I think the idea that the Lich King wanted to save Azeroth from the Legion was born from Warcraft 3’s storyline, in which the Lich King at the time (Ner’zhul) rebelled against Kil’jaeden and fought against the Burning Legion. And people just kind of started postulating that if he could make everyone undead, he’d have an army capable of doing that.
And as sometimes happens, things that are just kind of floating around out there as headcanon eventually become treated as actual lore.
Like how so many people postulated that Sylvanas was ultimately working to stave off an invasion by the Old Gods because undead are more resistant to their influence. Based largely on void whispers to Valleria about Sylvanas being the enemy.
Or how so many were sure that the Church of the Light promised followers a paradisiacal heaven-like like afterlife, even though this is never really stated either.
It doesn’t help that Warcraft 1 had Big G God as the human belief system, with angelic emissaries and heaven awaiting you, and the orcs both serving and being served by big red demons.
They’ve been dismantling it piecemeal for a while but you can still see it creep in over time. Then suddenly - Shadowlands.
I think that’s it too. For a villain to be so bad that your Horde and Alliance characters feel okay teaming up to take them down.
Because if there’s a villain that’s only really a threat to say, Mulgore or the Barrens, it’s going to be hard finding a reason why the Alliance Champion is going to get involved. Unless the antagonist is also just so awful that they need to be opposed on general principle.
If Sylvanas hadn’t burned down the tree and her actual war had been more measured and lacking in civilian casualties or killed her own, I don’t think Blizard could have convinced Horde players to buy into the “She is evil and must be stopped by any means necessary” narrative.
I made it through the first three at the time of their release. By the end of the third book, I had literally run out of characters to root for. There’s subverting expectations, and then there’s being noble and virtuous to a fault. People like to argue that Ned Stark would never betray his principles…Ned Stark was a rebel who became a noble after said rebellion. The entire series’ premise falls to pieces if Ned Stark had simply taken Ceresi’s offer, returned to Winterfell and waited six months to lead the Armies of the North into King’s Landing. They’d be greeted as liberators and heroes and there’d be little in the way of actual bloodshed.
And the less said about Robb Stark’s decision to abandon his political alliance marriage in favor of a commoner - and then bring said commoner - heavy with his child - to a banquet put on by said spurned political alliance member - the better.
See I never saw that. Arthas was corrupt and by the time he’d returned to Lordaeron he was completely under the thrall of the Lich King. The stuff that came out later that Arthas was holding back the Scourge always bothered me, since he’d never showcased any sort of concern or introspection when it came to his actions.
That’s something I think people miss in WarCraft III. Arthas was never a good person. He just faked civility, and the issue with the Plague just tore away that mask of civility until the tipping point. Which wasn’t, as many assume, when he took up Frostmourne.
It’s when he has his soldiers (Who were returning home by order to Terenas and Uther) kill the Northrend Mercenaries he’d hired to burn their ships. Yes, Stratholme is also considered a tipping point but that actually had some justification to it since Mal’Ganis really was running around the city amassing an army of Scourge while Arthas was purging the city.
The situation in Northrend was when Arthas became a Death Knight. Frostmourne claiming his soul was just a formality.
That was also one of the most unsettling pieces of television I’d ever seen. It didn’t get me invested in the story, it wasn’t a shocking and engaging turn, it was just barbaric and depressing and I felt ugly inside after I closed the tab and moved on.
The books only hint at it in passing (Even Martin refused to go into too graphic detail about it), and I never bothered to even try to watch the show’s take on it. I watched people reacting to it though, and yeah…that tracks with my own feelings on the issue.
To this day I really wonder why Martin even bothered giving the Stark kids Direwolves if none of them were going to pay attention to them.
Reminds me of another Dark Fantasy novel I read around that time - obviously influenced by GoT - where the villain of the book leads a barbarian army against a kingdom ruled by his brother. And it ends up with him and his brother’s wife in the dining hall with the roasted corpse of his brother as the main course.
I believe it’s the first book I ever just straight up threw in the garbage.
Right. I think it’s when it’s just gore for its own sake that immediately becomes offputting. I’m not completely averse to blood and brutality in my stories, but things like the Red Wedding just felt over the top to me.
You guys would have hated r/DMAcademy at the height of Game of Thrones (if you hadn’t participated), thousands of edgy posters hammering away day and night at “Steal my storyline” posts that were just endless “How can I one-up GoT… hmmm” cruelty, torture, body horror, etc.
“Backstory elements for your Evil Emperor to get your party to really want to kill them” and then list numerous crimes, war crimes, sex crimes, and of course half of them done to their own family. Like, bro nobody wants to read your gorewank fic, all players need to want to kill the Evil Emperor is he was a jerk once, and along the way there will be experience points, treasure, and cereal bars.
I reckon, that’s where I think we go from childhood “muahaha” kind of villains, to actual nuanced characters. Personally I’d rather a villain that has reasons for their villainy rather than simply wanting to destroy the world or something. Even Kel’thuzad for instance came to the belief that by making EVERYONE mindless undead, the world would be more peaceful and united. I mean it’s a wildly bad take, horrifically evil, but at least he’s not just doing it for the LOLz
At the end of the day it’s much the same ethos even before the retcon. Existence is flawed and corrupted. Better to get rid of it. I kinda think it’s cool.
That literally never happened. Arthas fell from grace but as the Lich King he genuinely wanted the Scourge to wash over the living.
That’s a one-liner from a guy who once DID rule the world (or part of it) before the Titans rekt him. Of course he thinks he’s the best solution for the world. He’s also obviously not.
Well I did add the caveat that they can always be written wrong. Like their desire to do horrible and dumb things over shadows the part where we are suppose to sympathize. I always made fun of Arthas because the Rise of the Lich King book made it seem like his last straw and descent to find Frostmourne was to resurrect his dead horse. Like oh no, horse dead, get vision to make horse come back alive :surprise pikachu face: And then we’re shown where Uther and Jaina do not support him and walk away from him during the Culling of Stratholme dungeon, and of course the book and other quest excerpts. Of course not everyone remembers that nor even cares for it, as sympathy is different from person to person.
Just like how there are people that do not like Emet-Selch at all and still feel he is a diabolical, genocidal maniac that needed to be stopped and find he wasn’t a good villain at all. I’m of course on the #ILoveEmet train, but yeah, not everyone is or was. As people do differ.
My issue with Blizzard’s writing is everything has to be driven by a corruptice force. Illidan’s was consensual, but Arthas was tricked by a Nathrezim and became what he is, Deathwing was corrupted by the Old Gods and went insane, Sargeras was corrupted by the demons, Xavius was corrupted… only one I can say wasn’t corrupted was Kael’thas, Sylvanas and Azshara, and subjectively people don’t like or care for those three (but I do, I love Azshara). I feel like Azshara is their only well-written villain. It just sucked defeating her so easily.
I love my false savior and tragic villains as much as I love my evil, unredeemable ones too. But it’s mostly a subjective thing from person to person. Hell there are people don’t even like Devos and I’m like… I feel as though people just don’t want villains.
I’m rather fond of humanizing the villain, I feel like the best villains are those you can rationally empathize with.
Megatron.
Skeletor.
Horus Luprical.
Cobra Commander.
The Joker.
We can cherry-pick Comic Book character all day & night. Even Superman has his time as a villain.
TL/DR: Nostalgia can be toxic when you singularly focused on one aspect (knock on wood). The “fall from grace” backstory might be an overdone trope at this point, But it fleshes out a character in such a way that it gives the imagination allot of material to daydream over.
It’s a timeless story.
To quote the Punisher “Your one bad day away from becoming me”.
I made a really long post detailing a slightly different answer. I don’t want to post it anymore.
The point of it was that while I think there’s been something different in WoW’s writing from, say, the WC3 origins of many of the characters, it’s not this. I think they just got worse at delivering the villain’s pitch and portrayal moving from a single-player, conventionally told video game story to an MMO story, wherein they, after this many years, still don’t have a firm footing on what the format is on a very practical level.
In sum, I think old Arthas, old Illidan, Kael’thas, Azshara, are all great villains because we got to see their rationale develop over time and its obvious flaws. There were no surprises, no retcons, no doubling back to expand or add on details that were really flimsy in the past, no fiction changing the events of an ancient expansion, etc.
The constantly shifting, moving, morphing state of details in an already particularly convoluted fantasy world makes following the rules that make characters comprehensible extremely difficult and frustrating–and more often than not, Blizzard lose themselves as well as their audience these days, and won’t admit it.
They just need a consistent villain that isn’t easily defeatable, and no one has the expectation to defeat them. Like Sargeras. I’m still uneasy on that decision.
I think the increase in character customization was a direct response to FFXIV, maybe Blizzard will take some time to look at their storytelling as well.
I figure I’d share a rather general but relevant personal view on villains. They don’t all need to be ‘hero of their own story’ types or have complexed and nuanced motivations worthy of philosophical debate; especially in Warcraft. Still nice to have those that do, though; as long as they were always like that.
Seriously though, I do enjoy the villians that do awful things just to further their own selfish goal. Then again, I love the ones that do things to benefit others even if it means doing awful things. I love Fandral Staghelms and I love Kil’Jadens.
I don’t necessarily like how there seems to be a sympathetic side/perspective sometimes…but I think they do it well when they do it.
I love the Legion cinematic with Kil’Jaden and Velen. It was so unexpected for him to have that final heart to heart with him because he always addressed Velen with so much disdain. It didn’t redeem Kil’Jaden or even make him sympathetic, it was just, perfect and something I never knew I wanted with the end of his story.
I think it was more revenge. Revenge has been king of his motivations since the beginning. Bear in mind that while Arthas did take full control of the helm, he also inherited all of Ner’zhul’s memories.
I’d want to punk KJ, too.
The problem with recent, very bad iterations of “hero of their own story” villains in WoW is that, in WoW’s setting in particular, they’re frustrating if they’re not convincing. And trying to double down on your own fans and insist that your not-convincing pitch for your villain is, in fact, somehow convincing is obnoxious.
And there’s a world of difference between Kael’thas and Arthas and Illidan, for example, being likable and interesting (sometimes) because their motives are understandable, versus the game and devs trying to insist that a particular villain is literally, actually morally correct, or at least has a respectable claim to say they are. That bar is so much higher, and that conversation is so much more confrontational and frustrating to have–especially when they’re wrong.
Beyond that, we’re the player characters. We don’t even have a choice in who we kill, anyhow. We’re like carnival goers–we get in line to ride the Kill Sylvanas ride. If we want there to be a Kill Thrall ride or a Kill Anduin ride, and there isn’t, tough cookies. So, if you’re going to try and turn around and tell us we’re wrong for thinking someone’s evil, despite being directed to kill them, and despite their literally killing our people, then what the hell? This isn’t a real RPG. We don’t have choices.
All of this to say, a “hero of their own story” character isn’t always even believable, and trying to make the claim can be often far more obnoxious than not. Not every villain actually has a good claim to being morally good, or anything close to it, and not every good villain does or pretends to. There’s no need to try and make it happen for the giant, one eyed tentacle monster that wants to enslave all mortal people.