I think the playerbase is too caught up in duality. 'good/evil' vs. grey.

[Skytotem]

There's so much "oh my god Jaina/Varian/Garrosh/Whatever-whoever" is evil or good and such and I think we're forgetting that they're PEOPLE in the storyline.

Now, to be fair, it's a storyline that Blizzard has a very spotty track record at keeping consistent and an even worse record at having it make sense, but the point I'm trying to make here doesn't just apply to WoW, it applies to all fantasy and even, to a degree, the real world.

People are presented with situations and act on them based on their beliefs/knowledge/attitudes which are based largely on their upbringing and culture.



Don't get me wrong, this isn't "oh every chracter is a sweet misunderstood baby that just needs to be seen in the right light..." it's 'every character is the hero (Or at least protagonist) of their own narrative'

There are in fact very bad people in the story, and there are also good characters that make bad decisions and SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEM.

But the idea that we could just apply blanket labels like good and evil to characters is strange to me.


Anyone else have any thoughts?

[Loaf Lord]

People think that exposing the flaws of the opposite faction makes their own factions flaws magically disappear. They'll capitalize on the single action of a character and demonize him/her for it, disregarding the good that character may have done, or they do the opposite and claim he/she's a saint for a single good action and completely ignore the multiple acts of evil he/she did. In a nutshell, people don't like their faction looking bad.

[Al Gorefiend]

Its not a "Good vs. Evil" thing for me as much as it is character personality traits and race's aesthetics. I just can't bring myself to believe Pandaren are perfectly okay with an Undead Warlock with no jaw helping them gather apples and teaching their children how to cook. Or a Goblin/Gnome being the legendary hero of Wrathion.

[Loaf Lord]

Its not a "Good vs. Evil" thing for me as much as it is character personality traits and race's aesthetics. I just can't bring myself to believe Pandaren are perfectly okay with an Undead Warlock with no jaw helping them gather apples and teaching their children how to cook. Or a Goblin/Gnome being the legendary hero of Wrathion.

That seems to be more of in game issue than lore. It's obviously silly to have a DK rescuing bear cubs from a burning tree or giving yaks a bath, just as it's silly for a paldin or druid to help the forsaken concoct their new strain of plague. But if they denied quests to people based on class it wouldn't be fair. The only exception are class specific quests, but they were specifically designed for that class in the first place.

[Deleted]

I think that many horde players hate garrosh cause they were happy to be led by the pacific Thrall, you know, some horde players chosed it for the Tribal/Shamanic aspect, for theses peoples it's a shame to have Garrosh as a warchief, and if theses peoples like this "side" of the horde, i think that they hate the warlike horde, i personally prefer the shamanic horde as the warlike horde, because i prefer it and i like tribal magic (Shamanism) a lot, BUT honestly, maybe that's stupid but i feel culprit of playing Horde, cause Horde's races looks nasty, and i think that i'm not the only one, i prefer the horde to look less nasty and warlike to errase my guilt, i don't want peoples to think that i chosed an orc (female) because it's a nasty race, i want them to think that i chosed it cause orcs are a kind of giant shamanic family, and a leader like Thrall helps for this, while a leader like garrosh is reversing it.

And i think that peoples who likes horde for their nasty appearance prefer Garrosh as Thrall for exemple.

[Al Gorefiend]

That seems to be more of in game issue than lore. It's obviously silly to have a DK rescuing bear cubs from a burning tree or giving yaks a bath, but if they denied those quests to DKs and locks it woudn't be fair.

Obviously. But thats my gripe, I can't just shrug off "Okay, just PRETEND I'm not doing this" when I'm paying off Tina Mudclaw's debtors on my Goblin Warlock

[Skytotem]

I think that many horde players hate garrosh cause they were happy to be led by the pacific Thrall, you know, some horde players chosed it for the Tribal/Shamanic aspect, for theses peoples it's a shame to have Garrosh as a warchief, and if theses peoples like this "side" of the horde, i think that they hate the warlike horde, i personally prefer the shamanic horde as the warlike horde, because i prefer it and i like tribal magic (Shamanism) a lot, BUT honestly, maybe that's stupid but i feel culprit of playing Horde, cause Horde's races looks nasty, and i think that i'm not the only one, i prefer the horde to look less nasty and warlike to errase my guilt, i don't want peoples to think that i chosed an orc (female) because it's a nasty race, i want them to think that i chosed it cause orcs are a kind of giant shamanic family, and a leader like Thrall helps for this, while a leader like garrosh is reversing it.

And i think that peoples who likes horde for their nasty appearance prefer Garrosh as Thrall for exemple.

Okay but this is more a critique of Blizzard's portrayal of the storyline and handling of Garrosh's writing than of Garrosh himself.

[Loaf Lord]

Obviously. But thats my gripe, I can't just shrug off "Okay, just PRETEND I'm not doing this" when I'm paying off Tina Mudclaw's debtors on my Goblin Warlock

Yeah, would be nice if they took the SWTOR route and made different outcomes based on our decisions.

[Deleted]

Yeah, would be nice if they took the SWTOR route and made different outcomes based on our decisions.

Well no, i played SWTOR and this point was cool, but in reality, it never changed the future of your charachter, which makes this mechanism pointless.

[TheDangerZone]

People think that exposing the flaws of the opposite faction makes their own factions flaws magically disappear. They'll capitalize on the single action of a character and demonize him/her for it, disregarding the good that character may have done, or they do the opposite and claim he/she's a saint for a single good action and completely ignore the multiple acts of evil he/she did. In a nutshell, people don't like their faction looking bad.

You could drill this to everyone¿s forehead and people still wouldn't get it. This has been an issue since day one, and the latest chapter was that brilliant thread asking for Varian's banishment in response for the one regarding to Thrall.

That's just insane logic.

[Yig]

I think you will find humans in general are irrational thinkers who do not perceive reality well at all and who are prone to all manner of bias and confirmation bias which often has us thinking in absurdly binary view points. Thankfully we developed the scientific method to guard against this inherent human bias.

[Deleted]

I think that many horde players hate garrosh cause they were happy to be led by the pacific Thrall, you know, some horde players chosed it for the Tribal/Shamanic aspect

And i think that peoples who likes horde for their nasty appearance prefer Garrosh as Thrall for exemple.

I like them both, but Thrall has become a bit of a retard since Cataclysm. Garrosh on the other hand has become awesome. Well, maybe a little bit less awesome in MoP, but still awesome.

[Yig]

The fun thing though is how Blizzard intentionally creates this lore to have more than one way of looking at it, it's tailor made to illicit sympathy and favoritism in a way designed to make people more passionate about the faction war. To Blizzard, it's all in good fun, like sports fans and their rivalries, but some people just take it too far. They always make one way of looking at a faction's actions as a crime while making room for another viewpoint to justify it.

But WOW's characters are supposed to seem like villains to the opposition while always having a justification from a certain point of view, and it's supposed to make you hate the "other" and perpetuate this mindless cycle of revenge and war. Some examples are far more justified than others, yes, but that doesn't change the fact that ultimately we're both pretty much evenly grey morality wise, with exceptions on both sides.

However as of the new story arcs Cata set into motion, the identity of the factions themselves have been a major focus for Blizzard. The Horde is facing it's demonic and war mongering past and the Alliance is seeing it's stability and confidence threatened. Both of them are intended to be having a crisis of identity, which is intended to be bleak. This bleakness is intended to provide an opportunity for heroic deeds and victories, ultimately.

But some people are just not comfortable with how unabashedly "low brow" Warcraft can be, as if they want a nuanced story of morality on par with Breaking Bad or The Song of Ice and Fire (game of thrones). Warcraft is like if Quentin Tarantino was into Tolkien and mythology as well as super heroes from Marvel and DC. It's an over the top larger than life homage fest, a super hero story told in a Tolkienesque fantasy world with some flavorful twists. A bit of anachronism to break the fourth wall with humor in a juxtaposition with some very dark and serious stories and tones, it's very peculiar in that regard. Some people are embarrassed or weary of that humorous aspect, some people can't stand the serious tone and cant' wait to make a loud fart sound when things are at their most dramatic, but Warcraft likes to walk that line and ultimately it's just a cool excuse to make up stories about over the top larger than life drawings chalked full of stylized anatomy and armor.

The morality is a kind of celebration of an innocent and simplistic system of ethics, but while extreme at times, it's also constantly playing with that line of grey in way that people get tired of for being repetitive plot device wise. But for me I think sometimes it's fun to just sit back and enjoy an over the top story about giant heroes and interesting fictional cultures doing unbelievably powerful things for righteous or malevolent reasons, and I wish some people realized that it's okay and that not everything has to be a nuanced exploration of human behavior. Warcraft is iconography and archetype, black and white at times thematically, but filled with grey anti heroes and stories of redemption and resurrection and vendetta and malice, all told with Blizzard's wondrous beefcake visuals. Sometimes we come to expect these plot devices to be repeated and told again and again with new faces because they assert something within us, they reaffirm something within us, they give the tribe a reason to gather around the fire and listen to the storyteller tell us the same story we've heard 100 times before.

[Lylandra]

I think WoW has become MORE good vs evil than Warcraft has ever been (okay, maybe except WC1). Warcraft is the only setting I've seen that describes the likely possibility of two 'good' characters, even paladins, going against each other because they have vastly different ideals and worldviews and I think this is really awesome. Even more when you add in shades of grey to every character. Because you know what? That makes them feel believeable and relateable.

Warcraft has been pretty mature (not mature in terms of grit and "no kids allowed" , but in tone and complexity)in this regards in WC 3 and TFT and the RPG settings, but it has dumbed down itself ever since Lich King with more and more dichotomy and really silly non-serious zones and quests. It has lost a LOT of complexity and influence besides the current major character(s) of the month (in most cases this is either Varian or Garrosh and it has been Thrall or Tirion in the past) which leads to a certain degree of disbelief and disconnection with the world, at least for me. Which is sad because I really love the setting and now I desperately want to play a real, vivid and epic RPG campaign in Azeroth just to get this feeling of the glorious days of Warcraft back

[Yig]

I think WoW has become MORE good vs evil than Warcraft has ever been (okay, maybe except WC1). Warcraft is the only setting I've seen that describes the likely possibility of two 'good' characters, even paladins, going against each other because they have vastly different ideals and worldviews and I think this is really awesome. Even more when you add in shades of grey to every character. Because you know what? That makes them feel believeable and relateable.

Warcraft has been pretty mature (not mature in terms of grit and "no kids allowed" , but in tone and complexity)in this regards in WC 3 and TFT and the RPG settings, but it has dumbed down itself ever since Lich King with more and more dichotomy and really silly non-serious zones and quests. It has lost a LOT of complexity and influence besides the current major character(s) of the month (in most cases this is either Varian or Garrosh and it has been Thrall or Tirion in the past) which leads to a certain degree of disbelief and disconnection with the world, at least for me. Which is sad because I really love the setting and now I desperately want to play a real, vivid and epic RPG campaign in Azeroth just to get this feeling of the glorious days of Warcraft back

I think you may be selling Blizzard short, and I would urge you to hold in there if you can. They went overboard with the silly pop culture jokes in Cataclysm, but those always existed in WOW in a precarious balance. They tipped that balance and broke the scales in Cata, yes, but they reigned it back in.

And meanwhile, I don't see how you could be doing the Sheildwall daily story line and think it's just more dumbed down dichotomy. Garrosh is radically and obviously a villain at this point, but he still shows it's all his own point of view, he's not being controlled by pure evil here, he is being controlled by his own flaws. He may seem too erratic to believe, but read a little about Borderline Personality Disorder, it's not that far fetched given his past. Meanwhile, we have Anduin, who is playing the part of the observer who recognizes all this arbitrary tribalism is just a race war, and people act as if he's just the character of the month for it, as despise him for pointing it out. I think we still very much have reasons to justify the hostilities between Horde and Alliance, just as justified and believable as the conflict between Uther and Arthas I'd say.

I never thought Arthas' decision at Stratholme was particularly realistic, but in the larger than life iconography of Warcraft, it was perfect for the kind of story telling and logic you see in myth and legend.