M … With a traitor, you live in paranoia. With a simpler racist, living conditions will worsen, the moment of death is more or less clear and there is a chance to turn to the third.
But they are not though, and the narrative does not treat them the same. The narrative unanimously (even from an Alliance PoV) treats Garithos’s death as a good thing because he was a racist. In the Eastern Kingdom book, Mathias Shaw says that killing Garithos was a good thing.
Everyone talks about unreliable narration except when it matters. Mathias Shaw is not a reliable narrator when it comes to the undead. He explicitly lumps them all in together as something he doesn’t fully understand or cares to understand, which is racism or “fear of the other” as it’s called. This leans into the topic of the divide that was created between the Alliance and the Forsaken, and the more Alliance players justify this divide, by justifying racism, the more valid it becomes.
I get that from an Alliance perspective, wiping out the Alliance is bad, that’s a no brainer. But from a Horde perspective it’s not because the Alliance is inherently racist. I don’t know why this story forum has to have this same argument day in and day out. The OG story Metzen built, the Human vs Orc narrative, is inherently racist it was built on an imperialists are the heroes vs the evil aggressive savages trope. The conflict between the Alliance and the Horde is also inherently racist. The sooner everyone figures that out and accepts it as fact, the sooner we can talk about something else, like the meta that there are exceptions to the rule within each faction. or how the Horde and the Forsaken have struggled to overcome this ingrained bias against them.
Or… How the Dreadlords targeted the Alliance in Legion, by impersonating Shaw and used the Alliance’s racism (especially through Genn Greymane attacking the Forsaken) to start the 4th War with the intention to wipe out both the Horde and the Alliance, and it almost worked. Would it be so shocking if Sylvanas saw this and orchestrated the 4th War to make the Dreadlords believe they had won by sacrificing Teldrassil? it seems like Elune possibly knew this too and took advantage of this sacrifice to help save her sister.
It’s just one possibility… or we can all just wonder “why is this happening?” and all wander around aimlessly scratching our heads until new content drops, so then we can all claim that Blizzard is changing the goal posts on us with retcons and shake our fists angrily at clouds for the foreseeable future.
“Sylvaaaaaanasssss!!!” shakes fist angrily at dark cloud
Because he was a racist or an arrogant, under-educated victim? Who can be killed in the Horde, and whose killing would be a good deed?
This is not racism. Stigma. Similar, but behind the second there is no “bloody” story and it applies perfectly to disease.
“From the Horde’s point of view, the Alliance is racist,” right?
There is no need to pretend that the Horde people are clean. “Garithos would have killed all the Forsaken, so they are right to kill him out of prejudice.” No, no, no, the Horde are as dirty as the Alliance.
If they are less soiled, which is unlikely, then I can still scoff at me. Heads on pumpkin fields…
Okay, Horde is saving the day. What are you ready to offer? Become a victim of genocide? Voluntary renunciation (or refusal to use with the transfer for free use under a lease contract) from the ancestral (at least everyone who was engaged in colonization must have time to die at the start of the war) territories? Joining Horde characters with the Lightforged Draenei?
1 Like
Serious face.
How does this fix the “betrayal by God” problem?
Look at the Finding Judas tv trope and you may find your answer. “Judas’s act of ‘betrayal’ is in fact his faithful obedience to Jesus’ will.” what Elune did was a betrayal for the greater good. Elune is your Judas and she did what she did to help stop the Jailer, They are setting up the Night Elves and Tyrande to be the ultimate victors, the force of Life triumphs over Death! which will likely lead to renewal of her people and the tree because she’s a Life Goddess and the Death God killed her people to wound her.
While you are at it also look up “Mole in Charge” because it explains why Sylvanas burnt the tree to begin with, and why Elune doesn’t want Tyrande to kill her and why her redemption is also predicted and likely to come true.
2 Likes
A conversation with emissaries would have been a great start.
The Dreadlords targeted the Alliance in the Legion, posing as Shaw. The Dreadlords used the Alliance racism (especially through Genn Greymane attacking the Forsaken) to launch the 4th War with the intention of destroying both the Horde and the Alliance, and it almost worked. Sylvanas saw it (The Dreadlords exploited Alliance racism). Sylvanas organized the 4th War and sacrificed Teldrassil. Objective: to make the Dreadlords believe that the Dreadlords have won. Elune knew about this (the Dreadlords ‘plans and Sylvanas’ plan) and used this sacrifice to save her sister.
Has the revised version retained its original meaning?
Let’s admit. And what will be the “compensation”? Uncontested by anyone (except for Elune) the right to rule over all living and inanimate (except for the Wild Gods, Loa, August Celestials, other great “natural” creations of the Titans)? The right to destroy all who went to this war with joy?
Sylvanas Puppet’s Explanation: Elune watches over all of Azeroth. Implicit defect, ignore.
Explanation of Elune’s choice of night elves as a victim: More anima is accumulated over a long life.
Conclusion: Elune killed the night elves for efficiency reasons.
…
No.
The problem of “Betrayal by G(g)od” has not been resolved. Involuntary victim, it is unacceptable.
God has no right to silently spend the lives of believers. God is obligated to notify believers. Wait for (cowardly) consent. Kill the believers. Upon completion of the process for which the murder took place, God is obliged to resurrect the believers. In case of impossibility of resurrection, God is obliged to provide the survivors with bonuses corresponding to the grandeur of the goal, divided by the number of survivors. In the absence of survivors, God is obligated to provide a monument that matches the grandeur of the goal.
…
The most important part is “Wait for (cowardly) agreement”. Yes.
Memo
Допустим. И какой же будет “компенсация”? Неосоримое никем (кроме Элуны) право править всеми живыми и неживыми (кроме Диких богов, Лоа, Августейших небожителей, других великих “природных” творений Титанов)? Право уничтожить всех, кто шел на эту войну с радостью?
Объяснение Сильваны-марионетки: Элуна следит за всем Азеротом. Неявный дефект, игнорировать.
Объяснение выбора Элуны ночных эльфов в качестве жертвы: больше анимы накоплено за долгую жизнь.
Вывод: Элуна убила ночных эльфов исходя из соображений эффективности.
…
Нет.
Проблема “Предательство, совершенное (Б / б)огом” не решена. Недобровольная жертва, недопустимо.
Бог не имеет права молча расходовать жизнь верующих. Бог обязан уведомить верующих. Дождаться (трусливого) согласия. Убить верующих. По завершению процесса, ради которого произошло убийство, Бог обязан воскресить верующих. В случае невозможности воскрешения, Бог обязан предоставить выжившим бонусы, соответствующие грандиозности цели, разделенные на количество выживших. В случае отсутствия выживших, Бог обязан обеспечить памятник, соответствующий грандиозности цели.
…
Самой важной частью является “Дождаться (трусливого) согласия”. Да.
No need to speak with emissaries due to the assassination of Alliance member Garithos.
The Alliance provided support to the Forsaken, after which the Forsaken broke the agreement between the Alliance and the Forsaken by attacking the legitimate representative of the Alliance.
2 Likes
You are projecting.
Garithos was a racist, and according to Shaw, “Sullied the name of the Alliance” and he believed that the Forsaken killing him was better than what he deserved.
Yet and still, posters are projecting and placing him and his deal on a pedestal.
I’ll make this very easy for you. Show me were the Alliance doesn’t want to speak to emissaries due to the assassination of this racist and despicable person.
We have two accounts that mentions Garithos from the Alliance pov, so if I missed something please share or continue projecting.
Edit:
We literally have someone in the King of the Alliance court saying “Betraying and eating Garithos is better than what he deserved”
2 Likes
Shaw is not the Emperor of Alliance Sentiment
2 Likes
I don’t claim that he is…
After years and years of projecting, we finally get an actually high ranking Alliance member’s sentiment about the Forsaken betraying and eating Garithos. Alas, its not what has been projected by the “Garithos did nothing wrong” crowd.
Edit:
The Alliance has 2 accounts of Garithos, this is the only one that shows sentiment of his death beyond “he was arrogant”.
2 Likes
Every time people point out the reality of what happened you default to “but Shaw said Garithos sucked so why don’t you?”
As though nobody here is capable of thinking independently from fictional characters when this entire forum is nothing but a laundry list of disputes between what players think and what the game thinks.
5 Likes
We have 2 accounts from the Alliance, everything else is projection. I think we can at least agree to that.
If there is something that proves that emissaries were killed/not accepted by the Alliance OR the Alliance hold a grudge against the Forsaken because they killed Garithos please share. I’ll wait…
3 Likes
That the Alliance condemns Garithos does not necessarily mean the example of what happened to him when he trusted the Forsaken is any less relevant. I think that’s more the point that others are trying to make when they bring up Garithos and his dealings with the Forsaken as a reason to mistrust them.
10 Likes
The “relevancy” is based on 2 accounts from the Alliance pov, everything else is assumptions and projections.
As far as your mistrust comment, the Alliance already had mistrust toward the Forsaken before going into a deal with a despicable racist. That is a non factor.
5 Likes
How can we assume in good faith that the Alliance hate the Forsaken because the Forsaken killed Garithos, when there is no evidence? There are no implications of such from the two canon recounts that we have. One Alliance account says that Garithos was arrogant, while the other says the Forsaken gave him better than what he deserved.
Its actually okay to assume and project that the Alliance hate the Forsaken because they killed Garithos, but don’t present it as its some canon fact.
At the same time, it should be okay for me to project and assume that the Alliance proper found out that Garithos entered an agreement with the Forsaken knowing that he was inwardly calculating stratagems to eventually kill all the Forsaken.(Edit: I haven’t even gotten to this speculation yet)
The point is not everything can be explained away with head canon, that’s not to say I hate speculating, but lets keep it in that lane.
3 Likes
Garithos is brought up to counter the persistent notion that it was the Alliance that rejected the Forsaken, because the entire TFT campaign that details the founding of the Forsaken contradicts it and Garithos was a major character in that scenario who represented the Alliance.
It’s not a matter of opinion. It’s objective fact that absolutely anyone can observe with their own two eyes.
Those stupid emissaries that Sylvanas sent out are completely irrelevant because they were sent out after the Forsaken had already rejected the Alliance and made their intentions clear to us, the audience.
The only area of speculation is what exactly happened to those emissaries and why they were sent out at all given that Sylvanas had already demonstrated that she had absolutely no intention of having amiable relations with the Alliance. But the mere fact that they were sent out is irrelevant to Sylvanas’s outright stated intentions vis-a-vis the Alliance that we all saw in TFT.
Your question in the OP was answered almost a month ago in the first ten posts of this thread and the only reason this thread is still going is because you keep on trying to reset the discussion by endlessly restating your question over and over again in the hopes that you’ll eventually get the answer that you want.
But you won’t, because TFT happened and we all saw it happen. You’re in denial about the very foundations of the Forsaken faction even though you purport to like them.
9 Likes
There’s just a minor flaw in your argument.
Sylvanas killed Garithos before she founded the Forsaken, while everyone believed she was still under the mind control of Arthas. She had just been freed of the Scourge and no one knew that besides the newly freed Forsaken and the Dreadlords. There was no one left alive to bring the message that Sylvanas had formed her own faction and that she rejected the Alliance by killing Garithos. We know why the Alliance rejected the Forsaken you are just speculating and projecting that the Alliance had somehow heard about Garithos and made a judgment. The story has told us that the Alliance rejected the Forsaken due to fear of the undead and the Scourge. We already have the answer, it was fear of the undead.
3 Likes
You’re blurring the lines between fact and speculations and I’m not 100% sure if you’re trying to blur the lines or not.
Anyone can pull up youtube and see that the Forsaken betrayed Garithos, that’s a non issue. By design this thread pulls back all those layers of speculation and projecting to get to the truth about why the Alliance hate the Forsaken.
A few here are saying that the Alliance hate the Forsaken because they killed Garithos, I’m asking for evidence from those that insist on presenting it as fact opposed to speculations. Guess what, I’m still waiting…
There are a lot of good speculations being presented. I’m seeing the fact that they had just suffered a zombie apocalypse being brought up a lot.
At this point I’m just calling out post that are blurring the lines between speculations and canon.
Well, speaking for myself I think the Alliance’s attitude around the time of Pre-Vanilla when the Forsaken were organizing and emerging as a national power of their own, would have been more based on paranoia regarding a Scourge plot, as well as a general distaste based on appearance and trauma sparked from that. I really don’t think Garithos had much to do with the Alliance’s stance at the time.
That said, it wouldn’t surprise me if knowledge of Sylvanas betraying him was just one more brick in the wall separating the Alliance from the Forsaken politically. “We can’t trust them, the one time one of our own did, they back-stabbed us!”
I have no evidence that was ever a justification any politician in the Alliance used, but it’s a convenient one all the same.
1 Like