Why is the Horde evil when Alliance is the one starting the wars? (maybe spoilers)

[Grythletubs]

He is trying to point out that they started it to the alliance fans. He is ok with it.

There's alliance fans on mmochamp?

- - - Updated - - -

Because Horde players told me the Alliance was the boring "goody two shoes" faction. "Humans and friends" sure. But goody two shoes? Genn? Lmao.

He's more of an "I have major personal issues" character. Not that he's unreasonable but his whole anger seems to be directed solely towards Sylvannas than anyone else in the horde.

[Tripzzz]

There's alliance fans on mmochamp?

They exist. Just harder to find since they aren't spazzing out and posting 24/7

[Verdugo]

There's alliance fans on mmochamp?

They are closer to trolls it seems, but I think so.

[Tripzzz]

He's more of an "I have major personal issues" character. Not that he's unreasonable but his whole anger seems to be directed solely towards Sylvannas than anyone else in the horde.

That is very true.

[Amaterasu65]

What's this thread about? Horde burnt Teldrassil, then the Alliance retaliated.

[lazypeon100]

Any conflict in WotLK between Horde and Alliance was the Alliance responding to apparent aggression by the Horde, perpetrated by the machinations of Varimathras. Despite that, a peace treaty was signed after the Lich King's defeat.

Cataclysm and subsequently MoP was spurred by ramifications of Varimathras' plans' culmination at the Wrath Gate followed by the scarcity of resources and actions of the Twilight Hammer. Tensions exploded as Garrosh decided the Horde should gloriously take anything they wanted rather than pursue diplomatic negotiations.

BfA I've not seen anything confirming how events play out to trigger the new war, but thus far we only know the Horde go to Silithus and start mining a new resource.

The Alliance doesn't start these wars, they respond to apparent Horde aggression. The problem being, the Horde is often set up by a third party to appear the aggressors.


The fact that neither the Horde NOR Alliance ever learned of the Twilight Hammer's shenanigans in Ashenvale to trigger Garrosh's war still amuses me.

Only correction I'd make is that I think the alliance does start this nect war. Start of Stormheim, before any of the players or Genn knew what Sylvanas was up to, he attacked their fleet when they were supposed to be accomplishing the same mission.

That's an act of war in my opinion.

Edit: Nearly forgot, Varian knew about the treason at the wraithgate when he attacked the undercity and declared war. Though reading the thread further someone else already pointed that out apparently haha.

[Mehrunes]

Again like dozens of people have told you in previous threads. The war was started by the alliance in response to horde aggressions. You act as if the fact that the war was started by the alliance makes them the bad guys. No.

And those people are incorrect. It's even devoid of any internal cohesion. If there was a Horde aggression that would mean the Horde started the war. To admit that Alliance started the war but trying to whitewash it by saying they did it only in response to Horde aggression is to admit the concept of logic eludes you. At least the Alliance posters who construct fanfiction of Alliance not starting the wars by handwaving away pesky things like chronology or certain events can say they are consistent.

The alliance "attack" in Silithus because Sylvannas is clearly gathering up Azerite for ill intentions.

It's so super clear the Alliance has no clue what they are planning to do with it at the time they attack.

It's blatantly shown through the majority of faction conflict zones where horde are brutally slaughtering alliance whether they're civilians or not, burning down forests and destroying their homes. Meanwhile in the alliance victorious zones they're "pushing back" the horde lol.

Simply level a new character from 1-60 and from 80-90 in the panda zones (since most questing experience between those are neutral) and you'll see. (though back then was Garrosh)

Events during the war are irrelevant to the topic of the start of the war.

As for your habit of posting "ALLAIANCE STARTED THE WAR". Yes they did, what's your point?

If you developed the mystic skills of understanding what you read and operating in context, you'd have noticed I was replying to someone who most likely negated the claim that Alliance is starting the wars because of the examples they gave.

Hitler technically didn't start the war despite wanting to mass murder people based on the religion, culture, ethnicity and physical capabilities. It was technically the countries that responded to his aggressions if you want to use that kind of logic.

First of all, this is monumentally stupid comparison. Secondly, it's monumentally wrong comparison given how WWII started with Hitler's invasion of Poland.

I really don't understand what you're trying to achieve with your constant blatant RPing heavily anti-alliance posts. And I say this as someone who mains horde (a blood elf though so technically that gives edgy neckbeards the right to call me alliance).

TIL correcting lore-illiterate people constitutes RP. Fascinating. And oh noes, Alliance started a war. So anti-Alliance. You make me laugh.

They exist. Just harder to find since they aren't spazzing out and posting 24/7

Given how they can't post as much because they keep getting banned, I'd say if anyone's spazzing out, it'd be them.

[Deleted]

I just did the new horde quest line in Silithus for the first time and realized that the quests don't really show which quest line happened first. This could potentially call into doubt which faction actually attacked first.

As we all know in the controversial Alliance quest the quest giver tells you to go get Azerite samples, he does not specify how, just that he needs someone that can take the direct approach. But the only option the player has to get the samples is to kill the goblin miners and take it from them.

In a similar quest in the horde quest chain the quest giver tells you that there are Alliance spies "snoopin' around the camp" and that he wants you to go kill them. He does not explain why he wants you to kill them, it could be because he's worried they could be planning an attack, because Sylvanas wants to keep the knowledge of Azerite out of the Alliance's hands or it could be another reason entirely.

Now what I find interesting about these quests is that neither of them makes it clear which happens first. If the Alliance had spies passively observing the horde miners, killing them could be seen as starting the conflict in Silithus. Obviously if the Alliance attacked the miners first that would also have started the conflict.

Another thing to consider is that we have a datamined conversation with Sylvanas where she explains exactly why she is having the horde fight the Alliance. According to her the horde is fighting to secure Kalimdor for the horde, not to avenge the goblins or the fleet in Stormheim.

[Aucald]

I just did the new horde quest line in Silithus for the first time and realized that the quests don't really show which quest line happened first. This could potentially call into doubt which faction actually attacked first.

As we all know in the controversial Alliance quest the quest giver tells you to go get Azerite samples, he does not specify how, just that he needs someone that can take the direct approach. But the only option the player has to get the samples is to kill the goblin miners and take it from them.

In a similar quest in the horde quest chain the quest giver tells you that there are Alliance spies "snoopin' around the camp" and that he wants you to go kill them. He does not explain why he wants you to kill them, it could be because he's worried they could be planning an attack, because Sylvanas wants to keep the knowledge of Azerite out of the Alliance's hands or it could be another reason entirely.

Now what I find interesting about these quests is that neither of them makes it clear which happens first. If the Alliance had spies passively observing the horde miners, killing them could be seen as starting the conflict in Silithus. Obviously if the Alliance attacked the miners first that would also have started the conflict.

Another thing to consider is that we have a datamined conversation with Sylvanas where she explains exactly why she is having the horde fight the Alliance. According to her the horde is fighting to secure Kalimdor for the horde, not to avenge the goblins or the fleet in Stormheim.

Canonically speaking the Horde arrives at Silithus and sets up mining first, as Gallywix confirms to Sylvanas that the Alliance don't know about the Azerite deposits and his people are already on it - mining it for the Horde. SI:7 is present but hidden, however, and Matthias Shaw is supplied a small piece of presumably stolen Azerite that he shows Genn and Anduin. This would seem to put the Horde base slightly ahead of the Alliance one, but for the most part the quests are happening close to simultaneously. Horde arrives, builds a makeshift mining camp, which SI:7 spies on during construction. Then Alliance forces arrive on the other side of the plain and built up their makeshift encampment, etc. etc.

[Mehrunes]

I just did the new horde quest line in Silithus for the first time and realized that the quests don't really show which quest line happened first. This could potentially call into doubt which faction actually attacked first.

As we all know in the controversial Alliance quest the quest giver tells you to go get Azerite samples, he does not specify how, just that he needs someone that can take the direct approach. But the only option the player has to get the samples is to kill the goblin miners and take it from them.

In a similar quest in the horde quest chain the quest giver tells you that there are Alliance spies "snoopin' around the camp" and that he wants you to go kill them. He does not explain why he wants you to kill them, it could be because he's worried they could be planning an attack, because Sylvanas wants to keep the knowledge of Azerite out of the Alliance's hands or it could be another reason entirely.

Now what I find interesting about these quests is that neither of them makes it clear which happens first. If the Alliance had spies passively observing the horde miners, killing them could be seen as starting the conflict in Silithus. Obviously if the Alliance attacked the miners first that would also have started the conflict.

Another thing to consider is that we have a datamined conversation with Sylvanas where she explains exactly why she is having the horde fight the Alliance. According to her the horde is fighting to secure Kalimdor for the horde, not to avenge the goblins or the fleet in Stormheim.

By the time of the first Alliance quests the spies aren't discovered yet. They are already discovered in the first Horde questline. Besides, the very presence of Alliance spies in Horde outpost is already an incursion. And the Horde can defend its property. The Alliance can't blow up Horde property because they don't like Horde mining in a place that belongs to neither of the factions. And Sylvanas wanted to go to war even before Silithus so Silithus is probably only a footnote in her reasoning (if it even happens after Silithus, could be a vision quest to give players back story). And Alliance attack in Stormheim is most likely the primary reason for her getting pissed off at Alliance.

[Deleted]

By the time of the first Alliance quests the spies aren't discovered yet. They are already discovered in the first Horde questline.

There's no way to know that for certain. It's possible that the spes that were discovered were killed and therefore unable to report back, or that the quest giver didn't mention it for some reason.

Besides, the very presence of Alliance spies in Horde outpost is already an incursion. And the Horde can defend its property. The Alliance can't blow up Horde property because they don't like Horde mining in a place that belongs to neither of the factions.

as you yourself pointed out Silithus is not horde property, the Alliance has just as much right to be there as the horde does. The quest text from the horde quest giver does not indicate that the spies have taken any offensive action against the mining operation at all, just that they've been observing it. If the horde didn't want the miners in their camp they could have apprehended them and delivered them back to the Alliance camp telling them to stay out in the future, rather than just killing them.

And Sylvanas wanted to go to war even before Silithus so Silithus is probably only a footnote in her reasoning (if it even happens after Silithus, could be a vision quest to give players back story).

The conversation with Sylvanas looks like it takes place during the burning of Teldrassil scenario, which will take place after Silithus.

And Alliance attack in Stormheim is most likely the primary reason for her getting pissed off at Alliance.

That's pure speculation unless it's stated somewhere in the lore. Here we have a lengthy, detailed explanation of Sylvanas' motivations for war, and they do not mention Stormheim.

[Unholyground]

Sylvanas has the right idea, drop the plague on Stormwind and be done with it.

[Mehrunes]

There's no way to know that for certain. It's possible that the spes that were discovered were killed and therefore unable to report back, or that the quest giver didn't mention it for some reason.

The Horde NPCs don't mention about previous Alliance incursions. Hell, IIRC they even have idle conversations about keeping the operation a secret. And since when is SI:7 sending its agents to certain death without warning? Is it still ran by demons?

as you yourself pointed out Silithus is not horde property, the Alliance has just as much right to be there as the horde does. The quest text from the horde quest giver does not indicate that the spies have taken any offensive action against the mining operation at all, just that they've been observing it. If the horde didn't want the miners in their camp they could have apprehended them and delivered them back to the Alliance camp telling them to stay out in the future, rather than just killing them.

Does Silithus in its entirety not being Horde territory magically alter reality and make a Horde outpost not Horde property? Can Horde destroy Feathermoon Stronghold then? And killing spies is common. What's also common is the country responsible for spying pretending it wasn't them and that it's the first time they even hear about spies being a thing, because it's the spying nation that it's in the wrong.

The conversation with Sylvanas looks like it takes place during the burning of Teldrassil scenario, which will take place after Silithus.

Which does not affect the second point.

That's pure speculation unless it's stated somewhere in the lore. Here we have a lengthy, detailed explanation of Sylvanas' motivations for war, and they do not mention Stormheim.

Yeah, they only revolve around wanting to be separated from the Alliance for safety. And her cinematic text about sharing the world being a mistake. I wonder whatever could have made her thing that way when she didn't give two shits about the previous faction war after she secured Lordaeron. Obviously it has nothing to do with Alliance attacking the Horde fleet out of the blue during a world-ending threat and fucking her and her race over, which she's still pissed off about in the book preview.

[Deleted]

People saying a small skirmish in neutral, contested area over a new and uncertain resource is the thing that causes a war between the factions are delusional. Small skirmishes like this have been happening all over the place without igniting wars. (Warsong Gulch, Arathi basin, Alterac Valley, that TBC battleground on the purple floaty rocks, that battleground on the shore of Northrend somewhere, and pretty much all other BGs)

What can cause a full scale war though is the plotting of or an actual attack of a capital of the opposite faction. Which horde starts (from what is currently known)

Just saying.

[Kiri]

People saying a small skirmish in neutral, contested area over a new and uncertain resource is the thing that causes a war between the factions are delusional. Small skirmishes like this have been happening all over the place without igniting wars. (Warsong Gulch, Arathi basin, Alterac Valley, that TBC battleground on the purple floaty rocks, that battleground on the shore of Northrend somewhere, and pretty much all other BGs)

What can cause a full scale war though is the plotting of or an actual attack of a capital of the opposite faction. Which horde starts (from what is currently known)

Just saying.

There is also the fact that in-game representation is not necessarily lore. In the quests on both horde and alliance side, no blood is being shed before the player arrives. SI:7 spies are just running around to be killed for spying on the horde side, miners are just mining on the alliance side. Neither quest implies that there had already been violence before the player arrived.
Ultimately, taking that and turning it into an act of war is pointless, quests like these tend to not have much lore implication, books and word of Blizz create the 'actual lore'.

[Aquamonkey]

If the Alliance didn't have the foresight to investigate the area around a giant titan sword jammed into the planet, that's their own fault. They're just pissy they didn't think of it.

[Mehrunes]

People saying a small skirmish in neutral, contested area over a new and uncertain resource is the thing that causes a war between the factions are delusional. Small skirmishes like this have been happening all over the place without igniting wars. (Warsong Gulch, Arathi basin, Alterac Valley, that TBC battleground on the purple floaty rocks, that battleground on the shore of Northrend somewhere, and pretty much all other BGs)

What can cause a full scale war though is the plotting of or an actual attack of a capital of the opposite faction. Which horde starts (from what is currently known)

Just saying.

Highlighted the phrases that are you shooting your narrative dead. Just because those previous conflicts didn't result in a war does not mean incidents like these cannot be cause for war. In this case, there is a war following such an incident.

There is also the fact that in-game representation is not necessarily lore. In the quests on both horde and alliance side, no blood is being shed before the player arrives. SI:7 spies are just running around to be killed for spying on the horde side, miners are just mining on the alliance side. Neither quest implies that there had already been violence before the player arrived.
Ultimately, taking that and turning it into an act of war is pointless, quests like these tend to not have much lore implication, books and word of Blizz create the 'actual lore'.

TIL quests aren't lore.

[Kiri]

Highlighted the phrases that are you shooting your narrative dead. Just because those previous conflicts didn't result in a war does not mean incidents like these cannot be cause for war. In this case, there is a war following such an incident.




TIL quests aren't lore.

Well, if Blizzard has quests that contradict other quests or lore, then yes, the definite version comes from Blizzard. My alliance character did the Suramar campaign, yet the champion of said campaign is a Horde character. My Horde character finished the Onyxia questline, but some Alliance bloke killed her canonically. On Fenris Isle, Horde character ressurect humans who immediately are under Sylvannas' sway, even if becoming forsaken does not work that way. In the Silithus quests, the Horde quests do not mention the alliance going around their forces and the Alliance quests do not mention the Horde doing that. Both of these things cannot be true at the same time. Hence it is best to wait for a proper canon source.

[Deleted]

Highlighted the phrases that are you shooting your narrative dead. Just because those previous conflicts didn't result in a war does not mean incidents like these cannot be cause for war. In this case, there is a war following such an incident.




TIL quests aren't lore.

making a strawman argument out of my argument is not a good argument of it's own. Please address the whole point.

You can use whatever shitty reason to start a war while the true reason is very different. Look at The War of the Bucket for example, which started, presumably, because some soldiers stole a bucket from a city well. In BfA's case, all fingers point out to Sylvanas starting the full scale conflict without proper reason.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Bucket)

[Mehrunes]

Well, if Blizzard has quests that contradict other quests or lore, then yes, the definite version comes from Blizzard. My alliance character did the Suramar campaign, yet the champion of said campaign is a Horde character. My Horde character finished the Onyxia questline, but some Alliance bloke killed her canonically. On Fenris Isle, Horde character ressurect humans who immediately are under Sylvannas' sway, even if becoming forsaken does not work that way. In the Silithus quests, the Horde quests do not mention the alliance going around their forces and the Alliance quests do not mention the Horde doing that. Both of these things cannot be true at the same time. Hence it is best to wait for a proper canon source.

What exactly do these quests contradict? Alliance quests mention spies already present and undiscovered in the Horde camp before the player is sent to carry Alliance to victory. Horde quests start with Alliance spies being discovered. Things seem to fit together. And most of your examples are retcons.

making a strawman argument out of my argument is not a good argument of it's own. Please address the whole point.

You can use whatever shitty reason to start a war while the true reason is very different. Look at The War of the Bucket for example, which started, presumably, because some soldiers stole a bucket from a city well. In BfA's case, all fingers point out to Sylvanas starting the full scale conflict without proper reason.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Bucket)

What straw-man? Your claim was simply incomplete, while you were throwing accusation of delusions around. An attack, no matter how small, is a valid casus belli. Why do you think Nazis faked a tiny border incident with Poland just before they invaded? Your examples of small incidents not starting a war are meaningless. Because just because you can go to war doesn't mean you should. You only ever go to war if you think the benefits of it surpass the negatives. All of your examples could start a full scale war if the attacked faction wished so. You dismissing those and saying only things like attacking a capital can start a war is explicitly wrong.