Future of Dalaran?

[Talen]

Then why is Jaina outraged at the supposed neutrality breaking when Dalaran broke neutrality not once but TWICE before that.

It was not the Sunreavers role or right to decide Dalaran should or should not go to war.

What happened at other times is irrelevant. The Sunreavers did not rule Dalaran...the Six do. That they then followed it up with - in Jainas eyes - armed insurrection and an invasion by the BElf military only compounded the decision.

EJL

[Aquamonkey]

It was not the Sunreavers role or right to decide Dalaran should or should not go to war.

What happened at other times is irrelevant. The Sunreavers did not rule Dalaran...the Six do. That they then followed it up with - in Jainas eyes - armed insurrection and an invasion by the BElf military only compounded the decision.

Jaina doesn't have the right to expel a Council member nor to bring Dalaran into a war on the side of the Alliance.

[Talen]

Because smuggling goods through a neutral port is totally the same as sending military aid...

When those goods are a weapon? When they end up dragging the city into a war it was trying to avoid getting embroiled with?

Yes.

Jaina doesn't have the right to expel a Council member nor to bring Dalaran into a war on the side of the Alliance.

Not unless the Six agree.

Apparently, they did. The Kirin Tor follow her after all.

EJL

[Aquamonkey]

Not unless the Six agree.

Apparently, they did. The Kirin Tor follow her after all.

No. That's not how it works. Jaina has no right to force Dalaran into a war after imprisoning anyone who would object, then inform the Council after the fact when it's too late to do anything.

- - - Updated - - -

When those goods are a weapon? When they end up dragging the city into a war it was trying to avoid getting embroiled with?

Yes.

Please show me how Dalaran was dragged into the war by having smugglers use the city as a waypoint. Was the Horde going to attack Dalaran all the way in Northrend because of this? No. Was the Alliance going to attack Dalaran all the way in Northrend because of this? No. Jaina brought the war to Dalaran.

[Stormdash]

It seems pretty well established now that the Council of Six is, in practice, the Council of Five Powerless Factotums and Whoever Is Actually In Charge, with the WIAIC role having just recently passed from Rhonin to Jaina.

The people in the Violet Hold, their race the only evidence against them? Who knows. If negotiations break down, maybe Lor'themar can convince Sylvanas to retrieve them. I'm sure Town Full of Mages vs. Siege by Army of Undead will go much better for the mages this time than the last two! Really it will!

[Aquamonkey]

It seems pretty well established now that the Council of Six is, in practice, the Council of Five Powerless Factotums and Whoever Is Actually In Charge, with the WIAIC role having just recently passed from Rhonin to Jaina.

That's not how it's supposed to work.

Antonidas had 2 Council members present during the investigation of Kel'thuzad. Only after they found proof of his guilt, was Kel'thuzad ejected.

Rhonin didn't have the authority to aid Theramore. It required a vote from the Council.

All the Council members are equal. The leader is not all-powerful. It's a figurehead position and public face from when the other 5 Council members were secret.

[Aquamonkey]

no she didn't. Don't be ridiculous.

I'm sorry, when did Dalaran become a battlefield? Oh, right. It was when Jaina started the fight, then put a militant Alliance sympathizer in charge, and invited Stormwind troops into the city.

[Talen]

I think the Alliance has plenty of reason to work with Vol'jin here.

I've not seen one valid reason to do otherwise than use him.

If the Alliance doesn't give Vol'jin these supplies, then they lose his support.

Who cares. His support is NOT critical. Helpful. Nor critical.

Now maybe you're right and the Alliance doesn't absolutely NEED Vol'jin. But the siege becomes a LOT easier if the do, and saves a lot of Alliance lives.

Lives which then have to be thrown against a stronger more united foe. Vol'jin and his rebellion are NOT the Alliances friend. Using him to weaken Garrosh is one thing. But what is actually happening goes FAR beyond that. And what the Alliance get out of all this support is nothing. Nada. Zip. Not a sausage.

If we don't help Vol'jin, the Alliance armies will have to march through the Barrens or Azshara, both horde controlled lands, and that went oh so well for the Alliance in Cataclysm. The Alliance is able to land its fleet right on Garrosh's doorstep in 5.4 because they're coordinating with Vol'jin.

Fleet? What fleet? Invade? What invasion? The Alliance land a strike force, don't lay siege to the city, don't weaken the defences, do NOTHING except help Vol'jins rebellion get rid of a leader they don't want and do so in exchange for NOTHING.

Garrosh - by himself - is NOT a target for the Alliance. The Horde armies are.

What's happening is the Alliance are being given a target that is of no real value to them because that means Blizzard doesn't actually have to develop a storyline that would provide meaning for them.

"Garrosh is leader of the Horde so of course we don't need to make the Alliance want to fight him" is NOT a decent backdrop.

The Alliance gains absolutely nothing from this because Garrosh has NOT been set up as a primary target. The Alliance didn't fight him in 5.1. They fought us - the Horde.

Otherwise they'd either have to go by land, taking much more time and resources to get through horde controlled land to actually reach Orgrimmar, or they'd have to risk a naval invasion on their own. And that went so well in Tides of War didn't it, even when they duped Garrosh into thinking the fleet was heading elsewhere?

If the end result is still war and conflict, if the end result is the Alliance fulfils none of its goals, if the end result is the Horde retains possession of its stolen lands, if the end result is the Alliance have to fight a stronger, more unified enemy - then what is the point of saving lives in a worthless assault on Garrosh? Lives which will then have to be spent wearing down Vol'jin and his new Warchief anyway?

That wasted time going by land would also buy Garrosh more time to build defneses. Time to crush the underequip rebellion and re-consolidate his hold on Durotar.

The thing is....simply by virtue of the fact Vol'jin has rebelled means the Horde is fatally weakened. Or are you suggesting that the Horde can fight off and defeat the full might of the Alliance with only a quarter to a half of his forces? That the Alliance has only been holding its own because Garrosh has been holding 75% of his army in reserve?

Is saving alliance lives itself not worth swallowing your pride and lending Vol'jin a hand?

Not when that isn't the likely outcome. The likely outcome is Vol'jin doesn't give back the land he and his took and the Alliance now have to fight off a stronger more united foe instead resulting in 2 lives lost later for every 1 saved now.

It's not like the Alliance is getting nothing from this. We get a diversion on the shores of Durotar to land our fleets and we get to split the casualties with the horde, leaving the Alliance stronger in the aftermath than it would have been storming alone.

In other words, the Alliance get NOTHING. Does this assault further their aims? Does it protect their people? Does it endure peace and security? Does it help reclaim their stolen lands? No to all of these. What it DOES do is help Vol'jin in his rebellion by helping him fulfil HIS goal.

The Alliance quests in Durotar clearly establish that Orgrimmar's defenses are being upgraded and that the SI 7 agents are finding no exploitable flaws in the defenses to make invading easier.

And they also point out that this invasion is OPTIONAL.

The quests also strongly imply that without your aid the rebellion would outright fail.

Failing to see this as a bad thing for the Alliance since it means they won't have to fight Vol'jin and crew later. Meanwhile, the havoc they'd cause, the mere fact Garrosh has lost their support and manpower and needs to suppress the rebellion means he is seriously weakened regardless of everything else.

You take two foes of equal strength. Now you cut the forces of one side by half. Is he likely to succeed? Or is the other foe, the one who remains at full strength, likely to win.

Vol'jin also ONLY insults you when you choose a douchy OPTIONAL dialogue option. qq

So what? Really - so what. Leaving aside the sheer stupidity of the Alliance actually asking that question...so what?

Vol'jin NEEDS the Alliance. **HE** knows it. The **Alliance** knows it. And he knows the Alliance knows it. Of all the answer he could have given, that one was the worst because it underscored the sheer stupidity and redundancy of the Alliance story and it totally and completely undermined Vol'jins character.

You DO NOT bluff when the other player can see your hand. And in this case, the Alliance had dealt the cards face up and made sure Vol'jin had a pair of deuces to the Alliances Royal Flush. Vol'jin bluffing was idiotic because both he and the Alliance know the situation...Vol'jin cannot live without the Alliance; the Alliance can live without him.

You keep bringing up this "he's only rude if the Alliance is rude" as if it matters. He needs the Alliance. The Alliance CAN be as rude as it wants. Vol'jin should be the one eating it up and BEGGING the Alliance to help him. If he had to bluff and bluster, then he should have done so with something credible.

And then we get the "Call his Bluff" option which points all this out to the player just in case they missed it. That whole exchange needed to be removed from the game files and the fact it was ever put in shows just how little respect Blizzard has for the story.

Either Vol'jin should have approached the Alliance for help and got them involved that way so Alliance strength is acknowledged, or the Alliance should have approached with a far different tone - e.g. paying off the debt they owed him for teh Zandalari affair. Of all the approaches Blizzard could have taken to get the Alliance there, destroying Vol'jins character by portraying him as an idiotic and craven, and emphasising the sheer lack of Alliance involvement and the lack of respect they have for the Alliance in the game was just about the worst way they could have gone.

But that doesn't mean this temporary pact with Vol'jin doesn't make sense. Maybe Vol'jin was an idiot to make that bluff when pushed, but what would you do, throw away this golden opportunity because Vol'jin hurt your feelings?

Since it is NOT a golden opportunity, and since he should his lack of trustworthiness by avoiding the question, and since he threatened to dishonor and curse the Alliance dead by giving them to Sylvanas....yes. The Alliance has had enough experience of Horde backstabbing to not want to repeat the process yet again.

Vol'jin offers nothing the Alliance cannot do without. His aid is helpful...not critical.

It could have been made critical with some snazzy writing of the story - but Blizzard didn't even do that. Instead, the Alliance got an invasion that is seen as something that they can cancel if the target is too difficult. This is not something being portrayed as an attack that must go ahead whatever happens.

Given what he said - given the increased defences - given the lack of committment to gaining anything after the War - the Alliance should simply have cancelled the invasion or pushed it elsewhere. At worst, they should have postponed it for the few weeks Vol'jin would be causing havoc amongst the Horde...and should have extended that by supplying the rebels.

No cooperation, alliance or similar needed. End result - Vol'jin dead, rebels crushed, Garrosh hugely weakened. Which happens if Vol'jins and his rebellion dies tomorrow.

But this small act of cooperation saves Alliance lives, and I think that's worth it.

Those spared lives will need to be thrown at Vol'jin and his rebels later. The cooperation gains nothing that cannot be gained without cooperation.

EJL

[Deleted]

Go Jaina!!

[Talen]

No. That's not how it works. Jaina has no right to force Dalaran into a war after imprisoning anyone who would object, then inform the Council after the fact when it's too late to do anything.

You assume it was after. The Alliance quest text suggest the Kirin Tor knew full well what was happening.

Please show me how Dalaran was dragged into the war by having smugglers use the city as a waypoint.

By letting the Horde moves troops through the city.

EJL

[Aquamonkey]

You assume it was after. The Allinace quest text suggest the Kirin Tor knew full well what was happening.

Jaina will have sent the reasonable ones to the Violet Hold. The rest refuse to leave, raising their weapons against us.
Show them the cost of their defiance. They now face the judgment of the Alliance, the Silver Covenant, and the Kirin Tor!

Yes, Vereesa said that. You notice she lists the Kirin Tor the last of her concerns, behind the Alliance and the Silver Covenant? Seems pretty clear where her loyalties lie. Someone truly acting in the Kirin Tor's best interest would list it first.

In any case, this "evidence" is complete horse shit. She lists Alliance first, that must mean Varian knew about what was happening too. And yet Varian didn't do anything to stop this from hurting his negotiations with Lor'themar and seemed pretty angry when he met with Jaina later.

By letting the Horde moves troops through the city.

How is this different than all the Horde and Alliance troops moving through the city just because Dalaran is a neutral city? And wasn't this your argument for why Stormwind troops were camped out in Dalaran?

[Talen]

It wasn't just that, the Alliance infiltrated and actively sabotaged the Blood Elves

Infiltrated? Yes - stupidly, out of character for them and with no reason given to do so but yes.
Sabotaged? No.

Sylvanas went there with a genuine offer of aid and then brought them into the Horde.

No, she didn't. She went there with her own agenda.

EJL

[Florena]

If anything tweets from blizz reps indicate the Horde will NOT be coming out of this civil war strong and united, and that they will have to give up conquored lands, even if it's not shown in game doesn't mean it doesn't happen in the story.

[Talen]

If anything tweets from blizz reps indicate the Horde will NOT be coming out of this civil war strong and united, and that they will have to give up conquored lands, even if it's not shown in game doesn't mean it doesn't happen in the story.

If it doesn't happen in game it doesn't count. Why? Because Blizzard have "forgotten" the out of game lore plenty of times before.

The Horde can't be shown weaker because they'll need the same in game presence for quests and flight points for example. The Horde won't be kicked out of Pandaria despite the damage they've done because that wouldn't be fair.

And that's leaving aside the trustworthiness of said tweets. It wasn't that long ago that the Blues came out with tweest and so on telling us the Alliance would be getting story in MoP, they'd have their moments of glory, their times of fist-bumpiness.

Do you honestly think getting roped into the Hordes Rebellion storyline counts as lore progression and development for the Alliance or any of its factions? That Anduin going neutral and becoming a Horde apologist helps showcase the Alliance? That having Alliance players beat up shopkeepers makes for a fist bump moment of glory?

Blizzard obviously thinks so. A lot of players - many of whom are neutral/play both sides or are even Horde players - think otherwise.

So - if the Horde does come out of this "weaker"....but with the same in game presence as the Alliance, the same number of flightpoints, the same quest goals with the same ability to progress their anti-big bad agenda next Xpac and no loss of territory and a peace treaty that recognises their acquisitions....would that count as "weaker"?

What about if they withdraw from Azshara? Does that count if a later story then retcons that because the author "forgot" as it wasn't in game? How many times did Varian have to get cured before it became lore as one example - simply because it wasn't shown in game therefore didn't exist for the various writers?

EJL

[Aquamonkey]

Infiltrated? Yes - stupidly, out of character for them and with no reason given to do so but yes.
Sabotaged? No.

I guess those arcane sanctums with Sentinel Spies just sabotaged themselves...

No, she didn't. She went there with her own agenda.

Yea. Her agenda was to help them because she felt guilty at not being able to protect her homeland during the 3rd War.

[Talen]

I guess those arcane sanctums with Sentinel Spies just sabotaged themselves...

You mean the hugely overworked Sanctum that was badly maintaineed and for which the Magister in charge gave you a warning telling you it was likely to fail due to overwork and poor maintenance? You mean THAT Sanctum? The Sanctum that subsequently blew up?

Yea. Her agenda was to help them because she felt guilty at not being able to protect her homeland during the 3rd War.

Her agenda was she needed troops on this side of the ocean. Any pretence at anything else got dropped when she needed troops for Northrend.

EJL

[Florena]

If it doesn't happen in game it doesn't count. Why? Because Blizzard have "forgotten" the out of game lore plenty of times before.

The Horde can't be shown weaker because they'll need the same in game presence for quests and flight points for example. The Horde won't be kicked out of Pandaria despite the damage they've done because that wouldn't be fair.

And that's leaving aside the trustworthiness of said tweets. It wasn't that long ago that the Blues came out with tweest and so on telling us the Alliance would be getting story in MoP, they'd have their moments of glory, their times of fist-bumpiness.

Do you honestly think getting roped into the Hordes Rebellion storyline counts as lore progression and development for the Alliance or any of its factions? That Anduin going neutral and becoming a Horde apologist helps showcase the Alliance? That having Alliance players beat up shopkeepers makes for a fist bump moment of glory?

Blizzard obviously thinks so. A lot of players - many of whom are neutral/play both sides or are even Horde players - think otherwise.

So - if the Horde does come out of this "weaker"....but with the same in game presence as the Alliance, the same number of flightpoints, the same quest goals with the same ability to progress their anti-big bad agenda next Xpac and no loss of territory and a peace treaty that recognises their acquisitions....would that count as "weaker"?

What about if they withdraw from Azshara? Does that count if a later story then retcons that because the author "forgot" as it wasn't in game? How many times did Varian have to get cured before it became lore as one example - simply because it wasn't shown in game therefore didn't exist for the various writers?

EJL

Just because something isn't shown in game doesn't mean it didn't happen in the overall story. Disagree with that if you want to.

[Aquamonkey]

You mean the hugely overworked Sanctum that was badly maintaineed and for which the Magister in charge gave you a warning telling you it was likely to fail due to overwork and poor maintenance? You mean THAT Sanctum? The Sanctum that subsequently blew up?

Yea, the person who said he was too "busy entertaining our... most pleasant... dwarven guest." Guess who that guest was? 1 of the spies. You investigate the explosion and find incriminating documents regarding the sabotage which point to that "dwarven guest". After which, they send you to kill the spies.

Her agenda was she needed troops on this side of the ocean. Any pretence at anything else got dropped when she needed troops for Northrend.

Just completely ignore her torment over failing to defend Quel'thalas. Arthas purposely kept her consciousness intact so she would witness firsthand its destruction. This was one of the main reasons she hated Arthas so much.

[razorfire]

Just because something isn't shown in game doesn't mean it didn't happen in the overall story. Disagree with that if you want to.

as much as my personal history makes me dislike the option I have to agree with florena, heck even things SHOWN in game aren't always canonical lore (if they were then absolutely every single person in the game would be the personal champion of every racial leader in their faction favored over all others...yeah...the impossibility there should be obvious enough reason why that isn't canon). really all this complaining over the alliance helping the horde is childish, if you don't the horde loses a relatively small amount of its forces and the rest of those forces are then stuck serving garrosh due to their invasion plan being shot in the foot before it can start, you then have the invasion that varian ALREADY COMMITTED TO back in 5.1 with all the remaining forces of the horde that you seem so sure you will just wipe out in a weakened state using the even more reinforced defenses to crush the alliance invasion. you then have no diplomatic goodwill, you have no reason for horde to withdraw from captured or contested territory, you have no reason for ANYTHING the alliance can gain from assisting the horde to actually happen...talen please think logically for a moment instead of continuing to try and martyr the alliance as disrespected because you dislike the current storyline.

- - - Updated - - -

Yea, the person who said he was too "busy entertaining our... most pleasant... dwarven guest." Guess who that guest was? 1 of the spies. You investigate the explosion and find incriminating documents regarding the sabotage which point to that "dwarven guest". After which, they send you to kill the spies.


Just completely ignore her torment over failing to defend Quel'thalas. Arthas purposely kept her consciousness intact so she would witness firsthand its destruction. This was one of the main reasons she hated Arthas so much.

the dwarf "ambassador" did indeed sabotage the sanctum, and if you follow the ghostlands quest line all the way sylvanas shows, for the first time in WoW, emotion. emotion that's shown again in the end of the silverpine forest quest line during the negotiations that the worgen won't pass into silverpine. despite the hate she receives sylvanas DOES have emotions besides hate, she is capable of doing things for reasons beyond simple scheming.

[Talen]

Just because something isn't shown in game doesn't mean it didn't happen in the overall story. Disagree with that if you want to.

The problem is not it happening.

The problem is it being retconned out and/or ignored simply because it isn't in the game.

If it isn't shown, isn't referenced and everyone acts as if it never happened...did it actually really happen? It didn't with Varian. His "cure" lasted only until the next writer did a story about him.

Just completely ignore her torment over failing to defend Quel'thalas. Arthas purposely kept her consciousness intact so she would witness firsthand its destruction. This was one of the main reasons she hated Arthas so much.

You seem to feel this makes a difference.

She needed troops. She got them and she played on the BElfs ties with and feelings for her to get what she wanted. She wanted vengeance and she was willing to see the BElfs destroyed to get it.

Or did you think she was bluffing when she threatened to withdraw her troops and leave the BElfs to face the Scourge. Sylvanas valued her vengeance more than she valued the people and land she died trying to protect.

EJL