Another victory for the Horde!

[sighy]

More like because she doesn't pose a threat, just like the countless civillians in darnassus. It's unnecessary and cruel to kill a hospital full of injured people.

- - - Updated - - -



Great example, so you also think the Horde is just a bunch of bloodthirsty individuals? Or maybe I don't understand your example, since that's exactly what there is.

Well conceptually Orcs, Trolls and Night Elves are supposed to be bloodthirsty savages, with some added relatability. Blelves and Forsaken are supposed to be brutally efficient. Goblins sort of do whatever gets the money... literally. Dwarves are supposed to be largely xenofobic and keep to themselves. Humans are... a diverse bunch.

A lot of that was watered down sadly.

[Super Dickmann]

Great example, so you also think the Horde is just a bunch of bloodthirsty individuals? Or maybe I don't understand your example, since that's exactly what there is.

Well, yes. Obviously. It's not 'just' that, being bloodthirsty or warlike doesn't remove all your other characteristics any more than striving towards peace does. Unless for example, you're in a fictional setting where the whole conceit is violence and war, in which case the success of peace is impossible and thus only warlike entities make the least bit of sense long term and a drum circle is boring as sin.

[Leodric]

You could elaborate instead of doing /facepalm you hypocrite.
That panda was fighter and was certainly damaging me. More imporatnyl she was a member of faction that Horde is at war.

Compare it to you (adventurers) storming some place (instance) and killing their healers even tho you dont have any beef with them

- - - Updated - - -

You dont kill a hospital full of injured people. Why are you making this up?

You do understand the difference between giving a general statement like I did, clearly saying it's unsettling people trying to justify killing hospital members and you directly quoting me with some degenerate meme? if not, I can't help you with that.

Ah yes, she is at war with the Horde, obviously red = dead. Best kill all the civillians right with them since they are also at war with the Horde. And how dare she defends herself while her hospital get's attacked.
When did we ever storm an instance where people/creatures were not in "beef" with us or posed a threat?

Again, do you see the difference between some priest on a battlefield, healing people anduin-style and bashing soldiers skull and some hospital members even saying they are no fighters?

- - - Updated - - -

Well, yes. Obviously. It's not 'just' that, being bloodthirsty or warlike doesn't remove all your other characteristics any more than striving towards peace does. Unless for example, you're in a fictional setting where the whole conceit is violence and war, in which case the success of peace is impossible and thus only warlike entities make the least bit of sense long term and a drum circle is boring as sin.

Obviously there will never be a long time peace and the characters actions are directly influences by that narrative, but there is still a difference between depicting the story in a believable way and showing the Horde as the honorable individuals they can be and only showing their bloodthirsty side in battle or showing them slaughtering some non-fighter healers in a hospital. Quoting some warhammer chaos-lord as the definition of what honorable can be is a bit far-fetched for the warcraft universe, also with both being all about war and stuff.

[Odintdk]

I starting like this Horde more and more. This weak honorable Horde from past was horrible mess.

Strongly agree.

[Leodric]

Well conceptually Orcs, Trolls and Night Elves are supposed to be bloodthirsty savages, with some added relatability. Blelves and Forsaken are supposed to be brutally efficient. Goblins sort of do whatever gets the money... literally. Dwarves are supposed to be largely xenofobic and keep to themselves. Humans are... a diverse bunch.

A lot of that was watered down sadly.

Sure, and that's all fine. I actually like Orcs having some kind of blood rage while fighting and loved to see that Tauren in the BFA cinematic trampling some alliance soldiers like a raging bull, but that doesn't mean that they always have to be like that. Honor is a huge part in the Horde, or at least was. My point is that depicting them as the genocidical maniacs killing injured soliders or hospital stuff doesn't add up with what we have seen in the past.

- - - Updated - - -

Strongly agree.

what's "not weak" about killing people who pose no threat?

[Verdugo]

what's "not weak" about killing people who pose no threat?

Healers pose a lot of threat, they bring injured back into fighting state in no time.

[Leodric]

Healers pose a lot of threat, they bring injured back into fighting state in no time.

So according to that logic it's all good to kill all civillians no matter the age since they can also get into a fighting state sooner or later?

[Verdugo]

So according to that logic it's all good to kill all civillians no matter the age since they can also get into a fighting state sooner or later?

Thats not mine logic, thats yours.

[Ramz]

that's a stretch, even for the poor missunderstood Horde.

How is that a stretch? I'm not denying that killing healer and injured is a dihonorable act, but how is that different to killing off starving people? That aren't armed and barely have any posession?

[Cizr]

You do understand the difference between giving a general statement like I did, clearly saying it's unsettling people trying to justify killing hospital members and you directly quoting me with some degenerate meme? if not, I can't help you with that.

Ah yes, she is at war with the Horde, obviously red = dead. Best kill all the civillians right with them since they are also at war with the Horde. And how dare she defends herself while her hospital get's attacked.
When did we ever storm an instance where people/creatures were not in "beef" with us or posed a threat?

Again, do you see the difference between some priest on a battlefield, healing people anduin-style and bashing soldiers skull and some hospital members even saying they are no fighters?

- - - Updated - - -

I cant help you with your hypocrisy.

Btw why were you lying about "killing hospital full of injured people"? That does not happen. Do you even play this game or just get outraged on forums?

[sighy]

Sure, and that's all fine. I actually like Orcs having some kind of blood rage while fighting and loved to see that Tauren in the BFA cinematic trampling some alliance soldiers like a raging bull, but that doesn't mean that they always have to be like that. Honor is a huge part in the Horde, or at least was. My point is that depicting them as the genocidical maniacs killing injured soliders or hospital stuff doesn't add up with what we have seen in the past.

- - - Updated - - -



what's "not weak" about killing people who pose no threat?

Context is key, in situations like that. And as someone, who hasn't gotten around to playing through the specific thing i don't know the context. I know the meme well enough, because it's memeable out of context.

That said i don't see a blelf having a problem with offing an enemy healer, at any rate.

[Super Dickmann]

Obviously there will never be a long time peace and the characters actions are directly influences by that narrative, but there is still a difference between depicting the story in a believable way and showing the Horde as the honorable individuals they can be and only showing their bloodthirsty side in battle or showing them slaughtering some non-fighter healers in a hospital. Quoting some warhammer chaos-lord as the definition of what honorable can be is a bit far-fetched for the warcraft universe, also with both being all about war and stuff.

Back on Draenor, it was honorable to kill weak children and the Frostwolves were considered dishonorable for not doing it. Cromush is yelling my ear about how I should fight with honor while giving me the quest where I shell civilian quarters. Saurfang was honorable when he hired an army of assassins to attack an unaware enemy. The guy the Orcish capital is named after, without any demon blood, found the screams of Stormwind's population to be musical.

Orcish honor is a meme. More than that, the game makes it asinine because morality has no cost. Being self-sacrificing and helpful is not easy because it requires giving of yourself and making difficult calls sometimes. In-game that's not the case. All you need to be nice and honorable is to will it. See how friendly fire exists when Sylvanas hits her troops at Lordaeron, but not when Rexxar is shelling his own army visibly engaged in combat with the Alliance with azerite bombs. Or how Anduin's goodness still has him easily in the lead in the war. He's infallibly good and it has no consequence or reflection to it. It's a morally hollow narrative because it misrepresents both good and evil by making both purely the result of what you want to do. As if anyone doing evil things woke up twirling their mustache and going on about how much they like tying virgins to the railway tracks for the hell of it.

The only exception to this is Saurfang, where his 'honor' does have the adverse consequences you'd reasonably expect and it's why he's such a controversial character at the moment. But unless this exploration is across the board discussing it at all is pointless because the narrative will cheat to get its desired outcome and insufferable lesson in, logic be damned.

[Deleted]

Well if i remember correctly, we only had just fear away the fox people, not kill them in the Alli mission.

But i also remember the foothold quest where we have to burn hundreds of goblins with a fire elemental.
I must admit its fun. The sounds are hillarious!

[Varodoc]

Actually before tides of wars end garrosh just wanted kalimdor and the loss at the end of made garrosh realise he was thinking too small he needs to aim much bigger, which was the world.

Also as Jaina wasn't neutral, theramore proved to be huge military threat to safety of the horde and was a military target so wiping it by any means neccecary was the right thing to do.

No one is denying that Theramore was a valid military target, people are reprimanding Garrosh for the hypocritical and cowradly tactics that he used, and in addition people are noting how Jaina was pretty much forced to declare war on Garrosh.

Also, Garrosh wanted world domination even before Tides of War. In the Twilight Highlands questline, he says that he will remake the world for the Horde.

[Leodric]

Thats not mine logic, thats yours.

alright mate

- - - Updated - - -

I cant help you with your hypocrisy.

Btw why were you lying about "killing hospital full of injured people"? That does not happen. Do you even play this game or just get outraged on forums?

Obviously the injured soldiers are going to be fine and dandy while their healers are just being killed, because assuming that someone injured is going to die out of the consequence that their healers just got slaughtered, who cared/healed them is wrong? I know it's futile to discuss something with someone biased towards a faction, but give it at least a try not to portrait yourself as someone not able to understand basic arguments, hence why you still didn't answer my questions I suppose?

- - - Updated - - -

Back on Draenor, it was honorable to kill weak children and the Frostwolves were considered dishonorable for not doing it. Cromush is yelling my ear about how I should fight with honor while giving me the quest where I shell civilian quarters. Saurfang was honorable when he hired an army of assassins to attack an unaware enemy. The guy the Orcish capital is named after, without any demon blood, found the screams of Stormwind's population to be musical.

Orcish honor is a meme. More than that, the game makes it asinine because morality has no cost. Being self-sacrificing and helpful is not easy because it requires giving of yourself and making difficult calls sometimes. In-game that's not the case. All you need to be nice and honorable is to will it. See how friendly fire exists when Sylvanas hits her troops at Lordaeron, but not when Rexxar is shelling his own army visibly engaged in combat with the Alliance with azerite bombs. Or how Anduin's goodness still has him easily in the lead in the war. He's infallibly good and it has no consequence or reflection to it. It's a morally hollow narrative because it misrepresents both good and evil by making both purely the result of what you want to do. As if anyone doing evil things woke up twirling their mustache and going on about how much they like tying virgins to the railway tracks for the hell of it.

The only exception to this is Saurfang, where his 'honor' does have the adverse consequences you'd reasonably expect and it's why he's such a controversial character at the moment. But unless this exploration is across the board discussing it at all is pointless because the narrative will cheat to get its desired outcome and insufferable lesson in, logic be damned.

You compare the "old" Horde with the current Horde. When I, and I assume most people talking about "the Horde", they mean the current one which doesn't follow allways or views of the old Horde, so I can't imagine that the current Horde would be fine with killing weak children? Well maybe the current one with Sylvanas in charge, but the ones before that not so much (again, to specify, i am talking about the "new" Horde).

There was always some kind of hypocrisy with "honor" and the Horde at some point, but I always viewed the warcraft 3 campaign with the Horde finding their new settlement and home in Kalimdor exactly as some kind of new beginning, the term "noble savages" found it's meaning right at that time.

Also your examples are mostly about the BFA depiction of the Horde, which I agree is a disaster regarding story telling and a huge mess of what they built up in the past decade, hence getting so much critique.

[RundinO]

More like because she doesn't pose a threat, just like the countless civillians in darnassus. It's unnecessary and cruel to kill a hospital full of injured people.

- - - Updated - - -



Great example, so you also think the Horde is just a bunch of bloodthirsty individuals? Or maybe I don't understand your example, since that's exactly what there is.

Pose no threat? Not true at all. If she healed soldiers on both sides, then you might be able to argue she was neutral and run with that in some form. However, this is not the case. She, in healing soldiers that are enemies of the Horde, makes herself an accomplice in each and every "victory" those soldiers then take a part in. She is just as much of a threat as any soldier, some might even say moreso.

-------------

Civilians are a whole other story that you can argue about either way.

As civilians are the backbone of any group and associated war campaign, a hit to them is much more effective than soldiers versus soldiers on the frontlines. You cannot fund a war without civilians in the rear.

Let me ask a few simple questions (devil's advocate here):

When posed with a wasp/hornet issue, do you kill each wasp/hornet individually until there are no more or do you destroy the nest?

Now give them our level of sentience. Does your strategy change with the same issue?

[Cizr]

alright mate

- - - Updated - - -

I know it's futile to discuss something with someone biased towards a faction, but give it at least a try not to portrait yourself as someone not able to understand basic arguments, hence why you still didn't answer my questions I suppose?

- - - Updated - - -

I see your hypocrisy know no bounds. Thats expected from someone who needed to lie to make his "argument" stronger.

[Super Dickmann]

You compare the "old" Horde with the current Horde. When I, and I assume most people talking about "the Horde", they mean the current one which doesn't follow allways or views of the old Horde, so I can't imagine that the current Horde would be fine with killing weak children? Well maybe the current one with Sylvanas in charge, but the ones before that not so much (again, to specify, i am talking about the "new" Horde).

There was always some kind of hypocrisy with "honor" and the Horde at some point, but I always viewed the warcraft 3 campaign with the Horde finding their new settlement and home in Kalimdor exactly as some kind of new beginning, the term "noble savages" found it's meaning right at that time.

Also your examples are mostly about the BFA depiction of the Horde, which I agree is a disaster regarding story telling and a huge mess of what they built up in the past decade, hence getting so much critique.

The New Horde/Old Horde divide is pure wishful thinking. Thrall has direct continuity in all aspects with the Horde as lead by Orgrim Doomhammer. Orgrim passed him his rank, he uses Orgrim's weapon, he wears Orgrim's armor. He has the same political position with the same power as Orgrim. His capital is named after Orgrim, other groups and buildings are named after Grom and Kargath, all in the Vanilla/WC3-era. Thrall imposed ideas that were largely alien to the orcs. This isn't something from BFA. It's implied as early as TBC with Nazgrel's comments about how Thrall might not like what he finds out on Draenor and heavily emphasized in Wrath where the orcs reverted to form. See the Warsong Offensive and Glory for further examples.

Noblesavagery was conclusively shown over that story arc to be a failure. Thrall's attempt to reform the Horde on a platform of racial guilt, purposeful deprivation and a sedentary agricultural lifestyle the orcs had no interest or background in failed. Even Thrall himself recognizes this in Shattering when he passes the torch over to Garrosh. Vol'jin was, while somewhat similar to Thrall in ideals, a much more pragmatic figure who made no demands on the morality of the Horde so much as just expecting some minimum cooperation from the races, while leaving them doing their own thing.

[ashblond]

Horde has ALWAYS been the bad and savage guy. Why are you surprised??

[Leodric]

Pose no threat? Not true at all. If she healed soldiers on both sides, then you might be able to argue she was neutral and run with that in some form. However, this is not the case. She, in healing soldiers that are enemies of the Horde, makes herself an accomplice in each and every "victory" those soldiers then take a part in. She is just as much of a threat as any soldier, some might even say moreso.

-------------

Civilians are a whole other story that you can argue about either way.

As civilians are the backbone of any group and associated war campaign, a hit to them is much more effective than soldiers versus soldiers on the frontlines. You cannot fund a war without civilians in the rear.

Let me ask a few simple questions (devil's advocate here):

When posed with a wasp/hornet issue, do you kill each wasp/hornet individually until there are no more or do you destroy the nest?

Now give them our level of sentience. Does your strategy change with the same issue?

Again, according to your logic you should kill every single member in the opposing faction since they can always be a threat in the future. Such as civillians who can take up arms and learn to fight or injured soldiers who lost their limbs and still can fight crawling on the mud.

Your example with the wasp/hornet issue is not applicable to the same level of sentient beings like human/pandaren or whatever race fights for the horde/alliance. If you put them on the same level and showed they are capable of living in a peaceful manner and coopoerate like the Horde and Alliance did for years, then yes, I would not kill every wasp/hornet humanoid being. If we are talking about some kind of race which made it clear that they want to kill every last single member of your faction and showed nothing but bloodthirst and no mercy, then it's in my opinion a whole other issue.

Obviously you want to destroy the enemy faction, but there is a difference between a honorable war and pure genocide, which the critique about the horde is all about.

- - - Updated - - -

I see your hypocrisy know no bounds. Thats expected from someone who needed to lie to make his "argument" stronger.

Strong comeback, answer me again if you are willing to answer my question .

- - - Updated - - -

The New Horde/Old Horde divide is pure wishful thinking. Thrall has direct continuity in all aspects with the Horde as lead by Orgrim Doomhammer. Orgrim passed him his rank, he uses Orgrim's weapon, he wears Orgrim's armor. He has the same political position with the same power as Orgrim. His capital is named after Orgrim, other groups and buildings are named after Grom and Kargath, all in the Vanilla/WC3-era. Thrall imposed ideas that were largely alien to the orcs. This isn't something from BFA. It's implied as early as TBC with Nazgrel's comments about how Thrall might not like what he finds out on Draenor and heavily emphasized in Wrath where the orcs reverted to form. See the Warsong Offensive and Glory for further examples.

Noblesavagery was conclusively shown over that story arc to be a failure. Thrall's attempt to reform the Horde on a platform of racial guilt, purposeful deprivation and a sedentary agricultural lifestyle the orcs had no interest or background in failed. Even Thrall himself recognizes this in Shattering when he passes the torch over to Garrosh. Vol'jin was, while somewhat similar to Thrall in ideals, a much more pragmatic figure who made no demands on the morality of the Horde so much as just expecting some minimum cooperation from the races, while leaving them doing their own thing.

I still think it would be able to continue the Horde in a "noble" manner without resorting to blood savagry all the time. Some examples where it didn't turn out or taking the way Garrosh used the Horde in his thinking doesn't deny the possibility of Orcs being able to live in peaceful co-existence with other races and not bashing their skulls. I think it's also hard for the Horde or particulary Orcs in that case if their warchief is a maniac like Garrosh or someone willing to have a peaceful way of handling things like Thrall. They follow their warchief, since that's what their codex is all about, resulting in difficult situations where they are morally conflicted if they don't fully agree with the ways their warchief handles things (Saufang for example right now in BFA).

Obviously the "new" horde taking political/cultural structures of the "old" Horde doesn't mean that they have to follow everything the old Horde did.

- - - Updated - - -

Horde has ALWAYS been the bad and savage guy. Why are you surprised??

debateable, while I agree that the Horde showed often their bad side, they definitly had some good sides as well.