Question to the Lore People out there

[Balrog]

The player character Death knight (leader of the order hall) became the champion of the horde/alliance. Why couldn't Nazgrim take side in a conflict?

Because all the Order Halls are completely faction-agnostic? Such as the Priest Order Hall being integral to the Before the Storm novel and having a Forsaken high priest aided by High King / Priest Anduin Wrynn resurrect Calia Menethil... the Order Halls were united against the Legion, and the Death Knight Order Hall is just an extension of the Ebon Blade, which is also neutral, and serves Bolvar.

[GreenJesus]

Because all the Order Halls are completely faction-agnostic? Such as the Priest Order Hall being integral to the Before the Storm novel and having a Forsaken high priest aided by High King / Priest Anduin Wrynn resurrect Calia Menethil... the Order Halls were united against the Legion, and the Death Knight Order Hall is just an extension of the Ebon Blade, which is also neutral, and serves Bolvar.

What I meant was that if the player character is the LEADER of the order hall and yet he decided to take sides, then why can't the plebs?

It's unfortunate that Blizzard failed to do a questline closing the order hall out for lore purposes. For example: "Thanks everybody for helping. The legion has been defeated and Banshee waifu is calling, so see y'all later. Thanks for the good vibes. You are free to do as you wish now." I didn't even get a going away party.. like wtf.

[Mrbleedinggums]

The issue with writing for an MMORPG is that you can't give definitive losses to one side or the other because you're having people play both sides. Nobody wants to be "Well, it makes sense that in the Siege of Org that Alliance actually take over the area and do this or that, or that in the Battle for Undercity there isn't a Deus Ex Machina-ship coming in to save Alliance forces/heroes from dying for falling into an elaborate Pyrrhic-style trap." because it would have to be shown in the game for it to make sense. You can't give Org to Horde and still let Alliance see a phased "Alliance Controlled Horde City" that they own.

So for that regard, giving a major decisive victory to one side or the other (if only UC or Teldrassil was destroyed) would only cause major ire and disruption to the game.

If I was a writer though, I would definitely have Baine killed and replaced by a different Tauren Chieftain or council, even though it'd be similar to dwarves where the "Dark Iron" would be the Grimtotem tribe. Magatha Grimtotem would be killed though, after being set up to be an actual villain, and then the Grimtotem join and give Tauren access to rogue. (Grimtotem are the only tribe with rogues currently in game)

I'd also push for major lore characters to actually die in the middle of the expansion instead of just at the end. Even unexpected deaths. Say, if they planned on killing Thrall, have it so that it's in the middle of his questline. He's doing something and an escort, get to the end. Then do some gathering quests. Have a few in-game cutscenes scattered amongst them all. Then one where, say, you talk to him about a plan on what to do, it goes to a cutscene. He's talking with Zappyboi and hero, and mid-sentence a bomb appears off-screen towards his direction and blows up a concoction of plague. Some forsaken dreadguards (elite Forsaken soldiers, deathguard is the bulk of the army) come in and subdue the other heroes while Thrall attempts to fight his way but succumbs to death.

Now your quest suddenly becomes an "escape from the Extermination team" and kinda like in Halls of Reflection you're following a path to run away from the group behind you while forcing your way through enemies in front of you.

[Garymorilix]

Oh god no. Would it be really my job to unfuck the lore? Okay.

- Sylvanas dies and is looted for legendaries, but not before she kills Bane. He is succeeded by Magatha Grimtotem
- The Horde holds a council to decide on their future. Realizing that a WarChief is important for the Horde's identity, Nazgrim is appointed to fill that position. He stays in position for more than two expansion. Calia wants to be more political, so the Forsaken make an example of her and appoint Dark Ranger Velonara.
- Anduin steps down as High King after one of his decisions lead to countless innocents dying. The Alliance becomes an alliance of equal nations yet again.
- Xal'atath helps Vanessa rebuild the Defias into a secret society that provide intrigue and sabotage all over Azeroth.
- Bolvar is given a new helm.

Let's start with this setup.

Is this your definition of unfucking?

This is more hilarious than the worst from Blizzard.

[Aeluron Lightsong]

Do what I can and not make the alliance red. Thats not taking into account whetever reasoning they have behind the scenes to get to the decisions they make.

[Terongor]

I'd come up with an actual morally grey villain. Someone who is truly fighting because he believes he is doing the right thing, who has motivations that you can understand, and who has a clear and precise backstory. Someone who is different from Sylvanas, a terrible villain with inconsistent motivations and cheap power-ups and who is not, never was, and never will be "morally grey".

I think I'd have a lot of fun writing Yrel and Alleria for a hypothetical Light and Void expansion, having them become villainous while at the same time trying to convey the idea that they have logical and coherent reasons for doing evil things.

And like, I am not even trying to shit on Blizzard, because I know they can write morally grey villains. Sargeras, Malygos, and Daelin to name a few. But the villains in BfA were all terrible, especially Sylvanas and N'Zoth.

Do you know what villain means? Calling Daelin and malygos a villain is really streching it... they are antagonist.

In short.
Villains:
Evil. They have evil motivation and evil actions to match.

Aren't necessarily opposed to the protagonist. In fact, they can be a protagonist.

"Villain" is a character type, not a plot role.

Antagonists are:
Not necessarily evil. The can actually be really decent guys who just happen to have a conflicting agenda with the protagonist.

Opposed to the protagonist. They cause conflict with the story's main character.

"Antagonist" is a plot role and doesn't say anything about the character's personality or motivations.

[TheRevenantHero]

I would first do everything I can to get Christie Golden fired.

[Tiwack]

Unleash the meme and pop culture references on a new scale Embrace the magic of the lore-universe and throw a few oddballs in to make things interesting and wild like tbc all over again. Sort of what they're doing already with Shadowlands. I can't wait to find out what future patches will have in store for us to expand the place beyond what we've already seen of it.

[Terongor]

I'll expand that to "what if you had complete control over the Warcraft IP". I've been thinking about that a lot.

I'd make a CGI Warcraft series, starting with the first war, completely ignoring the first Warcraft movie and all retcons that have been made to any kind of material. I'd base this mostly on the old games, lore from the manuals, RPG books and the first few novels, like The Last Guardian and Lord of the Clans, which were the best ones, in my opinion. Completely disregard all volumes of Chronicles.

I'd go through Warcraft 1, Warcraft 2, Beyond the Dark Portal, Warcraft 3 and The Frozen Throne.

Then I'd reboot World of Warcraft, as an entirely new game, starting after The Frozen Throne.

The Forsaken would not be a part of the Horde, but their own faction.

The Lich King would not have been Arthas dominating Ner'zhul, but a true fusion of the two. The Scourge would be their own faction, never really being outright defeated, but always appearing here and there, causing trouble.

The same I'd do for Illidan, Kael and Vashj. They'd be their own faction of Demon Hunters, Blood Elves and Naga, never going through what happened in TBC, but just being a faction that appears here and there and does things, more like an anti-hero kind of faction, that doesn't do outright evil things, causes trouble here and there but also sometimes allies with our factions when it makes sense, in the same way Horde and Alliance sometimes ally as well.

The Alliance would include Humans, Dwarves and High Elves.

The Horde would simply include Orcs, Trolls and Tauren, maybe Goblins and Ogres.

Night Elves would be their own faction, with Wardens, Dryads and other druidic creatures.

Blood Elves would never join the Horde, all of them are part of Kael'thas forces.

Draenei aren't a thing, only the ones on Draenor, and they will have no connection to the Eredar.

I'd include some things that they've come up with over the years, if I feel it makes sense and I like it (I'm a dictator)

Pandaren would be a thing, but Pandaria would be a much smaller island and would not receive their own expansion.

Less Old God stuff.

No Sargeras did nothing wrong.

No Naaru.

Deathwing wouldn't be a retard, but more of the scheming conniver we've known him as before Cataclysm.

Just a couple of thoughts.

So what would you do to things which wc3 retconned wc2 for no reason like Deathwing being son of Alexstrasza? Or when novels retcon wc1-2 manual for no reason.

And from what point in first war you gonna start as it took many years originally and Garonas human mother was rapped at the start of the war and she managed to reach maturity before it ended. So you would have alot of pointless timeskips or wc1 part alone is more than 50% of the show?

And you would reduce Gul'dan and Blackhand to their personalities before wod and chronicles so a zero note villains?

[Tiwack]

That's pretty based.

It's old copy-pasta that offers nothing to replace the overarching story and direction that is integral to any rpg game but that they'd see removed. It's just a standard obtuse downplay/take-down of everything they disagree with, offering a disjointed mess while bringing nothing new to the table other than declaring themselves dictator(?).
At least read it if you're going to respond by quoting it all.

[MrSaggins]

Get feedback from the mechanics guys. Figure out what’s practical, what’s actually feasible going forward to avoid as many inconsistencies as possible. I’d make sure we were all looking at the same big picture with no one kept in the shadows with clear communication between departments, even if it means more leaks. Then for a slight change to overall style I’d tone down the Sci-Fi elements and drag the game back to high fantasy - to keep it distinct from our other properties. Might try to make the faction characters reflect the attitudes of their fan bases too, where it works. And once the narrative is running like a well-oiled machine as it’s intended ancillary role to the gameplay I’d quietly step back and leave; then go take my experience to apply at or start a new company that isn’t yet ruined by success, and has a lot less to lose by gambling on bold artistic visions, and try to recapture the spark Blizzard used to have.

[Nerovar]

It's old copy-pasta that offers nothing to replace the overarching story and direction that is integral to any rpg game but that they'd see removed. It's just a standard obtuse downplay/take-down of everything they disagree with, offering a disjointed mess while bringing nothing new to the table other than declaring themselves dictator(?).
At least read it if you're going to respond by quoting it all.

Oh, I did read it. It gets rid off the most annoying additions to the lore. That's good enough for me.

[NaNaaru]

I think that ill start by trying to understand what is the goal of each character and faction and what are they willing to do to get it. After you know it, find out where are the conflicting interests and write a story around that. I feel that currently it is written in the opposite order.

[Eucep]

Kill off every major character, or at least retire them to outposts, encampments or cities, and create a massive cast of minor chracters, or develop existing ones.

Think tons of characters like Deathstalker Belmont, General Nazgrim, Admiral Taylor, Taelia, Flynn Fairwind etc.

That way you can create a much grounded fantasy narrative with more relatable characters that you as a result can actually give a crap about. They can journey with you in quests and be limited to maybe one or two zones, make it feel like Azeroth is filled with interesting people rather than stuff only happening when bigger characters are around.

It also makes the world more coherent in terms of continuety because you don't have different Jainas and Anduins in several different places breaking immersion

Timeline issues are being resolved with Shadowlands thanks to them going 'yeah this didn't work, you now get Chromie at lvl 10 and she tells you to train in a specific era, then come back for current tasks'.

But I do agree that we should interact a whole lot less with the leaders of the factions. We do so to much. In BfA it really got insane. I preferred it more with the order halls in that regard.

[mickybrighteyes]

Do you know what villain means? Calling Daelin and malygos a villain is really streching it... they are antagonist.

definition of villain per webster: "a character in a story or play who opposes the hero"


I get you're trying to assert villain =! antagonist but... I think this is going to be a bit awkward. Daellin was most definitely a villain in the founding of Orgrimmar storyline and Malygos wasn't at all acting in the interest of all when he was trying to deal with 'rogue spell casters' as he called them.


edit:

I know. Antagonist =! Villain and all, but it seems like people will just use conflicting definitions regardless. Maybe Daellin and Malygos aren't villains in their respective stories... but when you show up judging/killing people because of your own reasons and the people killed turn out to not be related to the reasons they're being killed except for them crossing paths with the killer... that killer is definitely not the hero and isn't 'good' by any stretch.

[Lupinemancer]

Nothing really.

[Terongor]

definition of villain per webster: "a character in a story or play who opposes the hero"


I get you're trying to assert villain =! antagonist but... I think this is going to be a bit awkward. Daellin was most definitely a villain in the founding of Orgrimmar storyline and Malygos wasn't at all acting in the interest of all when he was trying to deal with 'rogue spell casters' as he called them.


edit:

I know. Antagonist =! Villain and all, but it seems like people will just use conflicting definitions regardless. Maybe Daellin and Malygos aren't villains in their respective stories... but when you show up judging/killing people because of your own reasons and the people killed turn out to not be related to the reasons they're being killed except for them crossing paths with the killer... that killer is definitely not the hero and isn't 'good' by any stretch.

Well yeah but hero isn't always the protagonist.

As in literatute protagonist and antagonist are roles and villain and hero are character traits.
For example harbingers Gul'dan was still the villain but at the same time he was the protagonist while there is nobody except maybe the shaman who comes close for being the hero but Gul'dans old clan was the antagonist in that story as Gul'dan was the main character.

there are more traits than a villain and hero though.... and I'm not saying Daelin was a hero but saying he was a villain is bit of a strech as its a story about a war and IMO in war there really isn't a hero or a villain most stereotypical villain is a villain who aknowledges himself being "evil" and morality is such a complex thing its hard to say who is right and who is wrong as without having objective definition I personally don't see that a individual can be considered a villain if they don't consider themselfs as such.

[mickybrighteyes]

and I'm not saying Daelin was a hero but saying he was a villain is bit of a strech as its a story about a war and IMO in war there really isn't a hero or a villain most stereotypical villain is a villain who aknowledges himself being "evil" and morality is such a complex thing its hard to say who is right and who is wrong as without having objective definition I personally don't see that a individual can be considered a villain if they don't consider themselfs as such.

thing is Daellin brought 'war' and 'conflict' to new lands and attacked people entirely unrelated to the conflict he was dealing with. The overall war WAS a thing but he wasn't fighting in it. He left that plotline to go hunting fleeing targets.

I don't want to go into the details about antagonist/protagonist/hero/villain and whether they are traits/roles because different authors/readers will disregard any such ruling and do as they please or the status will entirely flip-flop or reverse based on perspective. The bold part basically renders any sort of analysis void cause most villains in any real story don't acknowledge themselves as such except in examples that are over the top to be comical like Dr. Evil or Skeletor.

The position/role/etc largely is dependent on the story told and these are characters present in multiple different stories from different perspectives. The third war setting doesn't render Daellin free of the negative implication of being a villain because he was fighting a war... he was still fighting a war with targets unrelated to his original objective for reasons entirely unrelated to the targets' existence beyond general appearance.... he was an invader bringing death to a society that wasn't involved with him or his people in anyway... that is why he is definitely the villain in that story.

[Caerule]

I'd probably bring the story back to Azeroth, and push for a world remake as a result of it. This would allow my team to set up some new characters in the storylines of the zones. Such as Lillian Voss being set up during Cata's story.

I'd probably make it make narrative sense for Ogres to finally join the Horde.

Other than that, I'd seed new villains. I would make at least 1 existing major character turn out to have been working for our enemies, as the Legion and Old Gods which should have been all about treacherousness and deception didn't do any such thing in recent expansions. Bam, Khadgar was an avatar of N'Zoth all along, real one was still in Outland with A'dal.

I'd try for old factions to have more relevance.

I would probably push for an expansion centered around all 6 major forces on the cosmic wheel. Light, Void, Fel, Arcane, Life and Death, where the player allies with one of them and unlocks relevant powers and appearances, and battles the radical forces on the other sides that try to disrupt the cosmic balance in favor of dominance.

Azeroth-based expansion pack would also be great for player housing/guild halls.

[Ihsan997]

I’d want to have an actual functioning loremaster like what Bethesda does for its game universes. Were I hired as lead writer, I probably wouldn’t take that on myself - it would make sense to assign such a task as the responsibility of a younger employee, maybe two, for the sake of continuity. When I look at the lore as presented in-game, even at the minute level of written quest descriptions, I feel like even Wowpedia editors know the lore better than the devs.