I think the Forsaken could’ve kept their “old Alliance” roots without needing to adopt “new Alliance” roots. That would’ve left room for them to develop forward where as rehashing the same root plot with the new Alliance is keeping them stagnant.
edit: In fact, the new Forsaken that had been raised by the Valkyr was plenty of “new Alliance”. It was an homage to the classic Forsakens theme that still allowed them to progress forward in literally any way that would have catered to the story and to what the fans signed up for and stayed around for.
Forsaken were quite literally former Alliwnce citizens so it would be weird for them to completely forsake that part of them.
Plus that is mostly ‘old alliance. And with Calia, the last rightful heir to the throne actually now being a Forsaken i could see more focus on their heritage. Anyone wanting otherwise is just trying to continue Sylvanas’ reign and how she forced everyone to forget the past which isn’t possible anymore.
There is virtually no functional or historical difference between any “old” Alliance and any “new” Alliance. It’s the same Alliance, with its center of power changed as a result of various wars.
It really grinds my gears when people act like there is some kind of arbitrary historical schism in the Alliance like there is for the Horde and I have no idea why the idea is so prevalent. (Actually I have some ideas, mostly because it is selectively convenient rhetorically for dumb forum BS)
Calia has explicitly stated she has no intention of claiming any thrones, and both her and the devs are on record as treating her as completely apolitical, which makes sense given her goal of trying to bridge the gap between the Forsaken and the living, a goal which precludes her politically aligning with anyone.
Besides, she isn’t the last rightful heir anyway, as she has a child somewhere. There are also other Lordaeron nobles like Turalyon who could conceivably make a claim.
Even if she doesn’t claim it, she is still the last royal. And she is constantly aiding the Horde council and advising them. She is very clearly Horde align with alliance attachments like other leaders.
As for the Alliance, it is a different entity compared to the old one. It is an evolution of it similarly to the Horde…I wasnt even trying to argue with you lol.
Before the BFA lore of Sylvanas wanting the Forsaken to forget their past, the Forsaken weren’t asking for Calia to come and lead them. Therefor, it’s inaccurate to say that anyone wanting otherwise wants to continue Sylvanas’ reign coupled with her goal of forgetting the past.
Some people simply want a Forsaken leader that embodies the Forsaken as they had been enjoyed for over a decade, rather than a bait and switch where time and money is involved.
It may grind your gears but the devs have made refference to “old Alliance” and “new Alliance” as it suits them. So, the schism has been endorsed in dev answers to the fan community.
No it isn’t. Nobody in-game actually treats it as distinct, which is why Genn says stuff like “we will raise our banners above Lordaeron once more!” and Anduin says “we will retake Lordaeron keep” and Varian says “look at what they’ve done to our kingdom!” and why Anduin cites Arthas as an example of the Alliance’s historical shame.
The only folks trying to claim they are distinct entities are people trying to deny the Alliance its historical heritage, usually for the sake of opportunistic Horde land-grabs.
Only Turalyon has, and “old” was in lowercase, as in an adjective, not a name.
The devs have straight up said she isn’t. Specifically, Ion has said that she will not join the Horde. They made a point to emphasize this in the Shadowlands intro where she is tagged as friendly to Alliance. Steve Danuser corroborated him on this.
She is an external force acting on the Horde, something that even Thrall acknowledges when he references Calia to Tyrande as a way that the Horde hopes to change.
Then someone should tell literally every Alliance character in literally every context where it’s come up that they’re defying “word of god.”
Besides, the only out of game place it’s come up was the Ultimate Visual Guide which is superseded by Chronicles, which makes no such reference to any kind of schism between an “old” and “new” Alliance
In this case, there is a conflict because Chronicles explicitly establishes political continuity between the Alliance of the Third War and the Alliance of World of Warcraft.
Only when it comes to things that the writers of it wouldn’t have had any knowledge of. The Alliance’s historical origins and its political continuity is a matter of record.
You are literally saying that we should ignore our lying eyes and ears and basically everything we see in-game (and out of game in works intended to be the definitive lore encyclopedia) in favor of a Cataclysm-era art book written by people who didn’t work at Blizz.
No, I’m saying we can acknowlege that the in universe characters view themelves as the same entity while we also acknowlege some distinctions between two ideas of alliance. The devs have used the terms at their convenience. To deny the ability to do so is simply an act of stubborn fanfic.
That wasn’t even what the Ultimate Visual Guide was saying. It was talking from an “in-universe perspective” too, as in it said “here is what happened and what the people in-universe think”
Which is superseded both by Chronicles and the mountains of lore that we’ve gotten ever since Cataclysm. It’s not “word of god.” It’s ancient non-canon stuff. It’s as non-canon as the RPG books.
A. the forsaken only lost brill and undercity, they still hold most of their territory.
B. the only thing the Nelves managed to take back was Darkshore, Azshara and Ashenvale still belong to the horde.
at this point the Forsaken´s only future is with the Horde,
the small handful of Valkyr who didnt side with Sylvanas will only be able to sustain them for so long on their own, trying to go independent would be suicide and spell the final death of the true citizens of Lorderon.
regardless of if Calia becomes queen or not the Forsaken need Horde protection, the armistice is the only thing keeping the Alliance from taking even more from them.
There are no Val’kyr that didn’t align with Syl, all nine of them where sent by the jailer to form a pact with her. And all nine are in the new Torghast raid
The statements of contention are one place in UVG that refers to the Alliance as an “evolution” of the Alliance of Lordaeron, and one that says that the Alliance of Lordaeron “crumbled” and “inspired” the Alliance of today.
But it also contradicts itself, such as how in its “Alliance characters” section, “Alliance” and “Alliance of Lordaeron” are used interchangeably, with Danath for example being listed as “Alliance of Lordaeron” even though he has always been affiliated with the Alliance and remains so to this day, while characters like Tirion who were part of the Alliance of Lordaeron but are neutral now are instead listed as neutral, instead of as “Alliance of Lordaeron.”
It also places direct historical continuity between the Alliance of Lordaeron and the Alliance by referencing how the Alliance has expanded since the days of the Alliance of Lordaeron to encompass all the nations that it does now.
And of course, something being an evolution of something doesn’t mean that they are different entities.
Overwhelmingly, the book is using the designation “Alliance of Lordaeron” simply as a way of referencing the Alliance at a certain point in history, not as a different entity entirely.
So it looks like I actually misremembered how much even the UVG claims that the Alliance is a different entity because it looks like it never really did in a significant way. The only part that could be read that way is the one where it says the Alliance of Lordaeron “crumbled” and “inspired” the Alliance of today, but that is directly contradicted not only by Chronicles (which establishes direct continuity between the Alliance of Warcraft 3 and the Alliance of WoW) but by itself.
It’s even more apparent now that they are the same entity. There was no “word of god” stating that they were different.