Not really. Both faction making questionable moves all the time.
How can someone who likes their dish be well done be evil!
Ainât that chocolate liqueur?
1 Like
You say that proudly after having a few dictators. Also, turns out the council isnât working so well, cause Talanji is your new wanna-be dictator. Good luck with that!
I donât like monarchy, but SWâs kings have consistently been good.
Honestly, if there was any logic to the game, the Alliance would have won against the horde a long time ago from economics alone. I donât know where they find the food to feed all those Orcs or the money for it (goblin cartel keeping the horde afloat? I donât see what was in for Gallywix with that deal). They should all be malnourished by now. The alliance would be helping them survive and there would be no wars. But, alas, itâs a game. War i say!
2 Likes
Yes but no.
Alliance rarely if ever makes a questionable move unprovoked. Taurajo is one exception I can think of. Most of their other moves are in retaliation.
The horde makes such moves unprovoked a fair bit.
Teldrassil was arguably unprovoked (depends how much stock you place in denying the alliance their kalimdor shipping port, however burning it to the ground, knowing citizens are there, is arguably a disproportionate response)
Sylvanas blighting Gilneas was entirely unprovoked.
Garrosh mana bombing theramore was essentially unprovoked.
Garrosh deciding to taint the vale of eternal blossoms was unprovoked.
The alliance does not do these sort of things as a âfirst moveâ, thatâs the difference. They react badly because their opponents behave badly and necessitate it in their eyes.
Thatâs not to say theyâre squeaky clean. But nobody can say with a straight face that the alliance and horde are equal in their âdubious first movesâ as far as the game shows.
3 Likes
The whole war started in legion when Graymane attacked Sylvanash in Stormheim without any reason righ after the armistice, there was an entire quest line about that and after that they were at a little personal war.
At the start of Bfa when the azerite found in silithus and the goblins started to mine it and the SI7 agents were the one who started to kill them without any reason. After that ofcourse Sylvanas will do a preventive assault on the biggest alliance base to cut off their supply because Greymane shown again that he does his own things and Anduin have little to no control over him. Im not going back to older expansions because it would be hours to write down all of these but even at the start the alliance already made concentration camps, Garinthos wanted to genocide an entire race that were their allies, Jainas purge in dalaran etc. All in all both side does shady things pointless to try to put one faction into the good guy position because you canât be the good guy when you did loads of atrocities too.
1 Like
i wanna remind you that sylvanas destroyed graymanes town and his son.
graymane stopped sylvanas from immortality because sylvanas captured a valkyr
1 Like
The Horde are evil as they should be.
I donât know why they trying to make it a cute race.
They deserve better and I think Garrosh will agree with me. Unlike the draenei looking Thrall.
2 Likes
Okay this genuinely made me laugh out loud 
2 Likes
Firstly, you canât judge the Alliance of Lordaeron and the Grand Alliance as the same, theyâre not. Similarly to how I skipped the whole âRemember the time the Horde invaded Azeroth because they got juiced up in on blood?â Thing.
The Grand Alliance didnât exist until just before WoW started so anything prior to that is scrubbed. Same for the Horde.
Regarding Genn, as another poster mentioned SYLVANAS BLIGHTED HIS CITY AND KILLED HIS SON IN FRONT OF HIM and this was entirely unprovoked. Gilneas hadnât been a major actor since their isolation. So Genns actions are far from being unwarranted. Doesnât make them good, but as said the alliance rarely if ever does stuff unprovoked. The chains are typically started by horde actions.
Find me an example of an action undertaken by the Grand Alliance that was unprovoked beyond Taurajo and maybe Silithus (although you could argue that killing horde there to stop them gaining WMDs is a good move given Theramore).
Even so, if you think killing field military personnel on a military deployment justifies effectively nuking an enemy civilian capitol (port or not) you have a very vaunted view of proportional response.
Youâre effectively saying that if a nation attacks military personnel trying to harvest raw materials for WMDs, it would be justified for the targeted nation to then send a nuclear bomb over to a portside city because âthey might ship thereâ.
A sensible person would say you target the ships transporting the Azerite, you donât nuke the port. One is a war crime, one is a legitimate military target. If you canât see that, well.
1 Like
Not true.
I have them under my bed.
4 Likes
Gilneas was attacked because there was an ongoing war continued from wotlk and they attacked one of the human kingdom not the alliance so they can gain a port close to Lordaeron if you have any problem with that you should also have problems with the attack on Dazarlor and the death of a neutral factions king because the Zandalaris were as neutral as the Gilnean people were at that time. And that Gilneas event happened long time ago after that we had 3 expansions and yes Greymane broke the armistice by attacking Sylvanas at Stormheim it doesnât matter why he did that he broke an armistice and that made him the agressor. Its the same IRL if you kill any countryâs military personals especially officers just on assumptions thatâs basically declaration of war. It doesnât matter what they did especially when the only thing you have is assumptions if you kill them you are the agressor again.
1 Like
The Zandalari were not Neutral. They had been supporting and sheltering the Horde for some time by the point of the War Campaign of the Dazarlor attack. It was also a targeted military strike, aimed at their fleet and leadership, not the general populace.
Gilneas was a campaign of occupation, and once the Blight was deployed, extermination.
People seem to equate any military action as equivalent, even if one involves literally rendering an entire country almost uninhabitable and swathes of itâs people dead, and the other is a surgical strike to cripple itâs war potential.
1 Like
The lore of this game has never recovered from my Tauren being sent on the first âcall to armsâ and immediately made to chop down trees and kill tree people from LOTR. It was the same for my Night Elf when they started to make me kill uncorrupted animals. There isnât enough head-canon in the world.
Itâs honestly all over the place. They try to write the Horde as a faction of good guys rising above their unsavory past but at the same time they keep writing the Horde as consistrntly doing bad things and being the aggressor. It doesnât even work as an attempt to act first to make a good difference as the aggressor is written as being in the wrong.
Meanwhile, many in the Horde community clearly want to be the bad guys or at least uncaring of Horde atrocities and loudly complain whenever the Horde is written as good guys and working toward stability rather than burning the world to the ground for Blood and âHonourâ thatâs so loosely defined that it cannot be used as a story device without appearing as narrow black and white hypocrisy.
They attacked a human nation that hadnât bothered anyone since the second war. Gilneas left the alliance following the second war and had no beef with the New Horde. They probably had no idea about it even reforming.
Sylvanas deciding it would make a lovely port is fine, but trying to paint it as a âjustified actionâ and anything other than a preemptive strike is just being blinkered. And as far as first strikes go, it was hardly mild. She rendered vast swathes of their kingdom completely uninhabitable.
A military nation is looking for a new port. Would they be justified in not only assaulting a neutral party to obtain said port, but additionally using chemical weapons as part of it? That is what Sylvanas did. Her actions literally forced Gilneas back into the Alliance.
As said, this is a fictional world, so by the by Iâm fine with bad guys and good guys existing. It drives the plot. Iâd like the alliance to do stuff more often, believe me. But I just canât see how anyone could say the assault on Gilneas was a justified move of aggression against the Alliance. It had nothing to do with them. The became their business when they intervened to try and save a former kingdom in the Alliance, but prior to that it was simply them attacking a neutral party to try and take their lands and Ch bombing them because why not. That simply isnât âgood guyâ material. The alliance has never done anything like that. Thatâs just objective fact.
Not as bad as the side that killed masons that got scammed after rebuilding their city.
Not as bad as the faction that attacked the goblins first at the start of the fourth war.
Not as bad as the faction that left its surrounding kingdoms to rot as they were harrased by the aforementioned masons, orcs, worgen and jolly skeletons.
Or attacked the zandalari unprovoked while they werenât part of the horde yet.
3 Likes
The Alliance being absent in the framing of your question is what makes the answer obvious.
because horde it self has 2 different options and the story changes constantly from good to evil.
i just want to know, which is it.
Why people are talking about lore? I thought we were talking about horde players!
