If the Alliance accepted the Forsaken

[Florena]

The whole "disappearing ambassadors" was a post-facto justification. They decided to put playable "Scourge" in the Horde (when you look at early design docs and pictures of whiteboards, Forsaken are called Scourge), and only much later did they bother with a reason beyond "Nature loving Tauren felt sad for the wildly unnatural abominations".

Frozen Thone did dedicate several missions to Sylvanas' story of breaking free from Arthas and establishing the Forsaken, I suspect this story might have been put into WC3 specifically to explain playable undead in WoW which I believe was in development or at least planning stages at the time.

[Feanoro]

Frozen Thone did dedicate several missions to Sylvanas' story of breaking free from Arthas and establishing the Forsaken, I suspect this story might have been put into WC3 specifically to explain playable undead in WoW which I believe was in development or at least planning stages at the time.

I know about the WC3 end, I'm saying that in vanilla WoW, there was very little/flimsy explanation as to why the Forsaken are suddenly Horde.

[Aresk]

Except by the time Sylvanas learned about Calia she already realized that the members of the Desolate Council still on the field were defecting. She still didn't order their deaths at that point and instead decided to give them a test of loyalty by sounding the horn (i.e. the signal for withdrawal that the Desolate Council was told twice about). And there's been no mention of the Desolate Council members that survived being punished, killed or even dismantled.

Not all of the Desolate Council members on the field were defecting.

In Chapter 32, Sylvanas had decided to convict Elsie prior to sounding the horn. When Elsie waved to Anduin, Sylvanas nearly summoned them back, but she decided to wait longer to gather more evidence. Sylvanas had clearly already decided that the council, or at least Elsie, had to be punished. This was before she even knew Callia was on the field.

The horn sounds in Chapter 33, and Elsie blatantly tells Calia that she will not betray Sylvanas and calls for the retreat. Shortly after, it specifies during Anduin's POV that the rangers "were attacking Forsaken. Even those who were returning to the wall."

Annie and the others who returned prior to the horn being blown were spared, but everyone else was killed on the field regardless of their loyalty.

[Florena]

I know about the WC3 end, I'm saying that in vanilla WoW, there was very little/flimsy explanation as to why the Forsaken are suddenly Horde.

They could have done a better job with that, though really I'm not sure why they went with the Tauren angle. The orcs would theoretically have reason to sympathize with them, being formerly enslaved to demonic bloodlust and all, they could see the Forsaken as victims who shouldn't be blamed for what the Scourge forced them to do.

At least they got more than the night elves and the Alliance, they were just...sort of in the Alliance come vanila with no real explanation on when or why they joined. I can assume that Jaina helped with that after Hyjal but we never really got that story to the best of my knowledge.

[Nerovar]

I'm not injecting any of my own beliefs (which wouldn't have anything to do with non-existent undead beings in the first place), I'm merely referring to the actual tenets of the Chuch of the Light out of their own dogma within the game (e.g. the doctrines of respect, tenacity, and most important compassion) and the issue of outright killing free-willed undead beings because they are "unnatural" in a world filled with magic and other fantastical beings. Initially there was some confusion as concerns the Scourge - who are not free-willed and enslaved by the Lich King to be implacable killing machines, and the Forsaken who while still undead have had their wills returned to them and albeit darkened by their experience are still fundamentally human (in the general sense of the term). The Church has over time learned of this distinction, and I would imagine Archbishop Benedictus as a leader within the Alliance was likely among the first to learn this as well. There's also the continued issue of conflating a single PvP quest with the *entirety* of the Church of the Light and thinking a single interaction between two NPC's can somehow stand in proxy for that of an entire congregation of vary beliefs.

First of all, killing Undead is not incompatible with the virtue of compassion as "a swift death" (+ the subsequent rites of purification mentioned in the quest) is mercy and therefor the compassionate thing to do. They also don't kill undead because they're just "magical/unnatural beings". They kill them because their existence as creatures of the shadows is incompatible with the Light and the only way these creatures can be redeemed is by lifting their curse of Undeath. I know that nowadays, the setting has normalized these things to a point where one might think all cosmic forces are somehow equal which in itself begs the question why the the existence of Undeath would even a bad thing but even if that's true, it simply doesn't reflect the views of humans within the setting. Furthermore, Forsaken didn't really do much throughout the history of WoW that would actually meaningfully portray them as any less despicable than the Scourge (if anything, they've probably caused even more damage and death while perpetuating the curse of Undeath).

I don't agree with your take on Benedictus here - and furthermore it outright states that the Twilight's Hammer "learned of Benedictus' uncertainty" meaning he was *already* uncertain when they found him in TBC. Benedictus was already ripe to be converted. The Third War, which caused his aforementioned wavering, was also before Classic takes place. As for your question about how a crisis of faith can make one turn to more fanatical methods, this is a pretty common refrain in both fantasy and real life - as one's intrinsic or internalized faith wavers, one often bolsters this by outward actions or affectations, such as zealotry or fanaticism. A perceived weakness or failing can often provoke overcompensation in people.

My points about Benedictus were made to establish the following:
A) Benedictus' corruption happened after Classic
B) Therefor Benedictus' views and teachings in Classic can't be influenced by his corruption
C) Even if Benedictus' wavering faith caused a spark in fanatic views, this development isn't reflected in his dialogue or other NPC's views about Benedictus (or anywhere else really) which basically makes it pure conjecture

Arthur's take on Benedictus is immaterial, as we both know the truth of Benedictus' fate and ultimate allegiance. That being said, I don't think Benedictus was necessarily himself an extremist (at least not at that time), only that he was willing to foster or support such in others in the name of his faith - or failing that, use his faith as a political means to attain a nonetheless secular or military result in Alterac. Benedictus' faith was itself compromised, and that can often make it easier for people to commoditize their faith if their belief isn't earnest.

Even if this was the case and Benedictus only injected fanatical views into far-off Alliance soldiers there's still nothing supporting this theory and it also stands on shaky ground because it doesn't really accomplish what you claim. Sure, giving soldiers another justification for care-free slaughter of the enemy is practical but jump go through the hoops of cutting out their hearts to send them back to Stormwind for purification? That's the important part that makes it seem more like an end in and of itself instead of some weird instrumentalization.

[Feanoro]

At least they got more than the night elves and the Alliance, they were just...sort of in the Alliance come vanila with no real explanation on when or why they joined. I can assume that Jaina helped with that after Hyjal but we never really got that story to the best of my knowledge.

Obviously the reasons are pure Doylist. They saw the Night Elves and Forsaken were popular and designed them to be playable, shoehorning them in on aesthetics.
@Super Dickmann and I both are annoyed there's no explanation, and more so how they completely restructured the Night Elves from millenia of traditions and customs to become purple humans.

[Mehrunes]

Not all of the Desolate Council members on the field were defecting.

In Chapter 32, Sylvanas had decided to convict Elsie prior to sounding the horn. When Elsie waved to Anduin, Sylvanas nearly summoned them back, but she decided to wait longer to gather more evidence. Sylvanas had clearly already decided that the council, or at least Elsie, had to be punished. This was before she even knew Callia was on the field.

The horn sounds in Chapter 33, and Elsie blatantly tells Calia that she will not betray Sylvanas and calls for the retreat. Shortly after, it specifies during Anduin's POV that the rangers "were attacking Forsaken. Even those who were returning to the wall."

Annie and the others who returned prior to the horn being blown were spared, but everyone else was killed on the field regardless of their loyalty.

As per Calia, who talked with everyone there, except for Elsie, everyone still on the field at the time was indeed defecting. Combine that with the fact the mentions (from either perspective) of anyone returning to the Thoradin's Wall appear only after Sylvanas deployed the Dark Rangers and not after sounding the horn but before the Dark Rangers (even though they were to retreat immediately) and it becomes rather obvious that the Forsaken that did try to return were defectors that chickened out after shit already hit the fan.

And Elsie, while not defecting, still violated Sylvanas' orders. Because Sylvanas told them (again, twice) to retreat immediately after hearing the horn. Meanwhile after hearing the horn Elsie still chatted with Calia long enough for Sylvanas to talk with Nathanos about the defectors, learn of Calia's presence from one of her own returning priests, mull over her hatred of Menethils, deploy the Dark Rangers and for the Dark Rangers to fly down to the Gathering site. Even though the second time Sylvanas told them of this rule was upon Elsie's own inquiry. After which Elsie thought to herself that the repercussions for violating that order would be dire, because she reasoned that staying behind after the horn could risk an international incident of some kind.

Also, the number of people defecting is immaterial to the point. The point is that before Sylvanas learned of Calia's presence, she explicitly decided to test the loyalty of any Forsaken still on the field (defectors or not) anyway, giving them an out. Not killing them. Especially not killing them all. So your claim that Calia or no Calia she was going to kill them all doesn't pan out. And looping back to Elsie, that bit in the chapter 32 talks about Sylvanas pondering about convicting Elsie in the eyes of the rest of the Council. It's right there in the text. So the idea that she may have had already decided to punish the entire Council at that time doesn't pan out either.

[Minikin]

I often think how the world of Warcraft would have been had only the Alliance accepted the Forsaken as victims as opposed to monsters after their freedom. Would Sylvanas have being so bitter? Would the Blight have happened? Would Gilneas have fallen?

Initially there wasnt meant to be a forsaken. Instead a playable 3rd faction as scourge. However they ran out of resources and it became a horde race.

However, to go in line with the question of a what if [tin foil hat time]:
Alot of the faction conflict is attack and counter attack. If the alliance (humans specifically) accepted the forsaken then it would take away their specific identity. They would become like draenei after legion, but for forsaken it would be after WOTLK. Their purpose served and they are just chillin.

The faction war would at most be propelled by orcs and humans. However if that forces the forsaken to deploy the plague against say Blood Elves then it would be an interesting scenario because, Just like the humans were ravaged by the scourge so was Quel thalas. Which would launch us into a similar confrontation however this time the alliance wouldnt look so clean and perfect as compared to the horde being all cruel and dumb. Both faction would have areas where races would work to have a war honorably along with races who work to hit below the belt.

Mind you, if the forsaken go to alliance, then most probably night elves would be horde. Which would be symmetry because:
- Classic: Eastern Kingdoms are Alliance, Kalimdor is Horde
- Burning Crusade: Blood elves north of eastern kingdoms join horde, draenei north of kalimdor join alliance.
And they form the staging grounds for war for either faction. Now moving to BfA.

Who knows. Instead of Teldrassil in BFA, maybe this happens:
- Calia Menethil in Legion is mortally wounded in the attack on Netherlight temple
- Saa'ra cures her and saves her making her a lightforged undead
- Sylvanas finds out (This alternate timeline sylvanas is not the crazes monster, she still believes that undeath is a curse and torment and wants to help her people)
- She finds out that the sunwell in Quel'Danas, is a portal/doorway to apply the same affect to all forsaken, recovering them from their tormented decay
- She initiates for the blood elves to help but since they are horde and still remember the scourge, kick her out the door
- She plans and goes to war, destroys Quel'Thalas mirroring what Arthas did
- And goes through the Sunwell as a portal
- TO THE LIGHTLANDS.

and there we go.
Interestingly enough, this way Alliance is also the clear war initiator and get their hands dirty first.
2 birds, one mana gem.

[Raugnaut]

Lets say that Blizz HAD decided to give Forsaken to the Alliance at the start. Night Elves likely would have sided with the Horde due to old ties with the Tauren (Having fought together in the War of the Ancients and all that). Following that up, Blood Elves would have sided with the Alliance with Draenei on the Horde (Though maybe it would have been Furbolgs for BC instead). Class balance would be different - Either Night Elves would have been the druids for the Horde with somehow shoe-horning in Druids somewhere with the Alliance (Wildhammer Dwarves perhaps?), or we would have 2 faction-specific classes (Perhaps Warlocks on the Alliance side due to the heavy initial distaste the Horde had for Warlocks in Vanilla). It basically would have turned into a Kalimdor vs Eastern Kingdoms kinda dynamic.

[Aucald]

First of all, killing Undead is not incompatible with the virtue of compassion as "a swift death" (+ the subsequent rites of purification mentioned in the quest) is mercy and therefor the compassionate thing to do. They also don't kill undead because they're just "magical/unnatural beings". They kill them because their existence as creatures of the shadows is incompatible with the Light and the only way these creatures can be redeemed is by lifting their curse of Undeath. I know that nowadays, the setting has normalized these things to a point where one might think all cosmic forces are somehow equal which in itself begs the question why the the existence of Undeath would even a bad thing but even if that's true, it simply doesn't reflect the views of humans within the setting. Furthermore, Forsaken didn't really do much throughout the history of WoW that would actually meaningfully portray them as any less despicable than the Scourge (if anything, they've probably caused even more damage and death while perpetuating the curse of Undeath).

I would say the tenet of compassion doesn't apply in the case of a free-willed undead being obviously fight for its (un)life against true death, but again at that point they're actively conflating the Forsaken with the Scourge due to relative ignorance. Even if the Forsaken do trend toward evil, we know and are well aware that they're still individuals and many of them are capable of good. With their culture no longer being dominated by Sylvanas this may become even more evident, as she had an unfortunate tendency to stoke the fires of racial hatred and pit the undead against the living in furtherance of her own schemes. Simply put, and has been borne out in modern WoW, the tenets of respect and compassion aren't compatible with the idea that any being deserves only death due to its nature. Even demons can be redeemed, apparently.

My points about Benedictus were made to establish the following:
A) Benedictus' corruption happened after Classic
B) Therefor Benedictus' views and teachings in Classic can't be influenced by his corruption
C) Even if Benedictus' wavering faith caused a spark in fanatic views, this development isn't reflected in his dialogue or other NPC's views about Benedictus (or anywhere else really) which basically makes it pure conjecture

A.) Benedictus' corruption was revealed and made evident in Cata, but it began long before that, and when the Twilight's Hammer began to recruit him in TBC he was already wavering in his faith (as per Chronicle Vol. 3).
B.) Therefore Benedictus' views and teachings could very well have been compromised, due to his failing faith.
C.) It's pretty much a straight-up implication given what we already know. I've already said he may not have been outright fanatical in Classic, but was still conflicted and therefore susceptible to "alternative" views (such as those of the Old Gods).

Even if this was the case and Benedictus only injected fanatical views into far-off Alliance soldiers there's still nothing supporting this theory and it also stands on shaky ground because it doesn't really accomplish what you claim. Sure, giving soldiers another justification for care-free slaughter of the enemy is practical but jump go through the hoops of cutting out their hearts to send them back to Stormwind for purification? That's the important part that makes it seem more like an end in and of itself instead of some weird instrumentalization.

Makes complete sense to me for a rationalization emerging from a religious standpoint, especially in that it gives Phillips a material reason in addition to a spiritual one. But you're still faced with the fact that this is entirely a one-off occurrence showcased nowhere else, even when Benedictus sends heroes to kill the Lich Amnennar the Coldbringer in Razorfen Downs.

[Aresk]

As per Calia, who talked with everyone there, except for Elsie, everyone still on the field at the time was indeed defecting. Combine that with the fact the mentions (from either perspective) of anyone returning to the Thoradin's Wall appear only after Sylvanas deployed the Dark Rangers and not after sounding the horn but before the Dark Rangers (even though they were to retreat immediately) and it becomes rather obvious that the Forsaken that did try to return were defectors that chickened out after shit already hit the fan.

Calia did talk to Elsie, though I'm not sure where it was identified that she talked with everyone else. Perhaps I glossed over a passage? Parqual was the one who organized the defecting. He's the one who talked with the Felstones. Calia only seemed to realize she was going to be helping them defect after Parqual talked with her and she reflected on Saa'ra's words. While Calia later says, "Parqual, the Felstones, all the others--see them? They're defecting." We also know from Anduin's and Sylvanas' PoV that this is not the case. It's an argument Calia makes to try to persuade Elsie, and only after that does the horn sound. By the time the rangers were on their bats (during Anduin's PoV section), the people on the field are already spread out. Specifically, some were already spread out in the direction of the wall when the dark rangers took flight. Nathanos even objects to the killing of those individuals, and Sylvanas admits that she doesn't know whether they had any intention of defecting or not; it was a risk she wasn't willing to take.

And Elsie, while not defecting, still violated Sylvanas' orders. Because Sylvanas told them (again, twice) to retreat immediately after hearing the horn. Meanwhile after hearing the horn Elsie still chatted with Calia long enough for Sylvanas to talk with Nathanos about the defectors, learn of Calia's presence from one of her own returning priests, mull over her hatred of Menethils, deploy the Dark Rangers and for the Dark Rangers to fly down to the Gathering site. Even though the second time Sylvanas told them of this rule was upon Elsie's own inquiry. After which Elsie thought to herself that the repercussions for violating that order would be dire, because she reasoned that staying behind after the horn could risk an international incident of some kind.

Yes, Elsie did pause in the middle, as also confirmed by Anduin's PoV. She did not immediately retreat. She disobeyed the order to return immediately, despite knowing the consequences. She died for that. But she still didn't betray Sylvanas or defect. And I'm still not convinced that she would have walked off that field had Callia not been there. If she had ignored Calia and started back immediately, she would have been shot down alongside the others that were returning to the wall.

Also, the number of people defecting is immaterial to the point. The point is that before Sylvanas learned of Calia's presence, she explicitly decided to test the loyalty of any Forsaken still on the field (defectors or not) anyway, giving them an out. Not killing them. Especially not killing them all. So your claim that Calia or no Calia she was going to kill them all doesn't pan out. And looping back to Elsie, that bit in the chapter 32 talks about Sylvanas pondering about convicting Elsie in the eyes of the rest of the Council. It's right there in the text. So the idea that she may have had already decided to punish the entire Council at that time doesn't pan out either.

Just for clarity, when I was talking about Sylvanas murdering the Desolate Council in the first post, I was referring only to the members of the council that she actually had killed (not Annie and the other nine); I'm sorry that I wasn't clearer there. I don't think she wanted to eliminate the entire council, but I do think she wanted to eliminate Elsie and any who agreed with her way of thinking. Specifically with the passage about convicting Elsie in the eyes of the council, she wanted to ensure that she could remove Elsie without causing objection from the rest of the Forsaken. At no point does Sylvanas seem to have any doubt that Elsie should be dealt with. She's only concerned whether the rest of them will support her decision. But she definitely wanted to ensure that the council either fully supported her or that the individual members who didn't were eliminated. Elsie, as being on good terms with the enemy's king and helping to organize this endeavor, was her main threat. "The only Desolate Council members I trust are the ones who returned to me early on, broken and bitter. Truly Desolate. All the others...I cannot allow that sentiment, that hope, to grow. It is an infection ready to spread. I have to cut it out."

Earlier in the meeting, Sylvanas suggests to Nathanos that Anduin might attack his own troops with an eye of blaming the Forsaken for the attack, to be perceived as a strong leader. Nathanos remarks that's more a strategy that Sylvanas would employ, which she denies. Then she looks at her dark rangers that are ready to attack and smiles. The exchange seems clear that Sylvanas has already considered what killing her own people on the field would mean. Again, this was planning made before Calia was exposed. I don't think she had settled on that course being the only outcome, but I think she had already planned for it to be a potential measure.

Elsie was the source of the "infection" that Sylvanas wanted removed. Annie and the others who returned before the horn were spared because Sylvanas wasn't worried about their undermining her message. Elsie was at the very least going to be punished, if not killed, the moment that she waved to Anduin, when Sylvanas realized she would never be "desolate." The others were executed because they too had some amount of hope for reunion. Had Calia not been there, I see no reason why any of these events would have occurred differently. Had Parqual not been there, then perhaps they would've.

[Ielenia]

What's likely to have happened is that Sylvanas' goal to empower herself and the Jailer would've been much harder to achieve. She still would've killed herself after Arthas' defeat and met the Jailer, formulating a plan to break the cosmos. That is inevitable. Alliance or Horde, Edge of Night would still happen.

However she'd have a harder time putting that plan into motion. First of all, she'd have more problems trying to become High King than Warchief, because she'd need to have both Anduin and Varian killed (since apparently the position is hereditary), and then she'd have to find a way to convince the other Alliance leaders to nominate her "High Queen" of the Alliance. At that point, she could start the Fourth War vs. the Horde to gather a massive amount of souls, but her job would be much harder, as the role of High King is about army focus, not control, and the Alliance leaders are not bound by oath. It'd be harder to drag the Alliance into a bloody world war. So really being Warchief (= supreme authority in the faction) facilitated her goal a lot.

One redeeming factor is that, if she were Alliance, then the Sin'dorei would be brought into the Alliance in TBC, and Alleria and Vereesa would have a better opinion of their sister.

Just wanted to address that: whatever forces tricked Vol'jin into thinking Sylvanas was appointed by the loa, a similar thing could be done with Velen, perhaps by giving him a fake vision of Sylvanas being the one that needs to be in power for the good triumph over evil.

[Varodoc]

The Alliance would really be OP in BfA if Sylvanas were High Queen:

- She would still try to form an alliance with Talanji of the Zandalari Empire. As the Zandalari also had a history of fighting with the Horde via Zul's invasions (especially considering Vol'jin's role in 4.1), I'm sure they wouldn't hesitate to join the Alliance if it helped them defeat G'Huun. Sylvanas would therefore invite Talanji to Stormwind to bargain;

- To increase the advantage, Sylvanas would also send Jaina Proudmoore to Kul Tiras in order to bring the admiralty into the Alliance.

Thus the Alliance would have control of both Kul Tiras and Zandalar. Perhaps you don't understand how absurd that would be. The two mightiest fleets in the planet would be under control of the Alliance. Who could stop them, at that point?

Also, as a result of the Blood elves joining the Alliance due to Sylvanas' involvement in TBC, the Nightborne of Suramar would also join the Alliance, giving them a foothold in the Broken Isles, and the Vulpera would also join the Alliance via the Zandalari Empire. There would be no Battle of Dazar'alor, because the Alliance would control both fleets, and Rastakhan would still be alive as an Alliance allied leader.

Here is some food for though: Sylvanas, despite how much I hate her, is conniving and manipulative, able to devise layers upon layers of plans (which end up backfiring most of the times, but oh well)... the Alliance is also naturally stronger than the Horde. This has been clear since Classic. Just compare Stormwind to Orgrimmar, there's no comparison. The Alliance has more resources, more manpower, fewer internal divisions, etc. so imagine if Sylvanas had the Alliance's strength at her command rather than the inferior Horde's... she and the Jailer would've had an easier time, as the Alliance would've just steamrolled the Horde, bolstering their powers significantly.

[vitor210]

It'd be better for the in-story inhabitants and more boring for the audience, just like the acceptance of Death Knights, Warlocks, Demon Hunters, void elves etc.

Today I will remind you that even regular arcane magic used to be seen with suspicion, now you can be partly composed of the force of cosmic entropy and destruction and you can chill out in Stormwind just fine.

yeah remember when the entire flavour of the warlock npcs in both Stormwind and the Horde were that they were practicing forbidden arts, and that's why horde warlocks were hidden in the Drag and Alliance ones were in a literal hidden basement in a secluded inn in Sw? I miss the days when lore was more important than game mechanics

[Florena]

Obviously the reasons are pure Doylist. They saw the Night Elves and Forsaken were popular and designed them to be playable, shoehorning them in on aesthetics.
@Super Dickmann and I both are annoyed there's no explanation, and more so how they completely restructured the Night Elves from millenia of traditions and customs to become purple humans.

I don't really have a problem with the forsaken/nelves joining their respective factions, but agree it should (and could) have been explained much better.

[Nerovar]

I would say the tenet of compassion doesn't apply in the case of a free-willed undead being obviously fight for its (un)life against true death, but again at that point they're actively conflating the Forsaken with the Scourge due to relative ignorance. Even if the Forsaken do trend toward evil, we know and are well aware that they're still individuals and many of them are capable of good. With their culture no longer being dominated by Sylvanas this may become even more evident, as she had an unfortunate tendency to stoke the fires of racial hatred and pit the undead against the living in furtherance of her own schemes. Simply put, and has been borne out in modern WoW, the tenets of respect and compassion aren't compatible with the idea that any being deserves only death due to its nature. Even demons can be redeemed, apparently.

This stems from a misunderstanding of how the religious morality of the Church of the Holy Light used to work in WoW. It's good that you mentioned Lothraxion's example of a "redeemed demon". Allowing evil (as in creatures infused/created by evil magic) to exist is an evil in and of itself - otherwise followers of the Light wouldn't be compelled to actively smite evil. Undead are generally to be killed for the same reasons that demons are generally kill on sight. The vast majority of them are evil aligned (Forsaken Religion also actively involves embracing and worshipping the Shadows), they're compelled to be evil by their intrinsic qualities and their existence is in itself antithetical to the Light which is why the mere interaction with it causes all sorts of nasty side effects or to use your words:

Draenei might take arms against the Forsaken because they are a product of Shadow magic, living examples of the antithesis of the Light - and of course out of camaraderie for their allies such as the Human kingdoms of Stormwind and Gilneas.

Being undead = being anti-light -> light is the absolute good -> being against the absolute good = evil -> smite

While there are exceptions to this rule, these exceptions were always linked to radical factions such as the Argent Crusade (which was lead by someone who was literally excommunicated) or they were created by powers beyond the scope of anything that isn't a powerful Naaru. Also as you mentioned, most people will not differentiate between Undead and Scourge for a number of reasons. This is best reflected by the NPC dialouge you get with a fresh Death Knight joining the Alliance. Even though you're obviously not Scourge anymore, possess free will and want to join the Alliance, the average Stormwind citizen still wants to see you lynched and even Varian tells you that he'd kill you on the spot were it not for Tirion's endorsement.
Of course, much has changed in recent years but to imply that "only a dead undead is a good undead" was some form of fringe position in the earlier days of WoW seems pretty bizarre.

yeah remember when the entire flavour of the warlock npcs in both Stormwind and the Horde were that they were practicing forbidden arts, and that's why horde warlocks were hidden in the Drag and Alliance ones were in a literal hidden basement in a secluded inn in Sw? I miss the days when lore was more important than game mechanics

100% this.

[Aucald]

This stems from a misunderstanding of how the religious morality of the Church of the Holy Light used to work in WoW. It's good that you mentioned Lothraxion's example of a "redeemed demon". Allowing evil (as in creatures infused/created by evil magic) to exist is an evil in and of itself - otherwise followers of the Light wouldn't be compelled to actively smite evil. Undead are generally to be killed for the same reasons that demons are generally kill on sight. The vast majority of them are evil aligned (Forsaken Religion also actively involves embracing and worshipping the Shadows), they're compelled to be evil by their intrinsic qualities and their existence is in itself antithetical to the Light which is why the mere interaction with it causes all sorts of nasty side effects or to use your words:

I understand the rationale for them wanting to kill both demons (historically evil, and also responsible for mass loss of life) as well as the undead (the Scourge, the Third War, etc. etc.), but that's neither really here nor there when discussing the varying degrees of zealotry or fanaticism when it comes to this fact. Paladins like Uther destroyed the demon-worshipping Orcs like the Blackrocks near Strahnbrad because it was necessary, but neither vengeance nor hatred factored into it - and, in point of fact, Uther admonishes the then-Paladin Arthas for embracing anger or hatred in the task of safeguarding Strahnbrad from the Orcs. As for my previous quote you sort of excised it from it's original context, which was about selling the notion of the faction conflict to non-Human races such as the Draenei, not intrinsically about what the Draenei may or may not believe (and we know, for example, Velen is not himself opposed to the existence of the Forsaken).

Being undead = being anti-light -> light is the absolute good -> being against the absolute good = evil -> smite

While there are exceptions to this rule, these exceptions were always linked to radical factions such as the Argent Crusade (which was lead by someone who was literally excommunicated) or they were created by powers beyond the scope of anything that isn't a powerful Naaru. Also as you mentioned, most people will not differentiate between Undead and Scourge for a number of reasons. This is best reflected by the NPC dialouge you get with a fresh Death Knight joining the Alliance. Even though you're obviously not Scourge anymore, possess free will and want to join the Alliance, the average Stormwind citizen still wants to see you lynched and even Varian tells you that he'd kill you on the spot were it not for Tirion's endorsement.

Of course, much has changed in recent years but to imply that "only a dead undead is a good undead" was some form of fringe position in the earlier days of WoW seems pretty bizarre.

Tirion's excommunication is shown to be itself in error, when the ritual that was supposed to sever him from the Light was proven to have failed in Blood and Honor, as Tirion was actually upholding the values of the Light in contrast to those who excommunicated him for purely political reasons. It is true that in the early days of WoW there wasn't a fine distinction between the Forsaken and Scourge among the Alliance, but it was already starting to be distinguished by then and by the time of WotLK was a given. The example of the Death Knights is entirely something else, as Death Knights were the generals of the Scourge and were previously the direct servants of the Lich King - that's going to be hard to get past even when you know they're now free of the Lich King's thrall. What I'm saying is that knowledge that the Forsaken weren't Scourge, and weren't universally monsters in their entirety, was beginning to be understood even back in Classic. It's not in evidence that a fanatical "kill 'em all" attitude was the order of the day in Stormwind, even back then. I mean some people did think that, and it seems more likely some people didn't - they were afraid of them, but they also held out hope that their former friends and loved ones might also be reachable.

[Super Dickmann]

Tirion's excommunication is shown to be itself in error, when the ritual that was supposed to sever him from the Light was proven to have failed in Blood and Honor, as Tirion was actually upholding the values of the Light in contrast to those who excommunicated him for purely political reasons. It is true that in the early days of WoW there wasn't a fine distinction between the Forsaken and Scourge among the Alliance, but it was already starting to be distinguished by then and by the time of WotLK was a given. The example of the Death Knights is entirely something else, as Death Knights were the generals of the Scourge and were previously the direct servants of the Lich King - that's going to be hard to get past even when you know they're now free of the Lich King's thrall. What I'm saying is that knowledge that the Forsaken weren't Scourge, and weren't universally monsters in their entirety, was beginning to be understood even back in Classic. It's not in evidence that a fanatical "kill 'em all" attitude was the order of the day in Stormwind, even back then. I mean some people did think that, and it seems more likely some people didn't - they were afraid of them, but they also held out hope that their former friends and loved ones might also be reachable.

Again, any argument made in that route, on top of being based solely on conjecture and not gelling with how the Light worked then or now as Nerovar has already covered, can't deal with the fact that BTS has 'the only good undead is a dead undead' as the baseline position among all non-Velen leaders and among the majority of the Stormwind populace many years after Benedictus is gone. Exceptions exist, but they're few and more need to come around. That is the challenge in front of Anduin in that book that he easily resolves because the underlying reasons for that position - an actual religious doctrine based on what fits the setting instead of what the writers find to be good, the intrinsic qualities of undeath making one predisposed to be morally bankrupt, a society that hadn't yet accepted inherently evil practices like fel and other necromancy as a given and the Forsaken themselves having cause for that aggression and being harmful to humans of their own volition have all been removed to big him up and neuter the Forsaken.

I do not understand why you keep pushing this position when its extremely widespread nature in Stormwind back then and even now in a terrible book who has as its sole cause the dismantling of undead lore is a major element. This is not to mention the extreme weakness of a position that Tirion's excommunication shows that they were unable rid him of the Light when we know the Light is based on faith and the dude who excommunicated him, Uther, could also still use his powers problem-free until his death and was a heroic dude. There is no fanaticism inherent in wanting to destroy things that are inherently have their empathy subdued, who go against your faith by default, who's deaths can save their spirits per your doctrine and of whom every representative you've encountered has tried to kill you and your polity.

To attribute extremism on it based on ex post facto reasoning is both a bad argument and unsurprising, as it follows the general trend of your argumentation on these issues, that being:

1. Be presented with a large number of arguments and sources regarding the positions and culture of a majority of a population.
2. Dislike those positions and culture.
3. Point out extant exceptions.
4. Upon someone accepting these exceptions exist, extrapolate these exceptions to being 50+% of that culture while disregarding the far more numerous examples of contrary behaviour.
5. Claim that it is thus the majority that is the fringe and the other position that is dominant.

We have seen this with the Horde's attitudes in BFA regarding the vast majority of NPCs being shown to be pro-war and the game itself making a plot point of this later, with the Forsaken and their BTS and Calia turns and now in this thread with the Church's attitudes. It is the same strain of argument and it is both deeply dishonest and kind of funny in how formulaic it is.

[Aucald]

Again, any argument made in that route, on top of being based solely on conjecture and not gelling with how the Light worked then or now as Nerovar has already covered, can't deal with the fact that BTS has 'the only good undead is a dead undead' as the baseline position among all non-Velen leaders and among the majority of the Stormwind populace many years after Benedictus is gone. Exceptions exist, but they're few and more need to come around. That is the challenge in front of Anduin in that book that he easily resolves because the underlying reasons for that position - an actual religious doctrine based on what fits the setting instead of what the writers find to be good, the intrinsic qualities of undeath making one predisposed to be morally bankrupt, a society that hadn't yet accepted inherently evil practices like fel and other necromancy as a given and the Forsaken themselves having cause for that aggression and being harmful to humans of their own volition have all been removed to big him up and neuter the Forsaken.

How the Light works hasn't really changed in any real sense, and the example above is still salient in that it showed that the Light itself disagreed with Tirion's censure and essentially uncensured him as his actions were actually in keeping with the Light's core tenets - regardless of what the Church of the Light espoused. I've also already addressed the Before the Storm distinction in the sense that that's an issue with the Forsaken specifically being Horde, not a parallel to the Scourge (which by the time of Before the Storm was a known quantity). There's still a prevailing fear and distrust of the undead, though; but obviously not to the point that all or even most of the citizenry of Stormwind had a "kill 'em on sight" mentality, either. Otherwise the Gathering would never have been able to occur in the first place.

I do not understand why you keep pushing this position when its extremely widespread nature in Stormwind back then and even now in a terrible book who has as its sole cause the dismantling of undead lore is a major element. This is not to mention the extreme weakness of a position that Tirion's excommunication shows that they were unable rid him of the Light when we know the Light is based on faith and the dude who excommunicated him, Uther, could also still use his powers problem-free until his death and was a heroic dude. There is no fanaticism inherent in wanting to destroy things that are inherently have their empathy subdued, who go against your faith by default, who's deaths can save their spirits per your doctrine and of whom every representative you've encountered has tried to kill you and your polity.

Because I disagree with your assertion and surrounding implications, and have provided evidence explaining how and why it is not likely to be the place. I don't consider it "pushing a position" inasmuch as stating what I think the actual canon is. I don't think you have the high ground here at all. The Light's endorsement of Tirion's mercy toward Eitrigg further belies your position, Tirion showed mercy and compassion toward an Orc that bore him no ill will, and came to understand that despite their history of animosity the Orcs and Humans still shared an essential humanity (lowercase "h" for the general sense of the term), and that the Orcs were not universally implacable killing-machines. That's what mercy and compassion *are*, in point of fact; and the ability to overcome your own prejudices and treat an enemy with respect (another tenet of the Light) and compassion shows it. There's a difference in understanding the origins of a form of racial hatred due to past event, and fully endorsing it. Hatred isn't a good thing, even if it can be understandable (at least in terms of the faith centered around the Light). Uther underlines that in WC3 when he confronts Arthas about it.

To attribute extremism on it based on ex post facto reasoning is both a bad argument and unsurprising, as it follows the general trend of your argumentation on these issues, that being:

1. Be presented with a large number of arguments and sources regarding the positions and culture of a majority of a population.
2. Dislike those positions and culture.
3. Point out extant exceptions.
4. Upon someone accepting these exceptions exist, extrapolate these exceptions to being 50+% of that culture while disregarding the far more numerous examples of contrary behaviour.
5. Claim that it is thus the majority that is the fringe and the other position that is dominant.

We have seen this with the Horde's attitudes in BFA regarding the vast majority of NPCs being shown to be pro-war and the game itself making a plot point of this later, with the Forsaken and their BTS and Calia turns and now in this thread with the Church's attitudes. It is the same strain of argument and it is both deeply dishonest and kind of funny in how formulaic it is.

It's not a bad argument at all, and I think you've failed to make any real in-roads towards making that at all conclusive, which is equally unsurprising given your overall trend of bad faith argumentation and making claims without any real support. You can't make something true by repeating it alone, unfortunately; if you make a claim you need to support it - I've done so, and so I would expect the same treatment from you (preferably stripped of errant hyperbole or ad hominem barbs). We both understand the essential principle of constructing a public, it would seem; and I've shown several points of evidence that your construction of Stormwind's public is not necessarily true to the information we've been given, and beyond it just being an extant exception, there are a number of factors that show far more varied attitudes overall than a singular "kill 'em all" style approach. In fact, I think it telling that you appear to only see this as a binary of acceptance vs. slaughter, whereas I think a broader spectrum of opinions were likely at play (as evidenced by the various personal philosophies we're shown) - some of those were indeed more fanatical, and others might be said to be compassionate to a fault.

This debate has nothing at all to do with Horde/Alliance conflict in BFA, though; so I'm not sure why you're attempting to further muddy the waters with an unrelated topic.

[Super Dickmann]

How the Light works hasn't really changed in any real sense, and the example above is still salient in that it showed that the Light itself disagreed with Tirion's censure and essentially uncensured him as his actions were actually in keeping with the Light's core tenets - regardless of what the Church of the Light espoused. I've also already addressed the Before the Storm distinction in the sense that that's an issue with the Forsaken specifically being Horde, not a parallel to the Scourge (which by the time of Before the Storm was a known quantity). There's still a prevailing fear and distrust of the undead, though; but obviously not to the point that all or even most of the citizenry of Stormwind had a "kill 'em on sight" mentality, either. Otherwise the Gathering would never have been able to occur in the first place.

The Light didn't disagree with Tirion's tenure, the Light has no position, that's the whole point of it and has been since Vanilla had the Scarlet Crusade use it no problem despite their doctrine being far afield from even the position you've spent this topic claiming against it. The Light is based purely on conviction and the belief in one's own rectitude - Tirion believed he could no longer use the Light, that Uther could take it away from him and so he was unable to use it for a time. Upon reaching a different conclusion and refinding his faith, he could use it again. The Before the Storm argument being based on being Horde is farcical - every point in the story is made to draw attention on the Forsaken specifically, the Alliance leaders don't say 'don't team up with them because they're Horde', they say 'don't try this because they're undead and they're evil abominations', ditto the hangups Anduin later sees among the people. The majority of the population had an incredibly hostile view until Anduin opened their eyes in the end, ditto the leaders, hence why they had to do careful vetting and even half of those they carefully vetted took one look at their risen relatives and left the scene.

Because I disagree with your assertion and surrounding implications, and have provided evidence explaining how and why it is not likely to be the place. I don't consider it "pushing a position" inasmuch as stating what I think the actual canon is. I don't think you have the high ground here at all. The Light's endorsement of Tirion's mercy toward Eitrigg further belies your position, Tirion showed mercy and compassion toward an Orc that bore him no ill will, and came to understand that despite their history of animosity the Orcs and Humans still shared an essential humanity (lowercase "h" for the general sense of the term), and that the Orcs were not universally implacable killing-machines. That's what mercy and compassion *are*, in point of fact; and the ability to overcome your own prejudices and treat an enemy with respect (another tenet of the Light) and compassion shows it. There's a difference in understanding the origins of a form of racial hatred due to past event, and fully endorsing it. Hatred isn't a good thing, even if it can be understandable (at least in terms of the faith centered around the Light). Uther underlines that in WC3 when he confronts Arthas about it.

The Light doesn't give one fuck about what Tirion's conclusion was, only that he had a conclusion and thus regained faith in himself and a path. The same Light made Turalyon uncountably powerful in his fight with the orcs at Blackrock Mountain when he reached the conclusion that the orcs were fundamentally inhuman beasts and had to be destroyed. Uther expelled Tirion from the order and yet despite their views thus being entirely contrary still had easy use of his powers. The Adherents of Rukhmar believed it was their divine duty to throw people who disagreed with them off a tall building and then use their space laser to fry the inferior surface dwellers and could still use the Light. Compassion and respect do not mean compassion and respect in the eyes of the predominantly 21st century western liberal audience, they mean church precepts that have an in-setting definition and even then are solely a construct of the Church of the Holy Light. Those aforementioned by the majority either do not practice them or do not view the same way and yet are still able to use the Light.

It's not a bad argument at all, and I think you've failed to make any real in-roads towards making that at all conclusive, which is equally unsurprising given your overall trend of bad faith argumentation and making claims without any real support. You can't make something true by repeating it alone, unfortunately; if you make a claim you need to support it - I've done so, and so I would expect the same treatment from you (preferably stripped of errant hyperbole or ad hominem barbs). We both understand the essential principle of constructing a public, it would seem; and I've shown several points of evidence that your construction of Stormwind's public is not necessarily true to the information we've been given, and beyond it just being an extant exception, there are a number of factors that show far more varied attitudes overall than a singular "kill 'em all" style approach. In fact, I think it telling that you appear to only see this as a binary of acceptance vs. slaughter, whereas I think a broader spectrum of opinions were likely at play (as evidenced by the various personal philosophies we're shown) - some of those were indeed more fanatical, and others might be said to be compassionate to a fault.

I have listed sources throughout this argument, as has Nerovar. You on the other hand have done nothing but engage in endless semantic arguments while bringing in no new information from other extant sources that'd rebuff these points. We have explained at length why the view was widespread then and now, with sources as old as Vanilla and as new as Chronicle and BTS and reasoning why the arguments you have brought up - i.e claiming that it's the result of fanaticism or not actually widespread are baseless. You on the other hand have been relegated to compositional fallacies where the existence of some humans not of Stormwind who tolerated undead then or now applies to the majority of Stormwindian humans. I bring up these other examples not because of their pertinence to this specific topic being discussed, but as an observation of the way you debate in general. It is a serial issue where you misconstrue the existence of separate minority viewpoints as meaning that what the majority view and the far more expansive evidence suggests is not the case. To whit in this case you have yet to present a single contradicting opinion from anyone in Stormwind in Vanilla or now when it comes to this, instead you argue that they could hypothetically exist and in turn that Benedictus' position and the widespread and extremely similar views held later are the outlier on the basis of this hypothetical demos that you haven't produced any evidence exists.