Page 22 of 24 FirstFirst ...
12
20
21
22
23
24
LastLast
  1. #421
    Quote Originally Posted by mickybrighteyes View Post
    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?
    In regards to your edit....

    That seems logically, that's exactly the plan for calia seeing as all the pieces fit pretty damn well. "Rightful heir" with herself, check. Spiritual entity with the "ex" voidlord, check. Series of events with Arathi, check. Destruction of a Nation with Darnassus (partial Nation) and soon to be horde, check.

    All we're missing is for her to start creating more Naa'ru infused undead. But give it time.

  2. #422
    Quote Originally Posted by Zulkhan View Post
    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.
    Decades, not centuries. Besides, you're conflating numerous things. That peace with Alliance won't last is Sylvanas' hypothesis. Stormheim is the proof of that hypothesis. The racial grudges are the reasons as to why that would be the case. And when it comes to the decades thing in particular, it's not even anything tangible to her point above. Whether peace with the Alliance will last five or fifty years is what she asked Saurfang when his initial reply is that in his opinion the peace can last in order to make him realize the shortsightedness of the pro-peace position. She didn't use that in a serious argument as to when the war will break out specifically (because when you're dealing with a faction as unhinged as Alliances such things are never certain).


    Quote Originally Posted by Zulkhan View Post
    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.
    But Garrosh didn't start his own war. The war was already ongoing since before he was passed the mantle of Warchief. So of course he was better off in this regard. But that's not to say Sylvanas was really lacking here, because as Before the Storm makes it clear, while the factions weren't officially at war throughout Legion, they were still so openly hostile that a ceasefire was needed for a peaceful meeting of civilians on neutral ground. So Sylvanas was a leader during severe tensions with a faction so unhinged they attacked the Horde even during the apocalypse for completely moronic reasons, forever branding itself as someone incapable of peaceful relations.

    Sylvanas only took things to its logical conclusion in order to beat the Alliance and their next unhinged attack. That was already incoming in Silithus because Alliance didn't sent the Night Elves there to have a picnic with the Horde, they sent them there to stop Horde's mining operation because they deluded themselves into thinking they have authority over the Horde in that regard (and even before that Alliance started smaller-scale attacks against the Horde in that zone as it is).


    Quote Originally Posted by Zulkhan View Post
    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.
    Given the civilization of Azeroth and ruler-centric power systems in there, there are hardly better reasons for war than that. Whether it's a total war or not is a prerogative of the attacked party. Sylvanas deemed it justified to wage total war, because Alliance is a malignant tumor that no longer deserves second chances for its attacks during apocalypse level threats. The Horde agreed. And other than handful of spineless Alliance lovers, still holds that view even at the end of 8.2.


    Quote Originally Posted by Zulkhan View Post
    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.
    Eh, her latest interactions with her sister haven't been grounds for much concern in that regard. She changed her mind and spared them in that ugly comic but that was nothing major. And then she treated Alleria with the same snark as everyone else in Lordaeron.


    Quote Originally Posted by Zulkhan View Post
    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.

    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).

    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.
    This forum is proof enough that it's not understood by everyone, vide the repeated cries from Alliance posters about Sylvanas violating free will of the Forsaken whenever she punishes someone for treason, because they equate free will with freedom to do anything one wants with no consequences whatsoever. Whereas free will means something much different even in regards to humans and when it comes to the Forsaken the issue is generally even narrower and is about the undead not mentally being enslaved to the one who raised them. And since first gen Forsaken are the ones that actually went through that, I think they'd be good characters to convey that message and finally hammer it into the heads of the players who misrepresent the Forsaken.

    The free choice you talk about isn't what free will evolved into, it's simply a natural consequence of them not being mentally enslaved. Derek wasn't enslaved, so he still has the capacity to make his choice. But, technically speaking, like you said he wasn't asked the question yet for him to make that choice, because he was being treated as sort of prisoner of war for the time being. In a way, Derek is similar to the newly risen who suffer from resurrection frenzy. They are first utilized by the Forsaken in a manner that is of use to them and only then are they asked the question. Derek was a prisoner of use to the Forsaken just like them. And him being asked the question only after his usefulness was fulfilled, i.e. he killed his family, would kinda fit Sylvanas' kind of trolling people.

    The thing is, Forsaken aren't really against imprisoning people of use to the Forsaken or using newly risen undead before they are offered the choice. No one ever said a word about Sylvanas abusing the resurrection frenzy. And when people learned about Sylvanas' desire to enslave Eyir, the point of some Forsaken's contention wasn't the slavery but their unwillingness to live forever.

    And given that mental conditioning is a far cry from mental puppetry of the Lich King, that changes the final result quite a bit. Conditioning isn't absolute to begin with. It doesn't alter one's capacity for independent thought, it doesn't affect a person if the triggers conditioned into the person aren't met. The Lich King literally robbed his victims of their very personhood and imprisoned them in their own bodies, turning them into instruments of his will he could make behave however he wanted at any given time.


    Quote Originally Posted by Zulkhan View Post
    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.
    But he isn't an exception to free will. He's sort of an exception to being asked the question (but not the only one, vide the resurrection frenzy victims that no one cares about), but his will was still his own, he wasn't a puppet to Sylvanas' will like the Forsaken were to the Lich King. And the mental puppetry is what the Forsaken issue of free will is all about.
    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.

  3. #423
    Quote Originally Posted by mickybrighteyes View Post
    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?
    Well she can't destroy Lordaeron, Sylvanas beat her to it.

    And she can't take up Frostmourne, it was already looted by DKs.

    I dunno, maybe? I just can't see how it'd play out based on the current story trajectory.

  4. #424
    Quote Originally Posted by Leodric View Post
    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.
    I'll agree that that's a thing when more than just one comic references it.

    most other sources pointing out Sylvanas' war on life are fanbois saying it citing night elf death cries.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Mardux View Post
    In regards to your edit....

    That seems logically, that's exactly the plan for calia seeing as all the pieces fit pretty damn well. "Rightful heir" with herself, check. Spiritual entity with the "ex" voidlord, check. Series of events with Arathi, check. Destruction of a Nation with Darnassus (partial Nation) and soon to be horde, check.

    All we're missing is for her to start creating more Naa'ru infused undead. But give it time.
    all we need now is a cult of light and a purge like stratholme for her to commit... toss in a weird relic or soemthing for her to pursue.... Rise of the Lightqueen with her Lightborn armies cleansing the 'wicked' of the realms.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Powerogue View Post
    Well she can't destroy Lordaeron, Sylvanas beat her to it.
    Lordaeron was destroyed long before Sylvanas ever set foot into the place. The ruins have been left since before the founding of the forsaken.
    Quote Originally Posted by Powerogue View Post
    And she can't take up Frostmourne, it was already looted by DKs.
    It's been sundered and reforged into other weapons. But a different weapon to serve a similar purpose would still fit the bill.
    Quote Originally Posted by Powerogue View Post
    I dunno, maybe? I just can't see how it'd play out based on the current story trajectory.
    who knows really. But they should have left her dead in a ditch after Before the Storm imo... not raise her for future story arcs.

  5. #425
    Old God Soon-TM's Avatar
    5+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Netherstorm
    Posts
    10,842
    I am still amazed at how many posters are conflating "free will" with "the right to do whatever the !@#& I want and get away with it".
    Quote Originally Posted by trimble View Post
    WoD was the expansion that was targeted at non raiders.

  6. #426
    Elemental Lord
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Behind You
    Posts
    8,667
    Quote Originally Posted by Zulkhan View Post
    it was still little more than a grand hypothesis crafted from Sylvanas' existential cynism.
    Alliance Horde dislike each other. Alliance has the power to destroy the Horde. Thus Alliance are a threat.

    To assume a country bigger than you will be tempted to kick your ass is not cynicism.

    That's textbook realism.

    European nations did not war against Napoleon because he controlled Europe. They waged war cause he might do that.
    America didn't go to war against Germany because it was a threat. They went to war cause it might be one in the future.

    Waiting for a threat to actually become one is a moronic way to conduct foreign policy.
    Last edited by Dreknar20; 2019-08-10 at 06:54 PM.
    We have faced trials and danger, threats to our world and our way of life. And yet, we persevere. We are the Horde. We will not let anything break our spirits!"

  7. #427
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreknar20 View Post
    Alliance Horde dislike each other. Alliance has the power to destroy the Horde. Thus Alliance are a threat.

    To assume a country bigger than you will be tempted to kick your ass is not cynicism.

    That's textbook realism.
    Basically this... after an assassination attempt, the alliance's premier fighting force engaging horde forces, SI:7 fucking with horde interests, AND what is easily an apparent coup over lordaeron/undercity... it seems less 'hypothesis' and more a statement of recent events.

    Nevermind the former King of Ironforge trying to 'encourage' horde policy with personal trips to horde leadership and brusque correspondence with the High King stating peace was not the purpose of given meetings.

    A nation that HAS stood in your territory and declared war on your nation or dictated terms about your nation's continued existence should be regarded as a possible threat. This doesn't matter how various leaders have 'promised' peace or wished for coexistence with their words...

  8. #428
    Old God Soon-TM's Avatar
    5+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Netherstorm
    Posts
    10,842
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreknar20 View Post
    Alliance Horde dislike each other. Alliance has the power to destroy the Horde. Thus Alliance are a threat.
    Especially when said threat is led by an inexperienced, sanctimonious youngster who lets his advisors run amok because he's either connivent or powerless to put them in their place.
    Quote Originally Posted by trimble View Post
    WoD was the expansion that was targeted at non raiders.

  9. #429
    Quote Originally Posted by Soon-TM View Post
    led by an inexperienced, sanctimonious youngster
    Interesting how in the eyes of a supporter of a genocidal maniac the one person with a moral compass is 'sanctimonious'.
    Says a lot about what the bad writing by Bliz has done, and how easy it is for some people to be blinded by faction fanboyism. Tip, you no doubt wasn't around for Vanilla, create a Horde character on Classic and read all the quests texts, and find out what the Horde was really about when it was led by the right person.

  10. #430
    Old God Soon-TM's Avatar
    5+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Netherstorm
    Posts
    10,842
    Quote Originally Posted by Resheph View Post
    Interesting how in the eyes of a supporter of a genocidal maniac the one person with a moral compass is 'sanctimonious'.
    Says a lot about what the bad writing by Bliz has done, and how easy it is for some people to be blinded by faction fanboyism. Tip, you no doubt wasn't around for Vanilla, create a Horde character on Classic and read all the quests texts, and find out what the Horde was really about when it was led by the right person.
    Lmao... Just lmao.

    In case you haven't realised, I don't like Sylvanas and never have. She may have been interesting before Cata, but that's it. The moustache-twirling villain is as boring as boring can get.

    But *drumroll* characters aren't interesting just because they are in opposition to a moustache-twirling villain. They are two sides of the same bland coin, and as such, supremely uninteresting.

    And yes, Manduin is a pretty hypocrite little !@#&, and only looks good because his opponent has been hit with the Stupid Evil™ bat already. That doesn't mean that Stupid Good™ boiking is any better from a narrative viewpoint.

    I'm glad you enjoy the moral high ground. But don't tell me that such a Manichaean setup is enjoyable for anyone older than 10 or so.
    Quote Originally Posted by trimble View Post
    WoD was the expansion that was targeted at non raiders.

  11. #431
    Quote Originally Posted by Resheph View Post
    Interesting how in the eyes of a supporter of a genocidal maniac the one person with a moral compass is 'sanctimonious'.
    Says a lot about what the bad writing by Bliz has done, and how easy it is for some people to be blinded by faction fanboyism. Tip, you no doubt wasn't around for Vanilla, create a Horde character on Classic and read all the quests texts, and find out what the Horde was really about when it was led by the right person.
    Tip #2: Thrall's Horde actually isn't some golden, inviolable standard of "what the Horde is really about". In fact, Thrall's period of blatant Alliance appeasement is the exception. And with how the Horde's political structure is set up, the Warchief dictates all. Including "what the Horde is about" during their tenure.
    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. #432
    Old God Soon-TM's Avatar
    5+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Netherstorm
    Posts
    10,842
    Quote Originally Posted by Mehrunes View Post
    The Warchief dictates all. Including "what the Horde is about" during their tenure.
    BURN THE HERETIC!!! Only Alliance-approved characters are allowed to determine what the Horde is about!
    Quote Originally Posted by trimble View Post
    WoD was the expansion that was targeted at non raiders.

  13. #433
    Quote Originally Posted by Mehrunes View Post
    This forum is proof enough that it's not understood by everyone, vide the repeated cries from Alliance posters about Sylvanas violating free will of the Forsaken whenever she punishes someone for treason, because they equate free will with freedom to do anything one wants with no consequences whatsoever. Whereas free will means something much different even in regards to humans and when it comes to the Forsaken the issue is generally even narrower and is about the undead not mentally being enslaved to the one who raised them. And since first gen Forsaken are the ones that actually went through that, I think they'd be good characters to convey that message and finally hammer it into the heads of the players who misrepresent the Forsaken.

    The free choice you talk about isn't what free will evolved into, it's simply a natural consequence of them not being mentally enslaved. Derek wasn't enslaved, so he still has the capacity to make his choice. But, technically speaking, like you said he wasn't asked the question yet for him to make that choice, because he was being treated as sort of prisoner of war for the time being. In a way, Derek is similar to the newly risen who suffer from resurrection frenzy. They are first utilized by the Forsaken in a manner that is of use to them and only then are they asked the question. Derek was a prisoner of use to the Forsaken just like them. And him being asked the question only after his usefulness was fulfilled, i.e. he killed his family, would kinda fit Sylvanas' kind of trolling people.

    The thing is, Forsaken aren't really against imprisoning people of use to the Forsaken or using newly risen undead before they are offered the choice. No one ever said a word about Sylvanas abusing the resurrection frenzy. And when people learned about Sylvanas' desire to enslave Eyir, the point of some Forsaken's contention wasn't the slavery but their unwillingness to live forever.

    And given that mental conditioning is a far cry from mental puppetry of the Lich King, that changes the final result quite a bit. Conditioning isn't absolute to begin with. It doesn't alter one's capacity for independent thought, it doesn't affect a person if the triggers conditioned into the person aren't met. The Lich King literally robbed his victims of their very personhood and imprisoned them in their own bodies, turning them into instruments of his will he could make behave however he wanted at any given time.


    But he isn't an exception to free will. He's sort of an exception to being asked the question (but not the only one, vide the resurrection frenzy victims that no one cares about), but his will was still his own, he wasn't a puppet to Sylvanas' will like the Forsaken were to the Lich King. And the mental puppetry is what the Forsaken issue of free will is all about.
    Wrong, Derek is a Forsaken. Nathanos calls Derek a Forsaken. Anything else is headcanon. Since Derek is in fact a Forsaken, that means that Slyvanus did violate Forsaken "free will".

    "Derek Proudmoore will be twisted to become a weapon against Katherine and Jaina Proudmoore.

    The Allliance[sic] brought an army to kill Rastakhan. All we'll need is one Forsaken to kill their leaders.

    I will contact you when your aid is further needed. In the meantime, continue the fight against the Alliance, we must survive until this plan is ready."
    https://wow.gamepedia.com/The_Return...rek_Proudmoore

    What Slyvanus did to Derek is very similar(if not exactly the same) as what the Lich King did to Bolvar. Slyvanus is a hypocrite. She happily sets loyal troops up to be killed by her OTHER loyal troops(playing along of course) as sacrificial fodder. She's a trash Warchief that caused civil war within her own faction.

    PS: Stormheim is proof the Horde's Warchief was completely unnecessary to defeat the Legion. Her "tactical genius" was unnecessary. Not only that, Slyvanus' enslaving Eyir wasn't what was going to get us a foothold on Argus. Only the Alliance was going to be able to actually do that.
    Last edited by Tripzzz; 2019-08-11 at 10:07 AM.
    "Father, is it over? I see only darkness before me."

  14. #434
    Quote Originally Posted by Tripzzz View Post
    Wrong, Derek is a Forsaken. Nathanos calls Derek a Forsaken. Anything else is headcanon. Since Derek is in fact a Forsaken, that means that Slyvanus did violate Forsaken "free will".

    https://wow.gamepedia.com/The_Return...rek_Proudmoore
    Except he doesn't explicitly refer to Derek as Forsaken there. For all you know he's talking about Sylvanas and the outcome of her plan about Derek. And had you actually bothered reading what you replied to instead of trying to get a shitty gotcha, even if Derek was Forsaken, which he's not because he never joined (unless you can point out when he did do so), that still wouldn't be Sylvanas violating free will because what she did (well, was trying to do) to Derek still wasn't what the Lich King did to the Forsaken.


    Quote Originally Posted by Tripzzz View Post
    What Slyvanus did to Derek is very similar(if not exactly the same) as what the Lich King did to Bolvar. Slyvanus is a hypocrite.
    Newsflash: what the Lich King did to Bolvar is explicitly not what he did to the rest of the Scourge, Forsaken included, which is what Forsaken's issue about free will is about. Way to shoot yourself in the foot as usual.


    Quote Originally Posted by Tripzzz View Post
    PS: Stormheim is proof the Horde's Warchief was completely unnecessary to defeat the Legion. Her "tactical genius" was unnecessary. Not only that, Slyvanus' enslaving Eyir wasn't what was going to get us a foothold on Argus. Only the Alliance was going to be able to actually do that.
    Aside from your logic here making no sense because you're making miles-long leaps, what does that have to do with anything? Besides, Horde has presence on Argus.
    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.

  15. #435
    Quote Originally Posted by Resheph View Post
    Interesting how in the eyes of a supporter of a genocidal maniac the one person with a moral compass is 'sanctimonious'.
    Says a lot about what the bad writing by Bliz has done, and how easy it is for some people to be blinded by faction fanboyism. Tip, you no doubt wasn't around for Vanilla, create a Horde character on Classic and read all the quests texts, and find out what the Horde was really about when it was led by the right person.
    You're probably unaware. But it is actually possible to dislike both faction leaders for different reasons (shocking, right?). I do realize its hard for those with blind anduin fanaticism to understand that though.

    And who was the "right person" that led the horde? Cuz it ain't sylvanas and it sure as fuck wasn't thrall or garrosh.

  16. #436
    I do realize its hard for those with blind anduin fanaticism to understand that though.
    Who? Never met one.
    Expansion Storylines ranking:

    Legion > Cataclysm > MoP > BfA up to 8.2.5 > Wrath > TBC > WoD > Dragonflight > BfA 8.3 > Shadowlands

  17. #437
    Quote Originally Posted by Void Fallen View Post
    Who? Never met one.
    Is that what the Horde has been reduced to? Supporting a Warchief as long as he/she spites the Alliance and doing anything even dooming Azeroth just to avoid joining Anduin? Personally I believe that is only a vocal minority that is reduced to just this forum. I refuse to believe that the Horde has been fallen so low.

  18. #438
    Quote Originally Posted by Darth-Piekus View Post
    Is that what the Horde has been reduced to? Supporting a Warchief as long as he/she spites the Alliance and doing anything even dooming Azeroth just to avoid joining Anduin? Personally I believe that is only a vocal minority that is reduced to just this forum. I refuse to believe that the Horde has been fallen so low.
    Oh it's definitely just a vocal minority of this forum. I am on several WoW discords as well as both the EU and US official forums (though in the latter I can't post because I am in EU), and there are a lot more people who despise Sylvanas. The same goes for the game itself too. I was in Trade Chat once on my Horde char on Argent Dawn, I decided to troll by pretending to be a Sylv fanboy and Anduin/Baine hater, and to my surprise the majority of people I spoke with yearned for Baine to become warchief and couldn't wait for Sylvanas to be dethroned. Baine also isn't such a despised character that no Horde player could ever even hope to like. Maybe in the circle-jerk that is in this subforum, but anywhere else (like even just the General subforum of MMO-Champion)? Yeah, the situation is much less onesided.
    Last edited by Varodoc; 2019-08-11 at 02:49 PM.
    Expansion Storylines ranking:

    Legion > Cataclysm > MoP > BfA up to 8.2.5 > Wrath > TBC > WoD > Dragonflight > BfA 8.3 > Shadowlands

  19. #439
    Old God Soon-TM's Avatar
    5+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Netherstorm
    Posts
    10,842
    Quote Originally Posted by Darth-Piekus View Post
    Is that what the Horde has been reduced to? Supporting a Warchief as long as he/she spites the Alliance and doing anything even dooming Azeroth just to avoid joining Anduin? Personally I believe that is only a vocal minority that is reduced to just this forum. I refuse to believe that the Horde has been fallen so low.
    There is a middle ground between lolevil warmonger Warchief and complete Alliance sycophant. But that's ok, such nuances are completely out of reach for writers... And a few other folks as well ITT.
    Quote Originally Posted by trimble View Post
    WoD was the expansion that was targeted at non raiders.

  20. #440
    Moderator Rozz's Avatar
    5+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    8,791
    Quote Originally Posted by Void Fallen View Post
    Oh it's definitely just a vocal minority of this forum. I am on several WoW discords as well as both the EU and US official forums (though in the latter I can't post because I am in EU), and there are a lot more people who despise Sylvanas. The same goes for the game itself too. I was in Trade Chat once on my Horde char on Argent Dawn, I decided to troll by pretending to be a Sylv fanboy and Anduin/Baine fanboy, and to my surprise the majority of people I spoke with yearned for Baine to become warchief. Baine also isn't such a despised character that no Horde player could ever even hope to like. Maybe in the circle-jerk that is in this subforum, but anywhere else (like even just the General subforum of MMO-Champion)? Yeah, the situation is much less onesided.
    I've seen the opposite in the same places, but it's why I don't trust forums or even in game chat for overall player perspective. Even something that is considered a popular sentiment like "LFR is horrible and should be removed" doesn't reflect the majority of players who use it and never touch regular raiding. The most solid guess I have about what most players think about the story is that they don't think about it and they only pay attention to who/what was cooler in the end. Most players don't even read the books or know they even exist.

    Tbh, Sylvanas and Baine aren't any more or less hated than characters like Tyrande, Anduin, Garrosh, etc. People will be loud and gather where they can be louder. But you are right that all places will have their own form of circle jerk unique to them.
    Moderator of the General Off-Topic, Politics, Lore, and RP Forums
    "If you have any concerns, let me know via PM. I'll do my best to assist you."

Posting Permissions

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