Old stuff Edit

As of the 1.11 patch, the information provided on the Scarlet Crusade is partly incorrect. Currently, the game suggests that one of the key founders or leaders of the Scarlet Crusade is Mograine (not Scarlet Commander Mograine, but his father). Previously, the Scarlet Crusade was a noble organization, led with the purpose to combat the Scourge, but without the mad zealotry as seen currently. Certain factions, presumably led by Abbendis and Isilien caused the Scarlet Crusade to become what it is today. The conversation in Light Hope's Chapel between leaders of the Brotherhood of the Light and the Scarlet Crusade sheds light on this history. -- Isildor 11.15, 5 Jul 2006 (GMT+8)

I think that you may be right, except I believe that Balnazzar (disguised as their leader) was behind most of their corruption. -- Amiedala
This page should be moved to "Category:Scarlet Crusade". For some reason I can't do this, I get an error. See "Scourge" for example. --Asherett 20:35, 8 Sep 2005 (EDT)
Is it possible for players get the new scarlet tabard like the one the ambassador has in Light Hope Chappel? -- Amiedala No, it isn't.
Why there isn't reputation with this organization like the Bloodasail? It can be funny.

I think there ought to be, although I can assure you it has been suggested and for whatever reason Blizzard may or may not implement this in. -- Amiedala

I believe it was possible in beta to get a scarlet tabard, but I cannot confirm. As awesome as being able to get rep with them would be, for lore reasons, only humans could do it, thus denying Horde any chance of doing so. There's a quest that disguises you as a Scarlet Crusader, which is kinda like being friendly with them.... There's also a small quest chain where the player starts to get recruited into the Crusade until they run into a member who has come to his senses and who instead tells you to kill the leaders of the Scarlet Monestary. -- Mikaka
Dwarfes would also be able to get rep with them, as well as high elves - although, of course, the latter are not playable in WoW. Well, let's see. I still have not given up hope that Blizz might one day introduce the rep bar for the Crusade. I hate to turn in Insignias of the Crusade and just get Argent Dawn reputation. Tulon 11:55, 8 Nov 2006

What is their stance/relationship with the Blood Elves playable in the expansion? ScarletPally 11:55, 22 Jan 2007

Since the blood elves basically sided with the Forsaken, it's clear they should be hostile towards each other - even though they are fighting the same enemy most of the time. I guess the time that Quel'thalas worked together with the Crusade (as is implied by the statues in the monastery) is over. Tulon 15:25, 10 Feb 2007

The ash bringer is like having rep with the crusade excpt for the bar

Boo Propaganda Edit

The Scarlet Crusade is generally hated by most questgivers, spreading word of how torturous and zealous their organization is. I don't know if anyone else has caught on but I have never seen any member of their org do any acts of crime, and as an Alliance player, the torture chamber in the Graveyard instance of the Monestary doesn't strike me because the people held in question are Forsaken. All I've seen them do is basically defend their strongholds, namely Hearthglen, the Scarlet Bastion, and Tyr's Hand (*cough From Gold Farmers cough*). Killing Joe and Jane Schmoe Crusader doesn't make much sense to me if their Leader is the one who is corrupt. It would be so nice to see all the Crusaders become friendly after killing Balnazzar, alas but a dream... ScarletPally

What about all of them attacking you on sight? "When in doubt, assume it's Scourge and kill it" is the motto. --Tinkerer 13:09, 11 November 2006 (EST)
Indeed. Though one could ask how those doubts arise. Alas, sadly, as of yet the Crusade is portrayed a littlebit single-sided in the computer game. In the PnP-RPG, the Scarlet Crusade can be "friend or foe", depending on the adventure (and your DM). You can even join their ranks, and there is a prestige class called Scarlet Crusader playable if you do so. The Scarlet Crusade itself is neither as good or as bad as some people might believe, in my opinion it perfectly fits the "grey zone". Its all about doing good with (sometimes) evil methods. Tulon 00:20, 26 Nov 2006
In reply to Tinkerer, Paladins are immune to the plague, thus the Scarlet Crusade should react friendly to me, and others if it weren't for the game mechanics.ScarletPally 2:05, 13 December 2006 (PST)
Not necessarily. They won't see if you're a paladin or not. Or you could just be some undead infiltrator posing as a paladin. In the end, it depends on the Crusader if or if not he is one of those who will attack anything on sight. You've got to admit, they have a point in saying "who's not from the Crusade has no business in the Plaguelands and thus is suspicious". Tulon 12:40, 14 Dec 2006

With blood elven Blood Knights they also can't be sure weilding the powers of the holy light means being a follower of the holy light. Hordesupporter 23:17, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Blood Knights are certainly NOT followers of the Holy Light. They are abusing the powers of the Light by harvesting them right out of a captured Naaru. Any true priest or paladin of the Light (be it Scarlet Crusade or not) who knows this would attack a Blood Knight upon sight. By the way, fighting against Fordring's New Silver Hand is part of the Blood Knight questline. Tulon 07:30, 17 March 2007

I don't think offical lore has stated that the Alliance and/or the Scarlet Crusade are even aware of the blood knight order, feel free to correct me if i'm wrong. Hordesupporter 02:27, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

That's true. However, we can assume it would only be a matter of time, thinking about how the blood elves boast with their ability to wield the powers of the Light - just remember Lieutenant Matis (and the Draenei are very likely to relay that information to the Alliance). Also, the Blood Knights actually burn down the chapel in Stratholme to demonstrate that they are the "true masters of the Light", so I think it's safe to say they cannot wait to tell everybody. Tulon 01:00, 21 March 2007

Anyway, the point I was making about the blood knights is that simple use of holy light based powers does not mean the crusade will think your a follower of the religion, I could imagine the Scourge could make their spells resemble holy spells in some way or form as well. Hordesupporter 18:41, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Friendly Initiation into the Crusade Edit

Alliance innkeepers state that the Crusade is "intollerant of non-human races". So how come Brother Anton accepts all invitations to help him, no matter what their race is. Further more, he gives them a letter of commendation, offering them a place in the Crusade. If it wasn't for Raleigh the Devout, we would have Dwarves, Night Elves and Gnomes joining the Crusade!

I have never done SM, and my Alliance characters have never even scratched the Crusaders, their cause is so attractive, you should be able to befriend them. Mannerheim

Well, then the Alliance innkeeper is either lying or (more probably) just does not know better. It is true that the Crusaders usually do not trust gnomes or night elves, because those have (in their eyes) never really supported the war against the Scourge. However, according to the Lands of Conflict Sourcebook, there have always been a number of dwarfes and high elves in the Crusade (mostly as part of the scattered Alliance troops that have been incorporated into the Crusade at its beginning). And if you look just at the game ... well, 3 of the 11 statues in the Scarlet Monastery's hall of heroes are non-humans. Tulon 20:40, 11 Dec 2006

In the room Herod is in, you cna see statues of a dwarf and a high elf, so the crusade DOES let some non-humans in, but those cases are probably very rare. Hordesupporter 23:32, 9 March 2007 (EST)

History Edit

Do we know anything about what the Scarlet Crusade did in between W3:TFT and WoW? We know that Mograine helped found it. We know that it was a noble cause back then. We know that his own son, Abbendis, Isilien and Balnazzar played a part in its corruption yet there's still a lot missing. The statues in Herod's Chamber in SM talk about Scarlet Members dying at Northrend. I suppose this means they have a base somewhere in Northrend (and have staged at least one assault on the Lich King (Orman of Stormgarde died at Icecrown Glacier). More light will be shed on their past in an expansion involving Northrend... the second son of Mograine in Outland might shed some light on them too. I reckon that the story of the Scarlet Crusade would make an awesome Warcraft book. Anyway, I didn't really get anywhere with this post, just sharing thoughts =D Maarz

All we know is that it was founded as noble organization between WC3:TFT and WoW, by Mograine, Abbendis, Fairbanks, and Dathrohan, and that Dathrohan corrupted it when he became Grand Crusader. Eman91 04:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)Eman91
Isn't this question already answered in the article? ;) Tulon 15:25, 10 Feb 2007
Now, yes, but not when I posted the above paragraph. --Maarz

After the Scarlet Crusade purged its members, they made a special fleet to go to Icecrown, THEY ALL DIED, and even if some lived and retreated with ships, Crusader's probably killed them thinking they had become corrupted, and those who were left, Scourge Bait, Or died in the frozen wilderness

We don't know if they all died. I really wouldn't be surprised if we'd have a Crusader base in a future Northrend-addon. And besides, if nobody would have made it back, how would the Crusaders know what to write on the plates (like "died at the foot of Icecrown Citadel") we see in the Scarlet Monestary, mhm? Tulon 07:30, 17 March 2007
If any suvivors remained it would make a perfect Northrend faction, espesialy if the expedition was launched before Balnazzar corrupted them.--Sandwichman2448 18:42, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

The Crusade Edit

The Crusade was founded In Southshore With Mograine the Ashbringer, Abbendis, Isilien, Fairbanks, and a Few Others...They were a good Crusade, If you visit Naxx you may find that some mobs drop "_____ Of the Grand Crusader" It is possible that the Crusader found a way in with a Group of Crimson Legionaries and they Died, Balnazzar seeing this went to Stratholme in the form of the Grand Crusade and probably made up some story like "I journeyed into the Dread Citadel of Naxxramas, There forces was vast and many, If we are to Obliderate Kel'thuzad and all of his minions in the Necropolis we must take the City and march with all our strength" Its a likely story!

Grand Crusader Dahrohan infiltrates Naxxramas as a expeditionary thing to see if getting in would work, He Dies, Balnazzar comes in the form of Dahrohan and makes up a story...

Anyways! here is my Questions!

How do the Scarlet Crusades Ranks Work?

We have Grand Crusader - Is this the Leader? Or a High Ranker? What does it do? And where is it in the top High General - This is a High Ranker Right? where would it be in the top? And what does it do Highlord - Is this the Leader? Or a High Ranker? And what does it do? And where would it be in the top? Scarlet Commander - What exactly is this? I thought Mograine was the Leader, but then I thought the Highlord was, and now the Grand Crusader...What does Scarlet Commanders do? And where are they on the top stuff And the Grand Inquisitor? What does it do, And where is it on the Ranks?

-- (please sign your posts!)

I like your theory.

I believe it's Grand>High>Highlord for title, then Crusader>General>Inquisitor>others(I.E Commander, Champion, Knight, etc.)for rank. Dunno about the roles of Commanders, although i think they're basically in charge of troop movement around their base. Inquisitors are in charge of questioning suspected undead and the like.

As for whos in charge of the whole organization at the moment it's Dathrohan(Balnazzar). Second would I think be Abbendis, then Illisen. I speculate the Grand Crusader has Morgraine in his favor for getting rid of his father, even as a Commander. --ScarletPally 09:21, 17 February 2007 (EST)

Horde Relations Edit

I notice that the Crusade despises the horde, am I to assume this is because of the Horde's acceptance of the Forsaken? Hordesupporter 02:29, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Very likely, after all the Crusade also fights the Forsaken. But I think this also results out of the human habit of simply hating the orcs (especially the people of Lordaeron have shown a slight tendency towards racism - Tirion Fordring being an exception, and he was kicked out of the Silver Hand for this) and their allies. On the other hand, we can assume that a lot of ordinary Alliance humans feel just like the Crusade regarding this. Tulon 01:00, 21 March 2007
It, like many old remains of the Alliance of Lordaeron, loathes the Horde because of the Second War and how it practically decimated Lordaeron. Eman91 04:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)Eman91

Intresting how the Alliance and the Scarlet Crusade are quick to judge the Forsaken by their apperance, yet the Horde gives them a chance to prove themselves, anyway, the Crusade's reason to hate the Forsaken is due to their undeath, and the Alliance's reason is the fact that a number of the Alliance races worship the light and thus are rather critical and biased regarding the Forsaken. Hordesupporter 19:22, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

The Crusade doesn't accept ANY of the Horde races. The Scarlet Crusade's story have not been updated so we do not know their stance on Blood Elves but what we know is that the Crusade are all Die-Hard Alliance Members. Anything Non-Alliance dies. Anything that poses a threat to the Alliacne dies. Anything that doesn't look like Alliance dies. Anything that isn't a threat but may become a threat one day dies. Anything that looks remotely out of place dies. These guys are totally insane. They have basically brainwashed themselves into believing that they decide what is Alliance and what is not Alliance. Also, I do not believe they accept Night Elves or Dranei. These races form what is known as the Kalimdor Alliance, which is very divided from the Eastern Kingdom Alliance. The Scarlet Crusade only recognises the Old "Grand Alliance", so Night Elves DIES, Dranei DIES. I sound pretty Scarlet myself... I'm scaring me... --Invin Dranoel 11:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

"Capital" Edit

I think, actually the "capital" of the Crusade would be Tyr's Hand, since the military headquarter with Lady Abbendis is stationed right here, and it is also the city with the largest population - including civilians. The Scarlet Bastion in Stratholme is the fortified cathedral of the city, and as far as I know Dathrohan (the real one?) only went into the city together with his Crimson Legion expeditionary force to prepare an assault on Naxxramas. The Scarlet Oracle Demetria resides in Tyr's Hand, too, as well as Crusader Lord Valdelmar. Additionally, the RPG Monsters Guide states that Dathrohan/Balnazzar prefers to let Abbendis and Isillien run the Crusade whilst he himself is keeping a low profile, only interfering with the daily routine of the Crusade if absolutely necessary and just drawing on the Crusade's resources for the time being. The Scarlet Bastion in Stratholme really just has Dathrohan as the Crusade's figurehead himself, nothing more. What do you think? Tulon 23:00, 7 May 2007

Fine.--SWM2448 18:45, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Scarlet Crusade Ranks Edit

I took some time to research a possible structure within the Crusade, and this is what I came up with: ... Note that I left out a lot of titles since there are about ~200 mobs, and there are seemingly always 10 different names for a single profession in the game mechanics. Please take a look and tell me what you think, we could maybe post this as a speculation. But I'm especially unsure about the Sorcerers: what do you think would be higher, an Archmage or an Arcanist? Or is Arcanist only a special position for an Archmage/Mage, like I suspect the Judge is for an Inquisitor? Tulon 03:10, 29 May 2007

Leadership Edit

Is Dathrohan really the official leader of the Scarlet Crusade? In the new MG sourcebook, he is described as the "Champion of the Scarlet Crusade" and it is said that he prefers to stay in the background, letting others (Isillien and Abbendis) run the Crusade. Apparently, Dathrohans position is important as some sort of popular figure head, but he is not the official leader. He seems to prefer to pull the strings secretly, manipulating the two supreme chiefs, Isillien and Abbendis, and drawing on the Crusade's resources to work on his plan. Do you think we should rework the organisation's structure according to this, since Dathrohan is "only" the unofficial leader? Tulon 23:00, 12 June 2007

It remains ambiguous as to where he places in the hierarchy. Since Dathrohan (Balnazzar) is responsible for the Crusade's growing paranoia, he's got to be very high up. Scarlet Commander Marjhan's comments confirm this when she says she is cooperating with the Argent Dawn without his consent. But it's unknown if he's above Isillien and Abbendis. --Tyrsenus t c 11:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Yep - according to the MG the Crusaders view him as some kind of "Holy Knight". I think they have a deep respect for his fighting power against the undead and even Abbendis and Isillien turn to him for advice. This is also what would have allowed him to corrupt the Crusaders and influence the High General and the Grand Inquisitor. But I guess we have to wait for the upcoming Dark Factions sourcebook to be sure on this. But the MG also mentions that Dathrohan was one of the founding members of the Crusade, meaning that the position of Grand Crusader was already in existence as Mograine the Ashbringer was still alive. If the SC didn't change their whole rank hierarchy, this would mean he wouldn't be the official leader, would it? Tulon 18:20, 15 June 2007

It is possible that upon death of the Ashbringer the Grand Crusader seized control in order to keep the Crusade alive, As the Ashbringer was known as Highlord Mograine, BUT Taelen Fordring also holds the title of Highlord...So ive come up with a POSSIBLE ranking system (somewhat sorted from Highest to Lowest)

Grand Crusader - Leader or some type of Grand "CRUSADER" possibly someone who leads the Crusaders in as there is a "Crusader Lord"

Grand Inquisitor - Leader of the Priestly Branch, Interrogation and possible Recruitment Offical

High General - Leader of the Crusade's forces in battle, IE what you could say "The Battle Leader"

Highlord - Incharge of Managing Commanders, Captains, Leading Officals...

Crusader Lord - Type of Tactician, Incharge of creating strategy's for the Crusade, Takes Orders from Grand Crusader

High Inquisitor - Type of sub-leader for Inquisitors, Possible Recruitment Offical, Manage's Inquisitors?

Commander - Leaders of an army of Crusader's. Incharge of Captains.

Brother/Sister - Recruitment Person?

High Protector - Rank Similar to that of Marcus Johnathan in SW, Head of Defence for certaint Crusade places.

Captain - In charge of a platoon of Crusaders.

Crusader - Basic Knight/Mage of the Scarlet Crusade

Trainee - New Recruit of the Crusade, the noobs...

It is possible that Ashbringer Mograine held both the Rank of Highlord and Grand Crusader, but preferred to keep the title of Highlord...Its also possible that Highlord and Grand Crusader switched places post betrayal. Shiniki 20:05, 27 June 2007.

The MG mentions the "Grand Crusader" as the "Champion of the Crusade", so he probably is "the best crusader" and therefore often leads battles from the first line, being right in the action. This would explain why he is fighting in Stratholme instead of residing in a safer area like Tyr's Hand. As for the Crusader Lord, I think he's just a very influencial noble from former Lordaeron, but I'm not sure of course. But Brother/Sister are probably not ranks - anyone who joins the Crusade is a Brother/Sister of the order after the induction ceremony. Tulon 15:30, 28 June 2007

Well um firstly if you look at Brother Anton, and all the Other scarlet "Brothers" you can see that they are infact recruiting people for the crusade...And the Crusader Lord does infact Coordinate Troop movements...The HIGH GENERAL leads the forces into battle, It is possible that the Grand Crusader controlled all the Crusaders including the High General, But the Grand Inquisitor's inquisitors were left out...and MG is what? Shiniki

MG is the "Monster Guide", a sourcebook from the WoW RPG line containing a lot of official lore you won't find in the MMO. Abbendis and Isillien were featured in another book called "Lands of Conflict" (or LoC), where it was stated that their ranks are somewhat equal, with Abbendis commanding all military operations and Isillien leading the priests. As for the Brothers, in my opinion they're just carrying this title because they are named mobs who don't have an official rank. There are also a lot of non-scarlet "Brothers" running around for the Church of Holy Light. Tulon 21:00, 28 June 2007

I just noticed in the LHC scripted event Dawnbringer says the following:

Commander Eligor Dawnbringer: Your leader takes residence at the doorstep to Naxxramas. Do you think he does not feel the pressure?

Commander Eligor Dawnbringer lowers the sound of his voice to a whisper.

Commander Eligor Dawnbringer: Even demons are capable of fear...

I don't know why I didn't catch this before. Dawnbringer seems to know that Dathrohan is really Balnazzar, and indicates that he is the leader of the Scarlet Crusade. --Tyrsenus t c 02:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that he doesn't know for sure, but is only convinced of this as personal assumption. Or maybe this remark should not even be taken literally, and he simply uses this term because of Dathrohans (or another leader's) newly alleged cruelty.
After all, if the player turns in the Head of Balnazzar to Duke Zverenhoff he says the following:
Duke Nicholas Zverenhoff: "What will this mean to the Crusade? Could it be possible that they have been under the control of this demon? Unwittingly serving as the pawns to a greater evil?"
This leads me to believe that the Argent Dawn is as of yet unaware of Dathrohans true identity, until the player completes this quest. Which is compatible to the sourcebook texts, which state that the Crusade would probably fall apart overnight in a state of shock should anyone find out about Dathrohan being Balnazzar. --Tulon 03:45, 2 November 2007

The Crusade's SymbolEdit

I am unsure if I am content with the last change being made to the article. It's true that all Crusaders wear the Flame on their tabard, but it doesn't appear anywhere on a banner or flag - unlike the modified symbol of the light or the variation of Lordaeron's banner, which basically can be found anywhere the Crusade is active. Thinking about this issue and looking for a possible explanation I came up with this:

  1. Flame on tabard: marks the wearer as a Crusader (not all Scarlets are actually Crusaders - they do have a lot of personell which does not bear the Flame, including civilians)
  2. modified Light banner: indicates an area as some sort of "holy place" - like a cathedral or church
  3. Red Lordaeron flag: the actual banner of the Scarlet Crusade (can be found anywhere from the smallest field camp to the walls of Tyr's Hand)

Let's not forget that the Crusade is the offspring of the Knights of the Silver Hand - who used the original blue Lordaeron-L as their symbol. It would make sense for the Crusade to stick to it and just paint it, well, scarlet. -- Tulon 19:10 10.07.2007

Okay, I have now added the "Scarlet Banner" - I found it by using the WoW Model Viewer, and it bears just the same name in the game's data files. Plus, the red "L" is also used on the item "Insignia of the Crusade"[1]. Interestingly, what we have identified as the Scarlet Crusade's Symbol of the Light is named "Crimson Banner" in the game files, but the current explanation sounds more logical to me. Your opinion, gentlemen? -- Tulon 04:55, 14.07.2007

The Tabard of The Scarlet Crusade[3]Edit

Using the WoW Model Viewer, I came accross one of the [three?] tabards of the Scarlet Crusade.[2](Don't mind the background behind the models/window[tried making her look similar to the Crimson Monks in Live Stratholme]...) I know it's not available in-game yet, but the model and ID number is in the items directory, and perhaps it can be used for some future event/quest series.

I'm also wondering if it's possible to somehow code it into a private server database, as I have my personal one to fool around on when I'm not online. --ScarletPally 02:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

WoWWiki does not support private servers as they are against the World of Warcraft Terms of Service.
 ∙ Zurr  TalkContr 02:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
As far as I know, there are "only" three tabards of the Crusade, yes. And apparently, each and every item in the directory is meant to be worn by players, as the NPCs are not equipped with the items per se, but just with the corresponding graphics (sometimes even multiple graphics in different layers, for example on the night elf huntresses) - so it's fair to believe that this particular tabard was at one time meant to be player-obtainable. Apparently it was simply forgotten. --Tulon 04:10, 8 August 2007
A shame really, it looks so much clearer and better than the worn down one in the Monastery. A red "Ghostshroud" would have been nice to see in-game as well. @ Zurr, I believe they don't take a stance on private servers as long as the person playing one has an active subscription as opposed to pirates. I have sent an e-mail through the main site regarding this and I was A-OK'd by a staff member.--ScarletPally 03:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh well, I don't have anything against the "battle worn" look of the monastery tabard. Looks more like something for a Crusader than the clean one, which would rather suit a member of the priesthood or some elite guard, but not a frontline warrior. I'd really like to wear the third one, though (the one worn by the Crusade's leadership and members of the Crimson Legion). That design just looks awesome. By the way, can you quote that staff member please? As far as I know, toying with the game's files (which would be necessary to run and join a private server) is a violation of the EULA. --Tulon 11:25, 8 August 2007

Return of the Silver Hand Edit

Since the Scarlet Crusade is created out of the Ashes of the fallen Silver Hand, only its members have gone fanatical and insane. But with the re-establishment of the Silver Hand nigh, what will happen to the Scarlet Crusade? As far as we know, many of the Scarlet Crusader were once Silver Hand Paladins or people who respected and worship the heck out of these heroes. I would expect some interesting political changes within the ranks of the Scarlet Crusade. --Invin Dranoel 15:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The return of The Silver Hand to WoW Lore strikes me as an interesting one. We have to remember that the (self-)appointed leader of this new Silver Hand is a man who was ejected from the Silver Hand initially. This to me implies that while Fordring may be leading The Silver Hand, it would not be the same Silver Hand that the Scarlet Crusade rose from.
While I don't doubt that there'd be some in the Crusade who would defect back to the Silver Hand (as there would be some in the Argent Dawn who would as well. Possibly not the Brotherhood of Light,) - I would assume that whoever is canonically leading the Crusade at this point (Abbendis?) would without a doubt still carry a lot of the angered zeal, especially at what they could see as an insult of an exile using a once great name for their own, and refuse to acknowledge this "Silver Hand" as real. Imagine your local sports team moves to another city and renames itself, and then someone comes along and creates a new sports team in your city using the name of the sports team that left. Is it the same sports team that it was before it left? Just my thoughts though. --Suzanne 10:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Especially considering Tirion's opinion towards the Horde and the Alliance. Furthermore, this new Silver Hand would not have the backup of Lordaeron, of which nation the paladins doubled as feudal knights in their role. Maybe Stormwind would lend it's support, but I doubt Tirion would agree to his order being pulled into the political struggle between Stormwind and Theramore. Let's see what happens. --Tulon 00:50, 13 September 2007

The Scarlet Crusade have already helped us once in our war against Kel'Thuzad, so they are probably close to redemption. --Odolwa 17:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Suggested re-write of main section Edit

The current main section of the article does not mention paranoia, the Scourge, or the Plague which IMO have come to define the Crusade. Furthermore, the main section is not very concise (no need to mention quests). Here is my suggested re-write:

The Scarlet Crusade is a human religious-military organization dedicated to the eradication of the undead and to halt the spread of the Plague. Once a noble order founded from the remnants of the Silver Hand, they have now succumbed to paranoia and are known to kill outsiders for fear that they are infected. Although they face opposition mainly from the Scourge and the Forsaken, a recent schism has resulted in the Argent Dawn which also seeks to end the zealous Crusade.

The Crusade operates from several bastions throughout the former lands of Lordaeron, namely the Scarlet Monastery, Hearthglen, Tyr's Hand, and the fortified cathedral of Stratholme.

Critique away. --Tyrsenus t c 02:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I am under the impression that the recent developments rather pointed towards a seize-fire and co-operation between the Crusade and the Argent Dawn, as the quest for Naxxramas mentioned both organizations combining their strength against Kel'thuzad. This quest, along with Marjhan and the other NPCs who belong to the dialogue inside the Chapel, were added a long time after Duke Nicholas and his quests concerning actions against the Crusade. Although I agree it's somewhat confusing that two "time-zones" exist so close to each other.
Also, I wouldn't say that they 'kill outsiders on sight'. Whilst they frequently do so because of their paranoia, they also still provide protection to refugees and are actively recruiting both warriors for their order and settlers for their colonization-projects. Killing any outsider on sight is just what WoW game mechanics make them do, but the lore says otherwise on multiple occasions.
Other than that, I like your proposal.
By the way, something about the Argent Dawn:
The Monster Guide mentioned that the Plaguelands will completely fall under undead control should the Scarlet Crusade disband or be destroyed, as no other force in this region is strong enough to make up for the loss of the Crusade's military strength. So if the Duke thinks that the Crusade hasn't done anything good for anybody that's simply his biased opinion. The Crusade's protection for the Solliden Farmstead alone disqualifies his statement, though there are many other examples.
About Nathaniel Dumah - he doesn't appear to be a member of the Dawn, he just hangs out at one of their camps, just like Weldon Barov does. --Tulon 04:25, 3 October 2007

It appears that the main section has been replaced with text from the RPG. In my opinion, the current text contains too much information and could be written much better and more concisely. Let's try to focus on the "who what & where" for the main and leave the "why & how" for subsequent sections. Review the "concise" section of WW:LORE, there is no need to overly quote the RPG book. I stand by my above proposed re-write, edited based on the above critique. --Tyrsenus t c 16:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality of article Edit

It should be pointed out on the article that there are neutrality issues, firstly with lore comming from the game and books, for example "mad" and "blindly", they're oppinions from characters, and with the interpretations of the article's writers. Can we have a big banner that says 'the neutrality of this article is disputed' like Wikipedia does?--Mannerheim 07:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is truly necessary. Of course, the Crusade is not as evil as often depicted and believed, but it cannot be argued that a certain degree of madness and blind zeal is present within this organization. And if it's own creators specifically mention this in the respective official sources of lore, who are we to disagree? --Tulon 09:00, 13 October 2007
The tag {{NPOV}} exists, btw :) Kirkburn  talk  contr 12:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

If I dispute the article's neutrality then the article's neutrality is disputed! I added the template, thanks Kirkburn.--Mannerheim 02:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

note that the {{NPOV}} is only if comments in an article are fan interpretations based on in-universe characters (generally quest text, or other characters) or speculation and role-playing how they view the lore. Note it is ok to state an official character's opinion if it the character's name is mentioned and the information cited (that would seperate it from the need to have a NPOV tag).
Only a few warcraft books are actually written from Brann's POV and even in those not all sections are actually according to Brann (he also relays info given to him by other people, which may not be his own personal view). Even fewer books are written from POV of characters other than Brann. Most material througout the entire series is purely real world POV. If you meant interpretations of the real world RPG writers, then its not actually supposed to be covered by the "NPOV" tag as they are considered "official" Blizzard point of view, rather than fan point of view. There is a distinction. Official Blizzard point of view is not considered against neutrality.
As for "mad" and "blindly" it actually ties to the idea that they are "Lawful evil" as stated in the "allignment" section of the book (those sections are not in-universe comments but rather authorial information that mentions the official intent of the lore). Real world intent by official Blizzard publications is of course official, and doesn't fall under "NPOV" policies. Other sources which aren't written from purely in-universe pov but are written from real world perspective such as World of Warcraft The Roleplaying Game and Monster Guide treat the Scarlet Crusade as such as well, and its also supported by quests done in the game. Remember its a description of the society as a whole, not necessarily every individual.
Finally if a quote is specifically marked and cited, as coming from actual Blizzard source, rather than a fan's interpretation of a source, it does not fall under NPOV rule as well, generally the context can be read within the quotes.Baggins 02:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I've updated the article with the World of Warcraft RPG quotes to show that it is Blizzard's interpretation, to avoid accusations that its "Brann's opinion only".Baggins 03:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I quote the article: "The Scarlet Crusade is a group of crazed human zealots". That is an opinion! Do Scarlet Crusaders think this is true? No, of course they dont, and I dont think this is true. It's not a fact, it's an interpretation. Blizzard's official description of the Scarlet Monastry says something similar, and it also says that they're purely human, which is utterly false. So I'm putting the template back on!--Mannerheim 06:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Then you will be in violation of the WoWiki policy. As that template is not to be used for information which Blizzard has stated on the matter (the book, World of Warcraft The Roleplaying Game is not an in-universe source but rather real world source written by authors). It is also not to be used for "what-if" other characters think of themselves. If you initiate an edit war you will be put on violation list as a suspect.Baggins 06:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Major Rework?Edit

With all the quotes thrown in from the sourcebooks, this article is getting more and more cluttered and actually contradicting, due to several retcons in the sourcebooks and the game itself. The first few words already begin with a "battle vainly" quote, which is contradicted by an "indeed destroyed several undead strongholds" quote just a few lines later. Frankly, it doesn't make sense, and it's getting worse throughout the article, which has actually been a nice read months ago. Probably because, by then, it was a nice resumee of all avaiable lore sources and not a wild mixture of quotes, of which some are apparently retconned/outdated.

Nevertheless, I would suggest waiting with a complete rewrite until the upcoming Dark Factions will be released, as this sourcebook will surely clear up a lot of questions dealing with the Crusade. --Tulon 13:00,

Actually the same book World of Warcraft The Roleplaying Game that says they "battle vainly" also says they destroyed several Undead holdings.
The Crusade has indeed destroyed several undead encampments on Lordaeron. They may end up alone on the continent — or more likely, die trying.[1] (WoWRPG 375)
The Scarlet Crusade is a group of crazed human zealots, that battles fervently and vainly against the Scourge.[1] (WoWRPG 20)
Not so much of a contradiction as much as the holdings were probably not that important in the scheme of things. Its pretty hard to argue that a specific sourcebook retconned itself or made itself outdated. The big problem here is someone paraphrased the World of Warcraft RPG, but did a poor job of it, making the encampments sound more important than they really were, but changing the word to "strongholds". This is generally the problem we find with fan-interpreted content that sometimes people read too much into something, and exaggerate what was really said. This is why quotes can be better than fan written content (to show what was realy said, rather than what people thought was said).Baggins 17:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I have combined the sections from World of Warcraft The Roleplaying Game book and put them in order, perhaps it will show the context a bit better.
As for the WoW game, it didn't "retcon" things in this situation, but actually shows material set chronologically after when World of Warcraft The Roleplaying Game takes place. The book takes place at the same time as the start of WoW, "four years after the Third War". If you didn't know the rpg series for the most part has a specific chronological order starting with the first book, and leading up to the most current book in the series. So you have to have to understand the Historical context behind the book.
Yes, currently we know that there are a few break off groups from the Scarlet Crusade that have recently joined the Argent Dawn, all this hasn't yet occured chronologically at the times each of the RPG books haven taken place. It hasn't even taken place in Monster Guide which was set just before The Burning Crusade. We don't actually know when Dark Factions is set in relation to World of Warcraft's various timelines. If its set before TBC or before Wrath it would make a difference in what it locks down as having happened. It may not necessarily lock down every event that has occured in the game. Previous books haven't locked down every event for other groups either.Baggins 18:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
If you check the Monster Guide entry on Balnazzar you will see that the Scarlet Crusade currently is the only force who holds the undead at bay, so their fight can hardly called to be in vain. There it is also hinted that the Crusaders would even be more successful if it wasn't for Balnazzar who actually created a stalemate to fortify his influence. Holding cities such as Tyr's Hand or Hearthglen as well as several smaller settlements and encampments also makes them a major power in the Plaguelands. Thus, the quotes appear to be outdated. Same as with the male Abbendis, but we've had this discussion elsewhere already. --Tulon 20:00, 14 October 2007
Um actually I think you are reading too much into the Balnazzar article. I've already included that in Balnazzar page. Your interpretation is hardly true, as there is also the Argent Dawn and Forsaken (and the Horde), and scattered Alliance forces, who are holding back the undead in Plaguelands as well. Plus Horde Player's Guide and Alliance Player's Guides also support what was said in the World of Warcraft RPG as well, as well as mentioning the importance of the Forsaken (and other Horde forces), Argent Dawn, and scattered Alliance forces, and that Scarlet Crusade are just a bunch of crazies with the intent of killing off everyone else. Note that both Horde Player's Guide and Alliance Player's guide were written at the same time as Monster Guide. Monster Guide was actually supposed to have been released before both Guides but was held back only because the colored artwork wasn't finished (so the info in all those books are contemporary).
This info is actually shown in World of Warcraft as well, through quests, NPC information, and other sources of information. That's not to say that chronologically speaking that Scarlet Crusade could become more powerful, and we'll have to find out what Wrath establishes for them as it will likely be the most recent information, probably even bypassing Dark Factions. Also note that since Dark Factions is set chronologically closer to present time in WoW that we could learn that the organization is splitting apart, joining the Argent Dawn, and forming the new organization the Brotherhood of the Light, and it may not be the same power it once was (as established in patch 1.10), events not yet established in the RPG.
BTW, I'm not argueing that the Scarlet Crusade doesn't have importance, sure it does. Even World of Warcraft The Roleplaying Game (the book you are contesting) stated they are a major force in the plaguelands, "they may end up alone on the continent or die trying"[1] (WoWRPG 375). Obviously that quote points out that they could end up winning, as they are a major force.
This particular info (discussing the importance of the Scarlet Crusade) hasn't changed, its been related over and over again in multiple books (MG only repeated the same info, although in a slightly different way).Baggins 19:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
"Should anyone find out his true nature, however, the Scarlet Crusade could potentially fall apart overnight, and the undead would become the only power in the Plaguelands" (MG152) - this quote makes it pretty clear who is holding the undead at bay, isn't it? It's neither an assumption nor a conclusion, it's a fact as set by the writers of the lore. Note that Brann mentioned the Scarlet Crusade as the only real human faction of note operating north of Dalaran (AG172). He also doesn't believe that Araj is a threat, because the Scarlets are harassing him constantly (AG178).
As for the Argent Dawn, the only sources of lore tell us that this organization is pretty small and would crumble beneath the Scourge - were it not for the Crusade, who is basically pulling all attention towards itself. For example, Brann tells us in the Horde Players Guide that "if that happens (the Crusade breaking apart), the Scourge will reign virtually uncontested in the Eastern Plaguelands" because "the little Argent Dawn isn’t going to stand up to that kind of firepower for long" (HPG189). Also, the book tells us that they are "knowing that their small group cannot stand against the might of the Scourge directly" (APG172) and "the few templars aren’t going to cut it" (APG178), which is probably the only reason why they agreed to work together with the Crusade in the battle against Naxxramas. --Tulon 22:40, 14 October 2007
Like I said even World of Warcraft The Roleplaying Game states that the Scarlet Crusade is important, and will either become the only power, or die trying. Same info just said in different ways.
Althougn note that APG also says this about the Argent Dawn;
"They are a major force in the Eastern Plaguelands, and their influence in the southern part of the Western Plaguelands is growing as they clear out the undead near Uther’s Tomb and Caer Darrow, and soon Andorhal. There is a goodly number of Dawn members in Winterspring, who work well with the goblins in Everlook."[2] (APG 150)
However what we don't know is how big the group was that decided to work with the Argent Dawn, it doesn't appear to be the entire Scarlet Crusade but just one small part of it. As I recall even one of the members of the group in Light's Hope even mentions that they have joined with the Argent Dawn against the will of some of their leaders. It may be a fairly minor group.Baggins 21:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
That's what I meant with the sourcebooks' contradicting quotes. In one sentence they say the Argent Dawn is a major force, in another nobody would really miss them. Same as with the Crusade. This is why I am saying that instead of mixing these quotes all together into a huge pot which simply doesn't make sense to the reader, we should rather merge all informations from the official lore into a single article that is consequent and constant. And thus not confusing anyone reading it, as it is now.
Don't get me wrong. I love the sourcebooks and their detailed lore. But they are simply subject to constant retconning and overhaul, just as the MMO itself (although it is less problematic in the computer game, as you can simply "delete" old content). And instead of just citing everything we should rather keep this fact in mind. --Tulon 03:25, 15 October 2007
I personally don't see them as exactly conflicting, but showing a detailed listing of all details of the organization. Its weaker in some ways, and stronger in others. Its currently weaker due to internal corruption inside, but if it wasn't corrupted it could been the strongest organization around. Even the future sources state that it's more likely to fall than it is to stand. You really have to read the context. As for the Argent Dawn, they are a small force but have made themselves a major force due to the fact they are great guerrilla fighters, setting traps and keeping out of harm's way for the most part, and are still growing to become a larger force. Again context is key. A + B = C, blah blah.Baggins 02:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, but "battling vainly" is hardly what I'd call "keeping the undead away from Stormwind". Even if they're just buying time for the Argent Dawn it still is a matter of fact that the Plaguelands would fall completely without them. That's what I'm saying here - the Crusaders do deserve some credit for that, and the quote just doesn't fit into the overall context, as you put it. --Tulon 04:15, 15 October 2007
Actually it does fit in context, imo, they are weaker in the east than they are the west. See Eastern Plaguelands.Baggins 03:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
The quotes in question refer to the Crusade in general as well as the Plaguelands in general. I wouldn't call Tyr's Hand weak, too, considering it's a city with about 10.000 people and "the only patch of greenery" up there. Especially since the Eastern Plaguelands have been declared the current military focus of the Crusade. In the WPL they're just defending. --Tulon 06:55, 15 October 2007
Let's see actual Scarlet Crusade numbers are between 12,000 total (9000 in Eastern Plaguelands, and 3000 in Western Plaguelands with current known numbers) though possible have grown since then, and the Scourge have around 32,850 in eastern plaguelands, and around 36,800 in Western Plaguelands (at last count). The way I read that, the Scarlet Crusade is much weaker than the Undead as far as numbers are concerned. But hey you are the one that brought up numbers.
What would you do if next sourcebook gave Scarlet Crusade the same total of people or even less than before? What if they still remain about half that of the scourge numbers? This is the idea where fighting vainly comes, because currently they have numbers of the scourge out numbering the total number of "true" Scarlet Crusade members, thus why Brann argues that Scarlet Crusade will "probably fall apart" if it doesn't destroy the Scourge soon (fighting vainly, outnummbered, and falling apart are pretty much connected, imo). I wouldn't really expect too much different out of Dark Factions as it is written by most of the same authors, and written by Brann himself, who already thinks the Scarlet Crusade are going to fail.Baggins 06:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Luckily for the Crusade, numbers aren't everything, seeing as they're specialized in fighting the undead and possess certain abilities and tactics as well as powerful heroes amongst their ranks. If it would just be for the numerical comparison, nobody would be able to stop the Scourge. But if we just take a look at the numbers, how is the Eastern Crusade supposed to be weaker than the Western one when they have 3 times the troops?
Whatever the next sourcebook will say, counts, of course, but keep in mind that both the authors as well as Brann have already rectified themselves more than once. This is the nature of retcons. But judging from what I've read in the sourcebooks so far, the Crusade is not in danger from being crushed by the Scourge, but rather from dissolving itself because of it's internal corruption.
They've successfully prevented the further spread of the Plague, protected a dozen cities and settlements from the undead, destroyed several undead encampments, participated in the battle against Naxxramas and even killed off several Liches and at least one Dreadlord (Beltheris). I wouldn't call these successes to be "vain". --Tulon 17:45, 15 October 2007

Again you are thinking "retcon" when chronological factors may be at work. Societies and organizations change with time. Some grow some dwindle. At one point they may have been fighting in vain, but as they get more numbers things maybe turning in their favor. The effects of time is not a "retcon". Each source has said they have been growing and taking on new members.
On a sad note Dark Factions may have been cancelled.Baggins 03:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Then we'd have to decide on which "timeframe" to follow. We cannot simply use incorrect informations - be them simply outdated or retconned - in an article dealing with the current situation of the Crusade, can we?
There are enough examples of true retcons in the books nonetheless, especially concerning the Crusade's leadership.
About Dark Factions - I don't believe that it has been cancelled just yet, as only a short while ago I succeeded in having a freelance artist join this project with one of his artworks. I rather think it has been delayed because of WotLK. Alas, as no official statements were given, we can only wait and hope. --Tulon 10:05, 16 October 2007
An official statement might have been given in gencon, but unfortunately no one has the exact transcript to confirm it. Last I heard your freelance artist friend joined back in July?
I still don't see "contradiction" only your interpretation that a contradiction exists for this case.Baggins 09:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
It's not an interpretation, it's a conclusion. It only takes a slight amount of logic to see a contradiction between a supposedly "vain battle" and the successes the Crusade has been able to score. But I already see we'll be getting nowhere by this once more, so I'll just leave it be for now. --Tulon 16:15, 16 October 2007
Ok let me try to explain this another way, since you are now trying to say you came to your conclusion through "logic". Logic is just another way to interpret one's own opinion. Anyone can use "logic" to explain any number of interpretations.
Let's take a real world example of pure extreme. Let's look at Vietnam and US Military (I'm not saying US military are crazy zealots btw). During Vietnam US Military had the best equipment, had well trained troops, and won most if not every battle during the war. they held back every attack. Yet many say they fought in vain, as the other side just kept on sending more waves to attack them. The United States had to give up in end, and pull out. Some argue that their was corruption in their leadership as well, and that the war was fought wrong, or fought for the wrong reasons. US citizens called for a change in politics and pull out of all troops. In the end US did not win the war, despite having won every battle.
Similarly, Scarlet Crusade may be winning battles, but that doesn't mean they are winning the war. Authors can view their attempts as being in vain, much like people during Vietnam, and historians after view US Military's involvement as being in vain, or how there are people who view current war in Iraq as being in vain. Despite the fact that we may be winning nearly every battle, have fewer casualties than the enemy, and have best equipment, etc etc. Truly battling vainly and winning battles (I.E. successes) can and are truly related. There is an old saying that's that's connected to this phenomena, "Win the battles, but lose the war", it really says alot.
"Logic" my friend can be used to interpret evidence in different ways by different people. People can choose to interpret something as being "contradictory" or they can look at a much larger picture, compare real world examples, and logically see a correllation between terms being used. Scientists, politicians and philosphers can use their own logic to debate with each other, and often there is no clear cut outcome to the debates, as both sides can be using well crafted and logical arguements, despite the fact they disagree with each other.Baggins 20:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
"Logic" arguments aside, this article is difficult to read, overly long, and could be much more concise. Wowwiki has a focus on World of Warcraft which is not reflected here; it appears that the article is completely paraphrased (or verbatim) from the RPG. Let's put the focus back on WoW and aim to use the RPG to support or clarify game material. Review the concise section of WW:LORE if you need. --Tyrsenus t c 16:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Connections with outlandEdit

Tower at The Overlook, Hellfire peninsula, contains mark of scarlet crusade. Possible hint of scarlet crusades invasion to outlands. Connections with The Ashbringers son who lives at outland....?

Sign your posts. And I very much doubt the Scarlet Crusade would travel to Outland. They hunt Undead, and Outland is no arena for the Scourge. --Odolwa 19:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Removed.--SWM2448 19:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I recall there being a quest in hellfire having to do with finding out of there was a possible Scourge plague outbreak being spread by vultures. I don't remember who gave the the quest and it didn't really lead to anything interesting. The quest was just another one of those lame colleting quests, in this case you had to collect gizzards iirc.Baggins 23:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
That was carrion disease, not THE plague.--SWM2448 23:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Well - in theory, the Crusade could send an expedition to Outland to look for more crystals like the one Mograine recovered in the hopes of reforging the Ashbringer, or to look for Mograines missing son. Maybe Mograine's 2nd son even is missing because he led a few Crusaders to Outland to get more crystals on behalf of his father, as he was still alive?
I've even seen a shield with the red Symbol of Light (like the one hanging in the command section of the Tyr's Hand garrison) on a siege tower near the Black Temple. However, without further appearances of any Crusader NPCs or at least more concrete hints, I think we could dismiss these things simply as graphics-recycling by Blizz. --Tulon 19:40, 18 October 2007
That is what I dismissed it as too.--SWM2448 22:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I've dismissed it myself as graphic recycling (you can find ghostly soldiers wearing Scarlet Crusade type armor in Hellfire, but have the tabard of Stormwind). In anycase Sandwich do you have the links to the quest I was talking about? I'm was sure it said something about undead plague at least in beta...Baggins 22:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Wanted: Bonelashers Dead! (Alliance) has a plague reference, but is in terokkar. The HFP quest is for cooking.--SWM2448 17:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I very much doubt that the plague they are talking about is the Plague of Undeath.--Odolwa 22:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd be somewhat surprised, too. However, there's no other plague that I'd know of in Warcraft. --Tulon 01:00, 20 October 2007


Reputation With the Scarlet Crusade Edit

Okay, so...a friend of mine brought something up recently. Supposedly, if you do Naxxramas and end up getting Ashbringer, after the in-game cinema plays and whatnot, you become immediately Exaulted with the Scarlet Crusade. This supposedly includes a reputation bar and everything. Now, I have to this at all true? Was it at any point prior to a certain patch? ~ Doc Lithius [U|T|C] 23:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe it includes a reputation bar, they just become friendly to the player. --Tyrsenus t c 16:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Symbol of the Light Edit

Scarlet Crusade Tabard

Symbol of the Light, Scarlet Crusade variation

Regarding this picture (right), it appears to have nothing to do with the Scarlet Crusade - it's shown for Stormpike Emissaries. For example, see Kirkburn  talk  contr 21:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It is in the monestary. Only reason I can think of.--SWM2448 21:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
It's also used in a number of priest staffs, priest/paladin hammers and tomes and on the hats of several Scarlet cleric-type NPCs. Additionally, it is also used on a shield hanging in the Tyr's Hand garrison and on several apparently Light-faith-based statues throughout Azeroth. I don't know why Blizz recycled it for the Stormpike (as they do have a different symbol). Maybe the dwarves are on some sort of crusade, too. :P --Tulon 23:30, 26 October 2007

Interesting, and confusing >_< Kirkburn  talk  contr 22:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

it is the symbol of the holy light, the colors are the question.--SWM2448 22:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
The aforementioned Scarlet NPCs are using the symbol with exactly the same colors on their hats. Also, it appears within a large amount of Crusader structures. I think it's clear to whom this symbol belongs. Additionally, it is located in the "human banners" section of the WoW files when you're looking through the data with ModelViewer. It's simply called "Crimson Banner" there. --Tulon 03:30, 27 October 2007
The symbol isn't specifically Scarlet Crusade only the color is. Like most symbols in the Scarlet Crusade they just adopted existing symbols of other organizations or kingdoms and gave them a red color scheme. Similar to how they took the symbol of Lordaeron and gave it a red color scheme.Baggins 02:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Which I think the picture's description is quite fitting. --Tulon 06:00, 27 October 2007

Crusader Picture Edit

"Adding back crusader picture - we need to show what they look like! (Better picture would be good though))" <- How about this one: Image:Crusaders.JPG

I added it earlier, but someone removed it because another user entered the name of the player character standing next to Crowley into the article - I suppose I should not have entered this information to the file at the first place. Still I do like the picture, and in my eyes it certainly does look better than something simply taken out of ModelViewer. Maybe it can be added back if the names are simply removed? I won't add it back now before hearing other opinions, though. --Tulon 23:30, 26 October 2007

It's preferred to have nothing fan-only in the images - Image:Brother Crowley.jpg would be more fitting, for example, as it only has someone in complete official dress. The sword, is that SC? Kirkburn  talk  contr 22:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I'd prefer an image with armor-clad crusaders, especially since I like the angle of my screenshot in comparison to the "straight-off" picture of Crowley. However, of course I see your point regarding the fan-stuff. Note that the current picture might be a fan-character as well, though. The weapon, by the way, is Vanquisher's Sword (quest reward), also worn by some Scarlet NPCs in both 1-handed and 2-handed (Demonshear) variant. --Tulon 02:30, 27 October 2007

Fair Use Issues Edit

See WoWWiki_talk:Village_pump/Archive20#Fair_Use_Issues.Baggins 23:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


This article is not very neutral. It is filled with false statements and anti-SC propaganda.

Like this:

"This may be correct, as not only was Highlord Mograine betrayed and murdered by his own son."

How do you now he is not lying? [url=]Imperion says otherwise.[/url]

Look at the neutrality of this parse:

"Some Crusaders who have begun sensing the corruption within the Crusade have left the ranks of the order to found the Argent Dawn."

"corruption" is a subjective opinion and should be removed. This is clearly Argent Dawn propaganda, the greedy looters who would gladly support a Forsaken takeover in the Plaguelands.

The scarlet Crusader attacks you because you are either A) A looter, a villain from the Alliance who has nothing to do in Lordaeron or B) because you are a member of the Argent Dawn or C) Because you are among the allies of the Forsaken.

Also it should be noted that you will become exalted with the Scarlet Crusade and Hated with the Argent Dawn if you equip the [Corrupted Ashbringer], so they do not always have to be your enemies just because you are an intruder or a direct enemy of the Alliance.

This article needs a serious rewrite from a neutral standpoint. Scarlet Inquisitor Zeth

Cute. I almost took you seriously.Warthok 19:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't be more serious. Read what Imperion said, my link, he convinced me.

Scarlet Inquisitor Zeth 20:54 (GMT +1) 14 November 2007

I am reading it, and I found:

'The second clue comes in the form of burial practices. The Argent Dawn's "graveyard" at Light's Hope chapel, it's head quarters within the Plaguelands, is nothing more than an open pit. The Scourge might as well put up a "recruitment line starts here" sign. Anything tossed into the pit can easily be retrieved by an interested party, say a necromancer within the Scourge army.'

The pit is a fire pit where the bodies are burned to ash so they are unuseable.

'The last clue doesn't even involve Lordaeron. Rather, when the Dark Portal re-opened, the first soldiers on the scene were Argent Dawn. Apparently, someone thought it would be better to send soldiers from the far north to the far southern end of the Eastern Kingdoms instead of asking the soldiers in Nethergarde, a keep supposedly built as a first line of defense against anything that came through the Dark portal, to actually do their duty.'

Do the Black fathom deeps quests, they fight where ever evil reares its head.

It later says Mograine was wrong that his son killed him, and was working for the lich king in the SM event. While the lich king's convuluded corruption is a reason to doubt that, there is nothing that says he is involved after you kill Mog in Naxx. This part is guesswork.

--SWM2448 21:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

While this is an interesting theory with backing, it proves nothing. The crusade may be justified with it's killing of the Horde (sideing with the dead who you are mad at), and the Alliance (No passport and if you get one you kill the leaders in the stead), but I doubt the AD are evil, just misguided if at all. The AD left after Mog's death, and his death is never (In your mind) fully explained, they think Balnazzar made a deal with Kel (They may be right, it is only his word to go on). Balnazzar is evil. Period. But the enemy of the lich king is my friend. The Bronze dragon part about time travel and the Old hillsbrad event not happening is somewhat correct unless you look at it this way: each instance, if real, could only be done once.--SWM2448 21:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
While this article could be written from a more NPOV, Imperion has a number of things wrong. He claims that the only source of information about Highlord Mograine's death is Brann Bronzebeard. This is untrue; Fairbanks recants the tale to the player in the Scarlet Monastery. Additionally, he calls Mograine's son the new highlord, which is also false (Taelan Fordring is the new one). I don't have time to read the rest of Imperion's post right now, but I won't lend him a lot of credibility. Regardless, this article is going to see some change when I get free time, and I'll be sure to make NPOV a focus. --Tyrsenus t c 18:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Regardless, this article is going to see some change when I get free time, and I'll be sure to make NPOV a focus.
Mind you, Brann information is limited to info from Lands of Conflict/Alliance Player's Guide/Horde Player's Guide. Any info from World of Warcraft corebook is actually Blizzard's interpretation. Also the NPOV policy refers to "fan interpretation/opinions/speculation".
It is not meant to be applied to what Blizzard or official sources say about something. Official Blizzard information is considered valid, and must be brought up in an article. So as long as there is an official negative side to the Scarlet Crusade that must be mentioned, but so must the official positives.
Essentially what this means, is that NPOV doesn't mean removing citable information (in this case we are speaking of paraphrased comments or short quotes), but fan remarks/speculation/interpretation are not allowed to be incorporated into the content.
A word of warning, removal of cited correctly paraphrased information in order hide lore, and make a group look 100% positive or negative by removing citations is considered a violation. Ultimately, whatever Blizzard's ultimate stance should be the one given, although all major points can be given.Baggins 17:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Note it should be pointed out that Mograine or his death were never mentioned by Brann at all. That info is limited to the MMO, and Fairbanks. Sure its always possible that Fairbanks may have been lieing, but we have no way to know that.Baggins 17:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Can't we simply restore the article the way it was before somebody started quoting the whole LoC into it? A lot of people contributed to the article and were perfectly happy with the way it was written back then: containing all necessary information, being a nice read and not consisting 95% of wild copyright-violating quotes who were never meant to be connected in this way. I'm tempted to say the article was vandalized by doing so, destroying the work of countless wiki users. --Tulon 18:10, 17 November 2007
Post at the end of a discussion not the middle of one. You know better than that.
Actually the original article was practically a 98% direct quotes with little paraphrasing (what was paraphrased took material out of context). So it can be viewed just as bad and just as against fair use as the current version of the article. Remember, true fair use for fiction apparently should be paraphrase that contains 10% of the original content. So even if we reverted back to it, it would require a major overhaul for fair use, source citations, making sure it didn't take material out of context (pointing out where differences exist), etc.Baggins 18:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
When an aspect in the middle of a discussion requires further debate, I think it is perfectly alright to create a new branch for it. This is what the system is meant for. Otherwise, we would not require discussion trees.
As for the original article, I do not agree with your opinion. There were almost no full citations, all content was paraphrased whilst keeping the original meaning and context intact. This is exactly why the current article is so much harder to read, you know. --Tulon 23:00, 17 November 2007
The problem was there were no citations, a citation is not the same as a "quote". A citation is giving the page number, which source the information came from, authors, etc. Info that tells someone to where find the info. It lacked any of that. As for the paraphrases actually some of it was taken from the game but the few parts were taken directly from the RPG without citaitons and were only partially paraphrased. Again even if something is paraphrased legally it should paraphrase less than 10% of the original material to be on the safe side of fair use. Too much of a paraphrase can still break fair use and copyright laws.Baggins 00:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
You're argueing for the sake of it. "To be on the safe side" in your words would mean to shut down WoWwiki entirely, since this whole database surely covers more than 10% of all official Warcraft content (not only on lore). There is a difference between paraphrasing stuff and quoting entire books, though. And last but not least, imho the article was more friendly to readers back then, which I consider a valid point in this debate. --Tulon 13:00, 18 November 2007
Baggins- many people have shared concerns that this article needs work- fair use, NPOV (now a moot point) or otherwise. While I appreciate your advice on how we should be careful with changes, you haven't explicitly given your opinion on whether this article actually needs the suggested changes or not. Are you satisfied with the current state of the article? --Tyrsenus t c 17:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Because fair use is certainly important, I would like to see a new version of the article, that can somehow maintain copyright laws (limited quotatinon, limited paraphrasing, and correct citations), but somehow still show enough material that it would make people interested to find out more about the topic. Instead of replacing other sources, it would make them go out and find those other sources. Basically we need to create a new page, that concentrates the material down to its core elements, but doesn't act as a narrative that replaces other sources.
And Tulon, no, each article in WoWWiki represents its own essay covering a different subject within Warcraft Universe. Certainly each subject must be concentrated down to its essential concepts, without being too much of a narrative, quoting too much or paraphrasing too much to fit copyright laws.
Generally speaking one can find out from those articles linked in fair use, that a quote or a small paragraph that was part of a larger article or chapter in a book, might not cause a problem, however covering the entire chapter or article within an essay would be an issue. Its in the case tha an essay starts to cover around 20% or more of the fictional subject that it starts to infringe on copyright and fair use laws. So to fall within those laws its safer to keep it under 10% if possible.
Again, I'm no lawyer, I'm only referencing from what a laywer has stated on the subject. But certainly Tulon, you can't be condoning vagrant copyright infringement and breaking fair use, simply because the law might be make it difficult to create an article? Perhaps people just need to learn to be a bit more creative on how you distill the information down to its essential parts.Baggins 18:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Don't tell me. I didn't quote the entire LoC into the article. Like I said, I was happy with the previous version of this article. Not because of any copyright issue, but simply because it felt "nicer" to read. The parts were more connected to each other and the article didn't sound so contradicting.
If the article should be written completely anew, I won't be standing in the way, of course. I just think it would be sad to loose all the work (mainly connected paraphrasings, other things like the notable members list or the pictures could probably be "salvaged") people have put in here. --Tulon 19:00, 18 November 2007
As for perceived "contradictions" any version of the article needs to point this out by contrasting different sources of lore. WoWWiki's job is not to "fix contradictions" or assign levels of canoncity to material (doing so goes against a npov lore/writing and canon policies in place, you can read a bit on that in lore), but show the different versions of lore that exist, and that they are sometimes contradicting. A good example can be found in Saidan Dathrohan's article where both versions of his past are given, neither one treated as more important than the other. If an article becomes a flowing narrative, that could essentially replace having to read another source, then we are back to that whole fair use/copyright problem we were discussing before.Baggins 19:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Note that there are no "different sources of lore" when it comes to facts. The newer source overrides the older source - this is the unwritten law on which this wiki should operate. If there's a contradiction, the newer source has it right. I simply don't see the point of including outdated informations which only serve to irritate the reader.
On a sidenote: where are there "two versions" of Dathrohan's past? I only see one in the article. As it should be. --Tulon 23:25, 18 November 2007

A new policy of this wiki is to show all details and constrast where they differ. A good example can be found in Centaur,, Sargeras and Eredar articles (although they need to be edited for fair use). We show and contrast differences we don't "fix differences". This means do we do not try to fix older material retroactively that has become outdated to make it fit with newer lore.

In anycase the only readers that get irritated by this system, are people that get annoyed easily whenever Blizzard contradicts themselves. Actually there are quite a few readers that actually like to see developmental history, and see where storylines evolved. They get annoyed when that info isn't included. Then there are the people that get irritated when something new eliminates something they found interesting in past lore. We can't please everyone.

By portraying both and contrasting where they are different it allows for each type of fan to see where things have changed, and avoids people trying to hypercorrect anything they think is "wrong" or "missing". In the end you can't please everyone, but you can create an article that discuses all the details in a NPOV, and shows evolving publishing history.

You'll find that Wikipedia tends to compare and contrast differences in storylines for other franchises as well. Its actually part of being truly encyclopedic about the subject.

As for Dathrohan's past, one involves idea that he helped form the original Scarlet Crusade, the other involves the background given by Fairbanks (in which the Grand Crusader came later in the history of the Crusade). Tyrsenus knows what I'm talking about he's the one that pointed out the difference.Baggins 23:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, if that is the case with your new policy, I'll better step out of all of it. As I began working on articles in the wiki, I thought that this whole project was meant to serve as a means to collect and combine the avaiable lore, making it easier for people to get a good idea of what the current state of things is. Not how it was 2 years ago. Especially since such knowledge can easily be obtained by getting one's hands on these outdated sources, IF somebody would really be interested in these phases of development, as you say. Alas, apparently I just got things wrong from the beginning.
Oh, and as for Dathrohan: there doesn't have to be a contradiction between the MG article and Fairbanks statement. It all comes down to how one defines the "infancy" of an organization, and how long a period of "founding" can last. After all, the Crusade did not come into existence over night, as the LoC talks of a longer period when Abbendis and Isillien attracted more and more followers for their resistance against the undead. --Tulon 00:50, 19 November 2007
Say older text is Flavor lore, the new stuff truth.--SWM2448 01:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe our policy of presenting unresolved lore contradictions is new. There will be even more fights over which lore is right even if we were to use a "newer = correct" policy. If someone were to visit a page and did not see their view of the subject presented, I can imagine they would be left confused and tempted to edit the page. I don't like the fact that lore contradicts itself, but this is the most fair way to deal with it, until Chris Metzen decides to set it all straight. Even then, we'll at least mention the older lore for historical context. This is exactly what happened with the Sargeras/eredar conundrum. --Tyrsenus t c 02:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually many of the older sources are not easily obtainable due to being out of print. The idea of this project is to collect together all the available lore. With that lore compare and contrast where the story has evolved over time, to its most recent version.
Alas you hit the nail of another issue... I.E. different people have different interpretations and may see a retcon where one may not exist. Obviously you view things as if a retcon or contradiction does not exist in the case of Saidan, however Tyrsenus believes there is a contradiction.
This is one of the reasons why we are trying to avoid tossing out "retcon" or "contradiction" terminology (as well as avoid discussions of "canon") into articles for every single detail, and remain a bit more neutral about detailing the different aspects of the lore. We may point out where a change has occured or how something may have different interpretations, but we try to use the most neutral terms we can (listing publishing dates can also be useful for pointing out when something was written). This is part of the purpose of the new {{ref book}}, and {{ref game}} system that's slowly being incorporated.
However, we try to avoid the whole "canon/retcon" issue because we know that there are different interpretations out there, and we don't want that to break down into battle within the articles.Baggins 02:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Tyrsenus, yes that seems like it covers what we are trying to do with WoWWiki.
A good example why this is important for the case of stuff like eredar/draenei thing. Another good example would be the lore player can get out of the MMO itself, they can actuall read two versions of the draenei history in game. One version can be read in the In-game books and another can be viewed while playing a draenei character, or doing certain quests in game. By presenting both versions in WoWWiki, it makes it easier to point out that they are different, and how they differ.
...or take Dath'Remar Sunstrider, it is said in game that he took on the name Sunstrider after he was exiled. However one of the novels says he was Sunstrider before he was exiled, and that it was his family name. Its important to present both versions of the story.
Also using the newest source policy, doesn't really work, because there will always be people that believe that a newer source can still contain contradictions of its own, rather than actually being true retcons. I know there are people in Warcraft forums and RPG forums for example, that believe that the online Warcraft Encyclopedia has problems ("rife with contradictions") just as bad as the RPG or novels, when compared to the game itself. Again they view the problems as "contradictions" rather than "retcons".Baggins 02:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Multiple Scarlet Monasteries? Edit

" eastern Tirisfal Glades the Scarlet Monastery serves as a training and research center.

"In Tirisfal Glades a peaceful Monastery was converted into a stronghold of the fanatical Scarlet Crusade, Scarlet Monastery."

This is the end of one paragraph and the beginning of the next. There are two Scarlet Monasteries? --Azaram 02:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, there are two mentioned in published lore, one is said to be in Tyr's Hand and one in Tirisfal Glades. Probably a retcon, though.Baggins 02:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm somewhat surprised you don't claim there are two - seeing that, in your eyes, we have two Abbendises. --Tulon 03:50, 6 December 2007
You didn't notice that I said "probably"? In my first sentence I did say there are two. By using "probably", I wasn't being specific, I was just giving out an alternate possibility on the issue, to remain neutral. You'll notice we have said the same thing about abendises too. However the thing about retcon discussion is usually its speculation. That kind of comment is only allowed to be discussed in speculation sections. Infact the retcon articles are marked with the speculation tag as well. Overall we tend to try to avoid terms like, canon, retcon, or even flavor lore within the main articles, and allow them only in speculation sections at times, to remain neutral point of view. As for discussions that go on in talk pages, anything goes.Baggins 04:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect Membership Edit

I think the total number of Scarlets is wrong. The main page says 12,000. Tyr's Hand has a population of 9,000 and Hearthglen of 3,000. That's 12,000 right there. What about the Crusaders in Stratholme, Scarlet Monastery and throughout the Tirisfal Glades? --TM41 06:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Its is Brann's best "estimate" to quote him, and he made it before WoW (the book was published before WoW as well). At the time members of Scarlet Crusade hadn't taken back that section of Stratholme. There was no references to Scarlet Monastery in Tirisfil Glade, and the book is specific to state that at the time the members of the Crusade were commanding from Tyr'd Hand, and Hearthglen. The upcoming sourcebook should have an updated Scarlet Monastery membership number during WoW times.Baggins 18:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Alright, I wasn't sure where the number came from or how accurate it was seeing how it wasn't cited. Thanks for the explanation. --TM41 09:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Update, the population has remained the same in Dark Factions.Baggins (talk) 01:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Naaru support for the Crusade? Edit

This struck me as extremely odd, Kirrik the Awakened in Terokkar Forest, a Arakkoa converted to the Light since the Naaru's arrival on Outland, speaks of the Light far differently in the quest 'Veil Skith: Darkstone of Terokk' than we see from NPCs on Azeroth:

"I heard the explosion from here. Not with my ears, but with my heart. If the touch of the blessed Naaru, A'dal, is not enough to bring the arakkoa to redemption, nothing will be. Those who have not given themselves over to the Light are mere servants of evil.

They must be destroyed."

Remarkably similar to the tenaments of the Scarlet Crusade, generally seen as far too hating and unforgiving. Perhaps the Naaru's teachings support the actions of the Crusade in condeming non-Light worshiping races (they've only had Human, Dwarven and High Elven members, all generally Light worshipping races)? Non-Light worshippers are evil if they have seen the Light and not followed it, that means a huge amount of races. It also makes the Argent Dawn and the Alliance organisations that are harbouring evil races.

Could the only-Light-worshipers Scarlet Crusade be the truest cause of the Light yet? I'd add this under Speculation, but I'd like some feedback first :).--Mannerheim 09:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

No comments? Ok, I'll refine it and put it under speculation.--Mannerheim 21:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

You sure got a point there. Altough we are not sure if Kirrik the Awakened speak directly for the Naaru, or if he's just a fanatic abusing the Naarus ideals.--WoWWiki-Odolwa (talk) 20:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

-awakens ancient discussion- Was reading through the speculation today, and read through the quest text. I think claiming that Kirrik's advocating destroying non-believers is seriously taking that statement out of context. Look at the previous sentence - "bring the ARAKKOA to redemption". I doubt he's referring to all those who do not serve the Light, just those arakkoa that do not, as they are instead following the teachings of Terokk (who is undoubtedly evil). Qing Guang (talk) 21:12, August 11, 2010 (UTC)

No longer corrupt? Edit

I think the article portrays them as too much of an "evil" and corrupt orginization. The taint of the Scarlet Crusade would fade with the deaths of Renault, Isilien and the Grand Crusader (they all die in game). They are just a bunch who wanted to reform the Silver Hand and retake their own homes. They have the right to be paranoid since barely anyone other than them care about the reclaiming of Lordaeron. Their attitude of "Whoever is not a Scarlet has no business in the plaguelands and is therefore suspicious" is a good one since they are hated so much by the Forsaken, who in turn would do anything to destroy the crusade. I don't think they are blind, horrible idiotic zealots like everyone says. They're just misguided and paranoid. --TM41 17:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It's true they are not completely evil, they did assist the rest of the world, along with the argent dawn, during the Naxx events. But then... any group of people that wish to kill everything in fear of what they could be can be considered along the lines of evil. User:Coobra/Sig3 21:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Everyone (including in-game) has their own oppinion on the Crusade, and there are points for and against them. But the top brass of this website seem to think we need to place flavor-lore under the heading 'undisputable fact'. This is the problem with the article - evident from the first paragraph.--Mannerheim 21:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The Scarlet Crusade rank and file isn't so evil, but Balnazzar is evil period.


Point of note, if you listen to the conversation from the Scarlet Crusaders in Light's Hope, they are specific to point out that they are acting outside of the will of their leaders. That is they are special case, they don't represent the Scarlet Crusade as a whole. As for the majority of the Crusade, eh they are still portrayed as pretty corrupt throughout the game...Baggins (talk) 23:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
BTW, they are still lawful evil in the RPG, Dark Factions. It definitely says they are corrupt.
I paraphrase from one of the author sidebars;
Either members are evil and willingly follow the Crusade’s tenets, or they are good characters who have been taken in by the Crusade’s propaganda and now realize the organization’s fanaticism and depravity.

Baggins (talk) 01:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, the book also confirms that the Scarlet Crusaders at Light's Hope is apparently only a small group of members of the Scarlet Crusade, apparently not representive of the whole organization, whose main bulk often conflict with the Argent Dawn. That they are likely some of the few who "now realize the organizations fanaticism and depravity."Baggins (talk) 04:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

And yet are still loyal to the Crusade. This proves that not all Crusaders are evil, and therefore that the Crusade is not wholly evil.--Mannerheim (talk) 07:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually those that learn of its depravity usually end up leaving it, or becoming sabatuers, certainly no longer loyal to its cause, even double agent backstabbing traitors even, trying to destroy the Crusade;

Either members are evil and willingly follow the Crusade’s tenets, or they are good characters who have been taken in by the Crusade’s propaganda and now realize the organization’s fanaticism and depravity.

In the first case, the members likely respond to the structure and zealotry of the Crusade with enthusiasm. Their missions involve attacking Forsaken settlements, hunting down the Lich King’s minions, and assisting in the siege on Stratholme. By obeying orders and completing their missions, the recruits can ascend in rank until one day they might control their own division. They may start as neutral or even good-aligned, but if they accept the teachings of the Crusade wholeheartedly, they slide inexorably to evil.

In the second case, the members might react with horror as they learn the true depth of evil in the Crusade. They might seek to escape from the organization, or remain within as secret saboteurs, trying to fight the Crusade from the inside. If they prove subtle, dedicated and tenacious enough, they may protect many innocents, shield Forsaken in the area, and even uncover the Crusade’s true leader. One day they may grow powerful enough to destroy the Crusade.[3] (DF 157)

In anycase if the majority are evil then the qualification of the organization being said to be "lawful evil" or described as simply "evil" is valid. In anycase it is the official description. It is no different than taking a real world organization such as the Thuggee cult (let's avoid traditional WWII analogies to avoid Godwin's law) and describing it as "evil". The organization may be evil, but not every Thuggee member was necessarily a murderer or took part in the murders.Baggins (talk) 08:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The ArcaneEdit

I might have missed it, but is there an explaination of why they have Battlemages, Sorceres, exc? I thougth they were paladins, priests and warriors only. Chaos of Warcraft (talk) 11:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be no such requirement: "The Crusade gained members whose lives had been ruined by the Scourge."[4] (LoC 165) --LastStand (talk) 23:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Alliance prefers Scourge to Scarlet Crusade? Edit

Does the Alliance prefer the Scarlet Crusade or the Scourge? And how many are there again?

I am asking because it seems to me the choice is the Scourge. The Scarlet Crusade doesn't go out of it's way to attack Alliance, and it seems a let the overwhelming numbers of Scourge kill them, and have less for yourself to kill policy (the logical one) is completely rejected.

In the Plaguelands I believe outside of Stratholme Alliance has as many attack the Scarlet Crusade quests as they do attack the Scourge.

In Northrend it seems to continue that despite the Scourge being right infront of them, and in an overwhelmingly powerful position the Alliance will continue to attack Scarlets.

I also understand that Deathknights start out killing the few Scarlets Alliance doesn't target.

So at the end of the day is the Scourge especially powerful? and from an Alliance perspective is the Scarlet Crusade same/higher/lower priority for the Alliance to kill list, and to the Alliance is there any difference between Scarlets and the actual Scourge undead? Tirion Fordring of the Silverhand seems to consider the average Crusader as being as big a monster as one of the Scourge's abominations.

--LangstonTheCoward (talkcontr)

If given the choice between the two, the Alliance would easily pick the Scarlet Crusade. The thing is, though, there isn't a choice presented. Both groups are evil and need to be stopped. The Scarlet Crusade's fanatic zeal runs so deep that they consider just about anyone who isn't a member to be corrupted by the taint of the Scourge, a taint that can only be cleansed by death. Even without the knowledge that they're secretly lead by a demon, there's more than enough reasons to take them out. Tirion is correct: the average Crusader is just as big a monster as the Scourge's abominations. The difference is that they KNOW what they're doing, and do it willingly, whereas an abomination is just a mindless engine of destruction that does only what it's ordered to do. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 20:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

But the Alliance could also just leave the Scarlets to their fate can't they?

Because logically if the Scarlets fight the Scourge, gets killed by the Scourge, and the Alliance just fights from a different direction isn't that less to fight?

I also don't know of any Scarlets who are outside of Northrend or whatever part of Lordaeron they are from, or for that matter Scourge unless you count RFK and RFD, are either more then a local power or do they have some way they could threaten those who don't seek them out? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LangstonTheCoward (talkcontr).

What are you trying to say?  IconSmall HighElf Male Mr.X8 Talk Contribs 20:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I am just wondering why the Alliance goes well out of it's way to kill the Crusade, when the Scourge is about to anyway, seems like a waste of time.

and to put the question another way does the Alliance greet the fall of Tyr's Hand, and New Avalon as good news or bad news?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by LangstonTheCoward (talkcontr).

If I remember correctly from playing Alliance two years ago, the only quest that really asks you to kill Scarlet members is the quest associated with the Scarlet Monastery. The reason stated in this quest is simply: "Innocent men and women were tortured because they were supposedly plagued. The Scarlet Crusade must be crushed in the name of the Light." I don't know anything about Avalon, but the quests are usually a good way to get an idea for the (often minimal) reason you're asked to go about killing NPCs. --LastStand (talk) 22:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

There are also some quests involving killing Scarlet Crusaders in the Stratholme dungeon as well.Baggins (talk) 18:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I also wonder. What about the possibility that once the Crusade finish with the undead, or maybe even sooner, they start believing that only the scarlet crusade is pure, and thus want the death of everyone not in direct family of a crusader? Unlikely, not supported by lore AFAIK, but that's a possiblity as to a reason why the Alliance may want the death of the Scarlet crusaders, along with the above reason, they fear the crusade may turn against them.Warden Shadowsong (talk) 19:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually the idea that they think others outside of the Crusade are tainted is a part of the lore.Baggins (talk) 19:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Back on what Dark T said, Alliance is perfectly willing to side with Lawful Evil (Forsaken unless the Sylvanas Windrunner article here is outdated) against a greater evil, and Forsaken isn't the only example, Black Dragons in Outland are another, yet instead of the usual pragmatism which the Alliance has elswere they openly seek out and hunt down the Crusade.

Which is what leads me to believe that the Alliance just might have a preference for the Scourge or the Forsaken to the Crusade, because policy doesn't seem consistent with other lawful evil factions the Alliance is allied to.

signed Langston the Coward

Basically, the Alliance are shooting themselves in the foot by not attempting to persuade what could very well be a tremendous ally against both the Scourge and Forsaken. True, the Crusade employ methods that are rightfully categorized as extreme; but in what's left of Lordaeron, the ends justify the means. You've got the Forsaken hunting down humans and working on new plagues, and the Scourge are nowhere near eliminated from the continent. On one hand, you've got the Argent Dawn, who while noble, is far too tolerant and foolishly allows Forsaken in its ranks which to me makes zero sense. On the other hand, you've got the Scarlet Crusade who has both higher manpower (at least according to the numbers on this wiki) and do a better job at eliminating undead from the Plaguelands thanks to their concentration of manpower and more "unforgiving" methods. I will reiterate that the Crusade is absolutely right to attack anybody on sight, unless you're a Crusader, a living dead or a spy, you have NO business being in the Plaguelands! Anyone in their right mind had already fled. True, the Crusade are responsible for tragic civilian casualties; guess what, it's called "collateral damage" and is part of almost every war. People get sniped, imprisoned or executed all the time nowadays for being suspected terrorists or collaborators; I don't know if there's a debate going on about whether the Coalition forces in the Middle East are aligned as "Lawful Evil". In wars of such magnitude, shit happens. -_- All this aside, I can understand why the Horde would send expeditions against Scarlet outposts, so as to appease the Forsaken chums. But considering "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" (hey, worked out quite well in the Third War...), it is foolish for the Alliance to wage war against the Scarlet Crusade by sending SI:7 assassins and raiding parties against them, they're basically going out of their way to destroy the last true human power in that very delicate region. If not "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", than at least "they're bastards, but they're our bastards", seems to be working with the Death Knights. What the Alliance should've done is attempted some sort of diplomacy, even if they had to do with overzealous representatives, they still would've been able to strike some sort of a deal by allowing the Crusade leeway in their territories while ensuring safe passage for Alliance refugees (at that point in the game, there shouldn't have been any more refugees in those zones, other than the Solliden farmstead which is under Crusade protection anyway). Maybe if they wouldn't have to contend with the waves after waves of saboteurs who are after Scarlet Monastery loot, they wouldn't have to react so violently and attack moving targets on sight. "Diplomacy" is a human racial trait, but they don't always use it when needed.

(Yes yes, I'm aware that I sound like I'm taking the bloody game too seriously, but I do play on an RP realm. ;) ) DacianWarlord (talk) 02:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Rank and File allignment? Does the Crusade have honorable goals like the article said? Edit

The article is somewhat unclear on what the average Crusader, rank and file/civilian, like the workers in Hearthglen, Farmers in Tirisfal are.

There should be a section on the main page dedicated to them.

I am not refering to the evil leaders or the organization as whole (fact that Blizzard said it's lawful evil is good enough for me) but only the rank and file?

I am only asking because the Scarlet Crusade does have a lot of civilians, and the original source of recruitment was just the remaining people of Lordaeron who didn't die or turn Undead (cited by High General Abbendis' Diary), just taking up arms in defence and fighting back, or continueing to live at your home under a new army protecting you like the Solliden Farmers doesn't seem as evil as following a demon to kill everyone, which the leaders are doing.

Furthermore does the Crusade have honorable goals/tenets like the main article stated? I do not pretend to know everything, but if that was retconned and the Crusade's very tenets are to be considered evil perhaps the corruption from within should be renamed corruption, and the reference to honorable stated goals removed?

If there is no official answer to if the rank and file/civilians are evil could I place a speculation section? And I think since the Crusade is evil, it should be decribed as evil, instead of corrupted from within in the main article, just to make the evil part clearer.

Signed Langston the Coward

The Scarlet Crusade has an honorable goal. There is absolutely no denying that. The reason they are Lawful Evil is that they go about it in an overzealous way. The problem isn't the 'Pure', but rather the commoners being recruited, like you stated. Abbendis's diary states that many among their ranks are just there because they want to kill undead, and don't care about being good or pure. She says she wishes she could do away with them, but they can't afford to lose that many men. That's the reason she is heading the Scarlet Onslaught, which is supposedly only made up of her pure soldiers. Make no mistake: the Crusade DO have good intentions. Without them, it is likely that the Scourge would have overrun Lordaeron. The Lich King seems more concerned with the Scarlets in the Death Knight quest chain, so I'm guessing that he sees them as more of a threat to his sovereignty in Lordaeron than the Forsaken. If the Forsaken can't even deal with a farm, a few towers, and a Monastery in Tirisfal alone, it is highly unlikely they could be a fierce opponent alone against the Scourge. <Omni> ( SpeakAbility physical taunt Please, no shouting || StuffSpell arcane studentofmagic Meet the Maker ) 17:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Garithos' men? Edit

A note at the bottom of Dreadlord Insurgents, saying that "The Dreadlord Insurgency lived on in the form of the Scarlet Crusade." brought up a nostalgic question I had from when I first started playing WoW, fresh from WCIII: Besides Balnazzar, is there any stated connection between the humans under Garithos and the Scarlet Crusade?--SWM2448 00:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Nope. In fact, the Ashbringer comic details the formation of the Scarlet Crusade and doesn't mention Garithos at all. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 02:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I'd think some of Garithos' men, mentioned or not, would end up joining the Crusade. Crusade's a bunch of racists who more or less think anyone that's not human and/or aligned with the Scarlet Crusade is pure evil. Sounds like a nice crib for a few nice Garithos-ish racists.

W/e, I'm just gonna stop talking now, since we're probably gonna get the "NOT A FORUM!" message soon enough. IconSmall WolvarBig, furry, and insane (Have a conversation with the homocidal furry!) (Come and stalk me! ...No, wait, please don't.) 13:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Ad blocker interference detected!

Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.