This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.5
PTR
10.2.6
Essay on Gilneas and the Forsaken
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Skreeran
You may have heard me make a few of these points before, in other threads, but I had to compose an analytical essay for my English class, so I thought it would be good to organize my stance on this topic into a cohesive, strong format. Let's begin.
I love Warcraft. While superficially its story might seem shallow and overly simplistic, it conceals a hidden depth that surprises even myself. Warcraft draws heavily on the style of superhero comics, often overacted and full of overblown heroes and villains performing stylized and unrealistic deeds. However, like superhero comics, Warcraft has been known to tell surprisingly deep and powerful stories that leave fans discussing and debating for hours on end.
In particular, Blizzard Entertainment excels in maintaining a theme of ambiguous morality for nearly all of their various races. One race is especially notable for being morally grey: not quite evil, but certainly not good in the conventional sense. A race of free-willed zombies, the Forsaken are well known for their seeming lack of ethics and have inspired many a debate. Belonging to the otherwise mostly-morally-good Horde faction, Horde-aligned players are often torn between support of their undead comrades, and condemnation of the Forsaken’s less palatable actions. Alliance players, meanwhile, are almost unanimously opposed to the Forsaken, and for them the only question is typically whether or not to simply purge the race from the planet.
In World of Warcraft’s most recent expansion, World of Warcraft: Cataclysm, there is one storyline in particular that has left many players arguing and theorizing on the matters of ethics and motive. As the long-awaited, long-dreaded Fourth War between the Alliance and the Horde has finally broken out, the Forsaken have invaded the neutral kingdom of Gilneas, killing hundreds of innocent men and women in the process, with scant explanation given by the writers. Following this turn of events, some players are questioning if the Forsaken, and indeed the Horde to which they belong, are being transformed into blatant villains. In an effort to gain a greater insight into this race and their actions, let us examine this storyline and attempt to garner a greater understanding of the circumstances surrounding it.
To start, let’s look at the official explanations given by the writing team. Blizzard’s head writer, Chris Metzen, has gone on record as stating that Garrosh Hellscream, the Horde’s new Warchief, has demanded that Sylvanas Windrunner, the Banshee Queen of the Forsaken, take Gilneas for use as a Horde port on the continent of Lordaeron. This statement confused several fans, as it is already known that there is an existing port in the northern province of Tirisfal Glades. Why spend resources invading a country--not to mention the loss of life--when you already have that which you claim to seek?
The key to this dilemma becomes apparent when examined through the eye of a strategist. The kingdom of Gilneas occupies a long peninsula bordering the expansive Baradin Bay. Baradin Bay is in turn bordered by the Alliance-controlled Wetlands, the dwarven kingdom of Dun Morogh, the island fortress of Tol Barad, and Kul Tiras, an Alliance affiliated kingdom with a powerful navy. Where ships launched from the port in Tirisfal Glades would have to sail all the way around the Lordaeronian continent to access these strategic targets--not to mention having to sail back for supplies and repairs--a port in Gilneas would mean easy access to all of these locations, and a powerful way to project naval power all across the Eastern Kingdoms.
Despite the power that Gilneas’ location presents the Horde, it holds even greater significance to the Alliance. The Alliance believes the Forsaken to be abominations and greatly desires to retake the kingdom of Lordaeron from them. However, there are only three methods that they might set about doing this. First, and most foolhardy, would be a sea invasion of Silverpine Forest or the Tirisfal Glades, which would be costly and difficult. Every inch of ground that they took would be paid in blood. It would certainly be certainly unwise to attempt such a expensive attack while in the midst with a huge war with the Horde in virtually every other region on the planet.
The second option would be to make a land invasion via the Thandol Span bridge in the south. However, this option has a downside too, as the the Alliance’s influence in Sourthern Lordaeron was waning at the time the War broke out, and there would be a good chance that they would have to fight a tide of Horde troops across hundreds of miles from Arathi to Undercity, should the Horde mobilize their forces. In addition to that prospect, depriving the Alliance of their artillery and siege engines would be as easy as destroying the bridge at the first sign of an attack. While more attractive than a sea invasion, a land route would still be very difficult and very costly.
The very best option to take would be to use Gilneas as a staging ground for a much shorter and more effective land campaign. It would not be difficult to persuade the people of Gilneas that the Forsaken were a threat that needed to be dealt with, and to then secure the location for the Alliance. Troops and siege weaponry could then be easily shipped to a fortified Gilneas and the Alliance could effectively prepare for a quick and hard strike at Silverpine Forest and the Tirisfal Glades.
Sensing this, it only seems logical that the Horde, and more specifically, the Forsaken, chose to take advantage of the destruction of Gilneas’ Greymane Wall and take the location before the Alliance did. It may have ended in many innocent lives being lost, but the Horde is fighting a war, and they mean to win. Failure to achieve victory could end in their destruction, so they refuse to pull any punches.
In addition to the strategic significance of the Gilneas, there are other factors at work motivating the Forsaken. When the Forsaken first escaped the iron grip of the Lich King, creator of the undead Scourge, they were a scattered people, weak and afraid. What united them as a people, and later transformed them into a powerful engine of war was a seething hatred of their creator and a burning desire to seem him annihilated. For years this one goal drove the Forsaken. This purpose united them, fueled them, gave them a reason to be.
And yet, following the Lich King’s defeat, they were left just as hollow and empty as ever. Having lost their purpose for existing, they could only stare into the future, which gave them no hope. Their civilization would cease in time. Their bodies would wear down to nothing, and with no new Forsaken to take their places, they would be forgotten. Such was the final curse of the Lich King.
But they refused to despair. They found ways to bring about more of their kind through the necromancy of their new Val’kyr allies. They scrambled to find a new purpose, a new drive to give them a reason to continue existing. Under Sylvanas’ command, they vowed to take the entire continent of Lordaeron--their home, in life--for the Forsaken. They would lay down the foundation of a dark kingdom that would never fall, never crumble under the passage of time.
And Gilneas stood in the way of that goal. If Lordaeron was to belong to the Forsaken, Gilneas had to fall. I hardly imagine that many regretted that fact. It is quite possible that several of the Forsaken were among those refugees who travelled to the Greymane Wall to escape the undead calamity and were callously turned away even as they begged for aid. To the Forsaken, Gilneas deserved to fall as their kingdom fell.
The question then becomes one of morality. Can the Forsaken really be defined as evil? As with most questions of morality, this one is highly subjective and hard to pin down. I’m sure there are many among the Forsaken who might believe that what they do is no less fair than what happened to themselves. To them, what they do isn’t ‘evil,’ it just is. The idea of a fair and just universe, where things happen the way they should, was destroyed when they were robbed of their lives and their freedom and turned into hated monsters. To them, “good” and “evil” are just words. You do what you have to in order to survive, and that’s just the way things are.
On the other hand, ask a Gilnean, and he would reply that the answer is obvious. Of course they’re evil. How can someone who attacks you--attacks your family--without provocation so that they can steal the land that your ancestors are buried on be anything but evil? To the Gilneans, and indeed the Alliance in general, the Forsaken are no better than the Scourge. They are merciless, cruel undead monsters that should be destroyed. To suggest that they are anything but evil would seem ridiculous.
So who is right then? How can you say whether or not the Forsaken, or indeed any realistic individual or group, is evil?
The problem arises from our limited language. ‘Evil’ is a very general word, and can mean many things, depending on who is using it. What some people call “evil,” some call “desperate measures” or “regrettable necessity.” Everyone has their own definition of evil, and it is a lot easier to justify your own actions than it is to justify those of your enemies.
Some people choose to define evil very broadly. They define evil as “a lack of good.” By this definition, stealing is evil, because, by doing so, you are selfishly taking from another for your own benefit. Refusing to aid a dying person, or performing unethical tests for scientific reasons fall into this category of evil. This meaning of the word evil is defined by selfishness. All of these actions are based on choosing self (or at least the group that you belong to) over others. While ‘good’ is characterized by altruism, sacrificing the self for the benefit of others, this definition of evil is simply the polar opposite. When judged by these standards, the Forsaken are most definitely evil. By and large, the Forsaken lack morality--or what morality they have has been twisted so profoundly that it is unrecognizable from a human perspective--and if to you that means that they are evil, then they are, in general, an evil race.
On the other hand, there is another, narrower, definition of evil. This definition might be summarized as “cruelty beyond what is necessary.” An individual who falls into this category does not simply take from others for their own material gain. They inflict suffering and torment onto their victims for pleasure, or out of curiosity, far beyond what is actually needed for actual personal benefit. Serial killing, genocide, and rape some of the actions committed by this kind of evil. And while I certainly must concede that there are individuals of this nature among the Forsaken (though it might be argued that the same is true of any other race), I must argue that the Forsaken in general are not evil, at least by this definition. While the Forsaken lack morality, this usually only means that they are not inhibited by any sort of conscience when it comes to taking action. If they are designing a plague, they will not hesitate to test it on prisoners, but they do not torture their prisoners needlessly. They are efficient, for the most part passionless, and will not be hampered by human ethics. However, relatively few among them are needlessly cruel. It is interesting to note that Sylvanas offered the leader of the Gilnean resistance the opportunity to surrender. When he finally yielded, the Dark Lady of the Forsaken did not take him as a political prisoner, but rather let him flee with his life. She did not need to kill him, so she didn’t. She bears no malice against the Gilneans, they were simply in the wrong place.
So, what then will the future bring? Again, the key lies with Gilneas. What was once a passive bystander in the many wars that have ravaged the planet has now become one of the most important factors in the latest, potentially most destructive war in Azeroth’s history.
Should the Alliance take Gilneas back from the Forsaken, there is no doubt that they will immediately set about securing it as a position of strength to be used against Undercity. And as soon as they are logistically and strategically able, you should expect that they will immediately launch a fierce, brutal campaign against the Forsaken in Lordaeron. Expect no mercy to be shown to them. In regards to the living, the Alliance believes in ideals of mercy and honor to the enemy, especially women and children. But to them, the living dead are not subject to the same provisions, and we must fully expect that the Alliance will not grant them any mercy. They will justify their actions by showing that the Forsaken gave little mercy to the Gilneans. If Undercity should fall, the Horde will lose it’s greatest holding in the Eastern Kingdoms, and the Alliance will be able to devote a greater degree of force to crushing the Horde opposition in Kalimdor.
And what if the Horde wins the battle for Gilneas? Do not expect that the Forsaken will be satisfied with taking the continent of Lordaeron. Once that task is complete, and their goal--their purpose--is complete, they will be forced to find a new one. It is possible that they will choose a goal of building up their holdings in Lordaeron and defending it from the inevitable counterattacks the Alliance will launch. I think it is more likely, however, that the Forsaken will continue southward, perhaps stating their new goal to be “eliminating the Alliance threat” or “acting under orders of the Horde,” but the truth will be that their goal of taking Lordaeron left them feeling just as empty as their goal of killing the Lich King, and they need something new to distract them from their hopelessness.
No matter who takes Gilneas, it could end in tens of thousands of lives being lost. But we mustn’t get too caught up in the speculation. Because World of Warcraft is a game, it is constrained by certain principles, one of which is the preservation of the status quo. I don’t expect Gilneas will actually ever fall one way or another now that it is a battleground. While it is true that I’ve been surprised by this in the past (it seems that canonically the Horde won the original incarnation of the Warsong Gulch battleground; the post-Cataclysm version is an identical battleground said to be in a new location), I think that now that it is a battleground, it has ironically become one of the most static locations in the game. Nevertheless, it should be treated as a location of vast importance, for even if it isn’t going to change in-game any time soon, it still represents a vital location in the story.
Finally, I would like to emphasize that the invasion of Gilneas was not simply a random act of violence. Whether they fall under your definition of evil or not, this invasion was carried out for precise reasons, be they strategic or personal. They did not attack Gilneas out of malevolence, but out of pragmatism and psychological need. It was decidedly impersonal. Please remember that, for all their coldness and ethical deficit, the Forsaken are still people. Rather than simply attributing their actions to “insanity” or “being evil,” it is best to make an attempt to understand them. You may find that they are actually very interesting.
Post by
355559
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
Just have two small points here:
1. Sylvanas' over reach for all Lordaeron, while good for the Forsaken, is something of an oxymoron: She's a High Elf and never had any claim on the lands, yet she seems to think that they should all belong to her.
2. For all that Forsaken want the 'lands of Lordaeron', she sure does have a wide view of just what that means; seems that, unknown to Arathi, Alterac and Gilneas, they all are suppose to be the vassal states of Lordaeron, instead of their own kingdoms. The fact that Sylvanas and her people killed two of the Royals of the lands, and the Horde original quests in Alterac sent you after the 'last' of the Pernolde bloodline(yes, I know Aiden's daughter is still out there, possibly his wife, and of course the cousin) to kill him(alright there were circumstances for why but still....), seems more like they are usurpers instead of just 'reclaiming' their homelands.
Post by
Skreeran
Just have two small points here:
1. Sylvanas' over reach for all Lordaeron, while good for the Forsaken, is something of an oxymoron: She's a High Elf and never had any claim on the lands, yet she seems to think that they should all belong to her.
2. For all that Forsaken want the 'lands of Lordaeron', she sure does have a wide view of just what that means; seems that, unknown to Arathi, Alterac and Gilneas, they all are suppose to be the vassal states of Lordaeron, instead of their own kingdoms. The fact that Sylvanas and her people killed two of the Royals of the lands, and the Horde original quests in Alterac sent you after the 'last' of the Pernolde bloodline(yes, I know Aiden's daughter is still out there, possibly his wife, and of course the cousin) to kill him(alright there were circumstances for why but still....), seems more like they are usurpers instead of just 'reclaiming' their homelands.1. Sylvanas may be a High Elf, but he majority of the Forsaken are humans, and she is acting as a representative of them.
2. You are correct, but as I said, this is simply a flimsy excuse for them to have a new challenge to keep them distracted from their hopelessness.
Post by
Rankkor
wow this is long xD.
I swear I'll read it tomorrow skree, but rite now I gotta go to bed.
the first 3 paragraphs seemed intresting though.
Post by
51581
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
229054
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Patty
:O This looks like a good read. I promise I'll read it later on/tonight/tomorrow/at some point in time before the end of the world/
never
.
Post by
Skreeran
Well, I can't find anything that directly states it but the war in Gilneas/Alterac/Arathi may be under a different pre-text. Perhaps its just war in the name of the Horde. Or a rightful offensive to defend their claim over Lordaeron. Or they see as simple invading and, unlike some members of the Alliance, they are open about it.Well, I had originally considered that the Forsaken were using the conquet of the Lordaeron continent as a replacement purpose after Arthas perished, and a while I ago, I confirmed it.
Look at
this quest
given by a Dark Ranger in the Arathi Highlands.
The news of your victory satisfies me, <class>... a rare sensation. The Dark Lady herself has mused that our conquest of Lordaeron may be the only way the Forsaken can find true satisfaction, and pehaps even relief.
(I was pretty happy when I found that... :P Nothing like the feeling of having a personal theory be 100% confirmed.)
Per example, in Gilneas, Sylvanas is shown as a cruel, megalomanical tyrant. She goes against the orders of the Horde and plans to use the Blight to wipe out all Gilneans, not just soldiers. This is undoubtedly evil, as she will kill thousands of civilians this way. However, as an undead in Silverpine, you are shown a Sylvanas who is not the aggressor, but the defender. She only wishes to secure Lordaeron for the Forsaken, by any means nessecary. She even allows Crowley to escape and instead of repushing into Gilneas, she is content with fortifying their current holdings in Silverpine (for now). The Sylvanas in Gilneas would not have spared Crowley, and the one in Silverpine would not have used the plague on unwitting civilians.While I see your point, I prefer to try to reconcile both perspectives into a single unified character. I don't like the idea that Blizzard is writing two different characters with the same name, one with one personality for the Alliance, and the other with another personality for the Horde.
I prefer to think that Sylvanas is both of those people, someone who would not hesitate to gas her enemies if necessary, but who does not kill for the sake of killing. It's also possible that she felt a ghost of empathy for Crowley, a guerilla leader fighting to defend his land against an undead invasion, and chose to spare him merely on a whim.
Post by
229054
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Skreeran
(I was pretty happy when I found that... :P Nothing like the feeling of having a personal theory be 100% confirmed.)
The news of the confimation satisfies me, <class>... a rare sensation. The Loremaster himself has mused that our conquest of Speculative Lore may be the only way the Lofebuffs can find true satisfaction, and pehaps even relief.I roffled.
Post by
46491
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Skreeran
Well, I had originally considered that the Forsaken were using the conquet of the Lordaeron continent as a replacement purpose after Arthas perished, and a while I ago, I confirmed it.
And after she conquers continental Lordaeron (which will require wiping out both the Wildhammer Dwarves
and
the Argent Crusade), what then?
She knows that she requires as many dead humans as possible to keep the Forsaken going, yet she can't wipe them
all
out or the Forsaken will eventually die out as well.
Perhaps she'll conquer Stormwind to use as a "breeder state"? Use forced breeding to keep more humans coming, and once they get past procreating age, kill them and raise them as new Forsaken!An interesting theory. I would look at Hillsbrad for insight on that. They didn't kill everyone, but left several humans alive for slave labor.
Post by
229054
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
51581
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
229054
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
2. For all that Forsaken want the 'lands of Lordaeron', she sure does have a wide view of just what that means; seems that, unknown to Arathi, Alterac and Gilneas, they all are suppose to be the vassal states of Lordaeron, instead of their own kingdoms. The fact that Sylvanas and her people killed two of the Royals of the lands, and the Horde original quests in Alterac sent you after the 'last' of the Pernolde bloodline(yes, I know Aiden's daughter is still out there, possibly his wife, and of course the cousin) to kill him(alright there were circumstances for why but still....), seems more like they are usurpers instead of just 'reclaiming' their homelands.
Well, I can't find anything that directly states it but the war in Gilneas/Alterac/Arathi may be under a different pre-text. Perhaps its just war in the name of the Horde. Or a rightful offensive to defend their claim over Lordaeron. Or they see as simple invading and, unlike some members of the Alliance, they are open about it.
Prince Liam Graymane; Dead.
Prince Galen Trollbane; Dead and raised up as a Forsaken.
Pernolde's son; dead.
Seems fairly obvious there; destroy the family lines and take the lands for yourself.....which is where the semi-irony comes in as that's exactly what happened to the Lordaeronians in the first place.....
Post by
229054
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
Which I already touched on in regards to Arathi.
Other then that, I'm stopping now; I've said my piece and have nothing more to add to the thread.
Post by
Skreeran
Which I already touched on in regards to Arathi.
Other then that, I'm stopping now; I've said my piece and have nothing more to add to the thread.My point, though, was that they aren't invading because they want to kill the royal families and eliminate the true owners of the throne.
They don't care about the throne. They don't care about the kingdoms. They want the continent. The physical geography. They don't give a flying squirrel about the politics, just the actual land.
Aliden was killed by orcs in order to retrieve Taretha's necklace. The Forsakenhad nothing to do with that.
Galen was killed by the trolls in order to get Trol'kalar for use against the Gurubashi. Again, no Forsaken involvement.
Liam was killed on accident, because Sylvanas was trying to kill Genn, in order to break the Gilnean resistance and take the country (whose importance I discussed up there).
I'm sorry, but your theory doesn't hold water.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.