Did the blood elves oppose burning Teldrassil?

[Aucald]

Yea it's just annoying though because alot of the fog is created not by creativity in writing but by confusion. Giving rise to all kinds of crazy when discussing such topics. They promote the whole "support your faction thing" when nearly all faction related lore has no defining start middle or end. And then gigabytes of cyberspace is wasted on "hurdz are evil" "alliz are racist!"

I agree, and another reason why I dislike the faction conflict as an engine of dramatic progress for WoW. I understand the impetus behind fomenting drama between the factions in the context of a story where the faction conflict is a centerpiece, but it stands in stark contrast to the idea of an MMO being a shared and persistent world for the playerbase to inhabit. When we can't agree on the essential structure or nature of the fictional world you start having problems with suspension of disbelief and other basic narrative mechanisms. Part of the reason for the sad state WoW lore finds itself in of late.

[Super Dickmann]

You mean these nice good people who tried to flew and then got used as traning dummys for his soldier? these people hm?

Yeah, the same ones. Sucked to be them, they were still a miniscule minority since just about everyone in the city fucked off and the evacuation of the city happened well before. Hell, dude even kept them around, fed and clothed them in his dungeon for a full year on the off chance that someone invaded his compound.

Compare and contrast the Kul Tirans in BFA using captives as target practice without the common decency to give them lodging for a year. Or the uncultured Sylvanas-aligned swine in Darkshore who chuck spears at captives without taking them out to dinner.

[Tabrotar]

Yeah, the same ones. Sucked to be them, they were still a miniscule minority since just about everyone in the city fucked off and the evacuation of the city happened well before. Hell, dude even kept them around, fed and clothed them in his dungeon for a full year on the off chance that someone invaded his compound.

Compare and contrast the Kul Tirans in BFA using captives as target practice without the common decency to give them lodging for a year. Or the uncultured Sylvanas-aligned swine in Darkshore who chuck spears at captives without taking them out to dinner.

Nice we´re moving goalposts now? First saying they had all the chances to get away and now it just sucked that they don´t had a chance?

[Super Dickmann]

Nice we´re moving goalposts now? First saying they had all the chances to get away and now it just sucked that they don´t had a chance?

Not at all, I mentioned that there were some who got taken captive in the post you quoted. Garrosh held off on the attack for ages to allow the 7th Legion and other high value targets to get in. In that time, Jaina also evacuated people. He didn't give a shit if they were caught in the crossfire, nor was it his goal to minimize casualties, but an inevitable consequence of his strategy was that people would have time to both arrive at and leave the city, as they indeed did. The evacuation effort towards Tanaris and so on is described in detail in the book.

[Minikin]

I have never given any names for any tactics, so please tell me, how I got it wrong?
I described the tactic, because a name means less than what it does.

When talking about capitals, you ALWAYS mention the city itself, not the chunk of land it occupy.
Example: "I'm going to Copenhagen" implies you actually visit Denmark, however, "I'm going to Denmark" doesn't say anything about where in the country you will be.

Copenhagen: 86,2 km2
Capital region: 2.568,29 km2

In the same way, Durotar is the capital region, i.e. part of the capital, in this case Orgrimmar... Same applies to Teldrassil/Darnassus.

Did you miss this quote below?

Let's not taint the thread with real-world politics overmuch, please. Focus on the fictional event itself.

When the real world has chickens that can shoot lazer beams you can start openly comparing the two. Otherwise stick to what is in the game and the lore that comes with it.

[Kallisto]

This is getting exhausting, you put Teldrassil and the Undercity on the same level, now you have been shown that they are not, since the Undercity was not full of civilians (Sylvanas had those evacuated weeks ago, right after Teldrassil) and was not destroyed by the Alliance, but by the Horde Warchief herself.

Your reply is to admire her for her ruthless tactics to shift away from the previous point. The Undercity was not lost AT ALL. You know why it is called UNDERcity? Because it is UNDERground. The Alliance only attacked and destroyed (one wall of) the RUINS OF LORDAERON. The actual Undercity was completely untouched and could have been returned to the Forsaken after Sylvanas had been removed from power (which was the ONLY goal Anduin had, he never wanted war with the Horde).

If you seriously believe that the genocide of civilians in Teldrassil is on the same level as the attack on the Undercity, you are simply beyond reasonable arguments and it is futile to try.

No undercity itself was attacked. One of the first things you do horde side is get the civilians out of there as the Druids of the fang attack them all indiscriminetly.

[ravenmoon]

>Tyrande
>turned to the dark side

What are you smoking?

indeed, peopel just don't know their n ight elf lore.

SPeaking of which, the black moon is nice to see, the "shadowy" side of the night elves, and the Star/moon culture aspects are really still quite mysterious in that race.

Sadly is becuase most closeups focus on druidsm, not the priesthood, and not the arcane side. Although the nightborne give a good close up of the arcane side, far too many cultural things are missing.

i hope if they ever do night elf civilziation amognst the kaldorei, we will see those things. And if they do the priesthood we will finally see the arcane and void side aspects properly and more explicitly revealed.

[Ardenaso]

No undercity itself was attacked. One of the first things you do horde side is get the civilians out of there as the Druids of the fang attack them all indiscriminetly.

Gee, I wonder why

[Specialka]

indeed, peopel just don't know their n ight elf lore.

SPeaking of which, the black moon is nice to see, the "shadowy" side of the night elves, and the Star/moon culture aspects are really still quite mysterious in that race.

Sadly is becuase most closeups focus on druidsm, not the priesthood, and not the arcane side. Although the nightborne give a good close up of the arcane side, far too many cultural things are missing.

i hope if they ever do night elf civilziation amognst the kaldorei, we will see those things. And if they do the priesthood we will finally see the arcane and void side aspects properly and more explicitly revealed.

And I hope they do not. If anything, NE should have stayed like in WC3, isolationist, xenophobist, and hate the arcane.

[Ardenaso]

And I hope they do not. If anything, NE should have stayed like in WC3, isolationist, xenophobist, and hate the arcane.

That's weird, the Watchers/Wardens literally have male mages/mystics in their ranks

[Mehrunes]

I guess selling her ppl to the Legion and killing tons of civilians is not totally the same thing Ah yes, they are the acts of dictators, so they freed themselves from one to go with another.

Um, yes, they are not the same thing. One is betraying one's own people (in this case, including Thalyssra who got a knife in the back over this) by siding with their enemy, the other is being brutal to your enemies. By depriving a government of any nuance and simply treating everything as "dictatorship thing" you're effectively making the argument that Thalyssra is a hypocrite even now because the Horde is still a dictatorship.

Ouch, you got me there. Since she is a sociopath even then, she does not have any of those of course. I was speaking generally including her entire kin, but you are right, my bad.

Just because you were wrong on who Arthas forced Sylvanas to fight doesn't make her a sociopath in her life. She loved her family and Nathanos. She just wasn't forced to fight those people in particular. She still was pained by being forced to fight her own people (and that's already after being made an undead) or even when Arthas killed Anasterian despite not being forced to aid him in that fight.

There is, as I mentioned above. War Crimes, as much as you will hate on it now, makes that clear. On top of that both Saurfang's reaction as well as Baine's are clear indication that such an attack is in the Horde's eyes at least dishonorable which for a society based on honor like the orcs is a serious offense.

War Crimes has nothing to do with such reaction to Teldrassil, which is what my post was about. And Baine has no reaction to Teldrassil. Saurfang is one person who has been thoroughly inconsistent on what is or isn't acceptable in a war. So you've got one example. Which doesn't meet the criteria of a clear indication of anything for the Horde as a whole. Especially since Saurfang spat on some key principles of honorable conduct for Orcs like obedience to your leaders or not letting oneself be captured by the enemy. All of which ended up with him telling Anduin that he never knew what honor is.

Again, unless Blizzard puts out a statement saying that Golden's book are not canon they simply are. You hating their plot or author does in no way change that.

But I wasn't making an argument the book isn't canon. I was making the argument that the trial was a farce. Which it is. In canon. The charges against Garrosh are flat out bogus with him being accused of multiple people he was in no way personally culpable for. To the point that even the incarnation of incompetence that is Baine had no problem defending Garrosh against charge after charge.

On top of all of that, even putting aside @Super Dickmann's remarks how the trial was following the law of Pandaren which is alien to both the Horde and the Alliance, the trial doesn't meet the basic requirements of a criminal trial. Because the purpose of the trial is trying to establish guilt. Yet the judges were not even remotely interested about it. The trial didn't end with the judges examining the evidence and argumentation of both sides. It didn't end with them declaring which charges against Garrosh had been sufficiently proven or not. It ended with the judges proclaiming that they were always going sentence Garrosh for life imprisonment so that he could atone regardless of what the trial would show, as well as that it was actually everyone else that was on trial because faux wisdom.

As such trying to invoke War Crimes as evidence of how deeply ingrained the concept of war crimes as a whole, let alone specific ones like genocide is among the Alliance and the Horde isn't exactly accurate. Because no one from those faction cared when the judges revealed their shenanigans about the trial. No one cared whether Garrosh was truly responsible for a genocide or anything else he had been accused of. No one cared whether the defense's arguments against that charge were ultimately correct or not. Everyone's interest in the question of genocide instantly disappeared, making it rather clear they never cared about it in the first place and that the whole trial, as Super Dickmann already said, was just a show of force of the victors.

The campaign also relied on the elves suddenly forgetting that there is portals and teleportation magic or their abilities to turn into dolphins, seals and birds to just fly away, which ruin any such plan. No matter how timid the population is, they would have been able to get out of the tree. It was not well planned in many regards.

There being flaws in the plan doesn't change the fact that the plan was rather specific and that Saurfang, by his own admission after he confronted Sylvanas and she revealed her reasoning to him, ruined the chances of that plan happening according to his own parameters.

Technically though, all the Horde leadership, with the exception of Gallywix, is a traitor then, since they all stood at the gates of Orgrimmar and went against their Warchiefs will. Twice, as the same happened with Garrosh. The Blood Oath either applies to everyone or no one, Baine and Saurfang should not be counted as the only Traitors. Hell even the non-loyalist PCs are Traitors, twice over.

Technically in SoO cinematic Garrosh revealed that the unworthy are no longer a part of his Horde. Vide him creating the "much better" True Horde instead. So any Horde member that turned against him only after that did so after no longer being bound to him.

And don't start with "Baine killed Horde members tho", each and every one of them did, the Horde PC did during the SoO raid. The NPCs there were the loyal Horde members, you killed them, you are a Traitor.

As per above, killing True Horde members in SoO was after Garrosh kicked out the unbelievers out. Though the PC already joined Vol'jin's rebellion prior to the raid.

Also as we have seen in the Mak'gora that happened no one could have beaten Sylvanas and they knew it. Sure Baine could have challenged her and died. A spectacular suicide but quite pointless. Especially since she had already threatened his people during the Siege of Lordaeron there was no sense in going that route.

Baine et al being too weak to defeat Sylvanas in a duel in no way unmakes their treason. There is no additional clause of a Mak'gora saying "in case you're too much of a wimp to actually succeed in a Mak'gora you are free to join the enemy of the Horde in an effort to defeat it and overthrow its Warchief".

Let's not even forget that Sylvanas and Nathanos were more than willing to let the Horde guards die as some "hubris bait" when they told the player to just go along with it.

Which in no way makes them culpable for their actions.

That's weird, the Alliance High Elves/Silver Covenant were already banding together as far as WC3 in Mount Hyjal. The High Elf Priests(and probably Paladins too) were even credited as the MVPs of the Summit Defense.

The Silver Covenant was created shortly prior to WotLK.

You're not wrong in that sense. When Garrosh was in charge, there were alot of traitors at the start, but then the coin flipped. Garrosh betrayed the Horde.

The Warchief cannot betray the Horde. For all intents and purposes they are the Horde.

Much the same with what Garrosh did with the Horde. Garrosh betrayed them through his exclusions, his over all actions, and the like. It is very possible for traitors to be 'absolved' when their choices weren't just for petty reasons. Vol'jin was kicked out simply for sticking up for what he believed in, and even had an assassination attempt on him, simply because Garrosh wanted a yes-man, rather then genuine advice. Baine followed suit shortly thereafter because he respects Vol'jin more then Garrosh, mostly because of what happened with Theramore, though. Once Vol'jin was Warchief, he forgave both Garrosh's followers (to a degree), and those who were accused of treason by Garrosh.

Vol'jin was targeted for threatening his sovereign with death over nothing. Which is the most he ever offered to Garrosh in terms of advice.

War rarely has honour. Saurfang's view of the world is idealistic, but idealistic only, not realistic. Baine's only real actions in the War was to question Sylvanas at every step, and then balk at any form of agression towards the Alliance, to the point of actually betraying the Horde. The Champion (Player) took great risk onto themselves to gather a person of interest, and while, yes, the purpose of this person was to commit a Theramore 2.0, it would of put the Horde in a position of power again over the Alliance after what they did to Zandalar. But Baine betrayed them by delivering him to Jaina, for no real reason other then he disagreed with it as a person. If he disagreed with it that much, he knew what to do. Sure, he'd of lost the Mok'gora, but that doesn't mean, nessecarily, that he dies.

Derek wasn't raised to commit anything close to Theramore. He was raised to perform a surgical strike on the Proudmoores. Which, given how much of a clusterfuck Kul Tiras was in before Jaina managed to patch things up, would most likely lead to it collapsing to bickering among the nobles again.

Sylvanas at that point needs the Horde. Her goal is to sew as much death as she can, for which ever reason we learn for in the Shadowlands. If she kills Baine, she absolutely loses the Tauren, and likely the Highmountain as well, and that begins a ripple effect early. She knows what she's doing is temporary, that eventually, things reach a natural end point. If the Horde wins the war, it's in her interests, but the problem is, all of the Horde would expect a cease of hostility at that point. The Alliance is powerless. And that's where things get hard. Because much of the honourable Horde wouldn't just out right murder innocents who aren't a threat to them anymore, Sylvanas can't directly call for that. She would instead have to do things with her own loyal people (Likely just the Forsaken), and then when it's found out that she's wiping out the Alliance in their entirety, the Horde turns against her then and there. She can't get to that point if she loses control of the Horde too soon (Which does eventually happen anyways, but she makes the best of it.)

There were Tauren among the people imprisoning Baine and in the Underhold during the scenario in which other traitors bailed him out. Besides, according to Baine's own views he proclaimed to the entire world when defending Garrosh, he deserved death for what he did.

Also, if Sylvanas wanted to sew as much death as she can she'd let it loose on Anduin instead of just noping out of the plot. That whole revelation after the fact is a mess that doesn't mesh together with prior lore at all. It's yet another case of Blizzard arbitrarily deciding upon a plot direction and then trying to clumsily make the past events fit in retrospection.

Which is funny, considering the actual universe looks at it as genocide and a war crime, which means it's not other people pushing real life morality onto fictional worlds, but you trying hard to detach the morality of a fictional world from it by claiming fictional worlds have no moral standards, simply because it's hard to argue why a genocide is justifiable (impossible, really), so let's just wish the entire notion of genocide from the topic at all so we don't have to tackle it

Astarii and Anduin look at it as a genocide. And while Golden would disagree, Anduin isn't exactly the embodiment of the Warcraft universe.

Of course you're not wrong though - I'm certain plenty of Horde, even shamans - supported the burning after the fact - apart from druids, I can't imagine ANY horde druids would be happy destroying the world tree

Why would World Trees hold any special value to Druids? They are artificial constructs. Most of them were flat out mistakes that damaged the world. Teldrassil in particular was created by Fandral's saltiness over losing immortality. And even Malfurion was against it.

Now I begrudgingly have to accept there is slight improvement in comparison to MoP in that at least there were mutterings of displeasure early on. Saurfang left the Horde, Baine was pretty much permanently scowling at Sylvanas, Thalyssra and I think Valtrois made mention of how they felt uncertain about it all, too and hell, even Nathanos seemed to have his moments of introspection. Lor'themar gave us his views in 8.2 as well. But just feeling bad about something, like a genocide, like the blighting of your own soldiers and raising them as mindless undead servants, like the plaguing of zones, resurrection and brainwashing of people to turn them against their own family, it isn't enough.

That's actually a downgrade in comparison to MoP. Cairne declared Mak'gora against Garrosh before even the invasion of Ashenvale has happened. And Vol'jin threatened Garrosh with death shortly afterwards.

I can agree that Garrosh did nothing of the scope that would deserve the word genocide (though this forum has repeatedy told me that even small incidents like the Purge of Dalaran can be classified as such), but he did wipe out a civilian population center and with that removed the human race effectively from Kalimdor. I have been repeatedly slapped with the definition by Hordies here trying to make Jaina look worse then Sylvanas, by which this alone counts as genocide.

I can think of maybe two posters that wrongly argue that Dalaran is a case of genocide. And neither is a frequent poster.

But how can it be immaterial that they all agree on this terms for certain crimes when my entire point is that they agree on this term for certain crimes. It is for sure victor's justice, that is nearly always the case.

So the point is, there is an understanding of what a war crime is, genocide / the wanton and unrestrained mass murder of civilians being one. Even if they do not all have the same oppinion about the definition and classification and even if this is all victor's justice in the end, there is a consensus. Even the battle-hardened orcs in the room are deeply ashamed by the Draenei massacre they get to witness and their whole culture is based on war.

And yet none of them were even interested whether Garrosh committed a genocide or not. Which doesn't bode well in their interest in the concept. Or even in regards to the understanding of it.

If even orcs understand there was wrongdoing there, then the only one on the outside is Sylvanas, who does not care and hence commited another massacre, while the other Horde leaders were very much clear on her crossing a line with this act, but thanks to the Blood Oath they had no official way to do anything (except suicide in Mak'gorah) so they kept their mouthes shut, with the exception of Saurfang and Baine.

But where is it established that the Orcs understand that?

I mean, Baine's father died through betrayal in Mak'gorah, and Sylvanas has not a shred of Garrosh's honor, so I think he correctly assumed challenging her would be nothing but suicide and that she would punish his people for the challenge too. There was simply no point in it. There would also not have been a point in Saurfangs challenge if he did not know how to push the Banshee's buttons.

What does it have to do with honor? They simply couldn't win against her. Sylvanas could have fought unarmed and simply scream her opponent to death. And Saurfang didn't "know how to push her buttons". Sylvanas' reaction is nothing more than a plot contrivance. When Genn smacked her in the face and completely fucked her over by smashing the lantern she reacted in a vastly different way.

the word genocide was used by the author in the book.

In reference to Astarii's and Anduin's views on the matter, yes. And their views aren't the absolute truth. Anduin can be wrong. He has already been wrong plenty of times on various things. He even admitted some of them. If that weren't the case, Golden would simply use the word improperly. And she has no authority whatsoever to redefine legal terms. Especially since, in lieu of in-universe definition of the term, as @Aucald has been previously saying in their argument with @Rochana, the term has been used to convey a meaning that Golden's contemporary audience would easily understand so that wouldn't have to establish some Azerothian equivalent, as, to directly quote Aucald, "genocide, as a term of use, has a specific meaning".

There is an expectation for authors to use words properly if they don't attempt to redefine it in their story. If genocide hasn't been used by the author in a novel to convey the views of two characters, that expectation wouldn't have been met as Teldrassil doesn't meet the specific meaning Aucald mentioned.

Not to mention the whole killing off and imprisoning any dissenters, alongside desecrating corpses and raising them as undead and blackmailing a tidesage by threatening his family as key points of the Horde war campaign.

Thalysra and the nightborne were retconned to hell just to give the Horde another elf race.

Except killing off and imprisoning of dissenters (and it was just a few of them, most were left to their own devices with Sylvanas deciding to "play along") is completely fine for the Warchief to do even according to one of the dissenters she did imprison and try to execute, i.e. Baine. Baine publicly proclaimed in front of most important people of Azeroth that the Warchief of the Horde has the right to punish treason with death. And he used the much lesser example of Vol'jin simply making threats to Garrosh. Speaking of which, Vol'jin, the then Warchief of the Horde, agreed with his position. And since when do the Nightborne care about corpses being desecrated? It has never been established as some key principle for them.

This is getting exhausting, you put Teldrassil and the Undercity on the same level, now you have been shown that they are not, since the Undercity was not full of civilians (Sylvanas had those evacuated weeks ago, right after Teldrassil) and was not destroyed by the Alliance, but by the Horde Warchief herself.

It wasn't. The evacuation was still ongoing at the start of the siege. Alliance Druids that sneaked in even killed some that didn't flee in time.

"Who struck first" is a bit a contested notion when it comes to the events in Silithus before the Blood War began in earnest. In "Before the Storm" it's painted as if Horde agents attacked the Explorer's League before actual fighting broke out in the area, whereas in the in-game quests it seems as if the Horde were present beforehand and an SI:7 detachment started causing issues because they didn't want the Horde getting unfettered access to Azerite munitions. Personally I'm of the mind that both events happened more or less concurrently, and that neither faction really "struck first" in any real sense. They both arrived more or less simultaneously and immediately fell to fighting over Azerite at roughly the same time. The Explorer's League with some Sentinel backup arrived to represent the Alliance, and at the same time Gallywix's goblins arrived to take advantage of the opportunity. These two groups came to blows, of course, and then SI:7 and a Horde garrison force arrived to back up their respective parties.

There's nothing to contest. Before the Storm repeats both of the faction cinematics that led to the relevant questlines in the first two chapters. Even though in case of the Alliance one it's completely redundant (the Horde one gave us some new, though rather unimportant information about Gallywix's scepter). Which makes it rather obvious that the purpose of that event being repeated was to root the book chronologically speaking in relation to the game.

The mission of Shaw that led to Alliance killing Goblins to obtain Azerite samples had been sent in the second chapter of the book. Long before Anduin even got the idea to send the Explorer's League as well (he got that idea only after talking with Magni later on), let alone got around to putting that idea into motion. Likewise, in the questline the Explorer's League is yet to be seen anywhere in Silithus. The book clearly conveys the chronology of those events, which isn't anywhere close to "more or less concurrently". The claim that "these two groups" came to blows is even more incorrect. Because the SI:7 and Explorer's League are two completely different groups that were sent to Silithus at two completely different times for two completely different purposes. So there are no two groups to speak of. There are three. Trying to conflate the two and presenting things as some unified front that Goblins came to blows just to prove the idea that those events took place at the same time isn't a sufficient argument.

On top of that, by Alliance's own admission the Horde was already there merrily mining stuff before the Alliance even got the first sample. You know, the one that Shaw showed to Anduin in the cinematic/at start of BtS. Which means that said sample had to be obtained even earlier. I.e. before the cinematic in question (and consequently before Before the Storm even began). So the claim that Gallywix's Goblins arrived to take advantage of the opportunity at roughly the same time as the Explorer's League is objectively false. Speaking of which, that first Azerite sample likely wasn't obtained through peaceful means either. Judging by their methods of obtaining them later on as well as the Horde's vehemence in keeping the operation secret and secure, it's highly likely that first sample has been obtained through the same "let's kill them and loot their corpses" method.

They pulled the dalaran card. On the alliance side Jaina never kills anyone, teleports them away. On the horde side it's a blood bath. Leaving both sides bamboozled.

Jaina killed people in both versions of the quest as she had the same behavior of walking around the central plaza and teleporting people in both versions of the quest. There's no "Dalaran card". The questlines are consistent. Though that behavior of Jaina was caused by a bug (that Blizzard never really bothered fixing because I've seen examples of it happening even in Legion). A better example would be Dazar'Alor. But then the game makes it rather explicit that the differing perspectives are twisted by the participants on purpose.

Either way, that's immaterial to the larger point of the Purge of Dalaran. It's been stated to be brutal in later sources. Furthermore, Jaina's self-admitted goal was ethno-political cleansing. And we see her proclamation only in the Alliance questline. Likewise, it's in the Alliance questline where we hear even Vereesa questioning Jaina's methods as a bit too much. And this is a person who hates Blood Elves so much she created an organized private militia to oppose the readmission of Blood Elves into Dalaran despite not having any power in the city.

If I remember correctly the alliance side also does not see Aethas knowing what Thalen Songweaver did and turns a blind eye to it.

Neither side saw that. It never made into the game due to a bug or some oversight. Though the participation of Thalen was not stated to be a part of that scene.

When it comes to cases in WoW where events are presented in such a fashion, I generally take the tack that both presentations are true and reconcile mutual incompatibilities by meshing and interweaving them. In the case of the Purge of Dalaran, for instance, I think the final summation is that Jaina killed some Sunreavers during her roundup but it wasn't a bloodbath, per se. Most were teleported away and imprisoned in the Violet Hold, but those who fought or successfully fled were killed by her and her Silver Covenant retinue. I also think Aethas was partially complicit in what happened, albeit not quite so directly as from his perspective his hands were kind of tied due to Warchief Garrosh's commands. It was an unenviable position and Aethas chose loyalty to the Horde over loyalty to Jaina in this specific matter (unusual for him at the end of the day). Or perhaps he chose fear of Garrosh over loyalty to Jaina, which might make more sense.

Most of what I already told @Minikin above applies to this as well. In regards, Blizzard already explained what the scene that didn't make into the game was about. Aethas didn't choose loyalty to the Horde, he chose loyalty to the Blood Elves. And Garrosh didn't command him. He blackmailed him with the fate of all non-Sunreavers Blood Elves that he had access to (as opposed to Sunreavers safely chilling in Dalaran) and that he'd punish severely. Besides, by the time that has happened Jaina has already broken Dalaran's neutrality by aiding Darnassus against the Horde and personally capturing, wounding or killing (depending on what her traps did) Horde soldiers. With Dalaran's neutrality being voided like that, it's hard to call Aethas' forced submission any kind of complicity.

[Frinata]

The Warchief cannot betray the Horde. For all intents and purposes they are the Horde.




Vol'jin was targeted for threatening his sovereign with death over nothing. Which is the most he ever offered to Garrosh in terms of advice.




Derek wasn't raised to commit anything close to Theramore. He was raised to perform a surgical strike on the Proudmoores. Which, given how much of a clusterfuck Kul Tiras was in before Jaina managed to patch things up, would most likely lead to it collapsing to bickering among the nobles again.




There were Tauren among the people imprisoning Baine and in the Underhold during the scenario in which other traitors bailed him out. Besides, according to Baine's own views he proclaimed to the entire world when defending Garrosh, he deserved death for what he did.

Also, if Sylvanas wanted to sew as much death as she can she'd let it loose on Anduin instead of just noping out of the plot. That whole revelation after the fact is a mess that doesn't mesh together with prior lore at all. It's yet another case of Blizzard arbitrarily deciding upon a plot direction and then trying to clumsily make the past events fit in retrospection.

The Warchief can absolutely betray the Horde. 1000% can. When they become Warchief, they are not suddenly above everything else. They're expected to uphold certain tenents themselves. Mostly what the Horde stands for. They're meant to embody the identity of what they need or want. Thrall embodied who the Horde was in a time of relative peace, but when war broke out, it made SOME SENSE to appoint Garrosh. He was a War leader, and was what one would expect from a WARChief. However, he betrayed them by kicking everyone out except the Orcs and Goblins. He even said it best to Taran Zhu "They are no longer part. OF MY HORDE!"
He has given up on the Horde he was to lead. Sure he still called it 'The Horde', but it's not the player faction one anymore. There's been many itterations of the Horde, this is just another, the precursor to the Iron Horde.

Vol'jin admited that he lost his cool, and probably shouldn't of said what he did to Garrosh, that much is true. But that hardly warrants underhanded attempts at assassination and the complete locking up of a race's home, just because their Leader, on his own volition, lost his cool. Many of the Darkspear still were loyal to Garrosh and his Horde at that point, and only really left when they were literally able to, due to the martial law the Isles were put under. And no, Vol'jin very much offered advice. Garrosh was too pig headed to listen. Stop apologizing for Garrosh, it doesn't look good.

Derek was literally the bomb. He wasn't being sent in just to stab Jaina in the neck. He was going to be filled to the brim with Blight, so that when he arrives in Boralus, he detonates, not only killing Jaina and her Mother, but most of Boralus and the ruling forces there in. Literally Theramore 2.0. When Baine betrays the Horde by delivering him with free of mind, Derek admits as much when Jaina LITERALLY ASKS "IS HE THE BOMB!?" While preparing to blast Baine a new one.

The Tauren are loyal to themselves first, much like any other race, except maybe the Goblins, who are more loyal to gold. Baine was RIGHTFULLY found guilty. And Sylvanas was well within her rights to kill him right then and there like she did Zeilling (Forgot his exact name, apologies.) But she didn't. She understood that if Baine died right there and then like that, that people start to walk. If not turn against her. The Tauren ABSOLUTELY would hate her for it, and she would lose them, giving the Alliance a massive advantage, because if the Tauren were smart (they are, to a degree), they would turn to the Alliance for justice. Taurajo or no, they know breaking their oath wouldn't go without reprisal.

Sylvanas is strong, but you can't genuinely believe that, after unleashing a SURPRISE ATTACK on Saurfang like she did, that she could then just continue on to a more onguard group of people who are perhaps amongst the BEST of what they do, can you? You have Lor'themar, Jaina, Anduin, Thrall, and Zappy Boi. (Ok Zappy Boi is no where near the best, just throwing him in there). She turns that on them, they can defend against it at the least, and then she has a literal army to face down. Leaving was the only realistic choice. She's strong, but she's not invincible. It's just you who seem to look for the worst in the current, and praise the past.

That's fine to do that, but atleast stick to reality, then fiction

[Mehrunes]

The Warchief can absolutely betray the Horde. 1000% can. When they become Warchief, they are not suddenly above everything else. They're expected to uphold certain tenents themselves. Mostly what the Horde stands for. They're meant to embody the identity of what they need or want. Thrall embodied who the Horde was in a time of relative peace, but when war broke out, it made SOME SENSE to appoint Garrosh. He was a War leader, and was what one would expect from a WARChief. However, he betrayed them by kicking everyone out except the Orcs and Goblins. He even said it best to Taran Zhu "They are no longer part. OF MY HORDE!"

Name those tenets. Or even what the Horde stands for. You can't, because there is no some golden inviolable standard of the Horde. The direction of the Horde is up to any given Warchief. On top ofthat Saurfang himself just recently proclaimed that the likes of Vol'jin and Thrall are not true heirs to Horde's legacy while Sylvanas is. And where is it said that the Warchief cannot remove someone from the Horde? The members of the Horde are tools of the Warchief's desire. If the Warchief's desire is to throw the tools he or she no longer sees fit to serve away, that's in their prerogative.

Vol'jin admited that he lost his cool, and probably shouldn't of said what he did to Garrosh, that much is true. But that hardly warrants underhanded attempts at assassination and the complete locking up of a race's home, just because their Leader, on his own volition, lost his cool. Many of the Darkspear still were loyal to Garrosh and his Horde at that point, and only really left when they were literally able to, due to the martial law the Isles were put under. And no, Vol'jin very much offered advice. Garrosh was too pig headed to listen. Stop apologizing for Garrosh, it doesn't look good.

Yet Baine got Vol'jin to admit in court, publicly, in front of all the leaders of the Horde, the Alliance and Pandaria, that acts of treason like the ones he has committed against Garrosh by threatening him so deserve the punishment of death in the Horde. And after that incidents Vol'jin led many of the Darkspears out of Orgrimmar to Echo Isle. Given his traitorous nature, all those who followed him to Echo Isles were more than suspicious by their association to known traitor like Vol'jin. The martial law of Echo Isles was more than warranted. After all, Thrall himself issued one against Undercity for the people there standing against traitors which is much less than what spurned Garrosh to issue his martial law on the Trolls. Also, can you give examples of the advice Vol'jin gave?

Derek was literally the bomb. He wasn't being sent in just to stab Jaina in the neck. He was going to be filled to the brim with Blight, so that when he arrives in Boralus, he detonates, not only killing Jaina and her Mother, but most of Boralus and the ruling forces there in. Literally Theramore 2.0. When Baine betrays the Horde by delivering him with free of mind, Derek admits as much when Jaina LITERALLY ASKS "IS HE THE BOMB!?" While preparing to blast Baine a new one.

Except Jaina made multiple assumptions in that scene. Derek's simple "yes" didn't specify which one was correct. Yet later on he went about how Baine freed him before his mind was twisted. If he was to become a bomb there'd be little point in twisting his mind. You could just yeet him from a trebuchet. On top of that Sylvanas contrasted her intented use of Derek with Alliance sending an army to attack an entire city.

The Tauren are loyal to themselves first, much like any other race, except maybe the Goblins, who are more loyal to gold. Baine was RIGHTFULLY found guilty. And Sylvanas was well within her rights to kill him right then and there like she did Zeilling (Forgot his exact name, apologies.) But she didn't. She understood that if Baine died right there and then like that, that people start to walk. If not turn against her. The Tauren ABSOLUTELY would hate her for it, and she would lose them, giving the Alliance a massive advantage, because if the Tauren were smart (they are, to a degree), they would turn to the Alliance for justice. Taurajo or no, they know breaking their oath wouldn't go without reprisal.

She still sentenced him to die later on. In Orgrimmar. There was no evident buzz among the Tauren residents of the city or any Tauren anywhere for that matter. Most of the Horde continued to stand behind her. The Taurens weren't stated to be some grand exception.

Sylvanas is strong, but you can't genuinely believe that, after unleashing a SURPRISE ATTACK on Saurfang like she did, that she could then just continue on to a more onguard group of people who are perhaps amongst the BEST of what they do, can you? You have Lor'themar, Jaina, Anduin, Thrall, and Zappy Boi. (Ok Zappy Boi is no where near the best, just throwing him in there). She turns that on them, they can defend against it at the least, and then she has a literal army to face down. Leaving was the only realistic choice. She's strong, but she's not invincible. It's just you who seem to look for the worst in the current, and praise the past.

That's fine to do that, but atleast stick to reality, then fiction

Except prior to that surprise attack she showed everyone that she can obliterate even esteemed fighters like Saurfang in melee combat, with weapons that she rarely uses. While completely toying with him. And Lor'themar is a ranger with no depth perception and no significant feats to his name. Zappy boi is a meme and a newbie at war. Thrall has been significantly depowered since WoD. Anduin himself was scared that Sylvanas could kill him with her voice whenever she wished to and that was when they were meeting peacefully in Arathi. Jaina is a Mage and Sylvanas can silence her with her voice as well. She silenced Dar'khan when he had all the power of the Sunwell just to himself and was making Kalecgos his bitch and Jaina is nowhere close to that even after she pulled out a powerup out of the Nether in BfA. On top of that she didn't have the most remote of a clue about what magic Sylvanas used against Saurfang so she'd be rather unable to protect herself from it.

Besides, Sylvanas can fly. What would prevent her from flying back to the wall back to the Horde and ordering them to prepare for siege? The people who wanted her dead yet couldn't do anything to stop her from flying away in another direction in the cinematic? Nothing, that's what.

And your remark about me supposedly "looking for the worst in the current and praising the past" makes no sense at all in context of what you were replying to.

[Yarathir]

If Anduin and Astarii see it as a genocide and a war crime, then the concept of those things exist.

And it's a genocide in the story because a massive, absolutely humongous chunk of the noncombatant night elf population lived there and burned to death.

I don't see what's there to doubt, and I'm not exactly going to lean on your expert opinion (headcanon) on whether genocide or war crimes are a thing in the universe, even if am myself not a big fan of Golden as a writer.

[Mehrunes]

And it's a genocide in the story because a massive, absolutely humongous chunk of the noncombatant night elf population lived there and burned to death.

I don't see what's there to doubt, and I'm not exactly going to lean on your expert opinion (headcanon) on whether genocide or war crimes are a thing in the universe, even if am myself not a big fan of Golden as a writer.

Ah, yes, proper usage of legal terms is indeed headcanon. You caught me red handed. Not that my expert opinion had anything to do with whether genocide or war crimes are a thing in the universe in general.

[Yarathir]

Ah, yes, proper usage of legal terms is indeed headcanon. You caught me red handed. Not that my expert opinion had anything to do with whether genocide or war crimes are a thing in the universe in general.

What is improper about it?

Teldrassil houses a major portion of the entire night elf population. It burned down, and most of the night elves with it. It's genocide, plain and simple.

[Mehrunes]

What is improper about it?

Teldrassil houses a major portion of the entire night elf population. It burned down, and most of the night elves with it. It's genocide, plain and simple.

Were they targeted because of their nationality, ethnicity, race or religion? Or because of their political affiliation as a member of the Alliance? In other words, would the burning of Teldrassil (nay, the entire War of Thorns) have happened had the Night Elves not been in the Alliance but a neutral state instead? Because as per the organization that created the legal definition of genocide used pretty much everywhere (the last paragraph is the relevant one here) for an act to constitute genocide it must have been committed specifically because of the targeted group's real or perceived belonging into one of the four protected groups I mentioned. Political affiliation is not one of them due to factors like political pressure from various winners of WWII.

Given how Saurfang drafted the war to achieve specific results against the Alliance and Sylvanas then burned the tree for the same reason in light of Saurfang undermining the goal of his own campaign by sparing Malfurion, the answer to this question is no. Unless we go by Shadowlands' reveal. in which case Sylvanas may have burned the tree just because the Night Elves were alive (though given how the reveal clashes with a large plethora of Sylvanas' actions it's rather hard to say for sure when that became her goal). Being alive is also not a protected group under the definition of genocide.

It may sound counter intuitive but it is what it is. And it is that way because mass killing of population was already against the rules about proper conduct of war prior to genocide becoming a separate thing. Because targeting large groups of people just because they belong to something like a specific race or ethnicity when it's something they don't even have a control over has been deemed an even more reprehensible act than just killing a lot of people. I.e. separating genocide into an even more specific thing that's punished even more harshly is a deterrent against extreme nationalism and other forms of such violent prejudice.

And speaking of how mass killing in general was already prohibited before genocide was enshrined, don't you think it's already plenty bad on its own? That's the part that irks me the most about this whole thing. The insistence on making something a genocide when the actual thing the event in question is is still reprehensible. As if victims of non-genocidal acts somehow mattered less, with only an "elevation" to genocide serving as a proper representation of the horrors of war. The same thing applies to Horde posters trying to make Purge of Dalaran a genocide when ethno-political cleansing already warrants a condemnation.

[yani9841]

The lore explicitly uses words such as "war crime" or "genocide". So i don't see why it's not possible to use these concepts.

the problem is that the concepts trying to be brought in aren't established. War crimes in particular need some overarching authority to enforce laws for there to be a crime to acknowledge...

The alliance trying to judge the horde is like New York trying to Judge Japan or Australia.... what's more, they aren't innocent of similar offenses despite the story basically ignoring such.

We aren't going to see Jaina get strung up for her crimes, nor will Genn see any real reaction for his, but you can rest assured we're definitely going to see what's left of the horde pay for crimes they clearly did not commit because someone writing wants to drive home a point about sheeple following a warmonger (laughably by sheepishly following another leader)

[formerShandalay]

the problem is that the concepts trying to be brought in aren't established. War crimes in particular need some overarching authority to enforce laws for there to be a crime to acknowledge...

The alliance trying to judge the horde is like New York trying to Judge Japan or Australia.... what's more, they aren't innocent of similar offenses despite the story basically ignoring such.

We aren't going to see Jaina get strung up for her crimes, nor will Genn see any real reaction for his, but you can rest assured we're definitely going to see what's left of the horde pay for crimes they clearly did not commit because someone writing wants to drive home a point about sheeple following a warmonger (laughably by sheepishly following another leader)

The thing is, in WoW we have even more efficient 'higher authority' judging people (or 'beings') and action. There are gods, elementals, spirits and all of those tell you what they don't like. What they usually don't like is when you go on a campaign to annihilate a race/faction, strive for world-domination (although that actually seems a bit less likely to stir any trouble, unless you also do the other things in the meantime) and/or harm large stretches of land.

Examples: Rulkan, her fellow spirits and all of the elements and the elemental lords turning away from the orcs of Draenor once they started going on their rampage against the draenei (before they drank the demon blood). The elements rising up against the goblins in Felwood, because of the rampant destruction of nature and natural resources. The elements not aiding of their own will in Garrosh's march on Theramore. He had to employ Dark Shaman (enslaving the elements). Jaina wanting to kill all of Orgrimmar. She also had to force the water elementals to comply. For the first time and that was one of the things that made her turn around and change her mind when she realized it.

Of course the denizens of Azeroth can ignore everything their gods, loa, spirits, elements or whatever say. But that doesn't mean there isn't a 'higher authority' that has some rule-sets about how to behave in the world and that you'll have to look for different sources of power once you anger those that you had a deal with originally (like Fel-magic and drinking demon blood). And your gods may yet come and your actions may bite you in the a** later on. If not in life, then after death.


And these 'higher authorities' also don't really intervene when stuff is more small scale and usually even help, even if there's followers on both sides of any given conflict. If it doesn't hurt the world-order then they don't seem to care much and just lend their power to those that revere them.
Simply killing people doesn't seem to anger anyone really, apart from maybe the spirits of the dead in some cases, conquest without going for actual world domination (and/or annihilation, harming the natural balance etc) doesn't do much.
That is something for a mortal judge. But that is the point where it gets more difficult, because that is something where we don't have one 'ruleset' that we can apply to all those fantasy races and factions. That is something that usually a king or a warchief or maybe an overlord decides. I don't think I have ever heard of any actual written laws for or against anything on Azeroth.

[allawyn]

People get hung up over the word genocide as if that makes all the difference.

If you look into it, genocide depends on intent. Did Sylvanas want to kill Night Elves because they were Night Elves? Or did they "just happen" to be Night Elves?

On that hinges the difference to between mass murder and genocide. But was does it matter? Is mass murder of thousands any better than genocide of thousands?