I think Kadrak was the initial questgiver in Ashenvale, I think maybe you’re referring to Gar’dul
wow. gamepedia. com/Warlord_Gar%27dul
Rangoor has the right of it though, Bloodhilt saw him as lacking initiative and being craven
Oh. Thanks!
Corrected!
Because by their own definition, going around hiding their true motives and playing double agent isn’t honourable towards the one you consider your enemy.
As it goes directly against the honest openness of facing your foes and meeting with the consequences of it, that both orcs and Tauren preach about regarding their society values.
Lying, faking your posture and striking only when the ‘enemy’ is weak, is something that isnt held in high regard.
Not saying this is the objective hard definition of what honourable means. But it certainly seems to be how certain Horde races interpret it. And that’s enough to tag how Baines actions would/should be seen by his closest comrades.
Link?
And please. It has to be from an official source. Updated as much as possible and not from just a random NPC saying their own vision honour.
Also, you haven’t answered how Orcs double-up against this virtue with their own misgivings.
I still think using Honour/Dishonour as an argument is quite silly btw.
Is all strategy then dishonourable? Is facing the enemy on an open field the only honourable method of combat? Saurfang used a feint to draw the Kaldorei army away from nigh elf lands, was he dishonourable then?
This is why I see Baine’s actions less about honour and more about damage control and living up to principles.
If you define honour by living up to one’s beliefs, then he is honorable
It’s good to see him act instead of just preach, even if some don’t like what he is doing.
I can look it up. Obviously there is no such thing as Warcraft Terminology Dictionary that translates each concept into our RL meaning, so I’ll probably rely on characters representative of said mindset.
Would that be enough? Honest question. I don’t have the books right now and it takes a while to gather quotes from Cairne in the Shattering, Varok in War Crimes, Garrosh in Wolfheart, or Thrall in Lord of Clans.
Sorry for missing it. The answer for that one is fairly easy: because it greatly depends on the individual and more often than not, Blizzard fails to show consistency regarding both their races and the stories they write.
I took issue precisely in how said acts were labelled as honourable. You can argue how they were morally motivated or some -rather stupid- attempt at damage control.
But don’t sell it as “This is what honourable Tauren do”, because I doubt that going behind the enemies back to carry out some action that puts in peril Horde allies or downright kills them, is what Tauren has in mind when defining what they considered honourable.
I don’t really see this as a matter of honorable actions or not. There’s clearly a rift between those who support Sylvanas and those who don’t. Baine commited treason for his own believes and did so behind Sylvanas back since he genuinely cares about the Horde.
The Horde are currently losing the war and to openly oppose Sylvanas at this point whould be a even greater misstake. Baine knows that anything which could light the fires of rebellion whould cost the horde way more then just honor, so does Garona and that’s why she clearly states Baine acted to soon.
If Baine whould had openly opposed Sylvanas, it’s pretty likely that many whould stand with him causing a even greater rift between the two opposing factions within the horde. Even Baine knows that the horde needs to stand united or they risk losing everything.
I know that the narrative always tries to paint Alliance as some sort of force of justice and good, but in reality alliance troops ain’t any better then the “monsters and savaages” they oppose.
We also have to remember that all the nations of Azeroth really ain’t major cities with less then 100 NPC’s. Their big societies with thousands of inhabitants. What whould happend if the hordes soldiers suddenly started to second guess their chain of command? Well the civilians whould be the first to suffer.
Anduin have also commited similar deeds when he released Saurfang and facilitated his escape. If Anduin whould let this information public, not only whould rumors about Saurfang scheming with Anduin take root… but many alliance commanders, leaders and also the people whould accuse Anduin of high treason for his actions.
Thing is, if you give quotes from different characters and try to place them into one definition of honour for a race, you’re kind of generalising what may mean honour to a group of one people. Some orcs rebelled against Garrosh because they believed it to be honourable, Nazgrim defended him because he believed to to be honourable. So is one honour the greater one than the other, and who exactly decides that?
2 Likes
Uh-huh… no one reported on this thread… good to know… yeah…
Well, if the Horde loses, behaviours such as Baine’s could actually help saving quite a few Horde lifes from punitive actions. That’s the fun with consequentialism, you get to do it all in the name of an unknown future.
Or… and hear me out here… The Horde could actually be an organisation build on shared believes, instead of “Team Red”! Crazy, isn’t it?
2 Likes
Not every strategy should be planned in an honourable way. In fact, more often than not, results demand getting dirty.
But the thing here is that Baines “strategy” isn’t honourable nor effective. The only upside it has is covering his own hide and upping his chance when gambling on the Alliance mercy if the Horde ends up losing this war.
Sorry, but those are qualities I hardly have in high regard.
Specially if they come at expense of a zero sum game that further undermines the Horde chances to actually win. And that downright causes even more Horde deaths.
Exactly.
I’ve seen the Horde throw the word ‘Honour’ around that it is difficult to pin-point what is what and what is true.
I see Baine as honourable for standing up to the Warchief. I mean he could do it better, but at least he’s doing something that lives up to his principles.
Not really. Not if we’re trying to define Baine’s actions as an official standpoint rather than opinionated.
Also when you do, please show the inconsistencies of each. Add them to why they have inconsistencies according to Orcish and Tauren actions and culture both past and present. Then you’ll get a hint as to why the hell I think Honour is stupid in an argument.
Yes, I doubt it too.
But what else do we both have beyond doubts? There’s not much about Tauren in general, let alone their own codes of morals and virtues. Beyond following the Native American perspective of respecting the land and giving back what they take.
However, I take solace in that because Blizzard has not written anything of the opposition, I would assume the Tauren are okay with it or do not know.
Why? Well, people do it all the time.
4 Likes
So if he is ensuring his people’s safety in the possibility of a Horde defeat, why is that a bad thing?
And I’d argue that depends if you believe Sylvanas’s sleeper agent plan will be effective in the first place. I, for one, do not.
5 Likes
I like you, mon.
2 Likes
Except that’s not the case though, is it?
Look at the Cataclysm story…Garrosh attacks Ashenvale. And who are the first people the Alliance target? The Tauren…
That just makes him look so dumb to me.
I mean, he was there, he had the wall erected…because the Alliance attacked his people and then he shrugged of the dead of Taurajo…
But now he wants to protect his people by weakening the Horde with discord? Yeaah nooo, not very believable, sorry Blizzard writing team…
2 Likes
There are ways of doing. On a broader fashion, I agree with that assessment.
But there is nuance to be considered here.
Are you challenging the Warchief in a way that puts in peril or harms any other segment of the Horde? Are you doing so out in the open or in a way that doesn’t cause immediate collateral damage?
Are you taking into account the standpoint of those that are supposedly your allies?
Whats the best case scenario after you do so? Does it further the goals of your faction in the long run? Are you taking unnecessary risks when thinking on said best case scenario?
Baines actions here give a negative answer to most the questions above.
We have precedents. We have examples of how past characters tackled said issues.
We have Cairnes duel.
My line of argument wasn’t as much about defining objective standpoint or definition regarding honourable, but by comparing said sort of actions with the ones that were at that time indeed considered honourable by him and his closest circle.
I do agree that the honourable line of debate is rather silly.
And writers might have had a better chance of making Horde players be more empathetic towards Baine if it didn’t seem as if they were forcing people to choke on Baines principles as the only honourable way, even when it doesn’t make sense to be labelled as such.
Wait, wasn’t Sylvanas being demonised precisely because of that? Because she risked the Hordes immediate future out of worry for the fate of only her own people?
And I didn’t say it’s a bad thing. Lorthemar did similarly in MoP.
Even Voljin did so.
Difference being that their actions weren’t marketed as the honourable way, nor caused as much collateral damage as Baines actions are.
With a swift stroke, he just nullified the purpose of every Horde death in the war campaign, put at risk the entire faction by removing the single asset they had to turn the odds, and did so out of deference for someone that had just crippled the lone asset the Horde needed in this war. Killing their newest ally in the process.
1 Like
I do dislike Sylvanas, so I will admit to being biased. That said, her campaign in the northern EK was aggressive in nature, rather than a reactionary measure. And even then, that depends if you interpret her as genuinely caring for her people, or as a"bulwark against the infinite"
Even then, you’ll have to argue that the plan would’ve worked. Somebody recently posted that even killing some of the Proudmoores (probably Katherine) wouldn’t work very effectively as Kul Tiras was united at the end of Alliance questing and there’s no real build up of a character who would take any explicit advantage of the chaos that enused. Lady Waycrest is dead, Gorak Tul is dead, Lord Stormsong is dealt with and his order’s corruption is known, Lady Ashvane is a known traitor, and would at best cause a civil war.