Who's more "evil" as of now: Orcs or the Forsaken?

[Yriel]

Here's how Durotan, who did not drink the blood, closes out Rise of the Horde:

The invasion was by choice, blood or not.

So ? How does an invasion make you automatically evil ?
The Orcs were a warrior society at that point, they liked to fight and conquer things. I don't see that as evil by itself since that would make basically every human nation in real life evil.

[Scummer]

Huh, that's interesting, hadn't heard that lore tidbit before. Where's that mentioned at?

The only part he's mentioned that I've even heard of is their ability to enter the Spirit World, as it's covered during an Alliance quest in Northrend and their ability to resurrect DK's during their starting experience..
Everything else he's mentioned has never been mentioned in game by my own knowledge nor did it come up in any quick searches of mine. They do not go to the spirit world for their "resurrections" in Cata as we can still see them, or at least that's my understanding.

[Gelannerai]

I used to be a big defender of Sylvanas and the Forsaken. I really did. Any time they did something "questionable," I felt it was done strictly for self-preservation against the threat of annihilation not only from the Alliance, but from the other Horde races as well. At this point, though, I really can't justify the things they do anymore. Malicious and joyful murder and torture isn't in any way, shape, or form necessary for their survival. One could argue that the killings they participate in and the methods by which they carry them out are geared towards minimizing Forsaken casualties, but that doesn't excuse the glee that the faction as a whole seems to take in doing so. That's evil, plain and simple.

Honestly, I could potentially still forgive a lot of what the Forsaken have done, but Theresa's existence pretty much obliterates any notion that they aren't simply monsters.

And yes, parasitic organisms do many of the same things for survival, but then again parasites aren't capable of higher-order thinking. The Forsaken definitely are, and they still choose to act like monstrous animals.

Yes, there are good eggs among them, Bart and Voss in particular, but generally speaking the Forsaken are horrendous.

[Aquamonkey]

Huh, that's interesting, hadn't heard that lore tidbit before. Where's that mentioned at?

As far as I know, It's never explicitly stated. I pieced it together from what I know about the lore. Most of it is based on Edge of Night.

The Val'kyr occupy the spirit plane like Spirit Healers. But they can come to the mortal plane (as seen multiple times). They closely resemble and act like Spirit Healers for the Scourge (raising fallen DKs in Archerus). Val'kyr under Arthas can raise other species besides Human (even Worgen), but the ones that Sylvanas freed can only do Humans that don't carry the Worgen curse. In Edge of Night and Cities in Dust, it is shown that Val'kyr have to sacrifice themselves to resurrect Sylvanas.

Necromancy is the reanimation of soulless husks, while Val'kyr do incomplete resurrection. All instances of necromancy indicate that they are mindless slaves to the person who raised them. Those resurrected by Val'kyr have their souls (free will and memories) intact.

---------- Post added 2013-02-16 at 03:58 PM ----------

The only part he's mentioned that I've even heard of is their ability to enter the Spirit World, as it's covered during an Alliance quest in Northrend and their ability to resurrect DK's during their starting experience..
Everything else he's mentioned has never been mentioned in game by my own knowledge nor did it come up in any quick searches of mine. They do not go to the spirit world for their "resurrections" in Cata as we can still see them, or at least that's my understanding.

Maybe they don't go and get them, but they do return the spirits to their bodies like a resurrection. It's not just a random spirit in a random body. I based my "go and get them" on how the Val'kyr went to Sylvanas' spirit and resurrected her by having 1 of them take her place. But Sylvanas is a special case.

[Mister J]

Theramore's destruction can hardly be compared to the attacks the Forsaken have made in Lordaeron.

People have to remember that anything involving 'plague' or 'raising the dead' in Azeroth is considered an act against nature. The act of raising a corpse from the dead isn't socially accepted by any of the main races on Azeroth, whether its Orcs, humans, dwarves or Tauren. Trolls may be an exception, but even that varies on the type of troll.

I won't go into a full length rant, but Theramore, while brutal and dishonorable, was an act of military strategy. In one fell-swoop, Garrosh allowed the Alliance to gather its top generals (as the Civilians escaped. Don't listen to Admiral Rogers, the civ's escaped. It says so right in Tides of War), amass a pretty impressive defense team and with one single bomb, take out all of that, and more. The deaths of the generals lost and the Seventh Legion fleet and the destruction of the strongest Alliance bastion nearest Orgrimmar was a HUGE victory for the Horde. Garrosh wanted the Alliance off Kalimdor and he did just that.

Sylvanas's march is a bit different. Yes, she needs to kill and raise humans to re-bolster her armies, but the very act of doing so goes against all crimes of nature. Nothing 'Undead' on Azeroth is good. Kel'Thuzad was kicked out of Dalaran for using necromancy on Rats. Imagine the action had it been humans? I get that Sylvanas needs a method to repopulate her people, and being dead, mating isn't an option. But for the rest of Azeroth, her way of doing so is just as brutal and abhorrent as the first time it happened. Just because the Forsaken are in control of their own free will, doesn't make what happened to them a sudden forgiven crime. They were dead and ripped back to the world of the living. And it's quite clear that moving dead things aren't tolerated.

As for "Evil"...well it depends on who's perspective. Sylvanas's perspective: Her actions are necessary and needed for the survival of her people. She NEEDS to do this. Does this make it less Evil? To her, maybe. A justified evil. To everyone else: It's barbaric and monstrous.

Garroshes attack on Theramore: Evil to the Alliance as dropping a bomb on anyone is a huge, shallow move. No honor at all. But, strategically, it was brilliant for the Horde. Evil? Depends where you stand.

[Aquamonkey]

Theramore's destruction can hardly be compared to the attacks the Forsaken have made in Lordaeron.

People have to remember that anything involving 'plague' or 'raising the dead' in Azeroth is considered an act against nature. The act of raising a corpse from the dead isn't socially accepted by any of the main races on Azeroth, whether its Orcs, humans, dwarves or Tauren. Trolls may be an exception, but even that varies on the type of troll.

I won't go into a full length rant, but Theramore, while brutal and dishonorable, was an act of military strategy. In one fell-swoop, Garrosh allowed the Alliance to gather its top generals (as the Civilians escaped. Don't listen to Admiral Rogers, the civ's escaped. It says so right in Tides of War), amass a pretty impressive defense team and with one single bomb, take out all of that, and more. The deaths of the generals lost and the Seventh Legion fleet and the destruction of the strongest Alliance bastion nearest Orgrimmar was a HUGE victory for the Horde. Garrosh wanted the Alliance off Kalimdor and he did just that.

Sylvanas's march is a bit different. Yes, she needs to kill and raise humans to re-bolster her armies, but the very act of doing so goes against all crimes of nature. Nothing 'Undead' on Azeroth is good. Kel'Thuzad was kicked out of Dalaran for using necromancy on Rats. Imagine the action had it been humans? I get that Sylvanas needs a method to repopulate her people, and being dead, mating isn't an option. But for the rest of Azeroth, her way of doing so is just as brutal and abhorrent as the first time it happened. Just because the Forsaken are in control of their own free will, doesn't make what happened to them a sudden forgiven crime. They were dead and ripped back to the world of the living. And it's quite clear that moving dead things aren't tolerated.

As for "Evil"...well it depends on who's perspective. Sylvanas's perspective: Her actions are necessary and needed for the survival of her people. She NEEDS to do this. Does this make it less Evil? To her, maybe. A justified evil. To everyone else: It's barbaric and monstrous.

Garroshes attack on Theramore: Evil to the Alliance as dropping a bomb on anyone is a huge, shallow move. No honor at all. But, strategically, it was brilliant for the Horde. Evil? Depends where you stand.

People raise corpses from the dead all the time. Every priest, shaman, paladin, and druid does it. Spirit Healers do it too. People can literally walk back to their corpses and come back from the dead. However, these may be merely gameplay mechanics not represented in lore.

Lore example: Aegwynn resurrected Medivh. He even comes back again in WC3 after being killed a second time.

[Kavoo]

Humans and Nightelves.

[Florena]

People raise corpses from the dead all the time. Every priest, shaman, paladin, and druid does it. Spirit Healers do it too. People can literally walk back to their corpses and come back from the dead. However, these may be merely gameplay mechanics not represented in lore.

Lore example: Aegwynn resurrected Medivh. He even comes back again in WC3 after being killed a second time.

I think ressurections are generally a game mechanic. THey happen in lore, from time to time, but if it's as easy in lore as it is for players, there's no reason for it not to be used all over the damn place.

[Aquamonkey]

I think ressurections are generally a game mechanic. THey happen in lore, from time to time, but if it's as easy in lore as it is for players, there's no reason for it not to be used all over the damn place.

Which may be why Val'kyr can only do incomplete resurrections. You'd think rebinding the soul with its body to be the hard part. But I guess restoring necrotic tissue is harder despite all the healing spells they have.

Extended exposure to holy energy can restore undead bodies enough for them to regain their senses. But maybe it requires a massive amount of holy energy to fully restore the body for a complete resurrection. So much that the person can't bear the pain or that it is impractical.

http://us.battle.net/wow/en/forum/topic/2721372142
http://blue.mmo-champion.com/topic/1...swers-round-1/

[Frozen Death Knight]

Do you not know what a psychopath is? It means she doesn't give a shit about the feelings of other people. She treats them as tools to satisfy her own self-interests. She hates Arthas for what he did TO HER. Because he tortured HER. She doesn't give a shit about what Arthas did to other people. She doesn't give a shit about doing that to other people herself. Everyone and everything around her was a tool for her to use in her revenge on Arthas. Now, everyone and everything around her are tools for her defense and fortification in Lordaeron.


Way to miss the point completely. The Alliance was bigoted towards her before she did anything wrong. And I say Alliance because it wasn't just Garithos. None of his forces trusted her. Some even deserted. Shit, Garithos allying himself with her was very uncharacteristic considering what he just finished doing to Kael. He's the hypocrite.

Sylvanas never gave a shit about what Garithos did to his men. She killed them because it suited her agenda and they were no longer useful to her. She only cares about appearing trustworthy when she wants something from someone.


Sylvanas had her soul ripped out of her and tortured. Where does this happen when Forsaken raise someone? They're already dead. They aren't tortured. They have a choice in whether they want to join or not.

The Val'kyr do not raise the undead through necromancy. They travel to the spirit plane and escort souls to their bodies like Spirit Healers. It's just that the Val'kyr are weaker so they can't return someone to full life and they can only do it with humans. Sylvanas is a special case that makes her different than the Forsaken because a) she's not human and b) the Val'kyr have to sacrifice themselves to resurrect her.

I know what a psychopath is, which I find peculiar that you need to even point out. Still does not change that she is a hypocrite. Not caring for anyone else but herself does not change her actions or her statements. She still justified her vengeance against Arthas the same way any other Forsaken did, which was the heinous acts the Lich King committed against them. Committing the same things as he did makes her a hypocrite by default, especially if you were supposed to sympathize with her in any way, shape, or form.

Why do you keep stating things I already know? Of course the Alliance were bigoted, but it still does not invalidate their decision to distrust Sylvanas or the Forsaken. Even without all the bigotry I could think of a bunch of reasons why it would be a bad idea to trust them, even if they had not done anything right after retaking Lordaeron with Garithos. In the end, the Alliance was proven right, so that hardly helped the cause of the Forsaken if they wished to left alone. In fact, if they had not betrayed the Alliance and was in fact working on fixing the relation between them, Sylvanas would have had no vision of the Alliance slaughtering all the Forsaken. It was because of her that they are in this mess, but still they keep justifying their actions. How is anyone supposed to sympathize with this faction?

So taking a soul from the spirit plane and raising the corpse would not have any negative side effects at all? Did not know it was that painless to bring back someone from the dead. Also, I am not arguing about the choice they have, since they are free to become undead if they like, but it still does not change the act itself. Measuring the amount of pain is redundant when it is a horrible fate to experience to begin with.

Plus, the Val'kyr are using magics bestowed upon them by the Lich King, who himself used necromancy and undead magics. Their methods may be different, but they certainly are using similar magic as the necromancers when they originate from the same magic source. That's also why undead and demonic magic are so closely related, when it was Kil'Jaeden who created the Lich King.

[Aquamonkey]

I know what a psychopath is, which I find peculiar that you need to even point out. Still does not change that she is a hypocrite. Not caring for anyone else but herself does not change her actions or her statements. She still justified her vengeance against Arthas the same way any other Forsaken did, which was the heinous acts the Lich King committed against them. Committing the same things as he did makes her a hypocrite by default, especially if you were supposed to sympathize with her in any way, shape, or form.

As it turns out, I was confusing hypocrite with flipflopper. She is a hypocrite, not a flipflopper.

So taking a soul from the spirit plane and raising the corpse would not have any negative side effects at all? Did not know it was that painless to bring back someone from the dead. Also, I am not arguing about the choice they have, since they are free to become undead if they like, but it still does not change the act itself. Measuring the amount of pain is redundant when it is a horrible fate to experience to begin with.

Medivh didn't seem to have any side effects.

Plus, the Val'kyr are using magics bestowed upon them by the Lich King, who himself used necromancy and undead magics. Their methods may be different, but they certainly are using similar magic as the necromancers when they originate from the same magic source. That's also why undead and demonic magic are so closely related, when it was Kil'Jaeden who created the Lich King.

Just because the magic has the same source doesn't mean it has the same properties. Likewise, magic can have the same properties but stem from different sources.

[Florena]

Which may be why Val'kyr can only do incomplete resurrections. You'd think rebinding the soul with its body to be the hard part. But I guess restoring necrotic tissue is harder despite all the healing spells they have.

Extended exposure to holy energy can restore undead bodies enough for them to regain their senses. But maybe it requires a massive amount of holy energy to fully restore the body for a complete resurrection. So much that the person can't bear the pain or that it is impractical.

http://us.battle.net/wow/en/forum/topic/2721372142
http://blue.mmo-champion.com/topic/1...swers-round-1/

Honestly I'm not convinced that they're 'guiding the spirits back.' The idea of it being a normal ressurection, but they're only able to bring them back to undeath and not life, just doesn't seem to fit for me. For example, they're really only shown raising NEW forsaken and not ressing fallen ones. Bringing Sylvannas back after her death at Godfrey's hands took three of them sacrificing themselves for example.

[Aquamonkey]

Honestly I'm not convinced that they're 'guiding the spirits back.' The idea of it being a normal ressurection, but they're only able to bring them back to undeath and not life, just doesn't seem to fit for me. For example, they're really only shown raising NEW forsaken and not ressing fallen ones. Bringing Sylvannas back after her death at Godfrey's hands took three of them sacrificing themselves for example.

Sylvanas is a special case because of her pact. I also don't get why it took 3 of them to do it in that quest when it only took 1 in the short story. For them to resurrect a corpse, there has to be an actual body. They can't bring people back as specters or skeletons. To kill a Forsaken, you pretty much have to destroy their body or their brain.

[Frozen Death Knight]

As it turns out, I was confusing hypocrite with flipflopper. She is a hypocrite, not a flipflopper.


Medivh didn't seem to have any side effects.


Just because the magic has the same source doesn't mean it has the same properties. Likewise, magic can have the same properties but stem from different sources.

Glad to see that you understand where I was coming from.

He was not resurrected by undead magics, either. Still, the lore around resurrections outside of being undead can be a bit iffy, so the side effects as well as the costs of performing such a task are unknown to me, honestly. There must be some downside to resurrect people, otherwise death would not be that big of a deal in this universe.

Of course, but undead and demonic magic are chaotic by nature, so the side effects of raising undead would be negative, more or less.

[Aquamonkey]

He was not resurrected by undead magics, either. Still, the lore around resurrections outside of being undead can be a bit iffy, so the side effects as well as the costs of performing such a task are unknown to me, honestly. There must be some downside to resurrect people, otherwise death would not be that big of a deal in this universe.

Of course, but undead and demonic magic are chaotic by nature, so the side effects of raising undead would be negative, more or less.

There are definite side effects to being undead due to rotting and perhaps brain damage. These are a result of their decayed bodies, not necessarily the process of resurrection. There is also the psychological trauma of dying in the first place. Those who died under extreme stress come back in a frenzied state until they calm down. (It reminds me of the X-Files episode "Je Souhaite" where the guy gets hit by a truck and gets wished back to life by his brother. I couldn't find a clip.)

The reason death is still a big deal is because the bajillion ways we have of resurrecting in the game exist purely for gameplay reasons. Lorewise, it's not an easy thing to do.

[Larwood]

Killing != resurrecting.
And if you kill the enemy during a war, then they will indeed let you off.

OK, you try resurrecting somebody without them being dead, see how far you get with that.
Southshore was not a military target. Gilneas declared war on nobody. Forsaken started the war by murdering a tonne of people at the Wrathgate. Need I go on?

[Aquamonkey]

OK, you try resurrecting somebody without them being dead, see how far you get with that.
Southshore was not a military target. Gilneas declared war on nobody. Forsaken started the war by murdering a tonne of people at the Wrathgate. Need I go on?

Forsaken didn't declare war on Gilneas. Rogue Forsaken bombed Wrathgate.

[Mister J]

People raise corpses from the dead all the time. Every priest, shaman, paladin, and druid does it. Spirit Healers do it too. People can literally walk back to their corpses and come back from the dead. However, these may be merely gameplay mechanics not represented in lore.

Lore example: Aegwynn resurrected Medivh. He even comes back again in WC3 after being killed a second time.

Your first example with "Every priest, Shaman, paladin and druid does it" is faulty and not compliant in actual Lore. If "ressurection" existed in lore, anyone and everyone could be rezzed. Terenas? Nope, rezzed. Uther? Lolrezzed.

Aegwynn and Medivh's situation were a special case, what with her being the Matriarch of Tirisfal and Medivh being the Guardian. Both are exceptional characters in lore and are special cases.

For the common folk of Azeroth and even its 'heroes' that are mortals, ressurection does not exist. My point still stands.

[Larwood]

Forsaken didn't declare war on Gilneas.

When you attack a non-aggressive neutral party without provocation, that is a declaration of war. (Well, unless the people you attack are non-military, in which case it's just mass murder.)

Rogue Forsaken bombed Wrathgate.

A handy excuse, shame it was the majority of Forsaken who agreed with it (supporting evidence: they took Undercity and the Sylvanas faction could only take it back with the help of the rest of the Horde and Jaina).
But none of that changes the truth of what I said, they started the war with their actions at the Wrathgate.

[victoriabrad]

But I think both of them are kind sometimes