Is the word "honor" an empty sound in the lore of Warcraft?

[Aucald]

He was definitely thinking about "indirect consequences" later, and he thought it was worth it because he felt better about himself.

This is the character that Blizzard wants us to sympathise with. This is the character they made two expensive CGI cinematics about to show us "you are supposed to like this swell guy!". Are Blizzard writers that much disconnected from workings of average human mind?

I think it is more than his character is compelling, whether or not you agree or disagree with his actions or the reasons for those actions. I don't think the developers or writers are trying to push anyone's noses into the water to get them to drink it, as it were; they are only dwelling on characters whose actions and rationales are important to the story being told. You don't have to agree or disagree to concede that Saurfang is and will be important to the story, just like Sylvanas, Baine, Anduin, and Jaina are.

[Pentai]

After that point Saurfang would be slowly approaching a post-modernist epiphany and understand that Honor is a meaningless concept of fascist cultures and has no inherent moral right ascribed to it. But that's me and I demonstrably think very differently from our writing team in WoW.

How is honouring your word a meaningless concept of fascist cultures? It's not a mysterious concept, if you can't honour a deal then you'll be seen as dishonest and untrustworthy regardless of political flavour.

[rogueMatthias]

There's a quest in Bren in Stormsong where you have to save children and civilians from being killed by rampaging Horde. It's an unprovoked attack on a civilian target and the Horde are just running wild, burning buildings and killing as many civilians as they can.

At one point I killed an Orc, while trying to save a child who's mother was dead impaled to the wall next to her with a spear.

When the Orc died she said "At least... I die... with honor".

That's basically all you need to know about Orcish "honor" in Warcraft.

[Verdugo]

There's a quest in Bren in Stormsong where you have to save children and civilians from being killed by rampaging Horde. It's an unprovoked attack on a civilian target and the Horde are just running wild, burning buildings and killing as many civilians as they can.

At one point I killed an Orc, while trying to save a child who's mother was dead impaled to the wall next to her with a spear.

When the Orc died she said "At least... I die... with honor".

That's basically all you need to know about Orcish "honor" in Warcraft.

It obviously means that the orc was mind controled by Sylvanas and she is finaly free.

I don't think the developers or writers are trying to push anyone's noses into the water to get them to drink it

Its literaly what they are doing but ok.

[Aucald]

This is strange logic for a few reasons. The first is that the situations are equivalent. Neither was a duel. In one case it was Saurfang and his soldiers vs. Malfurion, in the other, per the remains we see and the dead bodies, it was Sylvanas against Malfurion and whatever soldiers they had with them. It had winded down to a duel, but it wasn't intended as such. If either had surviving allies, they'd be joining the fray. In one case, Saurfang prioritizes the survival of those he's responsible for, his soldiers, and invokes ritual combat as a distraction. In the other, he apparently projects the idea that something is ritual combat when it isn't, and decides that this time it's sacred, despite his backstabbing in this case also being to protect the one he has responsibilities for - his Warchief. The lens of Mak'gora or the overall morality of the war for this doesn't work and I think that's intentional.

My point was that the two situations were not equivalent, so your take automatically deviates from how I see it in that sense. We also have no evidence that the dead soldiers around Sylvanas and Malfurion were part of their fight - they could've been collateral damage from earlier fighting completely unconnected from either party here, so I would say you're reaching for an inference there. Either way those soldiers are already dead, so it's not as he's going to be safeguarding them in the short term. Saurfang is pretty much the ultimate decider of whether or not he feels something is ritual or important, however; and while you and I can argue his logic we can't really argue what is or isn't subjectively true for him. I agree with you on the level that I think Saurfang's position has some flaws in its composition, but then I also don't expect the man to be completely logical or rational, either. He's prone to flights of fancy, emotionalism, and has a pronounced death-seeker ideation - he's not going to be fully rational.

I heavily disagree with your reading on Saurfang here. His backstabbing of Malfurion and what followed is very much a personal moment. He doesn't have issues with the war before, he's in fact positively giddy about all of it, nor after, since he has his imagine spot about how he's going to take over the city and is fairly happy about it. It's actually all about his feelings. I've went on about this before, but when he hits Malfurion, that's an instinctive action. He does it immediately when he sees the chance without hesitating. Him challenging Malfurion for the sake of his soldiers was a calculated decision, whereas the axe throw was essentially however many years of war kicking in.

I don't disagree, and that is why I said "in hindsight" in the post above, presumably as something he was meditating on during his stint inside the Stockades. What happened in Darkshore made Saurfang re-evaluate and re-frame several things that had happened since he agreed to Sylvanas' plan. He was indeed happy to execute the war, relished in the chance for combat, and he did act instinctively to protect his Warchief when her (un)life was in danger. And given what happened *because* of that, he's had a lot to consider.

Then when he's looking over what he did, he's shocked because of what that says about him - that maybe he never went beyond blindly following as he'd done before and that he hasn't truly changed. Everything afterwards is him reasserting his agency above all else - he spares Malfurion because it feels good and it's his choice to do so. He argues about the morality of the war with Tyrande and gives her a warning to differentiate his war, the 'good' war, from the 'bad' wars in which he acted like he did with Malfurion - automatically.

People put a lot on his decision to spare Malfurion, as if it was something he wrestled with for an eternity. But it was actually a more or less snap-decision that Tyrande more or less made for him - considering he was paralyzed almost immediately and held at the knife-point of her magic after a brief internal struggle. He reasserts essential agency later on, when Sylvanas confronts him, but I think it is somewhat wrongheaded to hang the entire thing on his head. Tyrande's literal dues ex machina is what largely saves Malfurion, not Saurfang's decision to spare him (though I would say it is a definite factor as well).

Saurfang is a solid character, but very much not in the way Blizzard want us to view him. He's no moral paragon nor a representative of honor, he's an absolute mess and it's what makes him really unsuited for being cast into a generic heroic rebel role.

Only if you think Blizzard has some kind of plan to make us view him a specific way. If they do, then it is a failed plan - as most people to seem to dislike him now. Personally, I like the fact that he is a mess - it makes him feel more real to me. He's not a generic hero or rebel, he's a flawed, shellshocked veteran of war that's no longer sure if the things he has fought for matter, or of the rightness of his actions and choices.

- - - Updated - - -

Its literaly what they are doing but ok.

I mean you can think that if you wish, I just don't agree with you on it. That's not really how stories are told, to be honest. Even if it was their plan, as I said above, it's a failed one due to the popular reception of the character in any case.

[Aoyi]

I think honor is something the Tauren really believe in more than any other race. The orcs talk about honor, but its really not as important to them as they claim if the situation goes bad for them. I do think Anduin is honorable, though naive. As for the other races, I don't think honor matters as much to them.

[zlygork]

Honour seems mostly pointless in a War where your Enemy wants you Dead. Since your honour will likely end in your own death.

Keep in mind that this is a world where multiple different types of after life do exist, so there is more to consider past death.

[Pentai]

This is not about "honoring your word". This is about assuming all the duties and responsibilities your culture assumes you should have, whether those make sense or not in the present day. For an orc, there is honor in exiling cripples.
What you are describing is not cultural honor, it's personal honor.

That has nothing to do with the argument i was discussing, that honour is a meaningless fascist concept.

The rationale i am having trouble with is fascist regime demands my honour through intimidation tactics, thereofore honour is bad. How about screw honouring that particular regime?

[Aucald]

That has nothing to do with the argument i was discussing, that honour is a meaningless fascist concept.

The rationale i am having trouble with is fascist regime demands my honour through intimidation tactics, thereofore honour is bad. How about screw honouring that particular regime?

Honor is fascist? No, I would definitely argue that. Not to say that fascist regimes can't use the concept to their advantage by redefining what is or isn't honorable - but the concept itself is more or less neutral and subjective to the one doing the discerning of what is or isn't honorable (by their standards).

[Eggroll]

Honor is relative. I mean, remember Varian telling the Horde "If you fail to uphold honor again, we will end you" at the end of SoO. See, nothing happened. Horde can go around genociding all they want and nothing happens to them.

[mickybrighteyes]

There's a quest in Bren in Stormsong where you have to save children and civilians from being killed by rampaging Horde.

I love that quest because it showcases how half assed the writing/editing is... half the zone still references the attack as quillboar instead of horde.

[Verdugo]

That's not really how stories are told, to be honest.

Duh, that should be obvious? But its Blizzard, they think they can do that.

Even if it was their plan, as I said above, it's a failed one due to the popular reception of the character in any case.

An attempt at forcing a certain view down our throat is met with resisstance? I would never guess.

[mickybrighteyes]

Keep in mind that this is a world where multiple different types of after life do exist, so there is more to consider past death.

I think the point was more that it doesn't matter what happens if the person is still going to kill you. Presence of one or more afterlife scenarios doesn't change that death is still regarded as a major 'end' for most beings.

Sparing someone who's willing to hold a life or death grudge is just putting off the inevitable fight.

[Super Dickmann]

My point was that the two situations were not equivalent, so your take automatically deviates from how I see it in that sense. We also have no evidence that the dead soldiers around Sylvanas and Malfurion were part of their fight - they could've been collateral damage from earlier fighting completely unconnected from either party here, so I would say you're reaching for an inference there. Either way those soldiers are already dead, so it's not as he's going to be safeguarding them in the short term. Saurfang is pretty much the ultimate decider of whether or not he feels something is ritual or important, however; and while you and I can argue his logic we can't really argue what is or isn't subjectively true for him. I agree with you on the level that I think Saurfang's position has some flaws in its composition, but then I also don't expect the man to be completely logical or rational, either. He's prone to flights of fancy, emotionalism, and has a pronounced death-seeker ideation - he's not going to be fully rational.

I'll give up the point regarding the dead troops for convenience, since we're likely just going to settle into speculation. While you can make a dubious case that Malfurion conceptualized what went on as a duel, since he mentions he wants to take Sylvanas alone and accepts the risk of his death, the same can't be said for Sylvanas. She agrees to go after him to free up Saurfang and Co to take the side route and keep him occupied. Saurfang himself questions whether fighting him alone is a good idea and what he sees is said bodies. I'm also sketchy on whether him viewing it as a duel is anything but a rationalization after the fact.

"The Warchief fights Stormrage alone!" is his reaction, implying he views this as a surprise or a problem and he intervenes automatically on that logic. It's only when he thinks about it later that he argues it's dishonorable, which is where our disagreement on his mentality comes in. We're essentially tackling two separate things - the first being whether it's factually a duel, which I don't believe and then secondly Saurfang's mindset when he tossed the axe. I'm making a value judgment and explaining how Saurfang's logic is inconsistent and in this case the conclusion he draws is false. This doesn't mean it's not his view, but rather that I as the audience don't align with his perspective as the right one.

I agree with you regarding him only actually putting his thoughts together and rationalizing his prior decisions in the Stockades, for good or ill, so no comment there.

People put a lot on his decision to spare Malfurion, as if it was something he wrestled with for an eternity. But it was actually a more or less snap-decision that Tyrande more or less made for him - considering he was paralyzed almost immediately and held at the knife-point of her magic after a brief internal struggle. He reasserts essential agency later on, when Sylvanas confronts him, but I think it is somewhat wrongheaded to hang the entire thing on his head. Tyrande's literal dues ex machina is what largely saves Malfurion, not Saurfang's decision to spare him (though I would say it is a definite factor as well).

Not making a choice is itself a choice. It's mentioned that Saurfang stood there for several minutes not executing Malfurion. At that point, him not doing it is a choice and he is glad that things turned out as they did. Hence why the second the choice is no longer his own he immediately backtracks on any moral consideration. Notice that he debates how horrible it'd be for Malfurion to be in Sylvanas' care and how she might not be right, yet this is only while he is the one making decisions. The second Tyrande shows up, he drops this and begins to rationalize the war, how it has its virtues and by the time he's back with Nathanos and Sylvanas he's looking forward to Teldrassil's invasion. You see the same process later when the tree is burned. He is in shock at the start and tries to stop it, but in the aftermath he begins rationalizing it in his mind.

This is mostly headcanon I'll admit, but I think a big reason for his inaction is that he actually can think like Sylvanas does and that messes with his view of himself. Not just with Teldrassil but also his failure to actually engage with Sylvanas' arguments, both regarding the use of the Blight and later blowing up the city. He disagrees on a basic level of feeling, but he can't debate them in good conscience because some part of him subscribes to the reasoning. Hence "she was right" regarding Teldrassil.

Only if you think Blizzard has some kind of plan to make us view him a specific way. If they do, then it is a failed plan - as most people to seem to dislike him now. Personally, I like the fact that he is a mess - it makes him feel more real to me. He's not a generic hero or rebel, he's a flawed, shellshocked veteran of war that's no longer sure if the things he has fought for matter, or of the rightness of his actions and choices.

That is how the character is written in practice and what can be extracted from him. But nothing so far has convinced me that this is actually intentional. From how his story is framed to the heavy focus on him and the constant parroting of honor, while the story sometimes flirts with the kind of examination we're doing here, it will inevitably default into Saurfang as a hero figure. Hence why while I like Saurfang as a character, I absolutely despise him as a narrative device because of what his storyline represents.

[TheramoreIsTheBomb]

"Is the word "honor" an empty sound in the lore of Warcraft?"
For the Horde it is, but for the Alliance it is the only thing that matters.

Blasting the Zandalari fleet with bombs and unleashing a gigantic albino ape upon traumatized people is very honorable of the Alliance. Also instead of killing Rastakhan they could’ve arrested him.

[mickybrighteyes]

They tried to arrest Rastakhan, he just resisted. The gigantic albino ape volunteered for the task because the Zandalari's goblin allies were slaughtering his kin.

Still. attempting to arrest a sovereign kings and hold his nation hostage has got to be the height of Stormwind's arrogance to date.

It's not like they were even at odds with each other until someone decided to rush headfirst into the other's harbor uninvited.

[Aucald]

We are talking about cultural honor. We have a number of cultures in Warcraft that ascribe to any number of actions value as cultural obligations and thus taking those actions is Honorable and thus morally right. This is an inherently faulty reasoning. Why I call this fascist? It follows the cult of tradition, requires action for action's sake, rejects reasoning and challenging the culture, sees disagreement with the culture as treasonous. Tie this with the fact that the cultures in question (and this does not just include the Horde but also at least the dwarves) also obsesses over heroism and machismo and Cultural Honor is the instrument of fascist regimes in the world of warcraft.

As I said, the concept of honor can be warped or construed a variety of ways - but this doesn't make the term itself fascist, or imply that by its use you're referring to a fascist culture or heritage. This is a judgement you make based on the content of actions and not their descriptors, for better or worse. Heritage, too, neither condemns nor hallows a practice - we judge these things based on their contents as well, usually in keeping with our own strictures of what is or isn't moral or acceptable.

[Aucald]

I'll give up the point regarding the dead troops for convenience, since we're likely just going to settle into speculation. While you can make a dubious case that Malfurion conceptualized what went on as a duel, since he mentions he wants to take Sylvanas alone and accepts the risk of his death, the same can't be said for Sylvanas. She agrees to go after him to free up Saurfang and Co to take the side route and keep him occupied. Saurfang himself questions whether fighting him alone is a good idea and what he sees is said bodies. I'm also sketchy on whether him viewing it as a duel is anything but a rationalization after the fact.

"The Warchief fights Stormrage alone!" is his reaction, implying he views this as a surprise or a problem and he intervenes automatically on that logic. It's only when he thinks about it later that he argues it's dishonorable, which is where our disagreement on his mentality comes in. We're essentially tackling two separate things - the first being whether it's factually a duel, which I don't believe and then secondly Saurfang's mindset when he tossed the axe. I'm making a value judgment and explaining how Saurfang's logic is inconsistent and in this case the conclusion he draws is false. This doesn't mean it's not his view, but rather that I as the audience don't align with his perspective as the right one.

I don't think any one individual's stance on the fight between Malfurion and Sylvanas is really material. The book itself broaches it as "a duel," Malfurion sees it this way and so does Saurfang (who is our current PoV lens). With 66% of the combatants agreeing, and the narrative frame itself crouched as a duel, I'm willing to take the logical leap that Sylvanas also considered it this way.

Not making a choice is itself a choice. It's mentioned that Saurfang stood there for several minutes not executing Malfurion. At that point, him not doing it is a choice and he is glad that things turned out as they did. Hence why the second the choice is no longer his own he immediately backtracks on any moral consideration. Notice that he debates how horrible it'd be for Malfurion to be in Sylvanas' care and how she might not be right, yet this is only while he is the one making decisions. The second Tyrande shows up, he drops this and begins to rationalize the war, how it has its virtues and by the time he's back with Nathanos and Sylvanas he's looking forward to Teldrassil's invasion. You see the same process later when the tree is burned. He is in shock at the start and tries to stop it, but in the aftermath he begins rationalizing it in his mind.

I'm not saying he didn't make a choice, I'm saying that the full weight of the outcome was not just on him. I don't think a moment or two of subjective time changes this equation in any real sense. Saurfang wrestled with whether or not to execute him, but he didn't come to a complete decision until Tyrande interceded and basically made the decision for him. Later on to Sylvanas he accepts and "owns" the decision, but what happened was still bigger than him, metaphorically speaking.

This is mostly headcanon I'll admit, but I think a big reason for his inaction is that he actually can think like Sylvanas does and that messes with his view of himself. Not just with Teldrassil but also his failure to actually engage with Sylvanas' arguments, both regarding the use of the Blight and later blowing up the city. He disagrees on a basic level of feeling, but he can't debate them in good conscience because some part of him subscribes to the reasoning. Hence "she was right" regarding Teldrassil.

I don't doubt it, really. His plans for War of Thorns were decidedly underhanded and more than a little bloodthirsty. People have this idea of Saurfang as a blustering idiot who puts honor before reason and prattles incessantly about honor - but the man is a decidedly shrewd general and capable of making cruel and calculating decisions. He tries, often in vain, to strike up a balance between his two conflicted sides and this is where much of his character's internal drama is generated.

That is how the character is written in practice and what can be extracted from him. But nothing so far has convinced me that this is actually intentional. From how his story is framed to the heavy focus on him and the constant parroting of honor, while the story sometimes flirts with the kind of examination we're doing here, it will inevitably default into Saurfang as a hero figure. Hence why while I like Saurfang as a character, I absolutely despise him as a narrative device because of what his storyline represents.

We'll see, I suppose. What I see is a lot of people reading into the narrative to justify conclusions they've already made. I think it's fine to like Saurfang as a character, and just as fine to dislike him - but I don't think there's a conspiracy on the part of the writers to push anyone either way. The people who vilify Saurfang aren't going to see him as a hero even if the narrative objectively makes him one, regardless; that's just the nature of people and opinions as it were.

- - - Updated - - -

I'll come back later for a more extended response since I have to go but
The cultural construct of honor in Warcraft is entirely an excuse to not make a moral judgment. It is the absence of reason in an ethics question and a plea to tradition and irrationalism. If we are going to discuss personal honor, that is a different thing. But the "HONOR" spam from your random orc NPC is entirely of the first variety.

Not really, not even in-game. The very fact that "honor" can be disputed and debated, even in-game, shows that the concept has a material nature that can be assessed and found wanting. For Orcs, "honor" is basically what holds them back from the bloodthirsty aspect of their natures, which I think is best showcased in the Durotan cinematic for "Lords of War." Demon blood aside, every Orc basically wrestles with a racial blood-rage that they can fall into, a kind of unthinking and brutal anger that stifles reason and leads them into atrocity. The principles of Orcish honor are meant to control this facet of their beings, to channel the rage as constructively as possible, and to prevent it from manifesting in situations where it isn't warranted or necessary. In this sense, Orcish honor is both tied to tradition and codified, but it is also personally intimate to an individual Orc. "Honor," to an Orc, could loosely be said to be the act of living above one's own demons (both metaphorical and literal), and anything that facilitates that would be part and parcel of honorable conduct.

The blood rage is itself considered immoral and unworthy outside the proper context for it, that's really the underpinning of Orcish morality in the most simplistic of senses.

[Arrashi]

Given that honor is empty word in real life yeah, i would say there is pretty good chance its also empty in WoW.

I mean, both true and iron horde members were yammering about honor all the time. Saurfang is no diffrent from them. Its basically "Im right - don't question me" word.

[MatthiasVonTzeskagrad]

The pinnacle of Alliance arrogance was trying to tell the proudest King of the proudest most ancient lasting empire in Azeroth to just give up and surrender, after having blasted its navy, killed their civilians, tearing his soldiers to pieces, sacking his sacred city of gold and killing each and every champion of their gods. And get annoyed to get a NO as answer.
Or maybe it was when Alleria decided in like 15 years nothing that could tear her former people from the Alliance could have happen, then decided she had to touch the Sunwell despite hosting a Dark Naaru who could shit on it, then even after being proved a menace towards her former people decides to fuel the desires of a bunch of Void infested freaks to return to Silvermoon and enjoy that Sunwell they would turn into an apocalyptic Void puddle in a matter of minutes.
Or maybe it was when said Void freaks summoned freaking Void Lords to feast on the souls of the people in. zandalar and practice Void necromancy just because they can.
Or maybe when Anduin promoted the same guy who went to hunt the allied faction leader during an all out war against Sargeras to the place of top advisor, bringing him to diplomatic meetings made to calm the mood between factions and then wonder why the Horde's a Warchief feels like this is a complete waste of time.
Or maybe when Anduin had the guts to yell at Sylvanas she was beyond salvation after he just resurrected a Lightforged zombie who not even one minute ago tried a coupe on her.
The Alliance is that kid in school who told told you she did not study at all for the exams, yet cries like a baby after getting 9.5/10