Who should be the next Warmonger?

[Lorgar Aurelian]

I always wondered if Orgrimmar was swarming with SI7 spies that they knew even when each orc changed their underwear how come they fell for that trick that Saurfang and Nathanos set?Weren't they trained to detect lies? How come they didn't watch the Barrens Army to give report all the time? How come the Night Elves rushed down in Silithus instead of doing a steady march with the Horde army?

This is pretty much all explained in the short story’s.

Saurfang/nanthanos didn’t just lie they wrote false supply reports making it seem like they were trying to mass produce azerite material and other things to make it seem like they were going for silithus.

A few days/weeks before they marched out saurfang made it clear that they were killing all spies something they were against before hand making the alliance pull them back.

The night elf’s we’re heading down to fortify a position so they needed to get there before the horde And they have to actual path to keep pace with the horde on land.

[Ersula]

Almost as logical as Horde players going all cozy with Jaina Suemoore shortly after she participated in the siege on Dazar'alor and helping (even if indirectly) to kill Rastakhan.

*Cutscene opens with Alliance knocking a random stone pillar onto some innocent fishermen* Look what you made us do

[sighy]

I like the idea S'era raised her, & Sera was a Naaru who had fallen & become a Void Lord, then essentially "resurrected." In a way, the only "undead" Naaru. So the people she resurrected are undead. That's an interesting idea.

Problem is that doesn't make Calia herself interesting. And certainly not a character Forsaken players are going to latch on to. The big thing forsaken players had was Sylvanas, who died a noble death & became undead, then reformed Lordaeron from complete annihilation into a real kingdom again. And even after her we had Liliana. The main problem being here is that Liliana & Sylvanas have both actually done things. Calia hasn't done anything substantial & suddenly she's exerting her royal claim to the throne. Shouldn't one of the many other Dark Rangers become the leader of the Forsaken? Some have even expressed feeling abandoned by Sylvanas & they've been fighting for the Forsaken for decades: Not some random royal who everyone thoughy was dead until very recently. My take on the Forsaken is that they didn't even really care about Royal bloodlines after the King's son killed everybody. It seems like the devs are made up of people who don't understand why Forsaken fans like the Forsaken.

Plus, how is Calia supposed to asset herself against the Alliance? She might feel protective of the Forsaken but what happens when Turalyon wants to assert himself as a "son of Lordaeron" and declare "Lordaeron for the living"? Calia's New Boyfriend is Jaina's Brother. And suddenly they're supposed to be on opposite sides of a war? A truly thoughtless storyline.

You've hit the nail, on the head. She basically runs counter to what has made the Forsaken appealing. As far as Forsaken leadership goes they've got the Desolate council, which formed out of necessity since Sylvanas didn't have the time to micromanage everything, when also being the Warchief. So they really don't need Calia and given the established interactions between undead and Light shouldn't even want anything to do with her. (Prior to Calia only Light wielding undead were extremely masochistic overzealous madmen)

Ideally? I'd see her joining Turalyon, in the inevitable "We will show them our peaceful ways by force!" Light expansion, as that sort of well meaning, but ultimately disconnected and wrong kind of character, who thinks they know the best for you and don't care what you think. (Kind of like Warhammer High Elves, if you know that)

[Feanoro]

As far as Forsaken leadership goes they've got the Desolate council, which formed out of necessity since Sylvanas didn't have the time to micromanage everything, when also being the Warchief.

At least until the Lich Queen's paranoia flared and she realized they might actually move on as a society past her personality cult, leading to arranging their slaughter in a way that could be blamed on the Alliance.

[VladlTutushkin]

Man, it's almost as if the Horde hadn't lost three warchiefs in a row, with two of them being vilified to a ridiculous extent. It isn't as if Dazar'alor or Org were never besieged, with a 2 out of 3 success (for the Alliance) ratio, with UC being a tie. The iconic position of warchief being abolished, in favour of a "council" with a large majority of Alliance sockpuppets doesn't mean anything either, I guess. Forsaken being even more Defanged™ than OMG WOE IZ MUH nelfs doesn't even register on your radar LOL.

Going by your standards, everything that isn't the utter, absolute annihilation of the Horde is evidently Horde Bias™. Guess what, it cannot happen, even if only because of gameplay reasons.

Forsaken are not nearly as cucked as night elves at the moment. We dont even know if they will end up with Calia or if she will not be kicked out in “evil light” expansion which is almost behind the corner now. And night elf players will stop talking about their race being fucked over when it stops being fucked over.

Losing warchiefs, oh cry me a fucken river. Who gives a shit about a talking head? Also a Council is so “pro Alliance” it took Thrall almost stepping on Gazlowe to stop Fifth War from starting. So they at least 50/50 of warmongers and peacemongers. Meanwhile even amongst those who like peace there are those who dont like Alliance so your argument is wrong from the get go.

I suppose to you anything more then slap on the wrist and a stern warning is “annihilation”, but its mostly your problem, not mine.

I never asked for anything more then what Horde already had in Cata and BfA. If those two expansions entirely reversed and delivered as Alliance content i will be as happy as one can be. Or are those “treats” too rich and decadent for mere Alliance serfs?

[Toho]

Almost as logical as Horde players going all cozy with Jaina Suemoore shortly after she participated in the siege on Dazar'alor and helping (even if indirectly) to kill Rastakhan.

Almost as logical as the Alliance cozing up to the Horde after they committed yet another war crime.
Whatever the Alliance or its characters have done the Horde and its characters have done a thousand fold worse.

You are asking the wrong question.
"Why are Horde players getting all cozy with Jaina or any Alliance character"? Perhaps you should be asking why are Alliance characters not outright hostile to the Horde and its players regardless of circumstance?

[geco]

Almost as logical as the Alliance cozing up to the Horde after they committed yet another war crime.
Whatever the Alliance or its characters have done the Horde and its characters have done a thousand fold worse.

You are asking the wrong question.
"Why are Horde players getting all cozy with Jaina or any Alliance character"? Perhaps you should be asking why are Alliance characters not outright hostile to the Horde and its players regardless of circumstance?

They are not two questions. It is a single question.
Why is blizzard forcing me to work with a character who before gave me every reason to kill him as soon as I see him? That even working with him is a betrayal of my faction and race.

[sighy]

At least until the Lich Queen's paranoia flared and she realized they might actually move on as a society past her personality cult, leading to arranging their slaughter in a way that could be blamed on the Alliance.

That's not what happened. Her hope going into the meeting was that they would undergo what she has during War Crimes, where their living family chooses to abandon them, which would make them bitter toward the living. And that has happened, with a considerable portion of the council, who are still alive and well presumably. (There wasn't really any word since then)

Sylvanas for her part only took action, when Calia's presence was revealed to her, by her own people, with Calia vindicating basically all Sylvanas's concerns and then some in the "confrontation". Reasoning that it's not really possible for her to tell whether the ones, who started running got cold feet or were genuinely loyal, which was a risk she apparently was not willing to take.

[Triceron]

Man, it's almost as if the Horde hadn't lost three warchiefs in a row, with two of them being vilified to a ridiculous extent. It isn't as if Dazar'alor or Org were never besieged, with a 2 out of 3 success (for the Alliance) ratio, with UC being a tie. The iconic position of warchief being abolished, in favour of a "council" with a large majority of Alliance sockpuppets doesn't mean anything either, I guess. Forsaken being even more Defanged™ than OMG WOE IZ MUH nelfs doesn't even register on your radar LOL.

Going by your standards, everything that isn't the utter, absolute annihilation of the Horde is evidently Horde Bias™. Guess what, it cannot happen, even if only because of gameplay reasons.

That never hurt the Horde. Losing Warchiefs is pointless if the Horde itself is still united without it. The writers are simply making the position completely pointless, while the Horde never actually splinters or falls from the loss of their leaders.

Compare this to Warcraft RTS where the loss of the Warchief meant an entire splintering and disbanding of the faction.

The Horde shifting leadership is completely unimportant because the leadership never really mattered. It was an illusion. When you get down to the reality of the story, we as players are told when to listen to the Warchief, and when to fight against them. In a more realistic scenario Horde should ONLY follow the will of the Warchief and have consequences for not following; but of course gameplay does not reflect that legacy lore; and neither does modern writing for that matter.

The Warchief is literally the head of the snake. What the writers have done is show us the snake can 'bite off' its own head and grow a new one. Multiple times. And now, it doesn't even need a head to survive. This has the unfortunate side effect of also showing everyone that the snake is unkillable. People are just pointing out that realistically speaking, the snake should be dead, at all these various points where the head has been cut off numerous times. So whether we call this bias or bad story writing, it's really messed up any stakes the Horde has over its 'survival'.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

That's not what happened. Her hope going into the meeting was that they would undergo what she has during War Crimes, where their living family chooses to abandon them, which would make them bitter toward the living. And that has happened, with a considerable portion of the council, who are still alive and well presumably. (There wasn't really any word since then)

Sylvanas for her part only took action, when Calia's presence was revealed to her, by her own people, with Calia vindicating basically all Sylvanas's concerns and then some in the "confrontation". Reasoning that it's not really possible for her to tell whether the ones, who started running got cold feet or were genuinely loyal, which was a risk she apparently was not willing to take.

Sylvanas flat out says only the rejected would get to return because she doesn’t want the hope of reunification to spread, calia or no it’s a given those who met there family’s on good terms were never making it back to undercity.

[sighy]

Sylvanas flat out says only the rejected would get to return because she doesn’t want the hope of reunification to spread, calia or no it’s a given those who met there family’s on good terms were never making it back to undercity.

Out of curiosity. Do you recall the exact page, where she said that? I recall that her motive distinctly was hardening their hearts, with hatered from being ghosted or shunned and otherwise abandoned. With her growing frustrated over some of them not having their hopes crushed.

What could/would have happened to them, if Calia wasn't there isn't really relevant tho. Point is that the Desolate Council still exists, in one form or another, even if you count only those Sylvanas gave the seal of approval. They're bitter and hateful toward the living, whilst also convinced that those who died, in Arathi were traitors to the Forsaken.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

Out of curiosity. Do you recall the exact page, where she said that? I recall that her motive distinctly was hardening their hearts, with hatered from being ghosted or shunned and otherwise abandoned. With her growing frustrated over some of them not having their hopes crushed.

What could/would have happened to them, if Calia wasn't there isn't really relevant tho. Point is that the Desolate Council still exists, in one form or another, even if you count only those Sylvanas gave the seal of approval. They're bitter and hateful toward the living, whilst also convinced that those who died, in Arathi were traitors to the Forsaken.

The PDF I grab quotes from doesn’t have proper page numbers and my legit version is in audio so that doesn’t help.

Here’s the passage though.

My queen, what are you doing?”
Sylvanas heard the shock in her normally calm champion’s voice. She chose to overlook it. On the surface, what was unfolding below— the firing of arrows, the screams and pleas of the Desolate Council as they tasted their Last Deaths could seem perplexing and disturbing.
“The only thing I can do and still hang on to my kingdom as it is,” she said. “They were defecting.”
“Some were running back here, to safety,” he replied.
“They were,” she agreed. “But how much of that was fear? How tempted were they until that point?” She shook her head. “No, Nathanos. I cannot take the risk. The only Desolate Council members I trust are the ones who returned to me early on, broken and bitter. Truly Desolate. All the others...I cannot allow that sentiment, that hope, to grow. It is an infection ready to spread. I have to cut it out.”
Slowly, accepting her words, he nodded.

As to the hardening there hearts but that’s stated earlier as something she was on favour of but not her plan. Nathanos says those who had happy meetings would stay inline to try and get more meeting and sylvanas reply’s with she hasn’t made up her mind on what to do with the happy ones yet.

[Mehrunes]

Sylvanas flat out says only the rejected would get to return because she doesn’t want the hope of reunification to spread, calia or no it’s a given those who met there family’s on good terms were never making it back to undercity.

And as per your own quote in your subsequent post shows the first thing she said is that she doesn't know why they were returning for sure, just like @sighy said. And what she actually says in the sentence where she mentions those who were rejected is that they are the ones she can trust (not that they "would get to return", because they had already returned beforehand). The bit about the spread of hope is another sentence. Trying to separate all of that from Calia doesn't work in the slightest. Especially since it's Calia's appearance that led her to deploy the Dark Rangers. Before she was informed about that, even though she already realized some members were defecting, she merely blew the horn to test their loyalty. Why would she test their loyalty if she was going to kill them regardless of Calia like you said?

[sighy]

The PDF I grab quotes from doesn’t have proper page numbers and my legit version is in audio so that doesn’t help.

Here’s the passage though.



As to the hardening there hearts but that’s stated earlier as something she was on favour of but not her plan. Nathanos says those who had happy meetings would stay inline to try and get more meeting and sylvanas reply’s with she hasn’t made up her mind on what to do with the happy ones yet.

I remember the earlier part, where they established the Hardening and such pretty well, altho i will admit it's been a few years since i read the novel.

In regards to the quote she basically spells out that it's impossible to tell, if and how much they're compromised and that she is not willing to take the chance. With her coming to the decision regarding their fate after she spotted them going toward Stromgarde and was told about Calia, because ideally undead characterisation is kind of like that given that they're not really concerned about morality of things they think they have to do. That said if you were to make the argument she came to that conclusion earlier during the meeting it's possible.

[Mehrunes]

What could/would have happened to them, if Calia wasn't there isn't really relevant tho. Point is that the Desolate Council still exists, in one form or another, even if you count only those Sylvanas gave the seal of approval. They're bitter and hateful toward the living, whilst also convinced that those who died, in Arathi were traitors to the Forsaken.

They outright were traitors. Calia explicitly told Elsie that out of those still on the field everyone but her was defecting. And Elsie, while not a defector, still violated the orders pertaining to retreat immediately after hearing the horn, even though the Desolate Council members were outright informed twice that not following that order would have had dire consequences (one of these time was even at Elsie's own inquiry, but apparently even Golden's characters can't remember the plot points she established).

So looping back to your exchange above, Sylvanas not only did say it's impossible to tell apart those who were returning out of loyalty from those who were returning out of fear (especially since we've only seen them starting to return after she deployed the Dark Rangers, not after she sounded the horn, i.e. when they were supposed to return) like you said, but her instinct was right there.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

They outright were traitors. Calia explicitly told Elsie that out of those still on the field everyone but her were defecting. And Elsie violated the orders pertaining to retreat immediately after hearing the horn, even though the Desolate Council members were explicitly informed twice that not following that order would have had dire consequences (one of these time was even at Elsie's own inquiry, but apparently even Golden's characters can't remember the plot points she established).

The book doesn’t support this.

From calia’s view she’s ignorant of what the others are doing in all but the vaguest sense. Only knowing a few are going.

From anduin’s view some were returning before arrows started to fly.

From Nathanos view they were also returning before the killings.

- - - Updated - - -

I remember the earlier part, where they established the Hardening and such pretty well, altho i will admit it's been a few years since i read the novel.

In regards to the quote she basically spells out that it's impossible to tell, if and how much they're compromised and that she is not willing to take the chance. With her coming to the decision regarding their fate after she spotted them going toward Stromgarde and was told about Calia, because ideally undead characterisation is kind of like that given that they're not really concerned about morality of things they think they have to do. That said if you were to make the argument she came to that conclusion earlier during the meeting it's possible.

She likely came to the conclusion before she knew calia was there but after or about when she noticed some drifting towards stromgard as she gave her orders before calia’s hood blew down

[Varodoc]

The latest interview with Ion heavily confirms that factions will be no more in the future, or anyway the dichotomy of factions won't be as rigid as it is now.

Cross-faction raiding is a bit more on the radar now. If Jaina and Thrall are working together, why can't the players?

In the end this is a Story subforum, but Gameplay will always take precedence over Story, and it is Factually proven that the Horde dominates the Mythic scene, there are barely any Alliance guilds in the Mythic scene and at high levels, this cannot be tolerated.

Lorewise we also saw the leaders of Alliance and Horde teaming up so many times, most recently in the Sanctum of Domination, where Thrall, Jaina, and Bolvar (former de-facto leader of the Alliance in Vanilla) were fighting side by side.

So this subtly confirms that there will never be another "traditional warmonger" and "traditional faction war", and they might simply go back to racial conflicts as it was back in WC3 and Vanilla. I think the Fourth War of BfA was the last full-blown faction war.

And naturally this also means that any Alliance character is very unlikely to suffer the fate of Garrosh and Sylvanas, since they will not wage war on half of Azeroth

After all, since cross-faction raiding is very likely to be a thing in the future, how can they justify another faction war expansion with faction war-based raids like Battle of Dazar'alor...

[sighy]

She likely came to the conclusion before she knew calia was there but after or about when she noticed some drifting towards stromgard as she gave her orders before calia’s hood blew down

There is some room for speculation there, as it's not clearly stated, but from what i recall the sequence of events was gathering drifts toward Stromgarde > Sylvanas blows the Horn> the rider comes to tell Sylvanas about Calia > book cuts right away to her having sent the Dark Rangers and the gathering spotting them.

[Ersula]

That's not what happened. Her hope going into the meeting was that they would undergo what she has during War Crimes, where their living family chooses to abandon them, which would make them bitter toward the living. And that has happened, with a considerable portion of the council, who are still alive and well presumably. (There wasn't really any word since then)

Sylvanas for her part only took action, when Calia's presence was revealed to her, by her own people, with Calia vindicating basically all Sylvanas's concerns and then some in the "confrontation". Reasoning that it's not really possible for her to tell whether the ones, who started running got cold feet or were genuinely loyal, which was a risk she apparently was not willing to take.

Historically Speaking: Executing people trying to defect is normal. Calia was using frilly words to propose mutany & defection. Even Anduin told her she was being stupid.

So I'm all for Calia joining Turalyon in a light tyranny storyline: Stupidity is Calia's central character trait.

[geco]

So this subtly confirms that there will never be another "traditional warmonger" and "traditional faction war", and they might simply go back to racial conflicts as it was back in WC3 and Vanilla. I think the Fourth War of BfA was the last full-blown faction war.

I had faith that after the mediocre ending of BFA. The Alliance accuses Anduin of Traitor and dissolves and something similar with the Horde.
But seen the seen .. BFA is only Panadaria 2.0 and if Pandaria did not solve anything BFA either.