Warchief Baine

[Mehrunes]

That said, as weak as your argument it is, I have to thank you for the visual of Baine as a sleazy lawyer leading the witness or even threatening Vol'jin.

Especially since, on top of @Ielenia's blatant logical inconsistency regarding Tyrande not pursuing it, what's important to note is that the trial wasn't exactly an American style one. Taran'Zhu took an active role in the whole process and was capable of pointing out the errors of Baine's questioning if he spotted any. But he didn't.

He was compelled to give a one-word answer. There was context to his answer which he was curtly told to forgo.

He was asked to get to the point. As is common in court proceedings. Stop misconstruing things because you have no argument. For god's sake, you were unwilling to do a basic Google books check on the matter before. Which you did because you wanted to continue your previous line of "argumentation" unabated despite it having been pointed out to you that there are sources that contradict you. So let's not pretend you're even remotely interested in having an argument in good faith here, let alone in actually going through the very source you merrily dismissed upfront and deliberately chose not to seek out before. You had a position you set on from the get go and you're trying to ram your way to your preconceived notions no matter what. We could have Golden drop by this thread and confirm that's exactly what she meant (which is already obvious) and you'd continue your "lalala I can't here you" charade.

Context that could be important, but we'll never know, because the writer decided not to have Tyrande pursue it.

No no no, she couldn't have pursued it, as such there was nothing to pursue. Come on, be consistent. It's not that hard.

[Ielenia]

No no no, she couldn't have pursued it, as such there was nothing to pursue. Come on, be consistent. It's not that hard.

Yes, she could. For all we know, Vol'jin might have been about to reveal rules within the Horde to deal with such traitors, but Baine stopped him from giving said context.

Remember: Baine's duty at that tribunal was not to uncover the truth, but to defend Garrosh. Those two are not always the same thing.

[Verdugo]

He was compelled to give a one-word answer. There was context to his answer which he was curtly told to forgo. Context that could be important, but we'll never know, because the writer decided not to have Tyrande pursue it.

Since when do you give a shit about context.

[cparle87]

@cparle87

I know you're desperately trying to scapegoat Garrosh for a war that someone else started on the basis of grievances that someone (Varian) had not with Garrosh but Thrall and to a far lesser extent Sylvanas, but just watch the cinematic. Varian and Garrosh both react with hostility to the presence of the opposite faction, Varian indeed doing so first. Neither is wrong to do so, since the two groups are at war at this point.

So properly stating Garrosh directly defied his Warchief's orders in attacking another faction leader and in so doing sunk any chance of faction support against Yogg Saron is scapegoating. Varian did so first? Who charged? It was Garrosh.

[mickybrighteyes]

So properly stating Garrosh directly defied his Warchief's orders in attacking another faction leader and in so doing sunk any chance of faction support against Yogg Saron is scapegoating. Varian did so first? Who charged? It was Garrosh.

In that meeting? yeah Garrosh charged first..

But the overall setting? Why Dalaran wasn't trying to meet Thrall and Varian at the same time? Why was Jaina trying to stall for time? A certain hotheaded leader had already declared war and was sitting in the room already.

Garrosh or Varian? they're fucking mirrors of one another at that point in the story. Hot headed leaders itching for battle and jumping on the slightest impulse to prove their superiority.

So again, yeah, Garrosh charged first. But Varian taunted before that.

[Syegfryed]

It's talking about the goblins. Plural. So the logical assumption is that it's talking about the goblins as a whole, and not ALL individuals.

the goblins as a general stance of the goblins, not their "society as a whole" is not a logical assumption but a mental gymnastic and a stretch.

So you're taking a subjective opinion loaded with bias as fact, then?

no, im saying how he is described ingame by his workers, he have all the bad traits and not the good ones like being a engineering

He rules over the Horde. Every race has its own ruler. I don't know how this is hard for you to grasp.

except they don't, the warchief lead all the horde included the other races, every race has a ruler but they still answer to the warchief by blood oath, you are simple saying something false with no base whatsoever.

Horde resources.

ORC resources, ORCS live in orgrimmar, ITS THEIR CITY

orc resources are indeed horde resources, but you are naively painting then as different

Ok. Sure. Condemn this man to life in prison for killing a man. The fact that he only did so because the deceased tried to kill their spouse is completely immaterial. Pshaw. Just excuses. (/s)

stop bringing irrelevant stuff trying to prove your point, your example is not equal to the book

[Mehrunes]

Read my lips. If Garrosh hadn't fucked things up both the Horde and the Alliance would have been helping the Kirin Tor separately without knowing the others were doing it. I can't put it any simpler and I'm not sure how you keep missing the point unless you're deliberately trolling.

Read your mile-long goalpost movement you mean. And spare me your non-existent high ground. Because you're the one deliberately ignoring that the Horde and Alliance would not willingly cooperate in a joint operation at the time because THEY WERE AT WAR. Which they were because of Varian, might I add. I can't put it any simpler, yet here we are.

Again, for god's sake, the very fact that the Kirin Tor had to engage in sneaky tactics of talking with each faction separately - which also again, is something YOU brought up first without even remotely realizing it does no favor to your magnificent point - should be enough of a hint for you that the very prospect of that cooperation was fucked from the get go. That it somehow isn't is truly astonishing.

And yet you want people to expect that factions so unwilling to cooperate with each other that Kirin Tor had to resort to that would do what, exactly? Never learn about it if not for the meeting? Or, more specifically, if not for Garrosh? Or that they would magically ignore that unwillingness because hey, they already started that cooperating unknowingly so they may have just as well had continued it? Rhonin's brilliant plan was doomed from the get go.

And try to deliberately ignore altogether the part about Varian insulting the Horde and taunting Garrosh for you to pin it all on Garrosh some more. Maybe you'll manage to alter reality this way. Though I wouldn't bet on that if I were you.

So properly stating Garrosh directly defied his Warchief's orders in attacking another faction leader and in so doing sunk any chance of faction support against Yogg Saron is scapegoating. Varian did so first? Who charged? It was Garrosh.

Given how Alliance was unwilling to cooperate no matter what, yes? And given how Varian - contrary to your extremely flimsy handwaving in the latter half of this post - created the escalation there by insulting the Horde and taunting Garrosh prior to him charging? Especially in light of Varian starting war already in 3.0?

[Super Dickmann]

He was compelled to give a one-word answer. There was context to his answer which he was curtly told to forgo. Context that could be important, but we'll never know, because the writer decided not to have Tyrande pursue it.

Context was irrelevant, because, per Baine's point, his claim was that the Warchief could, if he deemed someone to be in violation of his standards, forcefully deal with them, even if it was in the fashion Garrosh did, ergo, giving Vol'jin a last chance to prove himself and then taking him out to pasture. Baine did not pressure Vol'jin to say something he didn't believe, and no one in story casts it that way, nor is there anyway to interpret it as such - it's merely drawing attention to the legal standard the Horde apply, which is a very lenient one as the Horde is a military dictatorship.

As for Tyrande pursuing it, she would have done so if she had the capacity, but since she didn't, I think we can all assume that the point was unassailable.

[Mehrunes]

Better being that then being clueless to the fact the hordes moved on from sylvanas and her tyrannical rule, or hasn't seeing her loyalists in the streets of orgrimmar in chains a clue yet?
Can't really call anyone against sylvanas a traitor now since she's no longer horde.

Are you aware of the concept of linearity of time? She was still Horde when the likes of Saurfang rose up against her. Making them traitors.


First of all, I forgot to reply to this gem before:

Which are made null and void by the very first line in your quote: "After the Wrathgate event". The Kor'kron were in undercity since before the Wrathgate. They were sent there to help with security.

Oh, yes. The Kor'kron seizing control of Undercity and displacing the local guard in order to watch the Forsaken is truly not an intervention in Forsaken's internal affairs just because their initial appearance in the city was for other reason. That's some fail-proof logic you got here. Those guards are also still alive because the world is apparently static or something.

Yes, she could.

That's mighty weird. Because

it's something that would greatly benefit her and avoid headaches.

Yet she did not do it. Which means she could not according to your own logic you used in regards to Sylvanas.

For all we know, Vol'jin might have been about to reveal rules within the Horde to deal with such traitors, but Baine stopped him from giving said context.

You mean rules like establishing guilt? Because that's, you know, what would make sense in the context you so love apparently. Which doesn't negate that the punishment he'd use would be death.

Besides, who do you think makes such rules within the Horde? I know you totally read into this topic as you made many assurances that the lore doesn't contradict your claims about the scope of the Warchief's power, so I'm only saying it for prosperity, but it's the Warchief. As it's the Warchief that dictates the direction of the Horde and anyone else in it can only offer non-binding advice that the Warchief can wipe themself with if they so please. For which there are dozens of examples. Which means that if Garrosh so pleased those rules would include impaling Vol'jin on a pike in the darkest corner of the world.

Hell, you yourself admitted the scope of the power the Blood Oath gives in regards to the Horde, your argument in this thread is only saying it does not apply to member races' internal affairs (despite the Blood Oath having no stipulations like that), which the above issue is not. So congrats, you've argued yourself into a hole once again in this thread. Obviously that won't stop you though, so I anxiously await your next glorious goalpost move. Or you dropping this talking point altogether and pretending it never happened like you did to so many others in this thread already.

ORC resources, ORCS live in orgrimmar, ITS THEIR CITY

orc resources are indeed horde resources, but you are naively painting then as different

Remember how when @Ielenia was deflecting from the example of Garrosh's expulsion of Trolls from Orgrimmar, where their argument was "because Orgrimmar is the orcs' home"? Yet now when it came to Vol'jin organizing things in that "Orc's home" it suddenly shifted to "Horde resources". Yet another example to how @Ielenia's argument has the consistency of water, taking the shape of whatever is convenient at the moment.

[Feanoro]

Oh look, the "Varian started the war, totally unprovoked, Horde dindu nuffin, no reason other than Varian was a hothead, etc" flat out lies. Again.

[Mehrunes]

Oh look, the "Varian started the war, totally unprovoked, Horde dindu nuffin, no reason other than Varian was a hothead, etc" flat out lies. Again.

Are you once again going to grace the forum with "totally not flat out lies" of how Varian's declaration of war was a response to the Wrathgate despite neither said declaration of war of his nor the Chronicle v3's mention of it saying anything of the sort? Which is because by the time Varian declared war he accepted the Horde's explanation that the Wrathgate was the fault of a third party and not the Horde, which is a significant part of why he even got to Undercity - where he got to make that declaration - in the first place? Never mind that even in this fascinating (and very accurate of course) tale of yours the statement that Varian started the war isn't wrong.

[Feanoro]

Are you once again going to grace the forum with "totally not flat out lies" of how Varian's declaration of war was a response to the Wrathgate despite neither said declaration of war of his nor the Chronicle v3's mention of it saying anything of the sort? Which is because by the time Varian declared war he accepted the Horde's explanation that the Wrathgate was the fault of a third party and not the Horde, which is a significant part of why he even got to Undercity - where he got to make that declaration - in the first place? Never mind that even in this fascinating (and very accurate of course) tale of yours the statement that Varian started the war isn't wrong.

Hey look, speaking of lies, here's you making up what I've said in the past, and demanding I debate your little strawman. You seem to do that to a lot of posters.

[Mehrunes]

Hey look, speaking of lies, here's you making up what I've said in the past, and demanding I debate your little strawman. You seem to do that to a lot of posters.

You do realize playing the victim of being straw-manned like that isn't an effective strategy on a forum with a search function, right? With which you can find posts like, I dunno, me dismantling your blatantly false claims about why Varian declared war or not whole months ago: https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...1#post51343153 Google what straw-man means before you try to invoke it. Hell, it's not even the first time I have to repost it (though technically this time I'm only linking it).

[Ielenia]

the goblins as a general stance of the goblins, not their "society as a whole" is not a logical assumption but a mental gymnastic and a stretch.

If it's the general stance of the goblins, then it's how their society is structured.

no, im saying how he is described ingame by his workers,

In other words, you admit you are taking subjective opinions loaded with bias as fact.

stop bringing irrelevant stuff trying to prove your point, your example is not equal to the book

It is the exact same: context being omitted.

- - - Updated - - -

Context was irrelevant, because, per Baine's point, his claim was that the Warchief could, if he deemed someone to be in violation of his standards, forcefully deal with them, even if it was in the fashion Garrosh did,

There's a difference between 'setting a trap and sending an assassin to sneakily kill a traitor' and 'giving due process before execution'. And, for all we know, Vol'jin could have been about to explain said 'due process' and explain he can't just simply kill anyone he deems a traitor, willy-nilly, before Baine interrupted him.

Context is important.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh, yes. The Kor'kron seizing control of Undercity and displacing the local guard in order to watch the Forsaken is truly not an intervention in Forsaken's internal affairs just because their initial appearance in the city was for other reason. That's some fail-proof logic you got here. Those guards are also still alive because the world is apparently static or something.

No. It's still not an intervention of their internal affairs since Sylvanas was not restricted in any way, shape or form in the way she lead the Forsaken, even with the Kor'kron in the city. All she has to do was to cease the production of a weapon of mass destruction.

Yet she did not do it. Which means she could not according to your own logic you used in regards to Sylvanas.

Which means it's likely that commanding one races' internal affairs may be outside the Warchief's purview.

You mean rules like establishing guilt? Because that's, you know, what would make sense in the context you so love apparently. Which doesn't negate that the punishment he'd use would be death.

Not really. Said context could explain that perhaps the Warchief is not free to kill whoever they think should die within the Horde, that there may be rules in place.

[Feanoro]

You do realize playing the victim of being straw-manned like that isn't an effective strategy on a forum with a search function, right? With which you can find posts like, I dunno, me dismantling your blatantly false claims about why Varian declared war or not whole months ago: https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...1#post51343153 Google what straw-man means before you try to invoke it. Hell, it's not even the first time I have to repost it (though technically this time I'm only linking it).

Thank you for searching for a post that demonstrates you didn't play it. Further, thank you for demonstrating you are indeed making a strawman, because the post you so kindly linked does NOT say "Varian's declaration of war was a response to the Wrathgate" but rather it was the final straw.

That declaration was made IN THE UNDERCITY EVENT, listed a few of many grievances, but since you desperately want to defend the Horde, you ignore ANY CONTEXT that isn't explicitly spelled out or any prior events that aren't explicitly listed. It's disingenuous at best. What exactly are you trying to claim here? That Varian said essentially "I have problems with the Horde, I'm standing here in Undercity in response to Wrathgate, but it absolutely in no way has any bearing on my decision to declare war!" Do you see how fucking ridiculous that sounds?

Oh, and if they decided to retcon the event (pretty easy since they conveniently removed it) in a manner that makes the Horde look better (when the point of the event was neither side was fully convinced Sylvie was clean), then they're sacrificing their narrative's integrity in favor of defending one faction. I wonder if there's a word for that. Unless of course massive retcons are ok when they benefit the Horde?

[mickybrighteyes]

Oh, and if they decided to retcon the event (pretty easy since they conveniently removed it) in a manner that makes the Horde look better (when the point of the event was neither side was fully convinced Sylvie was clean), then they're sacrificing their narrative's integrity in favor of defending one faction. I wonder if there's a word for that. Unless of course massive retcons are ok when they benefit the Horde?

I think you seemed to have missed the point of the event...

all sources of canon lore indicated betrayal. It was only years after the fact with a writer talking about material that never made the cut saying otherwise and some afterthought added footnotes in a book that was already retconning the foundation of lore that changed that basic understanding of what actually was shown in the events.

[Syegfryed]

If it's the general stance of the goblins, then it's how their society is structured.

they never said that, again,y our assumptions

its also said how the goblins are gifted engineers and accomplished seafarers, engerring is also the pike of goblin structre and society, and Gally don't do that

In other words, you admit you are taking subjective opinions loaded with bias as fact.

so how we are gonna get? by your own description? how can wee say the emplye is not good if its not by his workers?

if it was just their "opinions" and subject" you could be right, but they are not just mad at him because of bias, but because he don't pay, use bad and cheap materials, constantly cheat deals and use his goblins as cannon folder

why the fuck did you think he burn all the Evidences against him? LUL

It is the exact same: context being omitted.

There is no context to be omitted here, context don't matter to the point Baine made and thats why everyone shut the fuck up there, the warchief had the power to do so, regardless of his reasons.

like @Mehrunes said you dig your own grave, flip flopping arguments and moving goalposts, you are barely addressing the initial subject that start the discussion

There's a difference between 'setting a trap and sending an assassin to sneakily kill a traitor' and 'giving due process before execution'.

sending assassins to kill someone pretty much look like an execution

Which means it's likely that commanding one races' internal affairs may be outside the Warchief's purview.

who, already prove, it i in warchief power to do so if he want it or the situation demand

[Mehrunes]

Thank you for searching for a post that demonstrates you didn't play it. Further, thank you for demonstrating you are indeed making a strawman, because the post you so kindly linked does NOT say "Varian's declaration of war was a response to the Wrathgate" but rather it was the final straw.

Again, google what straw man means, because I didn't say that my summary of your argument I made two posts before was its entirety. And please. I played that event multiple times, starting with WotLK's beta test. Maybe even alpha, though I'm not 100% sure if it was already in the game during it.

Your claim that the Wrathgate was any straw is still wrong though and no amount of your cute little deflections like the nonsense above is going to change it. Because as I already pointed out to you, and covered in deep detail in the post I linked Varian's declaration of war has absolutely fuck all with the Wrathgate. It's not mentioned there, it's not even said to be the reason in third person description of it in the Chronicle. It's not any kind of a straw whatsoever.

Because - try to finally get it through your head - Varian accepted Horde's claims that the Horde wasn't behind Wrathgate. How that continues to elude you is a mystery, but then again it's only one of many such mysteries. The best thing as usual is that he talks about that in the Alliance quest leading to the Undercity. So who's the one who didn't play it, eh?

That declaration was made IN THE UNDERCITY EVENT, listed a few of many grievances, but since you desperately want to defend the Horde, you ignore ANY CONTEXT that isn't explicitly spelled out or any prior events that aren't explicitly listed. It's disingenuous at best. What exactly are you trying to claim here?

Ahahahahahaha. Listed a few of many grievances? Weird, I thought you actually read that post I linked. You know, vide you making claims how it proved whatever fantasy you wanted it to prove. So if you read it, why are you still repeating the same false BS about Varian's grievances that post dispelled months ago? Since it's getting sad at this point, instead of linking it like before I'll quote the relevant in yet another thread:

The only specific thing he has "listed" (hardly a list if there's only one thing there; also, great usage of "several" on your part) was the arenas. This is the relevant dialogue of his from The Battle for the Undercity:

King Varian Wrynn says: I was away for too long. My absence cost us the lives of some of our greatest heroes. Trash like you and this evil witch were allowed to roam free -- unchecked.
King Varian Wrynn says: The time has come to make things right. To disband your treacherous kingdom of murderers and thieves. Putress was the first strike. Many more will come.
King Varian Wrynn says: I've waited a long time for this, Thrall. For every time I was thrown into one of your damned arenas... for every time I killed a green-skinned aberration like you... I could only think of one thing.
King Varian Wrynn says: What our world could be without you and your twisted Horde... It ends now, Warchief.

The rest of it was vague remarks on how the Horde was roaming free and unchecked and how Horde leaders are trash etc. Unless you want to count Varian himself killing Orcs as a specific, but that's hardly a Horde's aggression he'd be listing there (unless he was talking about the Orcs he killed in the arenas, but then we're back to one thing he's "listed").

And this is what Chronicle has to say on the matter:

But Varian was not satisfied. Still seething with rage, he marched to the Undercity's throne room with blades drawn to confront Thrall. No matter who was truly responsible for the attack at the Wrath Gate, Varian Wrynn could not trust the Horde, and he believed the world would be a better place without it. He declared war upon Thrall and his people right then and there.

Where all that's said is that he couldn't trust the Horde no matter who was truly responsible. After he already attacked Undercity because he acknowledged traitors to the Horde as responsible. Precisely as I said.

So where exactly are you seeing those "all the Horde's aggressions up to that point" Varian was responding to, again? I mean, sure, your fanfiction would probably blow to shit my alternate (to some) reality of actual canon lore, because fanfiction is convenient that way. But unluckily for you given how it's fanfiction, it matters nothing in this discussion.

That Varian said essentially "I have problems with the Horde, I'm standing here in Undercity in response to Wrathgate, but it absolutely in no way has any bearing on my decision to declare war!" Do you see how fucking ridiculous that sounds?

This bit is the aforementioned best aspect of it. Because Varian was standing in Undercity not in response to Horde. He was there in response to Horde losing control of Undercity to the people he found culpable for the Wrathgate. And punishing those people - who obviously weren't Horde in his eyes as the Horde couldn't have lost control of a city to itself - wasn't even his only goal there. At least as much as that he also wanted to use the situation of the Horde losing that city as an opportunity for the Alliance to "retake" a city that never belonged to Alliance itself because imperialism is swell. Which he says flat out in the Alliance part of that questline.

Just as he said that he was surprised the Horde got there so quickly when he heard Thrall yell Lok'tar Ogar. But please, do continue this comedy of insisting that he declared war on the Horde in response to the Wrathgate when he didn't even expect the Horde to be in the place where he went to in response to the Wrathgate (because he considered other people to be responsible for it).

One would think that if he wanted to declare war on the Horde over it he'd go where he expected Horde to be, which wasn't Undercity. And that if he wanted to declare war over it, he'd declare it on the people who considered responsible, which wasn't the Horde. But I guess Varian liked to do things the unorthodox way ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Oh, and if they decided to retcon the event (pretty easy since they conveniently removed it) in a manner that makes the Horde look better (when the point of the event was neither side was fully convinced Sylvie was clean), then they're sacrificing their narrative's integrity in favor of defending one faction. I wonder if there's a word for that.

Yes, the point of the event that included Varian accepting Horde's explanation (you know, becoming convinced) that it was traitors that rebelled and using that information as the prime motivation to go to Undercity right then and there totally was that neither side was fully convinced of that.

And if you need to even make hypotheticals about potential retcons to this event, aren't you making it clear you're not fully aware of the story here, eh? Yet you think you're in a position to educate anyone on the matter? Also, the fact that you somehow managed to weave in your usual complaining about the HORDE BIAS conspiracy theory into that hypothetical is flat out hilarious.

Unless of course massive retcons are ok when they benefit the Horde?

Actually, you don't even have to google what a straw-man. Just read this part of your post.

I think you seemed to have missed the point of the event...

all sources of canon lore indicated betrayal. It was only years after the fact with a writer talking about material that never made the cut saying otherwise and some afterthought added footnotes in a book that was already retconning the foundation of lore that changed that basic understanding of what actually was shown in the events.

Hell, just one expansion later we got the revamp of old world leveling content. Which resulted in new introductory cinematics for every race. Including the Forsaken. When the omniscient narrator said it was a betrayal.

Also, to get ahead of things here, Afrasiabi was talking out of his ass in the interview you are thinking about. When Danuser was asked about that very statement in a following interview he not only refused to confirm it being true, but distanced himself from it.

[Aucald]

This thread needs to settle down. Make your points with civility, drop the asides and insulting tones in the back and forth.

[Ielenia]

they never said that, again,y our assumptions

its also said how the goblins are gifted engineers and accomplished seafarers, engerring is also the pike of goblin structre and society, and Gally don't do that

Please don't accuse me of using "assumptions" when you engage in assumptions, yourself, in the very next line. Anyways, the 'pike', as you call it, of the goblin society is commerce. I mean, how obvious can it be since the leaders of goblins are called TRADE Princes or MERCHANT Princes?

Also: "Goblins are gifted engineers and accomplished seafarers, but are best known for their unabashed avarice."

so how we are gonna get? by your own description? how can wee say the emplye is not good if its not by his workers?

The employer might be bad, but that doesn't mean he's the WORST, as the employees claim. And as far as 'employers' go, pretty sure all goblin employers are bad

There is no context to be omitted here

The simple fact Vol'jin said "Yes, provided--" proves you wrong.

sending assassins to kill someone pretty much look like an execution

Execution? Yes. Due process? Nope.

who, already prove, it i in warchief power to do so if he want it or the situation demand

Your word is not proof.