That’s because they are and the failure to define what they’re defending in upholding honour is a huge issue with WoW’s writing and meta narrative. The humans at least have the Three Virtues of the church.
1 Like
The OP is lucky they didn’t have to deal with Skyrim and the dark brotherhood quest line, or worse still some of the dedra quest lines. Honor is never as clear-cut and boxed as we would like it to be. As the old saying goes one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist.
Well the Horde was started with Orcs, so Orc honor is to not attack someone who doesn’t have a weapon or don’t attack you first, so pretty much everyone should be on equal terms when fighting, it’s cowardly to attack just a villager when yourself has weapons and armor on.
Same with mak’gora, no weapons, no armor, just some clothes to kinda, cover up your bits, and then you have a fistfight.
I do not think the other races actually follows the same views of honor as the orcs, they have other motives, thats also what makes the Horde a bit chaotic I think, so many different cultures with different “extreme” believes, but they all go under the Hordes banner cause they got little to no other protection and they gotta somehow get along and have eachothers backs.
The Horde is pretty much only a greyzone, and thats what I find interesting, that there is no definate answer to how they think or what they do, Sylvanas has her ideas, Saurfang has his ideas, Sylvanas isn’t an Orc so she does not follow the Orcs Horde ideal of Honor, which Saurfang also hates and thus, came to Anduin in an attempt to momentarily work with the enemy for a common goal BECAUSE of his loyality to the Horde.
That’s not the rules of a Mak’gora though. The rules of a Mak’gora are that the Challenger chooses the rules. Its always been that way, and has been that way in every Mak’gora detailed in the game, we’ve seen Mak’gora with magic, Mak’gora without magic, with blessed weapons, without armour, with armour, all-in, various varieties. The whole point of a Mak’gora is that it is an honourable battle, and so you do not pick criteria as the Challenger, that favour you but not your opponent, it has to be even.
Everybody makes the mistake of thinking that Cairne vs Garrosh is the established rules set. It ain’t. Garrosh expresses ignorance as to what the rules are, Cairne chides him for not knowing his own races culture, then sets out the rules that -he- as challenger is setting.
No other Mak’gora has had the same rules as Cairne vs Garrosh, because every Mak’gora is fought with different rules. (Remember, the WoW film is not Canon)
3 Likes
Okay yes that is correct indeed, but it’s on equal terms 
1 Like
Oh, yeah, definitely, if the terms the challenger selects are unequal, the challenged can tell them to do one and come up with fairer terms, and still retain their honour. As long as everyone agrees it is ‘fair’ then its all good.
Honor, always doing what’s right, is only applicable to people that are perfect or those you view that way, so it’s idealistic, cannot be obtained therefore it doesn’t exist.
Honor, keeping your word is obtainable even by those that are not perfect.
Saugfang’s Honor is idealistic and it produces Traitors.
Sylvanas promised us a W and she is in the process of getting us it.
Yes I can demand that because it’s The Horde now, one unified body, one tribe.
The differences between the tribes view of honour make for an interesting dynamic and a great storytelling tool.
How does each tribal interpretation fit into the greater whole? It’s obvious there are some commonalities even though they’re also different. Else the orcs would be ripped apart by internal conflicts all the time.
As for the Alliance, yes there are differences, however, there are also similarities else there would be no close bonds with the Alliance as a whole.
@Typhus
The ad-hoc story becomes a lot more interesting when there are clear motivations and limitations.
What is the better story?
There’s a faction war because of REEEEE and the main backers of the REEEE’ing person do it because!
Or
The Horde has started a total war against their own morals because Sylvanas has talked for the eradication of the Alliance in a pre-emptive strike to sow fear in them and thus gain security forever.
This would still have the seeds of an internal conflict as no one can be motivated by fear forever.
We see this mechanic in elections. Parties that relies on fear have to repeat that fear each time there is one and they have to make the threat to be afraid of larger each time.
First, it’s: The immigrants are coming
Next, it’s: The immigrants are coming for your job and your daughter.
Next, it’s: The immigrants are coming to kill you.
This happens all the time. Each time the fear mongers tells us what to be afraid of they have to make the threat larger each time to create the same fear reaction, until finally the reason becomes a parody of itself.
@Dorethien
Ideas are different than ideals. The later is formed of the former. E=MC2 is an idea, no one has yet to make it into an ideal. Geniocracy is an idea that some people have made into an ideal.
Sylvanas can impose her own ideas on the Horde, however those ideas would have to meet the ideals of the Orcs who are the largest faction within the Horde.
Also a greyzone in this context is a nozone. Without clear definitions all you have is a grey mass without a shape. It’s easy to mold into whatever you want it to be. At the end of the day it’s still going to be a grey coloured vase if you make it into that.
Defining it is to give something colour and the interesting part is how Sylvanas would go about making the Orcs purple if they were yellow.
Right now they’re a vessel for everything, which makes them nothing.
The honour lies in the player/character, not the faction IMO. Which is exactly why you can have conflicting forms of it.
Both factions have done honourless things, plenty of times. It’s up to us to decide.
A stalwart Alliance knight could hold the Alliance and Anduin to his highest honour, yet could loathe someone like Saurfang, who, let’s be honest…is pretty level headed for an Orc and certainly someone I would consider to have honour and to show respect, in and out of combat. IMO it’s all down to us to decide.
I’m not sure anymore, is this a serious question about the concept of honour and how it works in the various disparate societies within the Horde, or just a Horde Bashing thread saying they have no honour, because you don’t seem to be listening to anyone’s views, OP, that do not go along with “The Horde is Evil and has no Honour” Where are you hoping to reach with this?
The honour lies in the player/character, not the faction IMO. Which is exactly why you can have conflicting forms of it.
Except no. Some ideals are part of the cultural narrative. Honour is one of them, changing them is hard since parents will raise their children with it.
You’re probably submissive to those above you or have a similar value that your parents instilled in you with their actions.
Honour would be the same. It’s a cultural ideal or a value and without some cohesiveness, it’s impossible for a culture to exist.
People only form their own values to a certain degree, the rest are from their culture.
In the USA the northern states looked at the southern states and said “slavery is wrong,” That it filled so much was a new value, however, the same people still treated women badly and essentially kept them in slavery. A gilded cage is still a cage-
The cultural values they were raised with said that this was okay. There was no self-defining.
It was unacceptable to keep people as slaves, it was acceptable to keep an entire gender as one since there was no whipping or obvious mistreatment.
Value: Most people will intervene if you abuse a pet publicly.
Value: Few will intervene if you do it privately even if they can hear it, because what you do in your own home is your own business.
@Brigante
You’re wrong about this being a question. I never intended it to be a question. It a hopefull demand that someone will listen and pass it on so we can finally get a definition of what the Orcs see as honour.
Whether it’s western or eastern based then defining it would solve so many issues that people has and the vagueness of it all would disappear and instead of using a lame deus ex, the writers would actually have to think of a reason that X would happen instead of saying “X just happened, live with it.”
The burnig of Teldrassil would be much more interesting if Sylvanas had convinced the Horde to do this rather than essentially say “do my bidding.” And having the Horde do it with only Saurfang reaching the conclusion that such an action is bad for the Horde as a whole.
Right mate, apart from just dismissing everyone and waiting for what you already have decided is honour, as an answer…you’re going into a tangent about parenting and people hurting pets lol this is about the horde and video game honour. Relax yer cacks lol
I think this is the problem. A discussion was never wanted, and the question was asked with disingenuous intentions. The OP didn’t want people to actually discuss the varied concepts of honour that do and can exist, they wanted people to say “The Horde has no Honour”.
I am seeing nothing here that speaks of any willingness to have a discussion that does not end at the point which they have already determined in their own heads.
Right mate, apart from just dismissing everyone and waiting for what you already have decided is honour, as an answer…you’re going into a tangent about parenting and people hurting pets lol this is about the horde and video game honour. Relax yer cacks lol
The intent was never to discuss “what is honour?” My intent is to get Blizzard to finally define what is the Orc’s honour.
It has taken over 14 years now and the only information we have is the contradiction of Nazgrimm and Saurfang where the former has an eastern concept of honour and the later has a western concept of honour.
This is a mess and dilutes how effective a story can be told. If the orcs are a container for whatever values the writer wants them to have then saying “Orcs have these values,” rings hollow because if we go back in time the same orcs had different values.
@Brigante
What I’m saying is, and has always said, is WHAT HONOUR DO THEY HAVE EASTERN OR WESTERN?
I never said that the Horde has no honour, that would be ludicrous. However, what kind of honour the main faction in the horde has has never been clearly defined, which is a disservice to those who play orcs as well. Saying “I have honor!” has no meaning when the concept of their honour has never been defined. “Death or dishonour” similarly has no meaning either when there are no clear ideas of what dishonour means to them since their honour has never been defined either…
Varian changed his values…
Jaina changed her values…
Illidan changed his values…
…to name a few.
It happens on both sides. Also if you’re looking for Blizzard themselves to come to the forums and explain 14years worth of Horde decisions and values you’ll be looking for another 14 years.
I’m kind of glad I read this because I went and googled Mak’gora and found:-
- A popular misconception among the fanbase is that Thrall cheated in his final mak’gora against Garrosh when he used elemental magic. However, there has never been any rule forbidding the use of magic and spells. Moreover, there is precedent for the use of magic in mak’gora, as both Shagara and Ashra made extensive use of it during their mak’gora. Thrall had also already used magic in the first mak’gora between him and Garrosh, by throwing lightning bolts.
I’m going to remember that reference next time someone says Thrall cheated.
2 Likes
Strawman. All of the above changed their values due to crisis moments in their lives or were influenced over time, this is how values change for an individual. Cultures are different, changing values takes a cultural crisis or a new generation that thinks differently.
And no, just a small blurb, a single paragraph “The orc’s concept of honour is .”
That’s all, there’s no reason to explain 14 years of history. That’s a strawman you’ve made to make me look ridiculous and you look good.
its mentioned this expansion that saurfang embodies the honor of the horde. and saurfang talked about living and dying on the battlefield. So i guess te horde honor atleast the orcish one is similair to vikings, while the Alliance is more about fighting for the right cause .
then again forsaken don’t really have honor and the blood elves probably are more comparable to the Alliance honor wise
lol honestly mate I wish you well, your too far gone for your own good.
Peace.
2 Likes
I’m Scandinavian and I’ve studied the Vikings. Trust me the ordinary Vikings had no such concept. Death on the battlefield was something that was romatized later because it’s infinitely more interesting than dying in your bed. Most Vikings were farmers, the ones who raided did so as a means to support themselves when their trade failed.
Having such a concept of honour is silly when the fighting part of the population is minuscule and never saw combat.
Warriors wanted to die in battle as that was their road to Valhalla which was their paradise.
Or I simply know more about how things work like that due to my education, all you’ve done is to confirm that you’re proud of your ignorance since pretty much everything is right and you’ve understood nothing of the mechanics behind it and now you’re trying to make me seem unreasonable so you can seem superior to me.
Peace.