This idiot is the reason Thunder Bluff stands

[Iracor]

In DnD terms:

The Alliance are lawful.

The Horde are chaotic.

NPCs that work with both sides to stop a far greater evil are neutral.

Both sides have good and evil people. They also have people that are put in difficult situations that are required to sacrifice their values to overcome a greater threat.

[Deleted]

He made a very serious mistake, that has happened before to other honorable military leaders: he didn't realize that after you attack a civilian settlement, you become responsible for whatever happens to them. While having the best of intentions, yes, Hawthorne was responsible/guilty for their doom. And he knew it, himself.
When one doesn't want to hurt the civilian population, there are only 2 options: either you offer the settlement to surrender and be occupied peacefully, taking their weapons away, or you capture the civilians, making sure they are not to be hurt while in captivity, and then offer the enemy to hand them over peacefully.

You are absolutely correct, and I didn't even consider that perspective. That opens up some wild speculation - would he have offered them to surrender if he could (i.e. was High Command keeping him from it), or did he not even think of that option in the first place?

Still, quest text indicates that Bloodhilt is more angry with the way innocents died and how Alliance looters are scavenging the ruins. I can't say for sure, but I still think things would've gone down differently if it wasn't for the misunderstandings across the lines. Either way, Hawthorne was a good man who made a fatal mistake - not a bad one.

[Deleted]

From what I recall, the Alliance side hints at the whole Taurajo deal being a set-up by some die-hard Alliance 'informers' that claimed Taurajo was a war camp, when all it was was a hunters' outpost quite frankly. Hawthorne went by what he was told, but made certain the civilians could escape (which was a bit of a dick move since all they could escape to was a hyena and quillboar infested waste...).

His mistake was listening to his subordinates and considering them good people when really they were crazy bloodthirsty maniacs. And look where their ingenious idea got them: Thunder Bluff, before not too keen on waging war became a nest of fury directed at the despoilers of Taurajo. *Slow clap*

[Deleted]

In DnD terms:

The Alliance are lawful.

The Horde are chaotic.

NPCs that work with both sides to stop a far greater evil are neutral.

Both sides have good and evil people. They also have people that are put in difficult situations that are required to sacrifice their values to overcome a greater threat.

Yeah, this. If ALL of alliance would think the same and ALL of the horde would feel the same it would be pretty damn boring lore (and it would be even more lollore).
Its kinda like saying "all americans want war" just because goverment did.

There needs to be variety inside both sides, even "bad guys". Its not like illidan and lich king were BFF just cos they were "bad guys" you know.

[yetgdhfgh]

I love the quest lines in the southern barrens and i would really recommend people play them as horde and alliance

The whole zone is so woven beutifully

I played horde and when i first did the zone i relished the idea of killing General Hawthorne cause the horde text make him seem like a heartless butcher but then i came back on my only ally toon and did it again and it makes him out to be a reluctant general who regretted the decision

Then you have what happens at Beal Modan if you play the horde version it seems the dwarfs are the ones responsible for attacking taurajo and the tauren who give you quest wants his revenge which is understandable and its satisfying to blow the place up. Then you do it on the ally side and you feel sorry that the dwarf leaders son who gets killed but does that justify blowing up a mine filled with unarmed gobins which the dwarf general orders you to do out of revenge

It shows how war is never black and white its grey

[Deleted]

It shows how war is never black and white its grey

Sometimes WoW makes me think war is black and black...

[Yriel]

Theramore will be destroyed with (lorewise) thousands of dead.

When Theramore agreed to be the alliances main base to launch the attack on the barrens, Theramore ceased to be a neutral town and became a legitimate military target. It´s their own fault that they choose to get involved in the war. You can´t have it both ways, you either stay neutral or launch an attack.

---------- Post added 2012-05-01 at 11:32 AM ----------

In DnD terms:

The Alliance are lawful.

The Horde are chaotic.

The Horde has a clear leadership structure and disobeying rules is punished severely (the general in Stonetalon could tell you a tale of that). So where is the Horde chaotic ?

[Deleted]

And this is the moment where Salandrin starts trying too hard on the flamebaits...

[Deleted]

The Horde has a clear leadership structure and disobeying rules is punished severely (the general in Stonetalon could tell you a tale of that). So where is the Horde chaotic ?

While not entirely chaotic, i think Garrosh's lead tends more to the chaotic than the lawful (which Thrall embraced), or even neutral side. Garrosh's rule is based on his own concept of personal honor, makes many decisions on the spot, without any kind of procedure nor law. His Horde structure is based on personal loyalty to him.
Take general Kor'kron: was he subjected to a court-martial? No, he was executed right on the spot after capture, by Garrosh himself who got wind of what he had done. There was no invokation of any law Kor'kron had violated, instead Garrosh tells him a tale from his life. Kor'kron was killed because Garrosh considered that action to be dishonorable, and by having an underling doing dishonorable things, he himself was dishonored.

I'm not saying he was in the wrong on this event. What i'm saying is that this action is very much telling us that Garrosh leans to chaotic more than to lawful.

[Solmyr13]

This whole "Horde is more loved" than the Alliance thing is just silly at this point. Both factions have had their moments; how many Horde complained about AV for the first couple of years when you could literally just jump OVER the Horde wall to get into the horde base while the Horde had to run across that bridge which could be beaten with knockbacks (or snowballs for those who remember) throwing them off the bridge? And it's STILL in the game, the only reason it doesn't matter as much anymore is AV has just turned into "Who can effectively Zerg faster than the other team".

[Deleted]

While not entirely chaotic, i think Garrosh's lead tends more to the chaotic than the lawful (which Thrall embraced), or even neutral side. Garrosh's rule is based on his own concept of personal honor, makes many decisions on the spot, without any kind of procedure nor law. His Horde structure is based on personal loyalty to him.
Take general Kor'kron: was he subjected to a court-martial? No, he was executed right on the spot after capture, by Garrosh himself who got wind of what he had done. There was no invokation of any law Kor'kron had violated, instead Garrosh tells him a tale from his life. Kor'kron was killed because Garrosh considered that action to be dishonorable, and by having an underling doing dishonorable things, he himself was dishonored.

I'm not saying he was in the wrong on this event. What i'm saying is that this action is very much telling us that Garrosh leans to chaotic more than to lawful.

The stuff you described is still what would be considered "lawful". The Galactic Empire were lawful evil, they executed people on the spot as well. The Lawful-Chaotic scale is about how much you care about structure and command, not necessarily how much paperwork you're willing to go through before taking action (although that can certainly be part of a lawful society). Loyalty is one of the things a chaotic character values the least, whether they be good bad or neutral. Frankly, I think the D&D alignment chart doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.

[Syferite]

Oh this again. What a new and original thread.

Anyway. Both sides are stupid. I am horribly embarrassed to be part of either the Horde or Alliance and anyone that proclaims to be proud of either needs to get a clue.

[Scummer]

The Horde has a clear leadership structure and disobeying rules is punished severely (the general in Stonetalon could tell you a tale of that). So where is the Horde chaotic ?

That Orc is not the only one running around being a jerk under Garrosh's command, there is also the one off Northwatch skinning Worgen and wearing their faces and orders the Orcs to capture Gilnean refugees, and once their ship capsizes he orders the Orcs to shoot the survivors that hadn't already drowned. Garrosh rules with an iron fist, we see the same thing in the Southern Barrens with the Orc Garrosh sends. What Garrosh does is promote the use savage violence among the Orcs and then executes those who do not follow suit and those who do it to zealously. That is a very chaotic system if you ask me.

I'm also slightly mythed that Garrosh throws this Orc off a cliff for murdering innocents and children and yet is set to do the same to Theramore and does it so brutally it changes Jaina's view on the current state of the Orc's without Thralls guidance.

[ShadowJester]

why did you make this thread literally more than a year after you should have seen this. also you should realize that it shows the alliance being kind and thoughtful and then the horde murders him anyway. if anything it makes the horde look super dickish. but w/e qq about things that are better for your side. the propaganda from this alone could sway many panda to your less vicious side.

[Deleted]

The stuff you described is still what would be considered "lawful". The Galactic Empire were lawful evil, they executed people on the spot as well. The Lawful-Chaotic scale is about how much you care about structure and command, not necessarily how much paperwork you're willing to go through before taking action (although that can certainly be part of a lawful society). Loyalty is one of the things a chaotic character values the least, whether they be good bad or neutral. Frankly, I think the D&D alignment chart doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.

I could very well be mistaken about the correct meaning of the allignments, I have never actually played D&D.

My info came from reading on the net, and i was pointed that lawful characters needed either a legislation or a code of some kind, even if it is just an internalized code. While Garrosh, from that point of view would be lawful (as he follows his honor morality), because he doesn't make that code publicly known, the Horde as a whole could be seen as behaving chaotically: Kor'kron is completely surprised to learn that he was not following the wishes of the warchief. What do you think?

Oh yes, the Sith do assassinate and execute on the spot... but they are following the sith philosophy to the letter, so it's perfectly lawful. So you are right about the paperwork thing.

---------- Post added 2012-05-01 at 01:26 PM ----------

I'm also slightly mythed that Garrosh throws this Orc off a cliff for murdering innocents and children and yet is set to do the same to Theramore and does it so brutally it changes Jaina's view on the current state of the Orc's without Thralls guidance.

So i am... when Cata released i was seeing hopeful signs that Garrosh could learn about the contradictions of rulership, that war is a stupid drain for resources, and that brutality and being the strongest will not make you a more respected leader... that he could actually overcome being the son of Hellscream without having to die.
And then, they throw the bomb with the destruction of Theramore, and the Pandaria introductory cutscene, where Garrosh is more irresponsible than ever. I got the impression they just gave up on developing his character...

but of course, we don't know the whole story, only bits here and there, of what happens in Pandaria... so i want to remain hopeful that we can have a responsible and mature Garrosh "seeing the error of his ways" and giving up rulership, in that final raid.

[Every Pwny]

It's amazing how the alliance ends up holding back so much especially in cataclysm, even though the horde commit such atrocities against them.

I don't know if that's just bad story telling or intended, but the horde under Garrosh pretty much are the bad guys.

[Venziir]

The Forsaken are part of the horde, so it IS the horde that are/were doing it. Saying the horde is noble, except for this one faction that are psychopathic baby killers, doesnt make much sense.

The Forsaken are notorious for doing things not approved by the rest of the Horde.... So yeah, it does make sense.

---------- Post added 2012-05-01 at 01:32 PM ----------

In DnD terms:

The Alliance are lawful.

The Horde are chaotic.

NPCs that work with both sides to stop a far greater evil are neutral.

Both sides have good and evil people. They also have people that are put in difficult situations that are required to sacrifice their values to overcome a greater threat.

I disagree. Take the gnomes for example, they are well known for making experiments and hazardous machines making them a lot more chaotic than lawful, the dwarves are constantly digging, disturbing what not and damaging the landscape, again rather chaotic. The Night Elf druids borders neutral etc. You can't use such broad terms, since the various races haven't got the same mindset.

[Deleted]

the dwarves are constantly digging, disturbing what not and damaging the landscape, again rather chaotic.

Wrong... to roll a dwarf, one of the two allignments has to be beer. Lawful beer, evil beer, beer chaotic...

[Trassk]

Yeah, this. If ALL of alliance would think the same and ALL of the horde would feel the same it would be pretty damn boring lore (and it would be even more lollore).
Its kinda like saying "all americans want war" just because goverment did.

There needs to be variety inside both sides, even "bad guys". Its not like illidan and lich king were BFF just cos they were "bad guys" you know.

You know it wouldn't be so bad if they actully DID put some bad guys in the alliance, much like the horde has noble savage races, they are conflicted by things like the forsaken and those that follow garrosh. If the alliance had something to them with say a race of garithos themed bigots, xenophobes or something, it might even the story out.

[Every Pwny]

You know it wouldn't be so bad if they actully DID put some bad guys in the alliance, much like the horde has noble savage races, they are conflicted by things like the forsaken and those that follow garrosh. If the alliance had something to them with say a race of garithos themed bigots, xenophobes or something, it might even the story out.

I always hoped they would bring the Scarlet Crusade into the alliance.