Moral Relativism Is Boring

Lore Story Forum
61

I never said it was merely an Alliance thing. I fully support that most people in general dislike the undead. That’s very clearly seen.

‘Very easily’ is not true either. We have stories and questing beyond that in Northrend where there’s still great unease and discomfort doing so. In Borean Tundra, Dragonblight, the Argent Tournament. The Death Knight never fully integrate. They never really live among humans, remaining mostly in their necropolis.

And? None of this removes the hate. It only increases it.

This is a flat out untrue. Most didn’t accept and many were extremely hesitant at such.

Also untrue. Some did, but we specifically see some who reject those they go to meet. Anduin had to fight to even get other higher-ups onboard.

Do you have an issue understanding what is actually said?

‘Rulers who barely manage to not kill them on sight at times.’
This is 100% true. You realize the fact they work through some of their issues doesn’t negate that, right?

No, Sky-Admiral Rogers specifically hates undead.

Everyone he had requested was there: Genn Greymane, Mathias
Shaw, Catherine Rogers, Alleria Windrunner, and Turalyon. Even
Velen had traveled from the Exodar to be present. When Anduin
informed them of his plans, only Velen stood with him.
Rogers, of course, was no surprise. “Have you been to Southshore recently?” she snapped rhetorically. “The very creature you’re
negotiating with deliberately unleashed the blight against an Alliance town! I had friends—family—there. Now there’s only Forsaken.”
“The Forsaken are not the Scourge,” Anduin reminded her. “Some of them retain a sense of who they were, and they miss their living relatives.”
“I can’t believe them capable of such things,” Catherine retorted.
Anduin turned to Shaw. “Spymaster?” he asked calmly.
Shaw nodded. “His Majesty is correct. A short while ago, he asked me to send extra agents to the Undercity. A governing body has sprung up in Sylvanas’s absence. They call themselves the Desolate Council. I have reason to believe that the king’s proposal of a gathering would be extremely well received among this number. But they do not represent the majority of the Forsaken.”
Rogers looked stunned. Anduin took a step toward her, beseeching her. “Catherine…your family and friends…they could be among the council.”
For a moment, he saw something soft flit across the sky admiral’s face. Then her jaw tightened, and that face grew harder than he had ever seen it.
“They are dead.” She all but spit the words. “Worse than dead—
monsters. How can you possibly imagine I’d want to see them as they are now?”
“Remember, Sky Admiral,” Anduin said, his voice still kind, “you
speak to your king.”
All the color that had fled her face rushed back. She bowed
immediately. “My apologies, Your Majesty, if I’ve given offense. But the shambling wrecks of my loved ones are the last thing I would ever want to see. I’d prefer to remember them as they were. Alive, healthy, happy…and human.

Am I going to use someone calling people animals as evidence that he dislikes them? Absolutely, lol. Do you take that as a sign of affection?

His actions doesn’t exclude hatred. Chronicle 3 specifically outlines he thought demons (dreadlords) were just the worse threat.

It can with the all the contextual evidence regarding hatred of undead.

It was literally negotiated on. It was a serious consideration.

I mean, I’m not the one claiming ‘literally none of the content in this paragraph is factually correct’. Do you acknowledge that claim was wrong? If you want to say ‘I don’t think all the evidence reaches the conclusion you think it does’, sure. I think it is dumb or dishonest, but sure. Just that the evidence is still true.

It is absurd how much of a false equivalency this is.

Years and years of lore showing people hate undead in language and action =/= just attacking them.

5 Likes
62

Not really and Blizzard explained it long ago. Basically, Garrosh is a fan of striking hard and fast. He is a “shock and awe” kind of guy but once you bog him down he quickly proves less adept at long term military strategy. Hence why he suceeded in Theramore and managed to blockade the continent and why he knew if he killed Tyrande the Alliance would falter. But once the Alliance actually did start to fight back he quickly lost ground.

It was a story told from the Forsaken/Sylvanas prespective. The forsaken were throwing themselves into the fire because they feared(and fear sometimes is irrationa) the thing Varian would do would be worse. Varian is not the kind of guy who is into torture. At worse, I expect a quick kill(certainly less painful then burning alive), at best, imprisonment.

63

Not really what? I don’t know what you’re actually disagreeing with given the rest of the comment.

That doesn’t really answer my question.

I agree Varian probably wouldn’t have ordered torture. That wouldn’t really make sense. I took the point to more-so mean they’d rather expediate their deaths than draw it on waiting for the inevitable kill/hunting. Whether or not the Alliance would be less painless physically, there’s still aspects of waiting, watching, dealing with being killed versus taking it into your own hands.

Fire is a bit over the top compared to just daggers, but I guess that was either to sensationalize it or because their toughness varies between writers.

64

I was initially going to do a point by point rebuttal, but about halfway through my response I realized that the fundamental basis of your argument is “An Alliance character said they don’t like the Forsaken, or defended themselves from the Forsaken once, therefore the Alliance was chomping at the bit to exterminate them and only didn’t because of Anduin” and each of your points is just a seperate example of a character saying “I’m really not a fan of what those zombies did.”

I shouldn’t have to explain to you why “some characters don’t like the undead, largely because of all the terrible things that the undead have done to them” does not necessarily or even logically follow into “therefore the Alliance would wipe them out given the chance.”

It’s the exact same logic you’re using. Some Tauren don’t like Dwarves and they fought about it. Extrapolating that into some kind of race-wide blood vendetta is precisely what you’re doing with humans and Forsaken.

Are you suggesting that this claim is an extraordinary one that requires extraordinary evidence? I agree! And citing the cherrypicked opinions of a handful of characters that they never even acted on would be insufficient here too!

1 Like
65

Furthermore, I will point out that the Alliance already attacked and defeated the Forsaken! They conquered Tirisfal, most of Hillsbrad, and most of Silverpine!

And none of these horrible atrocities that you’re claiming would be inevitable happened. There isn’t one documented instance of it. Is this the part where you claim that it was only because of Anduin that they didn’t, even though we’ve seen before that others disagree with him and act accordingly (like in Stormheim?)

Does Anduin have a psychic mind-meld over everyone in the Alliance? Why is this blood-hatred that you’re arguing is so strongly ingrained that it would feasibly lead to horrible Alliance atrocities against the Forsaken so easily tempered by the presence of one dude? Some deep seated vendetta that turned out to be.

It’s almost like the vision we’re discussing was just that; a vision conjured by Val’kyr. They could have conjured a vision of Garrosh in his underwear slapping his butt to the tune of Wheels on the Bus in Ironforge if they wanted to and it would be just as genuine.

1 Like
66

I disagree with the idea he is always botching “things up/rushing recklessly”. Or rather he does rush things but usually not due to recklessness and more because that is just how he prefers to fight/that is his strategy and that this can sometimes succeed in the short term but usually fails him if the battle drags on.

And I am answering that by pointing out the interpretation is going to depend on the reader. And that there is enough wiggle room that the reader is free to believe what they want to believe.

And I have nothing in particular against that interpretation. What I disagree with is the attempt to portray it as some sort of “Alliance atrocities”.

67

I understand it is much easier to not engage in the evidence. As your first response was a blanket denial. And you’ve quickly tried to revert to that. Because the evidence does overwhelming support my stance.

We’re not talking about an Alliance character, we’re talking about a fair number of major characters and random NPC’s. That’s how you interpret lore.

This is like saying, ‘some characters hate demons, largely because of all the terrible things that the demons have done to them, but it doesn’t really follow that they’d want to wipe out demons’. Then saying, ‘well, Warlocks can summon demons in cities, so…’ That’s the level of denial we’re on.
Clear signs of hatred and disgust in a group that’s discussed exterminating people is as clear a sign you can get of their willingness to do so without explicitly saying it continually. Even going so far as to have helped support the Scarlet Crusade who have the explicit goal of that.

The clear and obvious difference here is ‘some’ between these instances.
One hand is years lore and multiple instances and the other is some lone example. Again, this is a false equivalency.

I don’t think it requires extraordinary evidence. Just a standard amount. Which I’ve provided, which your own example has not demonstrated.

Hillsbrad and Silverpine haven’t been updated.
Let us look at what parts of Tirisfal have been updated. Half the zone is on fire and barren without included what Sylvanas did.

Well my comment was about attempted extermination. Obviously the Forsaken can’t be exterminated, they’re a player faction. That said, the Alliance have absolutely been killing Forsaken when possible.

I don’t know what other atrocities you think I’m talking about.

  1. Anduin is High King, his word has more sway than most.
  2. Varian is dead, he was the biggest pro-war heads in the faction.
  3. Some of the Alliance don’t feel that way or don’t care, like Velen. Not sure how Moira or Gelbin feel.
  4. Blizzard are bad at writing. As with Varian, people mostly bend around Anduin.

This might just be a difference in language. I think someone can prefer recklessness. Like, I don’t think he specifically considers, ‘is this more foolhardy’. But yeah, ‘I want to do it this way, consequences be damned down the road’. I’d be surprised if he had the mindset, ‘I know I’m worse at long term planning, so I’ll need to do this quick’.

So you think the writer intentionally did so? I disagree, but that’s just my opinion.
It was a story about Forsaken and Horde. I don’t really think Kosak was weighing if some people needed plausible deniability about killing a foe they revile so much.

3 Likes
68

I think its more a pride thing. He doesn’t consider he will lose and so goes all out expecting his plan will go without a hitch only to later realize he is now bogged down in a war of attrition and goes “ok, we are stronger then them, we are still going to win”.

I assume Kosak knew people who cared about the lore would read it, from both factions. I honestly doubt Blizzard/Kosak wanted to portray the Alliance as monster even during said book.

69

Either way, I would still call it reckless. It just happens to work for reasons.

Well I also think most Alliance players don’t see exterminating undead as bad. So I don’t think that even would be portraying that as such to the typical player. We’re talking about considering a fraction of a fraction of readers who’s faction is only distantly/abstractly involved in the story.

70

You’re trying to use a selection of cherrypicked quotes to support an unfalsifiable assertion that the Alliance would have done a specific thing that never happened if they had the opportunity to, and what’s more you’re MASSIVELY overstating the impact, relevance, and significance of most of your quotes.

Think about what you’re asserting. You’re asserting that the Alliance would have, given the opportunity, committed a massive act of genocide. This is an extraordinary claim, and an extremely broad one. Pointing out that there are characters and NPC’s that don’t like undead is grossly insufficient evidence to support such a serious claim. Not liking something does not translate to desiring genocide. Finding something unpleasant to be around does not translate to desiring genocide. Having a bad history with something that makes you dislike them does not translate to desiring genocide.

If it did, then the standards for desiring genocide would be so low as to render them moot.

Garbage assertions like this are one of the reasons the Alliance in its current iteration is so boring. People like you interpret ANY negative sentiment, no matter how minor, isolated, or reserved, as being some kind of sign of festering evil or psychotic aggression.

Showing passion about something, or having any negative opinions on something at all, is not a sign that everyone is a secret mass-murderer waiting to happen.

If you were going to unironically assert that the Alliance wanted to wipe out demons because of an abundance of characters that dislike demons I would contest that as well, for the same reasons. It’s a massive, sweeping claim based on your interpretation of a handful of quotes that you then extrapolate to an absurd extreme.

If by “support” you mean “destroyed their monastery” then sure?

Ahahaha what the hell is this? You cherrypick some quotes where characters express dislike of undead and apparently that means “all” but I do the same with other incidents between different races and suddenly THOSE are just isolated?

You hypocrite.

Oh, I see. Evidence in support of your position can be extrapolated to its maximum extreme, but evidence against it can be dismissed for completely arbitrary reasons.

What a waste of time this entire exchange has been.

2 Likes
71

These aren’t cherrypicked, this is the lore as we have it. It isn’t like you’re finding examples of the Alliance going on and on how they love the undead. Whereas we have plenty of positive evidence. I’ll start to question it when you gimme all these people who talk about how they’re super keen on undead.

The claim is neither extraordinary nor broad. The Alliance has debated mass killings before. Racial hatred is a theme that comes up plenty in Warcraft. And the scenario is the specific instance that was brought up originally, if they were capable of such.

It is incredibly ironic that you accuse me of overstating these things. When you are using terms like ‘not liking undead, finding undead unpleasant to be around, and having a bad history with them’. Again, this is like saying people don’t like demons, find them unpleasant, have a bad history with them.

We’re talking about people who have engaged in torture and biological warfare for years. People that cannibalize corpses and raise friends into frenzying enemies. Some that betrayed the world at Wrathgate. Whose ‘people’ destroyed almost all the human nations.

You’re belittling all this, including character quotes and quests, to something trivial.

Absolutely not. We’re not talking about any negative sentiment, we’re talking about one that’s been consistent and broad for years. Calling them animals, not granting them personhood, wanting to lynch them. Like pretending the Klan just kinda dislike some people.

And you’d be taking an equally absurd stance given all the lore.

I mean originally sent to help them in Kalimdor as sent by their ambassador. And then the effort is to retake it for ‘sane’ ones.

I’m still surprised (I don’t know why) you can’t tell the difference between years of various examples and one single example not being the same.

You literally listed one single example of ‘Tauren attacking Dwarves in Mulgore’. And pretended that compared to the many characters, quests, and stories I’m pointing to.

Do you even know what cherrypicked means? You seem to think it means, ‘evidence that doesn’t count because I dislike it’. If this was cherry picked, you’d be able to present the other aspects. But you’ve only given information that’s wrong (most people accepted and were cool with The Gathering) or the Forsaken aren’t exterminated yet (because it is an ongoing effort).

If you can give me five Tauren officers that talk about how much they hate Dwarves, several stories to that effect, and somewhere where the Tauren have considered genocide? I’d consider this to have merit.

  1. Not the maximum extreme. I’ve noted this is more a middling end goal.
  2. Not dismissed. I explained how it fits in.

Dismissed would be if I said, ‘that stuff doesn’t matter’. Explaining is when I tell you, ‘Forsaken are being killed when possible’.

I have literally in all my years of playing WoW never met someone with a more absurd position that ‘eh, people don’t dislike undead that much’. The idea that Night Elves built all their roads for the Alliance is close, maybe.

But you were also the person who started out with, ‘this is all 100% wrong’ then refused to admit error when evidence backed up said comments.

You started this conversation out with hostility because you are entirely dug into this headcanon you have for some reason.

4 Likes
72

Garithos was willing to tolerate their presence despite the fact that he was a giant racist jerk. The fact that he didn’t like them and called them names does not overwrite the fact that he allied with them, trusted them, and kept his word with them.

In Vanilla WoW, some Forsaken fled to the Alliance with some artifacts Sylvanas was hoarding. There was some suspicion of them at first, but they ended up being well tolerated, with the person who ran the place they fled to acknowledging in their journal that they were fine people.

Some Forsaken fled to the Argent Dawn and joined them. Nobody in the Alliance has any qualms with these Forsaken and the Alliance has no problem with the Argent Dawn accepting them.

While the Death Knight player character is judged harshly on entering Stormwind, they are given safe passage to Stormwind Keep and on Tirion’s word, they are admitted into the Alliance. The Alliance even folds Death Knights into their ranks, giving them command over soldiers and, in Cataclysm, command of entire theaters.

Death Knight player characters are not treated any differently from anyone else. In Cataclysm, Varian even entrusts a Death Knight player character with guarding his son.

In Legion, the Alliance is fine working alongside the Horde led by Sylvanas, and Varian even entrusted the lives of him and his men to her at the Broken Shore.

Bolvar Fordragon became the Lich King, and the Alliance’s upper echelons were largely aware of it and didn’t think any worse of him as a result.

When Derek Proudmoore was raised into undeath, he was readily accepted back into his family without hesitation.

The Alliance has retaken most of Lordaeron, including Tirisfal Glades. They have not carried out any massive crimes against Forsaken civilian populations even without Anduin’s supervision.

Plenty of humans readily agreed to The Gathering. Even people like Turalyon were easily convinced into supporting it, and he personally provided security for the event. During The Gathering, some Forsaken actively tried to defect to the Alliance, and the Alliance showed no signs whatsoever that they would deny them.

After Sylvanas killed them, the humans returned to give them a proper burial. They were given the opportunity to not return, but practically nobody took it.

Here is what you don’t seem to get; actions matter more than words, and for every instance you can find of an Alliance character saying they don’t like undead, there are dozens of instances where their actions show them ready to accept them regardless. There are undead folded into the Alliance’s ranks now, the living are willing to trust them with their life.

All you have are characters expressing discomfort or dislike of the undead. You have absolutely no practical incidents where these genocidal massacres that you swear would happen actually happened. Not once in any of the Alliance’s interactions with the Forsaken has the Alliance carried out any of these things you’re claiming that they would do at the drop of a hat.

Right now, in the Eastern Kingdoms, the Alliance has the Forsaken dead to rights. If they wanted to, they absolutely could kill most of them. They have the power to do it. The Forsaken can’t defend themselves, the Horde doesn’t have the power to stop the Alliance from doing what it wants in the Eastern Kingdoms.

And your promised massacre hasn’t happened. There is no sign whatsoever that it’s happened or that it’s going to happen. In fact, the Alliance is signaling a willingness to allow the Forsaken to return to Lordaeron under Calia’s supervision.

Your assertion that literally all of this is because of Anduin and that nobody else has any agency is both absurd and insulting. You want to make an argument stating that there’s a broad Alliance-spanning culture of hating undead but at the same time you want to argue that the Alliance’s actions all turn at the whims of a single individual. These are contradictory claims.

You accuse me of headcanon while at the same time making some of the most egregiously broad claims I have ever seen, up to and including the assertion that the Alliance is currently exterminating the Forsaken with absolutely no indication of that occurring.

Apparently, to you, everyone operates on a binary scale of “completely cool with X and have no problems or objections whatsoever” and “wants to exterminate every single instance of X the moment they get the opportunity” with no middle ground. It’s like you can’t comprehend the mere notion of nuance.

At first I thought that you simply didn’t know your lore, but now I know that your problem is far more deep-seated because your fundamental philosophy of how people work seems to be flawed, and that unfortunately is something I can’t help you with.

2 Likes
73

None of that means he didn’t hate them and wouldn’t be willing to kill them if it didn’t impact his other goals. 0

Specifically by neutral Dalaran. 0

Nobody contests the Argent Dawn taking in Orcs either. That doesn’t mean a lot of the Alliance don’t hate Orcs. 0

And as I noted, we still have stories such as the comics, Borean Tundra, Dragonblight, etc. where discomfort remains. Now, are some soldiers fine with this? Probably. .5

I think ‘they were fine’ isn’t quite on. They did as Varian commanded, many immediately regretting the decision. 0

I question the specifics of how many of the upper echelons knew or gave an opinion on this at all. 0

This is true. Bad writing, but true. 1

None of these regions have been updated. All we see are the places they are have been utterly destroyed. 0

Plenty did not accept. And Turalyon was not easily convinced, it took quite an effort and a personal mentor to get him to that point. .5

Certainly we don’t see how that plays out when Sylvanas attacks right off. 0

True. 1

Yeah, like the years of war, the sneak attacks, supporting terrorist groups, that sort of thing.

You didn’t even list a dozen here.

I will have to continue taking issue with the idea that calling people animals, denying their personhood, and that they’re some sort of flesh puppet is far more than ‘discomfort or dislike’.

‘You can’t show this would happen because it hasn’t happened.’ Well darn, I guess you got me there.

Yes. Because we’re years beyond the point that was actually being discussed in Cataclysm.
Anduin has been in charge for years. He’s changed Genn and Turalyon to an extent. Varian is dead. Anduin got The Gathering more or less. He worked out a peace treaty with the Horde. Right now everyone is mostly holding while the leaders are in the Shadowlands. I’m not arguing the Alliance would countermand their peace treat and leaders to do this years down the line.

Insulting to who?
I don’t know if I’d say only Anduin, but primarily him.

They aren’t, and I explained why this is before.
Blizzard just doesn’t really write with great consistency.
Is it realistic for a faction spanning culture to shift in a matter of a year or two through the primary efforts of one man? Yes. That doesn’t mean they haven’t written that.

What do you think is broad, honestly? You think ‘this group would do X if they could’ is broad? Really?

You’re trying to point to places where people were being killed and saying, ‘they aren’t all dead yet, so it isn’t an extermination’. That’s my issue there.

No, the issue is that you simply aren’t equipped to deal with a nuanced conversation on this topic. You can’t comprehend the idea that numerous examples and one example aren’t the same, as it is. How am I suppose to have an in-depth discussion with someone that’d rather just toss around insults?

In a nuanced conversation, the Alliance has had shifting views on things over time. They are not a monolith, no entity composed of individuals truly is one. Numerous characters can waffle between dislike, hatred, and uncertainty over a topic as time goes on. And all this is filtered through the lore via implication, action, words, etc. We almost never have a clear snapshot of a person, let alone a group. These are things we have to reasonably infer from what we’re given. This is even more true for the nameless, faceless masses that is even harder to glean an opinion from. Famously it seemed like all the Orcs loved Garrosh, only for the writers to say most did not.

If Varian says, ‘your kind need to be wiped out’, I wouldn’t hold him to that forever. I wouldn’t necessarily think he would even do it 100%. At the same time, someone who works with undead (like Garithos), I wouldn’t would be the sort of person to shrug at the end of the day. The aspects we’re given about him and how we see him act speaks against that. It has to be weighed in totality at a given time.

Again, this comes down to the problem that you didn’t come into this discussion in good faith. You didn’t want to see the many examples of undead hatred, stories of such. You wanted to brush it aside as ‘this is 100% untrue’. Something you’ve still refused to back off of. There’s variance, there’s nuance, there’s all sort of shades, none of that means we can’t make certain conclusions based on what is given.

2 Likes
74

All of your “inferences” are literally the definition of headcanon. Holy crap dude.

It’s your headcanon that the Alliance would massacre the Forsaken. It’s your headcanon that there’s a deep-seated hatred for undead that only Anduin solved. You can’t just dismiss contrary evidence as being “bad writing so it doesn’t count” or “it’s fine because of writer fiat” if you’re going to make an argument based entirely on inferring things from small slices of information, especially when what you’re inferring has a massive impact on the world and the potential actions and motivations of an entire faction.

And then you have the sheer temerity to dismiss contrary evidence on the basis of things like “well we don’t see it in-game” or “the zones haven’t been updated” even though the validity of that argument directly contradicts the validity of your previous argument (where you infer a bunch of things despite us not seeing them in-game.)

I can just as easily dismiss every single one of your pieces of evidence on the same merit. Garithos calling people animals doesn’t matter because the writers have never brought him up since, so clearly just an anomaly. People being uncomfortable with undead doesn’t matter because this isn’t universally portrayed by every single Alliance NPC, so those people can be inferred to also be anomalies. Sky Admiral Rogers saying in BtS that she hates undead doesn’t matter because it doesn’t have any direct impact on the plot and is a throwaway line. Anomaly.

Evidence against my position? Oh that’s just because Blizzard isn’t writing consistently. “Consistently” meaning “whatever supports my preferred narrative” given that you’re perfectly fine accepting the consistency of the “everyone hates undead” angle but suddenly develop a problem with its “but lots of people don’t hate undead” counterpart.

You “infer things” when it’s convenient for you ("some people say they hate undead, and based on the assumption that these opinions are extreme and commonplace, Alliance would do a genocide), and then immediately pivot to the most literal interpretation possible when THAT becomes convenient (“Of course its absurd that Alliance culture would all turn on one character, but that’s the way that Blizzard wrote it so nobody can dispute it, thus resolving the inherent contradictions in my argument!”)

Your goalpost shifting is as tiresome as it is obvious.

Which doesn’t even get into your arguments that just straight up violate common sense. Alliance killed Forsaken military combatants in a battle, therefore Alliance would kill literally every single Forsaken ever and we must assume unless stated otherwise that they are doing so? How do you believe this while simultaneously remembering to breathe?

Oh, and also:

Dalaran wasn’t neutral in Vanilla.

2 Likes
75

I don’t know why you’d rather talk to a strawman than me (well I guess I do, it is easier than thinking on the points). I went over this very thing just last post.

You’re incapable of actually addressing my comments.

I’m not saying ‘it doesn’t count because bad writing’. I’m saying bad writing explains the supposed ‘contradiction’. You continually confuse explanation with off-hand invalidation.

We don’t need to see things in game all the time time. I’ve never said that. The problem is your evidence is specifically backed in outdated areas.

It’d be like arguing nearly all Cataclysm issues are still massively ongoing where each individual aspect has not been updated.

You can do whatever you want. At the end of the day, I think you’re being unreasonable. But if you don’t want to see my side, I can’t make you. 99% of the lore is interpretation.

Because the change to not hating undead happens later on, lol. Obviously we base consistency on what comes later matching up with what came before.

Again, you’re specifically ignoring comments I’ve made to this that have pointed to various aspects leading to cultural shift. We can add them again.

  1. Anduin is High King, his word has more sway than most.
  2. Varian is dead, he was the biggest pro-war heads in the faction.
  3. Some of the Alliance don’t feel that way or don’t care, like Velen. Not sure how Moira or Gelbin feel.
  4. Blizzard are bad at writing. As with Varian, people mostly bend around Anduin.

This strawmanning is getting really old.

Probably because you’re intentionally ignoring what I say. Like how I’ve noted a few times it isn’t just Anduin, it isn’t just inconsistent writing, but you clutch at them as though there’s just one factor to any of these things. All while trying to claim I don’t see things with nuance.

Like I said, clutching one single part of a multi-faceted comment while claiming to care about nuance.

I’ve said it several times, but you keep showing it. This isn’t about having a good discussion, it is about dishonestly trying to assert your headcanon. Hence all the ad-hom.

I can give it a .5 since they were without a leader, things were murky. But hey, maybe that’s part of why they left before Cataclysm!

1 Like
76

Man, I wish the Alliance would actually want to wipe out the Forsaken for some loathing they had for them. They have plenty of reasons to hate the undead and wouldn’t be wrong for hating the Forsaken specifically.

Sadly that is not the case and as other have pointed out the story direction seems to be pushing the Alliance in the opposite direction. Even Tyrande begged the Delyarn and Sira to return to them after they were raised. She even spares Sira after she is captured and turned over even though she had been working directly for Sylvanas.

So even after all the crimes perpetrated by the forsaken against the Alliance they aren’t out to wipe out the Forsaken. Sadly never have been.

77

While they never were going to get to wipe out the forsaken, player character race and all, the idea the forsaken were written with, that they alliance hates their guts doesn’t apply anymore, largely from blizzards attempts to whitewash the alliance.

The Forsaken’s storyline wasn’t complex, it’s kinda in their name, they got cursed with undeath so humanity and the light forsook them. So their story was a mix of bitter conflict and hatred between both sides as well as trying to get revenge on the man who did this to them.

Then Wrathgate happened and completely destroyed any semblance of the Forsaken story going forward. They became a force that only existed to antagonize the other playable races, and got almost completely left out of the final conflict with the Lich King outside of one dungeon with Sylvanas. Come cataclysm and the writers seemed to have decided they we’re to be the “Neo-Scourge” with the first drafts literally involving mind-controlling the newly raised until they realized that was a complete and utter destruction of the few remaining forsaken themes.

The writers never really liked the Forsaken as they were given them do to them being from a weird place in development history. WC3 and WoW entered development pretty close to each other tmk, and the Forsaken were created with the idea it was gonna be like WC2, with them literally being named Scourge in the game files. When it turned out the Horde opposed the Scourge, and was a lot less evil, they still wanted to have undead, so the WC3 team during the frozen throne campaign made the Forsaken, who were still the most villainous faction but had some factors that made them sympathetic and would allow the rest of the Horde to tolerate them (The Apothecary early on had moments of actually acting like doctors, using their knowledge of alchemy and surgery to help the horde out and not just poison and lobotomize people). After Wrath the WC3 writers began to slowly step back and in general it was a bit of a mess. Cataclysm did have some decent moments, like Jekyll being impressed by the Dwarfs spirits still trying to defend their home after their deaths and sent a false report saying the hold was unsalvagable, but as time went on those moments (already somewhat infrequent) got less and less frequent.

Allianceside meanwhile they were having Varian effectively purge stormwind of it’s “flaws”, they neutered the House of Nobles, made the issues regarding food a result of the Defias and began to downplay the hatred of the undead, though that wouldn’t come to fruition until Anduin shows up as High King. So while they were making the Forsaken get worse, they were making the Alliance get better.

Finally this leads to BfA, which is just the previous issues exasperated tenfold. It looked like we were going to get closer to symapthetic undead again with Zelling, but he then died solely to show how evil Sylvanas is, meanwhile Calia began to exist which made the last reason the Forsaken name exist, they were Forsaken by the light, pointless as well. It’s incredibly annoying that one of my favorite races became a cartoon caricature of itself, but thats modern wow for yah.

13 Likes
78

To expand on this, here’s a link to an account by one of the devs who worked on early WoW:

2 Likes
79

I’m sorry to butt-in here but I think this is exactly what players who see the Alliance as repeatedly innocent victims do, but with the support most recently of Christie Golden’s uncurated writing in “Before the Storm” and “Elegy”.

I don’t know if it is because Metzen is no longer there to steer the lore machine, or something else, but lets look at the duo of “A Good War” and “Elegy”. These two novellas were meant to be taken together, telling the story of the War of Thorns from both perspectives, not unlike how there were different perspectives in the begginning scenario for Legion, to great effect.

“A Good War” is appropriately subtle in its telling of a complex narrative and deep universal themes. The internal monologues of multiple characters help to clarify motivations, and show the mentality of both Horde leaders and the average grunt. Blood elves spitting in the face of Malfurion and explaining the cycle of hatred. The morally grey theme of warcraft, and the dirtiness of war is on full display.

In contrast, none of the morally grey themes are touched on in “Elegy”. Christie Golden portrays the entire Alliance as naive, childish victims repeatedly violated by the evil horde. Characters like Tyrande and Genn are wasted in “Elegy”. They defer almost religiously to Anduin. The Alliance of “Elegy” is boring, weak and sad. The leadership stands by and watches the “genocide” (as Christie Golden so un-subtely coined it) helplessly. The only strength and defiance in the whole book is from b-list npcs. This type of writing (of which Christie Golden’s recent examples are prime examples) is counter to the themes that built the universe we enjoy, and drives the narrative that the horde are genocidal savages, and the Alliance is innocent victims- content to share their world with aliens, magic addicts, zombies, cannibals and capitalists. The only mistake they ever made was genocide against some Plains Indians analogues, (but we downplay that because it doesnt fit the “alliance as good guy” narrative).

The story of BfA wasn’t concieved by Golden, but the tone of voice- one dimensional and melodramatic- was clearly molded by Golden’s work on novellas and quest writing. Remember, the devs have said they weren’t sure which way they were going to go with Sylvanas yet when BfA started. It was “Elegy” that introduced the idea that Teldrassil was genocide (other sources have the tree intentionally mostly evacuated). Now the genocide is all anyone talks about.

People who act like the alliance are supposed to be as innocent and victimized as they have been recently portrayed are really robbing themselves of the better story. They cite examples of Golden’s post Metzen lore catastrophes and the dirivitive works thereof, but those are some of the most despised departures from the lore in the history of the franchise. If someone points out the objectively-better narrative in which both sides are morally grey, the narrative which was attempted in only the horde half of the War of Thorns novellas, they are not wrong any more than fans of the “morally pure alliance” are for ignoring the flaws of BtS and Elegy, and the obvious shortcuts taken in the BfA story. The themes they attempted to reintroduce in the lead up to Mok’gora, by reminding us that Arthas was a human.

12 Likes
80

That’s why I find this quote so ironic.

Garbage assertions like this are one of the reasons the Alliance in its current iteration is so boring. People like you interpret ANY negative sentiment, no matter how minor, isolated, or reserved, as being some kind of sign of festering evil or psychotic aggression. Showing passion about something, or having any negative opinions on something at all, is not a sign that everyone is a secret mass-murderer waiting to happen.

So many Alliance players refuse to accept or acknowledge anything that might even approach considering the Alliance could possibly want or do something bad. Everything is crouched behind layers of justification or denial. Wanting to put down (in-character) a group of people that regularly torture, enact biological weapons, and so on for years is ‘festering evil and psychotic aggression’. That they can’t even grant they’d want to get rid of Demons, which have been the enemy of all life since nearly the dawn of time.

I don’t think the story, factually speaking, is very grey right now. But it’ll never go there with people unable to accept or comprehend any controversial things for the Alliance.

6 Likes