What caused the Alliance humans to hate the Forsaken?

Lore Story Forum
161

Well first of all you’ve essentially ignored my point that Garithos was barely, if at all, a legitimate representative of the Alliance at that point in time. He led (poorly) a single pocket of resistance against the Scourge, using Alliance colours. In their early days, so did the forces of Alexandros Mograine before they gradually morphed into the Scarlet Crusade. Eventually it became clear that they were not Alliance forces. Garithos’ really weren’t either. They simply claimed to be.

They did so in total ignorance and later regretted it, is also the point there. Anyway

I acknowledged this, at least insofar as the deal was that Garithos’ forces would get the Capital City back. I acknowledged that Sylvanas lied. As I said, the Forsaken were not the good guys in this situation. But the debate here at least seemed to be about who “rejected” who, and you can’t honestly say the Alliance welcomed the Forsaken, at any point. Garithos had every intention to use, then discard the Forsaken forces. There were no friendly diplomatic relations, and therefore nothing for the Forsaken to “reject”.

That’s not my argument at all. I don’t even remotely think Sylvanas’ feelings were hurt. She made a cold and calculated decision to murder Garithos. So don’t put words in my mouth there. What I’m saying is that there was no intent towards friendly diplomatic relations so the Forsaken had nothing to reject. There was never an offer of friendship there. So to say

Is simply disingenous and false. The Forsaken betrayed a deal. The Forsaken never received an offer of peace or reconciliation TO reject. It was betray Garithos, or have nowhere to go and inevitably dwindle and collapse as a society at the hands of the Scourge and/or Scarlet Crusade.

And by attempting further diplomatic relations AFTER killing Garithos, it’s clear the Forsaken were actually reaching out to the Alliance AFTER this fact. Which indicates there was no “rejection” of the Alliance at this point. Just an outright betrayal of a specific military leader and force. A betrayal that was not morally right by any stretch of the imagination, let me emphasise that again. Sylvanas has ever been a cold and calculated strategist and moral rightness has never really been high on her priority list, even in life. She did what she felt she needed to do to secure a stronghold. However neither she, nor the Forsaken as a whole, had outright cut all diplomatic relations with the Alliance at this point. They still sent out emissaries. They still tried to reach out to the Alliance. For reasons we may never know, this failed, and it was the Horde that took them in.

Don’t misunderstand me here - I’m not trying to say the Forsaken were “in the right”. Everyone was a jerk in this particular story.

1 Like
162

You’ve already posted a source that contradicts this. He was representative enough that Ironforge, Quel’thalas and other allied nations were committing forces to his command. If that isn’t representative than nothing is.

That doesn’t matter. He doesn’t retroactively cease to be representative in the context we’re discussing just because 10 years later he’s not remembered fondly.

Neville Chamberlain isn’t remembered fondly. Doesn’t mean he didn’t represent the United Kingdom from 1937 to 1940.

There were no friendly diplomatic relations because the Forsaken were never interested in establishing them. This is made evident in Warcraft 3 and corroborated in Edge of Night.

I’d also note that you needed to qualify diplomatic relations with “friendly” as though Garithos saying mean things to Sylvanas after the battle constituted a rejection of diplomatic relations that’s equivalent to the Forsaken actively murdering all Alliance forces present despite the Alliance forces having fulfilled all their duties and obligations as per their agreement.

Rejecting people doesn’t get any more straightforward than literally killing them, which is what the Forsaken did with no provocation aside from Garithos calling Sylvanas names.

This is another way of saying that the Forsaken never had any intention of fostering diplomatic relations because they believed that it wasn’t an option, and thus never tried.

Your proposed rationale for the Forsaken’s actions is that Garithos said mean things to them even though he never acted with any hostility towards them, and that the mere fact that Garithos said mean things to them constituted a sufficient breach of “diplomatic protocol” that the Forsaken murdering everyone present was a proportional response.

Your entire position hinges on the argument that Garithos uttering the words “wretched animals” were equivalent to declaration of war even though he was just telling them to get off his property, which as per the agreement that Sylvanas proposed the Forsaken had indeed ceded to him as his property.

So immediately after Sylvanas feigned the use of diplomacy in order to further her personal goals before betraying and murdering the people she had made an agreement with, she then decided she wanted to use diplomacy “for realsies” and we’re supposed to believe that unlike the last time, THIS time she genuinely sought peaceful diplomatic relations?

Even after everything we’ve seen in WoW? Even after seeing that she used her association with the Horde to continue to plot to do evil things and kill everyone?

I respect you enough to know that you aren’t that stupid. And even if against literally all the evidence that we’ve gotten about who Sylvanas is and how she operates and she was totally genuine in her second attempt at “diplomacy,” it’s her own damned fault it got rejected because she had already burned that bridge when one of the very first things that she did with her newfound free will was breach the sanctity of peaceful diplomacy.

6 Likes
163

I don’t think so. Allow me to do some bolding:

Cut off from the chain of command, Garithos gave his human army the mission that he assumed the Alliance should have always had: the preservation of humanity above all else. Ignorant of Garithos’ policies, officials from neighboring non-human states such as Ironforge sent him aid, recognizing him as potentially the last remnant of Lordaeron’s government, and certainly the strongest warlord in the area

The Alliance committed forces to his command in total IGNORANCE mate. They did so because they had some vague notion (while CUT OFF from the chain of command) that he was the most powerful Lordaeronian leader left in the area.

So like, I dunno what to tell you. It was clearly a mistake, an error of judgement, and something the Alliance later grew to regret. That doesn’t seem official to me. It seems like an utter stuff-up. A total mistake.

Varok Saurfang has more claim to being Alliance by this logic, because when Anduin committed forces to his rebellion at the end of the Fourth War, he at least knew what he was doing LOL

It wasn’t just saying “mean things”, he banished them and threatened them with harm.

Sure, and Sylvanas totally rejected Garithos and his forces, and their claim to Lordaeron. But why then send emissaries to Stormwind after that fact? She didn’t reject the Alliance as a whole, she rejected a specific force with which she had a conflict of interest. In that sense she’s done no more than the Night Elves who killed Alliance forces in Ashenvale during the Third War. It was an attack based on a conflict of interest, not a total rejection of all diplomatic relations.

Nope, in fact the part I emphasised was the “Before I-”. The “wretched animals” bit was clearly indicative of distaste, and I think a clear indication that Garithos wanted nothing further to do with the Forsaken (I reiterate that there was never any further cooperation or alliance membership offered to the Forsaken - they had nothing to reject) but the bigger issue is that he was actively threatening them. The future between them was clear - they would be enemies.

Yes, but only to the same extent she sought them with the Horde. Sylvanas is evil. Sylvanas uses people. She sees them as naught but “Arrows in her quiver.” I think she used Garithos and I think she would have used the rest of the Alliance, and allowed diplomatic relations to do so. She is not and has never been a hero, and frankly as someone who’s always hoped to see more of the “human” side of the Forsaken, I am relieved she’s not Forsaken leader anymore, and I hope Blizz kills her off and is done with it lol. Point is, I genuinely think Sylvanas was sincere in reaching out to Stormwind… from her position of strength. She would’ve offered them Lordaeron, but under her supervision, just as she did to the Horde. In the meantime she would’ve done the exact same awful stuff with the blight, and probably the Wrathgate too. But yeah I do think she would’ve used the Alliance as “friends” or “allies of convenience” given the chance.

1 Like
164

Ignorant of his racist policies. Clearly, they were not ignorant of his existence, nor of his political status, nor even of where he was given that, again, the Alliance gave him armies.

You don’t give someone armies if you don’t consider them to be a legitimate representative of your interests. Later, the Alliance would say “wish we hadn’t done that” because in allowing him to represent the Alliance, they inadvertently drove Quel’thalas away.

He isn’t fondly remembered precisely because he represented the Alliance, and his representation of the Alliance ended up costing the Alliance Quel’thalas.

He told them to leave, which was a right that the Forsaken had given them as per the agreement they proposed. He didn’t even really threaten them with harm because he was cut off mid-sentence by Sylvanas ordering a Dreadlord to kill him.

(This is because Sylvanas would have done this no matter what he said hth)

Because she was hoping for more dupes. Like the last time she parleyed with the Alliance.

“Well you see Your Honor I wasn’t rejecting the idea of peaceful coexistance with the family that I shot to death after helping them move into their apartment. They hadn’t invited me to live with them in their apartment so there was nothing for me to reject, plus I think one of them was about to threaten me. QED”

4 Likes
165

Your assumption: The Forsaken ruined their chances with the Alliance when they killed the most racist character in world of warcraft history.

Objective fact: The only Alliance member that acknowledges the death of Garithos believes that the Forsaken eating him alive is better than what he deserved…

My assumption: Garithos sullied the name of the Alliance and the Alliance don’t give a crap about the most racist commander in Alliance history being betrayed by his undead counterparts.

I think the Alliance owning their prejudices and hatred is a really good start to mending their broken relationship; and is great storytelling. On the same token the Desolate Council is a good start for the Forsaken that want to mend their relationship with their living counterparts.

Edit: I think the hatred and prejudices come from a natural/logical place, considering they went through a zombie apocalypse. I don’t think it has diddly squat to do with Garithos death.

12 Likes
166

I think the Alliance rightfully hate the Forsaken is because the Forsaken are bioterrorists who are a legitimate threat to all the living. forget Garithos, they blighted Gilneas. They blew up Southshore.

5 Likes
167

I think that’s an important point, if not the most important point. Humanity did not perish because Garithos died. (Quite the contrary, they were better off without him in the long run.) But the Forsaken probably would have, had he lived.
Sylvanas made the right choice that day. Not “right” as in “morally right”, but right as in securing the survival of her people.

3 Likes
168

We’ll never know, because the Forsaken were never interested in peaceful co-existence with their victims. “The Forsaken would have died off if they hadn’t done it” is a retroactive justification for a premeditated act of betrayal on the part of Sylvanas. A retroactive justification based on speculation with no concrete evidence to back it up.

It’s basically the “it’s coming right at us!” gag from South Park.

7 Likes
169

Maybe they would have been had their “victims” not been extreme racists like Garithos or the Scarlets, but it is what it is. I think what makes this scenario so compelling is that there were no good or bad guys. It was pretty much eat or be eaten ( literally even, in Gary’s case :wink: )

2 Likes
170

How can I possibly conclude how your strawman works?
It’s a construct of your imagination. You tell ME how that works.

1 Like
171

True. Plus, the Alliance still had a bad impression of the undead from the Scourge, so that colored their perception of the first Forsaken. A mistake, but an understandable and tragic mistake.

2 Likes
172

Really? Head canon is not objective fact. Claiming that Andiun’s letter didn’t say what it clear said because you don’t like the premise isn’t “objective fact”.

173

I’m just looking at what you claim that there were two envoys works in the story. This is the best I could come up with. If you have a better way then please, let us know.

174

I Didn’t make any such claim. YOU DID.

2 Likes
175

So what are you saying? That when the writers say they “never returned” that the writers meant to say that they had reached Stormwind, been turned away, and then suddenly lost? For all the limitations with Blizzard writing, that would be an absurd level of obtuseness. Especially since the alternative is a clear event that fits with the rest of the story.

And, of course, it does nothing to change the fact that the Forsaken reached out to the Alliance and were turned down.

176

Sylvanas herself suspects that they never made it to Stormwind. At absolute best you have a couple of Forsaken emissaries who probably got taken out by an Alliance patrol in Hillsbrad or something that was trigger happy against zombies owing to the giant ongoing zombie apocalypse, and that’s discounting other more likely scenarios where they were killed by the Scourge or by the Scarlets (who likely would have been tipped off by Varimathras via Balnazzar as to where the emissaries were)

2 Likes
177

What I’m saying is what we’ve been given; bits and pieces of the story that doesn’t tell us the whole story.
We’ve NEVER been given the whole story and have never found out what actually happened.
We’ve only recently learned that the Emissaries actually made it to Stormwind.
Prior to Anduin’s letter, we never even knew that for a fact.
But in the same letter, Anduin only says they were turned away, which any reasonable person would conclude that they left alive.

And I conceded in my first post that Anduin may not even know the whole truth as he didn’t deal with them personally.

There is no “alternative” that isn’t conjecture and personal bias hypothesizes that is supported by anything we know, only what you WANT to believe.

That isn’t in question. What is in question is what actually happened to them that caused them to never return. You claimed they were killed by the Alliance. Not an impossibility but nothing in any facts that we DO know confirms that hypothesis.
It’s all conjecture at this point.

1 Like
178

Anduin doesn’t even say they made it to Stormwind, he just says that they approached the Alliance at some point and were refused (read: not killed.) We don’t know where they were refused. It could have been Stormwind (which is unlikely and Sylvanas herself doubts it) but more likely it would be Dalaran, Pyrewood, or Hillsbrad.

So if those are the same emissaries that are referred to in Chronicles then Anduin confirms that the Alliance didn’t kill them, only refused them, meaning that those emissaries were probably killed by either the Scourge or the Scarlet Crusade.

Which still deprives the Forsaken of the “alliance rejected us therefore everything is their fault” because the emissaries wouldn’t have even returned to Undercity to inform Sylvanas of the refusal.

5 Likes
179

At that point wasn’t Onyxia co-ruling Stormwind? Varian was missing, it’s not like the Alliance was in any position to offer charity to the ex-Scourge. Why would they? what did the Forsaken actually have to offer the Alliance?

180

You know. you guys would take the phrase “turned his back on him” and argue “well, he just wanted to look behind himself”.

The writing only makes sense if they were killed as a rejection of the overture. The context is all about that. And then you have an acknowledge meant of a rejection by the Alliance because WE didn’t understand the Forsake.

When the Sylvanas book comes out, and if it talks about this, do you really think it is going to say there were accidentally lost?