This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
War in Lordaeron
Return to board index
Post by
4dehorde
The war in Lordaeron. The Alliance seeks to take it from the Forsaken. The Alliance feels because of their strong history with the region and the fact that they have some survivors of the Third War among them, Lordaeron belongs to them. The Forsaken feel because they were citizens of Lordaeron in life, it is theirs too in undeath. To them, the Alliance appears as conquerors trying to take their homes.
I believe while both sides have a rightful claim to the region, both also need to recognize the other has just as much a right to the land as they do. Many in the Alliance call the Forsaken invaders, when in fact the Forsaken have always lived (and afterlived) in the region. Perhaps they got that idea from the Gilneas Invasion. The Forsaken see the Alliance as invaders for what they have done recently, with the failed Silverpine and Hillsbrad invasions. Ultimately the struggle is about territory, and it has greatly contributed to one side's impression of the other. The Alliance sees the Forsaken as souless monsters and the Forsaken see the humans as greedy, murderous thieves. Neither side really understands the other, and in turn, as with most wars, this is adding fuel to the fire.
Post by
Adamsm
Arathi belonged to Stromgarde, which has two princes; one prince was killed by the Forsaken and raised up as new servant, who hates what he has become. Gilneas was defending themselves against a force that attacked them, and killed the prince of the country. Hillsbrad had weapons of mass destruction used on two locations: Southshore was blighted and the Stormpike lands had a goblin nuke dropped on them.....and the Frostwolves disagreed with what the Forsaken were planning, as Drek'thar makes that very clear.
Over all, it's a bad war for both sides.
Post by
4dehorde
True, but the Stormpike camps were blown up because they were about to stage an invasion from them. For years the Forsaken and the Alliance had been attacking one another in skirmishes all across Hillsbrad, and I think we always knew one day the two sides would go head on. In the end, the Forsaken won. The issue with Drek'Thar is a tricky one. He was standing up for his beliefs which is admirable, but he was willing to risk Horde lives (not just Forsaken) because of it, which is condemnable.
Gilneas was a neutral nation, and granted I will admit the invasion there was unnecessary. If it had been Alliance-alinged beforehand, then it would be understandable, but since it was nuetral, it was uncalled for. But in Arathi, Stromgarde is alinged with the Alliance, and it is understandable the Forsaken are now attacking an ally of their enemy. The Alliance sought to reclaim Andorhal, but the Forsaken wanted to add another piece of Lordaeron (their homeland) to their empire, and wanted to prevent the Alliance from gaining a foothold so close to Tirisfal, the heart of their territory.
Post by
Adamsm
Again though: The Forsaken have killed 2 princes of Alliance blood and in the case of Galen, gave him a fate worse then death.
Post by
4dehorde
Again though: The Forsaken have killed 2 princes of Alliance blood and in the case of Galen, gave him a fate worse then death.
Technically when Liane was killed Gilneas was still independent. Keep in mind the Forsaken did not assassinate him, he died on the battlefield. I don't know the details of Galen's death, but he doesn't seem too advent on sending Horde adventurers out to kill his former countrymen. Don't get me wrong, it is sad they perished and they were indeed heroes of their country, but this is war.
Also, I think the main reason behind the Forsaken's ferocity in the war with the Alliance is their perception of humans. For years on end the Forsaken have been hounded and terrorized by the Scarlet Crusade. Captive Forsaken were viciously tortured for weeks, even months. They were forced to experience the incredibly sadistic actions of the over-zealous humans, and this has over time solidified the Forsaken perception of humanity. While the Scarlets are now all but destroyed, the trauma still remains. Just as the trauma of the undead Scourge attacks remains with humans in the Alliance, so to does the memory of human ferocity remain with the Forsaken.
Post by
Adamsm
Again though: The Forsaken have killed 2 princes of Alliance blood and in the case of Galen, gave him a fate worse then death.
Technically when Liane was killed Gilneas was still independent. Keep in mind the Forsaken did not assassinate him, he died on the battlefield. I don't know the details of Galen's death, but he doesn't seem too advent on sending Horde adventurers out to kill his former countrymen. Don't get me wrong, it is sad they perished and they were indeed heroes of their country, but this is war.And? In the case of Galen, he's forced, due the fact that he was resurrected by the Val'kyr to make war on his people, and kill and murder them without any chance at all of escape. He's a slave of the Forsaken and makes it very clear he would rather be dead.
Also, I think the main reason behind the Human's ferocity in the war with the Horde is their perception of Undead. For years on end the Forsaken have captured, tortured, murdered and slew the Scarlet Crusade. Captive Cursaders were viciously tortured for weeks, even months as they were force fed poisons and the start of the Blight. They were forced to experience the incredibly sadistic actions of the over-zealous RAS, and this has over time solidified the human perception of undeath. While RAS are now all but destroyed, the trauma still remains. Just as the trauma of the undead Scourge attacks remains with humans in the Alliance, so to does the memory of undead experiments remain with the rest of the Human race.As you can see, that can easily be turned around; the things the Forsaken did, whether or not it was to the completely insane Scarlet's, are just as bad as what they took.
Nothing is ever black or white, especially in the world of Azeroth.
Post by
4dehorde
As you can see, that can easily be turned around; the things the humans did, whether or not it was to the obsessed RAS, are just as bad as what they took.
Indeed it can be turned around. It goes with the saying "two sides to every conflict."
And? In the case of Galen, he's forced, due the fact that he was resurrected by the Val'kyr to make war on his people, and kill and murder them without any chance at all of escape. He's a slave of the Forsaken and makes it very clear he would rather be dead.
Even if he is forced I think the Forsaken turned him because they wanted someone with rich knowledge of their enemy on their side. I believe it was a matter of tactical practicality, more so than just cruelty. That doesn't make it right, but the Forsaken didn't turn him just to be mean.
Nothing is ever black or white, especially in the world of Azeroth.
That is true. Both sides want what is best for their people and they are stuck in their misconceptions of the other.
Post by
Gone
This is much better than your earlier posts.
Honestly I kind of look at the forsaken as unatural, if it werent for military necesity in northern Lorderan the Horde probobly wouldnt even have taken them in. Im not saying their all evil, but they are cursed, and not like Worgen where they can still live a normal life, they are in a state of constant pain, many of them have been warped and twisted.
Im not saying all the Forsaken should be lynched, but I dont think that raising up humans in Silverpine as new Forsaken is a good idea, I think the ones that are alive now should just be allowed to live their lives untill their race eventualy dies out.
So as to Lorderan, I think the Alliance should really just leave it alone untill the Forsaken die out in a few generations...
Post by
4dehorde
This is much better than your earlier posts.
Honestly I kind of look at the forsaken as unatural, if it werent for military necesity in northern Lorderan the Horde probobly wouldnt even have taken them in. Im not saying their all evil, but they are cursed, and not like Worgen where they can still live a normal life, they are in a state of constant pain, many of them have been warped and twisted.
Im not saying all the Forsaken should be lynched, but I dont think that raising up humans in Silverpine as new Forsaken is a good idea, I think the ones that are alive now should just be allowed to live their lives untill their race eventualy dies out.
That is good to hear from someone on the other side. True, the undead are all "unatural", but they are still a race. I think the reasons behind the raising humans into undeath in Silverpine was a matter of defense. The Alliance was, for a time, winning in that battle and the Forsaken needed to bolster their numbers fast. It doesn't justify their actions, but it does explain their reasons for doing it.
As dialoge reveals at Deathknell, the dead risen there are those who were dead before this war and moved in from all around to be risen at that location. The risen there are given a choice of whether or not to serve. Those who won't join, like Lillian Voss, are allowed to go on their way. Others sign up willingly, like Valred Moray.
I believe after years of persecution from the Scarlet Crusade, the Forsaken are stuck in the misconception that humans are undead-hating, genocidal zealots who want to destroy them all and steal their homeland. The recent Alliance invasions of Silverpine and Hillsbrad has only cemented this idea further into their heads. The ferocity and harshness at which the Forsaken attack nowadays is in accordance with the tactic "best defense is a good offense". They want to remove the threat before it can do them any more harm. Likewise, the harsh and fierce methods of the Forsaken has caused many in the Alliance to generalize the Forsaken as evil conquerors.
Like I said, it is misconceptions like these that are adding fuel to the fire.
Post by
Atik
And? In the case of Galen, he's forced, due the fact that he was resurrected by the Val'kyr to make war on his people, and kill and murder them without any chance at all of escape. He's a slave of the Forsaken and makes it very clear he would rather be dead.
.
Doesn't a Val'kyr rez leave you free?
I never finished Arathi, but I am fairly sure that was how it worked out in every zone prior...
Post by
4dehorde
And? In the case of Galen, he's forced, due the fact that he was resurrected by the Val'kyr to make war on his people, and kill and murder them without any chance at all of escape. He's a slave of the Forsaken and makes it very clear he would rather be dead.
.
Doesn't a Val'kyr rez leave you free?
I never finished Arathi, but I am fairly sure that was how it worked out in every zone prior...
From what I understand, yes. People seem to confuse Val'kyr with necromancers, but as seen in Deathknell, undead risen by Val'kyr have their free will intact. That is the difference between Val'kyr and necromancers.
Post by
Monday
I believe while both sides have a rightful claim to the region, both also need to recognize the other has just as much a right to the land as they do. Many in the Alliance call the Forsaken invaders, when in fact the Forsaken have always lived (and afterlived) in the region. Perhaps they got that idea from the Gilneas Invasion.
...
Read that again. "Some call the Forsaken invaders (even though they aren't). Maybe it's because they invaded Gilneas."
That would imply that they are invaders since they, you know, invaded another country they had no claim to.
Post by
4dehorde
I believe while both sides have a rightful claim to the region, both also need to recognize the other has just as much a right to the land as they do. Many in the Alliance call the Forsaken invaders, when in fact the Forsaken have always lived (and afterlived) in the region. Perhaps they got that idea from the Gilneas Invasion.
...
Read that again. "Some call the Forsaken invaders (even though they aren't). Maybe it's because they invaded Gilneas."
That would imply that they are invaders since they, you know, invaded another country they had no claim to.
Don't put words in my mouth. I was referring to Lordaeron. Some people call the Forsaken invaders of Lordaeron, which is blatantly incorrect, seeing as they have always called Lordaeron home. They say invasion, I say national defense.
Post by
Monday
Then be clearer.
Post by
4dehorde
Then be clearer.
I said...
Many in the Alliance call the Forsaken invaders, when in fact the Forsaken have always lived (and afterlived) in the region
I thought it would be rather obvious. The only region the Forsaken call home is Lordaeron.
Regardless, what I've seen from the Alliance thus far in regards to Lordaeron is a rather unjustified and flat out ignorant view that can be summed up like so: "Lordaeron belonged to us before we lost it in the war, so it is ours even though their is another nation there now."
What really boiled my blood was the "provincial settlers" coming to claim farms in the Plaguelands when they are from Elwynn and Westfall. If they were former Lordaeron citizens that escaped in the Third War, that would be reclamation, but since they admitted they were not Lordaeronian, they have no business settling in a land that isn't theirs. Alliance tillers are farming a field that belongs to a Forsaken citizen, but the Alliance seems to have the idea that because Forsaken are undead, they have no claim to anything, like they are a sub-species. That arrogance is certainly contributing to the negative view of humans among the Forsaken and the Horde.
Post by
306612
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
And? In the case of Galen, he's forced, due the fact that he was resurrected by the Val'kyr to make war on his people, and kill and murder them without any chance at all of escape. He's a slave of the Forsaken and makes it very clear he would rather be dead.
.
Doesn't a Val'kyr rez leave you free?
I never finished Arathi, but I am fairly sure that was how it worked out in every zone prior...
From what I understand, yes. People seem to confuse Val'kyr with necromancers, but as seen in Deathknell, undead risen by Val'kyr have their free will intact. That is the difference between Val'kyr and necromancers.
Nope; Galen is forced to serve the Forsaken; he makes that very clear from his quest text: If he had his way, he'd be using the ancient family axe on all of the undead around him and going after Sylvanas.
Nothing is ever black or white, especially in the world of Azeroth.
I'm pretty sure the old gods are all evil, though, but don't quote me on this.
If by evil you mean they love pure unadulterated chaos then yes heh.
Post by
kemppy
Nothing is ever black or white, especially in the world of Azeroth.
I'm pretty sure the old gods are all evil, though, but don't quote me on this.
If by evil you mean they love pure unadulterated chaos then yes heh.
um actually there is a theory i have heard of that alune is an old god, so that would mean that not all old gods are evil in fact alune is so far the other way it would make me look like yog'saron
Post by
306612
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Gone
Nothing is ever black or white, especially in the world of Azeroth.
I'm pretty sure the old gods are all evil, though, but don't quote me on this.
If by evil you mean they love pure unadulterated chaos then yes heh.
um actually there is a theory i have heard of that alune is an old god, so that would mean that not all old gods are evil in fact alune is so far the other way it would make me look like yog'saron
I personaly havnt heard that, but we only know of 5 Old Gods, if they are an entire race then it makes sence that there could be more and that some could be not evil
Post Reply
This topic is locked. You cannot post a reply.