Morality of the Horde

Lore Story Forum
1

I want to discuss the current morality of the Horde and the way some of the current races and actual players are reacting towards the ethics and tactics of the Undead and leadership. This isn’t to necessarily attack or defend the morality of it rather than to shed some light (as ironic as it sounds) and discuss the information that we’ve known since the beginning of Warcraft.

It’s obvious to me why and I’m sure everyone else realizes why Death and Undeath would be portrayed in a negative way, as death is the direct counter to all life and in real life we portray them this way.

So, let’s take a step back to the days the Undead Forsaken joined the Horde. Despite the doubts they had about them and the chaos they could wreak over life, they allowed the Forsaken to join them anyway and gave them a lot of power in their war efforts and R&D department. They became a big part of the Horde.

So knowing the history of the Undead foundation and war efforts in the Horde why all of a sudden are some of the Horde characters and players perceiving them and Sylvanas so negatively? Maybe they didn’t like the Undead in the first place? But why would they give them such a powerful position in the Horde?

4 Likes
2

I dont think anybody is arguing against the consistency of how the Forsaken are portrayed. Theyve always been a self pitying Scourge lite with questionable tactics, morals and goals.

2 Likes
3

That’s what I’m saying. So, why the sudden disbelief and outrage shown by characters in-game and people in rl in what is happening if they’ve practically been spreading the same death and decay they have been since the beginning? I’m just generally curious.

4 Likes
4

Well, how much anyone really knew about what was being done by the RAS and other creepy things Sylvannas signed off on pre-Wrath is up for debate. Vanilla questing certainly implied that it was all a very closely guarded secret, only coming to fruition with the Wrathgate, which is also when Thrall put Sylvannas on a short leash. Even Garrosh disapproved of the Blight and Sylvannas’s use of it. So while from a Team Blue perspective it might not make sense that people seem to suddenly be against Sylvannas’s actions, the story made it out that her past behavior either wasn’t known or was also unapproved.

And the Horde didn’t give Sylvy a powerful position; Vol’jin did. Nobody elected Sylvannas, only one man chose her and under the directions of what he thought was the loa. Once she was on the big chair, it wasn’t even that the rest of the Horde gave power to the forsaken; that was Sylvannas’s decision as warchief.

Hopefully that puts it all in some context.

10 Likes
5

Beats the hell outta me.

1 Like
6

The Forsaken are like that cousin you call when your jerk ex-boyfriend won’t give you back your stuff.

You love that cousin.

Mostly from a distance.

You don’t let him host the family Christmas party.

22 Likes
7

The Forsaken work well as a part of the Horde.

Not as its core.

17 Likes
8

On a day when I’ve seen all kinds of analogies, from poor to perfect, this might just be my favorite. Yes, that is exactly what the forsaken are.

12 Likes
9

Ah yes, I do know all of their reactions towards their past history.
But why have such a negative such as Death itself, that is responsible for much of the war effort even before Sylvanas became warchief, in the Horde in the first place if you don’t want to be perceived negatively? They weren’t ever in the backseat when it comes to warfare that’s for sure.

2 Likes
10

Because death isn’t what causes war. Greed, hate, miscommunications, these things cause war. Death? It’s a byproduct. Nobody goes to war because death happens. Maybe they go to war because one guy killed another guy, but those wars are actually more rare than wars started for some perceived slight or some emotional desire.

As for why allow the forsaken in if it meant they’d be looked at poorly? I mean, we’re talking about the orcs coming off the tails of two wars of invasion. I’d wager people hated the orcs more than the forsaken, outside of places directly hit by the plague like Lordaeron. And besides that, Thrall’s Horde wasn’t concerned about their image with the wider world. They were the misfit toys that nobody wanted or outright hated. They were the outcast homeless. The forsaken were actually a great fit in that regard. Nobody was being image-conscious at the time.

4 Likes
11

You are right, however, after they were established. wouldn’t it be best to reduce the amount of power the Forsaken had if they, now, didn’t want to be portrayed so negatively? While I know they kept Sylvanas on a short leash, per say, they did still have a lot of impact, and they were still allowed to raise the dead among other atrocities and maintain a negative perception of the Horde v the alliance, even during which Garrosh was warchief. that’s why I’m wondering why they still kept them in the Horde.

1 Like
12

I have.

My biggest problem is that they do not display any other side of Forsaken society. It is a motley, patchworked society of different religious beliefs, outlooks and objectives that ultimately boil down to ‘survive in a world where there was no place for them, neither in nature or in man made society, by any means.’. The last bit is left open ended, as it’s on an individual level for someone to say what price is too great.

From those who live in denial and chase their former lives as fast as they can, to those who’ve grown to meet the demands of a new life that surrounds them, to men who’ve simply broke and became the very thing they were accused of being, they are Forsaken all, whether they are adherents to the cult of Forgotten Shadow, to diehards of the Holy Light, to those who are entities of their own, trying to find their way.

You can see the morally bankrupt acts of Apothecary Faranell, who kept people caged in the bottom of Undercity and experimented on them. You can also see the reluctance to use taboo powers with a dark, ancient evil, and strive for more traditional approaches to winning in battle, particularly in the Deathguard squad in Silverpine Forest. You can see those who maintain personal integrity and independence, such as Leonid Bartholomew and Lilian Voss.

Contrast is required to tell the story of a society that is so thoroughly cracked. In BFA, there is no contrast, just evil, more evil and unrepentant evil. BtS is probably the only time throughout BFA’s putrid story that they’ve shown that, and they killed them off to introduce lightforged undead Calia Menethil.

Contrast is also required in the political angle, because if everyone is baby eating, heartless, stupid evil, then it brings up the point; ‘why do we have these guys in the Horde, again?’. It’s like asking why the Tauren are around because a Grimtotem had Cairne killed in Garrosh’s duel.

27 Likes
13

As for being on topic, they’re being viewed so negatively because of the aforementioned lack of contrast. This is the story of the Forsaken who would find the ideals and outlooks of the Cult of Forgotten Shadow more agreeable and do heinous things to survive in the world they are in.

Sylvanas has lost all political subtlety and does a lot of defenseless things. She has more or less split all political connections to the Horde by turning against Saurfang and Baine and the Forsaken who are totally on board with abhorrent activities are all on board to do their worst, without another side to maintain those relations with the Horde.

Lastly, to put salt on a wound, new-and-downgraded-sense-lacking Sylvanas has done much that makes the Horde complicit in her actions, which can really stir the pot with the other members of the Horde.

12 Likes
14

I was about to make a post in this thread about my issues, but Gladwell covered it perfectly. I pretty much agree 100% with what they said.

15

Interesting answer. You’ve got a nice bird-eye view of the subject. Thanks for your input.

1 Like
16

By the way some posters around here act, you’d think severe in-group loyalty was the only aspect of their moral compass.

Forsaken content used to be optional. They had their own questzones and story, but it was out-of-the-way on their own continent. It wasn’t at the core of the Horde narrative.

Once Sylvanas’ warcrimes like burning Teldrassil or blighting/raising soldiers of both the Horde and Alliance become the center of the Horde narrative - it made many Horde players feel out of character to be complicit.

Take me for example. I consider Sylvanas and her nuScourge to be a far greater threat to the Horde than Choirboy Anduin and the rest of the Alliance. Sylvanas would raise the Horde in a heartbeat if they outgrow their usefulness. Most Alliance characters at least have some sense of the inherent value of life. If the Alliance wins the Horde might have its military disbanded but I don’t see the Alliance killing our children, or blighting out lands, or raising us into undeath.

9 Likes
17

Again, I just don’t see why the Horde would care about their PR problems with the Alliance. To use a real-world example, do you think Russian policy takes into mind what their image will be like in America? Do you imagine Putin saying to his advisors “we all feel this is a policy that best benefits us, but will the US like us less if we do it?” Cuz I don’t. I don’t see any nation or conglomeration of nations basing their decisions on how it affects their image with the public that isn’t part of their conglomerate.

That’s another thing; they really didn’t. Not as much as you and a lot of other players seem to think. Going expansion by expansion:
Vanilla, the Forsaken were the EK branch of the Horde. Kind of set apart, only as much impact as everyone had back then.

BC: Unless you were an orc or a blood elf, your story was locked in the Vanilla era. The forsaken had arguably less prominence than before.

Wrath: This is when they had their first taste of prominence with the Wrathgate, and got slapped down for it by both factions when Sylvannas allegedly lost control of the Undercity. They went on the least thereafter and disappeared for the rest of the expansion, save for Sylvannas’s obsession with Arthas.

Cata: Again, another rise up the ranks for the forsaken. But it was ultimately well overshadowed by Garrosh and the orcs. It’s worth noting that beyond the northern EK leveling zones, you didn’t see the forsaken storyline develop and they disappeared from prominence.

MoP & WoD: again, the forsaken disappear from the narrative. It’s orcs all the way down, boys!

Legion: While the forsaken did shine here, they were actually at their morally grey-est. Sylvannas, their leader, tried to enslave a val’kyr and bargained with Helya, but the forsaken at large were just another part of the Horde’s war machine. Beyond Sylvannas, the forsaken didn’t do much here.

There isn’t some overwhelming prominence. It’s a few sharp peaks with a lot of huge valleys. And if you exclude one single member, the forsaken haven’t really done anything worse than the rest of the non-orc Horde. They were a part of a war machine, that’s it.

5 Likes
18

The only thing more disturbing than the story itself is that some Horde players are completely onboard with it.

I vote Yagarr for Warchief.

4 Likes
20

Vote me for Warchief instead, Yagarr won’t release his tax returns

19 Likes
21

Yes, but.

I’m great with women. Women love me.

5 Likes