Are the forsaken evil?

Moon Guard
Prev 1 7 8 9 Next
Firstly: The prizing of effectiveness over all other things is not acceptable in modern warfare. I'd like to note that there are war codes that modern militaries follow:


As I stated above, they are not held back by morals... For example, a Forsaken unit may slaughter an entire village just so there is no chance of future retaliation to their presence in the region. They won't suffer a child, woman, or elder to live; let alone a young male of fighting age. To many this would be immoral, but it is nonetheless sound military strategy. What is the point of taking a region but dealing with guerillas, as your forces continue to progress outward? Its logic and effectiveness wins out over "bleeding hearts" in the Forsaken war machine.

Wholesale slaughter is not an effective military tactic. It has the tendency to inflame nationalistic feeling and resentment.

In regards to "honorable concessions" in warfare, the Forsaken use chemical weapons and ambush tactics, rather than meet their foes head-on. To an orc, this is considered cowardly and dishonorable, likewise to other races. From a rational viewpoint, the Forsaken forces are large, but not so much to go toe-to-toe with other enemy or allied forces; outside the Sindorei. So, these tactics are sound as they inflict massive casualties and are profoundly unnerving to the enemy.

And attacks with things like the plague once more, have a tendency to cause thousands upon thousands of civilian deaths.

In short, the Forsaken prefer effectiveness over "honor", which is how most militaries operate nowadays. If we look back to the War for Independence, the British lost troops in the droves to guerilla tactics, considered dishonorable, because they were unwilling to alter their dictated firing regimen.

Comparing the American Revolutionaries and the forsaken is iffy. The means of the American Revolutionaries were mostly surprise attacks and flanking, while the forsaken do things far, far worse.
10/11/2012 03:17 PMPosted by Sreech
I don't understand, are you saying they're evil or not? Based on how you defined evil and how you described the Forsaken, they're as evil as they come, and yet you say they're not evil.

"Evil" sometimes cannot be defined in a "black & white" manner, and this is one of those cases where it cannot. I say they are no more evil than any other race, because most of what people get up in arms about is simple rational that any commander would and has ordered of his troops. The difference here is that not only does the commander understand what is necessary to achieve victory and the survival of his people, so do the people, civilian or military; thus the Forsaken represent a culture where doing what is necessary to survive takes precedence over the pettier aspects of morality, warfare, etc.

Make sense?

Once again though, their invasion and fight on three fronts is not necessary to survive whatsoever. The forsaken are expanding their empire, and that much is clear. They've once controlled merely Lordaeron city and the surrounding regions, but since then they've taken:

-Southern Silverpine near Gilneas.
-Parts of Arathor.

This is merely for survival?
Prizing effectiveness was key during Medieval conflicts and to my knowledge, despite some instances of steampunk, WoW is a semi-Medieval MMO and storyline in terms of cultures, most technology, etc. Thus, it is neither far-fetched or wrong to consider the Forsaken's methods of warfare sound tactics.

Except in regards to actual ideals, WoW is much closer to the real world. For example, women tend to be treated equally to men in warcraft, certain people aren't discriminated against, etc, etc, etc.

Wholesale slaughter is effective in clearing an area for conquest and annexation, regardless of its consequences. You cannot deny that without Southshore or Hillsbrad present, the Forsaken's ability to expand and fortify in the Hillsbrad Region can now occur at a much faster pace; and provides them an even stronger foothold against any foes approaching across the Arathi Highlands.

And I'll respond by saying that valuing solely effectiveness in warfare has the capacity to be evil. Moreso, the forsaken seem to take a degree of pleasure in killing those of the alliance.

"Death to the Living." Is one of their quotes, after all.

Not to mention the Conquest of Hillsbrad and the manner in which it was done led a large number of the peoples of Hillsbrad to become bloodthirsty worgen.

To the enemy, yes, provided it is used in an area where a large populace of civilians and military personnel mix. I saw no war criminal charges leveled against Israeli pilots when they blanketed sections of the Gaza Strip with white phospherous, which in its own way is as deadly a chemical weapon as plague. Real-world example aside, the plague is a bio-weapon, one which is unique to the Forsaken and effective at dispatching large forces or population centers. It is unconventional and by that very nature considered "dishonorable" by other nations, however, it is an effective tool nonetheless.

I'd like to see more info on your RL case and the actual deaths or injuries that may have resulted from it.

We know that the plague has deadly effects on almost anybody that it contacts, and once again effectiveness does not condone immoral actions in any way, shape, or form.

The American Revolutionaries will not rise out of their graves to strike me down for making comparisons between them and the Forsaken, neither is comparing their hit-and-run tactics to the Forsaken's "iffy". It is a comparison that for the most part is on the money. The Forsaken use ambush tactics and out-manuever their enemies with smaller forces. The ARs used ambush tactics and flanked their opponents, whom used an outmoded method of warfare.

Outside of plague, the Forsaken do nothing worse than maybe devour parts of their foes, unless you want to delve into their reanimation and its relation to their reproduction.

I've never criticized the hit and run tactics. As you've said, they both plague and re-animate. Which I would like to explore, given that the forsaken have done quite an ample bit of it, and it's not 'necessary' in the least.

So Wowpedia is only a reliable source when it's about other races? Just not when it says Gilneas is Victorian? :P

Though the smiley tells us this was a joke, it is worth noting that the section on Gilneas being Victorian that appears on Wowpedia is unsourced and tagged with the warning:

This article or section includes speculation, observations or opinions possibly supported by lore or by Blizzard officials. It should not be taken as representing official lore.

Not everything on Wowpedia carries equal weight.

Yes. I know this. And if the exact wowpedia he page he quoted was provided with link and wowpedia citation then I wouldn't have bothered to point this out. But, I don't see a link, so I don't know where he pulled it from and if it has a source.
10/11/2012 03:47 PMPosted by Necero
I've only seen them use the diluted strain in Shadowfang Keep.

They didn't use a dilute strain in SFK. That was a lie Belmont told Cromush to get him off his back.

Cromush has both a thick skull and a fool's brain, and we'll use that to our advantage. By the time anybody finds out about the plague's true potency, it'll be far too late.

Thank you for keeping quiet during his tirade. I promise you won't regret it.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum