This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
The Future of Lordaeron
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
morginar
So the blight is okay? What about chemical weapons irl? Shall we just ignore the Geneva convention, then?
If Geneva exist in WoW, which it doesn't. The rules have not been set in Azeroth.
Post by
Monday
So the blight is okay? What about chemical weapons irl? Shall we just ignore the Geneva convention, then?
If Geneva exist in WoW, which it doesn't. The rules have not been set in Azeroth.
My point sailed right over your head. 4dehorde notes that the Blight isn't a bad way to go, which implies that s/he is fine with biological and chemical agents being used IRL.
Post by
Skreeran
There is no such thing as genocide if it wasn't alive in the first place.
The forsaken should not exist at all. By real world standards, but as Forsaken clearly have intelligence, emotions, and many other traits chaacteristic of human life, you can't judge them by the same standards as real life dead things.
Not only that, you are then doomed to a life of suffering and then a unending torture in the darkness.
You overestimate burning to death compared to melting to death while being poisoned and then cursed to a life of pain and darkness and then hellNot true. Blight does not cause undead, unlike the original plague. It's strictly a killing weapon.
Here's the thing you have to understand about Forsaken. They are pragmatists. The Blight is a tool to them, to be used to get what they want. They don't, for the most part, have compassion, which might limit their use of it, but they're not overly cruel about it either.
To the Forsaken, it's just a powerful tool, to be used to secure their place in this world.
Post by
4dehorde
The Tauren gave as good as they got in the original Barrens for that excavation.
Actually the only tauren who acted in open violence against the dwarves in the Barrens before Cataclysm was Gann. And its not like he was unjustified. His entire tribe, save himself and his brother, were wiped out when Bael Modan was built.
The Dwarves have their honour after all.
*cough* Bael Modan *cough*
The Night Elves love their lands far too much to ever use something that would poison it and corrupt it like the Blight
I did not say a potential Alliance superweapon would corrupt land, did I? I said it would cause mass, miserable death.
There is no such thing as genocide if it wasn't alive in the first place.
The forsaken should not exist at all.
How convenient. When the Forsaken annihilate its genocide, but when the Alliance does the same thing its just cleansing right? I'm beginning to see a double standard here.
Sorry, but wiping the Forsaken out IS genocide, and I believe genocide is never okay under any circumstances. You can give me a list of every bad thing the Forsaken have done, and I would still tell you using genocide on them is wrong. Why? Because I do not believe one evil excuses another.
The Scarlet Crusade tried to pull that and got destroyed in the process, and those that escaped retribution got turned into the Risen. Fitting if you ask me, becoming the very thing they tried to destroy.
Sometimes I do want to completely annihilate Alliance humans and Alliance night elves, but just because I want to doesn't mean I will. While I despise those two groups like you despise the Forsaken, I would not resort to genocide. I wouldn't because I know it would be wrong. Its called restraint.
4dehorde notes that the Blight isn't a bad way to go, which implies that s/he is fine with biological and chemical agents being used IRL.
Not true. I never said that. I said it wasn't the
worst
way to go. And I most certainly do not approve of use of chemical weapons irl. You cant just assume things like that.
Post by
Monday
Whoops, my apologies. Light said that, not you.
Post by
355559
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Lordplatypus
Not true. Blight does not cause undead, unlike the original plague. It's strictly a killing weapon.
Interesting, so now we know why the forsaken don't just blight everything. Either way, while slowly melting to death, every single nerve in your body would likely be sending out pain messages, on the other hand, burning to death would involve a quick death from something in your body giving out due to the heat. I'd considering the Scarlet crusade's actions to be comparable to burning the dead during the black death. on the other hand, the blight is some magic version of sarin.
Here's the thing you have to understand about Forsaken. They are pragmatists. The Blight is a tool to them, to be used to get what they want. They don't, for the most part, have compassion, which might limit their use of it, but they're not overly cruel about it either.
To the Forsaken, it's just a powerful tool, to be used to secure their place in this world.
And yet it's fine for them to do this in your twisted worldview yet someone cleaning up the forsaken infestation is wrong?
Post by
Skreeran
It's kinda silly to argue that one horrible death is more horrible than another.
Falling into a vat of sulpheric acid is probably more painful than dying of liver failure, but I wouldn't tell that to someone dying of liver failure.
One can argue that Forsaken's actions are wrong, but arguing for their own genocide kinda deflates your own argument.
Post by
Adamsm
I did not say a potential Alliance superweapon would corrupt land, did I? I said it would cause mass, miserable death.
When comparing it to the Blight, you'd think that they would...but unlike the Forsaken, the Alliance forces wouldn't use a weapon that has just as much of a chance as killing themselves as the enemy.
Post by
4dehorde
And yet it's fine for them to do this in your twisted worldview yet someone cleaning up the forsaken infestation is wrong?
He didn't say he thought it was fine. From my point of view, your desire to genocide the Forsaken is twisted.
When comparing it to the Blight, you'd think that they would...but unlike the Forsaken, the Alliance forces wouldn't use a weapon that has just as much of a chance as killing themselves as the enemy.
Given the Alliance's history, I have to disagree.
Post by
Adamsm
When comparing it to the Blight, you'd think that they would...but unlike the Forsaken, the Alliance forces wouldn't use a weapon that has just as much of a chance as killing themselves as the enemy.
Given the Alliance's history, I have to disagree.
You go ahead and do that, as that's your right; but we've never seen any of the Alliance forces use weapons of mass destruction, and we have seen the Horde use them(Stonetalon, Hillsbrad, Theramore).
Post by
4dehorde
When comparing it to the Blight, you'd think that they would...but unlike the Forsaken, the Alliance forces wouldn't use a weapon that has just as much of a chance as killing themselves as the enemy.
Given the Alliance's history, I have to disagree.
You go ahead and do that, as that's your right; but we've never seen any of the Alliance forces use weapons of mass destruction, and we have seen the Horde use them(Stonetalon, Hillsbrad, Theramore).
No, but we have seen the Alliance commit thoughtless and reckless actions in the past, some of which have come back to bite them. I'll take the liberty of naming a few.
- There was that whole mess on the Lost Isles, where an Alliance taskforce was dispatched to capture Thrall. You know Thrall, the World Shaman on his way to mend the damage at the Maelstrom and save the entire world. Had the Alliance succeeded in their mission I shudder to think of what would have happened to the world. And plus they fired on a neutral, keyword neutral, goblin vessel and tried to hunt the survivors. Ultimately the Bilgewater goblins joined the Horde in the aftermath, so the Alliance has the embarrassment of driving a technologically advanced group into the arms of their enemies.
- Setting up an illegal digsite in a foreign land and digging and blasting away into sacred ground, and building an army fortress with guns aimed at the peaceful natives. Bael Modan and everything to do with it was conceived in greed and carelessness. The dwarves are eager to discover their origins, that's fine, but they can do that without resorting to such depravity.
- Hiring Wildhammer mercenaries to firebomb Camp Taurajo. General Hawthorne may have said he wanted to preserve civilian lives during the "attack", a term I use loosely, but seriously, hiring drunken bomber pilots to drop fire bombs on the town is NOT a good way to preserve lives.
- Allying with the Grimtotem. Vile treasonous tauren who were responsible for Cairne Bloodhoof's demise. And its not just the Horde they have wronged. The Shady Rest Inn was burned to the ground and all but one of the people inside it were murdered in cold blood. The Alliance prefers to see itself as a coalition of nobleness and heroes, right? Then what are they doing making deals with a group like the Grimtotem?
And we've seen the Alliance possess potential weapons of mass destruction. Their gunships carry heavy bombs the size of the one dropped on Thaldarah Grove, and have the large bomb bays to hold them, and the bomb sabotaged at Bael Modan was of similar size to gunship bombs.
Post by
Adamsm
- Allying with the Grimtotem. Vile treasonous tauren who were responsible for Cairne Bloodhoof's demise. And its not just the Horde they have wronged. The Shady Rest Inn was burned to the ground and all but one of the people inside it were murdered in cold blood. The Alliance prefers to see itself as a coalition of nobleness and heroes, right? Then what are they doing making deals with a group like the Grimtotem?So...wait, allying with the Grimtotem is a bad thing; what does that call Baine for offering amnesty to Grimtotems then, since there are Grimtotems who are currently part of the Horde as well. You should ask Baine that question too, since what is good for the goose is good for the gander as well.
However, the fact is, that the Alliance has never used a horror weapon like the Horde has, and if a nation did, they would more then likely be kicked out of the Alliance for doing so.
Edit: You also see it again and again on Pandaria: A lot of Alliance commanders want to use the power of the Sha/Mogu weapons, and Varian tells those commanders to not sink to that level, or they would answer to him.
Edit 2: Also, in regards to Camp Taurajo: Why is that so much worse then what the Forsaken did to Southshore? After all, it was another civilian town, only in this case they were hit with weapons that caused them to melt from the inside out and then when some of the people survived and escaped, they were killed after accepting the help of the Gilnean Worgen. Same situation, different faction...don't they deserve revenge just as much as the Tauren who died in the Camp did?
Post by
oneforthemoney
Here's the thing you have to understand about Forsaken. They are pragmatists. The Blight is a tool to them, to be used to get what they want. They don't, for the most part, have compassion, which might limit their use of it, but they're not overly cruel about it either.
To the Forsaken, it's just a powerful tool, to be used to secure their place in this world.
I can't help but question that at times. Blighting Southshore doesn't seem as pragmatic as it was actively malicious, considering the community was hardly big enough to pose much of a threat. It didn't even have a wall around it.
Post by
Skreeran
Here's the thing you have to understand about Forsaken. They are pragmatists. The Blight is a tool to them, to be used to get what they want. They don't, for the most part, have compassion, which might limit their use of it, but they're not overly cruel about it either.
To the Forsaken, it's just a powerful tool, to be used to secure their place in this world.
I can't help but question that at times. Blighting Southshore doesn't seem as pragmatic as it was actively malicious, considering the community was hardly big enough to pose much of a threat. It didn't even have a wall around it.Yeah, I don't know about that. If I had to guess, I would say that it may have been a weapons test for the Blight, just to see how much they could throw at a place before it became too toxic to recover.
But I'd have to review the quest text in order to really know.
Another thing to note is that while there may be cruel individuals, Forsaken society as a whole seems pragmatic. See Hillsbrad, where the crazy sadist doctor was killed and replaced. Your character could even free some of the humans, rather than kill them.
Post by
Behelich
Another thing to note is that while there may be cruel individuals, Forsaken society as a whole seems pragmatic. See Hillsbrad, where the crazy sadist doctor was killed and replaced. Your character could even free some of the humans, rather than kill them.
Would he be killed and replaced if he stuck to humans and did not experiment on other Forsaken, though? I would imagine Sylvanas and the RAS would at the very least turn a blind eye to using living humans.
Post by
4dehorde
I can't help but question that at times. Blighting Southshore doesn't seem as pragmatic as it was actively malicious, considering the community was hardly big enough to pose much of a threat. It didn't even have a wall around it.
As I have said before, it was a military staging ground and supply port. Having one of those in enemy hands so close to their territory gives the Forsaken justification to remove it from play.
I have a question for Lordplatypus. You clearly hate the Forsaken, that much is clear. You go so far as to say they shouldn't even exist and call their holding of Lordaeron an
infestation
, which I have to disagree with. The Forsaken in Lordaeron are no more an infestation than the humans in Stormwind.
You know of Vorel Sengutz, right? He and a group of other captive Forsaken civilians could be seen chained to torture racks in the Scarlet Monastery before MoP, back when Vishas was a boss. Tell me, do you still think the Scarlet Crusade was righteous when they tortured undead civilians? I have no love for the Alliance, but even so I would not wish torture on them.
Post by
Adamsm
As I have said before, it was a military staging ground and supply port. Having one of those in enemy hands so close to their territory gives the Forsaken justification to remove it from play.And Camp Taurajo was a military specific target that to get the Alliance forces into Mulgore...so again, what is the difference between murdering the civilians of Southshore and the civilians of the Camp?
Post by
4dehorde
As I have said before, it was a military staging ground and supply port. Having one of those in enemy hands so close to their territory gives the Forsaken justification to remove it from play.And Camp Taurajo was a military specific target that to get the Alliance forces into Mulgore...so again, what is the difference between murdering the civilians of Southshore and the civilians of the Camp?
There is a big difference. First of all, Camp Taurajo was NOT a military target. It was entirely a civilian town. The only military presence there were guards stationed to defend the town from raiders, such as quillboar or centaur. Second of all, the Alliance had no justification to attack it. They were invading a foreign land without provocation. There were no nearby Alliance towns under threat from Taurajo, as all of the Barrens was Horde territory. Based on the high number of civilian casualties at Taurajo alone, not even counting the other tauren settlements destroyed by the Alliance invasion, I shudder to think what would happen if they had made it into Mulgore, or even Thunder Bluff.
Post by
Adamsm
So...just going to gloss over the fact that civilians were killed in Southshore too? Alright then.
And yes the Camp was a military target....
because it led into Mulgore
; it was the only path in that did not involve going over the mountains. Also, at least with the Camp they did try to let the Civilians escape...the people of Southshore got no such reprieve and died as the town was bombarded by the Blight.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.