So did Quel’Thalas.
Ironically, Lor’themar and Genn working together in Nazjatar proved any Horde fears about Genn to have been overblown.
Lor’themar literally quotes the Isle of Thunder while in Nazjatar and works with Jaina directly again for a second time after the Purge.
There were people in the Horde that did acknowledge the Alliance’s perspective. Both Lor’themar and Ji were warning Vol’jin about how the Alliance saw things before Vol’jin named Sylvanas Warchief.
Doesn’t mean the fears didn’t exist or that they were completely baseless. The Horde were wrong about Genn’s relationship with Anduin in regards to who held the power but there was plenty to give that perception. Hell, Genn wasn’t entirely eager to work with the Horde in Naz’jatar and there were some pretty massive extenuating circumstances.
Sure, but that wasn’t when the Alliance was coming for the Horde angry over a city being burned down. Plus it required the Shado Pan to intercede the first time and Thalyssra to suggest it the second. Lor’themar and Jaina were ready for a fight before Taran Zhu stepped in.
Perhaps but it still doesn’t justify the attack. As I said, if the Horde had done the same to Anduin and the Warchief at the time had done nothing to censure the one responsible they would see it as an act of aggression that the Horde leaders fully supported. This doesn’t in anyway make the Horde’s view of Genn and his relationship to Anduin any less realistic. Hell, Blizzard even used it as one of Sylvanas’s arguments to justify the War of Thorns in the pre patch novelle. Its one of the ways she convinced Saurfang to go along with her plan.
People keep getting hung up about who was justified in what they did but are ignoring the consequences of those actions justified or not. The Horde leadership had very little reason to believe that an Alliance on the warpath would be open to a negotiated outcome which the Horde could accept or even that the Horde could live through and had every reason to believe that a inexperience young king was being controlled/influenced by a war hungry advisor.
And now that perception should be over with.
By reminiscing on how the Blood Elves and Night Elves worked together to liberate Suramar. It seems even Thalyssra had gotten over Tyrande’s rudeness.
The Horde had done the same to Genn, and Sylvanas specifically broke Horde laws to no longer develop or deploy the blight, and neither Thrall, Garrosh, or Vol’jin censured her, and instead she was allowed to become Warchief.
Relevant to this, Antiman brought this up in another thread:
At the end of BfA probably though Genn is rather unhappy with how things ended and Tyrande is outright rebellious.
Yes but Thalyssra wasn’t at the siege of the Undercity or involved with the War of Thorns. Lor’themar was and he had much more negative history with the Alliance. Remember the NE’s invaded Blood Elf territory back in BC and the BEs weren 't even part of the Horde back then. His last attempt at true diplomacy was during MoP and it ended with the Purge.
Not the same thing because the Gilnean’s weren’t part of the Alliance at the time and even then the Horde and Alliance were already at open war. Genn also wasn’t, and never has been, the leader of the Alliance. As for what Sylvanas did in breaking Horde laws, Thrall wasn’t even active in the Horde at the time, Vol’jin had been kicked out of Orgrimaar and was effectively a political outsider and Garrosh probably didn’t really care much as long as he got the results he wanted.
More to the point, at what stage does using Garrosh as an example suggest that it makes it politically savvy to not reprimand a general who attempts to assassinate another factions leader when your trying to avoid open war with them?
I feel your drifting off the point I am making. It isn’t about right or wrong. It is about why Horde leaders after the War of Thorns might not expect diplomacy to be a viable option, particularly when the Alliance was on the warpath. From their viewpoint, they understandably would believe that he Alliance wasn’t going to be open to negotiation when they were out for blood, regardless of Anduin’s personality. What mattered with Genn and why the reprimand or lack their of mattered, was because it gave the impression to Horde leaders that Genn’s attitude and actions were either approved of by Anduin or that Anduin was effectively a proxy for Genn with Genn being the real one in charge. Hell, even Sylvanas suspected this in Before the Storm and she used it as an argument to Saurfang as to why war was inevitable after Legion.
It’s only bad when the Alliance does it.
You are continually assuming this is a question of who is bad or worse. It isn’t. I am not arguing that. The Horde has a WAY worse track record than the Alliance. The Horde and any claim it has to moral fiber is a joke.
Got over that? Good.
My point is that the situation was different. Attacking Gilneas at the time couldn’t be perceived as an attack on an Alliance leader because Gilneas wasn’t part of the Alliance. Further, since the Horde was already attacking the Alliance anyway at the time and was frankly at open war with the Alliance, it wouldn’t have made much difference if they did.
However in context to what we are talking about, I don’t think the Alliance at the time saw diplomacy with Garrosh or anyone of his lackey’s particularly viable so if we are comparing the two I would argue this only further justifies the Horde leader’s views that the Alliance wasn’t going to be open to any terms of an end of conflict which the Horde could reasonably accept.
Let’s not forget what this argument is about. Whether the Horde leaders could reasonably believe, from their viewpoint, that they could reasonably expect an attempt at diplomacy to work, even if they were able to unseat Sylvanas and hand her over to the Alliance. The perception they had by the Siege of the Undersity was that the Alliance was, understandably, out for Horde blood and they had a warhawk in a position of the power behind the throne of a weak, inexperienced young king. A Warhawk you had a burning hatred of the Horde and in the past had advocated genocide against a defeated horde race. That would be like expecting the Alliance to see Garrosh as being fair and even handed in any peace talks with the Alliance.
And the Horde is still offering and abiding by the armistice nonetheless.
Lor’themar was paired up with Shandris for the War Campaign Finale, and he played very diplomatically with her. Lor’themar has never mentioned the Night Elf spying once. Not when he was going to rejoin the Alliance in Mists of Pandaria. Nor when working with the Alliance now.
My point was that for all the fear mongering about Genn, it should have been vastly worse the moment Sylvanas was was appointed Warchief, yet while Genn was the overblown big boogyman the Horde feared, Sylvanas’ evil was underestimated by everyone despite that even Varian said she had to be contained after the Siege of Orgrimmar.
You know, something clicked when I read this. I wonder if people who talk that way take the view that the attitudes of the leader of an organization are supposed to be seen as the views of all the members of that organization unless otherwise shown. So if Anduin is peaceloving and caring toward undead, then they assume that means that all undead could find a happy home in the Alliance if they’d just give it a try. And if Sylvanas is out to kill everything in sight, then obviously all Horde feel the same, except for a few “good apples” who should just join Anduin instead.
I’m not sure where Vol’jin fits into this idea, though. Do the ideas of the average Horde soldier just get replaced along with the warchief?
Does the average Gilnean soldier suddenly wake up one morning saying “Hey, undead aren’t so bad really” just because Genn has a change of heart?
The Horde suddenly didn’t want to fight the Alliance any more or fear the Alliance was going to end them literally the moment Sylvanas wasn’t Warchief any more.
Well–we still don’t know what the average soldier on either side thinks of the ceasefire. Soldiers can be ordered to behave in a certain way even if they privately disagree with the orders. The question is how much we should assume that their goals and beliefs are in line with those of their leaders, especially when it comes to non-military matters like how different races would interact.
No one ordered the Horde to let Anduin and the Alliance into Orgrimmar after Sylvanas left.
I obviously haven’t played that bit, being still level 117. If Anduin couldn’t just walk in by himself, then I assume someone made a decision offscreen; we just don’t know who it was. High or low, one person or many?
Anyway, if you’re saying that the average Horde soldier disagrees with Sylvanas, then why should anyone assume the average Alliance citizen agrees with Anduin?
The presentation was it was the Forsaken that let them in after Saurfang’s death in the cinematic.
I am not saying Horde soldiers loyal to her disagreed with Sylvanas. I was noting that Horde soldiers conveniently changed their minds very quickly the moment she abandoned being their Warchief.
Okay, I just watched that part of the cinematic for the first time, and I feel ill. But it looks to me like “Bannerbae” gives the order.
Everyone tapping banners to welcome Anduin into the city has just witnessed the mak’gora and Anduin’s conversation with Saurfang as he dies, though. They have a reason to have their minds changed.
Anyway, I feel this is straying from the original assertion, which was “The Horde should have known from the start that they can trust the Alliance because Anduin is the Alliance’s leader.” I don’t think anything in the mak’gora situation can be applied to that question.
Oh I never disagreed with the idea that the Horde were worried the Alliance was going to come after them. Especially after Anduin showed up at Lordaeron in his terrifying lion helmet.
I just think the Horde probably realizes now than they had a lot less to worry about than they originally thought.
Yeah and circumstances are different at the end of BfA. I am talking about the start when the Alliance was marching on the Undercity.
He did mention Alliance bigotry though. Look again, my point is that the start of BfA, when the Alliance was marching on the undercity, it is understandable why the Horde leaders wouldn’t have expected diplomacy to be a logical option. Perspectives and circumstances have changed drastically from then. As for the NEs, I am pointing out he has negative history to give him reason to be distrustful of a good outcome when the Alliance are in righteous crusade mode.
Well frankly that is more on the Alliance than the Horde. Sylvanas had a perfectly legitimate claim to the Warchief position and had effectively saved the Horde at the Broken Shore. Plus, from what we saw of Before the Storm not many in the Alliance actually believed Sylvanas could be trusted at all.
Now you could argue it was a very politically stupid choice of the Horde leadership to accept Sylvanas as Warchief and I would agree with you. However I don’t think anyone would call the Alliance leaders bad people for refusing to expect her to be reasonable about diplomacy.
I am not arguing who is worse. I am presenting the perception that events and choices had given the Horde leaders come the Seige of the Undercity and why they probably felt that under the circumstances trying to negotiate with the Alliances wasn’t really likely to work. Hell, most of the Alliance leadership probably wouldn’t have let it slide even if the Horde leaders could hogtie Sylvanas and hand her over.
I would also argue that the fear mongering with Genn isn’t that unjustified. When he found out Calia was alive he seemed very interested in whether she wanted her throne back. I don’t doubt for a minute he wouldn’t rally to her cause if she had called for the Alliance to help take back Lordearon.
Those Horde didn’t open the doors for Anduin. They opened them for Thrall and Saurfang. The events at the end of BfA were entirely different to the events at the start, which has been my point the whole time. It is completely different circumstances.
My over all point is not different than yours. I agree with you that things are different now. That was my point as well, in that the Horde should now realize their fears were overblown.
So…does it make sense for the story that suddenly the horde should have realized peace was still an option after the prepatch?
If Saurfang thought Anduin capturing Sylvanas at Lordaeron would have helped the Horde when Saurfang was the first one to say that the Alliance would come for them all then it’s rather odd that more Horde didn’t think to turn on Sylvanas for a chance to save themselves.
I feel like this all hinges on the meta assumption that Anduin is the de facto head of the entire alliance in the same way the warchief dictated the horde’s direction.
It just doesn’t make sense to me. But it kinda comes off as being excused in this case just to show a whole brand new way of the horde being wrong about something again.
Maybe it’s just me being bitter, I dunno. It’s just that the whole “but you can trust Anduin!” thing is rubbing me raw and I have a hard time putting it into words, even if that’s most of his character.