Regarding Horde Massacres: Totally Different Perspectives on Each Side?

[LazarusLong]

From what I saw and experienced of the quests, they didn't seem irreconcilable. You're seeing different timeframes depending on when you're playing as Horde or Alliance - on the Horde side you're seeing the invasion as it happens more or less, and as Alliance you deal with the aftermath of the Horde passage. The deals with the Furbolgs more or less "honorable" as they move through the area - but after the vanguard has passed the chieftains are dealt with more harshly by the remaining Horde splinter force, actions that the player character isn't involved in or privy to. It's your basic division of blame - the Horde PC gets to keep their proverbial hands clean of anything that might be considered a bad act, but the Horde itself as a faction is still put in a place to be viewed negatively by the Alliance.

The nature of the narrative being displayed here isn't difficult to understand - but it's not irreconcilable, either. From the Horde perspective the visible actions are justified and even laudable, perhaps; but from the Alliance perspective the focus is on the brutality of the outcome of said actions.

Sure. But then it means that Blizzard is actively fueling faction conflict by presenting the story as it is to a players. And I personally don't like when someone tries to manipulate me.

Although that would not be a first time. Camp Taurajo anyone?

[Aucald]

Sure. But then it means that Blizzard is actively fueling faction conflict by presenting the story as it is to a players. And I personally don't like when someone tries to manipulate me.

I don't really see it as a manipulation, per se; both aspects are equally true - but they are trying to tell a very specific narrative, designed to promote interest (and with it, in-game hostility) as part of the key-element of BfA: PvP Lite type content. They *want* factional conflict between the players as it will propel them headlong into the game systems designed to support it, and telling this kind of bifurcated narrative is the perfect vehicle for fostering that. Same with any two-sided type of story, really; you view it with the lens of perspective afforded to you when you're going through the content. It's only in the big picture, external viewpoint that the magician's hand is ultimately revealed.

[Verdugo]

I don't really see it as a manipulation, per se; both aspects are equally true - but they are trying to tell a very specific narrative, designed to promote interest (and with it, in-game hostility) as part of the key-element of BfA: PvP Lite type content. They *want* factional conflict between the players as it will propel them headlong into the game systems designed to support it, and telling this kind of bifurcated narrative is the perfect vehicle for fostering that. Same with any two-sided type of story, really; you view it with the lens of perspective afforded to you when you're going through the content. It's only in the big picture, external viewpoint that the magician's hand is ultimately revealed.

Well, where is the horde perspective of Alliance being evil. Alliance has plenty of those, I dont see any from horde side.

[Xykotic]

Imagine being this fucking obsessed about a character you have to cry at every single occasion that is thrown at you. What does this have to do with Sylvanas?

Imagine being such a sad pathetic human being that you'll actually go on a forum dedicated to the story and characters only to attack people for their hobby. You should be ashamed of yourself.

[Necroxis]

I believe the Horde ones happen first and after the player leaves, the Forsaken come in and begin killing civilians and doing the more evil things, which is what the Alliance see when they get there after-the-fact.

It is pretty bad, continuity-wise, for the Horde to not actually go back there during a quest afterwards to see what the Forsaken had done after they left.

[Aucald]

Well, where is the horde perspective of Alliance being evil. Alliance has plenty of those, I dont see any from horde side.

Well, I don't think the story is being told with that dichotomy in mind (for better or worse) - it's more the Alliance view that the Horde is dishonorable and outright evil vs. the Horde view that the conflict is necessary and that the Horde's actions are justified in light of past grievances. I don't think you can sell a narrative in this particular context that the Horde isn't the aggressor - that aggression might be justified or reasoned (as per the Horde platform) but it is the Horde that is *acting*, and the Alliance that is still reacting to these events. The true Horde vs. Alliance and Alliance vs. Horde dichotomies would be the Alliance (good/tyrannical) vs the Horde (evil/persecuted).

[Verdugo]

Well, I don't think the story is being told with that dichotomy in mind (for better or worse) - it's more the Alliance view that the Horde is dishonorable and outright evil vs. the Horde view that the conflict is necessary and that the Horde's actions are justified in light of past grievances. I don't think you can sell a narrative in this particular context that the Horde isn't the aggressor - that aggression might be justified or reasoned (as per the Horde platform) but it is the Horde that is *acting*, and the Alliance that is still reacting to these events. The true Horde vs. Alliance and Alliance vs. Horde dichotomies would be the Alliance (good/tyrannical) vs the Horde (evil/persecuted).

We still dont see that tyranny on the alliance side, hell, only time we see someone acting like a tyrant is on a horde side, Alliance is always moraly pure and shit.

[Aucald]

We still dont see that tyranny on the alliance side, hell, only time we see someone acting like a tyrant is on a horde side, Alliance is always moraly pure and shit.

A platform of denying the Horde access to Azerite.
Policies of containment.
Freezing of trade, promoting food shortages.
A penchant for blaming the Horde for perceived actions (e.g. the Wrath Gate, the Broken Shore, etc. etc.)

I'm sure there are even more items you could add to that list. Since MoP that Alliance has had an unofficial and mostly unspoken directive to suppress the growth of the Horde's power and/or sphere of influence - a desire to avoid the same kind of conflict represented by the conflicts of Theramore and greater Pandaria. This continual and downward pressure has, from the Horde perspective, led to inevitable open conflict.

[Verdugo]

A platform of denying the Horde access to Azerite.
Policies of containment.
Freezing of trade, promoting food shortages.
A penchant for blaming the Horde for perceived actions (e.g. the Wrath Gate, the Broken Shore, etc. etc.)

Which is meaningless when compared to the atrocities seen from the Alliance side.

[s3ge]

The problem here is that, in order to make the Alliance seem "good", the writers have to ignore what the Alliance actually does.

[Necroxis]

A platform of denying the Horde access to Azerite.

I've seen the argument be made by Blizzard but I never understood it. Sylvanas brings it up but Silithus is closer to Thunder Bluff and Orgrimmar than Teldrassil is, and the Horde are the ones that typically use zeppelins more than the Alliance. I don't get the sheer logic in that story argument there.

Gallywix clearly gets to the Azerite first, where are the Alliance denying them access to it? If anything the Alliance ends up scrambling trying to catch up to the Horde.

I'm with you that they need to actually use some of the things the Alliance has done in the past instead of this vague, "We want to kill them cuz" excuse. I was really bummed that they just handwove away Genn and Rogers' actions in Stormheim in a single sentence about them getting scolded by Anduin.

[Feanoro]

Which is meaningless when compared to the atrocities seen from the Alliance side.

Every character that wakes up and smells the napalm is stopped short and learns "tolerance", but still gets regarded as a warmonger/crazy.

Meanwhile, we're supposed to smile at their playful antics and take it. It wouldn't surprise me if the Undercity battle starts as Anduin was on his way to personally deliver fruit baskets to the undead. Since it's very clear that Blizz wants to have their cake and eat it too, i.e. a faction war without the logical consequences, it's why most people don't like the BfA theme of faction war.

[s3ge]

Every character that wakes up and smells the napalm is stopped short and learns "tolerance", but still gets regarded as a warmonger/crazy.

Meanwhile, we're supposed to smile at their playful antics and take it. It wouldn't surprise me if the Undercity battle starts as Anduin was on his way to personally deliver fruit baskets to the undead. Since it's very clear that Blizz wants to have their cake and eat it too, i.e. a faction war without the logical consequences, it's why most people don't like the BfA theme of faction war.

And on his way he accidentally orders the slaughter of the entire civilian population of Brill. Luckily, Genn is there to tell him that it is not his fault, that he only wanted to do the right thing by delivering fruits - and we all know this is true because the narrator tells us so.

At the end, Sylvanas kicks the fruit basket and Anduin decides that she is irredeemable.

[Feanoro]

and we all know this is true because the narrator tells us so.

Unreliable narrator is yet another reason the faction war story has sucked for a long time.

Also, you DO understand I was making fun of the little pissant, right?

[Aucald]

I've seen the argument be made by Blizzard but I never understood it. Sylvanas brings it up but Silithus is closer to Thunder Bluff and Orgrimmar than Teldrassil is, and the Horde are the ones that typically use zeppelins more than the Alliance. I don't get the sheer logic in that story argument there.

Gallywix clearly gets to the Azerite first, where are the Alliance denying them access to it? If anything the Alliance ends up scrambling trying to catch up to the Horde.

I'm with you that they need to actually use some of the things the Alliance has done in the past instead of this vague, "We want to kill them cuz" excuse. I was really bummed that they just handwove away Genn and Rogers' actions in Stormheim in a single sentence about them getting scolded by Anduin.

It's stated in "Before the Storm" by Anduin, and multiple other Alliance leadership figures, that the Alliance needs to get out ahead of the Horde precisely to deny them the technological or weapons advantage Azerite offers - they want to keep it out of their hands because they fear what the Horde can do with it, and secondarily because the Speaker, Magni, also wants to take Azerite out of the picture. From the perspective of the Horde this is the genesis of an arms race, pure and simple - the Alliance making a concerted effort to deny the Horde a resource that would put them on even (or greater) terms.

[Wildstars]

Plot twist - Alliance and Horde PCs exist in different timelines and main enemy of BFA is not N'zoth but Murozond and his Infinite Dragonflight.

[Aucald]

Which is meaningless when compared to the atrocities seen from the Alliance side.

I'm not really talking about that the Alliance has or hasn't done, though - this is the perspective of the Horde as concerns the policies of the Alliance.

[Verdugo]

I'm not really talking about that the Alliance has or hasn't done, though - this is the perspective of the Horde as concerns the policies of the Alliance.

Well that perspective is shite when compared to the one Alliance has.

[TheRagebear]

So our current possibilities are

1.) "lol old god corruption", which has been used since Cataclysm to replace actual character motivations.

2.) The Horde player is a super good, honorable and righteous dude and "it's not evil, it's tactical" Sylvanas/the rest of the Horde comes in and butchers everyone when they know he isn't looking.

3.) This is all fake gameplay/dialogue like the human potential thing and at least one of Blizzard's managers has spent more time, effort, and money making something that's not even going into the game than they did with the Cataclysm storylines.

Quite frankly they all sound shit.

[Irian]

This actually really bugs me, because unless we find out this is actual old god mindfuckery we can't say for sure which is actually the true way the burning of Teldrassil went down.

If both are true, then the Horde is about as unorganized and destructive as possible, because apparently half of the forces can believe they're doing a relatively honorable and peaceful attack while meanwhile there are piles of corpses and enslavement happening right under their noses. That doesn't exactly make the Horde better, it's just an inverse case of the ridiculous Broken Shore situation where one faction doesn't understand the context that made the situation make sense unless you view both of them. This time it's just in reverse with Alliance getting the full picture and Horde blissfully thinking they were fighting an honorable battle.

I'm all for making this divide and faction conflict happen naturally but this isn't natural, the lore is actually being separated into two canons per faction. I hope this is due to Old God shenanigans because otherwise this is a really crappy way to do a faction war story. If we assume both are truthful and both happened, then the Horde doesn't look any better simply because they didn't get to see the war crimes and brutality their own faction was committing, and in fact that arguably makes them look worse.