So we're now cool with the Horde?

Lore Story
101

And nifty as hell!!

Edit:

???

How? “Jaina hasn’t harmed the faction…except killing the leader of a newly incorporated race that was already heavily involved with the Horde in both cultural and ideological levels (even if yet not officially involved in their war effort)”.

Arguing that Jaina hasn’t harmed what currently makes up the faction is about as disingenuous as stating Sylvanas hasn’t done much to the Alliance because when she first attacked Gilneas they were still kinda neutral.

4 Likes
102

They did leave the Alliance.

About that Southshore, Teldrassil/Blood War, Wrathgate, Broken Shore incompetency and so on though…….you pick bad examples.

103

Hol’ Up…

The attack on Gilneas is to be considered as an attack against a neutral kingdom? Not against the Alliance?

I?
I referenced the first attack against Gilneas:

Why comment on the other stuff?

Edit: And you’ll be damn sure that Jaina is to be held accountable for the death of Rastakhan. Her lone purpose atop Dazar’alor was to prevent the guards from coming to his aid.

1 Like
104

They lost their fleet ----> Literally no one cares because the Alliance also somehow lost its entire fleet in this patch.

They lost their king ----> Good, they lost useless old Rastakhan and got a Mary Sue as their queen (I can hear Zakkaru’s wrath from here).

Jaina could destroy the world and I still wouldn’t care if it didn’t have meaningful consequences in-game.

105

Yes yes, Zarao, Jaina evil. Whatever makes you sleep at night. Sylvanas iz great example of leader who doesn’t commit a dozen warcrimes on Azeroth every other breath lol. Jaina has gone too far it seems.

Are you implying that the Alliance loses even when they win? :thinking: Blizzard wouldn’t do such a thing…surely! /s

Half the Golden Fleet is still out there, for those who still care about the numbers.

Anyway, I will depart as I said I would.

2 Likes
106

Those two Sunreaver guards though. That was Jaina’s moral event horizon. The moment she blasted those two guards, she proved that she was no better than Garrosh… That she was no better than the Lich King.

2 Likes
107

Now that is a strawman. :+1:
It’s interesting reading certain people go round and round over stuff they supposedly hate, but keep on bringing up even if it’s unrelated to the topic at hand.
Way to get Sylvanas trendy even if it’s unneeded.

4 Likes
108

Why are you liking your own posts?

2 Likes
109

“It’s Hiiiiiigh Tiiiide!”

110

Duh. The actions of Sylvanas led them into the Alliance. So if they were attacked while they were neutral and didn’t have any links to the Alliance, then yes, the attack against Gilneas wasn’t an attack against the Alliance at the time. The Alliance weren’t even allied with Gilneas or had anything to do with it prior to the attack.

5 Likes
111

So, when the Alliance makes Genns plea their own, and start retaliating against the Horde because of it, they are wrong??

I’m sorry but this ongoing rationale is downright absurd. The Zandalari (and Gilnean), were part of their respective faction in all but name.
Arguing that the aggressions against them aren’t to be considered “harmful” for the faction they currently work for is disingenuous.
Specially if it’s a continuous tendency and makes no distinction between them and the faction they allegedly “aren’t part of”.

The attack on Zandalari was reasoned as a way to preemptively cripple the Horde.

Which it did.

Because they be good mon. And it inflates my ego.
Might have to do with certain penny-pincher that doesn’t want to pay her sub and logs in without permission…

But, mostly the above. I’m full of myself like a Scottish bagpipe.

2 Likes
112

Your Forsaken GF? I thought she wasn’t active on the forums?

EDIT

Also, this is not a joke refering to Sylvanas btw, but I know your gf plays a Forsaken.

1 Like
113

Nope. My ego. Only my ego.
Sharing accounts is strictly forbidden in WoW (for playing and forum posting).

114

Uh, The Zandalari had already joined forces with the Horde, and attacked the Alliance, by the time of the Alliance invasion. Gilneas had done nothing by the time the forsaken invaded. Those are very different situations.

115

Ermm… It wasn’t just two guards, Remember that bit in the thread earlier where a lot of Team Blue posters were saying if you affiliate yourself with an organisation you are culpable for their crimes? I mean there was post after post saying this was so even though Garrosh was not even on the planet yet.
Don’t you think that is a little Pot and Kettle, I mean Jaina was, and still is, affiliated with the Silver Covenant, and they killed a lot more than this ‘two guards’ nonsense you keep spouting. Heck, you as the player are ordered to murder three civilians, by Vereesa. Who was given -her- orders/was let loose by Jaina. Lets not forget there was torture, as well as murder.

So whilst Garrosh’s overall crimes were vast, almost unimaginable in their scale, and he got his just rewards, sadly not by seeing his Trial through to the end, If we’re saying he is responsible for crimes committed when he wasn’t even on the planet, what does that make someone who wandered around blithely watching the murders she had OK’d?

It can’t be both ways. The morality is actually the same, the Scale however, is far different.

As for factions attacking neutral states and driving them towards the opposite faction, well we’re not exactly short of those in the story are we?

Sylvanas attacks the Neutral Kingdom of Gilneas, driving it to accept Alliance aid and eventually join.
Tyrande presumably authorised the Spying, sabotage and small scale Invasion (Seriously, they’re everywhere in Eversong and Ghostlands, having even taken land, ) of the Neutral Kingdom of Quel’thalas, so it turns for aid to the Horde.

Even the (at the time) Neutral Forsaken sent envoys to the Alliance, who were promptly murdered, hence forcing the Forsaken into the Horde (I mean that was always going to happen, but at the time they were neutral).

The Vulpera, at the time, were a Neutral nation who happened to be trading with their new neighbours, rather than sending envoys to a Neutral nation saying “Yes, I know you’ve never met us, and we live far away, but these guys you support,indirectly, they’re bad people, at the least, why don’t you stay neutral, plenty of nations do, and it works fine” Instead went for the “Kill them, burn their caravans, because they are trading with the ‘bad’ guys (I mean in that scenario, the Alliance are the bad guys,) so we need to teach them a lesson!”

End result? They drive the Vulpera closer to the Horde.

That’s how it works, in our world and it seems in Azeroth. If there are two vast Power blocs, and one of them attacks a neutral nation, that nation won’t just suffer in silence, they’ll go to the other Power bloc and say “Umm, help?”

3 Likes
116

Pretty much. The Zandalari allowed the Horde to estabilish an embassy in the royal palace, dock a royal flagship near the harbors, and move their troops freely through Zandalari lands. Meanwhile Gilneas didn’t even let Alliance refugees enter the nation to flee from the Scourge and the Forsaken.

117

Well, at least you are honest about it.

Still sad though.

2 Likes
118

Kinda sidetracked, but guess i opened this can of worms with the comparison.
Anyway, if Gilneas was as detached as some try to put it, the wrongings they suffered at the hands of Sylvanas wouldn’t be the current rallying flag the Alliance uses in the EK war.

And regarding the Zandalari bit…well…yeah (?). That’s kind of my point.
Any harm that befell the Zandalari is something to be considered as harmful for the Horde.
The whole strategy that made the Alliance attack Zuldazar was conceived with that exact purpose.

I could give you a Paypal for pity money if you want to contribute…
(Even if i rather you replied to whatever this derailment is about, and tackled the answer i gave your post :man_shrugging:).
PS: Kidding btw, don’t mind either way.:grin:

119

Alright.

They were already against the Horde before this so this was as just them helping a victim of an unprovoked attack. Whether that’s right or wrong is unimportant.

The difference between the two is crystal-clear. The Gilneas were minding their own business and didn’t give a damn about the Alliance until Sylvanas attacked while Talanji (and later the Zandalari) actively went out to seek alliance with the Horde.

If you think these two cases are completely similar then you are deluded or dishonest.

As for the pity, I do pity you. I truly hope you will one day realize that being full of yourself and having to have the last word no matter what leads only to one’s own destruction. But you do you. I don’t mind either way. :grin:

5 Likes
120

I think that in context regarding what i was answering to, that was rather important.

The rationale used regarding why someone harming the Zandalari had nothing to do with the Horde, was about them being neutrals at the time they were attacked.

Never said these were completely similar. There is certainly differences at hand.

That doesn’t mean that in essence, both are quite comparable.

The discussion at hand had me arguing about the fact that said sort of neutrality, and being attacked during such state, still amounts to pretty harmful consequences to the faction that they end up allying with.
And this has been acknowledged even inside the game.

Hence why Gilneas is perceived as an affront to be settled by the Alliance as a whole (Not only Gilneans), and raiding Zuldazar was an idea conceived as a way to harm the Horde (not only the Zandalari).

If the point to be made is “X didn’t harm Y, because they were at that time kiiinda neutral”, then sorry, but thats wrong.
Specially in cases as the ones we had with Gilneas and Zandalar.

PS:

You are giving waaaay to much credit to some random nonsense i felt like calling out.
If we can’t take with humour stuff like randomly butting in with trivial stuff like post likes, then whats the point?
(And i don’t feel like spelling out any more than necessary what happened…).

God, talk about sucking the joy…

1 Like