People participating in a genocide are not people who do the right thing. Let them go back to Sylvanas. They can die with her.
2 Likes
There will be no peace while the Horde survives. They will break it; genocide is in their blood.
“If I dedicated myself to peace with the …[Horde]…, would it last a year?”
“How about two years? Five? Ten? Fifty?”
The Horde is the greater existential threat. N’zoth can wait.
5 Likes
Quoting sylvanas lol smh might as well quote hitler
You realize the entire point of Sylvanas making this quote is to weaponize the Horde-Alliance relations past strainings to justify going to war in the name of her own shady goals right?
Like, she is the Twilight Hammer instigators of this expansion. Quoting her to make a point about the Horde’s ability to keep the peace actually deals damage to your argument.
2 Likes
The war never ends. That’s the point, really.
I quoted her to reiterate that the Horde is completely faithless on the matters of peace; that she was making the argument to Saurfang in bad faith strengthens my point not weakens it.
2 Likes
Then let it never end. The Horde does not deserve a moment of peace for as long as they remain in Ashenvale.
1 Like
I should hope not… when the war ends…the game does as well.
Did every one forget that we are breaking the frigging cycle here?? That was the message of the finale??? Am I going insane?? (Yes)
For you. For your sub. Personally. I will still be subbed if they end the faction war, as will many others.
1 Like
No you won’t… because the only reason the war ends… is the game shuts down for good. In case you’ve forgotten the name of the game is World of WARcraft.
1 Like
Do you not play WoW during the previous expansions where the conflict isn’t the main story?
It was still at least the “B” story. You might as well suggest though that all my future Thanksgiving Dinners or Lasagnas be vegan.
Also, Anduin declaring that the cycle is broken doesn’t make it so.
and there can still be plenty of wars which aren’t a war between horde and alliance which has transformed from a unique part of the game to a hindrance on its growth (features like cross faction group, raiding, guilds, etc. even competitive pvp has had nothing to do with the faction war since arenas were introduced in tbc)
honestly, doing the “it’s WARcraft” is beneath you, tsk tsk
2 Likes
While I think bfa story was alright, it wasnt the best, and its true the best in wow has zero to do with the faction war
2 Likes
…But that’s just it. It WAS made in bad faith. Made to Saurfang who initially resisted it, which indicates he is not faithless when it comes to peace. The impulse to go to war doesn’t come from the Horde itself, it came from Sylvanas. Just as the previous major conflict outbreaks actually had outside influences or circumstances.
The three major outbreaks of conflict throughout WoW’s history isn’t as simple as “Horde breaks the peace.” In Wrath, Forsaken rebels backed by the Legion sparks it. In Cata, Twilight Hammer cultists impersonated Horde soldiers sparks it. In BFA, Sylvanas backed by some Death force or something gives the Horde false information.
And note that, in a case of the relationship between Horde and Alliance not as simple as “One side only to blame”, you’ll note that it was the Alliance that officially struck first in both the Wrath and Cata instances. Wrath with Varian leading an assault on the faction leaders, and then Cata with the Night Elves retaliating with economic warfare. That Saurfang bought into Sylvanas’ arguments that the peace wouldn’t last is as much an indictment of the Alliance as it is the Horde.
Your argument is still plenty weakened by quoting Sylvanas. In fact, the height of irony is that you’re inadvertently making her argument for her, just towards the Alliance, hypocritically lambasting the Horde for it, but advocating Sylvanas’ course of action in reverse. Which, as of the latest patch, we’ve learned would be exactly what she wants anyway.
5 Likes
On the heels of a cinematic in which all of Sylvanas’ visible forces switch sides, it would be especially noticeable if she suddenly has the numbers to even hold Darkshore in any fashion, even in a setting where the writers don’t pay too much attention to army numbers until it can be made into a plot point.
If the other Horde members not loyal to Sylvanas leave en mass, leaving the loyalists alone to hold against the retaliating Night Elves that they were only just keeping at bay with the help of said non-loyalist forces, they’re not going to stick around and hold the fort, their sense of survival is going to kick in and they’re gonna get the heck outta dodge. There’d be zero point in them trying to hold onto land with a skeleton crew with no tangible value to Sylvanas’ current plan.
I get trying to find a satisfying way to get a final cathartic punch in, but I don’t know how’d it’d make sense or be at all non-villainous, especially with it being likely that Tyrande is gonna be the source of conflict within the Alliance given some hints.
Missing the point.
Generally, you want people to defect from your enemy. If you demonstrate that defecting is pointless because you intend to kill them either way, you make staying on with mass murderers like Sylvanas the logical decision.
Or, if you set a precedent that those who “participate in genocide” get no mercy, even when they were misled into participating and later on turn against the actual mastermind behind it, in a hypothetical future event, you again make siding with mass murderers the logical choice from a self-preservation perspective.
Imagine if Jaina got her way in the conclusion of MoP. Alliance tries to dismantle the Horde and occupy their territory. Status quo is god, and it doesn’t work out, and the two factions are neck to neck in power again. Except when Sylvanas comes to power, that historical precedent makes rebelling much more unpopular. That historical precedent makes siding with the Alliance against her MUCH more distasteful. It makes having second thoughts or regrets for enabling her burning of Teldrassil much less consequential now that your only option to survive lies in remaining loyal to her.
Now those sort of precedents would have really altered how this last patch would’ve played out, wouldn’t they? There is a reason why plea deals where people get granted immunity or given shorter sentences are all the rage in investigations. You use the small fish to get the BIG fish. You might be loath to let the small fish get away, but generally its a trade worth making to nail the big prize. If you go against the deal, you establish a precedent for future plea deals that there’s no point in doing the right thing and helping you out, which makes getting the big fish exponentially more difficult.
1 Like
War criminals. People who are responsible for Teldrassil’s burning. If they want to defend those people, they can die with them as well.
You are missing the point. Firstly, the entire expansion started with the genocide of the night elves, and the night elves had no role in that story at all. Remove the entire Darkshore content, and you still have a narrative that happens the exact same way.
That is not a cool thing to do to a percentage of your player base. Period. It is not just the Night Elves that are owed, it is the player base that is owed.
I will quote what I said earlier:
Secondly… The appropriate response to genocide is justice… Period.
4 Likes
What I’ve noticed about Alliance NPC dialogues after the ending of the war campaign has been that, while Night Elf NPCs are focusing on Sylvanas and Nathanos, non-Night Elf NPCs are the ones talking about the rest of the Horde. Found a conversation just today, in fact: Stay a while and listen: Genn Greymane.
1 Like
And you’re free to set a precedent where you remove incentive for people to change sides and help you bring the actual masterminds to justice. Just means that you miss the big fish while obsessing over the small fish.
Pretty self-evident that the Darkshore content is setting up future story beats that are being nodded to in even the latest patch. Like, if you removed the Val’kyr from Wrath entirely, it wouldn’t affect the overall story of that expansion, but how different would Forsaken content for Cataclysm had been without Sylvanas’ Angels?
So is it owed to a percentage of the player base that another percentage of the player base are punished for something they had no agency in? That’s what you’re calling for here.
I think your logic is eating itself.
This sort of black and white absolutism is nonproductive. It grossly oversimplifies what ACTUALLY happened, and in practice would make pursuing the ACTUAL architect nigh-impossible. Worse yet, it’d be exactly what they want.
I have a feeling there’s a reason you haven’t addressed a single iota of the pragmatism and logic angles of my posts.
I want to address this. One, coming from a player that emphasized that this is all fiction, this is a surprisingly incensed take. I get it, Night Elves got a raw deal, but I never thought the intense reaction from their players was ever proportional or reasonable (especially when Night Elves always had that “fading elder race” quality to them like in Lord of the Rings.
Two, its self-centered in a fashion. Night Elves aren’t the only ones who’ve been scapegoated this expansion. The genocide on them kicked off the expansion, and perhaps they’ve not had a proportionate presence in the story (though obviously there seems to be buildup to future plotlines), but what about the Horde players who’ve been scapegoated into essentially being the bad guys for ANOTHER expansion?
Heck, you’d compound it by trying to hold their player characters to task for something they’ve had no actual agency in. That is literally what your plan to hold those who “participated in the genocide” would accomplish, ignoring any and all the finer points of what actually happened there.
11 Likes