Scrolls of Lore Forums  

Go Back   Scrolls of Lore Forums > WarCraft Discussion > WarCraft Lore Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 09-09-2013, 12:48 PM
Kir the Wizard Kir the Wizard is offline

The Sun King
Kir the Wizard's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Donetsk, Occupied Ukraine
Posts: 11,115

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Valtheria View Post
Southshore was not an "independent neighbouring nation", it was an Alliance town from Vanilla to its destruction and the site of many battles between Alliance and Horde armies.
Uh, how does being an "Alliance town" deny being a part of the independent nation?

I wouldn't use the word "nation" (even though Warcraft lore does), but the towns of Southern Lordaeron were under dual protection of Ironforge and Stormwind and had an oath only to the entity of the Alliance itself. They easily qualify as an independent nation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Noitora View Post
How is there no such thing as a war crime?
No known convention in the world of Warcraft.

There is still moral judgement associated with the world-inhabiting cultures, though.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 09-09-2013, 12:52 PM
Valtheria Valtheria is offline

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

Undead Icon (War3)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kir the Wizard View Post
Uh, how does being an "Alliance town" deny being a part of the independent nation?

I wouldn't use the word "nation" (even though Warcraft lore does), but the towns of Southern Lordaeron were under dual protection of Ironforge and Stormwind and had an oath only to the entity of the Alliance itself. They easily qualify as an independent nation.
That's fair. Still, that just means that the Horde destroyed a town belonging to a member of the opposite faction. The manner in which it was done is horrid, but that's as "legitimate" a military target as any.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kir the Wizard View Post
No known convention in the world of Warcraft.

There is still moral judgement associated with the world-inhabiting cultures, though.
I'll agree with that. The term, however, isn't apt. Still, in real-life terms, yes, her actions would be war crimes.
__________________
Have fun.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 09-09-2013, 12:56 PM
GenyaArikado GenyaArikado is offline

Banished
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,294

Default

This Valtheria member has said what I've said for a long while, except that much more eloquently.

I like hxx
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 09-09-2013, 12:57 PM
Lord Grimtale Lord Grimtale is offline

Elune
Lord Grimtale's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: The Slaughtered Lamb
Posts: 22,046
BattleTag: Grimtale67#1407

Default

I'm honestly pretty cynical about this subject. I don't think anything is going to happen to the Forsaken because they might as well eat a litter of kittens and nobody would do anything about it.

At this rate they'll probably go through some redemption arc. It's simply inevitable, meanwhile races like Worgen will lose a complete story arc from that since Gilneas was given no other antagonist to chew on besides the Forsaken.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 09-09-2013, 01:01 PM
Kir the Wizard Kir the Wizard is offline

The Sun King
Kir the Wizard's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Donetsk, Occupied Ukraine
Posts: 11,115

Default

Click on the tag "sylvanas fetishism".

Notice the similarity.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 09-09-2013, 01:05 PM
Valtheria Valtheria is offline

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

PvP Symbol - Alliance

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Grimtale View Post
I'm honestly pretty cynical about this subject. I don't think anything is going to happen to the Forsaken because they might as well eat a litter of kittens and nobody would do anything about it.

At this rate they'll probably go through some redemption arc. It's simply inevitable, meanwhile races like Worgen will lose a complete story arc from that since Gilneas was given no other antagonist to chew on besides the Forsaken.
Worgen vs. Goblins should've been played up more. They have a lot in common, yet a great many differences.

Worgen vs. Blood Elves also has potential. Blood elves have been compared to (and made into) vampires in the past, I would like to see what happens when the two nations that abandoned the Alliance only to be destroyed years later by undead collide.

Worgen vs. Trolls would be pretty epic, especially Amani trolls who are old enemies of humans in general and utilize half-beast transformations. I think Hinterlands needed some worgen support.

Worgen vs. Orcs. Worgen vs. Orcs. Worgen vs. Orcs. 'Nuff said.

They have the potential to antagonize/be antagonized by a good portion of the Horde, with only tauren not coming off as viable (unless the worgen can be bad guys in that case and butcher some steak).

On a larger scale, there's a shit-ton of non-playable races in Warcraft that could easily fight the worgen. But, no, no love for my puppies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kir the Wizard View Post
Click on the tag "sylvanas fetishism".

Notice the similarity.
Q-Q Dammit.
__________________
Have fun.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 09-09-2013, 01:10 PM
C9H20 C9H20 is offline

Elune
C9H20's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 12,152

Default

@Kyn

I'll break this down into simple points.

-The general intention and tone of your post was to paint a picture of almost entirely miserable undead, weather the word always was used or not is irrelevant given the context.
That the undead have diminished positive emotions is a clear cut case, but just what that means is not. Does that mean they are mostly downers until they get a good vibe every few hours, days, weeks? It is unclear. I otoh have several quests to show where we can see what very much looks like happy undead, prime example being Belmont who professes to being more satisfied now then when he had a pulse.
So what are we saying here, are those quests wrong?

-You say raising dead is wrong and the Forsaken should stop. That it is wrong according to several belief systems. You ask who gives them the right.
Well I ask, who can tell them no? Is there any overarching moral authority to declare their actions wrong in Warcraft? Even if such an absolute being existed would this give it right to decide the destiny of other independent beings from a philosophical PoV?
Who are we to say what is wrong and what is right in the Warcraft universe? Maybe raising undead doesn't count as a crime to the theoretical afterlife arbiter of Warcraft. For all we know undead go to the Void because they become suffused with Void energy. Is that evil or just a function of the underlying physics of the Warcraft universe? Are Alliance evil for killing beings destined for eternal torture if killed? How evil are Forsaken compared to that for making more of such creatures? ... It is just not a clear cut answer.

We simply know too little on the nature of things to be tackling words like good and evil and frankly assigning moral supremacy to any Azerothian religion stinks of Imperialism.

The Forsaken can be fought because they are a perceived threat and aberration in the eyes of some Azerothian cultures but it is ridiculous to try and moralize the situation given the fantastical nature of their universe.

-You also say we wipe out many enemy groups. True, but for one they are enemies. It is easy to forget the Forsaken's invaluable geopolitical position as allies.
But beyond that, is there proof we went and killed theoretical fel orc children? Or even repentant fel orcs.

In fact answer me this hypothetical. Say there is this minor Legion commander who is known to have let some Azerothian soldiers escape when he could have just as easily had them killed. He is shown in a very sympathetic light in several other instances, we can see he isn't like the others.
Now do you honestly believe we would kill this Legion commander just like any other demon, because KILL DEMONS! And the Forsaken are many degrees more independent and sympathetic than any demon. Killing them all would be wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 09-09-2013, 04:16 PM
Kynrind Kynrind is offline

Arch-Druid
Kynrind's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,980

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by C9H20 View Post
@Kyn

I'll break this down into simple points.

-The general intention and tone of your post was to paint a picture of almost entirely miserable undead, weather the word always was used or not is irrelevant given the context.
That the undead have diminished positive emotions is a clear cut case, but just what that means is not. Does that mean they are mostly downers until they get a good vibe every few hours, days, weeks? It is unclear. I otoh have several quests to show where we can see what very much looks like happy undead, prime example being Belmont who professes to being more satisfied now then when he had a pulse.
So what are we saying here, are those quests wrong?
/faceplam. Are you reading what I am saying? CDev says that the undead -rarely- feel any good emotions. Negative emotions can be anger, rage, apathy, depression or any other emotions that are.. negative. But what apparently makes forsaken/undead happy is acting on some of those emotions. Murder makes some happy, killing, causing pain and suffering, those make them happy and you think this is something to be glad about?

Quote:
-You say raising dead is wrong and the Forsaken should stop. That it is wrong according to several belief systems. You ask who gives them the right.
Well I ask, who can tell them no? Is there any overarching moral authority to declare their actions wrong in Warcraft? Even if such an absolute being existed would this give it right to decide the destiny of other independent beings from a philosophical PoV?
Who are we to say what is wrong and what is right in the Warcraft universe? Maybe raising undead doesn't count as a crime to the theoretical afterlife arbiter of Warcraft. For all we know undead go to the Void because they become suffused with Void energy. Is that evil or just a function of the underlying physics of the Warcraft universe? Are Alliance evil for killing beings destined for eternal torture if killed? How evil are Forsaken compared to that for making more of such creatures? ... It is just not a clear cut answer.

We simply know too little on the nature of things to be tackling words like good and evil and frankly assigning moral supremacy to any Azerothian religion stinks of Imperialism.

The Forsaken can be fought because they are a perceived threat and aberration in the eyes of some Azerothian cultures but it is ridiculous to try and moralize the situation given the fantastical nature of their universe.
They should be wiped out because they are 1, an abomination to nature and any natural order. life and death, the circle/cycle of life, undeath is outside of that. It's not natural. 2, the undead show a very prevalent habit of attacking the living and either eating them or turning them into more undead. Why should the humans, dwarves, the Draenei, Night/Blood/High elves, taurens and some trolls and any decent shaman be glad that the forsaken are taking even more people outside of the natural cycle of life? They also show a disturbing tendency to instigate pain and suffering, to experiment on the living for horrific reasons, to create plagues specifically designed to kill them. Just because 10% of the forsaken might be strong willed enough to be decent people, doesn't mean the other 90% get a pass on their deeds.

Quote:
-You also say we wipe out many enemy groups. True, but for one they are enemies. It is easy to forget the Forsaken's invaluable geopolitical position as allies.
But beyond that, is there proof we went and killed theoretical fel orc children? Or even repentant fel orcs.
The Horde gain only a geopolitical advantage, but it's not a permanent alliance. If the forsaken became a liability by their continued actions, like continuing to push into Alliance lands the Horde could easily kick out the forsaken when they become a liability. In other words, if the forsaken become more of a problem than a help, they will get the boot. THAT is politics. And after MoP, the Horde is not going to be in a position to fight the Alliance any time soon. So Sylvanas need a leash and a muzzle or needs to be slapped down hard so she stops the crap she is doing. If she continues doing it, it only breaks suspension of belief that the Argents and Alliance don't do anything.

No, there isn't any proof that any children were fel tainted or that there are fel tainted orc children. But if their were, it would be a mercy to kill the kid if it's a bad corruption. Better to be dead than to grow up to be a fel corrupted demonic horror.

Quote:
In fact answer me this hypothetical. Say there is this minor Legion commander who is known to have let some Azerothian soldiers escape when he could have just as easily had them killed. He is shown in a very sympathetic light in several other instances, we can see he isn't like the others.
Now do you honestly believe we would kill this Legion commander just like any other demon, because KILL DEMONS! And the Forsaken are many degrees more independent and sympathetic than any demon. Killing them all would be wrong.
Yes. He should still be killed. Why would he be spared? Because he's the fucking enemy and he is still KILLING Alliance/Horde. Oh, so he let some people go. Big whoopie. Does that excuse the tens of thousands of others he's had put to the sword or turned into demon troop fuel? If the forsaken act like undead shits, they should be killed because that's what they are. Their past actions should be taken into account and punishment dealt out (although Xil would say that those past actions should be ignored because of the 'potential' actions the evil bastards might do. /eyeroll)

If you would strip away the fanboy crap and look at what the forsaken are doing, you should see a disquieting similarity between the forsaken and the Scourge. The forsaken are raising the dead, just like the Scourge. So what if there's no open mind control, a big part of the classic WoW forsakens hatred of Arthas/ Lich king is that he CURSED THEM WITH UNDEATH. The exact same thing they are inflicting on others. The fact they are asking -after- they raise them doesn't give them any brownie points. They are still inflicting it on people. Especially people -they just killed-. That should be proof enough those people do not want to be made undead.

Here's something, If someone could make undead and was raising an undead army, where you are a rotting corpse, would you fight them? If so, when you were killed and they raised you into undeath, why in the hell would you join them to kill and curse others with undeath if you had free will.

Sylvanas should be facing an internal rebellion amongst her armies. The forsaken have large numbers of former Alliance soldiers and citizens in their ranks. New undead that should LOATH Sylvanas and the forsaken. I cannot believe that tens of thousands of new undead wouldn't have either rebelled or left for the Alliance/Argents in job lots(after the starting area, no new undead is just allowed to go off by themselves. It's either join or die again). That is one of the problems I and others have with the forsaken story. It has big plot holes and there isn't any sign of dissent that there should be. A forsaken civil war would be a damned interesting story. The rebels would be using their free will after all and it would put a serious check on Sylvanas's expansion plans. not to mention it should be a serious reality check on the undead when there is a large group that specifically hates Sylvanas for what she had done to them.

Whether you like it or not, the forsaken are damned near the Azerothian equivalent of Nazies. The forsaken run concentration/death camps. They gas/plague civilians, they attack people who are not a threat to them (oh, the farmers of Hillsbrad are such a threat.. How DARE they grow crops and resist our incursions...)

Quote:
Southshore was not an "independent neighbouring nation", it was an Alliance town from Vanilla to its destruction and the site of many battles between Alliance and Horde armies.
Southshore and Hillsbrad and DunGarok weren't doing anything to the forsaken either. If she can order them destroyed because of the threat they -might- propose, why can't the Alliance do the same to the forsaken? Remember where the main source of new forsaken is located? The Alliance and the Argents. The fact that the forsaken can only raise humans and High/Blood elves should put both the humans and High/Blood elves up in arms.

Quote:
While she does force resurrection, she has, with one exception, never indoctrinated anyone. The undead choose to join and are free to leave or kill themselves. Some choose to fight Sylvanas, like Redpath, which leads to retaliation.
Sp the fact she has them asked if they want to be undead AFTER it's done makes it alright... Ok. I'll just have you shot up with heroin then ask you afterwards if you wanted it. You'll be able to make a rational and clearheaded decision, right?

Quote:
Given that it took the destruction of Gilneas and Theramore, corruption of the Vale of Eternal Blossoms, theft of an Old God's heart, and multiple, smaller crimes for Azeroth's reckoning to come to Garrosh's doorstep, no, they will not be doing the same to Sylvanas unless they absolutely have to (like she gains some kind of Mega-Blight and threatens to Blight the Eastern Kingdoms if she doesn't get 300 sandwiches by Friday).
I put that down to terrible story writing on Blizzard's part. The Alliance already had reason to want to take out Garrosh from Cata. Adding in the corruption of the Vale of Eternal Blossoms, theft of an Old God's heart, and multiple, smaller crimes for Azeroth's reckoning to come to Garrosh's doorstep in the mix is stupidity on Blizz's part for the Alliance. It's like they were saying that everything in Cata, including the invasion of Ashenvale, Darkshore, Gilneas, Hillsbrad foothills, Anderhol and the push into Arathi were merely low level skirmishes....

Quote:
The Argent Crusade will not intervene so long as she is not actively destroying their territory. Factional conflict has never interested them. The Ebon Blade is arguably no better than the Forsaken, they just aren't large enough to show it and they aren't a nation.

The Alliance would gain very little in the long run by wiping the Forsaken off the face of the planet, I've gone into detail on that earlier. And the Horde has no responsibility to do anything beyond keeping her in check with the Blight. Sylvanas also keeps herself in check, contrary to popular belief, since she has no desire to die again anytime soon.
The Argents and EB should have acted long before. It has been painfully clear what the forsaken are working up to. This is one of the plot holes that numerous Alliance and Horde players have been pointing out for 4 years now. A point of note, the Ebon Blade are not recruiting new members, nor are they raising permanent undead either. When they do it, it is temporary and the corpse dies sometime later. It's not a permanent unending mockery of life like what the forsaken do.

The Alliance has a lot to gain by wiping out the forsaken. Your details ignore the reality of what she and the forsaken are doing. Game play and game play alone explains why the Argents aren't marching on Undercity right now. The only ones that benefit from the forsaken surviving is the Horde. Unless Blizzard writes it that the forsaken are absolutely needed to help Azeroth survive, which is asinine. It's the same excuse that keeps the orcs surviving as a race/. Despite the death and destruction they have caused and continue to cause, somehow they are the needed component necessary for Azeroth's survival. So the other races are supposed to bit the pillow and tolerate the numerous small raids, deaths and murders for the sake of the planet. And all the while losing a constant number of soldiers, civilians and land to the orcs... It's a no win situation.

Let me get this straight, you are saying that the Horde doesn't bear -any- responsibility for the forsaken other than making sure she never uses the blight/plague again? Are you bloody serious? What about her and the forsakens experiments? The citizens they have tortured and killed? If the Horde doesn't bear any responsibility for the forsaken except for the use of the blight/plague, then if Sylvanas and the forsaken do something to cause the Alliance/Argents to declare war on the forsaken, the Horde should step back and let the forsaken be crushed. If the Horde is going to defend the forsaken against any attack the Horde can damned well take responsibility for what she and the forsaken do. They are allies. This means what the forsaken do affects the entire Horde.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 09-09-2013, 04:50 PM
C9H20 C9H20 is offline

Elune
C9H20's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 12,152

Default

Allllllright, some more points.

-When I say happiness I mean genuine happiness, positive and so on. No need for sophistry. Admittedly in Belmont's case he was happy because he was fighting, but I am sure there are Alliance figures who find fulfillment in combat, I don't think they'd be characterized as evil for it.
And there are examples of seemingly happy Forsaken who are doing nothing special at all, feel free to go and do the Forsaken starting experience and see it for yourself. Again are we meant to disregard in-game lore? Especially when it doesn't contradict CDev directly? We can see happy Forsaken, lore tells us they are not as happy as before but not incapable of it... I honestly don't see the problem here.

- "Outside the natural cycle of life" ... So? Who cares? It goes back to my question about who gets to decide the morality of the matter, given the apparent lack of a supreme being... and even then ultimate morality is tricky. What kind of solid proof does anyone have that being outside the cycle is bad? Reread that segment of my previous post and think about it.

-Say 70% of all Forsaken are demonstrably bad, they get killed. That's okay. You have 30% of decent enough Forsaken. What now? Do you kick them off their own land? Make them second class citizens in their own land by imposing colonists? Do they get to be guilty for the actions of the regime?
Interesting question those.

-I don't know what to say to your "kill the unclean" mindset. It is... odd. But again I don't much care for fictional morality so hey. Not to mention you seem to reject the way drama works in favor of real life morality/law which has little baring on what makes a good story (talking about the demon commander thingy).

-I'll give you the point that the internal situation of the Forsaken could be better presented, hell I say as much myself. Though I don't see how that relates to my actual points.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 09-09-2013, 05:29 PM
Thunderbraid Thunderbraid is offline

Drunk Assassin
Thunderbraid's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 2,153

Default

My solution is still the best, clearly.
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 09-09-2013, 06:16 PM
Millenia Millenia is offline

Elune
Millenia's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 10,836
BattleTag: Millenia#1386

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Valtheria View Post
So, here's a thread to discuss your oh-so-burning desire to see the Alliance kill enough people to constitute a major political power - regardless of whether they are military personnel, apothecaries, or civilians and actually complicit or culpable for the crimes committed - and how this could not possibly backfire or have dire repercussions on the way others view the Alliance or the way the Alliance views itself in any way, shape, or form.

Just, please, keep it out of the thread I accidentally necro'd a few days ago, alright? Alright.
The Alliance is already fine with undead who aren't murderous toward them.

I don't see why the Alliance wouldn't be fine with murderous undead getting killed.

Then again, with the currently functioning logic of "if the Alliance members died more than three hours ago, then the Alliance has no right to be pissed about it", the Alliance wouldn't raise a finger to save all two surviving Lordaeroni from the Forsaken. Because, you know, getting mad over a genocide that happened a year ago is so petty.
__________________
"All right, I'll get that kid to eat. Where's my screw driver and my plumber's helper? I'll open up his mouth and I'll shove it in."


The Alliance's three rules on faction conflict:
1) You can't win.
2) You can't break even.
3) You can't leave the game.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mustrum View Post
Because if a storyteller is doing his job, he makes you care. And if that storyteller then says "I dunno, then they stopped fighting, I guess," without any explanation or clarification, his audience has every right to be pissed off. Because they were given reason to stay interested, reason to keep up with his tale, only to be shut down just as things were getting good. A waste of time, a waste of emotional tension, a waste, if you fail to grasp the significance of narrative, of money.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 09-09-2013, 06:31 PM
Yakitori Yakitori is offline

Arch-Druid
Yakitori's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 2,074

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Valtheria View Post
-post of many words-
I had thought - and I believe the consensus was - that "Edge of Night" universally takes place before the Worgen PoV of the invasion of Gilneas, with the ships she sent upon taking command from Garrosh being the ships that you board (and kill the captains of) as the Worgen player. The quakes that brought down the gates on the Gilnean Wall would then also be the ones that caused the land around Duskhaven to start collapsing into the ocean.

Of course, if you really think about it... Edge of Night and the Curse of the Worgen comics simply don't mesh that well together. So Sylvanas made an agreement with Alpha Prime to use the curse to weaken Gilneas for the invasion and get the Scythe of Elune, but she had no interest in living anymore because her only reason for continuing on (Arthas dying) had already been achieved and so she was going to kill herself and she didn't care about invading Gilneas, but...

...everything is a mess and I might be confused.
__________________
Disgruntled Forsaken Stable Master
"Blacker than a moonless night, hotter and more bitter than hell itself... That is coffee."
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 09-09-2013, 06:41 PM
Kynrind Kynrind is offline

Arch-Druid
Kynrind's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,980

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by C9H20 View Post
Allllllright, some more points.

-When I say happiness I mean genuine happiness, positive and so on. No need for sophistry. Admittedly in Belmont's case he was happy because he was fighting, but I am sure there are Alliance figures who find fulfillment in combat, I don't think they'd be characterized as evil for it.
And there are examples of seemingly happy Forsaken who are doing nothing special at all, feel free to go and do the Forsaken starting experience and see it for yourself. Again are we meant to disregard in-game lore? Especially when it doesn't contradict CDev directly? We can see happy Forsaken, lore tells us they are not as happy as before but not incapable of it... I honestly don't see the problem here.

- "Outside the natural cycle of life" ... So? Who cares? It goes back to my question about who gets to decide the morality of the matter, given the apparent lack of a supreme being... and even then ultimate morality is tricky. What kind of solid proof does anyone have that being outside the cycle is bad? Reread that segment of my previous post and think about it.

-Say 70% of all Forsaken are demonstrably bad, they get killed. That's okay. You have 30% of decent enough Forsaken. What now? Do you kick them off their own land? Make them second class citizens in their own land by imposing colonists? Do they get to be guilty for the actions of the regime?
Interesting question those.

-I don't know what to say to your "kill the unclean" mindset. It is... odd. But again I don't much care for fictional morality so hey. Not to mention you seem to reject the way drama works in favor of real life morality/law which has little baring on what makes a good story (talking about the demon commander thingy).

-I'll give you the point that the internal situation of the Forsaken could be better presented, hell I say as much myself. Though I don't see how that relates to my actual points.
If murder makes people happy and they actively seek it out (discounting soldiers that obey orders, since you want people capable of killing in your military), then those people need to be stopped. Whether they are alive or undead. It's true some seem to find a form of satisfaction, but with the game, many things are left out, ignored or flat out contradicted by the lore. What is in the game cannot always be considered the lore (the Ambermill quests and NPCs and the Dalaran mages being one of the biggest screw ups by Blizzard quest designers, but then many times what is in the game is lore so it's a confusing mix and many of the Blizz lore/quest peoples answers only muddle the issue.

The natural cycle of life.. I can safely say that the druids, Ysera, Cenarius, the Ancients, Alexstrasza, the Green and Red dragon flights, the elementals, the spirits the shamans use, the Light, Elune's power, the Naaru, the power the other clerics use, the TITANS and such all pretty much would stand that undeath and necromancy is outside the natural cycle. Remember they are almost all explicitly concerned with keeping the world intact and working within the natural cycle. Anything that gets outside of that tends to get stomped into the ground. Undeath is an unnatural occurrence and it's extremely rare that a good undead happens. I'd also say that since holy and healing power from clerics and paladins burns/causes agonizing pain when used on undead, and that druids and shamans are all about the natural cycle of life, that is pretty firm on the side that undeath and necromancy is not a natural phenomenon. Also, consider where undead and necromancy came from in the first place? Either deaths caused by arcane explosion/spell screwing up, or from the dreadlords.

With the remaining 30%, put them under someone else's control until its believed they might be trusted to have their own nation. Honestly though, if 70% of the forsaken were killed, the remaining wouldn't have a nation left to call their own. They'd be the citizens of other nations. If they kept trying to raise new undead though, kill them.

A demon is a demon is a demon. It's almost impossibly rare that any demon you meet will be anything but 'Kill you!' or 'I am going to use you'. There's one thing you can trust is that a demon will do their best to kill you one way or another. The demon commander you outlined earlier didn't earn any Good points by letting the prisoners go. He's still a demon and in all likelihood, he is still commanding forces that are killing your troops. If he withdrew or didn't engage in combat, that might indicate something, but if he still continues fighting, he's still someone you need to kill. Just because he wasn't quite as bad as other demon commanders doesn't make him less a target.

In all likelihood, I'd be suspicious as hell about what sort of trick he was playing. Some demon are known for being very sneaky. Either way, the demon commander is still on the 'Need to Kill' list. Especially if he's still killing my troops and he's the closest one facing me in battle. He's still the enemy.

Drama is only so good until it becomes unbelievable. Would YOU trust a demon commander that let some of your troops escape certain death or would you be suspicious of a trick? Letting some soldiers escape isn't proof of anything of a change in an enemy's morals. I wouldn't care if he was an honorable demon, he's still the enemy and still needs to die.

Definitely agree. There needs to be some internal conflict amongst the forsaken. They are too monolithic and all act the same. Practically worshiping Sylvanas (cult of personality there. A indoctrination cult?) even the ones that should be hating her the most (the 'recruits' from Cata to MoP).
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 09-09-2013, 07:51 PM
Kellick Kellick is offline

Site Staff - Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 12,052
BattleTag: Pyrolithic#1538

Default

Personally, I say retrofit the Undercity into a necropolis, launch it into the sky, emptying the fetid, toxic contents of its sewers and the years of RAS experimental runoff all over its former location, poisoning the area with a concentration of toxins that make Southshore look like a tourist had a bad reaction to spicy food, effectively rendering all but the most twisted forms of life (or unlife) impossible for millenia, and having it spread to all of Tirisfal, Silverpine and Hillsbrad as Lordamere lake's waters carry the toxins to the surrounding areas.

Mostly so we can avoid some of these debates.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 09-09-2013, 07:52 PM
Quirnheim Quirnheim is offline

Eternal
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Niagara Region, Canada
Posts: 4,850
BattleTag: kam#1475

Default

Realistically she should be killed on sight by Varian and the other Alliance leaders and the next big push of the war should be against occupied Lordaeron.

What will happen is nothing. It'll never be mentioned by anyone what she's done and Greymane will stand around her like nothing happened.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fojar View Post
Fuck your dumb gamergate shit I'd rather be pegged by Sylvanas than read it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Torch View Post
Just remember, the Alliance is only ever allowed to passively defend itself against the Horde, and Taurajo was Azeroth's equivalent of the Holocaust.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 09-09-2013, 07:53 PM
Trickster Trickster is offline

Elune
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Trickster's Mighty Keep
Posts: 7,364

Default

What to do with the Forsaken? Stab'em, I say. Crush'em, I say. Shatter'em, I say. Purge'em, I say.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brojar View Post
i literally just shit my pants with rage
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 09-09-2013, 08:30 PM
Millenia Millenia is offline

Elune
Millenia's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 10,836
BattleTag: Millenia#1386

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pajamasalad View Post
Turn Sylvanas back into a day elf and start the forsaken back onto the road to redemption.
Oh, neato. More people are using my terminology!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Valtheria View Post
This was from the other thread; I may as well address it.

The destruction of a town and a field does not a genocide make. A genocide is the systematic and widespread extermination or attempted extermination of an entire national, racial, religious, or ethnic group.

Were the Forsaken to intentionally and systematically plague-bomb every human settlement remaining in Lordaeron (including Hearthglen and Light's Hope Chapel), then we would have a genocide. As they have not, please stop throwing this term around because you clearly do not understand its meaning.

While the Forsaken's actions at Southshore are morally reprehensible to say the least, they are the conclusion of a long, drawn-out conflict that began in Vanilla which, according to Kingslayer Orkus, turned the fields into a warzone regardless. In truth, civilians should have been evacuated from Southshore long ago to prevent this scenario, but I do not fault the Alliance for not doing that to the citizens of Southshore who had suffered and lost so much already.

Still, the Forsaken didn't systematically slaughter every man, woman, and child in Southshore anyway - or, not intentionally. I doubt many of Hillsbrad's humans are left now.

Those who fled east were killed at the Thoradin Wall, so that's a good number dead. Many more were interned in the Sludge Fields, where Warden Stillwater performed explicitly illegal experimentation that was one of many atrocities warranting his immediate execution.

Then there are the many humans who sought refuge in Fenris Isle and accepted the worgen curse. The actual number is unknown, but they clearly number much higher than 80 ("Rise, Forsaken", "Reinforcements from Fenris", "The Waters Run Red"); I'd give a figure well over 100 prior to casualties and enough to show up in Hillsbrad later on in "Helcular's Rod Giveth".
Keep in mind they depopulated an entire region. It's not just two towns and some farms (and a Dalarani prison, I might add).

And they did deliberately kill off the fleeing refugees. Then they eventually went and killed off those on Fenris, who had no means to actually attack the Forsaken, and could only defend themselves to the extent given to them by gameplay. And those on Fenris who survived were then killed in the final quest for Silverpine. And, sure, there might have been a few left beyond that to be killed in Hillsbrad, and some who stayed in Gilneas, but genocides don't have to be total in order to be considered genocides. Since, you know, Hitler's genocide of the Jews/gypsies/homosexuals wasn't completely successful.

The "illegal" experiments were only illegal because they created monsters that could not be controlled by the Forsaken. In addition to the experiments on Forsaken, as well.

Even in the Third Reich there were a few Jews who were spared death camps. Beyond that, however, the Argents are a different polity than the Alliance-aligned Hillsbrad remnant of Lordaeron. If Hitler only implemented the Final Solution in Germany and ignored Poland's Jew population because he didn't conquer Poland, his actions would still be considered genocide.

To the Alliance, the Forsaken should be no different than the Burning Legion, or the Twilight's Hammer, or whatever. Just because they have a Horde insignia doesn't make their crimes any less deserving of death.
__________________
"All right, I'll get that kid to eat. Where's my screw driver and my plumber's helper? I'll open up his mouth and I'll shove it in."


The Alliance's three rules on faction conflict:
1) You can't win.
2) You can't break even.
3) You can't leave the game.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mustrum View Post
Because if a storyteller is doing his job, he makes you care. And if that storyteller then says "I dunno, then they stopped fighting, I guess," without any explanation or clarification, his audience has every right to be pissed off. Because they were given reason to stay interested, reason to keep up with his tale, only to be shut down just as things were getting good. A waste of time, a waste of emotional tension, a waste, if you fail to grasp the significance of narrative, of money.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 09-10-2013, 02:22 AM
C9H20 C9H20 is offline

Elune
C9H20's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 12,152

Default

To be honest Kyn I don't think we're seeing eye to eye here and this won't be a very enjoyable discussion for me so I'm done.

Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 09-10-2013, 05:57 AM
Valtheria Valtheria is offline

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

Undead Icon (War3)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yakitori View Post
I had thought - and I believe the consensus was - that "Edge of Night" universally takes place before the Worgen PoV of the invasion of Gilneas, with the ships she sent upon taking command from Garrosh being the ships that you board (and kill the captains of) as the Worgen player. The quakes that brought down the gates on the Gilnean Wall would then also be the ones that caused the land around Duskhaven to start collapsing into the ocean.

Of course, if you really think about it... Edge of Night and the Curse of the Worgen comics simply don't mesh that well together. So Sylvanas made an agreement with Alpha Prime to use the curse to weaken Gilneas for the invasion and get the Scythe of Elune, but she had no interest in living anymore because her only reason for continuing on (Arthas dying) had already been achieved and so she was going to kill herself and she didn't care about invading Gilneas, but...

...everything is a mess and I might be confused.
That's a mess, yeah. I find it unlikely, however, that she would have the val'kyr before the worgen starting zone and never once use them - greater or lesser - to assault the Gilneans. In fact, if she had them, she wouldn't have needed the worgen because she could rain lesser val'kyr down upon Gilneas City from above, killing and raising every citizen she could find.

Aside from their complete absence, it'd be odd for her to show up with val'kyr, tell Garrosh to bugger off, start the invasion, force the Gilneans to evacuate, get pushed back, and then show off the val'kyr. It seems more likely that they start the invasion, force the Gilneans to evacuate, get pushed back, show up with val'kyr, tell Garry to suck it, then call him in to show them off.

I also find that it makes some level of sense for her to leave mid-invasion, since Garrosh apparently commanded it while she was gone - the only point at which that seems likely is during the time between Gilneas and Silverpine's questlines.

The three stories don't mesh well, though, that's true.

Quote:
Originally Posted by C9H20 View Post
To be honest Kyn I don't think we're seeing eye to eye here and this won't be a very enjoyable discussion for me so I'm done.

Yeah, I'm losing my taste for this as well. At least Millenia's tone makes me feel as though zhe's paying attention despite disagreeing.

Which is really the point of this thread - I don't expect us all to see eye-to-eye, I just want to see the different perspectives that, when added up, sort of build something closer to the actual feelings of Azeroth thanks to our general immersion into and identification with the various cultures of the setting.

I guess I may as well add a conclusive statement before I move on from this thread to the next topic of interest:

While the Forsaken have committed many crimes and caused much harm to Azeroth, and though I do believe that they deserve to be punished for what they've done and put at the Alliance's general mercy after the Siege of Orgrimmar, I do not believe genocide to be a reasonable option due to it not being within the general character of the Alliance. I also do not feel the Horde would depose a leader who threw aside and turned against his allies just to throw aside and turn against the Forsaken immediately after the Siege is over. I am not convinced that Lordaeron's neutral parties, despite disapproving of the Forsaken's actions, would ever advocate the mass slaughter of its citizens.

And, were you to battle the Forsaken on their turf, you'd be fighting a subterranean necropolis full of sentient undead with nothing left to lose, this time without the benefit of a coup forcing most of its citizens from their homes. You'd either have to take the elevators or the sewers (both unwise, as it bottlenecks the soldiers into close-quarters combat with an enemy wielding a chemical super weapon). The casualties of a direct assault would inevitably be catastrophic no matter what kind of artillery you pack (even mole machines would be a poor choice when you're drilling directly under toxic chemical runoff).

Now, you could try to siege them from the outside until they run out of Blight... but that seems a senseless waste of humanoid life to me, since Sylvanas would use the Blight sparingly, knowing that she has limits on her supply.

Even if you were to get inside the city, you'd still be stuck in its halls, which would be full of Deathstalker and Deathguard forces, magi, shadow priests, and a plethora of lesser val'kyr (and that's assuming the other members of the Horde don't offer some sort of assistance). Unless you stop using human forces altogether, every one you lose is another number added to the Forsaken. Worgen would be extremely useful here, naturally, but I'm willing to count on the Forsaken preparing and distributing wolfsbane oil amongst its troops to deal with that.

If I were Sylvanas, I'd have several walls between the Royal Quarter and the Apothecarium up as soon as things start to look bad. The long corridor connecting them is a perfect place to set up large, internal barricades that would stall Alliance forces and siege weapons long enough to kill a good number with the Blight, which would be in ready supply due to the proximity to the laboratories.

And when you finally get to Sylvanas's chamber, would she still be there? You might end up invading this "Under-Undercity" that in which she's apparently keeping Koltira, meaning you're now on even less familiar ground that Sylvanas has probably prepared to put the odds in her favour. I wouldn't be surprised if she had automatic Blight spreaders set up, multiple lesser Val'kyr, Royal Dreadguard forces, abominations, Shadowstalkers, and her finest lieutenants concentrated there.

And when you finally get there... are you willing to bet that she'd have stuck around for the whole siege? She has more than enough magi after Ambermill and she's not as arrogant as Garrosh. Leaving rather than allow herself to die is just the kind of thing she would do in that situation, and the Forsaken would let it happen because they would lay down their lives for her in a heartbeat.

...Holy shit, though. This would make a good raid. I'm rambling again, so let's finish this.

I can see the dismantling of the Forsaken military hierarchy and power structure, but genocide in retaliation to mass murder (I still don't think Southshore qualifies as "genocide", but it's a semantic issue, the point is taken) is a way to respond to anger and hatred with more anger and hatred. I feel that doing something like that, after dealing with Garrosh, would make Mists of Pandaria a pointless expansion from which the Alliance and Horde learned nothing. You cannot justify genocide. I can understand mass execution of the people responsible, but decimating every citizen of the Undercity? That's too extreme, in my eyes, and too costly from a military, moral, and reputational standpoint.

That's how I see it. I'm out for now, feel free to continue the discussion amongst yourselves, but I won't be as active in this thread from here on.
__________________
Have fun.
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 09-10-2013, 09:07 AM
Kir the Wizard Kir the Wizard is offline

The Sun King
Kir the Wizard's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Donetsk, Occupied Ukraine
Posts: 11,115

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Millenia View Post
The Alliance is already fine with undead who aren't murderous toward them.

I don't see why the Alliance wouldn't be fine with murderous undead getting killed.

Then again, with the currently functioning logic of "if the Alliance members died more than three hours ago, then the Alliance has no right to be pissed about it", the Alliance wouldn't raise a finger to save all two surviving Lordaeroni from the Forsaken. Because, you know, getting mad over a genocide that happened a year ago is so petty.
This is something that gets ignored often too, actually. Mostly, IMHO, because of WoW's dimension as the "themepark version" of the Warcraft world, where nothing is meaningful or serious unless the game directly says so.

As such, stuff like the Forsaken being not so different from the Scourge they are supposed to despise, or the all-inflicting casual genocide all races perform against native mobs are just unmentioned by the virtue of being in a bubble of their own narrative. See also: Uldum, Redridge Mountains.
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 09-10-2013, 09:46 AM
MisterCrow MisterCrow is offline

Eternal
MisterCrow's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 4,421

Default

My two cents on the matter goes like this:
  • I'm not a fan of throwing around the term "genocide" in a video game context.
  • I'm not a fan of saying "the Alliance should kill all the deadites."
  • All that being said, I want the curse of undeath lifted, and whether that means the Forsaken die a final death or the Forsaken magically get restored to a mortal existence, I think there's good narratives had either way.
  • The reason? Because if we're supposed to be in the Age of Mortals, then the Forsaken being angry immortals with a chip on their shoulder regarding the living is a powder keg with a lit fuse.
  • I'm happier with the Forsaken being removed from play because the constant "will they or won't they" of going balls-out Scourge-grade evil (and the debate about whether they have already or not) is tiresome and not really compelling from a story context without any non-Sylvanas characters amongst the Forsaken.

Now, all of THAT being said, I accept that the Forsaken are going to stay playable as long as WoW is a playable game, and the kind of closure I want to see on the Forsaken narrative isn't going to happen until the next game in the franchise, whatever form that takes.
__________________
Lore Observation, Systems Design, and other science dropped at Power Word: Remix


Expect nothing and anything will surprise you.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 09-10-2013, 09:53 AM
Shaman Shaman is offline

Site Staff - Admin
Shaman's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: The Barrens
Posts: 12,447

Default

Really I think a great story-arch would be having Sylvanas overthrown by Queen Calia Menethil, with a new and more honorable breed of Forsaken calling the shots.
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 09-10-2013, 10:29 AM
Noitora Noitora is offline

Elune
Noitora's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Florida
Posts: 34,683
BattleTag: Chillman#1339

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarahmoo View Post
Really I think a great story-arch would be having Sylvanas overthrown by Queen Calia Menethil, with a new and more honorable breed of Forsaken calling the shots.
*Fojar reads post*

__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fojar View Post
Yeah but where would this forum be if not for people speculating endlessly about things Blizzard doesn't give a shit about
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leviathon View Post
SoL: 20 something know it alls telling other 20 something know it alls they know everything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kobebyarlant View Post
All this faction bitching and people arguing with each other and it's Fojar of all people that comes in with reasonable positivity.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 09-10-2013, 10:32 AM
Kir the Wizard Kir the Wizard is offline

The Sun King
Kir the Wizard's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Donetsk, Occupied Ukraine
Posts: 11,115

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarahmoo View Post
Really I think a great story-arch would be having Sylvanas overthrown by Queen Calia Menethil, with a new and more honorable breed of Forsaken calling the shots.
Would the undead continue to stay a part of the Horde had they become humans in all but name?
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 09-10-2013, 06:59 PM
Millenia Millenia is offline

Elune
Millenia's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 10,836
BattleTag: Millenia#1386

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Valtheria View Post
I can see the dismantling of the Forsaken military hierarchy and power structure, but genocide in retaliation to mass murder (I still don't think Southshore qualifies as "genocide", but it's a semantic issue, the point is taken) is a way to respond to anger and hatred with more anger and hatred. I feel that doing something like that, after dealing with Garrosh, would make Mists of Pandaria a pointless expansion from which the Alliance and Horde learned nothing. You cannot justify genocide. I can understand mass execution of the people responsible, but decimating every citizen of the Undercity? That's too extreme, in my eyes, and too costly from a military, moral, and reputational standpoint.
The Forsaken should not be allowed to stand as a political power whatsoever.

Should all Forsaken die? No. I'm sure the roach guy, or the history woman from Howling Fjord haven't done anything worse than pay taxes (to the extent we can assume they exist), and so they'd get their choice of swearing fealty to Lordaeron (should Alliance politics allow its resurrection as a new political entity) or the Alliance state responsible for the territory they're in (should Lordaeron's territory be split among the various Alliance nations), or heading off to sleep on the collective couches of the rest of the Horde. Keep in mind that free-willed undead =/= Forsaken, any more than human = Stormwind citizen.

Mists of Pandaria is nothing more than a pointless expansion. Metzen himself has said in his twitter that faction conflict will continue in some form, and so anything that happens between the Alliance and Horde is pointless, because inevitably bloodshed will be had (mainly of the Horde PCs killing Alliance NPCs variety). Varian bro-fisting Vol'jin or Varian kicking Vol'jin in the raptor is irrelevant, as there will only be about a week of peace followed by Horde killing Alliance, and maybe the occasional Alliance killing Horde.

And beyond that... the Alliance has no actual reputation to trade out. The Alliance is 95% of the time considered to be exactly as bad as the Horde despite the vast differences in their actions. Four percent is from Dalaran and Shattrath helping Theramore out, and the remaining one percent is the never-seen-again pandaren in A Little Patience, and one throwaway line by an Argent in Western Plaguelands that is never built upon again.

Also, I still find your arguments lacking, as you seem to require the Alliance to have more care given to its story (in terms of caring for its own reputation, lessons learned from Pandaria, and justifying an all-out attack on the Forsaken) than the Forsaken have ever given in the course of their story. The Forsaken have been 'conveniently' missing from most of Mists of Pandaria to prevent them from learning anything that could pop their 'dark humor bubble' (as ARM dubbed it), so they're likely to continue their theme of being dickasses to the Alliance, whereas the Alliance is supposed to learn, from Mists of Pandaria... that they should just hang back and get killed and hope the rest of the Horde has enough pity to save them, or something.

Attacking the Undercity would certainly be costly, but you forget that Jaina could probably just flood the entire thing... not to mention the potential of using the Reckoning Bomb, which seems to be tailored to kill undead only (not that friendly fire would matter if the Skyfire drops it before any Alliance boots are on the ground). And yes, the possibility of Sylvanas escaping while leaving behind her people to die would be rather interesting! Sadly, that's about the only interesting possibility the Forsaken have from my point of view.


Quote:
That's how I see it. I'm out for now, feel free to continue the discussion amongst yourselves, but I won't be as active in this thread from here on.
Pansy.
__________________
"All right, I'll get that kid to eat. Where's my screw driver and my plumber's helper? I'll open up his mouth and I'll shove it in."


The Alliance's three rules on faction conflict:
1) You can't win.
2) You can't break even.
3) You can't leave the game.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mustrum View Post
Because if a storyteller is doing his job, he makes you care. And if that storyteller then says "I dunno, then they stopped fighting, I guess," without any explanation or clarification, his audience has every right to be pissed off. Because they were given reason to stay interested, reason to keep up with his tale, only to be shut down just as things were getting good. A waste of time, a waste of emotional tension, a waste, if you fail to grasp the significance of narrative, of money.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
factions, fanwank, forsaken, genocide is fun, lordaeron, stromgarde n shit, sylvanas fetishism, sylvanas rox, wololo

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.