It's like shooting someone up with a powerful drug that removes all inhibitions. The person fought to avoid it, but they were captured and shot up with the drug, then asked if they wanted it. Asking someone if they want something as horrifying as that AFTER you give it to them is wrong. The fact they were fighting to stop those who were injecting should be enough proof that they do not want it. Just like those who are killed fighting the forsaken. It's damned clear they do NOT want it. Yet too many forsaken fanboys see nothing wrong with the forsaken raising the dead of those they just killed (which is annoying as hell. 'the forsaken raising the dead, nothing wrong with that. Not evil...). Blizzard has screwed up the presentation of the forsaken very badly. There's too many inconsistencies after the starting area for how the dead are raised.

How would you like it if you were pulled back from a good afterlife to be stuffed back into your body, which is either damaged from battle and/or literally rotting to pieces. Then to find out you can't feel anything good or positive and the negative emotions are much easier to embrace. Does that sound like you could make a rational and reasoned decision? Would you not be mad as hell as the people who raised you?

Realistically though, the forsaken should be wiped out by both the Alliance, Horde, Argents and Cenarion Circle. The forsaken as they are and have been and by the actions they have willingly committed, are nothing but a 25 ton anchor around the Horde's neck.
Necromancy has a time limit. Any corpses they desecrate are recently deceased. They are not "violating every graveyard they find", because that would be pointless.

Note, I'm never saying that necromancy is correct. I find it wrong, but it's also necessary from a story perspective. The Forsaken have fought Alliance, Scarlets, Scourge, Syndicate, and Wolfcult in Lordaeron, a war against the Lich King, and lost hundreds in Varimathras's coup d'etat. Their initial numbers weren't that great to begin with and were only bolstered by the plagued undead who had yet to be activated (Vanilla Deathknell).

Still, the morality of necromancy hinges entirely upon the point-of-view of the person. Morality is not an immutable set of ethics, it varies from place to place. This is why orcish culture appears brutal to a human and human culture looks weak to an orc - they have different values much like any real-world culture might.

The Forsaken's values are extremely alien, however, I will admit that, but they are an amoral group. The question of "right or wrong" usually doesn't apply and, when it does, it still takes a back seat to "is this beneficial or not". It's the same kind of system goblins use, but goblins are generally less cruel about it and do pay attention to morality in certain cases (rather, pragmatism IS their morality, as friendship and business doesn't seem to have a large divide in Kezanian culture as it does in human culture).

Also, I'd like to be resurrected very much if it happened to me, given that my outlook on things would probably change post-resurrection. It's only a problem when it hasn't already happened. If I didn't accept undeath, then I'd kill myself or leave like the dozens of newly-raised Forsaken who choose to do just that. But there's always a choice; the Forsaken don't force anyone to join them after being resurrected, it's a conscious decision made by the person and they are free to leave at any time. If you don't want to serve the Forsaken, then they don't want you to and they are generally helpful to any undead that isn't trying to kill them (Redpath).

The Horde has no justifiable reason to hurt their major foothold in the Eastern Kingdoms and an ally that has aided them for half a decade now (though Garrosh was certainly willing to do it, likely to claim it for the orcs). In the wake of Hellscream, doing something like this would be an especially large issue, as it's essentially what he's done to the Darkspear - alienate, subjugate, and attempt genocide upon them.

The Argent Crusade is open and accepting of all races and I cannot imagine that they want to genocide any group of sentient beings because of it. It would be very, very out of character and not "realistic" at all. The same can be said to a lesser extent for the Alliance, who would have to give up manpower to assault the Forsaken and wouldn't condone genocide any more than the Argent Crusade would.

The Cenarion Circle is a group of druids. Unless it's changing the land in a manner similar to an Old God or the Legion, they probably don't care and won't involve themselves in a factional dispute regardless. This is probably why Malfurion appears to not care about the war - the Circle is primarily affiliated with Azeroth.

The other problem with genocide as an option is its effect on the world's understanding of the faction. The Alliance "simply" opting for genocide sends a lot of bad messages world-round.

From the Horde's perspective, the Alliance would have demolished every single man and woman of a faction allied with them. They may not care about the Forsaken on a personal level (side note: I find it funny how no one else cares about the Forsaken, but Sylvanas has to care to lead them...), but they will see that the Alliance will not hesitate to hold every person in a faction, whether they be complicit in the actions taken by their government and military or not, will be held equally accountable.

Even if they believe the Forsaken deserved it, it sends the message that, if the Alliance ever finds another race to be inconvenient to them, they will wipe them off of the face of Azeroth without so much as a second thought. That's scary and fear, as we've all seen, leads to war as much as the hatred and anger to commit that sort of violence upon a population does.

It's a recipe for more war.

Taken to it's extreme, it implies that the Alliance now sees itself as the ultimate moral standard of Azeroth and that those who go outside the confines of that moral standard will be eradicated. That's the kind of thinking only the Brotherhood of Light and D.E.T.H.A. might agree with among the neutral factions - but the main body of the Argent Crusade and the Cenarion Circle could never condone this.

As for the Ebon Blade, implied conflict with Sylvanas aside, they now have to face an army willing to kill any who use necromancy (and the Ebon Blade doesn't "do" free will when they use necromancy on their enemies) on the grounds that those practices are inherently evil. Even if the Alliance doesn't attack them, they'd be fools NOT to be on edge.

Again, genocide is not a viable "solution". It's not as simple as "we killed them all and everything was good". That's a naive way of viewing it. It's not to big a step from "kill them all, they're the bad guys who hurt us and we want vengeance" to "kill them all, they're the bad guys" because that sort of thinking is TOO SIMPLE to be realistic and lacks the basic understanding that, no matter the group and no matter the society, free-willed, sentient beings do not all think and feel and act the same.

Last edited by Valtheria; 09-09-2013 at 11:35 AM..
Reply With Quote