Garrosh and Sylvanas had the same reasons to start a war

[Minikin]

A very interesting parallel there, I never got around to reading "Heart of War" and I have not seen anyone mention this similarity before. Sadly though, this post will just degenerate into another "Garrosh vs. Sylvanas" shitfest, I'm calling it now

eh if debated properly (people arent dickbags to each other, tall order for this forum I admit) that shitfest could be avoided given that the differences and similarities between them are fairly interesting.

on topic:
If the point of the topic is to compare by parallel well this is the point that is starkly important to me. Who's war was honest. not justified. but honest. Unlike the players the npcs do not have access to both sides of the story. Just their own specific versions and its relative depth. So justification is already out the window as they never had that option. So how honest are they being when they conduct their war.

Honest in what sense?

Garrosh:
Well Garrosh sincerely believed that his people (orcs) deserved better than to eek out a living in the desert. One could say that he should have simply "asked" the night elves for wood. There are two junctions to that point though. 1. Up until the wrath gate incident the night elves were infact giving the orcs lumber, but after the forsaken blight attack (can be debated both ways on what putress actually was, given that in the end one of his goals was to replace sylvanas as leader of the forsaken - manipulated by varimathras). 2. Given warsong gulch and Azshara being sacred to nightelves, whatever they gave the orcs was never really enough probably, and honestly Garrosh isnt the kind of guy whod be ok knowing that out of your 10 bucks you only gave him 2 bucks.

Where Garrosh failed was not the honesty of his war but how his conduct changed (racism, void attunement, dishonorable conduct - total about face from stonetalon) and thus lead to a betrayal/rebellion propogated by that conduct and stoked by the people of the horde (not just orcs) losing touch on that.

Sylvanas:
Sylvanas does twist facts. there is no other way about it. Because in the end her goal is still to commit genocide against humans. Garrosh would have ended in that same place most probably but he would have had the whole horde with him as his purpose was clear, to have Azeroth for the people of the horde (Mind you as an aside we already know this would have lost us Azeroth, as proven by the blank scroll scenario in MoP. The horde alone would have fallen to Nzoth and azeroth would be consumed).

Sylvanas' end goal is in fact to raise stormwind. And her goals are not open to the horde or its leaders. You can see examples of that in the datamined dialogue:
Forsaken assassins in darkshore say "The horde will always be hers" when killed.
Her "do something to Zekhan" once she learns of what he is upto. Yea sure he betrayed her. But the answer isnt some evil moustache twirling gameplan like with koltira.

In the end. She simply plays Saurfang. That doesnt mean Saurfang is stupid. Just that Sylvanas is smarter than him. She is more adept at what to say and what to make it look like. Im more than sure she knew that Saurfang wouldnt agree with blight, raising dark rangers etc etc. She did it anyway and dealt with those "speed breakers" as they came along.

Particularly interesting is the line from a Good War:
And that was almost certainly true, wasn’t it? Elune had intervened. Perhaps she had even stayed Saurfang’s killing blow. And she wouldn’t be the only force beyond the Alliance to oppose Sylvanas’s true objective. Page 82.

which makes you wonder. shes already on an objective. so whats this "true objective" if not the war for the horde?

They might be both blood thirsty instigators. But Garrosh was more honest in his conquest and honestly far more aligned to the horde's interest than Sylvanas or even Saurfang. Which is why I assume that in other timelines he was the greatest warchief the horde ever had.

[Deleted]

I fixated on the lie itself because it is the elephant in the room that struck me as the most obvious difference between her reasoning and the reasoning of Garrosh; Garrosh is blunt. My first post was actually relevant to the original post, after which you derailed everything by bringing up the "relevance of the lie".

Why argue the truths she brought up and why argue the fact that the lie itself wasn't the thing that made Saurfang come to a decision? Why would I want to argue something that I didn't come to argue in the first place and that I already know is a fact?

How can I backpeddle on something I didn't even say.

- - - Updated - - -



Newsflash; the point of discussion in this thread was the difference between the reasoning of Garrosh and Sylvanas. Sylvanas' reasoning included telling a lie.



When you reply to a thread called "Garrosh and Sylvanas had the same reasons to start a war" and Sylvanas' reasons include her telling a lie, but not Garrosh telling one, then it is a difference in their reasoning that is worth bringing up.

The point you imply I am spinning was never a point of mine to begin with. I replied on topic. You came in bringing in the "relevance of the lie".

So if it’s a fact, you must be able to prove it, yes? So please, go ahead...

[Magnagarde]

So if it’s a fact, you must be able to prove it, yes? So please, go ahead...

Which part of my post did you even reply to?

[Deleted]

Particularly interesting is the line from a Good War:
And that was almost certainly true, wasn’t it? Elune had intervened. Perhaps she had even stayed Saurfang’s killing blow. And she wouldn’t be the only force beyond the Alliance to oppose Sylvanas’s true objective. Page 82.

which makes you wonder. shes already on an objective. so whats this "true objective" if not the war for the horde?

Isnt that kinda obvious? I said it from the start. She doesnt care about horde, she doesnt care about alliance. She created war out of nothing not for horde, but for herself. Goal is for horde and alliance to fight and kill each other... and by doing that, her own army grows until she has more than both and finishes them off and only undead remain.

Every death in that war weakens horde and alliance and strengthens her.

[Super Dickmann]

That is the actual point of my post which you then completely derailed yourself and are now basically asking me "Why are you saying that the point I attributed to your post isn't the point that I attributed it? How can your post have a different point than the one I'm giving it", when the title of the thread is hanging right above your freaking post.

When you reply to a thread called "Garrosh and Sylvanas had the same reasons to start a war" and Sylvanas' reasons include her telling a lie, but not Garrosh telling one, then it is a difference in their reasoning that is worth bringing up.

The point you imply I am spinning was never a point of mine to begin with. I replied on topic. You came in bringing in the "relevance of the lie".

Because your claim is false. The simile you're trying to draw doesn't hold up. What you said was this:

whereas Sylvanas outright lied to Saurfang to get him to lead the march into Northern Kalimdor for her:

This is not what took place, as you've been repeatedly called on to this point. Thus the point you're making is wrong. When you were confronted on this, you attempted to spin to it meaning something else, but given that you've spent the better part of four pages now going on about Sylvanas and steadfastly avoiding mentioning Garrosh even when both I and Zulkhan have referenced the differences in reasoning, it's pretty clear what you were trying to do.

[Magnagarde]

Because your claim is false. The simile you're trying to draw doesn't hold up. What you said was this:

"whereas Sylvanas outright lied to Saurfang to get him to lead the march into Northern Kalimdor for her:"

This is not what took place, as you've been repeatedly called on to this point.

It is exactly what took place because her speech includes the following:

And I remember very well that I and my first Forsaken were once loyal Alliance citizens. We died for that banner.

You then came arguing that it wasn't the lie which made him agree to it, which is something I never claimed in the first place. It wasn't the lie that made him agree, but she definitely lied in the process of persuading him.

[Minikin]

Isnt that kinda obvious? I said it from the start. She doesnt care about horde, she doesnt care about alliance. She created war out of nothing not for horde, but for herself. Goal is for horde and alliance to fight and kill each other... and by doing that, her own army grows until she has more than both and finishes them off and only undead remain.

Every death in that war weakens horde and alliance and strengthens her.

that is definitely one avenue to it. i dont disagree at all. though i do think there are more ways it can play out. i left that quote in there because I think that is more important than the garrosh vs sylvanas vs anduin vs etc etc. I think blizzard at times hides their story arch in plain sight with other distractions around it. Perhaps this is one of them.

[Super Dickmann]

It is exactly what took place because her speech includes the following:



You then came arguing that it wasn't the lie which made him agree to it, which is something I never claimed in the first place.

You said he was lied to to get him to do it, implying the pivotal character of the lie in getting him to do it, then quoted said lie. You were given constant excerpts from the text that prove you wrong. Then last page you suddenly decided it was a completely different lie and not the one you quoted, which we know for a fact had no bearing on Saurfang's reasoning and is tangential to the point Sylvanas makes in that paragraph. If you're going to lie, at least edit your post or delete it or something so we don't know for a fact it's a lie.

[Magnagarde]

You said he was lied to to get him to do it, implying the pivotal character of the lie in getting him to do it.

I did not imply it was pivotal. The implications of my post are solely down to your derailment of the original point of discussion in this thread. I simply stated that she lied because she did lie; the fact that the truthful part of the arguement was the one that tipped Saurfang's mind is irrelevant to my point here.

- - - Updated - - -

Then last page you suddenly decided it was a completely different lie and not the one you quoted

I did not do that. The point that she was telling a lie that she died under the Alliance banner is a fact that I stand by. The fact that other points made him agree is irrelevant to the point that she also lied.

This is a thread that calls out the reasoning of Garrosh and Sylvanas and I, the only one out of us two that was on topic in regards to the thread title, pointed out that unlike Garrosh, her persuasion of Saurfang included a lie, something Garrosh didn't do.

[Super Dickmann]

I did not imply it was pivotal. I simply stated that she lied because she did lie; the fact that the truthful part of the arguement was the one that tipped Saurfang's mind is irrelevant to my point here.

- - - Updated - - -



I did not do that. The point that she was telling a lie that she died under the Alliance banner is a fact. The fact that other points made him agree is irrelevant to the point that she also lied.

You are not smart enough for the sleight of hand you're trying to do. You said he was lied to do it, which is false. Then you linked said quote to illustrate your point. The logic follows that you were using said quote to show how he was lied into doing it. Unless you're claiming that your point is that Sylvanas mentioned a lie in between her argument and that's what sets her apart from Garrosh, which would both be hilarious backtracking and also irrelevant since if that's the barometer of deception, then Garrosh himself is a liar because he claims Gilneas abandoned Lordaeron when in truth it was because of the curse and the civil war and no one is seriously going to hold that nonsense against him any more than Sylvanas misrepresenting her own part in this detracts from what she's saying.

[Deleted]

Right now @Magnagarde in this thread just makes me think of a spider tangled up in his own lies that’s just desperately scrambling to get out but failing at every turn - I have to concede, from an outsider’s point of view it is pretty amusing, if not equally cringy lol

[Deleted]

You are not smart enough for the sleight of hand you're trying to do. You said he was lied to do it, which is false. Then you linked said quote to illustrate your point. The logic follows that you were using said quote to show how he was lied into doing it. Unless you're claiming that your point is that Sylvanas mentioned a lie in between her argument and that's what sets her apart from Garrosh, which would both be hilarious backtracking and also irrelevant since if that's the barometer of deception, then Garrosh himself is a liar because he claims Gilneas abandoned Lordaeron when in truth it was because of the curse and the civil war and no one is seriously going to hold that nonsense against him any more than Sylvanas misrepresenting her own part in this detracts from what she's saying.

Just stop. I read first post and didnt pull it through my personal "translator" and never came to same conclusions as some of you. Maybe because when i read something, i dont insert my own interpretation into it. I just read what is written and dont look beyond it. Saying that someone implied something because that is how you interpreted it is kinda silly.

You are flat out wrong and are arguing against something you made up yourself. It is kinda embarrassing already...
Yes, he was lied to do it. That is exactly what happened and what said quotes prove. You dont get to decide how important said lie was to him doing it.
If i give you 5 reasons to do something and one of them is a lie, i lied to make you do it. Doesnt matter if you completely disregarded that one thing i lied about and only took other stuff into consideration... i still lied in attempt to make you do it.

Right now @Magnagarde in this thread just makes me think of a spider tangled up in his own lies that’s just desperately scrambling to get out but failing at every turn - I have to concede, from an outsider’s point of view it is pretty amusing, if not equally cringy lol

Same goes for this one too...

[Super Dickmann]

Just stop. I read first post and didnt pull it through my personal "translator" and never came to same conclusions as some of you. Maybe because when i read something, i dont insert my own interpretation into it. I just read what is written and dont look beyond it. Saying that someone implied something because that is how you interpreted it is kinda silly.

You are flat out wrong and are arguing against something you made up yourself. It is kinda embarrassing already...
Yes, he was lied to do it. That is exactly what happened and what said quotes prove.

Oh, jesus, fine I can do this some more.

How was Saurfang lied into it? Did he not agree with the grounds that he was given? Did he not rally the Horde under these grounds? Did he not reflect in internal monologue many times, even after the Burning itself, that Sylvanas' reasoning made sense and that he agreed with it? At what point was he tricked into doing something by false information that Sylvanas gave to him?

The point Magna was making was crystal clear. He said that Saurfang was lied to and then provided evidence of what he saw as said lie. He was then proven wrong, and he engaged in this complicated line of bullshit to try and disentangle himself.

[Deleted]

Just stop. I read first post and didnt pull it through my personal "translator" and never came to same conclusions as some of you. Maybe because when i read something, i dont insert my own interpretation into it. I just read what is written and dont look beyond it. Saying that someone implied something because that is how you interpreted it is kinda silly.

You are flat out wrong and are arguing against something you made up yourself. It is kinda embarrassing already...
Yes, he was lied to do it. That is exactly what happened and what said quotes prove. You dont get to decide how important said lie was to him doing it.
If i give you 5 reasons to do something and one of them is a lie, i lied to make you do it.

Are you @Magnagarde alt or someone else who’s going to make easily disprovable claims to satisfy their hate boner for Sylvanas?

[Magnagarde]

You are not smart enough for the sleight of hand you're trying to do. You said he was lied to do it, which is false. Then you linked said quote to illustrate your point. The logic follows that you were using said quote to show how he was lied into doing it. Unless you're claiming that your point is that Sylvanas mentioned a lie in between her argument and that's what sets her apart from Garrosh, which would both be hilarious backtracking and also irrelevant since if that's the barometer of deception, then Garrosh himself is a liar because he claims Gilneas abandoned Lordaeron when in truth it was because of the curse and the civil war and no one is seriously going to hold that nonsense against him any more than Sylvanas misrepresenting her own part in this detracts from what she's saying.

"You're not smart enough" said the guy that can't comprehend how someone didn't say something they know because it wasn't relevant to the thread title, which is talking about differences between Garrosh and Sylvanas.

Here, let me simplify it for you, Smart Dickmann:

1. Thread's called "Garrosh and Sylvanas had the same reasons to start a war";
2. I reply to the thread pointing out how Sylvanas lied to Saurfang to get him to agree to her idea of war, something which Garrosh didn't do when giving his reasons;
3. I then point to a quote showing where Sylvanas lied to show what exactly I mean;
4. You reply saying her telling a lie is irrelevant to Saurfang making his mind up;
5. I then reply telling you that it is irrelevant to the point of discussion, which is the difference between the reasoning of Garrosh and Sylvanas;
6. Joined by the other user, you keep arguing that the lie didn't make his mind up, saying I wanted to say how Saurfang is a good boy, how I wanted to say that this one lie made him make his mind up. In other words, derailing the point of the thread.
7. I then point out to you that I never claimed that the one lie persuaded him nor that it was the point I was trying to make in the thread, while also pointing out that she irrefutably did lie at the time she was convincing him, while the truths she told ended up being the convincing points (the truths which I didn't bring up because they're not the point of the thread title as it rellies on differences between the two, leading me to not post similarities).
8. "Spin, you're spinning, you're not smart for this! Hurr durr!".

- - - Updated - - -

Are you @Magnagarde alt or someone else who’s going to make easily disprovable claims to satisfy their hate boner for Sylvanas?

Is that you, @Steampunkette?

- - - Updated - - -

You are flat out wrong and are arguing against something you made up yourself. It is kinda embarrassing already...
Yes, he was lied to do it. That is exactly what happened and what said quotes prove. You dont get to decide how important said lie was to him doing it.
If i give you 5 reasons to do something and one of them is a lie, i lied to make you do it. Doesnt matter if you completely disregarded that one thing i lied about and only took other stuff into consideration... i still lied in attempt to make you do it.

To use @Super Dickmann's own words, they're "not smart enough" to understand that.

Sylvanas lied to Saurfang, while also throwing in truths. In the end, the truths made him make his mind up, but it doesn't deny that he was lied to.

- - - Updated - - -

The point Magna was making was crystal clear. He said that Saurfang was lied to and then provided evidence of what he saw as said lie. He was then proven wrong, and he engaged in this complicated line of bullshit to try and disentangle himself.

My point is quite obviously not crystal clear to you nor the other Sylvanas fan.

Saurfang was lied to. The fact that the truths she told ended up making his mind are irrelevant to the point that she lied to him and that is the difference I pointed out between her and Garrosh.

Sylvanas lied by saying she died under the Alliance banner and there is absolutely no way you can dispute canon lore. The reason why she lied was to persuade him to lead the war for her.

Here's a guideline for you:

Saying that someone implied something because that is how you interpreted it is kinda silly.

[Super Dickmann]

"You're not smart enough" said the guy that can't comprehend how someone didn't say something they know because it wasn't relevant to the thread title, which is talking about differences between Garrosh and Sylvanas.

Here, let me simplify it for you, Smart Dickmann:

1. Thread's called "Garrosh and Sylvanas had the same reasons to start a war";
2. I reply to the thread pointing out how Sylvanas lied to Saurfang to get him to agree to her idea of war, something which Garrosh didn't do when giving his reasons;
3. I then point to a quote showing where Sylvanas lied to show what exactly I mean;
4. You reply saying her telling a lie is irrelevant to Saurfang making his mind up;
5. I then reply telling you that it is irrelevant to the point of discussion, which is the difference between the reasoning of Garrosh and Sylvanas;
6. Joined by the other user, you keep arguing that the lie didn't make his mind up, saying I wanted to say how Saurfang is a good boy, how I wanted to say that this one lie made him make his mind up. In other words, derailing the point of the thread.
7. I then point out to you that I never claimed that the one lie persuaded him nor that it was the point I was trying to make in the thread, while also pointing out that she irrefutably did lie at the time she was convincing him, while the truths she told ended up being the convincing points (the truths which I didn't bring up because they're not the point of the thread title as it rellies on differences between the two, leading me to not post similarities).
8. "Spin, you're spinning, you're not smart for this! Hurr durr!".

The point I'm illustrating to you is that because of the form the lie took, i.e an aside in a paragraph where it was only backing another point you didn't argue against, it had no meaningful impact on Saurfang's decision and therefore he was not tricked into doing it. Your presentation of it was clear in alleging that Saurfang was tricked into this course of events, which is not the case. I then brought up in my last message that if we accept this to be some meaningful act of deception, then we must also consider Garrosh to be deceptive because of the inaccuracies in the speech he gave to the Forsaken while hyping them up to attack the Greymane Wall.

Incidentally, both had ulterior motives in said conversations. After being told that your example was poor and that you were getting lost in your spin, you decided to reverse course until we come to this point where the mere presence of a lie among the argumentation constitutes the whole thing being a lie. In which case again, both Garrosh and Sylvanas are equally as deceptive by that inane standard.

As for the last part, I doubt it, Steampunkette would never drop us off block after that Forsaken aren't evil thread.

[Magnagarde]

How was Saurfang lied into it? Did he not agree with the grounds that he was given? Did he not rally the Horde under these grounds? Did he not reflect in internal monologue many times, even after the Burning itself, that Sylvanas' reasoning made sense and that he agreed with it? At what point was he tricked into doing something by false information that Sylvanas gave to him?

The lie she told him is an integral part of what speech she gave him to compel him. He was persuaded by the truths brought up, but it doesn't absolve her from also being a liar; the difference between Garrosh and her.

[Super Dickmann]

The lie she told him is an integral part of what speech she gave him to compel him. He was persuaded by the truths brought up, but it doesn't absolve her from also being a liar; the difference between Garrosh and her.

The lie in question is of no particular relevance in the paragraph alone, notwithstanding the entire rest of her spiel. This is such a low standard for lies that Garrosh and in fact, Saurfang himself, would be equally as guilty of being deceptive, since one used similar rhetoric when it came to planning the attack on Theramore to not reveal the existence of the mana bomb and in his speech to the Forsaken, whereas the latter lied to Baine. It's an extremely poor example of the point you're trying to illustrate.

[Deleted]

Oh, jesus, fine I can do this some more.

How was Saurfang lied into it? Did he not agree with the grounds that he was given? Did he not rally the Horde under these grounds? Did he not reflect in internal monologue many times, even after the Burning itself, that Sylvanas' reasoning made sense and that he agreed with it? At what point was he tricked into doing something by false information that Sylvanas gave to him?

The point Magna was making was crystal clear. He said that Saurfang was lied to and then provided evidence of what he saw as said lie. He was then proven wrong, and he engaged in this complicated line of bullshit to try and disentangle himself.

Man... you are hopeless. He was lied into doing it. How is that hard to understand? Did she lie trying to make him do it? If yes, he was lied to to make him do it. Its logic, its common sense... its a fact. What exactly are you arguing here?

Did she lie to him to make him do it? Yes... Is his evidence of her lying to him to make him do it correct? Yes... You never proved any of it wrong. Your argument was that said lie wasnt the crucial, the most important, biggest factor that made him do it... and that is 100% irrelevant and useless argument to make as it changes nothing at all.
So no, you never proved him wrong... you proved your interpretation of his argument wrong. Quite different things.

In fact, Saurfang and what actually made him do it is pretty much irrelevant in this whole thing. OP is quite clear that his point is between Garrosh and Sylvannas... so why do you think Saurfang being persuaded by lies or not has anything to do with it? Point of topic was never "why Saurfang did it"...

Are you @Magnagarde alt or someone else who’s going to make easily disprovable claims to satisfy their hate boner for Sylvanas?

You didnt disprove anything. You argued something you made up and didnt even make it stick.
Its just sad that whole topic is full of spam between people arguing themselves and guy saying that they are arguing themselves. At first i ignored it because you two completely posted irrelevant crap completely missing the point, and thus not worth replying to, but now its page 5 and 50% or more posts are that shit... so i couldnt take it anymore.

[Magnagarde]

Your presentation of it was clear in alleging that Saurfang was tricked into this course of events, which is not the case.

She threw in a lie. One possible conclusion is that she indeed tried to trick him by bringing the lie up, which is the only pausible in character explanation for such a blatant lie. The only other explanation is that the one who wrote that doesn't know their lore, but it is still canon. Why would she lie to him about dying fighting for Alliance banners, while simultaneously trying to pep-talk him into leading a war for her against the Alliance? And where in all of this, once again, did you find a point where I tried to argue about the reasoning for him making his mind up?

However, he was persuaded by her truths. Him being persuaded by her truths doesn't mean she didn't lie, which she quite clearly did. Her lying about her reasons is the difference between her and Garrosh.

You're making a point that the lie told wasn't crucial to him making his mind up, which wasn't even the point of my post. It was a point you yourself attributed to my post just to find a reason to disagree over.