View Single Post
  #12  
Old 11-09-2018, 01:26 PM
BoxCrayonTales BoxCrayonTales is offline

Glaive Thrower
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 56

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lon-ami View Post
Warhammer does have a Doomsday problem, but it's more like a constant struggle, not some kind of final battle (I'm excluding the End Times, of course).

I think the Burning Legion in Warcraft III was kind of a mistake. Orcs going from nothing to being able to gather a whole army was kinda lame too.

An alternative history for W3, scrapping everything post-W2:
You claimed to be scrapping everything past WC2, but your outline relies on plot points introduced by WC3 such as the blood-curse and kil'jaeden's larger role in WC3, seemingly only to preserve the overall arcs of the canonical campaign.

According to details on the development of the cancelled Warcraft Adventures, originally the orcish depression was caused by alcoholism (possibly a reference to the internment of the American Indians). The return of shamanism was already introduced in Adventures, but only WC3 claimed that the orcs were corrupted by an organized demonic effort that occurred shortly before the first war (originally they had been losing the old ways for a while).

Kil'jaeden was originally just Gul'dan's tutor, and the role of demons was not codified at that time beyond generically evil beings in the "great dark beyond". Even Medivh was merely deranged by a generic extraplanar influence and had no special connection to Sargeras, who was just a generic imprisoned demon lord.

We don't need to follow the same arcs as canon. I am curious as to how the story could have gone without that limitation. Otherwise, I agree with your suggestion that the Cult of Damned be in part motivated by anti-orc sentiment and dissatisfaction with how the light had failed.

What does need to be worked out is the new backstory for the sentinels and the scourge now that the Burning Legion is no longer a thing. Warcraft 2 certainly made its fair share of retcons, such as the addition of Lordaeron north of Azeroth/Stormwind. It did not, to my recollection, make any big pronouncements about the cosmology of the universe beyond the vague statements about the dark beyond being inhabited by generically malicious demons intent on invading the world for their own dark purposes. Warcraft 1 even explicitly referenced God and Hell, suggesting that the religion which became the Light was originally a fantasy version of Christianity.

To that end, I would prefer to avoid any of the world codification that Warcraft 3 did, such as the dragon aspects, the world tree, etc. I don't want to retcon away any of the older lore, either, such as the druids of Caer Darrow. Before Warcraft 3 introduced the idea that arcane magic was evil and addictive, the high elves were suggested to practice druidism.

I don't know what backstory to give the sentinels and scourge myself, but I can probably come up with a few different ideas.

For example, the idea of a Lich King is not an inherently bad one any more than the Overmind in Starcraft. I feel that they have both received poor treatment from Blizzard, so this is an opportunity to perhaps correct that.

Maybe, I don't know, the Lich King could be older than Ner'zhul and been plotting his invasion for some time. I never really bought the official timeline's amazingly short period in which he was able to build his army. The official timeline overall has become increasingly unrealistic due to compressing the time in which events take place. I would prefer to go back to the way Warcraft 1 used many years to divide events, since that feels more realistic given the generally medieval level of technology prevalent. I would further limit availability of magic and steampunk to dramatically alter the economy, although that's a given since the canon ignores how this would alter the world given that guns and bows are used side-by-side in canon. (For an example of how guns and magic would break a medieval setting if used by anyone remotely competent, watch the anime Drifters which features famous real world historical generals from across time and space being thrust into a generic fantasy setting and turning it upside down.)

Anyway, I don't see anything wrong with introducing Northrend considering that WC2 already introduced Lordaeron. But I don't know how to explain the new Lich King without more time to think. I do think he should be something that predates the first war and takes advantage of the dissatisfaction among the alliance after the Second War, but beyond that I am not sure how to detail what is essentially an entirely original character.

Bringing back Ner'zhul and his death knights strains credibility more than a bit, but I can imagine the AU Lich King be able to pull some strings and make that happen. The Scourge already includes some demons (and during WC3's development one of the ideas was for demons to be their own race IIRC), so perhaps the Lich King has mastery of both necromancy and demonology.

Right now I am bit torn between which is a better choice: bringing an entirely new antagonist out of the woodwork without a retroactive connection to prior stories (as in the suggestion that the Lich King was around for a while but only got involved recently), or explaining prior events in the context of a new villain (as the canon did when it retroactively connected previously unrelated plot points and made Sargeras responsible for corrupting Medivh as a part of an existing goal to conquer the world for millennia). I fear that my new Lich King idea is falling into the same trap that Sargeras being retconned as the big bad did.

Because a major problem of retcons is that if done poorly they can weaken the story. By this I mean that prior events are rendered nonsensical since elements that were retconned in would have logically changed the course of events dramatically, or even completely alter the tone and scale as the Warcraft Chronicles do to the worst extreme. With all the titans and void gods and stuff running around, the story of the mortal characters seems kind of pointless.

In any event, something I want to try is to emulate WC1 and 2's depiction of the campaigns as being independent (or retroactively occurring side-by-side in later games) rather than linear as in the trend that Starcraft started. I feel the trend of linear campaigns harms the storylines of the individual races (witness how Starcraft made the zerg play second fiddle to Queen of Blades and never bothered to give them much characterization before killing them off) and was instrumental in the "villain tries to destroy the world/universe and has to be stopped" narrative that took over all the Blizzard games starting with Starcraft. (I have a lot to say about how terrible I think Starcraft turned out, but I already said as much in the Starcraft forum. I am sad that Starcraft never receives as much attention as Warcraft does, because I cannot find many willing to talk about it in detail here or anywhere else.)

I am rambling right now so I will stop here. Let me know your thoughts and advice in this matter.
Reply With Quote