Talk:Aliden Perenolde

100,552pages on
this wiki

Back to page

Father and SonEdit

The evidence in the game strongly points to Aliden Perenolde being the son of the Lord Perenolde who led Alterac during the Second War and betrayed the Alliance, not the same man. In the Horde quest Blackmoore's Legacy, we are told that:

A day or two ago, I was visited by the leader of this Syndicate. His name was Aliden Perenolde,
and styled himself lord of this land. He confided in me his plans to take the orcs that stood
against him as slaves, just as his father and his mentor, the despised Blackmoore, had planned.

Unless there is some strong evidence to the contrary, it looks like we are dealing with father and son. --Aeleas 13:02, 13 Mar 2006 (EST)

...Lord Perenolde isn't Blackmoore's son. --Kakwakas 07:48, 14 March 2006 (EST)
It doesn't say "his father and mentor", it says, "his father and his mentor," which I read as referring to two different people.--Aeleas 12:34, 14 March 2006 (EST)
No, it says "his father and his mentor, dhe despised Blackmoore", meaning both of those adjectives are descriptive of the afformentioned. Those were both describing the person of which they were speaking, which is indicatd by saying his name. If it were to say "his father and his mentor" only, it could mean 2 people, but as it only claims 1 name, that's not the case.--Haddon 17:16, 6 July 2006 (EDT)
I could refer to "My father and my mother, Anne Boleyn," in which case I'm clearly talking about two different people. The forumulation makes sense if I assume you already know who my father is, but need clarification on who my mother is, or in this case who his mentor was. It is ambiguous and open to the interpretation that Blackmoore was Aliden's father, but we know this is not the case.--Aeleas 19:13, 1 August 2006 (EDT)

There is also the question of 'who is Blackmoore'? Is it the despised traitor of the Second War, or his son; the despised master of Thrall...? --Vorbis 23:35, 30 Nov 2006 (GMT)

Conflicting info in Lands of Conflict Edit

Lands of Conflict, a supplement for the Warcraft RPG, seems to imply that A(l)iden Perenolde is indeed the very same Lord Perenolde who betrayed the Alliance during the Second War. The wording isn't very clear, though. Take for example this paragraph:

Once the smallest nation in the Lordaeron Alliance, Alterac’s king, Perenolde, betrayed the Alliance
in the Second War. Alterac’s honor has been blemished ever since. Like all of Lordaeron’s regions,
Alterac suffered horrendously when the Scourge blazed through the continent. The Perenolde family’s
current scion, Lord Aiden Perenolde, is a high-ranking Syndicate member who resides in the Uplands.
I hear he is addicted to flushbloom.

Why talk about "the Perenolde family's current scion" if he is indeed the same Perenolde that was mentioned two sentences ago? On the other hand on page 171 of Lands of Conflict there is a proclamation by Uther Lightbringer made in the "senventh year of the new Alliance" that proclaims Aliden Perenolde an enemy of the state because of his association with the Horde during the war. Aliden Perenolde is explicitly singled out in this proclamation and no other Perenolde is mentioned. Would that make sense if Aliden Perenolde wasn't the one who led the betrayal of the Alliance during the war? Also, Aliden Perenolde is said to be 66 years old. This info all seems to imply that Aliden Perenolde and the Lord Perenolde who betrayed the Alliance during the Second War are the same person. Although it's really curious that nowhere in the text this is really stated explictly. And as mentioned the quote above is also a bit strange. --Foogray 14:36, 14 Mar 2006 (CEST)

Thanks! Can we fix the pages now? :/ --Kakwakas 07:48, 14 March 2006 (EST)
Done.--Aeleas 12:34, 14 March 2006 (EST)
I disagree Foogray. If Aiden Perenolde was dead, then Uther wouldn't feel any need to declare him a deceased traitor and would only need to pick out his son as an enemy of the state - after all, he would have probably followed his father's lead. Also, it seems that it clashes with other lore anyway - it states that old Perenolde was a king, not just Lord Perenolde like in other texts. Anyway, this is old compared to WoW lore... I think that Aiden has quite possibly now been retconned to Aliden, and is the son of the old Perenolde. --Vorbis 23:49, 30 Nov 2006 (GMT)

New info from Alliance Player's Guide Edit

Well, looks like the Alliance Player's Guide contains new food for the argument about Aiden/Aliden Perenolde and their father/son relationship. Here's a quote from page 134:

Lord Aiden Perenolde and the
rest of the ruling families of Alterac secretly
sided with the orcs in exchange for power.
I’m glad we found the bastards out before
things got real ugly, but nevertheless, many
good men were lost to their initial deception.
King Terenas should have put them all to
the sword, I say; that bastard Perenolde’s
son, Aliden, is still around and leads the
Syndicate, a bunch of crazies who are still
trying to take over Lordaeron for their own
purposes to this day.

And here another quote from page 158/159:

Lord Aiden Perenolde, perhaps the most notorious
human noble of the Second War, was in charge of Alterac
at the beginning of hostilities. Perenolde was cowardly
and his will weak; he betrayed the Alliance, sending
ships to strike at their vulnerabilities. Captured and
ousted, now Lord Aliden Perenolde, Aiden’s son, leads
the Syndicate, a bandit group that includes Alterac’s
fallen nobles who seek to reclaim their kingdom.

So, it seem Aliden is Aiden's son. Which is still kind of strange since Aliden Perenolde is supposed to be 66 years old in Lands of Conflict. -- Foogray 15:40, 5 July 2006 (EDT)

Thanks. I've updated the pages by creating Aiden Perenolde and moving some info from Perenolde. Perenolde now directs to Aiden Perenolde, the father, and Aliden Perenolde, the son, with a note that the names are reversed in Lands of Conflict.--Aeleas 19:19, 5 July 2006 (EDT)
Reading all mentions of Perenolde in Lands of Conflict again, it's not really true that the names are reversed in that book. In Lands of Conflict there is only talk about Aiden Perenolde (with the exception of that "current scion" bit I quoted in my comments above that could be read as that there are two different Perenoldes) and the writing seems to imply that he was the one betraying the Alliance in the Second War. So far that's in complete agreement with what is written in the Alliance Player's Guide. The thing is, that Lands of Conflict also says that Aiden Perenolde currently leads the Syndicate. So, there are a few explanations for this:
a) the author got confused and made the mistake that Aliden and Aiden Perenolde are one and the same person. That "current scion" bit that does imply there are two different Perenoldes is either just phrased badly or was written by another author (it's not in the same section as the other mentions of Perenolde).
b) at the time Lands of Conflict was written World of Warcraft was still in development and Blizzard only later decided that Aiden's son should lead the Syndicate and not Aiden himself. So it's basically a retcon.
c) sort of similiar to b): if you look at the timeline of the RPG, Lands of Conflict takes place a few years before the events that we see in the World of Warcraft MMORPG, whereas the Alliance Player's Guide describes the same timeframe as the MMORPG. What if both Lands of Conflict and the Alliance Player's Guide are right? Maybe at the time of Lands of Conflict it really was Aiden Perenolde, the father, who led the Syndicate, and he only later gave leadership of the Syndicate to his son, Aliden?
Okay, more than likely it was reason a) or b). I mean, the names "Aiden" and "Aliden" are really easy to mix up and the whole thing stinks of a badly hidden retcon. -- Foogray 06:18, 6 July 2006 (EDT)
Just to clear things up a bit further as I saw that my comments from March where I talk about the Lands of Conflict info could be a bit misleading. I mixed up "Aiden" and "Aliden" myself there because at that time I thought they were the same person. But Lands of Conflict does indeed never talk about a Aliden Perenolde. All mentions in Lands of Conflict talk about Aiden. The name Aliden does not exist in that book. Just wanted to clear that up since you wrote in the Perenolde article that "in Lands of Conflict, Aliden Perenolde is declared an enemy of the state for betraying the Alliance" which is not true. That text is also about Aiden Perenolde. So, it is as I said above: Lands of Conflict doesn't reverse their names, but in that book Aiden Perenolde is the betrayer of the Second War as well as the leader of the Syndicate. Only that text bit about the "current scion" implies that there are different Perenoldes, so Lands of Conflict is kind of contradicting itself there. Hope that clears up things further. -- Foogray 07:01, 6 July 2006 (EDT)
Based on that, I would say the best interpretation of Lands of Conflict is that it simply referred to the son as Aiden (Jr.) rather than Aliden by mistake. "Current scion" definitely implies that the author was describing a different person, so if that one reference were changed from Aiden to Aliden everything would fit together perfectly. Warcraft was well into Beta when LoC was published, and Aliden would have already been in the game for some time, so it was likely just a miscommunication or hypercorrection. I've altered the section accordingly, and moved it to Aliden Perenolde, since there isn't any confusion as to the elder Perenolde's first name.--Aeleas 12:29, 6 July 2006 (EDT)

I remember reading somewhere, though I cannot remember where, that Aiden had become one of the Deathknights, following the Third War. Again, I can't quote it, but it wasn't a fan fic, as I don't read those. Hmm, perhaps I shall go a'searchin'--Haddon 17:24, 6 July 2006 (EDT)

See the Perenolde article: "In Warcraft III, 'Baron Perenolde' was one of the random names for death knight heroes." This led some fans to speculate that Aiden Perenolde had become a death knight, but some random name is hardly proof of that. And as far as I know no official source ever confirmed that speculation. If Aiden Perenolde really had become a death knight I think it would have been mentioned in the Alliance Player's Guide. -- Foogray 04:30, 7 July 2006 (EDT)

Lore HolesEdit

Several things that need clearing up, especially on the naming and citation front (this is about both Perenolde characters, but it's easier to clear it up here):

  • If Lord Aiden Perenolde sided with the orcs in the Second War, then why was he a supporter of orcish slavery?
  • Aliden Perenolde is an old man, it's obvious simply from his NPC model. He must therefore have fought in the Second War, supposedly with his father. However, his 'mentor', Blackmoore, fought for the Alliance all through the Second War. So what were Aliden's feelings towards Blackmoore?
  • Aiden Perenolde, the old lord, is stated as 66 in the article. His son, however, could not be any younger than 50 at least. Aiden may be stated as 66, but this cannot be possible. Judging from his son's aged condition, he should be over 80 by now. It seems too likely that the text refers to Aliden, not Aiden. There are further numerous inconsistencies where it seems that the two men have got mixed up. Can anyone give me irrefutable proof that each reference refers to the man it says it does, and not the other?
  • How come Aiden Perenolde committed the crime of high treason twice and was just asked to give up his crown? Why was his fate not the same as those who remained in the fortress and were slaughtered by the Alliance? Is there any proof he actually survived after attempting to seize the Book of Medivh? Could it be possible that Aliden established the Syndicate, not his father and again this is a name mix up or just assumptions on the part of the article writers?
  • Nagaz was apparently Aliden's slave from a young age. However, the orc's letter to the 'Master' of the Argus Wake makes it seem like they are very new allies. Whom should we believe?

Aliden is hurting my brain...

-Vorbis 23:32, 30 Nov 2006 (GMT)

Lands of Conflict takes place several years before World of Warcraft chronologically.Edit

Infact the book is set chronogically before the last 3-4 rpg books as stated in the introductions in each subsequent book. When Lands of Conflict discusses Aiden, it is referring to Alidan's father, not to Alidan. No refrence to his son is made, and only refrence is to Aiden himself, including his actions during the 2nd war. Things have changed in the years that have passed from the time of "Lands of Conflict" and later books.Baggins 19:53, 30 November 2006 (EST)

Baggins, you are completely ignoring the "current scion" quote from Lands of Conflict which is discussed above. This quote implies that Aiden (not ALiden) Perenolde is the son of the Perenolde who betrayed the Alliance in the Second War. Of course this info conflicts with other information from other sources (and Lands of Conflict itself). Also, you are just ignoring all the age-related problems Vorbis listed under "lore holes" above (and the fact that Lands of Conflict takes place a few years before WoW doesn't make most of these problems go away). There's clearly some confusion in the different sources who Aiden/Aliden Perenolde is and the different sources really don't add up. I therefore highly object to you just deleting all paragraphs in the article that tried to explain this dilemna from a neutral POV. Seriously, you can't just ignore all the conflicting information, write down the version of the story that you like the most and delete all the other stuff that tried to explain what the different sources write from the article! --Foogray 05:44, 1 December 2006 (EST)
While the term "current scion" could be read as "aliden", if aiden died, technically if Aiden was still alive he would also be the "current scion" technically, it can be interpreted both ways. However that's one small quote in a completely different section of the book. The other chapter however uses the name aiden, and keeps on repeating Aiden's actions from the second war(as seen in warcraft II), throughout the whole section, only talking about the one person, not referring to anyone else. So either we have one author who may have used a somewhat bad choice of words, or two completely different authors writing seperate articles, but neither specifically sid that aiden "died" anywhere in the book. The term is vague enough that it can be interpreted in different ways.Baggins 11:44, 1 December 2006 (EST)
Erm, you completely misunderstood me. Where did I talk about the question whether Aliden or Aiden are alive or not? That's not what I'm talking about at all. What I am talking about is your deletion of the "Aiden or Aliden" paragraph from the article that tried to explain (maybe not in the best way) that there's some confusion about the names. That has nothing to do with the death or non-death of Aiden Perenolde. That paragraph merely listed some facts about the sources where Aiden/Aliden is mentioned and that there are some strange contradictions in the sources (like the "current scion" bit mentioned above). Why did you delete that? Sure, the paragraph could have been written more clearly (and there was indeed one small mistake in it that could have easily been corrected) but in principle it was only listing facts and in my opinion there was no reason at all for you to just delete it. That's what I'm talking about. Also, if you yourself admit that the "current scion" bit can be interpreted in multiple ways, isn't it wrong to write the article with just one interpretation in mind (even if it's the most reasonable one) and pretend in the text like there's no controversy at all? Shouldn't we present the fact that there's some interpretable stuff or contradictions in the sources and leave the interpretation to the reader? See, that's exactly what the section you deleted was trying to do. Just deleting it is helping noone. If you didn't think the section was good you could have tried to improve it and not just delete it. On an unrelated note: Please, please use the "Show preview" function of the wiki. I know that others (like Ragestorm) have already told you this, but it bears repeating. Your multiple small edits whithin small time intervals make it really hard to retrace what you changed in an article. By editing the wiki this way you are making it harder for other people to help improve the articles on the wiki. --Foogray 13:49, 1 December 2006 (EST)
As for appearance of age-of "Aliden" in WOW, I don't consider that entirely easy to interpret since in reality, people age differenctly because of different outside factors, life of ease, vs. life of conflict, medical issues, quality of food, use of recreational vices (smoking, drugs, alchohol), etc. Some people's hair greys earlier than others. Some people become wrinkled earlier than other people. So its entirely difficult to judge how old someone is just by how they look physically. Aliden doesn't even show any signs of wrinkles, in his ingame model. Not only that but since WOW is notorius for just reusing the same model for every single character, with slight different hair colors, and hair cuts, that makes it all the harder to judge how old someone actually is, or to know if that's how they actually look. This factor is easy to see when you compare the appearance of an in-game character vs. comissioned art of the character in various sources. A good example of this is Bolvar Fordragon, ingame model vs. comissioned art in Alliance Player's Guide. In-game he is a red-haired man with a mustache, where as his official art, shows him as a balding man with a big white beard.Baggins 11:51, 1 December 2006 (EST)
To be clear I modified that section without delete it first time around a few says ago, in order to make it more neutral and point out more of the facts as established in the book. However, Vorbis removed all the points I made, made it far less clear, and claimed that LoC specifically mentioned both aiden and aliden. At that point rather than try to fight it, I thought removal was probably for the best, as it seemed to make the matter even more confusing. Since the majority of information in Lands of Conflict seems to point to interpretation that "Current Scion" was that of Aiden Perenolde the elder still being around(i.e, not dead, or not imprisoned) and in charge of the Synicate.Baggins 13:55, 1 December 2006 (EST)
Nevertheless, when Blizzard decides to make a character with grey hair it is generally accepted within the game that that character is old rather than anything else. By the way, I apologise for the extreme edit but there were a few things that seemed to repeat themselves or tie the lore in knots. It would be good if we could have the passages from every source that deals with Aiden or Aliden - printed in the exact original wording - on this talk page so that we can all collectively pick it apart and offer our own points of view, rather than having individual members quoting single phrases and such in their arguments. --Vorbis 19:09, 1 Dec 2006 (GMT)

To be fair, if this helps, according to the RPG, average middle age is 35, old age averages around about 53 years, 70 is considered venerable. Brann implies that average maximum age is apparently 60, in APG. though obviously some people outlive the averages.Baggins 14:57, 1 December 2006 (EST)

Suggested Move Edit

Suggested move, per WW:NAME#NPC_Articles. --Beep2 12:16, 1 January 2007 (EST)

Hostile to Alliance?Edit

is he?--Knighthonor (talk) 11:50, June 6, 2010 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki