World of Warcraft - Lore & Storyline discussion [SPOILERS] - Page 169

Chirality · 03/07/09, 3:46 PM

Originally Posted by Leviathon

Yea it is just how that helmets eye glow looks.

Hmmm. My mistake, then. I was actually going off the male night elf death animation more than the glow from the helm.

Enova · 03/07/09, 4:10 PM

Let's review Garithos and Proudmoore again, because I feel they're pretty representative for the Alliance before and during the early WoW timeline.

Garithos basically hated everything that wasn't human end enjoyed making thing hard for everyone else. He had no qualms about imprisoning and planning to execut what were essentially loyal members of the Alliance who were only following his orders in the first place, based on personal prejudice. You must have a very romantic notion about what would have happened to Sylvannas and her people if they hadn't turned on Garithos.

Then there's Admiral Proudmoore. He's been hiding out for the whole third war, scratching his head, then when his life long enemies decide to leave for Kalmdor, he follows them, plans to exterminate them, without listening to reason, neither from Thrall nor his own daughter. I can almost understand someone dismissing their offspring as immature, but hey! how many daughters saved their family, their race, and quite honestly their whole planet from a Legion invasion?

Do I need to mention the Scarlet Crusade ambassadors in the Stormwind Cathedral and Nijel's Point? You know, those same guys that do all sort of nasty things to Forsaken civilians - and even to some humans for that matter.

Anyway... back to NorthrendWhile all these add a bit of flavor to the Alliance, distancing the faction from a bunch of knights in shining armor, the whole Varian/Garrosh seems like a pretty artificial way to add some PVP quests in Icecrown

Although, the whole conflict between commanders is a nice touch, I feel it's either quite poorly or not quite completely implemented yet. I know the whole story is supposed to be continued, but quite frankly, there are some other promising storylines that have been cut short already.

And, as it stands now, I feel I sympathize with Thrall and Sylvannas' fight for the survival of the Horde, rather than Varian's plans to show his might.

Zaleiria · 03/07/09, 4:28 PM

Originally Posted by Enova

I'm not claiming Hellscream is an isolated case in the Horde; I'm sure the bloodlust is still strong in many of the old grunts, but that's always to be expected from soldiers, who don't have the full picture. I'm trying to say he's just the one in command of all the armies in Northrend, and I'm sure he's doing much to rekindle the aggression that's laying more or less dormant in every other orc.

And, as I've said, invading Ashenvale would fall into the category of fighting for resources, and more to the point, it's a war with a solid end game in mind. More lumber is a key to the Horde infrastructure.
The war against the quillboars and centaurs is a matter of securing the borders against raiding parties that don't seem to understand reason. National security.

If you look at this, and every other place where the horde have been aggressive towards the alliance, it's primarily the Warsong Clan that are instigating things. We have the Warsong Outriders in Ashenvale, and now the Warsong in Northrend (led by our good friend Gorrosh!). The primary horde in Northrend who don't have a strong anti-alliance streak are Saurfang the younger and the Kor'Kron Vanguard who come to help Bolvar, who end up being betrayed by Putress. I think one of the problems here is that Thrall turns a blind eye when it comes to the actions of the Warsong Clan, since it was led by his best buddy before his death. (And, the post I quoted is right, there is a desperate need for lumber, since most of the horde territory lacks trees)

Edit: Obviously the Forsaken have a pretty strong anti-alliance streak too, but they have a pretty big anti-everything streak.

Morlark · 03/07/09, 5:20 PM

Originally Posted by Karamoon

Perhaps I'm missing something in the lore...

Not to put too fine a point on it, but yes, you appear to be missing quite a lot. Many of the things you've said so far have been mildly inaccurate, to put it politely. The thing about being players in a game is that we know things that the NPCs or even our characters would be unaware of. But every single thing you've said has been from the point of view of an NPC who has fully bought in to the Alliance propaganda without ever having heard the other side of the story.

For instance, if you're going to give examples of the Horde's "outright betrayal" of the Alliance, the Wrathgate, where the Kor'kron Vanguard were willing to come to Bolvar's assistance in a magnificent example of cooperation between the two factions, is undermining your case, to say the least. Enova has already pointed out how Garithos cannot possibly be considered the victim in that situation. And the Horde never kidnapped Wrynn, the Defias did; granted they did use him as a gladiator slave, but that was without knowing who he was, and that merely proves that there was no intent of Horde hostility towards the Alliance.

There was never any outright betrayal, and any conclusions you try to base on that assumption are inherently flawed. There was merely an escalating series of petty hostilities and trivial skirmishes that eventually add up to being rather less petty and trivial. I think any rational person would agree that the Horde and Alliance are probably both equally responsible for hostilities breaking out. The difference is that Thrall at least tries to do the right thing, while his underlings (of whom he has an increasingly tenuous grasp these days) are continually giving him the runaround; whereas Wrynn seems content to drive his entire kingdom to some crusade against the Horde based solely on his own biases.

Vanadi · 03/07/09, 6:54 PM

Originally Posted by Talgog

Somewhat notably, the Undercity has never been a big contributor of manpower to war against Azeroth's enemies. They didn't show up for the war against the Qiraji, the only Forsaken to really do much about Naxx are independent members of the Argent Dawn/Crusade, and they had no presence in Outland to speak of.

Looking at it from a lore perspective it isn't that odd that the forsaken barely helped out during those events. They have been sitting at the footsteps of the plaguelands all this time constantly fighting off the scourge and the scarlet crusade. It wouldn't be that weird to consider that if it wasn't for the Forsaken that the scourge would have spread much further through the Eastern Kingdoms.

And the lack of presence in outlands isn't that odd either. Lorewise the undeads really have nothing going for them in the Outlands. Their only real enemy is the lich king who is sitting in Northrend and judging from the Forsaken presence in Northrend they aren't going to let him get away with everything he has done to them.

songster · 03/07/09, 6:54 PM

Originally Posted by Enova

You know, those same guys that do all sort of nasty things to Forsaken civilians

There's no such thing as a Forsaken civilian. They are the. walking. dead. They do not feel fear, pity, pain or any living emotion. Just because they have free will and are no longer slaves of the Lich King doesn't make them human, let alone good. You can't even kill them, since they're already dead. What on Earth Thrall thinks he's doing allying with them is beyond me.

Vanadi · 03/07/09, 6:58 PM

Originally Posted by songster

There's no such thing as a Forsaken civilian. They are the. walking. dead. They do not feel fear, pity, pain or any living emotion. You can't even kill them, since they're already dead. What on Earth Thrall thinks he's donig allying with them is beyond me.

Doesn't the same count for the Alliance? Aren't they running around with Death Knight's in their ranks and happily teaming up with the Ebon Blade. Just because the Forsaken are undead does not mean they are inheritly evil. They just have a different view on how to deal with things. Just like the Ebon Blade and Death Knights aren't afraid to get their hands dirty.

On a more logic related point though the alliance would be a fair bit stronger then the Horde if we cut off the Forsaken. They might not be the nicest of guys but neither are the orcs or trolls. Just look at the quest where you gather all kinds of materials to brutally poison a night elf prisoner for a darkspear witch doctor. And no matter how you look at it the Horde and Alliance don't seem to be very keen on just letting eachother coexist nicely. Meaning both sides need alot of militairy strength.

Starfire · 03/07/09, 7:01 PM

I think a key difference is, the Forsaken are inhabiting the former Alliance capital of Lordaeron, the Death Knight's aren't exactly taking over Stormwind.

More support for this can be seen with Alliance settlers in Hillsbrad and Silverpine Forest. The Alliance wants their territories and cities back.

songster · 03/07/09, 7:04 PM

Death Knights are not part of the Alliance, they are tolerated at the personal plea of Tirion Fordring.

Niton · 03/07/09, 7:08 PM

Originally Posted by Starfire

I think a key difference is, the Forsaken are inhabiting the former Alliance capital of Lordaeron, the Death Knight's aren't exactly taking over Stormwind.

More support for this can be seen with Alliance settlers in Hillsbrad and Silverpine Forest. The Alliance wants their territories and cities back.

Which is a fairly large source of conflict with the Forsaken, given how many have simply returned to where they lived before the Scourge existed. The Forsaken absolutely have a legitimate claim to the territories. The Alliance has done a good job of forgetting that much of the Forsaken population was its own only a few years ago, and I think that reflects in the way territory lines are drawn in WoW.

edit: I looked at the alliance version of the Death Knight ending chain, songster, and i'm surprised that it's so different than the Horde equivalent. Does Varian yell anything after the fact like Thrall does?

Kaejin · 03/07/09, 7:18 PM

Originally Posted by Karamoon

In Northrend, the early campaign was categorized by horde continually harassing alliance operations, as borne out by both Alliance and Horde quest texts. At the Wrathgate, the Forsaken destroy one possibly successful alliance offensive, and at the Broken front Horde troops laughingly destroy an Alliance offensive rather than see the Alliance doing better in the war than they are. Based purely on responding rationally to events in Northrend, the Alliance should never leave itself exposed to Horde betrayal again.

The Alliance and Horde were fairly friendly to each other up until the events at the Wrathgate. No Horde quests involved sabotage or aggression towards the Alliance until after Varian declared war. Also, the Wrathgate was a joint offensive between the Alliance and Horde, and considering how easily Arthas killed Saurfang Jr., I don't think "possibly successful" is an accurate description of the assault.

Originally Posted by songster

There's no such thing as a Forsaken civilian. They are the. walking. dead. They do not feel fear, pity, pain or any living emotion. Just because they have free will and are no longer slaves of the Lich King doesn't make them human, let alone good. You can't even kill them, since they're already dead. What on Earth Thrall thinks he's doing allying with them is beyond me.

There are such things as Forsaken civilians. Emotions have nothing to do with that. Simply because the vast mojority of Forsaken are embittered and hate you doesn't mean they're all walking around with the intent to make war on you. What's more is that there's not proof they feel none of those emotions with the exception of pain (which they most definitely DO feel). You're probably forgetting that most of the Forsaken were turned away from the Alliance they used to belong to before being turned into the undead and feared as monsters. They have a right to be bitter after finding their former friends and comrades to be so shallow, especially when those same people are trying to drive them out of their homes.

What's more, plenty of Forsaken are members of the Argent Crusade and other such "good" organizations now. What you say would have to apply to them as well. Does it?

Spink · 03/07/09, 7:21 PM

Originally Posted by songster

There's no such thing as a Forsaken civilian. They are the. walking. dead. They do not feel fear, pity, pain or any living emotion. Just because they have free will and are no longer slaves of the Lich King doesn't make them human, let alone good. You can't even kill them, since they're already dead. What on Earth Thrall thinks he's doing allying with them is beyond me.

This is very wrong. They do feel all living emotions and they are completely capable of dying. Well as capable as anyone else (in reality not at all thanks ghost run, but in continuity they certainly die a final death) like many mythological undead they probably actually fear death by being killed (as opposed to old age) more than a mortal because the fact that they have inadvertantly cheated death leaves them scared that they will have no afterlife type thing. Also the time frame isn't exactly huge for how long any existing undead have been undead who is to say that they really are immortal?

The main weird thing about undead that might confuse you as to why they act/feel/think the way they do is because unlike real humans their actions aren't a result of brain chemicals mixing and their memories likely aren't stored in brain matter either they're probably alive in a more metaphysical spiritual sense and have their what makes them a person stuff more intangible than raw flesh. Although that's debatable for real humans too this is just rough fantasy stuff and not as intensey calculated in what makes the self the self.

Typhon · 03/07/09, 7:25 PM

Originally Posted by songster

There's no such thing as a Forsaken civilian. They are the. walking. dead. They do not feel fear, pity, pain or any living emotion. Just because they have free will and are no longer slaves of the Lich King doesn't make them human, let alone good. You can't even kill them, since they're already dead. What on Earth Thrall thinks he's doing allying with them is beyond me.

That would have surrounded better in the original German.

I jest, in part.

But the way Rageboy is acting....he's heading for a fall of epic (and deserved) proportions (just like his idiot-brother-in-stupidity Garrosh).

Karamoon · 03/07/09, 7:45 PM

Originally Posted by Enova

Garithos basically hated everything that wasn't human end enjoyed making thing hard for everyone else.... Then there's Admiral Proudmoore... Do I need to mention the Scarlet Crusade ambassadors in the Stormwind Cathedral and Nijel's Point? You know, those same guys that do all sort of nasty things to Forsaken civilians - and even to some humans for that matter.

At no point did I argue that Garithos was a saint, but the fact is that he was an Alliance commander, Sylvanas made a deal to help him retake Lorderon then leave, at the end when he demanded she leave she betrayed him and killed him. Whether or not you like Garithos, he was part of the alliance, he tried to work with Sylvanas, he held up his end of the deal, and he was betrayed and killed. That is a betrayal, and 'well we didn't like the guy' is not a good justification for betrayal.

Proudmoore did attack the horde right at the start of WOW time... and one of the Alliance leaders killed him rather than let him fight the Orcs, even though there wasn't any formal treaty at the time. If Thrall had killed Hellscream to stop the invasion of Ashenvale instead of making a statue of him and endorsing his war, I would not consider Ashenvale an example of horde aggression, but that's not at all what happened.

I have no idea why you even bring up the Scarlet Crusade ambassadors, the fact that the Scarlet Crusade talked to the Alliance doesn't make them part of the Alliance. Why do you think they're even worth mentioning when the Scarlet Crusade is a faction the Alliance clearly fights against? They aren't and have never been part of the alliance, and don't have any affiliation with the alliance (aside from being targets of attacks).

Originally Posted by Morlark

Not to put too fine a point on it, but yes, you appear to be missing quite a lot. Many of the things you've said so far have been mildly inaccurate, to put it politely.. For instance, if you're going to give examples of the Horde's "outright betrayal" of the Alliance, the Wrathgate, where the Kor'kron Vanguard were willing to come to Bolvar's assistance in a magnificent example of cooperation between the two factions, is undermining your case, to say the least. Enova has already pointed out how Garithos cannot possibly be considered the victim in that situation...
And the Horde never kidnapped Wrynn, the Defias did; granted they did use him as a gladiator slave, but that was without knowing who he was, and that merely proves that there was no intent of Horde hostility towards the Alliance.

If I'm inaccurate, then specifically point out my inaccuracies. Talking down to me and making claims which are contradicted by the game lore doesn't show that I'm 'missing quite a lot'. I'm not basing anything on 'propaganda', I'm basing it on events as seen in the game.

At the Wrathgate, the horde completely destroyed the Alliance force and let Arthas escape alive. That is a betrayal, the fact that a part of the horde worked with the Alliance before the betrayal is irrelevant to the fact that the Alliance tried to work with the horde, and ended up with the entire Alliance force dead at the hands of the horde and the enemy undefeated. Trying to paint it as an example of the Horde helping the Alliance is a case of "Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?".

Enova's argument was basically 'Garithos wasn't a friendly guy, so betraying him doesn't count', and I don't buy that as justification. Sylvanas and Garithos had a deal, Garithos lived up to his side of the deal, Sylvanas betrayed him. I don't see how he could possibly not be considered the victim in that situation, and neither of you have provided a good justification for Sylvanas to go back on her promise to him, then murder him and his troops.

Wrynn went to negotiate with the horde, he was kidnapped, he ended up as a toy of the horde. Even if the horde did not perform the initial kidnapping, they certainly did accept his person and keep him imprisoned, which is still kidnapping in my book. I also don't see how an intention to kidnap Alliance civilians and have them fight to the death for entertainment demonstrates 'no hostility towards the Alliance', that appears to be a pretty hostile act to me.

(Edit: Always be careful that you add the correct spelling of names to your spell check)

Spleen · 03/07/09, 7:53 PM

Originally Posted by Songster

There's no such thing as a Forsaken civilian.

So the cockroach vendor and the mushroom vendor are active parts of the Forsaken war machine? The extreme consequences of the "there are no civilians" mentality, at least in the real world, has lead to the tumbling of a number of tall buildings in NYC in recent years (right, Gnomes did WTC), and "collateral damage" elsewhere. I'm not going to continue that argument here. In WoW, it leads to daily quests and mediocre PvP.

Technically, there have been no civilians in either faction since the changes to the honor system, which no longer flags some npc's as such. However, you can't categorically ascribe enemy combatant status just based on faction membership or racial origin. Being a non-civilian goes to involvement in policing, the military, or belligerence, if you want to use a basic definition.

That just doesn't cover every member of any faction in WoW.

Originally Posted by Starfire

I think a key difference is, the Forsaken are inhabiting the former Alliance capital of Lordaeron, the Death Knight's aren't exactly taking over Stormwind.

More support for this can be seen with Alliance settlers in Hillsbrad and Silverpine Forest. The Alliance wants their territories and cities back.

Lordaeron fell to the Scourge and so did its cities. The remnants are largely Forsaken or Scourge, and to a lesser extent they comprise the Scarlet Crusade/Onslaught and various refugees. Only one of two of those remnant groups are established powers in former Lordaeron and both are undead.

The property interest isn't vested in factions, it's vested in the kingdoms that comprise those factions. That's how the Alliance has always worked and if you doubt that, look at the Alliance interactions with Gilneas, Alterac, and Dalaran.

Considering the Forsaken consist largely of citizens of the former kingdom of Lordaeron who were affected by the Plague of Undeath, their possession of those territories is arguably as close to the pre-plague status quo as can be expected. Forsaken quests have a theme of dealing with dispossession at the hands of the living and the fundamental problem that neither side recognizes the right of the other to exist. The Scarlet Crusade/Onslaught also factor into this equation, as they are also remnants of Lordaeron, who are no different from the other mainstream factions in their intolerance of others.

The problem is that all sides believe their possession of the Plaguelands (former Lordaeron) should be to the exclusion of all others, leaving non-Forsaken with no right of return and Forsaken with nothing that they currently have.

...

Vanadi covered the basic Forsaken relationship with their enemies. As this overall tangent relates back to the story in WotLK, the main defining feature of the Forsaken is their conflict with the Scourge. The other is dealing with being undead. I tend to wonder what they'd do after a raid is standing over the lootable Lich King corpse/chest.

Maybe they'll be like the Trolls, Blood Elves, Gnomes and Dranei are now; serving in a support capacity for their respective factions, but not really participating in the larger narrative. The Forsaken are similarly being set-up to be anachronisms.