Yes
No
He gave his people, who were defending their lands against invaders, the same punishment Magatha received for killing Cairne. He has on multiple occassions underminds horde operations to meet with Alliance leadership. He gave up on all issues concerning Camp Tauraho because he was supposed to be the voice of peace while the war was escalating on all fronts. He opted to fight and kill horde members to give Jaina her brother's remains. I'm not entirely sure what people think Cairne would have done... But I don't think Cairne would have ignored the plight of Gann Stonespire or the loss of Tauren territory to foreign invaders and I don't think Cairne would have bent over backwards to parlay with the Alliance at every chance possible. This is part of why Baine gets a lot of hate... in the lore department he hasn't really worked for the benefit of his people. He's always been more against the warmongering power that is moving the greater horde storyline and as a byproduct of this he's seen working with the Alliance. We don't see him really helping the Tauren when they're having issues (this was a planned event for the Gates of Mulgore that was cut).
Part of the problem here is that people use this analogy when some of it was the horde parties putting the horde first. The story then twisted the characters to full on villains to railroad the plot forward. Many people liked the Stonetalon Garrosh storyline and others liked Garrosh being an upfront arrogant prick trying to 'fix' a problem (most people didn't see the problem as such but still an angle worth looking at)... but then he had to go literally hitler and orcs only true horde bullshit.
Sylvanas had a similar start with that little speech about peace not gonna last... this being particularly interesting if they kept focus on some of the recent hostilities between the factions and a certain leader's lack of ability to control his peers. But then the story railroading downhill really leaves a sour taste cause it's like the writers are constantly berating people for not sharing their opinions. The options are "Sheep" who follow Sylvanas blindly... or idiots that immediately turn on authority because they never trusted the leadership they allowed to get put in charge....
It is 100% an L for Lordaeron. The upper portion that looks like a P is a ship's wheel, the symbol in and of itself is really old to the franchise and predates a lot of the world building that would later bring us common as a non-english "latinesque" language. It was the original symbol of the "Grand Alliance of Lordaeron" that was composed entirely of human nations, with Lordaeron being the capital/leading nation. It had a small token force of elves and dwarves, as opposed to the Alliance of today which is helmed by Stormwind and composed of a wide variety of official non-human members.
While similar, all of those are by definition different things and stating that "warchief" is the same as any other leader completely disregards the nuance. The orcish clans did not have warchiefs prior to the Legion, they had chieftans advised by elders, most of which were shaman. They were predominantly peaceful except for when they had to defend themselves against the Gorian empire, and even then the orcs didn't do much, they asked the elements to step in on their behalf after the Gorians "went too far" and began to defile and demolish the Throne of Elements in Nagrand. The elemental furies then proceeded to completely eradicate the Gorian seat of power, which remained as a smoking crater for years until the Draenei arrived and built Shattarth where the Gorian capital used to be.I'm not sure it's accurate to say that it's a "legion spawned" thing. Such advancements are typical in bringing groups together to force change more rapidly. Whether you call it "Warchief", "Leader", "Lord","Khan", "King", or "Emperor" it amounts to the same thing. A singular entity taking charge.
Well, yes, there is plenty to see of orcish culture pre-Legion and what the clans were like. The books and specifically the chronicles are excellent canon sources for that stuff. Thats where I'm getting all this to begin with - the position of warchief is essentially the highest ranking general, which didn't exist prior to the Legion because the orcish clans were not conquerors. They created "warchief" and have used it ever since because they've always been embroiled in war. Now that we're supposed to be heading towards peace, it makes sense that they're retiring the "warchief" position. IIRC I think Baine even talks about this in 8.3 but I haven't played much of it on the PTR.It's an easy enough observation to say we only see it when the Legion/outside force intervened... cause that's the only times we actually see orc culture. But keep in mind that even without a 'warchief' leading they still fall in line under a leader with the same authority among their smaller clans. The original story starts with the legion already having Gul'dan coerce a mass movment of all orcs. WoD starts with Garrosh doing the same. There is no other option to see if that would happen anyways under another group like the bleeding hollow getting a vission of conquest or the thunderlords attempting to expand or hell maybe Blackhand was just waiting for a reason to do something himself.
She'd probably be strong up for warcrimes concerning Kul Tiras relations.. or violating peace by supporting armies/fleets... or that purge business.... you know. Instead she can do no wrong. ugh. I still laugh at the Battle for Lordaeron cutscene where Anduin walks up and is all about making Sylvanas pay for her crimes as though he's completely oblivious to the actions of literally every other person standing behind him.
At this rate, we won't have enough horde characters left for a council.
Again I say that we should focus more on nation vs nation conflict instead of faction vs faction. It makes sense for these nations/races, in a post-legion-apocalypse war-torn setting to start to fight among themselves. Heck, all the Hordes been doing since Pandaria is fight internally. Just break up already. Stop putting up with the Forsaken's bullshit. If you're a tauren, stop following the orcs. They just get you into wars you don't want to be in with people you'd rather be allied with. Your debt to them for saving you from the centaur has been more than repaid by about 12 different world-ending threats you helped solve.
If you're night elves, why are you bothering with the humans? The only thing thats keeping them in the Alliance is their fondness for the Gilneans and even Gilneas would rather be rolling Forsaken heads, the only thing keeping THEM in the Alliance is because Genn can't get over his dead son and is trying to replace him with Anduin.
The blood elves remain confusing, having a chunk of their race remain with the Alliance, another chunk switch sides and go to the void, and the rest mostly fond of the Draenei and going to bat for them when they can. Remaining allied with the Horde cost them their relationship with the Kirin Tor, they're still treated like second class citizens, they may as well part with the Horde and form a coalition with the rest of their race and the Nightbourne. There's also now a huge amount of leaderless naga they could rekindle ties with.
Last edited by Oneirophobia; 2019-12-15 at 10:15 PM.
Everyone who was defecting was already doing so.
One person does not constitute a coup, and she spoke with that one person specifically because of the context of the conversation they just had.She has a rather pleading moment with Elsie asking for her support. "You are my people," "You won't have to live in the shadows" She pointed out other defectors and was very much trying to get more. "[...] see them? They're defecting. Anduin will shelter and protect them all; [...]"
Really looks as though she was trying to get more defectors. Page 516 of Before the Storm, btw.
Not really relevant as we know they plan expansions years in advance... The storyline for Shadowlands was planned before Legion, or Before the Storm, ever came out, likely while WoD was still the current expansion.At this point the motives aren't supported in the material of the past stories. NOw Sylvanas has been working for ulterior motives since at least her suicide in the Wrath events post Wrath gate... or even longer still (despite no other proof present in lore sources).
What origins, with Genn attacking Sylvie? Because the Horde started an unprovoked war with the Alliance in Ashran during WoD that we were never told "ended" so I'd say hostilities started there.Cause the fourth war according to sources is having origins in Legion and disregarding the Northrend > Cata > MoP 'war'
A gun is like a parachute. If you need one, and don’t have one, you’ll probably never need one again.
This is bullshit, and worthy of more potent descriptors that would likely land me a penalty.
Baine's official reason is that he believes this war is a war that benefits no one but Sylvanas, and Sylvanas only, and her going so far as to violate someone's free will after forcefully raising said someone from their afterlife really goes against everything not only the Horde stands for, but also what Sylvanas used to be against.
OG Sylvanas:
• Undeath is a curse and torment;
• Hates the Lich King for enslaving her.
Today Sylvanas:
• Everyone should be undead;
• Does the exact same thing she hated the Lich King for.
"Torturing someone is not an evil thing to do if it is done for good reasons" by Varodoc
"You sit in OG/SW waiting on a Mythic+ queue" by Altmer <- Oh, the pearls in this forum...
"They sort of did this Dragonriding, which ushered in the Dracthyr race." by Teriz <- the BS some people reach for their narratives...
That makes less sense IMO. Lordaeron was so well known for it's navy... and it's inland capitol with no port?
That's all well and good but that does little to really prove it's an "L" officially. My reason for thinking it's something else still lies in the fact that the character isn't officially present in the characters slated for common.
All I've seen is that it was the symbol of lordaeron and nothing about what various parts of the symbol mean or what they are. Well except from various posts sharing their opinions that is.
Except there is no lore on unification of multiple clans except for WoD and post Legion. But then we also run into the problem where much of the lore on this comes around AFTER they had already set up and had to conform to an outcome anyways. Orc culture was such a major thing in wc1.... 3 was really when they branched out and made them more relatable. TBC retconned things again and revealed how blood thirsty they were before really rallying to invade Azeroth... and honestly I'm not enitrely sure similar events wouldn't have eventually happened regardless of the Legion stepping in. Point is, I see Warchief and Monarch as similar positions in terms of authority and they are something every civilization will produce if given time and incentive (incentive either being desire for conquest or threat of conquest), saying it's because of the Legion seems like an error.
- - - Updated - - -
Leader and primary orchestrator of the event from the forsaken side and unofficial leader of the party running the Undercity in Sylvanas' absence? I beg to differ. Elsie isn't just any forsaken among those in attendance.
We'll have to agree to disagree. various internal monologues from past stories are now rendered very awkward because of new lore revelations because now we are to take them with an intent not displayed in past events. Also Some events people would like to attribute to this newer revelation are out of place with story told thus far.
Fourth War
The information starts with Legion, never touches Ashran and refers to Teldrassil as the start...
Ashran? Wrath Gate? Icecrown? Theramore? Divine Bell? Dalaran's Purge? Yeah not this war... but the third war is the one where lordaeron fell... and the other war bertween the Wrathgate and Broken shore that we all thought was going on? apparently not that big a deal.
edit:
at this point I just assume some people have their own count on wars and sort of fucked the continuity up.
I wonder if Blizzard is aware that an enormous cross section of their playerbase dislikes Baine, regardless of faction or degree of Sylvanas loyalty.
(Personally speaking, I have been anti-Sylvanas since Cataclysm, but would taker her back if it kept him out of Grommash Keep.)
Just to remind people - we have seen Baine kill more Horde and aid more Alliance than the other way around.
Ashran simply put can not be canon, everything that happened there is ignored elsewhere in WoD to the point Horde and alliance characters are helping those in mainland Draenor that we're murdering on the island. Either A) Main WoD story line is a what if or B) Ashran is a What if.
No. The horde is dead
This world don't give us nothing. It be our lot to suffer... and our duty to fight back.
Right but that was for pro-Sylvanas - not necessarily "anti-Baine".
I was pro-Saurfang and still actively despised, and continue to despise, Baine. I'm not sure we've seen evidence that they're aware that nearly everyone dislikes Baine.
I legit would have skipped his rescue if possible and I was still pro-rebellion.
Sad-bull made a choice to kill Horde to save an Ally, then did a poor job covering it up and got his henchman killed - he should pay the consequences for those actions - not necessitate that we kill more Horde to save him.
Last edited by Villager720; 2019-12-15 at 11:39 PM.