And there’s an easy fix for this. Bring some of the Tauren’s more brutish cousins, such as the Yaungol, into the fold. This gives you Tauren-esk NPCS who are believably gung-ho for war and could create some interesting storytelling as the Tauren try to deal with the political nightmare of trying to integrate these tribes into their society.
I’m skipping to the end of this to pose a question:
How is 3slot always so capable of making inciting threads?
Is there some kind of social engineering experiment they’re working on?
![:thinking:](https://d38bqls1q93fod.cloudfront.net/en/wow/images/emoji/twitter/thinking.png?v=6" ":thinking:")
2 Likes
As I remember it, the game does not say that the attack was due to faulty information that an assault would be launched from Taurajo.
The game: Taurajo was firebombed.
The book: The Alliance refused to kill civilians and they were all allowed to escape.
Went back and looked it up.
He should have known the instant he heard the word “tauren” that they would not come alone. The tauren army pressed forward in an attack before, not after the late general Hawthorne had ensured that the civilians of Camp Taurajo would be allowed to leave unharmed. It wasn’t like them.
He should have known the real threat would come from the north. From Orgrimmar.
Yeah, those line would definitely have benefited from some proofreading.
From context, I think the intention was to say that the tauren army hadn’t pressed forward in an attack.
Otherwise the entire passage makes no sense.
The suggestion is that those things didn’t happen as presented in the game.
We don’t know that Cairne would have murdered her after she surrendered. I’m inclined to trust the author’s intention–if she had written Cairne he would have spared Magatha.
Point me to the source that says aid was requested of the tauren and denied. The quest that you linked even suggests the vigilantes were acting independently of the Horde.
Now he has all but parted ways with the Horde. He’s gone rogue, , and seeks to lash out at the Alliance with a small band of like-minded partisans.
It isn’t a stupid question.
It’s a relevant question that you don’t like and refuse to properly answer.
The complaint is that Baine exiled the tauren who disobeyed him and sought vengeance.
You may believe that Baine should have sought vengeance himself. That’s a separate issue from whether punishing the tauren who disobeyed him was wrong.
See, you’re already doing the work for them!
1 Like
LOL, not sure if I should take that as a compliment or an insult … but when it comes to Baine trying to be a Warchief like the people he grew up idolizing; its not completely out of the realms of possibility.
Neither, really–just an observation. ![:smiley:](https://d38bqls1q93fod.cloudfront.net/en/wow/images/emoji/twitter/smiley.png?v=6" ":smiley:")
Okay, then maybe I should replace my earlier example with “They could easily make Baine warchief and suddenly start writing him like Garrosh, and watch the players come up with reasons why it makes sense.”
1 Like
That’s … probably a better example lol!
“Well, Garrosh had a hangup about his father … and Baine has always been in his father’s shadow … so …” ![:smiling_imp:](https://d38bqls1q93fod.cloudfront.net/en/wow/images/emoji/twitter/smiling_imp.png?v=6" ":smiling_imp:")
1 Like
Baine: What must I do?
Cairne: What a chieftain must do.
3 Likes
How about they just talk with Sylvanas and give arguments that she can’t refute?
I was referring more to that the impetus for the Alliance attacking in Cata that was in the Shattering was not correct, and so the invasion was based on misinformation regardless of ToW restating that to be the case later on.
The game also says that the Alliance allowed for civilians to escape. Again, the book restating that doesn’t override the other events where they bombed the town and many civilians died both there and to the Quilboar.
From context, I think the intention was to say that the tauren army hadn’t pressed forward in an attack.
Well, that’s not what it says. As it is it also states they’ve been fighting the Rageroar clan and the Tauren in the Fields of Blood anyway, and that they’ve grown very used to the constant sound of cannons.
There is no suggestion of that. The book glossing over details of events doesn’t retroactively change those events. If that was the case every time there was a re-statement of history in-game or in-books that would be retconning things. Retcons aren’t that easy.
He would have. This is the same guy that challenged Garrosh to a fight to the death for the suspicion he had ordered an attack in Ashenvale. Magatha slaughtered the Tauren throughout Mulgore. There is absolutely 100% no way he’d let her live.
Warlord Bloodhilt was appointed by Garrosh to lead the defense of the Barrens, and he was given command of all forces in the region to do so. This includes the Tauren. Given this was an imperative straight from the Warchief, Baine doesn’t have the authority to deny forces to the effort.
Yes it is, because it’s asked with a context that’s irrelevant to the one we’re actually discussing.
To use a BfA example, were the soldiers under Ashvane, Zul, or Stormsong right to follow their commander’s orders? In the context of the question you asked, they were, because they obeyed their direct leaders, and any of them would have been justified to punish anyone who disobeyed. But this ignores that all three of them were acting in a way and issuing commands that were counter to what their own leaders actually wanted.
In the same way, Baine was disobeying Garrosh and his appointed hand in the region by not joining in defense of the Horde’s lands and holding back forces that would have aided the Horde. As such, the soldiers who disobeyed him weren’t wrong, and were actually following the intentions of the higher authority.
3 Likes
LOOOOOOLLL
You Mr. won the thread, as usual. Best post ever
1 Like
Very simply put, Baine does not do enough to oppose the Alliance (in the eyes of the Horde) and does not do enough to oppose the Horde (in the eyes of the Alliance).
Talking to Sylvanas and giving her arguments she cannot refute would imply they have enough of an understanding of HER motives for this war to actually make said arguments. Consistently its been implied that she has her own “true objectives” for this conflict, well beyond those she used to convince Saurfang into it. We just don’t know what they are. It would be like trying to craft an argument about a topic you don’t fully understand; against a person that is a master on that topic.
Outside of that, pretty sure Saurfang and Baine did confront Sylvanas about their issues with her actions. Saurfang confronted her at Lordaeron, and she essentially gave him the ultimatum of “Follow me without question, or you don’t belong in my Horde”; and Baine yelled at her about Derek … and she used Horde rhetoric against him (like she’s frequent to do with Horde leaders).
Actually, Cairne never intended for it to be a fight to the death. Garrosh demanded it.
“Upon receiving word from the owl Hamuul sent, that the new Warchief sanctioned the killing of innocent druids (actually carried out by orcs loyal to Twilight’s Hammer), Cairne issues a Mak’gora, challenging Garrosh for leadership of the Horde. Garrosh accepts, but adds the caveat that the combat would not be the non-lethal combat sanctioned by Thrall, but by the old laws - to the death. Cairne agrees, and the combatants meet in the arena in Orgrimmar.”
It would be nice if they could suss out her motives, but that isn’t actually relevant. The point is to refute the logic she’s using to convince everyone else. If she can’t convince anyone to follow her, she can’t lead anyone.
The most basic first step to be opposed to someone is to at least be able to explain why what they say is wrong. As it is the vague honor idea Saurfang and Baine present doesn’t do that. They need to actually be able to counter her arguments for why the war needed to happen and why it needs to continue.
Cairne stared for a moment longer, then threw back his head and laughed. That caught Garrosh by surprise.
“If you ask me to fight under the old rules, son of Hellscream, then know that you have done nothing but unfetter my hands. I sought only to teach you a lesson. I will regret depriving the Horde of such a fine warrior, but you cannot be allowed to destroy everything Thrall has worked for. To undermine the sacrifices the honored dead have made. All in the name of your own personal glory. I will not have it, do you hear me? I repeat my challenge. The mak’gora—the traditional way. To the death!”
“It is time the Horde was rid of a young, arrogant fool like you, Garrosh,” Cairne replied, unperturbed. “I regret the necessity of doing so. But I must. In truth, I am glad you have pushed for the traditional way. You have killed innocents, and you are planning nothing less than killing any hope for peace. I cannot permit this to continue.”
2 Likes
That would mean that they’d have to find a way to prove that the Alliance (for certain) was NOT invested in a War of Extermination against the Horde at the moment; and thus the other races of the Horde do not have to fear the Alliance crushing them into powder should they move against her. You do understand that that is method in which she is keeping them in line right? She keeps them convinced the Alliance will rip them to pieces if they weaken the Horde to turn against them. So, in order for either Saurfang or Baine to actually accomplish that they would have to open communications with AND coordinate with the Alliance.
Even then, the Alliance (at the very least) are gunning for Sylvanas herself. Even IF Anduin can pull in the reins on the topic of destroying the Horde, not even he believes there can ever be peace (or a ceasefire) until such a time where Sylvanas is removed from power (and not JUST as Warchief, he means removed from a position of authority AT ALL). Anduin and Genn intend to remove Sylvanas from being the leader of even the Forsaken; and since that’s the case there is NO argument that Saurfang or Baine could have made to dissuade Sylvie from her current course (because her current course is her only road for survival).
The BEST case scenario, its either, the Alliance defeated, the Horde or Sylvie (and that’s asking for alot).
I’m not saying her logic is wrong, I’m saying the burden is on them to prove her wrong. If they can’t prove the Alliance won’t destroy the Horde if given the opportunity, that just makes them wrong to be behaving as they are.
They could just tell her to leave. It’s almost-blindingly obvious that staying the leader of a world power and engaging in a world war is far more threatening to her life than if she were to simply vanish somewhere. She didn’t even want to be Warchief to begin with, so them telling her to get lost should fulfill all of their desires.
1 Like
So much this. I think they just assumed that real world diversity would be reflected in Trolls, Tauren, Night Elves, Dwarves etc. That was a bad assumption, since they ended up branching out later anyway. But, it doesn’t fit the “Aesthetic” or the “Lore” of the Warcraft Alliance. They’d have to reinvent “kingdoms” in Stranglethorn. I’d be super down with a Wakanda-esque or Aztec-styled kingdom of humans in Stranglethorn, even if we couldn’t play them. Lions serving a purpose here, maybe in the worship of a Wild God, and even some adopted Troll culture (I love Trolls, my favorite fantasy race of anything hands down) would be dope lore. Like a Lion God helped emancipate them from thralldom to the Gurubashi.
Although, this doesn’t quite work as you’d expect, since the lore origin of humans is Vrkul which are styled off of Nordic viking-giants in the first place. Unless they’re diversified, which would be interesting. We still haven’t seen the other side of Azeroth though, so who knows.
I mean, the Horde wouldn’t be burning down trees, or raising people into undeath, or dropping plague on everyone if he was.
You saying he could make the undead stop, if they wanted to blight things?