Yep! The Accuser killed her daughter by mistake while her Inquisitor assistant the World Reaper had Poisoned entire worlds to death.
Another Inquisitor(Thogro the Devourer) in the Halls of Atonement is known to have eaten entire Star Systems(yes being an Eldritch Abomination that eats Star Systems will get you sent to Revendreth to be tortured into submission) and yet one of the Grand Inquisitors tortured entire Universes!
Yes Thogro the Devourer means that Old Gods like N’Zoth are likely to end up in Revendreth to be tortured.
While that’s true of modern Blizzard, they did in the past.
The Legion opening Broken Shore sequence was a great example, especially because they took the time and effort to literally depict two sides of the same story, and thats the essence of morally grey. To have an act that seems evil appear to be not so evil when viewed from a different perspective. AGW, and Elegy seemed to be the cheaper more expedient attempt to tell the same type of morally grey story, but it failed, in part because Golden used terminology intentionally invented to describe an unjustifiable act.
The Forsaken have always been morally grey because the way they fight is reprehensible but they are literally the target of non-stop genocide from the living. They (until Anduin) are viewed by the living as subhuman monsters, they are not seen as life which is inherently worthy of mercy except in the rarest of circumstances. They, like 60s Israel, are a fledgeling independent nation, an island in a sea of enemies that would see them utterly annihilated. Wiped off the face of Azeroth. Those living hate them simply for existing, and for occupying land that they believe was rightfully thiers (despite those undead having a cultural claim to that land, many of which having never left that land and those who had, having been hated and hunted and subjected to attempted genocide in their diaspora) and resent their allies across the sea simply for offering scant financial and military aid.
That was good morally grey writing. I am sure someone is going to refute what I just said… either about Israel or the Forsaken, and thats the point. There is supposed to be two sides. If there arent two sides, and both sides are depicted as being justified, or equally depicted as being unjustifiable, then it fails.
I agree that past Blizzard did in fact do a much better job at this, especially early Legion.
As for the Forsaken analogy ehhhhhhhhhh…
The Forsaken story in the original Warcraft games I can 100% see them fighting to survive, however pretty much anything past joining the Horde they lost a lot of the identity that separated them from the Scourge. Forsaken are the reason Alliance and Horde went back to all-out war back in Wrath that lasted until BfA. A lot of there aggression is unwarented which with the new lore that most Undead are messed up with domination magic makes sense.
As for the Isreal thing, yeah I am not touching that one but I will say the 60’s were a long time ago and a lot is different now… But the same applies, there is survival and theres starting conflict.
I’d go further back to Taurajo for a good grey moment where both sides were treated fairly. The Legion stuff was set up in a weird way as Alliance motivation for what was probably the original BFA plan. i just found it weird how you basically had the Alliance with no idea what was going on, but the Horde had a very complete view of what the Alliance was up to (some of the follow up quests have the horde leadership talking about how the Alliance thinks they did it)
Just seemed really weird that you have the Alliance getting all worked up over Horde betrayal that didn’t happen, but is there any actual Horde story about their reaction to the Alliance betraying them and Genn’s ambush?
You are right. My mistake. Different names still doesn’t change the thrust of the question though. Still generated the discussion I was hoping to see from those I’m fairly certain know more than I do.
The Forsaken’s side in this case is based on assuming a bunch of stuff happened that didn’t though, is the problem. Like literally every rationalization you just applied to the Forsaken has no basis in what we actually see depicted in the story.
So if that is the Forsaken’s motivation, then they are completely and utterly delusional.
It’s effectively like me saying that the reason that Garrosh hates Thrall is because Thrall killed Garrosh’s entire family and then burned their bodies and snorted their ashes.
It did happen. It was justifiable. Sylvanas didn’t have a choice (as depicted at the time) but she still sounded the retreat and left the Alliance high and dry. The only thing that saved the Alliance troops and Genn, was the sacrifice of Varian. Sylvanas could have kept fighting. Vol’jin died anyway, it’s not like she saved him. The Horde betrayed the Alliance to save themselves.
The only confusion was about who really gave the order (Vol’jin) and why (presumably his own injury, or realization that they would be destroyed?) Because to understand it required a different perspective, and even then its morally grey.
In a black and white universe, the horde and the alliance make a triumphant last stand, putting aside all differences, prepared to die for one another, bound by their shared defiance of the evil that is fel, and through the power of their friendship and determination, good prevails, and they actually defeat the Legion at the Broken Shore, everyone goes home and the day is saved. Thankfully the story we got had a little more nuance.
To his credit, the original story of the Forsaken back in WC3 was right on the money with this but they dropped the ball around Wrath.
Its a shame actually how their story played out because I really liked the idea of Undead but not really evil. We even have examples of the Ebon Blade in Legion doing some…really bad stuff.
Blizzard seems to think morally grey means doing evil for a good cause, which is kiiind of close?
It wasn’t a betrayal though. It’s not like they just decided to run off for no reason, it was a trap by the Legion, and if the retreat hadn’t been sounded the Horde and Alliance would have suffered much greater losses that day.
Which would have been pointless sacrifice at that point that would have gotten both them and the Alliance destroyed.
Not really nuanced. You have the Horde which apparently has plenty of intelligence in Alliance territory to give them a good picture of the Alliance’s state of mind after Broken Shore, but the Alliance apparently has nothing other than Genn’s initial reaction to the call to the retreat. It’s like two different stories mashing into each other.
Im sorry, are you of the belief that prior to the Battle of Lordaeron, humans from every region surrounding Tirisfal/Silverpine (except Gilneas because they locked out those dirty Lordaeron refugees), did not fantasize about reclaiming the holy land? Do you think that the story of Nathanos Marris’ nephew (who joined the Scarlet Crusade to hunt down the monster that his uncle became) was a cultural outlier? Some kind of rare opinion about undead among humans. The humans of Stormwind who turned the Forsaken away when they came seeking to join the Alliance, who literally forsook them, preferred the scourge that sought to destroy the Forsaken, to the Forsaken only in the twisted imaginations of said Forsaken? Perhaps you believe that the scourge didnt desire the destruction of the Forsaken. The hordes of mindless ghouls breaking themselves upon the Bulwark just wanted to make their annual pilgrimage to Brill?
Oh Im sorry, a member of a completely different group who cannonically indiscriminately killed countless forsaken waiting for his former uncle to show up.
Is this actually written anywhere?
Like…I’m trying to give you the benefit of the doubt (The earlier Isreal parallel is making it difficult) that maybe you know something we don’t …
