War is not a conflict, it’s a resolution of conflict that everyone failed to resolve otherwise.
So yeah, war is failure.
This is exactly what the Horde has been doing since vanilla and yet the Alliance has allowed it everytime.
If the Alliance reacted to every transgression of the Horde during all their treaties the same way the Horde reacted to them the treaties would fail the same day as they were signed.
The Horde has allowed its military commanders to attack and/or invade Alliance lands, attack Alliance armies, enslave Alliance citizens time and time again without punishment.
The moment the Alliance has a backbone and takes the gloves off to give the Horde a taste of their own medicine, the Horde suddenly starts crying about how they need to trial their own people etc.
Remember how the orcish general that attacked an Alliance army (that was succesfully invading icecrown of all places) got a way with a “warning”?
Remember how the Horde allowed the Warsong Clan to continue lumber operations in Ashenvale, even if it was Alliance territory, and no one got punished?
Remember how the Horde was allowed to keep Stonard even if they kept attacking and stealing from the Alliance’s Nethergarde Keep and its mines?
Remember how the Horde was allowed to bring in the warcriminals of the Blackrock and Dragonmaw Clans, without the Alliance demanding justice for their deeds?
Remember how the Horde enslaved the King of Stormwind, or a night elven druid or even to this day, they have an enslaved worgen and naga in Durotar, without the Alliance making a fuss?
Point is that the Horde is filled with hypocrites that break any treaty any chance they get, but then cry foul when the Alliance does so.
2 Likes
Really? When and where?
And i’m talking about stuff that happened outside of acknowledged skirmish zones that are treated as such by both sides (most of the BG locations), and that has also been seen as a relevant event in lore.
Not really.
Of all the list you mention, several of its examples are around zones both factions acknowledge as conflict areas where at this point both are committed to deal with tension surfacing (Ashenvale BG was referenced as such by Shandris in Wolfheart).
Others are punctual clashed mirrored by both factions across the globe (Stonard or ICC), that aren’t addressed as diplomatic incidents by either faction, or that took place around a time when neither side was at peace.
I mean, just like the Alliance isn’t really that bothered with Ashenvale, the Horde doesn’t seem to mind having the Stormpike attacking the Frostwolves.
You also named some curious examples:
Guess this goes along the lines of admitting Void elves and Dark Iron.
Let alone that the above was done at a time when both sides were actively killing each other.
So i wouldn’t count this as “allowing”. In fact, most of the above died in said war.
And they have every right to do so.
Specially given that anyone could go on a similar list as the one you mentioned, and see it from an Horde’s POV in a way that highlights the Alliance hypocrisy too.
But, the story treats events differently, and just like the Horde is to take the constant raids in Durotar, or the ones against the Frostwolves in Alterac, or Alliance soldiers randomly kidnapping Thrall and blowing out of the sea a ship full of goblins, as not enough reason to start a war, then the Alliance will likely do so from an ingame perspective, with any event that is deemed as a byproduct of the Cold War that’s been going on and off in the game.
PS: You also mixed in said list, events that happened during war times, so that isn’t exactly what i’d call relevant in terms of whether either side accommodates or not to any peace treaty.
Military leader is Anduin. Likelyhood of him taking them into a consideration for the further actions is high. Especially before defending Sylvanas in the Ruins of Lordaeron, because that would show the shock of what was done and their wilinness to commit to a stated common goal (peace, cooperation and all of that).
WoW lack details. There is next to no info about things like economy, education, and legal system is one of those things. There are next to no examples of how it happens. How, in peace times, factions communicate, try to set up trading, what guarantees that thing will be done, what are penalties, how do the sides agree on resolving minor-ish conflicts.
When there is nothing of the kind all I can do it to fallback to whatever I know about irl things. And irl, war happens when dyplomacy fails. Not only option, but also among other things. Hence in my mind not trying to get you people killed is kind of the 1st option to try.
What reaction? The whole thing was Thrall and Varian screaming at each other during siege of Undercity and Jaina teleporting Varian out. Then there was some tention in Ulduar, which went nowhere. Then there was ICC thing, with the whole Varain’s “let the father mourn” or something.
Wrath story went nowhere till blizz decided to put Garrosh on the path he followed, and to turn Thrall into a diet aspect of the earth.
Yes, probably. And also there is no logic in him doing all he could to push zandalari into the horde with a motivation of “not let them join the horde” (lulwhat? How could it work?)
Which is why the whole story IMO is a mess and is placed on the edge of throwing and remains of common sense out of the window.
There is some value in keeping track of both what the devs supposedly wanted to tell and what the players actually saw.
I saw such suggestions many times. I would prefer the BfA nonsense to never happen, but it’s a bit too late for that.
You know what IMO is the way more interesting fact? That now there is peace time. Not only we have no idea about the details of the current negotiations (since Sylvanas departure till the abductions), but the story with Genn’s actions and Jaina’s things in Dalaran still not addressed even though it would be obvious steps to solidify peace.
That is another example of why I find the whole faction conflict part of BfA ridiculous.
gl hf
The lone signals the Horde was given at that time were two:
- Anduin was watching them closely: Did so by swarming the capitol with spies.
- Those that had tried to kill the Warchief faced zero repercussions.
If there needed to be any peace, the Alliance was the one required to take the steps to signal such. Much like the Horde did with other notable events such as the Wrathgate.
But they didn’t.
Not only that, but they also decided to combine said inaction with the overbearing move to place spies all over the Horde’s capitol.
That’s not peaceful. That’s the opposite.
And Saurfang declared the war. Like Varian did after the Wrathgate (even if at least in his case, he had received enough feedback to note that the Horde was as aggravated as him by said incident).
No. The whole thing was Varian declaring war against the Horde and trying to attack the faction before being stopped by Jaina.
The fact that the story quickly shifted back towards the Scourge, does not negate the fundamentals: Varian declared war against the Horde, tried to invade Undercity and kill not only those involved in the incident, and was finally stopped by Jaina before he escalated it beyond repair. And even then, NEs still decided to break any peace agreement with the Horde by cutting any access to Ashenvale (whose access had been part of the initial peace agreement).
And all the above happened because some rogue agent had killed both Horde and Alliance, and had ultimately been punished for it by members of it own faction.
Yeah. I wouldn’t call brushing blatant issues under the rug, a logical course of action.
But that doesn’t negate the fact that the premise that kickstarted Saurfang, was indeed, logical.
Well, as you wish. To me when a character goes to the point of it’s better to kill a warchief than to allow to drag the horde in kickstarting another conflict, participating in initiating it is about 1 step from being out of character. But it just me. If you like such turn of the story, so be it. different people like different things.
I find it telling that in order to even start the faction conflict it required to use things on the edge of nonsense. But we have what we have. And it went even worse as the story progressed. Oh well. At least on paper now the devs claim to pay more attention to the feedback.
gl hf
Okey. Let’s just put a similar scenario:
What should the Alliance have done if the Horde had decided to try and kill Malfurion and Tyrande alongside a big chunk of the Night elf army during a peace treaty? And i don’t mean as a border skirmish like the Warsong Gulch, but as an absolute and intentional attempt at killing the Night elf leader, alongside his/her army.
Should’ve they seen it as a declaration of war and drag the faction into another conflict, or as a minor incident to be investigated and resolved diplomatically?
He never said that. Saurfang was never against conflict in itself, the guy was an Orc after all. He just was against dishonerable conduct according to his code of honor and pointless conflict.
A War for self preservation against someone who claims to want peace but acts completely the opposite is completely in character for Saurfang.
Idk, there is a line
His threat to kill Garrosh should he take the orcs down another dark road
© https://wow.gamepedia.com/Varok_Saurfang
He got to that point. Then he volunteered to do what he condemned. No reseach was done to verify the claims that “convinced” him. No war can go without blood and dark crap. Sometimes it could be a “lesser evil” in comparison, but one need a good reseach on “comparison” first, and understand that the thing will be full of mess regardless of what it touted as a motivation.
Yeah, going across a continent definitely fits the idea of “self preservation”.
Since no diplomatic work was done, there was not a shadow of a chance for the whole thing to be honourable. At most that would put seeds of hatred even if succeeded.
Do you mean WoW-style scenario, or something that I would consider reasonable?
WoW-scenario would be Khadgar [unless Khadgar runs away once again once his desired peace in danger instead of acting to keep peace] and Anduin running around cackling that we should feel bad for wishing to strike back.
Something that I would consider more “logical” - use neurtal goblin cartels, Valeera’s contacts, freshly gained “allies” in a form of hightmountain / nightborn. Gather and make the army ready, do research, check why defenses were so crap that it was even possible.
War is a lot of blood and a lot of good people dying. So, I personally would seek other paths first. But be ready anyway.
Can’t say about what would be done in “wow logic”. Based on what I’ve heard from Afrasiabi “what’s cool”.
gl hf
And what did they really end up doing?
See, this is the thing…the scenario i mentioned is but the premise behind the War of Thorns.
How did the Alliance react to that?
They saw it as a declaration of war.
How did the Alliance see it back in Cataclysm? As another declaration of war (one that made them retaliate against the Tauren in the Barrens).
And why do they see it that way? Because they acknowledge that any act of agression against either the ruling body or the subjects of their faction, is but a declaration that makes any previous agreement as devoid of any validity (in terms of whether it will be taken seriously)
What was “cool”? At least as what I saw in the interviews, that was a main motivation of the former leads.
To what? To the events of the BfA pre-patch? There is not much ambiguity to how to react to another faction murdering their way through civilians. And not quite what you asked about “killing Tyrande” in a hypothetical scenario.
Attack on Ashenvale? How would you interpret attacks on civilians? I do not remember all the details of questing in Ashenvale, just the burning Astranaar.
Well, one need to protect civilians. They among other things also do some useful stuff without which a nation / country would collapse completely.
Overall it was rather “meh” IMO, because in both cases there was still no evolution for the communication routes between the factions and more refined legal system, but I guess such things are not viewed by the devs as “cool”.
gl hf
I said:
I’m not talking about Teldrassil. I’m talking about the fact that said event is comparable to the War of Thorns.
How did the Alliance react to it?
Because as far as the short stories go, the Horde hadn’t explicitly engaged in civilian killings yet.
The clash was between Horde forces and the city guards under Malfurion and Delaryn.
Even if it eventually devolved to turn said civilians into collateral damage.
How did the Alliance react to said events when they started?
Did they assume that it was a rogue agent’s actions, worth still of investigating and open diplomatic alternatives, or did they inmediately send troops to engage against the Horde army, thus declaring open war against the faction?
The attack on Astranaar was carried out when both sides had already engaged in the war.
Talking here about the initial clash, and about the attack against Sentinels (soldiers).
And the way the Alliance interpreted such, was by declaring war and invading the Barrens.
Are you implying that the alliance forces sneaked secretly onto the horde territory and were killing militaries and civilians alike? 
afaia Anduin even later did not send anything. Just said “you, champion! You will count as the help”.
If you want to highlight something silly, IMO Talanji part is way more odd, because Anduin’s decisions hammered zandalari into the horde pretty much.
And it all seems really not like what Anduin would usually do. But to tell those “cool” stories the devs needed events to be placed conveniently, regardless of commons sense.
Well, to me this seems like it’s irrational and on the border of OOC. I know some people liked BfA more than Shadowlands, so, it’s not like I’m pretending to be universally correct.
Can’t comment on that. Eventually I’ll explore the topic. Doing other things for now.
gl hf
No.
What i’m implying is that as soon as the Alliance felt as if they had been victims of an act of agression, they had the exact same reasoning that spurned Saurfang to approve of this war.
Assuming anyone would waste time with diplomacy, investigations and all that, while your enemy is dropping bombs on you, and killing your soldiers, far from being sensible, it seems as if they are acting stupidly.
"As for Ashenvale, I’ll dispatch what forces I can at once. Velen will have whatever he needs and whatever public space we can find to house the refugees. I’ll send someone to the Netherlight Temple and ask the Conclave priests to aid us. I’m certain Archbishop Faol will be glad to help
He did.
And his instant reaction wasn’t about calling out for whether it was a “misunderstanding” or whether “the diplomatic route was still an alternative”. He dispatched troops, assumed Saurfang and Sylvanas had declared war, and started sending reinforcements. (He even tried to recall from neutral organisations…).
A natural reaction once you assume that the opposite side is unwilling to comply to any artificial “peace”.
Didn’t see it happening in the game, sorry. But that would require more night elf-y experts to comment on, as I only did bare minimum to unlock world quests in BfA.
Yeah, being on the enemy territory with civilian casualties could do the trick.
I’m not saying that Genn’s action should be srugged away, I’m all for exploring the theme in the story. It’s just being ignored. Over and over again.
Let’s just agree on disagree here. I do not know the in-universe ruling on the subject [other than “rule of cool”]. And falling back to irl casual logic… let’s say, a war is not a pretty thing, not in process, nor in aftermath. So, even if there is a fire opened, only minimal necessary defense is the 1st step. Better not escalate if at all possible not to. Sometimes have to though.
gl hf
^ Masterpiece. Green monsters invading Azeroth, killing everyone on sight and demanding place to live after the genocide they made… nothing to discuss here. “Strength and honor”, sure. Strength over half orc-sized peasants, who never intented to harm them and honor, which means to them only killing and pillaging. Lock them into camps and beat them until death, this is what they deserve.
2 Likes
Gotta wonder…
Has anyone pondered how the game would be like if these evidently intolerable acts never happened?
Because this is, in the end, literally spitting venom on the back of a fundamental concept story of a game and also blaming an entire half of a player-base for immoral acts just because they play on the red side.
Did you yourself kill the draenei or humans? If not, then i’m not spitting on you. Only on those people who defend those acts or think those who committed it should be forgiven
Didn’t answer my question.
I said, since this is such a problem, and has been a concept since WoW was literally made, what do you think should have happened instead?
Would you have preferred the Orcs didn’t show up at all? Not have been a playable race? That the only playable races in WoW should be Alliance to avoid moralistic critique of this scale? Already, i’m expecting non-contexual or no response at all from the pattern of your posts, sorry to say.
wow should made alliance the only playable faction yes. then blizzard wouldn’t have to deal with real life people playing for and admiring a fictional hitler that burns down cities of the other faction while feeling good about it and being surprised that alliance players criticize them for it.