Ask a Lore Nerd: Speculative speculation, part 2
by Alex Ziebart 
Mar 23rd 2009 at 8:00PM
Cristke asked..."Do the people of Azeroth know that the Burning Legion created the Lich King and the Scourge?"
I would say that it's probably not common knowledge, as in boring old villagers and farmers probably don't know it. Adventurous people like us, and the various militaries and their leadership? Yeah, we would probably know they have a connection. We likely don't know how deep that connection goes, but we would know that they were united at some point. Lordaeron saw them alongside demons, the Scourge and the Legion fought together at Mount Hyjal (even if the Scourge was only there to screw Archimonde over), and Sylvanas saw their relationship up close, in person.
The people of Azeroth wouldn't know all of the little details, but they would know that something was going on between the two.
rosencratz asked...
"Where is Tyr?"
I've avoided this question for a few weeks now (as I'm sure you've noticed, rosencratz) but it's been asked enough that I think I should go ahead and be honest about it: We have no idea whatsoever. He apparently disappeared before the mess Loken started, because there was no trouble at his Temple at all. It wasn't touched, it wasn't bothered. It's simply empty and abandoned. He's... gone. And as far as we know, he plays no role in Ulduar. Key words there being 'as far as we know.' It could yet happen, but I have doubts.
It's possible they have bigger plans for him, like setting him up for opening Uldum or something of that sort. It's equally possible that he said, "Screw this, I'm outie" and proceeded to skip town. We really have no indication in either direction. All of the other Watchers have some story behind them, and you see how they tie into the other races and the rest of the world. Tyr? He just isn't there, or anywhere. Very odd.
Shionia asked...
"I realize that there are several places where "lore sources" contradict each other - in that case who do you follow?
Case: This morning I read the prologue to Christie Golden's Rise of the Horde. In it the eredar (specifically Velen, Archimonde and Kil'Jaeden) are portrayed as noble and spiritual - until Sargeras comes along to corrupt them.
A little later, while doing the Well Read achievement, I came across the book "Sargeras and the Betrayal" which pretty much reverses the situation and says that the eredar were "a demonic race bent on gaining power and dominance" - that they invaded and enslaved other worlds and turned their inhabitants into demons.
So which is it?"
Personally, I go with whatever was written most recently. The old RPG books are a good source of information... until those topics are touched on again by Blizzard. At that point, most of the little details will probably change, so I move on to the new source of information. In the case you described, the former is a more recent source of information than the latter.
The Eredar were originally an evil race that began the Burning Legion by turning Sargeras to the dark side, yes. That was changed. Sargeras turned evil first in the most recent iteration of the story and then went after the Eredar, and that's probably the one that will stick.
The old, original Warcraft lore is somewhat cobbled together, and while it's a solid story, there are bits and pieces that the creators of said story aren't very happy with and feel they could be done better. When it's time to fill in the details of things, usually when those things become relevant in World of Warcraft, the stuff usually changes a bit to better fit the world as it is now.
Go with what was written most recently. The in-game book Sargeras and the Betrayal was written prior to 2004. Christie Golden's Rise of the Horde was published at the tail end of 2006. Between the two, the information in Rise of the Horde is the most accurate depiction of Warcraft's current iteration.
Ask a Lore Nerd is here to answer all of your questions about the lore and story of the Warcraft universe. From the religions of the universe to the 'evils' of Azeroth, everything is fair game. If you want more in-depth answers to some of your questions, you may find what you're looking for in Know Your Lore.Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, The Burning Crusade, Lore, Wrath of the Lich King, Ask a Lore Nerd
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
Jillemixie Mar 23rd 2009 8:09PM
What IS The Eye of Eternity?
Pyornthe Mar 23rd 2009 8:50PM
Malygos' happy place in the nether.
Jillemixie Mar 23rd 2009 9:09PM
Besides that...
Like, is it just some magical place in the Nexus?
Is it something made by the Titans?
Did the kobolds make it to hold discos?????
Chris M Mar 24th 2009 4:39AM
You no take disco ball!!
mike Mar 23rd 2009 8:27PM
This sorta contradicts what you where saying about the eredar
http://www.wowwiki.com/Eredar
The Eredar were originally peaceful then corrupted.
Perhaps "a demonic race bent on gaining power and dominance" is referring to them after their corruption when they were aligned with Sargeras.
Kellerune Mar 23rd 2009 9:31PM
No, Blizz retconned it. The book in game is now "outdated" . You can try to fit it back into the story, but most lore points that become "outdated" should just be dropped from your memory. Pretend they didn't happen. Go with the new story Blizz wants you to know. And don't think too hard into these retcons, you will just get confused.
jbodar Mar 23rd 2009 9:42PM
Uhhh, no. That exactly supports what he said. When he referred to the former, it was using the questioner's examples, not his own, which were in the reverse order. So, Wowwiki matches the version put forth in Christie Golden's "Rise of the Horde", just as the columnist states, if a bit muddily.
Dyaan Mar 23rd 2009 11:20PM
think of it as the people of azeroth not knowing everything, which is completely true. All they knew is that the Eredar were demons, and that they allied with Sargaeras.
Yaikage Mar 23rd 2009 10:54PM
Perhaps it's less like a retcon and more like really good RP. I've never read either, but the book you read ingame is ingame. Meaning a mere mortal must've written it therefore it could be horribly inaccurate and prejudiced. On hte otherhand, the one that paints the eredar to be noble then corrupted is canon narration, therefore it doesn't really have a right to be wrong or missing facts that no mortal ingame should be able to learn.
jaenicoll Mar 23rd 2009 11:06PM
I have never understood why Blizzard haven't attempted to explain the various "necessary" discrepencies on lore as the opinion of differing people and/or general advancement of knowledge.
I mean history is exactly that - "his story" ie it is taught as though it is the fact but in reality it is simply the version that is sympathetic to that people. History taught around the world varies significantly. Motives are rarely agreed upon and even the so called "facts" differ.
With very little effort, Blizzard could repair a great deal of lolore through some simple explanations.
For example:
This version is the belief of the Orcs whilst that version is the belief of the Elves. Scholars don't really know for sure what is true, though most have theories. One day we hope we will find out etc
Jae
Mognet T Mar 24th 2009 3:12AM
Blizzard has officially recognized the oringinal history of the Eredar as a retcon. They were originally depicted as a pure evil race with no pure-hearted members (go play WC3 if you don't believe me).
Wow's official history on their website has everything you need to know: http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/info/story/chapter1.html
" Over the eons, Sargeras encountered two powerful demonic races, both of which were bent on gaining power and dominance over the physical universe.
The eredar, an insidious race of devilish sorcerers, used their warlock magics to invade and enslave a number of worlds. The indigenous races of those worlds were mutated by the eredar's malevolent powers and turned into demons themselves. Though Sargeras' nearly limitless powers were more than enough to defeat the vile eredar, he was greatly troubled by the creatures' corruption and all-consuming evil. Incapable of fathoming such depravity, the great Titan began to slip into a brooding depression."
Note that this is the exact same thing (word for word) you will find in the books around Azeroth. Also note that this history is completely outdated yet remains both in-game and on Blizzard's website.
I theorize this whole oversight as another example of Blizzard's laziness.
Syme Mar 24th 2009 1:06PM
Chris Metzen has admitted in interviews that he simply got the eredar lore messed up when working out the origin for the Draenei. Given his description of how he works, banging out meeting after meeting on three different IPs, it's a wonder it doesn't happen more often.
The book that remains in game was the original story, but the lore as it currently stands is what is in Rise of the Horde. Especially as Metzen's error was part of the very basis for what happens in Burning Crusade, it has become the official lore.
Dave Mar 24th 2009 5:03PM
We'll my question on the whole Eredar thing is that In the "Rise of the Horde" Book it stated (Spoiler alert) that Kil'Jaden corrupted the Orcs to physically destroy the draenei and hurt Valen. Then he abandons them. Yet in actual game play of Warcraft III tells us that Kil'jaden corrupted them to invade Azeroth (Kingdom and continent) as a precursor to a Burning Legion invasion. Much as the undead later did, only the Orcs screwed the pooch by turning on each other.
If they were going to kill 2 birds with one stone it wasn't stated in the book which seems an annoying oversight.
Lastly in my opinion it seems warcraft lore was more sparse certainly but less disjointed before WOW came out. I suppose more titles means more chances to have lore oops moments but the scale of it and how rapidly retcons occur now disheartens me.
onetrueping Mar 25th 2009 1:45PM
Before the corruption of the orcs, the Draenei had "gotten away," and essentially dropped off the radar of the Burning Legion. The Legion was still looking for them, but without success. The primary purpose of the corruption of the orcs was the eventual invasion of Azeroth, to allow the Burning Legion to invade. Before they could, though, the Legion discovered that the Draenei existed, and drove the orcs to attack them first.
At least, that's how the lore comes together in my head.
Muse Mar 23rd 2009 8:30PM
How long ago from the point when the character does the quest to investigate the temples in Fate of the Titans was it that the watchers vanished?
Danel Mar 23rd 2009 8:35PM
As regards the Eredar thing, my personal preference has always been to split the difference. The Eredar were, by and large, a fairly decent people, though not as upstanding as the Draenai we know are; some of them chose to practice evil demonic magics and become warlocks.
That some of the Eredar - who basically had everything going for them - would still choose to become evil just because they could would be really depressing to Sargeras, and make him wonder if he can ever succeed on his mission while free-willed races can still freely choose to do evil. So he goes nuts.
Most of the Eredar do seem to be corrupted fairly easily, after all. There's none of the elaborate trickery involved like they would later do with the orcs; no pretending to be their ancestral spirits or working with a very evil secret society. Sargeras offers them power, and most of them accept. A relative few - who were probably already the nicer Eredar anyway - don't, and head off, eventually falling in with the Naaru and becoming generally more decent and lovely as they go. Over time, their memories play tricks on them and they remember their people pre-corruption as better than they were, out of a mixture of shame and nostalgia.
Pyornthe Mar 23rd 2009 8:53PM
Draenei = Eredar that took off after Sarg showed up on their planet.
So basically, every Draenei is an Eredar, but not all Eredar are Draenei. It's like saying all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. Eredar is a broader category than Draenei.
Suzaku Mar 25th 2009 12:25AM
More specifically, there are at least four types of Eredar: Man'ari Eredar (the demonic Eredar), Draenei ("Exiled Ones"), Krokul ("The Broken") and The Lost Ones.
The Draenei are basically what the Eredar originally were, while the Man'ari Eredar are the "twisted" demonic Eredar. The Broken and Lost Ones are progressively more devolved versions of the Draenei, due to the energies released when Draeneor was destroyed and became Outland.
There's some indication that the Doomguards (Ered'ruin) may be an Eredar offshoot race, as well.
Shinji Mar 23rd 2009 8:39PM
Referring to the last question.
History is a touchy subject, it is all ways being rewritten as we find out new information. And there are often two or versions of history, the history that the general populaces knows, the history that the schoolers and investigators know, the history that government know ect.
Remember out PC are quite high up when it come to being scholars and governments.
Also before the Dark Portal Opened and the Draenei came the Sargeras and the Betrayal was what we knew from our experiences with the Burning Legion, but then the Draenei came and they told us what really happened and the history was up dated. The Sargeras and the Betrayal is just a old book.
Anteia Mar 23rd 2009 11:04PM
That's an interesting point about history. We're constantly discovering documents that completely go "...wooops..uh...that is not what we were taught..." because bias makes the world go round and we weren't there when it was all written down. So I wonder how many of these cases where 'retcon' was, "No, it's just people who wrote the books had NO IDEA." (the in game ones) or Blizzard really did just screw up. I know in the game I GM in , the players are often lied to, but because it comes from an NPC, well, they believe it. Then they later find out what they -thought- they knew wasn't quite true. Yet there's also been cases of looking back and going "You know, the obvious path has been this...but what if that's not what happened? What if we inserted X element that the players didn't know about. That changes everything." and it's made for some really exciting storylines.
And as a historian, and one who has devoted quite a few papers to a revionist view because I don't feel the traditional view is 'fact', I fully appreciate the multiple versions of history from even how the layperson saw it, to how the clergy, to how the government, and then there's that one person who was actually in the court and who saw it unfold and wrote it down in a journal they thought no one would ever find. That's where it gets interesting. :)