Yeah I get the idea, but still as an external threat that would be one ticked off the bucket list.
It wasnt up until Horde was established faction that they started to indirectly help out with world threats. But that’s kind of stepping in another subject imo.
Orcs stand no chance with Grommash you mean. The bafoon led his own people to their own demise, if not for Thrall they would be still sapping some demon juice.
Now i’m not sure whether you meant it was better for humans or Orcs (i interpreted as referring to the latter), but i think that jail-time with a vain hope of recuperation is still better summary executions. At least from the orcs point of view.
Ah, no it was former.
Well I guess letting corrupted orcs free like wind isn’t the best idea for security of everyone, and humans weren’t aware that they were corrupted by demon blood.
He killed alliance dogs like they deserved it. Meanwhile all Thrall is doing is appeasing the Alliance. He is just as bad as Baine is and I wish both of them would be killed off for their multiple times treason.
Alright alright. I see this is not going to be a logical discussion. I’ll leave you to it.
My bad. Then yeah, that would’ve been the best option for humans (from a practical point of view, not a moral one).
Except we know that Orcs weren’t as frenzied as to be immune to either reasoning or common sense.
As i said earlier on, Orgrim himself opened the negotiation alternative after making a deal with Alterac, and vowing to leave the kingdom in peace if they promised to keep themselves out of said war.
It would probably take some time, and it certainly was an alternative that required a ton of work from all sides involved (maybe to much for humans to bother), but still, given it was kinda already working on a small scale with Alterac, it could’ve been contemplated on a larger one.
Northuldra, get some help buddy.
As a licensed medical doctor, I insist you go get checked asap. And you might want to spend some time away from the PC, it will do you good.
So weird. As a Horde player I never felt like I was on the bad side - just that I was on my side, participating to war efforts, helping “my” race to survive. In Fire Emblem 3 Houses you’re asked to pick a house with clearly defined moral and political views. I don’t think WoW works like that. I love the Horde because I feel close to it aesthetically, spiritually, philosophically, and I just can’t connect with the Alliance on those levels - doesn’t mean I think we’re right and you’re wrong. First because war usually isn’t about that, second because it’s a freaking game
Saurfang being “on board” IMO is a step from pushing him out of character (considering his threat to Garrosh in regards of taking the hord in another questionable direction).
Pretty much as the lack of draenei in the events, given that throughout Ashenvale (at least pre-Cata) there were draenei NPC alongside night elf ones, night elves supporting the draenei in joining the alliance, and draenei military inviting the players with “we die without question” appoach.
And it was only the beginning of the “amazing story” that is BfA.
gl hf
I don’t see it that way.
Regardless of how unwilling someone is to start a war, acknowledging the telltale signs about your enemy not giving a crap about the fact that there is supposed to be a peace treaty, is something hard to let slip.
If the “peace” is to come at the expense of the Alliance condoning random acts of aggression as soon as they sense an opening, then of what worth is it?
Allowing such, is extremely dangerous.
What if the next attack is succesful? What if a game changer (Azerite) comes into play and the next assault renders the Horde unable to recuperate?
That’s hardly an unreasonable logic.
IMO provocations are inevitable. If we would try to use logic for BfA (why would you do it?..) then there should’ve been an attept at the diplomatic resolution.
But, in the same expansion we have Anduin deciding to imprison a princess of not (yet) involved nation, which does not go well with how Anduin was shown to handle things both before and after. So, there is nothing surprising in the fact that neither the horde bothered to get an official statement from the alliance, nor that Anduin ever bothered to make a statement that could be known to the horde at least via Valeera.
With Anduin, expectation of him being an agressor is about as much as a random cat being good in the bridge design. Cat is good (sometimes) at doing cat things, not something unrelated (maybe not the best example, but absurd enough to highlight the oddity of the whole premise).
gl hf
The logic wasn’t about Anduin being an agressor.
The logic was about Anduin not reining those that were indeed acting agressively.
If those in charge of the military are allowed to run rampant and freely doing whatever they please, then of what use is to be at peace with the one supposedly in charge?
Say for example that Genn or Rogers had been succesful in killing the leader of the Horde, alongside a sizeable chunk of the Horde military. Then what?
“Wait, but Anduin wanted peace!” is not an excuse.
What if the next time they attacked they were succesful? That suddenly Rogers bombarded Undercity in retaliation for Southshore.
Or Genn destroyed the Echo Isles in retaliation for Gilneas.
Why should the Horde be expected to keep their side of the deal, if when they suffer an attack such as the one in Stormheim, the ones responsible for it get away with it unpunished?
When Putress bombarded the Wrathgate, the Horde marched alongside the Alliance to kill him. When Krom’gar destroyed a druid location, Garrosh threw him of a mountain.
When Twilight Hammer started skinning NEs in Ashenvale, Varian DEMANDED they were prosecuted and turned over to Alliance justice unless Thrall wanted another war in their hands. And Thrall tried to comply (with the only objection being that the Horde would try to deal with them internally)
In fact, Varian DECLARED a war after the Wrathgate DESPITE the fact that the Horde had marched alongside him to punish the one that carried it out.
As far as the Horde was concerned, the attack that costed the Horde its fleet in Stormheim, and that tried to assasinate their leader, had the ones responsible for it getting away completely scott-free.
The fact that Anduin leadership had so many flaws and lackings, was one of the reasons as to why the Horde viewed conflict inevitable. And this peace but wet paper.
It certainly didn’t help that Anduin’s “decisiveness”, when it finally manifested, came in the form of “swarming” Orgrimmar with spies.
Well, my opinion is simple: it’s time for weapons if the diplomacy fails. Use Valeera to find out about how it looks in the alliance if secrecy is needed to test the water; or make it official and known to everyone what the alliance would be willing to do about the thing, etc. Without it - eh, just about one of odd things of BfA.
[To me when a character who states pretty much that it’s better to kill a warchief than allow to drag everyone into another shady thing, suddely greenlits doing shady things is hella odd. IMO should that story be consistent with his character as previously established, mak’gora would happen in the BfA pre-patch, and not when it did]
I think you know that the popular answer would be “that would make things much better”.
I did not read that book, so I only know a retelling, which made it look like not actually bothering with any detective work. But I could have a false info.
gl hf
War in itself is not a shady thing, it’s how you fight the war. And Saurfangs plan was to keep the war mostly casualty free for both sides by taking Teldrassil hostage.
Sylvanas escalated the whole thing to total war by burning Teldrassil.
After that there was not really a choice but to fight the Alliance until both sides were beaten down enough for a peace.
Or do you think the Alliance would have accepted an alliance with everyone who was not on board with genocide without being in need of help to get Sylvanas.
Depends on which specific characters do you mean. I suggest to use as example the situation with the living-undead. Who actually have problems with that idea by the time right before BfA?
And it’s the forsaken I’m talking about. The most troublesome race from the alliance perspective (hello Southshore, etc.) What picture does it paint when it comes to the rest?
gl hf
I mean leaders like Baine, Saurfang or Lor’themar after Teldrassil but before Lordaeron.
Imo they had no choice but to keep going under Sylvanas because the Alliance would never have accepted peace by them before they were at a point they were unable to finish the war by themselves.
Why go the extra mile when all sides concerned know what said actions amounted to?
As A Good War goes, Saurfang’s impression about Genn and Rogers getting away with it scott-free was something that was indeed true, because in Before the Storm, Anduin recalls how the only thing he did was to basically give a verbal reprimand.
Put the above on the same scale that had Varian demanding the heads of all the Horde leaders after the Wrathgate, and declaring a war on the entire faction because of the actions of a rogue agent that was killed by fellow Horde members for said crime, and really, was the Horde’s reaction in this case all that strange given the context?
Because arguing otherwise smells a lot like double standards.
Saurfang didn’t greenlight doing shady things. He agreed with the fact that given the Alliance actions, if the Horde was to secure an everlasting peace, they would need to do so on THEIR terms. Not the Alliance ones.
Anduin should’ve been the one that openly approached the faction to try and calm things down. Or at least signalled openly how he condemned the actions made.
You know, like Thrall did with Putress (to the point we killed him), like Garrosh did with Krom’gar (to the point he killed him), etc.
Is this a popularity contest now? Sylvanas was an acceptable target because she wasn’t popular?
Because in order to weight the repercussions of these actions, the above counts for nothing.
Fact is, that the Alliance tried to assasinate the head of the Horde alongside a big chunk of their troops.
The ones that did so faced zero repercussions for said acts.
And that makes ANY peace treaty signed with them, be of dubious credibility to say the least.
And yes, if the status quo is such that the Alliance feels like they can throw around this sort of actions without facing repercussions, any Horde general like Saurfang will logically decide that they need to change it. ASAP.