Page 1 of 7
1
2
3
... LastLast
  1. #1

    Horde Soon the Horde won't have much left... (Horde Branding Problem)

    After MoP the Warsong and Kor'kron became pretty 'tainted' lorewise, so we can't use them for much, or rather, Blizz is too lazy to use them and properly address how they're viewed or what's going on in the aftermath.

    We're quickly running into similar problems with the Sunreavers and the Forsaken as a whole. I mean hell, the broken mask on the Forsaken symbol is basically Sylvs face, and I'm pretty sure it's only got a bird and arrows because of HER really.


    What is Blizz going to do once we lose what's left of these forces? There's not much left of the Horde soon since the AU-Mag'har don't really use the MU or AU clans they just have their aesthetics.
    Twas brillig

  2. #2
    Don't worry. Golden will make sure all the toxic males (and females that aren't Jaina) become irrelevant or killed off.

  3. #3
    It will be interesting to observe how Blizz intends to revive the Horde faction imagery, symbolism and fundamentally pride. Of course, it could very well mean that they have no plans for such a thing and we will be forever stuck in limbo of hollowness.

  4. #4
    What? You mean you aren't satisfied with cutting a swath through your entire cast, gutting a playable race and killing your leader alongside the Alliance a second time so you can LARP as if it's 2002? Are you toxically masculine too?

    As a side note, I disagree on the Mag'har. The first thing they ask yo uabotu is the clan identities and they have their sigils on the wall. Much like the Iron Horde before, the clan identities are very pronounced. You even see them in the outfits after, from Blackrock troopers to Shadowmoon voidcasters. The Mag'har are a ray of light as concerns orcs, despite being from another dimension and only having one bland character, because they unironically have more of a culture and variety going for them than their MU counterparts.
    Last edited by Super Dickmann; 2019-04-20 at 08:06 PM.
    Dickmann's Law: As a discussion on the Lore forums becomes longer, the probability of the topic derailing to become about Sylvanas approaches 1.

  5. #5
    1. Wow, just because Golden miss-used the term "toxic masculinity" does not mean the term itself is a useless meme. It's a valid sociological term used to discuss how men can be pressured to engage in overly aggressive, emotionally repressive behavior. What are you people, rabid 4Chan right wingers?

    2. WoW's lore itself is pretty messed up beyond repair. (massive retcons are needed imho) But the Horde's problem is not "Becoming a red Alliance" as brainless tribalists moan, it's repeatedly indulging in morally bankrupt instances of evil (Bombing Theramore, Burning Teldrassil) for asinine and contrived reasons and then trying to claw back into its once morally positive status. The question of "Is the Horde evil?" was answered in Warcraft 3, with a resounding "No." Yet Blizz feels compelled to ask this tired question again and again further undermining the original answer and the entire basis of the faction.

    3. Warcraft was once pretty unique in its portrayal of usually evil fantasy monsters actually being intelligent and capable of moral complexity. A monstrously evil Horde reduces the quality of the Warcraft IP as a whole, as evil Warcraft Orcs, Trolls, and Minotaurs have nothing going for them compared with say, the Orcs and Goblins of Warhammer Fantasy.

  6. #6
    @B-Man

    You've inadvertedly pointed out the main problem of the Horde as far as writing is concerned and that is that the writers keep hewing back to a 17-year old portrayal that had a shelf life of two years before it was ended with the introduction of the Forsaken and the orcish resource issue being alluded to in Vanilla. The belief that Thrall, noblesavagery and the two bonus Kalimdor races are treated as somehow indivisible and equally as important as the actual main race, the orcs, is why we keep going back here. The Horde has historically been a proactive, aggressive force for the vast majority of its existence, but the latter parts of that existence have been in shoddy morality plays that mean to tell you that it's wrong for the Horde to be this, yet fill in its void with nothing.

    That's why the Horde does nothing in neutral expansions like Legion, or spends its time massacring its entire pre-WC3 cast like in WoD, because the writers keep pushing the square peg that is the Horde's existence in WC3 into the round hole that is a Horde that can no longer sustain that portrayal across its races. Forsaken simply don't fit, they don't now and they won't after Calia either as at that point they'll be functionally an Alliance race as a chivalric human nation dealing with the consequences of a destructive war that altered its people. Ditto the blood elves and nightborne that have nothing thematically in Common with either the current Forsaken/goblins or the Thrall-style Kalimdor Horde that will be the default after this one, at least until they try Mists 3.0.
    Last edited by Super Dickmann; 2019-04-20 at 08:40 PM.
    Dickmann's Law: As a discussion on the Lore forums becomes longer, the probability of the topic derailing to become about Sylvanas approaches 1.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Super Dickmann View Post
    As a side note, I disagree on the Mag'har. The first thing they ask yo uabotu is the clan identities and they have their sigils on the wall. Much like the Iron Horde before, the clan identities are very pronounced. You even see them in the outfits after, from Blackrock troopers to Shadowmoon voidcasters. The Mag'har are a ray of light as concerns orcs, despite being from another dimension and only having one bland character, because they unironically have more of a culture and variety going for them than their MU counterparts.
    The Mag'har have clan identities, which is precisely why I love them. Each clan brings a new philosophy to the Orc race, each philosophy blending with others. In comparison, "our" Orcs are fundamentally devoid of any culture. Interestingly, "our" Orcs have replaced old clan identities with the monolithic Thrall cult of personality.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Super Dickmann View Post
    @B-ManForsaken simply don't fit, they don't now and they won't after Calia either as at that point they'll be functionally an Alliance race as a chivalric human nation dealing with the consequences of a destructive war that altered its people. Ditto the blood elves and nightborne that have nothing thematically in Common with either the current Forsaken/goblins or the Thrall-style Kalimdor Horde that will be the default after this one, at least until they try Mists 3.0.
    Correct. The writers simply do not know what type of Horde they want, and so we go back and forth.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Nirn View Post
    The Mag'har have clan identities, which is precisely why I love them. Each clan brings a new philosophy to the Orc race, each philosophy blending with others. In comparison, "our" Orcs are fundamentally devoid of any culture. Interestingly, "our" Orcs have replaced old clan identities with the monolithic Thrall cult of personality.
    Our orcs by all right should have far more going for them because of what the shell-shocked veteran angle and their longer history has. But after Mists, they've just been complete non-entities, weathervanes that are either their warlike selves when needed, like A Good War and Usha for example, or Thrallists, like we'll be told they are at the end of this. Nuanced characters are put in roles they can't support like Saurfang and characters that have long, long outlived their usefulness like Thrall are brought back in. Couple that with the elimination of clan identities and the Mag'har just have more at them for me as an orc fan right about now, and them having far less history to fuck up and no nonsensical turns makes them a blank slate that can be built on with varied characters and plotlines.

    Correct. The writers simply do not know what type of Horde they want, and so we go back and forth.
    The factions at this stage are too large a tent to give any real identity outside of blocs within them. The Horde has the advantage of being an autocracy where the Warchief as an absolute dictator can set the warlike drive and you get a ton of racial interaction out of the component races as they form blocs and deal with the circumstances, like the original Kalimdor Horde/EK Horde divide. Cataclysm had a lot of this, especially as far as the Forsaken and orcs were concerned, with both positive interactions - Cromush and the sailors and negative interactions - Drek'thar rebuking the Forsaken and calling them out in the best way anyone has up to this point. It's this lack of homogeneity that makes the Horde worthwhile, since all the parties involved 'feel' Horde in some sense of the word, but have radically different mindsets and priorities.

    The Alliance shows what the alternative is. A whole bunch of interesting races who once had a lot going for them, reduced to human satellites.
    Dickmann's Law: As a discussion on the Lore forums becomes longer, the probability of the topic derailing to become about Sylvanas approaches 1.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Super Dickmann View Post
    The factions at this stage are too large a tent to give any real identity outside of blocs within them. The Horde has the advantage of being an autocracy where the Warchief as an absolute dictator can set the warlike drive and you get a ton of racial interaction out of the component races as they form blocs and deal with the circumstances, like the original Kalimdor Horde/EK Horde divide. Cataclysm had a lot of this, especially as far as the Forsaken and orcs were concerned, with both positive interactions - Cromush and the sailors and negative interactions - Drek'thar rebuking the Forsaken and calling them out in the best way anyone has up to this point. It's this lack of homogeneity that makes the Horde worthwhile, since all the parties involved 'feel' Horde in some sense of the word, but have radically different mindsets and priorities.

    The Alliance shows what the alternative is. A whole bunch of interesting races who once had a lot going for them, reduced to human satellites.
    Brilliantly spoken.

    To be honest, if we ever get a Warcraft that is not of MMO genre, I hope that they make more than two chief factions. Blood Elves were added to boost the Horde player demography. Night Elves are just a caricature of their older versions.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Super Dickmann View Post
    @B-Man

    You've inadvertedly pointed out the main problem of the Horde as far as writing is concerned and that is that the writers keep hewing back to a 17-year old portrayal that had a shelf life of two years before it was ended with the introduction of the Forsaken and the orcish resource issue being alluded to in Vanilla. The belief that Thrall, noblesavagery and the two bonus Kalimdor races are treated as somehow indivisible and equally as important as the actual main race, the orcs, is why we keep going back here. The Horde has historically been a proactive, aggressive force for the vast majority of its existence, but the latter parts of that existence have been in shoddy morality plays that mean to tell you that it's wrong for the Horde to be this, yet fill in its void with nothing.

    That's why the Horde does nothing in neutral expansions like Legion, or spends its time massacring its entire pre-WC3 cast like in WoD, because the writers keep pushing the square peg that is the Horde's existence in WC3 into the round hole that is a Horde that can no longer sustain that portrayal across its races. Forsaken simply don't fit, they don't now and they won't after Calia either as at that point they'll be functionally an Alliance race as a chivalric human nation dealing with the consequences of a destructive war that altered its people. Ditto the blood elves and nightborne that have nothing thematically in Common with either the current Forsaken/goblins or the Thrall-style Kalimdor Horde that will be the default after this one, at least until they try Mists 3.0.
    At no point have you cited why the Horde is better as a generic bad guy faction besides some tribalist drivel about emulating the Alliance, as if any speck of goodness immediately makes the Horde a carbon copy of the other faction. Regarding the lack of resources in Durotar, that nonsense was cooked up in Cataclysm to further an asinine plot. In Warcraft 3 AND Vanilla, the Horde's resource problem was no where near the problem it was latter made out to be, nor was it ever alluded to that Thrall deliberately marooned his people in a desolate land to "punish" them. It was noted that the flora and fauna of the area were rugged and harsh, but not depleted or lacking.

    About the inclusion of the Forsaken and Blood Elves...yes, they should NOT be in the Horde. For the same reason the Night Elves and later Draenei should not be in the Alliance: cultural clash and homogenization of the factions into red vs blue. The Horde should be shamanistic, tribal, honor bound, reverent of elements and ancestors. The Alliance should be technological, reverent of faith and duty, scholarly, and hierarchical. In the ideal World of Warcraft, Night Elves along with Draenei would have been in a separate faction with themes of natural preservation, mysticism, and truly ancient culture. Forsaken and Blood Elves too should have had their own faction where themes of revenge, pragmatism, domination and exploitation were explored. The Allied Race system is in itself another great misstep where any possibility of complexity and diversity is boiled down into the simplistic red Horde vs blue Alliance dichotomy.

    You posit that a good Horde naturally has nothing to do in expansion such as Legion, but that is false. The lack of Horde involvement in Legion is due to lack of imagination. Blizz clearly can't write the Horde outside of this asinine question of "Evil or not?" evidenced by the fact we are repeating the same plot from MoP beat for beat. In Legion they could have easily written a plot for the Orcs to strike back at the Legion for the deception and corruption of their race. They could have written a plot for the Tauren to attempt to combat fel corruption of the land with Shamanistic and Druidic magic. They could have had the Trolls go on a spirit quest to recruit powerful Loa for the fight against the Legion.

    The problem is not "Good Horde=no involvement" it's "Bad writers don't know how to write the Horde outside of self-defeating atrocities and subsequent soul searching."

    Ideally, in a faction war scenario, both sides would have ample reason to believe themselves to be the rightful combatant and the other to be the wrongful one. That is not possible when one faction's opening salvo is to mass murder civilians and children on the basis of "Well, maybe sometime in the future we'll be at war again, might as well start it now ourselves!" That, along with the other laughably cartoonishly evil actions the Horde has undertaken, along with the pathetic and ridiculous Lawful Stupid responses of the Alliance, has ensured BFA to be one of the worst expansions in this game's history.
    Last edited by B-Man; 2019-04-20 at 09:27 PM.

  11. #11
    Scarab Lord A Chozo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    4,483
    Quote Originally Posted by Super Dickmann View Post
    As a side note, I disagree on the Mag'har. The first thing they ask yo uabotu is the clan identities and they have their sigils on the wall. Much like the Iron Horde before, the clan identities are very pronounced. You even see them in the outfits after, from Blackrock troopers to Shadowmoon voidcasters. The Mag'har are a ray of light as concerns orcs, despite being from another dimension and only having one bland character, because they unironically have more of a culture and variety going for them than their MU counterparts.
    Eh, the Mag'har aren't officially separated into clans anymore. They are just the United Clans, and they put those banners up in the Gorgrond stronghold as an act to show their heritage. But still, each clan's culture is very much alive as you said, and each clan is represented in the United Clans.

    Shadowmoon Darkcasters are just Mag'har Darkcasters, Blackrock Warders are Mag'har Warders etc. There's only one situation where a clan was mentioned by name after they came to Azeroth: In Tiragarde Sound, a Mag'har Engineer and her Goblin helper were tinkering with a Iron Star. The Mag'har told the Goblin to remove their Laughing Skull mask, because the Goblin wasn't Laughing Skull.

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by A Chozo View Post
    Eh, the Mag'har aren't officially separated into clans anymore. They are just the United Clans, and they put those banners up in the Gorgrond stronghold as an act to show their heritage. But still, each clan's culture is very much alive as you said, and each clan is represented in the United Clans.

    Shadowmoon Darkcasters are just Mag'har Darkcasters, Blackrock Warders are Mag'har Warders etc. There's only one situation where a clan was mentioned by name after they came to Azeroth: In Tiragarde Sound, a Mag'har Engineer and her Goblin helper were tinkering with a Iron Star. The Mag'har told the Goblin to remove their Laughing Skull mask, because the Goblin wasn't Laughing Skull.
    That is what I'm getting at. They're a union of clans rather than with the clans as a formal separation of battlegroups like they were in some of the earlier games or an artifact title reserved for a few leftover organisations like with the MU orcs. We don't need them to be known as such to see that's what they are, the story is told visually when we see a voidcaster nom a footman's soul or Laughing Skulls call over Goren like they did against the Iron Horde. There's a lot of continuity packed into very little screentime. And they're enough of a blank slate that there's nothing BFA can do to really fuck them up. Hell, they also create a lot of possible interaction, especially with the MU orcs, such as rediscovering the clan identities, the differing conception of honor, the fact that they're essentially Garrosh's fantasy orc faction and so on. Best addition among the Horde allied races by far.

    @B-Man

    I agree with you entirely as regards the night elves, blood elves, Forsaken and so forth. They don't mesh into the WC3 version of the Horde and the WC3 version of the Alliance doesn't exist, since only Lordaeron shows up. The change in format is essential here though because the game was built around a two-faction system and a third or fourth faction were never going to happen after Vanilla was set in stone. Factions can be homogenized and given more chances to play together, but further separating a playerbase would require a ton of work and world rejigging even if it were done back in TBC. Nowadays, with a dwindling playerbase it's impossible. This means that all races who join do so through the lens of the factions and the factions must be used to tell the story. This is the case even in a neutral scenario, because all neutral factions are following after a race's themes. Sure the Argent Crusade is multi-racial, but their theme is that of human paladins and they're lead by the OG human paladin. The Earthen Ring is an orcish shaman organisation, and so forth. A story about the Argent Crusade is a human paladin story.

    Is the resource thing a retcon that didn't exist in WC3? Yup, and so were the WC3 orcs in their entirety. But then the orcs in WC3 were all equally as bland as their WC2 counterparts. It's just that they were all disposable noblesavage stereotypes rather than disposable destructive stereotypes. The only exception was Grom, who moved the entire plot along. The reason the WC3 Horde fails as a consistent direction is because it has no proactivity or goals save vegetating. It exists, and having confronted its past inwardly and outwardly in WC3 and TFT it now has nothing to build towards. They live in a place they like. The race is in perfect accord with their glorious leader from the first time we see it on-screen except an element that's removed. Their buddies are, per WC3, identical to them except in aesthetic and having less history going for them. WoW realized this fairly quickly and it's why you had the Forsaken introduced, the resource problem even early on with Warsong Gulch, vastly expanded upon in Wrath with things like Glory and the orcish disillusionment with Thrall and finally pushed to the forefront with Cataclysm. The Thrall Horde isn't boring because it's good, it's boring because it has no goals, no friction and no struggles. It's Anduin's Alliance sixteen years in advance.

    People who want nothing and are settled in all their aims serve no purpose. They are boring to follow. It's why every story is ultimately about someone trying to get at something. In Warcraft, a game about conflict and war, characters must be able to engender and create struggle. The WC3 Horde and the Anduin Alliance are perfect, homogenous organisations that by default do not struggle or seek to achieve anything. They're already flawless. That's why they were not what we started out with. The Vanilla up to Cataclysm writers, with the exception of the shitshow that is the blood elf retcon, understood the basics of this which is why you had constant conflicts were both sides were the heroes of their own stories. From the pastoral naturalism of the tauren clashing with the imperialism and inventiveness of the dwarves, the rigid traditions of humanity clashing with the inhuman amorality of the Forsaken and the night elves and orcs competing over resources and breaching taboos that the other side simply didn't acknowledge. Good and evil is not the end goal, nor is evil necessarily homogenous, but even good and evil are preferable to good and another, irrelevant good, and both are inferior to a conflict between societies incompatible with each other clashing over understandable goals. The game has done this before. It chooses not do to this now and the sacred cow that is all the races joining together to fight Satan is the issue. So is the belief by the hacks currently in charge that they need to teach basic moral lessons that anyone with two brain cells to rub together has long since figured out like "genocide is bad" or "friends are good" through the perplexing medium of a game where all problems without fail are solved by violence and kiling.
    Last edited by Super Dickmann; 2019-04-20 at 09:46 PM.
    Dickmann's Law: As a discussion on the Lore forums becomes longer, the probability of the topic derailing to become about Sylvanas approaches 1.

  13. #13
    "1. Wow, just because Golden miss-used the term "toxic masculinity" does not mean the term itself is a useless meme. It's a valid sociological term used to discuss how men can be pressured to engage in overly aggressive, emotionally repressive behavior. What are you people, rabid 4Chan right wingers? "

    B-Man, you do realize this is a perfect microcosm of confirmation bias, right?
    You basically said "You guys cant give labels that put people into a box because of what they said, that would make you like this group of people I automatically attribute values to because of something someone said."

    The rest of your points are fine, in that post at least, it just baffles me how people can say things like that.

  14. #14
    Herald of the Titans Nathreim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas
    Posts
    2,625
    If be soon you mean right now than yes. Blizz has gutted the Horde and instead of trying to repair the problems they are still going full ahead into this stupid civil war plot.

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    "1. Wow, just because Golden miss-used the term "toxic masculinity" does not mean the term itself is a useless meme. It's a valid sociological term used to discuss how men can be pressured to engage in overly aggressive, emotionally repressive behavior. What are you people, rabid 4Chan right wingers? "

    B-Man, you do realize this is a perfect microcosm of confirmation bias, right?
    You basically said "You guys cant give labels that put people into a box because of what they said, that would make you like this group of people I automatically attribute values to because of something someone said."

    The rest of your points are fine, in that post at least, it just baffles me how people can say things like that.
    "Toxic masculinity" is a meme term. It's a term that does't carry any weight outside of your regressive left social justice circle jerks.

    See also, "muh patriarchy" and the "gender pay gap" myth.

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Th3Scourge View Post
    "Toxic masculinity" is a meme term. It's a term that does't carry any weight outside of your regressive left social justice circle jerks.

    See also, "muh patriarchy" and the "gender pay gap" myth.
    No, I'm pretty sure it is a valid sociological term used in academic studies of male behavior. Not all male behavior, and not all forms of masculinity, thus the "toxic" modifier. You would have to argue against the substantial body of peer-reviewed evidence of material studying the anxieties of young men and how various forces, from media, to familiar, to societal exert pressure upon men to engage in hyper masculine contests, constantly prove their masculinity to other men, repress feelings of emotional vulnerability, and engage in dangerous or criminal activities.

    As for your other terms, I don't see how you could refute the hundreds of years of human society where women held little to no power previous to the 20th century in almost all cultures, or the the irrefutable evidence that women on average receive less pay and less opportunity for increases in pay then men. Then again judging by the tone of your post it seems you fall into the general rabble of 4Chan or R/Pol so I can't say I'm surprised either.

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by B-Man View Post
    No, I'm pretty sure it is a valid sociological term used in academic studies of male behavior. Not all male behavior, and not all forms of masculinity, thus the "toxic" modifier. You would have to argue against the substantial body of peer-reviewed evidence of material studying the anxieties of young men and how various forces, from media, to familiar, to societal exert pressure upon men to engage in hyper masculine contests, constantly prove their masculinity to other men, repress feelings of emotional vulnerability, and engage in dangerous or criminal activities.

    As for your other terms, I don't see how you could refute the hundreds of years of human society where women held little to no power previous to the 20th century in almost all cultures, or the the irrefutable evidence that women on average receive less pay and less opportunity for increases in pay then men. Then again judging by the tone of your post it seems you fall into the general rabble of 4Chan or R/Pol so I can't say I'm surprised either.
    Hundreds of years of human society where those outside of aristocracy held little to no power.

    There, I fixed it for you. You're under the impression that the power of the 1% of wealthy aristocrats is somehow representative of all men over human history.

  18. #18
    Herald of the Titans Minikin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    2,622
    As long as faction biased ppl exist there will be this problem. There is nothing wrong with faction pride but when that morphs into "rawr finish the alliance!" Or "blarg! End the horde!" This will happen.

    Moment ppl realize it's a sub based game and neither side can have total victory, it will start the fixing process. This could have been easier with alliance hitting lorderon first. But too late now. Now the cost is a character and that's that.
    Blood Elves were based on a STRONG request from a poll of Asian players where many remarked on the Horde side that they and their girlfriends wanted a non-creepy femme race to play (Source)

  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Skytotem View Post
    After MoP the Warsong and Kor'kron became pretty 'tainted' lorewise, so we can't use them for much, or rather, Blizz is too lazy to use them and properly address how they're viewed or what's going on in the aftermath.

    We're quickly running into similar problems with the Sunreavers and the Forsaken as a whole. I mean hell, the broken mask on the Forsaken symbol is basically Sylvs face, and I'm pretty sure it's only got a bird and arrows because of HER really.


    What is Blizz going to do once we lose what's left of these forces? There's not much left of the Horde soon since the AU-Mag'har don't really use the MU or AU clans they just have their aesthetics.
    If you're looking for symbols, just swap the blue here for red and you'll end up with the perfect representation of Thrall's, Baine's and Saurfang's Horde:
    Quote Originally Posted by Kangodo View Post
    Does the CIA pay you for your bullshit or are you just bootlicking in your free time?
    Quote Originally Posted by Kangodo View Post
    Slant is an extremist, willing to sacrifice the lives of everyone to keep his wet dream of the EU alive.
    You shouldn't support people like him, it's like supporting ISIS.

  20. #20
    The Insane Aeula's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Nearby, preventing you from fast traveling.
    Posts
    16,215
    If 8.2 remains unchanged then the Horde is basically dead as far as I'm concerned.

    The only hope for the faction at this point is to have all the leaders killed off. They're the ones dragging the Horde down,

    The entire Horde cast needs to be rebuilt from the ground up without the baggage and Alliance sympathies present in 90% of the current Horde leadership.

    Otherwise what's the point? Why play the fake Alliance when you can go play the real one and be closer to the boy king instead of his distant vassal?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •