between Diablo 2 and Warcraft 3: should corrupted creatures be killed?

[Steve Lai]

This thread contains spoilers to the plots of Diablo 2 and Warcraft 3. Not that I expect anyone who manages to come across this thread to be unfamiliar with the storylines of these 2 games though.

That said...

Many of the Arreat Summit's (http://www.battle.net/diablo2exp) biographies for the Diablo 2 monsters follows the "this monster, who had once been harmless to humans, had been corrupted by the powers of Hell to destroy humans" formula. Some examples:
Sadly, the Gargantuan Beast, Brute, and Yeti (Wendigo subspecies) were previously known to coexist peacefully with humans, avoiding contact whenever possible. Chaos' ill effects have changed them, as they are now quick to anger and attack with huge, sweeping blows of their massive claws.
Many of the corrupted ones have forgotten their skills with ranged weapons, or are so driven by Hell's rage, that they blindly melee with whatever weapon is at hand.
...
The least corrupted of these now evil Sisters maintain enough of their wits to use their years of training with the bow to ill effect against any who oppose the will of their new master.
...
The corruption of the Sisterhood has also turned many who were skilled in the use of spears and javelins to the cause of evil.
Even in their largest forms, the giant arachnids had never been much of a problem for the inhabitants of the tropical forests. The Prime Evils have changed them, however, as large numbers of the spiders now actively seek meals of the human variety.
Bats are natural inhabitants of caves and other such dank places, so it is no surprise that they would also congregate near the gateways to Hell. Their exposure to the vile powers that emanate from the demons that frequent these dark places has tainted these bats with arcane powers.
Twisted by the vile powers of Mephisto, these once docile tree dwellers have become rampaging monstrosities that prey on the weak and unwary.
Under Mephisto's manipulation, these honored dead have been summoned and bound with the spirits of malicious demons to fill the ranks of his undead army.
Just as he did with the mummified bodies that slept beneath the sands of Lut Gholein, Mephisto bound the spirits of his most powerful demonic minions to the corpses of the greatest warriors and mages of Aranoch. Natural leaders in life, they continue their positions of dominance within the ranks of the undead, rallying hordes of mummies about them as they seek the flesh of the living.
Composed mostly of wood, Thorned Hulks are the ancestral protectors of the jungle lands. Despite their strength and immense bramble and thorn-covered arms, even they have been twisted by the Prime Evils.
The leaders of the Zakarum have been irrevocably turned to serve Mephisto, the Lord of Hatred. Once faithful and generous leaders of their people, the ruling members of the High Council have been twisted in form and spirit and now take their followers down a darker path.

Okay those are a lot of examples. I hope that validates my observation.

So now, according to Diablo 2 logic, your PC is responsible for exterminating Hell-corrupted creatures and indigenous minions of Hell alike. If we apply this mentality to Warcraft 3, we get some problems, precisely when we see Arthas chasing Mal Ganis in the human campaign, the following happens:

-- Arthas (in typical Diablo 2 hero style): This town has been corrupted by Mal Ganis and must be purged.
-- Uther Lightbringer: There must be another way!
-- Jaina Proudmoore: Sorry Arthas. I can't watch you do this.

And in the end Arthas turns eeeeeeeeee-villlllllll because of his raging wrath to get even with Mal Ganis.

Hence, we have a controversy: two stories written by the same company (Blizzard) have very literally opposite takes on the meaning of "evil". Killing formerly innocent creatures who were corrupted by demonic forces is heroism in Diablo 2 and moral felony in Warcraft 3.

Now, why is this?

I have all kinds of conspiracy theories about this phenomenon. But enough about me; I want to hear what other people think about this issue. So please, for those of you interested, feel free to share your opinions on this matter.

[Nephilim]

In Diablo 2 sentient creatures are corrupted because they are somehow weak. If this wasn't the case, then all the Rogues would've been corrupted, all the Paladins would've been corrupted, etc. There is some loss of will or despair that accompanies their corruption. This is fundamentally different in Warcraft. We have seen frequently creatures become corrupted not of their own free will. The process is simply different. I don't see how they're contradicting themselves if they're two completely different universes.

[BaNiSeR]

i agree, two different games have two different types of "monsters"...making it rather hard to compare.

apples and oranges is my first thought.

[Steve Lai]

There is some loss of will or despair that accompanies their corruption.

And this is supposedly different from the DESPAIR felt by a certain Dark Ranger in Warcraft 3 whom Arthas forcefully recruited to the service of the Lich King?

This is fundamentally different in Warcraft. We have seen frequently creatures become corrupted not of their own free will.

... Which does not seem to apply to the Mal Ganis-corrupted villagers that Arthas intended to eradicate in the example i cited in my first post in this thread. I certainly was not aware of any exhibited evidence of "unwillingness" from those villagers, who did seem very wholly possessed.

Oh and that also reminds me...

While many of the townsfolk were merely slain, some were forced into cursed servitude.

The stout blacksmith Griswold was one of those who were bound past death to attend the desires of The Three.

Despite his valor and strength, his form was twisted by the perverse powers of the Prime Evils. They forced him to betray his own kind and give up Heaven’s most guarded secrets.

Their now glassy, lifeless eyes hint at a deep sorrow beneath a glowing Hell-induced hatred.

If, for some reason, the above excerpts do not hint at unwilling servitude, I will require nitpicky semantic explanations. Assuming that those excerpts do mean unwilling servitude, it's apparently our PC's job to wipe out those unwilling creatures like weed on a lawn too. Fancy that!

I don't see how they're contradicting themselves if they're two completely different universes.

i agree, two different games have two different types of "monsters"...making it rather hard to compare.

apples and oranges is my first thought.

...

[Ikeren]

I have all kinds of conspiracy theories about this phenomenon.

:lol:

Thanks for the laugh dude...this is pretty funny. ( I hope you meant this thread as some sort of joke, but if not...oops, sorry).

I think it's because in Diablo 2 all the characters are really just merciless slaughtermongers of truly innocent and misjudged demons and "Corrupted" fauna (at least, corrupted is what the propoganda proposors would like you to think!) , where as in Warcraft 3, everyone's heart is occupied by a dying carebear.

[Nephilim]

... Which does not seem to apply to the Mal Ganis-corrupted villagers that Arthas intended to eradicate in the example i cited in my first post in this thread. I certainly was not aware of any exhibited evidence of "unwillingness" from those villagers, who did seem very wholly possessed.That's exactly my point. Read what I said again. The victims who become the enemy become so not of their own free will. This is different with the Diablo monsters, who lacked resistance or some inner strength.

Sylvanas - She despaired AFTER being forced back into undead servitude. She could do nothing to prevent what Arthas did to her, so yes, it IS different than the Diablo monsters. Those who resist the corruption are saved.

Izual - He was tortured into giving up information. If he was a stronger person, he would've died before he let that happen.

Thorned Hulks - I don't know enough about how Hulks were before to respond to that, and frankly, neither do you.

There's also something to keep in mind about the general situation. In the Warcraft scenario, the kingdom is still holding and general power structure is still in place. The situation grows desperate but it has yet to look completely hopeless. This is very different in Diablo. The good guys are heavily outnumbered by former good guys, and if not stopped, those corrupted people, unwilling or no, will wipe out more innocent lives than they already have.

When the game specifically says certain monsters are unwilling slaves, they also add that killing them is more an act of pity than retribution.

[Steve Lai]

:lol:

Thanks for the laugh dude...this is pretty funny. ( I hope you meant this thread as some sort of joke, but if not...oops, sorry).
I don't think it takes an infallible intention-behind-the-word detector to know that you wouldn't really feel sorry even if it turns out that i didn't mean this as a joke. So thanks for the hollow and superficial disclaimer. (And by the way, I don't think it would be hard for you to figure out that I didn't really mean to "thank" you when I used the word "thanks" right? right.)
That's exactly my point. Read what I said again. The victims who become the enemy become so not of their own free will.
If you meant to say that the Mal Ganis-corrupted villagers were justifiably killed because they didn't put up a "mental" fight again Mal, then I have a question: why was Arthas seen by Uther and Jaina as a sinful killer who didn't kill the "right" people?
Sylvanas - She despaired AFTER being forced back into undead servitude. She could do nothing to prevent what Arthas did to her, so yes, it IS different than the Diablo monsters. Those who resist the corruption are saved.
Er what? How is Arthas's "corruption magic" any more irresistable compared to the Diablo trio's own "corruption magic"?

If you can't make a distinction, then going by your logic, Sylvanas was powerless to stop her corruption, and in turn, ever monster corrupted by the Diablo trio was in the same position too.
Izual - He was tortured into giving up information. If he was a stronger person, he would've died before he let that happen.
So everyone who confessed to being a "witch" or "heathen" under extreme torture during the Spanish Inquisition and the Salem witch hunts had it coming didn't they? And all the American under-cover spies who infiltrated the Soviet Union with fake identities during the Cold War and were later caught and tortured into confessing their real identities were weak people who didn't deserve help too right? Wow . Just, wow.
Thorned Hulks - I don't know enough about how Hulks were before to respond to that, and frankly, neither do you.
You can say that about every single Diablo 2 or Warcraft 3 character we've talked about. After all, we haven't seen Sylvanas's or Griswold's corruption first-hand, how do we know whether they put up a mental fight or not?

But that would be nitpicky now wouldn't it? Do you really need first-hand experience to know what "hint of deep sorrow" means? Likewise, do you really need to have witnessed 9/11 first-hand to be convinced that it really happened?
There's also something to keep in mind about the general situation. In the Warcraft scenario, the kingdom is still holding and general power structure is still in place. The situation grows desperate but it has yet to look completely hopeless. This is very different in Diablo. The good guys are heavily outnumbered by former good guys, and if not stopped, those corrupted people, unwilling or no, will wipe out more innocent lives than they already have.
I require reliable statistical figures that proves that the Burning Legion did not outnumber the Orcs, Humans, and Night Elves!

No actually I don't need such things. But do you remember tha last mission in the Night Elf campaign before the Frozen Throne? Man I could've sworn Archimonde could pop his goons out of nowhere faster than Thrall, Jaina, and my combat-stressed Night Elves could fart. I certainly had no impressions of any "numerical" advantage or equality against Archimonde.
When the game specifically says certain monsters are unwilling slaves, they also add that killing them is more an act of pity than retribution.
Arthas's "pity" for the Mal Ganis-corrupted villagers was not appreciated well by any of the "good" people, in my impression.

[Ikeren]

I don't think it takes an infallible intention-behind-the-word detector to know that you wouldn't really feel sorry even if it turns out that i didn't mean this as a joke. So thanks for the hollow and superficial disclaimer. (And by the way, I don't think it would be hard for you to figure out that I didn't really mean to "thank" you when I used the word "thanks" right? right.)

Ooops, I am sorry. I didn't think you were this serious about the topic. Your orriginal posts had a couple things that were rather amusing (particularily the conspiracy theories part...)
Sorry I took your post in the wrong way and offended you.

[Nephilim]

If you meant to say that the Mal Ganis-corrupted villagers were justifiably killed because they didn't put up a "mental" fight again Mal, then I have a question: why was Arthas seen by Uther and Jaina as a sinful killer who didn't kill the "right" people?Once again, you're using arguments from the two different universes. Actually READ what I say. My point was that even if they HAD put up a mental fight, it wouldn't matter because they all get corrupted anyway.
Er what? How is Arthas's "corruption magic" any more irresistable compared to the Diablo trio's own "corruption magic"?These two methods do not exist in the same universe. You can't apply the physics of one world to the other. We know, FOR A FACT, that magic works differently in the two universes and comes from very different sources.
If you can't make a distinction, then going by your logic, Sylvanas was powerless to stop her corruption, and in turn, ever monster corrupted by the Diablo trio was in the same position too.No. Every corrupted monster by the Prime Evils & co CAN resist, but they fail. In Warcraft zombies, you can resist all you want, it doesn't matter. The strong-willed are corrupted along with the weak, so absolutely no fault can be placed upon the victims.
So everyone who confessed to being a "witch" or "heathen" under extreme torture during the Spanish Inquisition and the Salem witch hunts had it coming didn't they? And all the American under-cover spies who infiltrated the Soviet Union with fake identities during the Cold War and were later caught and tortured into confessing their real identities were weak people who didn't deserve help too right? Wow . Just, wow.All right, let's just pick that apart for a second. You ARE helping Izual by killing him and freeing his spirit. He's living in Hell in the husk of some demon/angel hybrid. I never said that he was a bad person because he confessed, but he was corrupted from the guilt and despair of betraying his kinsmen.

And I just love that you felt the need to specify that these were American agents we were talking about. I didn't say he was weak, but if he HAD been stronger, he wouldn't have told them everything. The same goes for unvercover agents who crack under torture. It doesn't make them useless or bad people.
You can say that about every single Diablo 2 or Warcraft 3 character we've talked about. After all, we haven't seen Sylvanas's or Griswold's corruption first-hand, how do we know whether they put up a mental fight or not?Not the point. I don't know how sentient Thorned Hulks were. Is there even much of a mind to corrupt. In the case of Sylvanas or Griswold, we met them and knew them before they were turned, so we can legitimately say that they had some capacity for will. I don't know if the same goes for Thorned Hulks.
Likewise, do you really need to have witnessed 9/11 first-hand to be convinced that it really happened?That has absolutely nothing to do with anything. It doesn't even help the point you were trying to make. NOWHERE does it mention the mental capacity of a thorned hulk. And if "they look kinda sad" is all the proof you're going to bring up, I'd advise looking for more.
I require reliable statistical figures that proves that the Burning Legion did not outnumber the Orcs, Humans, and Night Elves! You were talking about the destruction of Stratholme. That's what I was talking about, and that's what I was responding to. Please, TRY to keep your argument straight. In the scnario you outlined, you're battling malevolent demons who thrive on carnage and want nothing more than the destruction of all. So now you're going to say that THEY don't merit killing?

[Steve Lai]

Once again, you're using arguments from the two different universes. Actually READ what I say. My point was that even if they HAD put up a mental fight, it wouldn't matter because they all get corrupted anyway.
These two methods do not exist in the same universe. You can't apply the physics of one world to the other. We know, FOR A FACT, that magic works differently in the two universes and comes from very different sources.
No. Every corrupted monster by the Prime Evils & co CAN resist, but they fail. In Warcraft zombies, you can resist all you want, it doesn't matter. The strong-willed are corrupted along with the weak, so absolutely no fault can be placed upon the victims.
"FOR A FACT"? Where does this "fact" come from? Can you quote them from a reliable source?

Speaking for myself, I know for a fact that:

A) In both Warcraft 3 and Diablo 2 certain creatures are "corrupted".
B) I know of no specifications in any official links of manuals on how these corruption processes are different.
Therefore -
C) Proof please.
Not the point. I don't know how sentient Thorned Hulks were. Is there even much of a mind to corrupt. In the case of Sylvanas or Griswold, we met them and knew them before they were turned, so we can legitimately say that they had some capacity for will. I don't know if the same goes for Thorned Hulks.
That has absolutely nothing to do with anything. It doesn't even help the point you were trying to make. NOWHERE does it mention the mental capacity of a thorned hulk. And if "they look kinda sad" is all the proof you're going to bring up, I'd advise looking for more.
To be fair, if you're not going to assume any of what you perceive as unproven claims about the Thorned Hulks, your generalizations of the way that magic works in the two universes fall flat as well, if you wish to maintain consistency. Until you find proof, your claim about the difference in magic between the two universes is even more unfounded than mine.

Now then, before I get further, I'll put a halt on this issue until you explain the difference in the degrees of irresistability between the Prime Evils's corruption magic and that of the Burning Legions and the Scourge.
You ARE helping Izual by killing him and freeing his spirit. He's living in Hell in the husk of some demon/angel hybrid. I never said that he was a bad person because he confessed, but he was corrupted from the guilt and despair of betraying his kinsmen.
You denounced his lack of moral competence. What opinion of you would you think I would be holding if I said "Gee if Neph was a stronger person he might have done this this and that with regards to this situation"?
And I just love that you felt the need to specify that these were American agents we were talking about. I didn't say he was weak, but if he HAD been stronger, he wouldn't have told them everything.
If you had been less nitpicky on all this semantic crap between "weak" and "if he had been stronger" you may have noticed "weak" and "stronger" are highly subjective words. It would be difficult if you want to force your standard definition of the word "weak" on me.

By the way, did you notice that I actually did NOT accuse you of being nitpicky? I simply said if you HAD been less nitpicky. But how did my clause of "if you had been less nitpicky then blah blah blah" make you feel? Something to the effect of... I have just accused you of pedantry didn't I? But according to you I can simply go "no no no I simply said if you had been LESS nitpicky you see? Heh heh heh!" Do you really want that from me now? Geez.
The same goes for unvercover agents who crack under torture. It doesn't make them useless or bad people.
What difference does it make when you do to the victims of corruption the same thing you do to enemies? Because the magic of the worlds are different?
You were talking about the destruction of Stratholme. That's what I was talking about, and that's what I was responding to. Please, TRY to keep your argument straight. In the scnario you outlined, you're battling malevolent demons who thrive on carnage and want nothing more than the destruction of all.
It certainly didn't occur to me like you were only arguing for an isolated incident. To say in the very least, you were generalizing about the supposedly obvious helplessness of the Diablo 2 worlds. Wasn't Lut Gholein kept safe by Greiz and a magic ward and hence maintained a sense of order, like many places under siege in Warcraft 3? Wasn't the Kurast Docks protected by Hratli's magic ward (which he says is slowly eroding, but hey there are protective mechanisms for various cities Warcraft 3 that slowly eroded too), and hence maintaining a temporary sense of safety and order?
So now you're going to say that THEY don't merit killing?
Well me being used to getting strawmanned in debates all the time, this doesn't surprise me.

You know as well as I do that your claims on differences of corruption magic notwithstanding, you were arguing that:

-- If enemies "vastly" outnumber you you're justified to kill corrupted victims because you're more desperate, whereas if enemies don't "vastly" outnumber you you can afford to leave corrupted victims alone.

I say: no sale. Should we be allowed to kill corrupted creatures just because we're desperate?

[Gdog4evr]

I think we'll find out in Diablo III that your character in Diablo II was evil. This explains why you're always just one step behind diablo and baal until they gain power (and you set aside their soul stones to keep it), and why you feel it's perfectly OK to slaughter innocent creatures, people, and to stare angrily at babies until they cry.

Also, I havn't played Warcraft 3, so it's a little bit hard for me to judge. But I'd say the difference is something akin to this: Your "hero" and all involved considers the corrupted to be perminatly lost. If there was the slimist chance that the rouges could have recovered their sisters, they would have probably gone for it. Instead, you give the empty shell of the rouges an honerable death in combat, hopefully sending their souls to rest.

In Warcraft III, it sounds as though some of the people believe there is a way to reaquire the lost person, or that he/she/it still exists in some form or another underneath the corruption. And while this may be true with the Windigo, your character is a warrior and not given to sentamentality.

EDIT: just read the entire thread. I think someone could use more fiber in their diet.

Should we be allowed to kill corrupted creatures just because we're desperate?

Um...yes? I mean, in a kill-or-be-killed situation, US law does give you the right to protect yourself, and that's against non-corrupted people.

And as for how the magic is different, I fail to see how they could be the same. I've never heard of any of these places in WCIII of which you speak, and I don't think people know about the Prime Evils in the alternate Blizzard game. In addition, no orcs, elves, or dark elves or seen, or even mentioned in Diablo. To feel that the law of magical physics are the soul (sorry, bad pun) thing to have been transfered from one game to another untouched is slightly...daunting.

As far as corrupting rouges go though, are we sure it was a mater of will power? IE, is it said in the manual or in the game? Because I always assumed the rouges that were corrupted were chosen at random, or happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time.

>End Edit.

[Nephilim]

"FOR A FACT"? Where does this "fact" come from? Can you quote them from a reliable source?

Speaking for myself, I know for a fact that:

A) In both Warcraft 3 and Diablo 2 certain creatures are "corrupted".
B) I know of no specifications in any official links of manuals on how these corruption processes are different.
Therefore -
C) Proof please.Arcane magic in Warcraft comes from the Twisting Nether, using it corrupts the user. It's addictive, it's powerful, and it's demonic in origins. Magic in Diablo comes from the Great Conflict. The angels and demons used powers against each other that caused parts of both Hell and Heaven to bleed into the world of Sanctuary. Sorcerers who manipulate these energies are not subject to the same addictions as their warcraft counterparts. This is from the Warcraft RPG (among other Warcraft sources) and the Diablo I manual.

So, we know then, for a fact, that magic works differently in the two worlds.

asn't Lut Gholein kept safe by Greiz and a magic ward and hence maintained a sense of order, like many places under siege in Warcraft 3? Wasn't the Kurast Docks protected by Hratli's magic ward (which he says is slowly eroding, but hey there are protective mechanisms for various cities Warcraft 3 that slowly eroded too), and hence maintaining a temporary sense of safety and order? Wait a sec, so you think that the towns from Diablo II were completely safe? The desert was crawling with demons who assail caravans, murder the city guards (who do you think all those corpses are?), and let's not forget that they had suffered casualties within Lut Gholein. In the case of Kurast, these were the survivors of a massacre who had been forced from their homes. So retaking their homes is wrong, now?

-- If enemies "vastly" outnumber you you're justified to kill corrupted victims because you're more desperate, whereas if enemies don't "vastly" outnumber you you can afford to leave corrupted victims alone.
It's easy to take this moral high ground when you just completely ignore the situation. In the case of Stratholme, the kingdom was intact. Arthas didn't even look for an alternative to just killing the whole city. And since the entire city was plagued with no exceptions, that infers that it didn't really matter if they put up a fight or not. However, in the case of, say, the Rogues, they had been forced out of their home, and were holed up in a little camp at the base of the mountain, with corrupted rogues and other demons on their veritable doorstep. And since there ARE some Rogues remaining who are still rogues, that indicates that it's possible to resist the corruption, because they HAVE resisted that corruption.

If I get attacked by, say, a bear, in the woods, and let's just say I have a gun. If this bear is relentlessly attacking me, I will shoot the god damned bear. I don't really blame the bear - he's a bear, that's what they do - but I'm not going to just resign myself to getting killed and/or terribly mauled because he's not really doing anything wrong.

And who the hell are you to accuse ME of a straw man argument when YOU're the guy who claims that I'm saying that all spies deserve whatever horrible fate they get from their enemies when I didn't say anything even remotely close to that? If this is the road you plan on taking, just let me know now so I can pretend to agree with you and just forget the whole thing.

[Steve Lai]

I think someone could use more fiber in their diet.
I'm forced be 80% vegetarian, in case you're wondering.
US law does give you the right to protect yourself, and that's against non-corrupted people.
Right. The claim I kept repeating is that Uther Lightbringer and Jaina Proudmoore did not abide by U.S. law.
And as for how the magic is different, I fail to see how they could be the same. I've never heard of any of these places in WCIII of which you speak, and I don't think people know about the Prime Evils in the alternate Blizzard game. In addition, no orcs, elves, or dark elves or seen, or even mentioned in Diablo. To feel that the law of magical physics are the soul (sorry, bad pun) thing to have been transfered from one game to another untouched is slightly...daunting.
Have you ever thought who would win if Gandalf and Magneto (both played by Ian McKellen in their respective movies) pit themselves against each other? Or if Agent Smith has a fight with Elrond (also playsed by the same person in their respective movies)? If we must assume that we can never compare the Matrix, Middle Earth, and the Marvel mutants world with each other, there are many fun questions you can't ask, and that would be boring.
Arcane magic in Warcraft comes from the Twisting Nether, using it corrupts the user. It's addictive, it's powerful, and it's demonic in origins.
The Prime Evils aren't "demons"?
Magic in Diablo comes from the Great Conflict. The angels and demons used powers against each other that caused parts of both Hell and Heaven to bleed into the world of Sanctuary.
After the Great Exile, the Prime Evils were no longer in "conflict" with the angels. How do we explain the "corruptions" accomplished by the Prime Evils after the Great Exile if we assume that corruptive magic only comes from angels and demons "working" together?
Sorcerers who manipulate these energies are not subject to the same addictions as their warcraft counterparts.
These sorcercerers... they stay completely sober like Horazon the Summoner?
Wait a sec, so you think that the towns from Diablo II were completely safe?
Your claim was:

-- Certain places in Warcraft 3 are safer than anywhere in Diablo 2.

Therefore my rebuttal is:

-- No. Some places are at least equally safe, like [insert examples].

Just to be sure of where we're at, no place in Warcraft 3 is "completely safe" either, if I recall.
The desert was crawling with demons who assail caravans, murder the city guards (who do you think all those corpses are?), and let's not forget that they had suffered casualties within Lut Gholein. In the case of Kurast, these were the survivors of a massacre who had been forced from their homes. So retaking their homes is wrong, now?
Many places in Warcraft 3 had enemies entrenched just outside their front lawn as well. For example, that certain town Arthas had to purge. And apparently, for Arthas, as a Humankind, retaking that former Human settlement with the method he used is regrettably wrong, according to some.
In the case of Stratholme, the kingdom was intact. Arthas didn't even look for an alternative to just killing the whole city. And since the entire city was plagued with no exceptions, that infers that it didn't really matter if they put up a fight or not.
If it didn't matter whether they "fought", they'd end up as evil villagers-turned-zombies either way wouldn't they? Isn't Arthas justified in killing them then? So why do Uther and Jaina complain?
However, in the case of, say, the Rogues, they had been forced out of their home, and were holed up in a little camp at the base of the mountain, with corrupted rogues and other demons on their veritable doorstep. And since there ARE some Rogues remaining who are still rogues, that indicates that it's possible to resist the corruption, because they HAVE resisted that corruption.
If I get attacked by, say, a bear, in the woods, and let's just say I have a gun. If this bear is relentlessly attacking me, I will shoot the god damned bear. I don't really blame the bear - he's a bear, that's what they do - but I'm not going to just resign myself to getting killed and/or terribly mauled because he's not really doing anything wrong.
According to your "Stratholme rationale", flattening the whole city is wrong because the "kingdom" is intact. So therefore, if the greater governing echelon of the Rogues is also intact (and it is, because Akara is alive and sober), then wiping out the corrupted rogues would be wrong too. Likewise, if the municipal and/or federal government of wherever you live was still functional, you should not attack that bear either. Call 9/11 instead and wait for the cops to arrive while giving that lovely bear the opportunity to kill and/or injure you!
And who the hell are you to accuse ME of a straw man argument when YOU're the guy who claims that I'm saying that all spies deserve whatever horrible fate they get from their enemies when I didn't say anything even remotely close to that?
I never said I'm a saint who doesn't strawman people, although me accusing you of strawmanning might've lend you the impression that I must strive to be this "saint". For this, I apologize.
If this is the road you plan on taking, just let me know now so I can pretend to agree with you and just forget the whole thing.
Well if you must know, I'm a power-hungry jerk who likes being agreed with, even if the reason for agreeing with me turned out to be spiting me. I would be happy indeed. HA!

[Snowglare]

When dealing with corruption, you must first determine its nature. Is it contagious? How complete is the corruption? And most importantly, is it reversible? If the corruption is complete and irreversible, then you have little choice but to kill the creatures. I don't know anything about Warcraft, but the corrupted ex-people and animals in DII were not the sort willing to live in harmony with uncorrupted types. Or even not constantly murder them. I don't think it was ever made clear whether the corruption was reversible in those who were still alive prior to being corrupted (as Griswold was not) but it was certainly implied that there was no turning back, most notably in the DI warrior's transformation into Diablo and Baal's conquest of the immensely powerful mage, Tal Rasha.

While I think it would be an interesting theme to explore in fan fiction, the game either didn't take into account the possibility of reversing the horrors done to the denizens of Sanctuary, or more likely, didn't allow it because it would have greatly detracted from the darkness factor of the game. That you have to kill things that were once innocent creatures, or even your friends, knowing that there's no way to save them, lends a subtle, meaningful sense of horror to the game.

[Nephilim]

You must get off on playing semantics.

First, I didn't say that no Diablo magic-users will be corrupted. I said that it wasn't a rule, which is not the case with Warcraft. If you are in Azeroth and you're using arcane magic, then you're subject to corruption. Magic in Diablo isn't the same. If you use it, how you use it is up to you. So, you get decent, help-thy-neighbour types like Hepsheeba ALONG with the evil power-hungry types like Zhar.

Second, the magical energies unleashed upon Sanctuary during the Great Conflict, which would continue to endure because of the Sin War, by the way, are still part of Sanctuary. I think it a fair statement to say that you can't just merge parts of realms together and then expect them to naturally reform. I don't even know what you're trying to say. MY point is that with the information we have, we know, for a fact backed up by legitimate resources, that magic works fundamentally different in Warcraft and Diablo. As such, you can't automatically assume that because X is so in Warcraft means it will still be so in Diablo.

Third, flattening the whole city is wrong because there are other means that have yet to be explored. For now, they can afford to have a city full of zombies, because they have the means to control it while they search for some alternative. This is NOT the case with the Rogues, who are too busy fighting to survive to research means of de-corrupting their corrupted sisters.

Fourth, let's remember that in Act III, you actually DO go about trying to cure the Zakarumites of their domination. Unfortunately for them, GETTING to that cure involves cutting a swath through them. Messy business, but it has to be done for not only the good of the survivors of the Kurast massacre, but also the good of the Zakarumites you DON'T kill.

Fifth, I never said anywhere in Warcraft was completely safe. Please refrain from saying I said things I never said. I just said that it is safer, or at least, was. At the time of the Stratholme incident, the kingdom wasn't being completely overrun, and they still had some level of law, government, and enforcement. In Tristram, in the Rogue Encampment, in Lut Gholein, in Kurast, and in Harrogath, this is no longer the case. In Diablo, everyone's fighting a losing battle, and the only viable alternative to killing the former innocents is to let them kill you.
Well if you must know, I'm a power-hungry jerk who likes being agreed with, even if the reason for agreeing with me turned out to be spiting me. I would be happy indeed. HA!Well, that certainly showed me.

[Steve Lai]

When dealing with corruption, you must first determine its nature. Is it contagious? How complete is the corruption? And most importantly, is it reversible? If the corruption is complete and irreversible, then you have little choice but to kill the creatures. I don't know anything about Warcraft, but the corrupted ex-people and animals in DII were not the sort willing to live in harmony with uncorrupted types. Or even not constantly murder them. I don't think it was ever made clear whether the corruption was reversible in those who were still alive prior to being corrupted (as Griswold was not) but it was certainly implied that there was no turning back, most notably in the DI warrior's transformation into Diablo and Baal's conquest of the immensely powerful mage, Tal Rasha.

While I think it would be an interesting theme to explore in fan fiction, the game either didn't take into account the possibility of reversing the horrors done to the denizens of Sanctuary, or more likely, didn't allow it because it would have greatly detracted from the darkness factor of the game. That you have to kill things that were once innocent creatures, or even your friends, knowing that there's no way to save them, lends a subtle, meaningful sense of horror to the game.
Some corrupted creatures are specified by the Arreat Summit to be irredeemable; that's true. But a whole load of others are unaddressed to.

if Blizzard comes right out and says all Diablo 2 monsters are irredeemable filth to be cleared, ok then case closed. But if they didn't, I think this ambiguity allows for some discussion.
First, I didn't say that no Diablo magic-users will be corrupted. I said that it wasn't a rule, which is not the case with Warcraft. If you are in Azeroth and you're using arcane magic, then you're subject to corruption. Magic in Diablo isn't the same. If you use it, how you use it is up to you. So, you get decent, help-thy-neighbour types like Hepsheeba ALONG with the evil power-hungry types like Zhar.
I know of no official specifications that Sorceresses draw their power from Heavenly or Hellish sources. Proof please.

Second, even if I buy your claim that everyone who practices magic in Azeroth will be mind-controlled by demons, I will still point to the Blood Elves, more specifically the Blood Magi. What of them? Additionally, if I expand my view beyond Human territory to include Demon Hunters in Night Elven lands, the very explicit use of demonic magic by Demon Hunters raises even more questions as to how Demon Hunters (except Illidan) remain un-corrupted.
Second, the magical energies unleashed upon Sanctuary during the Great Conflict, which would continue to endure because of the Sin War, by the way, are still part of Sanctuary. I think it a fair statement to say that you can't just merge parts of realms together and then expect them to naturally reform. I don't even know what you're trying to say. MY point is that with the information we have, we know, for a fact backed up by legitimate resources, that magic works fundamentally different in Warcraft and Diablo. As such, you can't automatically assume that because X is so in Warcraft means it will still be so in Diablo.
Believe me, I don't think I have a clear idea what you're trying to say either.

Judging by your criterium that magic energy is released only by angels and demons fighting, the Sin War is a civil war between Hellish factions without angelic involvement, and therefore produces no magical energy for Sanctuary.

Now then, I'm afraid I have to play semantic jerk again. Nowhere in any official Diablo 2 or Warcraft 3 text have I seen any implication that the process of magical corruption is any different from each other. And to be fair, your argument's platform is even more semantically-oriented than mine. You have to pound on semantics and specific details to make distinctions between two apparently similar magical corruption processes, which I don't blame you for.
Third, flattening the whole city is wrong because there are other means that have yet to be explored. For now, they can afford to have a city full of zombies, because they have the means to control it while they search for some alternative. This is NOT the case with the Rogues, who are too busy fighting to survive to research means of de-corrupting their corrupted sisters.
the Human government had other means of containing their zombies while the Rogues don't with their own corrupted Rogues? What do you base this on? The fact that the Rogues are somhow unable to erect barricades, walls, or other types of fortifications while the Stratholme Humans have no problems with it? Last I checked, both Rogues and Stratholme Humans are all... able-bodied human beings!

Lastly, [semantic jerk] I don't remember any Rogue character claiming she's "too busy" to do this or that. I suspect that's your personal and biased interpretation. [/semantic jerk]
Fourth, let's remember that in Act III, you actually DO go about trying to cure the Zakarumites of their domination. Unfortunately for them, GETTING to that cure involves cutting a swath through them. Messy business, but it has to be done for not only the good of the survivors of the Kurast massacre, but also the good of the Zakarumites you DON'T kill.
For the good of the Kurast survivors, Uther and Jaina might have told you that you should get the Gidbinn to strengthen your fortifications (and maybe get Lam Esen's tome too, since Cain comments that Lam Esen can "turn the tide" or some such) and then start researching on methods to remove the demonic mind control on the Zakarum Church.

To be fair, though, the Arreat Summit did specify that Council Members (http://www.battle.net/diablo2exp/monsters/act3-councilmember.shtml) are irreversibly corrupted. But that doesn't mean the Zakarum fighters and priests are also irreversibly corrupted. So what should've been done about the rest of the Zakarum? Kill them Arthas style?
Fifth, I never said anywhere in Warcraft was completely safe. Please refrain from saying I said things I never said. I just said that it is safer, or at least, was.
But I didn't accuse you of making inaccurate comments, just like you never actually accused Izual of being weak. I just said "Just to be sure of where we're at".

Oh what the hell you must be mad at my semantic antics. Here, have your cake and eat it too.
At the time of the Stratholme incident, the kingdom wasn't being completely overrun, and they still had some level of law, government, and enforcement.
Is it just me or did the Rogue Encampment, Lut Gholeim, and Harrogath all had this thing called "law and enforcement" too?
In Tristram, in the Rogue Encampment, in Lut Gholein, in Kurast, and in Harrogath, this is no longer the case. In Diablo, everyone's fighting a losing battle, and the only viable alternative to killing the former innocents is to let them kill you.
Going by my comment above, what distinction really is there, aside from your apparently baseless (until you provide proof that is) interpretation that "Lut Gholein, Kurast, and the Rogue Encampment's 'laws' can't fight Hell's forces but Stratholme's 'laws' can fight Mal Ganis"?
Well, that certainly showed me.
You're very welcome.

[Gdog4evr]

I'm forced be 80% vegetarian, in case you're wondering.
How does that work? Do you only eat animals that eat plants or something? :)

So let me do a recap of what we've got here:

1) In Diablo II, your back is to the wall, and corrupted people are coming to kill you. You have to kill them back, because otherwise there's no game and the Blizzard peeps didn't think to give you a third option.

2) In Warcraft III, you back is just infront of the wall, and you have the oppertunity to avoid killing corrupted people because they're holed up somewhere, as opposed to YOU being holed up somewhere. There is also some theoritical way to turn them back, or at least sneak by them or something.

3) Bears are evil.

4) No one has brought up DOOM. Is it ok to kill your corrupted allys? That's like your rouge merc killing corrupted rouges with her POS bow, except replace "rouge merc" with "space marine" and "POS bow" with "BFG 9000".

And, to answer a few questions:

Have you ever thought who would win if Gandalf and Magneto (both played by Ian McKellen in their respective movies) pit themselves against each other? Or if Agent Smith has a fight with Elrond (also playsed by the same person in their respective movies)?

My money would be on Magneto and Agent Smith winning. Then I'd pit the two of them against each other; that'd be sweet.

If we must assume that we can never compare the Matrix, Middle Earth, and the Marvel mutants world with each other, there are many fun questions you can't ask, and that would be boring.

I'm not saying that, I'm just saying that you have to keep the comparisons semi-reasonable. There's a difference to asking, "How is WCIII corruption different from DII corruption?" and stating, "WCIII and DII corruption are the exact same thing." I don't think they are, although they could be intermingled.

P.S. - Spiderman would beat Diablo.

[Nephilim]

I know of no official specifications that Sorceresses draw their power from Heavenly or Hellish sources. Proof please.They don't, and I never said they did.
Second, even if I buy your claim that everyone who practices magic in Azeroth will be mind-controlled by demons, They don't be, and I never said that.

the Sin War is a civil war between Hellish factions without angelic involvement, and therefore produces no magical energy for Sanctuary.You might want to check your sources on that. The Great Exile was the civil war in Hell. The Sin War is the angels and demons covertly trying to sway humans to their side. Totally different things.
two apparently similar magical corruption processes,All right, let's contrast and compare on this:
Kurast - The compelling orb turns some Zakarum, but not others.
Stratholme - Every single citizen is infected with plagued grain and become undead.
A compelling orb is a compelling orb. Plagued grain is plagued grain. If plagued grain = X, and compelling orb = Y, Y does not = X. Therefore compelling orb is not plagued grain.
Similar in intent, perhaps, but these two methods are completely different in conception, execution, etc. So please elaborate on how they're apparently similar.
For the good of the Kurast survivors, Uther and Jaina might have told you that you should get the Gidbinn to strengthen your fortifications (and maybe get Lam Esen's tome too, since Cain comments that Lam Esen can "turn the tide" or some such) and then start researching on methods to remove the demonic mind control on the Zakarum Church.Yes, and in fact, after all that research, they might have suggested that you shatter the compelling orb. Which you do, breaking the spell over them.
Is it just me or did the Rogue Encampment, Lut Gholeim, and Harrogath all had this thing called "law and enforcement" too?Evidently, it wasn't that effective, considering, y'know, all those dead bodies you loot.
Going by my comment above, what distinction really is there, aside from your apparently baseless (until you provide proof that is) interpretation that "Lut Gholein, Kurast, and the Rogue Encampment's 'laws' can't fight Hell's forces but Stratholme's 'laws' can fight Mal Ganis"?Not Stratholme's laws, LORDAERON's laws. They have the Silver Hand, they have Dalaran, they have the means of quarantining a contained area, like, say, a city. The Rogues are in a meager outpost surrounded by guys trying to kill them at every turn. Just like lut Gholein, just like Kurast, just like Harrogath, etc etc. The survival of Lordaeron and its people did not depend on the death of everyone in Stratholme. The survival of the Rogues depends on the death of the corrupted rogues attacking their camp and protecting Andariel. There might be a cure, but they have no resources, or time, to research one.
That's like your rouge merc killing corrupted rouges with her POS bow,Speak for yourself. My rogue's got the Koku Shakaku.

[Steve Lai]

How does that work? Do you only eat animals that eat plants or something?
I eat 4 times as much vegetable as I eat meat. This makes a 1 : 4 or 20% meat to 80% vegetable ratio. And no if I eat meat from herbivore animals the plants eaten by those animals don't count towards my diet.
4) No one has brought up DOOM. Is it ok to kill your corrupted allys? That's like your rouge merc killing corrupted rouges with her POS bow, except replace "rouge merc" with "space marine" and "POS bow" with "BFG 9000".
DOOM isn't made by the same company that made Diablo 2 and Warcraft 3. I'm talking about potential self-contradictions here, not different opinions between different people.
I'm not saying that, I'm just saying that you have to keep the comparisons semi-reasonable. There's a difference to asking, "How is WCIII corruption different from DII corruption?" and stating, "WCIII and DII corruption are the exact same thing." I don't think they are, although they could be intermingled.
See below for my response to Nephilim's "plagued grain and compelling orb and XYZ formula" thing.
They don't, and I never said they did.
They don't be, and I never said that.
Exactly. Moving on...
You might want to check your sources on that. The Great Exile was the civil war in Hell. The Sin War is the angels and demons covertly trying to sway humans to their side. Totally different things.
Okay let's for the moment assume that lobbying competitions count as a direct conflict as seen in the Great Conflict. This only proves that generic magical energy created by the Great Conflict and the Sin War is non-addictive. Coincidentally, like I've said, certain practitioners of magic did not get brainwashed into the demonic camp simply by using demonic magic either. Your point?
All right, let's contrast and compare on this:
Kurast - The compelling orb turns some Zakarum, but not others.
Stratholme - Every single citizen is infected with plagued grain and become undead.
A compelling orb is a compelling orb. Plagued grain is plagued grain. If plagued grain = X, and compelling orb = Y, Y does not = X. Therefore compelling orb is not plagued grain.
Similar in intent, perhaps, but these two methods are completely different in conception, execution, etc. So please elaborate on how they're apparently similar.
plagued grain + human beings (in this case Stratholme citizens) = corrupted demonic servants
compelling orb + human beings (in this case the Zakarum members) = corrupted demonic servants

If Y + A = Z and X + A = Z too, what do I make of X and Y?

In essence, what I'm saying is: if I kill you with a machete, would it be any morally superior or inferior than if I kill you with a gun? And someone was accusing me of being pedantic!
Yes, and in fact, after all that research, they might have suggested that you shatter the compelling orb. Which you do, breaking the spell over them.
In the game, breaking the Compelling Orb stops the Zakarum melee fighters from harassing you. But the Zakarum priests still attack you afterwards. What is the right thing to do? Kill them?
Evidently, it wasn't that effective, considering, y'know, all those dead bodies you loot.
There are dead bodies in Human territory too in Warcraft 3. Except you can't loot them. Your point?
Not Stratholme's laws, LORDAERON's laws. They have the Silver Hand, they have Dalaran, they have the means of quarantining a contained area, like, say, a city. The Rogues are in a meager outpost surrounded by guys trying to kill them at every turn. Just like lut Gholein, just like Kurast, just like Harrogath, etc etc. The survival of Lordaeron and its people did not depend on the death of everyone in Stratholme. The survival of the Rogues depends on the death of the corrupted rogues attacking their camp and protecting Andariel. There might be a cure, but they have no resources, or time, to research one.
Coincidentally, in the game, corrupted Rogues do not appear until after the Blood Moor. Therefore, technically, none of them are attacking the Rogue camp.

So you also say that all corrupted Rogues protecting Andariel need to die for the Rogues' safety right? Well, wouldn't all supporters of Mal Ganis need to die too for Lordaeron's safety too?

[Nephilim]

Exactly. Moving on...Then why, pray tell, did you bother bringing up those points in the first place?
Okay let's for the moment assume that lobbying competitions count as a direct conflict as seen in the Great Conflict. This only proves that generic magical energy created by the Great Conflict and the Sin War is non-addictive. Coincidentally, like I've said, certain practitioners of magic did not get brainwashed into the demonic camp simply by using demonic magic either.That had nothing to do with anything I said, so I have no idea why you're saying it.
plagued grain + human beings (in this case Stratholme citizens) = corrupted demonic servants
compelling orb + human beings (in this case the Zakarum members) = corrupted demonic servants

If Y + A = Z and X + A = Z too, what do I make of X and Y?
No one's arguing a similar result. (I could easily argue that there's a distinct difference between becoming a demon and becoming a zombie, but we'll set that aside for another day.) YOU were saying that the METHODS are similar. And this isn't biased interpretation or whatever, this is what you have SAID, and that's what I was responding to. I hope you can imagine that if you rebut to someone's statement and then they go about pretending that their statement was something entirely different than it was, it's rather frustrating. I'm arguing a difference in the process. That is all. You're saying they're the same, I've just told you, and you've apparently agreed, that they're not.
In essence, what I'm saying is: if I kill you with a machete, would it be any morally superior or inferior than if I kill you with a gun?Since when are we arguing the moral fortitude of the guys doing the corrupting? We're arguing what's to be done with them afterward.
In the game, breaking the Compelling Orb stops the Zakarum melee fighters from harassing you. But the Zakarum priests still attack you afterwards. What is the right thing to do? Kill them?Why not? They're evidently working of their own accord - if they weren't, they would've stopped attacking you after the compelling orb was shattered.
There are dead bodies in Human territory too in Warcraft 3. Except you can't loot them. Your point?There was a pretty decent ratio of living to dead when it came to populated regions at the beginning of Warcraft III. But I think it fair to say that there's a LOT more dead guys in Diablo than living, and where there ARE dead guys, you'd be hard pressed to find a SINGLE living person besides you and whoever is with you.

Coincidentally, in the game, corrupted Rogues do not appear until after the Blood Moor. Therefore, technically, none of them are attacking the Rogue camp. But they are attacking the ROGUES, hence all the dead rogues.
So you also say that all corrupted Rogues protecting Andariel need to die for the Rogues' safety right? Well, wouldn't all supporters of Mal Ganis need to die too for Lordaeron's safety too?Mal'Ganis was just a cog in the machine, and if Arthas had properly investigated, HE would've found that out, too. The prosperity of the Plague and the Scourge was not dependant on Mal'Ganis, but the corruption of the Rogues WAS dependant on Andariel, and once she was dead, the Rogues were free to retake the Monastery. Destroying Stratholme to get to Mal'Ganis was useless. He didn't even STAY in Stratholme.
DOOM isn't made by the same company that made Diablo 2 and Warcraft 3. I'm talking about potential self-contradictions here, not different opinions between different people.Where has it ever been indicated that a company or an author can't publish two different works with no connection to each other SAVE the company or author that have contrary ideas or themes? And second, maybe someone should enlighten you - the developing team behind Diablo and Warcraft are actually quite different, that's what Blizzard North is. So, since we can say that few of the people who concieved Diablo are the same that concieved Warcraft, where do you want to draw the line? Any company owned by Vivendi has to publish material that enforces the same ideas?

[Steve Lai]

Then why, pray tell, did you bother bringing up those points in the first place?
To prove demonic magic in Warcraft 3 is not inherently mind-altering.
That had nothing to do with anything I said, so I have no idea why you're saying it.
Demonic magic in Warcraft 3 is not inherently mind-altering. But if you want to now say that it has nothing to do with the subjects at hand, suit yourself.
No one's arguing a similar result. (I could easily argue that there's a distinct difference between becoming a demon and becoming a zombie, but we'll set that aside for another day.) YOU were saying that the METHODS are similar.
Oh let's be even more nitpicky now. I used the phrase "corruption process". This phrase is admittedly ambiguous, but let me clarify. The instruments (do note that it's the first time I've used the word "instruments" in this thread) used to produce the mind-altering effects on their respective subjects are different, but the results are similar, therefore I postulate that the psychological mind-altering processes caused by these different physical instruments may be similar, because it resulted in similar... results.
And this isn't biased interpretation or whatever, this is what you have SAID, and that's what I was responding to. I hope you can imagine that if you rebut to someone's statement and then they go about pretending that their statement was something entirely different than it was, it's rather frustrating. I'm arguing a difference in the process. That is all. You're saying they're the same, I've just told you, and you've apparently agreed, that they're not.
You've apparently misread.
Since when are we arguing the moral fortitude of the guys doing the corrupting? We're arguing what's to be done with them afterward.
I've just clairified. So answer the question: am I in a different moral altitude if I kill you with a machete than if I kill you with a gun?
Why not? They're evidently working of their own accord - if they weren't, they would've stopped attacking you after the compelling orb was shattered.
That would violate your very own principle. Once you stop the Zakarum fighters from attacking you, you have a good chunk of the aggressors out of the way. This means you have more leeway to research a psychological cure for the priests. Saying that if smashing the Compelling Orb doesn't work is like saying "oh killing Mal Ganis can't stop the Stratholme citizens from turning into zombies because he keeps coming back so let's kill all Stratholmians now." Would you object to that?
There was a pretty decent ratio of living to dead when it came to populated regions at the beginning of Warcraft III. But I think it fair to say that there's a LOT more dead guys in Diablo than living, and where there ARE dead guys, you'd be hard pressed to find a SINGLE living person besides you and whoever is with you.
That doesn't explain why all the options have run out for the defenders of Sanctuary. See below.
But they are attacking the ROGUES, hence all the dead rogues.
The dead Rogues did not die just outside the Rogue Encampment. They ventured out on their own. They took the risks.
Mal'Ganis was just a cog in the machine, and if Arthas had properly investigated, HE would've found that out, too. The prosperity of the Plague and the Scourge was not dependant on Mal'Ganis, but the corruption of the Rogues WAS dependant on Andariel, and once she was dead, the Rogues were free to retake the Monastery. Destroying Stratholme to get to Mal'Ganis was useless. He didn't even STAY in Stratholme.
Mal Ganis didn't stay in Stratholme because Arthas kicked everyone out. Not that this distinction matters. Anyway, Andariel is just as much a cog in the bad guys's machines, or is there some other explanation?
Where has it ever been indicated that a company or an author can't publish two different works with no connection to each other SAVE the company or author that have contrary ideas or themes? And second, maybe someone should enlighten you - the developing team behind Diablo and Warcraft are actually quite different, that's what Blizzard North is. So, since we can say that few of the people who concieved Diablo are the same that concieved Warcraft, where do you want to draw the line? Any company owned by Vivendi has to publish material that enforces the same ideas?
Well well, why would you care about this tidbit if you're so convinced Diablo 2 and Warcraft 3 are absolutely not morally contradictory? Even if you're just generically curious, I'd hold this subject off because of the higher relevance of the Warcraft 3 v.s. Diablo 2 comparison.

[Nephilim]

To prove demonic magic in Warcraft 3 is not inherently mind-altering.But it is. This isn't in argument. Allow me to cite:
"Arcane magic is a drug. Its use is intoxicating and sends power throbbing through the veins, but it is also addictive, subtly corrupting and even maggening. The high elves' addiction to arcane magic is partly representative of this feature." - Warcraft the RPG
"Magic corrupts the soul; if the humblest person on Azeroth became a practitioner of the arcane, by the time that practitioner reached the higher levels of her art, all traces of her humble roots would be lost. Magic breeds pride and arrogance. Magic corrupts the body; it ages the caster before her time and hastens the blight that the world inflicts on things fair and beautiful." - Magic & Mayhem
Demonic magic in Warcraft 3 is not inherently mind-altering. But if you want to now say that it has nothing to do with the subjects at hand, suit yourself.Yes, I'm afraid it is. This has been made quite clear repeatedly.
Oh let's be even more nitpicky now. I used the phrase "corruption process". This phrase is admittedly ambiguous, but let me clarify. The instruments (do note that it's the first time I've used the word "instruments" in this thread) used to produce the mind-altering effects on their respective subjects are different, but the results are similar, therefore I postulate that the psychological mind-altering processes caused by these different physical instruments may be similar, because it resulted in similar... results.All right then let me go back to what I said earlier. The results are not similar. On the one hand, the citizens of Stratholme succumb to a disease - as biological as it is magical. The rogues didn't have that. We don't know exactly what made them turn to the darkness, but it was sustained by Andariel herself. Conversely, what they turned into is wholly different, too. The rogues became demons, the Stratholme villagers became zombies. Aside from the state of mind of the Scourge/Andariel, the two cases have nothing in common.
You've apparently misread.If you're actually telling the truth and not just changing your argument to suit the direction it's going, then no, I didn't misread, you mispoke.
I've just clairified. So answer the question: am I in a different moral altitude if I kill you with a machete than if I kill you with a gun?Once again, what does that have to do with anything? We aren't arguing over the moral capacity of those doing the corrupting. That's not at issue. If you want to argue whose the "badder" person, Andariel or the Lich King, then that's a completely different argument that you haven't even remotely touched on. The question you asked was "Is it morally depraved to kill a corrupted creature?" not "Is it morally bad to corrupt a creature?" So, how does the moral fibre of Andariel or the Lich King at all factor into this argument? I think we can all agree they're not the nicest of people.
This means you have more leeway to research a psychological cure for the priests.But there ISN'T one. Mephisto and the Black Council corrupted the masses through the Compelling Orb. So, if they still are murdering people despite the shattered Compelling Orb, then they're NOT corrupted by anything by their own flawed judgement, which stands to reason - they are still, after all, human beings - not the case with the rogues, with the high council, etc.
Besides, after you shatter the Orb, you actually DON'T kill any priests. You go straight to the Guardian Tower, kill Mephisto, and then on to Hell. No priests in between.
That doesn't explain why all the options have run out for the defenders of Sanctuary. See below.
The dead Rogues did not die just outside the Rogue Encampment. They ventured out on their own. They took the risks.No, some were fleeing the Monastery. So either stay in the Monatery and be killed, or run away and be killed. Not much of a choice.
But you also seem convinced that the forces of Hell are stagnant - that they are content to spread their influence to JUST a certain extent and then say "well, we'll let them have their little hovel, just because we're so damn nice." Just because you don't see them expanding in the game doesn't mean that they're not doing it in terms of the story. I mean, even if you don't do the Den of Evil quest, the creatures within are still supposedly planning an attack on the encampment. But if you leave them alone, they don't. Similarly, if you forego the gidbinn quest, that magical ward never seems to fail. You can't rely on the mechanics necessary for gameplay if you plan on making an argument on the motivation of the characters within the story. That just won't compute.
The safety of the Rogue camp, Kurast Docks, etc. is temporary at best.
Anyway, Andariel is just as much a cog in the bad guys's machines, or is there some other explanation?On the larger scale, yes, but not in terms of the corruption of the Rogues. Andariel was solely behind it, but Mal'Ganis was not the mastermind behind the Plague.
Well well, why would you care about this tidbit if you're so convinced Diablo 2 and Warcraft 3 are absolutely not morally contradictory? Even if you're just generically curious, I'd hold this subject off because of the higher relevance of the Warcraft 3 v.s. Diablo 2 comparison.They're NOT morally contradictory if you don't take them at face value, which is what you're doing. They express similar themes and philosophical ideas if you dig deeper than just what happens in the game.

[Steve Lai]

From now on I think I will be using "ARRRRGH" a lot in my posts. You're free to do the same to me too Nephilim, as I'm sure you feel the same way about me, if not more so.
But it is. This isn't in argument. Allow me to cite:
"Arcane magic is a drug. Its use is intoxicating and sends power throbbing through the veins, but it is also addictive, subtly corrupting and even maggening. The high elves' addiction to arcane magic is partly representative of this feature." - Warcraft the RPG
"Magic corrupts the soul; if the humblest person on Azeroth became a practitioner of the arcane, by the time that practitioner reached the higher levels of her art, all traces of her humble roots would be lost. Magic breeds pride and arrogance. Magic corrupts the body; it ages the caster before her time and hastens the blight that the world inflicts on things fair and beautiful." - Magic & Mayhem
Yes, I'm afraid it is. This has been made quite clear repeatedly.

Great look what we have here? Technicality lawyer (well I doubt you actually have a law degree) citing crap apparently unrelated to this thread at all. ARRRRRRGH!

I thought I didn't need to clarify but: the only type of corruption this thread was meant to investigate is the type that turns you to serve demonic causes, assuming you weren't on the demons's side to start with. Who cares if using magic makes High Elves cocky magic addicts? They were on the Burning Legions's black list just like almost everybody else, for crying out loud! And guess what? The High Elves fought accordingly!

So now, are you going an explain how Blood Elves and Demon Hunters can use demonic magic while being able to avoid getting turned to serve demonic causes? Either put up (i.e. make sense of the whole picture instead of selected portions) or shut up okay? ARRRRRRRGH!
All right then let me go back to what I said earlier. The results are not similar. On the one hand, the citizens of Stratholme succumb to a disease - as biological as it is magical. The rogues didn't have that. We don't know exactly what made them turn to the darkness, but it was sustained by Andariel herself. Conversely, what they turned into is wholly different, too. The rogues became demons, the Stratholme villagers became zombies. Aside from the state of mind of the Scourge/Andariel, the two cases have nothing in common.
If you're actually telling the truth and not just changing your argument to suit the direction it's going, then no, I didn't misread, you mispoke.
Biological you say? How are you sure that eating plagued grain abnormally affects any other part of your body other than your... "mind"? Because I've seen no evidence supporting this claim. Don't tell me just because the hydrochloric acid and enzymes in your stomach gets to work on digesting that grain it's a demonic influence. On another note, the medical definition of "disease" is not restricted to describing biological symptoms alone.

Lastly, you acknowledged that the states of mind of victims from both cases are the same. That's all i need to define similarity. To achieve similar states of mind, wouldn't the process of altering that state of mind have to have something in common?
Once again, what does that have to do with anything? We aren't arguing over the moral capacity of those doing the corrupting. That's not at issue.
If you want to argue whose the "badder" person, Andariel or the Lich King, then that's a completely different argument that you haven't even remotely touched on. The question you asked was "Is it morally depraved to kill a corrupted creature?" not "Is it morally bad to corrupt a creature?" So, how does the moral fibre of Andariel or the Lich King at all factor into this argument? I think we can all agree they're not the nicest of people.
I agree! I was, in the very first post of this thread, arguing about the very moral capacity of those killing the corrupted creatures, i.e. Arthas and your Diablo 2 PC! But look who comes in and, apparently, states that because of some technical difference between "methods" of corruption, "nature of magic", "plagued grain", and "compelling orb", the whole moral dynamics would change? And now you blame me for trying to accommodate your new argument, instead of calling your bluff outright? ARRRRRRGH!
But there ISN'T one. Mephisto and the Black Council corrupted the masses through the Compelling Orb. So, if they still are murdering people despite the shattered Compelling Orb, then they're NOT corrupted by anything by their own flawed judgement, which stands to reason - they are still, after all, human beings - not the case with the rogues, with the high council, etc.
Thanks for spouting another screed of presumptuous absolutist propaganda while dodging the latter part of my comment on this issue. I repeat, as before, that I can easily say that "Hey killing Mal Ganis doesn't stop all the villagers from becoming zombies anyway! So let's kill them already!" Would you or would you not object to that?
Besides, after you shatter the Orb, you actually DON'T kill any priests. You go straight to the Guardian Tower, kill Mephisto, and then on to Hell. No priests in between.
Sometimes normal, champion, or unique Zakarum priests (needless to say unique ones can be incredibly nasty, depending on their stats) are jammed right in the same room the High Council and the Compelling Orb is. You can try to get the flail, smash the orb, then run in while avoiding the Zakarum priests like the Zakarum fights would've avoided you if you killed the High Council. If you do, then great, but then you will have to burden the pain of agreeing with me in principle. If not, the argument continues. Personally, on ladder, I kill every Zakarum priest I find even after I killed the High Council, because I'm an "Arthas guy".
No, some were fleeing the Monastery. So either stay in the Monatery and be killed, or run away and be killed. Not much of a choice.
Breaking news: Rogue Encampment exists! ARRRRRGH!
But you also seem convinced that the forces of Hell are stagnant - that they are content to spread their influence to JUST a certain extent and then say "well, we'll let them have their little hovel, just because we're so damn nice." Just because you don't see them expanding in the game doesn't mean that they're not doing it in terms of the story. I mean, even if you don't do the Den of Evil quest, the creatures within are still supposedly planning an attack on the encampment. But if you leave them alone, they don't. Similarly, if you forego the gidbinn quest, that magical ward never seems to fail. You can't rely on the mechanics necessary for gameplay if you plan on making an argument on the motivation of the characters within the story. That just won't compute.
The safety of the Rogue camp, Kurast Docks, etc. is temporary at best.
By this logic, I can argue that the situation for Azeroth is just as dire as for the Diablo 2 "good guy outposts". The Burning Legions' army, at the beginning of Warcraft 3, was already as great as during Archimonde's assault against a certain precious tree, which would and did make the defenders pretty desperate. Therefore, in story terms, we can assume that Archimonde could take over the world in general as quickly as Andariel and Mephisto would break the ward in the Rogue Encampment or Kurast. Therefore, whatever desperate measures taken by the Diablo 2 good guys that you see as justified should be morally allowed for Arthas too, right?
On the larger scale, yes, but not in terms of the corruption of the Rogues. Andariel was solely behind it, but Mal'Ganis was not the mastermind behind the Plague.
Andariel acted to suck up to Diablo's agenda. Didn't Cain tell you that when he gave you the Andariel quest?
They're NOT morally contradictory if you don't take them at face value, which is what you're doing. They express similar themes and philosophical ideas if you dig deeper than just what happens in the game.
A recap on what I can understand of Nephilim's arguments so far:

-- Superficial differences between plagued grain and the Compelling Orb are so much more important than the pragmatic results that they cause that I can't stop talking about it.
-- But Steve you're too superficial because you only take things at face value.

A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-G-G-G-G-G-H!

[Nephilim]

Great look what we have here? Technicality lawyer (well I doubt you actually have a law degree) citing crap apparently unrelated to this thread at all.Not related to this thread? Let me restate my position, again.

You started this thread by saying that it's wrong that Warcraft should rebuke Arthas for killing the plagued villagers of Stratholme while glorifying the Diablo 2 heroes for killing demonically corrupted versions of good people. I countered by saying the process used for each corruption is inherently different, and to further that argument, I claimed that the use of and origins of magic itself is fundamentally different in the two universes, which it is, so it is folly to apply a rule from one to the other.
I thought I didn't need to clarify but: the only type of corruption this thread was meant to investigate is the type that turns you to serve demonic causes,So did I, but you asked me to prove that arcane magic in Azeroth is inherently mind-altering, and I just cited official sources supporting that. I'm just responding to your requests.
Biological you say? How are you sure that eating plagued grain abnormally affects any other part of your body other than your... "mind"?Because I'm getting attacked by zombies, that's undead - meaning they're corpses. I'd call that abnormal. Generally, I don't see many dead people walking around.
Lastly, you acknowledged that the states of mind of victims from both cases are the same. That's all i need to define similarity. To achieve similar states of mind, wouldn't the process of altering that state of mind have to have something in common?Not necessarily, and I don't even see them being similar states of mind. Mindless zombies - coherent, if maddened, demons.
I agree! I was, in the very first post of this thread, arguing about the very moral capacity of those killing the corrupted creatures, i.e. Arthas and your Diablo 2 PC! But look who comes in and, apparently, states that because of some technical difference between "methods" of corruption, "nature of magic", "plagued grain", and "compelling orb", the whole moral dynamics would change? And now you blame me for trying to accommodate your new argument, instead of calling your bluff outright?The nature of my argument hasn't changed at all. Since my first post, I've been saying that the corrupting process in the two cases was different. On the one hand, one process is completely without prejudice - anyone who eats the plagued grain becomes a zombie. On the other, those with some inner strength managed to overcome it - some rogues remain unfettered, some of the Zakarum become paladins. In the latter, that does put some degree of responsibility on the victims.
Thanks for spouting another screed of presumptuous absolutist propaganda while dodging the latter part of my comment on this issue. I repeat, as before, that I can easily say that "Hey killing Mal Ganis doesn't stop all the villagers from becoming zombies anyway! So let's kill them already!" Would you or would you not object to that?I would. The plague was confined to Stratholme. The threat could be contained while others sought out some means of saving them. Not the case in any scenario in Diablo II. The threats are not contained - the threats are containing you.
Sometimes normal, champion, or unique Zakarum priests (needless to say unique ones can be incredibly nasty, depending on their stats) are jammed right in the same room the High Council and the Compelling Orb is.You're still ignoring the fact that if the Orb is shattered, then they aren't actually corrupted, they're just bad people. Aside from that, the Guardian Tower is a no-spawn zone for champion or unique priests, so you're lying about that.
Breaking news: Rogue Encampment exists! ARRRRRGH!First, what makes you think that all the Rogues fleeing the Monastery know that? They've been scattered since Blood Raven kicked them out, which is why Scouts like Flavie are out there trying to round up stragglers and lead them to it. Second, even if they are aware of it, they still have to survive the journey from the Monastery TO the encampment, which, I hope you noticed, isn't quite as hospitable as it apparently once was.
By this logic, I can argue that the situation for Azeroth is just as dire as for the Diablo 2 "good guy outposts". The Burning Legions' army, at the beginning of Warcraft 3, was already as great as during Archimonde's assault against a certain precious tree, which would and did make the defenders pretty desperate. Dude, what game are you playing? At the beginning of Warcraft III, Archimonde hasn't even been summoned yet, nor had the rest of the Legion. Before Kel'Thuzad summoned Archimonde, it was only the Scourge, and at the beginning of Warcraft 3, the Scourge was not nearly as big a problem as it later became.
Andariel acted to suck up to Diablo's agenda. Didn't Cain tell you that when he gave you the Andariel quest?Yes, LIKE I SAID, but SHE ALONE was behind the corruption of the Monastery. She corrupted the Monastery on Diablo's command, but she was the one who masterminded the corruption of the Rogues. Meanwhile, Mal'Ganis was not the mastermind behind the Plague - the Lich King was. Mal'Ganis was just helping it along. This is evidenced by their respective deaths. Mal'Ganis dying solves nothing. Andariel's death stops the corruption and allows the true Rogues to clear out the Monastery.
-- Superficial differences between plagued grain and the Compelling Orb are so much more important than the pragmatic results that they cause that I can't stop talking about it.
-- But Steve you're too superficial because you only take things at face value.

A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-G-G-G-G-G-H!Face value as in what they are and not what they mean.

You keep ignoring the fact that, except in the most general of terms, the "pragmatic results" are actually not all that similar. I mean, going on your logic, Arthas' corruption is the same as any of those zombies, just because he ends up serving the same master. But that's just ludicrous.

I'm sorry if my facts are getting in the way of your line of thinking.

[Gdog4evr]

Gents, you are complicating the issue beyond what it needs. Let us step back a moment and look at the fundamental issues:

So now, according to Diablo 2 logic, your PC is responsible for exterminating Hell-corrupted creatures and indigenous minions of Hell alike.
Yup, that's true.

. If we apply this mentality to Warcraft 3, we get some problems, precisely when we see Arthas chasing Mal Ganis in the human campaign, the following happens:

-- Arthas (in typical Diablo 2 hero style): This town has been corrupted by Mal Ganis and must be purged.
-- Uther Lightbringer: There must be another way!
-- Jaina Proudmoore: Sorry Arthas. I can't watch you do this.
And in the end Arthas turns eeeeeeeeee-villlllllll because of his raging wrath to get even with Mal Ganis.

I'm forced to assume that what you said is true.

Hence, we have a controversy: two stories written by the same company (Blizzard) have very literally opposite takes on the meaning of "evil". Killing formerly innocent creatures who were corrupted by demonic forces is heroism in Diablo 2 and moral felony in Warcraft 3.

Now, why is this?

You just said why:

And in the end Arthas turns eeeeeeeeee-villlllllll because of his raging wrath to get even with Mal Ganis.

In Diablo II, it is apparent, at least plot-wise, that humans kind of have their backs to the wall. Living in encampments, being overrun with jungles, having their harem's all torn up (that's the worst of it, I tell ya), all kinds of crazy demonic foolishness. It's also apparent that if you don't kick some corrupted tail, you and a bunch of other people are going to die.

In War Craft III, it is apparent, at least from what you said in the first post, that the corrupted have their backs to the wall. They're (seemingly) encased within the boundries of the town; please correct me if I'm wrong. So the only reason that Arthy wants to go in swinging is 'cuz he's P.O.d' at Mal. NOT to save people, NOT to end the suffering of the corrupted...for revenge.

So then, the moral question becomes: Which is better, killing somebody to prevent them from killing numerous others, or killing somebody to blow off a little steam?

[Steve Lai]

Not related to this thread? Let me restate my position, again.
You started this thread by saying that it's wrong that Warcraft should rebuke Arthas for killing the plagued villagers of Stratholme while glorifying the Diablo 2 heroes for killing demonically corrupted versions of good people. I countered by saying the process used for each corruption is inherently different, and to further that argument, I claimed that the use of and origins of magic itself is fundamentally different in the two universes, which it is, so it is folly to apply a rule from one to the other.
Well apparently you no longer care about your initial claim now. See below.
So did I, but you asked me to prove that arcane magic in Azeroth is inherently mind-altering, and I just cited official sources supporting that. I'm just responding to your requests.
Hmm so...

-- Steve: so how is one type of corruption-turned-evil creature more morally "killable" than another?
-- Nephilim: different mental corruption processes and stuff.
-- Steve: ok so how are these "mind-altering" and "corruption" processes different?
-- Nephilim: Warcraft 3 demonic magic makes people cocky magic addicts.
-- Steve: ... who don't necessarily attack their own kinspeople even when using demonic magic.
-- Nephilim: that's not the point. The point is you asked about "mind-altering" differences so I win.
-- Steve: wait but... how is this response to my question relevant to your initial claim that differences in mental corruption matter morally?
-- Nephilim: that's not the point. The point is you asked about "mind-altering" differences so I win.

So now Nephilim, you don't make it a point to make your responses relevant to your original theories? Because if that's the case, I'd gladly hand the pedantic battle to your victory.
Because I'm getting attacked by zombies, that's undead - meaning they're corpses. I'd call that abnormal. Generally, I don't see many dead people walking around.
Not necessarily, and I don't even see them being similar states of mind. Mindless zombies - coherent, if maddened, demons.
Interesting... these Stratholme citizens actually have to be dead after eating the plagued grain and then raised as undeads? Where did this iron rule come from? And where is that Lordaeron report that specifies all the infected Straholmians as "zombies"?
The nature of my argument hasn't changed at all. Since my first post, I've been saying that the corrupting process in the two cases was different. On the one hand, one process is completely without prejudice - anyone who eats the plagued grain becomes a zombie. On the other, those with some inner strength managed to overcome it - some rogues remain unfettered, some of the Zakarum become paladins. In the latter, that does put some degree of responsibility on the victims.
So now we revert back to the subjects themselves now? Great! That means you will put all this idiotic nonsense about "methods of corruption" and "plagued grain" and "compelling orb" behind now (even though doing so would totally contradict your assertion that these issues matter) right? Only the corrupted victims matter now right? Yay! What a relief!

So now, did I say that everyone during the Spanish Inquisition, Salem witch hunts, and the Cold War who betrayed certain allegiences under torture should be mowed down like lawn weed because they lack "inner strength" to resist the forces of evil? Yes I did, and such an immoral notion would not have been possible without the aid of Nephilim, who apparently says killing those who "lack inner strength" is an act of pity, and then goes on to say that Arthas's "pity" for the Stratholmians is entirely inappropriate! Or did he/she? Hell no! Because Nephilim dodged that issue! ARRRRRGH!
I would. The plague was confined to Stratholme. The threat could be contained while others sought out some means of saving them. Not the case in any scenario in Diablo II. The threats are not contained - the threats are containing you.
So the Compelling Orb was so all-pervasive that it was controlling the corrupted Rogues too was it? Gee I could've sworn you said it was Andariel.
You're still ignoring the fact that if the Orb is shattered, then they aren't actually corrupted, they're just bad people. Aside from that, the Guardian Tower is a no-spawn zone for champion or unique priests, so you're lying about that.
But I'm not ignoring the fact that if Mal Ganis dies and infected villagers still keep getting recruited to the demonic side, then it must mean the villagers are willingly throwing themselves into the evil demonic empire, right?

And I've seen unique priests in that room on ladder. I don't have screenshots and even if I do you'd probably suspect photoshopping anyway so what's the point?
First, what makes you think that all the Rogues fleeing the Monastery know that? They've been scattered since Blood Raven kicked them out, which is why Scouts like Flavie are out there trying to round up stragglers and lead them to it. Second, even if they are aware of it, they still have to survive the journey from the Monastery TO the encampment, which, I hope you noticed, isn't quite as hospitable as it apparently once was.
Well according to Uther philosphy, Rogues who attack their own corrupted kin without trying to reclaim them due to believing that the safety of the Rogue camp is unavailable may be excusable, but if they get killed that way they can hardly complain. For Rogues who know about the Rogue camp and still attacks their corrupted colleagues, this raises an interesting question: if the infected Straholmian villagers immediately start chasing Uther and Jaina, would they have given the go to strike back? Hmm... there must be some other way! That's all I can remember, so no sale for your Diablo 2 PC according to Uther!
Dude, what game are you play-ing? At the beginning of Warcraft III, Archimonde hasn't even been summoned yet, nor had the rest of the Legion. Before Kel'Thuzad summoned Archimonde, it was only the Scourge, and at the beginning of Warcraft 3, the Scourge was not nearly as big a problem as it later became.
Oh I get it. Archimonde and his goons weren't "inside the 'mortal world'" hence he's not a danger right? Hmm well when Diablo returned to Hell why do you have to go out on a limb to venture into Hell (which is not a part of the Sanctuary world!) to terminate Diablo? Seems to me that not being in the world of the "good guys" can make the situation pretty dire too. So what's the difference really? ARRRRRRRGH!
Yes, LIKE I SAID, but SHE ALONE was behind the corruption of the Monastery. She corrupted the Monastery on Diablo's command, but she was the one who masterminded the corruption of the Rogues. Meanwhile, Mal'Ganis was not the mastermind behind the Plague - the Lich King was. Mal'Ganis was just helping it along. This is evidenced by their respective deaths. Mal'Ganis dying solves nothing. Andariel's death stops the corruption and allows the true Rogues to clear out the Monastery.
So if we simply kill Andariel Diablo and his brothers won't try to invade Rogue lands again! Wow! Life is easy!
Face value as in what they are and not what they mean.
"What they mean"? Mean? Mean? Mean? Hmmm!

I could've sworn that both the Compelling Orb and plagued grain actually both mean to control their respective intended victims! Also, did Nephilim also admitted a while ago that yes their "intentions" may be similar? Wow thanks for agreeing with me Nephilim! I'm in tears!
You keep ignoring the fact that, except in the most general of terms, the "pragmatic results" are actually not all that similar. I mean, going on your logic, Arthas' corruption is the same as any of those zombies, just because he ends up serving the same master. But that's just ludicrous.

I'm sorry if my facts are getting in the way of your line of thinking.
And because the villagers are corrupted "differently" than in Diablo 2, they are still attacking their former kinspeople, just like in Diablo 2! Welcome to Nephilimiam logic! ARRRRRRRGH!

Oh and because Arthas is corrupted even more "differently" it should mean anything... significant...? Hmm is Nephilim going to say next that because of this "difference in Arthas's corruption" Arthas is justified in his killings, and thereby totally contradicting Nephilim's original assertion that Arthas was wrong in doing this? Oh Nephilim hasn't said such things yet so I shouldn't be presumptuous. But just in case though, let me open my mouth as wide as I can, inhale as deeply as I can, and -- ARRRRRRRRGH!

Lastly, I should be the one who is sorry -- for all the falsehoods and irrelevance in what you call "fact". Oh wait it's not my fault so I shouldn't be sorry. Whew!

[Steve Lai]

So then, the moral question becomes: Which is better, killing somebody to prevent them from killing numerous others, or killing somebody to blow off a little steam?
I dunno ask Akara. I believe when Cain gave you the Andariel quest, if you go talk to Akara about "Sisters to the Slaughter" before completing that quest, Akara will say something to the effect of "Andariel must P-A-Y for this S-A-C-R-I-L-E-G-E!". Now I think Akara is a nice lady not bent on revenge-based philosphies but... well okay back to you Gdog4evr.

As for the rest of the safe-or-not issue, it's actually still an unresolved issue (it being unresolved despite or because of my inflammatory rhetoric muahaha) Nephilim and I have covered in greater detail than your brief run-down. I suspect that judging by the way you said "gents you're making this issue complicated" you've read through at least some of our stinking long-winded posts and have probably analyzed the info about the safe-or-not issue such that I don't need to direct you towards particular posts to further inform you. If this is true, then you obviously made up your mind to side with Nephilim with your statement that the Warcraft 3 world is safer than Diablo 2 world despite everything I've posted despite everything I've posted. Since, in the safe-or-not department, you haven't seemed to have said anything I haven't already offered a counter-argument (which you may consider invalid, but you will actually need to bring up my counter-arguments that you intend to debunk in order to... debunk it) for, I will currently not "reload" all of my previous arguments with Nephilim, aside from saying that since the Warcraft 3 baddies's agenda is not much different from that of the Diablo 2 baddies (i.e. the same thing we do every night Pinkie!) and, in the bigger picture, was about to move in a huge army of demons lying just outside the borders of the mortal world, isn't Arthas's policy to crack down on the slightest hint of demonic uprising an act of coincidental/accidental forsight that should be considered a "smart" thing to do, just like how it would be equally "smart" to kill all corrupted Diablo 2 baddies for your own safety? Now, I believe I've currently covered all I think I need to cover here.

[Gdog4evr]

I didn't mean to offend; it's just that my sole knowledge of the innerworking plot line of WCIII is operating from what I've read in this thread; hence I'm getting a slightly abstract view of things. I have read through all the posts, and was confused for most of it, hence my desire to go back to the initial question.

you obviously made up your mind to side with Nephilim with your statement that the Warcraft 3 world is safer than Diablo 2 world despite everything I've posted despite everything I've posted.

In all five acts of Diablo II, you have ONE TOWN that isn't over run. In the particular part of WCIII in which we are speaking, we have ONE TOWN that is over run. So yes, I'd call the DII scinareo to be slightly more dire. If you've go a responce to this particular issue that I've missed, please direct me to it. You don't even have to quote it, just tell me top, middle or bottom of the first page and I'll go look it up myself. All I've mostly seen so far is junk about plauged grain and compelling orbs that seems to be irrelevant to the issue of the morality of killing corrupted. I don't care what motivates people to try to kill me; all that maters is that they are trying to kill me. I fail to see how the Orb affects those who are weak of will in Act I. Far as I know, it hasn't even been set up yet then. The compelling orb corrupted everybody, the grain corrupted everybody, Andariel did a half-*** job corrupting rouges. Maybe it wasn't an issue of will with Andariel; maybe she only corrupted the strongest of the rouges, and left the weakest 10 percent to go and live in a hole. Hitler did stupider things. The only place where I've seen any mention of will power in resistance to corruption was in Winds of Kal Horn, wich rocks as a story but isn't official text.

Sorry for the rant, but yea. Just tell me where you responded to "one town infected vr. all but one town infected" and I'll look it up.

I dunno ask Akara. I believe when Cain gave you the Andariel quest, if you go talk to Akara about "Sisters to the Slaughter" before completing that quest, Akara will say something to the effect of "Andariel must P-A-Y for this S-A-C-R-I-L-E-G-E!". Now I think Akara is a nice lady not bent on revenge-based philosphies but... well okay back to you Gdog4evr.

Ah, see I had assumed (don't ask me why) from the first post (from the way it was worded) that the revengeful intent was to kill all the corrupted people in order to ruin Mav's day or some such.

Alright, so then: Althy wants to go in and kill Mav. But the only way he can figure out how to do this is by killing every last corrupted person in the house. This makes him E to the VIL, correct?

This makes an interesting pardox in the DII story line: at first you had to kill corrupted rouges in order to keep the encampment safe (Steve Lai: AAARRRRRRGGGHHH!!!!), but by this point in the story the forces have been backed up into the monestary itself. The rogues arn't in (as much) danger.

So this does beg the question of who was more right. Probably neither, although since the monestary has a lot of significance to her (home and hierlom and all), she's possibly more justified. Did Athwhatever have any personal sentaments towards that town in WCIII?

All this talk of plauged grain and compelling orbs has put me in the mood for fried rice and meatballs, so if you'll excuse me...I'm gonna go wish I had some.

[Nephilim]

Since it's obviously lost on you, I'm going to spell this out as monosyllabically as possible.

Since the things bad guys do to make good guys bad in the two games are not the same, I say that the things they make good guys into are not the same as well. Guh, nevermind, monosyllables suck; Since the two methods differ so much, I hold that the results also differ, and in one, the people you fight are at least partially to blame for their predicament.

You have yet to actually reply to that statement, you've instead been pouncing on the first part, that the methods of corruption are inherently different, which I've defended despite your attacks. Stop dealing with points as if it's my whole argument. YOU asked me to find proof that the two methods are different. I have, and then you go on to say that I'm stressing the method and ignoring the result, but my whole argument has been that SINCE the methods are different, the results are also different.

You reply by saying that they're not, since they both serve demons. So you're basically asking us to ignore what they are, why they're like that, how they act, and the world around them, and look only at the fact that they're serving the same proverbial masters. And you're asking us to do this while applying something as complex as the morality of killing to the whole situation. You insist on making things as general as possible so that you can provide a black and white ruling.

And then there's the whole issue of how desperate everyone is, and you're just ignoring fact after fact after fact. FACT: Before Kel'Thuzad summoned Archimonde, the Legion had no access to Azeroth, so NO, they're not as big a danger. They are not yet ravaging the countryside. That comes later. This is not the case with Diablo II. The demons are ALREADY everywhere, and you're confined to wherever you're holed up. All around you is danger, but you seem convinced that this danger won't do anything - that it's content to stick to its borders; that the safety of the rogue encampment and the docks will hold, even though everyone tells you, repeatedly, that it won't.

In Warcraft, Arthas doesn't even know that demons are behind it. Like Gdog said, he's doing it purely for revenge, and if you follow the plot of the Scourge of Lordaeron, that's exactly what he's doing. Akara may want Andariel to pay for her crimes against her Sisters, but YOU'RE the one killing Andariel, because you're trying to help out the Rogues. As far as Arthas was concerned, he just wanted to get back at Mal'Ganis for making him look bad.

[Steve Lai]

Sorry for the rant, but yea. Just tell me where you responded to "one town infected vr. all but one town infected" and I'll look it up.
Oh that. Well that's indeed a new argument. Okay here's a list (which may or may not be complete; I'm citing them for example's sake) of Diablo lands (at this point you should take out your Diablo 2 manual and look for the map of Sanctuary) not overrun or known to be touched in the slightest bit by baddies in Diablo 2:

-- Scosglen (Druid stronghold)
-- Twin Islands (Amazon stronghold)
-- Westmarch (anybody remember this stupid place? They did nothing for Sanctuary except battle Leoric before Diablo 1)
-- in the general vicinity of Westmarch I believe there's a city called Newport. That place is about as unheard of as Westmarch.
-- the former temple of Mephisto south of Kurast (it is, after all, a former temple of Mephisto, but it was conquered by Inarius so personally I've no reason to assume it's still demonically infected)
-- the former cathedral of Inarius (which was indeed overrun by Mephisto but once Inarius is disposed of it became nothing more than a dot on a map, therefore I've no reason to assume it still remains a military hotbed for demons)

Okay these are just specific places. There are also regions that either are really big or have no name. And to be fair, multiple places in Warcraft are actually infected as well. Northrend's Nerubian spiders had been turned by the Lich King to serve him. Non-Stratholme infection right there. So, in both Warcraft 3 and Diablo 2, multiple places are infected by baddies. What's the difference?
So this does beg the question of who was more right. Probably neither, although since the monestary has a lot of significance to her (home and hierlom and all), she's possibly more justified. Did Athwhatever have any personal sentaments towards that town in WCIII?
Well let's consider the following:

A) I killed my friend's girlfriend because she cheated on him.
B) I killed my wife because she cheated on me.

Now, am I any more justified in doing B) than A) simply because I'm supposedly more sentimentally attached to my wife and because I'm more sentimentally affected by the fact that I'm the one getting cheated on? Well It would work to a degree, but probably not so much that U.S. courts would actually buy it.
Since it's obviously lost on you, I'm going to spell this out as monosyllabically as possible.
How does the syllabic nature of your arguments matter if they don't hold water? ARRRRRRRGH!
Since the things bad guys do to make good guys bad in the two games are not the same, I say that the things they make good guys into are not the same as well. Guh, nevermind, monosyllables suck; Since the two methods differ so much, I hold that the results also differ, and in one, the people you fight are at least partially to blame for their predicament.
Aren't we talking about "inner strength" or some such? Oh right Nephilim likes to waffle all over ther place.[/quote]
So this has become a two-pronged argument? Well apparently people who yield to torture still deserve to burn (or so according to Nephilim because no reply towards that end had been observed) so never mind human sympathy! Moving on...
You have yet to actually reply to that statement, you've instead been pouncing on the first part, that the methods of corruption are inherently different, which I've defended despite your attacks. Stop dealing with points as if it's my whole argument. YOU asked me to find proof that the two methods are different. I have, and then you go on to say that I'm stressing the method and ignoring the result, but my whole argument has been that SINCE the methods are different, the results are also different.
I've just asked you if you don't make it a point to make your citations relevant to your views about the bigger topic at hand, i.e. the bigger picture. Now you blame me for not looking at the big picture, which is what I've just done? Who should be reserving the monosyllabic therapy for who? ARRRRRRGH!
You reply by saying that they're not, since they both serve demons. So you're basically asking us to ignore what they are,
Both innocent creatures?
why they're like that,
Both corrupted by demons?
how they act,
Both serving demons?
and the world around them,
Both worlds sought after by demons?
and look only at the fact that they're serving the same proverbial masters.
Oh wait did you just answer my question for me? I'm in tears again!
And you're asking us to do this while applying something as complex as the morality of killing to the whole situation. You insist on making things as general as possible so that you can provide a black and white ruling.
And your insistence on the "degree of safety" isn't black and white? Right. It's blue and red.

But really Nephilim you haven't really said anything new. But you think repeating your meaningless garbage is cool just because it's worded differently? Two can play that game. Allow me to infuriate you even more by spouting different wordings of my own garbage.

Nephilim philosophy 101:

A) my mom, nicknamed Plagued Grain, tells me to kill Nephilim. This makes a moral difference than if my dad, nicknamed Compelling Orb, gives me the same order.
B) I kill Nephilim while wearing a zombie constume, thereby fooling everyone that I'm a zombie, because me killing Nephilim as a zombie has moral significance.
C) If and when I still end up in court, my primary defense will be that my mom corrupted me in a very particular manner.
D) Judge says: you're free to go Steve!

Such is the wonders of the Nephilimian world.
And then there's the whole issue of how desperate everyone is, and you're just ignoring fact after fact after fact. FACT: Before Kel'Thuzad summoned Archimonde, the Legion had no access to Azeroth, so NO, they're not as big a danger.
No access to the Lich King I see. Intrigue...
They are not yet ravaging the countryside. That comes later.
Oh? If Stratholme (and the grain silos and the grain cargos...) is NOT part of the countryside, then... they must all be metropolitan area! Wow! Isn't that even more dangerous? Demons already made it inroads!
This is not the case with Diablo II. The demons are ALREADY everywhere, and you're confined to wherever you're holed up. All around you is danger, but you seem convinced that this danger won't do anything - that it's content to stick to its borders; that the safety of the rogue encampment and the docks will hold, even though everyone tells you, repeatedly, that it won't.
You know I'm really sorry this time. Sorry I didn't fling my latest reply for Gdog4evr to you in the most insulting way possible earlier in this thread.
In Warcraft, Arthas doesn't even know that demons are behind it. Like Gdog said, he's doing it purely for revenge, and if you follow the plot of the Scourge of Lordaeron, that's exactly what he's doing. Akara may want Andariel to pay for her crimes against her Sisters, but YOU'RE the one killing Andariel, because you're trying to help out the Rogues. As far as Arthas was concerned, he just wanted to get back at Mal'Ganis for making him look bad.
Arthas wasn't trying to help out Lordaeron by clearing Stratholme of infections? That's news to me. I could've sworn his rationale for clearing Stratholme was that the whole place was infected.

[Gdog4evr]

Oh that. Well that's indeed a new argument.I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not; I'll just smile and nod for now :)

Okay here's a list (which may or may not be complete; I'm citing them for example's sake) of Diablo lands (at this point you should take out your Diablo 2 manual and look for the map of Sanctuary) not overrun or known to be touched in the slightest bit by baddies in Diablo 2:

Ok, true, yes, those places are, as far as we know, all hinky-dory. At least as far as demonic corruption go; they could be having alternate problems, but that is beyond the scope of this argument. But, at the same time, your DII champion also isn't going to these places and killing stuff. Your avatar is going to areas that DO have issues with demonic corruption and, upon arrival, kills stuff. I'm assuming of course that in WCIII, you don't travel to the land of Happy Fluffy Bunnies and drink tea. You go to the land of Grumpy Scaley Monsters and kill stuff.

to be fair, multiple places in Warcraft are actually infected as well. Northrend's Nerubian spiders had been turned by the Lich King to serve him. Non-Stratholme infection right there. So, in both Warcraft 3 and Diablo 2, multiple places are infected by baddies. What's the difference?

You tell me; as stated previously, all areas of DII have the same theme: Town Under Seige. Well, accept Act 4, but nobody bothers playing there for longer than they have to. In WCIII, we have a town under seige, but your on the good side of it, and a boat load of spiders under the command of a skeleton wizard.
...
...
...
Ok, well, spiders are scary. Gotta respect the spiders. I still think the rouges would have eaten the spiders though; loads of protein. I'm still thinking that people in Diablo II had it worse though; what's the worst bind somebody is in during WCIII? For DII, there's no question, it's gotta be the sorc, zon, and asasin, wearing those really skimpy cloths in the barbarian highlands. Nice view for us but not so pleasent for them. Rouge mercs would also be in bad shape.

Well let's consider the following:

A) I killed my friend's girlfriend because she cheated on him.
B) I killed my wife because she cheated on me.

Now, am I any more justified in doing B) than A) simply because I'm supposedly more sentimentally attached to my wife and because I'm more sentimentally affected by the fact that I'm the one getting cheated on? Well It would work to a degree, but probably not so much that U.S. courts would actually buy it.

At least you have a personal reason to kill your wife; even if it isn't a good one. What did your friends girl ever do to you? There isn't much of a difference as far as moral supperiority goes, just a question of cold blood.

Since the things bad guys do to make good guys bad in the two games are not the same, I say that the things they make good guys into are not the same as well. Guh, nevermind, monosyllables suck; Since the two methods differ so much, I hold that the results also differ, and in one, the people you fight are at least partially to blame for their predicament.

The only process we've discussed that was selective in who was corrupted was Andariel; it's the only case where some were corrupted and some wern't. But, we don't know how some people are corrupted and not others: if it has to do with will power, than you're right. However, maybe it's more vampiric in nature: Andariel comes in with demons and slays rouges, than takes the corpse as the soul is fleeing and turns it into an undead minion. Freasher the body, better the minion (the rouges later on in the act).

Or maybe the magical corruptive force was more able to infect someone with a high sodium count: Then rogues are being corupted because they tried to add a little flavor to their eggs. Point being, yes, the methods are different, but we don't know how. There is no indication that will has any way of detering the coruption besides wild guesses.

[Snowglare]

Since it's obviously lost on you, I'm going to spell this out as monosyllabically as possible.

You know I'm really sorry this time. Sorry I didn't fling my latest reply for Gdog4evr to you in the most insulting way possible earlier in this thread.

I know you two can see this. The same thing I see: two people with no respect for each other trying to have a debate. That doesn't work. You just go back and forth, both thinking that you're right and the other person is a complete loony who would surely see how right you are if he had any sense. I don't know who's right. Maybe you both are. Maybe you're both wrong. Maybe your arguments each have their share of good points and bad. What I do know is that I don't feel the need to ask Gdog to cool off. Maybe his argument is no better than anyone else's, but at least he presents it respectfully. No insults, no condescension, just an argument. A discussion, a debate, a series of interconnected replies.

Could you do that? Respect each other. Even if you don't think he deserves it. Even if he started it. I know you can. It's easy. You aren't incapable of having a productive debate. You're too smart. So do it.

[Nephilim]

All the places you list as safe lands are entire nations, which makes we wonder if you actually think that these people should just pick up their things and leave their homes for safer places and hope that the demons stay where they are. Nevermind that they're boxed in by bad guys who want to eat their brains and rend their flesh.

The situation in Icecrown has no bearing on Lordaeron. The fact that the Tamoe mountains are pretty much entirely overtaken by Andariel's forces DOES concern the Rogues.
All right, you have just GOT to stop saying I said things I never said. Like I said before, if you yield information to torture that puts the free world into dire straights, then you shouldn't have taken a job that may have entailed you getting tortured for critical information. Izual was invading Hell against orders, and when he was captured, he betrayed his people and gave up information which put the entire mortal world at risk. Yes, he was tortured into giving up that information, but that doesn't neutralize all of his responsibility for the matter.

Nevermind the fact that I only said that to illustrate the fact that you said he was "forced" to betray his people as if it meant the same thing as being magically compelled to betray your people.

But all that aside, if your yielding to torture means the murder of thousands of innocent people, then you'll have to forgive me for foregoing a bit of sympathy.
[quote]Both innocent creatures?
Both corrupted by demons?
Both serving demons?
Both worlds sought after by demons?How general can you possibly get? You're ignoring the specifics of the situation entirely and then asking us to apply morals to it.

Andariel turns Rogues into demons who do retain some sense of their former self and skills. The Plague turns innocent townsfolk into undead zombies who don't seem to have any semblance of thought or self. The corrupted Rogues have overtaken a mountain range, blocked all access east, and are closing in on all that remains of their Order - the Rogue Encampment, inhabitants of which can't go anywhere without being attacked by their own former brethren. The situation at Andorhal has been dealt with, so the spread of the Plague has been neutralized - except in Stratholme. Everything around it is fine. We know that the Kirin Tor are capable of quarantining the site.

These are NOT the same, except in the most general of terms that you insist on using. If you continue to claim that they are exactly the same thing, that either means you're lying, or you're delusional. Saying "they both have something to do with demons" isn't grounds for calling them similar cases.

The only process we've discussed that was selective in who was corrupted was AndarielYou're forgetting the corruption of the Zakarum. The faithful who saw that killing people for spilling milk and other such atrocities wasn't really part of the principles of their religion defected, and became the Paladins we play as. The same warriors who just blindly followed the will of their superiors became the Zakarumites we fight.

My problem with your theories are such - if the Rogues were dead, then they'd be undead, right? Instead, they are demons, and show signs of demonization (horns, teeth, etc). If Andariel has the power to corrupt the Rogues, I don't see her leaving any untainted. And I'm not just talking about the living ones we meet and talk to, but also all the dead rogues we come across in our travels. It makes more sense that she tried and failed.

You're right in that we don't know for sure, though. I know another theory was that all the Rogues who went to Tristram were corrupted. But you'd think this would've occurred to some of them, and both Akara and Charsi reiterate that they don't have any idea why some of their Sisters turned.

[Steve Lai]

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not; I'll just smile and nod for now :)
Then take the words for what you think they are.
Ok, true, yes, those places are, as far as we know, all hinky-dory. At least as far as de