Why is Moira Bronzebeard rightful successor?

[Phage0070]

The dwarven heir is determined through bloodline, not merit. The gnomes (my doods!) determine their leader based on ingenuity and intelligence.

They deserve the results of heritage-based leadership.

[Haven]

By flipping the coin and all of a sudden doing the "evils" of the former society in every which manner does not constitute a free creator. Or ever a creator at all.

So you say they intentionally do evil for the sake of evil and not because they simply ignore the interests of lesser forces?

Especially not in how all Forsaken devoutly follow Sylvanas' every whim, which stands directly in opposition with Nietzsche's individualist and self-empowering philosophy.

Now go on and prove me the that there is some "Sylvanas' cult" and what we do in quests are her whims, and that it's somehow different from, for example, doing quests handed by Greymane.

Yet these terms fit do they not?

Forsaken have committed genocide, imperialism, and sadistic acts throughout Lordaeron.

Oh God, show me the ones that haven't. Most of sentient races committed genocide on WoW. Kobolds, gnolls, naga, quillboars - everyone and their opposing faction went out of their way to kill as much as possible. Why should humans be some "sacred cows"? They are weaker than Forsaken in Lordaeron, ergo, should lose, and it's okay. I don't remember good ol' Friedriech condemning violence... on the contrary, his philosophy is largely survivalistic. I also remember him praising the ability to cause harm and withstand tribulation, and condemning those who live in constraints of morality.

To say that one's own morality cannot apply when JUDGING others is probably the silliest thing I've heard all week.

What does it have to do with a person that tells the morality to fuck off (hint: me)? That's one thing I liked Nietszche for: there are the strong and there are the weak, and there's no rules, only survival that matters. At least, that's in "Will to Power", and "Gay Science".

[Kathranis]

Why is it Moira Bronzebeard think she's successor to throne of Ironforge? Muradin is surely next in-line no questions asked?

That's not how it works. Muradin is way down the line in hierarchy.

Moira is the next in line because she is Muradin's eldest heir and there is no queen. Moira's son is the next in line after her because it's her eldest heir.

Ever read Hamlet? The whole plot revolves around how Hamlet is the rightful heir, but his uncle murders the king and marries with the queen, taking the throne right out from under him.

[Haven]

That's not how it works. Muradin is way down the line in hierarchy.

Moira is the next in line because she is Muradin's eldest heir and there is no queen. Moira's son is the next in line after her because it's her eldest heir.

Ever read Hamlet? The whole plot revolves around how Hamlet is the rightful heir, but his uncle murders the king and marries with the queen, taking the throne right out from under him.

There are hereditary systems other than European. For example, in medieval Russia, the ruler's eldest brother would be the heir.

[Jekyll]

I can understand why the Dark iron and the Bronzebeard are part of the council, but why does the wildhammer need to intervene? If ever, the frostborn has equal right.

[Astalnar]

Royal succession usually goes from parent to child, not from sibling to sibling.

Royal succession usually goes from father to male child. If male branch is exhausted, then on the older brother of king. Female branch comes in line of throne only in case all men are dead.

Damn that Magni, why couldn't he just denounce her while he had a chance....

And if is to be believed to Dark side, then Muradin realy is next in place for throne and Moira is just butting in.

I can understand why the Dark iron and the Bronzebeard are part of the council, but why does the wildhammer need to intervene? If ever, the frostborn has equal right.

Wildhammers, Darkirons and Bronzebeards all hale from same clan. The one who made IF. As the years passed inside of that clan formed 3 smaller. They had bitter wars for the throne of IF in wich al last Bronzebeards won and banned Darkirons and Wildhammers out of IF.

There are hereditary systems other than European. For example, in medieval Russia, the ruler's eldest brother would be the heir.

That is european hereditary system. Only one that ever changed the system so Maria Theresa could become a queen were the Haupsburgs (Haupsburg empire). Her father wanted for their Line to stay on throne and change one word in law. He erased word male.
(Shakespear is good writer and all but if you want to look at his work from historical view there are more balonies then not. All his works came from stories and rumors, and Hamlet is made up story, he named main hero in honour of his son Hamnet)

[Roflpotamus]

So you say they intentionally do evil for the sake of evil and not because they simply ignore the interests of lesser forces?

Careful now, aren't you using an objective evil here? They do subjective evil in the sense that they blatantly are flying in the face of the morality they formerly went by. Instead of all complying by the Light, they now have all switched over to the order of Sylvanas.

Thus they are not creators but followers of the "great leaders".

Instead of aiding the sick (priests and paladins) they test for ways to make subjects more sick (the plague of death that Sylvanas sanctioned 100% of the way), instead of hating the Orcs (as every member of the Alliance did) they allied with them, etc.

The list goes on, the fact of the matter is that instead of creating their own sense of morality and purpose, they followed Sylvanas and merely converted to the flip side of their former selves.

Now go on and prove me the that there is some "Sylvanas' cult" and what we do in quests are her whims, and that it's somehow different from, for example, doing quests handed by Greymane.

I don't know if you're being facetious here about the Sylvanas Cult.

WoWWiki if you've seriously never looked up anything about the character:

http://www.wowwiki.com/Forsaken
http://www.wowwiki.com/Sylvanas_Windrunner

FROM WOWWIKI
Forsaken culture is strange, a perverse combination of the lives they once knew as mortals and the mindless slavery they experienced in the Scourge, colored by white-hot rage toward the Lich King and an almost equally intense devotion to their queen.

The Forsaken fanatically follow the command of Sylvanas, from the early steps of making the plague (that kills all life) to killing Hillsbrad farmers, all of these have been sanctioned by the Banshee Queen.

The difference between Greymane and her is the level of mindless zeal in their followers. Both "followers" are nowhere near the Nietzsche uber mensch for being followers and not creators.

To consider Sylvanas closer to the uber mensch ideal than Genn is absolutely absurd. For her morality is based off of her situation, just as Genn's is.

Oh God, show me the ones that haven't. Most of sentient races committed genocide on WoW. Kobolds, gnolls, naga, quillboars - everyone and their opposing faction went out of their way to kill as much as possible. Why should humans be some "sacred cows"? They are weaker than Forsaken in Lordaeron, ergo, should lose, and it's okay. I don't remember good ol' Friedriech condemning violence... on the contrary, his philosophy is largely survivalistic. I also remember him praising the ability to cause harm and withstand tribulation, and condemning those who live in constraints of morality.

Regardless of those who have or have not, have the Forsaken not committed said deeds?

By your logic of the violence Nietzsche purported that he would support the Nazis and their rise to power. For after all, they were the strongest and thus created their morality.

Yet if you've read anything of Nietzsche, you would see his overwhelming disgust for the sheeps that follow the "great leader" and his hatred of the state "that bites will stolen teeth".

You've convoluted Nietzsche's philosophy of being one of "No one is taller than the last man standing", yet Nietzsche himself was adamantly anti-violence, finally going insane after seeing a horse being beat; he defined his own morality, and it had nothing to do with violence or force to impose himself on others.

He idealized and romanticized the lone individual traveler removed from the world, not Genkis Khan or his ilk.

What does it have to do with a person that tells the morality to fuck off (hint: me)? That's one thing I liked Nietszche for: there are the strong and there are the weak, and there's no rules, only survival that matters. At least, that's in "Will to Power", and "Gay Science".

Again, you've tossed in a sense of objectivity in the mix where it just doesn't belong.

Nietzsche is not anti-morality, rather he demands that people CREATE their own. Quite the opposite of being amoral in fact.

In the last sentence, the false objectivity comes in. Nietzsche had written time and time before that the meaning of life is whatever an individual makes it to be, not survival.




I feel that you read Nietzsche and looked for statements that would support an idea of being brutally forceful due to something that happened in your past, not sure what though... It might have just been a whole conglomerate of events leading to you hating who you were as a child and seeing yourself as "weak".

Even though Nietzche recognized that there is no objective morality, he didn't fall back on the pseudo-philosophy of saying "then nothing matters, all of life is but a whim" that Kierkegard flirted with. Rather he endorsed the idea that the meaning of life is what you make of it, not that it is to beat all those around you to the ground, nor to have all recognize your might and power, for Nietzsche mocked and despised men who sought the fame and "glory" of those who took this path.

[Haven]

Careful now, aren't you using an objective evil here? They do subjective evil in the sense that they blatantly are flying in the face of the morality they formerly went by. Instead of all complying by the Light, they now have all switched over to the order of Sylvanas.

Thus they are not creators but followers of the "great leaders".

Instead of aiding the sick (priests and paladins) they test for ways to make subjects more sick (the plague of death that Sylvanas sanctioned 100% of the way), instead of hating the Orcs (as every member of the Alliance did) they allied with them, etc.

The list goes on, the fact of the matter is that instead of creating their own sense of morality and purpose, they followed Sylvanas and merely converted to the flip side of their former selves.

Again, you imply that they went 180 degrees just for the sake of going 180, not because they had some serious reasons (like being cursed with undeath, being severed from the Light, hated by the Alliance, etc.). And if you say that they all mindlessly follow her... an army of haters should've already risen and mentioned the fact that Forsaken had a big number of traitors, those who openly went against Sylvanas' rule. Like Putress, Godfrey, Crown Chemical Co., etc.

The Forsaken fanatically follow the command of Sylvanas, from the early steps of making the plague (that kills all life) to killing Hillsbrad farmers, all of these have been sanctioned by the Banshee Queen.

I honestly don't see anything wrong in eradicating one's enemies.

Regardless of those who have or have not, have the Forsaken not committed said deeds?

Well of course they have. Just like everyone else, but they've been less constrained about it, spent less effort on PR.

By your logic of the violence Nietzsche purported that he would support the Nazis and their rise to power. For after all, they were the strongest and thus created their morality.

You do know that nazis took a lot from his teachings?

You've convoluted Nietzsche's philosophy of being one of "No one is taller than the last man standing", yet Nietzsche himself was adamantly anti-violence, finally going insane after seeing a horse being beat; he defined his own morality, and it had nothing to do with violence or force to impose himself on others.

"Who can attain to anything great if he does not feel in himself the force and will to inflict great pain? The ability to suffer is a small matter: in that line, weak women and even slaves often attain masterliness. But not to perish from internal distress and doubt when one inflicts great suffering and hears the cry of it — that is great, that belongs to greatness."
Guess who said it.

Nietzsche is not anti-morality, rather he demands that people CREATE their own. Quite the opposite of being amoral in fact.

What is morality if not a standart? And what do you think people would call someone who doesn't fit that standart in any way? In this sense, everyone has morality. Some of them praise cannibalism, some used to consider an unexpected attack on unsuspecting opponent normal (samurais could do that in the middle of talk). It would be called amoral by many. It was totally acceptable in specific cultures.

In the last sentence, the false objectivity comes in. Nietzsche had written time and time before that the meaning of life is whatever an individual makes it to be, not survival.

We're not talking about the meaning of life, we're talking about what matters - and he said that ability to endure was the only thing that could show one's worth.

I feel that you read Nietzsche and looked for statements that would support an idea of being brutally forceful due to something that happened in your past, not sure what though... It might have just been a whole conglomerate of events leading to you hating who you were as a child and seeing yourself as "weak".

Thanks for detailed psychoanalysis, I never even suspected a shade of condescension or subtle insult. Maybe we'll talk of your childhood and what makes you argue with survivalists?

Even though Nietzche recognized that there is no objective morality, he didn't fall back on the pseudo-philosophy of saying "then nothing matters, all of life is but a whim" that Kierkegard flirted with. Rather he endorsed the idea that the meaning of life is what you make of it, not that it is to beat all those around you to the ground, nor to have all recognize your might and power, for Nietzsche mocked and despised men who sought the fame and "glory" of those who took this path.

I wonder why people like to exaggerate me so much. I feel like I suddenly became an extremist with a necklace of dead babies.

[Aurabolt]

Wow, looks like only three people bothered to read my last post.


...Oh, well. This is this internet, after all XD

[Roflpotamus]

Again, you imply that they went 180 degrees just for the sake of going 180, not because they had some serious reasons (like being cursed with undeath, being severed from the Light, hated by the Alliance, etc.). And if you say that they all mindlessly follow her... an army of haters should've already risen and mentioned the fact that Forsaken had a big number of traitors, those who openly went against Sylvanas' rule. Like Putress, Godfrey, Crown Chemical Co., etc.

Did they not go 180 degrees by their viewpoint? They violently hated Orcs, now they are allied to them. They were the most light-worshipping and philanthropic nation in all of Azeroth, now they specifically seek to do as much harm as possible. Instead of following the Light (which something the Revered, a Forsaken Argent Dawn member does), they follow it's polar opposite in this universe: the shadow.

All these examples point to the Forsaken taking their morality and going 180 degrees with it, not creating their own new ones INDIVIDUALLY.

As to being severed from the light, true it's a bitch and a half to now wield it, but they still can.

Honestly, what was the lore rationale for making Putress side w/ the Dreadlord in a civil war? From the quotes at the Wrathgate, he apparently wanted to kill all life, that would include the Legion, no?

In response to the two groups that betrayed her, she is now creating Forsaken without any will. That's a tangent however, the meat of the matter is that the original crop of the Forsaken (not her newly resurrected former enemies) are fanatically loyal. I have nothing to offer as to why the Royal Apothecary Society decided to go all crazy on her, but those members did.

FROM WOWWIKI
Priests of the Forgotten Shadow believe that the faiths they held in life have failed them, and so they instead rely on the power and teachings of the Shadow.[16][17][18] The members of the Cult vary between lawful and chaotic, evil and neutral,[19] and are taught to eradicate anything having to do with the Holy Light — and life in general.

Seems to me a 180 degree flippity flop.

I honestly don't see anything wrong in eradicating one's enemies.

I'm curious how Hillsbrad farmers are the enemies of Sylvanas. If you look at them as though they are supporting the Alliance with their crops and thus being her "enemies", then pretty much everything is to a degree an enemy. IE. If an Orc kills a human who pissed him off, he might have just bolstered the Alliance by getting rid of a Human that might have become Van Cleef 2.0.

Well of course they have. Just like everyone else, but they've been less constrained about it, spent less effort on PR.

No shit. Also, the plague that Sylvanas developed does not kill outright, rather:

FROM WOWWIKI
Testing is comprised of the more daring undead, many who were fighters and rangers in their lives. Their job is to scout the area of Tirisfal Glades and Silverpine Forest for subjects on which to test what comes out of R&D. Mortals or Scourge, it doesn’t matter as long as they’re not Forsaken. They must take these beings alive, and preferably as unharmed as possible, and return them to the Undercity. Here the Testing department applies the various potions the R&D department has concocted, seeing if they have the desired effects. The desired effects are commonly horrific — the best mortals can hope for is that a potion merely kills them instead of having its intended effect. Quick death is rarely the goal of these vile brews. The Scourge have it a little easier, as potions may commonly have little to no effect, as there is no life to be taken away. However, if they survive a round of tests, they will be present for the next round. It is very unlikely these unwilling test subjects will return alive — or undead. Master Apothecary Oni-jus heads this area in addition to aiding the R&D department.

Talk about specifically going out of your way to make bad PR.

You do know that nazis took a lot from his teachings?

I was hoping you'd say this. Look through Nietzsche's letters, he was invited time and time again to join the party, but time and time again he turned them down with an insult and a sneer. He hated them absolutely for both misconstruing his ideas and being part of the "sheep" and the "great leaders", not the individualistic creators.

The Nazi idea of the Uber Mensch was as far removed from the real/idealized Uber Mensch as could possibly be.

Who can attain to anything great if he does not feel in himself the force and will to inflict great pain? The ability to suffer is a small matter: in that line, weak women and even slaves often attain masterliness. But not to perish from internal distress and doubt when one inflicts great suffering and hears the cry of it — that is great, that belongs to greatness."
Guess who said it.

FROM GUESS WHO
Every living thing reaches out as far from itself with its force as it can, and overwhelms what is weaker: thus it takes pleasure in itself. The increasing "humanizing" of this tendency consists in this, that there is an ever subtler sense of how hard it is really to incorporate another: while a crude injury done him certainly demonstrates our power over him, it at the same time estranges his will from us even more--and thus makes him less easy to subjugate.

=/

The man was about exerting ones' self on the world and forcing it to ones' will, this does not necessarily follow that violence is the way. In fact, violence will be detrimental to this cause very often, as Nietzsche himself here points out.

What is morality if not a standart? And what do you think people would call someone who doesn't fit that standart in any way? In this sense, everyone has morality. Some of them praise cannibalism, some used to consider an unexpected attack on unsuspecting opponent normal (samurais could do that in the middle of talk). It would be called amoral by many. It was totally acceptable in specific cultures.

Agreed, so? Those following the morality of the majority without constructing their own are base creatures in Nietzsche's eyes, regardless if the majority support cannibalism or paying the tithe.

We're not talking about the meaning of life, we're talking about what matters - and he said that ability to endure was the only thing that could show one's worth.

You're simply rewording it but meaning the same thing. What "worth" or "matters" are you talking about? Because Nietzsche constantly supported the idea that all the worth and meaning in the world comes from ones' self. Not an outside objective measure of such traits.

Thanks for detailed psychoanalysis, I never even suspected a shade of condescension or subtle insult. Maybe we'll talk of your childhood and what makes you argue with survivalists?

Was I right though?

I wonder why people like to exaggerate me so much. I feel like I suddenly became an extremist with a necklace of dead babies.

Heh, because everything you write on this forum, or have on your profile screams what I wrote in that last paragraph.

---------- Post added 2010-09-07 at 04:41 PM ----------

Also, this isn't a dualistic debate of survivalist vs. some other poppycock magical nonsense.

It's a debate concerning how even though the world is "survivalist" (no matter what regime is in power) force is far from the appropriate answer to get what one wants.

Just the same, it's an evaluation of Nietzsche's views.

I'ma stop writing now, I just dislocated my shoulder a couple of minutes ago... again.

=/

[Fuiking]

I'd imagine this has been discussed before but I went back 3 pages and couldn't find anything.

Why is it Moira Bronzebeard think she's successor to throne of Ironforge? Muradin is surely next in-line no questions asked?

They don't use Salic laws maybe? Qoute: Agnatic succession is the limitation of inheritance to a throne or fief to heirs descended from the original titleholder through males only, excluding descendants through females. The most common forms are: /end thread! If they did, muradin would be king indeed, but they appear not to follow this Rule.. if if I doubt it really excists in WoW.

[Katanasteel]

Magni needs to pop a new one, quickly.

That might be hard, he's kind of a rock.

She might also be pissed that I killed her husband for a sweet trinket back in the day. >.>

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression she is claiming the seat as a Dark Iron not as a Bronzebeard.

[Haven]

Sheeeesh... now that was a wall of text.

Did they not go 180 degrees by their viewpoint? They violently hated Orcs, now they are allied to them.

Now let us just assume there was a reason for them to join Horde rather than Alliance (zealously hating the undead), or Scourge (which was a little... undesirable option for the Forsaken).

They were the most light-worshipping and philanthropic nation in all of Azeroth, now they specifically seek to do as much harm as possible.

Not like they were under any orders from some hypothetical Horde overlord, ilke Warchief... and not like they had to expand their borders against a world that largely considers them abominations to be erased.

Instead of following the Light (which something the Revered, a Forsaken Argent Dawn member does), they follow it's polar opposite in this universe: the shadow.

I thought masochism was unnatural. May I remind you that Light inflicts a lot of pain to Undead, and Nature magic just doesn't work. So what's left is Arcane and Shadow. With Shadow being tightly connected to their new nature (hell they even got a racial), guess what was the dominant option.

All these examples point to the Forsaken taking their morality and going 180 degrees with it, not creating their own new ones INDIVIDUALLY.

They point to you trying to lead me into a logical swamp. You simply deny the original reasoning (which I brought up for the second time) in favor of your "flip for the sake of flip and nothing more" fanfic.

As to being severed from the light, true it's a bitch and a half to now wield it, but they still can.

So you say they SHOULD become masochists nation-wide to be individuals?

Honestly, what was the lore rationale for making Putress side w/ the Dreadlord in a civil war? From the quotes at the Wrathgate, he apparently wanted to kill all life, that would include the Legion, no?

Have you ever thought of why demons corrupt mortals, and why they don't destroy themselves when their objective is the destruction of the universe (which they are a part of)?

Answer: a wizard did it.

In response to the two groups that betrayed her, she is now creating Forsaken without any will.

I'm tired of that speculation, provide proof or gtfo. And mere "charm" is not a proof. It's a temporary spell used by Val'kyr, not LK-style domination.

Seems to me a 180 degree flippity flop.

Seems like they have all the alignments except for "good" (try having one with such life), and are taught to eradicate what's the most threatening to Forsaken naturally. Seems like you're closing your eyes on any reasoning other than your "flippity flop" intentionally.

I'm curious how Hillsbrad farmers are the enemies of Sylvanas. If you look at them as though they are supporting the Alliance with their crops and thus being her "enemies", then pretty much everything is to a degree an enemy.

They are in the way right at the doorstep, they fight against undead of any sort, they supply Alliance. Seems like enough for a reason to eliminate a threat. Or should Forsaken have just waited until ally fleet arrives into Southshore with "RECLAIM LORDEARON!" slogan?

IE. If an Orc kills a human who pissed him off, he might have just bolstered the Alliance by getting rid of a Human that might have become Van Cleef 2.0.

Maybe. Not an excluded possibility. But brainfart more

No shit. Also, the plague that Sylvanas developed does not kill outright, rather:
Talk about specifically going out of your way to make bad PR.

I don't see how perfecting a weapon is "going out of one's way to make bad PR". Tell me then, how else do you test a chemical weapon without "bad PR"?

I was hoping you'd say this. Look through Nietzsche's letters, he was invited time and time again to join the party, but time and time again he turned them down with an insult and a sneer. He hated them absolutely for both misconstruing his ideas and being part of the "sheep" and the "great leaders", not the individualistic creators.

The Nazi idea of the Uber Mensch was as far removed from the real/idealized Uber Mensch as could possibly be.

Yet, you focus solely on one aspect of Nietszche's teaching (individualism), ignoring the rest. The rest, nazi took. If his philosophy had nothing to do with NSDAP's ideology, they wouldn't have mentioned him so much.

=/

The man was about exerting ones' self on the world and forcing it to ones' will, this does not necessarily follow that violence is the way. In fact, violence will be detrimental to this cause very often, as Nietzsche himself here points out.

Now, where did I stress over violence? Second, "that which doesn't kill me, makes me stronger" is about that which doesn't kill. What kills, is final. Dead don't retaliate. Third, I don't fully support that popular "that which doesn't kill me, makes me stronger". Friedriech obviously forgot to mention cripples or didn't have his limb chopped off. There are things that damage beyond any repairs.

Agreed, so? Those following the morality of the majority without constructing their own are base creatures in Nietzsche's eyes, regardless if the majority support cannibalism or paying the tithe.

Which race in the whole World of Warcraft consists of individuals constructing their own morales? Hint: none of them. All Stormwind humans are light-worshipping, all night elves revere the nature, etc.

You're simply rewording it but meaning the same thing. What "worth" or "matters" are you talking about? Because Nietzsche constantly supported the idea that all the worth and meaning in the world comes from ones' self. Not an outside objective measure of such traits.

"To those human beings who are of any concern to me I wish suffering, desolation, sickness, ill-treatment, indignities - I wish that they should not remain unfamiliar with profound self-contempt, the torture of self-mistrust, the wretchedness of the vanquished: I have no pity for them, because I wish them the only thing that can prove today whether one is worth anything or not - that one endures."

Was I right though?

Is it relevant? Should a normal human being crave power? And again, you label me with desiring to be "brutally forceful"... which is an exxageration brought to an extreme. What are you, a liberal vegetarian working in PETA?

Heh, because everything you write on this forum, or have on your profile screams what I wrote in that last paragraph.

I cannot be responsible for the various interpretations of my words.

Also, this isn't a dualistic debate of survivalist vs. some other poppycock magical nonsense.

It's a debate concerning how even though the world is "survivalist" (no matter what regime is in power) force is far from the appropriate answer to get what one wants.

Of course force isn't always the best course of action. Yet people tend to cover themselves with these words to never use force at all, and condemn any who would. I am well aware that words are quite effective... but I am also aware that sometimes, one fist in the face delivers what a thousand words and witty arguments wouldn't, like telling whether you are to be messed with or not.

Just the same, it's an evaluation of Nietzsche's views.

Different people take different "nutrients" from various philosophies to compose their own.

[Roflpotamus]

Sheeeesh... now that was a wall of text.

Now let us just assume there was a reason for them to join Horde rather than Alliance (zealously hating the undead), or Scourge (which was a little... undesirable option for the Forsaken).

Syvlanas only encouraged such an ostracization. Rather than keep her word with Garithos, she stabbed him in the back and killed all the Humans, Dwarves, and High Elves in his army. Rather than have her dreadlord (what's his face) mind control Garithos again and have him lead his army away or in a different corner of the plaguelands, rather than kill Garithos and detain the army as Thrall did in Durnholde, etc.

Additionally, Garithos made no mention of killing the Forsaken, or posing any threat to them for that matter. His condition was that the Forsaken leave Lordaeron after the fall of the Dreadlords.

Sylvanas could have readily killed or manipulated Garithos and had the threat of his army eliminated without making the Forsaken enemies of the Humans, Dwarves (and by extension Gnomes), and High Elves.

Not like they were under any orders from some hypothetical Horde overlord, ilke Warchief... and not like they had to expand their borders against a world that largely considers them abominations to be erased.

The rest of the Horde was exceedingly distrustful of the Forsaken intentions, especially concerning their plague of death. Garrosh demands that she stop the use of it, which of course she ignores.

The buck really can't be passed on here, Sylvanas saw the creation of said plague every step through, whilst there is no indication as to an order from Thrall. On the other hand, there appears to be a huge distrust for the Forsaken amongst the rest of the Horde.

There are a variety (two? three?) of quests involving silencing those who speak out about the plague that the Forsaken are creating. One of which is where a Dwarf is turned into a mindless Ghoul in Brill.

I thought masochism was unnatural. May I remind you that Light inflicts a lot of pain to Undead, and Nature magic just doesn't work. So what's left is Arcane and Shadow. With Shadow being tightly connected to their new nature (hell they even got a racial), guess what was the dominant option.

And I did note that It'd be a bitch and a half to wield the Light.

Also, rather than turn to the Shadow, why not either the Arcane, or as is the case with more mortals, neither? (Or have Orcs train them in Shamanism or Taurens in Druidism)

An example of this is:

http://www.wowwiki.com/Trevor

There's also another Forsaken priest who is a noble spirit and refuses to wield the Shadow even though the Light has abandoned him (noble in how he suffers for what he considers just).

Hell, the Fel is even an option that isn't a polar opposite of the Light! Albeit, it is damn near so... and many Forsaken turned to it anyways.

Jesus, look at the links at the bottom of this page: http://www.wowwiki.com/Echo_of_Life

There's TONS of other options.

They point to you trying to lead me into a logical swamp. You simply deny the original reasoning (which I brought up for the second time) in favor of your "flip for the sake of flip and nothing more" fanfic.

I've addressed how the Forsaken needlessly made enemies and have turned to the polar opposite of the Light when there were countless other options available. What other points need you addressed? Their morality took a 180 degree flip.

So you say they SHOULD become masochists nation-wide to be individuals?

No, I merely said here that they can. And by the way, if they all did so they wouldn't be individuals.

My main beef was that you considered the Forsaken examples of the Nietzsche ideal in your original post, which makes no sense in how the Forsaken are as non-creators and non-individualistic as any other faction in this world.

Have you ever thought of why demons corrupt mortals, and why they don't destroy themselves when their objective is the destruction of the universe (which they are a part of)?

Answer: a wizard did it.

That dastardly Rhonin! Time and time again!

I'm tired of that speculation, provide proof or gtfo. And mere "charm" is not a proof. It's a temporary spell used by Val'kyr, not LK-style domination.

There is no proof that it is a temporary charm short of Godfrey.

Why would the Dalaran mages instantly turn and kill their fellows after being rezzed? Why would Koltira be "thoroughly loyal" to Sylvanas... and the Horde after she'd be done with him?

IMO we'll have to wait more to see exactly what this charm trick is, but if the guaranteed loyalty of Koltira after Sylvanas works her magic
is any indication then...

Also, has the theory been posited that rather than a temporary charm, it's a permanent charm that can be overcome by extreme forces of will. This would make Godfrey the perfect candidate in how he thought that a Worgen on the throne is a complete blasphemy, enough to spark a violent civil war and to kill himself over. Just how do you think he should feel concerning an Undead Elf doing just the same?

Seems like they have all the alignments except for "good" (try having one with such life), and are taught to eradicate what's the most threatening to Forsaken naturally. Seems like you're closing your eyes on any reasoning other than your "flippity flop" intentionally.

http://www.wowwiki.com/Echo_of_Life

Again look at how many options they have, yet few short of the Cult of the Shadow are taken (the Echo of Life is rather minor it appears).

Also, as to the "full range" of alignments:

FROM WOWWIKI
Although most of the race is evil,[3] the Forsaken cannot be thought of in purely dualistic terms entirely. Although undead, the Forsaken are still inherently human, the majority of whom were victims of the plague spread by Kel'Thuzad. Thus some of the Forsaken are still good beings, if no longer living. As the above suggests, some individuals among them are capable of a tragic form of nobility, in that they do not allow their inability to obtain redemption to prevent them from trying.

All that can be said is that the Forsaken follow their own agendas, and the rest of the world be damned; and if they have their way, it will be. Not all Forsaken are evil, but many are, and other races definitely view them as such. A non-evil Forsaken must work hard to prove his or her neutral (or perhaps, good) intentions. Few good Forsaken exist, but many evil ones do, and their leadership is definitely up to nefarious ends. Most Forsaken are pretty despicable, and their motivations as a race are evil and destructive.[4]

According to Blizzard, the Forsaken really don't have the full range of alignments.

They are in the way right at the doorstep, they fight against undead of any sort, they supply Alliance. Seems like enough for a reason to eliminate a threat. Or should Forsaken have just waited until ally fleet arrives into Southshore with "RECLAIM LORDEARON!" slogan?

The farmers of Hillsbrad did not fight any Undead of any sort... They're farmers.

Thus the main threat would be that they could supply the Alliance, a faction that is pitted against the Forsaken with good reason (the whole bit where the Forsaken massacred countless Humans, Dwarves, and High Elves at first contact between the two factions).

Maybe. Not an excluded possibility. But brainfart more

And just hate on that person you used to be up the whizoo why don't you

See two can be snide =/

I don't see how perfecting a weapon is "going out of one's way to make bad PR". Tell me then, how else do you test a chemical weapon without "bad PR"?

The whole bit where it isn't designed to outright kill, but rather make the victim suffer as much as possible.

That kind of stuff tends to make one look bad.

Yet, you focus solely on one aspect of Nietszche's teaching (individualism), ignoring the rest. The rest, nazi took. If his philosophy had nothing to do with NSDAP's ideology, they wouldn't have mentioned him so much.

You ignored how much he hated them, how they were as remote from the Uber Mensch as could be, and how Nietzsche was an Athiest.

He really had nothing in common with them, the leaders of the Nazi movement however saw the Uber Mensch ideal as legitimacy for their party and actions, regardless of how far off the mark they were.

Please, go read up on Nietzsche's views concerning the State, Religion, and most specific of all, the Nazis.

Now, where did I stress over violence? Second, "that which doesn't kill me, makes me stronger" is about that which doesn't kill. What kills, is final. Dead don't retaliate. Third, I don't fully support that popular "that which doesn't kill me, makes me stronger". Friedriech obviously forgot to mention cripples or didn't have his limb chopped off. There are things that damage beyond any repairs.

You have repeatedly stated that violence is completely justified, sanctioned, and the only measure of true "worth" several times in this thread.

If you wanna go back and revise that view now, so be it.

Which race in the whole World of Warcraft consists of individuals constructing their own morales? Hint: none of them. All Stormwind humans are light-worshipping, all night elves revere the nature, etc.

Agreed, and you won't see me calling any of the factions in Warcraft examples of the Nietzsche ideal.

"To those human beings who are of any concern to me I wish suffering, desolation, sickness, ill-treatment, indignities - I wish that they should not remain unfamiliar with profound self-contempt, the torture of self-mistrust, the wretchedness of the vanquished: I have no pity for them, because I wish them the only thing that can prove today whether one is worth anything or not - that one endures."

Again, Nietszche himself saw the meaning of life as being created by the individual. This is independent of how Nietzsche sees that one cannot be a creator or an Uber Mensch without constant contempt for ones' self and a driving urge to constantly improve ones' self.

One being objective and the other subjective.

I can see where you're coming from though.

Is it relevant? Should a normal human being crave power? And again, you label me with desiring to be "brutally forceful"... which is an exxageration brought to an extreme. What are you, a liberal vegetarian working in PETA?

Is it accurate though?

I cannot be responsible for the various interpretations of my words.

=/

When I have the time tomorrow, I'll compile a list evidencing your bias towards force and violence as depicted via what you've written.

Of course force isn't always the best course of action. Yet people tend to cover themselves with these words to never use force at all, and condemn any who would. I am well aware that words are quite effective... but I am also aware that sometimes, one fist in the face delivers what a thousand words and witty arguments wouldn't, like telling whether you are to be messed with or not.

If you're end goal is to protect yourself from being messed with because of your past, then a fist in someone's face is hardly the best alternative.

In fact, that's likely to end you in heaps of trouble, both via the authority and reactionary violence.

Look up subconscious body language and strive to appear the Alpha (I personally detest the whole arrangement as in how things degrade to position in the pack rather than arguments and logic, which can only applies to equals, so I steer interactions in such a manner to avoid such arrangements as much as possible). As the Alpha, no one's gonna mess with you. Furthermore, get a weapons permit and carry your gun by your side visible at all times.

There really are countless ways to tell people "don't mess with me" without resorting to violence (which nine times out of ten only begets more violence).

On a tangent, if you're willing to harm someone who will probably come back to you and harm you just as bad or even more, then kill them and make sure that nothing is traced to you, otherwise trouble is soon to follow (but the process of both the killing and the avoidance of responsibility constitutes overwhelming amounts of agony and trouble that it really should only be considered in "necessary" cases).

Different people take different "nutrients" from various philosophies to compose their own.

Of course.




What an anti-climatic ending to this post.

[Vudu]

These long love letters to each other should really be in a pm. Oh, and you're losing Rofl. The potshots at his moral character and attempts at psycho-analyzation undermine your own arguments and just make you look petty. Don't bother responding, since I highly doubt I'll read this thread again. (Somehow, I'm certain you're going to respond anyway.)


On a note back to the original topic, does anyone else find it amusing that the Dwarves apparently consider their women second-class (seeing as Moira apparently can't inherit the throne) as a sizable portion of the playerbase does?

[munkeyinorbit]

TBH, I think it should go to one of the other Bronzebeard brothers. She is a part of the Dark Irons, who have showed nothing but hostility towards Ironforge. She should have been killed, not raised as part of the ruling council.

Unfortunatley it isn't a democracy. Kings (or Queens) do not get voted. Throughout history tyrants and incompetants have been raised to the crown in many countrys around the world. They do not get voted into kingship. They are born into it. So it doesn't matter who you think should be King, by modern standards, the rightful ruler, as a regeant until her son is old enough, is Moira. The only way that one of the other Bronzebeards could rule is if all of Magni and his line was wiped out or if they took the crown by force.

[Haven]

Syvlanas only encouraged such an ostracization. Rather than keep her word with Garithos, she stabbed him in the back and killed all the Humans, Dwarves, and High Elves in his army. Rather than have her dreadlord (what's his face) mind control Garithos again and have him lead his army away or in a different corner of the plaguelands, rather than kill Garithos and detain the army as Thrall did in Durnholde, etc.

Additionally, Garithos made no mention of killing the Forsaken, or posing any threat to them for that matter. His condition was that the Forsaken leave Lordaeron after the fall of the Dreadlords.

Sylvanas could have readily killed or manipulated Garithos and had the threat of his army eliminated without making the Forsaken enemies of the Humans, Dwarves (and by extension Gnomes), and High Elves.

Just a side note: we all know what happened to any elves that were in Garithos' army. Stabbing him in the back was a simplest and easiest way of dealing with him. Making Varimathras MC him and all of his armies would be giving the demon too much potential power. Trying to coexist with him... seriously? Garithos has a reputation of the worst genocidal racist and human supremacist. He put the elves to death for surviving his suicide missions. And the conditions of the deal were that the Forsaken would simply do the job for free and leave their former homes... really, who could have suspected anything. Or given them at least some credit (contrary to the "Now get out of here, filthy wretches, until I--" /killed) for doing major part of the job and liberating Garithos and his men from mind slavery.

The rest of the Horde was exceedingly distrustful of the Forsaken intentions, especially concerning their plague of death. Garrosh demands that she stop the use of it, which of course she ignores.

But then again, the invasion of Gilneas is Garrosh's idea in the first place. And his order.

There are a variety (two? three?) of quests involving silencing those who speak out about the plague that the Forsaken are creating. One of which is where a Dwarf is turned into a mindless Ghoul in Brill.

It's a mere test, there's no indication of him having learned anything important about the plague.

And I did note that It'd be a bitch and a half to wield the Light.

So why wield it at all? They have no solid reasons for it, and a very good reason against it. It is very natural for them to turn their backs to the Light that has abandoned them.

Also, rather than turn to the Shadow, why not either the Arcane, or as is the case with more mortals, neither? (Or have Orcs train them in Shamanism or Taurens in Druidism)

Hell, the Fel is even an option that isn't a polar opposite of the Light! Albeit, it is damn near so... and many Forsaken turned to it anyways.

Jesus, look at the links at the bottom of this page: http://www.wowwiki.com/Echo_of_Life

There's TONS of other options.

Ummm, they have mages. And warlocks. And they lost all conection with Nature along with the Light, so nope, shamanism and druidism is physiologically impossible for them. They're not living, after all - in this they are different from all other races.

An example of this is:

http://www.wowwiki.com/Trevor

There's also another Forsaken priest who is a noble spirit and refuses to wield the Shadow even though the Light has abandoned him (noble in how he suffers for what he considers just).

A single masochist proves nothing. There are thousands of Forsaken who abandoned the Light versus just two who have not. There are far more Scourge human necromancers than Light-worshipping Forsaken.

No, I merely said here that they can. And by the way, if they all did so they wouldn't be individuals.

My main beef was that you considered the Forsaken examples of the Nietzsche ideal in your original post, which makes no sense in how the Forsaken are as non-creators and non-individualistic as any other faction in this world.

In this, you are right. I admit that I generalized and applied mostly a survivalist component of Nietszche's teaching to Forsaken - the one that I absorbed most in my time, which was quite long ago; I only picked 'im up to re-read a couple of days ago.

That dastardly Rhonin! Time and time again!

I seriously consider the possibility of him going back in time to drive Sargeras insane with jealousy to his awesomeness, just to have someone of universal scale as an enemy to kick ass of. Otherwise, he would be bored with nothing quite epic enough to pwn.

There is no proof that it is a temporary charm short of Godfrey.

And there are none of the contrary. Players are new Forsaken, and they have free will... also, there are no "mindless forsaken trooper" npcs.

Why would the Dalaran mages instantly turn and kill their fellows after being rezzed?

Maybe just to be on the same side? Because, what other choice would they have once become undead? Plus, they might've been charmed. And charm may wear off. After it wears off, anyone with enough survival instinct would figure whom to stay with, especially since the world seems to have grown to hate the Forsaken more than ever.

Why would Koltira be "thoroughly loyal" to Sylvanas... and the Horde after she'd be done with him?

Maybe because she'll just give him hell for his treachery? Or maybe because she indeed will mess with his head. Although this will mean that the process of subjugation takes time and effort, and is impossible to be done right in the field and on mass scale.

Also, has the theory been posited that rather than a temporary charm, it's a permanent charm that can be overcome by extreme forces of will. This would make Godfrey the perfect candidate in how he thought that a Worgen on the throne is a complete blasphemy, enough to spark a violent civil war and to kill himself over. Just how do you think he should feel concerning an Undead Elf doing just the same?

There's another theory: she started using the charm trick after being shot by one of her new and completely free-willed Forsaken (namely Godfrey). As a precaution. And Godfrey was an ass even before.

http://www.wowwiki.com/Echo_of_Life

Again look at how many options they have, yet few short of the Cult of the Shadow are taken (the Echo of Life is rather minor it appears).

They should've become Felsworn? Or worship the Loa? Or Elune? But let's look at any other race, do any Humans choose the Forgotten Shadow? Do any orcs worship Elune?

Also, as to the "full range" of alignments:

According to Blizzard, the Forsaken really don't have the full range of alignments.

Actually, it stated that good Forsaken do exist, although they're uncommon.

The farmers of Hillsbrad did not fight any Undead of any sort... They're farmers.

Then why the hell do they attack me when I just pass by? I wouldn't like such neighborhood.

The whole bit where it isn't designed to outright kill, but rather make the victim suffer as much as possible.

That kind of stuff tends to make one look bad.

It worked quite fast in the game (which is later lore than RPG books, ergo, "more canon"). Namely, melting flesh in seconds.

You ignored how much he hated them, how they were as remote from the Uber Mensch as could be, and how Nietzsche was an Athiest.

He really had nothing in common with them, the leaders of the Nazi movement however saw the Uber Mensch ideal as legitimacy for their party and actions, regardless of how far off the mark they were.

Please, go read up on Nietzsche's views concerning the State, Religion, and most specific of all, the Nazis.

If he really had nothing in common with them, they wouldn't have been able to take an extensive use of his ideas.

You have repeatedly stated that violence is completely justified, sanctioned, and the only measure of true "worth" several times in this thread.

If you wanna go back and revise that view now, so be it.

So please give me my own quotes where I state that viloence is the only thing that proves one's worth. I'm intrigued.

Is it accurate though?

Not entirely. But to a certain point.

When I have the time tomorrow, I'll compile a list evidencing your bias towards force and violence as depicted via what you've written.

I'll wait.

If you're end goal is to protect yourself from being messed with because of your past, then a fist in someone's face is hardly the best alternative.

In fact, that's likely to end you in heaps of trouble, both via the authority and reactionary violence.

Look up subconscious body language and strive to appear the Alpha (I personally detest the whole arrangement as in how things degrade to position in the pack rather than arguments and logic, which can only applies to equals, so I steer interactions in such a manner to avoid such arrangements as much as possible). As the Alpha, no one's gonna mess with you. Furthermore, get a weapons permit and carry your gun by your side visible at all times.

There really are countless ways to tell people "don't mess with me" without resorting to violence (which nine times out of ten only begets more violence).

This is precisely what I was speaking about. You offer countless complicated options, of which none are 100% effective, and all of which are meant to avoid violence at any cost. Yet, the truth is, violence does exist. And always will. However you try to convince yourself and people around you that violence is bad and is never the most rational option, you are powerless to eliminate it. You just try to abstract away from an aspect of human life. There's no ying without yang. Everything has its application and spot in the order of things - violence, anger, depression, deceit, and many others. We don't like it when they are applied against us, and this is why most people condemn these things altogether, failing to realize that they simply close their eyes and disarm themselves, saying "I'm out of the game, don't touch me".

Your statement seems to be more theoretical than practical. I had a practical experience which formed my opinion on the matter (okay, consider you pulled it from me). I entered a new collective about 5 years ago, and in it, there were also, to put it simply, bullies. The thing is, I only fought one of them once (after intentionally taunting him), and we beat each other about equally. After that single fight, none have ever picked on me. Why? Because they learned that screwing with me wouldn't go unpunished. They didn't want to face consequence for no good initial reason to mess with me. They actually started to respect me to a degree, although reluctantly.

What an anti-climatic ending to this post.

They're not supposed to always end climactically. I'm not radical.

---------- Post added 2010-09-08 at 11:44 AM ----------

But this is really far too deep into derailment.

[Eyildr]

Gosh. I wish people would stop talking about the Forsaken. They're vile genocidal maniacs, get over it. Let's get back to the original topic.

[Roflpotamus]

Just a side note: we all know what happened to any elves that were in Garithos' army. Stabbing him in the back was a simplest and easiest way of dealing with him. Making Varimathras MC him and all of his armies would be giving the demon too much potential power. Trying to coexist with him... seriously? Garithos has a reputation of the worst genocidal racist and human supremacist. He put the elves to death for surviving his suicide missions. And the conditions of the deal were that the Forsaken would simply do the job for free and leave their former homes... really, who could have suspected anything. Or given them at least some credit (contrary to the "Now get out of here, filthy wretches, until I--" /killed) for doing major part of the job and liberating Garithos and his men from mind slavery.

So rather, the Forsaken chose not to leave their former homes, but kill the Humans in the army that were after the same goal. Remember, Garithos' army was based off the remnants of Lordaeron, it's citizens.

Again, I'm pointing out that Sylvanas had a variety of options before her that would not have made her the enemy of the Alliance, but she went for the "easier" (in the short run) option and thus made her the enemy of the Alliance.

Hell, she could have easily killed Garithos and spared the rest of the army, as Thrall did.

But then again, the invasion of Gilneas is Garrosh's idea in the first place. And his order.

Isn't there some dispute concerning this now?

In a thread here, supposedly the Forsaken attack just as the Cataclysm comes about, before Garrosh became the warchief. Then Garrosh sanctions the attack.

I personally believe that Garrosh ordered them and that Blizz just made a small lorelol (nowhere near BC level).

It's a mere test, there's no indication of him having learned anything important about the plague.

Bah, there's another quest then where the person is silenced. Mayhaps in Stonard or thousand needles.

So why wield it at all? They have no solid reasons for it, and a very good reason against it. It is very natural for them to turn their backs to the Light that has abandoned them.

I'm really not advocating that they wield it. Rather, I'm pointing out that the morality of the Forsaken took a 180 degree turn, which was a piss-poor job at the story by Blizzard.

Ummm, they have mages. And warlocks. And they lost all conection with Nature along with the Light, so nope, shamanism and druidism is physiologically impossible for them. They're not living, after all - in this they are different from all other races.

Please provide proof that Forsaken cannot wield Nature magic or commune with the Spirits.

The Twilight Hammer Cult would like to have a word with you.

(They employ countless Undead that make use of both schools of magic).

A single masochist proves nothing. There are thousands of Forsaken who abandoned the Light versus just two who have not. There are far more Scourge human necromancers than Light-worshipping Forsaken.

Lore-wise, there aren't supposed to be any undead necromancers. At least in the Third war.

Your point though? My point was that these people are much closer to the Nietzsche ideal than the throng that follow Sylvanas.
A. They are not satisfied with themselves and hold themselves in great contempt.
B. They suffer for their raison d'etre.
C. They do not conform to the masses in their similar situation but rather follow their own path (albeit their path is a skewed version of what they formerly believed).

Not saying that these fellows are beacons of the Uber Mensch, just very much more so than the throng of Forsaken, the masses.

In this, you are right. I admit that I generalized and applied mostly a survivalist component of Nietszche's teaching to Forsaken - the one that I absorbed most in my time, which was quite long ago; I only picked 'im up to re-read a couple of days ago.

=x

All of my indignant rage is for naught now!

I seriously consider the possibility of him going back in time to drive Sargeras insane with jealousy to his awesomeness, just to have someone of universal scale as an enemy to kick ass of. Otherwise, he would be bored with nothing quite epic enough to pwn.

Ever wonder how the Old Gods came about?

Yeah, kinda Rhonin like that.

Oh wow, I just realized how gay his name truly is... There's not even an ounce of subtlety to it!

And there are none of the contrary. Players are new Forsaken, and they have free will... also, there are no "mindless forsaken trooper" npcs.

None of the new players are rezzed by Val'Kyr.

Whereas every npc rezzed by a Val'Kyr (short of Godfrey and his incredible hate... atta' boy) shows instant devotion to the Forsaken cause, immediately turning and attacking their allies just minutes ago.

And the argument that their allies would kill them in a heartbeat is faulty in how the Alliance employs Death Knights (UNDEAD) in their ranks, most noticeably Thasarrian.

Maybe just to be on the same side? Because, what other choice would they have once become undead? Plus, they might've been charmed. And charm may wear off. After it wears off, anyone with enough survival instinct would figure whom to stay with, especially since the world seems to have grown to hate the Forsaken more than ever.

Again, the Alliance accepts Death Knights (UNDEAD) in their ranks, even as commanders!

Maybe because she'll just give him hell for his treachery? Or maybe because she indeed will mess with his head. Although this will mean that the process of subjugation takes time and effort, and is impossible to be done right in the field and on mass scale.

Or it's a dramatization of the coming lore concerning the mind-control Sylvanas is employing, specifically on the Undead BE DK (lol). Additionally, I'm pretty sure that the reason behind Sylvanas' craziness is 'cause of the Old God in Trisfal Glades, and she'll be "redeemed" somewhat a la' Kerrigan (she's a bloody carbon copy, from the missions in WC3 to her story in WoW, sheesh).

There's another theory: she started using the charm trick after being shot by one of her new and completely free-willed Forsaken (namely Godfrey). As a precaution. And Godfrey was an ass even before.

This does not explain what happened to the Dalaran mages though, nor for the other newly raised Gilneans that fought for Sylvanas. Again, my theory concerning Godfrey is his overwhelming will overpowered said charm, which actually makes sense.

They should've become Felsworn? Or worship the Loa? Or Elune? But let's look at any other race, do any Humans choose the Forgotten Shadow? Do any orcs worship Elune?

Some indubitably do, just not enough to be represented in game. Mayhaps if they just became practitioners of the Shadow without becoming the polar opposites of their former selves in every other respect, I wouldn't see this as a flip-flop.

Again, where does it say that Forsaken cannot wield nature magics? (AHEM: Twilight Cultists)

Actually, it stated that good Forsaken do exist, although they're uncommon.

That it did... about as common as an Elune worshipping Orc.

I exaggerate but you get the point.

Then why the hell do they attack me when I just pass by? I wouldn't like such neighborhood.

Probably because the Forsaken have killed all the Humans in every other region of Lordaeron?

Also probably because in the first encounter between Humans and Forsaken, Sylvanas had all the Humans killed?

It worked quite fast in the game (which is later lore than RPG books, ergo, "more canon"). Namely, melting flesh in seconds.

Yet in Wrathgate, those within the gas are clearly not dying instantly... rather slowly and painfully.

I'm talking about the Orc whose face was falling off amongst others who suffered.

If he really had nothing in common with them, they wouldn't have been able to take an extensive use of his ideas.

Please, look up Nietzsche's views on the Nazis.

I've presented the case, yet you insist on clinging on this without looking at it for yourself.

=/ That isn't what a person striving for the pinnacle in knowledge and power would do.

I am disappoint.

So please give me my own quotes where I state that viloence is the only thing that proves one's worth. I'm intrigued.

I don't remember good ol' Friedriech condemning violence... on the contrary, his philosophy is largely survivalistic. I also remember him praising the ability to cause harm and withstand tribulation, and condemning those who live in constraints of morality.

What does it have to do with a person that tells the morality to fuck off (hint: me)? That's one thing I liked Nietszche for: there are the strong and there are the weak, and there's no rules, only survival that matters. At least, that's in "Will to Power", and "Gay Science".

Occupation
to cull the weak and temper the strong.

"Who can attain to anything great if he does not feel in himself the force and will to inflict great pain? The ability to suffer is a small matter: in that line, weak women and even slaves often attain masterliness. But not to perish from internal distress and doubt when one inflicts great suffering and hears the cry of it — that is great, that belongs to greatness."

We're not talking about the meaning of life, we're talking about what matters - and he said that ability to endure was the only thing that could show one's worth.

"To those human beings who are of any concern to me I wish suffering, desolation, sickness, ill-treatment, indignities - I wish that they should not remain unfamiliar with profound self-contempt, the torture of self-mistrust, the wretchedness of the vanquished: I have no pity for them, because I wish them the only thing that can prove today whether one is worth anything or not - that one endures."

Of course force isn't always the best course of action. Yet people tend to cover themselves with these words to never use force at all, and condemn any who would. I am well aware that words are quite effective... but I am also aware that sometimes, one fist in the face delivers what a thousand words and witty arguments wouldn't, like telling whether you are to be messed with or not.

Again, the bit concerning Nietzsche's view on an individual's suffering is in relation to how he sees the Uber Mensch as attainable via self-contempt and thereby a need to constantly improve ones' self.

Also, the strong support for eliminating threats via the use of force (even though in this specific example, it merely created a larger threat in retaliation).

It does seem that you're avoiding the entirety of Nietzsche's philosophy and merely focusing on the most brutal aspects of the Uber Mensch, not the rationale behind becoming it, not the existentialist view the Uber Mensch is a paragon of, nor the application of means other than force to attain ones' desires. Nietzsche himself recognized that force (physical violence) is a piss-poor tool in getting what one wants nine times out of ten.

Not entirely. But to a certain point.

My brother went through a similar transformation, though in a very different way. I also went through said "transformation", but nowhere near as bitterly as you two appear to have, and with far more focus on the fact that Everything is my fault... that nothing is impossible.

This is precisely what I was speaking about. You offer countless complicated options, of which none are 100% effective, and all of which are meant to avoid violence at any cost. Yet, the truth is, violence does exist. And always will. However you try to convince yourself and people around you that violence is bad and is never the most rational option, you are powerless to eliminate it. You just try to abstract away from an aspect of human life. There's no ying without yang. Everything has its application and spot in the order of things - violence, anger, depression, deceit, and many others. We don't like it when they are applied against us, and this is why most people condemn these things altogether, failing to realize that they simply close their eyes and disarm themselves, saying "I'm out of the game, don't touch me".

Her response resulted in the Alliance becoming bitter enemies of the Forsaken. I'd suggest that that really isn't 100% effective, and is actually way worse than killing Garithos and detaining the army, as Thrall did.

Especially considering how Blackmoore was nowhere near as hated as Garithos was, I'm pretty sure the remnants of Lordaeron wouldn't be that hard to convince to coexist with their former family members, as the Blood Elves have (even though them joining the Horde is the biggest LOL since Space Goats Coast to Coast).

Your statement seems to be more theoretical than practical. I had a practical experience which formed my opinion on the matter (okay, consider you pulled it from me). I entered a new collective about 5 years ago, and in it, there were also, to put it simply, bullies. The thing is, I only fought one of them once (after intentionally taunting him), and we beat each other about equally. After that single fight, none have ever picked on me. Why? Because they learned that screwing with me wouldn't go unpunished. They didn't want to face consequence for no good initial reason to mess with me. They actually started to respect me to a degree, although reluctantly.

The difference being that said individuals were not a gang and would not come back for vengeance.

If you're going to employ violence, do it to the point that the inflicted party has no inclination to come back for vengeance.

But to go that far is in many cases more trouble than it's worth.

In your situation, you didn't have to go far at all, but good for you for standing up to them, seriously. You had an appropriate response that remedied the situation.

However, violence rarely works so well.






BACK ON TOPIC:

Thargas Anvilmar should totally come back and reclaim his throne, however, since he undoubtedly would not have any support from any of the clans unless the council fucked up big time, let's just hope that said misadventure befalls at least Moira.

As stands, the Wildhammer really have no rationale for bowing down to the future Bronzebeard/Dark Iron future king. This aspect should really be played up.

[DexterityRogueFeathermoon]

I really hope theres a quest to Kill moira, because shes a dink.