Legion's Antorus was a mistake in retrospect, we should have never met the Titans

[Aucald]

They are monsters in the essence of the word. They are not from the human species, they are monster races, typically called as such in fantasy genre.

Still sounds like denigration if you ask me. On the sliding scale of human vs. monstrous, I'd say the Warcraft version of orcs falls pretty far into the human end of the scale.

If the core of your argument of "horde government is bad" is based entirely on the fact that the old system was corrupted by the legion, you have no argument at all, when we can see the eredar, who had a triumvirate of leaders and a council on their own were corrupted all the same, and lead their species and world went to corruption, condemnation and destruction WORSE than what the orcs had.

Its almost as if the form of government have no bearing if the society is corrupted or not, and if the legion wants they can make it do. In fact, with a council like that it might even be easier to slowly give in to corruption as we see in today democracies.

But you dont seems to be criticising the Draenei for maintaining their way of leadership, with one of their leders being part of the cause of the eredar downfall.

Well, that's a terrible example on multiple levels. The eredar were approached by a god-like being that they had no cause to question, and the majority of them were force-converted into demonhood on the spot once Kil'jaeden and Archimonde took the deal Sargeras offered them, which originally had nothing to do with becoming demons. I wouldn't even say the eredar were corrupted at all in terms of choosing to join Sargeras; he essentially extended them an offer of power and enlightenment, and then enslaved them all the very instant they said "okay." The orcs, by contrast, were more gradually seduced into changing their nature over time, ceding more and more authority to Ner'zhul (and thus to Kil'jaeden), gradually abandoning their traditions over time, until finally Gul'dan saw fit to cement their "loyalty" by having them drink the blood of Mannoroth. This isn't the same process or story at all, and the orcs, by their own admission, had a lot more buy-in to their corruption than the eredar ever had.

Also, we're not assaying the relative worth of the social changes the Legion inflicted on the orcs, because it's immaterial to the original statement at hand. It *is* a corruption of their old ways, and Thrall's intent was to attempt to restore the orcs to their old traditions such as embracing Shamanism, and through that re-embracing the orcs' original love and duty to the world at large. So the question remains: why keep the corrupted and befouled ideal of the Horde itself? Why not reorganize the orcs back into the clan structure they once had, albeit with a stronger core? This is the question you've thus far failed to recognize, much less answer.

You keep saying its a failure, but where is the failure? the horde found a new home, a new start and formed a nation to stand on its own for the most part. ITs not perfect, but the reformation of the orcish people and the horde was a success.

Where is the failure? that he named some places after some chieftains that were highly respected by his people?? that he decided to continue the way of government of a high chieftain with the old name? How can such trivial stuff can be considered a failure when it worked exactly for what they wanted to do? - Used old assets to give the horde a sense of identity, pride and belonging

Its the same way when some nations used roman iconography after the roman empire fell, to claim identity and tradition, its normal.

Again, neither Thrall nor Nazgrel knew Kargath was part of the shadow council. There is nothing saying they learned he was bad during the old horde days. They only knew that Kargath was an "old chieftain and war hero of the old horde together with Grom, Orgrin and the others" and was trapped in Outland. They also know he fell into Magtheridon hands and became a fel orc.

There is no reason to be pissy and change the names of places that are already like that, especially when bladefist is a cool name

Any government that's approached near-collapse multiple times in a handful of years, not to mention been drawn into bloody and all-encompassing world wars in the process, is definitely what I'd label a failing government. If you can't see the failure there, then there's not much I can do to assist you aside from continuing to point to the obvious and hope you eventually open your eyes. Also the very fact that after the second of these massive wars that led to unthinkable loss of life, the orcs *finally* recognized that maybe a single point of absolute power was a bad idea and did what Thrall should've done during his initial reforms, and abolished the seat of the Warchief in favor of a system that allowed for the rudiments of oversight and power balance.

Thrall penned Rise of the Horde in-universe as part of his memoirs, so the entirety of its contents, including Kargath joining the Shadow Council, would be information Thrall was privy to. Thrall likely learned all of this information over time from Orgrim, as it was Orgrim who essentially dismantled the Shadow Council and killed most of its members, information he gained by torturing Gul'dan. So yeah, plenty of reason to either not name shit after one of Gul'dan's inner circle, or to rename shit after you discover said person is now a demon leading a pack of demonic orcs. You shouldn't glorify sadistic and bloodthirsty madmen just because you think their name is cool.

[Syegfryed]

Still sounds like denigration if you ask me. On the sliding scale of human vs. monstrous, I'd say the Warcraft version of orcs falls pretty far into the human end of the scale.

The denigration its in the eye of the beholder, its a you issue. Orcs and trolls are physically different from humans like as gorilla is. So the term "monster" fit perfectly well, especially when you actually go for the definition of the word, which means:
- An imaginary creature that is typically large, ugly, and frightening.
- An animal or plant of abnormal form or structure, a strange or horrible creature, something unusually large..

Well, that's a terrible example on multiple levels. The eredar were approached by a god-like being that they had no cause to question, and the majority of them were force-converted into demonhood on the spot once Kil'jaeden and Archimonde took the deal Sargeras offered them, which originally had nothing to do with becoming demons. I wouldn't even say the eredar were corrupted at all in terms of choosing to join Sargeras; he essentially extended them an offer of power and enlightenment, and then enslaved them all the very instant they said "okay." The orcs, by contrast, were more gradually seduced into changing their nature over time, ceding more and more authority to Ner'zhul (and thus to Kil'jaeden), gradually abandoning their traditions over time, until finally Gul'dan saw fit to cement their "loyalty" by having them drink the blood of Mannoroth. This isn't the same process or story at all, and the orcs, by their own admission, had a lot more buy-in to their corruption than the eredar ever had.

You talked a lot just to dance around the fact that those are extremely good examples that proves the real problem is not the form of government.

It doesn't matter what kind of leadership a race can have, they are, literally, all flawed and can fall into the hands of the legion. So insisting in pointing that "the warchief system is bad cause have flaws" is pointless.

Also, we're not assaying the relative worth of the social changes the Legion inflicted on the orcs, because it's immaterial to the original statement at hand. It *is* a corruption of their old ways, and Thrall's intent was to attempt to restore the orcs to their old traditions such as embracing Shamanism, and through that re-embracing the orcs' original love and duty to the world at large. So the question remains: why keep the corrupted and befouled ideal of the Horde itself? Why not reorganize the orcs back into the clan structure they once had, albeit with a stronger core? This is the question you've thus far failed to recognize, much less answer.

....

Are you mocking me? because the clan structure they once had before the horde still existed, there was still clans that kept their chieftains. But alas, many orcs did not belong to any clan and had to stay in Orgrimmar. The world they lived in also didn't allow then to live like they once did, autonomous, with each on on their clan, they needed a high chieftain jut like the tauren had.

Basically your problem boil down to nitpicking about names, "why the orcs faction still named themselves horde?", why the high chieftain still named warchief? Why Thrall named something after a chieftain of the past? those were bad, he shouldnt, rebranding, giving new meaning its not possible!

The taurens literally organize themselves in the same way, they have tribes = clans, and they have a high chieftain = warchief, are they corrupt as well? They work prtty fine dont they? shouldnt that be a signal that it is a good model?

Can we look at how many of the alliance leadership comes from am absolute monarch? or someone who detain absolute power? why they can do it, but when Thrall did he is a failure? help me understand here, its just the name the problem?

Any government that's approached near-collapse multiple times in a handful of years, not to mention been drawn into bloody and all-encompassing world wars in the process, is definitely what I'd label a failing government.

"multiple times"

Literally just two.

And both of times require the characters to act like they were lobotomized

Thrall penned Rise of the Horde in-universe as part of his memoirs, so the entirety of its contents, including Kargath joining the Shadow Council, would be information Thrall was privy to.

Mate, you trying to say that Thrall had knowledge about personal conversation between Archimonde, kil'jaden and Velen, including the inner thoughs they had and about what Gul'dan and the shadow council in secret discussed only orally that was never put into paper or documents, including Gul'dan inner though?

Are you serious? of course he didn't knew. And again, seeing how you though monster was denigration, you have a problem with names, but that its just you, not everyone care about.

Imagine that people would stop naming their children Pedro or Theodore just because they were famous serial killers LOL.

[Aucald]

The denigration its in the eye of the beholder, its a you issue.

It's my issue insofar as I pointed it out, but you made it a value judgement on orcs in general. Personally, I don't really care about your subjective opinion of orcs beyond pointing out that it biases your arguments accordingly.

It doesn't matter what kind of leadership a race can have, they are, literally, all flawed and can fall into the hands of the legion. So insisting in pointing that "the warchief system is bad cause have flaws" is pointless.

If the question was about their form of leadership being more or less disposed towards corruption at the hands of the Legion, you'd have a point. The issue here is that the governance of the Horde maintained major weaknesses well *after* demonic corruption, when they maintained a structure that is simultaneously a legacy of their corruption, and itself objectively more vulnerable to further corruption, as has been demonstrated. In your attempt to move the goalpost, you've successfully begun playing an entirely different sport.

Are you mocking me? because the clan structure they once had before the horde still existed, there was still clans that kept their chieftains. But alas, many orcs did not belong to any clan and had to stay in Orgrimmar. The world they lived in also didn't allow then to live like they once did, autonomous, with each on on their clan, they needed a high chieftain jut like the tauren had.

Unsure how that could even be construed as "mocking you," is that some kind of projection? No, the clan structure of the orcs was pretty much done away with in its entirety, with the vestiges of the clans kept only as loose social groups with no real connection to their original incarnations. While some orcs still cleaved to their clans of origin, the clans had no real formal recognition, and their chieftains, such as they were, retained no actual authority within the Horde. In point of fact, it was Eitrigg himself who prompted the revitalization of what were considered "dead" traditions among the orcs, including the Kosh'harg, the om'riggor, and a revitalization of the ancient clan associations as per the quest chain accompanying "A People in Need of Healing."

Basically your problem boil down to nitpicking about names, "why the orcs faction still named themselves horde?", why the high chieftain still named warchief? Why Thrall named something after a chieftain of the past? those were bad, he shouldnt, rebranding, giving new meaning its not possible!

The taurens literally organize themselves in the same way, they have tribes = clans, and they have a high chieftain = warchief, are they corrupt as well? They work prtty fine dont they? shouldnt that be a signal that it is a good model?

Can we look at how many of the alliance leadership comes from am absolute monarch? or someone who detain absolute power? why they can do it, but when Thrall did he is a failure? help me understand here, its just the name the problem?

You're confusing an example for the entirety, I guess understandably, since you've tried pretty hard to hyperfocus on this to the exclusion of all else. The nomenclature or the modeling is unimportant; the issue here is retaining the legacy of the corruption that was inflicted upon the orcs by the Legion when they corrupted their original traditions.

Literally just two.

How many near-collapses of the entire government do *you* think are acceptable? Me? I'd say a single instance is bad enough to invoke serious and wide-ranging reforms.

Mate, you trying to say that Thrall had knowledge about personal conversation between Archimonde, kil'jaden and Velen, including the inner thoughs they had and about what Gul'dan and the shadow council in secret discussed only orally that was never put into paper or documents, including Gul'dan inner though?

You seriously think Orgrim didn't share vital intel with the man he was obviously grooming to be his successor? Do you think saying "hey, most of the original chieftains were totally in on the corruption of our people, and Kargath sold himself out to Gul'dan and was actually on the Shadow Council" needs to be put down on paper before it can be understood? You needn't answer, of course, as Thrall already answered for you when he actually recorded Orgrim's testimony and put it down on paper in the form of the in-universe book Rise of the Horde.

[Cegoes]

To interrupt Aucald and Syegfryed's Orc argument: One thing that might help is to never, ever meet the Titans again in any capacity beyond the Titan Keepers relaying messages. Legion should be the pinnacle of our characters lorewise, and at no other time should we come even close to their feats and power. While I understand that Vanilla had us killing Old Gods and TBC was pretty cosmic in scope, with us fighting Kil'jaeden and Archimonde in TBC, I still think the game should stay more focused on small threats. Dragonflight was good with this, having the Brackenhide Hollow, Algethar academy, Halls of Infusion, and others.

Also we've never seen underwater Titan facilities, and I'm watching a video right now about how the mermaids depicted in Ulduar could be another type of Titan forged adapted to combat and life underwater.

[Aucald]

One thing that might help is to never, ever meet the Titans again in any capacity beyond the Titan Keepers relaying messages. Legion should be the pinnacle of our characters lorewise, and at no other time should we come even close to their feats and power. While I understand that Vanilla had us killing Old Gods and TBC was pretty cosmic in scope, with us fighting Kil'jaeden and Archimonde in TBC, I still think the game should stay more focused on small threats. Dragonflight was good with this, having the Brackenhide Hollow, Algethar academy, Halls of Infusion, and others.

Also we've never seen underwater Titan facilities, and I'm watching a video right now about how the mermaids depicted in Ulduar could be another type of Titan forged adapted to combat and life underwater.

Unfortunately I think that ship will sail with the release of the Worldsaga Saga's final expansion, titled The Last Titan, during which the developers have already said the Titan Pantheon will return to Azeroth and we'll confront the great secret surrounding both the Titans and the Worldsoul of Azeroth. Given what was already unveiled during the BlizzCon 2024 opening ceremonies for WoW, it seems likely we'll be seeing a lot more of the Titans than the brief glimpse we got at the close of Legion.

[Syegfryed]

If the question was about their form of leadership being more or less disposed towards corruption at the hands of the Legion, you'd have a point. The issue here is that the governance of the Horde maintained major weaknesses well *after* demonic corruption, when they maintained a structure that is simultaneously a legacy of their corruption, and itself objectively more vulnerable to further corruption, as has been demonstrated. In your attempt to move the goalpost, you've successfully begun playing an entirely different sport.

My dude, its not a "legacy of their corruption". The orcs already organized themselves under clans and chieftains, it is what they knew and it is what chosen to follow after it. Why would they stop their tradition in the goal of reviving their old traditions?

Thrall role was vastly different as a warchief(high chieftain) compared to what Blackhand was. the only similarity is how he kept the name and retained the power of absolute war commander Blackhand had.

How retaining their form of government with clans, that they knew since they existed, is a form of maintain the legacy of corruption and not maintain their own legacy BEFORE the corruption?

No, the clan structure of the orcs was pretty much done away with in its entirety, with the vestiges of the clans kept only as loose social groups with no real connection to their original incarnations. While some orcs still cleaved to their clans of origin, the clans had no real formal recognition, and their chieftains, such as they were, retained no actual authority within the Horde. In point of fact, it was Eitrigg himself who prompted the revitalization of what were considered "dead" traditions among the orcs, including the Kosh'harg, the om'riggor, and a revitalization of the ancient clan associations as per the quest chain accompanying "A People in Need of Healing."

??? Do you realize that the way you are talking proves the horde didnt mantain the legacy of the corruption, right? since the horde was lead by gul'dan and the shadow council, with Blackhand acting as figure head and war general with different chieftains under his command?

Thrall horde was nothing like this.

Also, did you just forgot the frostwolf and the warsong clan, who retained real formal recognition, and their chieftains, such as they were, retained actual authority within the Horde? the other clans were most defunct like the burning blade and took time until they could stand on their own again, but eventually they did

You're confusing an example for the entirety, I guess understandably, since you've tried pretty hard to hyperfocus on this to the exclusion of all else. The nomenclature or the modeling is unimportant; the issue here is retaining the legacy of the corruption that was inflicted upon the orcs by the Legion when they corrupted their original traditions.

But again, they didnt "retained the legacy of corruption", they RETOOK their own legacy that was tainted by the demons, its a resurrection of the true orcish values and culture. There is literally no reason to not go back to the way the clans ruled and to have a high chieftain in this new land.

How many near-collapses of the entire government do *you* think are acceptable? Me? I'd say a single instance is bad enough to invoke serious and wide-ranging reforms.

Then you are an advocate for anarchy? because there are examples in the real world that different forms of government nearly collapsed, so anarchy seems like its the only solution for it.

If you change the form of government, the only thing that will change its how it will colapse again.

You seriously think Orgrim didn't share vital intel with the man he was obviously grooming to be his successor?

How Orgrin knew about Velen and Gul'dan inner toughs DUDE

Maybe, just maybe, you need to understand rise of the horde wasnt actually writen by Thrall, and they only used his words in the beginning because it was a nice touch, and what happened in the book is actually canon information not coming from a unreliable narrator like Thrall, but it is written in a third POV?

[Aucald]

My dude, its not a "legacy of their corruption". The orcs already organized themselves under clans and chieftains, it is what they knew and it is what chosen to follow after it. Why would they stop their tradition in the goal of reviving their old traditions?

Thrall role was vastly different as a warchief(high chieftain) compared to what Blackhand was. the only similarity is how he kept the name and retained the power of absolute war commander Blackhand had.

It *is* a legacy of their corruption, regardless of your opinion on the matter, as is borne out directly in Rise of the Horde. Many of the chieftains of the time before the formation of the Horde didn't look favorably on the Horde's nature, either, but all were eventually convinced of the necessity due to Kil'jaeden's lies and manipulations. Thrall's role as Warchief also wasn't that different from Blackhand's or Orgrim's; he had the same absolute authority over the Horde, both socially and militarily. The only difference is that Thrall opted to use that absolute authority to attempt to reform his people and restore at least some of their previous traditions, but he neither limited his own power nor took steps to curb the future abuses that would stem from the position of Warchief.

??? Do you realize that the way you are talking proves the horde didnt mantain the legacy of the corruption, right? since the horde was lead by gul'dan and the shadow council, with Blackhand acting as figure head and war general with different chieftains under his command?

Thrall horde was nothing like this.

Maintaining the legacy of corruption doesn't require absolute similarity to the Old Horde, either. Again, you shoot right to the extreme and well past any other signifiers.

Also, did you just forgot the frostwolf and the warsong clan, who retained real formal recognition, and their chieftains, such as they were, retained actual authority within the Horde? the other clans were most defunct like the burning blade and took time until they could stand on their own again, but eventually they did

No, I didn't forget the Frostwolves, and I explicitly mentioned the Warsong, but both of these clans were increasingly irrelevant in terms of the Horde's actual hierarchy. Which is weird on a completely other level, given Thrall's intimate connection to the Frostwolf clan that his father was once chieftain of, and his boon companion Drek'thar still is. But the Frostwolves were about as distant from Thrall's Horde as Stormwind itself was, operating almost as a parallel orcish society all its own, separate and apart. The Warsong, like the rest of the original orcish clans, was essentially a clan in name only.

But again, they didnt "retained the legacy of corruption", they RETOOK their own legacy that was tainted by the demons, its a resurrection of the true orcish values and culture. There is literally no reason to not go back to the way the clans ruled and to have a high chieftain in this new land.

I'm not sure if you've phrased your argument here correctly, because it reads like you're attempting to have your cake, eat your cake, and sell me both cakes. We've already covered the retention of their corrupted society in the form of the Horde itself, as well as the erasure of the clan system in all but name. So unless you've got a novel idea to convey here, we'll just move on.

Then you are an advocate for anarchy? because there are examples in the real world that different forms of government nearly collapsed, so anarchy seems like its the only solution for it.

If you change the form of government, the only thing that will change its how it will colapse again.

That excluded middle just keeps on getting bigger and bigger, doesn't it? You could open a franchise in the vast area you've shot past to arrive at anarchy as the sole solution. I assume you know what "reform" means and how it applies to governance, so I'm going to chalk this particular argument up to some form of performative outrage on your part. Otherwise, you're trying to claim it is impossible to fix something broken, so you might as well not try and just let it collapse. Not sure if that's an achievement in nihilism, ignorance, or both at once.

Maybe, just maybe, you need to understand rise of the horde wasnt actually writen by Thrall, and they only used his words in the beginning because it was a nice touch, and what happened in the book is actually canon information not coming from a unreliable narrator like Thrall, but it is written in a third POV?

The epigraphs throughout Rise of the Horde (which are present in every chapter, not just the beginning) make it canon as Thrall's memoirs; there's no debating that. It's framed as a novel the same way Arthas: Rise of the Lich King is, but both of them are PoV accounts from their in-universe narrators and authors.

Now, as has already been pointed out by others, this long-winded debate is increasingly off-topic from the thread itself and is increasingly circular and repetitive in nature. As I've said my piece, you're free to respond if you want, but I have no interest in continuing this discussion given its off-topic nature.

[Jastall]

Getting back to this bit of the thread, in general, while the ideas themselves were fine and it was flashy enough at the time, Argus and especially the Titans opened up a lot of problems for the writers going further. For one thing, going from the Titans being dead in Chronicle, itself something new and mostly needless, to them being alive in Legion solely so they can show up in a room and be buddies with the PC, along with them deliberately leaving magic items that can be used to breach doesn't mesh at all with their earlier portrayal. On top of changing their characterization, they also break the cap on the franchise. Sure, we don't fight Sargeras, but we meet and talk to the Titans and they're all written out of the plot.

There's no higher instance left and no mystery, since we've met the Titans now and they're just dudes. It essentially wrote Blizzard into the corner where they'd either need to invent a new, even bigger entity that's even more vague, i.e the First Ones in Shadowlands or effectively retcon both Legion and Chronicle's definitive answers and portrayals of the Titans and revert to their earlier version, i.e the DF/Worldsoul route.

I feel like it's not very hard to "retcon" the Titans into being more morally ambiguous after Legion. We barely spoke to them, after all. We saved them from the Coven, beat up Aggrammar until he stopped being red, and then subdued Argus which they needed to defeat Sargeras. It was all in the name of saving ourselves, and it's easy enough to write that this partnership of circumstances didn't change their long-term plans at all. They lost some of their mystique, sure, but that's more or less inevitable the longer the game goes on. It's a problem, but not a big one.

The DF route is definitely better than making up the stupidity that is the First Ones. That was completely unnecessary and can only ever be fixed by ignoring that lore altogether.

[Aucald]

I feel like it's not very hard to "retcon" the Titans into being more morally ambiguous after Legion. We barely spoke to them, after all. We saved them from the Coven, beat up Aggrammar until he stopped being red, and then subdued Argus which they needed to defeat Sargeras. It was all in the name of saving ourselves, and it's easy enough to write that this partnership of circumstances didn't change their long-term plans at all. They lost some of their mystique, sure, but that's more or less inevitable the longer the game goes on. It's a problem, but not a big one.

The DF route is definitely better than making up the stupidity that is the First Ones. That was completely unnecessary and can only ever be fixed by ignoring that lore altogether.

Chronicle Vol. 4 (pg. 176-177) opens up a possible avenue in which the First Ones aren't necessarily the actual progenitors of all creation, but rather a complex myth-structure created by the denizens of the Shadowlands to explain their existence and purpose (or Purpose in their respective beliefs). It posits that while the Titans have a true and concrete existence, the First Ones are simply myths, which may or may not actually be or have ever been real. Similarly, the broker Ta'lora claims that the in-universe Chronicle volumes are "Titan propaganda" where the Titans are trying to sell themselves as the creator of the cosmos, when they're really just servants of Order alone, and so forth. TLT will probably attempt to square the difference between the two accounts, although how it will do so and in what form remains to be seen.

[Syegfryed]

Maintaining the legacy of corruption doesn't require absolute similarity to the Old Horde, either. Again, you shoot right to the extreme and well past any other signifiers.

We can boil down this entire convo that what you think it is a legacy of corruption, based solely in your subjective opinion and how you see the horde and their values under an anachronism but of the real world.view.

No, I didn't forget the Frostwolves, and I explicitly mentioned the Warsong, but both of these clans were increasingly irrelevant in terms of the Horde's actual hierarchy.

Oh yeah? why? Just because they were not prominent as part of the story, why do you think they are irrelevant? Is lorthemar irrelevant because he didnt had any meaningful stuff for ages, to a point people called him Bob?

But the Frostwolves were about as distant from Thrall's Horde as Stormwind itself was, operating almost as a parallel orcish society all its own, separate and apart. The Warsong, like the rest of the original orcish clans, was essentially a clan in name only.

You understand that even if this the case, that still mens thrall horde is bastly different from the old horde, and the "legacy of corruption" youa re talking about, its just nitpicking about the name?

If Thrall was anointed king of the orcs, instead of warchief, would they still maintain the legacy of corruption? cause it would work the same way. But your problem is only NAME.


Basically you argue that, if X - who was completely fine - is corrupted into Y, you cannot by any means, ressurect X, X is gone, and even attempting to bring it back just means you are keeping the legacy of Y.

That's just dangerously wrong especially knowing how some invading cultures did that to natives, perverting their culture and demonizing their religion for centuries. Its completely fine trying to revive your old traditions - a tribal and shamanistic society who works under a chieftain government - that was corrupted by demons.

The epigraphs throughout Rise of the Horde (which are present in every chapter, not just the beginning) make it canon as Thrall's memoirs; there's no debating that.

There is, because its very nonsensical and dishonest to think Thrall know the inner discussions of Velen, archimonde and kil'jaden and the shadow council and gul'dan, including their inner thoughts and monologues, tis virtually impossible, and holding into that as proof that Thrall knew every single thing is just desperation