Garrosh..disappointment

[Trassk]

Dishonour this, dishonour that.

Tell me. What exactly IS honour?

if you don't know the answer to that you don't understand narrative. And if you have to ask that question, you clearly already made your own mind up about it and so telling you wouldn't make a bit of difference.

[Rend Blackhand]

if you don't know the answer to that you don't understand narrative. And if you have to ask that question, you clearly already made your own mind up about it and so telling you wouldn't make a bit of difference.

Its far too abstract a concept, even just within the context of WoW. We have Doomhammer, Garrosh and Saurfang; All have done bad things of similar magnitude but one is considered dishonourable and the other two are not.

[Florena]

if you don't know the answer to that you don't understand narrative. And if you have to ask that question, you clearly already made your own mind up about it and so telling you wouldn't make a bit of difference.

How does asking you to define what you consider honor to be = not understanding narrative? It's a subjective concept that means different things to different people.

[Deleted]

I suppose they wanted him to get more dark, evil blah blah. The problem with MMO storytelling is that its hard to do character development. Perhaps they didnt tell the gap between the two in an effective way?

[Trassk]

How does asking you to define what you consider honor to be = not understanding narrative? It's a subjective concept that means different things to different people.

Honor (or honour the correct spelling) comes down to same principles.

honour US, honor [ˈɒnə]
n
1. personal integrity; allegiance to moral principles
2. to show courteous behaviour towards
3. to worship
4. to confer a distinction upon
5. (Economics, Accounting & Finance / Banking & Finance) to accept and then pay when due (a cheque, draft, etc.)
6. to keep (one's promise); fulfil (a previous agreement)
7. (Performing Arts / Dancing) to bow or curtsy to (one's dancing partner) See also honours

to stand on honour is stand on a moral principle. In this setting, honouring your allies, your beliefs, and even honouring your enemies in fair combat.

its no wonder the hordes storyline has gone to shit given what lack of understanding people have to a very basic concept, that was held firm in earlier WC stories.

[Deleted]

Garrosh was dishonorable towards his own invading force, not towards the Alliance. He used Baine's friendship with Theramore to gather all the strenght that the Alliance and the Kirin Tor could grasp and then used his forces as bait.

There is no such thing as fair combat in war, it's always about who has better weapons and who is stronger/smarter. Honor is about honoring the deals and friendships, that's all. The other "honor" is purely romantic vision that some ancient writers presented as propaganda for their regimes.

[Dreknar20]

Something you forgot as well, the mana bomb made from the focusing iris, it didn't just kill people on the vast scale, golden wrote that they were absolutely eradicated from existence, there souls torn apart by the arcane energies.

Death is Death
And a bomb is a bomb, dsnt matter if it kills using explosives, mana, or beef jerky

[Trassk]

Garrosh was dishonorable towards his own invading force, not towards the Alliance. He used Baine's friendship with Theramore to gather all the strenght that the Alliance and the Kirin Tor could grasp and then used his forces as bait.

There is no such thing as fair combat in war, it's always about who has better weapons.

The horde that were ordered to seige theramore and faught the alliance hand to hand, that was fair combat, that was done with honor, even if Baine felt disgust at doing it, it was still fair combat. The use of the bomb was not ever fair, Garrosh used the siege on theramore as a ploy to gather as many alliance in one place, and then kill them in a single blow. THAT is not honorable.

Geez, I know you people think your clever in seeing so much of this story, but you really suck at understanding a very basic concept of principles.

Oh, and just because someone uses any method that can in a war DOESN'T MAKE IT HONORABLE.

---------- Post added 2013-04-23 at 12:56 AM ----------

Death is Death
And a bomb is a bomb, dsnt matter if it kills using explosives, mana, or beef jerky

Then theres no honor in the actions. And it isn't justified just because it allows you to win.

That kind of mentality is the reason why the horde is going to shit right now, you don't understand that?

[Dreknar20]

to stand on honour is stand on a moral principle. In this setting, honouring your allies, your beliefs, and even honouring your enemies in fair combat.
.

whats fair in combat depends on people and time period

To some people, any type of guerilla warfare is unconventional and dishonorable - i guess those Night Elves arnt too honorable now r they
To others, like Medieval Europe, anything other than a frontal charge and dogfight is lacking in honor and glory - guess Varian isnt too honorable to them then

---------- Post added 2013-04-22 at 11:59 PM ----------

Oh, and just because someone uses any method that can in a war DOESN'T MAKE IT HONORABLE.[COLOR="red"]

"war does not determine who is right only who is left"

[Deleted]

The horde that were ordered to seige theramore and faught the alliance hand to hand, that was fair combat, that was done with honor, even if Baine felt disgust at doing it, it was still fair combat. The use of the bomb was not ever fair, Garrosh used the siege on theramore as a ploy to gather as many alliance in one place, and then kill them in a single blow. THAT is not honorable.

Geez, I know you people think your clever in seeing so much of this story, but you really suck at understanding a very basic concept of principles.

Oh, and just because someone uses any method that can in a war DOESN'T MAKE IT HONORABLE.

Again, that's the romantic side of honor. Real war doesn't have honor. It was as dirty as it could be.

---------- Post added 2013-04-23 at 01:03 AM ----------

To others, like Medieval Europe, anything other than a frontal charge and dogfight is lacking in honor and glory - guess Varian isnt too honorable to them then

Which is also not true, since many Medieval forces also used attacks from the flanks and by night. Then the writers transformed the "typical" fighting to some kind of code of honor, only because the lords needed those same forces for the camps during the winter season.

[Dreknar20]

Then theres no honor in the actions. And it isn't justified just because it allows you to win.

That kind of mentality is the reason why the horde is going to shit right now, you don't understand that?

so what exactly is wrong with bombs?
Its kinda a staple in warfare both on Earth and Azeroth

---------- Post added 2013-04-23 at 12:08 AM ----------

Which is also not true, since many Medieval forces also used attacks from the flanks and by night. Then the writers transformed the "typical" fighting to some kind of code of honor, only because the lords needed those same forces for the camps during the winter season.

Well yeah its not universal

But like the French Nobility deemed the English dishonorable because they used tactics and what not

Battle of Striling Bridge - the English tried to cross the bridge because they thought if the Scotts had any honor they would let them and let them form up before starting the battle, of course the Scots told them to take their honor and shuve it up their ass

I mean people always say hurting civilians in war is terrible, but you only have to look back a few decades to see that wsnt always the case.
I mean in ancient times if a city resisted, it was common place to rape, loot, pillage, burn, slaughter, then enslave the people. That was normal, not doing so would probably get your army pissed at you.

[Trassk]

Real war? You do understand this is a fantasy game don't you? And not just a fantasy game its one where neither side can ever actually beat one another, because of game mechanics. So where does having dirty principles in war account for anything.

Dreknar, your notion of 'victory is told by the winners' argument doesn't work since neither side will lose. Except Garrosh, who's going to lose big time.

As for the bomb argument, if all your going to do is twist the principles of honor in combat to suit a jaded view, then your never going to understand why using bombs (and not just bombs, a nuclear bomb in wow's terms) is considered dishonorable. But hey, you don't seem to get what honour means either, so all this it moot.

[Dreknar20]

Dreknar, your notion of 'victory is told by the winners' argument doesn't work since neither side will lose. .

something that actual lore characters are not aware of

[Deleted]

Real war? You do understand this is a fantasy game don't you? And not just a fantasy game its one where neither side can ever actually beat one another, because of game mechanics. So where does having dirty principles in war account for anything.

So fiction is independent from the real world?

Of course neither side can really beat the other, but that doesn't mean that they have to be tied to a complete abstract and subjective concept of war honor. Like Dreknar said, in ancient history, no one considered dishonorable the raping of a city after a siege. Because after a siege won, only 20% (if much) of the attackers are alive and many those of the death were their friends or brothers.

---------- Post added 2013-04-23 at 01:21 AM ----------

something that actual lore characters are not aware of

Also true. The lore characters aren't omnisapient as we are.

[Dreknar20]

I suppose they wanted him to get more dark, evil blah blah. The problem with MMO storytelling is that its hard to do character development. Perhaps they didnt tell the gap between the two in an effective way?

Because there was not development in the "gap"

The problem seems even bigger because the change seems sudden and out of the blue, when lore wise events are months or years apart

[Trassk]

Also true. The lore characters aren't omnisapient as we are.

Of course they do not. but why then does this argument seem to stem from people, posters here, who can't seem to understand it themselves, who are outside the limits of literal thinking to the story.

People here acting omnipotent to the story, but still only seeing it from a narrow point of view.

[Aucald]

Orcish culture promotes a very rustic and, from our perspective, somewhat antiquated sense of honor - both personal honor and tribal honor. Most Orcs view all combat as a personal duel complete with all honor and respect due your opponent. This notion is also a large part of why they look down on the Arcane and Warlocks, and also goes so far as more martial Warrior types disdaining even their own Shaman while paying lip-service to the idea that the Shaman were to be respected (an attitude you can glean from "Rise of the Horde" as well as some of the manga offerings). Personal honor and valorous combat are at the pinnacle of Orcish values... and in that light, it's easy to see how many Orcs might have looked at mana-bomb wiping Theramore with a jaundiced eye (it relied on subterfuge, deceitful conduct, and ultimately the Arcane itself to be accomplished).

In this sense Garrosh's towering pride and his need to carve a niche for himself in the annals of Orcish legend have driven him to toss aside the Orcish concepts of honorable conduct in combat - and his exposure to a parallel Orcish culture that had long ago discarded these things is probably a major factor (Zaela and Malkorok, of the Dragonmaw and Blackrock clans). I also won't discount exposure to other forces, such as the Sha or the Old Gods directly, even thought they haven't yet been conclusively proven.

[Pua]

For once, Trassk is absolutely right. I’ve no idea why people are arguing about what they consider honourable in real life or not, it’s irrelevant. The basic concept of honour is about respect for your enemies, and treating them in a moral manner (within a certain cultural structure); that’s it.

Under that auspice, it’s reasonable to assume the storytellers want to portray Garrosh as having behaved dishonourably, more than once. There’s isn’t much ambiguity here.

The question is why Garrosh now behaves dishonourably, not if.

Comparison to the behaviour of Orgrim Doomhammer, considered an orc hero, should probably wait until people understand the present narrative.

Don't try and drag this argument elsewhere, please. It's not helpful to the thread.