So when Kyrians are the souls of people, that have ascended...

[mickybrighteyes]

Wouldn't Eitrigg be an example of an orc who could potentially go to Bastion? The guy was involved in the First and Second War, true, but he's undeniably a much less frenzied orc when compared to many others. I'm curious to know how much atonement in life can change your destination in the Shadowlands. Once you do something particularly shitty, are you automatically destined for Revendreth?

I don't believe so but some people seem to think once someone you know or someone who is kind of associated with you does something shitty you deserve punishment.

Though they're still slowly revealing what actually determines where you end up.

[Garymorilix]

That doesn't mean every orc will go there. The Arbiter decides. And I'm sure some are seen as noble enough to go to Bastion. Orc Priests would fit in just right.

- - - Updated - - -



Orcs might have done some really bad things, but you can't say that most of them lack a sense of service, moral and obligation.

Orc priests are not a thing tho.

Thrall would probably end up in Bastion. Every other orc wouldn't. The orcish culture of "honor" and "glory in battle" doesn't fit with Bastion.

[mickybrighteyes]

Orc priests are not a thing tho.

person talking about orc priest are talking about mag'har variety which are also the more 'pure' orc culture example than the ones that were blood curses monsters rampaging under legion control that invaded back in year 0.

Thrall would probably end up in Bastion. Every other orc wouldn't. The orcish culture of "honor" and "glory in battle" doesn't fit with Bastion.

Orc culture isn't exclusively glory in battle any more than the Human norm is glory to the light. Now how often do some humans sit there actually praising the light or caring about worship?

[Nefarious Tea]

The only place where souls are tortured forever is the Maw. Revendreth is the Shadowlands' Purgatory. The Venthyr are "sin eaters". Their role is to purify unworthy souls of their sins and then send them to their proper place in the afterlife. The problem is that the Venthyr have become gluttonous and greedy, and no longer fulfill that role. I bet our role will be to fix that.

As for Orcs, while it is true that their culture makes them fit more with places like Maldraxxus and that some did horrid things worthy of cleansing in Revendreth, I do not believe that would prevent all of them to go to Bastion. If Thrall were to die, he would be a worthy candidate.

That’s why I said one and a half orcs. Saurfang would be there if the jailer hadn’t gone evil, and Thrall’s not dead yet.

[Garymorilix]

person talking about orc priest are talking about mag'har variety which are also the more 'pure' orc culture example than the ones that were blood curses monsters rampaging under legion control that invaded back in year 0.



Orc culture isn't exclusively glory in battle any more than the Human norm is glory to the light. Now how often do some humans sit there actually praising the light or caring about worship?

Mag'har orc priests are exclusively shadowcasters. Y'know, void priests basically. Take a guess how that fits in Bastion.

Bastion is not about praising the Light. The scarlet crusade wouldn't end up in Bastion either.
Bastion is basically the "good-guy" heaven. Lawful good that is.
Humans in WoW have many different motives, because they are based on real life humans so we can relate.
Orcs on the other hand always end up with "Lok'tar Ogar" and "Blood and Thunder" because that's how they are. That's their culture. Thrall is the exception regarding this, however after the Garrosh stuff maybe even he wouldn't end up in Bastion.

[mickybrighteyes]

Bastion is basically the "good-guy" heaven. Lawful good that is.

I get this part. The issue is that people say this like it effectively excludes various groups because reasons not explicitely related to lawful or good comparisons.

Humans in WoW have many different motives, because they are based on real life humans so we can relate.

It is also a feature that should correlate to every large group of individuals and not exclusively describe JUST humans.

Orcs on the other hand always end up with "Lok'tar Ogar" and "Blood and Thunder" because that's how they are. That's their culture. Thrall is the exception regarding this, however after the Garrosh stuff maybe even he wouldn't end up in Bastion.

I think that's more a matter of the story always turning into war scenarios and instances where they either survive/win or die. That doesn't seem like an immediate qualifier or disqualifier for the various 'afterlife' locations.

[plz delete account]

Not all of them. Some become Val'kyr's.

- - - Updated - - -



Only Draka.

- - - Updated - - -

Only Draka?

We don't exactly know that she's the only one who went to Maldraxxus to begin with.

[Frontenac]

person talking about orc priest are talking about mag'har variety which are also the more 'pure' orc culture example than the ones that were blood curses monsters rampaging under legion control that invaded back in year 0.



Orc culture isn't exclusively glory in battle any more than the Human norm is glory to the light. Now how often do some humans sit there actually praising the light or caring about worship?

The Kyrian Covenant is all about nobility, service (altruism) and principles. Orc culture is not about that. Some orcs might be, but that's not the majority of the kind. Orcs are not really about principles, they are more about the end that justifies the means. That does not mean that they are evil. Orc culture fits more with the Necrolords and Night Fae (for the most spiritual ones).

We could say the same about Humans. Human culture does not fit with what the Night Faes are all about. That does not mean that no human would join them, but they certainly wouldn't be the majority. Human culture fits more with the Kyrians and the Necrolords, and a good chunk of them would fit with the Venthyr.

[mickybrighteyes]

The Kyrian Covenant is all about nobility, service (altruism) and principles. Orc culture is not about that. Some orcs might be, but that's not the majority of the kind. Orcs are not really about principles, they are more about the end that justifies the means. That does not mean that they are evil. Orc culture fits more with the Necrolords and Night Fae (for the most spiritual ones).

Service and Altruism are very different terms covering a wide range of subjects.

And I have to disagree that orcs aren't principled... Maybe the likes such as Kilrogg are heavil ends justify the means, but not every orc clan was lead by semi omniscient seers with 100% accurate visions of the future running things. This sounds like 'their principles aren't like [example] therefore they're not principled.

Or maybe I should ask how you're defining these terms since 'Service' clearly isn't just 'Service' but a specific kind of service.

[Eazy]

Imagine: dying in the battle versus Alliance scum, getting your ol' good deserved honorable death, being ported to some shadow realm, getting human model FOREVER.

[Garymorilix]

I get this part. The issue is that people say this like it effectively excludes various groups because reasons not explicitely related to lawful or good comparisons.

It is also a feature that should correlate to every large group of individuals and not exclusively describe JUST humans.


I think that's more a matter of the story always turning into war scenarios and instances where they either survive/win or die. That doesn't seem like an immediate qualifier or disqualifier for the various 'afterlife' locations.

So I see you understand orc 'priests' are not a thing.

Yes, it effectively excludes every single person who is not lawful good. That's the whole point. Souls that inherit that trait get to go to Bastion.
There is a huge difference between Uther and someone like Nazgrim (who would be the best orchish counterpart). Despite both having a huge sense of service, morality and obligation it is very clear to see why Nazgrim wouldn't be in Bastion.
As someone already pointed this out, not even Draka is in Bastion, even tho she wasn't an "evil" orc.

Humans are the only race in WoW that is written with nuances for a few reasons.
WoW is based on a Tolkien style of universe. Every race that isn't human is basically defined by one belief or characteristic and that influences their whole life perspective.
Humans on the other hand get to be versatile, like real life humans, even tho they have no niche fantasy role in the overall story.

You can't blame the "story turning into X" because at the end of the day, that's THE story. There is no alternative no matter how hard you try to justify it. Whatever you see IS, whatever you don't see ISN'T. Simple.

[Temp1on2]

I'm sure I read somewhere that what you see in the shadowlands is with reference to your own experiences. The souls there don't actually have any particular form and it depends on the observer what shape they take. Our perspective is just one of many. So they Kyrians look one way to us (for in-game reasons) but in actual fact could look like any creature (i.e. a being that had never encountered a human wouldn't see a human-like being but something they're familiar with).

[Destinas]

I think this race wide generalization doesn't really apply. All areas of the shadowlands receive all types of races. Their destination doesn't depend on their race, but on their character, their actions in life, etc. Yes, orcs have more of a militaristic society for which Maldraxxus would be a common destination, but if they lived flawed lives for which they need to atone, they'd be sent to Venthyr, if they lived noble lives they'd be sent to Bastion, if they lived with a close relationship to nature, they'd be sent to Ardenweald. I'm sure that while most orcs would probably be sent to Maldraxxus, there'd be examples of orcs going to all the other places.

Yeah, that's why I said "mostly Orcs" before.

[mickybrighteyes]

So I see you understand orc 'priests' are not a thing.

Yes... orc priests aren't a thing like tauren paladins aren't a thing

Yes, it effectively excludes every single person who is not lawful good.

OK except the ideas of what is or isn't Lawful or Good aren't being discussed. It seems more like people are saying: "well [insert] doesn't count because they're [insert]" and then defining the category by traits that only seem to fit because they themselves say so.

So somehow a whole race isn't lawful good because they aren't like the example group the speaker refers to as exemplifying 'lawful goodness'

This is part of the issue.

There is a huge difference between Uther and someone like Nazgrim (who would be the best orchish counterpart). Despite both having a huge sense of service, morality and obligation it is very clear to see why Nazgrim wouldn't be in Bastion.

I am not in agreement that it is 'clear'.... I'd say it's 'crystal clear' even (cause crystal can be very opaque and matte in it's appearance).

As someone already pointed this out, not even Draka is in Bastion, even tho she wasn't an "evil" orc.

This doesn't really explain anything as we really know next to nothing about the regions. The devs have barely covered little more than the names a brief overview and a few denizens we can expect to see.

Humans are the only race in WoW that is written with nuances for a few reasons.
WoW is based on a Tolkien style of universe. Every race that isn't human is basically defined by one belief or characteristic and that influences their whole life perspective.
Humans on the other hand get to be versatile, like real life humans, even tho they have no niche fantasy role in the overall story.

You can't blame the "story turning into X" because at the end of the day, that's THE story. There is no alternative no matter how hard you try to justify it. Whatever you see IS, whatever you don't see ISN'T. Simple.

It seems that humans are the only nuanced race people will accept... everything else is just token one offs not indicating any real theme. Only humans can be lawful good gais, dwarves and gnomes and elves can bugger off as well as orcs and tauren!

Again it really feels less like you're explaining why Lawful Good is what you describe and are trying to assert humans are the example to follow for lawful good. Nazgrim's Service and obligations don't seem to count for anything because...I guess he's an orc and followed his obligations?

I'm not blaming the story here, I'm blaming people who seem to have very poor arguments to back up their points. Maybe instead of asserting something is clear maybe elaborate why. Uther's morality is better because he was for the light? His service was towards the order of the silver hand and hopefully the betterment of society? This is going to go into some grey area largely cause of how the perspective shift of some groups is going to be and that will then start to mess with how one would define 'lawful' or 'good'. Is lawful good only lawful good from one group's perspective? If so, why?

[Destinas]

I think this is worded... poorly.

Most orcs might be in agreement with typical Maldraxxus themes, but by numbers i'd imagine there are other groups that fill ranks in every category simply by population or whatever.


I guess that first line with the 'mostly orcs' is the main thing as it seems more accurate and appropriate to say something more like "most orcs would" since "mostly orcs" seems to imply that Maldraxxus would be 'mostly orcs'... The issue here being that far more souls from non-orcs likely make up those in Maldraxxus unless some other retcons are in place. Uther and Draka being examples of races present also doesn't amount to much since humans themselves are so varied to appear across the entire spectrum ranging from power hungry warmongers to peacemongering zealots.

I agree, I didn't word that correctly. I wasn't implying that Maldraxxus would be mostly comprised of Orcs. Most Orcs would wind up in Maldraxxus due to the nature of their culture across their clans - this would likely be true of Vrykul, Yaungol, Ogres, and other war-like races. However, all of those races could wind up in different areas based on what they did in life - I stated this in another post in this thread as well, citing that Orc Shamans could easily go to Ardenweald since there is overlap between druids, shamans, nature, and elements.

If Orc paladins were more of a widespread phenomenon, I would assume that those Orcs would go to Bastion, simply for the virtues that most paladins have - even subtypes like Sunwalkers, Prelates of Rezan, Blood Knights, Vindicators, etc. That's pretty much the only reason I cited Uther going to Bastion. They've made it fairly clear that people are sent to different areas based on morality, which is usually inherently tied to culture - which most Orcs have deemed dying in battle as "honorable" across most clans, classes, and timelines, which fits in with Maldraxxus. However, I would assume that if Gul'dan were to go to the Shadowlands, he would wind up in Revendreth to be punished for his deeds, not his race, culture, or class.

[Garymorilix]

Yes... orc priests aren't a thing like tauren paladins aren't a thing

OK except the ideas of what is or isn't Lawful or Good aren't being discussed. It seems more like people are saying: "well [insert] doesn't count because they're [insert]" and then defining the category by traits that only seem to fit because they themselves say so.

So somehow a whole race isn't lawful good because they aren't like the example group the speaker refers to as exemplifying 'lawful goodness'

This is part of the issue.

I am not in agreement that it is 'clear'.... I'd say it's 'crystal clear' even (cause crystal can be very opaque and matte in it's appearance).


This doesn't really explain anything as we really know next to nothing about the regions. The devs have barely covered little more than the names a brief overview and a few denizens we can expect to see.

It seems that humans are the only nuanced race people will accept... everything else is just token one offs not indicating any real theme. Only humans can be lawful good gais, dwarves and gnomes and elves can bugger off as well as orcs and tauren!

Again it really feels less like you're explaining why Lawful Good is what you describe and are trying to assert humans are the example to follow for lawful good. Nazgrim's Service and obligations don't seem to count for anything because...I guess he's an orc and followed his obligations?

I'm not blaming the story here, I'm blaming people who seem to have very poor arguments to back up their points. Maybe instead of asserting something is clear maybe elaborate why. Uther's morality is better because he was for the light? His service was towards the order of the silver hand and hopefully the betterment of society? This is going to go into some grey area largely cause of how the perspective shift of some groups is going to be and that will then start to mess with how one would define 'lawful' or 'good'. Is lawful good only lawful good from one group's perspective? If so, why?

Orc 'priests' are not a thing. You seem like someone who cares about the lore enough to know this.
There are mag'har shadowcasters, and that's it IN THE LORE.
Aswell, tauren 'paladins' don't exist. They are sunwalkers. They use Light but from a different source.
As Zandalari 'paladins' don't exist either. They are prelate with loa light.
Get your shit together when it comes to class lores.

Lawful Good is the definition itself. It is one side of the general rpg personality alignments. It clearly states what clarifies as lawful good.
This is not Blizzard's terminology.
Someone can be good and not lawful. Someone can be lawful and not good.
I get what your problem is, you think 'lawful' would mean something different to an orc than a human. I get it.
But the terminology of Lawful Good is created to categorize characters from OUR perspective (as in the player/reader/game master/whatever). To an orc slaughtering innocents may be lawful good, but to the reader (with real life human values) it is clearly not.
And the Arbiter seems to work like a game master in itself when it sorts souls. That's why Uther is in bastion and not Draka. Cuz our definiton of Lawful Good applies to Uther and not Draka.

Oh, it is clear, you just don't seem to accept the concept of the Alignment Chart.

No-one said that dwarves or gnomes or elves or tauren can't go to bastion. This is a fallacy. I'm talking about orcs not fitting there.
Also, I never said that every single human ends up in Bastion either. The opposite, I said humans are versatile, which means they can go wherever really based on their lives.
Lawful Good is our perspective, again, not the in-game characters perspective on each other. This is the whole point of the Alignment Chart.

Look up the Alignment Chart. I have a feeling you have zero idea what you're arguing against.

[mickybrighteyes]

If Orc paladins were more of a widespread phenomenon, I would assume that those Orcs would go to Bastion, simply for the virtues that most paladins have - even subtypes like Sunwalkers, Prelates of Rezan, Blood Knights, Vindicators, etc. That's pretty much the only reason I cited Uther going to Bastion. They've made it fairly clear that people are sent to different areas based on morality, which is usually inherently tied to culture - which most Orcs have deemed dying in battle as "honorable" across most clans, classes, and timelines, which fits in with Maldraxxus. However, I would assume that if Gul'dan were to go to the Shadowlands, he would wind up in Revendreth to be punished for his deeds, not his race, culture, or class.

I think part of the issue in these discussions is discounting individual morality based on racial culture almost to exclusively playing off the culture.


as for guldan. Due to how he was shown doing his various things in pulling the orcs together and turning on his clan... I think he'd more likely wind up in the maw.

[horbindr]

if your choices are human, ghoul, fertilizer or sex toy. human doesn't seem so bad.

imagine becoming a sex toy, and then when you are reformed to good boy, being sent to fertilizer land.

[Gungnir]

It looks like they have loosely adapted the Dungeons & Dragons model of afterlife. In D&D (Forgotten Realms), the souls of the dead ended up in the Fugue Plane where they were judged by a deity who decided to which outerplane they were destined, according to their moral alignment. Then inhabitants of these planes will take them to their respective planes where they will become petitioners. More often than not, the petitioners lost all memories of their past lives and took the appearance of the denizens of their plane. A human worshipper of a dwarven deity will look like a dwarf. A petitioner of Mount Celestia will become a lantern archon, while a petitioner of the Nine Hells will start off in Avernus as a lowly lemure and then progress in the diabolical hierarchy.

The entirety of WoW is deeply rooted in D&D, even class design was heavily D&D influenced back in Vanilla with set roles.

[mickybrighteyes]

Orc 'priests' are not a thing. You seem like someone who cares about the lore enough to know this.
There are mag'har shadowcasters, and that's it IN THE LORE.
Aswell, tauren 'paladins' don't exist. They are sunwalkers. They use Light but from a different source.
As Zandalari 'paladins' don't exist either. They are prelate with loa light.
Get your shit together when it comes to class lores.

Look. I disregarded your original point on the subject cause It's a moot point...

Tauren 'paladins' are a thing because Sunwalkers are carbon copy paladins in literally every way.

The 'shadow casters' you refer to as 'not priests' are priest. They pray to a higher power and use it as a religious backing. The fact that they don't use or believe in the light isn't the issue there.

This is just nitpicking at this point. Are troll priest not priest cause they are adhering to loa and voodoo? Are gnomes not really hunters cause of their reliance on metal and machines? Were blood knights not paladins despite their use of the light? I mean hell, forsaken priests were previously almost exclusively shadow as well but that doesn't make them 'not priest' either.

Lawful Good is the definition itself. It is one side of the general rpg personality alignments. It clearly states what clarifies as lawful good.

Your examples are doing very little to explain your point.

I mean generally something like:

A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. He combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. He tells the truth, keeps his word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.

Might do more to explain why something is or isn't lawful or good. Typically some explanation of 'lawful' or what ideas of 'order' should be exemplified for lawful status to be determined (law and order typically being interchangeable as counter to 'chaos'). Thus far you've spent more time trying to say the orcs in general are chaotic or not good in roundabout ways. Uther was LG cause... i guess paladin. While Nazgrim wasn't because... "it was clear" was

This is not Blizzard's terminology.

That much is true... but no one is referencing anything beyond character names and doing very little to cite actions... maybe take another look at your post about Nazgrim and Uther....

Someone can be good and not lawful. Someone can be lawful and not good.

Yes, but people aren't really explaining why they think someone was these things or blanket statements the entire group for poorly elaborated reasons or falling back on a specific trop.

I get what your problem is, you think 'lawful' would mean something different to an orc than a human. I get it.

Do you?

But the terminology of Lawful Good is created to categorize characters from OUR perspective (as in the player/reader/game master/whatever). To an orc slaughtering innocents may be lawful good, but to the reader (with real life human values) it is clearly not.

I'm more trying to figure out where this example comes from, but the example is present on all sides cause either side may see 'innocents' as something other than innocent. Our, the audiences, perspectives are also biased at times as well. You seem to already assume certain things about how one side might act based on the analogy you used...

And the Arbiter seems to work like a game master in itself when it sorts souls. That's why Uther is in bastion and not Draka. Cuz our definiton of Lawful Good applies to Uther and not Draka.

This feels like a circular logic loop with a lot of information missing. We know nothing much about Draka except she is/was an orc and Thrall's Mom within the Frostwolves. That gives us very little information about who she is or what she did exactly so you'll need to do better to explain why you think she isn't lawful or good... please try harder than "Well Bastion is totally Lawful Good and she didn't get sent there"

Oh, it is clear, you just don't seem to accept the concept of the Alignment Chart.

The forum rules restrict me from commenting in the way I wish atm... just know I cannot put into words how much my desk has just been faced or my eyes that have rolled enough for jupiter to feel the rotational force.

The alignment chart is one thing, the way one defines the parameters or justification for placement on the chart is the issue... my questioning of others statements about it is not my inability to accept a chart... Your explanations as to why your interpretations are what they are... THAT is what I'm having a hard time accepting. Like this new Uther v Draka example where Uther is LG but draka isn't cause the arbiter sent her to not Bastion... Real top form for elaboration on what is or isn't Lawful Good. But you can't really say much since the character chosen here is rather lacking in backstory.

No-one said that dwarves or gnomes or elves or tauren can't go to bastion. This is a fallacy. I'm talking about orcs not fitting there.
Also, I never said that every single human ends up in Bastion either. The opposite, I said humans are versatile, which means they can go wherever really based on their lives.

I was being tongue in cheek about non-humans since it seems only humans are the ones who get the varied perspective. Humans can do whatever... everyone else? pigeonholed by stereotype it seems.

Lawful Good is our perspective, again, not the in-game characters perspective on each other. This is the whole point of the Alignment Chart.

You still have yet to point out what that is... maybe cite a source instead of telling someone to go research.

Look up the Alignment Chart. I have a feeling you have zero idea what you're arguing against.

I think you're having trouble actually proving your point now.

You have yet to even define your idea of the components that make up an alignment chart and almost solely fallen back on citing Uther as your example of lawful good... using merely his name and not his deeds.

edit:

fyi:

I am more than familiar with alignment charts and what can wind up as various categories on said chart. The issue here is more about how some people are labeling various characters/groups based on what they believe determines the position on the chart.

You yourself have done little to elaborate why one might be lawful or good instead opting to say "Uther is"... or "Draka is not"

Are you implying that we are to just take Bastion as Lawful Good. Ardenweald as Chaotic Good. the others are somehow lawful evil and the maw is totes chaotic evil?

edit2:

another thing. As for 'our perspective' being what determines good/evil and lawful/chaotic... that doesn't really explain anything except make it fall on our own bias. Remember your first analogy that wasn't name dropping uther was "Well maybe it's lawful for an orc to kill innocents". This analogy didn't really bring up anything about the situation except hey orcs slaughtering folks... no discussion of why or how. It could be movie styled gul'dan with his hundred/thousands or draenei locked up being used for fuel for all it mattered. This example does veyr little to explain why or how such an action might be deemed 'lawful' beyond maybe that's just orc culture... (another issue I have concerning people's interpretation of the entire race's culture vs some people's culture... like part of why defias or syndicate culture isn't indicative of Human culture... but somehow every little orc tribe is incredibly indicative of all orc culture)

I disagree that morality should be exclusively judged from one perspective on grounds that we, the audience, are not a unified group with a singular bias and feel that you're idea needs some work.