Seriously maybe it’s just my experience but my Chaotic Good Priest here seems a little lonely here in general. And what few I do meet tend to be resentful if not disgusted by their very existence.
And with this toon despite being legitimately good I don’t believe I’ve refuted anything core to the Undead identity.
He’s an Argent Crusader who takes his vow to help the helpless very seriously. He’s also an apothecary that conducts experiments most living would find, at best, disquieting.
He has no mistrust toward the living in fact he ‘lived’ in Mulgore for some time and was a trusted advisor to a Tauren tribe. He also thinks nothing of eating humanoids and has a ‘get over it’ attitude to living allies that are bothered by it.
I mention this not to say ‘Oh look how cool my toon is’ but rather to point out a good alignment and being unapologetically undead are not mutually exclusive concepts. The nature of an Undead will always make them come off as a tad weird to the living but I do believe you can still indulge in all the spooky fun of the race while still playing a legitimarely morally upstanding character.
I’m inclined to agree in theme. I’m not a scholar of forsaken lore, but the bit I’ve been exposed to over my years of play I kinda feel that there is a side to them that’s been lost or perhaps buried (no pun intended) by the Sylvanas arc. It seems to me that there was a time when the Forsaken (if not then perhaps just a faction within the Forsaken) who just wanted to settle and get on with their existence. They were content to leave things alone and be left alone. I do believe that there is even a teaching (or the idea of a teaching) within the Cult of Forsaken Shadow that urges balance. Seek the darkness but don’t push too deeply too quickly or you’ll risk throwing things out of balance and the void will consume you. Or something to that effect.
I think that would be interesting if there was a faction of the Forsaken who splintered and rebelled, sought and was given a place among the Alliance. I think that’d be neat to see. I’ve always found the catacombs below the Cathedral rather intriguing. Perhaps that could be expanded into a larger underground space for them below Stormwind.
I’ve always played my Forsaken characters as good people. My first wow character all the way back towards the end of vanilla when I started playing was an undead priest actually. I deliberately played her completely against the stereotype of the ‘death to the living/mad scientist’ Forsaken to the point where I wouldn’t even do the quests where you experiment on/poison people on her (and this was back when every bit of XP was a precious commodity in that quest to get to level 60). And never used the cannibalize racial either.
This character started out far more morally ambiguous and ruthless (she IS a rogue after all). As a ‘young’ undead she pretty much did whatever she was told (or got paid to do) and Sylvanas could do no wrong in her eyes. She didn’t hate the living as a whole but had a pragmatic ‘me or them’ code if they attacked her or the Forsaken in general. Ironically though she grew morally as a person more after she died than she did while living. She wasn’t a monster when she was alive but she was a rogue. Becoming undead made her appreciate life more and through her friendship with other Horde members she became a better, more caring person, and that made her see Sylvanas and the outright evil members of the Forsaken in a far more negative light to the point where she’s now completely against Sylvanas and is a double agent (hence the guild name) dedicated to taking her down.
Forsaken can definitely fit a good alignment, as can any character, though for them it does seem to be the exception rather than the rule. It’s hard to pin down exactly why it is the way it is, but there’s a couple things that I think play into it(though I’m not listing them in any particular order).
Undead are easy to use as a starting point for building an evil or less-than-good character, as they traditionally are evil in fantasy. So it stands to reason that players wanting to play an evil character might choose the Forsaken race or death knight class. Likewise, I believe that when WoW launched, there weren’t too many other games that let you play as a zombie(an “evil” race), which may have factored into the popularity of evil Forsaken as well.
When rolling good-aligned characters, many players prefer to have a character that looks like they fit the alignment as well. This is partly why male human paladins are popular–they fit that heroic imagery.
In lore, the Forsaken have never exactly been good, even on their best days. The introduction clip that plays for new Forsaken characters indicates as much–they’re mostly concerned with looking out for themselves and make alliances of convenience, in addition to probably plotting something sinister for the living. Likewise, questionable actions can be found almost everywhere in Forsaken quests. Blighting land, experimenting on live humans, furthering the development of the Plague…it’s not really the kind of things that good-aligned characters should be doing. Likewise, it also does not help that the Forsaken as a whole are fanatically loyal to Sylvanas, who is ultimately responsible for a good chunk of the atrocities by propagating that kind of environment.
There actually was a portion of them that fits this description–the Desolate Council(set up by the Forsaken to govern Undercity in Sylvanas’s stead while she was warchief), along with the rest that went to see their family in Arathi. Needless to say, Sylvanas wasn’t pleased about the challenge to her power, nor was she happy that some Forsaken were actually successful at making amends with their living relatives. Thus, she recalled the Forsaken and had her Dark Rangers kill any that hesitated or fled to the Alliance, leaving only those who obeyed her orders without question.
Anyway, that’s not to say that Forsaken can’t be good-aligned, and player characters frequently deviate from the stereotypes. The stereotypes are, after all, only a starting template and may be easily tweaked to taste. I do think though, that with the cult-worship of Sylvanas that has been at the fore-front of the Forsaken for many years, paired with the blatant murder of Forsaken who dared defy her decree, that it is a lot harder to play one that is good-aligned. There’s a conflict of interest there, and in the current climate a Forsaken that openly deviates from the status quo is probably going to be painting a giant target on their back.
Personally though, I do find the good-aligned undead characters to be more interesting. The world could use a few more like Argent Apothecary Judkins.
Well you’re almost right Windrunner killed ALL of the Forsaken - even those returning to her. The only ones who were spared were those that wandered off early because their living never showed.
Hence with my own toon he ostensibly supports Windrunner but privately is convinced she will doom the Forsaken and thusly covertly acts against her. Until more Forsaken realize they were never more than arrows in her quiver however he’s aware at the futility of open rebellion. Plus since his whole goal is the ‘survival’ of the Forsaken he’s obviously more than a little conflicted about having to put down his misled countrymen.
As per the Alliance - I could see an allied undead race doing that but I don’t think the Forsaken really have a place there. Lordaeron rightfully belongs to them which I think is probably going to be a unresolvable point of contention between the Red and Blue teams. I’d be open to humans living there though so long as they aren’t going to flip everytime we eat someone for in combat regeneration. They’d be encouraged but not required to be raised into undeath upon dying. If they opt out we’d bury the corpse and keep it safe from lesser necromancers with the proviso they may be ‘drafted’ from beyond the grave in cases of national emergency.
Actually a cool twist would be if the Alliance got Lightbright Undead and the Horde got like Alteraci Humans as allied races. That’s a little off topic but I do think the ally system might have been more neat if we got recolored versions of the other side’s exclusives. Still think Highmountain should’ve gone Blue and Dark Iron Red.
I’ve never been fond of the D&D alignment system myself since it’s original real purpose was to organise wargamimg minatures. it’s adaption to roleplaying is at best… ham-fisted.
If you can ditch the alignment labels, you’ll find that it would simplify working out your character’s identity.
Mal’valen here is undead, and he’s good aligned. He also still considers himself a part of the Argent Crusade even though he hasn’t been very active with it, has a loving family, protects the living, and abhors anyone else being turned undead against their will. Good-aligned undead/Forsaken are great and we definitely need more.
Benedikt isn’t exactly pro raising more undead but that’s always a bit of a complicated topic for the Forsaken. As it’s their only real method of replenishing their population - which is pretty necessary when you find yourself at war.
And while the Horde are presently the aggressors in this specific war the Stormwind very much initially started it with the Forsaken - seeing them more as an infestation than the rightful rulers of Lordaeron.
As mentioned above ideally Lordaeron would have both living and undead citizens, with the dead only be raised if they agreed to it in life or during a time of national emergency.
But as things aren’t ideal the whole raising new Forsaken from dead enemies is something he neither condones or condemns. It’s merely an unpleasant factor that he’s tried to alleviate by counseling the newly risen.
That would be the main difference between Benedikt and Mal’valen - Mal doesn’t consider himself Forsaken anymore (he’s not a part of either faction), and doesn’t believe the population should be replenished.
This is important too though. Mal knows that someone can willingly become undead. In those cases, if the person knows what they’re getting into, he doesn’t have a problem with it. However, just raising people willy-nilly doesn’t jive with him.
The Forsaken have evolved quite a bit from the days of lurking in dilapidated farm houses. In addition to an actual military they’ve developed their own language, culture and even architecture. If that fades then they’re at risk to returning to square one - squating in haunted ruins and hoping no deranged Crusaders march in and murder them.
Not to mention much like the Orcs before them despite their dark origins the Forsaken have produced no shortage of heroes who’ve defended Azeroth from countless threats. Plus seeing as they seem immune or at least resistant to magical corruption they may well be it’s most resilient guardians.
Simply letting the Forsaken fade would not only likely be a death sentence for the remaining undead but also a blow to Azeroth’s collective security.
Dont get me wrong, any character can be of any alignment. But you’re far more likely to find good aligned undead in neutral organizations like the Ebon Blade or the argents (though admitedly “good” is rather subjective with the former).
And well, the Forsaken have never exactly been do-gooders…
He repatriated himself with the Forsaken during Cataclysm to help counsel the newly risen undead and is presently actively enlisited in the Horde’s military.
The Argent Crusader thing is background flavor and I spent awhile getting that title and the relevant mounts to portray that background so it warrants a mention.
But he is not presently a member of an independent faction as that’s not really an option you can meaningfully portray in gameplay. And even if it were (fel for all I know with WM off it may be) he does regard the Kingdom of Stormwind with hostility.
He has a lot of problems with the Forsaken as an organization but he also realizes that, like it or not, that’s the only game in town playing for an undead state. And without some sort of undead power playing on the world’s stage it’s not unfair to assume that eventually the living may try to eradicate them.
If we were back in the times before the death of the LK, then sure, fair enough. Nowadays not so much.
Again, the ebon blade and the argents have been a thing for years now. Dalaran might play fast and loose with its neutrality but its always an option. Even Tyrande all but begged the undead nelves to return to her side, even Genn fracking Greymane only hates Sylvanas specifically. Turalyon came around, too.
With Anduin in charge its only a matter of time before everyone doesnt even mind undeath on principle, until that happens the wisest thing to do for someone whos undead is stop making enemies left and right.
You’re not wrong in the immediate sense - but let’s not pretend there isn’t an insubstantial number of the populace even on the Horde that wouldn’t mind their eradication if not actively participate in it.
The people in power now may have changed their tune but power is a fleeting thing and those unmoored from mortality have to keep the long game in mind. A Scarlet Crusade esque faction might take root over time. Benedikt is of course aware that Windrunner is doing nothing to prevent that and is if anything increasing the likelihood that will happen but he’s wise to the fact she does not care about their well being.
But for now the circumstances are what they are and a veteran war cleric just isn’t going to be comfortable sitting on the bench during one of the setting’s largest scale conflicts.
If there is any lack of good Forsaken then it is probably because more people enjoy exploring the darker side of their nature. You have to admit that in the case of the undead, “good” is relative, and because of this more people are likely drawn to embracing the darkness. Ultimately, you prefer to play what is more or less an anomaly and just because you see others playing their characters differently doesn’t mean they object to what you do. It just means they decided to play more true to type. It is their preference.
I didn’t suggest their playstyle was in opposition to mine or vice versa.
I just think it’s interesting to play an undead who’s good in their own way. My whole point here was I suspect a lot of players think that to play a ‘good’ aligned undead they have to reject their spooky nature. That undeath should be treated as some unfortunate condition they’re dealing with.
Whereas with mine I have him indulge in cannibalism openly and enthusiastically with a thorough disregard for the living’s aversion to it. Using the eldritch power of madness itself to sunder or dominate minds is something he does casually. Plus he’s an Apothecary who preforms unsettling experiments and thinks you’re the weird one for asking why he’s putting gnoll brains in quilboar bodies. It’s for science, duh.
But he’s still good. He abhors violence against the helpless or peaceful. He continues to wield the Light at great personal discomfort because he can which means he should because it’s a great tool to aid others with. He’s also legitimately friendly and compassionate. Dark doesn’t mean evil.
I think I get what you’re driving at here, but I stick a bit at your words “good in their own way”. Primarily because it becomes purely subjective at that point. Granted, “good” and “evil” are subjective terms in and of themselves. I just think your choice of phrasing muddies the waters of your idea a bit.
That is to say, I think, that it’s one thing for your character to “think” they are good. It’s another for you the player (or other players for that matter) to consider your character as “good” aligned.
For instance: From a Player perspective (ooc) I think it’s awesome to have objectively “good” aligned Forsaken. Characters like Alonsus Faol, who (if the wowpedia page is accurate) was once upon a time The Archbishop of the Church of Holy Light and who organized the creation of the Paladin-Knights, who apprenticed Uther, who in turn became the first and arguably greatest Paladin, and who together created the Knights of the Silver Hand. Alonsus dies at some point and we learn later was raised as a Forsaken who kept himself in hiding until recently. I would count him among the “good Forsaken”, if not the pinnacle example of what one might look like. And according to his Wowpedia page he is counted as Forsaken, just not horde-aligned.
I have no idea what he does on his spare time, but if he did cannibalize corpses or do any of the other spooky Forsaken-esk things you’ve mentioned he does them behind closed doors away from prying eyes; though this is mere speculation on my part. I’d venture to guess that he doesn’t do those things, and likely considers his condition unfortunate, as you’ve said. But this is looking at this character from a Player’s perspective. From an IC perspective I’d have no doubt Alonsus would think of himself as “good”.
From a Player perspective, what you’ve described about your character above, namely the open indulgence of cannibalism with total disregard to the living’s aversion, and his [Mad Scientist] (my words) experiments where he’s swapping brains (I suspect this was just a hypothetical, but regardless…), his casual use of madness to sunder and dominate minds, this all smacks as “evil”. I reiterate, from a Player’s perspective… or rather more accurately this Player’s perspective. That he abhors violence against the helpless and peaceful, wields light despite his great personal discomfort because he can and therefore should; these things do not make him “good”. Not by a long shot. As a Player I step back and look at what you’ve given me. So far I’m compelled to say “Yea, he’s pretty evil in my book”. And I say that knowing that there have been evil people in history who have been friendly, compassionate, and even helpful people… who have committed some heinous acts.
I do agree with you that Dark doesn’t mean Evil. It’s something I’ve been working my way around with my own Shadow Priest character. He’s a Gnome, not Forsaken so by that fact alone doesn’t fit so well into this category, but I’ve been doing my best to find those lines between Good and Evil with him. To push him as far as I dare into the Darkness while figuring out how to still maintain his Goodness. It’s an interesting dichotomy to explore, and I fully agree that there should be more of these types among the Forsaken. You can embrace the spooky and still maintain an arguably “good” persona.
…I just don’t think that’s what you’ve given us here.
You’re applying good as it is considered in our reality - IE morally upright - which of course is itself subjective and influenced heavily by countless opinion shaping factors.
I’m using Good in the D&D alignment sense as in ‘Beneficial’. As oppsed to Harmful (Evil) or Benign (Neutral). This is alternatively a fairly objective definition. He’s not hurting Azeroth or the living or anyone who hasn’t incurred his fairly reasonable wrath.
Also keep in mind I used cannibalism but from an undead’s perspective it’s more done in the mechanical sense. They’re eating the dead to heal themselves as that’s how their biology works. If it’s not used specifically on an undead human I don’t think it’d count as cannibalism in the traditional sense.
And even then the heated IRL topic of what is ethical to eat becomes an impossible question in this world where cows have sentient, humanoid variants and even plants can be sentient.
Laying out a few things in advance before I start digging into links:
Cannibalism in fantasy media is, to my knowledge, typically defined as consumption of flesh from humanoids with advanced intelligence and generally seen as barbaric at best, evil at worst. Exactly why does it fall under the evil category? I would assume a couple of the core reasons is that A. It’s disrespectful to the deceased and their kin, as well as whatever forces of life(which are typically seen as good) that may be at work in the world; B. Those who consume humanoid flesh will be seen as a threat to other humanoids, prompting hostility.
In the case of point A, the lines blur a bit depending on the cultures and individuals in question. Some cultures may condone cannibalism for religious reasons(such as the Bosmer from Elder Scrolls lore) or strictly for practical reasons(lizardfolk from DnD). Even so, cannibalism is largely frowned upon by civilized societies.
That brings us to point B–setting aside cultural beliefs, entities that regularly eat members of your species are a clear threat and should be avoided, even if the entity in question only eats carrion and does not actively hunt(there’s nothing to prove they won’t hunt you later). The same holds true for an entity that regularly consumes a different humanoid species(or any species holding sufficiently advanced intelligence)–if it doesn’t draw the line at advanced intelligence, then it’s probably not going to have a problem eating you if it decides you look tasty.
Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
“Good” implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
“Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.
Being good or evil can be a conscious choice. For most people, though, being good or evil is an attitude that one recognizes but does not choose. Being neutral on the good-evil axis usually represents a lack of commitment one way or the other, but for some it represents a positive commitment to a balanced view. While acknowledging that good and evil are objective states, not just opinions, these folk maintain that a balance between the two is the proper place for people, or at least for them.
Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral rather than good or evil. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior.
While it is true that “good” and “beneficial” typically go hand-in-hand, I believe it’s faulty logic to say that the DnD Good alignment is defined by whether or not something is beneficial and not hurting anyone. There are many things that can be beneficial, and do not necessarily cause any noticeable harm, but are still considered wrong. As noted in the quote, the alignment also takes into account how much respect a character has for sentient beings and life in general.
Given that cannibalism debases advanced intelligent life forms into mere food…it’s still not something that falls into the “good” category. At best, it’s probably going to fit into the “neutral” category.
All that being said, one important thing to note about the alignment system–alignment is simply a guideline to help flesh out a character and how they may react to different situations. It’s not there to railroad characters into predetermined choices. Characters may deviate from time to time, depending on the scenario, or may even switch alignments entirely.
You’ll still need to justify it to other characters though, given that cannibalism is predominantly taboo in Azeroth(at least in civilized areas). With Sylvanas at the helm it’s possible the rules may have relaxed a bit in the Horde, but at the very least you’re probably going to get some weird looks from your living compatriots if it’s something you do in public.
Ignoring the open cannibalism for a moment, it’s probably still going to take some extra explaining to convince the average living citizen that cavorting with dark powers and conducting unsettling experiments isn’t dubious.
The TL;DR
Show, don’t tell. The alignment system is good for helping build a character’s personality, but it’s not enough to just tell the audience that the character is X(except for physical descriptions, since these are inherently obvious). For a convincing character, you need to be able to show through the character’s actions that the character is X.
I will also note the Golden Rule of Roleplaying: as the author, you’re free to write characters however you see fit(provided it follows Blizzard’s ToS in the case of WoW, or whatever the rules may be in the case of other media). Likewise, you’re free to accept or reject other characters as you see fit, while others are free to accept or reject your character as they see fit.