I know I usually post my philosophy posts on Friday, but this edition of WoW.com's Know Your Lore really got me thinking about an issue I am now so eager to write about that it just can't wait, leaving me no time to work on my miscellany post, so my miscellany post will need to go on the back burner until Friday. That's just the way the cookie crumbles.
Anyways, the post in question talks about the history of Thrall, Garrosh Hellscream, and the politics of the horde in general. What really got me thinking was the final point brought up by Anne Stickney's amazing post: the reason Thrall is losing control of the horde, and the reason Garrosh will gain control in Cataclysm, is that Thrall is an orc with human tendencies, while Garrosh is an orc with orcish tendencies, and to the orcs, his way of going about recent WoW politics is much more akin to their nature, as opposed to Thrall's peaceful diplomacy. Thing is, it was Thrall's human-like ways that made the players so sympathetic with him. Players love him because of his identity as a "noble savage," but that made them forget what the orcs truly are. Players hate Garrosh because he is the exact opposite of Thrall; he is the opposite of everything that made it possible for players to fall in love with a race of savages in the first place. That, however, makes his ideals much more in line with what an orc would actually believe. Put simply, Thrall is everything the players wish the orcs could be, while Garrosh is everything the orcs wish they could be.
This will make things difficult when Cataclysm comes along and Garrosh becomes the new Warchief. While the orcs are struggling with their inevitable civil war between those who believe in Thrall's peaceful ways and those who believe in Garrosh's truly-orcish ways (that's Stickney's prediction, anyways), players will be fighting their own battle, too. It may be an internal conflict, but it will be a conflict nonetheless. While I can't imagine what it must be like to be a loyal Horde player and know that this is going to happen, I'd imagine the hordies (orc-players in particular) would be caught between two options: one, stay loyal to the horde, even if it wasn't exactly what they thought it was or could be; or two, leave the horde (switch races or maybe even factions) and show no support for this not-so-new horde. (I say not-so-new because, according to Stickney, Garrosh personifies what the orcs always were, so while his violent tendencies are new to us players, they are not new in general.) I know that's probably more role-play-ish thinking than most people will apply to this situation, but if my watching the WoW.com comments sections has taught me anything, it's that Horde players love them some Thrall, and I'd imagine they also love the things he stands for.
This brings me to the dilemma I want to look at. By putting Garrosh in power, Blizzard will be advancing the lore of Warcraft in a believable way. Though Thrall's ideals were nice, he was raised by humans, and they are, in the end, human ideals. The Horde couldn't keep up the pretense of following those ideals for very long, so Garrosh going into power is really the only logical conclusion of the events that have lead up to this point in the lore. The one difficult point is that the players, the driving force behind many of the contemporary events of Warcraft, hate Garrosh. Unless they are really willing to suspend their real-world sensibilities and take up the mind-set of an orc, players simply can't identify with Garrosh. One of the things that made the Horde so attractive as a faction was that they were not the typical bad guys; they were really just victims. Under Garrosh's leadership, however, we can expect the Orcs, if not the whole Horde, to become a much more violent, impulsive, and generally villainous group. This would take away much of what made the Horde popular in the first place, and take away almost all of the sympathy players have for the Garrosh-following Orcs. It would make playing an Orc... difficult, to say the least.
However, I am not here to argue Thrall vs. Garrosh vs. Basic Campfire; this debate is simply an example of the real dilemma I want to look at, a dilemma that can best be worded thusly: Should Blizzard be more loyal to their fan-base or their lore? As much as it pains me to say this, I think that, in matters of story, Blizzard owes their loyalty to the lore, not us players. I say that it pains me because it means that I inherently agree with Garrosh being promoted to Warchief, but that's just the way it has to happen if Blizzard is going to stay loyal to the lore.
One might say that, since we pay Blizzard to keep this story going, they should think about what we want when they write the story, but one could just as easily say that it's the story that justifies the game existing in the first place, so we really owe it to the lore to let it evolve naturally. Also, to expect the epic storyline of Warcraft to follow the whims of what we players want just because we supply the money to keep the story going would make us no better than studio executives who stifle an artist's creativity for the purpose of making a work potentially more profitable. (Executive meddling, as it's called.) Now, granted, the contention that Blizzard should tailor their story to what we players like could be differentiated from executive meddling by saying that we players are only looking out for our own enjoyment, while studio executives are trying to maximize their profits, which surely must be a less ethical motivation. Regardless, the outcome is the same--art is watered down to appease the masses--so I see no practical difference between the two.
Of course, disproving a contention doesn't prove its opposite, so why should Blizzard remain loyal to the lore, rather than the players? How about this: video games are art. Though many don't see them that way, video games are a medium, especially when they involve a story as long, involved, and epic as Warcraft's. As an art form, it is the responsibility of a game like WoW to challenge our perceptions, our beliefs, and make us ask questions about ourselves. Promoting Garrosh to Warchief will certainly accomplish all three of these purposes. We already know that our perceptions of the orcs as a race capable of human ideals of peace and diplomacy could be false, and Garrosh's promotion will cement the breaking of that idea. While we may believe that it would be better for the orcs to try to be more like Thrall, we may be deceiving ourselves by thinking that is possible. So what questions will this plot point make Horde players ask themselves? Many, certainly, and interesting ones at that: Do I feel comfortable with this not-so-new Horde? Will the loyalty I've developed to what was largely an illusion carry me through this part of Warcraft's story? Can I follow a leader with few qualities I find redeeming? Is the Horde becoming the villain, and am I ok with that? I'd be surprised if there aren't already players asking these very questions.
But what if Thrall stayed in power and Garrosh remained an underling or was booted out entirely? That really wouldn't do us any good. Considering how fickle the fan-base can be, to base the plot of Warcraft's story on the whims of the masses would result in a largely unbelievable story that would probably not satisfy the player-base anyway. If Blizzard keeps Thrall in power, then all of the previous lore about the orcs is worth nothing. Considering all that has lead to this moment, keeping Thrall in power would be even more of an odd move than putting Garrosh in his place. Blizzard would be betraying their lore, their fans, and themselves if they kowtowed to the desires of the players to not be lead by Garrosh.
As I said, though, this logical conclusion leaves us with many unsettling questions that make the future uncertain. Will the player-base move away from the Horde as an act of rebellion against Garrosh's rule, or will they continue playing as if it isn't happening? Will players be able to ignore the forced revelation of the Orcs' true nature, or will they adapt and adopt Garrosh's philosophy? All we can be sure of is that Cataclysm will surely bring about great changes to this game we all love, and the way we respond to them will likely shape the plot of the game and the entire Warcraft saga. It's going to be an interesting expansion.
Monday, March 29, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Excellent post.
ReplyDeleteI'm an Alliance loyalist, and I still like Thrall. That's another side of the same coin. Is it good, from a lore perspective, to have the Alliance players feeling sympathetic for the Horde leader (and his followers, by proxy)? Probably not.
The thing I'm really curious about is that we know (?) that Garrosh is going to assassinate Cairne. But we can also be pretty sure that Blizz isn't going to mess with the current faction compositions. So how's that going to work out? How are the Tauren and Orcs going to handle each other? (Not that Blood Elves and Undead has been an easy mix.) I kinda wish I had a Hordie in my back pocket to see how that goes...
Regarding your first point, I am one of those people who has no faction loyalty and would gladly transfer to a PvP-less server where the two factions can communicate if such a thing were allowed to exist, so I see no issue with Alliance people liking Horde leaders. It probably mirrors the respect that some in-game humans feel for Thrall.
ReplyDeleteAs for the Orcs and Tauren, I'll be interested to see how that plays out, too. As someone said in a comment on Stickney's post, they may be making Garrosh out to be a new villain, and him assassinating Cairne would certainly further that plot. We'll just have to wait and see.
Garrosh does NOT assassinate Cairne. The Grimtotems have been poisoning Cairne and he dies as a result.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, Garrosh and Cairne fought in the first place because Cairne believed he was a crappy leader. Vol'jin threatens to kill him. Slyvannas is probibly planning the same thing and the Blood Elves will likely go with the Forsaken.
I see a civil war brewing for the Horde, and that's really really bad news, especially with impending war on the horizone with the Alliance.
Worse yet, Blizzard seems to be forcing the Horde down the evil path. I liked the Horde because they WEREN'T evil, just trying to survive. WoW already has an evil faction, it's the racist Alliance. If you've quested on both sides, you'll notice that the Horde is time and again attacked unprevoked by hate mongering Alliance when all the Horde is trying to do is survive. Most Alliance quests revolve around the allies not being able to keep their shit together and protect their own people, blaming the horde for it in the process.
I swear, If Bliz makes the racist, bigoted, squeaky clean Alliance the "good guys" I'll /ragequit.
While the point is interesting, the there is as much lore regrading the horde as Noble Warrior Guys as there are making them out to be bloodthirsty. The change of the orcs from Noble Warriors came from an external conflict imposed on them from the Burning Legion and the Draenei. The Burning Legion corrupted the Orcs over a number of years and led them to attack the Draenei for 8 years with many tribes not joining in with the New Horde. Then the Burning Legion tried their new tool against Azeroth and so for a few years they fought under demon influence. Then Hellscream turned to redeem them a lesson not learned by his son. So to sum up 5,000 years of peaceful yet spartan existence. Honor, Glory yet no bloodlust, as Thall come of age while raised by humans as a slave and a animal that would be similar if not worse to the orcs lifestyle pre-burning legion. Thall tried to change them back to their roots and survive. With the Noble Tauren and the Trolls who weren't as corrupted as those we see in the many dungeons, the horde tried to survive. Enter the Forsaken and Blood Elves who also sought redemption, in the beginning anyway for the Forsaken. The horde became not evil just different and it resonated for the players because of the honor of the Tauren and the Orcs, the guile of the trolls, forsaken and blood elves, A horde where almost all are welcome and all are honored if they show strength and honor in battle,(see WraithGate Quest). With Thall leaving the Horde for the greater good of the World as a whole, factions of both sides come together and fight side by side for that which threatens them all. But the use of the resources of the land and the racism, violence and atrocities committed by both sides during the near constant state of war of the past few years, has many adopting a stance to destroying the other side for good. While the Horde would probably win the overall fight, it would leave the world too weak to face the threat coming.
ReplyDeleteThose that don't believe the Horde would crush the Alliance think about the nature of the Alliance, while the Night Elfs have proven themselves in battle. the Draenei are few and have been beaten by the orcs before, The Gnomes are still relatively isolationist, The Dwarfs and humans almost lost against just the orcs once before and they had the new Forsaken and Blood Elves on their side. The Total war philosophy of the Orcs and the Forsaken would go up against humans sick of the war and infighting. While Hellscream seems bloodthristy, he has learned alot from Thrall and Saurfang and is becoming gentler, but he knows to press his advantage against the alliance.
While I realize that most people would tend to agree with Thrall's ideals, I also know that Garrosh isn't the only hot-head being placed as a leader. Here I am referring to Varian Wrynn's attack on Thrall, during the Battle for Undercity quest in Wrath of the Lich King.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I can state that Garrosh is not without compassion, as I can say referring to the quest "To be horde...", where Garrosh is shown as being a brute, but unwilling to forsake honor, for the sake of conquest.
As a little bonus, I can state that after cataclysm, I began playing horde, because of 2 things: I like Garrosh's horde better than Wrynn's alliance. The other point is that I want to see the war for Gilneas from the perspective of a horde.