Scrolls of Lore Forums  

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-09-2014, 10:21 AM
Sceptic Sceptic is offline

Ranger
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 376

Default Warcraft 3 manual- pro Horde?

There are certain formulations in the Warcraft 3 manual that seem suspiciously pro Horde or portray the Alliance in a negative light:


"Turalyon, Lothar’s most trusted lieutenant, took up Lothar’s bloodstained
shield and rallied his grief-stricken brethren for a vicious counterattack."

"Turalyon’s troops slaughtered the bulk of Doomhammer’s remaining forces in a glorious, but terrible rout"

"But, despite the warlock’s power, the intervention of the reckless mage, Rhonin, threw Nekros’ plans awry"

"Aided only by his own devoted Warsong
clan, Hellscream continued to fight an underground war against theoppres-
sion of his beleaguered people.
(a rather cynical view on the punishment of his people)
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09-09-2014, 10:25 AM
SmokeBlader SmokeBlader is offline

Elune
SmokeBlader's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 30,980

Default

You look too much into it.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-09-2014, 10:34 AM
Kaiserneko Kaiserneko is offline
Kaiserneko's Avatar
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Candy Land
Posts: 162

Orb of Venom

People are looking as far as the manuals for Horde/Alliance bias?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-09-2014, 10:52 AM
Westlee Westlee is offline
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 2,085

Default

The Horde could be up to their armpits in the blood of the innocent and Blizzard would whitewash them.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-09-2014, 12:00 PM
Menel'dirion Menel'dirion is offline

Eternal
Menel'dirion's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: The most gorgeous place in the world (if you've been there you know what I'm talking about)
Posts: 2,582

Default

Warcraft III in general was Horde Biased, as opposed to the first two games were purely Human/Alliance Biased.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-09-2014, 12:53 PM
Al'Akir Al'Akir is offline

Chimaera
Al'Akir's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 256

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sceptic View Post
There are certain formulations in the Warcraft 3 manual that seem suspiciously pro Horde or portray the Alliance in a negative light:


"Turalyon, Lothar’s most trusted lieutenant, took up Lothar’s bloodstained
shield and rallied his grief-stricken brethren for a vicious counterattack."

"Turalyon’s troops slaughtered the bulk of Doomhammer’s remaining forces in a glorious, but terrible rout"

"But, despite the warlock’s power, the intervention of the reckless mage, Rhonin, threw Nekros’ plans awry"

"Aided only by his own devoted Warsong
clan, Hellscream continued to fight an underground war against theoppres-
sion of his beleaguered people.
(a rather cynical view on the punishment of his people)
All of those words you highlighted have multiple definitions and can be read in various ways. You have intentionally chosen to sound-bite them in such a manner as to give them the most negative possible connotation.

Your post doesn't show pro-Horde bias on the manual's part, it only shows anti-manual bias on your part. ;-P


But seriously, I hope that you were making a joke post. A 14? year-old document written by someone who has no involvement in the game nowadays for a group of game developers, virtually none of whom are still involved in the franchise today, is a really flimsy angle to attack Blizzard over
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 09-09-2014, 12:56 PM
Westlee Westlee is offline
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 2,085

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Al'Akir View Post
But seriously, I hope that you were making a joke post. A 14? year-old document written by someone who has no involvement in the game nowadays for a group of game developers, virtually none of whom are still involved in the franchise today, is a really flimsy angle to attack Blizzard over
Their legacy remains.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 09-09-2014, 01:11 PM
Al'Akir Al'Akir is offline

Chimaera
Al'Akir's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 256

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Westlee View Post
Their legacy remains.
You are WAYYY too personally invested in the happenstance of this game.

Have you tried looking into new hobbies or taking up some other sort of recreational activity, to supplement your computer-time?
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 09-09-2014, 01:22 PM
Genesis Genesis is offline

Guru of Gilneas
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 13,290

Default

Even worse, he's a Cata baby. That's when he entered into the whole Warcraft franchise.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 09-09-2014, 01:29 PM
Fojar Fojar is offline

Elune
Fojar's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto, Lordaeron
Posts: 17,442

Default

Warcraft 3 was pro-Horde across the board, at least insofar as its portrayal of the Orcs are concerned, you don't need to pick apart the manual to see that.
__________________
"Noble countrymen, evil is upon us. Darkness has befallen our shores. Rise and slay thy enemies� strike, strike so others shall live. The meek shall not fade into the night� live my brethren, live." - King Terenas Menethil II
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronGrackle View Post
You are right Fojar.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pajamasalad View Post
You are right Fojar.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderbraid View Post
You are right Fojar.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
You are right Fojar.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 09-09-2014, 01:29 PM
Westlee Westlee is offline
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 2,085

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Genesis View Post
Even worse, he's a Cata baby. That's when he entered into the whole Warcraft franchise.
Actually, I played Warcraft 2 and 3. Years later I played WoW.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Al'Akir View Post
You are WAYYY too personally invested in the happenstance of this game.

Have you tried looking into new hobbies or taking up some other sort of recreational activity, to supplement your computer-time?
I'll stop when WoW goes F2p.

Last edited by Westlee; 09-09-2014 at 01:33 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 09-09-2014, 01:48 PM
BaronGrackle BaronGrackle is offline

Echo of the Past
BaronGrackle's Avatar
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 15,180

Default

Mmm... if anything, there is a bias of New-Horde-better-than-Old-Horde and Thrall-will-lead-us-to-salvation. But I understand why; that's the main focus of the Horde campaign. I understand and accept why--for everyone except the "evil forest trolls".

But as for your quotes:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sceptic View Post
"Turalyon, Lothar’s most trusted lieutenant, took up Lothar’s bloodstained
shield and rallied his grief-stricken brethren for a vicious counterattack."

"Turalyon’s troops slaughtered the bulk of Doomhammer’s remaining forces in a glorious, but terrible rout"
Yeah, so? This is the old Alliance, before the great white knightening. They are allowed to be vicious. Powerful, reactionary, just. "Don't screw with us or we will break you."

And this usage of "terrible" basically translates to "awe-inspiringly fearsome". Turalyon's mighty counterattack is being built up in this passage; there's no negative judgment upon it.

Quote:
"But, despite the warlock’s power, the intervention of the reckless mage, Rhonin, threw Nekros’ plans awry"
Being reckless was a major part of Rhonin's character. In Day of the Dragon, the low reputation he had at the beginning was due to some of his reckless actions in the Second War that got the rest of his party killed.

In fact, just before that quote it says: "The Dragonmaw Clan, led by the insidious warlock, Nekros..." In the Horde intro, we also have that Ner'zhul's Horde "surprised the Alliance defense forces and rampaged through the countryside".

Quote:
"Aided only by his own devoted Warsong
clan, Hellscream continued to fight an underground war against theoppres-
sion of his beleaguered people.
(a rather cynical view on the punishment of his people)
Sure, but that's in the Horde backstory, right? The Alliance backstory instead emphasizes the dilemma of Alliance leaders on what to do with the orcs, and how to respond to their mysterious lethargy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Menel'dirion View Post
Warcraft III in general was Horde Biased, as opposed to the first two games were purely Human/Alliance Biased.
I agree with this. Not to say "Warcraft I and II made the orcs out to be senseless monsters!" or "Warcraft III did grave dishonor to the humans!", but you could tell where the main attention was. In the first two games, the Humans/Alliance were the normal standard. The Orcs/Horde were the "Another Side, Another Story".

I say this based on little things... in Warcraft I the humans interacted with two important NPCs (Lothar, Medivh) while the orcs interacted with one important and one unimportant NPC (Garona, Griselda); in Warcraft II humans get a few diverse levels such as stealing Horde catapults and fighting human peasants; in the expansion the Alliance even gets to hear an orc briefing and use an entire Horde base in a level (the orcs get some human knights in one of their missions, but not a base). Khadgar gets played up as more important than any other NPC among the heroes. The manuals and official strategy guides always listed the Alliance first and the Horde second. Stuff like that.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 09-09-2014, 02:13 PM
Galka Galka is offline

Druid of the Claw
Galka's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Iowa
Posts: 121
BattleTag: Galka#1452

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fojar View Post
Warcraft 3 was pro-Horde across the board, at least insofar as its portrayal of the Orcs are concerned, you don't need to pick apart the manual to see that.
So any attempt to change the Orcs away from their horrific WCII characterization makes it Horde biased? You make it sound like it's a bad thing that they wanted to move away from the Evil vs. Good dichotomy in WCIII. If someone's getting beaten with a hammer, there's no favoritism/bias towards them if there's a movement to intervene.

Are you saying they should have stayed the way they are: evil? Making claims of pro-X imply that you've been wronged if you aren't part of X.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 09-09-2014, 02:23 PM
Aneurysm Aneurysm is offline

Problemsolver
Aneurysm's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Here, there, and everywhere.
Posts: 9,329

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Galka View Post
So any attempt to change the Orcs away from their horrific WCII characterization makes it Horde biased? You make it sound like it's a bad thing that they wanted to move away from the Evil vs. Good dichotomy in WCIII. If someone's getting beaten with a hammer, there's no favoritism/bias towards them if there's a movement to intervene.

Are you saying they should have stayed the way they are: evil? Making claims of pro-X imply that you've been wronged if you aren't part of X.
Orcs are still evil bla bla bla stupid Thrall bla bla bla Sylvanas bla bla bla.

I saved you some time, Fojar.
__________________
My love for you is like a truck, berserker.
Would you like some making fuck, berserker?
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 09-09-2014, 02:36 PM
Westlee Westlee is offline
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 2,085

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Galka View Post
So any attempt to change the Orcs away from their horrific WCII characterization makes it Horde biased? You make it sound like it's a bad thing that they wanted to move away from the Evil vs. Good dichotomy in WCIII. If someone's getting beaten with a hammer, there's no favoritism/bias towards them if there's a movement to intervene.

Are you saying they should have stayed the way they are: evil? Making claims of pro-X imply that you've been wronged if you aren't part of X.
The only difference between Warcraft II Horde and Warcraft III Horde was that they allowed Jaina to live when before they wouldn't have. Everything else is the same.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 09-09-2014, 02:44 PM
Galka Galka is offline

Druid of the Claw
Galka's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Iowa
Posts: 121
BattleTag: Galka#1452

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Westlee View Post
The only difference between Warcraft II Horde and Warcraft III Horde was that they allowed Jaina to live when before they wouldn't have. Everything else is the same.
That's pretty bold.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 09-09-2014, 02:49 PM
SmokeBlader SmokeBlader is offline

Elune
SmokeBlader's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 30,980

Default

Westlee is a troll. Don't argue with him.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 09-09-2014, 03:14 PM
Genesis Genesis is offline

Guru of Gilneas
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 13,290

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmokeBlader View Post
Westlee is a troll. Don't argue with him.
He must be one of those evil forest trolls that Thrall hates.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 09-09-2014, 03:41 PM
Fojar Fojar is offline

Elune
Fojar's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto, Lordaeron
Posts: 17,442

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Galka View Post
So any attempt to change the Orcs away from their horrific WCII characterization makes it Horde biased? You make it sound like it's a bad thing that they wanted to move away from the Evil vs. Good dichotomy in WCIII. If someone's getting beaten with a hammer, there's no favoritism/bias towards them if there's a movement to intervene.

Are you saying they should have stayed the way they are: evil? Making claims of pro-X imply that you've been wronged if you aren't part of X.
The problem is that bringing the Orcs up in the case of Warcraft 3 also involved bringing the Alliance down. And I'm not talking about the Scourge invasion and whatnot I'm talking about characters like Daelin being portrayed as bigots and characters like Garithos being invented for the sole reason of making the Alliance look worse.
__________________
"Noble countrymen, evil is upon us. Darkness has befallen our shores. Rise and slay thy enemies� strike, strike so others shall live. The meek shall not fade into the night� live my brethren, live." - King Terenas Menethil II
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronGrackle View Post
You are right Fojar.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pajamasalad View Post
You are right Fojar.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderbraid View Post
You are right Fojar.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
You are right Fojar.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 09-09-2014, 03:42 PM
Westlee Westlee is offline
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 2,085

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Galka View Post
That's pretty bold.
It really isn't when you think about it. I'll go into detail if you like.

Last edited by Westlee; 09-09-2014 at 03:45 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 09-09-2014, 04:01 PM
Galka Galka is offline

Druid of the Claw
Galka's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Iowa
Posts: 121
BattleTag: Galka#1452

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fojar View Post
The problem is that bringing the Orcs up in the case of Warcraft 3 also involved bringing the Alliance down. And I'm not talking about the Scourge invasion and whatnot I'm talking about characters like Daelin being portrayed as bigots and characters like Garithos being invented for the sole reason of making the Alliance look worse.
So you're saying the situation is good if the Alliance is good and the Horde is evil, but it becomes Horde bias if both the Horde and Alliance become occasionally good and occasionally evil? So an attempt at moral parity (regardless of if it worked) is a bias? It's Horde bias if you don't get to be good all the time?

If one faction is evil and one is good, they must both become some shade of grey to maintain a faction war if you wish to "uplift" the evil one. Even if it costs the Alliance, its simply is less fair to keep the Horde evil.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 09-09-2014, 04:17 PM
Genesis Genesis is offline

Guru of Gilneas
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 13,290

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fojar View Post
The problem is that bringing the Orcs up in the case of Warcraft 3 also involved bringing the Alliance down. And I'm not talking about the Scourge invasion and whatnot I'm talking about characters like Daelin being portrayed as bigots and characters like Garithos being invented for the sole reason of making the Alliance look worse.
What's the problem with Daelin being portrayed as a bigot? He wasn't portrayed at all previously. We had no insights into his character apart from the fact that he supported the Alliance against an invading force. Sure we can say that Woodrow Wilson was a "good guy" for supporting the Allies against Germany, but the president was still a racist bigot. That's not bringing the Allies down. That's just characterization.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 09-09-2014, 05:17 PM
Kaiserneko Kaiserneko is offline
Kaiserneko's Avatar
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Candy Land
Posts: 162

Orb of Venom

Quote:
Originally Posted by Galka View Post
So you're saying the situation is good if the Alliance is good and the Horde is evil, but it becomes Horde bias if both the Horde and Alliance become occasionally good and occasionally evil? So an attempt at moral parity (regardless of if it worked) is a bias? It's Horde bias if you don't get to be good all the time?

If one faction is evil and one is good, they must both become some shade of grey to maintain a faction war if you wish to "uplift" the evil one. Even if it costs the Alliance, its simply is less fair to keep the Horde evil.
Anyone getting attention aside from the Alliance is actively stealing that attention away from them in Fojar's book.

He thinks that the Forsaken being called Lordaeron citizens is robbing something from the Alliance, as if there are a ton of them still living. They've been pretty much dead since WC3 after Garithos, then we see that there are still some left in the Silver Hand, who die as Scarlet Crusade. Lordaeron lives on in the founding human members of the Argent Dawn, now a part of the Argent Crusade, but the Forsaken being called Lordaeron citizens as all of them pre-Cata are is still taking something away from the Alliance to him.

The Horde getting any attention that is positive counts as Horde bias, according to Fojar. The Horde being completely obliterated by Daelin Proudmoore in WC3 would probably be seen as complete fairness for both factions in his mind.

That's like saying someone making money besides me is stealing that money from me, which sounds ridiculous.

Last edited by Kaiserneko; 09-09-2014 at 05:21 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 09-09-2014, 05:17 PM
BaronGrackle BaronGrackle is offline

Echo of the Past
BaronGrackle's Avatar
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 15,180

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Galka View Post
So any attempt to change the Orcs away from their horrific WCII characterization makes it Horde biased? You make it sound like it's a bad thing that they wanted to move away from the Evil vs. Good dichotomy in WCIII. If someone's getting beaten with a hammer, there's no favoritism/bias towards them if there's a movement to intervene.

Are you saying they should have stayed the way they are: evil? Making claims of pro-X imply that you've been wronged if you aren't part of X.
That's a little harsh. Is is so evil to crave battle, to want to conquer and pillage your enemies? Okay mebbe.

But you know, when we played Dune II we could be House Harkonnen or House Ordos. When we played Command and Conquer or Red Alert we could be the Brotherhood of Nod or the Soviet Union. When we played Age of Empires or Age of Kings we could be Assyrians, or Hittites, or Mongols, or Vikings, or *gasp* those terrible militaristic Romans. When we played Starcraft we could be the Zerg.

For just about all of those, it would be unjust to say their faction characterization was "beaten with a hammer". Think of it this way... if it was so terrible to have a barbarian Horde during the first two RTS games, why was it okay to have the Scourge or the Burning Legion in Warcraft III? Does a future Warcraft game need to redeem the Burning Legion, to reveal they were only being puppetted by Old Gods or something? And in the next game, reveal that the Old Gods were just being manipulated by... I don't know, Young Gods?

. . .

But I'm not making a "Warcraft III sucks for ruining the Horde" speech, not right now. It has its place and its strengths. My point right now, is that the Horde was NOT character-deprived before then. And there was a lot more moral greyness than you might give it credit for... just ask the orcs who had their heads impaled on humans' pikes, or the human soldier who gloated that not even these monsters could withstand the might of Azeroth steel, or the Alterac farmers who lost their homes and possibly their lives... or ask the orc commander who felt compelled to cremate his enemies' bodies in a ritualistic pyre instead of leaving them to the wild animals, or ask the Troll whose people are on the verge of extinction from attacks of elves, humans, and dwarves.

And perhaps most importantly, the things we loved most about the Horde... primarily the warrior's spirit, of actions over words, of controlled bloodlust... those are very much still with the Horde today. When playing an orc, I'm proud to have my capital named Orgrimmar. I only make fun of it when comparing it to the spirit of pacifism.

Last edited by BaronGrackle; 09-09-2014 at 05:21 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 09-09-2014, 06:39 PM
Menel'dirion Menel'dirion is offline

Eternal
Menel'dirion's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: The most gorgeous place in the world (if you've been there you know what I'm talking about)
Posts: 2,582

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fojar View Post
The problem is that bringing the Orcs up in the case of Warcraft 3 also involved bringing the Alliance down. And I'm not talking about the Scourge invasion and whatnot I'm talking about characters like Daelin being portrayed as bigots and characters like Garithos being invented for the sole reason of making the Alliance look worse.
Except do you really mind Daelin's portrayal? Aren't there plenty who believe "Daelin was right." Doesn't he more or less represent the attitude you wish Alliance Heros had in regards to the Horde? His characterization is consistent with what little we knew about him and is hardly unexpected. It's in opposition to the Horde, and it's not exactly open minded, but I don't see anything wrong with it. He represents the Warcraft II generation. Why wouldn't he do any of the things he did?

Hell, Garithos was a dick, but there are plenty of people who still like him (I'm not one of them mind you, but they're out there, and I thought you were one of them as well).

Hell, I figured that was part of the fun of giving the Alliance some more controversial characters.

Last edited by Menel'dirion; 09-09-2014 at 06:41 PM..
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
get a fucking life, horde bias, my life for the alliance, warcraft iii

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 08:17 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.