This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.5
PTR
10.2.6
Arthas: A Discussion
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Queggy
I was recently given an assignment in school to write an essay with the prompt, "Do we expect too much from our leaders?" And I was arguing that yes we do. And one of the examples I thought of to prove my point was Arthas (nerdy, I know). So I was talking about how the plague was sweeping across Lodaeron, and the people expected the King to do something, so he sent the paladins.
Then I started talking about how Arthas arrived to late to save the people of Stratholme. He knew the villagers were infected and that no matter what happened they were going to die. So he could either kill them now while they were innocent villagers that could do no harm, or he could kill them later when they were mindless, murdering zombies.
So I talked about how he decided to kill them before they could do harm, thereby saving the lives of the soldiers that would have to fight and die to stop the plague, and the lives of the general populace which would die from the plague spreading. After that I talked about how everyone else thought Arthas had done a horrible deed and that he wasn't a paladin any longer or anything.
But did Arthas
really
do something bad? He was choosing the "lesser evil". By killing the population of Stratholme when he did, he was saving more lives then he was killing, and the people he was were going to die soon anyways. It's sort of like in WWII when the British deciphered the Enigma code and realised that the Germans were going to bomb Coventry, and Churchill didn't evacuate the town, because the germans would know something was up. But that way the people of Coventry were killed, but in the long run, more lives were saved.
So what do you think, do you think that Arthas did what was "right" when he destroyed Stratholme? Personally I think he did the best he could with what he had, but I want to here you guys thoughts on the matter.
Post by
georgelopes
Well yes the lesser of two evils is better and to say that no matter what some one does it will always affect someone so saving millions......rather than letting 1,000 die was probably the better in my oppinion so i gree he did well but there is always a soft spot that this thread will hit.
I know millions was to high it was an example.
edit: fisrt post on Queggyies thread WOOT WOOT I win!
Post by
Philmckraken
Truman nuked Japan into submission, rather than attempt an invasion, because invading the home island would have costlier in lives, resources etc than dropping a couple of atomic bombs on two industrial cities. Thousands killed, but millions saved. On paper, the numbers justify the decision.
The people living in Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the time would probably disagree.
Post by
Queggy
Truman nuked Japan into submission, rather than attempt an invasion, because invading the home island would have costlier in lives, resources etc than dropping a couple of atomic bombs on two industrial cities. Thousands killed, but millions saved. On paper, the numbers justify the decision.
The people living in Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the time would probably disagree.
I'm not saying something like that should ever happen. People should never be murdered and wars should never happen. But they do occur, and in war, hard descions(sp?) have to be made.
Post by
127567
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
115147
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Zerole
Not really, if you had to choose between killing one innocent little girl or 10000 pedophiles, rapists, gansters, etc. Which would you choose? Quality over quantity.
Anyway, back to the original topic, I thought in Warcraft 3 Lore, the Paladins
could
have purified the infected villages but Arthas didn't want to take the chance? Isn't that why Uther was so mad at him? I mean with Uther's age and experience, I doubt he'd be mad at Arthas if the latter really was just picking the lesser of two evils.
Post by
Queggy
You say he was saving more lives than he was taking, but when u think about it he wasn't rly taking any lives at all, just killing ones that were about to die and saving the ones that they would kill
I thought I had said that.
Post by
AdInfinitum
Arthas did what He genuienly(sp?) thought was right. It is a difficult decision to make, and he didn't have much time to decide. It's one of those 'if i do this, what will happen next?' type decisions. There are too many whats ifs, buts, ands , and ors floating around to really say what Arthas was thinking at that particular time.
Post by
59591
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
145058
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Zerole
I can most certainly say that Mal'Ganis (the Dread Lord) wasn't trying to turn Arthas evil so that he could unite with the Lich King. The whole reason the Dread Lords were even there was because Kil'Jaeden wanted them to watch over Ner'zhul and prevent the latter from betraying them.
I didn't like Arthas either, Illidan is a much more interesting character. I'm a little disappointed with how Blizzard ruined him in WoW/TBC too, he went from an intricate character to one driven to insanity from his loss to Arthas.
Post by
123701
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Triforceelf
Truman nuked Japan into submission, rather than attempt an invasion, because invading the home island would have costlier in lives, resources etc than dropping a couple of atomic bombs on two industrial cities. Thousands killed, but millions saved. On paper, the numbers justify the decision.
The people living in Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the time would probably disagree.
I'm not saying something like that should ever happen. People should never be murdered and wars should never happen. But they do occur, and in war, hard descions(sp?) have to be made.
This is pretty much it exactly. While it is hard to morally justify letting people die, it is even hard to justify more people dieing because you did something. Hence the phrase damned if you do, damned if you dont.
Post by
89086
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Skreeran
Honestly, I would have informed them that they were inected, and then given them the choice of going into exile (on some island in the Great Sea), or accept their fate and let themselves be killed in a painless and humane way (poisoning perhaps, much like Socrates consuming
Hemlock
after being sentenced to death). Anyone who resisted would then be forced into exile by force, something I'm sure the combined forces of Jaina Proudmoore (most powerful sorceress alive today), Uther the Lightbringer, and Arthas could do. ;)
Post by
Skreeran
Dying to see the rebuttal to my post... D:
Post by
79259
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Skreeran
While I understand your point, there is no excuse for what Arthas did. It may have been the lesser of two evils, but it was still evil. For the greater good or not, heartlessly slaughtering helpless men, women and children is inexcusable.
I know I would die fighting an army of undead before I would slaughter an entire city of helpless people. That was where his spirit wavered, making him suseptible to the Lich Kings manipulation. If he didn't have the strength to spare innocent people who's only crime was being infected, how could he resist the lure of power offered by Frostmourne? I am reminded of Boromir, who would jeopardise the Fellowship and the Mission to do what he thought would help him save his people (e.g., taking the ring from Frodo). But in truth, he did not have the sight to see that he would only be condemning his people. And it's not like Arthas didn't know Frostmourne was cursed, the inscription on the pedestal clearly read:
"Whomsoever takes up this blade shall wield power eternal. Just as the blade rends flesh, so must power scar the spirit."
Arthas stated that he would bear any curse to save his people, and was thus blind to the fact that he was actually becoming the most powerful weapon against them.
Anyway, back to Stratholme:
If I didn't have the time to enact my aforementioned plan, I suppose my next plan would be to consign Stratholme to it's fate, and work on evacuating the surrounding countryside. Surely by that point rumours of the Plague of Undeath would have reached their ears, if only from broken down soldiers. Even thoguh they would most likely not believe Arthas and co., Jaina being the powerful sorceress that she is, could most likely use some form of scrying to show the peoples. After gathering all refugees that would come, they could begin sailing to Kalimdor.
And that's more or less what Jaina did. And even though Arthas slew hundreds of innocent people, Stratholme became a bastion of Scourge power anyway, and Lordaeron fell, with none other than Arthas heading the attack.
And again, I say, whether the citizens of Stratholme were infected or not, I would sooner die fighting their reanimated corpses than kill them in cold blood for a situation they had no control over.
Post by
Queggy
I am reminded of Boromir, who would jeopardise the Fellowship and the Mission to do what he thought would help him save his people (e.g., taking the ring from Frodo). But in truth, he did not have the sight to see that he would only be condemning his people.
Maybe this is what happens to Arthas when WotLK comes out. Perhaps the players will defeat him, and then he realizes his mistake and becomes good and then turns out Ner'zhul and destroys him, but he is so wounded that he dies shortly after. I think it would be nice if he redeemed himself, cause he is my favorite character. Or maybe he realizes his mistake, and helps destroy Ner'zhul, and
doesn't
die. That would be even better.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.