You seem to fail to understand that they were more than just forsaken by their Heir-Prince. Hence the name. Even if Sylvanas named their merry-jolly group of cadavers, she understood their plight. Her being gone doesn’t erase the reasons behind the name “Forsaken”.
1 Like
Arthas is their own people…You dont know the story at all do you…
At that point, it was either Garithos making the first move or Sylvanas. He got outplayed. Later on, an ambassador was sent to Stormwind, in the hope to reconnect lost families with survivors that went away. The ambassador never came back. What happened to them is a traumatic experience with their faith. It is legitimate, as a people with a faith, to feel their were abandonned by it, forsook even. It is not unheard of. So yes, in their mind, the world forsake them.
7 Likes
Arthas is a PERSON. Singular.
And if you think that the sole reason the Forsaken felt forsook is Arthas Senpai going Game of Thrones on them (rather than other various reasons, like, say, the little matter of their state of living decay), then not only is your grammatical understanding of the story in question, so is your entire grasp of it.
3 Likes
as others have pointed out, they had already been named by the time this happened. The naming of them was in direct response to Arthas actions, everything else came after
So you are saying singluar people cannot use they/them and their? Sounds transphobic to me
…I’m just going to assume you have no actual arguments based in rational logic, and so you’re just going with nonsensical non-sequitur ad-hominems.
By the way, your first edit draft didn’t get all the errors. In fact, you’ve double quoted your post, once separately, and then once as part of your mega quote of me.
yeah, its annoying how the quote gets screwed up when you try to edit in a quote, but its passable i think. no it was more tongue and cheek than ad hominem. Arthas betrayed his people, they felt betraying by him, their leader. Sylvanas viewed them as being forsaken by him. They had not been abandonned by anyone else officially at this point, yet this is when Sylvanas named them. A people can feel abandoned by their leaders, by their own people, even if their leader is a singular person. Afterall, arthas did not act alone. This was my point, that for some reason, many people here are deliberately missing.
Maybe you should consider that your point isn’t being missed, its just not accurate and everyone disagrees with it. Because you are arguing that this is THE SOLE REASON for the Forsaken having their name and liking it. Not, say, them being undead, their connection to the Light being impaired (or painful), their entire crisis of faith with the Light apparently allowing what happened to them, and as I said previously, a industrial grade laundry list of other issues, including some of their families being repulsed at the sight of them.
That, and you’re really grasping at straws to defend referring to Arthas in the plural tense.
3 Likes
Arugal summoned the Worgen to Silverpine on Genn’s orders to defend Gilneas from the Scourge. I’m not sure if that could be called a crime, but it did end up harming most of his own people.
There was no “first move” for Garithos. The deal was Garithos and his people get Lordaeron in return for helping the forsaken kill the last Dreadlord controlling Lordaeron. After that was done, Sylvanas went back on her word and had Garithos killed. Garithos may very well be the first instance of Sylvanas using someone to further her own agenda and discarding them once they’ve served their purpose.
So now you have these so called “forsaken”, former mindless zombies claiming to be free of the Lich King’s control, who have now already proven to be untrustworthy, in a post-third war world where the Scourge (their former affiliation) had ran rampant across Dalaran, Lordaeron and Silvermoon City, among other places.
And yet in their mind, they’re the victim in all of this?
1 Like
The moment you start to speak for everyone bud, you lose the argument. Sylvanas named them prior to these things becoming prominent/known eventualitites. You can disagree all you want, but I am pulling this directly from chronicle/the forsaken wiki and many other sources. You really think Sylvanas cared about the light? You really think she cared about their families? She cared about Arthas, her soul focus, Arthas had forsaken them, Arthas would pay. It was all arthas. Geez
Sylvanas named them before they were undead?
Before they their families rejected them, before they Alliance emmisaries did not return, before the extent of the lights rejection was known. Direct quote from the wiki
“With her immediate enemies dealt with and the ruins of Lordaeron firmly in her hands, Lady Sylvanas proclaimed her faction of self-aware undead as the “Forsaken,” and resolved to slaughter anyone would dare stand in the way of their dominion.”
Wow, the immense irony of Derek becoming a supporting leader of the Horde didn’t hit me until reading this.
11 Likes
Story wise, even Sylvanas acknowledged the living saw it as their home in A Good War:
- I believe the living humans of Lordaeron think it is blasphemy that my people still hold their city.
And after the War Campaign Finale, Blizzard added Alliance NPCs to show it as a loss of a home from this angle as well:
- Stormwind City Guard says: I used to live in Lordaeron, you know. Before the Third War. Always hoped to go back someday.
Stormwind City Guard says: But not anymore?
Stormwind City Guard says: No. Not after The Banshee Queen blighted what was left of the city. That dream is dead now.
Full disclosure: I’m in Grandblade’s camp, I don’t care about Lordaeron. Though give Calia showing up outside The Bulwark in 8.3, I suspect Lordaeron won’t be blighted any more much longer and the Forsaken will get it back.
3 Likes
Incidentally, by your own admission and specification, not before they became undead, not before they died traumatically at the Scourge’s hand, and definitely not before they’d be able to question how the Light let their lives go to Argus in a handbasket. Still plenty more reasons than just “our people, Arthas, forsook us!”
By the way, in an argument about why they might possibly keep the name “Forsaken”, we should include more than just the bare initial set of circumstances behind it. We should also include all the reasons that might’ve arose afterwards that would’ve served as “supporting evidence”, shall we say, that they are indeed truly “forsaken”.
The way you’re arguing, nothing outside of the very niche and specific initial circumstances matter for the Forsaken’s name (putting aside gross oversimplification of said circumstances). This precludes literally their entire history post-founding.
Look, dude, just admit that you didn’t read my post too closely when you said that the points I raised in it (including their undeath) happened after they were named Forsaken. A lot of what you’re doing seems (including defending the reference of Arthas as being a people in the plural sense) like obvious revisionist tactics so you can win an argument on the internet. lol
They could keep the name. They were forsook by the banshee when she smoked out after killing Saurfang.
2 Likes
I wonder how they will house the Kaldorei in such an eventuality. They do stuff like this as a mirrored action… and Teldrassil is not exactly able to be unburnt.
And goodness the outcry if they gave the Forsaken of all people back their home and left the Kaldorei weeping on street corners would knock the roof off.
2 Likes
Amadis already covered it well enough. I don’t care about Lordaeron much either but it strikes as a bit disingenuous to disregard that there objectively exist still living Lordaeron citizens within the Alliance.
If that’s what the writers deem it then sure. Would that be fair? No, not for several reasons. I wouldn’t like it but it would be for other reasons not related to legitimate claim, such as more affirmation from Blizzard that they favor Undead over Worgen in their overall conflict or the lack of Worgen ever being allowed to keep their signature gothic style.
While I’m not gung-ho into “might makes right” I do think it does however warrant that no kingdom was truly ever created without some level of force and arguing that only spoken word of legitimacy matters perhaps has its own extremes like how the Trolls could just say they had legitimate claims before the Humans or the High Elves drove them out.
1 Like
Better compromise. You can take Derek and Calia, and leave Lordaeron to its rightful rulers.
6 Likes