How can we redeem/rebuild the Horde?

[Kyalin-cenarion-circle (Kyalin)]

Because at the end of the day, 90% of all people in World of Warcraft —from Alliance to Horde, leader and soldier alike—look at Illidan and see only a demon.

I mean, I’m sorry, but this is way too reductionist.

BC framed Illidan as a villain, full stop. He and his followers were doing villainous things. They were enslaving and killing people. Akama didn’t just misunderstand Illidan, he was being victimized by him. You can’t present all of that, and then a few expansions later show up and say “whoops! He was actually a good guy! Nevermind that enslavement, torturing, and murdering - you’re a bad person for not accepting him”.

You can’t introduce information that the player has no way of knowing about later on, and assert that we’re bad people for not knowing it. I presented my Warden as someone who came to believe ridiculous things because the situation as presented was a bit ridiculous.

@ Ariel

I fight for causes that aren’t my own at times too. I’m right there with you, for example on the forsaken. Being able to sympathize with other people though doesn’t remove your own investment. The only observation I’d make on Blood Elves is that the story doesn’t do a lot with them, so it makes sense that they wouldn’t attract focus.

But, I bet you would have a few things to say if we talked about things like humans being presented as better spellcasters than Blood Elves.

[Ariël-drakkari (Ariël)]

@Micâh-moon-guard

Well, she isn’t wrong about me Ariel. I do care more about worgen issues than I do about alliance faction issues.

Indeed. Which brings us to the actual point: different players approach differently to the game, period. And it´s unfair to broadly qualify us under an homogenized perception.

Which brings me back to the answer I gave Kyalin yesterday regarding me not making an opinion in her proposals for Alliance getting “flawed representation”. I´m no Alliance player, ergo is NOT my place to take an stance regarding their narrative, period.

[Furos-garrosh]

I found Illidan better than Legion in BC.

[Eleuriel-quelthalas]

As an Alliance player I don’t care. Those are problems of the horde, I have no right to comment. It’s their problem.

[Kyalin-cenarion-circle (Kyalin)]

The issue is that the resolution to these issues, Horde and Alliance, are linked. I see this every time I pitch a solution for the Night Elves, or discuss their narrative treatment. So clearly we do have to have these conversations, and attempt to understand each other.

[Velskàr-stormrage]

@Kyalin-cenarion-circle

BC framed Illidan as a villain, full stop. He and his followers were doing villainous things. They were enslaving and killing people. Akama didn’t just misunderstand Illidan, he was being victimized by him. You can’t present all of that, and then a few expansions later show up and say “whoops! He was actually a good guy! Nevermind that enslavement, torturing, and murdering - you’re a bad person for not accepting him”.

Sure you can, considering that BC framing Illidan as “polar-evil villain” was a character assassination of his role in Warcraft III to begin with. The spell at Dalaran is probably the best example of how he was originally an anti-hero whose methods may have been immoral, but whose objectives certainly were not.

@Kyalin-cenarion-circle

You can’t introduce information that the player has no way of knowing about later on, and assert that we’re bad people for not knowing it.

Funny, I’m pretty sure this is exactly what happened with the Alliance of Lordaeron setting up the Orc Internment Camps post-Second War, and what later occurred with Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos and Lord of the Clans.

Humanity didn’t know that the orcs could potentially be reasoned with; does that mean they were “good people,” simply because they were acting out of ignorance?

No, because acting out of ignorance and insisting that you’re right, rather than seeking to further your own knowledge and admitting you might be wrong is, well…

Ignorant.

[Ariël-drakkari (Ariël)]

@Kyalin-cenarion-circle

I fight for causes that aren’t my own at times too. I’m right there with you, for example on the forsaken. Being able to sympathize with other people though doesn’t remove your own investment. The only observation I’d make on Blood Elves is that the story doesn’t do a lot with them, so it makes sense that they wouldn’t attract focus.

But, I bet you would have a few things to say if we talked about things like humans being presented as better spellcasters than Blood Elves.

Actually, Humans being represented as better casters than the Belves wouldn´t be a huge issue IF this was related to Alliance proper narratives and gameplay experience; the issue is they became the better everything in our own Horde narratives to the point our characters get mocked and ridiculed to make a point over this (see Aethas) and we Hordies have been forced to accept this status quo for too long time.

I have 0 issues with Human wizards being OP Mary Sues contained to narratives important for the Alliance; I have ALL the issues when devs literally ridicule and demean Horde characters to make the point “Humans are BEST”.

As a Nelf first, Alliance second player I bet you understand me a little, but not 100%.

[Eleuriel-quelthalas]

The only message I have for the horde is leave the night elves alone. I don’t care if they destroy each other or who their next warchief will be, if they fight humans, I don’t care.

[Ariël-drakkari (Ariël)]

@Pellex-hyjal

You could add nepotism leading to Garithos being in a position of power in the first place.

Sooooo… they had their own noses so far up their behinds they became high with their own farts, then?

Cause I totes agree.

Man the sadness when I look back and see Horde stories being about their individuals rising to power NOT because an artificial sense of righteousness but because they worked hard to deserve the chance to lead. And suffered in the process.

[Kyalin-cenarion-circle (Kyalin)]

I agree with you on BC assassinating his character, although I would disagree that Warcraft III did it much better. That campaign has some of the same issues. We see Illidan murder civilians in mission 1, burning several villages. He hunts for dangerous artifacts, he cackles and drowns Maiev’s friends. He gets Tyrande and Malfurion to leave Kalimdor to stop him, and THEN at the very end, he reveals his plan. How are these characters wrong to see a child-murdering demon-artifact grabbing guy like that as someone they need to stop? Especially when he provides no hint or reason for what he’s doing beforehand?

You’re not presenting a flaw here, you’re presenting a giant misunderstanding. Those aren’t the same thing. If someone does have a vision for what they’re doing but a person’s bigotry blinds them from taking that person seriously, now there we have a flaw. That’s why we can see Garithos for what he is - that guy has reasons to know that the Blood Elves are capable, and he knows why they’re accepting the Naga’s help, but he doesn’t care. He’s flawed because he allows his hatred to govern him.

… and that’s just not the case with Illidan. In both cases, once we figure out what he’s trying to do, the characters generally come around.

[Pellex-hyjal (Pellex)]

@Ariël-drakkari

Man the sadness when I look back and see Horde stories being about their individuals rising to power NOT because an artificial sense of righteousness but because they worked hard to deserve the chance to lead. And suffered in the process.

The loss of that theme is the biggest reason I’m bitter about the council and the idea that the position of warchief was inherently flawed, which they pushed as a “solution” to problems the writers created in BfA.

[Vandraeda-kiljaeden]

@Morghel-daggerspine

Incorrect. Every single Horde character there except Calia is guilty. Them feeling a tinge of regret will not wash away the ocean of blood that is on their hands. It will take a lot more than regret for them to atone.

How is it incorrect? I specified that I was talking about the War of Thorns. Lor’themar, Thalyssra, and Rokhan did not participate in the War of Thorns. They literally weren’t there. Gazlowe wasn’t even formally Horde until the Council was formed and he took over as Trade Prince of the Bilgewater Cartel, before that he was Horde-leaning but technically neutral as leader of Ratchet. I’m not arguing that the Horde overall is innocent, I was pushing back against the idea that Thrall specifically shouldn’t be talking about Teldrassil since he wasn’t there, when none of the current Horde leadership was. Thrall isn’t special on that point.

[Sarm-malganis (Sarm)]

Coupling that with the introduction of Calia as Rightful Heir of Lordaeron at the same time, it certainly feels as if the story’s implying that divine right to rule is better even if it’s not intended to come off that way.

[Velskàr-stormrage]

@Kyalin-cenarion-circle

I agree with you on BC assassinating his character, although I would disagree that Warcraft III did it much better. That campaign has some of the same issues. We see Illidan murder civilians in mission 1

Where? At Nendis on the coast of Azshara?

We see burning and ruined villages.

We don’t see Illidan actually murdering villagers.

We are told that Illidan’s “passing” drove the local wildlife mad, forcing Maiev to strike them down, which at worst is an unintentional side effect of what you could call “fel radiation” by proximity.

@Kyalin-cenarion-circle

He hunts for dangerous artifacts

You would too, if you were trying to destroy an immortal lord of death.

@Kyalin-cenarion-circle

he cackles and drowns Maiev’s friends.

Please don’t try to claim that Maiev’s “friends” were a bunch of vulnerable civilians. This was a small army of highly-trained warriors led by an obsessive fanatic who wanted to either kill Illidan outright, or forcibly re-imprison him. Any actions he took against Maiev and her Watchers during “Terror of the Tides” was as much self-defense as anything else.

Or did you miss the fact that it’s Illidan who is running from Maiev? She’s the one chasing him.

@Kyalin-cenarion-circle

He gets Tyrande and Malfurion to leave Kalimdor to stop him

LMFAO no he doesn’t! This is the worst cherry-pick yet! The only reason Malfurion and Tyrande even go to the Broken Isles to begin with is because Maiev’s runner shows up and tells them, “Illidan has raised a bunch of sea serpents from the ocean and is doing some evil villainy or other!”

Interestingly, much like what Maiev pulls later at Dalaran, the runner conveniently neglects to mention the part about how Maiev’s been the one pursuing Illidan all this time…

@Kyalin-cenarion-circle

child-murdering

So, this is just plain slander; please cite where we ever see Illidan murdering children.

@Kyalin-cenarion-circle

when he provides no hint or reason for what he’s doing beforehand?

Again, when was he supposed to explain himself, exactly?

When Tyrande and Malfurion banish him back in Reign of Chaos?
He did:

Illidan: The leader of the undead has been destroyed, and the forests will heal in time.

Malfurion: At the cost of your soul? You are no brother of mine!

When Maiev was murderously hunting him down, which she continues to do even after Illidan has been pardoned?

Maiev: Fools! Have you no sense of justice?

Tyrande: Maiev, Illidan has atoned for his crimes! He is no longer a threat to–

Malfurion: It’s no use, Tyrande. She has become vengeance itself, bound forever to the hunt. I only pray that in her zeal, she doesn’t cause even more havoc than Illidan.

@Kyalin-cenarion-circle

You’re not presenting a flaw here, you’re presenting a giant misunderstanding. Those aren’t the same thing. If someone does have a vision for what they’re doing but a person’s bigotry blinds them from taking that person seriously, now there we have a flaw.

Which is exactly what you’re demonstrating, right now.

@Kyalin-cenarion-circle

… and that’s just not the case with Illidan. In both cases, once we figure out what he’s trying to do, the characters generally come around.

No, they don’t, which is clearly seen in the examples I’ve provided above.

[Kyalin-cenarion-circle (Kyalin)]

I think you’re trying to justify your “side” here - but when you imply that Illidan did not necessarily kill civilians when he and his Naga were shown targeting civilian villages and committing atrocities - you’re trying to reframe what the campaign was showing him as.

It presented him as a villain, until it didn’t. It pulled a bait and switch at the last second rather than providing any clue about what he was doing. BC did the exact same thing before Legion pulls the exact same trick - and my point is - this is not how you present bigotry.

I’m reminded of times when, in Darnassus, some Death Knight roleplayer would emote freezing the moonwell, and when confronted about that - they’d say “Oh, you’re judging me for being a death knight! You’re a mean evil person!” and I’m thinking “no - you just defiled a religious site. This isn’t about what you are, this is about what you did”.

If you want to meaningfully present that flaw - it needs to be “this is about what you are” - you can’t have your misunderstood anti-hero butchering civilians for apparently no good reason and expect to carry that.

[Velskàr-stormrage]

@Kyalin-cenarion-circle

I think you’re trying to justify your “side” here

My side is justified by the narrative.

Yours is not.

@Kyalin-cenarion-circle

• but when you imply that Illidan did not necessarily kill civilians when he and his Naga were shown targeting civilian villages and committing atrocities - you’re trying to reframe what the campaign was showing him as.

Not at all; the campaign clearly shows that Illidan went to Nendis to get a boat so he could sail out to the Tomb of Sargeras.

Which does imply that any damage done to the villages along the way more in response to anyone who deliberately barred his path, such as the local defense forces.

@Kyalin-cenarion-circle

It presented him as a villain, until it didn’t. It pulled a bait and switch at the last second rather than providing any clue about what he was doing. BC did the exact same thing before Legion pulls the exact same trick - and my point is - this is not how you present bigotry.

There was no “bait and switch.”
Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos and Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne presented him as a misunderstood anti-hero, someone who commits arguably-heinous crimes but with a noble purpose in mind.
The Burning Crusade provided no perspective on why Illidan had an empire on Outland, and thus cast him as a one-dimensional villain, precisely because that’s how the Alliance and Horde saw him.

@Kyalin-cenarion-circle

I’m reminded of times when, in Darnassus, some Death Knight roleplayer would emote freezing the moonwell, and when confronted about that - they’d say “Oh, you’re judging me for being a death knight! You’re a mean evil person!” and I’m thinking “no - you just defiled a religious site. This isn’t about what you are, this is about what you did”.

Players RPing in-game isn’t even remotely comparable to established lore.

@Kyalin-cenarion-circle

If you want to meaningfully present that flaw - it needs to be “this is about what you are”

And that’s why this is bigotry.
Because you’re focusing on what Illidan is, not who he is.
Illidan is a demon, that’s evident from his physical appearance.
He is also a hero, which is not evident from his physical appearance, but should be evident from his actions.

@Kyalin-cenarion-circle

• you can’t have your misunderstood anti-hero butchering civilians for apparently no good reason and expect to carry that.

Still claiming Illidan butchered innocent civilians ala Stratholme I see, even though you still have no basis for this.

[Ariël-drakkari (Ariël)]

@Pellex-hyjal

The loss of that theme is the biggest reason I’m bitter about the council and the idea that the position of warchief was inherently flawed, which they pushed as a “solution” to problems the writers created in BfA.

You and me both; Warchief wasn´t “bad” as a concept itself, it just became “bad” to fulfill an agenda promoted by bad writting, period.

@Sarm-malganis

Coupling that with the introduction of Calia as Rightful Heir of Lordaeron at the same time, it certainly feels as if the story’s implying that divine right to rule is better even if it’s not intended to come off that way.

Well, when we actually look at Anduin´s whole development and Jaina´s arc in BfA I´d actually say the devs are deliberately trying to pitch the “divine right to rule” agenda.

[Kyalin-cenarion-circle (Kyalin)]

It’s not Stratholme. It’s Nendis. Nendis was shown to be gratuitous, and the scenario does a great job of presenting Illidan as a villain. That’s the issue. The story gives you every reason in the world to hate this guy, and then at the end it explains why you were wrong to - using information that you don’t have, and had no reason to be able to successfully guess.

Again, Mr. Demon Hunter RPer, I get that you want to defend your side, but I’m asking you to go a bit further than that and consider whether Blizzard presented it well enough to support these characters’ positions as flaws.

[Velskàr-stormrage]

@Kyalin-cenarion-circle

Nendis was shown to be gratuitous

Source?

@Kyalin-cenarion-circle

and the scenario does a great job of presenting Illidan as a villain.

Opinion.

@Kyalin-cenarion-circle

The story gives you every reason in the world to hate this guy

Opinion.

@Kyalin-cenarion-circle

and then at the end it explains why you were wrong to - using information that you don’t have, and had no reason to be able to successfully guess.

Once again, this is similarly true of Warcraft: Orcs vs. Humans and Warcraft II: Tides of Darkness.

I’m sure one day you’ll realize that the early Warcraft games were all about challenging pre-conceived notions.

@Kyalin-cenarion-circle

Again, Mr. Demon Hunter RPer, I get that you want to defend your side, but I’m asking you to go a bit further than that and consider whether Blizzard presented it well enough to support these characters’ positions as flaws.

Ok, well if we’re going that route…

Mr./Ms. Warden RPer, I get that you want to defend the memory of your “people” (who weren’t civilians), and your commander (who is presented as a haughty, petty, vengefully-obsessed shrew), but I would ask you to be a bit more objective and consider, well…

@Velskàr-Stormrage

that the early Warcraft games were all about challenging pre-conceived notions.

[Kyalin-cenarion-circle (Kyalin)]

If you really are demanding to go down this route…

http^s://wow.gamepedia.com/Rise_of_the_Naga_(WC3_NightElf)

Illidan has sewn a path of destruction along the coastline. Hunt the Demon down and recapture him before he harms any more innocent civilians.
Archer : The bodies have been mutilated. Do you suppose demons did this?
Illidan’s new minions struck here as well. They’re bloodthirsty and fearless whoever they are.
Naga : Wretched woman. We will retake the surface world and put an end to your vile race once and for all.
Maiev Shadowsong : These poor folk were slain just like the others. Illidan has much to answer for. He’ll wish he were still chained in his cell when I get through with him.

I remember this mission quite well - but if you still want to see what I’m talking about - the videos of this mission are available on Youtube.

Can you address the meat of my point now? Or are you going to claim something along the lines of “we don’t know if they picked up weapons” or “there’s no evidence that Illidan specifically ordered that”? Or something equally persnickety that completely misses my point?

He was presented as a villain, until suddenly the story whipped out information that no one knew or had any reason to know. That’s why I object to this idea that the characters opposing him appeared to just be bigots who didn’t understand him.