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

[Super Dickmann]

Your claim seems to be that he recontextualized it after Teldrassil during his time in prison, but according to the book itself he contextualizes it almost right after he acts and buries the axe in Malfurion's back - he is immediately wracked with sorrow and indecision, and tells Sylvanas specifically that Malfurion hadn't been his to kill. This is a pretty immediate reaction to the outcome, and all his time the Stockades really adds to that is the sheer magnitude of his own mistake (this one and the litany of mistakes that led up to it).

Not quite. My claim is about what form this recontextualization takes. Your position, correct me if I'm wrong, is that Saurfang views it as not being his place to intervene because it was single combat with the broader implication that he was now doubting the rectitude of the war. I disagree, since the story heavily emphasizes the personal element of his decision to spare Malf. That he is shocked with himself that he automatically backstabbed someone, whether he was right to kill him and so forth. He doesn't consider the broader war in any real sense until after the Burning, and doesn't commit in some way until he's in the stockades. I'm saying that there are separate character beats involved rather than his decision to spare Malf being part of his revelation about the nature of the war. After all, as soon as sparing Malf is out of his hands, he goes right back into defending the war and looking forward to continuing it, up until the Burning.

No one else knows that Sylvanas plans a number of genocides in her campaign, with the long-term aim to set herself up as unassailable. This is also presumably the threat to the "balance" that Bwonsamdi and the Lich King are referring to, something that would push Azeroth more towards Death in the Life/Death balance or cycle of some kind.

I'm dubious on this count, for a few reasons. The first is that from a cosmic sense I don't really buy that depopulating and raising one city disrupts the balance in the eyes of entities like Bwonsamdi, to whom you promise a small loan of a million unwilling souls pretty casually. Or especially the Lich King, who's Scourge is composed in large part of the much bigger state of Lordaeron. Given that she has the knaifu, I think that whether knowingly or not, Sylvanas is being nudged towards a broader plan.

The second reason is because Sylvanas doesn't really see this as something to conceal from anyone but Saurfang. She muses in her internal monologue that a portion of the reason she's going after Stormwind - and that she thinks the Horde won't begrudge her the dead within, is because they too are hungry for war. On top of this, we know that she can't be all that into it, because Nathanos, her number 2 guy, considers a defeat of the Kul Tiran fleet to be a way to end the war on their terms during the War Campaign, implying that a settlement that leaves the Horde in power is fine as well. This is reinforced by how we know from BTS that Sylvanas wouldn't have started the war if Varian were still in charge.

Finally, and a bit aside from that, whether she was concealing Stormwind as her goal or not, or whether that's really her end point or not, that still doesn't change that it was a major mistake to conceal that killing Malfurion was a victory condition in the War of Thorns. I don't think Saurfang would have been that torn up about it if he knew he was an actual target and it wasn't just a bonus, and she hadn't hidden "a wound that never healed" as her objective. It's obfuscation for the sake of drama, with very sparse in-story reasoning.

The Blood Oath specifically strikes me as a dangerous piece of legalism within the Horde, as it binds subjects to both an enlightened ruler and an abject tyrant without any kind of discernment. Perhaps it is time for the Horde to review its own hierarchical structures and enact safeguards against the unchecked power of an unworthy Warchief (something that probably should've happened after the Garrosh fiasco).

The reason I have my position on what they want us to discuss is that the most objectionable elements of Saurfang and Baine's behaviour - their dereliction of duty towards their own races and their aiding of enemies to the detriment of the Horde aren't brought up. Those who do take issue with them in-story have problems with their disloyalty, but Geya'rah certainly doesn't give a shit that Baine killed a number of sailors, neither do Mayla or Rokhan. They discuss his intentions, but not the factual result and the good thereof.

As for reform within the Horde past that, I maintain that Sylvanas is a very poor character to be having this conversation through, and in fact, so is Saurfang. Sylvanas has barely any interest in the institutions and it's pretty much a definite that she doesn't buy into what she's selling, so defeating her isn't really rebuffing the positions she pretends to have. Similarly, Saurfang isn't taking issue with Sylvanas because of the institution, his views are explicitly regressive - he wants to revert the Horde to its Thrall-era incarnation, which still had the Warchief as supreme authority, the Warchief just happened to be a nicer dude. The Garrosh story, whatever its myriad issues, was much better suited for this, because the conflict between him and Vol'jin/Thrall were about ideals and institutions. By the end of that nothing changed institutionally either, mind, but still.

[Pillerina]

Honor in reality is an invention by the brittish empire to explain away defeats to "savages".

[Mehrunes]

Saurfang is such a believer in the sanctity of duels that earlier he issued a fake challenge of Mak'gora to Malfurion just to distract him enough for his people to run away. An actually heroic action, mind, but not one of a man who would later go catatonic and throw the entire invasion in the bin because he hit one guy his leader was struggling with in the back.

You need to remember that Saurfang's brain is a magic 8-ball of muh honor and as such his opinion of what honor is changes each time his head shakes too much.

[Aucald]

Not quite. My claim is about what form this recontextualization takes. Your position, correct me if I'm wrong, is that Saurfang views it as not being his place to intervene because it was single combat with the broader implication that he was now doubting the rectitude of the war. I disagree, since the story heavily emphasizes the personal element of his decision to spare Malf. That he is shocked with himself that he automatically backstabbed someone, whether he was right to kill him and so forth. He doesn't consider the broader war in any real sense until after the Burning, and doesn't commit in some way until he's in the stockades. I'm saying that there are separate character beats involved rather than his decision to spare Malf being part of his revelation about the nature of the war. After all, as soon as sparing Malf is out of his hands, he goes right back into defending the war and looking forward to continuing it, up until the Burning.

You are correct up to the point that his immediate reconsideration is about "the broader implication that he was now doubting the rectitude of the war." In the immediate sense I think Saurfang violated his own sense of ethical combat, the sense of Orcish "honor" he goes on about. The duel between Sylvanas and Malfurion was important and he rashly and unthinkingly involved himself, putting victory over his own conception of honor. He was shocked both that he backstabbed someone, and that he allowed himself to interfere in something that he should've allowed to play out. The duel between Sylvanas and Malfurion had all the spiritual trappings of what the rite of Mak'gora is really all about in the Orcish tradition, despite the fact that the combatants weren't Orcs. Saurfang "betraying" his old friend and ally Malfurion wouldn't be a factor here as he had already committed to that well before he involved himself in their fight later. Later on, imprisoned in the Stockades, he has ample time to suss out *all* the elements of what had happened and re-contextualize things in light of the Burning of Teldrassil. But that immediate reaction, before Sylvanas ordered the burning, that was borne out of Saurfang's own internal ethical compass.

I'm dubious on this count, for a few reasons. The first is that from a cosmic sense I don't really buy that depopulating and raising one city disrupts the balance in the eyes of entities like Bwonsamdi, to whom you promise a small loan of a million unwilling souls pretty casually. Or especially the Lich King, who's Scourge is composed in large part of the much bigger state of Lordaeron. Given that she has the knaifu, I think that whether knowingly or not, Sylvanas is being nudged towards a broader plan.

Sylvanas already has Lordaeron under her sway, the majority of its people now being Forsaken. Adding Stormwind's entire populace to that equation would be to effectively double the size of her army, putting her well beyond and above the Scourge's former numbers of undead. That may well not be the violation of this Balance being referred to, but it certainly seems a part of it (given that Sylvanas is a threat in the immediate sense, not in some future sense). Sylvanas doesn't yet have Xal'atath in her possession and those entities already consider her a problem - so you can imagine what they'll think later on.

The second reason is because Sylvanas doesn't really see this as something to conceal from anyone but Saurfang. She muses in her internal monologue that a portion of the reason she's going after Stormwind - and that she thinks the Horde won't begrudge her the dead within, is because they too are hungry for war. On top of this, we know that she can't be all that into it, because Nathanos, her number 2 guy, considers a defeat of the Kul Tiran fleet to be a way to end the war on their terms during the War Campaign, implying that a settlement that leaves the Horde in power is fine as well. This is reinforced by how we know from BTS that Sylvanas wouldn't have started the war if Varian were still in charge.

My take is that she needs to get the Horde to a place where, as you yourself said, "the Horde won't begrudge her the dead within." This requires some set-up and a pitched campaign on her part - she needs to move the Horde to where she needs them to be, and until that is done she wouldn't be served by showing her hand too early. Nathanos says what he does to the Champion as the party-line, so to speak; a rational approach to the war as a whole. Both Nathanos and Sylvanas know the Horde isn't going to stop with the defeat of the Kul Tiran fleet, though. That's never been the Horde's M.O. and most assuredly isn't now.

Finally, and a bit aside from that, whether she was concealing Stormwind as her goal or not, or whether that's really her end point or not, that still doesn't change that it was a major mistake to conceal that killing Malfurion was a victory condition in the War of Thorns. I don't think Saurfang would have been that torn up about it if he knew he was an actual target and it wasn't just a bonus, and she hadn't hidden "a wound that never healed" as her objective. It's obfuscation for the sake of drama, with very sparse in-story reasoning.

I agree on that score. Sylvanas isn't disposed to trust people, even if in doing some to some degree it actually serves her aims as opposed to detracting from them. It's part of her pathology.

The reason I have my position on what they want us to discuss is that the most objectionable elements of Saurfang and Baine's behaviour - their dereliction of duty towards their own races and their aiding of enemies to the detriment of the Horde aren't brought up. Those who do take issue with them in-story have problems with their disloyalty, but Geya'rah certainly doesn't give a shit that Baine killed a number of sailors, neither do Mayla or Rokhan. They discuss his intentions, but not the factual result and the good thereof.

Only if you assume that aiding the Alliance is itself a detriment to the Horde in the context of a war being fought because of a quasi-genocidal act of violence by the Horde against the Alliance. Baine wants the war to end because it finds it objectionable and unjust, and while he no doubt doesn't want people to die because of that he accepts that they must, and that the end-goal of peace is worth the price. You can of course debate that calculus, just as you can merit of aiding "the enemy" in order to pursue a greater form of good (for both the Horde and the Alliance, as it were). As for the characters, they discuss both his intent and the outcomes, insofar as they can understand them. Baine has made his position quite clear, after all, and the narrative gives both them and us the space to discuss and debate both ends and means.

As for reform within the Horde past that, I maintain that Sylvanas is a very poor character to be having this conversation through, and in fact, so is Saurfang. Sylvanas has barely any interest in the institutions and it's pretty much a definite that she doesn't buy into what she's selling, so defeating her isn't really rebuffing the positions she pretends to have. Similarly, Saurfang isn't taking issue with Sylvanas because of the institution and in fact, his views are explicitly regressive - he wants to revert the Horde to its Thrall-era incarnation, which still had the Warchief as supreme authority, the Warchief just happened to be a nicer dude. The Garrosh story, whatever its myriad issues, was much better suited for this, and by the end of that nothing changed institutionally either.

I would agree, and I'm not really into the idea of a staunch traditionalist like Saurfang as Warchief of the Horde, either. The Horde needs new ideas and a new context, probably in the form of a longer-term non-Orcish Warchief. Vol'jin unfortunately died too soon to do much in the way of reform, and Sylvanas has no real interest in reform or enlightened rule. Saurfang would enshrine the policies of Thrall without much thought, although based on his personality I would also think he has no real desire to lead the Horde and wouldn't consider himself worthy of it in any case.

[JacobusRex]

Honor is a word that is blacklisted at Activision. You will not speak of it again while shareholder babies are crying. Honor is in the dollar.

[Super Dickmann]

You are correct up to the point that his immediate reconsideration is about "the broader implication that he was now doubting the rectitude of the war." In the immediate sense I think Saurfang violated his own sense of ethical combat, the sense of Orcish "honor" he goes on about. The duel between Sylvanas and Malfurion was important and he rashly and unthinkingly involved himself, putting victory over his own conception of honor. He was shocked both that he backstabbed someone, and that he allowed himself to interfere in something that he should've allowed to play out. The duel between Sylvanas and Malfurion had all the spiritual trappings of what the rite of Mak'gora is really all about in the Orcish tradition, despite the fact that the combatants weren't Orcs. Saurfang "betraying" his old friend and ally Malfurion wouldn't be a factor here as he had already committed to that well before he involved himself in their fight later. Later on, imprisoned in the Stockades, he has ample time to suss out *all* the elements of what had happened and re-contextualize things in light of the Burning of Teldrassil. But that immediate reaction, before Sylvanas ordered the burning, that was borne out of Saurfang's own internal ethical compass.

I can see where you're coming from, but I'm just not seeing the broader ethical reconsideration here. It's a very narrow thing. If you like, you can apply the honor vs loyalty thing here. He acted out of loyalty - the kind of blind defense of his leader that is represented in the Blood Oath and that he was used to, but later reconsidered. He essentially projected an orcish dimension to a battle that didn't have any of it in order to justify to himself why it didn't feel right. He essentially drops this right after, defending the war to Tyrande and feeling good about himself. I won't outright dismiss that there was such a lapse, but if it's there it's a very small one and that it was a matter of his personal history and not about any broader cultural point other orcs would balk at.

Sylvanas already has Lordaeron under her sway, the majority of its people now being Forsaken. Adding Stormwind's entire populace to that equation would be to effectively double the size of her army, putting her well beyond and above the Scourge's former numbers of undead. That may well not be the violation of this Balance being referred to, but it certainly seems a part of it (given that Sylvanas is a threat in the immediate sense, not in some future sense). Sylvanas doesn't yet have Xal'atath in her possession and those entities already consider her a problem - so you can imagine what they'll think later on.

You're really underselling the Scourge here. While I'm in the camp that thinks the Forsaken are fairly powerful, they still only represent a portion of what Lordaeron used to be, divided as it is among the Scarlet Crusade, Argent Crusade, refugees and so forth. And it is still one kingdom, two when you add Stormwind, which we're told in recent lore is fairly depleted. The Scourge by contrast not only took down all of Lordaeron, with all of Sylvanas' subjects being either actual or prospective servants, but also basically all of Northrend, a big part of Quel'thalas and so on. The Scourge, even after suffering heavy losses, was capable of wiping out the playable factions while running on auto pilot at the end of Wrath. This represents a number of undead well beyond two kingdoms and thus a much bigger risk to a prospective 'balance'. It's why I prefer to think that they're alluding to some other goal.

My take is that she needs to get the Horde to a place where, as you yourself said, "the Horde won't begrudge her the dead within." This requires some set-up and a pitched campaign on her part - she needs to move the Horde to where she needs them to be, and until that is done she wouldn't be served by showing her hand too early. Nathanos says what he does to the Champion as the party-line, so to speak; a rational approach to the war as a whole. Both Nathanos and Sylvanas know the Horde isn't going to stop with the defeat of the Kul Tiran fleet, though. That's never been the Horde's M.O. and most assuredly isn't now.

I actually agree with you that they're trying to sway the Horde to the point where they won't have any issues with this. I mean, I'd argue that if she outright said "I want to take over Stormwind and kill the people there" I doubt she'd have all that much problems. But I disagree that it's entirely fluff because we know from Sylvanas' own internal monologue that she only favours war because Anduin is in charge and under Varian's rule she would not have attacked. I.e, she's not against a managed settlement by itself if it serves her purposes, she just doesn't buy that there is one to be found here due to her own issues.

As for the latter point, she has no issue telling the PC that Malf must die and it's not like killing Malfurion being a goal would be a hard argument to pitch. It's secrecy for the sake of it, but not the kind I can really buy as being too in character. Especially since she flat out explains all this to Saurfang after the fact.

Re: the point about Baine. To avoid discussing the substance again, which we're guaranteed to do in the future, my point isn't about the rectitude of those points one way or another, but rather that discussion of whether Baine was right to brain those guys on the boat or Saurfang was right to spare Malf and Anduin exist solely within the fandom. No one brings them up on either side in the game itself. Hell, this is only assumption, but I suspect that the whole bit with Baine sparing parts of the crew was tacked on. It's not referenced in any quest text, the voiced dialogue implies they were supposed to be fanatics he kills and their survival runs counter to covering their tracks with the pirate shtick, since by allowing the undead to go they guarantee that word would spread of who was involved. I think it was a last minute change because Blizzard realized how it looked.

[Evilfish]

The writers don't have a clue what honor is and consequently the notion in the game world is warped. That or they try to over-complicate a really simple notion.

The truth is that the notion of honor is not universal among cultures and while some people might deem something honorable other people may not. In WoW it seems that honor is measured by how buddy you are with the Alliance.

[Aucald]

I can see where you're coming from, but I'm just not seeing the broader ethical reconsideration here. It's a very narrow thing. If you like, you can apply the honor vs loyalty thing here. He acted out of loyalty - the kind of blind defense of his leader that is represented in the Blood Oath and that he was used to, but later reconsidered. He essentially projected an orcish dimension to a battle that didn't have any of it in order to justify to himself why it didn't feel right. He essentially drops this right after, defending the war to Tyrande and feeling good about himself. I won't outright dismiss that there was such a lapse, but if it's there it's a very small one and that it was a matter of his personal history and not about any broader cultural point other orcs would balk at.

The process that I see basically unfolds like this:
1.) Saurfang rashly intercedes, and immediately regrets it due to a violation of his own ethics.
2.) He broaches this topic to Sylvanas ("He was not mine to kill"), who rebuffs him and leaves him to finish her work (from his perspective).
3.) He wrestles with indecision for a few moments, taken aback by both his rashness and Sylvanas' callous disregard for honor.
4.) Tyrande intercedes and they bargain over the prone body of Malfurion, with Saurfang passing Malfurion onto Tyrande in the end. Saurfang believes the war is justified and inevitable although he relegates this specific occurrence to something outside of its context.
5.) Sylvanas, having already earned Saurfang's ire, asks him what happened and Saurfang flippantly tells her that he opted not to do what she should have done.
6.) Teldrassil happens and Saurfang is left to consider the enormity of what all of his decisions have led to.

That's pretty much how I unpack what happened at the climax and denouement of "A Good War."

You're really underselling the Scourge here. While I'm in the camp that thinks the Forsaken are fairly powerful, they still only represent a portion of what Lordaeron used to be, divided as it is among the Scarlet Crusade, Argent Crusade, refugees and so forth. And it is still one kingdom, two when you add Stormwind, which we're told in recent lore is fairly depleted. The Scourge by contrast not only took down all of Lordaeron, with all of Sylvanas' subjects being either actual or prospective servants, but also basically all of Northrend, a big part of Quel'thalas and so on. The Scourge, even after suffering heavy losses, was capable of wiping out the playable factions while running on auto pilot at the end of Wrath. This represents a number of undead well beyond two kingdoms and thus a much bigger risk to a prospective 'balance'. It's why I prefer to think that they're alluding to some other goal.

I don't think so. The Scourge didn't arrive to Lordaeron as an army to kick ass or take names, they took Lordaeron through subversion and guile using the Plague of Undeath first. The bulk of the Scourge in Lordaeron when Arthas returns as a Death Knight to claim the kingdom is made of Lordaeronians who died and were raised by the Plague. Arthas brings a pretty small retinue with him, but he doesn't really need one - the land is already rotting from within, and he recruits what he needs from the damage Kel'Thuzad had already done (e.g. turning the majority of Andorhal, Stratholme, etc. etc.) Sylvanas' subjects were all former Scourge already turned from the citizens of Lordaeron. The Scourge at the end of Wrath was the product of its gains over the course of the entirety of the War of the Spider and the Third War combined, alongside whatever else they'd subsumed between then and WotLK. That was the really the most powerful aspect of the Scourge - fighting them had the tendency to provide them with more soldiers, as opposed to making them lose soldiers.

I actually agree with you that they're trying to sway the Horde to the point where they won't have any issues with this. I mean, I'd argue that if she outright said "I want to take over Stormwind and kill the people there" I doubt she'd have all that much problems. But I disagree that it's entirely fluff because we know from Sylvanas' own internal monologue that she only favours war because Anduin is in charge and under Varian's rule she would not have attacked. I.e, she's not against a managed settlement by itself if it serves her purposes, she just doesn't buy that there is one to be found here due to her own issues.

Saying "I want to take over Stormwind and kill the people there" would be a lie of omission on her part, the fact that she wants to raise them all as Forsaken is a pretty pertinent aspect you're leaving out. Most of the non-Forsaken Horde take a pretty dim view on undeath. They'll allow very specific uses, but I'd wager strongly that wiping out the majority of the Human race and raising them into undeath would probably lead to a mass exodus of Tauren, Trolls, and probably quite a few Orcs. Not sure how Lor'themar would approach it, but he has a pretty dim view of Sylvanas already and probably no desire being associated with such. Liadrin and the Blood Knights probably wouldn't stand for it at all.

As for the latter point, she has no issue telling the PC that Malf must die and it's not like killing Malfurion being a goal would be a hard argument to pitch. It's secrecy for the sake of it, but not the kind I can really buy as being too in character. Especially since she flat out explains all this to Saurfang after the fact.

At the end of the day, I think it comes down to the very name of the novella in question: "A Good War." This is what Saurfang wanted - the press of arms between Horde and Alliance to settle, once and for all, the question of which faction is the future of Azeroth. Saurfang has no desire to put the Alliance to the flame as a whole, he only wants to show them with finality that the Horde will not be threatened or cowed by them, that they won't be able to enforce "peace" at proverbial sword-point anymore. Sylvanas' war, on the other hand, goes a bit beyond supremacy through strength of arm and into the land of targeted genocide against any who oppose the Horde (and most especially her). She has no qualms about crushing the heart out of the Kaldorei or the Humans, and will pursue any means and consort with any power that will help her realize this goal. Her plans for Malfurion start the process of showing Saurfang the fundamental difference between his war and her war, and Teldrassil finally brings it home to him completely.

Re: the point about Baine. To avoid discussing the substance again, which we're guaranteed to do in the future, my point isn't about the rectitude of those points one way or another, but rather that discussion of whether Baine was right to brain those guys on the boat or Saurfang was right to spare Malf and Anduin exist solely within the fandom. No one brings them up on either side in the game itself. Hell, this is only assumption, but I suspect that the whole bit with Baine sparing parts of the crew was tacked on. It's not referenced in any quest text, the voiced dialogue implies they were supposed to be fanatics he kills and their survival runs counter to covering their tracks with the pirate shtick, since by allowing the undead to go they guarantee that word would spread of who was involved. I think it was a last minute change because Blizzard realized how it looked.

I don't think it's a big deal, honestly. Either way people still die - some of the crew don't submit and are killed, the Dark Rangers all die in the process as well. It's an ancillary we debate here because, well, a lot of us enjoy spirited debate all on its own (myself included). The in-game characters sort of accept it as a matter of course, really. In the cut-scene with Jaina at the end Baine accepts that Sylvanas is going to find out, and he knows it's only a matter of time before he's accused and imprisoned for what he did. The pirate tactic is more about washing Zelling's hands of the incident than his own - it muddies the waters and perhaps give them a bit more time, but that's about it. Baine has no illusions about his chances, it's all a matter of when the truth comes out and not if it comes out.

[Super Dickmann]

]
That's pretty much how I unpack what happened at the climax and denouement of "A Good War."

This is my read of it as well, so I think our only differences are minor ones about the specifics. For instance, I don't think Saurfang takes issue with Sylvanas' honor vis a vis anything but the duel therein and I've made my case about how the whole thing is more introspective than anything else. But in general I think we agree and are quibbling about the interpretation of details and character motivation.

The Scourge at the end of Wrath was the product of its gains over the course of the entirety of the War of the Spider and the Third War combined, alongside whatever else they'd subsumed between then and WotLK. That was the really the most powerful aspect of the Scourge - fighting them had the tendency to provide them with more soldiers, as opposed to making them lose soldiers.

I don't disagree with the substance of what you're saying, but I do dispute your conclusion. That the Scourge won Lordaeron by subversion is moot as it concerns how much of Lordaeron it harvested in the process. The first Gen Forsaken are all by definition just a fraction of the Scourge located in Lordaeron. Their gains subsequently are geographically limited to Lordaeron, exempting any that have been raised as Scourge, Risen or have accepted the worgen curse. The post-WC3 Scourge is by any metric more numerous/powerful than both the Alliance and Horde, which includes a Stormwind that had more soldiers then than it does now, given the shortage suggested in Lost Honor. Even if the Forsaken were to incorporate all of Stormwind and for good measure took all of Lordaeron, Stromgarde and Gilneas, they'd overall still be behind the Scourge in general power, from the information we have as of yet.

Saying "I want to take over Stormwind and kill the people there" would be a lie of omission on her part, the fact that she wants to raise them all as Forsaken is a pretty pertinent aspect you're leaving out. Most of the non-Forsaken Horde take a pretty dim view on undeath. They'll allow very specific uses, but I'd wager strongly that wiping out the majority of the Human race and raising them into undeath would probably lead to a mass exodus of Tauren, Trolls, and probably quite a few Orcs. Not sure how Lor'themar would approach it, but he has a pretty dim view of Sylvanas already and probably no desire being associated with such. Liadrin and the Blood Knights probably wouldn't stand for it at all.

I agree about the Horde's reaction to it, but even Sylvanas takes this into account, since her view of the post-war world includes the other Horde races who would receive rich territories. Her claim is on the people themselves. The omission here is deliberate. If she were to present her goals directly, then by the time she's in a position to make good on it, there'd be enough good will - since she's winning, or outrage - because he Horde would have taken a lot of damage, that she'd be able to pass the whole thing through.

It's similar to the point regarding Malfurion. She has already sold a preemptive war where Saurfang himself suggests the use of catapults to threaten to torch the city in the event of disobedience (as a bluff), and the preemptive assassination of tons of people. She doesn't need to tie herself in knots to argue why killing Malfurion would be essential to any victory - his feats across the whole of the novella demonstrate why and when she presents her logic later, Saurfang doesn't even dispute it. The killing of Malfurion can in such a war be framed as both demoralization - which they both knew was the aim, it would supplement division as Tyrande would want her husband avenged and her home retaken and it's simply good tactics, all other things aside. Malfurion nearly ended their invasion singlehanded, when Sylvanas thinks that the city can't be held with him alive and the plan would fail, she's right.

The pirate tactic is more about washing Zelling's hands of the incident than his own - it muddies the waters and perhaps give them a bit more time, but that's about it. Baine has no illusions about his chances, it's all a matter of when the truth comes out and not if it comes out.

I'm not saying the story doesn't work with the alteration. It's canon, so we work with what we have, what I'm saying is that these are aspects that are only relevant to the discussions happening in lore forums, they're not considerations in the narrative itself, which is what I'm getting at here. They might accept the loss of lives, they might be angry or apathetic or whatever, but when it's not addressed, we can only assume. It's a minor version of the non-reactions to Teldrassil and Lordaeron we've beat to death. Large parts of what's being debated and is highly controversial in the fanbase aren't even afterthoughts in the actual story.

[Cobman]

Honor is moral compass of group, society or individual. It can differ.

[Aucald]

This is my read of it as well, so I think our only differences are minor ones about the specifics. For instance, I don't think Saurfang takes issue with Sylvanas' honor vis a vis anything but the duel therein and I've made my case about how the whole thing is more introspective than anything else. But in general I think we agree and are quibbling about the interpretation of details and character motivation.

I don't think Saurfang took issue with Sylvanas' honor, but more her callousness in addressing her concerns, as well as leaving him with an unenviable task he'd already intimated he didn't want. His words to her directly afterward, telling her than Malfurion's head was still connected to his body, seems to me to show this. Basically she pissed him off, and so he took the opportunity to throw it back in her face.

I don't disagree with the substance of what you're saying, but I do dispute your conclusion. That the Scourge won Lordaeron by subversion is moot as it concerns how much of Lordaeron it harvested in the process. The first Gen Forsaken are all by definition just a fraction of the Scourge located in Lordaeron. Their gains subsequently are geographically limited to Lordaeron, exempting any that have been raised as Scourge, Risen or have accepted the worgen curse. The post-WC3 Scourge is by any metric more numerous/powerful than both the Alliance and Horde, which includes a Stormwind that had more soldiers then than it does now, given the shortage suggested in Lost Honor. Even if the Forsaken were to incorporate all of Stormwind and for good measure took all of Lordaeron, Stromgarde and Gilneas, they'd overall still be behind the Scourge in general power, from the information we have as of yet.

I'm not so sure about that, to be honest. Lordaeron was only one of several Human nations at the time, and I don't think it was the largest either. The post-WC3 is defeated by the Horde and Alliance that are at each others' throats due to the Wrath Gate incident - so I would also argue that it was stronger than both factions. But given that drawing the champions of the Horde and Alliance to him was all part of the Lich King's grand plan it's sort of a moot point regardless. We were also talking about the Scourge as it was before and during the Third War, not afterward - the Scourge didn't dominate Lordaeron through numbers but rather subversion, recruitment, and corruption. An individual Forsaken is also a more potent unit than an individual Scourge one - being free-willed, creative, and capable of improvisational tactics whereas the Scourge are largely dependent on a powerful commander controlling their wills.

I agree about the Horde's reaction to it, but even Sylvanas takes this into account, since her view of the post-war world includes the other Horde races who would receive rich territories. Her claim is on the people themselves. The omission here is deliberate. If she were to present her goals directly, then by the time she's in a position to make good on it, there'd be enough good will - since she's winning, or outrage - because he Horde would have taken a lot of damage, that she'd be able to pass the whole thing through.

I agree, though she's not there yet, which is why she can't reveal it just yet.

It's similar to the point regarding Malfurion. She has already sold a preemptive war where Saurfang himself suggests the use of catapults to threaten to torch the city in the event of disobedience (as a bluff), and the preemptive assassination of tons of people. She doesn't need to tie herself in knots to argue why killing Malfurion would be essential to any victory - his feats across the whole of the novella demonstrate why and when she presents her logic later, Saurfang doesn't even dispute it. The killing of Malfurion can in such a war be framed as both demoralization - which they both knew was the aim, it would supplement division as Tyrande would want her husband avenged and her home retaken and it's simply good tactics, all other things aside. Malfurion nearly ended their invasion singlehanded, when Sylvanas thinks that the city can't be held with him alive and the plan would fail, she's right.

But demoralization of a decidedly different kind. Saurfang internally agrees with her reasoning as a logistical plan, but he doesn't agree with it morally or ethically (as his later actions demonstrate). There's a difference in acceding to the cold mathematics of a resolution and accepting it as something that is right or proper to do. Ethics, at least his understanding of them, is very important to Saurfang - I don't think Sylvanas knew (and probably didn't care) exactly how much it mattered to him.

I'm not saying the story doesn't work with the alteration. It's canon, so we work with what we have, what I'm saying is that these are aspects that are only relevant to the discussions happening in lore forums, they're not considerations in the narrative itself, which is what I'm getting at here. They might accept the loss of lives, they might be angry or apathetic or whatever, but when it's not addressed, we can only assume. It's a minor version of the non-reactions to Teldrassil and Lordaeron we've beat to death. Large parts of what's being debated and is highly controversial in the fanbase aren't even afterthoughts in the actual story.

I think the loss of lives doesn't come up because, to put it bluntly, no one really cares in terms of the narrative. The Alliance and Horde are in the midst of a pitched war where hundreds and possibly thousands have already died. A few additional deaths at this point is barely going to be a blip on anyone's radar. Even you and I are only treating those deaths as a plot point as opposed to actually analyzing or dwelling on them.

[Super Dickmann]

I don't think Saurfang took issue with Sylvanas' honor, but more her callousness in addressing her concerns, as well as leaving him with an unenviable task he'd already intimated he didn't want. His words to her directly afterward, telling her than Malfurion's head was still connected to his body, seems to me to show this. Basically she pissed him off, and so he took the opportunity to throw it back in her face.

I agree that's a portion of it. I think we generally align on the though process behind what went on at the beach.

I'm not so sure about that, to be honest. Lordaeron was only one of several Human nations at the time, and I don't think it was the largest either. The post-WC3 is defeated by the Horde and Alliance that are at each others' throats due to the Wrath Gate incident - so I would also argue that it was stronger than both factions.

Lordaeron is described as the largest one. This is also the case by way of territories. Tirisfal, WPL and EPL so the former Eastweald, parts of Hillsbrad and Silverpine as well were all Lordaeron and were all targeted by the Scourge to a greater or smaller extent. And unlike Stormwind, Lordaeron had only weathered one difficult battle before hand, not a protracted war followed by a sacking.

While I see your point about an individual Forsaken being more dangerous, quantity has a quality all of its own. The scenario we're presented at the end of WotLK basically says that the mindless Scourge held in reserve up to this point could either win or inflict massive damage to the world by just running amok. The same can be said regarding the Scourge's method of conversion. Yes, they acted through subversion first, but even by TFT Arthas is already hunting peasants and refugees for sport and Lordaeron is being fought over by competing undead sects and human remnants. The Scourge simply had a much larger pool of people to draw from to prop up its numbers and didn't have to jump through hoops to do so. Even a successful Sylvanas who has Stormwind would have less material to work with in total.

But demoralization of a decidedly different kind. Saurfang internally agrees with her reasoning as a logistical plan, but he doesn't agree with it morally or ethically (as his later actions demonstrate). There's a difference in acceding to the cold mathematics of a resolution and accepting it as something that is right or proper to do. Ethics, at least his understanding of them, is very important to Saurfang - I don't think Sylvanas knew (and probably didn't care) exactly how much it mattered to him.

What he disagrees with is the genocide, he doesn't have issue with the rest of the war. He agrees with the cold perspective Sylvanas gives of the Burning afterwards, but more importantly to this conversation, he acknowledges his role in it in sparing Malfurion. What I'm arguing is that all this could've been averted had Sylvanas just said that Malfurion must die for the myriad of available reasons, as his death would be far less objectionable than both what Saurfang specifically planned and what he executed once the time came.

I think the loss of lives doesn't come up because, to put it bluntly, no one really cares in terms of the narrative. The Alliance and Horde are in the midst of a pitched war where hundreds and possibly thousands have already died. A few additional deaths at this point is barely going to be a blip on anyone's radar. Even you and I are only treating those deaths as a plot point as opposed to actually analyzing or dwelling on them.

One of the things that irks me most about this expansion is I have to continually go back and defend Mists. Not in concept, but execution. First I'd like to say that I disagree with your view simply because of how it undermines the general hamhanded morality that is being shoved down our throat. Sure, I don't really care whether Derek gets tortured or not because I don't find his mission to be any more objectionable than what we routinely do and what some of the classes I play have as their gimmick. But the game wants me to on the basis of the value of an individual life. But then no one cares about other losses of life or even brings them up. For all that it changed anyone's view Baine might as well have turned invisible and teleported Derek out of the cell instead of attacked the boat.

Which gets me to the other reason and that is that Blizzard were a lot more competent about this kind of thing last time they did this story. We are continually the person being attacked, like how Garrosh's guy stabs Vol'jin and then attacks us, making it self-defense. Ditto when Thrall first attempts to actually reason with the Kor'kron, they're shown harming others in the Horde to get you to dislike them and they are the aggressors. Even once there's an actual civil war Green Jesus laments the loss of lives and you are shown the worm's eye view of things. No such thing here. Saurfang kills the guys trying to tell him to stand down, Baine is the aggressor who doesn't even attempt a different resolution with the crew. Sylvanas is not oppressing anyone, and what people take issue with and who are the ones to take issue are both highly selective and relegated solely to the leadership.

To stress, I'm bringing these up to demonstrate out of story intention and execution, less so the substantive arguments in-story.

[Powerogue]

I think we're increasingly seeing it drawn out into the open how it's a personal concept and very ill-defined. It can be considered honorable to send a division of rogues to assassinate guards, but not to attack Malfurion from behind?

Sylvanas demonstrates what the Horde can devolve to without concerning itself with honor, only victory. It's not hard to see that things have gotten worse.

[Aucald]

Lordaeron is described as the largest one. This is also the case by way of territories. Tirisfal, WPL and EPL so the former Eastweald, parts of Hillsbrad and Silverpine as well were all Lordaeron and were all targeted by the Scourge to a greater or smaller extent. And unlike Stormwind, Lordaeron had only weathered one difficult battle before hand, not a protracted war followed by a sacking.

You'll need to cite a source for this. I remember Lordaeron being the post prosperous, given its relative newness and uninvolvement in the First War, but not the largest or even the most populous. Much of the Plaguelands and Eastweald were farmland, Tirisfal is mostly uninhabited forest land, and even Hillsbrad and Silverpine seemed pretty sparsely populated (a few smaller towns and freeholds, with only Southshore being a moderate population center). Lordaeron's major population-centers were Strathholme, Andorhal, and Hearthglen and they were taken out before the Third War really even began in earnest by Kel'Thuzad and Mal'ganis' work. Stormwind has its selfsame capitol city (which is far larger than Capitol City, Lordaeron), and is flanked by the largish towns of Goldshire, Lakeshire, Moonbrook, Darkshire, Sunnyglade/Raven Hill, and a number of smaller farms and freeholds.

While I see your point about an individual Forsaken being more dangerous, quantity has a quality all of its own. The scenario we're presented at the end of WotLK basically says that the mindless Scourge held in reserve up to this point could either win or inflict massive damage to the world by just running amok. The same can be said regarding the Scourge's method of conversion. Yes, they acted through subversion first, but even by TFT Arthas is already hunting peasants and refugees for sport and Lordaeron is being fought over by competing undead sects and human remnants. The Scourge simply had a much larger pool of people to draw from to prop up its numbers and didn't have to jump through hoops to do so. Even a successful Sylvanas who has Stormwind would have less material to work with in total.

I don't dispute that the Scourge is a threat, mostly in that they're nigh unstoppable given their undead nature - but imagine the Forsaken yoked to a leader dedicated to conquest, and with numbers close that of the Scourge at its height. It's going to be a much greater threat.

What he disagrees with is the genocide, he doesn't have issue with the rest of the war. He agrees with the cold perspective Sylvanas gives of the Burning afterwards, but more importantly to this conversation, he acknowledges his role in it in sparing Malfurion. What I'm arguing is that all this could've been averted had Sylvanas just said that Malfurion must die for the myriad of available reasons, as his death would be far less objectionable than both what Saurfang specifically planned and what he executed once the time came.

He disagrees with her handling of Malfurion as well, as demonstrated clearly in the novella itself. Again, he accedes to the cold pragmatism of the plan, but not its nature - which is why he hesitates and ultimately chooses to force Sylvanas' hand by leaving Malfurion alive. He definitely doesn't agree with her workaround of burning Teldrassil to the ground. It might've been averted if Sylvanas had taken time to try to convince him of the necessarily beforehand, this is true; Saurfang was willing to accept Malfurion's death if it meant success back in Astranaar. But in Saurfang's mind there is a pretty distinct difference between killing an enemy general in the execution of a war and pointedly executing them to break the morale of the enemy troops. Stripped of any ethical considerations this is a great plan, but many people wouldn't be up for doing it themselves.

One of the things that irks me most about this expansion is I have to continually go back and defend Mists. Not in concept, but execution. First I'd like to say that I disagree with your view simply because of how it undermines the general hamhanded morality that is being shoved down our throat. Sure, I don't really care whether Derek gets tortured or not because I don't find his mission to be any more objectionable than what we routinely do and what some of the classes I play have as their gimmick. But the game wants me to on the basis of the value of an individual life. But then no one cares about other losses of life or even brings them up. For all that it changed anyone's view Baine might as well have turned invisible and teleported Derek out of the cell instead of attacked the boat.

I think that falls under the aegis of gameplay vs. story segregation. Yes, in terms of the game itself we're all hyperviolent murder-hobos, every PC has a kill count that would make the most prolific mass-murderers in history turn green with envy (except Orcs who I imagine turn red with envy). But in terms of the narrative we're heroes and Champions, and our killing more or less sanctioned as doing what must be done in the name of our faction and in Azeroth.

Which gets me to the other reason and that is that Blizzard were a lot more competent about this kind of thing last time they did this story. We are continually the person being attacked, like how Garrosh's guy stabs Vol'jin and then attacks us, making it self-defense. Ditto when Thrall first attempts to actually reason with the Kor'kron, they're shown harming others in the Horde to get you to dislike them and they are the aggressors. Even once there's an actual civil war Green Jesus laments the loss of lives and you are shown the worm's eye view of things. No such thing here. Saurfang kills the guys trying to tell him to stand down, Baine is the aggressor who doesn't even attempt a different resolution with the crew. Sylvanas is not oppressing anyone, and what people take issue with and who are the ones to take issue are both highly selective and relegated solely to the leadership.

The Night Elves would probably have a different opinion from yours when you're broaching the idea of feeling oppressed. Personally speaking, I don't think Blizzard really factored in the idea that people would divide along faction lines and polarize almost completely - which, to be honest, does really represent a lack of foresight if you ask me. The tacked on acknowledgement of choice, which has never really been part of WoW up to this point, is all part and parcel of this. While I personally like the idea of player agency in this vein, I do acknowledge it's been added because of a very specific failing of the narrative. Not the age-old excuse of "bad writing," per se; but more a failing to anticipate the reactions from the playerbase. I don't believe Sylvanas is supposed to have ardent supporters at this point - her actions in the War of Thorns feels like it should almost preclude it. But somehow that didn't happen and her actions were justified by people, even lauded in some quarters. I think the idea was that the Horde was now pitched into a conflict it didn't choose but must now execute or be killed by a vengeful Alliance, and the narrative feels like it supports that general framing. It's "fight or die" now, for the rank and file of the Horde, and everyone is going along with the war because they have to.

[Super Dickmann]

You'll need to cite a source for this. I remember Lordaeron being the post prosperous, given its relative newness and uninvolvement in the First War, but not the largest or even the most populous. Much of the Plaguelands and Eastweald were farmland, Tirisfal is mostly uninhabited forest land, and even Hillsbrad and Silverpine seemed pretty sparsely populated (a few smaller towns and freeholds, with only Southshore being a moderate population center). Lordaeron's major population-centers were Strathholme, Andorhal, and Hearthglen and they were taken out before the Third War really even began in earnest by Kel'Thuzad and Mal'ganis' work. Stormwind has its selfsame capitol city (which is far larger than Capitol City, Lordaeron), and is flanked by the largish towns of Goldshire, Lakeshire, Moonbrook, Darkshire, Sunnyglade/Raven Hill, and a number of smaller farms and freeholds.

Checking the relevant sources, it looks like you're right that nothing confirms it as the most numerous. I do have other arguments though in the lack of confirmation, both in connection to its size vis a vis Stormwind. The first is that what you say about Lordaeron having these lands primarily for agriculture is true, but not necessarily disqualifying. The same can be said of Westfall as a whole, and Darkshire in general is presented as this kind of small, moody place. Additionally, both were the target of the First War and Stormwind was actually sacked. It's stated in Chronicle that large amounts of refugees who'd moved to Lordaeron after the fall of Stormwind ended up staying there even after the Alliance collapsed.

The second point ties into this - Hearthglen, Andorhal and Stratholme being destroyed doesn't speak against Lordaeron being populous, especially since they were all able to continue playing a role and housing very substantial garrisons and in the case of the latter two, were actually used to create Scourge anyway. They are perhaps points that Lordaeron at this moment is less numerous than Stormwind, but even that is questionable. We have not had a Forsaken numerical problem implied in the way Stormwind's conscription issue has been brought up and this is without any real implication that Sylvanas is using mass necromancy as she was in Cataclysm. If I had to headcanon it I'd say it's for PR reasons.

But in Saurfang's mind there is a pretty distinct difference between killing an enemy general in the execution of a war and pointedly executing them to break the morale of the enemy troops. Stripped of any ethical considerations this is a great plan, but many people wouldn't be up for doing it themselves.

I see your point in that paragraph, but I don't think that convincing Saurfang that Malfurion must die because of how powerful he is and how he would endanger their plan to splinter the Alliance would be impossible. The dude isn't a moron and he doesn't mind using trickery, as he did with the Sentinels, provided he assumes it's for A Good War. This is very much Sylvanas shooting herself in the foot by not telling him, rather than wisely excluding a portion of her plan she'd know he'd object to. Even more so because she clearly doesn't have this understanding of Saurfang, since she assumes he'd take the chance to behead him and when he doesn't she gives both him and herself shit.

But in terms of the narrative we're heroes and Champions, and our killing more or less sanctioned as doing what must be done in the name of our faction and in Azeroth.

This is true and it's why doing this kind of moralistic story is a lost cause from the start and can't really be taken seriously. It's impossible to commit to it, either out of cowardice, for example Rexxar's Alliance-seeking azerite bombs or how Anduin generates a whole army of worgen and night elves who would happily die for the cause so he doesn't have to sacrifice troops, or out of sheer dissonance with the gameplay. Such as my warlock, who is deeply invested in not using chemical weapons and conscientiously objects to using the Blight, so he can instead honorably suck out his enemy's soul and then feed it to the abyss to summon an evil demon. You can't moralize selectively, because then your moralizing becomes nonsensical and hypocritical. This expansion is very, very guilty of this.

I don't believe Sylvanas is supposed to have ardent supporters at this point - her actions in the War of Thorns feels like it should almost preclude it. But somehow that didn't happen and her actions were justified by people, even lauded in some quarters. I think the idea was that the Horde was now pitched into a conflict it didn't choose but must now execute or be killed by a vengeful Alliance, and the narrative feels like it supports that general framing. It's "fight or die" now, for the rank and file of the Horde, and everyone is going along with the war because they have to.

I disagree. That might be the intent of some quests, such as the ones in Darkshore and bits of the war campaign, but entire areas of gameplay even up to this patch, depend heavily on you being proud of your faction and your Warchief and fighting for them. From all manner of NPCs coming back as commited to the war and never once citing the risk to themselves in favor of their grievances with the Alliance to the quippy warfronts. The Island Expeditions rely on you wanting to give Sylvanas your azerite as a gameplay element, Battle for Dazar'alor depends on you defending your city from them. Hell, you're selectively shown bits that will make you hate the Alliance like altered dialogue in BFD and how Jaina is shown as purely hostile unless you do the Alliance content. Large portions of the expansion are fun jingoism, far more so than any sort of self-flagellating pity party. When they intersect, the pity party wins, but it also comprises a miniscule portion of gameplay.

It ties into my view that there was a change fairly early on in development from a genuine faction pride expansion - which was marketed and which still informs huge portions of the content, to our current Mists 2.0 model and Blizzard have and still are doing their best to obfuscate it, with things like changing Sylvanas' lines to make them more understandable in Brennadam, toning down the Darkshore Warfront (where Nathanos going "For the Horde!" is clearly meant to be a rallying moment) and so forth. It's a story at war with itself.

[Sondrelk]

I disagree. That might be the intent of some quests, such as the ones in Darkshore and bits of the war campaign, but entire areas of gameplay even up to this patch, depend heavily on you being proud of your faction and your Warchief and fighting for them. From all manner of NPCs coming back as commited to the war and never once citing the risk to themselves in favor of their grievances with the Alliance to the quippy warfronts. The Island Expeditions rely on you wanting to give Sylvanas your azerite as a gameplay element, Battle for Dazar'alor depends on you defending your city from them. Hell, you're selectively shown bits that will make you hate the Alliance like altered dialogue in BFD and how Jaina is shown as purely hostile unless you do the Alliance content. Large portions of the expansion are fun jingoism, far more so than any sort of self-flagellating pity party. When they intersect, the pity party wins, but it also comprises a miniscule portion of gameplay.

It ties into my view that there was a change fairly early on from a genuine faction pride expansion - which was marketed and which still informs huge portions of the content, to our current Mists 2.0 model and Blizzard have and still are doing their best to obfuscate it, with things like changing Sylvanas' lines to make them more understandable in Brennadam, toning down the Darkshore Warfront (where Nathanos going "For the Horde!" is clearly meant to be a rallying moment) and so forth. It's a story at war with itself.

I just wanted to chime in here and mention that i think that ironically, Blizzards biggest failing is not that the story is at war with itself, but that the story fails to take advantage of it.
If you think about BfA in the context of the entire Warcraft series, this is essentially the perfect setup to a story finally ending the arc of the Horde that was started back when they first went through the dark portal.

The horde spouting platitudes about nobility and honor in one area and commiting outright genocide in another is fertile soil for exploring why the horde acts the way it does. I would posit that the major failing of the horde, that it staunchly refuses to acknowledge, and even has the gall to claim as its biggest strength, is it's love for the "Us vs Them" narrative. Which can be seen from the inital founding as being opposed to the Alliance, and up to how Sylvanas pitches the war to Saurfang.

In an ideal world, the Horde story of BfA would not sit here and talk about Honor and other meaningless words like just saying it makes the story complex, but instead actually go for the almost tragic story of how the horde has failed to make friends, and how their willingness to wage war is only making their relations to the alliance worse. Not just because war is bad, but because throughout their history, the Horde has never defined itself as anything except "Family of monsters that opposes Alliance"

I almost thought this was the story Blizz was actually going for when i first saw Darkshore, mostly because of Saurfangs reaction, and his thoughts of how this was the same as when he participated in sacking Stormwind.

Blizz could still go for this story, i suppose. But the time is quickly running out, 8.2 is coming out soon, and with it, BfA's final chance to course correct before any changes would feel forced.

[Zandalariprelate]

Wait, Korea has culture?

But of course, haven't you seen their soap operas? They are famous for that :P

[Zandalariprelate]

I mean they are famous for being a confusing melting pot of the cultures of the people who have at times occupied their country.

TBH a lot of asian countries are like that with both western and others countries cultures(especially from China) but the soap opera was a joke.

Now the interesting questions comes if the new californian culture in Blizzard is also in sync with their european customers or there are some clashes in between, I mean there is Yrel using "make draenor whole again" but she is a woman that was oppresed by orcs which curiously many of their leaders were male and her people was also opprosed in some nazi fashion, would they push a storyline where she is a villain or maybe a missunderstood person that was doing good all along?

[Cobman]

No, not really. What you are describing is ethics and ethics don't care about honor directly. Our moral compass depends on our ethical paradigm and is far more related with what is good or what is right. Honor doesn't care about good or right. It cares about obeying traditions. It is an irrational concept.

Nah, honor is similar to ethics but its not the same. Honor gives u pride/joy/respect in what you do or care about, ethics are social norm that is dictated by majority. Honor can be your moral compass easily, do i need to give examples? thats what we do here? You can have your honor codex that doesn't collide with ethics u know that right?

[Super Dickmann]

In an ideal world, the Horde story of BfA would not sit here and talk about Honor and other meaningless words like just saying it makes the story complex, but instead actually go for the almost tragic story of how the horde has failed to make friends, and how their willingness to wage war is only making their relations to the alliance worse. Not just because war is bad, but because throughout their history, the Horde has never defined itself as anything except "Family of monsters that opposes Alliance"

I almost thought this was the story Blizz was actually going for when i first saw Darkshore, mostly because of Saurfangs reaction, and his thoughts of how this was the same as when he participated in sacking Stormwind.

Blizz could still go for this story, i suppose. But the time is quickly running out, 8.2 is coming out soon, and with it, BfA's final chance to course correct before any changes would feel forced.

I agree with a lot of what you said. Mind in an ideal world the Horde would not be in a position where its opposition is perfection incarnate, but would be assessing what endless pacifism has actually yielded and how leniency and their mostly homogeneous approach has cost them. But if they did have to do this story, half-assing it was the worst thing they could have done. Either make a fun romp or explore how fucked the Horde actually is. When you try both, you will fail at both.

Saurfang and Sylvanas are basically representations not of the Horde as a successful entity, but as the failed products of what Thrall aimed to do. Saurfang in that he represents an unsustainable concept that couldn't protect itself from easy subversion and who's platitudes can't actually sustain a living for a people who were screwed over from the word go by virtue of the territory they inhabited and having no cultural history as anything but warriors. Sylvanas in the other direction. Whereas Saurfang has an overly sugary, nostalgic idea for something that doesn't work, Sylvanas represents the Horde as an alliance of convenience lacking any virtues. She doesn't care about what those in it do, she doesn't really oppress them or anything, but her leadership is ideologically hollow and her Horde has no principle.

You can find the slivers of these ideas in BTS and in A Good War, hell, even in the game itself, but they don't go anywhere because the story takes an uncritical view towards Baine and Saurfang's exploits and takes their views for granted as being correct, while giving the entirety of the Horde a pass for not just following Sylvanas, but supporting her. We're missing the view of the man in the street and how this affects him, and that's the most crucial part. And that should be a part of it. It's fun to fight the other faction, that's what this whole thing is sold on. But you can't have it both ways.

Mind, I disagree with you that this should be about learning how this is making their relations with the Alliance worse. The most insipid portion of this story is the lengths it goes to make the setting black and white and to make every character we're meant to view positively adopt an entirely Alliance-centered moral compass to the disregard of their own race. Logistics, in as much as they exist, affect only the 'bad' Horde - i.e only Sylvanas has to deal with having too few ships, having to hit her own troops as collateral or allow a breakthrough, be opposed on the basis of how she doesn't align with some of her subjects, etc. Whatever the Horde needs, the Alliance needs the fleshing out and cultural difference much more, especially at the end of this shitshow when they forgive the Horde and hug.