Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst
1
2
3
4
5
... LastLast
  1. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by Soon-TM View Post
    And then we have folks with the gall of talking about Horde Bias™.
    Horde bias is not just "giving Horde interesting storylines" it's about shouting "For the Horde!" at Blizzcon, and making people feel like the Alliance is a boring side that no one 'cool' plays. It's about not doing anything when Horde starts to dominate population numbers. It's about building a statue of an orc at Blizzard HQ.

    But I remember this: those people shouting "FOR THE HORDE" enabled sexual abuse, so I get to have a sense of moral superiority with war mode on.

  2. #42
    Moderator Aucald's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA-US
    Posts
    35,976
    Quote Originally Posted by Combatbulter View Post
    Both being subservient puppets for their respective greater powers, both are slaves.
    Well, barring the hyperbolic reductiveness of this comparison, it's still quite the difference for a set of beings to be "enslaved" by what are essentially angels representing the forces of order and unity vs. those who serve the demonic forces of chaos and destruction. You can't really get much more different than complete diametric opposition.

    Quote Originally Posted by Combatbulter View Post
    He used pretty much the exact same argument, sargeras promised Azshara a perfect world, much like he promised the eredar the perfect universe, not to mention the eredar were always aware they would become conquerors, velen saw what was to come and initially was amazed by it, until he looked down and realized he had become a demon.
    Sargeras promised Azshara power, and that she could become his consort and equal - that Azshara saw the world the demons would create on Azeroth as "perfect" wasn't something offered to her explicitly. The pre-demonic Eredar's goals weren't about conquering others, though; their goals were more high-minded and ostensibly altruistic than that, the spreading of peace and enlightenment (albeit their version of it), as per Chronicle Vol. 1.
    "We're more of the love, blood, and rhetoric school. Well, we can do you blood and love without the rhetoric, and we can do you blood and rhetoric without the love, and we can do you all three concurrent or consecutive. But we can't give you love and rhetoric without the blood. Blood is compulsory. They're all blood, you see." - Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead

  3. #43
    I am Murloc!
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vineland, Cumberland, NJ, USA
    Posts
    5,363
    Worgen have Arugal.

  4. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by Aucald View Post
    [Well, barring the hyperbolic reductiveness of this comparison, it's still quite the difference for a set of beings to be "enslaved" by what are essentially angels representing the forces of order and unity vs. those who serve the demonic forces of chaos and destruction. You can't really get much more different than complete diametric opposition.
    If only Naaru were angels and not self serving little manipulators, throwing their mortal puppets at the enemies of the light, to enforce their grand vision of the one true path.

    Sargeras promised Azshara power, and that she could become his consort and equal - that Azshara saw the world the demons would create on Azeroth as "perfect" wasn't something offered to her explicitly. The pre-demonic Eredar's goals weren't about conquering others, though; their goals were more high-minded and ostensibly altruistic than that, the spreading of peace and enlightenment (albeit their version of it), as per Chronicle Vol. 1.
    Doesn't really change the tone at all though, to impose ones order at some point force becomes necessary. They were set out to be conquerors from the get go. They pretty much would have been just smug bastards about it, forcing primitives to behave a certain way. Yrel and her crew would be good indicators what to expect of the non corrupted Eredar

  5. #45
    Moderator Aucald's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA-US
    Posts
    35,976
    Quote Originally Posted by Combatbulter View Post
    If only Naaru were angels and not self serving little manipulators, throwing their mortal puppets at the enemies of the light, to enforce their grand vision of the one true path.
    They're pretty analogous to angels, although like in all things in the Warcraft mythology there is a definite underscoring of "Light is not Good" in their actions. Regardless, they are definitely opposed to the demons, who represent the opposite. You're denigrating the Naaru, but that doesn't really affect the original argument in any way.

    Quote Originally Posted by Combatbulter View Post
    Doesn't really change the tone at all though, to impose ones order at some point force becomes necessary. They were set out to be conquerors from the get go. They pretty much would have been just smug bastards about it, forcing primitives to behave a certain way. Yrel and her crew would be good indicators what to expect of the non corrupted Eredar
    We'll never actually know that since the Eredar were corrupted and whatever their actions might've been are a complete unknown. They might well have cultivated a universal utopia for all that we know. Your bias against the Eredar and Draenei is clear, but the argument isn't really about whether or not either group was moral or just, merely that due to multiple factors they're explicitly and radically different people.
    "We're more of the love, blood, and rhetoric school. Well, we can do you blood and love without the rhetoric, and we can do you blood and rhetoric without the love, and we can do you all three concurrent or consecutive. But we can't give you love and rhetoric without the blood. Blood is compulsory. They're all blood, you see." - Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead

  6. #46
    Immortal FuxieDK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    København
    Posts
    7,696
    Quote Originally Posted by ravenmoon View Post
    Human: Arthas (then Kel'thuzzad)
    I would put Kel'thuzad over Arthas any day of the week..

    He willed himself into Lich hood for crying out loud..
    Fact (because I say so): TBC > Cata > Legion > ShaLa > MoP > BfA > WoD = WotLK

    My pet collection --> http://www.warcraftpets.com/collection/FuxieDK/

  7. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by Aucald View Post
    They're pretty analogous to angels, although like in all things in the Warcraft mythology there is a definite underscoring of "Light is not Good" in their actions. Regardless, they are definitely opposed to the demons, who represent the opposite. You're denigrating the Naaru, but that doesn't really affect the original argument in any way.
    How am I denigrating the Naaru? Ultimately they are far closer to vorlons than angels
    https://babylon5.fandom.com/wiki/Vorlon

    We'll never actually know that since the Eredar were corrupted and whatever their actions might've been are a complete unknown. They might well have cultivated a universal utopia for all that we know. Your bias against the Eredar and Draenei is clear, but the argument isn't really about whether or not either group was moral or just, merely that due to multiple factors they're explicitly and radically different people.
    Fact remains the children of Argus caused more damage to the universe than any other mortals we know of and are pretty much the easiest to manipulate as all of them dance to the tune of higher powers

  8. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by Houle View Post
    with the end goal of surpassing even Sargeras.
    Not sure if this still canon

  9. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by ravenmoon View Post
    hmmm... we have a stellar crew:


    Human: Arthas (then Kel'thuzzad)
    Orc: Gul'dan (then Garrosh)

    Draenei: Kil'jaeden (then Archimonde)
    Thalassian Elf: Sylvanas (then Dark'han)

    Night Elf: Azshara (then Xavius)
    Worgen: none

    Forsaken: Putris
    Tauren: Magatha Grimtotem

    Dwarf: King Thaurissian
    Gnome: King Mechagon

    Goblin: Gallywix
    Panda:

    Troll: Prophet Zul

    Interesting how several horde leaders actually make the list of most evil of race. However, it's the so called pretty/good races that are typically famous for virtue that have the most evil race members. (
    Why the hell is Garrosh more evil than Blackhand? Or Rend and Maim? Or Zuluhed the Whacked? Or Nekros Skullcrusher? Or Teron Gorefiend? Motherf*cking Teron Gorefiend, he should be second only to Gul'dan.

    For Humans you're also missing Blackmoore and Perenolde. Varian is also kind of a warmonger as seen in Wrath of the Lich King, he's the instigator of the renewed Alliance and Horde war, don't blame it on Garrosh.

    And Worgen none? Greymane was quite the egotistical asshole to his Alliance neighbours during the second war. He'd rather wall up and let the human race die than participate and help them. I wouldn't call him a good guy. But perhaps since back then he was only human he should belong in that list instead. Ever since becoming Worgen he seems a little less of an asshole ironically enough.

    Also, why do you have Sylvanas and Dar'khan on the list of elves? (Why not list Blood Elves to make it clearer?) Sylvanas has been evil since being undead and should be on the Forsaken list. Putress was just following orders and shouldn't be on that list. Not before Sylvanas anyway.
    Blood Elf that is evil would be Kael'thas instead. But only him being hit with the villain stick in TBC by following Kil'jaeden, as his TFT appearance wasn't really evil, more like hero/anti-hero, similar to a Garrosh (pre-Yshaarj corruption) or early Varian.

    And talking about hero/anti-hero, where is Illidan on the list? He did some quite evil things. Ultimately for a good cause and I don't think he's truly evil but he should be on the list regardless.

    Moira should be on the list as well.
    Taran zhu is an arrogant prideful warmonger of a Panda as well.

  10. #50
    Taran Zhu isn't evil. Heck, he called the factions for what they are; an excuse for a racist war, and he wanted nothing to do with neither side.

  11. #51
    Moderator Aucald's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA-US
    Posts
    35,976
    Quote Originally Posted by Combatbulter View Post
    How am I denigrating the Naaru? Ultimately they are far closer to vorlons than angels
    https://babylon5.fandom.com/wiki/Vorlon
    Excepting Kosh, the Vorlon were pretty villainous and misguided - militaristic, tyrannical, and obsessed with proving their own moral philosophy's superiority. I'm not so sure I would say the Naaru are quite the same, but that is again neither here nor there as concerns the Eredar/Draenei distinction.

    Quote Originally Posted by Combatbulter View Post
    Fact remains the children of Argus caused more damage to the universe than any other mortals we know of and are pretty much the easiest to manipulate as all of them dance to the tune of higher powers
    The Eredar did, most assuredly - but that doesn't change the fact they were corrupted by an even more powerful godlike force (Sargeras) and gang-pressed in service to the demons. As for "dancing to the tune of higher powers," well that's pretty much every being in the Warcraft universe, more or less. It'd be difficult to argue the Eredar or Draenei are more susceptible than anyone else in that particular sense. The only race or set of beings I can think of in Warcraft that haven't espoused belief in or direct involvement with greater powers might be the Aldrachi, who refused to serve Sargeras and were wiped out for their defiance.
    "We're more of the love, blood, and rhetoric school. Well, we can do you blood and love without the rhetoric, and we can do you blood and rhetoric without the love, and we can do you all three concurrent or consecutive. But we can't give you love and rhetoric without the blood. Blood is compulsory. They're all blood, you see." - Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead

  12. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by Raisei View Post
    Well, Garrosh is responsible for both the crimes of the Iron Horde as well as the later Legion Invasion, none of which could have happened without his meddling with time and that is not even mentioning all the shit he pulled as Warchief..
    I feel this thread is using the term ''evil'' very loosely here. I mean none of the above is inherently evil by Garrosh, but rather just byproducts of his actions. If I trip over a stone, but it turns out that the stone I accidentally moved triggered an alien race to come conquer Earth, am I now evil? If I kill a child, but I did it in order to save 1000 other children, am I now evil?

    I feel like motivations matter a lot more than strictly actions when talking about evil, and Garrosh isn't evil at all imo, he is just a self-centered, war hungry Orc who has pride to a fault (an orc trait?). I wouldn't consider any of those traits necessarily evil in nature.

  13. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by Aucald View Post
    xcepting Kosh, the Vorlon were pretty villainous and misguided - militaristic, tyrannical, and obsessed with proving their own moral philosophy's superiority. I'm not so sure I would say the Naaru are quite the same
    The Naaru check pretty much all the boxes here


    The Eredar did, most assuredly - but that doesn't change the fact they were corrupted by an even more powerful godlike force (Sargeras) and gang-pressed in service to the demons. As for "dancing to the tune of higher powers," well that's pretty much every being in the Warcraft universe, more or less. It'd be difficult to argue the Eredar or Draenei are more susceptible than anyone else in that particular sense. The only race or set of beings I can think of in Warcraft that haven't espoused belief in or direct involvement with greater powers might be the Aldrachi, who refused to serve Sargeras and were wiped out for their defiance.
    Yet there are other races who faced similar dilemma, they did not fold in the same way the eredar did, many died resisting and others given a smiilar offer ultimately rejected it, lets take the highborne as an example again, they knew what was coming, knew resisting would most likely mean death, but ultimately far more of them chose to resist. The only children of Argus I am willing to give a pass here are the broken who remained on Argus and defied Sargeras and his new cronies, their existence alone proves resistance was possible, if the choice was made
    Last edited by Combatbulter; 2021-08-18 at 03:32 PM.

  14. #54
    Moderator Aucald's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA-US
    Posts
    35,976
    Quote Originally Posted by matheney2k View Post
    I feel this thread is using the term ''evil'' very loosely here. I mean none of the above is inherently evil by Garrosh, but rather just byproducts of his actions. If I trip over a stone, but it turns out that the stone I accidentally moved triggered an alien race to come conquer Earth, am I now evil? If I kill a child, but I did it in order to save 1000 other children, am I now evil?

    I feel like motivations matter a lot more than strictly actions when talking about evil, and Garrosh isn't evil at all imo, he is just a self-centered, war hungry Orc who has pride to a fault (an orc trait?). I wouldn't consider any of those traits necessarily evil in nature.
    Depends greatly on your philosophical model for "evil", but generally speaking actions primarily motivated by pride or arrogance that cause widespread injury or mass death definitely fall under the umbrella of evil acts. Garrosh's crimes against humanity (in the real-world sense, not the fictional humans of Warcraft) are numerous, and his utter defiance and lack of repentance for his deeds compounds that. He is definitely aware of the content of his actions and accepts his own nature, which qualifies him as evil in keeping with most philosophical models. There are some mitigating circumstances, but none of them go far toward shifting his alignment.
    "We're more of the love, blood, and rhetoric school. Well, we can do you blood and love without the rhetoric, and we can do you blood and rhetoric without the love, and we can do you all three concurrent or consecutive. But we can't give you love and rhetoric without the blood. Blood is compulsory. They're all blood, you see." - Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead

  15. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by Aucald View Post
    Depends greatly on your philosophical model for "evil", but generally speaking actions primarily motivated by pride or arrogance that cause widespread injury or mass death definitely fall under the umbrella of evil acts. Garrosh's crimes against humanity (in the real-world sense, not the fictional humans of Warcraft) are numerous, and his utter defiance and lack of repentance for his deeds compounds that. He is definitely aware of the content of his actions and accepts his own nature, which qualifies him as evil in keeping with most philosophical models. There are some mitigating circumstances, but none of them go far toward shifting his alignment.
    While true, I find it hard to accept things such as pride or arrogance falling anywhere near the umbrella of 'evil'. If anything I wouild categorize those under 'incompetence' really. To me evil has explicit intent to harm and the goal of evil is to do harm to others, in anyway shape or form. If my actions are motivated by pride or greed I am doing it for myself and for personal gain of some kind, not necessarily causing harm is my goal, even if I would use it to fulfill my goals. Yeah again you could argue the disregard of other people while pursuing your greedy goals could qualify under evil, and I admit I would have a hard time arguing against that really.

    I just see evil itself as a pretty narrow set of definitions clearly defined by motivations and intent, but yeah it's sort of a grey thing

  16. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by ravenmoon View Post
    hmmm... we have a stellar crew:


    Human: Arthas (then Kel'thuzzad)
    Orc: Gul'dan (then Garrosh)

    Draenei: Kil'jaeden (then Archimonde)
    Thalassian Elf: Sylvanas (then Dark'han)

    Night Elf: Azshara (then Xavius)
    Worgen: none

    Forsaken: Putris
    Tauren: Magatha Grimtotem

    Dwarf: King Thaurissian
    Gnome: King Mechagon

    Goblin: Gallywix
    Panda:

    Troll: Prophet Zul

    Interesting how several horde leaders actually make the list of most evil of race. However, it's the so called pretty/good races that are typically famous for virtue that have the most evil race members. (
    Sylvanas is not Evil. She was manipulated and her soul part was missing. That doesnt count. You would have to judge Sylvanas by the stuff she did in life.

    Edit: Oh you should add on Night elves: Elune
    Elune is an evil bitch who genocided the nelfs in the first place. I hope she will be a raid boss in 10.x and we chop her head off for the crimes she did

  17. #57
    Over 9000! Soon-TM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Netherstorm
    Posts
    9,268
    Quote Originally Posted by matheney2k View Post
    If anything I wouild categorize those under 'incompetence' really.
    Since you mentioned Garrosh, it is worth remembering that he didn't see himself as a baddie. But even himself admitted once that he was unfit for the position of Warchief (something that Green Jesus promptly disregarded btw).
    If the Janitor managed to pwn Azeroth:

    Quote Originally Posted by Haidaes View Post
    "Die, wold soul of *incomprehensible mumbling* with your death my plan to *incomprehensible mumbling* finally fullfilled and *incomprehensible mumbling*!"

  18. #58
    Moderator Aucald's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA-US
    Posts
    35,976
    Quote Originally Posted by Combatbulter View Post
    The Naaru check pretty much all the boxes here
    The Naaru have yet to conduct genocidal pogroms on entire planets, at least to my knowledge. You can certainly disagree with their moral philosophy, I do as well, but so far we've only seen one of their number (namely Xe'ra) act in a fashion that wasn't explicitly or implicitly altruistic or beneficent.

    Quote Originally Posted by Combatbulter View Post
    Yet there are other races who faced similar dilemma, they did not fold in the same way the eredar did, many died resisting and others given a smiilar offer ultimately rejected it, lets take the highborne as an example again, they knew what was coming, knew resisting would most likely mean death, but ultimately far more of them chose to resist. The only children of Argus I am willing to give a pass here are the broken who remained on Argus and defied Sargeras and his new cronies, their existence alone proves resistance was possible, if the choice was made
    Sure, but that's a meaningless distinction. Plenty of races resisted, plenty of races folded, some were tricked, others were forced, etc. Once the Legion reached a tipping point they stopped attempting to cajole or manipulate people and either forcibly attempted to induct them (as they did with the Aldrachi) or annihilated them out of hand. The Eredar didn't willingly join the Legion out of malicious or evil intent, they were duped by Sargeras presenting himself as a good-aligned god-like entity and forcibly converted into demons on accepting his manipulative "offer." Resistance was always possible, except most Eredar didn't know they needed to or should resist, because they were explicitly misled in the first place.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by matheney2k View Post
    While true, I find it hard to accept things such as pride or arrogance falling anywhere near the umbrella of 'evil'. If anything I wouild categorize those under 'incompetence' really. To me evil has explicit intent to harm and the goal of evil is to do harm to others, in anyway shape or form. If my actions are motivated by pride or greed I am doing it for myself and for personal gain of some kind, not necessarily causing harm is my goal, even if I would use it to fulfill my goals. Yeah again you could argue the disregard of other people while pursuing your greedy goals could qualify under evil, and I admit I would have a hard time arguing against that really.

    I just see evil itself as a pretty narrow set of definitions clearly defined by motivations and intent, but yeah it's sort of a grey thing
    Pride and arrogance alone and stripped of context aren't evil, no - but when pride and arrogance impel you to do harm to others, the product of that collective harm is classically term as evil. A leader of a given nation could be exceedingly prideful, and in their pride attempt to build the most enlightened and magnificent society their world had ever seen. Though we often connote negative stigma to pride, in this case pride impelled someone to do what we would typically term a "good" end-goal. Another leader, however, might opt to satisfy their pride by conquering and enslaving others - depriving them of land, life, and liberty to aggrandize themselves. That's classically viewed as "evil" on its face. Garrosh falls pretty squarely into the latter model, and his arrogance and xenophobia was not only extended to the Alliance as an enemy but also against his own people, ultimately leading to the majority of them taking up arms against him alongside the Alliance.

    Garrosh's intent was to increase his own glory, and redeem the name "Hellscream" in emulation of (or attempting to live up to) a false idea Garrosh had created in his own mind. The result of his actions was misery, death, and destruction for countless individuals, the splintering of his own nation, and finally an interplanetary conflict and series of planned genocides. It's difficult not to classify Garrosh as purely and intensely evil when seeing the intersection of his motivations and their results.
    "We're more of the love, blood, and rhetoric school. Well, we can do you blood and love without the rhetoric, and we can do you blood and rhetoric without the love, and we can do you all three concurrent or consecutive. But we can't give you love and rhetoric without the blood. Blood is compulsory. They're all blood, you see." - Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead

  19. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by Aucald View Post

    Pride and arrogance alone and stripped of context aren't evil, no - but when pride and arrogance impel you to do harm to others, the product of that collective harm is classically term as evil. A leader of a given nation could be exceedingly prideful, and in their pride attempt to build the most enlightened and magnificent society their world had ever seen. Though we often connote negative stigma to pride, in this case pride impelled someone to do what we would typically term a "good" end-goal. Another leader, however, might opt to satisfy their pride by conquering and enslaving others - depriving them of land, life, and liberty to aggrandize themselves. That's classically viewed as "evil" on its face. Garrosh falls pretty squarely into the latter model, and his arrogance and xenophobia was not only extended to the Alliance as an enemy but also against his own people, ultimately leading to the majority of them taking up arms against him alongside the Alliance.

    Garrosh's intent was to increase his own glory, and redeem the name "Hellscream" in emulation of (or attempting to live up to) a false idea Garrosh had created in his own mind. The result of his actions was misery, death, and destruction for countless individuals, the splintering of his own nation, and finally an interplanetary conflict and series of planned genocides. It's difficult not to classify Garrosh as purely and intensely evil when seeing the intersection of his motivations and their results.
    Your post inspired me to do a quick Google search on ''evil'' specifically, since it's not really ever something I have placed too much intellectual thought behind the term, and I found something I feel I should have already learned lol. Apparently there are 4 categories of evil

    Demonic evil - evil for the sake of evil (ex:the devil/demons in hollywood movies, the joker)
    Idealistic evil - evil that is 'justified' in some greater cause (ex: Nazis)
    Instrumental evil - evil used to carry out some purpose or goal (ex: terrorism)
    Foolish evil - evil caused by severe incompetence and is easily avoidable (ex:killing somebody while drunk driving)

    So it seems my definition of evil was mostly just 'demonic evil', but it's pretty cool to learn there are actual types of evil clearly defined.

  20. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by ravenmoon View Post
    hmmm... we have a stellar crew:


    Human: Arthas (then Kel'thuzzad)
    Orc: Gul'dan (then Garrosh)

    Draenei: Kil'jaeden (then Archimonde)
    Thalassian Elf: Sylvanas (then Dark'han)

    Night Elf: Azshara (then Xavius)
    Worgen: none

    Forsaken: Putris
    Tauren: Magatha Grimtotem

    Dwarf: King Thaurissian
    Gnome: King Mechagon

    Goblin: Gallywix
    Panda:

    Troll: Prophet Zul

    Interesting how several horde leaders actually make the list of most evil of race. However, it's the so called pretty/good races that are typically famous for virtue that have the most evil race members. (
    Orc had a lot of "most evil" from Blackhand to Gul'dan and also Krom'gar or Kargath. I would have separated every dwarves but actually I haven't seen a major evil Bronzebeard / Wildhammer. The only evil characters from those factions are betrayers in minor quests such as the Loch Modan quest or the dwarf who become a faceless during a Twilight Highlands questline.

    Also, I wouldn't put Mechagon in the most evil gnome of all time. Mechagon did what he did because he was still trying to accomplish the Titan's design and even if he was doing morally wrong actions, he did it for what he sought to be the greater good unlike Thermaplugg who was just portrayed as a jealous and powerhungry tyrant.

    For the pandarens, I'd place Taran Zu, as he's xenophobic (even if Garrosh gave him some reasons to be, he's still a dick toward the people who helped him to clean his land from the dark influence of the Sha).

    Forsaken had Nathanos evenly matched to Putress.

    As for human, there's plenty of evildoers such as Blackmoore, Garithos, Proudmoore father. Worgen has Ivar Bloodfang and as I'd put the Gilnean realm more than just the worgens, I'd say Godfrey too even if he wasn't infected. This guy was still a backstabbing bastard to anyone he served.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •