Lore Interview with Dave Kosak

[Thage]

So if he is saying, as I am, that SoO is not a fist-pumping moment, then why argue when I say thus?

She, and I'm arguing that from a story standpoint, the Alliance just definitively handed the Horde its ass on a platter, put the revolutionaries in a position where they have no choice but to play ball with Alliance demands, and then took the high road after letting them pick a Warchief that'll play ball. To the Horde, that would be little more than salt on the wound--"We could mop the floor with you guys, but we're not. We have other shit to focus on." That serves two purposes--it can build to a coalition for the next expansion's inevitable mutual threat that's out for our blood, and seeds discontent for the war to heat back up later when another fiery orator with the empathy of a slug has enough playing nice with the other team.

[Deleted]

oh look it's the "ermagad you want to wipe out half the playerbase!!!1111" strawman again
how refreshing

Why is some people so in-love with the "strawman"? Callei said nothing that wasn't already said on these same forums.

[Sandrox]

All this shows me time and again is the Blizz lore team will go out of their way to make the Horde happy, when they will not for the Alliance.

[Infernix]

I maintain that the only clear and simple solution to this is to have the Alliance evacuate the city after Garrosh's death and then level it to its foundations with aerial bombardment.

The Orcs can either move into Azshara(lots of lumber and farmland there, dummies!), down to Sen'jin or into Thunder Bluff.

Make Thunder Bluff the new Horde Capitol City.

Build Sen'jin up into a real Troll city like ZA or ZG and give it a City Chat so that the Horde have the same number of cities as the Alliance.

Leave Org in ruins with a great big sign that reads "Behold the results of bringing aggressive warfare to the Alliance. Let these ruins stand forever as testament to our mercy in letting the Horde live on and never again bring war to our people, upon pain of death."

The Horde gets a new city to enjoy, Thunder Bluff gets redone in great fashion, and the Alliance gets major bragging rights from now until the end of WoW.

[Thage]

the alliance help out the horde win

Canonically, the Alliance wins and puts pressure on the rebels to play ball after the dust settles.

the alliance came to him first and he insulted them for their troubles

Then when you call him out, he backpedals harder than a kid about to wipe out on his bike.

kill the warchief they don't like anymore, remove some orcs that don't support them and put the rebellion in power

Leaving a massive power vacuum, given the orcish power structure and that of the Horde as a whole.

and which warchief will they choose? the one that is plague bombing shit left and right or just one of the ones that happily supported garrosh until it was inconvenient for them? I'm sure that won't come back to bite the alliance in the ass

Happy is an odd term for "having their peoples' continued lifespan essentially held hostage for fear of retaliation or needing the Horde to avoid getting a boot in the ass from the Alliance." Under Garrosh, the others went with his plan because the alternative was either get hit hard by the Alliance as a repercussion for his war efforts, or get hit hard by the Horde for being traitors.

edit: Just look at the events in the 5.1 Horde questlines. Early on, Garrosh attempts to have Vol'jin assassinated because Vol'jin refuses to go along with his plan. Then, in the short story The Blank Scroll, Lorewalker Shuchun details how things would have gone if the goblins got their hands on the scroll. Gallywix hides it deep in his vaults, and Garrosh sends the entire Horde after the Bilgewaters because he thinks the only reason Gallywix would hide a weapon from him is for treasonous purposes.

oh look it's the "ermagad you want to wipe out half the playerbase!!!1111" strawman again
how refreshing

I don't go down that line of thought often, but the people I've been responding to here have made some pretty heavy implications in the direction of "I won't be happy until Horde players have to tithe Alliance guilds every month."

[Deleted]

No, a cold war is a state of war. Non-cooperation does not mean cold war. You can be neutral, isolationist but not engaged in a cold war. All the same you can be engaged in a cold war and still cooperate with your enemies, as the US and Soviet Union have plenty of times during the Cold War.

Cold War is a state of political and military tension. War involves armed forces fighting each other.

[OrcsRLame]

Why is some people so in-love with the "strawman"? Callei said nothing that wasn't already said on these same forums.

You don't know what a strawman is do you?

[Deleted]

Because espionage and intelligence gathering isn't considered an act of war

That means the US is at war with the EU and vice-versa right now? Come on, we all know how things work.

[Thage]

the only problem is that the devs have written the story in a way that says the Alliance couldn't possibly have defeated Garrosh without the instrumental help of the Rebellion. So no the Alliance doesn't hand the Horde its ass on a platter, the Alliance, forced to work with the Horde rebellion, was able to succeed where they would've failed without the help.

The Alliance brings an entire, unified, multiracial army to bear, likely from two fronts as Tyrande's forces will be coming from the north while the others arrive by way of the port. They also have a mobile command base populated with powerful mages. I find it hard to agree that the Alliance needed the rebels--even in the letter you get from Varian, he makes it clear that he's only going with it because it will save Alliance lives. The Alliance would have been more than able to just take the supplies and shore up for a longer siege.

I honestly don't believe Horde players or the developers see it that way at all. That is incredibly optimistic.

What can I say, I like to think the best of people.

Without major changes like dual faction grouping, BGs being "war-games" as you suggested, and basically removing the factions as a source of issues, the latter is more likely than the former. You don't even need a fiery orator. Horde is written as having 0 empathy for the Alliance even before Garrosh. Just read the Shattering to get that.

Even in the Shattering, Horde opinion about the Alliance was split between 'we need resources, fuck those guys,' and 'let's all just take a breath and think about this.' I would give you credit if you said the orcs had zero empathy toward the Alliance, because frankly that's been the rule rather than the exception, but the other races tend more toward a practical 'the enemy of my friend is my enemy' or even regret that they have to fight the Alliance, but things are as they are. Anyway, point being, back in BC we were officially allied but the faction barrier was still there.

[Deleted]

You don't know what a strawman is do you?

Do I get something in answering "I do" and will you believe me? As I said, Callei said nothing that wasn't already said by some posters, demanding things like the "return of the Kingdom of Lordaeron back to the Alliance hands", for example.

[Deleted]

Should cooler heads not prevail, should warmongers be in charge, countries have rights to go to war over espionage and subversion. They are acts of aggression with consequences. Subversion techniques are what turned cold wars into hot ones, in the real world, fought by proxy, like Vietnam and the Russo-Afghan wars.

These days most espionage falls under corporate espionage, even involving defense contractors and the like. It is a serious federal crime in respective countries where those convicted face serious jail time.

Exactly, crime, not war.

But we can let the dictionary settle these for us:

"cold war
noun
1.
intense economic, political, military, and ideological rivalry between nations, short of military conflict; sustained hostile political policies and an atmosphere of strain between opposed countries.
2.
a continuing state of resentful antagonism between two parties short of open hostility or violence.
3.
( initial capital letters ) rivalry after World War II between the Soviet Union and its satellites and the democratic countries of the Western world, under the leadership of the United States."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cold+war

[Romeothecat]

"not sure what the alliance wants" how about characters other than varian doing things, being represented strongly, and writing the other factions as if they were their own kingdoms in an alliance instead of just servents of stormwind.

[Thage]

The only race in the Horde with any regrets about fighting the Alliance are the Blood Elves and that makes sense considering their history.

The tauren by and large have no desire to fight the Alliance, but only do so because they're allied with the orcs, who are all about duking it out with Team Blue. Taurajo does change a lot of their opinions on this, but the prevailing notion as of MoP is one where Baine has learned the truth about Taurajo and the tauren don't really hold any special grudges. Baine's short friendship with Jaina and Anduin also likely plays a role here, since Jaina gave him the gold needed to hire mercenaries and commission bombs to retake Thunder Bluff from the Grimtotem after Magatha's bloody coup.

The trolls have no strong love for the Alliance, but they're also willing to team up with them when the situation calls for it--ditto the goblins. The blood elves have a lukewarm relationship with the Alliance, mostly born of the elves' history of alliances of convenience with whoever presents the most opportunity to help their people. The only overtly antagonistic races are the orcs and the Forsaken, neither of whom are exactly pillars of empathy.

[Kaleredar]

He skirted my "Who came first, Old gods or Titans" question....


The mystery continues...



As for what the Alliance wants.... It starts with a "G" and rhymes with "B-ilneas"

[Thage]

He skirted my "Who came first, Old gods or Titans" question....

To be fair, he did say he only skirted it because it would spoil future content.

[Viradiance]

Thanks, Jesse. Much love. Should be a fun watch, like most of what else you make.

[Deleted]

It's a state of war, without invasions or direct, open attacks. Like I've said, a cold war is a state of warfare. Espionage, subversion, propaganda, mercenary skirmishes, etc. etc. it's still a war.

It's a type of warfare, but it's not a war. War on this field of action is the direct conflict between two armed forces, which it didn't happened before WotLK. And this is the definition that Blizzard uses.

[OrcsRLame]

Do I get something in answering "I do" and will you believe me? As I said, Callei said nothing that wasn't already said by some posters, demanding things like the "return of the Kingdom of Lordaeron back to the Alliance hands", for example.

I'd believe you if you explained to me what a strawman is, and why it was entirely relevant to say that given the context. You don't really get anything out of it, but that's true for any given post on the forums.

Suppose you have 3 people, A, B and C. A and B are arguing about why gas prices are up. B asserts that gas prices are up because Obama was elected President. A says that's retarded, and that B doesn't have any proof that there's correlation, let alone causation between Obama becoming President and gas prices going up. The next day, A and C have the same argument. C asserts that gas prices going up are just a symptom of how the economy is doing in general, and can mostly be attributed to inflation. A says that's retarded and that C doesn't have any proof that there's a correlation, let alone causation between Obama becoming President and gas prices going up. Person C says, WTF are you talking about? Did you just strawman me?

A strawman is when you misrepresent someone's argument, (either grossly or slightly) and then attack the points of the weaker argument you made. If someone is using a strawman, they should always be called out on it, because it is fallacious. And people are not hive minds, so while B may want all Horde players put in prison, C may not have even considered the idea. So just because B said it, doesn't mean that countering that point is in any way related to arguing with C.

Anywho, on topic. For me the most interesting thing in the interview is what was said about the thing under Tirisfal. Since Blizzard hasn't decided exactly what it is, it's probably not any of their super important characters. Meaning we can rule it out being something like Azshara, N'zoth or the 5th Old God. The Titans vs Old Gods stuff was also interesting, but I need to think about it some more before I'll have anything to say about it.

[CandyCotton Marshmallows]

You forgot to ask about Illidan. =/

You could be optimistic and consider this a part he had to cut out because of NDAs



From the responses (plan to watch it later); I'm a bit saddened that they are so lackadaisical about the story and lore.

With such an important and strong IP; and all the time they have, things like Tirisfal should've been figured out over the last decade; along with tons of other lore surrounding the universe they created.

I am strongly disappointed in their lack of passion for their own creation, honestly. I know if I was to create a universe such as this, and expand upon it, knowing I have a strong following and expansions to make; I'd be balls to the walls fleshing out every bit of the lore I've created while working on expanding the universe. It would be my life's focus to meticulously detail everything I could; even bringing in other talented minds to help inspire and create.

Look at other works of fiction; where the creator comes up with full languages for races, in depth histories and lineages. It is the difference between a masterpiece and a fad. WoW treats its masterpiece like a fad sometimes which is disheartening.

They seem more like they don't have a plan and develop both lore and xpacs on a whim (I recall them saying MoP wasn't the planned xpac to follow Cata initially). If this is true, Cata makes perfect sense. They knew that was the direction they wanted to go in, they had no idea how to implement it or flesh it out. Prior to Cata, they had years built up on the progression of the lore and story. They were just giving us the main areas that dealt with the various iterations of the RTS.

I really hope they wake up and get their shit together; the WC universe deserves it.

[Deleted]

I'd believe you if you explained to me what a strawman is, and why it was entirely relevant to say that given the context. You don't really get anything out of it, but that's true for any given post on the forums.

Suppose you have 3 people, A, B and C. A and B are arguing about why gas prices are up. B asserts that gas prices are up because Obama was elected President. A says that's retarded, and that B doesn't have any proof that there's correlation, let alone causation between Obama becoming President and gas prices going up. The next day, A and C have the same argument. C asserts that gas prices going up are just a symptom of how the economy is doing in general, and can mostly be attributed to inflation. A says that's retarded and that C doesn't have any proof that there's a correlation, let alone causation between Obama becoming President and gas prices going up. Person C says, WTF are you talking about? Did you just strawman me?

A strawman is when you misrepresent someone's argument, (either grossly or slightly) and then attack the points of the weaker argument you made. If someone is using a strawman, they should always be called out on it, because it is fallacious. And people are not hive minds, so while B may want all Horde players put in prison, C may not have even considered the idea. So just because B said it, doesn't mean that countering that point is in any way related to arguing with C.

Which is precisely why I made my post about the "strawman". People tend to use it wrongly and on this thread was the example of it.