Scrolls of Lore Forums  

Go Back   Scrolls of Lore Forums > WarCraft Discussion > WarCraft Lore Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #76  
Old 10-05-2014, 07:52 PM
Kynrind Kynrind is offline

Arch-Druid
Kynrind's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,980

Default

Unfortunately too many Horde players don't remember the last part and are gleeful at the opportunity to slaughter Alliance. As they see it, the Horde doesn't need the Alliance and that the Alliance exists only so the Horde has something to take. The they whine like 5 year old children when realistic retribution is brought up for their faction. That's when they play the 'Azeroth needs the Horde' card; something that apparently only applies for the Horde.
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 10-05-2014, 08:22 PM
Charles Phipps Charles Phipps is offline

Warden
Charles Phipps's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 762

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kynrind View Post
Unfortunately too many Horde players don't remember the last part and are gleeful at the opportunity to slaughter Alliance. As they see it, the Horde doesn't need the Alliance and that the Alliance exists only so the Horde has something to take. The they whine like 5 year old children when realistic retribution is brought up for their faction. That's when they play the 'Azeroth needs the Horde' card; something that apparently only applies for the Horde.
I used to have a bias against the Alliance even as I played it but it's hard to also let any real fantasy racism charges stick when in addition to the usual elves and dwarves, you've got big purple LG demons and werewolves.

I understand it's not World of Peacecraft, really I do, and enjoy the factional rivalry but I do think it'd have been nice to have there be a reasonable balance for characters. The Forsaken are just LESS INTERESTING when they're conducting human experiments on survivors as opposed to being Lordaeron citizens dealing with the fact they're walking corpses.

Also, bluntly, this is a serious problem as a Forsaken player that all of the loyalty to Sylvanas makes no damn sense with her current actions. The people of Gilneas would HATE her for what they've done and the people she resurrects as the undead might well want to see her overthrown. I can understand the Forsaken following her which came with her original army but the rest might have some serious damn issues.

My .02 at least.
__________________
Check out the United Federation of Charles for geek media reviews and essays!
Follow me on Twitter: @Willowhugger
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 10-05-2014, 08:28 PM
Kynrind Kynrind is offline

Arch-Druid
Kynrind's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,980

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles Phipps View Post
I used to have a bias against the Alliance even as I played it but it's hard to also let any real fantasy racism charges stick when in addition to the usual elves and dwarves, you've got big purple LG demons and werewolves.

I understand it's not World of Peacecraft, really I do, and enjoy the factional rivalry but I do think it'd have been nice to have there be a reasonable balance for characters. The Forsaken are just LESS INTERESTING when they're conducting human experiments on survivors as opposed to being Lordaeron citizens dealing with the fact they're walking corpses.

Also, bluntly, this is a serious problem as a Forsaken player that all of the loyalty to Sylvanas makes no damn sense with her current actions. The people of Gilneas would HATE her for what they've done and the people she resurrects as the undead might well want to see her overthrown. I can understand the Forsaken following her which came with her original army but the rest might have some serious damn issues.

My .02 at least.


Oh, you haven;t seen nothing yet. If you posted that on the Story forums, you'd see Horde/forsaken/Sylvanas fanboys coming out of the woodwork in droves to explain why there aren't any forsaken dissidents and how those who are killed and raised, most of them clearly like being undead, and having no other place to go (ignoring the Argents and Alliance) gladly join the forsaken to kill their comrades, and more.... They come up with the most oddball reasons to explain all of that.
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 10-05-2014, 08:55 PM
Charles Phipps Charles Phipps is offline

Warden
Charles Phipps's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 762

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kynrind View Post
Oh, you haven;t seen nothing yet. If you posted that on the Story forums, you'd see Horde/forsaken/Sylvanas fanboys coming out of the woodwork in droves to explain why there aren't any forsaken dissidents and how those who are killed and raised, most of them clearly like being undead, and having no other place to go (ignoring the Argents and Alliance) gladly join the forsaken to kill their comrades, and more.... They come up with the most oddball reasons to explain all of that.
Yipes!

Thanks for the warning.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Melisande View Post
Oh good my tired ramblings made some sense at least.
Well the debate of 'worthy of survival' is an interesting one, and I mean it makes sense in the Warcraft setting since it tends to stick to high fantasy and have absolute goods and evils. But it gets into the issue of redemption too. I'll come back to that since it covers both the orcs and forsaken. I suppose the question of worth of survival tends to be how your worldview works. I tend to have a more...I guess pessimistic view in that worthy of survival is kind of a moot example. History is filled with those that are, who did not. Survival itself is it's own goal, and there is no intrinsic moral value, beyond the fact that you had the strength, guile, knowledge, cunning, etc. to manage to do so. Labeling it as a good thing or not tends to be come more with how related you are to the group that survived. Are you a member of said group, do you share their values, and so on. You don't have to turn everything super GRRM, but at the end of the day a good story should still respect that, "In the game of thrones, you win or you die."
Human history works for me as an analysis of almost what not to do as the vast-vast majority of it is a collection of incalculable levels of suffering brought about by people like Garrosh who, by and large, win rather than the people who love peace and justice.

Worthy of survival isn't something which means a subject should be wiped out but it is a nice little benchmark for the people who are going to make the world worse rather than making it better. Much of human history is people passing down their worse qualities and repeating the same damn mistakes over and over again. I say this as a History Master that RL history is damned depressing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Melisande View Post
A quick aside, as a historian I don't think there's much value in comparing things to other real groups, unless again you're doing GRRM the War of the Roses by any other name. To compare the orcs to any invading force, like say the Ottomans vs the Alliance of Byzantium turns into an exaggeration. The orcs have always emphasized their aggression, glory in battle, and honor, while being dumber than the groups that they are compared to. A human society from Earth (without magical druids and shamans who can grow food for you) would not have trouble flourishing in Durotar. Casting the orcs as the eastern other also ignores the fact that in the medieval world the Muslim sheikdoms were far more advanced than Europe, both in terms of literacy, technology and tolerance.
To go with George R.R. Martin, the Dothraki are pretty much the Mongols except they're more or less none of their redeeming qualities. The Iron Born are like the worst parody of Vikings ever, completely ignoring their vast trading culture to focus on the banditry. It's something I'd like to see avoided even if I understand that very few player characters are particularly interested in seeing Orc farmers, shepherds, and ranchers.

Though, honestly, Orc Cowboys would be awesome. I'd like to see the Orcs shown in a more even light, basically.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Melisande View Post
But yes, the sticky issue of the orcs and forsaken being people and having redeemed themselves. Both races have gotten a bad deal, and horrible things happened to them, some more horrible than others. However despite those actions, they then went and did just as villainous acts on others. In the orcs case the demon blood seemed to amplify their aggression and make them tend to view the demons reverently, but even in WC3 onwards, it's never been mind control. (If it was, how could Gul'dan turn against Doomhammer and have the Horde get in a civil war?) In the Forsaken's case, it was, but Sylvanas's actions after being freed show that she's an oathbreaker and has no problem slaughtering an entire army that had been her ally.
Yeah, the Alliance and the Horde's peace has been completely and utterly destroyed. Thanks to Theramore, the Horde has its own Lordaeron on its hands. It's the Scourge in that it has destroyed an entire country and people bear responsibility for that. No demon blood or excuses to explain that away either. There's also the atrocities which happened in Gilneas.

There's still a serious question of whether or not the Lordaeron issue is one where the Alliance has any claim on the lands of the Forsaken and its people or that it is territory they have lost because its inhabitants are either dead or elsewhere. However, it's a far less ambiguous now because the Forsaken and Horde have not only waged war on the Alliance but committed vast atrocities.
It's not out of the question for the Alliance to demand reparations, which might consist of territory like Lordaeron.

So yeah, I'm not blind to the CURRENT Horde's evils.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Melisande View Post
Yet both these races claim redemption. They claim they are good guys. In the orcs case they did take a step towards earning that in WC3. But if they want to be redeemed these races have to show that they have changed, and in many cases redemption comes after suffering for their crimes as well. There's a reason Redemption = Death is a trope, it helps the audience buy that this formerly bad character is going so far as to sacrifice their life to make amends, doing that you have to be pretty sincere. In the Forsaken's case they have slid even further into puppy killing evil territory, actively working against their own redemption. The orcs are...a different case. They sometimes do the right thing, yet their larger society in general shows that they haven't changed. The orcs as every bit as blood thirty, as big of warmongers, as they were in WC2. Their society is still all about honor and battle, they name their cities after those who were monsters.
In Thrall's case, it wasn't the "orcs" who named it Orgimmar but, explicitly Thrall. He named it after his friend. Orc culture doesn't apologize because it isn't their way to express regret. Almost all of the older orcs we meet, however, express deep shame and distaste for their bad deeds. Likewise, the younger orcs are horrified by the massacres they see in War Crimes during Garrosh's trial.

There is a defense for this in we don't know how much was willing on the part of the Horde. There's the statement that Garrosh was a popular leader but we know that he also burned a lot of bridges with plenty of his disciples. Popular leaders rarely need to have secret polices to protect themselves from dissidents and the perception of popularity is warped by the fact that to be otherwise is to be taken out for treason. There's also the issue of how much of the Forsaken's criminal activity is their doing versus how much is the doings of Sylvanas.

Then the question is, "How do we root out this evil?" Can it be done by the Alliance or must it be done by the Horde?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Melisande View Post
In short if you want me to buy that a character has been redeemed, I have to see a clear distinction between their former and current states. They have to have changed, and that isn't the case here.
Redemption is also a tricky subject because the Orcs who need to be redeemed are only the elders of their race. Thrall never needed to be redeemed nor did Garrosh because they never had any part in the original Horde's activities. Now, those orcs who fought for Garrosh may need redemption.

In the Forsaken's case, the question is who is doing criminal activity and who isn't because they're not in need of redemption unless they partake in Sylvanas' atrocities.
__________________
Check out the United Federation of Charles for geek media reviews and essays!
Follow me on Twitter: @Willowhugger

Last edited by Charles Phipps; 10-06-2014 at 12:46 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 10-05-2014, 11:43 PM
Erthad Erthad is offline

Elune
Erthad's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Stromgarde
Posts: 9,556
BattleTag: Erthad #1438

Human Icon (War3)

I haven't read anything but the title and the tags, I assume this thread is bad.
Reply With Quote
  #81  
Old 10-06-2014, 12:30 AM
Charles Phipps Charles Phipps is offline

Warden
Charles Phipps's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 762

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Erthad View Post
I haven't read anything but the title and the tags, I assume this thread is bad.
More like the thread carried onto serious conversation DESPITE itself.
__________________
Check out the United Federation of Charles for geek media reviews and essays!
Follow me on Twitter: @Willowhugger
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
baron fojar von lordaeron, flamebait, kill all forsaken, lordaeron, lordaeron lordaeron

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:05 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.