Who will side with Saurfang, who with Sylvanas?!

Argent Dawn
Prev 1 7 8 9 10 Next
Nor does it mean like.


Cheering crazily over Saurfang simply saying " ... we will conquer Darnassus, the home of the kaldorei.” and "They will fight hard. They will fight desperately. But they cannot stand against the Horde!” tells me they absolutely love good war, and needed no other convincing to just begin killing.

He's the experienced one, he's supposed to be able to protect his soldiers from folly like this.


Which again, tells me the Horde are just loving it until it becomes bad war. It's just classic old trope of old war man hates war, young war man loves war.

Especially as of WotLK, there's a not-insignificant number of orc characters who seem to reject the obsession with ritual warfare, or at the very least renounce it in favour of ritual displays of strength, acknowledging the destruction warfare has led them to.


Which seems to suggest they are not speaking as their people as a whole when they talk about the orcs at large. I'm not saying all Horde think this way, but its made apparent to me the majority seem to be.

But that's not true, though - or at least it isn't in Warcraft's setting.


There's no good war because all war can be avoided if you really want to argue quaker pacifism for five pages.

Whether or not it's a crime has no bearing on whether it's "good", that's sort of the whole point. Saurfang (and, as argued by Thrall earlier, the Horde) will bear the scars of what he's done until the end of his days, even after the Horde won all those battles that scarred him.


The original point is the Horde going to war isn't really a crime to hold against Sylvanas in my eyes because through the books we've been shown they were loving it until it became bad war. If Sylvanas is held on the stand for it then so should Saurfang and all the others who went along with it. Even if some now regret it.
06/11/2018 17:04Posted by Pullo
The original point is the Horde going to war isn't really a crime to hold against Sylvanas


Why not? She's the one that convinced Saurfang it was necessary. Through Nathanos as her champion, she set the stage for it with what's heavily implied to be hired spies bringing the Alliance bad information. She's the one that decides to escalate to burning cities without even the slightest mercy of letting it's occupants evacuate (something that it seemed on the surface even Garrosh had allowed).

Does she bear the sole responsibility? Of course not, no. But she's also still the Warchief.

06/11/2018 17:04Posted by Pullo
Which seems to suggest they are not speaking as their people as a whole when they talk about the orcs at large. I'm not saying all Horde think this way, but its made apparent to me the majority seem to be.


I'm not with you about the majority argument, but assuming it's true, it could also be just as easily argued through the way BfA's story is told that a leader's responsibilities are to restrain their people's worst nature, not indulge them.

06/11/2018 17:04Posted by Pullo
If Sylvanas is held on the stand for it then so should Saurfang and all the others who went along with it.


... And arguably that's what Saurfang would want - and even what someone like Thrall advocates for, in arguing the blame falls on those who know, and should have known better. I think if presented with that choice, Saurfang would probably happily fall on that spear if it meant taking Sylvanas with him.

He thinks he should know better; unlike his soldiers, he doesn't have the excuse of being ignorant.
Saurfang needs to claim Anduin Wrynn as his b-

Oh, that wasn't the question. My bad.

SAURFANG ALL THE WAY! GIVE RISE TO THE THRALL HORDE! RARGH!
Why not? She's the one that convinced Saurfang it was necessary.

Because all those who took part in it are also accountable. Including Saurfang. The entire conflict to begin with was a poor moral farce to justify good war by slaughtering largely innocent Night Elves until bad war began with tree burning.

Starting a war they were all for in the beginning isn't enough for the Horde to begin having a civil war with itself when it appears much of the Horde loved the idea of going to war in the first place.

You can't really have a 'legal' rebellion over the point of 'I don't like the war anymore because its bad war now' IMO. You need a better legal case to build upon i.e - Sylvanas becoming Garrosh later down the line.
06/11/2018 17:31Posted by Pullo
when it appears much of the Horde loved the idea of going to war in the first place.


I'm still not at all convinced of this, and this may be the major hickup that prevents me agreeing with you here.

The symbolism in Good War is all over the place about the Horde's soldiers being dutiful and loyal, and trusting their leaders to know what's best - Baine puts his faith in Saurfang knowing what he's doing, even if he's heavily suspicious of going to war too.

Nathanos even doubts up until the Horde caravan turns north whether Saurfang was going to follow through on taking the caravan north at all.

The soldiers were sold a lie, a story old as time in war stories.

06/11/2018 17:31Posted by Pullo
You can't really have a 'legal' rebellion over the point of 'I don't like the war anymore because its bad war now' IMO.


Why not? Vol'jin openly renounced Garrosh as a Warchief before he'd actually done much in the role. What constitutes a "legal rebellion" in a culture that seems to largely value unspoken codes of honour?
I'm still not at all convinced of this, and this may be the major hickup that prevents me agreeing with you here.


Well I have cited a good example of Horde troops crazily cheering over the prospect of killing, among Before the Storm talking about rowdy tribals needing to smash their axe into something.

I think those are good examples, among the ritual nature of orcs and their love for warring and honourable deaths.

Why not? Vol'jin openly renounced Garrosh as a Warchief before he'd actually done much in the role. What constitutes a "legal rebellion" in a culture that seems to largely value unspoken codes of honour?


Because Garrosh tried to assassinate Vol'jin, Garrosh persecuted his people and put marshal law on Echo Isles, he had trolls in Orgrimmar killed for speaking up about Vol'jin in general. He denounced all the other races and threw them out of his Horde and began a war against them. Garrosh began attacking his people before they tried attacking him.

That's justification to begin rebellion while I do not think Chíeun's point of unnecessary war aka 'war gone bad now' is good enough.
06/11/2018 00:27Posted by Yue
let's just revert time and pretend none of this ever happened.


B-but Yue...

my conflict!!! :(
06/11/2018 17:53Posted by Pullo
That's justification to begin rebellion while I do not think Chíeun's point of unnecessary war aka 'war gone bad now' is good enough.


Unfortunately I do not believe the writers see it this way. It is becoming more and more clear that the logical paths and consistency are sacrificed in exchange of pushing the story forward, that being the rebellion aka MoP2.0.

Not to mention having so many characters going OOC over so many strange things. Take for example the 8.1 raising of Derek and the Horde's reaction to this one random human's resurrection. Reactions that could and should have been more in place during / in the direct aftermath of the Siege of Lordaeron with the raising of some of the fallen.

Why is this human so special all of a sudden over the lives of so many Horde soldiers who fell in battle? Is it the human potential meme or is just more deliberate actions to move the story along and make Sylvanas more unpalatable than before so that she can be set up for the eventual downfall?

In essence, there are so many things that are bothering me that staying invested in this story is becoming harder and harder. And all of these discussions are quite interesting, but I am left with the impression that the people discussing them might be putting more thought and introspection into it than the people who wrote the subject matter.
06/11/2018 17:53Posted by Pullo
Well I have cited a good example of Horde troops crazily cheering over the prospect of killing


I could just as easily counter-argue they're cheering over the prospect of getting to fight side-by-side with their great hero again. Morka's story (who is pretty much the "young grunt" archetype in the story) is of her being given a "second chance" after embarrassing herself drinking on duty, it implies as much.

06/11/2018 17:53Posted by Pullo
Because Garrosh tried to assassinate Vol'jin


About a year and a half after Vol'jin disavowed him as Warchief (from the start of Cata to mid-ish MoP), yeah. Is a renunciation of the Warchief not a formal act of rebellion, or?

Regardless, we're probably going to see a lot more escalation than where we're currently at (which has already included the purging of some Horde, and willful blighting of others), so I don't think you need to worry about the rebellion being justified in the end.

That's justification to begin rebellion while I do not think 'war gone bad now' is good enough.


People turning on their leaders when the promise they've been made (a swift, clean war) is broken is a fairly common thing, moreso in stories and real life. Does it usually play out as outright rebellions? Very rarely so in real life, moreso often in stories as a vehicle for drama.
One of the things that also surprises me is that we aren't getting more complexity with the story and with characters within the Horde who could push back and try to guide Sylvanas on a different/better path, all those other faction leaders who act as advisors and the like.

Rather we get the black and white for / against her actions and that is it. Baine is spineless, he's bubbling with resentment but he is not doing anything about it than brood and perhaps eventually side with Saurfang. Saurfang outright abandoned the Horde rather than try to change it from the inside when Sylvanas overplayed her hand. Lor'themar who? Hell, why is Vol'jin's spirit even talking with Talanji of all people so much? Wouldn't it be pretty high up on his list to visit Sylvanas and go 'Yo' we messed up mon!'? Only exception to the rule is Gallywix because the profits are good.

I am getting the impression more and more that this is made to crumble into another internal rebellion mess by design. And it could have gone so many other ways too, remember how the Teldrassil burning was speculated over for so long and how it turned out to be? Yeah.
I'm gunna post a response later when i get to a keyboard, i've put some serious thoughts into my gripes with the current story telling and direction.
We can debate this, that and the other for pages and pages and pages.

When really, the answer seems to be a mixture of forced Railroading to move the story along and a total lack of consistency in lore and character which has, sadly, become all too common in WoW recently.
People are trying to see depth in the puddle that is the War Campaign...
06/11/2018 18:24Posted by Rogmasha
About a year and a half after Vol'jin disavowed him as Warchief (from the start of Cata to mid-ish MoP), yeah. Is a renunciation of the Warchief not a formal act of rebellion, or?


The rebellion started because Garrosh tried to assassinate him when he went to meet the warchief in Pandaria. Before then he was on bad terms with the orc, but the attempt on his life pushed him into rebellion. Not because he purely thought war bad.

People turning on their leaders when the promise they've been made (a swift, clean war)


This is too vague of a thing to say without citation. Neither would it absolve anyone of guilt for being angry over good war not being quick war.
06/11/2018 18:55Posted by Pullo
This is too vague of a thing to say without citation.


Do you want examples from history or examples from the book of them being promised as much? Saurfang says as part of that whole rallying speech that they'll only get "a few days of glory" fighting over Ashenvale - he probably fully believed a swift victory was plausible, if unlikely. At the end of the story, he's struck by the realisation that the Horde has been damned for "a thousand generations". Slowly but surely, as the war progresses and the promise of victory-by-total-surrender seems further away, people begin to sour.

Issues with Garrosh mirrored similarly with how, rather than de-escalate the war at the end of the Shattering, he escalated it turning Theramore to dust, galvanizing Alliance support for further warfare and sowing more seeds of doubt in the Horde with his methods (remember this is when we first see the Dark Shamans in the Horde, and the mana bomb is treated as a horror by some of the Horde characters involved).

06/11/2018 18:55Posted by Pullo
Neither would it absolve anyone of guilt for being angry over good war not being quick war.


But they're not angry over it not being a quick war, they're angry about it being both not good and not quick. Pretty much the opposite of what they've been promised.

If the Alliance had sued for peace after the burning of Teldrassil, maybe it would've been viewed differently in hindsight - but it did quite the contrary. The "good" war was sacrificed for a quick war, but in the end it has become neither.

If we want to argue philosophical guilt, everyone in a position of leadership and "in the know" are guilty. I'd never argue otherwise.
i am sorry but Pullo is talking out of context
I love it when players put more thought into the story than the actual writers of the story.

But it's nice, there are some good ideas that suit better to a single-player game or a novel rather than an mmorpg.
Do you want examples from history or examples from the book of them being promised as much?

Both.

Sylvanas never promised anything beyond an objective. Saurfang failed that objective by sparing Malfurion and the plan was forced to change to something far more dark.

Issues with Garrosh mirrored similarly with how, rather than de-escalate the war at the end of the Shattering, he escalated it turning Theramore to dust galvanizing Alliance support for further warfare and sowing more seeds of doubt in the Horde with his methods (remember this is when we first see the Dark Shamans in the Horde, and the mana bomb is treated as a horror by some of the Horde characters involved).

Which is an entire issue in itself. Theramore an active participant in the war, a massive Alliance base threatening the Barrens and Durotar. It's a war he would have likely won too had the rebellion not taken place.

And while there was doubt and tuts given about his methods they weren't in rebellion until Garrosh attacked them first. Until he began proclaiming he's a massive racist.

But they're not angry over it not being a quick war, they're angry about it being both not good and not quick. Pretty much the opposite of what they've been promised.


Here's the secret lore: it was never a good war. The idea was crap in truth and the justification given by Saurfang to his soldiers boiled down to "lets try and get some high scores on the unaware Night Elves." The Horde loves the idea of a good war with lots of epic, honourable murder, pillaging and conquest. But the war only becomes bad for them when Sylvanas begins playing with the matches.

That's supposed to be the inherent problem with Horde society in Kalimdor, obsessed with ritual warfare - and the idea you can really have a good war (with the Alliance) to begin with. Do you think the Night Elves thought it was a good war when they were suddenly being attacked and driven from their lands? Or did it only become bad war when they became charcoal in the tree?

The Horde people don't seem to really care that a war happened, quite the opposite. They're just becoming annoyed it's bad war now. Building a rebellion on "but it wasn't the right kind of Alliance murder" doesn't sell it for me.

You will have to wait until Sylvanas goes full Old Gods mode.
06/11/2018 22:28Posted by Pullo
plan was forced to change to something far more dark


Was it? By their admission, only civilians were left in Teldrassil. It would be extremely easy to invade with no soldiers remaining, take the entire population hostage, and force a ceasefire.

It'd set Sylvanas' supposed concerns about the Alliance's inevitable attack to rest (because they won't sacrifice such a large civilian population to do so). In fact, because the night elves are near immortal, they could keep the population hostage for as long as they want, forbidding the Alliance from as much as drawing anywhere near Teldrassil.

Of course, Sylvanas didn't do this, because long-term concerns < temper tantrum, and because she is more interested in killing anything alive than she is in strategy or stability.
06/11/2018 22:35Posted by Chíeun
Was it?


Yeah
06/11/2018 22:50Posted by Pullo
06/11/2018 22:35Posted by Chíeun
Was it?


Yeah


na

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum