Arthas has to be in the Shadowlands

[Tyrannica]

Because he was arrogant. He is and always was a bad guy once Stratholme was over. End of story.

Your source material?

Because in that particular WC3 campaign Arthas went mad, because he wanted to protect the people of his kingdom.

Thats hardly an evil mindset, maybe slightly twisted, he did all the evil stuff after picking up frostmourne, period.

[Shibito]

What is irredeemable is very subjetive really. Saurfang killing children is still abominable, being proud of it or not. But still thanks for telling me more about the maw, didn't know those details.

An odd thing that people isn't discussing here is that Arthas and the other undead doesn't have souls anymore so how does it work? If Frostmourne consumed his soul, did it get released the moment it was broken? If thats the case, can his soul be responsible for what he done post acquiring Frostmourne? In the very first dialogue in the undead campaign he says how he feels no shame, no pity, etc and the dreadlord says its because Frostmourne ate his soul. What about all the other undead, such as dks and forsaken in general?

Saurfang was under the effect of demonblood if you gonna excuse arthas u gotta excuse demon fueled orcs even more.

[Combatbutler]

Thats hardly an evil mindset, maybe slightly twisted, he did all the evil stuff after picking up frostmourne, period.

He reached a point of no return the moment he chose blind vengeance

Damn the men! Nothing shall prevent me from having my revenge, old friend. Not even you.

[Temp1on2]

Your source material?

Because in that particular WC3 campaign Arthas went mad, because he wanted to protect the people of his kingdom.

Thats hardly an evil mindset, maybe slightly twisted, he did all the evil stuff after picking up frostmourne, period.

Being "evil" and "bad" is entirely subjective. However, what Arthas did (indiscriminate extermination of an entire city) would to most normal people's sensibilities (including in-game characters) be bad.

So the question you're now left with is: how many "bad" or "evil" things does one have to do to be considered "bad" or "evil" ?

[Tyrannica]

Being "evil" and "bad" is entirely subjective. However, what Arthas did (indiscriminate extermination of an entire city) would to most normal people's sensibilities (including in-game characters) be bad.

So the question you're now left with is: how many "bad" or "evil" things does one have to do to be considered "bad" or "evil" ?

Couldn't resist. ;-)

In D&D terms, Arthas went from maybe Lawful good(no excpetions for paladins) to chaotic neutral in Stratholme, to chaotic evil when he picked up frostmourne, that consumes his soul, making him an undead dk.(most undead are chaotic evil) But these are just D&D terms, at least the only rpg game i know that covers alignment, proberly since decades.

[Ielenia]

Mate. This is cognitive dissonance. This is the exact same thing.

The hand represents <stratholme>, the body represents the <rest of humans>.
the hand represents <mortal life>, the body represents the <rest of reality> (including demons, other Titans already born, and sargeras himself)

False. Mortal life isn't the 'hand'. It's the whole 'body', here.

My argument doesn't crumble whatsoever they are different instances using the same logic. If it's too complicated for you to understand we can just make it into two seperate examples.

Arthas wanted to wipe out <mortal life in stratholme> to stop <the plague>

Arthas later wanted to wipe out <mortal life and create an undead army> to stop <the burning legion>

First, prove that Arthas, as the Lich King, wanted to eradicate all life on Azeroth for the purpose of stopping the Burning Legion.
Second, not the same thing, since Arthas' goal shifted to a whole different goal, from protecting mankind to eradicating mankind.

What are you talking about? The reason doesn't have to be the same for them to be comparable.

Yes, they have, because that's the crux of the issue we're discussing here: Arthas' actions and motivations.

Text book cognitive dissonance, you're holding contradictory values:

Artha's isn't bad because he indiscriminately exterminated a population to prevent <X>
Sargeras is bad because he indiscriminately exterminated a population to prevent <X>

Except it only looks like 'cognitive dissonance' because of valuable context that you ignore by simply using <X> instead of using the actual reasons.

Arthas is not bad because he was protecting mankind from being eradicated by a plague by killing a city that was wholly infected with said plague.
Sargeras is bad because he wanted to fight the void lords by eradicating all life in the cosmos.

Context matters.

[Temp1on2]

False. Mortal life isn't the 'hand'. It's the whole 'body', here.

Lol, are you serious? You dont even understand your own analogy.

Sargeras specifically wanted to end mortal life to save the universe from the void. So, therefore, mortal life would be the hand (the thing infected) and the universe would be the body (the thing the doctor wants to save).

First, prove that Arthas, as the Lich King, wanted to eradicate all life on Azeroth for the purpose of stopping the Burning Legion.

I don't even need to prove it.

The logic applies singularly to his actions in stratholme.

Arthas indiscriminately slaughtered an entire <city>, including <uninfected>, for the greater good of <humanity>.
Sargeras indiscriminately slaughtered the entire <universe>, including <uncorrupted>, for the greater good of the <universe>

The logical justification is the same. If you can't understand that the logical justification for both actions is the same then you really need to take some critical thinking classes.

Second, not the same thing, since Arthas' goal shifted to a whole different goal, from protecting mankind to eradicating mankind.

Sorry but there must be something wrong with you. That's exactly the same as Sargeras, he went from protecting mortal life in universe to wanting to eradicate all mortal life in the universe.

Yes, they have, because that's the crux of the issue we're discussing here: Arthas' actions and motivations.

Wrong, we aren't looking at motivations. We're looking at LOGIC.

If its okay for Person A to do <Action X> to achieve <Result Y> "for the greater good", then it is okay for Person B to do <Action X> to achieve <Result Y> "for the greater good".

There is no legitimate argument against Person B, its just you personally, and arbitrarily, don't like person B.

Except it only looks like 'cognitive dissonance' because of valuable context that you ignore by simply using <X> instead of using the actual reasons.

No, this is cognitive dissonance. You're literally saying that its okay for one person to do something (indiscriminate extermination) with the vague goal of the "greater good" but its not for another. Because.....????

Arthas is not bad because he was protecting mankind from being eradicated by a plague by killing a city that was wholly infected with said plague.
Sargeras is bad because he wanted to fight the void lords by eradicating all life in the cosmos.

Context matters.

You just sound like a deranged arthas fanboy at this point.

If Arthas isn't bad for slaughtering innocent people to protect his people or way of life then neither is Sargeras. Sargeras wasn't intending on wiping out the titans (or demons), he only initially attacked the other titans because they didn't agree with him.

There is literally no difference between the two's actions other than scale. The problem is that you are looking it form a PC PoV and sargeras' actions would target you therefore "bad" - but his logic is the exact same as Arthas' "nip this all in the bud before it gets out of control".

[McNeil]

Since this thread is apparently about the question whether Arthas is a bad guy or not: from what I see, Arthas as a paladin was rather stubborn and obviously couldn't keep his emotions under control, but that is not what made him a bad guy. Every decision he made was for the good of his people, even decisions no one ever wants to make like the culling of Stratholme. Arthas was not fit to be making decisions like this, but at the same time there was nobody else willing to take his position. And the plague was running at a rampant speed to the point that you had to make instant decisions, no matter how inhumane they are.

But the worst thing Arthas did was not culling Stratholme, it was his decision to go immediatly after Mal'Ganis without counciling with the rest of the kingdom on how to deal with the undead problem. He sended a huge army to a land where they didn't know how big the Scourge threat was. And as it turned out, Mal'Ganis would have won if it wasn't for Frostmourne turning the tides around. The moment he became evil was the moment that he picked up Frostmourne. Arthas' soul was the first one taken as stated by Tichondrius, and at that point he lost every bit of humanity and didn't care for his people anymore.

Either way I think it could be interesting to see if Arthas was truely a hero or not as a story in Shadowlands. I know his character's arc is done after WotLK, but this question is still lingering and this is the right expansions to dig into the answer. Also it would be interesting to see him interact with Jaina.

[Ielenia]

[QUOTE=Temp1on2;51907886]Lol, are you serious? You dont even understand your own analogy.

Sargeras specifically wanted to end mortal life to save the universe from the void. So, therefore, mortal life would be the hand (the thing infected) and the universe would be the body (the thing the doctor wants to save).

I don't even need to prove it.

Yes, you do, because you made a claim that is important to your original argument, a claim that, as far as I know, has no evidence whatsoever to support it. Arthas, as the Lich King, (again, as far as I recall) never spoke about even fighting the Burning Legion, or protecting Azeroth from the Legion.

Sorry but there must be something wrong with you.

Ad hominem, now? I'm not surprised.

Wrong, we aren't looking at motivations. We're looking at LOGIC.

I'm sorry, but we are looking at motivations, since it's motivations what deems an action or someone 'evil' or 'not evil'. Killing a man because "he looked at you funny" is considered evil. Killing a man because "he was threatening your to kill your friend" is considered not evil.

If its okay for Person A to do <Action X> to achieve <Result Y> "for the greater good", then it is okay for Person B to do <Action X> to achieve <Result Y> "for the greater good".

There is no legitimate argument against Person B, its just you personally, and arbitrarily, don't like person B.

But there are legitimate arguments: Sargeras wanted to kill all life in the universe because life, "one day, may fall to the Void". That is evil. Much like I think you would consider "evil" if your government decided to kill all babies and young toddlers in your country just so they wouldn't end up contracting measles.

No, this is cognitive dissonance.

It's not.

You're literally saying that its okay for one person to do something (indiscriminate extermination) with the vague goal of the "greater good" but its not for another. Because.....????

Except it's not "indiscriminate extermination" what Arthas did to Stratholme.

You just sound like a deranged arthas fanboy at this point.

Ah, more ad hominem.

If Arthas isn't bad for slaughtering innocent people to protect his people or way of life then neither is Sargeras. Sargeras wasn't intending on wiping out the titans (or demons), he only initially attacked the other titans because they didn't agree with him.

There is literally no difference between the two's actions other than scale.

Yes, there are differences. Arthas wanted to contain the plague spread by only killing the citizens of one city that got infected. The rest of humanity would be spared. Sargeras would leave no living being alive in the universe. Arthas killed a few for the good of many. Sargeras wanted to kill everyone for the good of none but himself.

[Temp1on2]

Yes, you do, because you made a claim that is important to your original argument

No it wasn't. My initial, original post only referenced Stratholme. you brought in all the extra fluff.

Ad hominem, now? I'm not surprised.

Because you've heard it before? There is something wrong if you can't see that these two things are the same actions on differing scales.

I'm sorry, but we are looking at motivations, since it's motivations what deems an action or someone 'evil' or 'not evil'.

Wrong. That is not what we are doing.

I'm saying if you label someone not "evil" for doing something because they "did it for the right reasons" then the same applies to anyone else "doing it for the right reasons".

It just so happens that I think they are "evil" acts, but my argument isn't that they are "evil". My argument that if you think that what arthas did was "just"/"good" because he was doing it for "the greater good" then necessarily Sargeras is the same.

As far as my argument goes I'm not specifically saying it is or isn't evil, just that you have to apply logic consistently.

Killing a man because "he looked at you funny" is considered evil. Killing a man because "he was threatening your to kill your friend" is considered not evil.

LOL what in the world? More irrelevant red herring analogies. But to humour you:

If a man killed my friend because he had long hair I'd consider him a "bad person".

If another man kills a group of people I hate because they had big feet I'd also consider him a "bad person"

So here the situations is:

<individual A> kills <my friend> for <arbitrary reason>
<individual B> kills <people I don't like> for <arbitrary reason>

Logic dictates if I think Individual A is "bad", to remain logically consistent, I must also think Individual B is "bad" regardless of how many people he killed .

But there are legitimate arguments: Sargeras wanted to kill all life in the universe because life, "one day, may fall to the Void". That is evil.

I agree, it is. But this is the same exact rationale Arthas used.

"Arthas wanted to kill all life in stratholme because one day it might fall to undeath" There was zero evidence that purging stratholme would stop the scourge - in actual fact it didn't.

Much like I think you would consider "evil" if your government decided to kill all babies and young toddlers in your country just so they wouldn't end up contracting measles.

???? You must be trolling now? Seriously.

Arthas was literally the government of stratholme and he killed men, women, and children just for living there even if they weren't infected.

It's not.

It is, now you're using analogies that are literally what arthas did and saying it doesnt apply to him.

Except it's not "indiscriminate extermination" what Arthas did to Stratholme.

Have you even played WC3? That's exactly what he did. He tried to exterminate everyone in stratholme, regardless of whether they were even infected. That is an indiscriminate extermination.

Tell me, how would you define indiscriminate extermination if not as that?

Ah, more ad hominem.

I'm telling you how you're coming off.

Yes, there are differences. Arthas wanted to contain the plague spread by only killing the citizens of one city that got infected. The rest of humanity would be spared. Sargeras would leave no living being alive in the universe. Arthas killed a few for the good of many. Sargeras wanted to kill everyone for the good of none but himself.

There are no differences, just scale.

And that's incorrect, Sargeras would have left no mortal life alive. The already living titans would have remained, as would the demons, as would he personally AND THEN he hoped life would start afresh - untainted. When people call in an exterminator and fumigate their house to purge it of any pests they don't care if all non-pest bugs and creatures die along with it lol.

[Ielenia]

Because you've heard it before?

Because "ad hominem" is the last recourse of those without argument.

But this is the same exact rationale Arthas used.

It was not. Again, it would be if Arthas set out to kill all the living just so they wouldn't fall prey to the plague. Which, again, was not what happened.

"Arthas wanted to kill all life in stratholme because one day it might fall to undeath" There was zero evidence that purging stratholme would stop the scourge - in actual fact it didn't.

Shows how little you know. Arthas didn't want to purge Stratholme "because it might fall to undeath" or "to stop the undeath". Stratholme was already infected by the plague so it was not a matter of "might", but "will". And he did so because, if the Stratholme citizens die before becoming undead, then it would mean those citizens would not mindlessly scour the countryside to attack the rest of the populace outside Stratholme. Less undead to roam around killing people and spreading the plague.

There are no differences, just scale.

"Removing a limb" and "killing the entire body" are not "just differences in scale".

[Temp1on2]

Because "ad hominem" is the last recourse of those without argument.

No, I was offering you a moment of reflection.

It was not. Again, it would be if Arthas set out to kill all the living just so they wouldn't fall prey to the plague. Which, again, was not what happened.

So you're just going to ignore my entire post? If you can't refute it just don't address it huh!

Arthas literally set out to kill all people in stratholme to stop the spread of the plague. This is a fact. What are you talking about?

Shows how little you know. Arthas didn't want to purge Stratholme "because it might fall to undeath" or "to stop the undeath". Stratholme was already infected by the plague so it was not a matter of "might", but "will".

"stratholme" isn't a single being. Many of the people in stratholme were not infected. Arthas killed everyone in the city regardless of whether they were infected or not.

Arthas killed everyone living human in stratholme in order to stop the spread of undeath. Lol the fact that your even disputing this is bizarre.

It was not a foregone conclusion that just because you were in stratholme you would become infected as evidenced by the fact that arthas and his men didn't become infected simply by being in stratholme.

But in any case its irrelevant because you could just as easily say, to use your words: "Sargeras didn't want to purge Universe "because it might fall to void" or "to stop the void". The universe was already infected by the void so it was not a matter of "might", but "will""

• Before you say its not a foregone conclusion that the unvierse would fall to the void, in sargeras' mind if he didn't take these actions it would - he'd just discovered a world soul completely corrupted by the void and ready to be born AND learned that Azeroth would be more powerful than all the titans and it too was corrupted with 3 old gods, 1 quasi-old god, and the remnant corruption of a dead old god. So, from the character's perspective, just as from Arthas' perspective of stratholme, the void was an imminent existential threat.

"Removing a limb" and "killing the entire body" are not "just differences in scale".

You can't seriously be this ignorant of how analogies work? Your analogy was of a doctor and an infection. With regards to Arthas the <body> (the thing he's seeking to protect) is humans. The <hand> (the thing he's willing to sacrifice to protect the thing he wants to protect) are the people of stratholme.

With regards to Sargers the <body> (the thing he's seeking to protect) is the universe. The <hand> (the thing he's willing to sacrifice to protect the thing he wants to protect) are the existing mortal lives in the universe (not already living titans, not demons, not himself - and he hoped new, untainted, life would bloom after the cleansing).

Clearly there is only a difference in scale of how many things he's willing to kill in order to protect the things they want to protect/are important to them.

In any case you've already admitted that you're logically inconsistent (cognitive dissonance) by your failure to refute or even address:

• your government's killing children to the stop the spread of a disease analogy (which you specifically say would be evil, and is exactly what Arthas did).
• your the 'friend' analogy
• you said Arthas' wasn't indiscriminately exterminating the city, when he clearly was (just as sargeras was doing to the universe).

If you can't explain how and why these things don't apply to Arthas there is no other explanation to you differentiating between the two other than cognitive dissonance.

[Greengrim]

@Temp1on2 @Ielenia

My head might hurt from careful reading, as I'm not native English speaker and it's a bit hard to comprehend sometimes, but damn you guys are a whole show over here.

/slowclap for you fellas!

[Temp1on2]

@Temp1on2 @Ielenia

My head might hurt from careful reading, as I'm not native English speaker and it's a bit hard to comprehend sometimes, but damn you guys are a whole show over here.

/slowclap for you fellas!

What is your opinion on the matter?

[Ielenia]

No, I was offering you a moment of reflection.

Dress it up in as much flowery language as you wish. It's still an ad hominem. A personal attack.

So you're just going to ignore my entire post? If you can't refute it just don't address it huh!

I addressed your entire post. I just condensed it to your base point (cognitive dissonance) which is simply wrong.

Arthas literally set out to kill all people in stratholme to stop the spread of the plague. This is a fact. What are you talking about?

Stratholme is not "all life on Azeroth".

[Temp1on2]

Dress it up in as much flowery language as you wish. It's still an ad hominem. A personal attack.


I addressed your entire post. I just condensed it to your base point (cognitive dissonance) which is simply wrong.


Stratholme is not "all life on Azeroth".

Glad you've recognised your inconsistent logic and have decided not to challenge any of my arguments.

[Ielenia]

Glad you've recognised your inconsistent logic and have decided not to challenge any of my arguments.

I already addressed your points, more than once. To do so again would be to repeat myself. Good day.

[Temp1on2]

I already addressed your points, more than once. To do so again would be to repeat myself. Good day.

No you responded to them, you didn't address them, and in doing so contradicted yourself. I'll remind you once more:

you would consider "evil" if your government decided to kill all babies and young toddlers in your country just so they wouldn't end up contracting measles.

Yet mysteriously can't explain why Arthas killing everyone in a city to stop a disease isn't evil

Feel free.

[Dark Succ]

I thought Priests & Paladins had cure disease? Arthas and his Priests forgot to visit their class trainer I guess.

[Ielenia]

No you responded to them, you didn't address them, and in doing so contradicted yourself. I'll remind you once more:



Yet mysteriously can't explain why Arthas killing everyone in a city to stop a disease isn't evil

Feel free.

Ok. Fine. Last attempt to get you to understand basic concepts. Based off my example that you quoted:

What Arthas would do: kill the infected babies to protect the other babies from being infected as well.
What Sargaras would do: kill all the babies, healthy and ill, regardless if they're infected or not.