would horde players have accepted a more sincere rebellion

[Tarba]

I, as a blood elf player, have been against sylvanas since I saw how she killed many of my horde brothers in lordaeron and raised them as undead without mind.

You probably missed the part where soldiers were sent to rescue horde soldiers taken into the plague.
That was a battlefield. She had allready plenty of horde corpses killed by alliance at disposal.

While on the other hand, Baine personnaly killed many horde soldiers for the sake of the alliance. And thrall and Saurfang allied with Jaina who just invaded a city to kill the king of a nation just because they might have joined the horde, did the exact same thing.

[Soon-TM]

I, as a blood elf player, have been against sylvanas since I saw how she killed many of my horde brothers in lordaeron and raised them as undead without mind.

The best part is that the MUH HONOR duo, and specifically Baine, didn't give a !@#& when it came to torching Teldrassil or when Sylvanas raised Tauren skeletons during the Siege of Lordaeron. No, his holy outrage came when a single Alliance or quasi-Alliance guy was raised.

In the meantime, on Ally side, NEs seem to be pretty cool with Manduin and his auntie being all buddy buddy with Sadfang and Baine, i.e. the same folks who carried out the War of Thorns. I mean, you can't possibly disagree with the Boiking's holy bones, can you?

[Mehrunes]

I, as a blood elf player, have been against sylvanas since I saw how she killed many of my horde brothers in lordaeron and raised them as undead without mind.

Those people were going to die either way.

The best part is that the MUH HONOR duo, and specifically Baine, didn't give a !@#& when it came to torching Teldrassil or when Sylvanas raised Tauren skeletons during the Siege of Lordaeron. No, his holy outrage came when a single Alliance or quasi-Alliance guy was raised.

In the meantime, on Ally side, NEs seem to be pretty cool with Manduin and his auntie being all buddy buddy with Sadfang and Baine, i.e. the same folks who carried out the War of Thorns. I mean, you can't possibly disagree with the Boiking's holy bones, can you?

Baine didn't carry out the War of Thorns. Because even Saurfang didn't trust him with his own war campaign.

[Hubbl3]

Baine didn't carry out the War of Thorns. Because even Saurfang didn't trust him with his own war campaign.

I still wonder why Baine was part of the main expedition to Zandalar. I mean the guy is not trustworthy at all. The first thing he did after Rastakhan was killed was saying "suck it up" to Talanji.

[Kumorii]

I still wonder why Baine was part of the main expedition to Zandalar. I mean the guy is not trustworthy at all. The first thing he did after Rastakhan was killed was saying "suck it up" to Talanji.

Baine is shaw in disguise confirmed.

[peggers69]

How boring. Another I do not like how the writers are doing X. Those who can not create complain. Move along if you do not like it, you bore the rest of us.

[Hubbl3]

How boring. Another I do not like how the writers are doing X. Those who can not create complain. Move along if you do not like it, you bore the rest of us.

Thanks for your input, you are free to leave.

[Mehrunes]

I still wonder why Baine was part of the main expedition to Zandalar. I mean the guy is not trustworthy at all. The first thing he did after Rastakhan was killed was saying "suck it up" to Talanji.

Good question. Going back to his lack of involvement in War of Thorns though, it should be noted that Baine figured out the story of Horde going to Silithus was a ruse and outright made it known to Saurfang. With Baine's Alliance sycophancy, kow-towing to humans in particular, his history as the High King's informant and divulging Horde military secrets to Alliance it begs the question if he didn't share his suspicions with his overlords in Stormwind.

[Rhlor]

Those people were going to die either way.




Baine didn't carry out the War of Thorns. Because even Saurfang didn't trust him with his own war campaign.

my roleplay character is that of a survivor of an invasion of undead without mind, seeing that the faction leader kills my comrades and raises them as undead without mind is unacceptable

- - - Updated - - -

You probably missed the part where soldiers were sent to rescue horde soldiers taken into the plague.
That was a battlefield. She had allready plenty of horde corpses killed by alliance at disposal.

While on the other hand, Baine personnaly killed many horde soldiers for the sake of the alliance. And thrall and Saurfang allied with Jaina who just invaded a city to kill the king of a nation just because they might have joined the horde, did the exact same thing.

As a survivor of the scourge invasion anyone who kills and raises my comrades as undead without a mind is my enemy!

[Mehrunes]

my roleplay character is that of a survivor of an invasion of undead without mind, seeing that the faction leader kills my comrades and raises them as undead without mind is unacceptable

And which part of that roleplay robs your character of the capacity to comprehend that the ranging party was being beaten by the Alliance and would get slaughtered by them anyway? Or causes your character to ignore the surviving Horde soldiers that are being rescued from the Blight outright apologizing for overextending?

[Leodric]

There might be Nelves who despise Tyrande & Co for welcoming back traitorous Highborne back into Nelven society. I mean, even Maiev and her warden went on a Highborne killing spree at some point between WotLK and Cata, read Wolfheart for more info. Heck, she's even planning to kill Malf. But after Maiev was captured some Nelves who supported her could've chosen to leave or were exiled.

Then there's Druids of the Fang, although it's now a defunct/destroyed group, there might be their descendants who hate Tyrande & Co for how they treated them and/or their parents.

And there's plenty of other groups of disgruntled Nelves who don't see eye to eye w/ the main chunk of Nelves.

So it's not that difficult to find legit and lore-friendly reasons for Nelves to work w/ the Horde to get back at other Nelves who treated them poorly, and the Horde is fairly good at killing Nelves, so why not?

It sounds like an asspull considering the Horde burned Darnassus for shits and giggles. While your examples sound plausible they are still a little bit too much unbelievable stuff happening in my opinion, I mean I would understand it if the night elves would have been the agressors and that some part of the night elves wouldn't be fine with it, but not otherwise.

- - - Updated - - -

By only acting when an alliance VIP is implicated....

His first act in standing against this whole thing was to steal a horde boat, kill horde military members and spill horde secrets to the Alliance leadership.

If that is necessary to stop lich king 2.0 than it's better to act now than later.

[ls-]

It sounds like an asspull considering the Horde burned Darnassus for shits and giggles. While your examples sound plausible they are still a little bit too much unbelievable stuff happening in my opinion, I mean I would understand it if the night elves would have been the agressors and that some part of the night elves wouldn't be fine with it, but not otherwise.

Why? There's groups of Nelves who'd gladly see Teldrassil burn or who'd gladly set it on fire themselves. You should really stop thinking about all Nelves as hippy tree huggers, not all Nelven factions are as pathetic as the playable one. Nelves aren't a hive mind

[mickybrighteyes]

If that is necessary to stop lich king 2.0 than it's better to act now than later.

I think you're really mistaking events to call this Lich King 2.0 and just want to call it that because of some vague undeath flavor. Bet you also think frostmourne has something to do with ice with that logic.


edit....

IMO lich king 2.0 would involve a 'rightful' heir usurping power at the behest of a higher calling (maybe an artifact maybe a spiritual entity) and unleashing a series of events that result in the destruction of a nation....

now I'm worried that's the plan for Calia...
dead and risen again imbued by otherworldy powers beyond the veil to spread forth a new calling for the light?

[Zulkhan]

Given how Alliance confirmed Sylvanas' reasoning for war a year before she used that reasoning to convince Saurfang, that's hardly conjecture.

But that was only a fraction of the argument. The whole reasoning was fundamentally built on predictions spanning literal centuries in the future and projection regarding the hatred and grudges of the various Azerothian races among the Horde and the Alliance. And while it was far from being nonsense and the reasoning possessed a debatable amount of validity (hence the reason why Saurfang fell for it, alongside what you mentioned above) it was still little more than a grand hypothesis crafted from Sylvanas' existential cynism.

No matter if someone agrees or don't with that reasoning, it's still nothing more but individual reasoning. In terms of validity and justification for a total war, it absolutely pales in comparison to the justifications Garrosh possessed to start his own war. Lacking those same justifications, Sylvanas just ensured that her product was sold in a more attractive way, the very thing Garrosh totally failed to do the moment those solid justifications ran their course.

Mind you, Anduin, Genn and the Alliance as a whole should still have been deemed 100% responsible and accountable for the bullshit occurring in Stormheim, which was a literal attempt of assassination against the Warchief. However, that reason alone would hardly justify a swift attempt of starting a total war, not because of the action itself (which was extremely serious) but because of the geopolitical situation post-Legion, which didn't seem to harbor any immediate conflicts besides the one started by Sylvanas herself.

And her emotional instability more often than not raises its head when it comes to her family, where she changed her mind on things a few times. While nothing really came out of it, especially as far as the Horde's war campaign is concerned.

It's still a concerning variable, even more so when one of her sisters actively fights on the opposite side. Besides, Sylvanas' motivations for the war are so dramatically unclear to cast a shadow of serious doubt over the pragmatic value of her goals and whether absolute power or the ever-shifting course of the current war have twisted those goals into something even vaguely profitable for the faction she leads.

And Derek only raised some minimal concerns, because he was neither mind controlled nor did he become a Forsaken

Well, not many had a direct interaction with the whole matter nor many people have any kind of "care" for someone like Derek, after all the weird thing about the Forsaken is how those who are resurrected usually hold far more bonds with the enemy side and only after they embrace their undeath and join the Forsaken they start to develop bonds with the Forsaken themselves. Long story short, not many people would care about Derek since he had no time nor chance to become one and a mere ideological discrepancy ain't going to stir people that much, especially if it's just one case scenario. That being said, we still don't know for sure what Forsaken think about this matter or if the general populace even know about this, nor if this "one case scenario" (which is actually not, since Sylvanas' use of the undead has become slightly more "opportunistic" even before such event) it's going to repeat itself and, consequently, raise more and more concerns at every iteration.

On top of that none of the characters around were good picks to do any questioning there either way. Baine has no say (or clue, or anything else) when it comes to Forsaken values. Zelling was just resurrected a few weeks earlier and I doubt he managed to get brought up to speed on Forsaken 101 in that time. And Voss joined Forsaken shortly before him, spending years prior to that deliberately not joining this.

Well, to me those values are simple enough to be understood quite easily by everyone. But of course, simple and fundamental values can be easily twisted at anyone's convenience. Even though, I must say, Sylvanas hasn't even attempted to argue whether Baine's take of the "Forsaken values" was wrong, she conveniently ignored the matter altogether and simply branded Baine a traitor (legitimately so, since Baine and Zelling indeed betrayed Sylvanas, but that's besides the point).

The characters that should be asking questions in regards to Derek should have been first generation Forsaken. But not only does this story give zero shits about them, but that would get results opposite to what Blizzard wanted. Because any first gen Forsaken capable of grasping even base level of nuance would remember what the Lich King did to them and realize that Sylvanas trying to condition Derek isn't quite the same thing.

I don't think that first or second generation of Forsaken matter in this situation, at all. In fact, the concept of "free will" elaborated into something akin to "free choice" has been precisely established with the second generation, when the Val'kyr started to create undead, giving them first the chance to embrace undeath or die permanently and then the possibility to join the Forsaken or just do the fuck they wanted to do (as long "what they wanted to do" didn't represent a threat to the Forsaken themselves). As a consequence, the undead in question becoming or not becoming Forsaken is an absolutely irrelevant matter, since the concept of "free will" is granted to them regardless.

Derek represents an undeniable unprecedented case, since the reason why he didn't join the Forsaken is not because he refused it, it's because he wasn't allowed to choose to begin with; the only purpose of his existence as an undead was to become a weapon and for that purpose he has been mentally conditioned so that he would fulfill that purpose alone. It's not direct, will-bending mind control, it's not what the Lich King did but the ultimate purpose of Derek's existence was precisely the same of the undead under the Lich King's control; following a roundabout way doesn't change the ultimate, final result. At all.

Obviously, as mentioned earlier, simplistic values can be bent and twisted in all kind of ways and Sylvanas can justify what happened to Derek as she pleases ("we needed an edge against the Alliance, we are at war, shit and giggles") but the fundamental value behind an ideology and what grants it any sort of meaning is that it shouldn't allow exceptions. If it does, than it means the goal is clearly way more important than the value itself, which is precisely what Sylvanas seems to prioritize at the moment.

[Leodric]

Why? There's groups of Nelves who'd gladly see Teldrassil burn or who'd gladly set it on fire themselves. You should really stop thinking about all Nelves as hippy tree huggers, not all Nelven factions are as pathetic as the playable one. Nelves aren't a hive mind

Never said they are tree huggers or essentially peaceful. There is a huge difference to fight for the faction which tried to eradicate you and burned down your capital with thousands of civilians still in it and "just fighting the nelves you don't like". I guess that's simple to understand

- - - Updated - - -

I think you're really mistaking events to call this Lich King 2.0 and just want to call it that because of some vague undeath flavor. Bet you also think frostmourne has something to do with ice with that logic.


edit....

IMO lich king 2.0 would involve a 'rightful' heir usurping power at the behest of a higher calling (maybe an artifact maybe a spiritual entity) and unleashing a series of events that result in the destruction of a nation....

now I'm worried that's the plan for Calia...
dead and risen again imbued by otherworldy powers beyond the veil to spread forth a new calling for the light?

She essentially wants to make everyone an Undead/Forsaken whatever and doesn't care for anybody but her goals. That's as many similiarities as one could get yet, also it's a nice way to trigger some sylvanas fanbois, so there is that.

[Verdugo]

also it's a nice way to trigger some sylvanas fanbois, so there is that.

Same reasoning gave us current US president. Be careful what you wish for.

[VladlTutushkin]

Same reasoning gave us current US president. Be careful what you wish for.

And is he that bad? *Winks in Russian* I enjoy watching him making speeches.

[Verdugo]

And is he that bad? *Winks in Russian* I enjoy watching him making speeches.

Now imagine you get equivalent of Yeltsin back.

Thats Baine.

[VladlTutushkin]

Now imagine you get equivalent of Yeltsin back.

Thats Baine.

Baine might be spineless, but he aint Yeltsin.

[Aucald]

Let's not bring current real-world politics into a discussion about a fantasy rebellion in a fictional world.