Shiny Starcraft II Lore!!

[Mark_Romaneck]

http://www.sclegacy.com/editorials/sciilore.php

Valerian Mengsk?

I would have not guessed, I tought Mengsk was to busy with "The powa shalt be mine" to get laid.

Seems I was wrong

[Aldrius]

Er... That's some Firstborn lore for you. :p

[Kenzuki]

Aye was going to post this but the forums were dead.

Yeah Valerian is cool in Firstborn, he has potential.

And woohoo go Jim Raynor, seems he's going to be the main protaganist baby. I hope he gets to have a romantic moment with Sarah before it's all over with personally.

[Timolas]

Fenix and Aldaris must be avenged. Raynor is the man to take her doooown.

[Kenzuki]

Fenix and Aldaris must be avenged. Raynor is the man to take her doooown.

Who cares about Aldaris? Seriously, it's like mourning Garithos. Besides, she still loves Raynor.

[Timolas]

Who cares about Aldaris? Seriously, it's like mourning Garithos. Besides, she still loves Raynor.

Aldaris was awesome.
Who cares if Kerrigan loves Raynor? He swore to kill her. That's destiny right there. Destiny in which she gets a bullet in her monkey face.

[Kenzuki]

Aldaris was awesome.
Who cares if Kerrigan loves Raynor? He swore to kill her. That's destiny right there. Destiny in which she gets a bullet in her monkey face.

Plans can change son, plans change.

[Remnant]

I loved Aldaris. He added depth to the Protoss. Without him? Protoss would be nothing but super-powered, flawless good guys. It'd be a race of blue, psychic Thralls. *puke*.

Besides, he was the only one to see through Kerrigan's deception, even if he did it in an off-kilter sort of way.

It would be nice to see some central terran protagonists that are actually good. We've seen the evil of humanity in the SC universe. Time to show that the race really does have redeeming value. (Yes, we saw a lot of Raynor, but he was tertiary to every campaign he was a part of).

[Kerrah]

Fenix and Aldaris must be avenged. Raynor is the man to take her doooown.

How does "to take her down" sound naughty to me?

[Kenzuki]

I think Kerrigan would be the dominant type actually.....though in her infested state I don't think I'de want to make it with her, never know what might be lurking deep within the bowels of evil.....

[Omacron]

I find Kerrigan more ***y in her infected form, actually. Power gives me a boner, man.



Plus, who knows, maybe some human STDs can kill zerg. It worked in War of the Worlds.

[Aldrius]

Aldaris and Garithos were both awesome. I lovez me some ambiguity. Well except for Aldaris... outside of Brood War he was pretty much just a jerk who screwed over Aiur...

It would be nice to see some central terran protagonists that are actually good. We've seen the evil of humanity in the SC universe. Time to show that the race really does have redeeming value. (Yes, we saw a lot of Raynor, but he was tertiary to every campaign he was a part of).

He was not tertiary to the original Terran campaign. :p

Just the original Protoss campaign and the expansion Zerg campaign.

Actual heroic terrans would be pretty... off-kilter. No room for heroes in that society. You either do some ruthless and borderline criminal things or you get killed by a mob of zerg while you try and help the guy next to you out of the mud.

I dunno, I kinda miss Zeratul's more ambigous nature in the original StarCraft. Where you didn't really know what he was all about. He couldn't just keep being enigmatic, but... I dunno... kinda too goody-goody in Brood War for my tastes.

[Kerrah]

Plus, who knows, maybe some human STDs can kill zerg. It worked in War of the Worlds.

The Zerg have already gained all the average disease immunities of humankind from Kerrigan, if not well before her.

[Kenzuki]

Aldaris and Garithos were both awesome. I lovez me some ambiguity. Well except for Aldaris... outside of Brood War he was pretty much just a jerk who screwed over Aiur...



He was not tertiary to the original Terran campaign. :p

Just the original Protoss campaign and the expansion Zerg campaign.

Actual heroic terrans would be pretty... off-kilter. No room for heroes in that society. You either do some ruthless and borderline criminal things or you get killed by a mob of zerg while you try and help the guy next to you out of the mud.

I dunno, I kinda miss Zeratul's more ambigous nature in the original StarCraft. Where you didn't really know what he was all about. He couldn't just keep being enigmatic, but... I dunno... kinda too goody-goody in Brood War for my tastes.

What's wrong with being a good guy?

[Remnant]

Aldaris and Garithos were both awesome. I lovez me some ambiguity. Well except for Aldaris... outside of Brood War he was pretty much just a jerk who screwed over Aiur...

While they were both "authority" antagonists at various points, and both stubborn to the point of zealotry, they were very different in more important ways.

Aldaris did what he did out of an inflated sense of loyalty, and putting a very high value on order. Virtues that make sense, given what the Protoss had emerged from, and how the Khala was developed. When it became apparent that his views were wrong, and when the conclave changed its stance, he did a 180. His loyalty was always to Auir, even if his actions were terribly misplaced.

Garithos was two-dimensional on an 80s cartoon supervillianry level. Everything down to his little unit-blurbs were so over the top that it was comical. His motives were his insane little "human superiority" thoughts, despite the composition of the Alliance. I always sort of figured the Alliance command sent him up there in the hopes he would get himself killed and maybe take some scourge with him. He never gave pause or repented.



He was not tertiary to the original Terran campaign. :p

Just the original Protoss campaign and the expansion Zerg campaign.

He always seemed tertiary to me, even in the initial campaign, except for pre-mengsk and the last mission. During the time he was with Mengsk, he was basically doing the same thing he does in the protoss campaign- gives two lines of dialogue and runs around with more hit points and a bigger gun.


Actual heroic terrans would be pretty... off-kilter. No room for heroes in that society. You either do some ruthless and borderline criminal things or you get killed by a mob of zerg while you try and help the guy next to you out of the mud.

I dunno, I kinda miss Zeratul's more ambigous nature in the original StarCraft. Where you didn't really know what he was all about. He couldn't just keep being enigmatic, but... I dunno... kinda too goody-goody in Brood War for my tastes.

Regarding heroic terrans, I don't see why not. Without hardship, it's hard to show true heroism. My thing with both SC and WC worlds is, we all read Lord of the Flies in high school, or A Seperate Peace, or whatever. We all know to death the "there's evil in the human heart" and it's not any more clever and original to do it to death in these settings than it would be to do the reverse, showing them always heroic.

Yet, Blizz got on this kick for all it's games that humanity is weak, stupid, and fairly evil as a whole, and the real heros in the world are green super humans with big teeth and psychic blue super-warriors from outerspace.

That's fine. Some of the time. But it started to get terribly predictable. I just want them to mix it up. I want more evil horde actions, I want more protoss ambiguity (especially now that Aldaris is gone). I want heroic humans beyond the lone, near-token "good human... s/he laughs, s/he learns, s/he loves). I don't want to see the name "Thrall" and be able to guess how the story ends.

[Omacron]

The Zerg have already gained all the average disease immunities of humankind from Kerrigan, if not well before her.

Well, we don't know what STDs she has or had, and how would the zerg get them? Thankfully AIDs is airborne, and no one has fucked a hydralisk, yet.

[Kerrah]

Well, we don't know what STDs she has or had, and how would the zerg get them? Thankfully AIDs is airborne, and no one has fucked a hydralisk, yet.

Except in Korea.

[Aldrius]

What's wrong with being a good guy?

Depends on the character. Usually good guys are boring. At least to me, very rarely do I find a hero endearing.

While they were both "authority" antagonists at various points, and both stubborn to the point of zealotry, they were very different in more important ways.

I didn't really think they were similar. They were just ambigous characters belonging to a race that was associated with heroism. Aldaris redeemed himself in the original StarCraft. But he was still ambigous up to that point.


Garithos was two-dimensional on an 80s cartoon supervillianry level. Everything down to his little unit-blurbs were so over the top that it was comical. His motives were his insane little "human superiority" thoughts, despite the composition of the Alliance. I always sort of figured the Alliance command sent him up there in the hopes he would get himself killed and maybe take some scourge with him. He never gave pause or repented.

He was far from two-dimensional. And he was nothing like an 80's villain. He was a competent commander. He was obviously ambitious, and obviously racist... but we're playing from the perspective of a blood elf (both times we run into him. :P). The fact that he was as effective as he was against the Scourge is really his redeeming quality. It's really undone after you consider the Argent Dawn and Southshore and such, but in terms of WC3 it is his redeeming quality. I highly doubt he was sent to die. I doubt anyone sent him in fact (well maybe Stormwind). I think he was a tough, cunning human commander who took control of what was left of Lordaeron's army. In fact, I'm willing to bet he was highly respected for his military prowess rather than chastised for his racist practices... which I highly doubt he was open about. At least beyond the "Dwarves are stupid, I don't trust Elves, etc."


He always seemed tertiary to me, even in the initial campaign, except for pre-mengsk and the last mission. During the time he was with Mengsk, he was basically doing the same thing he does in the protoss campaign- gives two lines of dialogue and runs around with more hit points and a bigger gun.

That's half the campaign. :p


Regarding heroic terrans, I don't see why not. Without hardship, it's hard to show true heroism. My thing with both SC and WC worlds is, we all read Lord of the Flies in high school, or A Seperate Peace, or whatever. We all know to death the "there's evil in the human heart" and it's not any more clever and original to do it to death in these settings than it would be to do the reverse, showing them always heroic.

You spoke of Garithos being two-dimensional. Having characters who are pure evil or pure good are boring. Mengsk is not pure evil, nor is Kerrigan, nor is Aldaris, nor is Garithos, nor is Ner'zhul, nor is Daelin Proudmoore. The same thing applies to Thrall, or Raynor. Yet it doesn't. Neither of them have any negative qualities. Thrall has a bit of a temper, and Raynor is a little short-sighted but those aren't really... negative qualities in the way I am saying. But then there are some more three-dimensional heroes, Pre-Death Knight Arthas, Jaina (a little bit), Tyrande, Furion (a little bit, about the same as Jaina I'd say), Maiev, Kael... really, what Blizzard games are about, though... and the way they write is with the protagonists and antagonists rather than villains and heroes. When you play as Arthas as a Death Knight, you're rooting for him. Same as when you play as Thrall... you want the protagonists to succeed. Whoever the protagonist is.

That's fine. Some of the time. But it started to get terribly predictable. I just want them to mix it up. I want more evil horde actions, I want more protoss ambiguity (especially now that Aldaris is gone). I want heroic humans beyond the lone, near-token "good human... s/he laughs, s/he learns, s/he loves). I don't want to see the name "Thrall" and be able to guess how the story ends.

That's fine, but it needs to make sense... and it needs to be done carefully, because really, any extreme 'evil horde actions' and we're back to 'good guys and bad guys' in regards to the Horde and Alliance.

[Kenzuki]

Um actually they ARE about heroes and villans. The epic struggle between good and evil is what drives the force onwards. Don't care what you think but Warcraft's I and II were about Good vs Evil :P

I can't think of a single redeeming thing about Gul'dan, or a single damning thing about Lothar for example.

[Aldrius]

Um actually they ARE about heroes and villans. The epic struggle between good and evil is what drives the force onwards. Don't care what you think but Warcraft's I and II were about Good vs Evil :P

Wasn't talking about WarCraft 1 and 2...

I can't think of a single redeeming thing about Gul'dan, or a single damning thing about Lothar for example.

Well that would be because they were names in the manual rather than actual characters. =) Though even in Rise of the Horde and The Last Guardian they were both pretty one-dimensionally evil/good.

...that's probably why I don't like either of them very much.

[ARM3481]

Regarding heroic terrans, I don't see why not. Without hardship, it's hard to show true heroism. My thing with both SC and WC worlds is, we all read Lord of the Flies in high school, or A Seperate Peace, or whatever. We all know to death the "there's evil in the human heart" and it's not any more clever and original to do it to death in these settings than it would be to do the reverse, showing them always heroic.

Yet, Blizz got on this kick for all it's games that humanity is weak, stupid, and fairly evil as a whole, and the real heros in the world are green super humans with big teeth and psychic blue super-warriors from outerspace.

That's fine. Some of the time. But it started to get terribly predictable. I just want them to mix it up. I want more evil horde actions, I want more protoss ambiguity (especially now that Aldaris is gone). I want heroic humans beyond the lone, near-token "good human... s/he laughs, s/he learns, s/he loves). I don't want to see the name "Thrall" and be able to guess how the story ends.

Hopefully we'll get to see more of what we encountered in the earliest Terran Campaigns. Despite the general basardness of the Confederacy, I got the feeling that before he found himself in a prime position to topple things and seize power, even Mengsk had an interest in helping the refugees escape from the infested worlds and in preventing harm from resulting of the Confederacy's ineptitude and corruption. If he'd been a power-mongering jerk from day one he probably wouldn't have had as many people willing to follow him as he did.

Blizz really should get off the ever-irritating bandwagon that all-too-frequently portrays humanity as a bunch of well-dressed animals who degenerate into hatred, prejudice and fear as soon as they don't have a "system" to keep them in line. If anything, it's the opposite: humanity has an inborne tendency to establish such systems when they don't exist and to seek putting an end to anarchy and disorder. We're not as instictively organized as some other creatures, but we have a unique ability to seek organization and harmony where it doesn't exist yet, while few other creatures are remotely capable of doing so. Too many end-of-the-world story scenarios act like the collapse of society is irredeemable and dooms mankind to unending barbarism and strife, but as seen with the fall of every great civilization, the natural way of humanity is that as soon as such events occur, they start immediately bulding their own new heirarchies and establishing new sources of order and stability in order to live on.

We need more heroes. They can be flawed, sure. everyone has their shortcomings. It's just tiresome that apparently when left to their own devices humans must be doomed to self-destruction, when the only ones who don't kill each other out of hate are the Zerg. And on Azeroth when there are bad orcs killing humans, it inevitably leads to the Legion's tampering rather than any individuals with unattractive motivations and designs seeking to upset things, while the humans need little prodding to go on an orc-killing spree. To put it in Lord of the Rings terms, we need more Aragorns to bring things together and fewer Denethors driving everyone apart.

[Remnant]

He was far from two-dimensional. And he was nothing like an 80's villain. He was a competent commander. He was obviously ambitious, and obviously racist... but we're playing from the perspective of a blood elf (both times we run into him. :P). The fact that he was as effective as he was against the Scourge is really his redeeming quality. It's really undone after you consider the Argent Dawn and Southshore and such, but in terms of WC3 it is his redeeming quality. I highly doubt he was sent to die. I doubt anyone sent him in fact (well maybe Stormwind). I think he was a tough, cunning human commander who took control of what was left of Lordaeron's army. In fact, I'm willing to bet he was highly respected for his military prowess rather than chastised for his racist practices... which I highly doubt he was open about. At least beyond the "Dwarves are stupid, I don't trust Elves, etc."

I've drawn straight lines on a blackboard that have more dimensions than Garithos. There are single episode ro-beasts that ended with the phrase "Form Blazing Sword" that had more depth than him.



You spoke of Garithos being two-dimensional. Having characters who are pure evil or pure good are boring. Mengsk is not pure evil, nor is Kerrigan, nor is Aldaris, nor is Garithos, nor is Ner'zhul, nor is Daelin Proudmoore.

I never said pure good or evil. I want to see humans portrayed every once in a while as relatively more "good" than the other races. Blizz overall fails doing this.

And at this point? Kerrigan, and whatever the hell Ner'zhul is, both register as "evil" on the old litmus test. But I'm not going to get into a game of absolutes, because those are unwinnable. But be aware that at no point did I call for introducing absolutes.


The same thing applies to Thrall, or Raynor. Yet it doesn't. Neither of them have any negative qualities. Thrall has a bit of a temper, and Raynor is a little short-sighted but those aren't really... negative qualities in the way I am saying. But then there are some more three-dimensional heroes, Pre-Death Knight Arthas, Jaina (a little bit), Tyrande, Furion (a little bit, about the same as Jaina I'd say), Maiev, Kael... really, what Blizzard games are about, though... and the way they write is with the protagonists and antagonists rather than villains and heroes.

The difference for me is, at least, Thrall never loses meaningfully, and doesn't carry any real flaws- just the goofy "non-flaws", as you pointed out. I had the debate with a Thrall fanboy once, I believe his argument hinged on "he's TOO noble".

Raynor would be obnoxious, except for the fact that he gets booted around the game world more often than an empty soup can on a playground. Yes, he helped out against the overmind, and joyrode around with the protoss forces for a bit, but overall? He gets used and abused, and watches his friends die, or get infested, or whatever else. So, he's far less annoying to me than Thrall is. (Though he carries real potential to bother me as well if he starts pulling a Thrall and winning ALL the time.)



When you play as Arthas as a Death Knight, you're rooting for him. Same as when you play as Thrall... you want the protagonists to succeed. Whoever the protagonist is.

Arthas was fun for me when he was human because he went all Ahab on everyone. After he was a death knight, I liked that he retained a dry wit about him that I found amusing, but other than that, I didn't really root for him or root against him.

When I play as Thrall I hope he fails. When I play as Kerrigan, I hope she fails, because she got annoying by the end of Brood war... but I'm willing to keep an open mind on her regarding SC 2. However, if she does another "I OUTSMARTEDED YOUZ ALLLL MWAHAHAHA... U GOT RETARDED BETWEEN SC AND BW! LOL"... yeah, then she'll be on the annoying list.



That's fine, but it needs to make sense... and it needs to be done carefully, because really, any extreme 'evil horde actions' and we're back to 'good guys and bad guys' in regards to the Horde and Alliance.

Give the horde moral black eyes enough that it can be debated that the orcs are at least influenced by "evil", in the same sense that argument can be made for the Alliance. Stop giving them the "doped up on demon juju alleviates them of moral responsibility" excuse.

[Rowan Seven]

Personally, I think bonafide heroes can be interesting, but usually there has to be something that either makes them distinct or that they have to struggle with. To use Thrall and Raynor as examples, Thrall is distinct as a hero in that he is a good orc which is a departure from standard high fantasy and in that, as opposed to running around the world battling the forces of darkness (he seems to do that more on the side these days ;) ) he is attempting to build a nation and lead a coalition of diverse races. Being a hero and a leader simultaneously can be an incredibly difficult thing and can create tensions between doing the right thing and doing the smart thing (case in point: letting the Forsaken join the Horde). Additionally, virtually Thrall's entire life has been a struggle, and even though it may look easy from our outsider perspective it hasn't been easy for him. As for Raynor, he's a nice guy in a galaxy that doesn't treat nice guys well and almost seems to go out of its way to reward those who depart from the heroic path. Mengsk sacrificed the rebel vision he once stood for and gained an empire. Kerrigan has through betrayal, deception, and murder become the leader of the Zerg and a danger to the entire universe. In contrast, Raynor has always tried to do the right thing and what does he have to show for it? There's a struggle between the man Raynor is and the cold reality of the universe, which leads to the memorable and enduring question: can one good man truly make a lasting difference?

Give the horde moral black eyes enough that it can be debated that the orcs are at least influenced by "evil", in the same sense that argument can be made for the Alliance. Stop giving them the "doped up on demon juju alleviates them of moral responsibility" excuse.

While there are Warcraft and Horde fans who use that excuse, Blizzard has not. The orcs have blood on their hands that they are responsible for, Thrall acknowledges this and that his people have much to atone for, and the sophist arguments to the contrary that can be found on the internet and the official WoW forums in particular do not change this.

That's fine. Some of the time. But it started to get terribly predictable. I just want them to mix it up. I want more evil horde actions, I want more protoss ambiguity (especially now that Aldaris is gone). I want heroic humans beyond the lone, near-token "good human... s/he laughs, s/he learns, s/he loves). I don't want to see the name "Thrall" and be able to guess how the story ends.

Admittedly, I'm less than objective about this because I am a fan of the morally complex Horde, but what would be accomplished by painting the Horde in a more "evil" light other than making the Alliance the sole judge and standard of right and wrong? There's already a dark side to the Horde that exists and can be seen in WoW despite the efforts of some people to rationalize and explain it away, and, as much as I think the "Horde=evil, Alliance=good" and "Horde=good, Alliance=evil" arguments are silly and miss the complexity Blizzard is trying to bring to the Warcraft series, the Alliance is still depicted in a more "good" light than the Horde and it's far easier to make a case for Alliance=good than it is for Horde=good. There's a tension within the Horde over what it will be in the future because there's still a struggle with its darker nature, and this tension adds what I find to be a compelling ambiguity and uncertainty to the New Horde. Removing or lessening this tension and reducing the complicated Alliance/Horde dynamic to something closer to the pre-Warcraft III situation would deprive the Warcraft world of a rival power that can challenge the Alliance's monopoly on morality in a setting that already has no shortage of evil factions out to conquer/corrupt/destroy the world.

[ARM3481]

Admittedly, I'm less than objective about this because I am a fan of the morally complex Horde, but what would be accomplished by painting the Horde in a more "evil" light other than making the Alliance the sole judge and standard of right and wrong? There's already a dark side to the Horde that exists and can be seen in WoW despite the efforts of some people to rationalize and explain it away, and, as much as I think the "Horde=evil, Alliance=good" and "Horde=good, Alliance=evil" arguments are silly and miss the complexity Blizzard is trying to bring to the Warcraft series, the Alliance is still depicted in a more "good" light than the Horde and it's far easier to make a case for Alliance=good than it is for Horde=good. There's a tension within the Horde over what it will be in the future because there's still a struggle with its darker nature, and this tension adds what I find to be a compelling ambiguity and uncertainty to the New Horde. Removing or lessening this tension and reducing the complicated Alliance/Horde dynamic to something closer to the pre-Warcraft III situation would deprive the Warcraft world of a rival power that can challenge the Alliance's monopoly on morality in a setting that already has no shortage of evil factions out to conquer/corrupt/destroy the world.

Though it still seems like virtually every time an orc turns out to be evil, he's demon-influenced or still in Blackrock Mountain under the old guard of the Horde. It's a bit unrealistic for there to be no orcs who are just "bad people" on their own, yet so far basically every orc with a sinister agenda is some lacky of the Shadow Council or the Twilight's Hammer cult or is part of the Dark Horde. The humans, on the other hand, are given plenty of unique reasons for each instance of one of their number turning rotten and bringing harm to others. The Defias, though potentially under the influence of other, darker entities by the time of WoW, began on completely human and independent grounds of seeking misdirected revenge against the common people of Stormwind for the sins of their corrupt leadership. Yet it seems like the only orcs who have a problem with the status quo are disgruntled leftovers of the old bloodlusted horde. It'd be nice if at least a few of the orcish villains had their own personal motivations and weren't just following the lead of the remaining Shadow Council (or Illidan, but Fel Orcs are basically reduced to faceless mob fodder status in WoW. They're not real heavy in the area of characterization of any kind.)

It's not as simple as "making the Horde seem more evil." But as it stands, the only orcs with any shred of effective ambition have been the chieftains and other leaders. The rest are habitual followers. For the most part, the majority of the orcs are portrayed as an unthinking rabble who just go with the flow and don't think for themselves. Even the Shadow Council is really just repeating the mantra of Gul'dan, and the Dark Horde is what they are for the very reason that they lack the vision to create their own future. If Thrall's expecting the orcs to create their own grand legacy in the world, he'll have to get them to all stop waiting for his say-so to do anything more relevant than swinging an axe. They've got a long way to go, since the whole clannish mentality of "letting the big bosses decide everything" seems to still permeate the orcish society and is partly why there seem to be a disproportionate number of warriors to merchants and such. When everyone wants to be a soldier and little else, and such aspirations are culturally encouraged, it's hard to maintain an effective and thriving society.

[Flamestrider]

I'm going to have to agree, to an extent, with ARM here. This may seem surprising to some. But the large number and high activity of pro-Alliance old-school Warcraft fans on this forum has pushed me much further to the Horde side than I would ordinarily be in a balanced forum. I seem to spend all of my energy around here tearing into the latest anti-Horde attack (All undead are evil, Orcs are stupid, trolls are innately evil, Daelin was right, and onward ad infinitum) that I rarely get to voice any of my opinions on other matters. Most of you probably think that, if left to my own devices, I would start spreading propaganda about how humans and dwarves are evil. I think I may have managed to convince Timolas that this was not the case once. In any event, I will now attempt to clarify my position again.

Basically, I'm for change, provided it takes the series in a new and interesting direction rather than rehashing Warcraft I and II. But neither would I like to see the themes of Warcraft III wear themselves out endlessly. I would be happy, indeed more than happy with some new crisis among the orcs or Tauren. The Grimtotem could finally reveal their true colors, and storm Thunder Bluff, or tension could rise and eventually break in Orgrimmar between Thrall and another orcish leader (possibly Garrosh) over the future of the Horde.

ARM is right that we need more variety among the orcs. For that matter, we could use more variety among pretty much every other race except the humans. Orcs are either noble shamans or bloodthirsty, demon-cursed warriors. We need orcs that are not entirely altruistic for personal reasons: because of greed, resentment at past betrayals, and all the rest.

Without crisis, there can be no storytelling. Unlike Kenzuki and Drir, who rise up in arms and create another thread everytime something about the Warcraft II Alliance changes, I won't bitch and moan if something should happen to the new Horde. I will welcome the change, as long as it's a change rather than a repetition.

[Timolas]

What annoys me about changes is when they need a new story invented for them to make sense. They only make sense because Blizzard creates something to support that, but at the same time that makes all the old stuff outdated and invalid.
I'm all for progression as long as it's done properly. Unfortunately, from my point of view, I don't think that it is done as well as it could be in most cases.

For example, it is said that the Alliance didn't show interest in helping the Blood Elves get to Outland. That was invented to support them going with the Horde.
What the hell is the reasoning behind the Alliance not wanting to help them. We can speculate, sure, and even draw some sensible conclusions, such as the use of demonic magics. However that is just us pulling together canonical facts and putting them together. Just guessing.

The story would probably be way better off if it was managed by one guy who knows what he is doing, who has his story, his one opinion on how to move it forward etc. In Blizzard's case there are the game mechanics, playerbase, and a whole story team with different ideas and motives, creating problems more often than not.

[Kenzuki]

Good one Flame, good one. I love how I'm wrong for saying that the majority of troll kind or the undead are evil when all I've done is quote Blizzard material.

Anyways, I'm not pro Alliance. You may think this because I like to point out what the Horde has done in the past, this is not me bashing the Horde. I was a solid Horde fan during WarII and WarIII. That is until everyone seemed obessed with the idea that the orcs were always the good guys, and how the evil humans were unjustly hating them. I also do believe I've defended the Horde before on several occasions.

[Flamestrider]

I've heard everything you have to say thus far, Ken, and you're not saying anything new. You have not simply said that "the majority of undead are evil." You have explicitly stated that evil is fundamental to undead nature, that the process of becoming undead automatically turns its victims into sadists, and that undead are "bathed in the shadow" regardless of their actions. With trolls, too, you have claimed that evil is innate; that being a troll, simply put, makes you evil.

And sure, you're not pro-Alliance. You like the Horde of Warcraft II. In fact, you wish everything Blizzard has done in the past 10 years should be undone and Warcraft should return to the era of "two factions battle for dominance...", as you're so fond of saying. Don't even try to contest this point. Your general stance on the Warcraft World is "stick with the tried and true; original is bad." That's precisely the problem.

Timolas: You're right that many explanations in the Warcraft Universe, particularly in recent months, have left much lacking or been complete non sequiturs. However, this is not the fault of fresh material. It's t he fault of poor storytelling. That's an entirely different problem.

[Kenzuki]

Yup, most of what you said about my beliefs on the undead are true. As for trolls, when only about three tribes aren't pure out evil, I'de say that constitutes the majority of troll kind as evil.

Apparantly Blizzard shares my views on returning Warcraft to humans vs orcs.

[Timolas]

True Flame; though that's all I meant really. The fresh material could have a lot better storytelling to make it believable.
For example the Night Elves in the Ghostlands; that is without a doubt, quite obviously, simply implemented to make the Alliance seem like the guys working against the Blood Elves.
We have absolutely no idea why those Night Elves are there beyond spying. We don't know who sent them, their long term motives, etc. It's just something completely unexplained, poorly introduced and poorly executed that just makes me want to strangle somebody.

[Kenzuki]

To put it bluntly, Burning Crusade tried to be more "original" and look what happened. The fact is, people don't like original, it frightens them. Tried and true is what sells.

[Rowan Seven]

As for trolls, when only about three tribes aren't pure out evil, I'de say that constitutes the majority of troll kind as evil.


Please keep in mind that of those three tribes, two of them are good without apparent outside racial influences (unless you want to argue that the Warcraft II Horde had a positive effect on the Revantusk), and the Zandalar are the ORIGINAL troll tribe. The Zandalar are an example of what trolls can be and accomplish when they pursue knowledge rather than conquest.

To put it bluntly, Burning Crusade tried to be more "original" and look what happened. The fact is, people don't like original, it frightens them. Tried and true is what sells.

The flaw with "The Burning Crusade" isn't that it tried to be more original; the flaw with "The Burning Crusade" is the execution of the story. When "World of Warcraft" first shipped it was largely consistent with and faithfully continued and expanded the story established in Warcraft III. There were cracks, yes, but there were relatively small and could have been resolved. As the focus of the game shifted to raiding and what-not, though, these cracks became holes and what attempts to resolve them that Blizzard did make typically seemed either unsatisfactory or posed their own problems. For example, the "War of the Ancients" trilogy could have answered a lot of questions. Instead, it made things more confusing and created even more questions. This pattern continued into "The Burning Crusade" which is characterized by bursts of brilliant storytelling characteristic of Warcraft III and WoW when it first launched alongside either lackluster or dumbfounding developments. You free Teron Gorefiend? Awesome! You kill Teron Gorefiend in the Black Temple without a word of explanation? Eh?! Let's not even raise the matter of Medivh's Tower and Deadwind Pass...

[Timolas]

We have yet to understand how and with what the hell Lord Kazzak opened the Dark Portal. Or what on earth Kruul was looking for when he attacked the city. Aspect shards are what exactly?
Among other things.

[Kenzuki]

And who the hell is Prince Malchazzar?

[Flamestrider]

Yup, most of what you said about my beliefs on the undead are true. As for trolls, when only about three tribes aren't pure out evil, I'de say that constitutes the majority of troll kind as evil.

See, herein lies the problem. Since you're either unable or unwilling to differentiate between "many X are Y" and "Y is part of the fundamental nature of X," let me spell out the difference for you.

The Statement "a large number black Americans have lower incomes and less education than the national average" is not racist propaganda. It is sad, but true. Compare that to the statement "black Americans are naturally lazy, which is why they have lower incomes." That is racist, and untrue. What you're doing is conflating comparable examples in Warcraft: you treat "there are many examples of evil trolls and undead" as synonymous with "trolls and undead are evil by nature. This fallacy is precisely where discrimination comes from in the real world, so you should be able to understand why I'm less than tolerant of it.

Apparantly Blizzard shares my views on returning Warcraft to humans vs orcs.

For the record, I have never said that I am opposed to the idea of humans and orcs in conflict. If such a conflict carries the story in a new and interesting direction, I'm all for it. If, on the other hand it's an humans-good, orcs-bad carbon-copy of Warcraft I and II, I think we're better off without it.

To put it bluntly, Burning Crusade tried to be more "original" and look what happened. The fact is, people don't like original, it frightens them. Tried and true is what sells.

As Rowan said, originality was hardly the problem with Burning Crusade. Granted, the expansion contained original threads that were handled poorly (Karazhan, for instance). But it contained just as many fresh ideas that were dynamic and inspiring: the feel of Zangarmarsh is unlike anything we've seen in Warcraft, or most fantasy, for that matter, and it's one of the most visually compelling regions in the game. The Black Temple Video, and the online story about the Broken, were both very solid all around. The scene of Illidan's death was fitting, if somewhat lacking in subtelty.

I could go on and on, or I could produce examples of new concepts from earlier games: Goblins. Dragons. The Burning Legion. Kalimdor. Night Elves. Tauren. The Forsaken. Dark Iron Dwarves. If Blizzard had decided from the beginning to stick with tried and true, the known world of Azeroth would consist of Elwynn Forest, the Swamp of Sorrows, and the Burning Steppes. The Alliance would not exist. I don't think that's what you or anybody else wants.

[Kenzuki]

Somehow eqauting the walking dead to colored folks seems to be a warped comparasion.

[Flamestrider]

Okay, so you can't grasp the meaning of an analogy. Fair enough.

All I said was that there is a big difference between noting a trait that exists in a certain population and assuming that the trait is innate. The fact that the two are frequently conflated, unfortunately, is the reason people discriminate. You're making this same unfortunate assumption when you turn the true statement "there are many evil, free-willed undead" into "undead are evil by nature."

PS: People haven't said "colored folks" for at least fifty years. Just thought I should let you know.

[Kenzuki]

Okay, so you can't grasp the meaning of an analogy. Fair enough.

All I said was that there is a big difference between noting a trait that exists in a certain population and assuming that the trait is innate. The fact that the two are frequently conflated, unfortunately, is the reason people discriminate. You're making this same unfortunate assumption when you turn the true statement "there are many evil, free-willed undead" into "undead are evil by nature."

PS: People haven't said "colored folks" for at least fifty years. Just thought I should let you know.


Pardon me, where I grew up "colored folks" was the more respectable term for black people.

Let's do some logic here.

Certain beings have certain natures that they follow because it is a part of what they are. Trolls are up for debate as they are just a regular race like humans, orcs, etc. The Undead, are a magical creation, simular to an elemental or a demon and as such there are certain rules that apply to that being.

Demons and Undead are born from and are bathed in the Shadow, this is a fact. The Shadow represents all the negativity in the Universe, thus it's only natural that they lean towards negative actions as opposed to positive ones. you can't change this because to do so would require you to change the being's very nature.

[Remnant]

Well, lets see...

(incoming train of thought)

In WoW, we do have instances of species/races that are treated as, if not inherently evil, evil inclined. The Centaur, for example. Or Harpies. We have other races that are evil-by-taint. Even if they weren't evil, some corruption as effected the entire race, or the vast bulk of it, so they are treated as either evil, or homicidally insane.

So, the premise of a race, within the Warcraft system, being painted as "evil" isn't outlandish in and of itself.

The Forsaken are odd, because they were once human. It's safe to say that humanity in Warcraft isn't inherently good or evil, so any general evil within the Forsaken that may or may not exist isn't going to come from that aspect of them.

The undead of the scourge are certainly evil, at least, in so far as the Lich King is evil, as they are more or less extentions of his will.

But the Forsaken aren't controlled by the Lich King- they've had their wills returned to them. This leaves the question, is the state of undeath itself such that there is some ambient, inherent evil in it?

I don't think that there's enough lore to really answer that decisively one way or the other. Certainly, there are some bluntly evil members of Sylvanas's faction. Many of the members of the RAS are much more insidiously black hearted than anything the centaur or harpies throw at you. Some of these members weren't "evil" prior to their undeath, but came back from their slavery rather twisted. This suggests that there may be something to the argument that undeath itself carries with it a certain degree of inherent evil.

Of course, there's individuals like Bartholomew of the Argent Dawn who are indisputably "good". So, if there is some inherent evil in the Forsaken's undeath, it's not so great that it cannot be overcome, not so inherent that it will warp every personality it comes in contact with.

And because of that, we're left to questions of the individual personality and will. Yes, one could argue that, if the inherent evil exists, then forsaken would be slightly more likely to act in evil ways, but the same could be said of anyone under extreme hardship- the Defias reacted poorly to a non-magical hardship, and began to act in evil ways, but they are (mostly) human, and not inherently evil.

And certainly, the forsaken are no strangers to hardship. I mean, they all died already.

Thus, I don't believe it matters whether or not there is some inherent, magical evil left in the Forsaken, because it has the same effect as mundane hardship, if any. It may cause them more likely to act in evil ways, but, it does not dictate their actions, and they are able to, as individuals, reject such actions.

The practical effect is, if the inherent evil exists, it is a non-factor.

[Flamestrider]

I've heard all of that before, Kenzuki. The fact is, Blizzard has never been clear on the precise magical nature of undeath. Some people on these forums, like Drir and yourself, are of the opinion that the Forsaken are actually held together and animated by active magical energies, specifically dark ones. You also believe that perpetual contact with negative energy makes the recipient innately evil. That's all very well, except for the fact that there's no proof whatsoever. The existence of noble forsaken, and more to the point, human forsaken, who still feel the pain of betrayals during their lives and really just want to be left in peace are all evidence to the contrary. For the most part, the Forsaken are as they were in life, only somewhat more cynical and bitter, as are many survivors of terrible tragedies that befell them for no good reason.

In any event, we've been through this before. That's not even what I wanted to talk about here. The point I wanted to make, which has been lost in all this talk about the undead, is that originality is healthy, indeed necessary, for any series to remain remotely interesting. Do you see what I mean now?

[Yuber8900]

So evil people can't be noble?

Damn there go about half my bad guy concepts...

[Kenzuki]

I've heard all of that before, Kenzuki. The fact is, Blizzard has never been clear on the precise magical nature of undeath. Some people on these forums, like Drir and yourself, are of the opinion that the Forsaken are actually held together and animated by active magical energies, specifically dark ones. You also believe that perpetual contact with negative energy makes the recipient innately evil. That's all very well, except for the fact that there's no proof whatsoever. The existence of noble forsaken, and more to the point, human forsaken, who still feel the pain of betrayals during their lives and really just want to be left in peace are all evidence to the contrary. For the most part, the Forsaken are as they were in life, only somewhat more cynical and bitter, as are many survivors of terrible tragedies that befell them for no good reason.

In any event, we've been through this before. That's not even what I wanted to talk about here. The point I wanted to make, which has been lost in all this talk about the undead, is that originality is healthy, indeed necessary, for any series to remain remotely interesting. Do you see what I mean now?

I think I have all the proof I need.

[Flamestrider]

Um...such as?

[Kenzuki]

Um...such as?

98% of people who become undead are corrupted in some way, shape, or fashion. Ergo there must be something naturally corrupting about the process of becoming undead, it's also a proven fact that all undead are bathed in the Shadow. This is why healing spells of the Holy Light sear and burn their flesh whether or not they are good or evil.

[Flamestrider]

98% of the people who become undead are the armorers, peasants, farmers, husbands, wives, and so on and so forth who currently populate Lordaeron and basically go on with their daily lives. A very small percentage of the Forsaken have done anything that would be regarded as evil on anybody's moral compass.

Regarding "bathed in the Shadow," it's not a proven fact. It's your conclusion based solely on the evidence that in some but not all sources of lore, any exposure to the light sears undead flesh.

[Timolas]

Well while I'm sick to death of old arguements, it really is the Forsaken who want to be left in peace who are the minority. Honestly, most of the Forsaken we meet are pretty deranged, sadistic or simply cold and single minded. They're not loners out to live a life as normal as possible. They aren't pacifists. They're military minded, insane and dark in general.
I did not use the word evil.

[Kerrah]

Well while I'm sick to death of old arguements, it really is the Forsaken who want to be left in peace who are the minority. Honestly, most of the Forsaken we meet are pretty deranged, sadistic or simply cold and single minded. They're not loners out to live a life as normal as possible. They aren't pacifists. They're military minded, insane and dark in general.
I did not use the word evil.

How many Human NPCs in WoW do you know who don't either kill someone or have you kill someone? Even that girl who wants to turn invisible has you eventually slaughtering innocent pigs and a kobold.

It's the same thing as in Pokémon, every mothafucking person in the universe has something to do with capturing, training and fighting Pokémon.

WoW game stuff =/= proof.

[Timolas]

Difference being the motives and what exactly you kill. In the case of the Forsaken it is mostly without innocent intentions. You kill wild animals - to get ingredients for poison. You kill civilians... for... some reason.
Forsaken civilians in general tend to have that bastard, cynical, cold attitude and "I only feet hate and want vengeance" kind of thing. Then there are of course, just random Forsaken NPCs that don't do anything out of the ordinary besides decay.

What I've wondered, which is unrelated, is what Forsaken are doing as members of the Burning Legion, specifically Felsworn in Outland. We also see plenty of others in places and factions they have nothing to do with that I can tell. Kind of confusing.

[Kenzuki]

98% of the people who become undead are the armorers, peasants, farmers, husbands, wives, and so on and so forth who currently populate Lordaeron and basically go on with their daily lives. A very small percentage of the Forsaken have done anything that would be regarded as evil on anybody's moral compass.

Regarding "bathed in the Shadow," it's not a proven fact. It's your conclusion based solely on the evidence that in some but not all sources of lore, any exposure to the light sears undead flesh.

Actually the Horde Player's Guide does say they were born from the Shadow. And the other RPG books says that the undead and demons are the enemies of the Light because they embody destruction and entropy. Necromancy is not called the black arts for nothing mate. It came from demons, there is nothing good in it.

[Yuber8900]

Actually the Horde Player's Guide does say they were born from the Shadow. And the other RPG books says that the undead and demons are the enemies of the Light because they embody destruction and entropy. Necromancy is not called the black arts for nothing mate. It came from demons, there is nothing good in it.

Say that to Johann Faust VIII.

[Flamestrider]

"Born from the shadow" and "bathed in the shadow" are not synonymous. The former implies that they were created by dark necromatic magic, which is not being disputed. Everybody knows that. The latter implies that necromancy sustains their animation; that their life-blood, so to speak, is negative energy. That is conjecture.

Tim: Everybody agrees that the members of the RAS are generally pretty evil bastards. The leaders deathguard have also been shown to be horribly merciless in their methods. But most of the miscellaneous Forsaken quests you can pick up are from regular civilians, haunted by some tragedy in their past that they ask you to help set right. These quests are no more sadistic than any other "kill that guy I don't like" quests in WoW.

[Kenzuki]

Not according to the RPG it's not.

[ARM3481]

It still hasn't been entirely set in stone just what the Shadow is, as far as its capacity for directly influencing things. On the one hand at times it seems like simply the inverse of the Light; the opposite sides of the same overarching essence of reality and inseperable from each other. Other times it's portrayed as a sort of "lack of the Light", such as when a Naaru is bereft of the Light's energy and becomes something empty and dark until it regains that power.

For the Forsaken it often feels more like the representation of an idea than some big "pool" of dark energy they found and started tapping. Like the Shadow is in essence their absolute denial of the Light which failed to save them. It isn't like the various sentient or otherwise "active" forces of evil, deliberately driving those it touches to behave a certain way. Instead the Shadow doesn't seem intended to be any more self-aware than the Light is, and in fact comes across as more of a "result" when it manifests. At times it seems to bear the occasional moniker "Forgotten Shadow" because it's unusual for anyone to even comprehend it as a real and distinct force in the universe without having first willfully abandoned the Light and succumbed to ultimate despair. After all, it'd hardly be in keeping with their nature for the demons of the Legion to willingly acknowledge that they're just borrowing their dark energies from some greater power in the universe.

Dark magic may be involved in sustaining the undeath of the Forsaken, but there's a lot of "mundane" interaction involved. Renaimation in WC often involves a heavy dose of what passes for science in that world, specifically through the use of alchemy, and the Plague in particular is as much a "scientific" medly of potions and mixtures as it is a manifestation of necromantic power. It could be that the magic component is just the catalytic impetus that starts the reanimation, and that from then on they're kept functioning by an alchemically mutated biology that kicks in as part of the process of being made undead by the Plague. It could even provide a reasonable backup for the game mechanic-oriented change from undead to humanoid in WoW. The Scourge undead could be rife with energies of undeath because as part of the Scourge, as they are prepetually immersed in the will and commands of the Lich King, as well as contributing to the strength he draws from each soul under his control, and so they are vulnerable to things which specifically cause harm to entities possessed of those energies. the Forsaken, on the other hand, aren't part of that psychic "communal enslavement" and could physically be bereft of actual necromantic energy, now running entirely on the physical, organic systems that the Plague first initiated. At the same time, any undead created without the Plague would be vulnerable as well because if spells alone reanimated them, then the spells would remain ever-present within them to sustain their undead state.

[Kenzuki]

The Blight Plague was necromantic in nature, which is both a type of arcane magic and yet also borrows power from The Shadow it would seem. Thus the Forsaken and any other undead risen by the Blight Plague would have been animated by these powers and indeed it is the thing keeping them animated. This is my opinion of course based on what information we have, you may feel otherwise in that the Forsaken are considered "living creatures" even though they are called "The Undead"

[Nerub29]

I had read all of your comments regarding the problems you think Burning Crusade has in its lore. And I agree with many of the things you say. However, I have beggining to ponder myself with one question.

Why if these criticisms were adressed at Blizzard Forums (both European and USA) under a well prepared, easy to read and eye-catching format? Could it change somethings in the development of WoftLK, improving them considerably?

Well, I don't actually expect that the developers pay attention to it, but it's in the range of the possibilty, an interesting possibility indeed and it could save the community of a lot of "lorelol".

However, such thing should be done carefuly and with good preparation. Not only dragging some pieces of texts from one place and another and copy-paste them, but it would actually require a very good thought process, agude sense, intense revision, and of course, getting rid of any "agressive" stance: "Is more effective to atract flies with honey than vinegar" (or at least that is what I would suggest).

Why? Well.....why not?:P

In another theme, why are the nerubians cited as worshippers of an Old god, when, if I remember, they had the thought that "it's unseful to worship beings that they don't care or want to destroy you" or something similar? (<<< May I ask you: Should I open a thread for this question or move it to one of the expansion threads?).

[ARM3481]

In another theme, why are the nerubians cited as worshippers of an Old god, when, if I remember, they had the thought that "it's unseful to worship beings that they don't care or want to destroy you" or something similar? (<<< May I ask you: Should I open a thread for this question or move it to one of the expansion threads?).

The Nerubians are only suspected of perhaps having connections to an Old God, in part because their cousins the Qiraji are actually serving one. Whether Cthun actually kept any hold over the Nerubians by the time they departed is unknown. It's possible that they simply became too geologically remote for his influence to affect them from beneath the sands of Silithus. It's fairly likely that the Faceless Ones and Forgotten One beneath Northrend are affiliated with an Old God given that they share the same "tentacled and shapeless" motif that accompanies the Old Gods' Lovecraftian theme, but even their connection isn't a 100% verified fact, and even if they are the specifics of their reltaionship with the Old Gods remain unknown. Whatever the case, upon discovering these creatures in WC3, Anub'arak seems noticeably shaken, as if he's encountering something long thought dead and gone, or at least as if some legendary terror from the distant past had suddenly materialized before him. It could be that the Forgotten One and Faceless Ones were simply present when the Nerubians first split from the original Aqir race and moved north, and were forced farther underground by the arriving swarms of spider-people. Or perhaps they always were nothing more than legend as far as the Nerubians were concerned, being only rarely encountered by those who traveled far enough beneath the earth to reach them. However, Anub'arak seemed downright startled (or as startled as his dead, emotionless voice allows for, anyway) to find that these creatures were more than legend and in fact existed, so whatever connections link them seem to have blured over time, or he'd have not been so surprised to see them.

[Omacron]

It's been all but confirmed at blizzcon that the forgotten one is an old god.

[Kerrah]

It's been all but confirmed at blizzcon that the forgotten one is an old god.

What would be the idea to kill it off in tFT when you can raid it in WoW?