Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst
1
2
3
4
... LastLast
  1. #21
    horde x alliance is the basis of warcraft, but what garrosh makes is horde x alliance, horde and everybody else.
    Warlorcs of Draenorc made me quit. You can't have my stuff.

  2. #22
    Legendary!
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Behind You
    Posts
    6,964
    Quote Originally Posted by Hardstyler01 View Post
    As an Orc player I also don't see any reason to kill my Warchief. Blizzard did a horrible job at portraying Garrosh as a bad guy.
    Arthas/Lich King was evil since day one, and everyone understood that. With Garrosh though its different, because they cant make him evil since day one

    Because first of all, if he was always evil, his story wouldnt make sense. How would he become Warchief? How would he become Overlord of the Horde's armies? How would he even join the Horde?

    So thats why you have things like the Garrosh v Cairne duel. Cairne dying sucked and all that, but it wsnt really done in an 'evil' way.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Theendgamelv3 View Post
    Peacecraft.....no I don't see peace anywhere. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
    Or the enemy of my enemy is still my enemy.
    Just because there is a new big shot in town dsnt erase all the reasons why the other faction is/was your enemy
    Last edited by Dreknar20; 2013-08-23 at 12:06 AM.
    We have faced trials and danger, threats to our world and our way of life. And yet, we persevere. We are the Horde. We will not let anything break our spirits!"

  3. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreknar20 View Post
    Arthas/Lich King was evil since day one, and everyone understood that. With Garrosh though its different, because they cant make him evil since day one

    Because first of all, if he was always evil, his story wouldnt make sense. How would he become Warchief? How would he become Overlord of the Horde's armies? How would he even join the Horde?

    So thats why you have things like the Garrosh v Cairne duel. Cairne dying sucked and all that, but it wsnt really done in an 'evil' way.

    - - - Updated - - -


    Or the enemy of my enemy is still my enemy.
    Just because there is a new big shot in town dsnt erase all the reasons why the other faction is/was your enemy
    You fight the biggest bad guy first. What is easier, a war with 2 enemies or 1? What is easier, a war on 2 fronts or 1? They want to defeat a common enemy who if they won, world probably would be ended by the Burning Legion. You are waaaay to short sighted. I don't know about you, but if I had to team of with my enemy to defeat a common enemy because the entire world's was in stake, then yea guess what, I am teaming with my enemy since we share a common goal. Does it erase, nope, but guess what less losses for the Alliance.

  4. #24
    He's that bad because he's not just making enemies, he's painting a target on the Horde's back. There's quite a difference between going to war to gain an advantage or even for the sake of conquering an enemy and going to war whilst making use of weapons and tactics that even your own faction condemns.

    Can the Horde win some battles and gain territory against the Alliance? Sure. Can they survive a 4th war in barely two generations while much of the world aligns against them? No.

    And whether he's "evil" or not is irrelevant. He's doing things that members of his own faction won't stand for, evil or not. As a result, the Horde has fractured. That's really all there is to it. People can blame Blizzard for taking the 'War' out all they want. The story still has to make sense, if not be slightly realistic, and this is understandably what would happen in a situation like this.

  5. #25
    Legendary!
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Behind You
    Posts
    6,964
    Quote Originally Posted by Talthun View Post
    and going to war whilst making use of weapons and tactics that even your own faction condemns.
    'rules are for children, the only crime in war is to lose'
    Saying only some weapons are wrong makes zero sense to me
    Weapons are weapons and they all do the same thing with the same purpose, to harm/kill/destroy. Either all weapons are legit, or none of them are

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Theendgamelv3 View Post
    because the entire world's was in stake
    because the entire world wouldnt be at stake in a world war between Horde and Alliance?
    We have faced trials and danger, threats to our world and our way of life. And yet, we persevere. We are the Horde. We will not let anything break our spirits!"

  6. #26
    Personally, I think Blizzard needs to find some other plot device other than a "big bad" to sell it's expansions.

    The problem with Horde vs Alliance is there really isn't any reason (e.g. ideology differences[1]) for them to fight, this is why it's so easy to call for a truce when there is a "big bad" 3rd party involved. The Horde is here to stay, they have nowhere else to go - Outland is a wasteland that is only borderline habitable. The logic solution would be to negotiate a reasonable division of territory rather than a destructive never ending war.

    [1] Unfortunately "deep" concepts like ideology is beyond WoW's lore and it's writers. We aren't going to see Bioshock levels of lore anytime.

  7. #27
    Legendary!
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Behind You
    Posts
    6,964
    Quote Originally Posted by SodiumChloride View Post
    The logic solution would be to negotiate a reasonable division of territory rather than a destructive never ending war.
    since when has logic ever been the sole reasoning for anything anywhere?
    Emotions and morals will always have an equal if not greater influence on people
    We have faced trials and danger, threats to our world and our way of life. And yet, we persevere. We are the Horde. We will not let anything break our spirits!"

  8. #28
    I am Murloc! Airwaves's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Australia! G-day Mate!... (We don't really speak like that)
    Posts
    5,722
    Quote Originally Posted by Hardstyler01 View Post
    My character never did that scenario, as I don't want to be forced into a side I don't agree with. If my character would be in that situation, he'd gladly help the assassin take out Vol'jin instead. And yes, I play on an RP server for a reason. I don't like to be forced into the role of oathbreaker and backstabber, it's not how I roll.
    As much as you say you didn't. Lore wise your character was there. You are already sided with the rebels from that point on. After the assassination event you are working as a spy for Vol,jin, Thrall, Lor'themar and believe it or not General Nazgrim by watching hellscream. You only do what he says to keep an eye on him.

    So lore wise yes you are a rebel if you like it or not.
    Angels and Airwaves
    Aldmeri Dominion - Imperial - Templar - Laethys - High Elf - Assassin - Frostmourne - Orc - Rogue - Sea of Sorrows - Norn - Thief
    Borderlands 2 - Mechromancer - Battlefield 4 - Engineer - Diablo 3 - Wizard

  9. #29
    Garrosh is prob the best warchief the horde ever had. He's actually a warchief and not a peacekeeper.

    I'm not a fan of the whole idea of getting rid of him.

  10. #30
    Field Marshal Rathnor The Flesher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    The Eye of Terror
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by Airwaves View Post
    As much as you say you didn't. Lore wise your character was there. You are already sided with the rebels from that point on. After the assassination event you are working as a spy for Vol,jin, Thrall, Lor'themar and believe it or not General Nazgrim by watching hellscream. You only do what he says to keep an eye on him.

    So lore wise yes you are a rebel if you like it or not.
    In other words, what you are saying is that our actions and characters are moot because it is all pre-determined. Congratulations, everybody, nothing in-game matters!

  11. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreknar20 View Post
    'rules are for children, the only crime in war is to lose'
    Saying only some weapons are wrong makes zero sense to me
    Weapons are weapons and they all do the same thing with the same purpose, to harm/kill/destroy. Either all weapons are legit, or none of them are

    - - - Updated - - -


    because the entire world wouldnt be at stake in a world war between Horde and Alliance?
    Actually no it wouldn't be. The world wouldn't end if the Horde and Alliance went to war because you have 3 wars to prove this wrong. Unlike you, they are looking at a bigger picture, the Burning Legion. They must stop Garrosh now. Varian would have been VERY short sighted not to get the rebels help for a lot of reasons and lots of them strategically.

  12. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by Rathnor The Flesher View Post
    I feel like Blizz had tried to go that route, but thought it was too risky and decided against it. Garrosh had garnered a negative response from the customers so Blizzard did the sensible thing, from a business stand-point, and eliminated him as Warchief. In the end, the players want both the factions to be the good guys even if it should invalidate the war completely.

    You are absolutely correct in saying that in a world where there are legions of omnicidal demons, hordes of undead, death-cults who worship the Lovecraft-cast of evil gods there is not a single good reason for these people to be fighting each other. They sorta forgot the War in Warcraft.
    I didn't know that in the next patch we are going to Orgrimmar to gather flowers.
    Signature and Avatar by ElyPop

  13. #33
    Brewmaster
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,315
    Quote Originally Posted by SodiumChloride View Post
    Personally, I think Blizzard needs to find some other plot device other than a "big bad" to sell it's expansions.

    The problem with Horde vs Alliance is there really isn't any reason (e.g. ideology differences[1]) for them to fight, this is why it's so easy to call for a truce when there is a "big bad" 3rd party involved. The Horde is here to stay, they have nowhere else to go - Outland is a wasteland that is only borderline habitable. The logic solution would be to negotiate a reasonable division of territory rather than a destructive never ending war.

    [1] Unfortunately "deep" concepts like ideology is beyond WoW's lore and it's writers. We aren't going to see Bioshock levels of lore anytime.
    You could say this is what they have tried to do with the alliance/horde story from cata through to mop. Horde need for resources to survive, nightelves refused to let them cut down ashenvale etc. What choice did they have? The whole event set off a chain reaction which led to the conflict we have. Maybe with garrosh gone we will get a more stable division of territory.

  14. #34
    Field Marshal Rathnor The Flesher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    The Eye of Terror
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by Xilurm View Post
    I didn't know that in the next patch we are going to Orgrimmar to gather flowers.
    A coup is hardly a war, mon frere. Also, the context of 'war' is in reference to the war between the two factions, not general conflict.

  15. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by Rathnor The Flesher View Post
    A coup is hardly a war, mon frere. Also, the context of 'war' is in reference to the war between the two factions, not general conflict.
    There are two factions, The Horde vs The Alliance and Rebels. You are on the Rebels side. You are only "horde" due to gameplay reasons, but the WoW universe's pov, you are fighting The Horde as apart of The Rebels.

  16. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by Rathnor The Flesher View Post
    A coup is hardly a war, mon frere. Also, the context of 'war' is in reference to the war between the two factions, not general conflict.
    Then I doubt we'll ever see WAR in WoW as far as MMO mechanics go. I would love to see a Burning Legion expansion and have an area where you see thousands of the Legion's demons VS thousands of our soldiers in the background but I think it's kinda hard to do.

    Oh well, maybe in Titan.
    Signature and Avatar by ElyPop

  17. #37
    Field Marshal Rathnor The Flesher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    The Eye of Terror
    Posts
    96
    Can we please stop splitting hairs? That wasn't the point and you all know damn well it wasn't. Also, a good deal of Horde players didn't ask to join a rebellion. Why are crucial decisions like this made for the character?

  18. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by checking facts View Post
    horde x alliance is the basis of warcraft, but what garrosh makes is horde x alliance, horde and everybody else.
    while it's true the basis of warcraft lore, starting way back from warcraft one was horde vs alliance, orcs vs humans...when it actually got to WoW blizzard couldn't write good lore for either side when the other faction was involved, a fight between the two factions? since each race has their own motivations someone has to be the idiot that starts it and their side is going to hate being stuck under an idiot (except the ultra faction pride group who will declare them the best thing to ever happen to WoW simply because they get to attack the enemies who will inevitably beat them down to get rid of the "bad guy").

    warcraft 3: orcs were shown not to be bloodthirsty murder-beasts only wanting to kill humans, humans were shown to be overaggressive with the orcs who wanted to just get away from the fighting. mists: ORCS SMASH CAUSE GARROSH SAY SO! humans once again righteous defenders of the world, life, and freedom (as long as you act exactly like a human or less smart than one)...in other words the second the two get into a fight any development they've had since WC2 goes out the window and horde becomes nothing but super aggressive killers until one of them finally notices their leader's plan is suicidally stupid, and alliance becomes the ultimate defenders who can do no wrong and effortlessly crush almost all horde plans....blizzard can't write the faction conflict to save their lives but they're constantly told (yelled at) to by the fraction of the player base that wants a faction war to justify their only semi-lore supported PVP.

    ...what I'm trying to say but am winding up ranting instead is this: PEOPLE NEED TO STOP DEMANDING "MORE WAR IN WARCRAFT", you get a war and it's with the things that can destroy the planet 5 times over who if they were at their full lore strength would utterly decimate you, your ability to fight the other faction isn't always canon but it's still allowed, stop saying alliance needs to die or horde needs to die and accept that if people want good story they need to have it not be alliance/horde war or they need to find blizzard some writers who can actually make the faction warfare good.

    PS: none of this is yelling at you facts, I kinda just springboarded off of your comment with my rant, apologies.
    ...at this point it's almost guaranteed that "war in warcraft" is garrosh getting on his incompetent podium to declare yet another group his enemy for the crime of breathing his air, alliance saying this is horde favoritism, and the more....special....yes.. let's go with special... horde players seeing garrosh as a god because he lets them attack the alliance players who keep saying that out being led by a moron is horde favoritism.

  19. #39
    We got plenty of Alliance versus Horde this expansion. I'm not sure why now, at the end, when we're united against Garrosh, that somehow undermines or invalidates Theramore, the Jade Forest content, all of the Shieldwall/Dominance Offensive content and its associated scenarios, the Isle of Thunder conflict (remember the part where there were PvP dailies that pit the factions against each other?), or the Purging of Dalaran.

    Technically, it's still Horde vs. Alliance in SoO-- it's just Garrosh's Horde, not the player Horde.

  20. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by Rathnor The Flesher View Post
    Can we please stop splitting hairs? That wasn't the point and you all know damn well it wasn't. Also, a good deal of Horde players didn't ask to join a rebellion. Why are crucial decisions like this made for the character?
    because if they weren't they would be in the small fanatical group that is made up only of orcs (who are likely almost all going to die), some gallywix loyal goblins, and enslaved members of other races. garrosh is a complete failure when it comes to tactics, his plans are all extremely basic and dependent on a monster or death trap being pulled out of his hat, and if the people who love him haven't noticed, HE'S BEEN LOSING THE FIGHT SINCE HE STARTED IT. the barrens? alliance took ground in the barrens it wouldn't even have if he hadn't attacked them, every move he made in pandaria was countered or demolished, he can't even scratch lion's landing while alliance forces are actively invading domination point, gilneas a win for garrosh? HA! all of that was done by sylvanas and she wouldn't have even fought the worgen there if not for garrosh forcing her to, which is part of what brought them into the alliance.

    garrosh is only good for starting a fight and getting his troops killed but you want to join his side? fine, roll orc, go to timeless isles, turn on the censer and see how long you last...that's your authentic garrosh supporter experience.
    ...at this point it's almost guaranteed that "war in warcraft" is garrosh getting on his incompetent podium to declare yet another group his enemy for the crime of breathing his air, alliance saying this is horde favoritism, and the more....special....yes.. let's go with special... horde players seeing garrosh as a god because he lets them attack the alliance players who keep saying that out being led by a moron is horde favoritism.

Posting Permissions

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