Why would The Alliance accept The Horde?

Story Forum
Prev 1 6 7 8 9 Next
If I recall, said quest let you kill the humans as well. So it's more a case of ONE Forsaken being good, instead of the forsaken being good.

But we already know there can be good undead. There was one hanging out with a dwarf in WPL in Vanilla.


Isn't that how it always is, though, regardless of race? Some are good some are bad, it largely depends on the individual.

I think people tend to generalize too much.
Are there any good Forsaken? All I remember is blighting villagers and carving Dwarven brains out with bonesaws.

It's not like they were asking me to get Susy's kitten out of the tree.

I'm saying literally the entire race could possibly be nuts because every one I have ever encountered has been a dingbat with a murder streak.
If I recall, said quest let you kill the humans as well. So it's more a case of ONE Forsaken being good, instead of the forsaken being good.

But we already know there can be good undead. There was one hanging out with a dwarf in WPL in Vanilla.


Isn't that how it always is, though, regardless of race? Some are good some are bad, it largely depends on the individual.

I think people tend to generalize too much.


No I'm not generalizing. If I saw a Forsaken that was actually decent and serving the Horde I would let you know.
05/15/2012 08:27 AMPosted by Aeluron
No I'm not generalizing. If I saw a Forsaken that was actually decent and serving the Horde I would let you know.

Lady Cozwynn. And a lot of the military commanders in general don't really show any malice.
If Zarhym posted and said Thrall was brown during Vanilla, would that make it true?

Just because they tell us something, does not make it true, or accurate.

If Blizzard told us Azeroth had two moons, but we can plainly see there is only one, would that make it true?

Yes.

That's how canon works.
If Zarhym posted and said Thrall was brown during Vanilla, would that make it true?

Just because they tell us something, does not make it true, or accurate.

If Blizzard told us Azeroth had two moons, but we can plainly see there is only one, would that make it true?

Yes.

That's how canon works.


"There are two moons in Azeroth" is a completely different statement than "this character or faction is morally X."

That's not how morality works.
My impression of the Forsaken is that their good and evil personas are based on "rule" and "exception." By that I mean this: Humans have no rule in WoW. A human might be good. A human might be bad. They're supposed to mirror, to some degree, the way people normally work. Other races though tend to have rules. Not every rule is morality based. Dwarves are prone to being drunkards, Goblins are prone to entrepreneurship and pursue science in the name of profit, Gnomes are technically minded, and care about the science as its own reward.

Only two races tend to have a natural affinity for good or evil that I see in the game. One isn't so much a race as much as a sector of a race. The Draenei came from the Eredar. The Eredar largely chose evil. The Draenei are that group that chose good. That's what defines them - they're the exiles who already chose the side of the Light rather than seek power. As a sub-faction of the Alliance, you would naturally expect Draenei characters to be good. Oriented towards the Light.

The Forsaken, as a rule, are evil. There are exceptions to the rule. Some of those exceptions joined the Argent Dawn. Some of them turned against the Forsaken in Vanilla WoW and tried to assist Dalaran. But there is a set of "rules" the game shows about the Forsaken. Being a Forsaken has traditionally meant that you:

1. Lost your positive emotions and mindsets, i.e. were no longer capable of feeling compassion or empathy for others. They are in that sense no longer who they once were, they've lost a part of what made them themselves. Just at their bodies are not complete, neither are their souls.

2. Kept your negative emotions and mindsets - rage, bitterness, a seething desire for revenge against the Lich King.

3. Due to the sociopathic nature of losing your ability to feel empathy, you would only value things that could benefit the few emotions fueling you (like the desire for revenge against Arthas) or that would enable you to simply survive. What is the Forsaken are concerned with now that Arthas is gone? Survival. They can't procreate, but feel they need more added to their race, because otherwise the world will finish them all off.

If you had a race you knew to be sociopaths as part of their inherent nature, you wouldn't trust them. You'd want them gone. Double that if they're spending their time inventing plagues (which have a history of wiping out giant swaths of humanity). There are exceptions, yeah. But Blizzard hasn't really developed the idea of what makes the exceptions possible. It doesn't seem that being good in life guarantees being an exception, it just helps your chances. You get more of a sense that when there is an exception, it's because some anomaly has occurred, something went wrong with the curse of undeath and it failed to sever the ties the person felt towards their friends and kin. I think that could play into a storyline involving some level of redemption down the line.

Personally, I think if the Alliance backs down from Orgrimmar after taking out Garrosh, it should be because the Forsaken have been creating an army of abominations and stored up their plague for use against humanity. Wrathgate was cool, but the Forsaken storyline shouldn't have built up to one single mis-fire when Sylvanas herself wasn't prepared to let the world know about it. They should have it ready to unleash on the Alliance at Orgrimmar, and the Horde should feel that it is both necessary and something they should be ashamed over.

Ongoing conflict is a necessity of the game-design (otherwise we'd all just love to see WarCraft 4 give some closure to all the factions). To me, this is a logical step in returning to cold-war status, while keeping tension and anger high. It also ties the Forsaken into being accepted by whoever rules after Garrosh - something that might not seem natural if the Horde simply has a good warchief show up and the Forsaken are still just hanging around, with little more development.
"There are two moons in Azeroth" is a completely different statement than "this character or faction is morally X."

That's not how morality works.

How morality "works" isn't the point.

That we cannot see the second moon has no bearing whatsoever on in existence.

That you believe the Horde to be definitively evil and/or the Alliance to be definitively good has no bearing whatsoever on the fact that neither side is either.

That we witness things which confuse what we're told about reality doesn't change reality. You may choose to disagree with reality as it is told by Blizzard, but your refusal to accept it as is doesn't make it any less so.
05/15/2012 04:02 PMPosted by Torvald
Some of them turned against the Forsaken in Vanilla WoW and tried to assist Dalaran.

Given that they were carrying what appears to be the EK version of saronite on them, I don't think they were good at all. Probably early agents of the Twilight's Hammer trying to lure Dalaran into destabilizing the Forsaken.
05/15/2012 04:33 PMPosted by Kellick
That you believe the Horde to be definitively evil and/or the Alliance to be definitively good has no bearing whatsoever on the fact that neither side is either.


Except that's not a fact. Zarhym, or anyone at Blizzard, has no bearing on what is good or what is evil. They weren't talking about good and evil within the context of the Warcraft universe, they were talking about evil in the context of real life, something nobody has jurisdiction in.

If someone wrote a book about a mass murderer slaughtering thousands of innocents for no reason and then the author said that this character was a good guy, would that be so? (And again, speaking in the context of "this guy is good by real life standards of morality.")

The fact of the matter is that there's no way for you to be both sane and consistent in your apparent belief that an author can define morality within the context of the greater universe. This is especially true in the real world where there are stories written that double as, for example, wartime propaganda.

If Blizzard had come out and said that the Alliance is good and the Horde is evil you'd have a strikingly different tone, I guarentee it. And the fact that you can't point to anything that the Horde has actually done to prove that it's not evil and instead have to cling to a blue making a statement that couldn't possibly be true by all standards of philosophy and morality just proves my point.

05/15/2012 04:36 PMPosted by Nazathor
Given that they were carrying what appears to be the EK version of saronite on them, I don't think they were good at all. Probably early agents of the Twilight's Hammer trying to lure Dalaran into destabilizing the Forsaken.


This is why people mock you Xil.
Face it Vyrin. Blizzard categorically disagrees with your fanon, and for all your kicking and screaming, all your pissing and moaning, there's nothing you can do about it.
05/15/2012 07:35 PMPosted by Kellick
Face it Vyrin. Blizzard categorically disagrees with your fanon, and for all your kicking and screaming, all your pissing and moaning, there's nothing you can do about it.


Good thing their disagreement doesn't mean anything with regards to the subject at hand.
(And again, speaking in the context of "this guy is good by real life standards of morality.")


Real life standards of morality are so diverse that NOBODY could universally be considered a good guy, or a bad guy. Nearly every culture prohibits or at least frowns on stealing and killing, but nearly every culture also makes exceptions (e.g. it's okay for soldiers of one country to steal from and kill soldiers of another country with which they are at war, or it's okay to steal or kill if your life depends on it).
A blue said Falstad was dead. Therefore, before they corrected that, Falstad died, and then rose again!

Falstad is really Jesus.

Thus sayeth Juibloc.


wasnt that statement retracted and corrected at a later point? as i explained how these things work in my post?
05/15/2012 08:41 PMPosted by Gibbons
(And again, speaking in the context of "this guy is good by real life standards of morality.")


Real life standards of morality are so diverse that NOBODY could universally be considered a good guy, or a bad guy. Nearly every culture prohibits or at least frowns on stealing and killing, but nearly every culture also makes exceptions (e.g. it's okay for soldiers of one country to steal from and kill soldiers of another country with which they are at war, or it's okay to steal or kill if your life depends on it).


That's exactly my point. What's good and evil is at the discretion of the reader/viewer/player, not the author. They can decide what's good and evil within the context of the universe they created but that's where their jurisdiction ends.
05/15/2012 08:55 PMPosted by Vyrin
That's exactly my point. What's good and evil is at the discretion of the reader/viewer/player, not the author. They can decide what's good and evil within the context of the universe they created but that's where their jurisdiction ends.

Indeed, but that's not the issue. The issue is how they're treated in-game.
If the Horde is "good" by the standards of the Warcraft Universe, the Warcraft Universe's Morality is pretty damn effed up. Just gonna say that much.
05/15/2012 09:02 PMPosted by Jaelara
If the Horde is "good" by the standards of the Warcraft Universe, the Warcraft Universe's Morality is pretty damn effed up. Just gonna say that much.

Just insufficiently "evil" for your (rather vengeful) tastes.
Morality in the Warcraft universe is very very different. Which is why you change it a little bit for the standards of the universe. The Morals are very similar not not the same as our world.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum