Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ...
3
4
5
  1. #81
    Quote Originally Posted by Raisei View Post
    Not occupied, no. But I am pretty sure having your capital burned to the ground (with your civilians inside) or blighted into a waste land is a tad worse. Sure that happened to the Undercity now as well, but that wasn't their enemies.
    That's true, but then again, separate from any consequence. The Forsaken were directly sanctioned for the action of a splinter group by having their city occupied, which has happened to no other race.

    Why can the in-story decision to no longer be a group of psychopathic terrorists not be an in-story consequence? "Okay, if we keep making plagues and murdering innocents our Warchief is gonna come down hard." - "We probably shouldn't do that anymore then."
    If self-presevation is their goal then this is a very legit decision. They don't have to like it, but by keeping the status quo they risk their existence a lot more then by changing.
    Because without the use of the Blight once they're deployed by the Horde as shock troops in a location they don't care about, unlike the ones they do want to take over like Lordaeron, they'd get their ass handed to them, as happens in Gilneas. More than that, they were already the object of attack before then and people were quite rightly after them for their earlier conduct and for how indiscriminate they are, so purposefully handicapping themselves in a war of extermination doesn't gel. Self-preservation also works with MAD.

    Their desinterest in fighting wars against the Alliance is not the problem. Their engagement in wars against big bads is not the problem. Their "hobbies" of murdering farmers with plagues and shovels and building monsters from their bodies are.
    This is where we won't come to any kind of agreement. The only thing that's required is for scenarios to exist where that is the cause to have them attacked, which is already the case. To give an outlet to fight said race. If you agree that there's nothing that obligates the race to participate in conflict when it's not in its interest - as is the case, or that there's nothing that makes their involvement nonsensical when fighting big bads, then the rest are quibbles. Nothing makes plague more morally abhorrent than sucking out someone's soul or burning them alive except retarded narrative framing and both have the faction stamp of approval.

    While there is some hypocrisy, the bigger part of the deeds I mean are targeting civilians for no reason other then to have fun or to test their newest blight version.
    When the Ebon Blade attacked the Paladins it was to bring back Tirion as an immensely powerful weapon against the Legion who (considering he was ready to become the Lich King) would likely have objected less then the other Paladins did. There was a good reason there (the Ebon Blade did not know it was a ploy of Bolvar after all) so it does not make them evil, it just makes them ruthless. The same goes for the Illidari (in their revised version, hardly in the original BC version). Both groups are doing bad things for good reasons (i.e. the survival of the planet and defeat of the Legion). That is the reason why those groups are tolerated by the factions.
    Their being deployed against the Silver Hand being for the sake of the war with the Legion is a sham, as Bolvar admits later, knowing you'd fail. The real reason was to more closely tie the Ebon Blade to himself, much like how he appoints you to serve as his enforcer and goes around poaching bodies. Fighting the Legion is part of what he does, but so is furthering his own position, as is also made clear when he says directly that if you die he'd take over the Ebon Blade. The factions do tolerate both groups for their utility, but the Forsaken are part of the faction and fight the same baddies, and their only friendly fire incident was done by a renegade group. Altruism is not required, just common interest. The Forsaken are largely motivated by "fuck you, got mine", hence why they're entirely ruthless to the humans on their territory, but Sylvanas actively sends you to play nice with the Argent Crusade and after they've achieved their goal they just camp out and do nothing as an explicit plot point, something that they would have done sooner given the chance. And the enemies they've made in the process is what fucks them over in Stormheim, where they are first the object of attack, then lose, on the basis of the enemies their past conduct has made them.

    I was mostly talking about Quel'thalas yes (okay, more High Elves then Blood Elves). Then loosing their freedom to Fel Addiction.

    While we can only assume since it never came to that, but I think it was more that Sylvanas lost and she lost her Lantern-shaped objective. I am 99% convinced that even with an endless supply of Val'kyr she would never sacrifice one for random Forsaken #23, so the Forsaken lost nothing because they would have gained nothing. There was talk that SLs will tell us more about this whole deal with Helya, then we can judge more informed. Maybe I am wrong but with Sylvanas character as it is, I doubt she would risk anything for the Forsaken.
    Even if it's just backstory, the Forsaken lost a lot more than the Blood Elves did, what with being dead and what with not having their problem magically solved by Velen a couple years later. As for Stormheim - at least in current lore, it's explicitly stated that she did so to keep them from dying, both in spoken word and in her own internal monologue. Now there's a 100% chance that that will be retconned, but at present, Sylvanas' goal was to make herself and the Forsaken immortal through the horn and she failed at that because of the enemy she'd made in Genn and the Alliance. Even if she were motivated solely by selfish goals, the Forsaken would benefit by proxy, as has been the running trend with her and the race for most of their time together and what is at the core of her conclusion in Edge of Night.

    And if their Dark Lady had openly shared her plans are you telling me that there would not have been many that eagerly had joined her? There is a huge percentile of that race that just wants to do evil things, blight people, blight forests, just because of their own fate. That much is a fact.
    I mean some guy here in the forums literally said he plays Forsaken because it allows him to be a "sick sociopath" and he is far from alone. Maybe they are not omnicidal, but more for practical then for any moral reasons.
    Oh, there's definitely a group in it. The gallows humour is a huge part of the Forsaken. Hence putting horses in horse plaguing valves, apothecaries melting their assistants when they get salty or even the whole shovel quest. There's a tongue in cheek air to most of these that is entirely lost in BFA, where none of the Forsaken except Chadwick's group look to be having any kind of fun. As for your first sentiment, I also find it nonsensical that the Forsaken would turn on Sylvanas because she called the Horde some mean names, especially since if anything BTS set up their ties to the Alliance and their former family, not to the Horde, and their previous bonds to the Horde were undermined, but here we are. I can tell you you're wrong and that they would have turned on her - since they did, but I can't actually tell you why because I have no idea.

    It's shame they don't, maybe if they get some kind of focus that we are not seeing yet, but as it stands now...
    There's simply not that many stories they could be used for and they don't have much space in their own faction. I do think the Lightforged undead idea does have some niche story opportunities, mind, mostly if we also go back to the Light having a negative feeling for the undead, since then you could do a lot of interesting things with the Forsaken and penance, but I don't think they're going in that direction.
    Dickmann's Law: As a discussion on the Lore forums becomes longer, the probability of the topic derailing to become about Sylvanas approaches 1.

  2. #82
    Quote Originally Posted by Soon-TM View Post
    Well, that's exactly what Ms. Golden told us in her last opus magnum, aka BtS. Forsaken weren't evil, but just poor, loving souls oppressed by a caricature of police state led by Sylvanas. Now that they got rid of her (actually the opposite, but anyway), they can peacefully live the rest of their (un)lives hugging their living relatives under Calia's benevolent and infallible guidance
    don't forget the self loathing cause they aren't human and are out of touch with what being human is due to be dead...

  3. #83
    The Insane Thage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Δ Hidden Forbidden Holy Ground
    Posts
    18,431
    Quote Originally Posted by Super Dickmann View Post
    That's the story reason, but they also don't work as allies like they were in TBC because most of their underlying similarities are gone. They're both on the Horde, but the Forsaken still have a reason to be such - mutual convenience with the ruling entity. But both being chiefly defined by the state the Scourge left them in and taking up dubious methods to keep going while opposed by their former allies now only fit with the undead. The blood elves on the other hand were ultimately saved by the draenei and had all their cultural change reverted since it was no longer necessary. Ergo, they had next to nothing in common except shared history with Sylvanas.

    Incidentally, that applies to the blood elves and everyone in the Horde up until the Nightborne came in. The Forsaken had interaction with the orcs and a good thing going with the goblins afterwards, but the blood elves had nothing to the point where Mists made their allegiance to the Horde being weird a plot point and set up a new reason for them to stay, without solving the thematic discrepancy that makes them fit much better as an Alliance race to this day.
    I think that discrepancy works in their favor, generally. It helps underline the idea that the Horde is a more loose confederate of allies--if anything, from launch day in Vanilla, the idea of the Horde having a Warchief felt like a stranger inclusion than the Forsaken and, later, blood elves. Certainly, a central authority figure having final say in military matters to keep this coalition united and focused works for the Horde's power structure, but immediately beyond the Warchief itself the Horde has no real centralized power structure--nearly everything beyond that is multiracial coalitions where the leaders coordinate their own things and make sure they don't get in each others' way.

    That was underlined by the Forsaken and blood elves, and later, the pandaren and Nightborne. The blood elves don't generally seem to care where their allies come from so long as Quel'Thalas is secure, but the last we've heard, Forsaken reinforcements are still integral to doing just that, so Sylvanas has had Lor'themar by the short hairs for some time; despite their relationship rapidly deteriorating after she forced his hand on providing forces for the Northrend campaign, it took until Garrosh began actively worsening the situation for his people for him to consider the Alliance again. The Horde was, well, a Horde, a decentralized, disorganized wave whose allies didn't necessarily trust one another so much as got along because the alternative was standing alone against several global superpowers including the Scourge and the Alliance.

    While I desperately wish the conclusion was arrived at with more grace and better character development for all involved, and didn't seem to default to Baine getting tacit support to make unilateral decisions in regards to inducting new allies into the Horde, the current council we have is what I felt we should have had since Vanilla, especially as the Horde began inducting more allies of convenience/necessity who didn't so much buy into the brotherhood-and-honor vibes Thrall's refounded Horde had in Warcraft 3, where the three leaders were all personal friends.
    Be seeing you guys on Bloodsail Buccaneers NA!



  4. #84
    Quote Originally Posted by Thage View Post
    While I desperately wish the conclusion was arrived at with more grace and better character development for all involved, and didn't seem to default to Baine getting tacit support to make unilateral decisions in regards to inducting new allies into the Horde, the current council we have is what I felt we should have had since Vanilla, especially as the Horde began inducting more allies of convenience/necessity who didn't so much buy into the brotherhood-and-honor vibes Thrall's refounded Horde had in Warcraft 3, where the three leaders were all personal friends.
    If they go through with a world revamp or Azeroth expansion that shows how much better the idea of a Horde Council suits the setting compared to one Warchief, I think a lot of people will be turned around on it. There doesn't seem to be THAT much pushback against the idea anyway, which surprises me.

    People were freaking out about Baine/Thrall as Warchief and it looking like a mirror of Alliance, but I've seen less anger about the Council.

  5. #85
    It boggles my mind to this day people can't see the hilarious irony of having the alliance ruled by a blue warchief and the horde ruled by a council.

  6. #86
    Quote Originally Posted by Saltysquidoon View Post
    It boggles my mind to this day people can't see the hilarious irony of having the alliance ruled by a blue warchief and the horde ruled by a council.
    Yeah, that's the point. They swapped.

  7. #87
    The Insane Thage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Δ Hidden Forbidden Holy Ground
    Posts
    18,431
    Quote Originally Posted by Saltysquidoon View Post
    It boggles my mind to this day people can't see the hilarious irony of having the alliance ruled by a blue warchief and the horde ruled by a council.
    In fairness, Alliance member nations still have more leeway in whether or not they support Alliance operations than the Horde did under a Warchief. Anduin had to put his plans in Zandalar on hold because Tyrande and Genn pulled support in favor of attacking Darkshore, and so far we haven't seen them suffer any reprisals for this, not even a verbal reprimand (he tried to persuade Tyrande to hold off, but when it was obvious she wouldn't, he authorized Alliance forces to be redirected to assist in the Darkshore warfront).

    I also expect that in the Shadowlands pre-event, a military commander will be appointed in the Horde to fill the same role as the High King (and the Supreme Commander before it), where their authority is only in regards to directing the troops at their disposal and no unilateral political authority is present-and for all the memes, neither Anduin nor Varian before him have/had unilateral political authority. What they enjoy/ed is/was a large amount of support among the other leaders of the Alliance; we're starting to see the cracks in this with Tyrande and Genn pushing back and getting off scott-free despite potentially jeopardizing the attack on Dazar'Alor by pushing back the timetable and increasing the chances of the Horde uncovering the attack plan and defending accordingly.
    Be seeing you guys on Bloodsail Buccaneers NA!



  8. #88
    Quote Originally Posted by Thage View Post
    In fairness, Alliance member nations still have more leeway in whether or not they support Alliance operations than the Horde did under a Warchief. Anduin had to put his plans in Zandalar on hold because Tyrande and Genn pulled support in favor of attacking Darkshore, and so far we haven't seen them suffer any reprisals for this, not even a verbal reprimand (he tried to persuade Tyrande to hold off, but when it was obvious she wouldn't, he authorized Alliance forces to be redirected to assist in the Darkshore warfront).
    Here's the thing though, the bit about Genn and Tyrande refusing to give anduin support is great. It's just a shame it never happened before BFA, because that's what the alliance always should have been the bigger faction bogged down by politics and bureaucracy while the horde was the leaner agile faction because of the warchief.
    The creation of the position of high king was literally just pure laziness/cost-cutting on metzan's behalf so they didn't have to write multiple faction leaders every patch discussing matters for the alliance.

    My issue with the position of high king and the horde council is that they needlessly impune the writer's bias on the faction and weaken their distinctiveness as a result.
    Meztan's ageing 'badass' metal/rocker mentality of "What if Varian's like a warrior but his sword is like two swords (but not like Darth maul) and also he's like a gladiator like Conan but good and also maybe a wolf shaman(?)" Inserting that into the lawful boring alliance.
    Compared to the new team's nontoxic equality and representation push of giving the "badass metal/noble savage faction" a goddamn council of equals.

  9. #89
    Bloodsail Admiral Ardenaso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Location
    Philippines
    Posts
    1,179
    Quote Originally Posted by Super Dickmann View Post
    @Ardenaso

    Them having said races in the first place makes them bad representatives of Lordaeron, since Lordaeron becomes secondary to their identity. They're fixing the Plaguelands because they're nice dudes more so than out of patriotism or connection to the land.
    Bad? Why?

    I'm still thinking of a better narrative that is where you put Calia, Forsaken, Lillian, Leonid, Alonsus, Argent/Brotherhood, and Turalyon in one room
    Lightbound Orcs > High Elves https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...ace-suggestion

    Blizzard should realize that Alteraci Humans will fulfill the Young Adult Dystopia Anarchy fantasy for Warcraft

  10. #90
    Legendary! Soon-TM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Netherstorm
    Posts
    6,008
    Quote Originally Posted by Ardenaso View Post
    I'm still thinking of a better narrative that is where you put Calia, Forsaken, Lillian, Leonid, Alonsus, Argent/Brotherhood, and Turalyon in one room
    Because that would effectively turn the Forsaken into humans with a skin condition. Not that the current narrative isn't pointing there anyway, but still...
    Quote Originally Posted by Danuser
    we created a story structure for Sylvanas that, on the surface, echoed many broad strokes of the road Garrosh took (...). These parallels were intentional. But it's within the nuance that we sought to show the story grow and change.
    Quote Originally Posted by Thage View Post
    BFA was about as nuanced as a golf club to the testicles/ovaries.

  11. #91
    Quote Originally Posted by Ardenaso View Post
    Bad? Why?

    I'm still thinking of a better narrative that is where you put Calia, Forsaken, Lillian, Leonid, Alonsus, Argent/Brotherhood, and Turalyon in one room
    I'd preffered the forsaken creating the equivalent of their own cult of the damned, with the living hoping to be elevated to forsaken status, having kids etc. thus creating a sustainable undead focused society, instead of trying to regain their humanity.

  12. #92
    Mechagnome Molvonos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Everywhere, Nowhere, Anywhere
    Posts
    722
    Quote Originally Posted by Super Dickmann View Post
    No, initially it was meant to be Scourge filling that spot. That'd have been a laugh and a half once the current devs made Kel'thuzad a champion of love and peace.
    Eh? Source?

    I played in closed Beta, kept up with all the news n' shit and never heard this tidbit.
    Just because I advocate your ability to play and enjoy WoW Classic doesn't mean I think it'll be successful.

    "Being racist is not wrong. It is a lifestyle that you don't approve of. Being racist isn't even illegal, and it never will be." ~Jonnusthegreat

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •