Warning: This post contains spoilers concerning the final fight against the Lich King in Icecrown Citadel. If you haven't seen his death cinematic and are trying to remain spoiler free for whatever reason, please don't read on.
WoW Insider recently featured an interview with a Lutheran pastor who plays WoW about the various ways those two aspects of his life intersect. Though I skimmed over most of the interview, one answer in particular caught my attention:
Do you find any of the themes in WoW morally or spiritually disturbing?
Sure. Life is spiritually and morally disturbing. I can't tell you how bummed I was that there was no redemption for Arthas, or even Illidan, for that matter. I know a lot of people love to hate those guys, but I saw humanity in them: our weaknesses, our vulnerabilities and the way little evils lead to greater ones, until we're trapped and hardened, with no answer, escape or hope. So I desperately wanted a way for their stories to be redemption stories. Humans need redemption.
I'm sure he's not alone in this issue. I know quite a few people who, in spite of knowing that Arthas was probably going to die at the end of his battle and not have a chance at redemption, wished for a happier ending for the Lich King. While the Lutheran pastor brings up the question of whether villains in general should be given a chance to redeem themselves, I think it's better to focus our discussion on one, the Lich King. So I ask, should Arthas have had a chance at redemption, rather than simply dying by our hands?
I have already discussed how WoW, as a piece of art, has a responsibility to challenge our ideas and assumptions with its story, so that already justifies denying its villains redemption. The idea of a villain is basically an embodiment of evil that our hero (or heroes, in the case of WoW) can fight directly to metaphorically strike down all that we consider evil. Evil, that ambiguous concept we can't seem to pin down completely, yet we all recognize as something objectionable. It's comforting to be told that evil is not as omnipotent as we fear, which is why redemption for a story's villain can often be a very gratifying ending. Of course, this means that, if we want to believe that everyone deserves a chance to redeem themselves and that everyone has some bit of good inside of them, then there is no better way to make us question our assumptions than to show that a villain is truly evil and can't be redeemed. Perhaps that's why Arthas simply died at our hands rather than having a chance at redemption.
But was Arthas really beyond redemption? Though I can't find the exact dialog anywhere online, in the Alliance version of the Halls of Reflection (this might happen in the Horde version too, but I wouldn't know), Uther tells us that the reason the scourge haven't run rampant over Azeroth already might be that the last remnant of Arthas's humanity, the last bit of good within him, is holding the scourge back. This alone seems to give some possibility of redemption for Arthas, since that means there might be some good in him that could be brought out. However, it says something darker to me, as well. If Arthas, as the leader of the scourge, struggling to hold them back, that must make for some inner conflict the extent of which we can't possibly fathom. It says to me that the little bit of Arthas left in the Lich King can't be leading that great of an existence when the struggle to be good is a literal struggle.
We see more evidence of that struggle during Arthas's death cinematic. Arthas's final words gives us a bit more of a glimpse as to what it was like to be the Lich King.
Arthas: "Father! Is it... over?"
Terenas: "At long last. No king rules forever, my son."
Arthas: "I see... only darkness... before me."
Both of Arthas's lines gives us a bit more insight into what that last remnant of his humanity was going through while he was the Lich King. Upon realizing he is about to die, he asks his father whether it is "over". That line doesn't give me an image of Arthas as the embodiment of evil; it gives me an image of Arthas suffering just as much as the souls within Frostmourne. The line even suggests that Arthas is happy it's over, which doesn't surprise me. After being the Lich King for so long, and after being as infused with evil as he has been, I doubt Arthas could image being good again. The line "I see only darkness before me" confirms this suspicion in my mind; Arthas was so beyond redemption that he can't fathom anything other than evil.
So, between the hell of Arthas's literal inner conflict and his inability to fathom anything other than evil, was redemption really the best outcome for him? I say nay. When a person's existence is that torturous, death really may be the best ending for them. That humanity that the pastor saw in Arthas isn't the same humanity I see in him. The pastor saw Arthas's humanity as a symbol of our own humanity, a humanity that could potentially be brought to the forefront again. I see his humanity as similar to the Christian view of humanity in general, meaning not what is human within us, but what is common to all us people: we are trapped in a realm of suffering (this world), with release found only in death. In the same way that we humans can't return to Eden because we are cursed with knowledge of good and evil, Arthas cannot return to his pre-Lich King form because he has been so corrupted with evil. Thus, it is my opinion that death was the best outcome for him.
Now, I know I am basing a lot of this speculation on the actual death of Arthas, meaning it's all based on story points that were probably constructed to support him dying, rather than him potentially being redeemed. However, considering how much of a lore novice I am, that's really the best I have to work with, and hey, it's still canon.
Friday, September 24, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Lutheran, not Lutharin or Lutherin
ReplyDeleteSomehow my spellchecker missed that the first time around. Thanks for pointing it out.
ReplyDeleteI'm actually really pleased with the way they handled the death scene. I think there can be redemption even in the face of death, such as Arthas's. It may not have been the full-on, glorious, light-cleansed salvation that would have shown no one ever falls so far that they can't be brought back, but it showed that there was sorrow and regret. Yes, Arthas had to die, there's no question. But in those last moments he displayed the right amount of humanity to turn the joy of winning into pity.
ReplyDeleteIt's also worth bringing up the distinction between Arthas and the Lich King. We use the names interchangeably at times, but they are separate entities, fused as they may be. Ner'zhul and Arthas are no small parts of the Lich King, but neither separately or together are they the Lich King.
We killed Arthas, but we only defeated the Lich King. He lives on, now fighting with Bolvar for control.
Did you get around to reading the Arthas novel? I really wanted to like Arthas, but between that book, WarCraft 3 and WoW, he just wasn't all that interesting to me. I wanted him to be a tragic, fallen prince, a great persona brought low through a series of very difficult choices and then perhaps redeemed... or at least contrite at the end.
ReplyDeleteWhat I saw of Arthas pre-Lich King was a spoiled princeling, a man who didn't so much fall from grace as he slouched into darkness, riding some key character flaws. As such, I didn't particularly care if he was redeemed or not. He wasn't where he was because he was trying to do his best and the world conspired against him, he was just a screwup waiting to happen. I feel bad that he's the one in the hotseat, but really, I'd have sought or bought redemption for Arthas if there was more there to redeem in the first place.
@Saniel: I recognize that they are separate entities, but since they occupy the same body, I did use them semi-interchangeably while still trying to use whichever name better described how I was talking about the Lich King at the time. I don't know a lot about the lore, though (just enough to get by), so I may have made a few mistakes in which one I used when.
ReplyDelete@Tesh: I never did read the Arthas novel (the lore novels could never really hold my interest, and I'm not much of a book-reader, anyways), but that certainly reinforces my idea that death was a better end for Arthas.
Tesh, I didn't read the novel but I played through WC3, and I think that Arthas is definitely portrayed as spoiled. But that doesn't mean that what happened isn't tragic. Young men, in real life as well as in games, are generally pretty selfish and impressionable, and can be convinced to do very bad things. Arthas was selfish and arrogant in his life, but given the chance he could have grown out of that phase and gone on to be a "good king." He was chosen to be the next Lich King for a reason. It's no one's fault but his own that he chose that path, but if you see him as a brash and impressionable youth who was tempted down the wrong path then you can see him as a tragic hero in the classic sense: he was overall good but had one personality flaw that ruined him.
ReplyDeleteIn a very important way, the real villain of Wrath of the Lich King is Frostmourne. The sword is the irredeemable part of the the Ner'Zhul/Arthas/Lich King/Frostmourne combination. At all stages of it's confused existence as plural entity the Lich King has, in its own way, been protected Azeroth from the Burning Legion at the same time as it has been destroying parts Azeroth and its citizens. Frostmourne appears to want nothing but to consume souls.