Theory: Vengeful Alliance Players Will Be Given The Option To Side With Tyrande

[Phuongvi]

Malfurion is going to protect a Horde leader from Tyrande and will die doing it, kill by Tyrande
Anduin will arrive and tell Tyrande: Look what vengeace is causing, peace is the answer.

Tyrande: Ok

Maybe she will kill herself because she can't stand Anduin and how bad the story is going

The end

[Wylyth1992]

This should've happened at the START of Legion. Where instead of having to agree with that bellend Khadgar, we should've able to join Jaina's purge of the Horde.

And then be wiped out by the Legion. Oops.

[Omedon]

More likely Tyrande will be the living embodiment of suspicion and vengeance that justifies war mode/PVP in canon in a game where faction divides are optional and toggled with war mode.

Individual opinions are being highlighted in NPC text following the war campaign, no “peace” will be universal or absolute, and so the players each choose for themselves. There needs to be someone high up in each faction that supports “war mode on” culture. For alliance that could be Tyrande.

[Wylyth1992]

(this was suppose to be a continuation of my last post, responce to Gavll thinking that the Horde should have been wiped out at the beginning of Legion)

Let me, guess, you believe that the Horde should have just stayed in an obvious trap?

[Madkat124]

I actually think it's going to be how they handle pvp in the next expansion. I feel like races will be neutral for pve stuff, but faction locked for pvp, essentially talking to Genn/Tyrande or Gey'rah(?) to activate Warmode.

[Feanoro]

And how comes there was no plight of Horde guilds changing factions like lemmings in Vanilla when it was the Alliance that had a small edge?

Maybe because the faction change service wasn't available until 2009, so a faction change then meant rerolling from scratch.

And how comes Horde still won the world first race even then? Methinks the Alliance guilds doth protests too much and blame their shortcomings on the racials.

Then please explain guilds like vodka going Horde for the racials, since clearly you've been in top end guilds and are in a position to call them bad. Please explain Blizzard statements about fixing the racials only if faction balance became too skewed. Clearly you should have told them that racials were in no way involved.

But of course not in Vanilla, things were totally OK then (though I assume they had other asinine excuses). And how comes people peddling this conspiracy theory never even hiccup about Vanilla? Could it be because it doesn't fit to the theory?

Could it be that you don't know that faction changes weren't available? Could it be you don't know that an entire guild rerolling would have been a massive time investment, far more likely to lose ranking than gain it? Could it be because you don't in fact know anything about Vanilla?

And could it be that, as is the case with any conspiracy theory, the inconvenient data was simply thrown into the garbage rather than the theory be altered to fit said data? Same applies to the question of racials in PvP. That also results in radio silence.

Or that you ignore any replies that don't fit your narrative, or things like the Blizzcon incidents.

And the absolute anti-example of Alliance losing territory, which was used to fix an objective example of things leaning in favor of the Alliance, when they had more zones from Vanilla to WotLK.

If you could be bothered to read, you'd know the main complaint about lost territory is how poorly it was handled. Zones were either blown up or defeated with little to no opportunity to participate. There were literally quests where you were sent to find magical bear asses and came back to find smoking ruins, "Oh the Horde crushed this, thanks for the bear asses, move on to the next zone."

And in regards to your remark about the content, would you look at dat Horde victory this expansion

You got away with burning a civilian population center down, massacring another civilian town, a death toll that Blizzard can't decide on, and there isn't the slightest hint of win/lose, surrender, or anything like that. All we can really derive from the cinematics is a ceasefire. Since 8.3 will likely focus on N'Zoth and setting up 9.0, the Horde didn't lose, unless of course your victory condition was the destruction of the Alliance, and surely you understand why that won't happen.

[Mehrunes]

Maybe because the faction change service wasn't available until 2009, so a faction change then meant rerolling from scratch.

Given how the raiding scene was largely composed of people with experience gained in previous MMOs like Everquest, it's not like Alliance's strengths was something that people realized only years after the fact. Yet people still rolled Horde. People still won world first as Horde in almost every Vanilla raid.

Then please explain guilds like vodka going Horde for the racials, since clearly you've been in top end guilds and are in a position to call them bad. Please explain Blizzard statements about fixing the racials only if faction balance became too skewed. Clearly you should have told them that racials were in no way involved.

What does Vodka changing factions in MoP have to do with the Horde winning the race in Vanilla? Can't you at least fit your complaints about MUH HORDE BIAS to fit the context of what you're replying to? On second though, probably not, after a while all those complaints tend to blend together and become utterly interchangeable.

Also, if you researched your examples (which of course you won't because that would force you to realize how bad your conspiracy theory is) Vodka's performance increased only in the first tier after their faction change and since then it dropped below top 20, way below that of their position before going Horde. Yet they only stopped raiding around Legion.

And even if you addressed this remark to the first paragraph of mine that actually addressed this tangent, my question there was what guilds started to matter in the world first race because of making the faction change. Vodka's example not only fails because of them dropping from the radar in that regard just one raid tier after their swap, but also because they already mattered before making the swap.

What I asked for is a guild that wasn't already competitive in the race and started to matter only after they made the faction change because it got carried by the power of Berserking. Care do share the actually relevant examples. But before you do that, actually read what I said. Because asking for examples of those guilds wasn't even my main point. My main point is that for stark majority of the guilds making the change there was no real need to and they did so out of following bigger guilds like lemmings. So even if your Vodka example didn't blow back in your face, that still wouldn't have addressed that.

Could it be that you don't know that faction changes weren't available? Could it be you don't know that an entire guild rerolling would have been a massive time investment, far more likely to lose ranking than gain it? Could it be because you don't in fact know anything about Vanilla?

Could it be your remarks here address neither how people still rolled Horde despite Alliance's known advantage in the first place nor that the Horde still won the race in almost all raids? Why didn't Alliance's advantage carry their guilds forward, eh?

Or that you ignore any replies that don't fit your narrative, or things like the Blizzcon incidents.

First of all, come back to me with your remarks about how I'm ignoring things when you reply to me without taking sentences out of the context of their paragraphs as if paragraphs served no specific purpose and even then cherrypick only a third of them out. Then please do explain what replies did I ignore exactly. I'm not ignoring anything. Horde racials are a bit stronger. I can admit that just fine. Meanwhile your MUH HORDE BIAS conspiracy relies on deliberately ignoring periods and areas of the game where Alliance had it better because it doesn't mesh well with your idea that Blizzard is out to get Alliance players and wants to impale them on spikes for the sin of playing Alliance.

If you could be bothered to read, you'd know the main complaint about lost territory is how poorly it was handled. Zones were either blown up or defeated with little to no opportunity to participate. There were literally quests where you were sent to find magical bear asses and came back to find smoking ruins, "Oh the Horde crushed this, thanks for the bear asses, move on to the next zone."

Really now? Can you point out the part of @Vasaru's post that's the context here about the tangent of how it was handled? Because I apparently didn't bother to read and as such I can't see it. Oh, right, it's because it doesn't exist. Which happens again and again and again Alliance posters bring up the lost territory complaint. Since you have to pretend it said something else than it did, it only showcases how little value that complaint has, no? And even if it wasn't the case, how it was handled is a subjective opinion. One that people may also have in regards to Horde zones.

Also, what on earth are you even talking about? If you were sent places in the zone only to find smoking ruins upon return, it means you still have quests in that zone after the revamp. Which means it's not a zone you lost, it's just a zone whose story you didn't like. Actual zones you lost are places like Hillsbrad or Azshara, where you have no story whatsoever because it was given to the Horde to fix the imbalance.

So would you look at that, your argument here was not only aimed to whitewash a post that, contrary to your story, simply talked about losing zones, period. It's also a blatant misrepresentation of the whole thing AND relies on subjective feelings about a zone. Who'd have guessed. You truly convinced me that Blizzard is plotting the deaths of all Alliance players right here.

Want actually objective examples of how Blizzard treated factions in an unequal manner where you actually have something countable? The only patch in this game's history that added faction-specific quests but only to one side was 7.2. And would you look at that, the faction to get it was Alliance. Dat HORDE BIAS right there.

You got away with burning a civilian population center down, massacring another civilian town, a death toll that Blizzard can't decide on, and there isn't the slightest hint of win/lose, surrender, or anything like that. All we can really derive from the cinematics is a ceasefire. Since 8.3 will likely focus on N'Zoth and setting up 9.0, the Horde didn't lose, unless of course your victory condition was the destruction of the Alliance, and surely you understand why that won't happen.

There isn't a slightest hint of win/lose or surrender? Horde forgot their grievances with the Alliance in the span of 30 seconds. Then they let triumphant Allaince and their ex-Horde pawns into Orgrimmar. And those ex-Horde pawns are all the remaining racial leaders sans Talanji. And since Talanji technically isn't a Horde member anyway, that means all Horde's racial leaders are people who betrayed the Horde and teamed up with Alliance. Horde barely even exists as a sovereign faction anymore, but please do tell me more of your tale of dat sweet Horde victory of this expansion.

[TheRagebear]

When did they kill Alliance character as a raid boss last time?

When did they kill a Horde character as a raid boss last time?

The raid boss thing aside this is just a further symptom of the dumb way Blizzard likes to write the two factions. They'll butcher the Alliance's minor characters like Maraad, Amber, the Tidesages etc. Leaving only the demigods that they can't write and that everyone else finds boring because they aren't willing to put effort into writing. Meanwhile they really like killing off major Horde characters, so that the Horde is stuck in a carousel of newbies that come off equally one-note but only slightly less annoying because they've only been one-note for a few months instead of 13 years.

Both options are crap. Maraad and Admiral Taylor shouldn't have died and neither should have Vol'jin. There was no reason for any of it.

[Mehrunes]

Well, you know I am personally against this whole notion that "diplomacy = treason" on the face of it - I don't consider just talking to someone outside your faction as tantamount to treason, and would really only say the label applies to those who supply actual material support to the opposite faction in a period of open conflict (e.g. Baine to the Alliance at the eve of the Battle of Theramore). I am sure that if the Alliance authorities caught any Human spy informing to the Warchief of the Horde that that person would be considered a traitor, though.

I sure hope you're not referring to my examples here because all those characters teamed up with Alliance against the Warchief of the Horde. And I'm pretty sure that even if people were making these wider accusations, they'd still be making them about "talking to someone in the enemy faction", not "outside the faction in general".

So what if they were besieged? What does that mean? They're still receiving the majority of storytelling attention. You cannot argue the Alliance has even remotely received the same amount of attention, story wise.

Sylvanas and her Horde is barely present in this expansion. The Horde-related figures in the spotlight this expansion were almost exclusively the people that betrayed the Horde and left it to plot against it with their Alliance masters. What an immense Horde focus you got here.

It's always a matter of "Horde gets a quest chain that sets up a story arc, the alliance get a reactive quest to react to the chain set up by the horde. Both watch a cinematic, then go about their business."

Horde sure did set Dazar'alor up.

It's like the mounts in BFA. Horde get a bunch of different kinds of mounts. The Alliance get the same number of mounts... except they're all recolored horses. And hey, both can ride around on the new pterrordax and direhorn mounts too! ...But you have to have a horde toon to get them.

And maybe you say "oh, well, I don't like the flying blood tick mount!" It doesn't change the fact that it was new and different and not a recolored horse.

That's the price of human potential you pay for Horde imploding on itself whenever they dare to have grievances with the Alliance. Besides, all those models are available to the Alliance as drops.

You can come back complaining after Alliance destroyed a Horde capital and killed all its citizens. Thanks.

Shouldn't Horde do the same in the first place for you to make this demand? And it didn't. Both Theramore and Teldrassil had survivors.

Well, orcs never had a racial leader after Garrosh, Vol'jin's death was stupid, I agree, Thrall is still there though, bets are he will make a comeback as warchief since no Horde player would ever accept Manduins cow as warchief (understandably). With the undead: that's the price for being the cheerleader of a genocidal maniac I guess.

Saurfang was said to be the Orc racial leader by Blizzard on Twitter or something around WoD. And Thrall is the same sort of Anduin's sycophant as Baine at this point, so I'm not sure what difference between the two are you trying to see here.

The raid boss thing aside this is just a further symptom of the dumb way Blizzard likes to write the two factions. They'll butcher the Alliance's minor characters like Maraad, Amber, the Tidesages etc. Leaving only the demigods that they can't write and that everyone else finds boring because they aren't willing to put effort into writing. Meanwhile they really like killing off major Horde characters, so that the Horde is stuck in a carousel of newbies that come off equally one-note but only slightly less annoying because they've only been one-note for a few months instead of 13 years.

Both options are crap. Maraad and Admiral Taylor shouldn't have died and neither should have Vol'jin. There was no reason for any of it.

Maraad's death would have at least made sense if they kept his story from WoD's beta. What reached live though made it completely pointless though. Still, his lords of war video alone made him the best character of that expansion. Which is saying something given how he died halfway through the leveling experience.

[Aucald]

I sure hope you're not referring to my examples here because all those characters teamed up with Alliance against the Warchief of the Horde. And I'm pretty sure that even if people were making these wider accusations, they'd still be making them about "talking to someone in the enemy faction", not "outside the faction in general".

Likely some of them, yes. Like I don't believe Saurfang ever betrayed the Horde in any real sense - Sylvanas, yes; but his loyalty was always with the Horde as proved when he died to stop the Horde from collapsing in on itself at the gates of Orgrimmar. I also don't think Baine's diplomatic outreach to Anduin in "Before the Storm" was tantamount to treason, though I think his actions at Theramore were. I don't think Thrall betrayed the Horde by trying to establish diplomatic and peaceful ties with the Alliance as a means to end the conflicts during his reign, either. Diplomacy and/or the desire for peaceful relations are not betrayals nor do they make the would-be diplomats traitors. Even when two forces are at war, those trying to end the war and forestall the loss of life on both sides should not be castigated as traitors.

[Mehrunes]

Likely some of them, yes. Like I don't believe Saurfang ever betrayed the Horde in any real sense - Sylvanas, yes; but his loyalty was always with the Horde as proved when he died to stop the Horde from collapsing in on itself at the gates of Orgrimmar. I also don't think Baine's diplomatic outreach to Anduin in "Before the Storm" was tantamount to treason, though I think his actions at Theramore were. I don't think Thrall betrayed the Horde by trying to establish diplomatic and peaceful ties with the Alliance as a means to end the conflicts during his reign, either. Diplomacy and/or the desire for peaceful relations are not betrayals nor do they make the would-be diplomats traitors. Even when two forces are at war, those trying to end the war and forestall the loss of life on both sides should not be castigated as traitors.

As per the Blood Oath, Warchief is essentially the Horde.

And let's see about Saurfang:
1. He spared an enemy leader despite a direct order from his superior.
2. By his own admission he deliberately spared another Alliance leader.
2b. He did that specifically because he wished for said other Alliance leader to win the war against the Horde right there.
3. He killed Horde members trying to bring him to Orgrimmar based on Warchief's orders.
4. He rescued a traitor to the Horde killing even more Horde members in the process.
5. He flat out told an Alliance racial leader to pass information to the High King of the Alliance that he can count on his aid during his war against the Horde.
6. He marched on Orgrimmar hand in hand with the Alliance. While stark majority of the Horde was still on Sylvanas' side.

I'm not sure what more do you need.

And yay, he sacrificed himself in the name of the belief of Horde's subservience to the Alliance that he embodied. That totally negates all the traitorous acts he has committed.

And no one said anything about Before the Storm in regards to Baine in this thread. What he did in Before the Storm wasn't his only "achievement" this expansion. He sabotaged Horde's war campaign. He killed Horde members. He teamed up with Alliance on its march on Orgrimmar just like Saurfang. And the bit about Before the Storm is already treason because Sylvanas ordered him to cease all communication and he still ignored that and communicated some more. Even sent a piece of his own body as a sign of his sycophancy.

Thrall's reign ended way before BfA and my post explicitly talked about BfA. He joined the Alliance just like the rest of "totally not traitors". But if you insist on mentioning his reign, Thrall deliberately ignored any and all Alliance incursion into Horde territory. What Thrall did during his reign isn't just "trying to establish diplomatic ties". It's appeasement.

And trying to end the war not only against the wishes or without the authorization of your ruler, but by working with the enemy against said ruler is about as clear cut as treason gets.

[TheRagebear]

Maraad's death would have at least made sense if they kept his story from WoD's beta. What reached live though made it completely pointless though. Still, his lords of war video alone made him the best character of that expansion. Which is saying something given how he died halfway through the leveling experience.

If Golden had started earlier then I'd suspect Maraad was a victim to those types. The ones that talk about toxic masculinity and how female characters shouldn't need a man to define them (even if Yrel seems to be only more defined by her relationship to Maraad in what went live.)

Taylor and Vol'jin were absolutely victims of faction parity though. Change my mind.

[Aucald]

As per the Blood Oath, Warchief is essentially the Horde.

A position I've always disagreed with in the past and continue to do so now - as with two insurrections and deposed Warchiefs under the Horde's belt, I think my interpretation is probably the one better borne out by the narrative.

And let's see about Saurfang:
1. He spared an enemy leader despite a direct order from his superior.
2. By his own admission he deliberately spared another Alliance leader.
2b. He did that specifically because he wished for said other Alliance leader to win the war against the Horde right there.
3. He kills Horde members trying to bring him to Orgrimmar based on Warchief's orders.
4. He rescues a traitor to the Horde.
5. He tells an Alliance racial leader to pass information to the High King of the Alliance that he can count on him.
6. He marches on Orgrimmar hand in hand with the Alliance. While stark majority of the Horde was still on Sylvanas' side.

I'm not sure what more do you need.

Conscientious objection to an invalid or patently immoral order is not in itself betrayal, even if the substance of that refusal spares a political prisoner. Point #2B isn't anywhere to be found in Saurfang's rationale, and he specifically informed Sylvanas he would handle Malfurion at a later date (this being unconnected to events at Lordaeron, when he was betrayed in turn and left for dead). Point #3 is in contention as it is highly likely the Horde members were sent to execute him without trial, similar to events in "Safe Haven." #4 is a continued act to preserve the Horde's unity by preventing Sylvanas' complete takeover, who is already increasingly viewed as an illegitimate leader figure. Ditto for #5, and ditto for #6 as the fight at Orgrimmar proves his case correct, and leaves Sylvanas revealed as illegitimate and corrupt - and she departs the field because of it.

And yay, he sacrificed himself in the name of the belief of Horde's subservience to the Alliance that he embodied. That totally negates all the traitorous acts he has committed.

Imagined "subservience" aside, he forced Sylvanas to reveal herself for what she truly was and helped depose an illegitimate leader who was a danger to the Horde's continued stability (and apparently to life itself). All in all, that's a good thing.

And no one said anything about Before the Storm in regards to Baine in this thread. What he did in Before the Storm wasn't his only "achievement" this expansion. He sabotaged Horde's war campaign. He killed Horde members. He teamed up with Alliance on its march on Orgrimmar just like Saurfang. And the bit about Before the Storm is already treason because Sylvanas ordered him to cease all communication and he still ignored that and communicated some more. Even sent a piece of his own body as a sign of his sycophancy.

Like Saurfang, Baine also disagreed with and began to move against an increasingly illegitimate leader. His actions at Theramore don't have much in the way of an excuse, as they were prompted by a personal debt he viewed as more important than the Horde's battle (which is why I view it as a betrayal), but his actions in BfA have a good deal more backing to them.

Thrall's reign ended way before BfA and my post explicitly talked about BfA. He joined the Alliance just like the rest of "totally not traitors". But if you insist on mentioning his reign, Thrall deliberately ignored any and all Alliance incursion into Horde territory. What Thrall did during his reign isn't just" trying to establish diplomatic ties". It's appeasement.

If Thrall "ignored any and all Alliance incursion into Horde territory" there wouldn't be conflict, would there? Thrall was working to try to find equitable solutions to the conflicts that bedeviled the Horde and the Alliance - that's not appeasement, it's what diplomacy is. That you confuse the two is probably down to your particular biases.

And trying to end the war not only against the wishes or without the authorization of your ruler, but by working with the enemy against said ruler is about as clear cut as treason gets.

Not when your leader is shown to be increasingly illegitimate and finally outs herself as the enemy of both hope and life. Then I think you're ethically and morally required to move against them in any way you can - as both Baine and Saurfang did. Call it treason if you like, I call it fully and completely justified revolution.

[Mehrunes]

If Golden had started earlier then I'd suspect Maraad was a victim to those types. The ones that talk about toxic masculinity and how female characters shouldn't need a man to define them (even if Yrel seems to be only more defined by her relationship to Maraad in what went live.)

Taylor and Vol'jin were absolutely victims of faction parity though. Change my mind.

From what I recall the complaint wasn't even that Maraad was defining her. It's that he acted in a creepy manner with his advances. But the thing is, given his backstory it made goddamn sense since he was projecting his feelings towards MU Yrel on AU Yrel. And with how much loss and regret there was in his life it'd be weird if he didn't react in a similar way to seeing the love of his life again. And while it wasn't his Yrel, it'd be hard for him to just act on logic here and suppress the feelings he'd feel. Hell, coming to terms with that it's not his love could have been an interesting character arc to explore. But it's like a male character can't be a bit awkward towards a female character no matter what. Let's create some rainbow unicorn where are male characters are flawless paragons of all that's good when it comes to women. Unwanted advances are totally unrealistic after all.

[matrix123mko]

The raid boss thing aside this is just a further symptom of the dumb way Blizzard likes to write the two factions. They'll butcher the Alliance's minor characters like Maraad, Amber, the Tidesages etc. Leaving only the demigods that they can't write and that everyone else finds boring because they aren't willing to put effort into writing. Meanwhile they really like killing off major Horde characters, so that the Horde is stuck in a carousel of newbies that come off equally one-note but only slightly less annoying because they've only been one-note for a few months instead of 13 years.

Both options are crap. Maraad and Admiral Taylor shouldn't have died and neither should have Vol'jin. There was no reason for any of it.

That's why I hope that Tyrande will be raid boss next expansion. But I don't expect that. I also wanted Jaina to be N'zoth's puppet in BfA.

[TheRagebear]

That's why I hope that Tyrande will be raid boss next expansion. But I don't expect that. I also wanted Jaina to be N'zoth's puppet in BfA.

Yeah, because why develop characters into something better when you can just kill them off? Just become the parody of George R. R. Martin. Or is it just because they're Alliance heroes and you want more of the garbage faction parity that lead to Vol'jin being killed off?

[jpch]

I would side with Tyrande,Malfurion, and Genn in an instant, enough of the lame king boy and his power for friendship.
Giving the Alliance a few choices now would be the perfect time.

[Monteverdi]

It's an easy way they can make 'peace' between the factions. The 4th War is over, the Alliance and Horde are officially at peace, but extremist factions linked to each can be 'joined' by the player, which gives a lore explanation for the continued presence of PVP in the game.

[matrix123mko]

Yeah, because why develop characters into something better when you can just kill them off? Just become the parody of George R. R. Martin. Or is it just because they're Alliance heroes and you want more of the garbage faction parity that lead to Vol'jin being killed off?

I assure you that Vol'jin was the one who died for purpose.

[Mehrunes]

A position I've always disagreed with in the past and continue to do so now - as with two insurrections and deposed Warchiefs under the Horde's belt, I think my interpretation is probably the one better borne out by the narrative.

Except your interpretation is that people having the capacity to disobey the law equals law either not binding them or flat out not existing, so no. It's a bogus position devoid of any validity in a serious discussion. It'd only be better than anything (in this case including not having an argument at all) if the narrative presented by Blizzard was that the Horde was a hive mind and your position was about how it's not necessarily the case, with those breaking the will of the hive mind being your example.

Conscientious objection to an invalid or patently immoral order is not in itself betrayal, even if the substance of that refusal spares a political prisoner. Point #2B isn't anywhere to be found in Saurfang's rationale, and he specifically informed Sylvanas he would handle Malfurion at a later date (this being unconnected to events at Lordaeron, when he was betrayed in turn and left for dead). Point #3 is in contention as it is highly likely the Horde members were sent to execute him without trial, similar to events in "Safe Haven." #4 is a continued act to preserve the Horde's unity by preventing Sylvanas' complete takeover, who is already increasingly viewed as an illegitimate leader figure. Ditto for #5, and ditto for #6 as the fight at Orgrimmar proves his case correct, and leaves Sylvanas revealed as illegitimate and corrupt - and she departs the field because of it.

He is a tool of the Warchief's desire. The order was valid. Point #2B was about Anduin because point #2, that point #2B was related to, was explicitly about another Alliance leader than the one mentioned in #1. As usual, you don't even know what you're replying to, making the whole endeavor rather pointless. And that he spared Anduin for the reason I said is what Saurfang himself flat out tells to Anduin in the second Sadfang cinematic.

Your reply to point #3 is blatantly false because the Dark Ranger told him what her orders were and that he was to be apprehended and brought to Orgrimmar, with her and her force being authorized to use lethal force if Saurfang refused. Saurfang not only refused but escalated the situation. Your retort to point #4 is nothing but an excuse, it doesn't actually counter or change anything. He still killed Horde soldiers. That is treason. He still did so to free a convicted traitor to the Horde. That is treason. He still did so hand in hand with the Alliance, i.e. enemies of the Horde. That is treason.

Your "retort" to #5 and 6 is both blatantly false AND an excuse that doesn't actually counter anything. There is absolutely nothing about the position of Warchief that links its legitimacy to the individual liking the Horde. Even if that wasn't the case, that still wouldn't negate the fact that Saurfang noped out of the Horde and conspired with its enemies to solve that issue rather than dealing with the problem through proper channels within the Horde. And his idealistic case isn't the subject here. His treasonous actions are.

Imagined "subservience" aside, he forced Sylvanas to reveal herself for what she truly was and helped depose an illegitimate leader who was a danger to the Horde's continued stability (and apparently to life itself). All in all, that's a good thing.

Link any source on how Horde works that would make Sylvanas illegitimate in light of what Saurfang exposed. Anything at all. And your "imagined" remark isn't as valid as you think it is when the point #5 that you merrily handwaved away without actually addressing it was about Saurfang asking Jaina to inform Anduin that he'll be there for him when Anduin will need his services in the fight against Sylvanas. Saurfang's subservience to the High King of the Alliance, and consequently Alliance as a whole, was said out loud. By Saurfang.

Like Saurfang, Baine also disagreed with and began to move against an increasingly illegitimate leader. His actions at Theramore don't have much in the way of an excuse, as they were prompted by a personal debt he viewed as more important than the Horde's battle (which is why I view it as a betrayal), but his actions in BfA have a good deal more backing to them.

Putting aside how bogus your remarks about lack of legitimacy are, what legal authority to do so did Baine have, exactly? Because his personal feelings ain't that.

If Thrall "ignored any and all Alliance incursion into Horde territory" there wouldn't be conflict, would there? Thrall was working to try to find equitable solutions to the conflicts that bedeviled the Horde and the Alliance - that's not appeasement, it's what diplomacy is. That you confuse the two is probably down to your particular biases.

Last time I checked Alliance invading Horde territory and killing Horde soldiers on sight near their bases is a conflict. Because Thrall's opinion doesn't alter reality. For god's sake, Alterac Valley was a battle ground and continued to be a hotspot of fighting until Cataclysm. And please, do share the stories of Thrall "working to try to find equitable solutions" to things like Dwarves invading the Barrens or Mulgore. Or doing anything whatsoever about it. Because my memory fails me here.

Not when your leader is shown to be increasingly illegitimate and finally outs herself as the enemy of both hope and life. Then I think you're ethically and morally required to move against them in any way you can - as both Baine and Saurfang did. Call it treason if you like, I call it fully and completely justified revolution.

The Warchief dictates the direction of the Horde. Am I missing some charter of the Horde that says the Horde is totes about hope and that no Warchief, despite them having absolute power over the Horde, can't be against it? I don't think so. Not that Sylvanas actually outed herself as an enemy of both hope and life, because her confession had nothing to do with either of those things. Those are what Saurfang accused her of. While what she actually talked about is that everyone is insignificant to her.

And call it whatever you want (not that revolution isn't treason and you're trying to build your position on a difference that doesn't really exist but whatever), but treason is treason. Because words mean things. That's kinda their thing. And treason is neither an issue of ethics or morals. It's an issue of law. Be it law of the land or some personal contracts between some parties. Did Baine and Saurfang break their obligations to their leader? Yes. Did they conspire with the enemy of the Horde? Yes. Would you look at that, they're traitors.

Also, let me remind you that as per Baine himself Vol'jin was a traitor to the Horde already at the start in Cata. To the point that Garrosh would have been justified to punish him with death. And what Vol'jin did back then pales in comparison to what Saurfang and Baine did. And despite the fact that in that case your "treason against the leader of the Horde isn't treason against the Horde" argument would actually fly. Not really far, because it's a terrible argument in general, but still. Because Vol'jin threatened Garrosh and Garrosh alone. While Saurfang and Baine murdered multiple Horde members that, imagine that, weren't Warchiefs.

Finally, let me ask you a question. If Baine and Saurfang, in all their righteous indignation teamed up with N'Zoth instead of the Alliance to fight Sylvanas, would you still make the same excuses for why their "totally not treason" isn't treason?