Page 21 of 28 FirstFirst ...
11
19
20
21
22
23
... LastLast
  1. #401
    Quote Originally Posted by Nymrohd View Post
    I mean I am not even sure about that. Most of the posters who I see in favour of the aggressive Horde do not at any point accept that the Horde is evil and make every effort to prove that the Alliance is at fault instead. A manichaeistic view where one simply prefers to play the evil side makes sense in RPGs but this is not what we get.
    Alliance being at fault does not preclude the Horde from committing evil acts. Things like Alliance aggression in Stormheim are simply facts. That do not prevent the Horde's reaction from being evil.


    Quote Originally Posted by formerShandalay View Post
    This is a legitimate complaint, I think. Even though I don't know how you'd remedy that, because even as a 'traitor' you don't actually choose anything, you simply go along with what others tell you. Neither as a traitor nor as a loyalist you get to hear what the actual freaking plan is and when there's going to be some real move. Only a nebulous 'later' or 'you'll see'.
    But I guess it's the best they can do at least for now, as they only decided to even add the option to be a loyalist at the very last moment. I think this is a good move overall, but I'm not sure how they'll manage to make it pay off, if not in the outcome then at least in the story your character experiences.
    The traitors don't have an overarching plan though (at least yet). They are acting in reaction to individual events right now. Be it Baine rescuing Derek because his loyalty lies with Wrynns and Proudmoores or the rest of the traitor squad learning that Baine is going to be executed for treason (which, on a side note, is a punishment that Baine himself argued was OK for a Warchief to use against traitors). And in regards to those events, the player is told the plan. Actual Horde players, not so much.

    And if that's the best Blizzard can do, they really shouldn't have bothered. Because the pay off is nonexistent. They couldn't make it more clear with their "play along" or stuff like siding with Saurfang giving a toy while not siding with him giving jack shit that the traitors will win and the "choice" to side with the Warchief is utterly meaningless. And when it comes the story the character experiences it somehow managed to be even worse, because the people choosing the Horde just get to experience the traitor's story anyway, rendering the very point of having a choice moot.


    Quote Originally Posted by Powerogue View Post
    Let's put that right next to Horde pandaren handing another morally questionable warchief an evil old god artifact, and forsaken players standing by Sylvanas as she violates the free will of a fellow forsaken just like the Lich King.
    Derek isn't a fellow Forsaken, nor was his free will being violated (especially in a way comparable to Lich King's mental puppetry).


    Quote Originally Posted by Aucald View Post
    I don't think the Forsaken have hundreds of prominent NPC's, really. I've already acknowledged the ratio is lopsided, but it's far from zero and those were just a few NPC's I could immediately think of.
    There are 15 named Dark Rangers alone, 3 times as much as the Forsaken you named. And Dark Rangers are the elite of Forsaken forces.


    Quote Originally Posted by Aucald View Post
    She doesn't do things "for the evulz," she does them for the furthering of her own power and to prevent herself from returning to "hell." She has no higher calling and no greater loyalty than that, and if killing every living individual in the Horde could secure that outcome for her she would likely pursue that goal.
    And how on earth does she further that by antagonizing Thrall and motivating him to return from his self-imposed Thanos-post-snap retirement? Unless you want to say that Sylvanas' power is the power of elaborate suicide.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kangodo View Post
    Does the CIA pay you for your bullshit or are you just bootlicking in your free time?
    Quote Originally Posted by Mirishka View Post
    I'm quite tired of people who dislike something/disagree with something while attacking/insulting anyone that disagrees. Its as if at some point, people forgot how opinions work.

  2. #402
    Quote Originally Posted by Mehrunes View Post
    Alliance being at fault does not preclude the Horde from committing evil acts. Things like Alliance aggression in Stormheim are simply facts. That do not prevent the Horde's reaction from being evil.




    The traitors don't have an overarching plan though (at least yet). They are acting in reaction to individual events right now. Be it Baine rescuing Derek because his loyalty lies with Wrynns and Proudmoores or the rest of the traitor squad learning that Baine is going to be executed for treason (which, on a side note, is a punishment that Baine himself argued was OK for a Warchief to use against traitors). And in regards to those events, the player is told the plan. Actual Horde players, not so much.

    And if that's the best Blizzard can do, they really shouldn't have bothered. Because the pay off is nonexistent. They couldn't make it more clear with their "play along" or stuff like siding with Saurfang giving a toy while not siding with him giving jack shit that the traitors will win and the "choice" to side with the Warchief is utterly meaningless. And when it comes the story the character experiences it somehow managed to be even worse, because the people choosing the Horde just get to experience the traitor's story anyway, rendering the very point of having a choice moot.
    I agree, most of the traitor stories are simply reactions to something that Sylvanas does, but the one person that now does seem to have a plan or at least has hinted at one also doesn't say anything about it. I mean Saurfang and what he plans to do after his escape. He only says what he's going to do he has to do alone and leaves, sending the player and Zekhan back to Orgrimmar. Now we know (not our characters, only we, the players >.<) that he went to Outland and talked to Thrall. Oh, great plan and why did he have to do that alone? Why not actually show it to the players and give the cinematic in an actual questline? Instead the traitor players continue to go along with everything, playing dumb and being lead on by Sylvanas. Not that we know in what way, because not even her loyalists know her plan.... and so on.
    So, it's kind of unsatisfying on both sides, but I agree, it's a lot worse if you're playing a loyalist.

  3. #403
    Herald of the Titans Alex86el's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Greece/Germany/Australia
    Posts
    2,662
    Quote Originally Posted by Kralljin View Post
    Sylvanas going after Thrall is a new thing, because that means Sylvanas just doesn't go after people that opposed her, but also people that might oppose her.
    I assume you didnt read the latest book. (no big deal)

    Where the desolate council ask her to have a meeting with their living relatives on the alliance side.
    She agrees. As long as they obey all her rules. Which they did.
    But she is ruthless and practical.
    She realised the heir to Lordaeron was present, Calia Menethil.
    This, plus the fact that most of the council was out there with the other forsaken civilians... She just couldnt resist.
    She asked her rangers to snipe down all of the forsaken because there was a chance that they might betray her in the future.
    Plus she wanted to take down Calia, which she did.

    So, if she thought that there was a chance that Thrall might oppose her...
    She wouldnt think twice to assassinate him.
    It's well within her character.
    Last edited by Alex86el; 2019-05-15 at 10:31 PM.

  4. #404
    Moderator Aucald's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Epic Premium
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA-US
    Posts
    45,581
    Quote Originally Posted by Super Dickmann View Post
    It's a meme in the sense that it has no meaning on its own. To not retread this for the millionth time, but Nazgrim, Garrosh, Thrall and Saurfang all claimed their actions were honorable when pursuing entirely separate goals, and that's just within one race. What's honorable to a Zandalari isn't to an orc. In turn, the civilized established races like Nightborne and Blood Elves have different values and the goblin and Forsaken ones are pretty esoteric. There's no united ethos like there was in WC3, which is why a trait that only encompasses a fraction of the Horde can't be its binding trait, especially when all others in WC3 - the tribal nature, shamanism and close bonds, aren't there. WoW did change this, just by adding the Forsaken, blood elves and goblins, but also by changing up the Kalimdor races' dynamic in Wrath and especially Cata/Mists.
    The term "honorable" has always had a flexible nature, as it essentially means any outcome or process that is in keeping with a set of moral or ethical principles. Both in WoW and in real life many people claim an action to be "honorable" when they can justify it by their moral compass, even if objectively this is a lie or a misrepresentation of the truth. That doesn't make it a "meme," it just makes it a subjective and dynamic term. The Horde respects honor in its own context, be it Orcish or Zandalari or Blood Elven. Basically the idea of living in accordance to a strict moral code is attractive to them, as it denotes a firmness of character and a sureness of purpose. The specifics of said ethos doesn't have to universally codified to retain importance. Even in WC3 the Orcs, Tauren, and Trolls didn't have a unified ethos - though they were closer to one another than the Blood Elves, Forsaken, or Goblins.

    Quote Originally Posted by Super Dickmann View Post
    You can also envision your character to not have raided Garrosh or Sylvanas, not helped Illidan or in a DK's case, not attacked the paladins. But the canon assumes you did the War of Thorns, that the Deathlord, so the DK PC did all the quests and so on. Likewise, the Forsaken quests are written from the standpoint that your character would align with the actions being taken, which exemplify the values you're given in the intro. You can of course roleplay whatever separately, but that's not the standard experience.
    The canon still does not require you completely abandon individuality - it's easy enough to fit any and all of those occurrences in line with a specific characterization beyond what you're referring to. None of the WoW races, even the Forsaken, are as much of a monolith as you imply here. I don't think that's the standard experience at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Super Dickmann View Post
    My point when referring to the DK and the Forsaken is that this sort of experience was always represented, offered and catered to within the game, which the present narrative fails to take into account or seems to actively despise given the steps it's taken to wholly change the Forsaken. At the same time, if we go by the newly released dev interview on the people's views of Sylvanas, they are writing the Horde as a whole as possessing beliefs that i doubt many people here would have thought they held.
    In BfA you're at least given something of the illusion of agency, even if it isn't implemented so well. That being said, I think the idea of the Forsaken not being lock-step with Sylvanas actually gives them much more depth and lateral freedom. I always felt the idea of the Forsaken doing a complete 180 on their previous Humanity was deeply unrealistic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Super Dickmann View Post
    Being evil informs actions and motivation, but it was never before Sylvanas' driving force. She didn't gas people because it lowered her score on the karma meter, but to achieve set aims. Similarly, the knots one would have to tie themselves in to assume that a character who didn't want to be Warchief at all and would prefer to just step out is willing to order some dude who was uninvolved and who's state she surely would have no known prior killed in such an incompetent and hamhanded way doesn't hold together. Ditto, she has not expanded the Forsaken numerically in this war and the fact she was willing to give up her main area where she's making them and actually initiate a war where she's set to kick the bucket, in complete contravention to her previous refusal to go to war to not bring this exact result about in Tides of War doesn't hold together either. BFA Sylvanas does evil things for the sake of their evil, ditto that whole retardation concerning Derek and whatever the hell is going on with Baine that you need a Ph.D to comprehend.
    Sylvanas has always been about Sylvanas, first and foremost. Before Cata and "Edge of Night" Sylvanas was all about revenging herself upon Arthas no matter the cost. She cultivated the Forsaken as disposable weapons, suborned a Dreadlord, enslaved people, and even blackmailed her own people (in life) into her service all for a chance at killing Arthas. She doesn't serve her people, she doesn't rule for the good for all, her view of reality presupposes a context where everything exists to serve her or further her power (or existence). That being said, Sylvanas also has a pretty significant track-record of creating her own setbacks in her mad rush to achieve her goals. She trusts Varimathras enough to set the Dreadlord up to betray her later on. She garners the ire of Lor'themar early on in "Shadow of the Sun" because of her driving need to hurt Arthas. She engineers the creation of the Blight which, in turn, leads to a legacy of distrust for her and her people. Failure and Sylvanas are not by any means strangers to one another.

    Quote Originally Posted by Super Dickmann View Post
    Re; the rogues. They do go invisible and were invisible prior. Rogues in Elegy/A Good War also went invisible using shadow magic. It's a canonical skill some rogues have and one we see with our own eyes in the cinematic. And this doesn't cover them not needing sleep whereas Saurfang does.
    I didn't say that, what I said is that this invisibility isn't permanent and it doesn't last for days on end. It is also by no means foolproof, as has been demonstrated multiple times already. The lack of a need for sleep doesn't really matter here either.
    "We're more of the love, blood, and rhetoric school. Well, we can do you blood and love without the rhetoric, and we can do you blood and rhetoric without the love, and we can do you all three concurrent or consecutive. But we can't give you love and rhetoric without the blood. Blood is compulsory. They're all blood, you see." ― Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead

  5. #405
    Stood in the Fire Dudas's Avatar
    5+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Human Potential Island
    Posts
    420
    Quote Originally Posted by Shefu View Post
    Reading thru 14 pages of comments here.......honestly it feels like a lot of you simply live to complain. Like that's what you guys like to do at this point in your life.

    Complain about BFA, WoW, cinematics, movies, shows....complain complain complain....

    Just fucking stop.

    Cinematic is dope af, if you think otherwise....wtf r u still doing here?
    Imagine being a forsaken main for 15 years. Now try to play this expansion as a forsaken main. See how you feel about the "story".

  6. #406
    Quote Originally Posted by enigma77 View Post
    https://wow.gamepedia.com/Forsaken#Biology


    Just lol @ Blizzard's writers. Is there any doubt that these people are paid amateurs?
    Even though that's never been displayed as the means to dispatch the undead in a single WarCraft to date.

    But yeah.

  7. #407
    Quote Originally Posted by Dagoth Ur View Post
    I think with Horde, it's pointless to look for common points in something like culture or religion or common things in general, it's members are just too different. Races that are more compatible together, like Orcs, Trolls and Tauren, work fine, but you gotta fit in the elves and Forsaken too somehow. That's why I'd make it like I said so in my previous post. If you've agreed to be part of the Horde, than you've agreed to play by its hypothetically, more broadly, not-only-blood-oath, previously established rules/code, whatever. In return, Warchief has to be a strong, respected figure who'll enforce those rules and look after so all race's cultures are being respected. If you're messing with that, he'll freaking rein you in. If you're still messing with that, you're out. When I say warrior culture, I mostly mean that. Individual races could still run their internal business however they want, it's just that they'll have to answer to warchief now too.
    That is why I am saying(sorry if I didn't expressed well), the horde with his own set of rules that everyone agrees to play if they want to be part but also let's not exagerated with the authority thing, let the warchief being more a chanceller thing or a full militar leader like the warchief of the warrios or marley(in case you don't know, he is the guy at charge of the warrior unit which are the aces of the militar might of Marley). Also warrior culture should be establish in a way that is compatible with every nation within the horde because let's face it, the current Tauren and Trolls doesn't share the same culture of the orcs, even the honorable ones as we see with the Ma'ghar are what the orcs truly are in the eyes of blizzard and more akin to the forsaken way of thinking.

    Like I said, it'd be based on strength, respect and, if absolutely necessary, fear too.
    I am a bit mixed here, Thrall was loved and fair at least canon wise, Garrosh was harsh and feared, so does Sylvanas and yet we are getting rid of the 2 because blizzard is getting more ATP and also a leader that can't command love without using fear is not really a leader and more a loser. Honestly I would like the horde to be like the Outer World of Kotal Kahn or from Kitana from the new game which are a far cry from the goody two shoes or the villain mocks of Shao Kahn. Kinda funny the MK games has more deep and interesting lore than current WoW

    As far as I'm concerned, I'd even let them keep the whole good guy act. It'd just throw in a couple of wildcards here and there so it doesn't get completely boring, like it's now. Just let it have its naughty phases too so it doesn't get completely stale.
    The alliance needs to get rid of the good guy image or we will get this circus all over again, if you want to build a nice base for the future, you need to destroy all the pillars from the past and start from zero, let them act like real people or characters, in fact the motto of Tywin about dealing with enemies should be the core of the alliance: "Destroy anyone who dares to raise his sword against you but if he surrenders and kneel, then help him to stand"

    That is literally how the alliance should be but in the eyes of the horde, that is more tyranny(you are forced to take their relgion, attend their schools, propaganda and ideology to be "a model citizen" ,etc)
    Quote Originally Posted by Varitok View Post
    No, she is my waifu. Stop posting and delete this thread immediately.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophenia View Post
    Voted Baine because... Well, Baine. Total nonsensical character, looks like World War II Italy, nobody really understands what role he's supposed to fill, not even himself

  8. #408
    Quote Originally Posted by Alex86el View Post
    I assume you didnt read the latest book. (no big deal)

    Where the desolate council ask her to have a meeting with their living relatives on the alliance side.
    She agrees. As long as they obey all her rules. Which they did.
    But she is ruthless and practical.
    She realised the heir to Lordaeron was present, Calia Menethil.
    This, plus the fact that most of the council was out there with the other forsaken civilians... She just couldnt resist.
    She asked her rangers to snipe down all of the forsaken because there was a chance that they might betray her in the future.
    Plus she wanted to take down Calia, which she did.
    The issue in that case was Calia outright revealed herself as Menethil heir and that she wanted the Forsaken to follow her.
    Calia indirectly told Sylvanas that she intents to lead her people now and wants the throne that Sylvanas currently holds.

    Not saying that Sylvanas would've acted otherwise regarding Calia, but still, Calia unintentionally went "come at me bro" on Sylvanas.

    Thrall however, was sitting on another Planet, having no intention to return and by Saurfangs word, Sylvanas still wanted to get rid off him.

    The comparison would work if Thrall would show up in Durotar and gather Orcs to follow him, but he didn't.

  9. #409
    Quote Originally Posted by Alex86el View Post
    I assume you didnt read the latest book. (no big deal)

    Where the desolate council ask her to have a meeting with their living relatives on the alliance side.
    She agrees. As long as they obey all her rules. Which they did.
    But she is ruthless and practical.
    She realised the heir to Lordaeron was present, Calia Menethil.
    This, plus the fact that most of the council was out there with the other forsaken civilians... She just couldnt resist.
    She asked her rangers to snipe down all of the forsaken because there was a chance that they might betray her in the future.
    Plus she wanted to take down Calia, to not lose the throne. Which she did.
    There were no "other Forsaken civilians" there. The only Forsaken present in the general vicinity of the Gathering were Sylvanas, Nathanos and Dark Rangers stationed on the Thoradin Wall, 15 or 25 priests flying around on bats and monitoring the field from above and the Desolate Council who were the only ones actually interacting with the humans in the Gathering.

    And they didn't obey all Sylvanas' rules. Which was actually foreshadowed in the book. Sylvanas told them twice that the moment they hear the signal to retreat they are to retreat immediately. The second time Elsie was wondering how immediate is immediately, but decided not to ask Sylvanas. At the same time, she did however acknowledge the Gathering to be a delicate diplomatic situation that could result in faction war in case of a fuck-up and as such Sylvanas' orders were to be obeyed.

    And yet, in the end, they weren't. After Sylvanas sounded the horn Elsie was still talking with Calia for quite a while. And the rest of the Desolate Council members still in the field, i.e. 11 of them (after multiple ones already left to the Wall), were already defecting according to Calia.

    Also, it's Anduin who asked Sylvanas to make the Gathering happen, not the Council.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kangodo View Post
    Does the CIA pay you for your bullshit or are you just bootlicking in your free time?
    Quote Originally Posted by Mirishka View Post
    I'm quite tired of people who dislike something/disagree with something while attacking/insulting anyone that disagrees. Its as if at some point, people forgot how opinions work.

  10. #410
    Moderator Aucald's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Epic Premium
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA-US
    Posts
    45,581
    Quote Originally Posted by Mehrunes View Post
    There are 15 named Dark Rangers alone, 3 times as much as the Forsaken you named. And Dark Rangers are the elite of Forsaken forces.
    Named != prominent. Speaking of Dark Rangers, Dark Ranger Anya shows some interesting characterization in "Dark Mirror," as does Velonara in Trueshot Lodge. While not disloyal, they show a lot of nuance as concerns their status and being undead.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mehrunes View Post
    And how on earth does she further that by antagonizing Thrall and motivating him to return from his self-imposed Thanos-post-snap retirement? Unless you want to say that Sylvanas' power is the power of elaborate suicide.
    She knew Thrall was a likely candidate that Saurfang would attempt to tap into a coalition to oppose her, and took steps to attempt to minimize it. It wasn't enough, but the idea of doing isn't "elaborate suicide" by any means. It was an attempt to cut Saurfang off at the proverbial pass and prevent him from recruiting powerful allies to his cause.
    "We're more of the love, blood, and rhetoric school. Well, we can do you blood and love without the rhetoric, and we can do you blood and rhetoric without the love, and we can do you all three concurrent or consecutive. But we can't give you love and rhetoric without the blood. Blood is compulsory. They're all blood, you see." ― Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead

  11. #411
    Quote Originally Posted by Aucald View Post
    Named != prominent. Speaking of Dark Rangers, Dark Ranger Anya shows some interesting characterization in "Dark Mirror," as does Velonara in Trueshot Lodge. While not disloyal, they show a lot of nuance as concerns their status and being undead.
    It's a good thing then that I explicitly said named in the previous post of mine you replied to, I guess? And are you really going to tell me someone like Finklestein is a prominent Forsaken character?


    Quote Originally Posted by Aucald View Post
    She knew Thrall was a likely candidate that Saurfang would attempt to tap into a coalition to oppose her, and took steps to attempt to minimize it. It wasn't enough, but the idea of doing isn't "elaborate suicide" by any means. It was an attempt to cut Saurfang off at the proverbial pass and prevent him from recruiting powerful allies to his cause.
    A botched assassination attempt that couldn't be anything but isn't an attempt at minimizing anything other than her lifespan.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kangodo View Post
    Does the CIA pay you for your bullshit or are you just bootlicking in your free time?
    Quote Originally Posted by Mirishka View Post
    I'm quite tired of people who dislike something/disagree with something while attacking/insulting anyone that disagrees. Its as if at some point, people forgot how opinions work.

  12. #412
    Titan Zulkhan's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Burned Teldrassil, cooking up tasty delicacies with all the elven fat I can gather
    Posts
    13,708
    Quote Originally Posted by Kralljin View Post
    Sylvanas going after Thrall is a new thing, because that means Sylvanas just doesn't go after people that opposed her, but also people that might oppose her.
    Yeah, that was the surprising thing and the only worth thing to observe in the entire cinematic storywise, even though it kind of comes out of nowhere and kinda looks like another attempt to reminds us that Sylvanas is not just evil but really really evil and is definitely going bonkers sooner or later. Then again, a retired Thrall isn't probably the kind of character many people would currently care about if he was suddenly going to die in some unexplained way, since he doesn't definitely look to be in touch with the Horde any longer (or at least he didn't, until now).
    Quote Originally Posted by Keyblader View Post
    It's a general rule though that if you play horde you are a bad person irl. It's just a scientific fact.
    Quote Originally Posted by Heladys View Post
    The game didn't give me any good reason to hate the horde. Forums did that.

  13. #413
    Moderator Aucald's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Epic Premium
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA-US
    Posts
    45,581
    Quote Originally Posted by Mehrunes View Post
    It's a good thing then that I explicitly said named in the previous post of mine you replied to, I guess? And are you really going to tell me someone like Finklestein is a prominent Forsaken character?
    You said "named," yes, but I said "prominent." And yes, I would call Finklestein prominent enough - he's generally a recognized name and has a pretty big role in WotLK all the way up to Icecrown itself. He was one of the first names that came to mind when I though of "good-aligned Forsaken NPC's."

    Quote Originally Posted by Mehrunes View Post
    A botched assassination attempt that couldn't be anything but isn't an attempt at minimizing anything other than her lifespan.
    If she succeeded she could've left Saurfang bereft of allies and unable to form a strong coalition, making him far easier prey.
    "We're more of the love, blood, and rhetoric school. Well, we can do you blood and love without the rhetoric, and we can do you blood and rhetoric without the love, and we can do you all three concurrent or consecutive. But we can't give you love and rhetoric without the blood. Blood is compulsory. They're all blood, you see." ― Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead

  14. #414
    Legendary!
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Not in Europe Anymore Yay
    Posts
    6,931
    Quote Originally Posted by mostvp71 View Post
    Saurfang will die, Thrall will feel obligated to lead the horde. It's pretty obvious at this point.
    Thrall has no business leading anything.
    AchaeaKoralin - Are you still out there? | Classic Priest

  15. #415
    The Insane Syegfryed's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Darkshore, Killing Living and Dead elves
    Posts
    19,273
    Quote Originally Posted by mostvp71 View Post
    Nah, Saurfang is too old to lead the Horde trust me
    well, sylvanas was too sociopath to lead the horde, and here we are, after every shit we have being with lore, there is not such thing of "old enough" anymore, they prob not are giving too much crap about this

    they could prob be thinking to make him warchief to opposite anduin, old x young shenanigans.

    Sylvanas will kill Saurfang, Thrall will tend to him like Grom in WC3 then Saurfang will say "Thrall, this is the death I asked for as a warrior. You need to protect the horde's legacy and traditions. You need to be warchief."
    can't see that, i can see ater the sylvanas thing, something happened, like an alliance attempt attack and thrall die in the process, so there would not be "peace" anymore.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Zulkhan View Post
    Yeah, that was the surprising thing and the only worth thing to observe in the entire cinematic storywise, even though it kind of comes out of nowhere and kinda looks like another attempt to reminds us that Sylvanas is not just evil but really really evil and is definitely going bonkers sooner or later.
    or that remind that she is rly ly paranoid

    Then again, a retired Thrall isn't probably the kind of character many people would currently care about if he was suddenly going to die in some unexplained way, since he doesn't definitely look to be in touch with the Horde any longer (or at least he didn't, until now).
    they maybe don't even know he was there, who could make the kill clean, the very possibility he could, was enough for her

    And he represent "hope", in a degree and killing hope is her thing now

  16. #416
    Quote Originally Posted by Mehrunes View Post
    Derek isn't a fellow Forsaken, nor was his free will being violated (especially in a way comparable to Lich King's mental puppetry).
    Bullcrap, I intentionally used that phrasing to perfectly mirror how it's stated in-game. Listen to Baine in the cutscene and Lilian Voss post-meeting again.



    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    they maybe don't even know he was there, who could make the kill clean, the very possibility he could, was enough for her

    And he represent "hope", in a degree and killing hope is her thing now
    Makes the most sense. With trouble brewing, target anyone who the Horde could potentially rally with against her. Kill their hope, whether or not they actually have been proven to have ill intent yet. It's consistent with her actions at the Gathering.
    Last edited by Powerogue; 2019-05-15 at 11:36 PM.

  17. #417
    Quote Originally Posted by Dudas View Post
    Imagine being a forsaken main for 15 years. Now try to play this expansion as a forsaken main. See how you feel about the "story".
    Feels great bro, been playing a Forsaken since October 2006. Best Horde leader became the best Horde Warchief, doing Horde things, killing the Alliance.

    Do you have any remorse any time you kill an alliance player?

    The story is not over, reserved your judgement for after the story is done. Speculation =\= Facts.

  18. #418
    I mean it looked nice, but the story is still hot garbage as always.

    Like yeah, I get that Sylvanas is trying to predict Saurfang's steps and stop a rebellion she thinks will happen, but is sending assassins after Thrall really worth that? She was on good terms with Thrall and has no particular reason to believe he'd return to battle against. Christ, we see ourselves that Thrall was not interested in joining this conflict until the Forsaken attacked.

    So what the hell is the point?

    Sylvanas at this point doesn't just feel out of character, she feels cartoon villainy in how out-of-character she is. Like yeah okay Blizzard, we get it, you want us to believe it's a Garrosh and then you're going to 180 at the last moment, but that's not exactly a surprising or exciting development. Yes it's cool to leave players in the dark and surprise them with a twist but this isn't a twist. It's just really shitty writing.

    At this point the only reasoning I would accept for a turn of events like this is if Sylvanas is intentionally riling up a conflict to force a unity between the Horde and Alliance. It'd be cheesy but it'd at least be somewhat understandable and would properly paint her as someone who took a calculated risk and won. Barring that, this story is ridiculously bad.

  19. #419
    Quote Originally Posted by Fetus Rex View Post
    Traditional mak'gora has rules per Garrosh and Cairne encounter. Exile is a thing from Alternate Universe so I don't know how much of it would be the same.
    Mak'gora by it's own definition is a traditional duel. There are less than 10 official confirmed accounts of Mak'gora where we can verify participants and see what came of the outcome.

    As the AU is still largely using the same rules for governing their clans I don't see why it would suddenly be different on this point.

    Discounting the AU Mak'gora cuts out half of those accounts (leaving in the second Thrall v Garrosh since they aren't natives to AU draenor).

    But still of the 5 fights that took place in MU timeline... none have the same rules....Garrosh v Cairne was one weapon, blessed, no armor. Thrall v Garrosh both seemed to have SOME attire as arguable armor and blessings were never adressed. Blackhand v Doomhammer didn't specify such things either....

    As far as canon is concerned Mak'gora has different rules for conducting the fight and handling the outcome for every fight as determined by those performing Mak'gora or those witnessing it

  20. #420
    Elemental Lord sam86's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    WORST country on earth (aka egypt)
    Posts
    8,837
    Quote Originally Posted by Fetus Rex View Post
    Mak'gora with magic allowed has no sense in orcish culture. All clans would be ruled by magic users with no warrior ever having a chance to challenge the rule. That's not very honorable.
    lore-wise there are warriors that build high resistance to magic, there are creatures that are magic immune like Dryads for example, there was a class in RPG that was called Berserker or something who is warrior that lose all self control but is unstoppable and almost invulnerable and totally immune to magic, while this specific sub-class is crap ruler (they are shown to not be intelligent), this is official lore class that build immunity wasn't born with
    they are also extremely rare because they are built with long war experience and are horde-only
    The beginning of wisdom is the statement 'I do not know.' The person who cannot make that statement is one who will never learn anything. And I have prided myself on my ability to learn
    Thrall
    http://youtu.be/x3ejO7Nssj8 7:20+ "Alliance remaining super power", clearly blizz favor horde too much, that they made alliance the super power

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •