It is logical that he would betray her sooner or later, if he thinks of the Forsaken as animals.

You didn't answer my question.

__________________
"Noble countrymen, evil is upon us. Darkness has befallen our shores. Rise and slay thy enemies� strike, strike so others shall live. The meek shall not fade into the night� live my brethren, live." - King Terenas Menethil II

Off-topic: I like how Fojar avoids the main point of the argument whenever he's confronted, proceeding then to search for flaws in the argumentation process just to feel reassured that he's right.

It makes me think of my country's politicians.

You aren't the first person who's been reduced to cheerleading after I trash them in an argument so don't feel bad.

__________________
"Noble countrymen, evil is upon us. Darkness has befallen our shores. Rise and slay thy enemies� strike, strike so others shall live. The meek shall not fade into the night� live my brethren, live." - King Terenas Menethil II

Did you? Pages ago, I gave my last argument to my point, and you chose to ignore it. The debate can't go on if you don't respond to it.

Until then, I'll watch how you do the very same thing every single time you get confronted with a point.

I don't think that you actually understood my grievances even once in this thread, there isn't much of an argument to be had if you don't even understand my position.

__________________
"Noble countrymen, evil is upon us. Darkness has befallen our shores. Rise and slay thy enemies� strike, strike so others shall live. The meek shall not fade into the night� live my brethren, live." - King Terenas Menethil II

You are right Fojar.

Fine, I'll include you.

__________________
"Noble countrymen, evil is upon us. Darkness has befallen our shores. Rise and slay thy enemies� strike, strike so others shall live. The meek shall not fade into the night� live my brethren, live." - King Terenas Menethil II

The answer is fairly simple: Because the writers didn't want to. It was even a miracle that they were allowed to join the Horde.

From an ingame perspective: After a Zombie Apocalypse, you and your friends have survived. Bad thing is that you are now a zombie, too. Your friends have turned into religipus fanatics- and to be honest, the Holy light doesn't like you. It burns you. The few friends that still like you are not really liled by your new fanatic enemies.

There was a guy named Garithos that helped you against the Scourge. But only if you and thousands of other zombies like you leave your homeland. After that you are most likely lynched by a mob of humans that doesn' t want you inside their homeland. Or anywhere else. Tricky decision. You kill Garithos.

What choices do you have? Kil...or be killed. Because you strangely maintained your survival instinct, you chose the former. This makes you enemies. Your former friends probably told the other humans in the South that you are not better than the Scourge- after all, you chose to kill the humans that either want to kill you or are glad when you are killed. Moreover, the humans in the South follow the Ligjt- it burns you and that hurts.

There are no living beings that like you. But you need allies. Well, there is the Horde across the sea that probably will reject you, but hey, better than nothing. If they let you join, you would have a common enemy- the humans that are constantly trying to kill you.
Defeating the Scourge is your long.term goal- after all, it sucks to be a zombie. Vendetta! Vendetta! If you need human experiments... well, kill or be killed. You start to harrass pumpkin farmers. But first things first. Allies...

A miracle happens! A Tauren Tribe is willing to help you and convinces the Horde! So you decide...

Garithos may have been a jerk, but that's not what got him killed. Sylvanas made the decision to use him (and then eliminate him) before she even spoke with him. Had another human leader (like Mograine or Tirion) been in his place, they would have met the same fate.

Are you kidding? Letting the Forsaken into the Horde was a round about way of winning the 2nd War. All of the lands, the peoples, the cities now belong to the Horde. I'm sure Thrall laughed his ass off at accomplishing what even Doomhammer was unable to accomplish while barely even lifting a finger in the process.

Stupid Alliance. Even when they win, they end up losing anyway.

This is a story you made up. I was looking for an actual explanation why, if the Forsaken were the people of Lordaeron with skin conditions, they wouldn't rejoin the Alliance. You keep on saying "The Alliance was trying to kill them" but haven't supplied anything to back that up beyond fanon. The Scarlets certainly tried to kill them, but as Humans of Lordaeron with a history in the Alliance the Forsaken surely should know the difference here.

__________________
"Noble countrymen, evil is upon us. Darkness has befallen our shores. Rise and slay thy enemies� strike, strike so others shall live. The meek shall not fade into the night� live my brethren, live." - King Terenas Menethil II

I disagree with the assertion that the Alliance had a story in Warcraft III. Blizzard only builds the Alliance up to tear it down and to enable the Horde to be developed, to show how badass they are. This is consistent with everything we've ever seen. The Alliance has no agency. When the Alliance should be doing something, have some influence or perspective on events, they are a total no show.

However, Fojar is correct about everything else.

Basically anything involving Arthas was something of an Alliance story.

__________________
"Noble countrymen, evil is upon us. Darkness has befallen our shores. Rise and slay thy enemies� strike, strike so others shall live. The meek shall not fade into the night� live my brethren, live." - King Terenas Menethil II

A tragedy is a story... that's like saying "Macbeth isn't a story about Macbeth because it ends badly for him". It's so juvenile.

__________________
"The Demons did their job well. You creatures are as reckless and bloodthirsty as they ever were."

A story about one man is not a story about an entire group. The fact is the Alliance were merely in a supporting role for the Horde and the Scourge in Warcraft III.

The question is: Do the humans know the difference? Or are the Forsaken a little "less Lordaeronian" than the Lordaeron refugees for them?

My point wasn't so much that the new Alliance attacked the Forsaken. My point was that the Forsaken considered it unsafe to join the Alliance- which is heavily influenced by the Church.

Ask yourself: Would it have been a good idea to join a faction full of light worshippers as an undead? If you, just you because you are an unholy creatute, could be pulverized by a light spell?Even if the few Lordaeronians in the Alliance tried to protect their undead brethren- how much could they do against an angry mob of light worshippers?

The membership of the Forsaken would end immediately if a less tolerant Archbishop would cry: HERESY! And even the more moderate archbishop- who doesn't sympathize with the Scarlets- remained silent. That pretty much speaks for itself.

The common folk can be manipulated easily- what persons the Forsaken were before their undeath wouldn't matter then.

My theory is that the Forsaken's decision was based on assumptions regarding the reaction of the Church-maybe they were right, maybe wrong. They didn't really want to find out. The Scarlets were enough for them.

But is is said on the race page that the Forsaken sent diplomats to many factions- not only the Horde. The only conclusion is that they either didn't want to join or were rejected.

Fact is: There wasn't a Hamuul Runetotem in the Alliance. Furthermore, the reactions of shamans ingame regarding the Forsaken always tended to be more positive than that of a Light Priest.

Light and Undeath exclude each other and Undead Light worshippers are nothing more than masochists.

If the Forsaken feel as Lordaeronians, they feel that they can be Lordaeronians without the Alliance and their Church. They founded their own religion instead: The Cult of the Forgotten Shadow.

The funny thing about that is that the Horde is now guilty of luring the Legion to Azeroth (via Blood Elves being descendants of the Highborne), encroaching on the Amani's sacred lands (via Blood Elves when they were High Elves during the Troll Wars), and the internment camps fiasco (via the Forsaken when they were still living Lordaeronians).

PS: I'm making a joke reference on how Garrosh was convicted of Second War crimes due to his association with the Dragonmaw.

__________________

It's more like saying, "Macbeth isn't a story about Scotland." Or perhaps, "Julius Caesar isn't a story about Julius Caesar; it's about Brutus."


EDIT: But allow me a moment to be lucid. Yes, the beginning of Warcraft III is an Alliance story. But it's a weak Alliance story, and from a lore perspective it is at least equal parts Scourge story. Your protagonist character severs himself from all the surrounding Alliance leadership by Mission 5 (yes, he meets up with Muradin later), he's openly defying his king a couple missions later, and then he's killed the last Alliance hero connected with him, and then he's literally transformed into the Scourge faction. It's a gradual road your character travels from Alliance to Scourge.

I often compare this to the Cataclysm proto-Worgen opening quests. It is a story about the fall of Gilneas, and I consider it a Gilneas story because your character is fighting for Gilneas. Even when you become Worgen and certain human Gilneans mistrust you, you the character are still doing your best for Gilneas and for humanity/worgenity. You are a hero in the tragedy of Gilneas's fall; you are not the antagonist.

But going back to Warcraft III and the Alliance, do you know what the worst part is? The Horde campaign gave two missions from Grom's perspective. The Night Elf campaign gave one mission from Illidan's perspective. In Frozen Throne you get some clean division between Maiev and the Tyrande group, and between Arthas and Sylvanas, when these groups have completely different goals from each other. And yet, the RoC Alliance campaign is 100% Arthas perspective. The FT Alliance campaign is... well, I haven't played it yet so I don't know if it's 100% Kael'Thas or if we get to switch to Illidan's perspective again... but it's not shared with any characters actually fighting for the Alliance.

In Reign of Chaos, how hard would it have been for 1-3 missions from Jaina's perspective? In Frozen Throne, how hard to make a mission or two from the Lordaeron living's perspective? It could've been Garithos but it wouldn't HAVE to be... Garithos himself was made up for FT as was Maiev, Kael'Thas, and Rexxar, so Blizzard could've made up anyone for a sympathetic Alliance perspective.

When I say "There was no Alliance campaign in Warcraft III," it's a hyperbole to encompass that Blizzard never gave us a single mission from a character who wasn't Arthas or Kael'Thas, the latter of which nobody pretends to be Alliance and the former of which is an icon of the Scourge.

In the future, I'll try to think of a fairer way of presenting that opinion without the hyperbole.

It is funny, because it is true

My mind is blown.

. . .

The Horde is responsible for invading the Horde and the Horde and trying to wipe them both out.

The Horde is responsible for imprisoning the Horde in internment camps with living conditions sometimes indistinguishable from slavery.

The Horde is responsible for hunting down the Horde and ruthlessly exterminating them, out of vengeance.

The Horde is responsible for dragging the Horde into a war it did not need to fight and for failing to protect them from destruction at the hands of the Horde.

The Horde is responsible for drawing critical armies from Horde territory to defend other fronts, allowing lands of the Horde to be overwhelmed by the invading forces of the Horde.

The Horde is responsible for abandoning the Horde and allowing it to be destroyed by the Scourge. (Or is that the Horde?)

The Horde is responsible for producing Arthas and allowing him to wreak havoc on the Horde.

While we're on the topic, the Horde is responsible for producing Arthas, Garithos, and Blackmoore.

The Horde is responsible for collaborating with Illidan's forces and plunging into allegiance with the Burning Legion, the knife-eared ingrates.

The Horde is responsible for imprisoning Horde royalty without just cause and for nearly having him and his people executed, the racist bastards.

Will there ever be peace? BRUTAL HORDE-ON-HORDE WARFARE:




(Psss, he's a Revantusk so it counts.)

10/10

Would read again.

And of course, the Cult of the Forgotten Shadow is hardly even acknowledged ingame, though we know it exists.

Personally, I think the Forsaken have a lot of timegaps in their individual histories for anything to be fit in as an explanation for each individual.

Unless Sylvanas had magical freewill sense, it must logically stand that it took the Forsaken quite a bit of time for them to hear about and find one another. It's possible that a lot of Forsaken only joined up with her after they realized that they didn't really have any other better options.

Again, these are all stories you made up. Do you have any actual proof of any of this, considering I can cite two instances off the top of my head of the opposite (The Forsaken not being killed on site in Dalaran and the Alliance ultimately letting Death Knights in even in spite of all of their bad history with the undead in WotLK.)

The holiest of holy people, the Argents, also admit the Forsaken. Why don't the "Humans of Lordaeron" join them?

__________________
"Noble countrymen, evil is upon us. Darkness has befallen our shores. Rise and slay thy enemies� strike, strike so others shall live. The meek shall not fade into the night� live my brethren, live." - King Terenas Menethil II

At least the Death Knights generally regret what they've done and promptly turn their blades on the Scourge.

__________________