Thank you for agreeing?
In a sence you did, cause all you did was back up each of what I listed with a forum of evil.
10/11/2012 01:47 PMPosted by VolkuzaThe invasion was completely unjustified.
Here's this massive piece of land that was previously inaccessible to anyone, full of potential resources that will help the war machine. The people inside, most likely, do not have a force that can rival the Forsaken. The people inside once sided with the Humans of the Alliance.
Let's just leave them alone and hope nothing happens.
The only thing that prevented Gilneas from being absorbed completely by the Forsaken overnight was the fact that many of the citizens were now monstrous wolf men who could rip apart dozens of Forsaken soldiers. A curse that the Forsaken had no knowledge of (to my knowledge) until they broke the wall.
10/11/2012 01:52 PMPosted by FerenoldMoreover, the Forsaken utilized the plague, which was not necessary for them to use in order to conquer Gilneas.
10/11/2012 01:52 PMPosted by FerenoldThere are many, many other measures that can be taken aside from outright invasion and attempts at genocide of the entire people, that can severely hinder the power of a nation if need be.
10/11/2012 01:55 PMPosted by NeceroExcept only 2 of those were forms of evil, the others either weren't at all or were very subjective.
A: Free will is one of the cornerstones of Forsaken culture, with the great capacity for both good and evil that it entails. However, some undead, especially those who die in combat or under extreme stress and are raised soon after, enter into a violent, frenzied state. Undead in this state are easily manipulated and their rage is often directed at the foes of those who raised them. After the effects wear off, if the risen corpse has not been destroyed, they are given the same ultimatum that other Forsaken are offered: join the Dark Lady or return to the grave.
It's not a matter of hindering Gilneas. Gilneas was already a gimped, isolationist city-state. It's a matter of adding to the Forsaken's resource pool. From what we can see, Gilneas has lumber, a network of mines, a whole !@#$ ton of natural and man made harbors, all of which would benefit the Horde war effort in the Eastern Kingdoms. They invaded Gilneas for the same reason they invaded the Arathi Highlands. Notice how Battle for Gilneas is a resource based BG?
There's too much bias and Alliance fanboy-cotting in this thread for me. I'll come back and post when I have the time.
Consider this a placeholder.
I am saying that arguing that just because those swayed by persuasive and powerful leaders to do evil things, it does not make said people inherently evil. It makes them weak, susceptible, and bad. I also want to point out that even though part of a race clearly does do evil deeds, it does not mean the whole race is evil. Arguing that would be the equivalent of saying Germans are evil because [certain people and political parties] exist.
I'm going to try to better clarify your conception of morality in this context, so I can ultimately better understand the arguments that you're making.
An evil action in this case can be committed by a person that is not evil. What would ultimately make someone evil then? A certain accumulation of evil actions?
I'll respond to the latter part of your post in due time.
So they have moral responsibility, in other words.
I still think they are more of a 'lawful' evil society then a 'evil' one.
An evil person is one who lacks empathy and what is best described as a conscience.
Evil actions are actions which lack empathy in order to cause pain and suffering. Their motives can even be just (depending on perspective), for instance, to survive.
Yes, there are evil forsaken. To their core they only want to spread malicious suffering and pain to all other races. Does that mean forsaken are inherently evil? No. Does that mean that a forsaken footman carrying out the orders of his superior (evil actions) is an evil being? Not necessarily.
The title of this thread is "Are the forsaken evil?" The answer is no, because the actions of a faction of people under one leader does not mean the whole race is evil. If you want to debate whether what the forsaken are doing is evil, then the thread should be called "Is Sylvanas evil?"
10/11/2012 02:07 PMPosted by NeceroRet paladins are bloodthirsty at times, are you saying they're evil?
Bloodthirsty is a form of evil.
Greed is a form of evil.
Barbaric is a form of evil.
Night Elves have evil within them. (Illidan)
Feral Worgens I can go both way. I say evil you say whatever worthless thing you can think of.
Once a Draenei always a Draenei even if you take on a diffrient name. (Human race in real life, if you're black you're a human.)
Now, you'll probbaly respone with somthing a dumbass would say. Or defend your case. I don't really care, but have fun and stay out of trouble.
Are you sure you know what barbaric means? Maybe I'm using the word wrong...
Despite the massive amount of fel corruption, Illidian resisted turning evil right up until the attack on Shatt. Also, your argument wasn't that they could turn evil, it was that they are evil.
Wild animals evil for being wild animals? Explain.
Draenei is a faction within a race, not a race in itself.What makes it worse is that same chemical warfare destroyed a lot of those resources.10/11/2012 01:59 PMPosted by FerenoldSo it's okay to engage in chemical warfare because you need resources?
At first, I thought you would put somthing clever down, but all I can read is "Dumbass".
1.No Ad hominen attacks, insults on character, or passive-aggressive remarks.
2.Address your adversaries argument, and the flaws, fallacies, or weaknesses it may have.
Threats of violence. We take these seriously and will alert the proper authorities.
Posts containing personal information about other players. This includes physical addresses, e-mail addresses, phone numbers, and inappropriate photos and/or videos.
Harassing or discriminatory language. This will not be tolerated.