Garrosh and Sylvanas had the same reasons to start a war

[Powerogue]

Their main distinction is how they go about it. Sylvanas isn't arrogant and egotistical enough to think that she can just tick off every race of the horde without consequences. She needs them, so she has ensured that they need her and wouldn't dare rise against her for fear of making the horde divided and vulnerable against the alliance.

Really makes me wonder where the Saurfang questchain's going though.

[Magnagarde]

The lie in question is of no particular relevance in the paragraph alone.

Whether it is relevant or irrelevant for him making his mind up is the only thing that is actually irrelevant here. All I said was that she lied to him to compel him, without arguing the fact that he made his mind up thanks to the other things she used to compel him, which happened to be truths.

[Deleted]

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.




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.

So the multiple quotes directly from the book in question which completely 100% counter the point being made don’t disprove anything? Funny, because every time I’ve asked for evidence to counter this in turn has been met with silence, or in your case bold faced denial. Just like all other shitposters and trolls you are, as the saying goes - all mouth and no trousers. Or more specifically, “Lore doesn’t matter when I can just tell you you’re lying” If you’re trying to come across as credible, you need to try harder lil’ padawan.

Infracted.

[Super Dickmann]

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.

How? Not even Magnagarde is making this point anymore, he's admitting that it's the truths that persuaded him and the lie was incidental, he's just claiming that this somehow by itself means that he was lied into it. My point was that the lie was irrelevant, and this is visibly correct if you bother reading the excerpts of the novella posted. If the mere presence of a lie, regardless of its decisive character, is enough to make the lie foundational here, then again, that would put Garrosh and Saurfang in the same boat as Sylvanas, because that standard is ridiculous. When one is lied into doing something, the implication is that it's the lie is what gets him to do it, not that a lie was spoken in between, and disregarded as is the case here.

She threw in a lie. One could easily say 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. 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 did. Her lying about her reasons is the difference between her and Garrosh.

The lie in question is irrelevant to her point. And while it doesn't apply to her, it applies to her people, which is the point she was trying to illustrate. Unless you're seriously claiming that if Saurfang believed that Sylvanas personally, not the Forsaken, had died for the Alliance, this would radically change his overall mixed reaction to that whole line of argument, which he treats as cold and inhuman.

The best part of this entire rigamarole is that if you seriously wanted to actually discuss this topic instead of whining about how Saurfang dun got trick'd because of a throw-away line, it's not really that hard. The difference between Sylvanas and Garrosh in the way they sold the war is that Garrosh invoked the orcish spirit in all of them, he assumed they would follow him because that's what the oath required of them, but more than that, that's what they wanted to do if they believed in the same things he did. Hence why he neither obscured his overall goal directly even if he did lie contextually.

By comparison, Sylvanas knows she's walking on thin ice, which is why she constantly works to convince, play along with the customs of the various races and move them aside if she thinks they're dubious to her cause. That's why she elevates Saurfang, because he makes a better public than she does, and in his absence if you take the loyalty option in the new quest, she sets the player up for a similar role - a hero, because she knows that her own support is based on interests, not on ideology, and that means constantly reinforcing things.

[Zandalariprelate]

Garrosh began the war because of the deprivation his people were put into because of Thrall's shitty placement of their new nation and their overreliance on imports from an enemy they were waging a guerilla war with at the time. It evolved into taking over the world from there, but this was what first seeded his antipathy for the Alliance and noblesavagery. They make sense both in and out of story, given the circumstances and how Varian had already declared war.

Sylvanas' grounds for war make sense in-story because there's no way vendettas would be dropped this easily, the existence of azerite, Stormheim and how it's perceived by the Horde. They don't make sense out of story because her opposition have all the searing moral complexity of the carebears and would never do anything wrong if it makes someone feel sad.

Indeed blizzard made the alliance attack first only to play the morally good card, it's almost like someone in the top hierachy wants to merge the factions with an alliance victory

[Magnagarde]

So the multiple quotes directly from the book in question which completely 100% counter the point being made don’t disprove anything? Funny, because every time I’ve asked for evidence to counter this in turn has been met with silence, or in your case bold faced denial. Just like all other shitposters and trolls you are, as the saying goes - all mouth and no trousers. Or more specifically, “Lore doesn’t matter when I can just tell you you’re lying” If you’re trying to come across as credible, you need to try harder lil’ padawan.

Calling a guy confronting you with logic a troll and a shitposter.

- - - Updated - - -

How? Not even Magnagarde is making this point anymore, he's admitting that it's the truths that persuaded him and the lie was incidental, he's just claiming that this somehow by itself means that he was lied into it.

Dude, seriously lol

I claimed she lied to him, which she did, in an effort to compel him. It is incidental only if there was no purpose for her to lie in character, but there was and that is to compel him. She lied to compel him. It simply didn't end up being the thing that compelled him, but it is a lie nontheless.

[Deleted]

So the multiple quotes directly from the book in question which completely 100% counter the point being made don’t disprove anything? Funny, because every time I’ve asked for evidence to counter this in turn has been met with silence, or in your case bold faced denial. Just like all other shitposters and trolls you are, as the saying goes - all mouth and no trousers. Or more specifically, “Lore doesn’t matter when I can just tell you you’re lying” If you’re trying to come across as credible, you need to try harder lil’ padawan.

Quotes in books actually prove his point, not yours. So have no idea what you are talking about. It is clear she lied(from said quotes), so she lied to make him do it.

What actual reasons Saurfang had to do it changes absolutely nothing and is completely useless and irrelevant argument here.
Ive read OP again and your said "quotes" and how you "disproved" it... and you never did, you just argued something irrelevant and useless crap that changes nothing. Did she lie to him? Yes... then it proves his point! Did those lies convince Saurfang to do it? No/yes... whatever, its irrelevant.

[Super Dickmann]

Dude, seriously lol

I claimed she lied to him, which she did, in an effort to compel him. It is incidental only if there was no purpose for her to lie in character, but there was and that is to compel him. She lied to compel him. It simply didn't end up being the thing that compelled him, but it is a lie nontheless.

Again, by that bizzare standard, that's not actually a difference between her and Garrosh, because he did the same to the Forsaken in front of Gilneas and the gathered Horde forces for Theramore and so on. It's a ridiculous standard to hold to.

[Deleted]

How? Not even Magnagarde is making this point anymore, he's admitting that it's the truths that persuaded him and the lie was incidental, he's just claiming that this somehow by itself means that he was lied into it. My point was that the lie was irrelevant, and this is visibly correct if you bother reading the excerpts of the novella posted. If the mere presence of a lie, regardless of its decisive character, is enough to make the lie foundational here, then again, that would put Garrosh and Saurfang in the same boat as Sylvanas, because that standard is ridiculous. When one is lied into doing something, the implication is that it's the lie is what gets him to do it, not that a lie was spoken in between, and disregarded as is the case here.

Because it does? What an actual f... are you trying to say now? That her lying to him to make him do it somehow doesnt mean he was lied to make him do it?
And that was NEVER OPs point, that was your interpratation of his point. That lie made him do it... ive read whole first page and start of your "argument" and you are in the wrong, as it has never been the point if you just read what was written and leave your "interpretation" out of it. It clearly compares how Sylvannas and Garrosh did things and Saurfang and his motivation behind is 100% irrelevant and useless... could have been "unnamed character" and point would still be the same. She lied in attempt to make him do it. Lied to who or what that character did with the lie was never a point, outside of your "interpretation" that is.
OP point: she lied to make him do it.
your point: lie didnt make him do it.

Does your point disprove his? No... it actually strengthens it as you admit she did lie do make him do it.

Who bloody cares if lie was irrelevant?????? Who cares if truths compelled him to do it? He was still lied to to do it. He is 100% irrelevant to OPs point.
Whatever, this is just sad.

[Magnagarde]

Again, by that bizzare standard, that's not actually a difference between her and Garrosh, because he did the same to the Forsaken in front of Gilneas and the gathered Horde forces for Theramore and so on. It's a ridiculous standard to hold to.

I personally don't see it as a ridiculous standard, but I can see how this could be a point of contention in regards to different opinions because lies are lies. In my view of their differences, you ignore the implications of the two different examples. What Garrosh said to the Horde forces at Theramore or the Forsaken at Gilneas isn't what started that war. What she said to Saurfang is what started this war because she got all the support she required to commence with her plans.

[Super Dickmann]

Whatever, this is just sad.

It really is sad. If you read two pages later you would have seen the book excerpts. If you scrolled up on this page you would see that moronic argument means that there isn't actually a difference between her and Garrosh, because by that standard of deception he does the same thing multiple times and so does Saurfang when he tells half-truths to Baine while heading to invade Ashenvale.
@Magnagarde

What she said to Saurfang is what started this war because she got all the support she required to commence with her plans.

Okay, I'll hold off on this one, it's too easy. And this again, is no particular difference since Garrosh was hyping the Forsaken up to serve as the front line with the knowledge that they would likely be offed in the process when he gave said speech. Sylvanas did not need to use this deception to trick the majority of the Horde because as we see from their reaction to Saurfang's announcement, they were already on board with it. She addressed Saurfang wherein said one fragment of one sentence we're all arguing for six pages now took place.

This entire topic by itself is wrong, in the sense that OP alleges that they have the same motive, when they don't, even superficially. Garrosh's initial motive was to give the orcs the sustenance they needed to and to reignite their warrior spirit after he saw them in such a sad state. From there it became conquering the world. Sylvanas' goal is to ultimately sack Stormwind, raise them as undead and then divide their lands among the Horde races as she mulls over in her internal monologue. And her argument to get there is meandering because it keeps running into the wall of Anduin's Alliance being perfect flowerchildren.

[Unholyground]

Azerite is corruption, it has corrupted many on both factions and is making everyone act irrationally.

[Magnagarde]

It really is sad. If you read two pages later you would have seen the book excerpts. If you scrolled up on this page you would see that moronic argument means that there isn't actually a difference between her and Garrosh, because by that standard of deception he does the same thing multiple times and so does Saurfang when he tells half-truths to Baine while heading to invade Ashenvale.

You gave your own interpretation to my post and then went on discussing your own interpretation.

You can decide to ignore his post, but he told you the truth though:

if you just read what was written and leave your "interpretation" out of it.

The arguement is far from "moronic", but then again whether you find the purpose of Sylvanas' lies worse/better than the lies of Garrosh is in the end down to individual opinon. My point is that Garrosh didn't lie to start a war. You disagree? That is fine. Saurfang telling half-truths is a completely different topic.

[Deleted]

Quotes in books actually prove his point, not yours. So have no idea what you are talking about. It is clear she lied(from said quotes), so she lied to make him do it.

What actual reasons Saurfang had to do it changes absolutely nothing and is completely useless and irrelevant argument here.
Ive read OP again and your said "quotes" and how you "disproved" it... and you never did, you just argued something irrelevant and useless crap that changes nothing. Did she lie to him? Yes... then it proves his point! Did those lies convince Saurfang to do it? No/yes... whatever, its irrelevant.

*sigh* Here we go again...

OK, for your benefit this time:

“The boy in Stormwind will not start a war tomorrow,” Saurfang said.

Her eyebrows lowered. “With Genn Greymane in his ear? We will see.”

That was a concern, Saurfang had to concede. In the thick of the fighting against the Burning Legion, Greymane had launched a mission to kill Sylvanas. It had gotten some of Stormwind’s few remaining airships destroyed.

Saurfang’s voice had dropped to a low growl. “A hundred years of peace is a worthy goal.” But as soon as the words left his mouth, he wanted to take them back. He knew what Sylvanas would say.

And he would agree with it.

The warchief did not disappoint. “If a hundred years of peace ends with a war that annihilates both sides, it was not a worthy goal. It was a coward’s bargain, trading the future for temporary comfort. The Horde’s children, and their children’s children, will curse our memories as they burn.” Her voice softened, but only slightly. “If life had any mercy at all, you and I would exist in peace for the rest of our days. We both have seen enough of war, but neither of us has seen the last of it.”

“Yes, you do. You already said it,” she said. “Why is it impossible to invade Stormwind today?”

“We don’t have enough ships.” Saurfang looked at her suspiciously as he worked through the implications. How is that an opportunity? “We can commit our ships to transport or to war, but not to both—”

The answer slammed into him with such force that he literally staggered. His knees buckled, and he caught himself against the table with both arms. After a moment, he looked up at Sylvanas again, the blood draining from his face.

She had led him to a truth he had not seen, and it felt as if the entire world had changed. Only seconds ago, he had known to the very core of his being that war was impossible.

Now . . .

Until our navies are rebuilt, the high seas are wild again.

That would take years to change. And once that happened, yes, that stalemate would return, and war would become too costly to pursue.

And by all the spirits, Sylvanas was right, no matter how strongly Saurfang tried to deny it. War would come again one day, and if both factions were strong, that war would raze entire nations.

“You understand, High Overlord,” Sylvanas said. “Think it through. What happens next?”

“They might try to conquer the Undercity . . . but Darnassus becomes our hostage against that. The night elves will not allow your city to fall if they fear it means you will destroy theirs. The same goes for a strike against Silvermoon.” Saurfang’s thoughts raced. She’s right. This could work. “And even if the Alliance agrees to retake Darnassus . . . The Gilneans!”

“And that is how you defeat Stormwind.” Saurfang was in awe. It was brilliant. Destroying the Alliance wouldn’t take a thousand victories. It would take one. With a single strategic push, the pressure on the Alliance would cripple them for years, just as long as they could not conjure any miracles on the battlefield.

“If you want your enemy to bleed to death, you inflict a wound that cannot heal. That is why I need you to make the plan, High Overlord,” Sylvanas said. “The moment our strike begins, there will be no turning back. We can divide the Alliance only if the war to conquer Darnassus does not unite them against us. That only happens if the Horde wins an honorable victory, and I am not blind—the Horde does not trust me to wage war that way.”

Once again, she was right. Saurfang chose his next words very carefully. “It will take time to prepare this. It may not even be possible, not with the Alliance watching our every move.”

Sylvanas’s smile broadened. “I believe their spies will soon become our greatest assets.”

Kindly point out here, or anywhere else from "A Good War" (which you obviously have not read) that proves Sylvanas "lied to make him do it" - not "a lie that was also mixed up with truths that had the collective effect of persuading him" or any other twisted BS, because that is not what you are saying. You are saying it was the lie - and ONLY the lie - that made up Saurfang's mind, a point that even @Magnagarde himself is not arguing anymore after being called out on it, but you evidently are desperate to try and prove otherwise with zero evidence or quotes of your own. But by all means, if you feel you can disprove me, go right ahead...

[Magnagarde]

Kindly point out here, or anywhere else from "A Good War" (which you obviously have not read) that proves Sylvanas "lied to make him do it" - not "a lie that was also mixed up with truths that had the collective effect of persuading him" or any other twisted BS, because that is not what you are saying. You are saying it was the lie - and ONLY the lie - that made up Saurfang's mind, a point that even

Here it is:

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

Which part of her speech, which included truth and lie, ended up convincing him is irrelevant to the fact that she lied while attempting to convince him.

a point that even @Magnagarde himself is not arguing anymore after being called out on it

I was called out by you on something I never tried to refute in the first place. You moved goalposts by switching from the fact that she lied to discussing the reasons why he actually decided to do it.

There's no way for you wiggle around this lol you move goalposts and then pretend someone is wrong because they didn't bring up facts which were irrelevant for the discussion at hand and that is whether she lied or not.

[Super Dickmann]

Here it is:



Which part of her speech, which included truth and lie, ended up convincing him is irrelevant to the fact that she lied while attempting to convince him.

If we're being pedantic autists going on about semantics, which is apparently the case, then this is at worst a half-truth. While she herself did not die for that banner, the first Forsaken were citizens of Lordaeron, a core kingdom of Alliance and their soldiers did in fact die for that banner.

[Magnagarde]

If we're being pedantic autists going on about semantics, which is apparently the case, then this is at worst a half-truth. While she herself did not die for that banner, the first Forsaken were citizens of Lordaeron, a core kingdom of Alliance and their soldiers did in fact die for that banner.

Well, thank fuck we came to the same conclusion then? The Forsaken of Lordaeron quite clearly died for that banner, there's no disputing that and I never tried to dispute that.

"Pedantic autists" is in all honesty an inappropriate way to call someone who is simply being accurate in the lore subforum. Being pedantic about lore is intrisic to the point of this subforum.

[Deleted]

How are the two mutually exclusive? He agreed to her after she lied to him by making herself sound compelling through the example of her own demise.

She lied about having died for the Alliance. You're failing to address this fact properly.

It's a "we" - speaking about all of the Forsaken. All of them have died to protect their homelands. For the human forsaken, this was Lordaeron. For Sylvanas it was Quel'thalas. Does not change the fact of how the Forsaken have been treated by the ones for whom they have died.

[Super Dickmann]

Well, thank fuck we came to the same conclusion then? The Forsaken of Lordaeron quite clearly died for that banner, there's no disputing that and I never tried to dispute that.

"Pedantic autists" is in all honesty an inappropriate way to call out someone who is simply being accurate in the lore subforum.

Honestly, I'd say that's the most accurate description of most of us here in the forum given the minutiae that are being argued over. But the reason I bring it up is because it makes the lie of it even more miniscule. It's essentially only a lie as related to Sylvanas herself, which is of no particular consequence. The sentence itself is a half-truth, in the sense that it applies to everyone she mentions except herself.

[Magnagarde]

It's a "we" - speaking about all of the Forsaken. All of them have died to protect their homelands. For the human forsaken, this was Lordaeron. For Sylvanas it was Quel'thalas. Does not change the fact of how the Forsaken have been treated by the ones for whom they have died.

It mattered enough for me to point it out because she is falsely attributing the suffering of Lordaeron to being her own. You don't have undead humans going around claiming they died for the banner of Quel'thalas.