Ask a Lore Nerd: Looking to the future
by Alex Ziebart 
Jul 13th 2009 at 6:00PM
This week I have a special request: I want any questions you might have about potential future expansions. Any questions at all are welcome, but I'm on a speculation kick recently, so next week's column will probably focus on the future and then we'lll be back to our regular deal after that. So no matter whether you think the Maelstrom could be next or something else entirely, ask!
Mark asked...
"Any chance that the Vrykul will be a playable race in a future expansion?"
I very highly doubt it, but I wish for it from the bottom of my heart. There are only two races that would cause me to instantly reroll: The Vrykul or High Elves for the Alliance. Unfortunately, I don't foresee us getting either of them. It would be a great day if we did, though.
losriot asked...
"I was wondering if there is a lore reason why the Argent Crusade uses Proto-Drakes as mounts instead of the more traditional mounts like griffons?"
The Argent Crusade uses whatever is most convenient. In the case of them using the Proto-Drakes, if you talked to the NPCs near the Proto-Drakes at the Argent Vanguard, you'll find out one of them is a member of the Bronze Dragonflight. The Proto-Drakes being used happen to be Bronze Proto-Drakes, and they're putting them to use for the Crusade.
At the Coliseum you'll find them using Hippogryphs. Elsewhere, gryphons. The Argent Crusade doesn't have racial or faction pride to worry about. They use whatever they find, or is donated to their cause.
Musicabright asked...
"Why do Dwarves worship the Light and not the Titans?"
Their Titanic origins are a pretty recent discovery. The Explorer's League isn't a particularly old organization, either. Their fascination with the Titans is a relatively new thing, and Light worship predates it significantly. The two beliefs don't necessarily contradict each other, either. In Azeroth, it would be pretty hard to deny that the Light exists, wouldn't it? Almost as hard to deny as the existence of the Titans. As long as the practices of the Light don't conflict with trying to learn more about the Titans, where's the problem in putting some faith in both?
Heck, Shaman that spend their days listening to the Elements can worship the Light if they want to do that. Tauren that worship the Earthmother can follow the tenets of the Light right alongside it as long as one doesn't work against the other.
Hammylaya asked...
"Hello, I was wondering what the deal is with Human Paladins using Maces, over other weapons like Swords! Is it lore-wise wrong for a Human Paladin to wield a Sword. Do you know of any Knights of the Silver Hand Paladins who use a Sword? This is a complicated isssue because some ancient history and DnD influence might be in there."
By and large, this is something that has been given significance by nerds like you and me. It does have historical significance, but it was never as widespread as it's made out to be. Back in medieval times, there were certain groups of priests, monks, and that sort of thing that used maces as an 'out' when it came to war. They weren't supposed to fight in wars and the sort, but they did by using maces. You see, blunt trauma didn't actually tend to cause any bloodshed, so they weren't doing anything wrong!
There is extremely limited evidence that such a practice was widespread, though. It was really only a very small handful of individuals that actually did that sort of thing. So... Yeah, this is something that almost purely stems from ancient nerd history. It has a little bit of real history to back it up but is largely a load.
Looking at it from an RPG standpoint exclusively: Traditionally, Paladins and their Cleric predecessors used maces in RPG settings. It pretty much predates written (nerd) history. It did manage to wiggle its way into early Warcraft lore, with almost every single Paladin using a mace. At least, the ones we see. In Warcraft III, Uther used a hammer, Arthas used a hammer, and the generic Paladin unit used a hammer. In WoW, low level Paladins are rewarded with Verigan's Fist, the Destroyer of Worlds. However, that doesn't mean it's wrong for Paladins to use other weapons! It's just an aesthetic choice in Warcraft, not something that has any particular significance. Look at Bolvar Fordragon. He's a Paladin, and he goes Sword and Board.
If you want to read more deeply into it, something to consider if that the first Paladins in Warcraft were Clerics and Priests that decided to train in the art of war. Priests in WoW don't train to use swords, but they do train to use Maces. The first Paladins probably tried to adapt many of the skillsets they already had when stepping up from the Priesthood. Uther probably started using a 2Handed Mace rather than a 2Handed Sword because he already knew how to use maces. Maybe not two handed ones, but maces nonetheless. It's very possible the younger generation of Paladins were the ones that started moving away from the tradition of using Maces. They had the opportunity to train with whatever specialized weapon they wanted, rather than basing their technique off of what they already knew.
raszero asked...
"We all know how good the Kirin Tor are to us, spending many hours in their capital city, right? Well when flying around Netherstorm, in Kirin'Var village, there are mobs with the Kirin Tor tag. Why are these Kirin Tor bad?"
Do the Netherstorm quests that take place there and you'll learn very quickly. The Kirin Tor there are all spectres, undead. They were slaughtered en masse by Kael'thas and his loyalists. Since their deaths were so traumatic, many of the dead are still 'stuck' in the mortal world. Many of the quests in the area are simply you finding that which ties the poor souls to the mortal realm, so they can find peace.
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, Lore, Ask a Lore Nerd
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 8)
Nazgûl Jul 13th 2009 6:09PM
Do you foresee a Titan-based expansion, and if so, what would be the reason for their return?
Clbull Jul 13th 2009 6:22PM
To be honest, I think that a Titan themed expansion would be a good idea, particularly if it focused on the Pantheon's fight against Sargeras and the Burning Legion. However, I think that a bit of Titan lore has been covered in Ulduar.
Kevin Jul 13th 2009 10:15PM
That disease is colloquially known as "Staghelm's Syndrome" after a famous sufferer.
Socialcockroach Jul 14th 2009 3:21AM
I don't really think Sargeras will be a boss any time soon... considering that with his death, that would pretty much halt WoW's story progression. So much of the current warcraft lore is caused by Sargeras, both directly and in-directly. Since he formed the burning leagion, anything that was caused by them could be attributed to him. The sundering, Medhiv's corruption, the arrival of the orcs from dreanor, the creation of the Lich King, and rumor has it that the "emerald nightmare" is caused by the very angry spirit of Archemonde. So much of WoW can be traced back to Sargeras that I think if he were to become a boss it would be either A) a fight similar to the Sunwell in which you merely prevent him from entering Azeroth but don't actually kill him or B) the final end-all boss of WoW on the final expansion. Plus, there are so many other things Blizzard could have us tackle before sending us after the rogue titan.
wildwinds Jul 13th 2009 6:10PM
I would have thought paladins used maces for a more practical reason. Maces don't need sharpening, they don't get notched as much as swords, less likely to break. Maces are more effective against an armoured foe than a sword, you have to get a sword through a gap in plate armor, where as a mace strike to the helmet is taking you down.
Meethan Jul 13th 2009 7:22PM
all valid points, just not mentioned i guess.
Talgahnyr Jul 13th 2009 9:24PM
I thought I read somewhere that, historically speaking, only the top third of a broadsword or hand-and-a-half sword was actually sharp and meant for cutting and stabbing. The other two-thirds were for blocking and crushing bone. Interestingly, most two-handers were wielded with only one hand on the actual grip. The other hand was placed just above the cross guard on the dull part of the blade. This allowed them to have better control of the weapon.
Talamah Jul 13th 2009 11:33PM
This is purely from a DnD point of view, but many paladins use maces and such b/c their main foes are undead, which are mostly skeletons. In DnD, blunt attacks do more damage to skeletal foes b/c a crushing blunt force would smash a skeleton, whereas a slicing attack would simply glance off the bones.
rosencratz Jul 14th 2009 7:54AM
@ Wildwinds - That's just a reason to use a mace not a reason why Paladins specifically would use maces and not swords. What Talamah says makes more sense. As, where swords lack the raw power, they make up for it in speed and accuracy and armour is as vulnerable to piercing thrusts as it is to crushing blows... as it were so it's no real good reason to choose one over the other. Only personal preference is the real decider.
For example you could reason that clerics, monks, etc would have reason to carry around mace-like objects in their day to day life. Hammers, sceptres, etc. With which, at short notice, they could turn to violence if they had too, in such a scenario as their monastery, cathedral or town is ransacked by bandits or scourge or whatever and then later if violence was often called upon them, in war or so, they would retort to larger versions of that which they were previously succesful. They would have no reason to learn how to use a sword in their day to day life in a monastery, a knife possibly but maintenance of the building and it's grounds and any other work they might get up to could leave them with a base martial knowledge of blunter weapons/tools however.
At the end of the day though the reason is simple. Blizz and others think Paladins look cooler with big hammers... and big glowy books... or at least decided that was something that set them apart from any other warrior.
Angus Jul 14th 2009 11:03AM
Historically the largest number of wounds inflicted in battles were suffered to the back of the legs (then front.) Chain mail was able to withstand pretty much any attack at the time simply because a human being cannot generate the amount of penetrating force needed to get through the armor. Stabbing weapons designed to get through the links in the mail were adapted and they were quickly defeated by wearing wool cloth layered underneath.
The leg wounds usually happened when one side routed. The moment their lines broke they all ran for their lives, exposing their backs to the enemies. Well, usually people weren't armored in the back all that much wearing some types of armor and legs were almost never armored in the back... Cut their hamstring, they scream like a girl and hit the floor. Continue past and get more of them while this happens.
The armor vs weapon arms race always had armor winning out simply because a new weapon showed up and armor could be modified quickly to defeat it again. Only real exceptions were late in the period. British Longbows could penetrate chain or even plated armor at normal thicknesses with little effort. These weapons were also trained on from childhood and deformed the bowman's skeleton to enable the amount of force required to launch the arrows like this. Even then, sloping armor made this more difficult as arrows would shatter on impact and lose the penetrating force (it was deflected not absorbed.) Heavy Crossbows could penetrate armor at short range and were devastating. These required a long period to reload and were preferred for assassinations and not general warfare. These weapons were replaced by muskets which while being no where near as accurate or having the range of a longbow required only training in reloading and firing at point blank. Once the firearm became common armor vanished. It could not stop the rounds and so people moved away from it and towards tactics that allowed mass infantry to engage and not have nobility singled out for special target practice.
Maces were not that effective even against chain or wool armor. The damage of a mace is caused by bring all teh force into a general area and causing blunt force trauma. When the armor absorbs the impact and spreads the force over a larger area the damage is buffered very well. Exceptions to this are hitting unarmored places or places where the armor cannot absorb damage very well. The legs were the best spot for this as they were relatively stationary, not as well armored and wounds there tended to make the opponent give up and ask to be ransomed. Swords that hit the back of the legs could often cause damage as well.
While the romantic aspects of battle in the time period show valiant knights fighting on a field with honor. The reality of it was that they did this while bored waiting for the crops to grow and they did whatever it took to force the other guy to ask to stop. Ransoms were common and expected. Deaths happened but if you had an option of beating a guy and killing him, or beating him, selling him back to his family for some chickens and then waiting till next year to beat the snot out of him and get more chickens, you probably would get the chickens. Eggs are nummy.
Eisengel Jul 15th 2009 7:10PM
There are arguments both ways. The effectiveness of a blunt weapon on an armored foe is certainly true, however very few people actually wore heavy armor. Unless you had a title it would be unlikely that you would have metal armor.
Plate armor had to be specifically built per person (so no to little interchangeability) and took significant skill to bend and shape the plates to fit the person without going back and altering them a lot. Reheating metal without otherwise treating it causes it to become brittle, easily shattering under heavy blows. A full suit of plate armor took about 1 to 3 years to construct, and could easily cost equivalently as much as 1 to 3 large single-family homes (i.e. as much as 10 to 15 times a working man's common yearly salary). Chain mail was much cheaper since it is all made of one element, metal rings. The rings could be cut from a single long metal rod/wire, bent, and then smithed into a suit. The Cutting and bending are simple tasks that someone with no smithing skill could do, and building a suit of mail requires significantly less smithing skill than constructing plate. You could also pre-construct most of the suit, making it an over-large one-size-fits-all affari. It was still time-intensive to make a chain suit, taking easily a few months, but you did not need skilled smiths, and you could have many people churn out rods and rings while many armorers could separately assemble sleeves and chain swatches and then join them up. Even so chain armor used a lot of metal and time, and a good suit of double chain could cost about half to a quarter of a plate suit.
Swords were weapons of the nobility for the same reason. While their construction didn't take as much time or materials as a suit of armor, the amount of craftsmanship and smithing knowledge required was excruciating, making them rather expensive. While cheap ones could be bought for much less, they would easily bend or shatter. Besides being strictly regulated, making a good sword is a difficult task that requires special attention at every stage of the process.
The point being... metal armor was not anywhere near as common as it is in WoW. It was expensive both time-wise and materials-wise... which made them the weapons and armor of lords, not of common monks or priors who spent their days in solemn study or quiet industry. The most common weapon you would find in an abbey would be mostly farm tools, the weapons of peasants. Polearms derived mainly from farming tools; for instance the Billhook or Bill-guisarme was a tool used to clear brush. Knives and wood axes would also be common.
As the Christian Church gained more power and money through grants of money and especially land, the ecclesiastical leaders that controlled those lands started to resemble local lords much more than clergy. One striking example of this is in Song of Roland. Roland's close friend and ally, the bloodthirstly Archbishop Turpin rides to war with him, and puts his own longsword to plenty of 'heathen Saracens'. Archibishop Turpin was one of the very first 'paladins'. The 'paladins' in Song of Roland were a group of 12 soldiers (the 12 Peers), who were close confidants of Charlemagne, and lords in their own right. The word 'paladin' likely came from a Latin word for a Roman high official working closely with the Emperor. The 12 Peers were powerful lords working directly for Charlemagne, so the title fit. Through stories like Song of Roland, the word 'paladin' began to mean more a virtuous warrior than a high official.
Our image of the 'Paladian', a plate armor-clad Medieval European holy warrior, likely comes from the Crusades, a series of religiously-charged military actions, in many cases sanctioned by the Christian Church at the time, between ~1100-1300 AD (or CE if you prefer). The Crusades were a series of bloody, and later on rather questionable, actions that were brought on by the same problem that has fueled a majority of war in the Middle East in the last thousand years, access to the Holy Land.
After the first few Crusades, and the immense profit, orders of knights began to spring up that would escort others traveling to visit the Holy Land and protect people while they were there. Orders such as the Hospitallers, the Teutonic Knights, and, of course, the Knights Templar often made their members quite rich. There were easily a dozen other orders, but these were some of the main powers in the area, granted extraordinary powers by the Pope, making them largely their own nation, subject to no Earthly kings. These Knights were in many cases professional soldiers, not necessarily holding titles, who needed a way to support themselves. This mission was not only lucrative, but also sanctioned by the Christian Church, so soldiers could make an excellent living, and hope that they were helping the cause of their religion. It's likely these knights are our template for 'Paladins'.. virtuous warriors in heavy armor living exclusively to further the cause of their religion.
The exclusion of bladed weapons isn't too clear. As warriors they would have used the best weapon for the job, whatever it was. It could be an attempt to reduce actual 'bloodshed', i.e. killing without drawing blood, however it is most likely an adopted restriction. Often the most powerful items in games are large swords designed for warriors, which would be much too powerful in the hands of a character that can heal itself, and often buff itself with offensive and defensive spells. Forcing Paladins to use blunt weapons at best, like the archtypal Cleric, limits their weapons' damage output, allowing the character itself to be more powerful.
I'd encourage anyone interested in the genesis of the Paladin archtype to read the Song of Roland. It is a very accessible book and is generally available at most bookstores.
MountainLynx Jul 13th 2009 6:15PM
Another note on Paladins with maces: In reality, if you hit plate mail with a sword, the sword will dull and/or chip. If you hit plate mail with a mace, the plate will dent. Aim for the joints and the armor will seize up, making the wearer completely ineffective, regardless of how much punishment their body may or may not be taking.
vazhkatsi Jul 13th 2009 6:43PM
true, but most people IRL didn't run around with an expensive full plate armor suit. if you were lucky you'd have mail and maybe a plate breastplate.
one biggie relating to that would be that the paladins fight undead. if you've ever played dnd, you've probably fought undead, and most undead take less damage from sharp or pointy weapons, and more from blunt weapons. sticking a sword into a risen skeleton doesn't do much....
kia Jul 13th 2009 8:40PM
I did SCA (Society for Creative Anachronism) for a while and armour seemed to be a mish of leather, mail and plate. The few only all-plate, all-mail or all-leather sets of armour I saw were more for show or exhibition.
kia Jul 13th 2009 8:45PM
I should clarify further... they were a 'mish' because they generally worked better that way when actually fighting. You could use leather in parts where movement was more important than the protection of plate, for example. I wouldn't doubt that if we were all getting around fighting in armour today it would be the same - we'd use whatever materials were a) available and b) appropriate for that particular use. Armour class would be .. irrelevant. The other blog on wow.com about whether holy paladins should roll on elemental shaman leather got me thinking that maybe armor class should be irrelevant in wow too....
mowarriorwade Jul 14th 2009 8:27AM
In the SCA most people aren't getting armor that would be period, they're "mishing" leather, mail, and sports equipment because its practical.
Jamie Jul 13th 2009 6:15PM
I've reading The Day of the Dragon as a way to get into reading warcraft books, and I was surprised by what Mages in WoW could do and what Wizards/Mages in the book couldn't do.
For example a couple of basic skills such as Slow Fall (falling off a gryphon into the great sea) & Conjure Food/Water would really have helped Rhonin along his way.
Shouldn't a mage, such as Rhonin, of the Kirin'Tor know such skills?
Ringo Flinthammer Jul 13th 2009 6:54PM
Magic is in a constant state of development -- there was a point where mages could cast sleep, root people in place with ice and open locks -- so those spells likely just hadn't been developed yet.
And don't get me started on dwarf mages ...
*sniff*
Fierna Jul 13th 2009 8:54PM
I think the reason for this is that Day of the Dragon was published in February 2001 and World of Warcraft came out in November 2004. Mages in Warcraft 2 and 3 didn't have slow fall or a need to conjure food. It would have been great because we wouldn't have heard the voice over say "Build More Farms!" all the time.
blkmasta55555 Jul 14th 2009 8:20AM
Also, the spells every mage has are not standard; except for a few absolute essentials, every mage uses what they have studied, which will vary heavily from person to person. The only reason mages ingame have the same skills (apart from talents ofc) is that implementing the multitude of spells available in the lore would be a gargantuan task and break game balance,