Sunreavers and Jaina

[Kiri]

1. "But if you are seriously saying.."; Dude, do you see me saying that? No.

2. Aah, Schrödingers Jaina.. Who, in the eye of Alliance fanboys, can be both neutral and non-neutral at the same time and that is perfectly fine.

3. There were tons of factions that were better suited to protect it than the Alliance, but Jaina didn't pick them. Jaina picked the Alliance.

4. In the Purge, she killed innocent people in the purge. Usually when I argue with people justifying the murder of innocent people I am on cringy far right subreddits.

5. "Vol'jin officially forgave her in his function as warchief, with Ji-Chi agreeing."
Well, good thing that she killed Vol'Jins or Ji-Chi's people...

1. I didn't really get what you were trying to say, since Dalaran caused no shatterings. Hence confusion.

2. Not really? If someone starts a war with you, you are no longer able to be neutral. But it does not mean you purposefully broke neutrality. Then again, you consider me a fanboy, so you likely ignore such things.

3. Jaina probably would have liked someone else to rather take care of it. Like stashing it into the nexus vaults. But, again, Jaina was not the one to decide that, unless she took the bell from the alliance.

4. That's precisely why I would not want to discuss it here. This is not the place for a discussion about the right or wrong of potential enemies during a war. All that matters here is that she did not order the Silver Covenant to go out and kill every Sunreaver on sight, which would fit murder, but ordered them to be arrested, with killing only being permitted in the case they fought the deputized forces. Our own player characters have killed our fair share of NPCs that we were to arrest or question and that attacked us. It was a morally questionable action no doubt, but Jaina did not run around killing kittens and little children for the lulz.

5. Vol'Jin was Warchief at that time - the one that the Bloodelves very much agreed on. As such, the Sunreavers are his people, too.

[Kiri]

1. She allowed the Night Elves to have it, they have a dodgy history.

2. Dalaran was either neutral or they were supporting the Alliance. It is that simple. (Hint: The entire important thing was Dalarans neutrality).

3. Doesn't matter, she picked a side when the entire idea of Dalaran is to be neutral.

4. She killed innocent people without a trial or anything because her feelings were hurt. No matter what society you live in, that's murder. Then she invited foreign militias to kill and imprison citizens of the Kingdom she was leading, we call that treason.
Want a real-life analogy? What if, after a terrorist attack, the mayor decided to arrest and imprison all the Muslims; shooting anyone that resists and taking their belongings?

5. It's still not his role to forgive anyone.

1. & 3. Again, Jaina was not in the position to allow anything, just like she could not have gone into Orgrimmar and taken away whatever Blackfuse conjured up. Garrosh's people had a dodgy history too and those were some very destructive weapons he made.
The fact of the matter is that you refuse to acknowledge that Jaina was never in possession of the Bell. Any further discussion is pointless if you can't even agree to that fact.

2. We are talking Theramore in this part, not Dalaran.

4. I have expressed multiple times to not discuss this in terms of the War on Terror in particular. That is both inappropriate and would only derail the topic here. I am not going to continue this point unless you can agree to keep it lore only.

5. As Warchief, he spoke for his people, which include the Sunreavers who accepted him as such. You are free to disagree. But, to return to the original point being made here is that a recurring motif in Warcraft is the cycle of hatred. Pretty much every major lore character has done stuff that he should be put in prison for, potentially including Anduin when you include theft and the like. In either event, most lore characters have blood on their hands and have lose people at the hands of other lore characters. The trials themselves had the explicit purpose to try and break the cycle. Many in the alliance learned to see the Horde in a different light. And yes, even Jaina, along with Varian acknowledged that the Horde is not Garrosh. Likewise, Voljin and a lot of others in the Horde learned to understand her.
This is what led to the cooperation of both factions against the Infinites, against the Iron Horde, and even the joint assault on the Broken Shore.

Obviously, Blizzard had to destroy all of that in order to re-ignite the faction war >>
But yeah, that one is a different story. The original point here was that Jaina never owned up to her actions and constantly blamed others, supposedly. She did own up to them and accepted the being twisted by hatred that she had been for a while. It may not fully sync up with out modern-day sensibilities, where something like that has to be followed up by jail-time, but the World of Warcraft operates differently. The comparisons to the real world will always fall flat due to that.

[Sett]

My favorite thing to do in these types of threads is find the people who obviously have only done one faction's POV for the PoD.

[Zeraiya]

After reading through this whole post, something becomes immediately apparent. There's no doubt that there were errors on both sides (although I am of the opinion that Jaina was the root cause of most of the issues that followed), but Jaina screwed up badly and is certainly a hypocrit.

What Jaina should have done, if she truly cared about neutrality and upholding the values of Dalaran/The Kirin Tor, is declared a side when she was approached with the Divine Bell problem. She isn't a neutral party by nature (although can choose to act with neutrality) as she is tied to both the Kirin Tor and the Alliance (regardless of Theramore going up in flames). What she should have done as either declared herself the leader of the Kirin Tor and rejected the Alliance aid, and let them move the Bell on their own terms, as that was an act of war (despite not wanting physical conflict through the action). Or, she should have declared siding with the Alliance and stepped down from her leadership position (permanently or temporarily) in order to help her faction. If she cared about helping the Alliance, even if she felt it was not to 'help' the Alliance but to avoid world conflict by denying the Horde the Bell, she would do so as an agent of the Alliance. To do something that directly benefits the Alliance while committing Kirin Tor resources... that's a break of neutrality. She is using her position of neutral power to further her own personal objective.

Jaina messed up, badly, and she did act as a hypocrit. She used her own resources as part of the Kirin Tor to benefit what she felt was right in a faction war just like Thalen. She also then purged the whole neutral city of Horde races because of the actions of one person, who happened to be Horde, that was also betraying Dalaran itself. As brought up by Aethas, many have betrayed Dalaran, but she purges complete races from their home because of her own personal vendetta without any investigation in the allegiance of the people she's removing. She is acting like an Alliance agent, removing the horde, not like the leader of a neutral faction.

[baskev]

It's not an attack because there was no violence.

You keep focusing on wartime, indicating that you don't consider stealing a WMD during peace to be an attack. When a theft happens doesn't matter to the situation. No violence, not an attack.

stealing a weapon during wartime is seen as a attack. A attack does not have to have causality's. As one nations sovereignty is broken it will be seen as a attack.

- - - Updated - - -

Letting the Alliance use it made it a military target, not sure what you are even trying to say here.


compared to the powder keg of giving it to one side in a two faction conflict, regardless of intent to use or not.



She had a choice to be neutral and not get involved, she got involved and broke neutrality.

Securing the bell in an Alliance city in a two faction conflict is breaking neutrality.


Dalaran being safe or not has no fucking weight in the argument, what she did still broke neutrality.


-it doesn't matter if she didn't trust the Horde or not, she still broke neutrality.


The big fucking issue here is that you don't seem to understand what neutrality actually means, it doesn't equal being able to pick and choose what conflicts and sides you partake in, that just makes you an opportunistic leech.



You could do some reading of your own.



Just because the Alliance didn't use the bell doesn't make Jaina's actions neutral, how many times does that need to be repeated to you until you understand?


irrelevant to your poor grasp on what neutrality is.

Not responding anymore to you...you are talking like a other person on this thread.
I clearly stated its why jaina does these things. You do not even read her history. So what point does it have. You also twist words like that person. You can repeat everything a 1000 times...it does not make it true or correct. I did not say her actions are 100% neutral. I said she made the best decision in her ( and my ) eye's. Things like this make's "discussions" with people like you un-doable.

She my final response is: From the pov from jaina ( and why i think the OP thead poster is wrong) ( and also from alliance side pov).

- WMD moved to safety. Hord race breakes neutrality jaina ( in my eyes) does something stupid ( killing sunreavers).


From outside the game perspective:
- Jaina had a bit more fondness for the alliance. But after theramore that is normal.
- Thermaore was not normal. Even if it was a alliance staging ground. Do we bomb the shit out of hord towns with WMD?
- Hord broke neutrality first by using dalaran portals. And yes all of you keep crying about jaina moving army's etc...but never give the proof for it.
- The weapon was in the safest place it could be at that moment in azoroth.
- The weapon is a WMD, and stealing it is a ATTACK. Stealing a WMD during a war will always be a attack.
- jaina's repsonse was overkill and bad. <<< something i have always found btw.

- - - Updated - - -

Follow what was quoted all the way back. You made this initial point about Theramore which is what this specific point is responding to.

Yeah i made it for jaina POV. Not the whole conflict?

Please try and keep track of what you said and what people responded to specifically.

My bad. Kinda gets blurry if you need to respond to a couple of people. Who can not read everything. Or understand the difference between POV , whole situation and context etc.

You are wrong, can't read, and have no sense of reasoning. That entire point said nothing about what you thought of the situation and was stating my reasoning for why Jaina has never been betrayed by the Horde.
- yes she did have a choice, and she chose to help the Alliance which was betrayal of the Horde and by extension the Horde half of the Kirin Tor.
- removing a WMD from a warzone and helping one side in a conflict secure a WMD are two entirely different things. Imagine if a country retrieved a stolen nuke and gave it to North Korea, do you think that said country could reasonably claim to be neutral in the conflict between North Korea and the USA?
- She wasn't leader of Dalaran when she let the Alliance into Theramore. Also the Alliance didn't force her to let them in, she asked them for help in defending Theramore in case Garrosh decided to attack and their condition that they could use it as a launching point for their invasion.
- Might've been safer than Darnassus in hindsight. Hell, it would've been harder for the Horde to steal it if the Sunreavers and the Silver Convenant were both tasked with keeping it safe from the other faction.
- and last I checked, picking sides in a conflict invalidates neutrality regardless of your reasons, so that's a moot point.

Jaina has never been betrayed by the hord..............before the purge nothing had been done by the hord??!?!?!
- again...because people like you can not understand this. Was it a good choice to move it to darnassus...nope...was it the only choice...YES.
- Bad analogy. Because my point is that darnassus is not NK. My point is darnassus is in comperance to the other races switzerland.
-.....so according to you she did nothing wrong at theramore...so she was brutality attacked by them?
- Yes hindsight there could have been allot of things gone better. Thrall not giving garrosh the hord. Varian counting to 10 etc etc etc. And yes it might have. But at that time ( what my whole point is) the trust was already gone ( big time).
- Not trusting has nothing to do with neutrality. And again she made in her eye's the safest location for a WMD.

I'm not acting like nothing happened to her, I'm saying that what did happen to her was of her own making. Had she not let the Alliance into Theramore then the Horde would've had no reason to attack it. Had she not helped the Alliance secure the Divine Bell then the Horde wouldn't have been able to use Dalaran's portal network to sneak into Darnassus. She triggered, pushed, etc. the Horde to do what they did by breaking neutrality and siding with the Alliance. How about you try reading how she willingly let the Alliance use Theramore as a launching point where the intent of said invasion was to literally starve all of Orgrimmar to death and leave the rest of the Horde without their main fighting force, or how Varian and the other Alliance leaders were willing to use the Divine Bell and the only reason they decided against it was because Anduin talked Varian out of it. You're acting like it was pretty clear cut that the Alliance was in the right when they were acting with the intent to exterminate the Horde.

hord on theramore someone just said something to me...a guy/gal named vynny:She wasn't leader of Dalaran when she let the Alliance into Theramore. Also the Alliance didn't force her to let them in, she asked them for help in defending Theramore in case Garrosh decided to attack and their condition that they could use it as a launching point for their invasion. <>So she feared garrosh. And that fear came true. She could have not asked the allaince and the civilians would have also died....

But for the rest....i can respond a 1001 times but you guys will never see the difference between her pov, context and the original Thread post.
So lets be clear.
In her pov: she did everything fine. She was betrayed first.
In alliance pov: she did everything fine. but killing those civilian hordy's is a bit overkill.
In hord pov: the bitch, the mass murderer. She always chooses alliance side. we never did anything to her.
My pov: Theramore was hords fault, WMD was a smart move to the best location because the trust was already bad then. In hindsight would dalaran have been better...yes ( but in hindsight garrosh leading the hord also a mistake). Was stealing the weapon a attack...yes. Was she right to kick sunreavers out....yes ( but debatable) . Did she had to murder all of them...nope. And i stand by my response. She did not brake the neutrality and she is not the worst person if you look at all of it.

And I never said Sylvanas isn't evil. She's done plenty of terrible things, but no one goes defending her because she doesn't turn around and play the victim by blaming everyone else for her actions. I mean, Sylvanas would be comparable to Jaina if she went on and on about how everything she did was Arthas' fault for turning her into a banshee or some shit, but she doesn't. Sylvanas owns what she does and doesn't make excuses or blame others for responding to her actions.

Jaina is not blaming other people because she thinks they did stuff to her...They did stuff to her.......theramore, Dad, the other attack on theramore etc .

And Sylvanas is not trying to enslave val'kyr to become immortal because someone made her into a wraith?

[Friendlyimmolation]

Alright so are you honestly trying to say” but look at the POV!!!!!!!” As an argument? Breaking neutrality is breaking neutrality no matter how hard you try to spin it

Running away from people who point out the gaping holes I your argument doesn’t suddenly make the argument good.

[Aquamonkey]

stealing a weapon during wartime is seen as a attack. A attack does not have to have causality's. As one nations sovereignty is broken it will be seen as a attack.

I never said an attack had to have casualties. It has to have violence. Burglary vs robbery. What people see as an attack doesn't mean it is.