Know Your Lore: Story development and why Theramore should burn

One of the most contentious pieces of information to come out of BlizzCon this year was the rumor that Theramore, Alliance stronghold on the coast of Kalimdor and home to Jaina Proudmoore, would come under attack and possibly be destroyed come time for the next expansion. This created a flurry of indignant outcry from Alliance players, who thought that once again, the Alliance was being treated unfairly and the Horde was the obvious favorite to all.
This outcry was so loud and boisterous as to warrant a response on the issue from Zarhym, who reassured players that there was much to see with the story behind the next expansion, and this was merely a first step. Yet the outcry continues, and the sheer overwhelming negativity and cynicism launched at Blizzard by players is an almost palpable cloud.
To all of you, I say this: Relax. It's going to be OK. Take a deep breath, and come with me on a journey into the back-end and construction of an evolving world, and discover why Theramore has to be torched into oblivion.
The construction of story
The purpose of a story, no matter whether it be book, game, film, or television show, is this: to entertain and to get the reader emotionally invested in the story. Written works like books are usually done in a predictable format of exposition, complication, climax, and resolution -- not necessarily pat in that order, and sometimes (as in the case of multi-book series like Harry Potter) over several novels. But the resolution is always there by the end of the story, a moment when everything is tidily wrapped up and the characters live, if not happily ever after, to see another day.
In the midst of that clinical construction of plot are the characters, and each character has a distinct motivation for what he or she is doing, even if that motivation isn't clearly defined until the very end of the book -- or not at all! Slap on the events that happen to those characters, and you've got yourself a story. But if you simply stop at that point, it's not going to be a particularly good story. The author has to invest as much emotion into the story as those who read it, because that's how that emotion comes across. A flat, clinical description of events doesn't bring the story to life; the emotional aspect of it does.
Yet there's more than just that. If a plot is simple, it's not going to keep a reader engaged. If a character is underdeveloped, it won't feel like a genuine character. If the events in a story are all somehow balanced and fair, there's no conflict to be had. Conflict is one of the key elements that get people emotionally invested in a story. Without it, there's simply no reason to care about the characters or wonder what's going to happen to them.
Story construction in an evolving world
When you are dealing with a creation like a book, that construction is pretty cut and dry -- and you get multiple chances to go over that story and make certain all the key elements are there before you send it to press to be published. As a reader of a book, you have no say in what happens in that story; you're merely reading through from beginning to end. The difficult chapters, the ones filled with strife and sorrow for the characters -- those chapters come to an end and move on. You can sit down and read a book from beginning to end in a sitting if you wish; you aren't left hanging unless there's a deliberate cliff-hanger at the end.
But when you're dealing with the story behind an evolving world like Warcraft, that dynamic of simply reading a story from beginning to end simply isn't present. As someone "reading" the story of Warcraft (playing through it), you are consistently suspended at the moment that the story pauses, waiting for the next chapter to be released -- or even more aptly, waiting for the next page to be printed. As a reader or a player, this can be incredibly frustrating, especially if it seems like the future of the rest of the book is a bleak and uninspired one.
But what you have to keep in mind is that a story told through an evolving world cannot be told all in one sitting. If you know what is going to happen from now until the end of WoW, what would keep you playing? Just like books or movies, if someone spoils the ending of that book or movie, you're far less likely to pick it up and read or watch it. Why bother? You already know how it ends.
Cataclysm, or catalyst?
What we have with Warcraft is a world that developed in an RTS game where the beginning, middle and end was predetermined. There was no waiting for further story development in the RTS games. You could simply play through the game until you reached the end and saw how it all panned out. In classic World of Warcraft, that story began where the RTS games left off and continued to expand it. With The Burning Crusade and Wrath, the little story hooks that were left over from those original RTS games were addressed and wrapped up. Illidan, Vashj and Kael were dealt with, as was the Lich King.
What this left us with was a giant blank canvas. These old story elements were wrapped up, with little left to address from those old RTS games. Everything that we had been fighting for and playing through from classic until Wrath's end was taken care of. The question left to the story development team was a big "What now?"
Or at least, that's what it looks like from the eyes of a player. But Blizzard already knows the answer to that question. It writes these expansions long, long before we actually see them. What did we get after Wrath? We got Cataclysm, a contentious expansion that seemed to bring in tons of story elements -- the worgen, the goblins, Sylvanas' actions in Silverpine and the Western Plaguelands, the contentious rift between the various Horde factions, even the sudden disappearance of Neptulon. And none of these stories seem to be on their way to being tidly wrapped up by Cataclysm's end. What's up with that?
Consider for a moment that this was done 100% on purpose. With the end of Wrath, there were no more story hooks to draw from. The simple fact is that we needed new ones to keep us invested in the story. There is no big "the end" to World of Warcraft; that world has to keep continually evolving in order to move on. And those elements we see in Cataclysm -- the odd actions of Sylvanas, the rise of Garrosh , the massive amount of discord and strife thrown at the Alliance -- are elements that will continue to drive the story forward without the need to draw from the RTS games. These threads were all hinted at and began back as far as classic WoW.
Hints and threads
In classic WoW, Horde players who made their way through Hillsbrad Foothills got a glimpse of the somewhat questionable nature of the Banshee Queen. In The Burning Crusade, Horde players were introduced to Garrosh Hellscream and actually helped him regain the confidence that he's using in spades to try and rule the world in Cataclysm. In classic, the humans dealt with the loss of their king. In The Burning Crusade, he returned. And in Wrath, he was thrown into a war against a creature that was once his friend -- and he had to deal with the "savages" that held him imprisoned and forced him into fighting in the pits.
There was a burgeoning anger in Varian Wrynn and a burgeoning anger in Garrosh Hellscream -- anger for each other. Garrosh viewed the humans and the rest of the Alliance as weaklings, and Varian viewed the orcs and the rest of the Horde as brutal, worthless savages. And there were two people who were desperately trying to change the minds of thousands upon thousands of others -- the Warchief Thrall and Lady Jaina Proudmoore.
Thrall grew up and was raised as a slave by a human who treated him like scum, but there were other humans like Taretha who taught him not all humans were like that. That Blackmoore was an exception, not the standard rule for humankind. Jaina Proudmoore was an idealist who saw the world for what it could be -- a shining example of peace and prosperity. Jaina was willing to forgive and let go, and saw the necessity of doing so, to the point of sacrificing her own father's life in order to let that vision of peace come to pass.
Both of these characters have been standing on a line that has been growing thinner and thinner over the course of the expansions, desperately trying to tell both sides that if they simply make up and apologize, the world would be better for it.
A darker future
But this isn't World of Peacecraft, and a world in which everyone gets along is simply a boring world with no conflict. Thrall was the first to be taken out of the picture. He stepped down as Warchief when he realized his vision, as wonderful as it might be, was not the vision of the Horde. He could not effectively lead the Horde when the Horde itself was not behind him, so he gave the Horde what he thought it needed -- an orc who would lead the Horde to victory and honor. At this point, it is not the best decision he's ever made. That's OK; characters can make bad decisions -- we do it all the time in the real world.
Jaina has yet to be taken out of that picture, but we've seen hints in the Warcraft novels, faint as those hints might be. In particular, The Shattering led to a confrontation with Thrall and was the beginning of the slow realization for Jaina that perhaps one day, she would have to choose sides. Perhaps the world was not ready for this idyllic vision of peace that she'd been carrying with her since she was a child. Perhaps this vision of equality, where all creatures of Azeroth and beyond stood together as one against the foes of the world, was simply not meant to pass. Yet despite these realizations, she has still continued to hold her ground and stand firm.
Jaina Proudmoore is nothing if not stubborn and set in her ideals. It will take far more than a simple word from her king to step aside and let go of what is holding her back.

This is why Theramore is vitally important to the story. It's not a matter of the Alliance losing ground; it's a matter of giving Jaina, a character who hasn't seen a ton of development so far, a swift kick in the rear end that will advance her storyline and change her way of thinking -- and through that, push the Alliance as a whole forward into action. It's to once and for all shove Jaina with utter certainty off of that line that she and Thrall have been standing on for years. She won't budge as it stands; she won't move or change from her resolve unless something drastic enough happens to change her mind.
With Theramore's destruction, Jaina will be shown exactly what it is she's been fighting for. She'll be shown that the Horde she's been fighting and struggling to hold peace with is not interested in peace. She'll be shown that her dear friend Thrall, the one orc who shared that vision with her, is no longer in charge, and those he left behind are simply not interested in peace. She'll be shown with utter clarity that the sacrifice she made in Warcraft III, the death of her father, was a sacrifice made in vain. She'll see that her father was right, and had she not been so whimsically following a path of idealism and peace, he would still be alive and standing next to her today.
That is a lot to show to a character, particularly a character like Jaina Proudmoore who has had very little in the way of character development beyond being distressed at the thought of killing the Lich King and wistfully, foolishly hoping that perhaps Arthas, the man she loved, still resided somewhere beneath the Lich King's helm. It's an explosive, fiery confirmation that everything she has built her world around and been fighting for is nothing. It's confirmation that her hopes and ideals, everything she had built her life around, are essentially foolish, childish daydreams.
Alliance vs. Horde and fairness
In war, fairness does not exist. It is a state of side against side, and one side may hold the upper hand for a while, but the other side may retaliate in kind. In stories, it is the conflict that holds the tension and keeps the tale alive. If both sides were treated equally in a story, there would be little cause for conflict, and that idyllic world that Jaina Proudmoore wishes so hard she could see come to pass would be -- let's face it -- utterly boring and devoid of any reason to follow it.
In stories, the conflict provides the tension, but the characters drive that story -- and in Warcraft, we have been slowly introduced to a cast of characters with the potential to drive that story to new peaks of conflict. Concentrating on who holds the upper hand is simply focusing on a part of the story that in the end holds little value. The valuable aspect of the story is the characters and their struggle and evolution through an ever-changing world.
Yes, sometimes the Horde will hold the upper hand, as in Cataclysm. And sometimes the Alliance will hold the upper hand. An evolving story in an MMO like Warcraft cannot afford to simply make the world a fair and balanced place. It's the conflict that creates the emotional investment that, at the end, is a key part of what good storytelling is all about.
And judging from the emotionally charged response to Theramore's destruction, Blizzard has stepped up and handed us a story that is absolutely riveting and polarizing. Consider this: You would not be so upset about the events to come unless you were emotionally invested in the story deeply enough to be affected by that outcome on a profound level. That's the hallmark of good storytelling, and Blizzard's been giving us years of it. It would be foolish to think that Blizzard isn't going to give us plenty more.
For now, yes, we are at a chapter in the story that is distressing. It will be OK, and the tides of war will continue to shift and ebb. We simply need to be patient and wait for the next page to turn.
For more information on related subjects, please look at these other Know Your Lore entries:
- Jaina Proudmoore
- King Varian Wrynn
- Go'el, son of Durotan
- Garrosh Hellscream, part 1 and part 2
- Lore 101 Part 2: Canon, timelines and retcons
- Story analysis and the misconception of "lolore"
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: Lore, Know your Lore






Reader Comments (Page 1 of 15)
jordan Nov 20th 2011 4:10PM
That's all well and good but I demand Kul'tiras back in exchange for Theramore!
vocenoctum Nov 20th 2011 6:11PM
Hard to say, but really if "need to push Jaina" is the reason to nix theremore, than Kul Tiras would have been a good substitution for Theremore in the destructive phase also.
I'm not a Jaina fan, so I'm not sold on her needing to come to grips with The War, really. It seems to me though, that Kul Tiras refugee's washing up on shore as Horde forces have destroyed the island would have illustrated simply enough that the threat is real.
RedMosquito Nov 20th 2011 7:23PM
Maybe not Kul Tiras, but I think the Alliance might just get Stromgarde back.
Dustwallow Marsh was barely untouched in Cata, which makes me think that Blizzard had been planning the destruction of Theramore from way back then (so they wouldn't have to revamp the zone twice). Perhaps the same is true of another zone that was barely untouched in Cata: Arathi Highlands.
And if you think about it, Arathi is just north of Wetlands, the last zone that is truly controlled by the Alliance in northern Eastern Kingdoms; if controlled, it would create a link between the Human, Dwarven and Night Elven troops in Wetlands and the Wildhammer Dwarves in the Hinterlands. Not to mention that it's relatively close to the Undercity, to Gilneas... it is perfectly suited to become the Alliance's staging ground to make war on Sylvanas.
I think there's a chance that Stromgarde, barely touched since Vanilla, might just become the "replacement" for Theramore. This would solidify the Alliance's strength in northern Eastern Kingdoms, to "compensate" (in a way) for the great loss in southern Kalimdor. (And Arathi is a contested zone anyway, so the Horde wouldn't be losing any territories, or anything.)
DeathPaladin Nov 20th 2011 8:42PM
To be fair, I'd normally be fine with something like Theramore being razed. Storywise, it's interesting because something that big raises the stakes. However, it's a problem when taken with the rest of the Alliance storyline.
It's not even that the Alliance loses so often. That could even be excused if done well. The problem is that the Alliance is reactive, even passive. If (not when, if) they do anything, it is always reacting to something.
And this is not just a problem from WoW. It's existed from the very beginning. Warcraft 1 has the humans defending against the orcs. Warcraft 2 has the humans defending, then pushing back, the orcs.
Warcraft 3, when the Horde starts to become the non-evil faction, has the humans flee to Kalimdor because the Scourge wiped out Lordaeron, while the orcs set sail for Kalimdor in order to build a new life. Notice how even here, the Horde was proactive while the Alliance was reactive.
So that's my problem with Theramore. It just compounds the problem that the only way the writers seem to be able to include the Alliance in the story is by having them reacting to an outside force.
That is why they cannot come up with a good war cry for the Alliance. It's because the Alliance feels so insubstantial. It only exists as a reflection of something else.
Skarn Nov 20th 2011 9:09PM
This is an interesting response and highlights the base problem that Anne is attempting to address. It's this notion that the story has to be fair or it's not a good story. Actually, a good story is typically NOT fair! A lot of people weren't happy that Snape killed Dumbledore (that's not still a spoiler...right?) but it made for a good story.
Warcraft 3 was a good story, but it didn't seek to make sure that the Horde and Alliance came out the same. The Alliance got a major city burned to the ground and it's ruler became a villain. The Horde got to escape captivity, find a new home and make new allies. The Alliance did manage to have a faction survive the destruction of Lordaeron, but "surviving" isn't exactly a victory. The writers didn't feel a need to make sure the story was "fair" to both sides, they just tried to make it interesting.
Enter WoW. Where the real trouble starts. Now it's not just "my favorite characters lost/got ignored" it's "MY character got the shaft." While people were attached to the story before, they are now PART of the story. They feel like they are part of the Horde or Alliance and that makes the story changes feel personal. So we demand equality in story telling. To some extent, that's reasonable and necessary. If Blizzard wants to maintain it's game, it needs both factions and players on both factions. They could tell a great story of the Horde/Alliance winning a permanent and lasting victory over the Alliance/Horde, but that will kick the foundation out of the game. It's important to give both sides something to enjoy, something to look forward to, something to celebrate. At the same time, maintaining perfect parity is going to make for a terribly boring and predictable story.
There's gotta be a good balance from Blizzard to tell a good, changing story, but also keep both sides of their player base happy. It's also up to us, the players, to tell them what we think, if we enjoy the story or not and then we need to let them TELL THE STORY. To some extent, we need to shut up and play the game. Yet...it needs to remain a game we WANT to play with a story we can be invested in. It's hard to be invested when you are always losing. I'm going in circles here, but that's because it's a very tricky problem for Blizzard to deal with.
Ultimately, it'd be great if everyone can step back and disconnect themselves from "their faction" for a few minutes and just look at the story. Stop taking it so personally and enjoy the story. Then tell Blizzard that even though they have written a good story, it takes the heart out of your faction and makes you not want to play.
Arrohon Nov 20th 2011 9:26PM
I thought the warcry was decided years ago. "Grab your sword and fight the Horde!"
Let's see if anyone other than old staff members know where that originated (as a warcry, not the phrase itself)!
vocenoctum Nov 20th 2011 11:02PM
I'm a bit of a pessimist really, so take that into consideration, but I figure Theremore will be attacked "destroyed" and rebuilt in an event and otherwise still function exactly as it does now. All this talk of Kul Tiras, Stromgarde, Stonard, meh. When the Panda's bounce in, theremore will probably still have the same asshat defectors.
The thing about Theremore's destruction being part of a good story and all that is addressed elsewhere, but I'll say this, Blizzard has a lot of income, that $15ish a month folks pay is for maintenance, customer service and game support. I'd think they'd have a good writing staff and development staff that should be able to weave a tale of high adventure, war and heroism with two factions without having to destroy another Alliance town. It's an MMO, it's a static world in between expansions.
If Jaina needs to be motivated, let her wake up and smell the ooze boiling off Southshore, it "just happened". Why hasn't she reacted to all the other stuff? Just seems like the adding a new Story Catalyst when so many others are still sitting ignored or forgotten, just stretches things.
Except for Neptulon, not sure why she mentioned that at all, since they've already said they abandoned the idea of the raid, and are fine with the "ending" the way it is. It's not some "story seed" from what they've said. He'll be forgotten until someone down the line goes "oh, crap, did we ever...", just like Uldum...
Angrycelt Nov 21st 2011 12:18AM
You really can't tell me to step back and stop thinking of the story in terms of my faction's point of view since that's all Blizz has forced down our throats for years. Us vs Them. Alliance vs Horde. I chose my side years ago, and when the best they can come up with is to trash another one of our cities to stir the pot, I'm annoyed by it. Even small places hold sentimental value to lots of players, and to lose or see destroyed Southshore, Menethil Harbor, Auberdine, Astranaar, Silverwind Refuge, to gain back and then lose Andorhal, and even Gilneas as a cruel tease, and now have Theramore on the horizon to up in smoke?
I don't care about Pandas, monks, or pet battles. MoP has a hell of a lot to answer for, and there needs to be a storyline to pick up what the Alliance players have been saying. Give us a war. Give us blood. Give us some Horde heads on pikes. I can be all kinds of pissed off as a player, but the game doesn't give me anywhere to take it out but in the extremely transitory battlegrounds. I want world changes that go beyond a couple of walls and ditches in South Barrens. I want to see the Undercity burn. I want Tauren totem poles to adorn Stormwind's trophy room. I want Garrosh's ridiculously oversized shoulderpad horns turned into a rocking chair for Ol' Emma.
Moolii Nov 21st 2011 2:10AM
@RedMosquito - Dustwallow Marsh was barely touched? Maybe Mudsprocket, but the Alliance put a freaking superhighway right through the middle of it. They then used this highway to wage war on the once-peaceful Barrens, wiping out the innocent inhabitants of Camp Taurajo.
If you want to know why the Horde attacked Theramore, it's simply revenge for the Taurajo massacre.
Jawn Nov 21st 2011 3:52AM
@Mooli "Dustwallow Marsh was barely touched? Maybe Mudsprocket, but the Alliance put a freaking superhighway right through the middle of it. "
They put a road. That's.... it. That's not a whole lot compared to many other zones. You can call it superhighway or freeway or whatever... it's still just... a road, compared to, say, two new forts in Swamp of Sorrows (plus a small outpost), Barrens getting cut in two, and many new spots there, plus a new jungle, Stonetalon getting quite redecorated as was Badlands...
So yeah. Barely touched. They put a road. The story that goes with it isn't even in Dustwallow.
anon e moose Nov 21st 2011 8:39AM
Whats the point anymore?
Sorry but even the author failed to show his point - for example "Yes, sometimes the Horde will hold the upper hand, as in Cataclysm. And sometimes the Alliance will hold the upper hand."
When was the alliance holding the upper hand and pushing the horde back then????
Oh yes - the only time it was ....before the orcs came to the land.
Sorry but Blizz, for me at least, have already passed the point of no return. I quit in 4.1, and tbh have never looked back (well maybe once or twice - but I have never thought about coming back). Too little too late, and just when I thought about it, Blizzcon happened, and that was the final nail in the coffin for me.
Badmedecine Nov 20th 2011 4:10PM
Now if every single alliance complainer could be forced to read this article... *sigh*
Muse Nov 20th 2011 4:20PM
Now if the person who wrote the article had actually read anything the Alliance complainers had been writing about this. We've been over this a hundred times already.
Imnick Nov 20th 2011 4:42PM
I've read pretty much no topics whining about Theramore that addressed any of this post
Muse Nov 20th 2011 5:11PM
Try actually reading some? I recommend page 104, 108, and 226, in
us.battle.net/wow/en/forum/topic/3430805957 . Or go back here on WoW-insider to the articles asking whether or not there's favouritism for the Horde and read the blue-stared posts.
wow.joystiq.com/2011/10/28/today-in-wow/
wow.joystiq.com/2011/10/24/zarhym-weighs-in-on-theramore-rumors-in-mists-of-pandaria/
wow.joystiq.com/2011/10/26/breakfast-topic-blizzards-horde-bias-fact-or-delusion/
If it's been thought of, it's been said.
DragonFireKai Nov 20th 2011 6:10PM
http://childrenofwrath.blogspot.com/2011/10/misteps-in-cataclysm-misfired-story.html
That post pretty much explains why Blizzard is making a mistake with this storyline.
Skarn Nov 20th 2011 9:21PM
Huh. I really liked that link, DragonFireKai! It highlights my biggest problem with WoW. So many people time and again spout the line "where is the war in Warcraft?" because they want some sort of Alliance/Horde conflict. The problem with that is that it can't end. There's no way for one side to win or lose or the game as we know it is destroyed. If the Alliance loses everything, that's half the playerbase that quits because they don't want to be the other side. An Alliance/Horde war story is ultimately untenable since it can not have a true resolution. It inevitably must end at another stalemate.
The linked post goes into much better detail than I do, so suffice it to say that I agree and I encourage everyone to read it.
Pyromelter Nov 21st 2011 5:40AM
There is a point I'd like to make about "storytelling" v. "mmo." In an MMO, you are limited by the the fact that you have to have balance between the factions (that would be balance in terms of classes, racial abilities, quest opportunities, and moments for cool lore). While someone above stated that having a story be unfair is good, you can't shoe-horn that into an MMO property.
The point and suggestion I have made and will continue to make is that blizzard needs a warcraft 4, or at least some kind of single-player campaign. I believe there is a litany of reasons for this (the main reasons being we need new heroes, especially alliance heroes, as well as new villains, and we need to play as those heroes in villains in a storybook RPG or RTSRPG). Blizzard absolutely shines at telling stories through RTS campaigns, one need only to look at the recent example of Starcraft 2.
The problem with WoW as I see is that too much lore and hero stories are going on outside of the game in novels, and the playerbase is not creating emotional connections with them. Do we love thrall because he is some kind of hero we aspire to be? Or do we love him because we kicked ass playing as him, and saved the world along with Jaina and the night elves on Mt. Hyjal in W3? Did we hate Arthas because he was the big bad, or were we conflicted because we played out his life story in a riveting game?
I think the answer here is obvious, and I will continue to maintain that until blizzard puts out another single-player RTS or RPG to advance and create new stories, World of Warcraft will continue to be hamstrung by it's current need for balance between the factions.
Luke Nov 21st 2011 7:12AM
Oh Alliance... you're just making more Celestial Steeds.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVal6o6bzZ8
Micheal Nov 20th 2011 4:12PM
A simplified view I have as well is that for 7 years players have (in general) really liked Jaina. She's cool, she's smart, she's logical, she's above petty anger, she's heartbroken, etc... lots of things that players adored her for. Jaina + Arthas is a story that has a life of its own after all.
And now to see something bad happen to Jaina will get ALL players to feel. Anger, mocking, whatever. But hardly a player will not be affected if something bad happens to Jaina, whether they play Alliance or Horde