This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Forsaken article.

Be polite
Assume good faith
Be welcoming

If you wish to discuss the subject itself, please use Talk:Forsaken/Analysis.
Non-editorial comments made here should be moved to the Analysis page.
Icon-information-22x22As per the recent race names vote at WoWWiki talk:Writing policy#Race name case, the correct race name spelling is "Forsaken" and not "forsaken"

Note: this race name is indeed capitalized -- Kirkburn (talk) 08:00, 3 September 2006 (EDT)

Are the Forsaken Evil or not?

Is there any explanation as to why the UD are not 'evil', simmiliar to the one for the BE? After doing their quests (Up to the Sepulcher as an UD and Tarren Mill as a BE) they do seem pretty 'black and white' evil. Saimdusan 00:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The Forsaken aren't evil. Most are traumatised by being under the lich kings controls,some even had to kill their own families. The Alliance's idea of mercy for the Forsaken,seen in the old Alterac valley quests,killing them and burning their hearts,doesn't help at all. Zarnks 23:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Many Forsaken undead have a very twisted and sadistic personality. For me that's evil. The fact that they actually are awoken from the dead is no excuse.--Odolwa 18:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Guess it would depend on your definition of evil. I'd say most are callous more than evil. It's not like they kill people simply for the sake of killing them. A couple exceptional Forsaken are virtuous. --- Zexx 22:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

No? Souvenirs of death, as well as several other quests - in Tarren Mill in particular, the Elixir of Suffering chain being another prime example, would suggest otherwise. I'm not stupid enough to believe that the actions of one character colours that of an entire race, but the predisposition seems to be there for evil - the work of the Horde in Tarren Mill (and the Defilers - check the name! - in Arathi Basin) certainly shows that some forsaken are perhaps among the most evil of any of the main playable races, no? --- Katriana 10:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Correction: The Royal Apothecary Society of the Undercity is (probably) evil. The Forsaken as a whole, however, are closer to neutral. -- Dark T Zeratul 11:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Deathguard Samsa makes it clear in the above quest that he just wants genocide commited because he's bored. Would he really have ordered the same attack (against civilians, note) had he been alive and human? Of course, it's wrong to tar the many with the brush of the one, but this seems pretty extraordinary. Not arguing that some forsaken aren't good or neutral, but I'd suggest undeath gives some predisposition toward supervillain evil where there was none before - or at least for some an excuse. --- Katriana 12:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd really like to settle this once and for all and maybe have some cleaning up on the actual article, as it is to say the least - confusing. The article states time and time again that Forsaken are evil, then at times it declares that they're more of a neutral sort, and some are good souls because of their lives while they were alive - such as priests, and then again in the faith section it is said that the priests are evil. It is very confusing for the reader.

I'd concur with some people here and consider them neutral - even though their quests, in Hillsbrad especially, quite blatantly say they're quite evil. But then again anyone who has done the quest where you return the Lady's necklace to Sylvanas, the line comes really blurred. Sylvanas at least holds some longing for her former life, even if she denies it. Some characters seem even pretty sociable such as the Forsaken who's name I don't remember that remarks "It is nice that someone wishes to speak with me every now and then. How are things with you, [class]?" I'm not exactly sure if even Blizzard knows what to make of the "race", seeing as how contradicting at times these characters are. Some of them are clearly evil, even sadistic - The Royal Apothecary Society as the prime example, so.. They're chaotic neutral? Some are evil, but in general they're not inherently evil, only they just do what they see as justice, which necessarily doesn't seem very honorable to most other races dealing with them. To return to Lady Sylvanas, I wonder what she has planned for her former race? If she is as attached to Quel'Thalas as she says she is and is hinted at, I doubt she wants to kill the Blood Elves, which, supposedly, the new plague will do. Guess only time will tell. Maybe we even get some taste in the conclusion of Starcraft 2? SC:BW ended with Kerrigan - a once honorable human - turned in to the vile Zerg - then whoop de do, escaping the grasp of the Overmind. See any relation here? (Overmind controlled Zerg/Scourge - Overmind/Lich King - Kerrigan controlled Zerg / Forsaken) Maybe I'm just throwing rocks here, but in any case.... I think the last 1/4th of my comment maybe should belong to the Sylvanas talk page. --RocketBrother (talk) 19:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

i think that the undead represent a culture. i think that they represent emos and goths.User:Linch1234511:37, 05 Aug 08

Elements of the Forsaken are definitely evil and have a desire to eradicate the living mortal races. That much is evident in most of the Royal Apothecary Society. However, considering the events taking place in WotLK, the truly malicious Forsaken (those serving Putress and/or the Burning Legion) were eradicated during the Attack on the Undercity. But you also have to consider the fact that what was probably the majority of the Forsaken (from a lore standpoint) fled to Orgrimmar as refugees rather than take up arms against the living. Thus, I think it's fair to say that the majority of the Forsaken, certainly Sylvanas, are at least neutral in their attitudes to the Horde, and hateful/fearful of truly evil organisations such as the Burning Legion and the Scourge. Horderoyale (talk) 22:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

According to the RPG they are "Usually evil". Rolandius Paladin (talk - contr) 04:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The Forsaken are not all invariably evil. It seems, though, that while free of the Lich King's grasp and in control of their thoughts and actions, they have lost some things... mostly compassion and optimism. Their outlook is not necessarily murderous, but something akin to sociopathic... they simply find it very difficult to care about those who present themselves as enemies. Much like most of the Alliance's views on the Forsaken are largely formulated on experiences with the Scourge, focusing more on the similarities than the differences (which is a very natural, human thing to do), so the Forsaken, from their awakening, get a very intimate relationship with the tender cares of the Scarlet Crusade, shaping their views of the living. Both living and undead humans thus fall into the trap of a strong racial bias. To me, what best symbolizes the Forsaken is this quest, which showcases the tragic deadening of the heart and the justifiable, but overwhelming, rage at the injustice done. And the Alliance's capacity for injustice is overwhelming, ensuring that there will never be peace between the two. As for the Royal Apothecary Society, they have certainly embraced what I'd consider an "evil" point of view. Yet calling the Forsaken evil based on the actions of a subgroup that the Forsaken themselves, with the help of their allies, have summarily crushed, seems... wrong. Albeit very, very human. Withervoice (talk) 19:08, December 4, 2009 (UTC)

It's hard to say I think. For the bulk of their existence the Forsaken have been under the influence of Varimathras who was probably the cause for many of their more twisted and sinister actions (the Wrathgate attack, the development of the New Plague, etc.), while Sylvanas has shown herself to still carry some of her High Elven goodness. She protected the Sunwell's avatar for example. Now that Varimathras and the Lich King are gone I think the Forsaken's true views will become known.

That said the Forsaken who weren't under Varimathras' influence, and the Forsaken as a whole, aren't so much evil as they are bitter. They got killed, were brought back to kill their friends and family, and then were freed from the Lich King, but not from undeath and now their old allies (humanity mostly) only want to kill them instead of helping them cope with their situation. They've all gotten majorly screwed over by everything and everybody. I think calling them Neutral would be a better allignment term since they tend to just watch out for themselves, but they don't try to cause 'unnecessary harm' as it were. Additionally their bitterness is simply easily exploited by truly evil beings like Varimathras, and their actions in Hillsbrad were more under order from him. And then their actions in Cataclysm are done under order from Garrosh. MegaNerd18 (talk) 23:33, July 20, 2010 (UTC)

Horde and Forsaken Situation

I do not agree on the way the sutuation between the Horde and the forsaken is compared to the non agression packt between Hitler and Stalin. The Soviet Union and Nazi Germany did not intend to stand together against the west. In fact, Capitalists from the US and Britan sponsored the Nazis in order to smash the labour movement, and to form a war party against the Soviet Union. Hitler sighned a non agression packt with stalin to buy time, for the same reason Stalin sighned the packt.

The Soviet Union and Nazi Germany never had, and never intended to work together. The Facist Nazi party was sponsored by capitalists to smite the labour movement, and to go into war with the USSR. The Normal capitalist contries would not confront the SU head on, becouse of propaganist reasons. So they let the fashists to the dirty work. The Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were eachothers biggest foes. And Nazi Germany was the Minon of the capitalist states to atack the enemy of the free market. however, as some warlock's minons do, the minon became out of conrtoll and atacked its master as well.

The fact that America and GB was turning against Nazi Germany was becouse the facists came out of conrtoll, and seemed to be not verry sucsessfull in distroying the Soviet Union. The "Allied" forces from the west waited untill the verry last moment to "liberate" europe, in the hope that Nazi germany ould distroy the SU. The war was already decidet on the east front, and the only reason America, Canada and GB went ashore in France was to make shure that the Soviet Union, while pushing back the Nazi's, would not annexate all Europe.

By the way, at the time of WWII, The soviet union under stalin was far from socialist or communist. In fact it was a degenerated workers' state, ruled by Proletairian Bonapartism.

OK, a lot of off topic perhaps, but I think its injust to leave this big mistake in the topic unexplained. The alliance between the forsaken and the horde can not be compared to the non agression packt of "Uncle Joe" and "Adolf". The Forsaken and the horde stand together in battle, the USSR and Nazi Germany only met eachother in battle as enemies.

-- Out of curiosity: Why is this article named "Forsaken" instead of "Undead"? Undead is the best name we can come up to describe the playable race itself, and it's also the race-name used in-game (technically they are dead Humans, I know). Forsaken is merely the name of the faction.

In that case it's same thing with the Trolls: Their faction-name is Darkspear tribe, but we still call their article and the creature itself "Troll", not "Darkspear". In my opinion it's very wrong to call the Undead race "Forsaken". - Odolwa 19:40, 14 August 2006 (EDT)

I'm not sure, but I think a comparison could be the Dranei. We call them the Dranei, not the Eredar. --Bendyr 16:01, 14 August 2006 (EDT)

-- Not really. Draenei are a race of their own. What we call Eredar are the demonic Eredar in the Burning Legion. Draenei share the same ancestry as them, but they are not one and the same. - Odolwa 21.25, 15 August 2006 (EDT)

-Something to note is that the term undead does not really refer to any specific race or creature. Undead is technically the catch-all for all sorts of things, like skeletons, wraiths, abominations, etc. Therefore, it's use in game as the name of the playable race seems somewhat misleading because it's a bit too generic in defining the race. It could be argued that the Forsaken should be considered a separate race because they share the same ancestry as the Scourge. While the physical distinction between the two may not be as great as between the Draenei and the Eredar, the motivation and evolution of a free will in the Forsaken certainly differentiate them. The same argument arises when considering Blood Elves versus Night Elves. Are they justified in being considered two different races when the only apparent physical difference is skin color?
-Xero 13:47, 15 August 2006 (EDT)

Xero basically nailed why the article uses Forsaken instead of Undead. Because of the staggering variety of Undead in the game, there is a need to make a special case and specify. As for the USSR-Nazi Germany analogy, it would probably have been more prudent to list the USA-USSR alliance - both having a very firm common enemy (Which the USSR and Germany didn't), but disagreeing with each other's methods. However either way, the point the author was trying to make gets across to us.--Grid 12:02, 10 November 2006 (EST)

I think this article should be moved to Undead (Forsaken), with the actual "Undead" forwading to a Undead (disabiguation) page. It's much cleaner. It should be done with Troll as well (the Troll article is kinda messy). Saimdusan 06:51, 1 March 2007 (EST)

Why serve Sylvanas?

Really, it makes sense for the Undead that where raised by the Lich King, but what about the Undead that where raised by Sylvanas' apocatheries? Why do they serve her?

Once you arise the first thing the NPC asks you is something along the lines of "Oh good.. We thought you weren't going to make it, and even then we weren't sure if you'd be sound of mind."

The reasons for this could be that because of the Lich King's weakening, there needs to be a special process involved in culling Scourge undead and Forsaken undead alike. Also, it is suggested that if someone were to rise and were not of independent and sound thought, they would be immediately slain and burned.--Grid 11:58, 10 November 2006 (EST)

Well, what else are they going to do? They can't exactly go back to their former lives. If they splintered into different factions of free undead, they'd probably be wiped out. Sylvanas provides leadership and direction for the freed undead, not to mention safety. Also, all the Forsaken I've talked to are grateful to her for freeing them from the control of the Liche King, since everyone seems to agree being a rotting corpse and free is better then being a rotting corpse and enslaved by a suit of armor stuck in a block of ice.
Not all the Forsaken serve Sylvanas. Leonid Barthalomew the Revered, for example, was freed by the Dark Lady, but is not part of her organization, instead supporting the Argent Dawn.
Btw, I don't really see what that quote has to do with serving Sylvanas or not. Basically the quote says that the Forsaken's process for awakening the dead in search of more members is not perfect and sometimes fails, or creates a mindless monster. --Mikaka 22:38, 7 December 2006 (EST)
HAHA! Quote of the year: "...everyone seems to agree being a rotting corpse and free is better then being a rotting corpse and enslaved by a suit of armor stuck in a block of ice." :D --Varghedin 18:47, 28 December 2006 (CET)
It's no longer a suit of armor in a block of ice. It's a crazy death knight with a huge sword. Amro 18:11, 1 January 2007 (EST)
Whatever. Still everyone seems to agree being a rotting corpse and free is better then being a rotting corpse and enslaved by a crazy death knight with a huge sword who previously was a suit of armor stuck in a block of ice.   Sul'jin  talk  contribs 04:38, 18 January 2007 (EST)

About the thing of Sylvanas bringing back the dead to serve her is not always true. not all the "Free Undead" are in Fact "Forsaken" See Gunther Arcanus He "broke free of the Lich King's control on his own" He never even knew someone (Sylvanas) was trying to unify free undead. In fact, the guy didn't even know there were other free undead! He thought he was one of a kind. Evaristo 17:54, 23 December 2007

Actually Gunther is Forsaken as well. Just not under Sylvanas' control. See The Lich's Identity. Jormungand01 21:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
This is only a term. Nothing more.Oberscht (talk) 01:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Underwater Breathing Disambiguation

Question: Blizzard is not particularly awesome in their wording of abilities and spells involving percents. Does the racial underwater breathing trait mean undead can breath underwater three or four times as long?

It does. Personally, I think they shouldn't need to breathe, but then, they really shouldn't even be bouyant, for that matter. Bragus

Originally UD were pretty much what anyone would naturally assume about UD. They had no need to breathe, so they could remain underwater indefinately. They were completely immune to all Fear, Charm and Seduce effects -- so basically WotF was permanent. They were also considered Undead and not Humanoids, so Sap, Sheep, etc did not apply to them. They also spoke Common. This obviously led to alot of problems both for and against them. What we see in the game are compromises between lore and gampelay.--Grid 00:07, 21 December 2006 (EST)

They're classified as humanoids for the same reason that Acolytes, Necromancers, Death Knights, and Dreadlords were classified as Undead in Warcraft III. Even though they weren't really undead, they were classified as such for gameplay reasons. Airwave 03:14, 18 January 2007 (EST)

I think all demons where classified as UD. Atleast in RoC, that is. Saimdusan 06:55, 1 March 2007 (EST)

I think the "breath meter" is only for game limitations. The reason they can't survive perhaps is not lack of air, but the many microscopic cretures living in water tremendusly speeding up their decay. Ever seen a corpse that has been in a pond for a week versus a regular dead body?--SWM2448 00:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

'Undead' warlock


The picture may say 'Undead' (due to it being from the outdated and useless website), but it is a Forsaken warlock that is shown. -- Kirkburn (talk) 12:37, 28 December 2006 (EST)

Well, Forsaken are a faction of Undead. When we see a Human Warlock, we don't say "Stormwind Warlock", but "Human Warlock". Same thing with Trolls, we say "Troll Priest", not "Darkspear Priest".
Forsaken = the faction, Undead = the race.--Odolwa 20:42, 28 December 2006 (EDT)
This is true, but as you can see from the background, the picture shows specifically a Forsaken, rather than any old Undead. The article is about the Forsaken, rather than the undead as a whole, so I feel it's more appropriate. -- Kirkburn (talk) 14:57, 28 December 2006 (EST)
A bit similar problem as with Trolls page, eh? (Trolls/Undead - Darkspear/Forsaken) Undead are undead, Scourge or Forsaken, doesn't matter. They're all the same, just in different factions, having different goals. It's a picture of an Undead Warlock, people just have to remember that she's a Forsaken-Undead Warlock, not Scourge-Undead Warlock, we just have to assume that most people are intelligent enough to find it out... --Sul'jin 17:41, 1 January 2007 (EST)

I'd have to say that although that IS a Forsaken warlock, I don't think there's anything stopping the Scourge from using demon magic, other then how they broke away from the Legion. Prince Keleseth originally used demon magic during the WotLK alpha test, and he even had the Malefic Raiment, the warlock tier 6 set. Toran Wildpaw of the Frenzyheart (talk) 21:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Race? Faction? Argh!

Ok, so usually we think of the Forsaken as a faction of undead. Most follow Sylvanas, although not all do, like Leonid Barthalomew the Revered. But what about Ambassador Malcin who looks like a Forsaken, but is in fact Scourge? Or Stalvan Mistmantle and Moroes who also have the forsaken model but appear to have nothing at all to do with either Forsaken or Scourge, they just happen to be undead in some form. Do they fit into Category:Forsaken or not? It feels terribly strange to write Category:Forsaken and Category:Scourge right underneath each other on an article, but putting them into the generic Category:Undead also makes me twitch. >< --Varghedin (talk · contr) 16:54, 1 January 2007 (EST)

Forsaken has two meanings. The Faction and a race. Yes its confusing :p... Those who do not follow Sylvannas are not technically Forsaken faction or race, as the race and faction are literally connected together at the hip.
The forsaken race and Faction includes only humans, or races of elven descent (half-elves, banshees, etc) and no one else. Any other undead that appear to look forsaken but are actually neutral or allied to other factions are actually, just "independent undead".
While the Royal Apothecary Society has allowed non-human or non-elven undead races into their ranks, those members are not actually true Forsaken.'
So as far as categorizing, someone like Leonid is an Category:Independent undead, where as the other people you mentioned should only go under scourge.Baggins 16:59, 1 January 2007 (EST)
The thing is, not all Forsaken are... Forsaken either. Like Algernon. He lives in the Undercity, is on the Undercity faction, and basically follows all traits of being Forsaken.. except he looks like a zombie. There are others, two-three banshees and one bank wraith. I think the best thing is to put them in both categories, to specify that they aren't just any old forsaken, but that they also aren't any old banshee/zombie/wraith. Conversely, if you can say that something is Forsaken (faction) without being Forsaken (race), could not the opposite be true as well? So Leonid, while faction wise he's with the Argent Dawn, racially, he's still Forsaken. I mean, he's not a ghoul. He's not a zombie. He's not a wight. His race is... Forsaken. Sort of. Argh. --Varghedin (talk · contr) 17:22, 1 January 2007 (EST)
Sylvanas was the first banshee. I think of Forsaken as a faction rather than a race. The playable ones are humanoidish, but would the abominations in UC be considered Forsaken? Amro 18:21, 1 January 2007 (EST)

A ghoul is identical to any Forsaken. The difference is the Plague has taken grip of them tighter and transformed them more into mindless slaves. Algernon was probably one of few or many ghouls that was severed from the Lich King during his growing weakness when Illidan was attacking Icecrown.

Basically though all Forsaken are actually Independents. That's the entire point of the definition. They don't serve Sylvanas because she has control over them -- they serve her because she offers them a choice, and they choose to follow her. So there are a bunch of what you would call "Forsaken" looking models -- but I think is more accurate to say undead humans/elves -- who serve the Scourge, but because they are tied to the Lich King or willingly ally themselves with him. So in my perception being Forsaken is really much more of a political affiliation than a race.--Zexx 17:35, 1 January 2007 (EST)

Algernon is a Forsaken, even though he has the zombie graphic, due to the fact he kept his identity ;). Forsaken come in many forms, from Dark rangers, to humans, to banshees, etc. The important issue is that they are human or of elven descent. Baggins 17:37, 1 January 2007 (EST)
Forsaken (Race): any undead humans or high elves who are free of the Lich King's control. Free Crypt Fiends and Abominations probably don't count.
Forsaken (Faction): anyone who chooses to serve the Dark Lady and the Horde. Undeath is not always a prerequisite.
--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 17:41, 1 January 2007 (EST)
Another important issue is the term is used for what is essentially a mixing pot "nationality" that has created essentially a racial and cultural identity for themselves.
Its kind of like the term American, and I'm speaking of those from the US(I'm awhare that there are people in canada and mexico or below who take offense to the term). We are considered a nationality, but we are mixing pot of many cultures, forming what we calll the "American culture". American is our only form of identity, as we don't actually have any other term for our country. Baggins 17:37, 1 January 2007 (EST)
I would rather say that Forsaken are a faction, not a race - a faction of undead (and maybe some living) who are following Sylvanas Windrunner. She created the Forsaken (during events in W3:TFT), and thus all who follow her belong to that faction. There might be undead broken from the Scourge, or created by Apothecaries, but not following Sylvanas, and they don't belong to this faction.
Oh, and one more thing - if a model is named "forsaken" it doesn't have to mean that the race is named "forsaken" - the model name could be as well "undead" or "cookie_monster". --Sul'jin 17:52, 1 January 2007 (EST)
Well there literally is a "Forsaken race" according to the RPG, and its pretty specific to point out that to be that race you have to be human or elven and undead. Also there is an article on that discusses this process as well. Any other races either considered "withered", or risen by necromantic means.Baggins 17:54, 1 January 2007 (EST)

...It is assumed that all forsaken are high elves or humans who underwent this process...[1] (APG 52)"With the exception of a few elves, all Forsaken are former humans. Even the Forsaken don't understand the process by which they are created. The leading theory involves the power of humans' spirits. Humans are perhaps the most stubborn race on Azeroth (what about dwarves I ask you?), and fear nothing. Some scholars agree that that this will to live extends even into the grave, thus explaining why most ghosts and wraiths are former humans. The unique nature of the Plaguelands, combined with human resolve, created the Forsaken, people who literally crawled from their graves simply becauce they don't want to die yet. Of course, no one really knows, but they like to pretend they do."-Brann Bronzebeard[2] (HPG 151)
"Through the course of his experimentations, Ner'zhul insured that the affliction would specifically target humans for "undeath". Though non-human races and creatures (and even the land itself) were susceptible to the plague, it was humanity in particular that Ner'zhul meant to scour from the world. As a result, infected flora and fauna reacted differently--diseased and decaying, but not truly undead, and not under the thrall of the Lich King.
Hence, while undead representatives certainly do exist among the ranks of the non-human races, these particular agents are examples of undead created through necromancy rather than the plague."[1]
-Baggins 18:09, 1 January 2007 (EST)
Ok, thanks for clarifying that for me. --Sul'jin 18:18, 1 January 2007 (EST)
"Sylvanas was the first banshee."
No the first banshees were night elf banshees created by the Great Sundering, that Ner'Zhul conscripted into his ranks in Northrend. It was from those banshees he learned how to create Sylvanas int he first place.Baggins 18:25, 1 January 2007 (EST)
"the abominations in UC be considered Forsaken?"
Nope not Forsaken, they are considered more constructs like Golems. They work for the Forsaken, but are not Forsaken. As its been stated the Forsaken race is specifically only human and a few high elves.Baggins 18:24, 1 January 2007 (EST)
From Sylvanas : Thus did Sylvanas Windrunner become the first of the banshees. Should it be updated? Amro 18:32, 1 January 2007 (EST)
It should probably be removed. There's a contradiction a few sentences later in the same article. Amro 18:32, 1 January 2007 (EST)

Change it to first of the high elven banshees and there probably isn't any problem.Baggins 18:39, 1 January 2007 (EST)

Where does it actuallty say that Forsaken is a race, and not just a faction? WoW in-game refer them as "Undead" as you know. I understand people being confused about this.--Odolwa 02:09, 2 January 2007 (EST)

The RPG mainly. To be fair, the full name of the race is actually "forsaken undead" its just often shortened to "forsaken" for ease of use. I'm pretty sure that they also lowercase it when discussing the "race", whereas the capitalization is the faction.Baggins 20:23, 1 January 2007 (EST)

They are referred to as "Undead" because WoW is about marketing and profits- only people who were paying attention to TFT would know what a Forsaken was, so they couldn't call them that. Only a fraction of WoW's subscribers have had Blizzard experience before, and only a fraction of those would have remembered that Sylvanas named her people the Forsaken. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 20:37, 1 January 2007 (EST)

Forsaken are Zombies. While they may not have the zombie *model* they are zombies. Well, all the playable ones and most NPCs anyway. According to Wc3, zombies are freshly risen from the plague who have not decended into true undeath yet (Ghouls). So zombies and ghouls are NOT the same thing. Saimdusan 07:02, 1 March 2007 (EST)

Are undead in general counted as a race? Anduin Lothar for example is still considered human, even though he is dead. If for some reason he was resurrected that wouldn't change the fact that he would be a dead human body. By that reasoning nearly all undead, including Forsaken, are either human or high elven. Undead is just a status, like alive or deceased, and Forsaken is a faction of undead beings. Jormungand01 (talk)

Undead is a status/condition.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 15:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Even if the EPG specifically states that a member of the Forsaken (race) must be previously Human of Hugh-Elf, why is it not logically possible for a member of another race to be Forsaken. Say an undead orcish member of the Scourge achieved freedom through the same means as Sylvanas and joined the forsaken. Why would he not be considered Forsaken in race where the humans/elves who did the same are? Makesfolkslose (talk) 02:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Note the word "nearly". Jormungand01 21:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect city

Lordaeron's capital was called Capital City, not the City of Lordaeron. It appeared that way in both War2 and 3. Unless there is a retcon I am not aware of?--Zexx 17:35, 1 January 2007 (EST)

It was the capital city of Lordaeron. It appears as just "Lordaeron" on some maps, including the one in the WC2 manual.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 17:41, 1 January 2007 (EST)

Capital City, or Capital City of Lordaeron is also known as simply "Lordaeron", this was stated in Warcraft 3 manual as I recall. Its somewhat similar to how there was the Kingdom of Azeroth, nation of Azeroth, and Continent of Azeroth at one time.Baggins 17:46, 1 January 2007 (EST)

Azeroth also refers to the planet itself :P Amro 18:25, 1 January 2007 (EST)

Ah, okay. I've been recently replaying WC2 and 3 and on the load-up screen maps it simply said Capital City.--Zexx 18:12, 1 January 2007 (EST)

That's probably to avoid any confusion.Baggins 18:15, 1 January 2007 (EST)
Given that Lordaeron Kingdom no longer exists, "Capital City" probably doesn't make sense anymore. --Raze 05:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know: they use "Capital City" as the name in the Warcraft II Novelization. --Xavius 15:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


According to the current Wiki-policy, "Forsaken" is to be spelled with a capital letter in the start. However, in Rise of the Horde, it's spelled with only lower-cases: "forsaken". Time to change the Wiki-policy maybe?--Odolwa 00:40, 1 January 2007 (EST)

I already brought this up on the race names threads. I think the decision is to keep it capitalized for now because it is the way Forsaken appears for both in-game content and majority of lore materials. This is Zexx, BTW. Why aren't my options to sig and such not appearing?

The "Forsaken" faction and forsaken race are pretty much tied at the hip. In the rpg both are used interchangeably. Whenever "Forsaken" is used it is referring to the faction, lowercase, "forsaken", is the race, however all that are part of the race are also part of the Faction. The faction is always human or elves. This is discussed in a discussion above.Baggins

racial characteristics duplicated

The racial characteristics are listed in full in both the gameplay section and the separate racial characteristics section. Since having the latter section (along with the reasoning behind the characteristics) is probably a good idea for standardization, you might want to consider removing the gameplay list.--Tls 09:40, 5 January 2007 (EST)

Template clash

I wanted to add {{Wikipedia|The Forsaken (Warcraft)}} to this article, but it collides with the "lang" template. Any suggestions? --Bendyr 15:26, 8 January 2007 (EST)

I'd advise leaving the lang template; I don't really undersand the point of the wikipedia template, as half the articles there just refer the reader back to us. But I'm Lore, not templates.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 18:22, 8 January 2007 (EST)

Additional background and WoW section

Both should deleted on the grounds that they do not actually have any point. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 16:07, 14 February 2007 (EST)

/agree. // Montagg (talk · contr) 20:33, 15 February 2007 (EST)
1 standard day for rebuttal, before extraction. -_Ragestorm (talk · contr) 21:10, 15 February 2007 (EST)
They do have a point, they give the player some idea for why the Forsaken are in the Horde with the "Additional Background" thing. Saimdusan 07:04, 1 March 2007 (EST)


What exactly are the Forsaken trying to do? Some info I find implies this "new plauge" is designed to wipe out everyone other sentinent race in existence (minus the forsaken) while other places imply it's meant only to be released in Northrend to kill off the scourge for good, can I get the correct answer? Hordesupporter 12:51, 17 February 2007 (EST)

I think that killing only the Scourge is their alibi, but killing the rest of the world is what they want to do as well. Or maybe only some UD want to kill all sentient races, while some want to destroy the Scourge only, while some are geniunly seeking a cure for Undeath.Saimdusan 07:06, 1 March 2007 (EST)

I do wonder how the plague business will get resolved later on, the forsaken obviously can't kill everything off or the franchise is over.Minionman 04:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Maybe that will end the game IconSmall Dwarf MaleUi-charactercreate-classes paladinTalk Contribs 00:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


Not necessarily lore-related or even important, but does anyone have an explanation for the x-shaped straps seen on the Forsaken models in WoW? Super Bhaal 11:26, 7 March 2007 (EST)

From what i've seen, the x-strap is only on forsaken who do not have eyes. Hordesupporter 22:10, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Thank you. Super Bhaal 12:27, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

The X straps are to hold the face of some forsaken together, some of their faces got so much rotten that they need metal bars to hold them

Growing Old

I found an article Brann Bronzebeard wrote, or atleast thats what my sources say they got it from: "While technically immortal, some Forsaken exhibit signs of old age, losing their identities and eventually their sentience. I met a fellow who reminded me of a dying old human, huddled in his home in Deathknell. Feeble and scared, he complained about the cold growing within him, and how he was starting to forget who he was. A priest explained to me that this creature was losing his mind to the Scourge, and would eventually become a "mindless one" -- an unintelligent zombie. All Forsaken fear this process, as it means they revert to the Scourge's will and lose themselves to the Lich King and his dominance. As I turned, I saw the priest draw a knife and slowly advance to the man. Perhaps these guys do have mercy after all." If its true this should DEFINETLY be added. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FieryAxel (talkcontr).

Where did you find this? --Amro 17:50, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Its in the Horde Player's Guide. A book that has alot of info that still needs to be added, :).Baggins 10:41, 12 May 2007 (EDT)


I don't have the exact citation but an early forsaken priest says that the light and Shadow have both rejected the forsaken and they earn their priestly powers on their own. I think the forsaken who ends the quest is in Brill. Zarnks 22:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Ya, to the early forsaken they were without power. They had no access to the light or shadow. It has changed since then apparently, according to Horde Player's Guide (which takes place some time after the start of World of Warcraft, almost to the time of TBC).Baggins 03:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Forsaken Bones covered for censorship

[2] That as all. Is this worthy to get a mention? Zarnks 05:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Could we get more information on the Chinese censorship laws? Baggins 05:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't know all the details but showing bones is illegal in china,something about it disrespecting the dead. I hear the skeleton mobs were replaced with Forsaken. Zarnks 05:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Uh huh... Which is funny since culturally speaking bony undead is normal part of Chinese mythology... There is one legend of a chinese vampire which is essentially a floating head with intestines and spine hanging out... I have to say censorship is stupid, and probably another thing tied to Chinese communism in this case...Baggins 05:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Seems the Abominations were patched up as well. [3] Zarnks 05:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Like most video game censorship, I bet the players will probably just use modified versions of the game, that retain the original graphics.Baggins 05:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I always did find it wierd that every Forsaken ingame was missing the middle of his arms and legs. It actually would be pretty cool if it was a customization option Zarnks 05:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Sign your post please. Zarnks is there any pictures of the "Tombs" for deaths?Baggins 05:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I think the graves are left intact. [4]. Zarnks 05:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Instead of leaving bones when reseurected,a tombstone is left behind. Zarnks 05:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

According to comments on that article, it has nothing to do with their culture, or anything to do with "showing bones is illegal in china". Hearsay is very annoying :) Kirkburn talk contr 14:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is. The original article[5] is very vague, that's why I wanted direct quotes from actual law if it exists. Also how credible is the newsource that original reported this? Could the screenshots be part of a doctored hoax?Baggins 15:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
The article merely says it was toned down due to it being "scary". Nothing cultural, sounds more like a misguided attempt at "keeping children safe". Kirkburn talk contr 15:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Ya, well I'm actually more curious about the "Chinese censorship review" that they reportedly trying to "pass"... I mean what exactly is China trying to censor?Baggins 15:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
blood, gore, murder.. the usual kind of things subject to censorships. china just happen to have harsher censor laws and stricter guidelines, so they're trying to please the censorship to not let it get a "not good for any ages" or getting banned due to gore, etc. that's the usual approach at least, so that's my guess. Taurmindo | talk contr  15:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Anyone else see the irony in making the characters more human in the interest of censorship ... :) Kirkburn talk contr 16:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

No it true[6]. Does this deserve a mention in the article? Zarnks 19:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

That the Chinese gov disliked their look? Yes, I think we could probably have a short trivia-type note on it, without mentioning culture/laws etc, since we don't know enough about it. Kirkburn talk contr 20:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as all you people say that they blocked all the bones....waht did they do to lich models, such as Kel'Thuzad? Thanks. Stopa 12:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Kel'Thuzad now wears a scuba suit.

That should be an option...I like the "boneless" look better than the "LOL AIM FOR THE BONES" look. What's with the dead Pit Lord? --Super Bhaal 12:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

forsakens are evil coz their cruel and trying to make new plague.

Sup. --Super Bhaal 19:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

No such law exists in China. It's an urban myth propagated by ignorant white people thinking China is some mystical, reverent country in the Dreaming East, like the supposed "law" that bans media depicting violence against pandas and thus why panderans have not made it into the game so far. That's funny, because when I went to China and stepped inside a PC cafe in Changchun, there were kids killing plenty of pandaren brewmasters in DotA.

The9 are a private company, and they decided to cover up the bones as a preemptive measure before showing the product to the Chinese government's censorship board, but the Chinese censorship board didn't comment about the change. If The9 decided not to change it and the board decided to censor it, it would most likely have to do with the game being teen rated, and differing cultural standards of what is decent and acceptable to youth media rather than some bogus rumors about ancestor worship. --- Zexx 16:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


It seems to me that, if we are going to give background information on "lore classes," even within the context of general history, we should be sure to include all lore classes. In this instance, I'm referring to the Deathstalkers. Tuitikala 07:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Deathstalkers? Sure, mentioning them wouldn't be a bad thing, if they aren't already. --Sky (talk | con | wh) 07:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't look like they are. I also noticed that Deathstalker and Deathstalkers contain different information on the same topic. Since neither article has an active discussion page: Can we combine those? If so, should we go with the plural? Tuitikala 07:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Um... Yeah, we can. Info should be at Deathstalker, with a redirect from the plural. --Sky (talk | con | wh) 07:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Deathstalker Deathstalkers How'd I do? My first edit :D Tuitikala 07:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Looks good to me. :) --Sky (talk | con | wh) 07:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

im preety sure deathstalkers are just a group of UD rogues, itd be like calling the knights of the silver hand a class

Wishes, miracles, oh my!

"A Forsaken's body is undead… and so is its soul, corrupted and changed to such a degree that it belongs to its new body now, rather than its old one. Forsaken with the undead soul feat can be brought back with raise dead and reincarnate. The spells work normally on them. Resurrection, true resurrection and similar effects restore them to their undead life rather than to the being they were before they became undead. Forsaken priests have the power to restore those foolishly slain in battle, though only to unlife. Nothing short of a miracle can return true life.

Without the undead soul feat, Forsaken are not affected by raise dead and reincarnate spells or abilities. Resurrection and true resurrection can affect Forsaken. These spells return a destroyed Forsaken to her undead life; the Scourge’s curse makes it virtually impossible to bring a Forsaken back to life as the creature she was before she died. Only a wish or a miracle can accomplish that."

Taken from the "A cure for undeath" section. I definitely agree it's a worthwhile section to have in there, but I'm proposing I stick in there and rewrite that a bit, with the community's blessing (kinda new to editing these wiki things). This appears to be material copied out from a WoW RPG sourcebook word for word, and it suffers from the usual problem of trying to shoehorn a setting into d20 - things like true resurrection, wish and miracles are simply spells ported directly over from D&D, which aren't necessarily true to the setting (it then goes onto mention feats, which is a d20 game mechanic, pure and simple, and not representative of anything in the world). What the section is getting at is that when an undead is ressed, it resses as undead - which is fine and true. Most of the rest of this could be cut out. Thoughts? --- Katriana 15:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC) (sorry for belated signature)

No objections, and d20 game mechanic references niggle at me, so I've made the change, hope it meets with approval. --- Katriana 19:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I've given you a warning in your talk page, but in the RPG, game mechanics and lore are often blended together. That is there is often lore behind game mechanics, and the spells and abilities included in the game. This wikipedia is not against including lore for any source if it relates to a topic, so removal of information if it relates is frowned upon.
As for the discussion for what is true or not, that isn't allowed according to our canon policy.Baggins 19:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
"Canon", on here? I thought we avoided that term :) Kirkburn  talk  contr 21:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Exactly, the point was, that our canon policy is that we don't use canon ;).Baggins 21:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

forsaken and the light

Confusingly a forsaken seemingly makes a reference to using the light in the card game. Zarnks

Was the reference in the past or present tense? --Super Bhaal 18:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Its definetly present tense. Zarnks 02:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

What is the quote?--SWM2448 02:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The Quote is "The Light rewards faith, not form." Zarnks 02:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The situation was brought up in WoW as all of the Hordeside Argent healers are holy using forsaken. I'm starting to think the being unable to use light has been retconned.

Actually i read in the light section that the light will not respond to anyone who has wilfully commited an evil act, maybe thats why and this could fit in forsaken are evil —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Darkangel9080 (talkcontr).

How are the Forsaken evil? Every race has good and evil beings. Just because a large percentage of the Forsaken can be considered evil, most are working toward bringing about the good of their race, (and sometimes the Blood Elves too) IconSmall Dwarf MaleUi-charactercreate-classes paladinOkolorionTalk Contribs 01:22, December 2, 2009 (UTC)

Being unable to use light retconned.

I'm starting to think the idea of Forsaken being unable to use light has been retconned, as it has been contradicted several times. As several undead ingame use holy and Chancellor Velora a forsaken in the cardgame deals holy damage and says light rewards faith not form. Finally in the scourge invasion, Hordeside all of the Argent healers were holy using forsaken. Zarnks (talk) 00:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I almost never take anything in the mmo as being canon, it oversimplifies everything either because of scale, game balance, or to make it more accessable to people who have no clue about the story. The trading card game has also listed Velen as a shaman, so I don't think anything from that can be taken as canon, either.Tweak the Whacked (talk) 05:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I was surprised to see Forsaken Argent Healers too but then again Leonid Barthalomew the Revered has been part of Argent Dawn for awhile. I guess if they "change their ways" they can use the Light? I am not sure which specific undead in-game characters use holy spells. I do remember the RPG saying something about the Undead and the Forsaken not being alike when it comes to the Light for something or other.Rolandius Paladin (talk - contr) 05:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Several undead in Kharzan, Commander Springvale,zeliek from Naxxaramas and others I don't remember the names of. Zarnks (talk) 05:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Former paladins who are not really "evil" or Forsaken. Rolandius Paladin (talk - contr) 06:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Zeliek's an undead paladin who was forcibly raised like most members of the ebon blade and there are many undead in Kharzan using holy. The ability of forsaken to use the light is referenced again in this quest. [7]. I Zarnks (talk) 20:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Have you read the article on Zeliek? Look at his quotes. "Flee, before it's too late!", "Forgive me!", and "I- I have no choice but to obey!". He has maintained some of his humanity. Rolandius Paladin (talk - contr) 02:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah but he's still undead. Zarnks (talk) 03:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah but he still remembers his past and retains some power of the Light. Rolandius Paladin (talk - contr) 04:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

You must remember that wow is game, not official lore. forsaken cannot really use Light, but in wow they can.Noobi666 (talk) 18:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually WoW is considered an official source of lore, many things of WoW were later taken and expanded in other sources. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 19:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
WoW is very much lore, yes. GAMEPLAY is not lore, but that is not the same thing as saying that the game itself isn't. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 08:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
WoW equals Lore. Rolandius Paladin (talk - contr) 10:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Also, in the RPG intelligent undead can heal. Rolandius Paladin (talk - contr) 14:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Ill check the HPG and see what it says about this.--Centaur77 (talk) 22:48, October 2, 2009 (UTC)

All I can find is stuff saying they cant, but maybe it could have been retconned knowing Blizz and their huge amount of them.--Centaur77 (talk) 22:23, October 7, 2009 (UTC)

Stylistic approach to names

I've noticed that many Forsaken characters bear names that seem quite English in style, as opposed to Human names having a slightly Medieval/Celtic/Tolkienesque ring to them, at least to my ears. Compare "Anduin Lothar" to names like "Arnold Flem", "Roberick", "Danforth" or "McGillicutty". Is this done just for fun, or for lore reasons (ex: since most of the Forsaken undead once inhabited Lordaeron, inhabitants of the north of Azeroth had a different dialect than the southerners of Stormwind)? Any insight? DacianWarlord (talk) 18:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Frosaken and faith

Ok to my point. The quest that is flat out subjective in nature with no other factors. "Know the light" means nothing. I could know the Bible, that does not make me a Priest.

Now to look at the facts of the matter. First you have the whole body of the Forgotten Shadow article.[3] but I will specifically look at one area since it nicely covers what I am talking about.

Balance between Light and Shadow

While the undead can no longer use the Holy Light, and have learned how to use the Shadow, they also preach that there must be a balance between Light and Shadow, and that they must learn the Light as well, but never forget they were born from the Shadow.HPG 160

What does this say to you? I read it as;

1. Forsaken cannot use the light.
2. Forsaken have learned how to use the shadow.
3. Forsaken must learn the light as well (sounds familiar)
4. Forsaken must remember they are born of shadow.

Unless someone is going to try and say this paragraph contradicts itself within two sentences, the fact of the matter is "learn the light" does not mean "learn to use the light. Now to the quest [4] and the specific text.

You have acknowledged that there is merit in knowing the healing arts. This is wise. But before you can know the dark, you must also know the light. And for this, I have a test for you.

While not worded exactly the same, "learn the light" and "know the light" seem rather close. Also "knowing the light" fits neatly with the concept of healing which comes from the shadow (have to dig it up). The next part "learn the dark" fits nicely into the concept of "the shadow tree". This point is rather subjective tho.

While the above is subjective this is not. The word "use" is neither said nor implied. "know the light" is very subjective. As I said before, I can know the bible but not be a Christian (use the knowledge). Yes I could convert but the point is knowing is not = using. To be a concrete point that is not subject to questioning, the word has to be there. It is the only way (given the entire precept that the forsaken are forsaken of the light) that the quest text makes sense. The quest is at the very best ambiguous and atm since there is not confirmed Forsaken NPC in the game that does use the light and Blizzard said themselves "Forsaken Paladins" don't fit into the lore atm [5], it's very hard for me to accept this as anything else but simple understating of the nature and virtues of the light which those of the Forgotten Shadow study.


This article or section contains lore taken from Warcraft novels or short stories.
The figure wore the robes of a priest of the Holy Light - not uncommon among the Forsaken, who mocked the order by wearing their garments and allowing the sacred robes to be soiled and tainted by their bloody work. Somehow, Andarin sensed, this figure was different; the robes seemed to be in almost tolerable condition, even if the body wearing them was not.[6] "You wear the robes of a priest, Trevor. Why do you not channel the Light in battle, if you seek redemption?" The priest seemed to wince at that. "While I refuse to wield the shadow, the Light has refused me, or so it seems. And so, I am truly a broken man; I learned to wield spears of Light like Uther's knights did in the Second. Without the Light, I am unarmed and unarmored -- but not entirely helpless, as you see." Andarin couldn't help but feel a little sorry for the fallen priest, if his story was true. Perhaps a man, no matter how virtuous, could not channel holy power while in such a form."[7]

Again states Forsaken cannot use the Light.

While I cannot argue the second reference (as the text is clear), the first source is simply "how do I want to look at it". If we go simply by the game there are no light using forsaken anywhere. Holy Priests? Yes, but that is a game mechanic.

Lastly while again not proof, the fact Blizzard chose Tauren over Forsaken as Paladins could be an indicator that at this time Forsaken cannot use the light.

While I am here

- Sir Zeliek is a Death Knight who is unique in that he was so strong in the light in life as a Paladin he can still call upon it. [8] right at the top "The most powerful death knights within Naxxramas are the four horsemen."

- Leonid Barthalomew has never be stated as a Paladin.

- Ghosts do not follow the normal rules for undead. They are the spirit (soul) of the person in life and in game can use their abilities. Ghosts do this all over the place in WoW.


  1. ^ APG, 52
  2. ^ HPG, 151
  3. ^
  4. ^
  5. ^
  6. ^ Horde Player's Guide, 170
  7. ^ Horde Player's Guide, pg. 173.
  8. ^

Pyrolight (talk) 06:38, September 3, 2009 (UTC)

Theres a major problem with the premise behind your arguement; that you think sources that contradict that little piece of information have any effect at all on whether we display this bit of info. Horde Player's guide is irrelevent to this discussion, no one is suggesting we remove the information taken from that book, and all sources are given equal face time. If you are trying to personaly convince everyone that HPG is "right" while the other source is "wrong" you should again know that it's pointless and personal opinions mean nothing. Many things most of us flat out don't believe to be canonical are posted here for the sake of neutrality in order to follow said rules and maintain the intergrity of this site. See Velen being listed as a Shaman and Lor'themar being called a Paladin. I understand why this might be frustrating, i went through the same thing when i just started editing, but it is nessesary, otherwise people could claim lore pages on wowwiki are just one group of people's interpretation of the lore, and they would be right.
Now as far as the quest goes it very explicitly means as a Forsaken you are using the light. I'm not saying that this quest wasn't designed and written by some lore ignorant developer and somehow the quest dialogue slipped through the cracks, but it's in game and official, not just game mechanics which i would never use as a statement of lore. But it is beyond silly to assume the quest is asking you to know the light and go off to heal this ally if you are not using the light in the act. It would be like me telling you you are going to learn about cooking and you are going to go off and feed a group of people but never actualy cook. How would that teach you about cooking? As i've said the quest makes itself blatantly clear. Now i could understand you learning about a topic without actualy using it, but there is no such act of observation or anything else that would give the tiniest indication that the lesson is learned through anything other than the act that is performed. Let me say that again the act that is perfomed.
I'll be frank with you: you are desperately spliting hairs in this case for i don't know what reason, but let me reiterate: we don't need to see the word "use" in order to be sure beyond any reasonable doubt the holy light is being used, that that was the quest's intention. It's also never stated in exact words that this picture, [8], is Malfurion Stormrage and Tyrande Whisperwind. But as rational people we aren't going to leave out a very important piece of lore simply for an alleged technicality purported by a single user.
If that section really bothers you and you are simply hoping to make sure readers get an informed opinion maybe you could make the HPG's information a little more....visible i suggest you go through the book and maybe rewrite the section, including numerous references from the book, making it's position perfectly clear and stronger than it already appears on the page. It's okay as long as you cite everything, don't repeat the same phrases ad naseum, and keep opinion loaded phrases out of it. But again what the HPG says does not override what other sources say, so don't remove or try to unqualify the sentance below it. Doesn't matter if theres a whole novel devoted to forsaken being unable to use the light. Though in that case you cold meantion theres a whole novel to strenghten your point. Transparency is always a good thing.
In conclusion let me explain one final reason why the citation should remain. While you claim that there is reasonable doubt about the quest i think even you wouldn't argue that the quest doesn't strongly suggest possible usage. That right there is enough reason to display it. This wiki's intentions are not to tell users what lore is correct and what is incorrect. It is simply meant to present all sources to the user and let them make up their own minds. A user can read the sentance, click on the ref, click on the link, and decide for his or herself "nah thats not a valid or srong enough source to convince me of that fact". It's why wowwiki itself doesn't use the word "canon". Thats why keeping that citation is important.
P.S. If you intend to reply and try to argue again on the basis that the quest doesn't explicitly use the word "use", save your breath. I already addressed this and you've already made your position on the matter perfectly clear. If you remain unconvinced i guess well have to agree to disagree. Sorry i just got a feeling another reply like this was coming.Warthok Talk Contribs 12:15, September 3, 2009 (UTC)

On more shot to try to make you understand you are misinterpreting what is said.

Our power comes from darkness and shadow, <name>, but that is not your only role. You have acknowledged that there is merit in knowing the healing arts. This is wise. But before you can know the dark, you must also know the light. And for this, I have a test for you.

1. This say explicit in the first line, out power comes from darkness and shadow. It does not mention the Light. Forsaken do not use the Light. Now you somehow assume that ten second later he is changing that?
2. The next sentence goes on to mention the healing arts which are an aspect of what people who use the Light do.
3. The third sentence says before you can know the dark, you must also know the light NOT the Light. The distinction is the same as god or God. It is the Light (capitalized) the light would refer to healing.[1]

Also this quest is from vanilla. This is not new at no point in the game has any Forsaken NPC ever been said to use the Light.

All Light using races since vanilla also can have Paladins. All races that cannot use the Light still can have priests.

You are still saying that a priests healing has to use the Light when only Humans and Dwarves at this point in the game were said to use it.

Again knowing the light does not mean using the Light. A blind man can know how to drive form a book but he sure and heck can drive in a car. The distinction between "the light" and "the Light" is massive.

I think what irks be is you are taking a quest from a point in the game when there was no question the forsaken did not use the Light and then trying to apply it years down the road in a different manner. The quest has never changed. The Forsaken in no way were ever suggested back then to be "the Light" users. Also you are ignoring the factual statement in the quest citing the Forsaken source of power because the quest goes on to talk about healing arts and then says yes these are the light (good).

Again knowing the healing arts is knowing the light (good) while face melting is knowing the dark (evil). Knowing the Light is knowing the Holy Light. Capitalization of the Light vs the light is not splitting hairs if you want to go down that road. It is a very important distinction as I say like god and God.


  1. ^

Pyrolight (talk) 13:17, September 5, 2009 (UTC)

I did say save your breath, And yes it's the very definition of spliting hairs. The light when uncapatalized is not synonymous with healing. That's nothing more than your own assumption. Like i said i think you have some type of agenda to try and create such a contrived split between the two. As I said but apparently fell on deaf ears: the reasons and circumstances leading to the inclusion of the quest are irrelevent, only that it does indeed exist and we don't choose which sources are valid or invalid or try and make assumptions for blizzards reasoning behind that. We just take them for what they are. And the quest makes itself pretty clear, not to meantion as i said earlier, while you might argue it doesn't provide any concrete conclusions (something id disagree with) theres no denying it defintely puts the idea out there and thus why in the sake of transparency should not be kept from the reader. There is no requirement for users reading the article to take anything the wiki says as irrefutable fact, they are free to form their own opinions. Thats the purpose of the wiki.Warthok Talk Contribs 13:34, September 5, 2009 (UTC)

What you are saying is, blizzard in their work specifically capitalizes the Light[1] and you ignore that the quest specifically states "power from shadow and darkness" because a single line could imply the Forsaken use "the Light"?

That's not transparency that reporting incorrect information. You are stating something as fact where it is NOT stated as fact. Maybe I like the concept of working in absolutes as opposed to subjective statements.

There are only two facts in that quest:

The Forsaken get their power from the darkness and shadow. They are never said to use the Light. Everything else is YOUR interpretation. Also the difference the light and the Light is not splitting hairs when the whole quest is taken in proper context. If you ever said to anyone that the difference between god and God was splitting hair they would laugh at you.

Neutrality does not mean you work from opinions it mean you work from facts. Nothing in that quest says flat out "Forsaken use the Light", while the first line says "our power comes from the shadow and darkness". Going strictly by the facts that is not a source that the Forsaken use the Light. You are putting the idea out there stating it as fact. Don't you see the problem I have with that?

Anyway that's all I have to say on the subject for the time being.


  1. ^

Pyrolight (talk) 14:01, September 5, 2009 (UTC)

The quest very clearly has you performing two acts that is stated to have two distinct source. One powered by the shadow and one by guess what? The fact that it isn't capatzlized changes nothing, and your comparison is inheritly flawed since there is no light that can heal aside from Elune and the Light, and we know Elune has nothing to do with this, and i'm sure you aren't trying to imply that a shining a gnomish flash light at someone will heal them. Look i know you don't like it but the quest is blatantly clear. I am definetly not the one guilty of misinterpretation simply because i would say any interpretation is completely unnessesary because of how explicit the quest is. Unless of course you are trying to twist the message out of some personal agenda...Warthok Talk Contribs 14:11, September 5, 2009 (UTC)

Lol you accuse me of an personal agenda when you yourself ignore a statement of fact "Our power comes from darkness and shadow, <name>," and simply decide via your own opinion that "You have acknowledged that there is merit in knowing the healing arts. This is wise. But before you can know the dark, you must also know the light." refers to using the Light, while ignoring the fact blizzard capitalizes the Light or uses the Holy Light in their works. Further to that you also toss out the concept that knowing "the light" could in the context of the quest mean "the healing arts".

My response to your accusation is simple (since you went down that road). I suspect you yourself have an agenda (as by your previous comments on the subject "light retconned") or you simply lack the needed understanding of the English language to be an editor.

Pyrolight (talk) 19:23, September 5, 2009 (UTC)

You are saying that Warthok ignores the first sentence but you appear to ignore the last part. You just read until it says: "But before you can know the dark, you must also know the light." as you said, it basically says that you must known the light before the dark, until that part it could be as you are telling. But then appears: "And for this, I have a test for you." With this last part it is saying that you must heal someone to know about the light, it wouldn't made sense if you heal him with darkness because talking about the light would have been useless.
Besides this, can you find a source that says that "light" (lower case) means "the healing arts" while "Light" (upper case) is used for the Holy Light? I don't remember seeing that anywhere, I thought they (lower case and upper case) were used interchangeably. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 20:36, September 5, 2009 (UTC)
Benito covers my response pretty well. As far as me having a personal agenda, i think my history at the wiki speaks for itself. Check my contibutions. Are you suggesting i started editing the wiki over two years ago and have contibuted over 5,000 edits without a single neutrality issue simply so that when a user tried to invalidate a few small isolated sources making statements about Forsaken using the light i could defend them and promote my own agenda? As opposed to your account which seems to be made for the sole purpose of promoting one point of view over another equally valid one on this particular article. Furthermore were i to include my personal feelings in my edits on this article i would be on your side, but i leave them out and simply recognize things for what they are. And even though i personally think it was a oversight, i'm not going to try and unqualify it through some contrived grammatical issue. I made the accusition because the shoe fit and if i'm wrong i apologize, but in that case it seems you lack a basic level of reading comprehension.Warthok Talk Contribs 23:26, September 5, 2009 (UTC)


How can notable forsaken be marked as alive? BobNamataki (talk) 17:58, November 21, 2009 (UTC)

Because they are. Except for Dear Putress who is dead for good.
An Undead is a dead brought back to life. So a Forsaken is alive until he dies again.
IconSmall Hamuul Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (talk/contribz) 18:24, November 21, 2009 (UTC)
By definition, undead are not alive. Otherwise they wouldn't be undead. To answer your question though, Bob, it's basically a technicality of this wiki. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 21:47, November 21, 2009 (UTC)

Well if they were all put as dead there could be confusion, Putress is the only dead one, if the others were put as dead then they would all appear to be dead (dead dead). Dagerem (talk) 16:29, November 29, 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we could change "Alive" for "Active" or "Undead" to avoid confusion. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 17:38, November 29, 2009 (UTC)
How about no? An undead is still alive until they're killed again. -- IconSmall BloodElf2 MaleIconSmall Rogue Sebreth (talk) 18:20, November 29, 2009 (UTC)
What source says that an undead is still alive until it's killed again? At least Sylvanas doesn't consider herself as alive: "We are still undead, sister--still monstrosities. - The Dark Lady" Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 18:59, November 29, 2009 (UTC)
They're obviously alive, otherwise they would be unable to move, speak, die, or do any other life-like activities. -- IconSmall BloodElf2 MaleIconSmall Rogue Sebreth (talk) 19:18, November 29, 2009 (UTC)
Undead implies they are alive, and able to move, speak, die, etc...And theres a precident in it being used in other notable character tables throughout the wiki.Warthok Talk Contribs 19:31, November 29, 2009 (UTC)

Ugh, this discussion again... Creatures that age are Alive, Creatures that stop moving are dead, and Creatures that move but don't age are Undead (if you don't count living immortals of course). User:Coobra/Sig4 20:03, November 29, 2009 (UTC)

But in a previos talk it says that undead do age, well maybe only forsaken —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Darkangel9080 (talkcontr).

Don't remember that, just something in the Horde Player's Guide about Forsaken entering a state like senility in which they're no longer in control of themselves, yet not under the control of the Lich King. If I recall correctly, the state was pretty rare among Forsaken. --Super Bhaal (talk) 02:30, November 30, 2009 (UTC)
Age = rot. 'Age' was a bad term. Perhaps 'biological processes'? This may stems from a lack of proper English terminology for what they are and can be.--SWM2448 02:38, November 30, 2009 (UTC)
That's because the English language was not meant for the walking dead, heh. --Joshmaul (talk) 11:05, November 30, 2009 (UTC)

"While they can no longer use the Holy Light"

The cited page does not say that the Forsaken cannot use the light. Nor did the previous citation. Why was my "citation requested" tag removed for an inaccurate citation? Primal Zed (talk) 19:30, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

Isn't there any thing in HPG that tells you about it?
Not that I want to throw you out, but this citation is in Cult of Forgotten Shadow too ("according to HPG, while they can no longer use the holy light"), so we need to make it clear for both articles.
IconSmall Hamuul Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (talk/contribz) 10:37, August 8, 2010 (UTC)
Not that I've ever seen, no. Hence why I made the edit to the Cult of Forgotten Shadow page yesterday as well. I know it's rather late to call into question something that's been there for years, but I've gone over it on the WoW forums many times, and I've never been able to figure out was being used from the HPG or from the WoW RPG book to justify the claim. (edit: I was thinking of cleaning up a lot of the Culture section, since it's a disorganized mess right now, but wanted to get this settled first.)Primal Zed (talk) 13:13, August 8, 2010 (UTC)

Garments of Darkness citation

I had edited the reference for this quest to use the {{ref game}} template as described in WoWWiki:Citation. Why was that changed to a {{quest}} template? Is a less detailed citation preferable? Primal Zed (talk) 19:30, August 7, 2010 (UTC)


The Alignment listed for the Forsaken in this article is currently "Usually Evil." This is, verbatim, what the Manual of Monsters lists for Forsaken.

Given that the Manual of Monsters was created for the first edition Warcraft RPG, in which Forsaken were not a playable race (Forsaken get only a page and a half, categorized under chapter 3: "The Undead Scourge", and Sylvanas is actually listed as a "Villain" in this book), that the 2nd edition books (in which Forsaken are a playable race who have joined the Horde) have numerous quotes of Forsaken being made up of individuals with differing opinions, and that none of the troll articles have reference to the "usually chaotic evil" alignment provided in this book, would it be fair to remove this? Primal Zed (talk) 00:49, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

We don't like to remove cited material. That is, unless a more recent RPG book states something else. I was looking through some of them to see if any had an updated alignment, but I really couldn't find any, however, a few of the books did say to have a look at the Manual of Monsters for more information. So if they're still referencing to it, I'd say it should stay. User:Coobra/Sig4 01:04, August 14, 2010 (UTC)
Came across a quote I did not see before. "Most Forsaken are pretty despicable, and their motivations as a race are evil and destructive," WoW RPG, p53. I'll concede the point. My concern has simply been that most 2nd edition sources have been going between "many are evil" and "ambiguous at best" when it comes to their 'alignment,' but this quote spells it out pretty clearly. Primal Zed (talk) 01:22, August 14, 2010 (UTC)


I added a lot of noteable Forsaken, including Varimathras beacause he was the second founder of The Forsaken IconSmall Qiraji MaleAssey Westfall (talk) 10:23, July 24, 2013 (UTC)


Hello, i'm trying to find more information about the borders/stability of the Forsaken this might be information i've missed or is completely unknown, but i'd be very glad to get some input:

So, in terms of borders you of course have tirisfal glades as a primary location, but according to some maps i've seen, it stretches all the way up to Quel'thalas, and down towards stromgarde and the Ilneas kingdom.. This of course rise the question as to just how cemented their control is over these locations?

I'm starting to understand that Eastern plaguelands is a place ruled by Balzannar, battling against the forsaken? How is that war coming along?

Then I'm also wondering what might be keeping them at bay from expanding further south?

And since the fall of the lich king they're occupied securing their lands in Northrend, and if so how has the borders changed there?

Happy discussions! :)

Daitengueq (talk) 14:44, November 9, 2015 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.