Know Your Lore: The curious dissonance of Alliance leveling
Back when I was writing up the five must-do Horde zones and five must-do Alliance zones articles, I decided to play through those zones again just for experience's sake. In beta and the early days of Cataclysm, I spent a lot of time going through the Alliance 1-to-60 leveling zones and experiencing the content. I remember being really pleased with how well the zones were laid out and how nice it was to see actual story instead of just, "I'd like six pig heads; go get them from the field next door." After that experience, I played through them on Horde side and was terribly pleased to see they were just as well done on the other side of the faction fence.
I didn't really think about it afterwards, and it wasn't until I decided to do these two articles that I took it upon myself to level through these zones again. And this time ... something had changed, a little. Perhaps it was because it had been so long since I'd played through the Alliance zones. Perhaps it was because I had just finished experiencing the Horde zones when I went back to Alliance. But there was something very, very different about the experience.
While leveling as Horde, I was having all kinds of lighthearted fun mixed with bits of serious story. While leveling as Alliance, I felt like there was an oppressive weight bearing down on me at all times, and that weight was never really removed. Odd, that.
The Alliance, from classic to Wrath
The Alliance has never had it really easy, but the days of vanilla were a largely idyllic time in the neverending battle between Alliance and Horde. In vanilla, most of the major issues the Alliance experienced were at the hands of various sources -- a major one being the Dark Iron dwarves, the Blackrock orcs and of course, the Black Dragonflight's major representatives of the time, Nefarian and Onyxia. These enemies weren't just enemies of the Alliance, however -- they were also enemies of the Horde, and the Horde worked just as hard to take them down as the Alliance did.
The various zones of the world were split into either Alliance-controlled areas, Horde-controlled areas, or contested territory, with the majority of zones being contested zones. But speaking as someone who leveled through both in vanilla (Alliance first, Horde later), it always seemed as though most of the zones were far more entertaining and engaging on the Alliance side of things than the Horde side of the equation. Oh, there were fun Horde zones, to be certain, but nothing with the lively amount of engaging interest like early Westfall, Redridge, or Duskwood -- especially Duskwood. It was one of my favorite zones and Alliance-only. And nothing on Horde side could compare to the epic conclusion of The Great Masquerade, in which Alliance players got to fight Onyxia in their capital city.

In Wrath, the balance shifted again. There were plenty of entertaining Horde storylines throughout the various zones in Northrend, but after playing through both, I enjoyed myself on the Alliance side a little more. This was largely due to seeing events that highlighted things that happened in Warcraft III over in Dragonblight -- but it was also due to the effect of Battle for the Undercity. Don't get me wrong, fighting in the Undercity was fun on both sides, but on Alliance, it felt more dangerous. Here we were, heroes of the Alliance, boldly tromping into the depths of Lordaeron's ruins, someplace Alliance players simply weren't supposed to be. Only we had our king at our side along with Jaina Proudmoore, and the whole effort felt far more daring, more heroic.
Cataclysm in the eyes of the Alliance
And then we have Cataclysm. Cataclysm marked a complete overhaul of all of those 1-to-60 leveling zones to bring them up to date. It re-designated territory, and all of a sudden, the embers of anger between Alliance and Horde roared into full-out fire. On the Horde side, players got to explore the effects of Thrall's decision to leave and experience what the Horde was like with Garrosh Hellscream at the helm. The Horde gets to experience the odd, sinking sensation that perhaps their faction is slowly tearing itself apart, and the only person who can bring them back together again has stepped down in favor of saving the world.
But for Alliance, the story is far, far more grim. It's dark, it's gritty, and there's almost no saving grace to it. While Horde zones are interspersed with the silly fun of quest chains like the ones found in Hillsbrad Foothills, there are no real Alliance counterparts. The flavor is completely different between the two. Westfall may appear to be a silly CSI reference, but it's a much larger and more complex story of one shattered little girl who watched members of the Alliance cut off her father's head and dealt with the consequences.
Redridge may seem like a fun reference to Rambo, but the overall tone of the zone is one of desperation in which the Alliance are trying desperately to hang on to what they've managed to build. Duskwood is still as dark and gloomy as ever. Darkshore is a nightmare of kaldorei corpses and devastation. Ashenvale is overrun by Garrosh's Horde forces. Stonetalon features a druid training ground blown abruptly to smithereens by a Horde bomb. South Barrens highlights a decent man just trying to do his job that is viciously murdered by the Horde. Gilneans have to flee their city due to attacks from the Forsaken, forced to seek refuge in Darnassus. The list goes on and on.

For worgen, humankind seems to have given them the cold shoulder, and they've instead been shuffled off to Kalimdor. For night elves, both the Horde and the very land they have settled on are deliberately out to get them, slaughtering the kaldorei en masse. For gnomes, the attempt to take back Gnomeregan was ultimately unsuccessful. For dwarves, the tensions between the Council of the Three Hammers are evident. For humans ... For humans, Varian Wrynn, who did plenty in Wrath, seems to be content to rest on his laurels while the rest of human civilization falls apart and riots right in front of his nose. And for the draenei, they're stuck in a time warp where they are still trying to settle into the Alliance and simply be accepted.
Leveling through a bleak future
That is ultimately the biggest issue with Alliance discontent. The problem is, once you hit level 85 and start going through the Alliance content, it's relatively similar to the Horde stuff. Most of what you see in Hyjal, Uldum and Deepholm is pretty identical no matter which side you're on. Twilight Highlands features a different intro, but both chains ultimately lead to the same thing, albeit with different companions along the way. It's fun no matter which side you're on, from 80 to 85.
Coming from someone who's gone through all of Warcraft, from Orcs and Humans until now, this all makes sense, honestly. There is an overarching cycle to it all, and we'll discuss that at a later date. Speaking as a WoW player since the days of classic beta, when you look at it all laid out from beginning to end through all of the expansions, it all lines up and works out well enough, and the story is honestly compelling when looked at as a whole.
But if you're a new Alliance player just starting out in the world of Azeroth, what you're confronted with for 60 levels worth of play time is a bleak future in which you're destined to lose. And that's the crux of the issue: New Alliance players, or Horde players who decide to make the switch and try out the Alliance side of things, are left with the impression that there is little to nothing to look forward to while playing Alliance zones. That somewhat brighter look at Azeroth's Alliance -- the Alliance of classic WoW -- is no longer present in game. Any reminder of times where the Alliance may have had it good have simply evaporated.
That isn't really a fun game to play through. And honestly, only the die-hard Alliance fans would be willing to slog through it without complaint. For Horde players, the cries of Horde favoritism and complaints from Alliance players seem ridiculously overblown and over the top, and for good reason. Leveling through the Horde experience gives the impression that the Alliance are pulling some really dirty tricks and are happily murdering Horde.

This issue is best seen by playing through the South Barrens zone -- not just on one side of the faction. Play through it on both. See what kind of impression you have when you come out of the experience. When I first experienced this zone on Horde, I was outraged at what had happened to Camp Taurajo and at the gall of the Alliance that so casually looted the remains of what had been a quiet tauren outpost. I didn't even flinch as I was ordered to murder General Hawthorne, thinking that this reaction was ultimately justified -- especially after witnessing what had happened to the Taurajo survivors.
And then I played the Alliance half.
Suddenly, the Horde were presented as the aggressors. And General Hawthorne, the guy I'd just murdered in cold blood, turned out to be a decent guy. He let the civilians of Taurajo go; he had no idea that the only place for them to flee was through hostile quillboar territory. The looters that I'd been so angry at weren't even part of the Alliance forces; they were military men who had defected and run off to go reap the spoils of war. Hawthorne hadn't ordered the looting; he was disgusted by it and actually has the player go apprehend the looters.

As I finished playing through the zone on the Alliance side, I felt a flash of appreciation for what was truly some compelling storytelling and a clever way of handling it. And I felt really terrible for what I'd done on the Horde side of the quests. This is what is happening in game right now, however. Horde players are seeing one side of the story, and in that side of the story, they are completely justified in what they are doing. Alliance players are seeing exactly the same thing, only the justification for the Horde's actions isn't there. It's just the Horde, brutally murdering whatever happens to be in the way between them and total domination.
What the future holds
It is a testament to Blizzard's brilliant creative development team that they've managed to pull this off so flawlessly. Both Alliance and Horde players feel justified in their reactions, and they will argue relentlessly over basic facts -- but each will present the facts as seen from their respective side. This results in Alliance and Horde players constantly fighting with each other in a never-ending spiral of aggression, which dovetails quite nicely into the overarching theme of Mists of Pandaria -- Alliance vs. Horde in all-out war.
I cannot deny that I am excited to see what we're going to experience in Mists. What we are experiencing as players, both Alliance and Horde -- that discontent with the situation, the derision we hold for the opposite faction -- that's what the various characters in WoW are feeling right now. It's a perfect mirror to what is happening in game, and I am guessing there are going to be some very, very big stories in Mists wherein we will learn exactly what all that aggression and fighting is going to get us.
But at the same time, there's an underlying issue with Alliance leveling. It's not fun. There aren't enough lighthearted moments to counteract the sorrow. There isn't really any joy in playing through a bleak future that looks as if the suffering will never end. The cool factor of the various quest mechanics and rewards doesn't really make up for the overall emotion one gets out of playing through the experience.
And that's a pity, and maybe it's something that needs to be addressed, because as it stands, the Alliance are going to be stuck in a 1-to-60 experience that leaves them at a loss and feeling slightly depressed for the next several years. I don't know about anyone else, but I don't play video games in order to come out of the experience feeling miserable. So the question is what's to be done about it? Will anything be done about it at all?
For more information on related subjects, please look at these other Know Your Lore entries:
- The struggle for Southern Barrens
- The sorrow of Southern Barrens
- The VanCleefs, the rise of the Defias, and Westfall
- King Varian Wrynn
- The hour of the king
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
Patch 5.3 interview with Ghostcrawler
Mystery of the Unborn Val'kyr
The latest patch 5.3 news
All of the latest Mists of Pandaria news





Reader Comments (Page 3 of 8)
Andrew Apr 1st 2012 7:14PM
One tiny point to make: killing the leader of the Horde is not Blizz giving a victory to the Alliance. It's Blizz giving both the Alliance *and* the Horde the opportunity to remove a malignant figure from Azeroth who could lead to both factions' destruction if he isn't taken care of. I promise you that at the end of the expansion there will be a cutscene where Varian is standing over Garrosh's body, and Thrall/the next leader of the Horde come up and they put aside their differences enough for both factions to face whatever is coming in 6.0. That's not a victory for the Alliance, that's another 'victory for Azeroth.' A victory for the Alliance would be if the Horde splintered or were dislodged from Orgrimmar or something of that nature, something where the Horde felt even a few negative repercussions of their loss. Garrosh's death is a win/win all around.
Throm Apr 1st 2012 7:15PM
How is killing a faction neutral enemy an Alliance victory?
Ronin Apr 1st 2012 8:42PM
clundgren, I don't intend to pick your post apart. However, I think you're way off in your summarization. Let me just focus on one small issue to illustrate what I mean:
"Swamp of sorrows is firmly under Allance control now."
Huh? What are you talking about? Alliance "wins" in the battle of Stonard-- and then withdraws and allows the Horde to regroup and basically take the place back. And that's from the _Alliance_ perspective. I believe from the Horde perspective, they didn't even lose the battle, nor miss a beat in continuing 'business as usual' there.
It's true that there is more of an Alliance presence in what has always been a contested zone-- but that's because we had no real presence at all there, before. We now have a base there, but the zone is in no way "under Alliance control".
DragonFireKai Apr 1st 2012 9:30PM
Actually, the Horde win Swamp of Sorrows too. The quest text for the final horde quest of the zone informs the Horde player that their tenacity has resulted in the alliance withdrawing from stonard with the town intact.
Meatball Apr 1st 2012 6:59PM
Having done both sides 1-60 since Cata's launch, doing every zone on both sides at least once(usually multiple times), I really don't see it. The Alliance's situation is pretty bleak in some zones, yes, but that's a good thing. The Cataclysm was supposed to be a terrible, earth-shattering event, and the Alliance zones really sell this. Many of the Horde zones and Neutral zones just make it seem like it really wasn't a big deal.
If anything, the Horde and Nuetral zones should've been as bleak as the Alliance ones.
Also, Southern Barrens was done spectacularly well. I wish more of the zones were done like that.
Gryffydd Apr 1st 2012 8:00PM
I agree. I have multiple level 85 characters on both Horde and Alliance and I don't see the deal of Alliance stories or experience is worse. There are good things on both sides, there are eyeball rolls on both sides. I am starting to think that people who truly believe that 'the other side' has it better are either too immature to try the other side out, or are so heavily biased that that can't see good quality for good quality. I don't think a perceived 'feel' has anything to do with the quality of the story telling, questing or the zones. That is merely a pereception. I firmly believe that Blizzard has done a great job of telling the story from both factions' perspectives equally well. Notice I said, 'factions' perspectives' not 'your perspective' or 'the players' perspective'.
plgrmsun Apr 1st 2012 9:22PM
@Gryffyd
Apologies, but unless I'm mistaken, a perceived feeling is at the heart of quality storytelling. A good, well presented story is defined in part by its ability to emotionally involve its audience. If readers etc. can become emotionally invested in the characters or events, then they can be led down a path to the end, a major goal in narratives, especially the commercial sorts. Even if you are able to appreciate a story where that emotional investment includes you feeling defeated and powerless, I don't think anyone should apologize for wanting more than that.
I've played through some of the Horde experience, but not all. Still, I don't have to claim that the other side has it better in order to say that my side has it bad.
Elmo Apr 1st 2012 7:13PM
I still wonder why the Alliance have it so rough throughout Cataclysm, I personally think the Alliance winning the battle for Andorhal would have been the better option for several reasons.
1- it fits the overall theme of the Western Plaguelands of revival of the plague ridden farmland to have Humans control it.
2- it gives the Alliance a spearhead base in the North, the most North Alliance base now is Aerie Peak which isn't involved in the war against the Forsaken.
3- it would liven up the Alliance experience to win a battle, the Horde puts plenty of pressure on the Alliance to justify a loss. I call Gilneas, Astranaar, Hillsbrad and Stonetalon specifically, not to mention the damage done to Awesome Alliance places by the Cataclysm or other forces (the Stonewrought dam, Menethil Harbour, Stormwind city, Auberdine, Westfall)
I really do agree with the author, the Alliance zones are too depressing. I miss the feeling of being part of walking among Heroes in the Glory of the Light, standing brave and united against the evils of the world.
most of all the Alliance misses the pride and strength that's all over the Horde.
jealouspirate Apr 1st 2012 7:14PM
You mentioned the lack of Alliance leader involvement - and I have to say, although I have other concerns, this one really saddens me. As I level through Alliance 1 - 60 I just see *so* much wasted potential in this regard.
It seems you can't go an hour without Garrosh showing up in whatever zone you're in, often complete with voice acting. We all know how much face time Sylvanas gets.
I'm leveling through Darkshore & Ashenvale right now for the first time since the Cataclysm, and all I'm thinking is "Why isn't Tyrande here?!". It's the absolute perfect opportunity to be the Alliance's counterpart to hanging out with Sylvanas in Silverpine. I'm thinking back to WC3 and Tyrande storming through Ashenvale on her Frostsaber, sticking starfire and arrows into greenskins and anything else that threatens her home. Why didn't that happen? It baffles me.
Then there's the Council of the Three Hammers. Tons of opportunity for Dwarf love there, but nothing ever comes of it. They do nothing, are involved in nothing. There is no "political upheaval" in Ironforge like the intro cinematic would have us believe.
Why not more Genn Greymane? These great old guys from the RTS games, where the Alliance was in my opinion better written than today, aren't involved. No Varian. Bleh. Anyway, I won't go on. I just feel that there was a lot of wasted potential in the Alliance 1 - 60 revamp.
jealouspirate Apr 1st 2012 7:22PM
To add to my original comment:
I find leveling Horde to be exhilarating: I am part of an unstoppable war machine. A conqueror. All my foes fall before me, and the Horde will rule Azeroth. I always achieve victory. You get this feeling of momentum and power, and I find myself totally buying into Garrosh's vision of an Azeroth united under the Horde banner.
As Alliance... well, it's basically what you said, Anne. We get by, but by the skin of our teeth. Every 'victory' comes with its share of loss for the Alliance. Sometimes that's nice. It has a different kind of appeal. But... sometimes I would like to just win.
wizlynjonstar Apr 1st 2012 9:24PM
All I have to say is Lor'themar Theron the only race leader that has literally just stood in SMC didn't even have a unique model until Cata.
Wrathkind Apr 1st 2012 9:53PM
@jealouspirate re: "Why isn't Tyrande here?!"
One of my biggest dismays with the Cataclysm stories is the marginalization of Tyrande. She led the Night Elves as a religious presence, a military leader, and a political force. Malfurion shows up, and suddenly she's a meek shadow.
While the male druids slumbered, night elf society was practically a matriarchy. Tyrande and the Sentinels rebuilt and fostered their civilization with Elune as their guiding light. Why are the men in the foreground at Tyrande's expense?
I'm okay with the developments that happened with Malfurion, Cenarius, and Staghelm. I'm not okay with Tyrande stepping aside as a consequence. I'm hoping that Mists will correct this imbalance.
StClair Apr 2nd 2012 1:44AM
"I think we should--"
"Hush, Tyrande, the men are talking."
"... yes, husband."
yeah, no.
Throm Apr 1st 2012 7:17PM
I think the fact that Malfurion got more face time than Tyrande is the worst part about it.
jukebokx352 Apr 1st 2012 7:18PM
As a primary Horde player I'd actually find some enjoyment in the Alliance taking more offensive action. As the horde the stigma of being the "bad guys" is always gonna be there. The unfortunate side effect of taking more territory is when you take a step back and look at the full story you end up feeling like the villains. In a game where neither side is supposed to be "bad" there has to be wins and losses on both sides. For the most part if it's horde v alliance the horde ends up coming of as conquering warmongers. Southern Barrens is one of the few places where you feel defensive, so regardless of what happens you feel justified. More than anything the horde could use a few potent losses. not necessarily the loss of territory, but put us in a place where we're fighting back. Let SI:7 do some real gray zone work. Push back into Hillsbrad. we don't have to lose the zone, but when allies players fly over they should see a lot of green npc's. When the horde wins something i don't want to feel like I've been working with the dark side all the time. For that to happen we have to lose. As much as I'd love for the poetic justice of Vol'jin landing the final blow on Garrosh. I think it'd be better for the overall feel of the game if it was the Alliance, (Jaina even, think of the implications of that) then we can have orc jesus lead the rallying call to push the alliance out of the city. Wait better idea. Given that garrosh is the end boss of the expansion, just let the alliance take Orgrimmar. Set up Darkspear Isle as the temporary Horde capitol. Next expansion event is retaking of Orgrimmar from the alliance. Hell they can take back Gilneas too to boot, battle for gilneas horde side can become a carverns of time thing or something.
Matthew Rossi Apr 1st 2012 9:49PM
The Horde shouldn't feel like villains because they took more territory.
The Horde should feel like villains because you attack without provocation, murder civilians, use chemical and biological weapons, torture helpless prisoners, and otherwise make every effort to commit every atrocity imaginable, including desecrating the enemy dead, kidnapping family members to extort the enemy, and turning people into ooze.
We firebomb children to death.
The Horde should feel like villains because the Horde does nothing but villainous things. As someone who plays a tauren I have given up on RPing him, because there's no way to justify my actions. Azeroth would be greatly improved if the Horde was destroyed.
Transit Apr 1st 2012 10:30PM
@Matthew Rossi
"The Horde should feel like villains because you attack without provocation, murder civilians, use chemical and biological weapons, torture helpless prisoners, and otherwise make every effort to commit every atrocity imaginable, including desecrating the enemy dead, kidnapping family members to extort the enemy, and turning people into ooze."
Yeah people who play horde are all jerks!
Really? Is this the road you want to travel down with your arguments? Do you think you are going to win your over the crowd by stateing everyone who plays horde are villans? That people should feel bad because the play Horde? I mean really?
And before I move on, "the alliance does not torture prisoners"?
Quest - An Eye for an Eye
"Who goes there? Your footsteps are not the lazy stride of a guard.
A , you say? Still brave and free? There's no hope for me, friend. I have lost my eyesight and am no longer fit for battle.
I dared speak up while Captain Peake savagely beat one of the prisoners. In return he kicked me in the head. And kept kicking. He kicked me blind, .
You'll find Captain Peake at the top of this tower. If you seek justice, bring me his eyes.
If he does not part with them willingly... so be it."
I guess kicking someone in the head till they go blind is not torture in your book? I can go through nearly all of your "examples" and show where the alliance does the same or similar things.
"We firebomb children to death. "
Was that condoned by Garrosh? Did he support it? You are the lore guy. Did he promote the guy who firebombed the druids?
Was the killing of the Tauren Children at Tjuaro condoned by the Alliance? Was it a military encampment? Or is that different because the alliance did it.
I seem to recall in lore plenty of times the Alliance did bad things. We have an instance in game right now that shows us pretty well that Night Elves were not always saints. But none of that counts right? There are no Alliance villans nor will there ever be?
The beauty of Warcraft is that it is NOT dark side vs. light side, but that both sides are seen in shades of grey. Sometimes that grey goes lighter and sometimes it goes darker but there is always grey. You as a lore expert should know this better then anyone.
Stop making this game personal by attacking the game player base. Take a step back and enjoy the lore for what it is, a story. And don't insult your readers by saying they should feel bad for playing about 50% of the games content. Is this the attitude that will get more readers to this site?
DC Apr 1st 2012 11:06PM
@Transit
You kinda missed Rossi's point. Players aren't villains. The characters they play are villains. In the questlines as horde your character witnesses all the horrible things that Rossi mentioned, and then continues on attacking the alliance.
Now, as you mentioned, some of the alliance in the horde questlines are pretty bad people. But the actual characters that the alliance play in that zone aren't involved in the actions and are usually trying to rectify the situation. Like the example the article gives of tracking down the looters and letting the Camp Taurajo citizens leave.
icepyro Apr 1st 2012 11:25PM
You know, it's funny to read about Southern Barrens and then see people comment about Sylvanas. And given the history of comments, it seems to me that Rossi's probably talking about Silverpine and Hillsbrad.
Now, the last time I quested through Silverpine, I noticed something. Nearly the entire first half of the zone is not just conquest, but fending of literally hundreds of Worgen. There is an alliance between these Worgen and those of Gilnaeas to fight the Forsaken. Then the Forsaken are attacked as refugees from Hillsbrad are turned to Worgen by those from Gilnaeas and come streaming across at us.
Sure, the Forsaken are there to conquer. Yet, they arrived to conquer by turning them to Forsaken. Many balk at this, but well, it's the Forsaken. How else are they really meant to do things? And also, if they aren't meant for this, the game will eventually lose the faction, ya know? It's unnatural, yet weirdly natural much like how many cultures die by forcible integration to an aggressor, ya know?
Anyways, they were there to conquer, but then this opposing force is obviously here to conquer as well, so they push back and try to invade.
What's interesting to note at this point, is that the Forsaken are pushed back by the Alliance. That whole kidnapping thing did not feel like it was meant to win Gilnaeas, but simply to call it done. The botched coup by Godfrey feels like the primary reason Gilnaeas is just a battleground now. Neither side got what they wanted so the battle continues.
As for Hillsbrad, I didn't finish it this time (though I have before), but it seems to me that just as those that looted Taurajo were not acting under orders, the whole of Southshore was overkill not completely under orders. Lots of the zone involves realizing some of those tasked with conquest have gone way too far and taking them out. We do it sort of lightheartedly, but there are also lots of quests that I have no idea why I agreed to them other than the fact that I knew some evil now would get me to the part where I overthrow them later.
In short, the Alliance seems as mad at Southshore as the Horde is at Taurajo, but since the Alliance doesn't get vengeance personally, they don't see those crazy people formerly associated with the Horde are now dead.
paul.morales91 Apr 2nd 2012 12:35AM
Horde...should feel like the villains...? Wait a minute...
No way...is it possible that...Blizz planned this from the beginning?
I was about to agree with jujebokx352, but a thought occurred to me. Instead of giving the Alliance victories, why not go the other direction. Give the Horde more victories, but make the conditions of those victories so vile and gruesome that even the npc masses are questioning Garrosh's actions. Give the Horde a sense of dejavu, a sense that the road they're going is not so different from their demon blood drinking days. This is the ultimate setup for Garrosh's downfall: the current Horde realizes its going down the same path as that of the old horde, the one under Gul'dan and Doomhammer. This then forces the more sane Horde leaders into a partnership with the Alliance with one goal: take Garrosh down.