Wikia

WoWWiki

Talk:Arthas Menethil

101,502pages on
this wiki

Back to page

UntitledEdit

Previous discussions archived: Talk:Arthas Menethil/Archive1


Arthas's race Edit

I asked on the WoW forums and several other sites and it was heavly debated if he is Human or Undead currently, People who believe he's Human say he hasn't apparently died and turned into a Undead, Illidan clearly says to him "You reek of Death....Human"

but on the other side those who believe he's Undead say he may have died in the Frozen waste of Northrend after taking Frostmourne, it's clearly written on the Frostmourne page "It sucks the users soul out and eventually turns them into Undead" Deathknights are technically Undead right? and plus he's the Lich King now

I mean I don't want to cause waves or start a "Re-edit war" cause if he's rechanged to Undead that means his classification on the "Major Characters page" will have to be changed as Undead and such but I was just curious if he technically is still Human/alive or Undead. Genova 05:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

It's difficult to say. On the one hand, Arthas clearly hasn't been killed. On the other, he IS the Lich King, which does sort of imply undeath. The part about Frostmourne eventually turning its holder into an undead is from the RPG, so it's entirely possible that that's simply game mechanics (just as Death Knight Arthas was considered undead in Warcraft 3). Personally, I think it's probably better to leave it as human unless Blizzard says otherwise. -- Dark T Zeratul 06:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Arthas is considered undead for gameplay reasons (so that holy spells will hurt him, for instance) in both Warcraft III and the RPG, but he's not actually undead. Metzen himself as been quoted as saying so:

"Arthas and Ner'zhul have become a perfect fusion of one being - Arthas' personality and body with Ner'zhul's wison [sp], experience, power and EVIL. I can tell ya that Arthas is very much alive (he never died) - so he is essentially a healthy human with godlike powers of undeath and telepathy. He IS the new Lich King."

Source: http://forums.scrollsoflore.com/archive/index.php?t-186.html Egrem 20:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's true he never died but I think he is an undead because he wears Frostmourne that is a coursed runeblade. About its curse: "The Lich King can communicate with the wielder at will telepathically, on any plane and at any distance. The Lich King uses this ability to try and corrupt the wielder over time. This has several effects. An individual who wields Frostmourne will not part with it willingly. Over time the person will go from good to neutral and finally to evil. A non-undead evil wielder will then become undead"MoM 174 --N'Nanz 00:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Point of note Arthas after he became the Lich King is "undead", according to the RPG. He was also classed as undead in Warcraft III once he became a death knight, thus he could be healed through dark magic in the game. Also according ot the rpg lore, the process to becoming a death knight eventually kills the victim turning them into undead.Baggins 00:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

But of course this will be retconnected in WotLK: Or everybody is happy to be an undead!? ;) --N'Nanz 00:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

They'll have to make the Death Knight class a humanoid in the same way they did for the Forsaken for gameplay purposes, it has nothing to do with "retcons". Infact the Death Knights in the game aren't even the same kind (as you found in the War3/RPG), they appear to be runic death knights. Also the real trick to avoiding the undeadness is to avoid using the runic blades, :p... But they certainly aren't going to implement a new mechanic in the MMO allowing one to change slowly into an undead. The game scale doesn't allow that.Baggins 00:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I should also point out that description of undeath is sometimes unclear, for example withered are both undead, but sometimes considered more "alive" than the average undead. The same thing occured in zombie lore as well, IIRC. Kind of a state between living and undeath, to quote princess bride, "mostly dead". Although its possible for "undeath" to be reversible, so if he died or not, or exists in some kind of inbetween state, is not that important really in the scheme of things.Baggins 01:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Also to quote Brann, in Lands of Mystery (set around the time WoW, but before TBC),
"nothing lives here — but the Lich King and his Scourge aren’t exactly alive. The glacier teems with undead creatures."LoM 106
--Baggins 01:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
As for the comments about "mechanics" for Frostmourne above the problem is in the RPG mechanics and lore are often mixed, as was the case for the sword. You can't seperate the two like is often the case for the MMO, as one controls the other in the RPG. Point of note most of the actual RPG mechanics were left out of the frostmourne article, what's left is the lore described inbetween the mechanics according to the RPG.Baggins 01:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I still believe that Arthas (along with many of the acolytes, necromancers, and death knights that serve the Scourge) is physically alive, despite being considered undead for the purposes of resolving certain abilities (like Holy Light or Death Coil). I know he's considered undead in the RPG, but again, I think that's primarily because they wanted him to have the mechanical benefits of the undead creature type (most notably being healed by negative energy and harmed by positive energy). Here's my reasoning:
- Sylvanas shoots Arthas with a poisoned arrow, which paralyzes him. Undead creatures are, at least in the RPG, completely immune to both poison and paralysis (which makes sense, since the undead do not have functioning circulatory or nervous systems).
- Arthas still breathes (while undead creatures obviously don't need to). You can see this in his 3D model on the Scourge mission select screen in the Frozen Throne. More notably, if you go to http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/wrath/ you can clearly see that the animated Lich King in the background is breathing.
- Ner'zhul wanted a "healthy body" - there were many other, more easily-available options open to him if he wanted an undead host.
- Metzen said so.  :P
Egrem 11:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I happen to agree with you. I think the original intent is as you say, but for gameplay reasons (Both video game and RPG), they've changed the lore. So while this is a case of gameplay creating lore, which is always horrible, it means that he is considered Undead, evne though he shouldn't be : / --   12:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Arthas in the RPG isn't considered Undead "for gameplay reason" but because he wears Frostmourne. It's part of its lore that the wielder becomes an undead, not a game mechanics. And where and when did Metzen said so? --N'Nanz 14:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
It's a mechanic, the lore about the sword was created because of gameplay. --   14:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and it's lore thus! --N'Nanz 14:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
And then Brann referenced it, and he wasn't even in a section discussing any game mechanics, purely lore and history (rather than lore mixed with dice rolls, statistical information, and other rpg rules). Anycase I still think he probably falls more under that withered category, the state off handedly mentioned on the official site[1], and rpg for someone between undeath and living, strattling both worlds. Its still undead, but not as undead as say the Forsaken.Baggins 17:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Also as to the reference to breathing, don't forsaken models have a breathing animation? ...and can't they ultimate drown after being too long under water, even with that racial? (yes, even that is game mechanics.)Yes I know that undead don't have to respirate (according to rpg lore/mechanics), but it seems that we are sometimes given in-game models that show what appears to be breathing (despite the RPG lore/mechanics saying they don't breath). Also in some lore it is said that Forsaken, never have to eat, sleep, or fall ill, yet other lore (as well as game mechanics) shows that they do eat (cannibalism), can sleep, and have been known to fall ill (even the rpg is a bit contradictory on that issue). Point of note, the undead, "don't breath, eat, or sleep" is one of the undead, and forsaken rpg game mechanics, although it is also tied into rpg lore, the mechanics also give the exception that forsaken spellcasters have to have "uninterrupted rest" before preparing spells...Baggins 17:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC) Baggins 17:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

N'Nanz, Bagggins, i never said it wasn't lore. It is, no getting around that. Where Brann later referenced it has no impact what so ever, it doesn't make it "pure history/lore". Thought i was clear enough in my last post, obviously not. --   17:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

As for the idea that "gameplay creating lore is always horrible", uh gameplay necessitated the creation of quite a bit of lore in the Warcraft RTS series, in order to create new units, new spells, resources, and whatever. If you look at much of the quest lore in World of Warcraft there are plenty of times where in-game mechanics necessitated certain lore descriptions in that game as well. At least for the RTS games, practically everything that was gameplay had some kind of lore behind it to explain it. I've only seen a few people complain about that... Please don't exaggerate, the merits or lack there of lore created through game mechanics... It might be said that alot of lore in Warcraft is created through game mechanics as it is primarily a game world, :p....

Also there is no such thing as "pure history/lore", its just "lore" even Metzen once said in a few interviews that what we read are more or less the opinions of in-universe authors passed down through history... It was one of his explanations to get around possible conflicting information. Essentially they create lore from a flavor lore perspective, always. Flavor lore is just really another term for "lore" (Metzen does not actually ever use the term flavor lore, it was a term invented by a white wolf employee, not Blizzard).Baggins 17:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes i wonder if you're criticising/replying to yourself Baggins :p --   18:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

If the race is an issue as to what to put on the page, it clearly states at the top of the page that this article is about his life as a Human, so shouldn't the race be Human? We can save this arguement for the Lich King, can't we? Ellethwen 19:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I find it fairly difficult to think of Arthas as "alive". He obviously is not fully alive with the powers over death he controls, but he literally cut open his chest and ripped out his heart, which was run through by Tirion's Ashbringer. Metzen said that "Arthas never died." (http://www.wowinsider.com/2007/08/04/blizzcon-day-2-wow-lore-and-quests-panel-liveblog/), but you have to wonder what the implications of Death are. Perhaps he's slowly been dying and become more reliant on Necromancy to keep himself "alive"? Without a Heart, it's hard to say he isn't Undead. Perhaps he simply skipped the whole Death process and went from being alive to being Undead?(Ignoring Semantics, obviously he probably wouldn't be considered Undead if he never died) Drpancake

Did anyone notice that the New Plague which is supposed to kill humans, orcs, Scourge, etc. made the Lich King weaken but not kill him? Rolandius Paladin (talk - contr) 04:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
That could probably be attributed to the large amount of power the Lich King Controls, as I don't know if it would make sense for him to be effected less by a plague that targets humans and undead just because he is half human half undead, or in a twilight Zone of some sort in that respect. But perhaps there's something to it.Drpancake

No, he is dead. After the fight with Illidan he cut out his own heart because he believed that it was the last thing making him human, and therefore, weak. (P.S. This is my first time posting something so I probably messed up.) -Cades

Classes Edit

His classes are currently listed as "Paladin, Ex-paladin, Death Knight, Lich King". I don't think I'd consider "Lich King" to be a class... it's already listed as both his status and his occupation.

In addition to being a paladin (and later death knight), Arthas could be considered a warrior. Arthas didn't become an apprentice paladin until the age of nineteen, and by that age he was already a very skilled fighter (thanks to years of training with Muradin Bronzebeard). According to the Warcraft III manual, "While at the court of Lordaeron, Muradin befriended the young Arthas and taught him to master fighting blades of every type." The Lich King's RPG stats suggest that Arthas specialized in the use of bastard swords, battleaxes, and warhammers. It stands to reason that he could have been considered a Warrior/Paladin (later Warrior/Death Knight), much as Thrall is considered a Warrior/Shaman (due to his gladiator training). Egrem 00:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see Lich King ot be a class either, its a personality, title, position.Baggins 00:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Age of Arthas Menethil Edit

I had just finished reading Tides of Darkness by Aaron Rosenberg, and in one of the chapters, Arthas is a little boy in the story just as the First Horde was approaching Lordaeron to initiate war. My impression was that Arthas and Varian got to be friends as they were noted playing or spying from one of the balcony tiers high above into the throne room while Terenas, Khadgar, Lothar, and all the other kings of the human kingdoms were obliviously discussing matters in regards to the orcs prior to the actual war. Now, I had thought, jumping forward in time when the Third War occurred, how old was Arthas then? Then it hit me, how old was Arthas in the book. I realized a problem, was Arthas in his early or mid twenties when he went insane, and was Arthas too young or too old to have remembered the Second War? I gotta know. Does anyone have a reference of some kind that could tell me this? Please post an answer on my page or on this thread with the answer. I've been trying to figure this out for most of today. Oh, and I know about Varian and Arthas from Chapter Three, page 57, in the book Tides of Darkness, very last paragraph, for those who are interested in knowing this fact whether true or not. - Psypho 04:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

There's a discussion on his age near the top of this page. He is 24 years old as of Reign of Chaos (according to the instruction manual), which would make him around 30 currently, and which implies he would've been between 5 and 10 years old during the Second War (depending on the timeline used). Egrem 20:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Beyond the Dark Portal (book) gives the information that he's twelve at the time the story takes place.--Maibe (talk) 13:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Title Edit

Why is he titled as "prince"? He self titled "King" and he is the Lich KING after all --N'Nanz (talk) 16:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

This article is pre-merger Arthas. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 17:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

He hadn't merged with Ner'zul by the time that he returned to Lordaeron and proclaimed himself "King Arthas." Swiftstar (talk) 22:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)Swiftstar

Like Kael'thas, Arthas was never crowned as king. Just because he said he was doesn't make it so. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 03:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Why is he called the Crown Prince and not Just Prince? User:BobNamataki

Crown Prince applies specifically to the immediate descendant of the King, whereas Prince would simply denote a relative or younger brother Scum of the Earth, COME ON! (talk) 23:56, March 8, 2010 (UTC)

That is correct Drahauk. However maybe his title could be changed to
royal heir of the kingdom of Lordaeron
royal successor
The eldest son is first in line, then his younger sons. Only in the case when no male heir is available, the daughters will inherit. If no suitable heir available as a successor is chosen from a royal ::family outside. It is often court that selects heir, if there is none to provide. If the successor is inappropriate or invalid, the court can annul the succession. I think. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mirdamor (talk · contr).

Typos Edit

I was getting ready to correct some minor typos but I'd noted this bit... "They fought an undead army and a plague-infested granary." In "The Plague of Undeath". How exactly does one fight a granary? Is that supposed to be "found" instead of "fought"? --Solitha (talk) 10:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

"Found" does indeed make more sense. Kirkburn  talk  contr 10:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Either that or found and destroyed Scum of the Earth, COME ON! (talk) 03:48, March 10, 2010 (UTC)

WoW Model Edit

I don't know about you but i don't like the arthas human model in wow. His hair is too short and it look's like his armour has been painted to his body.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheLichKingRisen (talk · contr).

This is not a forum. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 16:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Arthas gone Edit

According to the end of the Quest "Tiron's Gambit", he destroyed the heart of Arthas. So his humanity as in the Prince Arthas Menethil of Lordaeron is gone forever? Crimsonknight17

Yes, but the Lich King still has Arthas's appearance and personality. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 16:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
It's still debatable, I think. According to what I've seen in the art book about the Wrath of the Lich King cinematic, it says that Arthas is still dreaming as the Lich King controls his body. Incoming plot twist? KanaruIconThis is me.KanaruIconPageI am the sexiest Dwarf ever.KanaruIconDiscIf you disagree, click here. 01:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I'd say that Arthas could still be alive, if but in physical form, memories and personality. The humanity being lost is simply meaning that he no longer has any remorse, compassion or any form of emotion. He is the body and mind but the metaphorical soul is dead, though I'd say his literal soul, the essence which keeps him alive is still in existence, if but in a diminished state. Scum of the Earth, COME ON! (talk) 16:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Arthas isn't gone. Only his heart was destroyed, the thing that made him : human and weak. Basically he's the same evil white-haired dude we all know and love, just MORE evil. Malfurion Stormrage (talk) 8:17, 13 October 2009

Personality Edit

A potential debate for all such pages: do we need psychoanalysis of characters? Any thoughts? --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 21:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Unless there are official references for it, it's all in the eye of the beholder and easily a target of NPOV and editorial notes. I vote against it. User:Gourra/Sig2 01:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
So what do you think of the one here? Keep it, or kill it (and hope it doesn't come back as a lich)?--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 02:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Member of L80ETC? Edit

Under 'Trivia' someone has listed Arthas as a previous member of Level 80 Elite Tauren Chieftain. I haven't played through until the end of Warcraft III the Frozen Throne, but I understand that during the ending sequence (credits?) we see Arthas playing guitar along to a L80ETC song. I assumed that this was just a joke on Blizzard's part. Is this really considered lore? I can't see how it's even possible. I don't want to jump the gun here by going in and editing it myself without asking anyone, but perhaps this trivia is best reworded to describe the scene in question, rather than stating that he was a member of the band (which may be misleading, unless, that is, there is further evidence that I'm overlooking; if so, I apologise in advance). --Drathaen (talk) 03:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the lore status of the band itself is somewhat fluid anyway. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 05:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Especially when you consider their name is constantly changed to suit each subsequent game's level cap (10, 60, 70, 80) Scum of the Earth, COME ON! (talk) 22:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

'Crazy' Edit

The article- and quite a few other sources- call Arthas 'crazy'. While hearing voices is a symptom of dementia, alone it is only called 'schizophrenia'. And I don't think being possessed counts as schizophrenia. Sorry if this seems gossipy, but it seems rude to call someone crazy when clinically they aren't. Deiena (talk) 21:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


He lives next door to an Old God, I wouldn't expect him to retain all of his sanity.Drpancake

Thing is, the voices aren't simply ones he hears as the byproduct of some form of dementia, it is the single voice of the Lich King speaking to him through Frostmourne (pre-Arthas/Ner'zhul combine) and subsequently the voices of the thousands (possibly millions) of minds he holds under his control. It is likely that he lost what sanity he had left due to the Lich King's voice, but he by no means had any form of psychosis which caused him to hear voices. Scum of the Earth, COME ON! (talk) 22:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

He IS crazy at the time, but he wasn´t when he heard those voices; they voices where real and not imagined by him. Dr.M.Ginius (talk) 15:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that his grip on sanity was as weak as Bill Clinton at a swimwear parade, but he was not completely insane until AFTER Ner'zhul's voice drove him to insanity. I was saying he didn't have a type of psychosis that caused him to hear the voices, not that he lacked any psychosis at all.Scum of the Earth, COME ON! (talk) 16:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I get the point. Anyway he wasnt very sane if he murdered 100 villagers, burned his own ship, claimed a sword that he knew it was an evil thing, and then killed wounded muradin... Dr.M.Ginius (talk) 19:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The killing of the villagers was an unfortunate necessity when you think about it: it was either kill villagers who were dead anyway or let a demon harvest them and swell his army's ranks. The burning of the ships and the claiming of frostmourne were acts of desperation. What classifies him as insane is how driven he was to get things done at any cost. The acts themselves were merely byproducts of his wavering sanity. I maintain that given they neither had the time nor the manpower to analyse the disease he had no choice but to kill the villagers (kill 100 to save 1000 kind of mindset) Scum of the Earth, COME ON! (talk) 20:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Arthas is not crazy, he just has no soul. BobNamataki (talk · contr) 20:02, November 6, 2009 (UTC)

Is the lack of a soul really such a bad thing? Hyacindy Shadowsong (talk · contr) 21:40, December 29, 2009 (UTC)

Is Arthas now the Lich King period? Edit

After reading Arthas: Rise of the Lich King, new questions have popped up? How should it be brought up that Arthas has sole control of the Lich King mantra? Fladen (talk) 05:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The appelations "Ner'zhul the Lich King" and "Arthas the Lich King" sound good to me, but that can be a bit extreme.
IconSmall Hamuul Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (talk/contribz) 22:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Balnazzar as Lordaeron's ruler? Edit

Not entirely sure whether this should be under Arthas or Balnazzar as it relates to both of them, but why is it that Balnazzar is regarded as the current ruler of Lordaeron when he is only in control of one section of the city and the other section is controlled by Arthas's undead? Surely that should mean that the ruler is unspecified, or disputed etc. If not it should certainly fall under Arthas as the incumbent ruler given that he has never died, never renounced the thrown and is in control of a good percentage of Lordaeron Scum of the Earth, COME ON! (talk) 22:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Where is it told in the article that Balnazzar is the current ruler of Lordaeron? Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 00:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Bottom of the page in the positions held: preceded by Terenas, suceeded by Balnazzar Scum of the Earth, COME ON! (talk) 16:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It tells that Balnazzar succeded Arthas, but it is NOT told that Balnazzar currently control Lordaeron. Go to Balnazzar's article and it will tell that he was succeded by Sylvanas, the current ruler. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 16:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot that Lordaeron refers to the capital city as well as the land itself, though I still don't get why, it's as bad as Azeroth Scum of the Earth, COME ON! (talk) 16:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean Balnazzar came after Arthas? Arthas killed his father ... The Last True King of Lordaeron. It is even engraved on his tombstone. Terena Menethil was the last legitimate king in his family who are entitled to the throne of Lordaeron. The only ones who can reclaim the throne at the moment is the few of the royal family, but their fate has not yet been announced. But what is left of the capital city? Ruins and angry Forsaken who blindly follow Sylvanas. Lordaeron is forever dead ... However, it is very possible that much of the population fled to Stormwind and waiting to go home. --Mirdamor (talk) 23:02, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

Profile pictureEdit

Shouldn't a picture, depicting a person within an article about his/her life, not look like how s/he looked most of their lifespan, instead of the most recent where events might have changed appearance? Perhaps it's just me. TherasTaneel (talk) 20:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

You're right, he was the "regular Arthas" more time than he was "undead" Arthas or "Lich King" Arthas. The human box art of Warcraft 3 depicts Arthas while young, if that helps, but changing the picture is debatable; Arthas, while undead was more important than while human, and Arthas is not a person but a fictional character. We may start a votation about changing the image.Dr.M.Ginius (talk) 15:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

User:BobNamataki, Yes I agree. The portrait depicts the 'Evil Arthas' rather than 'Arthas' the Crown Prince.BobNamataki (talk) 12:26, September 30, 2009 (UTC)

I changed it. BobNamataki (talk) 18:38, October 5, 2009 (UTC)
/shrug Do as you wish. To me, the picture of Prince Arthas just seemed to not fit what the character is/was in full relation with the story.--TheUltimate (talk) 23:22, October 11, 2009 (UTC)
After Arthas took up Frostmourne, he was never the person he was before. The Arthas to be reflected on this page are the Arthas as we all know as the champion of light and protector.--Mirdamor (talk) 22:47, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

How did Arthas do it? Edit

After reading through the article I'm curious as to how Arthas managed to gain control of the Lich King as an entity? If he was the second half of the Lich King then surely Ner'zhul should've gained dominance. Any readers of Rise of the Lich King are encouraged to contribute all knowledge they have pertaining to the subject, even if it means creating vast paragraphs of info.Scum of the Earth, COME ON! (talk) 23:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, sign your posts. Secondly, this seems like something that would be best answered in the forums.

Cheers, Warchiefthrall (talk) 23:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

This is addressed in totality in the novel, you should read it as there's no reason to discuss it here. Revrant (talk) 18:23, October 6, 2009 (UTC)

Eyes Edit

Is it just me, or are his eyes the incorrect color, blue, in the Culling of Stratholme instance? I think this should be noted if I can find a higher quality still. Revrant (talk) 18:24, October 6, 2009 (UTC)

"Arthas has blue eyes in his Warcraft III model, but green eyes both in Warcraft III art and in WotLK. In Arthas: Rise of the Lich King, he is described as having blue-green eyes." -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 05:48, October 12, 2009 (UTC)
Ah, so they screwed it up and then reconciled it, alright, makes sense. Revrant (talk) 15:54, October 13, 2009 (UTC)

Arthas deceased? Edit

Just curious about this as he supposedly has never actually died until dying as the Lich King. And as such surely his death as Arthas should be termed in the same way Illidan's page is termed (Deceased ((Lore)) Killable ((WoW)). Just seems odd to me, that's allScum of the Earth, COME ON! (talk) 22:06, February 21, 2010 (UTC)

I really can't believe Arthas is deceased. As all of the other epic characters(Illidan, Kael'Thas...) and bosses that keep getting "alive" again, even tho they were "lootable" in the instance. Arthas is way too epic to just die like this in my opinion, I beg you Chris Metzen. You can't just abandon your son like this x.x Merala (Talk) 18:46, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
As epic as you might consider Arthas, remember that he is only a "recent character" in the Warcraft Universe, and though he became a powerful evil being, he was only a "lower threat" for Azeroth.
IconSmall Hamuul Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (talk/contribz) 19:22, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
Alas, in the end, every great villain has to die eventually. Otherwise, if they just keep getting back up every single time, they start to become old and tired. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 19:31, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
I am not saying that he shouldn't be marked down as dead at all, simply that there should be a Deceased (Lore)/Killable (in game) until it is stated that he is dead both in and out of the game. As it stands, for those players who fight him he is still essentially alive until the cutscene with Bolvar. I do agree that in the grand scheme of things he is effectively just a footnote in Azeroth's history, but I still say that it should be recognised that he is only dead as far as the lore is concerned and in gaming terms he is in a state of alive pre-attack, dead post player attack Scum of the Earth, COME ON! (talk) 22:27, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
The Killable tag is on the Lich King's page. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 22:29, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
Problem with that statement is Arthas is the Lich King, and by extension, that means that Arthas is essentially merely deceased within lore. Yes Arthas as a singular personality is dead and know only a warped culmination of Ner'zhul and Arthas's beings creates the third personality of the Lich King (I personally believe that the Lich King is a personality in itself, a result of all the worst features of all souls that carry the burden of containing its power), but Arthas as a physical entity is not dead until he, as the Lich King, is destroyed. Scum of the Earth, COME ON! (talk) 23:08, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
Actually if you think about it he's dead the day he cut out his heart. IconSmall Dwarf MaleUi-charactercreate-classes paladinOkolorionTalk Contribs 21:59, March 8, 2010 (UTC)

ah-ah-ah! At that point he would be undead, and as such that would be how the status would consider him. Furthermore, he has never actually died according to the majority of Warcraft accounts. Therefore he would not be classified as undead either. Additionally, even characters who are undead are classified as deceased if the lore specifies that they are completely destroyed. Whether dead, undead or killable, it should be differently specified as far as lore and game mechanics are concerned. Scum of the Earth, COME ON! (talk) 23:52, March 8, 2010 (UTC)

And if he's undead then he would have to have died first no? Besides, its not the WoW accounts that concern Lore, it's Blizzard how decides lore. And yes the Lich King is dead, Arthas' rotting corpse is just the thing the Lich King resides in, and thus shows Arthas as a person is... dead! The Lich King lives but Arthas' body (and some would argue his mind) is dead. IconSmall Dwarf MaleUi-charactercreate-classes paladinOkolorionTalk Contribs 00:30, March 9, 2010 (UTC)
One: He has never actually died pre-Lich King status.
2: Status concerns CURRENT status, not former status, therefore he would not be classified as dead within the capacity of pre-Lich Kinghood.
Three: The Lich King is a composite of Arthas and Ner'zhul, furthermore Arthas is the side of the personality in control of the Lich King personality, and as it stands, sentient undead are not classified as dead until they have died in every sense. Arthas as a being still exists before his defeat as the Lich King and replacement by Bolvar Fordragon. If you know anything about WoW you'll know that even if the personality, memories and manner still exist, the mind still exists and by extension the person. What of Arthas that died before being the Lich King is simply his empathy, his kindness, his humanity. He is still Arthas, simply existing as an aspect of the Lich King. Fourth: If you just watch the video of the events immediately after Arthas's defeat, you will see that it is decided within Warcraft lore that he is dead, however within the game itself, just as Illidan still is, the Arthas Lich King is still alive, until you as the player defeat him.
Scum of the Earth, COME ON! (talk) 00:45, March 9, 2010 (UTC)
Except if you knew anything about Death Knights you would know they were undead to a man. Heck, Arthas in RoC and TFT is an undead unit that can be healed from Deathbolt and the like. IconSmall Dwarf MaleUi-charactercreate-classes paladinOkolorionTalk Contribs 01:25, March 9, 2010 (UTC)
One: Just because an undead model is used for a specific character does not mean that that character is actually undead. The amount of times Blizzard has used particular model simply because they either lack the resources or the necessary model prepared would be able to fill a mansion several times over. Furthermore, it is simply for gameplay balancing that an undead model is used. Models have no relevance to actual lore or the status of the being.
Two: If you actually read the articles and discussions on Arthas, you would know that it has been outlined or hinted to, that he has never actually died. Furthermore, Arthas is hardly going to have the same method of becoming a Death Knight as your run-of-the-mill, nothing in the lore about them Death Knight. Arthas is a Death Knight through virtue of having a cursed blade, having turned from the light, and granted powers by the shadow. He is a Death Knight essentially in everything but status.
Scum of the Earth, COME ON! (talk) 01:36, March 9, 2010 (UTC)
Arthas never died during his exploits in Warcraft III. He could be classified as undead due to the power of Frostmourne, but he never actually died. I think it was discussed somewhere in the talk pages that he skipped the dying part and went straight to undead...which is moot anyway as he is clearly undead after he ripped out his heart.
With that being said, lore wise yes Arthas is dead. You however, don't actually fight Arthas, you fight the Lich King. Killing Arthas was more or less collateral damage for killing the Lich King. --TheUltimate (talk) 02:32, March 9, 2010 (UTC)
I'd say that where the ripping out his heart is concerned we have to regard it as akin to Davey Jones in Pirates of the Caribbean: essentially in an even more bizarre state of existence than simply being undead.

As far as Arthas being dead is concerned, I still feel that there should be a note regarding his being technically killable as collateral damage. Maybe not killable (WoW) but I feel it should be acknowledged that there is a defining line between lore and game, given that the personality and memories of Arthas still exist before the player defeats him. Scum of the Earth, COME ON! (talk) 02:40, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

Why would it be even more bizarre? Undead don't need hearts. And yes the memories exist... but they have no effect. The memories merged with Ner'zhul's, as seen during the Echoes of Ymiron Quest. IconSmall Dwarf MaleUi-charactercreate-classes paladinOkolorionTalk Contribs 02:56, March 9, 2010 (UTC)
By more bizarre I mean not quite dead, not quite undead, not quite alive, but constantly floating between the three states of existence. And I always understood it that Ner'zhul had become the subservient side of the Lich King, biding his time until a weaker, more controllable vassal came along. Scum of the Earth, COME ON! (talk) 02:59, March 9, 2010 (UTC)
There are like a hundred interpretations here! We will just have to agree to disagree on some points. To me, as "Scum of the Earth" says, the Lich King is Arthas. This can be discussed however if the Lich King is personality of its own, but I believe not, and that Arthas managed to get the dominate part in the Lich King and maybe even "kill" the remaining spirit of Ner'zhul. This is how I interpret it and want to interpret, you can't convince me anything else, but I won't try to convince you this.
Also, for the dead part. It has been stated that his very soul was leeched by Frostmourne when he first took it up, was it maybe then that he became Undead, or maybe just started? He did later, as the Lich King, rip his heart out throwing it into the deepest pit to become "free" of his empathy, which then died. However whether he is Undead or not now, it's up to each person who reads this. To me, he is Undead.
Also, please stop noting that "he was merely a footnote". I don't care!! Then he must've been the most brilliant footnote ever!! A very inspiring character who can not afford to die in the Warcraft Universe. And anyone that think that I should just stfu and go sleep. Consider this: When you atleast read what I say and give it a thought. When you know the difference of saying something completely irrelevant and something that is of relevance. When you atleast give me a proper comment. Then maybe I shall stfu. Merala (Talk) 12:34, March 9, 2010 (UTC)
Arthas is a footnote of Warcraft goes to people who cannot stop crying What will Warcraft become without Arthas?
Characters in Warcraft are numerous, many are inspiring, but most (if not all) are doomed to die one day, be it a natural death or an epic battle worth a lok'vadnod.
IconSmall Hamuul Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (talk/contribz) 17:58, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

Let's face it, even the original leader of the Burning Legion is suspected to be dead. And many of the titans, and even a couple of the old Gods are dead. However, to simply say that Arthas is dead full stop I feel would be a misnomer at this current stage. Change it to him being dead in and outside of WoW once Cataclysm is released by all means seeing as at that stage it is all pretty much system reset, but at this stage I feel Arthas is at least owed the respect of discretional status, even if it is simply put as "Unknown" (because if his status sparks up this amount of debate then really it is an Unknown status for the time being). As far as his being undead is concerned, I don't think we should take his loss of a soul as literally as it was put. Remember that Frostmourne is essentially an extension of the Lich King's powers. Therefore I feel it should be taken to meaning that his soul became the Lich King's property as oppossed to his actually no longer having his soul. Personally I feel that as Arthas he would simply be classed as a corrupted human, but as the Lich King I would be inclined to agree that he is undead, simply for ease of defining that aspect of his status. As far as the Lich King being a personality in its own right is concerned, that is derived from the belief that he is essentially the personification of all the malice, evil and power of Arthas and Ner'zhul, and that although Ner'zhul is the original owner of the Lich King personality, once his and Arthas's psyches combined the Lich King started to deviate and was vying for a more worthy commander of its power. Admittidly there are plenty of holes in my knowledge and I could quite easily be talking out of the proverbial. I am merely presenting this theory based on the knowledge I have managed to garner from these discussions, what I do know of the Lich King, Arthas and Ner'zhul, and Blizzard's plans for the Lich King's future (they have stated that it is not necessarily the end for the Lich King, just that they want to focus on Cataclysm right now)Scum of the Earth, COME ON! (talk) 19:37, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

To quote Balnazzar: "Frostmourne was created to steal souls. Your's was the first it claimed." Or something to that effect. IconSmall Dwarf MaleUi-charactercreate-classes paladinOkolorionTalk Contribs 03:27, March 10, 2010 (UTC)

One: get the source right, that was Tichondrius. Two: just because he says that it claimed his soul doesn't necessarily mean that his soul is actually within the sword itself. Remember that one of the Dreadlord's primary tools was deception. Furthermore, you clearly only read a very small section of what I say otherwise you'd undertand what I'm actually saying. Actually read properly before trying to say that someone is wrong. Scum of the Earth, COME ON! (talk) 03:36, March 10, 2010 (UTC)

*shrug* okay it was Tichondrius. And I read all of your post, I was merely stating that the soul wasn't put in Frostmourne and it isn't the property of the Lich King... its gone. At least as far as we know. But seriously, stop insulting people. I would be much more inclined to agree with you if you weren't flaming all the time. IconSmall Dwarf MaleUi-charactercreate-classes paladinOkolorionTalk Contribs 04:10, March 10, 2010 (UTC)

No, the whole point of Frostmourne is it actually devours the souls. Hence why we see the souls of Terenas, Uthar and an assortment of other characters when the sword is accessed/destroyed. But it is never actually stated what has happened to Arthas's soul. It is said to have been claimed by Frostmourne, but what is truly meant by that? Is it in Heaven or Hell? Is it the property of the Lich King or held within the sword itself? My belief is that it became the property of the (pre-merger) Lich King which is why it was so easy for him to initially manipulate Arthas to his will. Also, when you consider the existence of the being which is his name in anagram, it could quite easily be argued that he has become a ghost. However, whether owned by the Lich King or not, I do not believe it is gone until the destruction of his heart/the symbol of his humanity. Scum of the Earth, COME ON! (talk) 04:21, March 10, 2010 (UTC)

That characters are doomed to die one day is obvious, but do they have to die so fast? Can't they die when they're old... Lol. And what's the point with a new expansion, when the only goal is to kill the new boss? What's the fun in it? Why can't the boss survive miracelously, or something else. Of course it will be boring to have the Lich King only with no new expansions etc etc. But do they have to die?? Can't they just agree to be defeated at the very end and become passive in the lore, or something... First Illidan dies, then Arthas, then Deathwing, then who? What's the point really? In my opinion, that concept sucks! And Azeroth is not like ”our world” people can be resurrected and whatever, why not take benefits from this and make Azeroth more dynamic and alive, more unpredictable... Merala (Talk) 21:44, March 12, 2010 (UTC)
It has been confirmed that the Lich King tore the heart out of the body. If the spell ends, Arthas will die. But because he will die if he is freed from the curse, he is not undead. Before he became a Death Knight he was a Paladin, a Paladin is immune to the plague that makes the non immune to the undead. His status would be that he is trapped in the mind of the Lich King. The Lich King is a mind which is the result of Ner'Zhul and Arthas. The body of Arthas is controlled by the Lich King and Arthas mind is fused with Ner'zhuls mind.
Arthas = the Lich King.
Ner'zhul = the Lich King.
The Lich King will only exist as long the fusion remain intact.

This makes the puzzle fall into place! In the battle between Tirion and Lich King, Lich King is defeated. I'm still not sure what really happened when Frostmourne is destroyed and the souls freed. Arthas and Ner'zhuls fusion ceases. Lich King dies, Arthas get his body back and mind. Now free from the evil forces that had hold of him, he dies because he has no heart... --Mirdamor (talk) 22:10, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

Last Words Edit

I want to ask a question or two about the dialogue between the dying Arthas and his father.

  1. Just before Arthas dies he says to an extant, "I see only darkness...before me." What exactly does this darkness refer to?
  2. Does it seem mere coincidence that Terenas said a similar, if not exactly the same, line as Yogg-Saron did in his mind chamber, "No king rules forever"?

These two moments bombarded my mind with what amount to crackpot theories, thus I am interested in hearing anyone else's opinions.AhotahThunderhorn (talk) 03:38, March 10, 2010 (UTC)

  1. there are many interpretations of what this could mean. Either he has no true afterlife present for him as his soul and humanity have been destroyed. Alternatively it could mean the shadow. It could also simply mean literally that, that because he is dying he can't see anything. And again it could also suggest that he is descending to the special place in Hell that Uthar hoped he would descend to
  2. given Blizzard's propensity to self-reference themselves it could be coincidence. However they also have a ridiculous tendency to revive their villains a ridiculous amount of times (Illidan, Kel'Thuzad, Kael'Thas, etc), so it could not be. They also enjoy precognitive dream sequences and statements, so it could easily be a future reference. I think it's pretty much up to the player to decide. Scum of the Earth, COME ON! (talk) 03:45, March 10, 2010 (UTC)
For the first question, I didn't see any deeper meaning than that he was dying. For the second, I suspect it was a deliberate repetition of the phrase strictly for literary purposes. As far as bringing people back to life, it really hasn't happened as often as you might think outside of the undead, for whom it's kind of their "thing." Sound files that were present (but ultimately unused due to time constraints) in Warcraft 3 make it clear that Illidan was not killed in Icecrown, and Kael'thas's survival has been known since the first mini-patch after he was first downed. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 04:20, March 10, 2010 (UTC)
Well, undead and demons, but same principal applies, so fair enough. And the Old Ones seem like ultimately underused villains, so to see any more than a coincidence or pure literary purpose is probably hoping for too much (I say underused as thus far none of the editions of Warcraft have had them as any more than a supplementary villain.) Scum of the Earth, COME ON! (talk) 04:27, March 10, 2010 (UTC)
While unlikely, the "darkness" that Arthas was referring to could actually be Terenas. It is strange how Terenas said the exact same line as Yogg-Saron, "No King Rules Forever", and if you read the Yogg-Saron page, you'd find out that there is a deeper connection between Arthas and Yogg-Saron than what Blizzard lets on, although as for what it is, is entirely up to speculation. Seeing as Yogg-Saron had made illusions in the past (Sara), perhaps the Terenas we saw is one of them, and Arthas recognized it at the last moment. In addition, while the connections that Yogg-Saron had to the Demon Soul and Assasination of King Llane incidents are more or less blatantly obvious, we still don't really know how Yogg-Saron is connected to the Lich King corrupting Bolvar vision. (Assuming there is a connection, but it would be odd for Yogg-Saron to summon such a vision if he has nothing to do with it) Perhaps Yogg-Saron has masterminded the Lich King's demise, through illusions? Yogg-Saron could have perhaps corrupted Bolvar before the Lich King could, which could explain why the Lich King had a hard time corrupting Bolvar when Onyxia did it rather easily, and that Yogg-Saron could be looking to control the Scourge through Bolvar?
Then again, it could just be that Yogg-Saron saw the future somehow and saw how Arthas met his end, and chose to utter the same words as Terenas to the players. Equilox
I think it's best if we just take this as a reference to the fact that his time has finally ended. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 19:46, March 13, 2010 (UTC)
I really approve of Equilox's way of thinking. I love deeper connections and lore that isn't obvious at the first glance. It would just be boring if the darkness just meant that Arthas is dying and that Bolvar was such a good soul, never to be corrupted... Yeah right! It would be more interesting if he indeed was corrupted like Equilox says... I wanna hear more ideas :D Chris Metzen should read your comments :> Merala (Talk) 23:26, March 13, 2010 (UTC)
Do not mix what you would like this sentence to mean and what it might mean.
Sometimes there is nothing more than what meets the eye. :)
IconSmall Hamuul Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (talk/contribz) 23:36, March 13, 2010 (UTC)

Despite the inspired ideas being suggested here, ultimately Blizzard seems reluctant to use the Old Gods as end-game villains, so it most likely is nothing more than what meets the eye. Their bringing back Deathwing is thus far the closest we've had to an Old God being the main villain, so I think that we should just accept it as Yogg-Saron quoting visions. The "darkness" referred to, however, could mean a great many things, especially when you consider the powers Arthas wielded as the Lich King, one of which was quite expansive and clear precognition. Arthas could have been seeing into absolute nothingness if the theories of his soul being completely gone are correct. However for me to say much more would be repetition. What I will say is there is a more viable avenue for exploration in the "darkness" mentioned than in the repeated line. Scum of the Earth, COME ON! (talk) 22:23, March 14, 2010 (UTC)

I know the suggestions might not be what Metzen had in mind, I'm just implying that it SHOULD be what he had in mind...Merala (Talk) 03:23, March 15, 2010 (UTC)
What makes me really suspicious, is, as quoted from the Yogg-Saron page, "Blizzard representatives have stated that the connection between Yogg-Saron and the Lich King is poorly expressed in-game, but admitted that it "had a lot to do with the ability for mortals to become corrupted." " Taking into account that we don't know Yogg-Saron's connection to the Lich King vision, I do honestly believe that Yogg-Saron could have corrupted Bolvar before the Lich King could, perhaps through Saronite. (The whole Icecrown Citadel is made of Saronite, which is famous for driving non-undead creatures insane) This could explain why the Lich King had a difficult time corrupting Bolvar, especially when the weaker Onyxia could do it for the duration of the whole Vanilla and TBC. I think it's safe to asssume Yogg-Saron is only defeatable in-game, seeing as its established the Old Gods cannot die without taking Azeroth down with them. Seeing as Yogg-Saron is the Old God of DEATH and the Scourge is pretty much summed up as the Dead, Yogg-Saron could have plotted his way into controlling the Scourge through a Bolvar proxy. Seeing as Terenas seemed rather eager to ensure someone takes up the Helm of Domination, and that he uttered the same lines as Yogg-Saron, could perhaps be explained through the fact he could be an illusion of Yogg-Saron (Yogg-Saron had made other illusions before), and during Arthas' final moments, he perhaps realized it and claimed to see only "Darkness" before him in a literal sense.
While admittedly Old Gods have not been End-Game Villans, they seem to have a deeper and darker connection to the lore than the end-game Bosses themselves. Take Illidan for example; if you've read the Illidan page, you'd see that the Old Gods have made use of Illidan before. (During the War of the Ancients, the Old Gods augmented Illidan's spell to reverse Sargeras' Portal, presumably so that the Portal would redirect to the Old God's prison, setting them free) In addition, it is more or less established that an Old God transformed the Highborne into the Nagas, and the fact Nagas came to join Illidan implies that the Old God down there approved of it and decided to aid Illidan for whatever reason. Deathwing himself was once a benevolent being, but was corrupted by the Old Gods. In addition, his newfound powers in Cataclysm (Chris Metzen says he's tenfolds as powerful in Cata) are attributed to Old Gods(They magnified Deathwing's power). Thus, it's safe to assume while they are not direct End-Game Villans, they hold a more terrifying presence than the End-Game Villans themselves.
While in most cases I would agree that in WoW, what you see is usually all there is to it, but in WotLK, I feel Blizzard have went an extra mile in making it a lore-rich expansion; take Bolvar becoming the new Lich King for example, it was a first in WoW in the sense that it was a plot twist. In addition, the quests are more lore-oriented and such, so I wouldn't be surprised if there was a deeper meaning behind Arthas' last words and the fact Terenas spoke the same words as Yogg-Saron. But of course, this is only a possibility and the chance that there is no deeper meaning behind Arthas' words exists. Equilox

Very interesting. I really love when Blizzard "mess up" with our minds. Making something look like something else... Take for example Thermaplugg and witch doctor Zalazane that in the days actually was officially announced that they were never really killed, it was just copies... And the background of Varian Wrynn is VERY deep.Merala (Talk) 15:48, March 19, 2010 (UTC)

When Arthas' blue glowing fades from the eyes... Edit

...does it probably mean the corrupt powers as the Lich King fades... But wait a minute! That means death knights are still corrupted...? Why are their eyes still blue? I wish there was a meaning behind this and not just a simple mistake by Blizzard...Merala (Talk) 03:23, March 15, 2010 (UTC)

EDIT: Please read my further comments, so you understand what I'm talking about.

It means he lost his powers and is dying. User:Coobra/Sig4 05:24, March 15, 2010 (UTC)
That's just because he lost the Helm of Domination and the powers. He acquired the blue glow when he first put in in The Ascension.
IconSmall Hamuul Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (talk/contribz) 06:55, March 15, 2010 (UTC)
Guys, guys, guys. Maybe I didn't put it right. What my REAL question was: Why does Death Knights still have blue eyes? They never even had a Helm of Domination and they kept having the blue eyes even when they disbanded from the Scourge...! And when Arthas dies and lose his Helm he lose his glowing eyes in 3 seconds... So why didn't Death Knights lose their glowing eye color when they disbanded from the Scourge? Maybe they are still corrupted inside, and infiltrating the Factions of Azeroth... OR was this just a silly simple mistake by Blizzard to let death knights have glowing eyes and Arthas lose his bluish eyes in 3 seconds? Merala (Talk) 09:20, March 15, 2010 (UTC)
Probably a cosmetic effect, or to show other players that, "Hey, that guy's a death knight.". --Super Bhaal (talk) 12:11, March 15, 2010 (UTC)
Super Bhaal go the point. ANyway, why should the death knights loose their blue eyes?
And note that the Scourge is not "dismantled", only under "good" control.
You should stop seeing corruption and infiltration everywhere Melara xD
IconSmall Hamuul Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (talk/contribz) 13:51, March 15, 2010 (UTC)
Well when Arthas loses his blue glowing he seem to have "gone back to normal", before he was the Lich King. But then it means the Death Knights haven't gone back to normal yet...!!! They're still Scourge/corrupted/whatever! Hello! WAKE UP, WE'RE BEING INFILTRATED! XD No really without the "XD" I mean the Death Knights should've lost their blue eyes at the end of Lights Hope Citadel quest-line-ending... Really! Not that I WANT them to lose the glowing, but now it just doesn't make sense! You see?? Merala (Talk) 04:32, March 16, 2010 (UTC)
The problem here is that you're operating under the assumption that the glowing blue eyes of the death knights and the glowing blue eyes of the Lich King are basically the same thing, which is not necessarily true. Many undead creatures have glowing eyes by simple virtue of being undead, while the Lich King's were explicitly the result of being the Lich King. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 06:11, March 16, 2010 (UTC)
But seriously how can you miss the bit where Frostmourne is destroyed by the Ashbringer. With frostmourne. Arthas in his right mind is still the good hero we remember since Chapter 1. He could not take decisions independently, without his soul. Note that I mean that Arthas could not take decisions in his right mind would not normally consider more than one time. What is it that prevents you from killing your mother? Love. What prevents you from being mean to someone? Remorse. Could I ask a man without a soul if he could kill everyone he knows, the answer would be fairly similar to this: Why should I not do it? Anyway, the man who speaks the little time he has left to live is the Arthas we all know, people's champion and Prince of the Kingdom of Lordaeron. Okay, he slaughtered Stratholme, would you have done in some other way? Would you even want to find yourself in the same situation? The most difficult thing that most of you have decided in your lives on this board is if you should take the last cookie. :P --Mirdamor (talk) 09:40, August 2, 2010 (UTC)

Then what is true? Why does Deatn Knights have blue eyes then?Merala (Talk) 07:15, March 16, 2010 (UTC)

Probably just because they're undead. Like I said, several other undead creatures have glowing eyes purely because they're undead. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 19:05, March 16, 2010 (UTC)

So Arthas, with his heart ripped out, becomes non-undead all of a sudden right before he dies? If you're gonna say that Death Knights and Arthas don't have blue eyes for same reason. Then why is the purpose that Arthas got his blue eyes? He got them when he put on the Helm, what did that indicate then? And Death Knights could've gotten any eye color than the same as Arthas...Red, yellow... whatever. So either it should be a connection with their blue eyes, or Blizzard is very messy. You have to admit that.Merala (Talk) 20:06, March 16, 2010 (UTC)

It has never been stated anywhere that Arthas died. Aedror42 (talk) 20:12, March 16, 2010 (UTC)
I don't have to admit anything. "They both have blue eyes" is not a strong enough statement to indicate a connection. Their eyes didn't even glow in the same manner; the death knights just have simple glowing blue eyes, while the Lich King's glowing eyes sort of trailed off to the side. You're seeing connections where there are none, and then calling Blizzard sloppy for not making it, based ENTIRELY on an art choice. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 20:15, March 16, 2010 (UTC)

@Aedror, I wish he wasn't dead. @Dark T Zeratul, You are basing the non-connection with an art-choice that doesn't exist. You mix up the Lich King with the IN-GAME death knights. In the cinematic trailer you can see an undead army, presumably death knights since they look the same in the game, I say presumably ok?(Or are you gonna tell me that I shouldn't presume they are DK's, then WHAT are they?) And they, the death knights, have the same way of their eyes glowing with the glowing "trailed off". (Oh yes, in the cinematic the glowing of the eyes is trailed off pretty badly!) Yeah ok, that it's not messy at all, that the eyes have the SAME glowing... right, right, yeah, right. Blizzard didn't have the oppotunity to choose either red, green, blue, yellow. You know, don't you think most people would think death knights had a connection with fel magic as blood elfs if the had green eyes etc? If you say no, you are being very silly. It's simply confusing. And you can't convince me anything else. Yeah, go ahead and call me stupid. Would most people think there is a connection with the new boss of WoTLK and the new hero class of the very same expansion having the same glowing eyes, being RAISED by the glowing blue eyed-man........... Yeah, you're right my statement is based on nothing. I am completely out of my mind jabbering about something I have no idea what it's about. And yes, you have the full right to PRESUME that I call Blizzard sloppy, when I just think it was a mistake, that anyone could do. And yes, you have the full right to PRESUME that I am basing my connection of only in-game features when I might as well have based it on something else. Merala (Talk) 21:26, March 16, 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anyone but the Lich King wearing the Helm of Domination. You know, the piece of armor that (among other things) made Arthas' eyes glow blue. --User:Gourra/Sig2 21:32, March 16, 2010 (UTC)

@Gourra: Exactly it's confusing why DK's have blue eyes.Merala (Talk) 21:34, March 16, 2010 (UTC)

It's a generic army of undead, NOT the player death knights. And they're all skeletons to boot. This is made pretty clear in the art book about the cinematic. In fact, this furthers my point that their glowing blue eyes are a quality of being undead and wholly unrelated to the very unique case of the Lich King. I still don't see any basis for your theory beyond that they both have blue eyes. Yes, Blizzard could have picked a different color. That they didn't is not necessarily indicative of a connection, and is honestly more likely to have been dictated solely by what they thought looked best. Remember, too, that the general artistic theme of the Scourge, of Northrend, and of the expansion as a whole favors very cold colors - such as blue. High elves have glowing blue eyes too; are you going to try and claim that the high elves are somehow related to the Lich King? -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 00:02, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

@Merala what i meant by he wasn't dead, was before Wrath of the Lich king, when he turned Death Knight. Aedror42 (talk) 06:35, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

@Dark T Zeratul. No, high elfs don't have glowing eyes. If you look closely you can still see their iris. If you look closely on a death knight in-game, you can't see any iris or pupil. That they are generally just an undead army in the cinematic just proves my point even more, it doesn't matter, they still have the same glowing eyes. So since you need an explanation... Death Knights have glowing, non-iris, non-pupil, sometimes trailed off bluish eyes. So does the Lich King. Blizzard could've chosen any other art-choice. And now what? Are you gonna start a riot not thinking the female human and male human in-game are related since they don't look the same at all! And you're gonna tell everyone that "Do you base this solely on art-choice?". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Merala (talk · contr).
I'm done. Believe whatever ridiculousness you want, see the corruption and conspiracy and connection in every little thing, I'm not going to argue it anymore. Honestly, this isn't the right place for it anyway. You wanna continue this, take it to the WoW forums. Talk pages are for improving the article, not arguing wholly unsubstantiated speculation. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 17:13, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

To be honest I don't believe in the corruption or conspiracy, I just think Blizzard takes gameplay before lore. A death knight with blue eyes are cooler, but I'm just saying this doesn't fit lorewise. And _maybe_ Blizz made a "mistake" forgetting that death knights should lose their eye color. And I didn't actually know if I should discuss this on this page or death knight page, but it does concern Arthas too. If this annoyed you, why not say that earlier. And I am already on WoW-forums. I just wanted to discuss this, but I get it thrown up in my face that I base my statements on nothing, closing the communication, between the lines saying that I'm stupid, just taunting me.Merala (Talk) 18:08, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how having blue eyes is against the lore; as I've stated MULTIPLE TIMES, many undead creatures have glowing eyes by simple virtue of being undead. The death knights are clearly no exception. And not losing the blue glow would only be a mistake if your theory of a connection to Arthas's blue eyes (which is supported by absolutely nothing) were true. I guess ultimately what I'm trying to get across is that correlation does not imply causation. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 18:16, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

Well as I stated before, did Arthas lose his Undeath right before he died? He was undead too and he lost his eye color. Why? There we go again. Merala (Talk) 19:07, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

Arthas's glowing blue eyes were due to him being the Lich King, not due to being undead. He ceased to be the Lich King as he died, and so the blue glow faded away. The death knights are not the Lich King. Their blue eyes ARE due to being undead. They are still undead when Arthas dies. I see no reason to assume a connection where none is even vaguely implied. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 19:17, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

"Their eyes ARE due to being undead?" Says who? You? And why doesn't Thassarian have blue eyes then too? Aren't he undead? Yes he is, he says it himself.Merala (Talk) 20:23, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

Icon-warning-22x22 This topic is closed for reason of having nothing to do with editing this article. If you wish to continue this conversation use the World of Warcraft forums. @Merala, if you wish to leave a link to your post that is fine, but further discussion of it here is over. User:Coobra/Sig4 20:57, March 17, 2010 (UTC)


Well, here is the forum link: http://forums.wow-europe.com/thread.html?topicId=12900071535&sid=1 =) Merala (Talk) 21:23, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

Titles Edit

I think this title should be added to arthas: "Champion of the Lich King" because he was referd to by many ppl in wc3 .. Since the Lich King now is a title , same as Warcheife , shouldn't it added to? The same goes for Ner'zhul and Bolvar --KSM899 (talk) 04:02, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

Alliance?Edit

I was wondering why is the Alliance Symbol is next to Arthas's name in his character box. After all he was apart of the Scourge and did become the Lich King. For the record if Arthas gets to keep the Alliance Symbol next to his name in his character box, then we will have to change Kel'thuzad's neutral status to Alliance, since Kel'thuzad was apart of the Alliance too. --Sairez (talk) 07:55, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

@Sairez Did he ever betray the Alliance? How can you be so sure that he wasn't controlled somehow? --Mirdamor (talk) 22:34, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

He did not betray anyone. Prince Arthas Menethil died and became a fragment of a soul inside a new body everyone referred to as Arthas. Prince Arthas Menethil kept telling to the "evil arthas" things that tried to stop him, because in a way it was him .. and it wasn't. Take the most good man in the world, kindest, strip him of his emotions and soul .. yeah. Arthas even tells the "evil arthas" when he talks to Tichondrius "Liar." Prince Arthas Menethil was always a good man. The Lich King, the current one anyway, is the one responsible for all the atrocities. Becuase the current Lich King isn't Ner'zhul. He banished/destroyed/something Ner'zhul and Arthas's spirits from himself, leaving only himself.
Who is "himself"? King Arthas Menethil, the scourge of Lordaeron. He who destroyed Prince Arthas Menethil, the fallen prince. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ainstain (talk · contr).

What is Arthas alignment? Edit

Moved to Forum:What is Arthas alignment?.

Bad order Edit

It has come to my understanding that the information on this page are represented incorrectly and rather should be moved to the correct location. I quote "This article is about Arthas' Life as a human. For his Existence after he was transformed, see the Lich King." However, I must ask. What marks Arthas life as a human being? Regardless, there is too much information here that belongs on the Lich King page. --Mirdamor (talk) 22:41, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

To answer the first question, it should be everything up to donning the Helm of Domination at the end of Warcraft 3: the Frozen Throne. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 06:19, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

An interpretation which is not official Edit

When Arthas is lying, seemingly dying in the arms of his father someone has added this: "Arthas asked if he was finally released from his curse[...]" He never says those words literally. He only says "Father, is it over?" which can actually mean anything. Furthermore someone has added "After so long, his soul had finally been released." This is also an interpretation which I would like to have official sources for. His soul could and could not have been released depending on how you interpret it. The unbiased way to put it is to simply say that his hand fell (lifelessly) to the ground, and end it there. We could add that it could be _implied_ that he died. But I would like that we don't get ahead of ourselves until Blizzard has said it. Sorry if I take it so serious ;) Merala (Talk) 12:02, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

I saw someone made it more objective, I like it /thumbs up =) Merala (Talk) 00:51, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki