Is faction antagonism story-driven or player-driven?
by Matthew Rossi 
Sep 18th 2010 at 12:00PM
One of the things I've noticed in my time back-and-forthing between Alliance and Horde toons is that each faction seems to have many, many vocal partisans who believe the opposite faction to be filled to the brim with churls, knaves and scalawags. Perhaps even hooligans and ne'er-do-wells. You see it all the time in general chat: "Those ally fellows are nothing but mountebanks!" Or perhaps: "Horde? Nothing but disreputable scoundrels, bounders and cads!"
What I find interesting is how much of this factional divide is created by the game itself ... how much comes from quest lines and zone design and world events ... and how much is purely based on the players. It's true that over the past several expansions, we've seen a shift in the game itself from the days of the AQ gate event and the opening of the Dark Portal, when Horde and Alliance stood shoulder-to-shoulder against threats to Azeroth, to the present Wrath/Cataclysm direction when even Old Gods, Lich Kings and insane dragon aspects can't get the Horde and Alliance to cooperate.
Still, until fairly recently, I'd never really felt much of the infamous Horde/Alliance hatred from the game itself. Even the Wrathgate /Battle for Undercity and the Broken Front quests didn't come close to matching the intensity of a forum flame war or a really acrimonious Wintergrasp battle. Playing Horde back in the day, you couldn't help but notice the perception of superiority Horde players (including myself, at the time) felt over Alliance. But the story didn't really have much to do with it.
I found playing a worgen on the beta to be positively eye-opening in this regard. The story from beginning to end is about unchecked, unbounded Forsaken aggression against a people who had never fought them, never attacked them, never tried to invade Lordaeron or claim lands held by them. The people of Gilneas had gone out of their way to avoid the Forsaken, and it was Sylvanas (and behind her, Garrosh Hellscream) directly attacking a neutral nation purely out of naked lust for conquest and territorial acquisition. By the time you're done playing a worgen through the starting zones, you will be ready to put orc babies on spikes. It may be the first time I've ever felt the factional hatred entirely from the game instead of from other players.
Nowadays, it seems that the balance is pretty even. A great deal of the conflict between Horde and Alliance is set up in the story, but players still take the lead (the point of the spear, so to speak) by keeping said antagonism alive via ganking, world PvP and keeping BGs and zones like Wintergrasp/Tol Barad active. I'm curious to read what you think keeps factionalism in WoW active and if you view it as a positive or negative for the game.
While you don't need to have played the previous Warcraft games to enjoy World of Warcraft, a little history goes a long way toward making the game a lot more fun. Dig into even more of the lore and history behind the World of Warcraft in WoW Insider's Guide to Warcraft Lore.Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, Lore, Wrath of the Lich King, Cataclysm
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 9)
Ironbuddah Sep 18th 2010 12:08PM
I remember a developer at one of the earlier Blizzcons stating that Sylvanas didn't actually want to attack the Worgens. She was more focused on the betrayal of Varimathras and Putricide. The Forsaken were no longer trusted by the Horde hence the new guards in Undercity. As Garrosh takes control he orders Sylvanas to attack Gilneas just for the sake of having an extra port in the Eastern Kingdoms. So it is not The Forsaken attacking them, but Garrosh. She's only doing this so that the Horde won't completely distrust and kick them out.
Powatodapeople Sep 18th 2010 2:19PM
true, BUT garrosh completely disapproves of how she is attacking the alliance. she is using the plague and killing and raising new allies just like the lich king and that drives garrosh a little insane. so they're both not really too fond of each other anyway
Mr. Tastix Sep 18th 2010 7:30PM
Since when were the Forsaken truly accepted, and since when did they care?
The Forsaken have always been somewhat unwelcome in the Horde. The only race that really "accepts" them are Blood Elves, and this is most likely due to Sylvanus Windrunner's presence. In general, the Forsaken are more of a "necessary evil".
They have always had their own motives and their own plans. The only reason they're with the Horde is because if they currently need them. If they're not with them, they're against them, and the Alliance never looked kindly on them to begin with.
Eisengel Sep 18th 2010 8:23PM
Who would have thought someone called 'The Banshee Queen' might be a little passive-aggressive? Of course she'll do what Garrosh orders, even if she doesn't want to, although you can bet that she'll do it in a way that will cause Garrosh to wish he never asked her to do it.
Although I have to say - how many new races will the Forsaken be an anchor for? The Belfs were written in on the Forsaken, and it seems the Gilneans are now too.
Groth Sep 19th 2010 6:04PM
The Banshee Queen isn't really being passive aggressive. She's being aggressive. There's not really much passive involved.
The Belfs coming in on the Forsaken's back is a little bit mixed- lots of the Forsaken characters were in Warcraft before WoW, and as Belfs. So it's a bit of a jumble really.
Ironbuddah Sep 20th 2010 12:58PM
It's not that she cares about what the Horde or anyone thinks, rather it's that she cares for her people. She understands them and their curse. She does not like being apart of the Horde but from her standpoint an ally against the Alliance is better than yet another enemy. If things were to end differently The Forsaken would become a third faction of sorts.
She did order the plague to be researched however she never ordered Putricide to kill those at the Wrathgate and hey, it's how she fights.
In terms of Garrosh. No one likes Garrosh, in fact I think most of the Horde, that includes players not just NPC's hate him with a firey passion. Hell he kills Cairne Bloodhoof, AND has a little bout with Vol'Jin. No one wants him to be the leader of the Horde and the story is looking like he's not gonna be around for long. Especially if he makes a mistake.
mingdi9 Sep 18th 2010 12:06PM
And that is of course why you should also play the Forsaken starting areas, from Tirisfal Glades to the end of Hillsbrad. It's not the worgen that makes those zones awesome.
Fletcher Sep 18th 2010 4:55PM
Except I'll be playing through the Forsaken starting experience *entirely* to see the Worgen story there ... y'know, the one that Worgen *players* don't get to see. *Grumbles*
I used to dislike the Forsaken because they seemed immature, mired in hate against everyone because of their miserable existence; I thought that they should have worked through their grief, come to terms with their situation, and made the best they could of a bad deal.
Having seen Forsaken antics in Silverpine, I now *loathe* the Forsaken because instead of working through the issues that cause them to project their self-loathing onto the rest of the world, they've embraced it, and are actively seeking the extinction of all life. You can't say Putress was just a rebel now, fanboys!
It irritates me because the Forsaken could be *more* than mindless evil - in fact, they *should* be more than mindless evil, since they split from the Scourge which *was* literally mindless evil! But I no longer care enough to want a change of government in the Undercity, I no longer want them to see the error of their ways; their sins are of such a magnitude that only extermination will suffice.
My undead shadow priest will be avoiding Forsaken NPCs in Cataclysm, and will definitely be seeking some neutral faction to align herself to.
mingdi9 Sep 18th 2010 5:20PM
If you think the Forsaken are "mindless evil," then I don't think you've actually played the new Forsaken starting area. :
DeathPaladin Sep 18th 2010 5:27PM
I have long been of the opinion that the Knights of the Ebon Blade are everything that the Forsaken *should* have been. What the Forsaken *could* have been.
Their origins are identical. Enslaved by the Lich King, they manage to break free of the Scourge with the help of powerful beings. Now free from Arthas, they seek their revenge.
Their aesthetic is similar. Visuals with a heavy emphasis on darkness and death. Adopting questionable, sometimes outright horrifying, tactics in pursuit of their goals.
However, they're outlook couldn't be more different. The Ebon Blade hates their condition, and so they fight to make sure nobody ever has to experience their pain and suffering. The Forsaken hate their condition, and so they seek to make everyone else experience their pain and suffering.
That is why you had Death Knights fighting shoulder-to-shoulder with Paladins, to the point where one Icecrown quest has the most powerful members of the Ebon Blade personally riding in to rescue trapped Argent Crusaders from the Cult of the Damned. Meanwhile, Forsaken in Cataclysm are brainwashing freshly raised corpses to ensure their loyalty to the Banshee Queen.
Dreyja Sep 18th 2010 6:23PM
I have NEVER wanted to play a Forsaken and I sure as shoot aren't going to play one as they destroy Gilneas, a place and a people I've come to care about.
It is RIDICULOUS that we should have to play the other side to see our own story.
Dreyja Sep 18th 2010 6:53PM
ugh... want edit... so MUCH!
greenthumbs Sep 18th 2010 7:24PM
Personally I'm going to enjoy slaughtering the Worgen with my fellow Forsaken.
RavenJet Sep 19th 2010 3:44AM
All you need to understand why the alliance hates forsake is clearly displayed in the cutscene at the end of Wrathgate when Sylvanas shows up with her poison barrels and indiscriminately attacks not only the scourge but the soldiers as well.
Even as the Alliance and the Horde stand together in the face of destruction - Sylvanas betrays them both. How the hell she managed to stay in the horde after *that* episode I can't for the life of me figure out. "Death to the scouge and death to the living !" they shout - and that sums up their entire attitude.
Saurfang Junior is one of the fatalities of that. That incredibly moving piece of lore after you take down the risen Deathbringer Saurfang as Menethil has perhaps one of the wisest moments of his career as king and actually sees beyond his deepseated old hatreds toward the orcs for what they did to him - to the point where Jaina sobs with pride - that moment as you the player are confronted with the fact that in order to get to Arthas' you have just been forced to destroy the last remnants of a true hero - a hero so great that BOTH factions pay him tribute... would never have had to happen if not for Sylvanas.
The alliance knows that the forsaken cannot be trusted as they make no secret of the fact that they would prefer to see the entirety of life destroyed and turned undead as they are. That their betrayal of the orcs didn't get them kicked out of the horde is a sheer miracle but honestly Sylvanas shouldn't be the least bit surprized that Garosh doesn't trust her - she's done everything to make sure he can't.
Biasses: My main is a gnome, my most important alt a nefl (druid) and my second most important alt is a troll hunter.
Gaellus Sep 18th 2010 10:40PM
I find it funny that you talk about the Wrathgate and all the evils the Forsaken have committed when you don't even know the kings actual name and call him Menethi, plus you don't know it that Sylvanas was not at the Wrathgate and had nothing to do with the use of the poison.
Tabasa Sep 19th 2010 1:35AM
@Gaellus - While no, Sylvanas wasn't at the Wrathgate, and that specific incident was not on her orders, saying she had "nothing to do with it" while marginally accurate, is very misleading, considering that everything up to the point of the time and place it was used, she had quite a lot to do with it.
Tabasa Sep 19th 2010 1:38AM
Wow, god-awful awkward sentence structure. WTB edit button. Shouldn't post this late. @_@
RavenJet Sep 19th 2010 3:55AM
Okay - I went an rewatched the cutscene to check my facts (hey it was 3am when I posted -I blame that for getting Wrynn's name wrong...)
Yes, Sylvanas isn't there herself- but Arthas at least thinks it's her orders being followed - he identifies her by name.
Cure4Living Sep 19th 2010 10:59AM
@RavenJet
That's because he sees a bunch of dead people who don't follow his orders. Just because he thinks it doesn't necessarily make it so. Sure I'm not saying Sylvanas didn't plan on using, she just didn't plan on using it in such a "Hey everyone! Look at me!"-fashion.
@DeathPaladin
Well I always felt that the difference was that the forsaken wasn't a military force, the Death Knights are. The forsaken didn't have the man power and strength to march into icecrown alone and had to join the Horde.
It's essentially the difference between angering a man with a big stick and angering a little man with no stick. It doesn't excuse the forsaken's actions of course but where the Death Knight's were able to pick-up arms and focus solely on the Lich King, the Forsaken had to wait and brood, unable to act upon their hatred for Arthas they started to hate everything. Of course the Death Knight's aren't saints themselves...
DeathPaladin Sep 19th 2010 4:45PM
That's all well and good, Cure, if the Forsaken actually did sit there and brood. But they didn't. They actively designed a plague that, when used, would wipe out both the Scourge and the living. If you'll take note, the latter of those not only includes most of the Forsaken's enemies, but all of their allies. They are a heavily militarized society. They just make up their possible lack of numbers with a heavy investment in WMDs. On top of all of that, in Cataclysm the Forsaken are one of the single largest conventional military forces in the northern half of the Eastern Kingdoms, if not the largest. Gilneas lost a large portion of their military to the civil war, curse, and Forsaken invasion. The Ebon Blade is largely inactive, either unconcerned with Azeroth's geopolitics or dispersed among the Alliance or Horde. The Blood Elves are still rebuilding. The Argent Crusade is mostly confined to cleaning up in the Plaguelands. Meanwhile, the Forsaken expand with frankly minimal resistance. And this is all after losing the bulk of their military to the aftermath of the Wrath Gate.
As to the Ebon Blade being a more militarized force, they did not march into Icecrown alone, and the times they employ traditional military tactics are few and far between. The Argent Crusade was the blunt military force. The Ebon Blade's tactics were all about subversion. They have you control lesser undead to sow discord among the Scourge ranks and sabotage their machinations. They team up with Alliance and Horde officers to try to compromise the physical structure of Icecrown Citadel. They have you commandeer weapons so they can be used to sow chaos among their enemies. The only times I can recall the Ebon Blade acting as conventional soldiers and not special forces since Lights Hope is Tirion's Gambit and the final quests in the Fleshwerks, both of which happen at the end of quest chains where Death Knights deploy the players to act as special forces.