Baine needs to die for his treason

[George Costanza]

Baine cuckhoof.

[Verdugo]

The only traitor he is the undead Queen , she was the one that betrayed all that the horde stands for.

You keep saying this but never specify what the "horde stands for". Propably because its just a shitty buzzword.

[Super Dickmann]

The Forsaken are the eternal outliers here and an unfit example imo. The Forsaken always drive the story and force the Horde's story as well. Or rather, Sylvanas does because she is a black hole that sucks all the narrative around her to be about her.

If you want race to drive the story, then you need to leave the races alone for a while to get into their own troubles. As long as the factions are at the center of the conflict, there is almost no space for world building.

Your post is largely true, but I disagree with a few main points. I.e yes the Forsaken are the outliers but they're the outliers in the sense that they're the model for the other races, not that they're the issue. That the Forsaken have their own racial identity and goals that intersect and clash with those of their faction, leading to disputes, is a good thing. Homogenization is bad. Especially if it's the homogenization we currently have where the races actually do have internal differences, they're just never covered. See how Baine's comments don't even line up with the tauren in the same patch, let alone generally. Rather than developing this, the writers have opted to gut the ones that aren't in lockstep or write their differences out.

[Mehrunes]

Who decides what the Horde is about though?

Alliance posters, duh.

All of this is quite fun to watch. I admire how many people have "all or nothing thinking". "If you support Saurfang and Baine,you are the bootlicker of the Alliance". And that's exactly how? If Horde is not waging a war against the Alliance it means that it agrees with everything Alliance proposes? Sounds like some kind of bully complex,who thinks that if he doesn't bully others and offend them,others will start to see him as weak and will start to push him around.

Did you get tired when constructing that monumental straw-man? Saurfang and Baine aren't called bootlickers of the Alliance just because they want peace. They get called that because they go out of their way to help the Alliance at the expense of their own faction. Paying attention to their story is hard, apparently. Thrall wanted peace with the Alliance. Vol'jin wanted peace with the Alliance. Neither get called bootlickers.

Would you look at that, turns out the one with "all or nothing thinking" here is actually you.

[Aucald]

Who decides what the Horde is about though?

The Horde does, which narratively speaking is what is occurring now. Thrall's vision of the Horde was about mutual safety through unity, stewardship of the Horde's new world, and atonement for the sins of the past. Sylvanas' vision of the Horde is about safety and peace by any means necessary with an emphasis on the strengthening of the Horde's position and its supremacy versus all rivals. Sylvanas' primary opponents within the Horde are those in the old guard who believe that in the prosecution of this war Sylvanas has and will continue allow the traditions of the Horde to fall by the wayside as secondary to victory - the ideas of stewardship, honor, and bonds formed out a desire of mutual peace as opposed to purely strategic assets. Sylvanas' adherents feel that the doctrine of Thrall and has made this war both necessary and inevitable and that honor over life itself is without merit, one does what one must in a time of war.

[Lupinemancer]

Baine needs to die for his treason

By "Treason" you seem to refer to "Honor" which is a thing the Horde lacks. The only one who needs to die their their treason, is Sylvanas.

[Mrbleedinggums]

That's true, i won't say that she's EVIL, but we can't put her as a good character either, at most she can end up as a neutral character (if they do go with the idea of "Fighting death itself")

Note: Either way, she's evil to some point (teldrassil) or her morals are quite different (maybe have some sense, as its assumed that most NEs don't go to the Shadowlands -i think-, so that may have been a reason to target them -if that's the case, then raising them as Dark Ranger would be the most evil part, as she would be sentecing them to the Shadowlands and whatever she may be fighting against)

To be fair, when has anyone in the history of humankind ever seen their enemies and thought "oh wow they're the good guys and I'm the bad guy"? Very very rarely if ever.

Everyone always feels in the right when they act on their thoughts. When someone blows up a building, they usually don't view themselves as evil. If they do, it's a necessary evil to purge whatever blight they feel is in the world. When someone acts on war or on genocide or on conquering land, they view it as their "Manifest Destiny" or to "help form the world with a perfect race" or to "spread prosperity and order throughout the savage lands".

GODWIN ALERT I imagine it would be hard-pressed to find if Hitler thought he was doing anything inherently wrong by killing Jews, gays, Catholics, etc. that he felt were the reason for all the problems in the world. Hell, I'll even go one step further and make the statement that we all have the potential to be similar to Hitler.

Before you grab your pitchforks, imagine the KKK or the Westboro Baptist Church. If you had the complete power to, would you annihilate them all and destroy any remnant of their existence? If you had the complete power to, would you eradicate (insert country here that you feel is inherently evil) because you feel nothing good will come of their existence? Hitler, like many others in 1920 Germany, was heavily supressed by Britian and France due to their wanton extortion that they called the Treaty of Versailles. Because they were so poor that most people couldn't even afford bread, it was a breeding ground for hatred and resentment. There was always bound to be a Hitler, regardless of who it ended up being. Now, many would agree that Hitler was pure evil or at the very least unjustifiably evil.

What about someone that can be viewed in different lights? Winston Churchill is either one of the best things to happen to the 1900s or he is one of the most hidden evils of his time based on what you agree or disagree with. https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29701767
Again, it depends on whose side you are on or if you feel you can justify the wrongs he did. Morality is an iceberg of a conversation, on the surface it seems so cut and dry but there is so much more deeper conversation to be had.

Tangent over, back to point. How does this relate to the topic at hand? Sylvanas I would argue is a Churchill, not a Hitler (Garrosh). She acts in her own interest true, but she also acts in what she feels is the best interest for all the Horde. She welcomes all races and doesn't view them as lesser, but she doesn't tolerate disloyalty. If you co-mingle with the enemy, then you are the enemy. It's the same as the Rosenbergs when they gave US nuclear secrets to the Russians. They were the enemy, regardless of their intentions, at least to the American people. Baine is a Rosenberg even if he believes his heart is in the right place.

The writers have heavily hinted time and time again that Sylvanas did NOT want to burn down Teldrassil if she could help it. She wanted to keep it as a bargaining chip to avoid any confrontation and to be able to acquire the Azerite because she felt that the Alliance would want to weaponize it. She was right too. Anduin likely didn't but there were plenty of other wolves hiding in the flock that would jump at the chance if it meant being able to take down the Horde. To take down her. Saurfang was to kill Malfurion to strike a heavy blow because if he was alive, any chance of defending Teldrassil was impossible. By killing him, you guarantee that you will have no resistance. If she had abandoned her plan and retreated, she knew the Horde would face certain defeat. So she did the most logical choice to have the highest chance of survival, she destroyed the world tree.

[Sanshou]

I kinda liked it.
Worried about the direction they take, obviously half the horde and loyal (Nightborne, Blood Elves, Goblins and Forsaken) while the others are neutral or renegades (Orcs, Trolls and Tauren). The horde does not have characters to survive multiple deaths (or another SoO).

If the horde lose Sylvie, who undead wise will lead the faction? Nathanos will likely die beside her. Voss is a neutral with so little screen time. If anything, the Death Knights are the only ones with half a story and undead.

[Mehrunes]

The Horde does, which narratively speaking is what is occurring now. Thrall's vision of the Horde was about mutual safety through unity, stewardship of the Horde's new world, and atonement for the sins of the past. Sylvanas' vision of the Horde is about safety and peace by any means necessary with an emphasis on the strengthening of the Horde's position and its supremacy versus all rivals. Sylvanas' primary opponents within the Horde are those in the old guard who believe that in the prosecution of this war Sylvanas has and will continue allow the traditions of the Horde to fall by the wayside as secondary to victory - the ideas of stewardship, honor, and bonds formed out a desire of mutual peace as opposed to purely strategic assets. Sylvanas' adherents feel that the doctrine of Thrall and has made this war both necessary and inevitable and that honor over life itself is without merit, one does what one must in a time of war.

Are they really traditions? Saurfang and Baine are desperately clinging to Thrall's vision of the Horde. Which not only lasted for just a few years, but is shorter than the non-Thrall period. For me traditions, at least on societal and national scale, are practices that have a bit more years to them.

Also, given how it's Sylvanas is Warchief, her word is ultimately law and it's her vision of the Horde that's the actual reality of it. Baine's and Saurfang's opinions are at best wishful thinking and dreams. At worst they are brainfarts of relics incapable of change or realizing that Alliance - even under Anduin "I won't lift a finger if my subjects attack the Horde" Wrynn - is not the Horde's friend and is incapable of leaving it in peace for prolonged periods of time.

And somehow Alliance posters like to pretend that Thrall's vision of the Horde which hasn't been in practice for quite some time now is the one true standard of the Horde that is set in stone because "reasons" and that Sylvanas somehow betrays the Horde by not following them, as if she didn't have the absolute authority over the Horde, the power to reshape it included.

[Aucald]

Are they really traditions? Saurfang and Baine are desperately clinging to Thrall's vision of the Horde. Which not only lasted for just a few years, but is shorter than the non-Thrall period. For me traditions, at least on societal and national scale, are practices that have a bit more years to them.

Time isn't the sole arbiter of what forms traditions - Thrall's reign as Warchief was a seminal time for the Horde for many reasons, including their re-embracing of Shamanism, their movement to an entirely new continent, and the creation of an entirely new nation on their adopted homeworld of Azeroth. His reign, while brief, ushered in many fundamental changes for the Horde pretty much down to its elemental composition.

Also, given how it's Sylvanas is Warchief, her word is ultimately law and it's her vision of the Horde that's the actual reality of it. Baine's and Saurfang's opinions are at best wishful thinking and dreams. At worst they are brainfarts of relics incapable of change or realizing that Alliance - even under Anduin "I won't lift a finger if my subjects attack the Horde" Wrynn - is not the Horde's friend and is incapable of leaving it in peace for prolonged periods of time.

Her word may be law but her legacy is as yet undetermined. Sylvanas' reign has been marked by turbulence from its very beginning, and that's not stopped today. If the war concludes in the Horde's favor and she brings the lasting peace she promised I would agree with you - but barring that, it seems a rather dicey prospect.

And somehow Alliance posters like to pretend that Thrall's vision of the Horde which hasn't been in practice for quite some time now is the one true standard of the Horde that is set in stone because "reasons" and that Sylvanas somehow betrays the Horde by not following them, as if she didn't have the absolute authority over the Horde, the power to reshape it included.

Thrall's legacy is still alive and well in the Horde today, as evidenced by the rather strong opposition to Sylvanas' regime within the Horde itself. Alliance partisans will believe what is most favorable to their side to believe, the same as Horde partisans view the Alliance depending on their positions. One power Sylvanas lacks is the power to change the fundamental nature of the Horde without its permission, be it implicit or explicit - that's not a power that the Blood Oath or the seat of the Warchief grants, it is only given to those leaders who earn the loyalty and command of their people. The proverbial jury is still out as to whether or not Sylvanas is that leader.

[omeomorfismo]

disgusting questline, i could even reach the jail and pick 2/3 keys without harming anyone in the boat.
but no.
fuck, this is the first time i say it, but these damned blizzard dickheads had to compell us to kill the jailer, the captain and 6 sailors because reasons. damn in couldnt even watch them attack baine after my vanish because they are fucking "stronzi di merda"
fuck blizz, fuck you all

at least let me kill that fucking zelling

[Super Dickmann]

Thrall's legacy is still alive and well in the Horde today, as evidenced by the rather strong opposition to Sylvanas' regime within the Horde itself. Alliance partisans will believe what is most favorable to their side to believe, the same as Horde partisans view the Alliance depending on their positions. One power Sylvanas lacks is the power to change the fundamental nature of the Horde without its permission, be it implicit or explicit - that's not a power that the Blood Oath or the seat of the Warchief grants, it is only given to those leaders who earn the loyalty and command of their people. The proverbial jury is still out as to whether or not Sylvanas is that leader.

You know, we now have everyone of the racial leaders bellyaching and whining about how evil Sylvanas is, how there's a sickness in the Horde and how the Earthmother is dying, yet we've still not reached any point where rank and file Horde have opposed the Warchief or shown displeasure with the Horde. Not only do tauren arrest Baine, but another tauren is so salty about Taurajo to this day that she successfully beseeches the allegedly suffering Earthmother to bless drums for the sole purpose of killing Alliance. To belabour that the average Horde soldier in this expansion routinely does worse than raise one dude has become trite at this point, but it remains the case.

As a side note, Thrall's Horde was a failure. It didn't change because some bad guy took it over, it changed because it drove its main race into the ground to benefit freeloaders to the point where even its originator decided to shift gears a bit. The narrative has since then been on one long quest to pretend that this isn't the case, not by actually retconning this, mind, but by having everyone prattle senselessly about honor so as to never address how we got here.

@Nymrohd

As of 8.1.5 The Earthmother endorses killing Alliance. Baine doesn't. Baine is thus against the Earthmother and unfit for purpose, the tauren should oust him for his blasphemy.

[Langusta]

If the horde lose Sylvie, who undead wise will lead the faction?

Probably the same guy who leads trolls and orcs, No one mcNobody.

[Super Dickmann]

I am going to take this as a joke

Don't. It's canonical lore in the Leatherworking quest.

When I heard that the Alliance attacked Dazar'alor, I couldn't help but think of those lost when they attacked Camp Taurajo. No longer can I sit idly while they continue to slaughter us!

The Questgiver's motive is to fight against the Alliance. https://ptr.wowhead.com/quest=55217/...-the-life-debt

We have everything we need to craft the drum, except the Earth Mother's blessing.

The drum is but a vessel, like a cup. We need her to imbue the drum with power, filling the cup so that we may drink.

It will not be easy to convince her to assist us in creating a weapon of war, but I will implore her to protect her children.

The Earthmother makes an exception to her peaceful ways to bless the drums made to kill Alliance https://ptr.wowhead.com/quest=55222/make-some-noise

QED, the Earthmother supports the faction war. Tauren believe in the Earthmother and Baine has failed her by assisting the Alliance. Baine is a heretic and must go.

[Mehrunes]

Time isn't the sole arbiter of what forms traditions - Thrall's reign as Warchief was a seminal time for the Horde for many reasons, including their re-embracing of Shamanism, their movement to an entirely new continent, and the creation of an entirely new nation on their adopted homeworld of Azeroth. His reign, while brief, ushered in many fundamental changes for the Horde pretty much down to its elemental composition.

Shamanism is still fine and dandy. It's the other aspects of Thrall's reign that are not. And those other aspects were so incredibly seminal that Thrall's immediate successor, chosen personally by him, shat all over the notions of muh honor and inane Alliance appeasement of Thrall that Baine and Saurfang are desperately clinging to (and, to be more specific, ramp up to 11).

Her word may be law but her legacy is as yet undetermined. Sylvanas' reign has been marked by turbulence from its very beginning, and that's not stopped today. If the war concludes in the Horde's favor and she brings the lasting peace she promised I would agree with you - but barring that, it seems a rather dicey prospect.

Her legacy is not the topic. Her legacy is an issue of the future. What the Horde is about is an issue of the now.

Thrall's legacy is still alive and well in the Horde today, as evidenced by the rather strong opposition to Sylvanas' regime within the Horde itself. Alliance partisans will believe what is most favorable to their side to believe, the same as Horde partisans view the Alliance depending on their positions. One power Sylvanas lacks is the power to change the fundamental nature of the Horde without its permission, be it implicit or explicit - that's not a power that the Blood Oath or the seat of the Warchief grants, it is only given to those leaders who earn the loyalty and command of their people. The proverbial jury is still out as to whether or not Sylvanas is that leader.

And yet not even prime bruddamon Vol'jin believed in Thrall's idiotic Alliance appeasement that Saurfang and Baine are championing (and expanding way beyond what Thrall practiced) and was rather unfriendly to them. And there is no such thing as a fundamental nature of the Horde. If there was it wouldn't drastically change with each Warchief. There's only the nature of the Horde under each individual Warchief. And, naturally, it's the Warchief that dictates what it is. Because as per the nature of their position, they single-handedly decide the direction the Horde takes.

[Aucald]

You know, we now have everyone of the racial leaders bellyaching and whining about how evil Sylvanas is, how there's a sickness in the Horde and how the Earthmother is dying, yet we've still not reached any point where rank and file Horde have opposed the Warchief or shown displeasure with the Horde. Not only do tauren arrest Baine, but another tauren is so salty about Taurajo to this day that she successfully beseeches the allegedly suffering Earthmother to bless drums for the sole purpose of killing Alliance. To belabour that the average Horde soldier in this expansion routinely does worse than raise one dude has become trite at this point, but it remains the case.

I would say it is far more likely that the other leaders have no desire to split the Horde into a civil war in the midst of a pitched war with the Alliance, which is probably wise of them at the end of the day. Of the leaders only Baine and Saurfang have motive (each for their own reasons) to imperil the Horde's stability due to their individual grievances, whether one agrees with those grievances or not is immaterial to the fact that they believe them worth it.

As a side note, Thrall's Horde was a failure. It didn't change because some bad guy took it over, it changed because it drove its main race into the ground to benefit freeloaders to the point where even its originator decided to shift gears a bit. The narrative has since then been on one long quest to pretend that this isn't the case, not by actually retconning this, mind, but by having everyone prattle senselessly about honor so as to never address how we got here.

If the narrative itself stands opposed to your argument, I think logically it should lead one to question the veracity of their argument. You could simply say "I don't like the story" or "the story is badly written" and it could be true enough - but loudly and repeatedly giving the appearance of saying "I am right and the story is wrong" is unlikely to garner the reaction you're angling for.

[Super Dickmann]

I would say it is far more likely that the other leaders have no desire to split the Horde into a civil war in the midst of a pitched war with the Alliance, which is probably wise of them at the end of the day. Of the leaders only Baine and Saurfang have motive (each for their own reasons) to imperil the Horde's stability due to their individual grievances, whether one agrees with those grievances or not is immaterial to the fact that they believe them worth it.

I'm not debating whether the leaders disapprove of Sylvanas, their disapproval is obvious. What I'm saying is that their disapproval is meaningless without being backed up by action and it lacks reflection in the conduct of the majority of the Horde even up to 8.1.5.

If the narrative itself stands opposed to your argument, I think logically it should lead one to question the veracity of their argument. You could simply say "I don't like the story" or "the story is badly written" and it could be true enough - but loudly and repeatedly giving the appearance of saying "I am right and the story is wrong" is unlikely to garner the reaction you're angling for.

That's not my point at all. I'm citing materials, chiefly from Wrath and Cataclysm, where those failures of his rule are laid out in explicit detail and called out as such, from the resource shortage, to his racial guilt, to his appeasement of the Alliance, all referenced there and all called out as mistakes that convinced even Thrall himself to move over and give someone else the chair. These issues are simply not addressed later on, they aren't refuted or retconned. They're never brought up from then on because they would burden the continuity-hating writers with difficulties they don't want to have, yet they haven't actually removed them from their initial context. Thus, as of last count, Thrall's Horde is a failure and the characters backing it as some golden age are supporters of failure. This might be pending revision if and when they do retcon all these things out, but until they do, it remains true.

@Nymrohd

We know that in this case they are beseeching Elune and the Earthmother respectively and these are powers that don't work off of the Light's logic. Elemental/natural powers require connection, not just will.

[omeomorfismo]

And the Light supports killing other people who worship the Light. It's easier to simply suggest that these abilities are powered by faith and ritual, not by Azeroth herself. Which is why I call it a joke.

shamanism is literally call, commune and using elements and elementals to aid you.
thats the reason why thrall lose against garrosh in soo...

[Aucald]

Shamanism is still fine and dandy. It's the other aspects of Thrall's reign that are not. And those other aspects were so incredibly seminal that Thrall's immediate successor, chosen personally by him, shat all over the notions of muh honor and inane Alliance appeasement of Thrall that Baine and Saurfang are desperately clinging to (and, to be more specific, ramp up to 11).

Azeroth is dying, and so far all those ignoring the war and focusing on her preservation and recovery haven't changed this fact. Stewardship of the world goes beyond just Shamanism, and it is rather nonsensical for the Horde and Alliance to playing at war while their very world is on death's door.

Her legacy is not the topic. Her legacy is an issue of the future. What the Horde is about is an issue of the now.

Whether Sylvanas will have a future as Warchief is the issue of now, which does directly concern her legacy for good or for ill.

And yet not even prime bruddamon Vol'jin believed in Thrall's idiotic Alliance appeasement that Saurfang and Baine are championing (and expanding way beyond what Thrall practiced) and was rather unfriendly to them. And there is no such thing as a fundamental nature of the Horde. If there was it wouldn't drastically change with each Warchief. There's only the nature of the Horde under each individual Warchief. And, naturally, it's the Warchief that dictates what it is. Because as per the nature of their position, they single-handedly decide the direction the Horde takes.

It hasn't changed with each Warchief, as pointedly displayed by the ongoing story. Garrosh tried to change it and failed, with the majority of the Horde rebelling against him. Sylvanas has also exerted her will against it and now the Horde is beginning to push back against her as well, as is shown more and more. If Sylvanas could dictate the Horde's nature to it then rebellion wouldn't be possible, or even desired by individual members of the Horde - this isn't how leadership works. If the people decide that the leader is unfit, or that their direction is unworthy, then they'll rebel (as the Horde can and has done in the past).

[Aucald]

I'm not debating whether the leaders disapprove of Sylvanas, their disapproval is obvious. What I'm saying is that their disapproval is meaningless without being backed up by action and it lacks reflection in the conduct of the majority of the Horde even up to 8.1.5.

"It may yet come to that," to quote Lor'themar Theron. They haven't pursued action yet because it's not a good time to do so - but future developments may change that equation (and likely will based on what we've already seen). Impatience can make caution seem like inaction.

That's not my point at all. I'm citing materials, chiefly from Wrath and Cataclysm, where those failures of his rule are laid out in explicit detail and called out as such, from the resource shortage, to his racial guilt, to his appeasement of the Alliance, all referenced there and all called out as mistakes that convinced even Thrall himself to move over and give someone else the chair. These issues are simply not addressed later on, they aren't refuted or retconned. They're never brought up from then on because they would burden the continuity-hating writers with difficulties they don't want to have, yet they haven't actually removed them from their initial context. Thus, as of last count, Thrall's Horde is a failure and the characters backing it as some golden age are supporters of failure. This might be pending revision if and when they do retcon all these things out, but until they do, it remains true.

Thrall's errors in judgment have been brought up before, and will likely be brought up in the future, but the fact that he wasn't perfect doesn't mean he isn't lauded or remembered fondly. His reign was marked by peace between the Horde and Alliance, with conflicts involving the Horde arriving externally without anyone's control or consent. There was a sense of growth, prosperity, and hope for the future of the Horde; even amidst the hardships. Saying "yeah but the reality was really different" doesn't really matter a whole lot to someone devoted to a specific idea - people often don't care about the specifics of a thing when they're wrapped up in more romantic or patriotic concerns.