new forsaken leader spoilers

[Super Dickmann]

Given that "Before the Storm" was about Anduin and Sylvanas this is more or less understandable - Calia was a secondary character in that novel. I've already said that Calia and Anduin share a worldview by dint of them both being Priests, but this doesn't make Calia a member of the Alliance anymore than it makes Aelthalyste one. Saurfang has next to nothing to do with Calia one way or the other, so bringing him up was and is somewhat meaningless. Although given how you think a mere conversation with Anduin makes Saurfang "an Alliance patsy" I can see how you'd also think this for Calia, who actively worked with Anduin toward a shared goal. But outside the realm of hyperbole and insularity this isn't how faction allegiance works one way or the other.

You are the one who compared Saurfang with Calia, I merely explained why that doesn't gel and that in terms of the general opinion of consumers, the ties with Anduin were the worst element of Saurfang's story, made up for by the parts of his narrative that were demonstrably Horde. I'm not gonna rehash his being an Alliance asset, though I will add that since hte last time we had this conversation, Saurfang himself accepted that Anduin set him on this path, so there's that. Rather that Calia and Anduin have a more substantial relationship than Saurfang and Anduin and that having all these qualities in common, much like her personal ties, make Calia a more natural fit for the Alliance than the Horde.

Thrall created the modern Horde, so yes, he obviously has quite a lot to do with the Horde. It's also not *my* Strawman because I didn't bring it up, I only said that Calia and Thrall would share a lot in common in terms of their worldview and that was it. If you think that's a Strawman argument, well, feel free to do so - but it wasn't my argument, so you'll have to take that up with whoever first brought it up. I've already said Calia has more in common with the Alliance than the Horde, so all this has more in common with beating a dead horse than it does any form of pisstake, I've only said that what she does or doesn't have in common doesn't have a bearing on her ultimate loyalties, which are likely to be the Forsaken (and thus to the Horde). If she's accepted then she'll become a member of the Horde despite the fact she is friends with Jaina and Anduin. I mean Baine is friends with Jaina and Anduin as well, so there's even a precedent for it. It's really a non-argument.

Your strawman was accusing me of saying that if you had one exchange with the Alliance, that would make you Alliance, when even my very first point was saying that the rudiments of relationship with the faction - that being having dialogue and a dynamic with its characters, even a single line of it, was lacking between Calia and the Horde. And that whether Calia can get along with Thrall on some points is immaterial, if these are points that he's already in alignment with the Alliance with, but that she does not have in common with any of his Horde counterparts.

It's excruciating to say this, but even Baine is more tied to the Horde with the Horde than Calia because the sum of all his character action is that "He's that Anduin-like guy in the Horde" and when deprived of that context he simply doesn't exist in the narrative. Baine would not be Baine if he were not in the Horde, fucking it over because he got salty over some inconvenience inflicted on his human pals, Calia on the other hand has so far functioned exclusively outside the Horde without any trouble and has as her core conceit not changing herself, but changing others to be more like her and thus more like the Alliance.

I mean I don't really disagree with this, but it's not relevant and entirely another debate that's not really germane to this topic. Although I disagree that religion is all that separates the Alliance and the Horde - I would say the biggest divide is actually their history of opposition stemming from the First and Second Wars.

This entire bit was mostly about how Calia doesn't mesh with any incarnation of the Horde and what a mess this part of the Horde is, but the last bit is off-topic, so I'll skip it. Just replying to this to say that this is one of the factors differentiating the WC3 Horde from the Alliance. There are others, which I've gone into in other posts or that've been covered well in the Horde topic.

Well then, I'd say you don't quite understand what I'm saying - whether this is because you're being purposefully obtuse or simply not grasping the concepts I'm unable to say. I would say the Alliance has more of a cultural hegemony than the Horde, largely one based on Human aesthetics, whereas the Horde lacks a central core of aesthetic hegemony in favor of a coalition of necessity. This isn't to say the Horde doesn't have shared values, just that what unites them is a bit more dynamic and a bit more tenuous than what unifies the Alliance. It's easier for an outsider of any kind of fit in among the Horde than it is the Alliance, after all; the Horde has billed itself a haven for misfits and outsiders of all kinds. You want to argue this position then do so, preferably without quippy and incorrect statements or appeals to some notion of insular Horde jingoism.

It's not a very hard point to grasp - your standpoint is effectively that one fits within the Horde by virtue of being in the Horde. It's a self-affirming point, but its end result is the watering down of what it means to be Horde in the first place. If a group X is said to have certain values, but someone can be part of the group with having said values, but instead is in every aspect more similar to Group Y, to the point of encouraging people in Group X who had their own identity within it to act more like those in Group Y, then group X doesn't really stand for these things or its values are so broad that they may as well not exist. We are talking here of missing even the fundamental notions of necessity, rejection or self-interest that tied the most disparate elements of the Horde to it before. There's genuinely nothing that makes Calia and her undead a fit for the Horde save for being forced by gameplay to be in that faction since you can't just swap every undead player to the other side.

[Aucald]

You are the one who compared Saurfang with Calia, I merely explained why that doesn't gel and that in terms of the general opinion of consumers, the ties with Anduin were the worst element of Saurfang's story, made up for by the parts of his narrative that were demonstrably Horde. I'm not gonna rehash his being an Alliance asset, though I will add that since hte last time we had this conversation, Saurfang himself accepted that Anduin set him on this path, so there's that. Rather that Calia and Anduin have a more substantial relationship than Saurfang and Anduin and that having all these qualities in common, much like her personal ties, make Calia a more natural fit for the Alliance than the Horde.

No, the only thing I said about Saurfang is that he and Anduin shared core values, which you could obviously extend to Calia as she and Anduin share many of the same values - but that was it. It does gel, because you yourself conceded to it a few exchanges it back. That doesn't make for any intrinsic connection between Saurfang and Calia (outside of the thematic), nor did I imply it did.

Your strawman was accusing me of saying that if you had one exchange with the Alliance, that would make you Alliance, when even my very first point was saying that the rudiments of relationship with the faction - that being having dialogue and a dynamic with its characters, even a single line of it, was lacking between Calia and the Horde. And that whether Calia can get along with Thrall on some points is immaterial, if these are points that he's already in alignment with the Alliance with, but that she does not have in common with any of his Horde counterparts.

That's not a Strawman argument, it's literally what you've said and have been saying ever since "Lost Honor." Saurfang has a conversation with Anduin and leaves the Stockades an Alliance asset - so you're either backpedaling on what you've long maintained, or your trying to have it both ways now. The groundwork for Calia joining the Horde has now been laid between her and Voss, as well as the Dark Rangers who didn't follow Sylvanas into self-imposed exile.

It's excruciating to say this, but even Baine is more tied to the Horde with the Horde than Calia because the sum of all his character action is that "He's that Anduin-like guy in the Horde" and when deprived of that context he simply doesn't exist in the narrative. Baine would not be Baine if he were not in the Horde, fucking it over because he got salty over some inconvenience inflicted on his human pals, Calia on the other hand has so far functioned exclusively outside the Horde without any trouble and has as her core conceit not changing herself, but changing others to be more like her and thus more like the Alliance.

You're aware the whole "ties to the Horde" element of this argument is what I'm discounting, yes? Yes, Calia has no ties to the Horde - she knows no one in it, she's not a member of it, hence why I implied she's an outsider to begin with. I am saying, point blank, that that does not matter in the least. The Horde is a place for outsiders, those who don't have a place otherwise. She doesn't need a tie to join it outside of the Horde accepting her as part of it, and her other ties (the Alliance ones) are neither patent nor binding. Nothing is stopping her from joining the Horde under these auspices.

It's not a very hard point to grasp - your standpoint is effectively that one fits within the Horde by virtue of being in the Horde. It's a self-affirming point, but its end result is the watering down of what it means to be Horde in the first place. If a group X is said to have certain values, but someone can be part of the group with having said values, but instead is in every aspect more similar to Group Y, to the point of encouraging people in Group X who had their own identity within it to act more like those in Group Y, then group X doesn't really stand for these things or its values are so broad that they may as well not exist. We are talking here of missing even the fundamental notions of necessity, rejection or self-interest that tied the most disparate elements of the Horde to it before. There's genuinely nothing that makes Calia and her undead a fit for the Horde save for being forced by gameplay to be in that faction since you can't just swap every undead player to the other side.

No, that's not really what I'm saying. I am saying that the Horde has no hard or fast barriers to entry - especially not in the thematic or aesthetic sense. There *are* some considerations to make, of course, in terms of prior loyalties and/or the potential for betrayal, but I don't think Calia is much a danger there (and the enemy she once opposed has revealed herself an enemy of the Horde to begin with). The values of the Horde are broad, and under its aegis there are many cultures to which one could belong - be it the rustic tribalism of the Orcs, Tauren, and Trolls, or the urbane and cosmopolitan culture of the Nightborne and Sin'dorei, the ancient grandeur of the Zandalari, or the quasi-Human trappings of the Forsaken (two guesses where Calia would fit best). Gatekeeping for the Horde isn't really necessary, or largely feasible, given the wide net of cultures and themes under its considerable umbrella now. Sure, Calia will probably never be at home with the Orcs or the Trolls, but she would probably fit in well among the Forsaken, the Blood Elves, the Nightborne, or even the Tauren (especially the Sunwalkers given their shared belief in the Light).

[therealbowser]

Your position isn't "more reasonable" as it runs contrary to Blizzard's precedent of doing absolutely nothing to explore lines of division among the Forsaken (or most races for that matter). Even a bigger one like the OG vs post-Cata Forsaken. And OK, Forsaken are the most anti-Alliance Horde race. What of it? First of all, Blizzard likes to pretend Calia isn't Alliance. Secondly, what's the second most anti-Alliance race? The Orcs, I'd wager. And who leads the Orcs again with the coming of 8.3?

By the looks of it, Thrall. The guy whose tenure as Warchief was mired with Alliance appeasement where he turned a blind eye to anything related to Alliance attacking the Horde, while berating Horde members for doing the same to the Alliance. The guy who - by his own admission - settled Orcs in Durotar specifically to make them suffer as an atonement for what the Old Horde did to the Alliance, even though many Orcs were born in internment camps and had nothing to do with the First or Second War. The guy who teamed up with the Alliance against the Horde in this very expansion. Do you see any Orcs rising up against being led by an Alliance sycophant of this magnitude in 8.3? Because I don't. Why should Blizzard treat the Forsaken any different?

Blizzard's writing IS unbelievably boring and bad, with "wasted potential" being the overall theme of the entire game. Especially when it comes to faction war stories. Because while they like to cash in on early hype from faction pride the premise of a faction war expansion, the story they actually want to push during such expansions is fortune cookie wisdom of "we're stronger together", "let's sing kumbaya around a bonfire" and "the power on friendship will prevail". With the Horde becoming more Alliance-like after Blizzard tells the Horde players how bad non-Alliancified Hode is and how they need a human to tell them what they should be like.

And they will push it no matter what, regardless of how forced and hamfisted it will be. Vide the majority of the Horde that still stood behind Sylvanas and her war becoming best buds with Alliance on the spot just because Sylvanas was a meanie. Even after we started 8.2.5 with Anduin out of all people pointing out the vectors of bad blood between the factions and his Orc pet Saurfang lamenting that the divide between factions is too large.

Expecting Blizzard to not rise above their established "standard" and simply deliver more of the same isn't "extreme pessimism". It's realism.

Given how it looks like Shadowlands will indeed be the next expansion judging by some Lich King related stuff being the part of 8.3 that's encrypted out of all things, at the very best Blizzard will make some Forsaken still loyal to Sylvanas bail on the faction entirely and join her in her mission. But at that point it's not an internal Forsaken conflict. It's some ex-Forsaken being evil and wrong and joining a villain, while the rest of the Forsaken get even more homogenized in Calia's Light with the departure of the bad apples.

My position is more balanced, might be a better way to put it, since I don't just assume the worst of Blizzard. They've made good stories, and they've made bad stories. You're basing your position primarily over BFA and acting like the story will continue to play out in the same way despite the fact that players have expressed how unhappy they are with said story, which would naturally lead Blizzard to change things up, which is something they are very well known for doing. In fact, they tend to overreact if anything.

Here's the reality of that situation with Thrall, and you did bring up interesting points: The reality is that Sylvanas, their trusted warchief, was shown to be a traitor to the Horde. That shakes the very foundation of their loyalty and beliefs. And Thrall is not "leading" the Horde as warchief now, it's a council of the remaining Horde leaders. At any rate, these Horde are probably very shaken up by the change and are still processing things. The Forsaken are an exceptional case, because they have been following Sylvanas fanatically (as she killed any who went against her, among other things), and everything they've stood by for the past decade or so has been shattered.

This shift is not going to go from a leader with extreme aggression to the Alliance to a former Alliance peace-loving leader without something happening. But there have been groups in the Forsaken wanting Sylvanas to account for things for a long time, as well. She simply silences them, or kills them. Now that she isn't there to do it, things will eventually smooth over.

As for your opinion on Blizzard's writing being "unbelievably bad", well that's your opinion. I can agree that it's not good, but it's not dramatically bad. The faction conflict stories are, but hey, that's kind of the point of this thread. Wasted potential is very common. You overexaggeration the small amount of peace between the Alliance and horde, however, is unnecessary. While it did feel a little 'too easy', it wasn't as dramatically strange as you make it out to be. Most of the Horde were choosing between loyalty to Sylvanas or having some sort of moral conscience. A few didn't have an issue choosing between those, most did. Since Sylvanas is not warchief any longer, they don't have to choose. They don't have to fight and die in a war that doesn't matter. In reality, most of the Horde doesn't actually love war for the sake of war.

I mean I can't keep responding to this seriously. You're basically just trolling me with these petty comparisons like "let's all sing kumbata around a bonefire" and "the Horde that stood behind Sylvanas best buds with Alliance on the spot because Sylvanas was a meanie". When you are grossly overexaggerate everything in a weak, vain attempt to make your point feel stronger, it actually just makes your argument feel petty and weak. If and when you feel like discussing this maturely, I'd be open to it, but frankly, we both know that's not going to happen so why don't we just end this on this note and move on?

[Alex86el]

By your own logic wouldn’t forsaken fans be happy because Calia has big breasts and a corset ?


I mean cmon, give two seconds of thought.

but she's not "cool".
cause she's all "good" and stuff, which is lame, because reasons.

[Friendlyimmolation]

but she's not "cool".
cause she's all "good" and stuff, which is lame, because reasons.

Or because Calia has the personality of a wet paper bag, and who's character is literally just Anduin but a girl and LIGHTFORED!!!11 undead.

Sylvanas is an interesting character with history of the Forsaken, hell she made the Forsaken, her "replacement" isn't even Forsaken, or even Horde, its no wonder Forsaken players don't fucking want Calia.

[Arrashi]

Or because Calia has the personality of a wet paper bag, and who's character is literally just Anduin but a girl and LIGHTFORED!!!11 undead.

Sylvanas is an interesting character with history of the Forsaken, hell she made the Forsaken, her "replacement" isn't even Forsaken, or even Horde, its no wonder Forsaken players don't fucking want Calia.

Clearly you lack galaxy brain to fully appreciate nuanced character that is calia.

[Super Dickmann]

No, the only thing I said about Saurfang is that he and Anduin shared core values, which you could obviously extend to Calia as she and Anduin share many of the same values - but that was it. It does gel, because you yourself conceded to it a few exchanges it back. That doesn't make for any intrinsic connection between Saurfang and Calia (outside of the thematic), nor did I imply it did.

It is without relevance, because I said right out that an overlap existed between Calia's values and those of Thrall and/or Saurfang, but that this overlap was considerably less than the overlap she has with the Alliance.

That's not a Strawman argument, it's literally what you've said and have been saying ever since "Lost Honor." Saurfang has a conversation with Anduin and leaves the Stockades an Alliance asset - so you're either backpedaling on what you've long maintained, or your trying to have it both ways now. The groundwork for Calia joining the Horde has now been laid between her and Voss, as well as the Dark Rangers who didn't follow Sylvanas into self-imposed exile.

No, that's your reading of it because you can't seem to grasp the difference between say, Sylvanas and Anduin chatting before the Gathering, or Thrall and Jaina discussing where things went wrong and the Alliance King quite literally freeing Saurfang to send him on a mission to overthrow the Warchief of the Horde he is pledged to during a total war between the two. It's the content of the conversation that made Saurfang an Alliance patsy, not the intrinsic fact that the conversation took place. I am well aware that the groundwork has been laid to give the Forsaken the final lethal injection, but even in the scope of that abortion of a quest Calia at no point fit better with the Horde than the Alliance, she just reinforced that the nu-undead fit with the Alliance as does she. The setup has been for her to take over the undead, that the undead are tethered to the Horde and so can't just join up with their leader and go with her friends to the society they have more in common with and now accepts them is just gameplay necessity, not any kind of narrative groundwork done.

You're aware the whole "ties to the Horde" element of this argument is what I'm discounting, yes? Yes, Calia has no ties to the Horde - she knows no one in it, she's not a member of it, hence why I implied she's an outsider to begin with. I am saying, point blank, that that does not matter in the least. The Horde is a place for outsiders, those who don't have a place otherwise. She doesn't need a tie to join it outside of the Horde accepting her as part of it, and her other ties (the Alliance ones) are neither patent nor binding. Nothing is stopping her from joining the Horde under these auspices.

Calia isn't an outsider. She was asked not to leave and her leaving doesn't require her to give anything up except her nice cottage home that she can always return to. Calia is incomparable with the Forsaken's original joining of the Horde, the blood elves, goblins or Darkspear. She joins the Horde not for any in-story reason, because there's nothing in the story preventing her from being with her friends again, but because she is prevented by the medium from moving the undead to the faction where they belong. Character ties are one way to get her into the group, another is values, which as said, she shares only the most basic level everyone of the current cast agrees with of or necessity, which doesn't happen.

No, that's not really what I'm saying. I am saying that the Horde has no hard or fast barriers to entry - especially not in the thematic or aesthetic sense. There *are* some considerations to make, of course, in terms of prior loyalties and/or the potential for betrayal, but I don't think Calia is much a danger there (and the enemy she once opposed has revealed herself an enemy of the Horde to begin with). The values of the Horde are broad, and under its aegis there are many cultures to which one could belong - be it the rustic tribalism of the Orcs, Tauren, and Trolls, or the urbane and cosmopolitan culture of the Nightborne and Sin'dorei, the ancient grandeur of the Zandalari, or the quasi-Human trappings of the Forsaken (two guesses where Calia would fit best). Gatekeeping for the Horde isn't really necessary, or largely feasible, given the wide net of cultures and themes under its considerable umbrella now. Sure, Calia will probably never be at home with the Orcs or the Trolls, but she would probably fit in well among the Forsaken, the Blood Elves, the Nightborne, or even the Tauren (especially the Sunwalkers given their shared belief in the Light).

The Nightborne, nu-undead and blood elves belong on the Alliance because they fit the mold Calia does, none more than the nu-undead of which she is the leader. I fundamentally disagree with the notion that the Horde has no thematic or aesthetic limitations, because again, an organisation that has none of these should not exist, it's quite literally nothing as it stands for nothing. It does not even stand for an alliance of convenience, because Calia would be far more convenienced in the Alliance and so would the undead. She does not need to be in the Horde, the way every other participant at some point needed to be. She does not tie in with the Horde's cultural background or rites, the way the Highmountain tauren or vulpera do. She owes the Horde nothing, and Derek especially doesn't, given that his record with the Horde is being killed by them, being raised by them into a slave, getting rescued by a guy after being turned into an undead abomination to be returned to his family and finally deciding that despite having the acceptance and love of his family and no cultural link with Lordaeron whatsoever, he'd sooner go to the guys who did jack to save him from his enslavement. Again, as you've failed to answer time and again - the entire core of her character, the reason she was introduced was to tie the Forsaken to the Alliance, not the Horde, to regress their identity back to when they were humans of the Alliance of Lordaeron, not to strengthen their bonds with the Horde.

As a side note, the Sunwalkers becoming Light-worshipers was retarded and they were much better as a druid-style Sun cult, but so help us if any race can have a lick of individuality when they can all be copy-pastes of each other with different looks.

[elbleuet]

I mean everything that people can heap on Calia as not being Horde enough could have been said back in Vanilla for Sylvanas and the Forsaken and again in TBC for the Blood Elves.

Except Calia was murdered by a Horde warchief, then rezzed by an Alliance High king, and is friend with the Lord Admiral of Kul'Tiras.

Back in Vanilla Sylvanas was indeed not Horde enough, but was never Alliance friendly. That's the difference.

[Tarba]

but she's not "cool".
cause she's all "good" and stuff, which is lame, because reasons.

Because basically every other leader is allready. From the brutal orcs to the savage trolls or the arrogant elves. They are all alike.
And now the last bit of difference in wow is scrapped to please some weirdo who never played war3 and just wanted a new skin payable without having to play a character different than a bland loyal good character.

[Mehrunes]

I mean everything that people can heap on Calia as not being Horde enough could have been said back in Vanilla for Sylvanas and the Forsaken and again in TBC for the Blood Elves.

People said that Sylvanas is an unfitting ruler for the Forsaken because she isn't Horde? Fascinating. Do you have any examples? An old threat or something?

[Alex86el]

Or because Calia has the personality of a wet paper bag, and who's character is literally just Anduin but a girl and LIGHTFORED!!!11 undead.

Sylvanas is an interesting character with history of the Forsaken, hell she made the Forsaken, her "replacement" isn't even Forsaken, or even Horde, its no wonder Forsaken players don't fucking want Calia.

totally agree.
i dislike Calia very much as well. and all those new gimicky characters.
and i liked sylvanas because she made things interesting.
but any leader would be preferable to Sylvanas, for anyone who cares for the forsaken and the horde.

[Aucald]

It is without relevance, because I said right out that an overlap existed between Calia's values and those of Thrall and/or Saurfang, but that this overlap was considerably less than the overlap she has with the Alliance.

It was an aside, not any kind of central pillar of the argument. An overlap with the Alliance isn't some form of cancelling factor for any form of overlap with the Horde, either.

No, that's your reading of it because you can't seem to grasp the difference between say, Sylvanas and Anduin chatting before the Gathering, or Thrall and Jaina discussing where things went wrong and the Alliance King quite literally freeing Saurfang to send him on a mission to overthrow the Warchief of the Horde he is pledged to during a total war between the two. It's the content of the conversation that made Saurfang an Alliance patsy, not the intrinsic fact that the conversation took place. I am well aware that the groundwork has been laid to give the Forsaken the final lethal injection, but even in the scope of that abortion of a quest Calia at no point fit better with the Horde than the Alliance, she just reinforced that the nu-undead fit with the Alliance as does she. The setup has been for her to take over the undead, that the undead are tethered to the Horde and so can't just join up with their leader and go with her friends to the society they have more in common with and now accepts them is just gameplay necessity, not any kind of narrative groundwork done.

Saurfang started opposing Sylvanas well before that conversation took place, after the burning of Teldrassil and her actions at Lordaeron - Anduin had nothing to do with that, and there was no "mission" Anduin sent Saurfang on because opposition to Sylvanas was already on Saurfang's plate (by proxy if not directly). But this diversion still has nothing at all to do with Calia's plight or her future within the Horde.

Calia isn't an outsider. She was asked not to leave and her leaving doesn't require her to give anything up except her nice cottage home that she can always return to. Calia is incomparable with the Forsaken's original joining of the Horde, the blood elves, goblins or Darkspear. She joins the Horde not for any in-story reason, because there's nothing in the story preventing her from being with her friends again, but because she is prevented by the medium from moving the undead to the faction where they belong. Character ties are one way to get her into the group, another is values, which as said, she shares only the most basic level everyone of the current cast agrees with of or necessity, which doesn't happen.

Calia is a form of undead that has never been seen before, who has no easy comparison. She's definitely an outsider to the Horde, as you've made quite plain in your own argumentation. I'm not sure what other criteria you need to define Calia as an outsider in any real context here. She's joining the Horde because she considers the Forsaken her own people and wishes to minister to them, and it appears as though at least some of the Forsaken (Voss, Derek, and Delaryn) desire her inclusion as well. What other values are you looking for?

The Nightborne, nu-undead and blood elves belong on the Alliance because they fit the mold Calia does, none more than the nu-undead of which she is the leader. I fundamentally disagree with the notion that the Horde has no thematic or aesthetic limitations, because again, an organisation that has none of these should not exist, it's quite literally nothing as it stands for nothing. It does not even stand for an alliance of convenience, because Calia would be far more convenienced in the Alliance and so would the undead. She does not need to be in the Horde, the way every other participant at some point needed to be. She does not tie in with the Horde's cultural background or rites, the way the Highmountain tauren or vulpera do. She owes the Horde nothing, and Derek especially doesn't, given that his record with the Horde is being killed by them, being raised by them into a slave, getting rescued by a guy after being turned into an undead abomination to be returned to his family and finally deciding that despite having the acceptance and love of his family and no cultural link with Lordaeron whatsoever, he'd sooner go to the guys who did jack to save him from his enslavement. Again, as you've failed to answer time and again - the entire core of her character, the reason she was introduced was to tie the Forsaken to the Alliance, not the Horde, to regress their identity back to when they were humans of the Alliance of Lordaeron, not to strengthen their bonds with the Horde.

You have a very strange notion of what constitutes a nation-state, and the idea that an organization cannot contain cultural diversity seems both wrongheaded and almost comically insular to me. As for "failing to answer time and again," that would be because I find your argument nonsensical and thus impossible to answer in any cogent fashion considering I think you're entirely wrong about Calia's character and general purpose within the narrative, wrong about the nature of the Horde, wrong about what the Horde values, and wrong about the narrative's ultimate trajectory. Your views don't square in any way with my understanding of the narrative, and I can't assemble the things you claim into anything approaching a cohesive argument on their own. Given your repeated attempts to re-frame the argument into something entirely else I'm assuming you're aware of this and trying in vain to move the goalposts into something easier to argue, but I can't be sure. Either way, I think we're at "agree to disagree" territory once more and I'll just leave it at that.

[Zulkhan]

I mean everything that people can heap on Calia as not being Horde enough could have been said back in Vanilla for Sylvanas and the Forsaken and again in TBC for the Blood Elves.

While not an unfair point, a whole group joining with their leader a new organization is one thing, a leader coming out of nowhere to lead that same group is another. I mean, it's comfortable for Blizzard to have Calia Menethil redeeming the Menethil legacy by leading what are technically her own people, but the way she's introduced to them and the way the Forsaken are supposed to accept her without question is dubious.

[Mehrunes]

Heh dubious is a mild way to put it. It's ludicrous. My point mainly was that when it comes to sticking out as a sore thumb in the Horde, Calia is really nothing special.

She sticks out like a sore thumb in both the Horde and the Forsaken, which is why your comparison to Sylvanas falls flat. If anything, with the Horde being led by a coalition of Baine, Thrall and Lor'themar, she sticks out less in the Horde than she does among the Forsaken.

[Zulkhan]

The Nightborne, nu-undead and blood elves belong on the Alliance because they fit the mold Calia does, none more than the nu-undead of which she is the leader. I fundamentally disagree with the notion that the Horde has no thematic or aesthetic limitations, because again, an organisation that has none of these should not exist, it's quite literally nothing as it stands for nothing. It does not even stand for an alliance of convenience, because Calia would be far more convenienced in the Alliance and so would the undead. She does not need to be in the Horde, the way every other participant at some point needed to be. She does not tie in with the Horde's cultural background or rites, the way the Highmountain tauren or vulpera do. She owes the Horde nothing, and Derek especially doesn't, given that his record with the Horde is being killed by them, being raised by them into a slave, getting rescued by a guy after being turned into an undead abomination to be returned to his family and finally deciding that despite having the acceptance and love of his family and no cultural link with Lordaeron whatsoever, he'd sooner go to the guys who did jack to save him from his enslavement. Again, as you've failed to answer time and again - the entire core of her character, the reason she was introduced was to tie the Forsaken to the Alliance, not the Horde, to regress their identity back to when they were humans of the Alliance of Lordaeron, not to strengthen their bonds with the Horde.

Trying to pretend that Calia is indeed an exceptional leader 100% fit to lead the Forsaken (which I'm very skeptical about but whatever) and that "not being Horde" or "too much Alliance" is the only issue at hand (which is not) we could probably justify the matter by saying that Calia doesn't need to be Horde because the Forsaken already are, and whatever defined the Forsaken under Sylvanas' rule didn't really align with whatever "universal value" (semi-quote) held high in the Horde. The Forsaken are Horde because they are Horde, much like the Blood Elves (especially after they regained the Sunwell). Sure, compared to Blood Elves they are defined by extremely exotic characteristics but nearly none of them are "Horde" traits, they're "Forsaken" traits: the only notable common ground left with the Horde is the history built alongside them since the day they joined the group.

In other words, a Forsaken state under Calia isn't going to be more or less Horde than a Forsaken state under Sylvanas, even though the Forsaken would probably be different, and since the Forsaken themselves are Horde by their long standing allegiance, Calia's lack of previous political alignement with the Horde is effectively trivial, especially since she would start to build her own personal history with the organization from that moment on.

That being said, the more contronversial matter are indeed her ties with the Alliance. But even then, despite her long past history with the them (something for which she's not different from Sylvanas or any other Forsaken anyway) right now her relationship with a few Alliance figures is just a step further from Baine's own ties with them, a step that would probably turn back on Baine's equal terms the moment she would take the mantle and start to officially lead the Forsaken and be an Horde leader. Sure, she would be a guaranteed Alliance sympathizer like Baine and that's not good but I think that's besides the point. Personal tastes and opinions aside, if we once again pretend that Calia is somehow fit to lead the Forsaken, that she's somehow able to gain their trust and whatnot, the social and political bond she would have with them would probably surpass, if not bypass, her personal and individual ties with the Alliance and the lacking existence of those in the Horde.

[Aucald]

That being said, the more contronversial matter are indeed her ties with the Alliance. But even then, despite her long past history with the them (something for which she's not different from Sylvanas or any other Forsaken anyway) right now her relationship with a few Alliance figures is just a step further from Baine's own ties with them, a step that would probably turn back on Baine's equal terms the moment she would take the mantle and start to officially lead the Forsaken and be an Horde leader. Sure, she would be a guaranteed Alliance sympathizer like Baine and that's not good but I think that's besides the point. Personal tastes and opinions aside, if we once again pretend that Calia is somehow fit to lead the Forsaken, that she's somehow able to gain their trust and whatnot, the social and political bond she would have with them would probably surpass, if not bypass, her personal and individual ties with the Alliance and the lacking existence of those in the Horde.

For me, her fitness to lead the Forsaken is very different from her inability to be part of the Horde due to some perceived lack of cultural likeness. I don't consider her fit to lead myself - not because she's a former Human, or because she's friends with Jaina or Anduin, but because she has no experience in leadership and her last attempt to display one led not only to her own death but the deaths of the people she was attempting to save. I'm not opposed to a leadership coalition within the Forsaken (e.g. similar to the manner in which the Dwarves lead themselves) composed of Voss, Calia, Derek, and/or anyone else with experience among the Forsaken. But Calia alone wouldn't make a great leader at all, IMHO. But should she be barred from join the Horde via joining the Forsaken because of her past? I think the answer is "no."

[josykay]

Pretty sure, it is mostly a move to make those "We will reclaim Lordaeron for Calia Menethil" roleplayers shut up. Just like Voidelves to shut up highelves crying...

[Mirishka]

you do remember that forsaken, a group of undead HUMANS, where lead by an undead ELF for several decades? Tell me how a silvermoon undead elf could relate to undead humans?

Oh turns out she didn't that well in the end.

We don't need none o' that there facts and logic round these parts!

[Seradi]

We don't need none o' that there facts and logic round these parts!

None of that is logical because the Forsaken are and always have been more than just Undead Humans. Forsaken are a political group not a race. Pretending that Sylvanas’, or any of the Undead Elves’, experience in Undeath is somehow different than the rest of the Forsaken is asinine. The reason people say Calia doesn’t fit the Forsaken has nothing to do with her race it has to do with the manner in which she was “raised” and how, unlike Sylvanas and the Forsaken, her experience in Undeath comes with virtually no downside.

[Friendlyimmolation]

We don't need none o' that there facts and logic round these parts!

which part of that was logical at all?