Elegy and A Good War Fully Released

[Deleted]

Yeah, usually it's the baddies who try to retcon evil as "necessity" or "legitimacy". I understand that you want to like and stand behind your faction, but justifying what happened at nelf central is ridiculous. Even Saurfang has HUGE issues with it.

And LMAO, even Garrosh wouldn't go as far as the slut queen did before he was corrupted.

No but then Sylvanas has never set up concentration camps and shooting squads against members of her own faction has she, or murdered or attempted to murder any of her faction leaders for simply disagreeing, so it all depends on what you focus on to make one or the other look worse. I find it ironic you source Saurfang as the one with issues, when it was his own crippling sense of honor that stopped him from executing Malfurion to crush the Night Elf spirit and make way for a relatively easy occupation. But no, because he put his own personal pride above the rest of the Horde, Malfurion got away and with him the chances of taking Teldrassil with minimal bloodshed. So, I take no credibility from Saurfang objecting to this when it was his own values that inevitably lead to the burning of the tree in the first place.

Also, I would like to add that any "Sylvanas should have done it herself" argument is moot because Saurfang was agreeable to this invasion and he upholds a sense of honour loyal to the Warcheif so from her POV it would not occur to her that he would suddenly disobey like that. The expectation would be for him to simply follow her orders. Granted, there was nothing stopping her doing it herself, but at the same time it is an irrelevant point because she should have been able to rely on her 2nd in Command regardless, as one should when following rank. But he didn't, so that ultimately makes him just as responsible as her for the burning of the tree. We must all remember, this was not the original plan - the purpose was invasion and occupation, but the burning was the only option left for the mission to have any meaning or success at all, despite how despicable it might have been. Of course we will never know for sure, but I am sure others can totally imagine Garrosh doing this if he was in the exact same position - can you imagine him backing down from conquering an Alliance city after one of his Generals just disobeyed him and possibly compromised the whole mission? No, not likely.

Just because I feel the target was legitimate, do not misconstrue that to mean I was happy to see people die - I am saying that as a military target, for the purposes of cutting off the Alliance and to strengthen Kalimdor as a continent was legitimate reasonable. The means by which that had to be achieved though, through destruction rather than occupation? That is something I can empathise with the Alliance on - unfortunately, it was the only option at the time and one I perosnally wish Blizzard had never forced on the Horde to do

[rowaasr13]

Yes, but we know about it. We are omnipotent beholders who know motivations and thoughts about both sides, the actual characters do not know. And it's the unknown that breeds fear. The same fear and insecurity Sylvanas capitalises to start and justify a war.

Everyone with half a brain in-universe could have noticed SEVERAL times that Horde repeatedly start wars and Alliance repeatedly ends them. You don't need to be beholder.

[metzger84]

No but then Sylvanas has never set up concentration camps and shooting squads against members of her own faction has she, or murdered or attempted to murder any of her faction leaders for simply disagreeing, so it all depends on what you focus on to make one or the other look worse.

Yeah, well, the Horde leaders sure are keeping ye olde tradition of gradually going batshit insane alive and well, no doubt about that. But he had some integrity at one point in time.

I find it ironic you source Saurfang as the one with issues, when it was his own crippling sense of honor that stopped him from executing Malfurion to crush the Night Elf spirit and make way for a relatively easy occupation.

That's speculative. I wouldn't trust Sylvie's words as far as I could throw her, and that is, as you can imagine by my stature, not very far at all. For all we know she could've gone "Screw it, let's just burn it all down anyway, just cause". I think she wants to see the world burn more than anything.

[Deleted]

That's speculative. I wouldn't trust Sylvie's words as far as I could throw her, and that is, as you can imagine by my stature, not very far at all. For all we know she could've gone "Screw it, let's just burn it all down anyway, just cause". I think she wants to see the world burn more than anything.

The thing is though, it's not speculation - Saurfang himself said it and accepted the consequences of it. It's somewhere in the novellas but I've not had time to read them both yet so I could not give you an exact page reference or quote, but he definitely say words to the effect of "I knew sparing Malfurion would result in more Horde casualties when the Alliance retaliate" This is why I am not on the "Saurfang For Warcheif" train - not because I do not want to see Sylvanas step down, but because he would be a massive liability.

[rowaasr13]

Sylvanas and Saurfang's plans failing because they assumed the Alliance had more depth as characters than the bland hangers on to a teenager that they truly are is hilariously appropriate.

You've made 5 typos in the word "edginess".

[metzger84]

The thing is though, it's not speculation - Saurfang himself said it and accepted the consequences of it. It's somewhere in the novellas but I've not had time to read them both yet so I could not give you an exact page reference or quote, but he definitely say words to the effect of "I knew sparing Malfurion would result in more Horde casualties when the Alliance retaliate" This is why I am not on the "Saurfang For Warcheif" train - not because I do not want to see Sylvanas step down, but because he would be a massive liability.

For what's it worth, I don't believe putting Saurfang on a pedestal is a good idea, either. He probably wouldn't want to anyway, as tired and fed up with life as he is.

[rowaasr13]

it's victory or death, Lok'tar ogar.

You should know already that correct translation of "Lok'tar ogar" is "victory, or death, or hasty retreat".

- - - Updated - - -

The Alliance found the most strenght in their most desperate moments(ie Anduin Lothar's death). Sylvanas' character thinking that killing Malfurion would break them brushed off on the fact that she never left Quel'thalas during the Second War to witness this, being the typically self-serving high elf.

Hm, come to think of it, maybe she projected herself on Alliance? She got her desperate moment -> she broke, so she thought everyone else is just as weak and pathetic as she is?

[Deleted]

Everyone with half a brain in-universe could have noticed SEVERAL times that Horde repeatedly start wars and Alliance repeatedly ends them. You don't need to be beholder.

There is also the friendship between Baine and Anduin so Horde actually does have a leader that can gather information about Alliance intentions.

[Deleted]

For what's it worth, I don't believe putting Saurfang on a pedestal is a good idea, either. He probably wouldn't want to anyway, as tired and fed up with life as he is.

Yeah exactly, there are those elements too, and again he's also said he does not want to be Warcheif. So we got somebody who does not only not want to be Warcheif, but who also has an extremely dangerous sense of honour, and - if he were to have his way - not lost long anyway, which means *surprise surprise* we would have to have another Warcheif anyway.

[rowaasr13]

Prediction: Sylvanas will not be Garroshed, neither will Horde get redeemed in any way.

The entire expansion before old gods show up will be both sides commiting escalating atrocities against each other.

Yawn... Horde's at it again - "Alliance is evil just like us, only blue". No, my little hordie murderer friend (unfortunately I am too stuck playing Horde), only Horde will commit atrocities in its numerous "be as fucktardely dishonorable as possible and get spat on by your zombiechief in process" quest chains. Alliance will commit retribution. And people will still ask about "faction barrier gone when?" because they're fed up with feeling like shit doing those quests.

- - - Updated - - -

See that's cool and all and if WoW wasn't an MMO it'd make for a compelling story for sure.
However WoW IS an MMO which means that the player character can only go down ONE route, which basically means half of the Horde has to just suck it up and follow a story they hate which isn't very good imo.

Ugh... exactly the problem I have now and had for half of Pandaria. "Go be a scum and then maybe we'll reward you with killing your even scummier commander in last tier" is kinda... not as fullfiling as I'd like.

[Qualia]

The thing is, he isn't materially opposed. They differ in leadership style, but Anduin having such an easy time convincing everyone that peace is the way to go while the enemy faction is lead by a woman who has a list of war crimes longer than the Bible is ludicrous. He does not adjust his plans meaningfully or give ground in BTS, people come to him and apologize because they doubted his wisdom, see Genn or Turalyon. No one calls him out on his naivete or even that, after he's already acknowledged that Sylvanas must go in BTS, he does nothing about it and this inaction results in the deaths of thousands at Teldrassil.

With Anduin's attitude and how the Alliance leaders function, realistically his preference towards peace should be less opposed than Sylvanas' plans. People are more accepting towards the ones who are nice towards them, and isn't it natural for people - especially the one with deep grudges (in short, every leaders except Genn) - to navigate towards peace? It's not like Anduin force the Alliance to sit still and do nothing: they carried out espionage and used espionage as a deterrence method; He met up with related leaders, discussed and planned moves in the case the Horde started aggression. They weren't being the aggressor, but they didn't sit around and hope the relationship between two factions would remain relatively-peaceful forever either, that seems to be a pretty reasonable approach to me.

Anyway, at least, that's my opinion from the perspective of a modern man, which is why I just can't agree with Sylvanas' idea of "If war will happen regardless in undetermined future, there isn't any use in delaying the inevitable, let's start war on them first". If someone says that in real life, they would have been looked at as some sort of maniac. It isn't weird that Sylvanas had to work harder to promote her plans. In that sense, Sylvanas is lucky that the Horde's mentality - Saurfang in particular in these novellas - was further from modern civilization's than the Alliance was. Imagine if a leader of the US want to wage war upon China because of something like "Look at their activities in the recent years, clearly they haven't abandoned their dream of taking over majority of the world. Let's wage war on them before they move their target to us", they would have a really hard time convincing the rest of the US government to follow.

I brought up "Before the Storm" and "Elegy" to show that Anduin can be, and was opposed on his own ideas. Genn didn't hesitate showing that he considered Anduin's idea of the Gathering stupid throughout "Before the Storm" until the end of the book. The same Genn, in both stories, never hesitate to tell Anduin in various occasions - both serious and less-so - that he considered the young king's ideals naive. Tyrande was heading towards Darnassus regardless of what Anduin wanted, and he had to adjust. Trying to stop Genn almost earn him a scar at the very least if Genn didn't regain control in time. As I said, it just didn't blew up because Anduin (probably) accepted that others might not agree with his ideas and doesn't try to force them to. The way the Alliance proceed seems to be pretty reasonable given their leaders' personalities, I think.

I don't agree that it'd be dull, though. It's not like nothing happened in Alliance's story. Events don't have to - and shouldn't need to - be limited to just infighting and conflicts between supposed allies. A single event of people working together hand in hand trying to overcome various foreign obstacles even though there are minor differences is just as interesting as another event of them trying to overcome themselves (or breaking apart) because they couldn't come to an agreement. I believe how enjoyable these two types of story would be is depended on the reader's perspective rather than being innately good (or bad), and fighting with your allies doesn't automatically gives a character more depth than working together with them even though there were differences.

[rowaasr13]

Her motivation was basically "If there will eventually be a massive war nonetheless, is there any point in delaying it with peace?". The 100 years is just hyperbole, but her motivation isn't. I don't quite agree with her, though - I think that's too pessimistic to assume that no matter how much both sides try, both factions would come to a total war in the end.

Entire Azeroth would be better off is she'd apply that troll (despite being undead) logic to her own existence. She'll cease to exist someday, so why delay? Kill yourself now, Sylvanas.

[Qualia]

Entire Azeroth would be better off is she'd apply that troll (despite being undead) logic to her own existence. She'll cease to exist someday, so why delay? Kill yourself now, Sylvanas.

Well, she is trying to find a way to stay alive forever so I don't think she'd accept that she'll cease to exist someday, unless that someday is the end of all things

[Zulkhan]

if you play horde after elegy, you literally do not have a soul.

I suppose you never finished Warcraft 3, no way in hell someone could go through the Undead campaign with this attitude, not to mention how the "Old Soldier" cinematic have probably motivated even the most soft-hearted of Horde players (which was clearly Blizzard's intent to begin with).

Its all good and a nice read, show that why they are pushing for a war because of spies, opportunities and other shenanigas, this is something goddamn need it

but still don't change the fact it was the horde who made the first move being the aggressors and this alone help do diminish my enjoyment, it would be a better story in form of retaliation, and the alliance doing the first move

The horde attacking first because things may happens, and the alliance retaliating justified meh

Yeah, the explanation for why starting a war could work and be profitable in this particular scenario was pretty good, in fact it showed the difference between Garrosh and Sylvanas and why Saurfang has been on board with the latter and not with the first.

Garrosh deliberately ignored things like timing and costs, he didn't care, for him every moment was a good moment to wage war against the Alliance, he wasn't concerned about the forseeable destructive stalemate between two equal superpowers, he was driven by a warmongering and extemist ideology that wasn't too concerned about self-preservation, since dying honorably in glorious battle against the hated enemy was an openly accepted option; that's why Garrosh got opposers from the very start and why only a few like-minded zealots remained by his side.

On the other hand, Sylvanas is an opportunist at heart, does not care about "honor" in any shape or form (even though she's willing the exploit the concept if it proves useful) but cares about self-preservation, a lot; she shows concern about costs, consequences and timing, acknowledging that only in these unique and hardly repeatable circumstances a war between the Alliance and the Horde would not turn in the same prolonged (if not unending) bloodbath Garrosh pushed forth (even though he tried to annihilate the Alliance faster by meddling with powers he should have stayed away from).

The problem with Sylvanas, however, is still her overconfidence and that, alongside Saurfang's moral dilemmas, partially ruined a potentially good plan. It was also a plan maybe too dependent over what the Alliance leaders would have done, which has proved to be the major flaw. And now she has committed an act that is objectively worse than anything Garrosh ever did, when it comes to crimes and atrocities. Alongside some "critical" actions and choices she takes in the later siege of Lordaeron, it's clear that things aren't going too well for Sylvanas and her reign may be in jeopardy. Guess we'll have to see which role the Mag'har and especially the Zandalari will play in all of this.

About the reason for why this war was started in the first place well, I kind of agree. Sylvanas' assumptions aren't bad, in fact they're good enough to convince even someone as reluctant as Saurfang, but still assumptions remain and nothing can change that. Sylvanas may literally be right and yet it shall not matter so long she'll not get fortune-teller skills and show her discoveries to everyone.

No, mine! /10 char

I'm fine with that, I'm already equipped with juicy quotes.

[Deleted]

It's called bad writing, yo.

People liked what Sylvanas was supposed to be: A coldly calculating badass who had plans upon plans. Not this stupid bitch who gets angry because a rando elf talked a little trash before expiring.

That’s not bad writing. Genn’s developed as a character. His past brought personal tragedy to him and his Kingdom. A tragedy that the elves helped the Gilneans through. The Night Elves were the first to help the Gilneans. It makes the most sense that Genn would be the first to help them. Genn changed and developed into a less xenophobic character due to the nightelves.

Sylvanas also went down a natural character arc. Each act of evil she has committed has made her worse and worse. She has been moving away from reason into madness for awhile now. She is in the abyss. That’s not bad writing, and honestly that’s pretty realistic.

[s3ge]

I don't think it's really a matter of bias at play here, though - in this particular case, it is what it is, spelled out quite clearly in the narrative here. The plan depended on Greymane, well, being Greymane; putting his personal grievances before the Kaldorei and the Alliance, more than willing to put captured Gilneas above ruined Teldrassil. But that didn't happen - Sylvanas and Saurfang failed to account for Genn actually being noble, recognizing his debt to the Night Elves, and willing to put his own grievances aside.

That being said, I don't think the Horde has been "systematically stripped of all legitimate grievances," as it were - as I don't think Sylvanas' proposed rationale for war is truly wrong. All things being equal conflict between the Horde and Alliance felt inevitable, even to me; and the Horde trying to conclude said conflict on their own terms isn't necessarily a bad thing, either. I find the means by which Sylvanas went about this to be ultimately abhorrent, but the genesis of the conflict I think is reasoned - so reasoned that even the most honorable of Orcs was in wholehearted agreement until Sylvanas showed her true face at last.

Well yes, the Horde had very good reasons to fear Alliance aggression and interventions, while it was not wrong for the Alliance to be suspicious of the Horde. But this was before the BFA campaign hit.

As of BFA, nobody in the Horde wants to go to war, half of the people you work with during the war campaign don't even want to be there in the first place. Baine sends you to investigate Forsaken activities and make sure that they do not go "too far" while the Alliance is literally landing on the shore of the continent.

It is implied that there wouldn't even be a conflict if it weren't for Sylvanas and even she does not have any motivation beyond "kill people, because death".

So were exactly did these "legitimate grievances" go in BFA? Since I know that you have read the book and the comics, watched the cutscenes and played through the scenario, this should not be hard to answer.

The point is, that we, the players, are confronted with a new version of the lore, in which they simply do not exist anymore. They were wiped out, systematically. You may like that -well you clearly do-, but I don't think that you can make the claim that this is somehow not a biased attempt at revisionism that will ultimately proof to be damaging to the lore itself.

[Syegfryed]

Yeah, the explanation for why starting a war could work and be profitable in this particular scenario was pretty good, in fact it showed the difference between Garrosh and Sylvanas and why Saurfang has been on board with the latter and not with the first.

Maybe, like i said for me it was not bad, just "meh, ok then", but the Garrosh justification for keep going the already started war, seems way more solid and justified to me, its something i was wanting, something more solid, more like just spies and assumptions

And the other difference is how Garrosh didn't had saurfang on his side and how now they are in a more comfortable place and time to attack

Garrosh deliberately ignored things like timing and costs, he didn't care, for him every moment was a good moment to wage war against the Alliance, he wasn't concerned about the forseeable destructive stalemate between two equal superpowers, he was driven by a warmongering and extemist ideology that wasn't too concerned about self-preservation, since dying honorably in glorious battle against the hated enemy was an openly accepted option; that's why Garrosh got opposers from the very start and why only a few like-minded zealots remained by his side.

yes, but funny enough we are just in the same place as before, and they still will back her up until the plot decide, i say ironic

On the other hand, Sylvanas is an opportunist at heart, does not care about "honor" in any shape or form (even though she's willing the exploit the concept if it proves useful) but cares about self-preservation, a lot; .

And self preservation that could sacrifice the horde if would mean her victory or salvation

The problem with Sylvanas, however, is still her overconfidence and that

just that? i mean her obsession of blowing up cities is a bit of problem if its not targeting thunder bluff or silvermoon

[Aucald]

Well yes, the Horde had very good reasons to fear Alliance aggression and interventions, while it was not wrong for the Alliance to be suspicious of the Horde. But this was before the BFA campaign hit.

As of BFA, nobody in the Horde wants to go to war, half of the people you work with during the war campaign don't even want to be there in the first place. Baine sends you to investigate Forsaken activities and make sure that they do not go "too far" while the Alliance is literally landing on the shore of the continent.

It is implied that there wouldn't even be a conflict if it weren't for Sylvanas and even she does not have any motivation beyond "kill people, because death".

So were exactly did these "legitimate grievances" go in BFA? Since I know that you have read the book and the comics, watched the cutscenes and played through the scenario, this should not be hard to answer.

The point is, that we, the players, are confronted with a new version of the lore, in which they simply do not exist anymore. They were wiped out, systematically. You may like that -well you clearly do-, but I don't think that you can make the claim that this is somehow not a biased attempt at revisionism that will ultimately proof to be damaging to the lore itself.

I'm not quite sure what you're referring to with the war campaign and people not "wanting to be there in the first place" - this wasn't my experience in the Beta playing the War Campaign quests, or with any of the War Effort quest-lines. The Horde is quite obviously not very united behind their controversial and somewhat embattled Warchief, ranging from full support (coupled with a vengeful lust to prove themselves), tacit but reserved support, and obfuscated but conscientious objection to Sylvanas' war-time policies or actions. Most view it as a matter of course, whether or not they agree with the why or the how of the war, they view the Horde as being on a war footing and if they don't want to be overrun and slain by the Alliance then they need to take the fight to them.

The legitimate grievances haven't gone anywhere - some disagree with the lengths Sylvanas is willing to go (e.g. committing genocide and burning Alliance population-centers), but the Horde as a whole has bought into her war rhetoric as concerns its inevitability. The simple fact of the matter is that Sylvanas was probably correct in her assessment, but simply omitted that a large part of the reason that the Horde and Alliance could not have a lasting peace is down to her and her ambitions (and fears). Were she not the Warchief then peace might've been possible, albeit probably still unlikely.

[SirCowdog]

You really think the average WoW player wants to read 100 pages of quest dialog?

No, but I believe the average WoW player will do 100 quests without blinking an eye. Maybe fold some of that lore into that, and have it done in the style of voice acted chatbox that plays at the bottom of the screen during important quests, so the player never has to stop playing. There are plenty of ways to present lore without disrupting gameplay. Other games have tackled this issue LONG ago.

[Teramelle]

No matter how evil Sylvanas is because its not a new thing, she is not going to die because she killed bunch of NEs. They are not gonna delete best character in WoW and make garosh 2.0.

She's not the best character in WoW, that's entirely subjective, and I can tell you're biased judging solely by your icon. Besides, if they wanted to avoid Garrosh 2.0, it's already too late for that. In fact, having her not die at the end of the expansion would align more closely with Garrosh's storyline than anything else.