"Horde didnt really question themselves during MoP so we are doing it again"

[Super Dickmann]

I look away from this thread for a few hours and suddenly there's five pages about rape. What happened here?

[Mehrunes]

Nothing *obliges* them to do so - but there remains the feeling that if the situation were reversed, the Horde would be just as taken aback by this heedless escalation of the conflict.

Unlike the Alliance, the Horde isn't moronically unhinged enough to randomly attack the High King of the Alliance during a time of cooperation caused by an ongoing apocalypse. So the situations would never be reversed. Which is kinda an important subsection of the entire point. Alliance proved time and time again it's a rabid dog. Rabid dogs are put down, not handled with kid gloves to preserve their feeble feelings.

"I see now why your Alliance and Horde cannot stop fighting. Every reprisal is itself an act of aggression, and every act of aggression triggers immediate reprisal."

The faction war in a nutshell - a never-ending cycle of atrocity that only begets suffering for both sides of the conflict, until no one is left with the will to fight or nothing remains to fight over.

Yeah, no. Alliance's repeated acts of aggression going in streaks aren't reprisals. What was Silithus their reprisal for? Their previous aggression in Stormheim? Forsaken showed numerous times they want to be left alone in Lordaeron. Orcs outright moved to another continent to be left alone by the Alliance. It's just that Alliance doesn't give a shit about that, because it's outright incapable of leaving the Horde alone. Because how can they play eternally victimized victims if they don't have a Horde around to provoke?

No, I'm actually saying it's not okay to just kill people for "no reason" in any territory, but I'm also saying that maybe responding to that by burning down your neighbor's capitol city isn't a very good way of going about things either. I also don't think conflict was inevitable - both the Horde and the Alliance want peace, but that isn't going to be possible if Sylvanas' plans involve massacring everyone in Stormwind to raise them up as Forsaken.

Except the Alliance doesn't want peace. Even Anduin, the supposed peace monger, proved that. Alliance wants a subservient Horde they can attack with impunity. A world where all the Genns of the Alliance can attack the Horde - going as high in Horde's power structure as the Warchief herself - with complete lack of a reaction from the rest of the Alliance isn't a world of peace by any stretch of the world. It's a world where the Horde is relegated to being wildlife game for their Alliance masters to hunt.

[bloodmoth13]

The Horde isn't real. Blizzard are responsible for the Horde not learning its lesson. Mind, fuck knows what that lesson is. It's certainly not "Don't start wars". Possibly don't be an orc supremacist? The BFA lesson has none of these clarity issues, but here's the secret: They've already failed in telling it, and I'll even tell you how.

You see, we're about halfway through this garbage now and the Horde has yet to turn on Sylvanas to any meaningful degree that isn't Baine and Saurfang being Alliance lackeys, which means that the rest of the Horde is fine with soldiering on provided Sylvanas is doing what she does for the benefit of the Horde. Now we know she isn't, because she's an Old God puppet. When Sylvanas uses the knaifu and goes rogue, they'll turn on her on those grounds. In doing so, the unintentional message will be that everything she did was fine by them provided she wasn't doing it against them or being a mindslave to tentacle gods. Thus they will fail to teach us a lesson for a second time and you should all strap in for Rise of Gallywix a few years from now.

Yupp. Whatever they are doing, they failed. The horde agrees with sylvanas, if they didnt they wouldnt follow her. When she took the position of warchief, she was a turtle on a post, put there by voljin and completely at the mercy of those she 'ruled' over. if nothing else it was a prison, but instead of being forced to negotiate with horde leaders, she orders them to do shit they wouldnt do and they do it anyway. Trolls, tauren, orcs, they slay in the name of the banshee queen as if they were devoted forsaken. There is zero in universe outcry other than 2 characters being unhappy with it, who behave as complete alliance bootlickers.

[Mehrunes]

That would be true except the Alliance never retaliate.

defending yourself is now a retaliation? Interesting.

This Alliance talking point has been an abject falsehood since the very start of Vanilla. Alliance wasn't retaliating or even defending against anything in Alterac Valley, Mulgore or the Barrens. They were the invaders and the aggressors. They started the previous faction war for god's sake. How can you people perpetuate that myth with a straight face.

Then again, how else can Alliance posters preserve the other, related falsehood (that's for some reason crucial to their faction identity), i.e. of how Alliance is poor, oppressed victim that didn't ever do anything against the Horde?

Doing the Horde a favor so the Zandalari join them?

That's totally what the Alliance envisioned it as.

Gonna ignore the rest of your post since it is irrelevant.
You got some examples for those?

You've been given the examples of Alliance being aggressive against the Horde in multiple threads in the past. Seems like @Jastall's reply was spot on.

Yeah because the Horde is happy to inflict pain (what we are currently discussing) but are never ready to receive it.

And what is the Horde receiving Alliance inflicting pain if not the Alliance reprisal? You didn't exactly dispel Jastall's notion there.

[Fetus Rex]

Horde did nothing wrong in MoP. Burning down the three in BfA was not wrong neither.

I'm tired of post WWII history narrative about war crimes and other bullshit. Especially if it is mixed with some libbo sensitivities of toxic masculinity and what not. Propaganda tube and nothing more.

[Mehrunes]

I asked for the current Alliance and I received zero references.
If you want we can jump into the rabbit hole that is the Old Horde.

And your question was fallacious on two fronts. First of all, you moved @Aucald's goalposts from Alliance inflicting pain on the Horde and Alliance engaging in reprisals to just genocide and rape. Why is that? Is it because had you remained in the sphere of general pain and not very specific instances of it you'd be proven wrong?

Secondly, the Alliance of Lordaeron is the current Alliance. It has been confirmed by Metzen around a decade ago. Maybe even longer.

As for mass rape, the Orcs of Orgrimmar under thrall had a thriving slave economy which I doubt has changed much.
Given our history as a species do you think being a slave protects you from being raped? Nope.
Are we actually going to read or get quests regarding raping people? I doubt it very much especially with the current SJW climate.

So all you got to prove mass rape is "they had slaves, so maybe potentially there was rape"? While at the same time you argue the Alliance has done no such thing? The Alliance enslaved a huge part of the Horde after the second war. How comes the "maybe potentially there was rape because slaves" does not apply to that? Never mind that the few Orcish slaves were gladiators.

Dont forget I am challenging your assertion that both sides have skeletons in their closet. They dont.

Ah, yes. Ethnic/political cleansing comitted by Jaina in Dalaran isn't a skeleton in Alliance's closet. Neither is mass enslavement of Orcs (and, by your logic, mass rape of them). Neither is the Alliance starting the previous faction war. Or Jaina attempting a genocide against Orcs.

That is what is wrong with this faction conflict. One guy is being repeatedly punched in the face meanwhile the other guy is complaining the victim is getting blood on his clothes.

Yeah, no. What is actually happening is that the guy that was historically more aggressive somehow deluded himself that he never did anything and that he's an eternal victim of circumstance.

[Dagoth Ur]

Yupp. Whatever they are doing, they failed. The horde agrees with sylvanas, if they didnt they wouldnt follow her. When she took the position of warchief, she was a turtle on a post, put there by voljin and completely at the mercy of those she 'ruled' over. if nothing else it was a prison, but instead of being forced to negotiate with horde leaders, she orders them to do shit they wouldnt do and they do it anyway. Trolls, tauren, orcs, they slay in the name of the banshee queen as if they were devoted forsaken. There is zero in universe outcry other than 2 characters being unhappy with it, who behave as complete alliance bootlickers.

I'd attribute that to Blizzard just sucking in story telling. I have little doubts the races that constitute the #honorcrew will pretend like they were with Saurfang from the get go, same as they told us majority of orcs were against Garrosh after SoO. If they really make cosmic sized scapegoat out of Sylvanas, only really interesting thing is how they'll handle Forsaken afterwards. We still have to dodge that Calia bullet afterall!

[Mehrunes]

She also lost the leverage she claimed to be seeking. The burning of Teldrassil is an action that makes no sense unless viewed from the lens of someone who *wants* continued conflict.

Except the Horde couldn't hold an unbroken population hostage. Night Elves are forest folk. They'd wage constant guerrilla war against an occupant under those circumstances. Even Delaryn, dying in a ditch at Sylvanas' feet, remained unbroken until Sylvanas burned the tree. Why would the remaining Night Elves just roll over?

Genn actually did have cause to attack the Horde in Stormheim - he thought the Horde betrayed the Alliance at the Broken Shore and was seeking vengeance on the current Warchief Sylvanas (with whom he additionally already had an existing beef). But as demonstrated in "Before the Storm" and show further in BfA, both Genn and Greymane are slowly but surely overcoming their prejudices.

Genn conveniently ignoring the plethora of information available to the Alliance already at the Broken Shore (or even basic logic) to tunnel vision his way on his near-infinite anti-Horde bias to the conclusion of muh betrayal isn't an actual cause. It's delusional horseshit of a prejudiced spiteful old fart with an axe to grind that is devoid of any value.

I am going to need some references that the current alliance is at all responsible.
Who are you going to reference? Daelin? Arthas? Garithos?
Please.
You are being ridiculous.

Apparently ignoring that the current Alliance isn't a separate entity from Alliance of Lordaeron just to have an argument is not ridiculous.

I find it sad that after events like Theramore or War of Thrones horde players still have to go back to the events of Warcraft 3 to find some Alliance dirt.

Alliance starting the previous faction war. Jaina with Focusing Iris. Jaina in Dalaran. Jaina in Orgrimmar. Stormheim. Silithus.

Like... that destroys any credibility you have.

Like... all the above examples had been pointed out to you in other threads already. Are you sure you want to question Horde posters' credibility?

Arthas leading the scourge has nothing to do with Andiuns alliance. Stop this foolishness.

"Anduin's Alliance" isn't a separate entity. Him becoming the High King did not magically erase Alliance's past. And as far as I recall from Rise of the Lich King, Arthas left the Alliance only when he completed the scouring of his nation and decided to play a king of undead slaves.

Daelin was there as lord admiral of Kultiras who had explicitly LEFT the LORDAERON alliance.

You managed to be wrong twice in one short sentence. It doesn't matter if you write LORDAERON with caps, because the Grand Alliance is nothing more than Alliance of Lordaeron renamed. Secondly, Kul Tiras left the Alliance only after Daelin's death.

Same thing with Garithos and all his men died by Sylvanas' hand.

Same thing with you being wrong about Alliance of Lordaeron being a different Alliance.

This is a completely new Alliance with the oldest member being the dwarves perhaps.

Except for the part where we have Word of God claiming it to be the exact same Alliance.

This whole thing was brought up when I mentioned that Horde kills people regardless of age or gender or occupation. I dont think anyone is going to argue that.
What seems to get problematic is when slaves and rape enter the picture.

We know with certainty after thrall became warchief the Horde still had slaves (Varian used to be a slave). Fast forward to BFA we still see evidence of slavery.
So why are we suddenly shocked at the possibility of Horde raping their victims? They have a history of doing it as I mentioned earlier.

Thats it.
Thats what this entire little line of discussion about.
All Mike is doing is brushing it off because he doesnt want his favorite faction to be known as slavers or rapists. I would guess anyway.

Except that's not what happened. You brought up rape from the get go in your third reply to Aucald. There were no cases of you bringing up how Horde kills people before that, because your earlier two posts were just you denying that the Alliance ever retaliated against the Horde. You're fabricating an alternate reality of the thread to vindicate your rape narrative.

Even putting that aside, nothing of what you said here addressed @mickybrighteyes' observation of how you're trying to eat your cake and have it too with the Old Horde and "old Alliance" thing. OK, Varian was a slave. How does this change the fact that you've been saying you're not using the Old Horde examples, yet your only actual examples of rape are still Alexstrasza and Garona's mother?

Also, how comes an underground gladiatorial ring constitutes proof that Horde engages in slavery "as a faction" like you claim, but Blackmoore running gladiatoral fights doesn't count because "he was doing it in secret!!1!"? Which by the way is another falsehood, because he was doing it in such a monumental secret he invited visiting Arthas, crown prince of the leading Alliance nation at the time, to watch gladiatorial fights. Nothing of the sort ever happened with Thrall and Rehgar. Your entire narrative is inconsistent in at least half a dozen ways.

So an Alliance superintendent of Durnholde basically creating Thrall, the individual who goes on to be the Orcish messiah, isn't a skeleton? Medivh's culpability in actually starting the First War by contacting Gul'dan and essentially rolling out the red carpet isn't a skeleton? Daelin Proudmoore continuing to persecute the Orcs who quite literally left the Eastern Kingdoms almost in their entirety, and who were living peaceably alongside Theramore at the time, isn't a skeleton? Blaming the Horde in its entirety for the actions of Putress at the Wrathgate despite the fact that the Horde incurred similar significant losses isn't a skeleton?

Eh, at the time Medivh helped Orcs get into Azeroth there was no Alliance yet. He was also pretty much completely possessed by Sargeras at that point and as a Guardian he was pretty independent from any organization.

When World of Warcraft first launched.
Lots of things happened in WC3 and before that besides I think to most players who are more familiar with WoW this would be more relevant.

Or more convenient, apparently.

As long as you can establish slavery by the Alliance is explicitly written as Horde's is I am willing to accept it.

You showed time and time again you're not willing to accept anything that shows the Alliance isn't the stalwart paragon of justice that's only ever the victim of the evil, evil Horde while they're innocently picking flowers and petting unicorns. So *insert "doubt" meme*

My sole problem is people keep going back to Lordaeron and its Internment Camps with Blackmoore. Might I remind people that most of the Alliance wanted to kill them all but the king of Lordaeron said lets spare them instead?

Wow, the rest of the Alliance wanted to kill them instead? I guess it makes the Alliance slavery totally OK then ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Btw all the people involved with the old alliance with the sole exception of Dwarves are all dead or actually part of the Horde now.
Turalyon and his forces were already beyond the portal at this point.
The Humans of SW were too busy reconstructing their kingdom to bother with it.
Which by the way if the Orcs were slaves why didnt they use the orcs as slave labor? Instead they used the builders guild or whatever they were called.

Because the internment camps were in Lordaeron and SW was kinda far away from it? Also, Gnomes and Stormwind joined the Alliance from the start and aren't dead.

No because A) He was doing it against the Kings original intent and B) Do you REALLY want to bring up the Old Alliance and Old Horde skeletons? Because the old horde made a frigging highway with all those skeletons.

What does it matter if he was doing it against the "original intent" (which is bogus because it's not like we know of the details of the internment camp system) if Therenas knew about it anyway and was OK with it?

No because he never did it at the behest of Lordaeron or Stormwind. Kultiras is actually pissed off why the Alliance DIDNT declare war on the Horde.
Besides Jaina completely abandonned her father and his soldiers to the Horde's mercy.

It doesn't matter if he did it at behest of anyone or not. He was a member of the Alliance.

Furthermore you want a bigger skeleton? Thrall. Who sought Jainas help completely abandonned her.
He ignored her when she asked for his help and also ignored her when he though her dead.
He only came back when Jaina was about to destroy Orgimmar in her rage. Which she didnt. If she did the Alliance would FINALLY have a skeleton.

Wow, Thrall ignored Jaina when he thought she was dead? What a skeleton!

Apparently the whole thing was planned by Sylvanas. The current Warchief. That is from Alex's own mouth and not mine.

Not actually what he said. On top of that he was going off-tangent in an interview and may have misremembered things.

What I find wrongheaded is all these mental gymnastics you perform to somehow convince me WoW conflicts are not always presented and finally concluded in such one sided manners.

Chronicle v3 outright says the previous faction war was declared by Varian, but please do go on about @Aucald's mental gymnastics here.

I already mentioned several times regarding the Hordes continued use of slaves as well as history of raping others based on past events.
If slavery continues. Slaughter of innocents continues then rapes should be continuing as well.

You dont want to believe it go for it.

This doesn't meet the criteria of proof. And you're still inconsistent about your stance on including the pre-WoW Old Horde/"old" Alliance thing.

If you wish to transfer blame for the actions of Gul'dan onto the entirety of the Horde as you've previously done elsewhere, then you have to extend the same for Aedelas Blackmoore.

That's not the Alliance way.

Notice I am trying really hard to bring the discussion back to World of Warcraft from Vanilla timeline to present day.
I dont want to bring in the old horde and alliance as many of the people back then are not around today.

Most of the complaints from players today is about more recent actions in the past few expansions than what happened in WC3 or before that unless they are REALLY reaching for some perceived wrong. Are you going to move the timeline forward or do you seriously not have any skeletons from Vanilla and onwards to present me on why you think present day Horde should feel hurt by the Alliance?

Again, you've been pointed in the direction of numerous Alliance wrongdoings in more recent times. It's just that you either handwave them again because they run contrary to your "Alliance is only ever a passive innocent victim!%!!1!" or you don't even acknowledge them at all (for the same reason).

The best case for Horde slavers is the recent BFA Horde slavers in Darkshore as well as Varian story and his time among the Horde.
Two very notable slavers are:
https://wow.gamepedia.com/Rehgar_Earthfury
https://wow.gamepedia.com/Spiketooth

I dont know how much more explicit we can get unless Thrall pokes his head out with "This is Thrall your Warchief and I approve this message."
Maybe Thrall did not have slaves but his people certainly did.

Since your argument was that the Horde AS A FACTION engages in slavery, Thrall saying that is actually the bare minimum you'd need to establish that. Because some individuals running underground gladiatorial matches in back alleys or in the desert in no way constitutes proof of Horde engaging in slavery as a faction. On the other hand, contrary to your claims, the Alliance leadership knew about Blackmoore's matches. He even financially benefited from them. While Arthas watched Thrall fight when he visited Durnholde.

Also, Alliance enslaved a Goblin in Howling Fjord.

[Friendlyimmolation]

4-5 too many if you ask me

Well yes but that is a number that can be easily controlled at the least.

[shise]

That's kinda dumb. SoO and the whole MoP storyline with all its flaws really helped to redefine Horde on many levels. Moving away from Orc-centric faction and accepting a Troll leader, rising against a Warchief who actually did represent many of the Hordes ideals, choosing to work side by side with the Alliance to defeat him. Is that not a moment that redefined Horde or made us seek questions about what it really is?

Meanwhile the Alliance is ruled by heralditary and authoritan ruler, who even takes it upon himself to secretly free a political prisoner without consulting anyone. The whole faction of Night Elves decided to outright ignore the King who failed them to defend their own lands. I'd say right now it's the Alliances turn to question itself.

You only forgot a small detail.

The Horde now has a Warchief who doesn´t even care about the Horde, she just wants personal revenge and is using the Horde as a tool.

[Syegfryed]

I look away from this thread for a few hours and suddenly there's five pages about rape. What happened here?

The dude think the horde is a faction of rapists, because what happened to alextraza and garona

Like the alliance, especially humans, never did that, never.

Jut saying im pretty sure Taretha didn't had a fun time with her "husband".

[Aucald]

I wouldn't exactly call Theramore and Teldrassil "skeletons in the closet". It's pretty much on the table. And Horde hasn't suffered any consequences for Theramore, and won't suffer any for Teldrassil/Darkshore/Ashenvale either.

Horde can just go around, mass murder stuff and nothing happens to them.

Depends on how you define "consequences." Theramore began the war that raged across Pandaria during MoP, in which the Horde lost many lives in engagements with the Alliance forces - it basically started a full-blown war, which is consequence enough. Garrosh was also brought in chains to a war tribunal to be tried for his actions - the first time a Horde leader has done so in any capacity. The Alliance is also resurgent in Darkshore in the Warfront, and the attack on Horde interests in Dazar'alor is a direct consequence of what happened at Teldrassil. So I would say both occurrences have had consequences for the Horde.

[Boo Radley]

"The horde hasnt suffered any consequences for theramore" is a hilarious statement. The leader and his followers were attacked, their city sacked and in the end they were killed by both the enemy and internal resistance.

A real life version of what you just said is "Germany didnt suffer any consequences for starting world war II."

[Aucald]

Unlike the Alliance, the Horde isn't moronically unhinged enough to randomly attack the High King of the Alliance during a time of cooperation caused by an ongoing apocalypse. So the situations would never be reversed. Which is kinda an important subsection of the entire point. Alliance proved time and time again it's a rabid dog. Rabid dogs are put down, not handled with kid gloves to preserve their feeble feelings.

I disagree with that. If the Horde thought the Alliance had killed their Warchief in a cowardly act designed to trap them in a hopeless battle, I would think vengeance would be foremost on their minds. Though I doubt they would try to assassinate an Alliance leader in the manner Genn attempted with Sylvanas as it seems more likely they'd simply arrow into Alliance territory in a full-blown war.

Yeah, no. Alliance's repeated acts of aggression going in streaks aren't reprisals. What was Silithus their reprisal for? Their previous aggression in Stormheim? Forsaken showed numerous times they want to be left alone in Lordaeron. Orcs outright moved to another continent to be left alone by the Alliance. It's just that Alliance doesn't give a shit about that, because it's outright incapable of leaving the Horde alone. Because how can they play eternally victimized victims if they don't have a Horde around to provoke?

Stormheim was reprisal for the Broken Shore and what they thought occurred. Silithus was based on previous hostility, to prevent the Horde from gaining a military advantage through Azerite. Daelin's actions were motivated by the loss of his son in the Second War, and on and on and on it goes.

Except the Alliance doesn't want peace. Even Anduin, the supposed peace monger, proved that. Alliance wants a subservient Horde they can attack with impunity. A world where all the Genns of the Alliance can attack the Horde - going as high in Horde's power structure as the Warchief herself - with complete lack of a reaction from the rest of the Alliance isn't a world of peace by any stretch of the world. It's a world where the Horde is relegated to being wildlife game for their Alliance masters to hunt.

I agree with you on that score, the Alliance doesn't want peace - and neither does the Horde. Or rather, both sides believe that peace is only possible when the other side is dead, or reduced to a point that it can no longer rightly be a threat. The fault for this doesn't reside solely on the Horde, nor the Alliance - as the old saying goes, it takes two to tango. This is sad because we know that peace between the Alliance and Horde is possible, it was nearly happening during the early days of the Northrend campaign before the Wrathgate incident.

- - - Updated - - -

Except the Horde couldn't hold an unbroken population hostage. Night Elves are forest folk. They'd wage constant guerrilla war against an occupant under those circumstances. Even Delaryn, dying in a ditch at Sylvanas' feet, remained unbroken until Sylvanas burned the tree. Why would the remaining Night Elves just roll over?

They wouldn't, and the death of Malfurion probably wouldn't have changed that, either. Which opens up further interesting questions.

Genn conveniently ignoring the plethora of information available to the Alliance already at the Broken Shore (or even basic logic) to tunnel vision his way on his near-infinite anti-Horde bias to the conclusion of muh betrayal isn't an actual cause. It's delusional horseshit of a prejudiced spiteful old fart with an axe to grind that is devoid of any value.

Well it can't be said that Genn didn't have an axe to grind, given his prior history with Sylvanas - but Genn was far from alone in his suspicions and even Anduin suspected the Horde of treachery until "Before the Storm." That, plus the death of his son, was enough to drive Genn into doing what he did in Stormheim.

[Super Dickmann]

I'd attribute that to Blizzard just sucking in story telling. I have little doubts the races that constitute the #honorcrew will pretend like they were with Saurfang from the get go, same as they told us majority of orcs were against Garrosh after SoO. If they really make cosmic sized scapegoat out of Sylvanas, only really interesting thing is how they'll handle Forsaken afterwards. We still have to dodge that Calia bullet afterall!

Like I said earlier in the thread, Sylvanas has been foundational to the Forsaken since they were made up to now. "You are an agent of Sylvanas, rejected by the living who want to destroy you, out to advance your own interests and kill everyone who opposes you with plague" has been the opening blurb and the conceit of every storyline of theirs for fifteen years. The momentous arrogance of going "lolno, those aren't the real Forsaken, the real Forsaken are these humans with a skin condition and Anduin loves them more than that evil Sylvanas. They all just miss their good Queen Calia" is basically what Thrall did to the orcs for a little while times a thousand. There's no way I see it ending without destroying the Forsaken beyond any hope of repair and telling us as their playerbase that we were wrong to enjoy what we were told is a perfectly viable character path for a decade and a half.

[Dagoth Ur]

Like I said earlier in the thread, Sylvanas has been foundational to the Forsaken since they were made up to now. "You are an agent of Sylvanas, rejected by the living who want to destroy you, out to advance your own interests and kill everyone who opposes you with plague" has been the opening blurb and the conceit of every storyline of theirs for fifteen years. The momentous arrogance of going "lolno, those aren't the real Forsaken, the real Forsaken are these humans with a skin condition and Anduin loves them more than that evil Sylvanas. They all just miss their good Queen Calia" is basically what Thrall did to the orcs for a little while times a thousand. There's no way I see it ending without destroying the Forsaken beyond any hope of repair and telling us as their playerbase that we were wrong to enjoy what we were told is a perfectly viable character path for a decade and a half.

Pretty much. If homogenization (ugh whyy?) really is the end goal here, it's not that hard to guess who's niche will get hit the most. Forsaken getting watered down is pretty much given in my book, only question is to what degree. If Sylvanas is to get replaced, only way I can see them retaining at least some of their core identity is if maybe Nathanos takes over. They'd still have to fit with rest of the honor crew though, so he'd likely make them chill for a bit. Calia is just... no.

[Super Dickmann]

Pretty much. If homogenization (ugh whyy?) really is the end goal here, it's not that hard to guess who's niche will get hit the most. Forsaken getting watered down is pretty much given in my book, only question is to what degree. If Sylvanas is to get replaced, only way I can see them retaining at least some of their core identity is if maybe Nathanos takes over. They'd still have to fit with rest of the honor crew though, so he'd likely make them chill for a bit. Calia is just... no.

I'm very confident in my conclusions regarding the plot with all the interviews that have come out, so I maintain a lot of pessimism. My only hope is that all the bits of Nathanos looking shifty, him saying "For the Horde" as what is meant as an inspiring moment in the Terror of Darkshore, as well as being the guy who helps the Zandalari in the raid, means he's being built up to take over the Forsaken. This would allow us to keep much of what makes the Forsaken who they are, and you could give Calia an allied race Alliance-side if we can't put her in the one-off patch reputation ghetto where she belongs. That said, what I find more likely is that he'll end up dying in the Nazgrim role while the Forsaken are destroyed under Calia, with the holy Forsaken as a Horde cosmetic option.

[Minikin]

cant go one damn page without germany and WW2 coming up when talking about the horde.

honestly there are a billion other arguments, but nope, gotta use good ole Godwin. /facepalm.

[Super Dickmann]

cant go one damn page without germany and WW2 coming up when talking about the horde.

honestly there are a billion other arguments, but nope, gotta use good ole Godwin. /facepalm.

It's common knowledge. When you roll Horde alone, you roll Horde with Hitler.

[Mehrunes]

I disagree with that. If the Horde thought the Alliance had killed their Warchief in a cowardly act designed to trap them in a hopeless battle, I would think vengeance would be foremost on their minds. Though I doubt they would try to assassinate an Alliance leader in the manner Genn attempted with Sylvanas as it seems more likely they'd simply arrow into Alliance territory in a full-blown war.

Except this notion still rests on the idea that Horde would be retarded enough to think that Alliance retreating after getting blasted right in their faces by newly-arrived Legion spaceships means that they didn't retreat because of getting blasted in their faces by the spaceships but because they are so petulant about the Horde they are willing to let the Legion win if it means the Horde would (also) get screwed by that in the first place. And so far only Alliance exhibited these levels of delusional paranoia.

Stormheim was reprisal for the Broken Shore and what they thought occurred. Silithus was based on previous hostility, to prevent the Horde from gaining a military advantage through Azerite. Daelin's actions were motivated by the loss of his son in the Second War, and on and on and on it goes.

And the previous hostility before Silithus was also initiated by the Alliance. Which makes Silithus not a reprisal. Which was my point.

The Daelin thing on the other hand wasn't about whether it was a reprisal or not, but was meant to showcase how the Horde tried to leave the Alliance alone and be left alone by them in turn. But Alliance is incapable of that, because rather than live in peace on different continents separated by a metric ton of ocean they prefer to act like dog feces stuck to Horde's shoe.

I agree with you on that score, the Alliance doesn't want peace - and neither does the Horde. Or rather, both sides believe that peace is only possible when the other side is dead, or reduced to a point that it can no longer rightly be a threat. The fault for this doesn't reside solely on the Horde, nor the Alliance - as the old saying goes, it takes two to tango. This is sad because we know that peace between the Alliance and Horde is possible, it was nearly happening during the early days of the Northrend campaign before the Wrathgate incident.

You said in the post I replied to that both sides want peace and it's impossible because of Sylvanas. Peace in the "the conflict wasn't inevitable" way, not "peace equals destruction of the other side" way. That doesn't really mesh well with this here admission of yours that Alliance doesn't want peace.

They wouldn't, and the death of Malfurion probably wouldn't have changed that, either. Which opens up further interesting questions.

It was a possibility. Night Elves glorify Malfurion and Tyrande. On top of that, Malfurion is a heavyweight character that carried out most of the Darnassian defense effort by himself. Such a powerful character falling would be a crushing defeat both in terms of Night Elven ability to resist further, as well as in terms of their morale.

Well it can't be said that Genn didn't have an axe to grind, given his prior history with Sylvanas - but Genn was far from alone in his suspicions and even Anduin suspected the Horde of treachery until "Before the Storm." That, plus the death of his son, was enough to drive Genn into doing what he did in Stormheim.

So what that he wasn't the only one? The existence of more than one anti-vaxxer doesn't vindicate the position of other anti-vaxxers. Same principle applies here. The spaceships are visible from Alliance position. Horde retreated immediately afterwards they arrived and rained death on them. A rock could add things together here. On top of that when Alliance got onto their gunship they had aerial view of Horde side of the battlefield in all its "glory".