Idle thought: Peace needs more hostages

[Wimbert-die-aldor]

@Chronorabbit-outland

IMO the first question the next narrative team would need to ask would be “is this game about the factions, or not about the factions”. Otherwise the dev resources might be diluted too much.

I’ll assumie they are non-negociable, since we were told so.

Yes, that is a restriction based on the current writing team. And not the only one. For me it’s more a discussion about how they should go about reaching their goals to make them bearable than what their goals should be. I hope that clears up some additional confusion. I need some baseline for any discussion to make sense, what we have now is the one I chose. I guess you can see it as a “If the current writers wanted to do better, what could they do, given their motivations” kind of thing.

But I’m sorry, I appreciate that you want to be precise in the bpundaries of the discussion… but I feel that you aren’t much interested in the discussion itself. I know I could be more precise, but I also think that precision isn’t really needed to talk about the subject at hand. That’s why I’ll probably skip quite a few parts of your post. Yes, they could create an instant respawn scenario. No, I don’t believe you think that was an option that was relevant to this discussion. And since it feels tedious to me, I’ll opt out of stuff like that.

@Chronorabbit-outland

There is still room for many stories of present and the past. Action is a good choice for some situations. Not so much - for the other. Doing “kill 10 bears” regardless of the form of bears might be tedious.

It worked for 16 years, so I don’t think the quest designers, which I also take as a given restriction, agree with you there.

@Chronorabbit-outland

I mean, yeah, it is possible, because IMO how he treated Talanji was out of character, and was done just to justify zandalari joining the horde, however silly that looks.

So, if lore consistency is relevant - no, that would not happen.

Now we’re at the topic and you’re lacking a bit of precision. What we need for it to work is not Anduin being a threat, but characters fearing that the Alliance could be a threat, like they did before the War of Thornes. That’s not a question of lore consistency as much as character perceptions. Even if Anduin would never do it, even if plot armor will probably keep the Alliance from going against his will that really doesn’t matter for the question if it makes narrative sense for the characters within the story to fear repercussions.

@Chronorabbit-outland

What problem and at what point should it solve?

The one specified in “Main Goal”? Come on, don’t play stupid.

@Chronorabbit-outland

Can’t be done in the current setting.

“More”(!) believable can’t be done? Come on.

---

---

...okay, I'll stop the quote-game. It's seems quite clear to me that you're not interested in the same discussion as I am, so I'm wasting time. Devs bad, Anduin bad, factions bad, story bad, game old, I agree. Just not what I'm talking about, and you know it.

@Zarao-colinas-pardas

There is a staple feeling of tribalism that makes it hard to reach compromises that so patently highlight a potential weakness.

It’s supposed to be a hard decision, yes. I’m not sure I see your point. Leaving hostages with a former enemy, or marrying your daughter to them was always a hard decision.

To sell me the peace/armistice, they should show us that the leaders that are involved are commited to it. That’s what the hard decision is for.

@Zarao-colinas-pardas

And if you try to handle it as a voluntary move, it often seems like you’ve gone to the other extreme (see Baine).

1. I don’t much care about “often”. Often implies “not always”. If it can work well, let’s make it work.
2. The problem with Baine isn’t his character, it’s that he is supposed to represent and lead the Tauren and is a failure at that. I don’t think having some Baine-like characters as Alliance hostages would be much of a problem at all.

@Zarao-colinas-pardas

There are several races that cannot be thrown into this scenario in a way that doesnt aggravate either their players or their characters.

Again, you’re trying to talk for others, when I asked about your position. “I have an issue with it, because other players could have an issue with it” sounds kinda useless to me.

@Zarao-colinas-pardas

Honestly, I don’t see how the Zandalari, Gilnean, Night elves or Orcs, could realistically compromise to this sort of deal, without it turning badly (talking here about average examples of each race, not about outliers).

How would “turning badly” look here, and would it be bad for the story? Also… why assume “average” examples at all, when it’s not exactly a random selection?

@Zarao-colinas-pardas

Those races that could realistically or naturally flow towards this sort of compromise are already so used up for said sort of roles, that I don’t see how they could create any sort of realistic deterrent or fulfil their part as buffers for faction hostilities.

They can be there too, I guess, but the whole point of the hostage thing would be to deter the people in power. The race isn’t exactly the point.

Pandaren hostages are kind of useless, if Pandaren have no effect at all on Horde or Alliance policy. Goblins, as the main tech provider of the Horde are another matter entirely. If Gazlowe’s newly invented daughter’s life is on the line if the Horde attacks, he certainly has some leverage to stop it or make it so much harder for them to do.
if Gazlowe is already kind of neutral-ish isn’t the point, the point is to make him actively anti-war.

[Chronorabbit-outland]

@Wimbert-die-aldor

Yes, that is a restriction based on the current writing team.

Ah, so it’s about the current team. Ok. Sorry, didn’t get it originally.

some text

@Wimbert-die-aldor

That’s why I’ll probably skip quite a few parts of your post.

Whatever suits you.

@Wimbert-die-aldor

I also think that precision isn’t really needed to talk about the subject at hand

Depends on a person. For me it’s “many things can be done, when there is a clear understanding of what is the destination”. Some might feel more free when they are not restricted. I feel more free when “rules” are clear. That’s my head’s limitation.

@Wimbert-die-aldor

Yes, they could create an instant respawn scenario.

Not instant, but unusually fast. Just like Azeroth was in comparison to what the planet would’ve been without interference of the Pantheon of Order.

@Wimbert-die-aldor

It worked for 16 years

The answer for “why Shadowlands release originally overlapped with Naxxramas for Classic” is “the audiences barely overlap”. At the time more than half of the subscribers were playing Classic version of the game. So, for some people it worked. But quite a few are just not interested in a direction retail took. But I digress.

@Wimbert-die-aldor

That’s not a question of lore consistency as much as character perceptions.

To me it’s clearly about the lore consistency, because the former Varok’s story arc got to the point of “it’s better to kill a warchief than allow to drag the horde into a dishonorable act”.

And this topic brought up in the BfA pre-patch, when Tyrande talked to Saurfang. What did he answer? Nothing of course. He understood fully well that there is no honour in the actions, did not even mention it to Tyrande. So, the previous story of the character needed to be thrown out for it to work. And it’s not the only thing that needed to be bent to even start the whole BfA mess.

@Wimbert-die-aldor

Come on, don’t play stupid.

To make the current story work, it needs very different pacing, a lot more detailed set-ups, clear story structure. Not a band-aid of some sort.

@Wimbert-die-aldor

“More”(!) believable can’t be done?

And this is why it was so crucial to be totally clear if it’s about the current team or not. Because the current one “expected” everyone to be happy about the story that takes the concepts of the horde and replaces it with their new vision.

No “how to make it good”. No “why people like it”. No “let’s discuss”. Just “we will change it and you should like it”. That is the core that you need to constantly keep in mind when you talk about doing stuff with the current narrative team.

@Wimbert-die-aldor

It’s seems quite clear to me that you’re not interested in the same discussion as I am, so I’m wasting time.

Perhaps. There was the reason why I asked if you’re going to talk about if the current team would be doing anything to improve the story. Maybe I should’ve been clear with highlighting the relevance (for me) if it’s about people who work there currently, or not.

Sorry for wasting your time.

---

gl hf

[Zarao-colinas-pardas (Zarao)]

@Wimbert-die-aldor

It’s supposed to be a hard decision, yes.

What i mean is that given the current stance of certain races (leaving aside players fee-fees for the moment) it’s so hard that one must wonder if it’s even feasible.

Some scars run so deep that with certain races this “hostage” situation wouldn’t be seen as an act of goodwill, or a political move of mutual compromise.
It would be seen as downright throwing one of your own into a monster pit to die or be enslaved.

You must consider your counterpart somewhat humane in order to reach the point where you ponder making this proposed political move.
And point is, that i doubt certain races are capable of even that.

And they are the ones that often drive or kickstart the faction conflicts.

@Wimbert-die-aldor

How would “turning badly” look here, and would it be bad for the story?

Turning badly would be having certain races being proposed with this alternative, refusing to follow through, and either ending up forced to do such (at which point they’d probably see it as an act of war), or being left out of the whole deal.

In neither scenario would peace, or truce be reached. And with the former, you’d even risk speeding up the next clash.

Would it be bad for the story? Not really.
But i think that there are simpler ways to have conflict without needing to paint either side as being willing to give up their own for peace (this would probably be the take-home message once the war proved what a folly it was to even try said move). (*)

@Wimbert-die-aldor

Also… why assume “average” examples at all, when it’s not exactly a random selection?

Because I’d say that in order to represent and have any particular race invested, you have to find an individual that represented them most. And I think that in this situations, one of the purposes of this move is to show that an average member of the race, can indeed change his or her opinion in order to build a lasting peace.

Throwing a neutral-acting Orc from the ER at Stormwinds doorstep and saying “He represents Orgrimmar”, has about the same impact on whatever happens with the faction war, as wet paper.
Much like having Thrall acting neutral for the tenth time.

@Wimbert-die-aldor

They can be there too, I guess, but the whole point of the hostage thing would be to deter the people in power. The race isn’t exactly the point.

My point was that certain races have been so used as neutral intermediaries, that using them as token acts of any faction’s goodwill has become somewhat meaningless.

Again, i refer to my ER Orc. Point is, that certain races are so beyond faction wars and animosity, or are held on such loose strings with this whole “Raawr Me Horde” or “For Da Alliancee” stuff, that they hardly seem representative enough in order to showcase an actual sign of compromise from either side.

What would happen if Stormwind and Orgrimmar exchanged a Huojin for a Tushui?

---

(*) Hey, on itself it’s not a bad way to bash at “Peacemongers”, but i’m working on the assumption that your premise hinges on this move as a viable alternative to sustain a more prolonged peace, not as a more imaginative casus belli.

[Ilyasha-thrall]

@Wimbert-die-aldor

I’d personally be okay with it, even if the balance never shifted. I don’t care about balance, if I can get a good story instead.

I’m with you there. I’d have no problem with half the Horde Cities leveled and the Horde fighting for dear life, as long as it doesn’t have downsides in Gameplay. (give us “Rebel”-Nests in Alliance controlled Terretories where we can quest etc.)
I even think it would be good for Cohesion of the Horde to go back to being the Underdog-faction fighting for survival against an officially overpowering foe.

[Wimbert-die-aldor]

@Zarao-colinas-pardas

(*) Hey, on itself it’s not a bad way to bash at “Peacemongers”, but i’m working on the assumption that your premise hinges on this move as a viable alternative to sustain a more prolonged peace, not as a more imaginative casus belli.

To put that first, it actually isn’t. If it leads to war, I’m fine with it. But the important thing for me right now is selling why anyone would believe this peace might be different. “We have hostages, they wouldn’t dare!” does that for me to some degree. But if things go wrong with the hostages, even without any malice, that’s a good way to restart the war instantly, if you want that to happen.

@Zarao-colinas-pardas

It would be seen as downright throwing one of your own into a monster pit to die or be enslaved.

Okay, I guess I see where your post is going.

This isn’t race-centric, this is meant to be character-centric. You seem to be talking more about the feelings of “the races” than about the people that are meant to be affected by the hostages: The leaders that make the decisions. If Aggra was with Genn, that would make Thrall quite invested in not giving Genn reason to see the Horde as a current enemy. If Shandris was with the orcs, Tyrande would think twice before starting raiding parties. If the newly invented mentally challenged nephew of Lor’themar whom he cared about was in Jaina’s care, he wouldn’t want a war.

Why? Because the hostages are supposed to make them invested in peace personally. The rest of the race doesn’t really come into it, except if you think they would topple their leaders over that decision. If it only leads to some dissatisfaction… well, that’s not a bad thing for the narrative, and is something the leaders can deal with.

And while you might be able to argue that the average Tauren, Human or Orc doesn’t see the other faction as something other than a brutal enemy, and would feel that leaving their friends with them was akin to murder, I feel you’d have a hard time arguing the same for Baine, Anduin and Thrall. The guys that decide about war and peace and command the greatest armies. And those are the guys that are supposed to do the hard gesture that is meant to ensure peace, because no side’s leaders can act without giving up on their own.

The idea is to make an Alliance attack against the Horde an attack against everyone who has someone they care about in the Horde’s care, and vice versa. If you attack the faction that has Jaina’s mother, you’re not just attacking the Horde, you’re making Jaina your enemy. And Jaina commands Kul Tiras.

@Zarao-colinas-pardas

Throwing a neutral-acting Orc from the ER at Stormwinds doorstep and saying “He represents Orgrimmar”, has about the same impact on whatever happens with the faction war, as wet paper.

This is also not about representation. It doesn’t matter if Lor’themar’s dim nephew is an embarassment to elfkind. It matters if he personally cares about him and has the power to make that felt. No one but him needs to care to sway the people he commands, as long as he commands them.