Page 1 of 5
1
2
3
... LastLast
  1. #1
    Field Marshal Muradu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    The Exodar
    Posts
    70

    Orgrimmar Storyline & Alliance Dissatisfaction.

    Having followed the course of the lore, both prior to and following the introduction of MoP, I find myself increasingly curious when it comes to the Alliance dissatisfaction with respect to the progression of their lore. The following excerpt is how i've generally understood and indeed, enjoyed the Alliance for a number of years:

    Humans, Night Elves, Dwarves, Gnomes, Draenei, and the savage Worgen make up the illustrious Alliance. Proud and noble, courageous and wise, these races work together to preserve order in Azeroth. The Alliance is driven by honor and tradition. Its rulers are champions of justice, hope, knowledge, and faith.

    In a time when chaos and uncertainty reign, the Alliance remains steadfast in its determination to bring light to the darkest corners of the world.
    - Darkmoon Faire Cataclysm Promotion: Fortune card

    Now firstly, I understand why many Alliance players have longed for some for of vengeance with respect to the Siege of Orgrimmar; not least given the crimes that the Horde have committed over the past two expansions without any apparent care or regret. The sacking of Gilneas, the blighting of Southshore, the destruction of Theramore; these are just a few losses that the Alliance has incurred at the hands of the Horde over the past number of years. At best, however, the Horde can only claim one or two notable instances of injustice at the hands of the Alliance (and even then, on a much lesser scale);

    - The raiding of Camp Taurajo; an attack which was intended to be honourable, as demonstrated General Hawthorne's orders to permit evacuation; but which was carried out badly due to the nature of his subordinates carrying it out. He pays the price with his death.

    - The events in Dalaran; Jaina having captured/imprisoned numerous Blood Elves in her anger, which appears to still be the case according to Lor'themar's dialogue on the Thunder Isle. The ethics are questionable, but one can't blame Jaina with a clear conscience given the the perpetrators of Theramore's destruction are still unapprehended.

    In my eyes however, the Alliance is not defined, nor controlled, by personality traits such as the need for revenge; and the Siege of Orgrimmar is going to demonstrate this fact perfectly. We are not like Garrosh's Horde, which permitted the indiscriminate killing of men, women and children in Theramore, Gilneas and various other locations. If anything, the Horde are the losers in the Siege of Orgrimmar; whether they are serving Garrosh, or Vol'jin. What is the best one can say for the rebels/playable Horde faction? Well, the simple fact is that this story will in many ways portray them as hypocrites; for years, they proudly waged war with the Alliance. Not only that, but post-Cataclysm, they were the individuals who helped to make Garrosh's Horde a reality; and only now do they turn against their Warchief, when the tide is not in their favour.

    Nazgrim being a raid boss in Siege of Orgrimmar, perfectly epitomizes the 'honourable' Horde; something that the rebels and playable Horde in this instance, are not. Nazgrim made a vow to serve his Warchief and, whatever the condition or state of his Warchief, and whether it means his own life or death, Nazgrim will be shown to uphold that vow, and his honour, in serving Garrosh to his last breath. He upholds his oath without reservation; and he will die for it. The Rebel/Playable Horde however, in this instance, are shown to express the ultimate humility. They ask the Alliance for help; and the Alliance have no reason to help the Horde at all. Why would they? After the destruction of Theramore, Gilneas, Southshore and various other places, the Alliance were perfectly at liberty to let Orgrimmar burn and the Horde rot; but they do not. The Alliance sets aside its faction differences, in the face of a corrupt Warchief who threatens war upon the world at large.

    Historically, the Alliance might well have been shown to follow in the footsteps of the Russian soldiers who raped and pillaged their way to 'liberating' Germany, just as we will be liberating Orgrimmar; but we will do no such thing. We will march into Orgrimmar, alongside these rebels who have forsaken their honour for our aid, and we will crush the tyrant that is Garrosh, and all of his fanatical supporters. And then what will we do? Will we crush the Horde when it is at its weakest; destroy their city and leave them honourless and hopeless? Not at all; the actions of the Alliance are going to set an example. The Alliance will not meet genocide with genocide; as could have been the case after the indiscriminate destruction and slaughter in Gilneas and other places. We will not crush our enemy faction when they are at their weakest. We will turn the other cheek, even when there is no tactical argument for doing so. We will give the Horde something that was not shown to the Alliance under Garrosh; mercy. What will happen after the fall of Garrosh? The Horde at large will not only have to atone for its sins, but also remain morally indebted to the Alliance. If the Horde learns from this? Then perhaps there will be peace. If they do not? Then the lesson will no doubt be taught again.

    Justice and wisdom; these are just some of the traits that the Alliance has come to be associated with, and they will not forsaken nor exchanged in favour of the Horde's "eye for an eye" philosophy. Whatever happens after the Siege of Orgrimmar will remain to be seen, but there is no reason whatsoever for the Alliance to deem themselves subject to some sort of injustice or bad story telling thus far; it is entirely in keeping with what the Alliance either is, identifies with or aspires to be.

  2. #2
    Quote Originally Posted by Muradu View Post
    We will turn the other cheek, even when there is no tactical argument for doing so.
    Just like how Varian turned the other cheek back in Undercity, right?

  3. #3
    Field Marshal Muradu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    The Exodar
    Posts
    70
    Quote Originally Posted by Hardstyler01 View Post
    Just like how Varian turned the other cheek back in Undercity, right?
    If i'm not mistaken, his increased aggression on that occasion and others was to do with the Spirit of Lo'gosh; an issue which I believe he has since resolved. A better character to look toward for the behaviour that i'm referring to would be Jaina who, rather than slaughtering the Blood Elves and others in a fit of rage, only imprisoned them at worst. Having played both sides of the SoO story line thus far, Varian is actually pretty absent, to the point where I can't remember having once seen him; which is surprising.

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Hardstyler01 View Post
    Just like how Varian turned the other cheek back in Undercity, right?
    IIRC that would be Jainia and not Varian. But its great to see the softy become the badass and the badass become the softy!

  5. #5
    That's well written and I completely agree, but there's still a part of me that feels like we're going so far on the moral high ground that Alliance still have no teeth. Here's an example of demanding justice to me:

    "We shall have peace. We shall have peace when you answer for the burning of the Westfold, and the children that lie dead there. When the lives of the soldiers, whose bodies were hewn even as they lay dead against the Gates of the Hornburg are avenged! When you hang from a gibbet, for the sport of your own crows, we shall have peace. We will have peace, when you and all your works have perished-and the works of your dark master whom you would deliver us. You are a liar, Saruman, and corrupter of men's hearts. You hold out your hand to me, and I perceive only a finger of the claw of Mordor."

    Yet even if we DO lay the blame solely on Garrosh like they could with Saruman, we've seen nothing to suggest an epic moment like this for the Alliance. Instead, it looks like it's just Thrall confronting Garrosh and then we start the raid.

    I'm holding off on really making a determination until it's all in game and live, but I don't have high hopes that we'll come out looking just and wise so much as blind and foolish.
    "There is good and evil in this world; we must find the black and white in the gray."

  6. #6
    Field Marshal Muradu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    The Exodar
    Posts
    70
    Quote Originally Posted by Faroth View Post
    That's well written and I completely agree, but there's still a part of me that feels like we're going so far on the moral high ground that Alliance still have no teeth.
    In a way I would agree, but the facts we have are these; any consequences of the Siege of Orgrimmar, are not going to be seen in patch 5.4. They've already confirmed that these consequences would be seen in a future patch; so when people complain about the Alliance 'getting nothing' from the SoO, they are ignoring the context under which this would happen (a future patch). Judging from what we have seen thus far, and what we are to expect in 5.4, I do not think the complaints are particularly just.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Muradu View Post
    Having followed the course of the lore, both prior to and following the introduction of MoP, I find myself increasingly curious when it comes to the Alliance dissatisfaction with respect to the progression of their lore. The following excerpt is how i've generally understood and indeed, enjoyed the Alliance for a number of years:

    - Darkmoon Faire Cataclysm Promotion: Fortune card

    Now firstly, I understand why many Alliance players have longed for some for of vengeance with respect to the Siege of Orgrimmar; not least given the crimes that the Horde have committed over the past two expansions without any apparent care or regret. The sacking of Gilneas, the blighting of Southshore, the destruction of Theramore; these are just a few losses that the Alliance has incurred at the hands of the Horde over the past number of years. At best, however, the Horde can only claim one or two notable instances of injustice at the hands of the Alliance (and even then, on a much lesser scale);

    - The raiding of Camp Taurajo; an attack which was intended to be honourable, as demonstrated General Hawthorne's orders to permit evacuation; but which was carried out badly due to the nature of his subordinates carrying it out. He pays the price with his death.

    - The events in Dalaran; Jaina having captured/imprisoned numerous Blood Elves in her anger, which appears to still be the case according to Lor'themar's dialogue on the Thunder Isle. The ethics are questionable, but one can't blame Jaina with a clear conscience given the the perpetrators of Theramore's destruction are still unapprehended.

    In my eyes however, the Alliance is not defined, nor controlled, by personality traits such as the need for revenge; and the Siege of Orgrimmar is going to demonstrate this fact perfectly. We are not like Garrosh's Horde, which permitted the indiscriminate killing of men, women and children in Theramore, Gilneas and various other locations. If anything, the Horde are the losers in the Siege of Orgrimmar; whether they are serving Garrosh, or Vol'jin. What is the best one can say for the rebels/playable Horde faction? Well, the simple fact is that this story will in many ways portray them as hypocrites; for years, they proudly waged war with the Alliance. Not only that, but post-Cataclysm, they were the individuals who helped to make Garrosh's Horde a reality; and only now do they turn against their Warchief, when the tide is not in their favour.

    Nazgrim being a raid boss in Siege of Orgrimmar, perfectly epitomizes the 'honourable' Horde; something that the rebels and playable Horde in this instance, are not. Nazgrim made a vow to serve his Warchief and, whatever the condition or state of his Warchief, and whether it means his own life or death, Nazgrim will be shown to uphold that vow, and his honour, in serving Garrosh to his last breath. He upholds his oath without reservation; and he will die for it. The Rebel/Playable Horde however, in this instance, are shown to express the ultimate humility. They ask the Alliance for help; and the Alliance have no reason to help the Horde at all. Why would they? After the destruction of Theramore, Gilneas, Southshore and various other places, the Alliance were perfectly at liberty to let Orgrimmar burn and the Horde rot; but they do not. The Alliance sets aside its faction differences, in the face of a corrupt Warchief who threatens war upon the world at large.

    Historically, the Alliance might well have been shown to follow in the footsteps of the Russian soldiers who raped and pillaged their way to 'liberating' Germany, just as we will be liberating Orgrimmar; but we will do no such thing. We will march into Orgrimmar, alongside these rebels who have forsaken their honour for our aid, and we will crush the tyrant that is Garrosh, and all of his fanatical supporters. And then what will we do? Will we crush the Horde when it is at its weakest; destroy their city and leave them honourless and hopeless? Not at all; the actions of the Alliance are going to set an example. The Alliance will not meet genocide with genocide; as could have been the case after the indiscriminate destruction and slaughter in Gilneas and other places. We will not crush our enemy faction when they are at their weakest. We will turn the other cheek, even when there is no tactical argument for doing so. We will give the Horde something that was not shown to the Alliance under Garrosh; mercy. What will happen after the fall of Garrosh? The Horde at large will not only have to atone for its sins, but also remain morally indebted to the Alliance. If the Horde learns from this? Then perhaps there will be peace. If they do not? Then the lesson will no doubt be taught again.

    Justice and wisdom; these are just some of the traits that the Alliance has come to be associated with, and they will not forsaken nor exchanged in favour of the Horde's "eye for an eye" philosophy. Whatever happens after the Siege of Orgrimmar will remain to be seen, but there is no reason whatsoever for the Alliance to deem themselves subject to some sort of injustice or bad story telling thus far; it is entirely in keeping with what the Alliance either is, identifies with or aspires to be.


    I really enjoyed this post. It's something I've been standing on my soapbox about for some time now - in an attempt to get fellow Alliance players to see how the story really puts us in the spotlight. I agree 100% with everything you said here, and I'm glad you put it in such a coherent post.

    As Chris Metzen said, the Alliance - we are lawful good overcharged. In this expansion in particular, I am proud to have chosen this faction years ago.

    "A knight in shining armor is a man who has never had his metal truly tested."

  8. #8
    Bloodsail Admiral Azahel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Moon Guard
    Posts
    1,101
    I agree in parts here.
    First, the Alliance couldn't just leave the Horde alone to rot, because what is happening here is that Garrosh is building up power to take over the world. He is playing with powerful toys not caring at all for anything like corruption, honor or anything. He got some dangerous stuff that are a danger to everyone.
    So left alone, he'd attack the alliance and everyone else alike. Because of the horrors he bargained with to get his powerful toys, the alliance alone would suffer terribly to take him alone and because of that they need the rebels.
    The rebels can't take garrosh and the alliance would take too much damage if they did so yeah, it's not out of a selfless heart that this cooperation will happen.

    "We will fight them in the alleys until our knuckles are skinned and bloodied, and our rapiers lay on the ground, shattered. And if we find ourselves surrounded and disarmed, wounded and without hope; we will lift our heads in defiance and spit in their faces. But we will never surrender! FOR GILNEAS!"

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Muradu View Post
    In a way I would agree, but the facts we have are these; any consequences of the Siege of Orgrimmar, are not going to be seen in patch 5.4. They've already confirmed that these consequences would be seen in a future patch; so when people complain about the Alliance 'getting nothing' from the SoO, they are ignoring the context under which this would happen (a future patch). Judging from what we have seen thus far, and what we are to expect in 5.4, I do not think the complaints are particularly just.
    That's just it, though. They've also basically said they won't be showing ANY in-game consequences. They aren't going to show any territory in Ashenvale reclaimed, etc. It would take away resources from the expansion....yet we have a modified Stormwind Harbor for use potentially in a single raid content.

    I've seen comments from playing both sides in PTR that Varian is oddly absent. As in not seen hardly anywhere in SoO. That's disappointing to me. There have been a lot of chances for the Alliance to really have their own thing going on with Varian becoming High King (I'd prefer Supreme Commander for a lot of reasons) but that's been fumbled. I remember Metzen wanting there to be an Alliance portion of the raid protecting the civilians trying to escape the fighting, making it clear they are there on a surgical strike with specific targets rather than rampant destruction.

    I never expected that to go in (technical challenges in pulling it off), but it's a shame that we aren't seeing more emphasis on that and the build up of actually going into battle.


    I'm going to wait and see, but "just wait and see" has been the Blizzard mantra for the Alliance for about 3 years now. Forgive me if I remain heavily skeptical.
    Last edited by Faroth; 2013-08-05 at 03:09 PM.
    "There is good and evil in this world; we must find the black and white in the gray."

  10. #10
    The Patient lanceb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    cell
    Posts
    301
    but ur missing something, Garrosh dont speak for the horde, maybe he did in the begining when thrall put him in charge but soon even thrall knew how big mistake that was, you bring up things what the "horde" have done towards the alliance but dont forget how ruthless he have bin even to the horde wich we now see the end result of, everyone have suffered cause of him not only ur presious alliance wich isnt much better than the horde

    Got 1m hp fully buffed

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by lanceb View Post
    but ur missing something, Garrosh dont speak for the horde, maybe he did in the begining when thrall put him in charge but soon even thrall knew how big mistake that was, you bring up things what the "horde" have done towards the alliance but dont forget how ruthless he have bin even to the horde wich we now see the end result of, everyone have suffered cause of him not only ur presious alliance wich isnt much better than the horde
    "We were okay with it until it started impacting us" isn't a great defense, though.

    Some were uncomfortable with it, but it wasn't like the Horde was enslaved to Garrosh and struggling to find a way to depose him throughout Cataclysm. He was rubbing the other leaders the wrong way, but there wasn't a lot of indication he was outright hated. Hell, a lot of the player base loved Garrosh in Cataclsym (some hated him from the get go).
    "There is good and evil in this world; we must find the black and white in the gray."

  12. #12
    Dreadlord
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Turkey
    Posts
    868
    Alliance is not a saint and should not be. They did not stop destroying alterac. And no one asks for just revenge . They can easily want some concession or just dismantle the horde to assure safety of their people. They did it all the time. They took troll lands and settled on them. They daily kill all those trolls, gnolls and many races whenever they are threatened. Night elves destroyed many races.

    But whenever it comes to orcs they are expected to be very forgiving, why is that? It is like' you do not touch the orc'
    What is so precious about the orcs, why do they deserve everything?

  13. #13
    Dreadlord Lostwood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Under the couch
    Posts
    967
    It's not so much the story itself, but the manner in which certain events are depicted in-game, that are unsatisfactory.

    The lack of a large Alliance presence during the event, for instance. As you mentioned.

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Muradu View Post
    - The raiding of Camp Taurajo; an attack which was intended to be honourable, as demonstrated General Hawthorne's orders to permit evacuation; but which was carried out badly due to the nature of his subordinates carrying it out. He pays the price with his death.
    The attack went off near perfectly. What went wrong - from the Alliance pov - was the looting which took place afterwards.

    In my eyes however, the Alliance is not defined, nor controlled, by personality traits such as the need for revenge; and the Siege of Orgrimmar is going to demonstrate this fact perfectly.
    No, the Alliance is not defined by its ned for revenge. What SoO will show is that it is, apparently, defined by its sheer stupidity.

    And then what will we do? Will we crush the Horde when it is at its weakest; destroy their city and leave them honourless and hopeless? Not at all; the actions of the Alliance are going to set an example. The Alliance will not meet genocide with genocide; as could have been the case after the indiscriminate destruction and slaughter in Gilneas and other places. We will not crush our enemy faction when they are at their weakest.
    The Alliance does not have to crush the Horde, or humiliate it, or enact crushing reparations, or destroy it, to get a meaningful valid victory that suits its character.


    We will turn the other cheek, even when there is no tactical argument for doing so. We will give the Horde something that was not shown to the Alliance under Garrosh; mercy.
    Turn the other cheek? Again? How many genocidal wars of aggression have the Horde launched against the races of the Alliance? How many cheeks does the Alliance have to turn? How many times are the Alliance expected to show mercy?


    What will happen after the fall of Garrosh? The Horde at large will not only have to atone for its sins, but also remain morally indebted to the Alliance. If the Horde learns from this? Then perhaps there will be peace. If they do not? Then the lesson will no doubt be taught again.
    As it has in the past.

    As it is, the issue is not that the Alliance can't show mercy; it can and should.
    The issue is....should it walk out of Orgrimmar with nothing? Should it allow the Horde to keep the lands it stole and still occupies? Should the Horde be rewarded for launching yet another war of aggression and conquest and genocide? Does Varian feel no obligation at towards ensuring that the reason the Alliance fought - to protect and restore its land and people - are fulfilled? If the new Warchief insists on keeping those lands, what does that say about his character except that he is just as war hungry as Garrosh?

    There is no reason why Varian should accept a peace at that cost. Doing so only proves Garrosh right and all but guarantees another war. Doing so proves he cares more about his enemies than he does his own allies. Doing so shows the Alliance lost the war. Doing so does nothing but show the Alliance as weak, as losers, as saps hamstrung by a notion of lawful good that has no place being in this game. Even if it did, lawful good is NOT the same as lawful stupid.

    So - should Varian and the Alliance accept a peace where it has the upper hand and, in Blizzards words, the ability to crush the Horde and then gift the Horde every square foot of land it stole? Forgive it for each and every one of the tens of thousands of its people who died because it wanted war? And do so because they can say "It was all Garroshes fault. I was only following orders"?

    EJL
    Last edited by Talen; 2013-08-05 at 03:33 PM.

  15. #15
    The Patient
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Where the wind carry my wings
    Posts
    317
    Personnaly, I don't have a problem with the way the Alliance reacted in this expansion.
    Varian got more ... soft (not a bad thing, just surprising), Anduin was truly heroic, and we kept the moral high profile all the way since the battle of the temple of jade serpent (except in the slaughter of Dalaran...).

    I don't want to slaughter man woman and children of the Horde, I don't want to burn Orgrimmar to the ground or to put Vol'jin/Thrall/any leader of the Horde's heads on a spike. We're Alliance, it's not our way to do things.

    But as of now, I have zero motivation to raid Orgrimmar. Our leaders seemed to have no interest in going there.
    In 5.3, the story was made in a such terrible way that I had the impression we were here by pure luck. Like if SI7 went there and said "Hey that's strange some people seem to rebel against Garrosh, let's go help them for the fun of it".
    5.3 was entirely about Vol'jin's rebellion. We had no part in it, except for a supporting character one.
    We could have made a bridgehead into Durotar for our incoming fleet. We could have seen our leaders, I don't know, moving their ass form the safety of their thronerooms, and doing something for a change... But no, backseat story for Alliance this time, it's a Horde patch...

    I didn't see the content of the new raid. I seriously hope they give something to go there, because no, I won't be satisfied by "raiding ennemy capitol" with no Alliance background in at least some fights.

  16. #16
    I'll be perfectly satisfied when I get me Conqueror of Orgrimmar title. That'll be something I can forever shove in the Horde's face.

  17. #17
    Alliance fanboy, meet ex-Alliance turned Horde fanboy!

    Quote Originally Posted by Muradu View Post
    Now firstly, I understand why many Alliance players have longed for some for of vengeance with respect to the Siege of Orgrimmar; not least given the crimes that the Horde have committed over the past two expansions without any apparent care or regret. The sacking of Gilneas, the blighting of Southshore, the destruction of Theramore; these are just a few losses that the Alliance has incurred at the hands of the Horde over the past number of years.
    “Crimes?” It’s war, dude. When the conflict with Gilneas broke out, they weren’t even part of the Alliance. We simply had some rabid dogs to put down when the Alliance tried to take advantage of this opportunity to yet again stick their finger in our eye by giving aid to the Worgen. How well did that work out for you? Southshore was melted with some good ol’ Forsaken blight and not without cause! Alliance siege vehicles littered the hills just north of there, gazing upon the Undercity. The Dark Lady isn’t stupid: your bring siege to our front gates, you get blighted. Simple as that. The destruction of Theramore was a beautiful thing. A great many of your most brilliant military leaders got played like a fiddle by Garrosh: they gathered all in one spot only to be wiped out in a single stroke. D’oh! Theramore was also the strongest bastion of human power on Kalimdore from which Alliance forces swarmed across the Barrens like roaches, building highways, towers, and fortresses along the way. Garrosh had it right to cut the head off that snake. You may resent Garrosh for it, but what does a Hawk care about the hatred of a sparrow?

    At best, however, the Horde can only claim one or two notable instances of injustice at the hands of the Alliance (and even then, on a much lesser scale);
    I notice you conveniently forgot our good friend, Grand Marshal Garithos. He single-handedly pushed the Blood Elves out of your Alliance and condescendingly persecuted the citizens of Lordaeron for being undead in a dazzling display of human bigotry during the third war. As Alliance leadership, he was your representative and was never reprimanded for his behavior, suggesting a silent approval by the rest of the Alliance. And what about the Goblins? Your precious Alliance fired on an unarmed, civilian ship all because you didn’t want anyone witnessing your ambush on Thrall (who, by the way, was on his way to save the world. Good job trying to lock up Superman…). Or what about the beginning of the Pandaren campaign? After the Horde were beaten and its soldiers defenseless, trying not to drown by swimming to shore, your Alliance commanded they be gunned down with Gatling guns in the water. “Alliance honor” indeed…

    - The raiding of Camp Taurajo; an attack which was intended to be honourable, as demonstrated General Hawthorne's orders to permit evacuation; but which was carried out badly due to the nature of his subordinates carrying it out. He pays the price with his death.
    “Honorable?” Your troops waited for the hunters and fighters to leave Taurajo and attacked when they were away. Good job sacking a town full of women & children, then having so little control over their own troops that many decided to plunder & pillage the town afterward…

    - The events in Dalaran; Jaina having captured/imprisoned numerous Blood Elves in her anger, which appears to still be the case according to Lor'themar's dialogue on the Thunder Isle. The ethics are questionable, but one can't blame Jaina with a clear conscience given the the perpetrators of Theramore's destruction are still unapprehended.
    Oh, don’t get me started on this. Jaina used to be one of my favorite characters, but she’s flipped her lid. She lost her friends and city and now she has lost her mind and morals. She has shown herself to be just as much a bigot as Grand Marshal Garithos in her attempted genocide against Orgrimmar with water elementals (stopped only when Thrall & Kalecgos intervened). Then, when she sees evidence that the Sunreavers have intervened on behalf of the Horde, she assumes all Sunreavers are in on it and commits genocide in Dalaran. She starts off killing Aethis Sunreavers’ guards (not even a word to them before she teleported in and opened fire!), grants them no trial, and proceeds to imprison every Horde citizen of Dalaran she can find, killing those who resist, and specifically giving the command that “none are to escape.” Her actions are completely contrary to the moral high ground you allege the Alliance as having and portray the hypocrisy so prevalent in the Alliance:

    Jaina: “So what? I subtly broke the neutrality of Dalaran by helping the Alliance against the Horde with the Divine Bell, but I can’t believe the Sunreavers would do the same thing and act on behalf of the Horde against the Alliance! Zomg, they all must die!”

    In my eyes however, the Alliance is not defined, nor controlled, by personality traits such as the need for revenge; and the Siege of Orgrimmar is going to demonstrate this fact perfectly.
    You mean like Jaina wanting to kill everyone in Orgrimmar, including women & children, simply because they were orcs? Oh, and the only reason she didn’t was because a rational orc intervened to stop her, with the aid of a Blue Dragon? Yeah, you’re right, Alliance leadership isn’t vengeful…

    We are not like Garrosh's Horde, which permitted the indiscriminate killing of men, women and children in Theramore, Gilneas and various other locations.
    Can you specifically point out any non-combatants killed at these locations? I mean, if you’re going to claim the Horde is killing civilians willy-nilly, you have examples to back it up, yes? Oh… shucks, doesn’t look like there are any. Indeed, Theramore was specifically evacuated before Garrosh attacked, leaving only military personnel there. Gilneas was already ravaged by the Worgen, leaving only ravenous wolves to combat the Forsaken. The only humans I ever killed as a Horde in the battle for Silverpine Forest or Gilneas were combatants from Dalaran. Sorry – no civilians.

    If anything, the Horde are the losers in the Siege of Orgrimmar; whether they are serving Garrosh, or Vol'jin. What is the best one can say for the rebels/playable Horde faction? Well, the simple fact is that this story will in many ways portray them as hypocrites; for years, they proudly waged war with the Alliance. Not only that, but post-Cataclysm, they were the individuals who helped to make Garrosh's Horde a reality; and only now do they turn against their Warchief, when the tide is not in their favour.
    Hypocrites? Hardly. Unlike the spineless Alliance’s inaction with Grand Marshal Garithos, we Horde keep our leaders in check. Once a leader has gone off the deep end & no longer represents the will of the Horde as a whole, we rise up against them. If anything, this shows integrity for the Horde’s motto: “Strength and Honor.” We followed Garrosh as he demonstrated strength but as soon as he started forsaking honor by stabbing his own Horde in the back, we decided to give him the boot.

    Nazgrim being a raid boss in Siege of Orgrimmar, perfectly epitomizes the 'honourable' Horde; something that the rebels and playable Horde in this instance, are not. Nazgrim made a vow to serve his Warchief and, whatever the condition or state of his Warchief, and whether it means his own life or death, Nazgrim will be shown to uphold that vow, and his honour, in serving Garrosh to his last breath. He upholds his oath without reservation; and he will die for it. The Rebel/Playable Horde however, in this instance, are shown to express the ultimate humility.
    This is so brazenly stupid, I suspect you’re just trolling. There’s no doubt that duty binds General Nazgrim to the Warchief, but what honor is there in defending an honorless Warchief? If the Warchief is now contrary to the wellbeing of the Horde and forsakes honor in a grab for personal power, the honorable thing to do would be to oppose him. While it’s admirable to remain loyal to a person, it’s more admirable to remain loyal to an ideal; in this case, “Strength and honor.” When you’ve sworn loyalty to both things that are now mutually exclusive of each other, it’s not “dishonorable” to pick one over the other. You cannot possibly do both.

    They ask the Alliance for help; and the Alliance have no reason to help the Horde at all. Why would they? After the destruction of Theramore, Gilneas, Southshore and various other places, the Alliance were perfectly at liberty to let Orgrimmar burn and the Horde rot; but they do not. The Alliance sets aside its faction differences, in the face of a corrupt Warchief who threatens war upon the world at large.
    This is such BS. You act as if there’s no motive for vengeance in the minds of Alliance leadership; you’re deceiving yourself. Jaina is nothing BUT vengeance and Varian has long voiced his hatred of the Horde. Why the flip would the Alliance NOT take advantage of a divided Horde? If I saw two Alliance fighting, and one of those Alliance were responsible for killing my friends, you bet I’d swoop in and help one kill the other…

    Historically, the Alliance might well have been shown to follow in the footsteps of the Russian soldiers who raped and pillaged their way to 'liberating' Germany, just as we will be liberating Orgrimmar; but we will do no such thing. We will march into Orgrimmar, alongside these rebels who have forsaken their honour for our aid, and we will crush the tyrant that is Garrosh, and all of his fanatical supporters.
    Dear Lord, the Alliance zealotry here is making me nauseous. I think I’m going to puke…

    The Alliance will not meet genocide with genocide
    Unless we’re talking about Dalaran, where Jaina committed genocide against a group of people that didn’t kill a single Alliance (the Sunreavers). Or unless we’re talking about Jaina’s attempted genocide against Orgrimmar following the destruction of Theramore. You’re right: the Alliance doing something atrocious is just unthinkable!

    We will give the Horde something that was not shown to the Alliance under Garrosh; mercy. What will happen after the fall of Garrosh? The Horde at large will not only have to atone for its sins, but also remain morally indebted to the Alliance. If the Horde learns from this? Then perhaps there will be peace. If they do not? Then the lesson will no doubt be taught again.
    Or perhaps you’ll leave Orgrimmar if you know what’s good for you. You were getting your butt handed to you time and again until the Horde was divided and turned in on itself. With Garrosh gone, however, you no longer face a divided Horde and Varian knows this. If he tries pushing further than Garrosh’s dead body, he’d find himself in the middle of a canyon full of newly united Horde. It’s not the moral high ground you take: it’s understanding that just because you killed one guy doesn’t mean you bested the strength of the Horde. You want mercy? Be thankful we let you walk away after setting foot in Orgrimmar.

    You want to know why we Horde fight your Alliance? Just watch this video I made answering that very question:

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Bigface View Post
    I'll be perfectly satisfied when I get me Conqueror of Orgrimmar title. That'll be something I can forever shove in the Horde's face.
    Right before I gun you down and stick my Horde banner in your corpse, just like all the wanna-be's with "the Hordebreaker" title.
    Last edited by Jediguy; 2013-08-05 at 08:16 PM.

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Jediguy View Post
    SNIP
    Ughhhhhhh....

    Horde supporters are currently annoyed with Alliance players whining about getting nothing on the eve of SoO.

    Muradu wrote an elaborate post explaining why Alliance players should find their ultimate withdrawal from Orgrimmar as a decision that stays true to their established character.

    You, on the other hand, tear down all of it, indirectly urging that Alliance supporters should go back to square one - the one that has them sour about getting nothing on the eve of SoO.

    DOLAN WHY U DO DIS!?

    - - -
    I also left Alliance for Horde - at the beginning of the pre-Cataclysm shift of the world to be exact - but I don't see myself as pursuing Jediguy's role of defecating into a nest he once called home.
    Last edited by Antoine de Coolette; 2013-08-05 at 04:31 PM.

  19. #19
    unless we're talking about Theramore where Jaina committed genocide...
    Say what?

    Do you mean Dalaran? If so, then you have no idea what the word "genocide" means. Maybe you could describe her actions as "mass incarceration", but not "targeted killing of a race of people with the aim of eradication". Her aims were not to kill every blood elf.

    Compare that to the Forsaken's stated goal of mass planetary biospheric destruction.

  20. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Steelangel View Post
    Say what?

    Do you mean Dalaran? If so, then you have no idea what the word "genocide" means. Maybe you could describe her actions as "mass incarceration", but not "targeted killing of a race of people with the aim of eradication". Her aims were not to kill every blood elf.

    Compare that to the Forsaken's stated goal of mass planetary biospheric destruction.
    Comparing one heinous act to another and using it to maintain a delusion of better morality standards is plain wrong - no way around it. It is like comparing extermination of Arawak at the hands of Spanish colonization effort to extermination of Native Americans at the hands of American colonists - just because the former killed less, doesn't make it any less of a genocide.

    And yes - pogrom of Dalaran has the highlights of ethnic cleansing - whole racial group is persecuted for the acts of few traitors who already remain out of reach. Populace thus marked is forcibly removed from their dwellings and sent to citadel which now serves as a concentration camp by its purpose - those unwilling to go are put down on the spot. Possesions of entire populace are confiscated/looted.

    Blame Blizzard for making Alliance such a dull and uninspired faction that only explored and fully elaborated upon events of 'triumph' are mostly limited to two acts of ethnic cleansing while the Horde gets entire storylines that drill on the topic of redemption.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •