Deaders leave entire northern Eastern Kingoms and go squat in the Ghostlands and take Frostwolves with them. Herf can still keep Quel’thalas if they want. Also, Stonard and Kargath are destroyed.
Jaina Proudmoore’s head on a pike, all Silver Covenant members handed over to Quel’thalas to be judged for Crimes against the nation and the Alliance’s promise that it’ll put all the Horde leaders to death, rebels included, and acknowledge Quel’thalas as a sovereign independent kingdom allied with the Alliance in military matters only.
In exchange they can help us wipe out Zul’aman and build a new city over it’s ruins that the Void Elves can have. There’s even some Old God minion’s corpse for them to poke underneath it. If that hasn’t affected the Sunwell then they should be fine.
1 Like
They are part of the horde and are given a chance to flee or be slaughtered.
Which is more then the rest will get.
For personal things, I guess it’s all about just getting this whole narrative over and done with. I don’t want either faction to lose or be narratively mutilated anymore that it already has been.
Take Sylvanas and the majority of the perps in heavy support of her if the Alliance want something to sink their teeth into. But that’s pretty much it in all honesty. I wouldn’t mind giving the Alliance a number of their lands back too, so long as it stops this non-sensical aggression in favour of actual ones that make sense logistically or narratively.
I, personally wanted a BFA according to a war based out of a resource struggle. Not a drama flick mired with political messages.
5 Likes
Yeah,we did miss some and they returned.
They were fools that trusted Garrosh and assisted in his attack on Ashenvale, that is the main reason the Kaldorei annihilated them the first time, they wanted to expand out of the vale.
They also aided the Horde in the burning of Teldrassil thanks to their knowledge of the area, they must be eradicated completely.
It’s hard to reach a middle ground or some terms that at least make the other side even consider surrender, when the consequences of doing so randomly include punitive measures that exceed greatly what would be acceptable for anyone.
Why should the Horde even consider surrender if the Alliance demands that they hand over an entire tribe to be annihilated?
2 Likes
There are political messages? Really, I only see them trying their hardest to not make it any more complex than “war is bad, hmkay?”. I’m not saying that the writing it isn’t heavily influenced by their politics, but I just don’t see much messaging.
1 Like
The alliance doesen’t accept anything that isn’t counter genocide plus world domination by taking as much land as possible. Reason why my troll in rp fully pledges to Sylvanas. Alliance dogs hunting trolls and others down has to stop.
Well at the end of MOP the Alliance had an opportunity and the upper hand to dismantle the Horde, however Varian’s incompetence and boy wonder’s influence swayed him. The Horde in its current state is a perfect opportunity for the Alliance to strike and take them down, however we are still waiting for 8.3 because no one knows how BFA is going to end.
I won’t be surprised if the Alliance ends up being mangled by some plot twist at the hands of Sylvanas.
2 Likes
A Troll allying themselves with High Elves over people not respecting Troll land.
Do you hear that rumbling? I think that’s Zul’jin rotating in his grave.
3 Likes
Amani are traitors allied to Zul. All the good trolls are on team horde. Meaning revantusk and darkspear and shatter spear. 
If they truly tried to do so now, the handicap the Horde is currently crippling itself with, would almost instantly disappear, as it was created under the assumption that Sylvanas warmongering is unjustifiable.
If the Alliance started doing what you described, it would validate Sylvanas mindset to her fullest and the ones oppose her would stop doing so.
Which in turn, would remove the handicap you are referencing.
See, both sides can work on terms in which to accept surrender from their enemies, but pushing for unreasonable ones turn any scenario argued as something impossible to happen.
Prosecute further the Trolls or Tauren, and the dissent they have with Sylvanas disappears.
3 Likes
Ideally it would be to a Warchief that isn’t Sylvanas.
At a minimum it would be under the guarantee that any combination of either Tauren races, Ji’s Pandaran and maybe the Blood Elves, hold custody of any Alliance prisoners. If the Alliance ultimately endures they’d be allowed to remain autonomous but act as a protectorate of the above races.
It depends on how one sees it, really. You may not see them, but trying to point them out may not be what it is for another person… as it is with political messages :'D
for example, some are concerned of the female roles according to strong female character symbolism and such.
1 Like
What do you see?
I see: We shoud forgive people who murder our friends and family.
Even after they did it 4 times before.
You shoud just let bullies walk over you.
To my suprise i havent found any evidence of the classic sjw problem of woman are always right.
So far incomptence is spread across all charaters regardless of gender.
3 Likes
Oh. I don’t doubt they are going for that. But I don’t see that so much in the story, but in the choice of characters. They want their world to conform with representation demands, but the stuff that is happening? I don’t really see it following a political agenda.
For example, I can’t see any female empowerment message in that. Especially considering the most prominent villain until now… was strunk independent waman Sylvanas, for Alliance and rebels both.
And “non-traditional, unthreatening male” Anduin has been surprisingly absent from the plot, and when he appeared, he was in the role of the traditional, inspirational warrior, who takes out the tank by himself. His “love conquers all”-philosophy might be what the devs support, but it was his decision that Sylvanas was beyond redemption, that forms the basis for his actions in BfA.
Of course we aren’t at the end yet, and in the end the moral might have been that we should all have trusted the self-actualized woman Sylvanas to know what she is doing (although I might have to throw up in that case), but this just hasn’t happened yet, and it is hard to see how it would, really.
Jaina’s BfA story wasn’t particularily drenched in modern social politics, either. It went with “war is bad”, but apart from that it was mostly “forgive yourself, and don’t let bad experiences poison your life”. Daelin’s motivation wasn’t even really touched on, much less judged, it was all about Jaina’s relationship with herself.
I myself am kind of wary of political messaging in entertainment, since I do think it is rarely well done and can ruin long-standing worlds. But I don’t really think it is any kind of problem for WoW yet. Really, as far as I see it, WoW’s story is so very bad at the moment, some messaging might actually make it better. At least there would be some direction then…
Edit:
I guess Saurfang’s story could kind of be seen as a parable on the failures of toxic masculinity? He is forced to confront the problems within his warrior’s ethics, and the unintended consequences they can provoce. But I’m not sure if the lesson he takes away is that aggression is bad, and not rather that rules are needed, which is not really that anti-traditional.
4 Likes
Let’s be honest now, any story line that includes Tyrande,Malfurion,and even Greymane settling for peace with the Horde is completely controversial and anticlimactic (the same can be said for Talanji on the Horde side), in addition to that if Sylvanas is revealed as the new messiah (Or Illidan) of the expansion as it has been hinted in interviews the playerbase is left with the same disdain as before, meaning all of the Alliance ( and some horde members) are just foils and imbeciles…
The only way to resolve this is to keep Sylvanas morally ‘‘grey’’ in her future endeavors which is very difficult after the premise they set.
5 Likes
Good post tbh, but again, it’s how one sees it. In general, i’m of the neutral opinion that a game nor story shouldn’t be the basis of any of these ideaologies and should just remain in the context of the story that’s being told.
Which is what grates me to be honest. I’d like to NOT feel they’re trying to constantly make these messages and making bad writing in general, but tbh i can’t help it personally.
Not… really what I was going for, but okay?
I’d certainly recommend going for fresh air if this was taken to heart as most in this particular list is just par for the course in the elements of storytelling.
Otherwise, writers like Stephen King shouldn’t be popular in the first place.
True. Very true.
But that doesn’t mean that in an hypothetical scenario where we theorise about someone surrendering, either side be any more willing to meekly just accept terms such as sacrificing an allied tribe.
It would be equatable to ask that the only way the Horde would accept the Alliance surrender, is if they gave up Stormwind and it’s citizens for Sylvanas to create her undead empire.
We know there would never be a “surrender” under those terms.
Yes, any ending now will be forced, controversial, and will leave at least one faction extremely dissatisfied.
Surrender? For some races that’d be impossible to contemplate as of now.
2 Likes
Who?
What do you mean?