Arthas did Nothing Wrong

[Thage]

We don't actually know 100% whether Arthas had the ability to do either of those things in current lore, but the original Warcraft Ultimate Visual Guide explicitly stated that Arthas did disband the order; however, subsequent books, such as the expanded version of the Visual Guide and Chronicle, have only stated he sent them away and considered their actions treason, so it may be considered a soft retcon, though not 100% confirmed to have been so.

I'm using Chronicle, as the most recent telling of the event, as my source (since Blizzard tends to default to 'the most recent retelling is the canon one' as their go-to, and with the WC3: Refunded 'updated cutscenes' not coming to fruition, that leaves Chronicle as our most recent, up-to-date source)--and as Chronicle doesn't say Arthas disbanded the order, despite him declaring such, and instead only sent them away and considered it treason, it stands to reason he doesn't hold the authority to disband the Knights of the Silver Hand, and Terenas overruled Arthas's accusations of treason.

[Minikin]

No. Arthas was not evil. He did what was necessary. Killing is evil, but a soldier is not necessary evil. What he did in Stratholme was the only thing he could do. Uther chose to run away to get back his titles. He could have helped the citizen of Stratholme, or tried something. But no... Mr top good of the light and rainbow Uther had better things to do. He was the evil one there or atleast a fucking coward. Later when Arthas was leading a campain in Northrend to stop the menace on his lands, thanks to Uther basically lying to the other retard who allready did not listen the warnings of the KirinTor about the fucking plague in northlands, he got his war effort saped. A fucking random guy came up, told his men "it's finished" and get out. They could have sent reinforcement to help the prince stop the undead menace. No they chose once again to condemn his land. So he burned their ships so they had no other choice to push forward. And kill a bunch of trolls and ogers, like we killed a shit tone before that "just because".

Dude im not interested in this. This is not what I was talking about. You have taken my point about game story design and speculated retcons and started debating on a topic that I wasnt even talking about. So i dont even know what to say to this. Like you are literally serenading me with things that I didnt talk about and have no desire to run circles about. Ill reiterate. I AM simply talking about the developer story direction. I couldnt care any less about the whole evil not evil schpeel.

And once again no. Raising Sylvanas was not out of the way.

yea no you are totally wrong here because we have concrete evidence of these by in game quotes and from the actual book.
Arthas: "The ranger woman is starting to vex me greatly" [On the 2nd gate break]
Final scene;
Sylvanas: "Finish it! I deserve...a clean death"
Arthas: "After all you've put me through, woman, the last thing ill give you is the peace of death"

Also in Rise of the Lich King, Arthas CLEARLY states that it was Sylvanas' resistance that pissed him off enough to smash the elves. Initially all he really cared about was the Sunwell.

Furthermore.
When Arthas kills Anasterian, the actual king, he doesnt do anything to him after killing him. I will remind you that Anasterian didnt just pester Arthas. He actually cut up Invincibles forelegs and stabbed Arthas in the thigh. Something neither sylvanas or illidan accomplished. Yet Arthas left both Anasterian and Illidan alone. No he specifically went after Sylvanas.

Why the fuck should he give her a clean death, while his war machine is literraly about killing people and raising them as undead?

So your statement about "killing people and raising them into undeath" is already incorrect by in game and book proof, because there are incidences where he does not do that. Unless you have actual quotes countering this, then its just assumption.

What tue fuck would it have mean? "Okay you lead the main forces against me, I killed and raise to serve me many of your people, but you I will spare you and just kill you because you asked me nicely?"
She was a strong and valuable asset to his army. Not doing it would have made no sense.

and now you are just overly emotional because of your own reasoning. Let me clue you into something. These "logical" points that you have been dropping, do you think these are new and original? Never been discussed here? This debate has been going on for ages and I have no interest in it.

They have been talked about for years and years and years. Im not interested and I didnt talk about it. All iam saying is that finally we are delving into how mourneblades work and maybe we will get a concrete answer to what happens to the wielder. I am speculating it might change certain things. but if you arent sure what speculation means, then I can assist you with that some other time. Initially, as is pretty damn clear from in game quotes and the book, Arthas seems far more in control than Anduin does in the cinematic. But it remains to be seen how it all works and how it affects the story before Shadowlands when they delve deeper into Anduin's possession.

[Tarba]

Dude im not interested in this. This is not what I was talking about. You have taken my point about game story design and speculated retcons and started debating on a topic that I wasnt even talking about. So i dont even know what to say to this. Like you are literally serenading me with things that I didnt talk about and have no desire to run circles about. Ill reiterate. I AM simply talking about the developer story direction. I couldnt care any less about the whole evil not evil schpeel.


yea no you are totally wrong here because we have concrete evidence of these by in game quotes and from the actual book.
Arthas: "The ranger woman is starting to vex me greatly" [On the 2nd gate break]
Final scene;
Sylvanas: "Finish it! I deserve...a clean death"
Arthas: "After all you've put me through, woman, the last thing ill give you is the peace of death"

Also in Rise of the Lich King, Arthas CLEARLY states that it was Sylvanas' resistance that pissed him off enough to smash the elves. Initially all he really cared about was the Sunwell.

Furthermore.
When Arthas kills Anasterian, the actual king, he doesnt do anything to him after killing him. I will remind you that Anasterian didnt just pester Arthas. He actually cut up Invincibles forelegs and stabbed Arthas in the thigh. Something neither sylvanas or illidan accomplished. Yet Arthas left both Anasterian and Illidan alone. No he specifically went after Sylvanas.



So your statement about "killing people and raising them into undeath" is already incorrect by in game and book proof, because there are incidences where he does not do that. Unless you have actual quotes countering this, then its just assumption.



and now you are just overly emotional because of your own reasoning. Let me clue you into something. These "logical" points that you have been dropping, do you think these are new and original? Never been discussed here? This debate has been going on for ages and I have no interest in it.

They have been talked about for years and years and years. Im not interested and I didnt talk about it. All iam saying is that finally we are delving into how mourneblades work and maybe we will get a concrete answer to what happens to the wielder. I am speculating it might change certain things. but if you arent sure what speculation means, then I can assist you with that some other time. Initially, as is pretty damn clear from in game quotes and the book, Arthas seems far more in control than Anduin does in the cinematic. But it remains to be seen how it all works and how it affects the story before Shadowlands when they delve deeper into Anduin's possession.

Once again what the fuck is there to debate?
The blade corrupt, and control VS Arthas is evil?
The guy passed from "I will do anything to save my people, even damning myself" to "I'll kill my father, my people and destroy my homeland".
There is nothing to debate. Arthas was a good guy. Not the "I'm such a good guy that I will let the prince of Lordaeron kill civilians who will turn undead Uther" good guy. But still a good guy. He had to make hard choices for the safety of his land and people, and ended up corrupted by forstmourne and the Lich King wich completely changed him.

Anasterian was not part of war3. Unlike Sylvanas. So yeah, it's not weird that a known and powerfull character, litteraly the king of high elves and father of Kaelthas (that Arthas had to fight during FT) they added in a book paruted 1 year after wotlk was not rez in his army. It would have been freaking weird that from war3 ROC to WOTLK no one, not a single blood elve said anything about that.
He had 0 reason to specificaly not rez Sylvanas. While he had reasons to rez her. And Sylvanas pissing him of is clearly a good reason to damn her more. Then again she was not the only banshee in his army.
At the time yeah he was evil, because he was the death knight corrupted Arthas. Like Sylvanas killing civilians in the first FT undead mission. Like all forsaken, and wow death knights before being free. They kept a personality but twisted.

[Jessicka]

After seeing the latest patch cinematic, is Anduin responsible of what he did in it? if no, then the same goes for Arthas as he was under the Jailer influence all along.

Arthas was being manipulated, but only really encouraged to do and to justify what he wanted to do anyway.

[Minikin]

Once again what the fuck is there to debate?

calm down jimmy. no need to get all angry over pixels. Maybe you arent sure of how forums work but this is what they are for. Speculating, debating, you know, talking. Not losing their minds because someone shows a slight different perspective.

The blade corrupt, and control VS Arthas is evil?
The guy passed from "I will do anything to save my people, even damning myself" to "I'll kill my father, my people and destroy my homeland".
There is nothing to debate. Arthas was a good guy. Not the "I'm such a good guy that I will let the prince of Lordaeron kill civilians who will turn undead Uther" good guy. But still a good guy. He had to make hard choices for the safety of his land and people, and ended up corrupted by forstmourne and the Lich King wich completely changed him.

You started this conversation. And you quoted me. I never initiated anything with you. And now you are in this wierd place talking about things I have no concern with yet, someone feel that I should be interested in it? I told you, im not concerned with the evil this or that. I am talking about story development. You want to talk about a topic that has been rehashed on these forums for over a decade, you can find someone else, im not indulging this point.

Anasterian was not part of war3. Unlike Sylvanas. So yeah, it's not weird that a known and powerfull character, litteraly the king of high elves and father of Kaelthas (that Arthas had to fight during FT) they added in a book paruted 1 year after wotlk was not rez in his army. It would have been freaking weird that from war3 ROC to WOTLK no one, not a single blood elve said anything about that.
He had 0 reason to specificaly not rez Sylvanas. While he had reasons to rez her. And Sylvanas pissing him of is clearly a good reason to damn her more. Then again she was not the only banshee in his army.
At the time yeah he was evil, because he was the death knight corrupted Arthas. Like Sylvanas killing civilians in the first FT undead mission. Like all forsaken, and wow death knights before being free. They kept a personality but twisted.

I dont care to add variables in stuff that has actual proof. I speculate about stuff that ISNT there yet. And in that thread, the book clearly states Arthas' motivations. I hope you can understand that I would be more inclined to support what an author published in a book vs you writing stuff here in anger. To me the motivation was stated in the cinematic and then confirmed in the book by the author. Thats all im taking as proof and moving on with.

[Low Hanging Fruit]

Arthas made a choice to become what he did. Even if he didn't understand how far it would go. He cast aside and killed people with him to take a cursed blade. No doubt he was manipulated along the way. No doubt. But he still, at the end of the day, say to himself and everyone around him "I am doing this". It doesn't feel that Anduin was given that choice. He didn't walk that path. Feels more like he was forced. Big difference in my opinion.

[kaelix1]

Arthas did not have authority to strip Uther of his rank or suspend the Order of the Silver Hand. He was not the coronated king. He also had no authority over Jaina, who comes from an allied nation and was sent on official business from another allied nation--at best she's a diplomatic attachment to Lordaeron, and even that's a stretch because she wasn't there to deal with King Terenas, only to investigate and report her findings on the Plague. That she got swept up in things is tangential.

How do I know Arthas lacked authority to do what he tried? Because Uther still held his rank and Terenas heeded his advice, leading to the Northrend expedition being recalled. Even after the fall of Lordaeron, the Silver Hand remained active and officially-recognized, although the Lordaeron chapter eventually rechristened itself the Scarlet Crusade (and later, those who still held true to the Silver Hand's ideology broke away from the Scarlets to form the Argent Dawn and its affiliate, the Brotherhood of the Light).

Also, Uther and Jaina had no reason to follow Arthas into what they saw as a mass slaughter of innocent civilians. All they know is Arthas stood on a hill, mumbled to himself, and then ordered them to join him in wiping out an entire city. That Arthas was right in the aftermath is post-facto justification, which has no bearing on their immediate reactions to his order nor to his refusal to actually fucking explain what's going on, instead of throwing a temper tantrum and trying to pull rank on someone who answered to his father, not him.

We are going in circles with this, Arthas did disband the Silver Hand, Arthas did took command of part of the troops that did no follow Uther, if Uther would had authority over Arthas he would have arrest Arthas, not turn around and leave

[Tarba]

calm down jimmy. no need to get all angry over pixels. Maybe you arent sure of how forums work but this is what they are for. Speculating, debating, you know, talking. Not losing their minds because someone shows a slight different perspective.



You started this conversation. And you quoted me. I never initiated anything with you. And now you are in this wierd place talking about things I have no concern with yet, someone feel that I should be interested in it? I told you, im not concerned with the evil this or that. I am talking about story development. You want to talk about a topic that has been rehashed on these forums for over a decade, you can find someone else, im not indulging this point.



I dont care to add variables in stuff that has actual proof. I speculate about stuff that ISNT there yet. And in that thread, the book clearly states Arthas' motivations. I hope you can understand that I would be more inclined to support what an author published in a book vs you writing stuff here in anger. To me the motivation was stated in the cinematic and then confirmed in the book by the author. Thats all im taking as proof and moving on with.

You litteraly said that the Anduin shitshow would mean that the blade corrupted Arthas meaning ; it would gray what he did.
While since war3 it's stated obviously and without any doubt or anything to discuss that the blade corrupt and once Arthas took it he was not himsel anymore.
It's not because someone tell you that you are wrong that this person is angry. Grow up.

Infracted.

[Minikin]

You litteraly said that the Anduin shitshow

You want to give me a quote of mine where I "literally" use the word shitshow?

would mean that the blade corrupted Arthas meaning ; it would gray what he did.

Do you even know what speculate means? I have typed that word multiple times in my post.

Here let me help you out
spec·u·la·tion
/ˌspekyəˈlāSH(ə)n/
noun
1.
the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence.

Honestly you are trying very hard to be obtuse because you continue talking about things that I didn't talk about or are perhaps you are reading someone else's posts but keep mistakenly quoting me. Nothing you have posted so far has been what I was talking about in the thread.

Infracted.

While since war3 it's stated obviously and without any doubt or anything to discuss that the blade corrupt and once Arthas took it he was not himsel anymore.

Unless you are new or something you'd know that lore in WoW has been in flux and after Cataclysm it has been HEAVILY in flux. As an example, it was initially stated that the nathreziem made the Lich kings armor. And now more than a decade later we know that was no the case.

Things change. That's the point of a forum (which you continuously in your anger keep ignoring). Forums are about discussing not losing control of your cool the moment someone has a different view. Honestly go take a walk or something then come back and talk. You are angry over pixels.

It's not because someone tell you that you are wrong that this person is angry. Grow up.

Yea. Must be me that's wrong. Clearly it's not you when you are making stuff up that is counter to what is actually in game and a book that's been published.

As an example:

He had 0 reason to specificaly not rez Sylvanas. While he had reasons to rez her.

Not only do you contradict yourself in the same sentence, the book rise of the Lich King says counter to what you claim. And I'll take a publisher over your headcanon any day.

You are so mad that instead of being able to maturely discuss you can't even type properly. Yet I need to grow up. Newsflash. I didn't quote you. You came here quoting me, and talked about everything else under the sun and got mad at you flailing about in the dark. I can sit calmly back while you continue your windmills but I'll give you the benefit of doubt.

[Magical Mudcrab]

I'm using Chronicle, as the most recent telling of the event, as my source (since Blizzard tends to default to 'the most recent retelling is the canon one' as their go-to, and with the WC3: Refunded 'updated cutscenes' not coming to fruition, that leaves Chronicle as our most recent, up-to-date source)--and as Chronicle doesn't say Arthas disbanded the order, despite him declaring such, and instead only sent them away and considered it treason, it stands to reason he doesn't hold the authority to disband the Knights of the Silver Hand, and Terenas overruled Arthas's accusations of treason.

That's why I said it may be considered a soft retcon. It doesn't explicitly contradict the events that occurred in WC3 or the Visual Guide, as the entry does not contain any dialog, but the omission of their supposed disbanding could imply that he didn't try to do so, possibly because he couldn't or wouldn't levy sanctions against the order. Though I think we can agree that old, and possibly outdated, versions of the story did provide Arthas with the power to disband the Knights of the Silver Hand, though it was ultimately an impotent power as Terenas overturned it immediately.

[Tarba]

You want to give me a quote of mine where I "literally" use the word shitshow?



Do you even know what speculate means? I have typed that word multiple times in my post.

Here let me help you out
spec·u·la·tion
/ˌspekyəˈlāSH(ə)n/
noun
1.
the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence.

Honestly you are trying very hard to be obtuse because you continue talking about things that I didn't talk about or are perhaps you are reading someone else's posts but keep mistakenly quoting me. Nothing you have posted so far has been what I was talking about in the thread.



Unless you are new or something you'd know that lore in WoW has been in flux and after Cataclysm it has been HEAVILY in flux. As an example, it was initially stated that the nathreziem made the Lich kings armor. And now more than a decade later we know that was no the case.

Things change. That's the point of a forum (which you continuously in your anger keep ignoring). Forums are about discussing not losing control of your cool the moment someone has a different view. Honestly go take a walk or something then come back and talk. You are angry over pixels.



Yea. Must be me that's wrong. Clearly it's not you when you are making stuff up that is counter to what is actually in game and a book that's been published.

As an example:


Not only do you contradict yourself in the same sentence, the book rise of the Lich King says counter to what you claim. And I'll take a publisher over your headcanon any day.

You are so mad that instead of being able to maturely discuss you can't even type properly. Yet I need to grow up. Newsflash. I didn't quote you. You came here quoting me, and talked about everything else under the sun and got mad at you flailing about in the dark. I can sit calmly back while you continue your windmills but I'll give you the benefit of doubt.

Okay so you are speculating about a possible futur retcon that would just simply confirm what is stated without any doubt since war3.
Fascinating.

And yet again with Sylvanas... Explain me why a frostmourne corrupted Arthas would not rez Sylvanas as undead. For what? compassion? Is that a known quality of corrupted people?

[hulkgor]

I suspect Arthas has always been guilty only for touching the cursed sword.
But to be honest i have never played w3 so i can only judge by the Stratholme.

He did a whole lot of bad stuff before even touching Frostmourne.

[Minikin]

Okay so you are speculating about a possible futur retcon that would just simply confirm what is stated without any doubt since war3.

1. is there a rule against speculation on these boards that you could make me aware of? Or does it just bother your tender sensibilities?
2. maybe you didnt read the definition of speculation that i posted but let me summarize it for you. it could go either way. We had cOnFirmATioN that the Lich King's armor was made by Nathreziem. Well guess how that turned out. You can keep limiting yourself but I intend to go with the flow of developing story and not get offended by it.
3. And I am sure you, as a player, are fully aware of exactly how the mourneblade, the helm, the armor, nerzhul, the jailer and everything else under the sun affects a user eh. You claimed confirmation about Sylvanas and Arthas too, but based on that I hope youll understand why I dont immediately jump to believing what you are saying over what the game and writers are.

Fascinating.

Progress always is.

And yet again with Sylvanas... Explain me why a frostmourne corrupted Arthas would not rez Sylvanas as undead. For what? compassion? Is that a known quality of corrupted people?

did you not read the part where I said I am not interested in this topic and it was not what I was talking about in the first place. I have absolutely no reason to explain to you anything beyond what I wanted to discuss. You came with your "confirmed" Arthas wanted to rez sylvanas cuz shes a military asset when the book "CONFIRMED" states that he did it cuz she pissed him off. And that is the maximum extent of me indulging this. You want to go on and about this you can find someone else to do so.

[Tarba]

1. is there a rule against speculation on these boards that you could make me aware of? Or does it just bother your tender sensibilities?
2. maybe you didnt read the definition of speculation that i posted but let me summarize it for you. it could go either way. We had cOnFirmATioN that the Lich King's armor was made by Nathreziem. Well guess how that turned out. You can keep limiting yourself but I intend to go with the flow of developing story and not get offended by it.
3. And I am sure you, as a player, are fully aware of exactly how the mourneblade, the helm, the armor, nerzhul, the jailer and everything else under the sun affects a user eh. You claimed confirmation about Sylvanas and Arthas too, but based on that I hope youll understand why I dont immediately jump to believing what you are saying over what the game and writers are.

It's not even a speculation. You are speculating about something that could retcon a false statement. It's like speculating that Arthas was a rabbit. With only argument that they retconed something else, so maybe Arthas was a rabbit.
It has allways been stated since war3 that frostmourne corrupted Arthas. And it was obvious. Nothing not a single thing ever, anywhere, came to say the opposite.

did you not read the part where I said I am not interested in this topic and it was not what I was talking about in the first place. I have absolutely no reason to explain to you anything beyond what I wanted to discuss. You came with your "confirmed" Arthas wanted to rez sylvanas cuz shes a military asset when the book "CONFIRMED" states that he did it cuz she pissed him off. And that is the maximum extent of me indulging this. You want to go on and about this you can find someone else to do so.

... You are litteraly the one who brought that in the discussion :

Example: Arthas raising Sylvanas and torturing her
He could have just killed her and moved along. Like Anduin did with Kysteria. He got what he wanted and left.

That was your argument about "Arthas is evil". No. Corrupted people still have some kind of feelings yeah. They never became robots. Still their actions does not represent what they were before the corruption. Also Anduin was alone in a warrior city. Arthas was surrounded by the scourge and clearly had the upperhand.
Also Anduin was in "puppet mode" with the jailer talking threw him. Both situations are nothing alike.
So no, raizing Sylvanas didn't happen because uncorrupted Arthas was evil. It was because Corrupted Arthas was evil and she pissed him off. Still he made a shit tone of other banshees and undeads. That proves absolutely nothing about Arthas. Him raizing Sylvanas is the exact same thing as him raizing someone else except he had a better reason.

And if you don't want to discuss a subjet don't bring it in the discussion in the first place.

[Magical Mudcrab]

It's a matter of degree. Arthas was being manipulated by the Jailer's influence, but he wasn't his slave - as the Jailer himself says all the previous Lich Kings bucked his ultimate control and didn't do what they were supposed to (e.g. work to free him). This is in contrast to Anduin who is shown to more completely be the Jailer's slave and is visibly fighting his influence during the confrontation with Kyrestia. How much free will and culpability Arthas had is a matter of debate, but he definitely had some agency and thus bears some responsibility for what he did as both Death Knight and Lich King. Anduin has no agency currently, and really no ultimate responsibility for his actions because of that.

Bellular did an interview with Steve and Morgan from the Warcraft team (here's his overview, a link to the full interview is in the video description) in which they said that Arthas was in control of his actions, though was under the influence of Domination magic. The resistance from mortals is the reason why Andiun is being controlled more directly and completely than the Lich King was, as it ensures their will does not override the Domination magic. It should also be noted that what is happening to Anduin is not mind control, rather Anduin's mind is being suppressed as the Jailor takes actions through him.

It also appears that Ner'zhul will be returning in the expansion. He is currently being tormented by the Jailor for being a failed Lich King, with the Sanctum of Domination being the most likely place for him as it is a place where Zovaal puts the souls of those who have earned his ire.

[EntertainmentNihilist]

And tell me, what was the result? How did his people benefit?

Less scourge. Stratholm was (If I recall) the second largest city in the kingdom. Mal'Ganis managed to get some of them out, but he would have had significantly more scourge at the Legion's disposal had Arthas not wiped out Stratholm.

Bear in mind, those people were going to die in a few minutes anyways. They are literally turning into scourge *As the city was being destroyed*. The difference Arthas made was that most of those people don't serve the LK and the Legion in death.

- - - Updated - - -

That's pretty much exactly what morals are. A set of rules determined by common consensus on what actions are considered right or wrong and under what circumstances these may have a different appelation. You're mistaken that a set of rules wouldn't consider intent and consequences. Even formal courts and laws can do that.

No. The rules are a way to express certain morals in terms that function for our legal system, but the rules aren't morals in of themselves. An action isn't immoral because it breaks a rule, a action is immoral because it is either:

A. Expressing immoral intent on the part of the person doing the action.

B. Results in immoral consequences, such as innocent people suffering.

C. A combination of A and B.

There is nothing inherently wrong about the action itself. It's just the mechanism that turns intent into consequences. But for the purpose of a legal system (or legalistic teachings of certain religions and/or sects), you can't outlaw intent or consequences. You can only outlaw actions, which is why laws end up not consistently reflecting morals in my opinion.

[Kumorii]

Bellular did an interview with Steve and Morgan from the Warcraft team (here's his overview, a link to the full interview is in the video description) in which they said that Arthas was in control of his actions, though was under the influence of Domination magic. The resistance from mortals is the reason why Andiun is being controlled more directly and completely than the Lich King was, as it ensures their will does not override the Domination magic. It should also be noted that what is happening to Anduin is not mind control, rather Anduin's mind is being suppressed as the Jailor takes actions through him.

It also appears that Ner'zhul will be returning in the expansion. He is currently being tormented by the Jailor for being a failed Lich King, with the Sanctum of Domination being the most likely place for him as it is a place where Zovaal puts the souls of those who have earned his ire.

To me it seems like people who discuss wether he was in control or not seems to argue from point of absolutes... You can be influenced by someone else and ve manipulated, while still maintaining your free will and you are free to make choices.

To me Arthas is a compelling character because he made the choices himself. It seems weird that a person who is supposedly controlled by the lich king, Ner'zhul, can defeat him and cast him aside and rule alone. Arthas is a strong willed character and all of that gets thrown away if his choices isn't his own and can be blamed on an external part.

[huth]

No. The rules are a way to express certain morals in terms that function for our legal system, but the rules aren't morals in of themselves. An action isn't immoral because it breaks a rule, a action is immoral because it is either:

A. Expressing immoral intent on the part of the person doing the action.

B. Results in immoral consequences, such as innocent people suffering.

C. A combination of A and B.

There is nothing inherently wrong about the action itself. It's just the mechanism that turns intent into consequences. But for the purpose of a legal system (or legalistic teachings of certain religions and/or sects), you can't outlaw intent or consequences. You can only outlaw actions, which is why laws end up not consistently reflecting morals in my opinion.

So an action is immoral if it shows immoral intent on the part of the person executing it or results in immoral consequences. Congratulations, you just defined a set of rules to determine if an action is immoral.

For that matter, you're wrong about the legal system. That's literally one of the reasons courts exist, because you have to consider intent and consequences when determining whether an action should be punished and how, and that means you need a system to do so.

Laws do not consistently reflect morals for several reasons, not the least of which is that morals change over time and laws don't always get updated.

[EntertainmentNihilist]

So an action is immoral if it shows immoral intent on the part of the person executing it or results in immoral consequences. Congratulations, you just defined a set of rules to determine if an action is immoral.

For that matter, you're wrong about the legal system. That's literally one of the reasons courts exist, because you have to consider intent and consequences when determining whether an action should be punished and how, and that means you need a system to do so.

Laws do not consistently reflect morals for several reasons, not the least of which is that morals change over time and laws don't always get updated.

No, the action itself is not *inherently* immoral. The sequence of intent to consequence is immoral. In absence of any intent or consequence, an action cannot be good or bad. It just *is*. That's what I mean.

And no, I don't think courts don't ever take into account intent and consequences. But courts center in on the action, looking at intent and consequences as mitigating or aggravating factors. Not saying that's a bad thing per se, a legal system centered around intent and consequences would be impractical.

[Pebrocks The Warlock]

Less scourge. Stratholm was (If I recall) the second largest city in the kingdom. Mal'Ganis managed to get some of them out, but he would have had significantly more scourge at the Legion's disposal had Arthas not wiped out Stratholm.

Bear in mind, those people were going to die in a few minutes anyways. They are literally turning into scourge *As the city was being destroyed*. The difference Arthas made was that most of those people don't serve the LK and the Legion in death.

I mean Lordaeron as a whole. How did it benefit from Arthas killing his father and burning the kingdom?