I’m gonna be the one to break this apart pretty quickly by pointing out that if this were all in court?
Faol and Anduin wouldn’t even be defendants. Calia’s actions were not their responsibility. Calia would be the only defendant. Neither Faol nor Anduin committed a crime by bringing Calia to a meeting that Calia wasn’t prohibited from attending. They can neither predict her actions, nor be held responsible for them unless some event in the past suggested how she would act. No such event occurred. No judge would allow it to go to trial.
You should use a better analogy to make your point. I think you might have a good one, but this way of breaking it down isn’t doing your argument any favors.
Its been years but I’m pretty sure the snag was after Kale taught them to suck the fel out of junk the light stopped working. So they commissioned the magisters to make it work.
I appreciate the idea of such a position, yet I am not sure why you say that.
Just in this thread: When I said Anduin brought up an unnamed apprentice, and Jaiza corrected me and said it was Faol who mentioned it - I admitted I was wrong. It was not hard to handle.
If I am wrong I will easily admit it, when facts are brought to light.
This also is a baseless attack. I have not used other characters to support an argument I make.
I have noticed an influx of Alts with less than 10 posts all of a sudden. Like yours…who seem to know me so well…
It seems like you know more about such self serving account tricks than me. I never used another character to support myself. I figured it wouldn’t let you - Either way, thats kind of overboard.
Using a shill account to agree with myself would defeat the purpose of a discussion. I see you are more familiar with such Forum tricks than I.
First, I used trial as an analogy to point out that leaders are responsible for their decisions. The buck stops with them. They don’t get to abdicate authority, especially when they give the direct order.
Also, to your specific point, Anduin signed a very detailed agreement stipulating exactly who would be at the meeting and in what numbers. Brining Calia certainly violated the spirit if not the letter of that agreement.
And arguing that she isn’t technically Alliance is splitting hairs - she was obviously there as under Alliance auspices.
The broader point was that bringing Calia was an incredibly foolish move - it’s not like Sylvanas’ utter hatred of Arthas is a great secret, so brining his sister, who also happened to have a potential claim on the throne of Lordaeron, is an obviously bad move and clearly not in the spirit of what both parties had agreed to to. So much so that after everything went south, even Genn Greymane, of all people, pointed out that no one would hold Sylvanas accountable.
You honestly don’t think that brining Calia Menethil violated the entire intent of what both sides were agreeing to? You have an incredibly delicate diplomatic overture and you bring the one person most likely to trigger the other side?
Again, even Genn saw that the Alliance was left without a leg to stand on.
You said I can’t handle being wrong - even though I did admit it freely in this thread, a few posts before your little attack.
“I bet if I make up lies - like Cursewords cant admit hes wrong - (even though he just did admit he was wrong in this thread) - that he would point out I am an ignorant liar.”
Who would take that bet? Would anyone say “nah he will let your ignorant lie remain unchallenged.”
Calia went to the Gathering at her request. She asked Anduin. Anduin suggested it to Faol. Faol agreed with the request.
However, Sylvanas said “selected by the good Archbishop” not “selected by the High King and Archbishop” or even “a priest suggested by the High King to the Archbishop.”
That is a flagrant trampling of the rules Sylvanas set.
Anduin should have communicated to her that instead of allowing Faol to select a Priest on his own, as they had agreed, the High King offered a suggestion that Faol agreed with.
The High King’s undue influence in the pool to select from was not mentioned in the terms. The Priest was to be selected by Faol alone. Sylvanas never said selected by Faol, “and Calia, and Anduin.”
The breaking of the terms was enough to warrant the execution of the rabble rousing interloper.
As evidenced by events.
We will never know what may have been if the Alliance stuck to the terms and allowed the Archbishop, alone, to select his assistant. Maybe even peace.
Which means diddly. It isn’t allowed or prohibited, meaning it’s a non-issue. If I say you can invite a friend to a party and Steve tells you to bring Jane and you agree… Jane is still responsible if Jane breaks a lamp. Steve doesn’t somehow become to blame, nor do you.
Yes, exactly. But not Anduin. Know why? Because Calia isn’t Anduin. Calia made her mistake, Calia paid for it, Calia was responsible for Calia’s actions.
That’s just plain reaching and you know it. BtS’s picnic by Stromgard had nothing to do with Sylvannas’s decision to go to war. Otherwise, she would have blamed Anduin for it.
Which, as you keep forgetting, she didn’t. Only you and that other poster seem hung up on that regardless of the actual events.
Stormheim and the gathering fiasco are the only semi-legitimate reasons the Horde have for attacking.
Blizzard had other ideas and gave Sylvanas other motives. But the Horde fans want it to be a just war, so they desperately try to make those events the cause and will twist the narrative to fit.
Truth is just that Sylvanas wants some quality Stormwind brand Forsaken and would do anything to get them.
I understand being unhappy with the story, but unfortunately for the Horde that’s the story.
Edit: What’s so funny about blaming Anduin, is that Sylvanas jumps to the conclusion that he’s responsible for all of about 2 seconds. Then she decides that there was no way he was that stupid and that Calia had tricked them both and was to blame.
I wish the discussion could ever go farther than the merry-go-round we have here because I do actually believe Blizz has more in mind with this. Sylvanas knows her people are a parasitic dead end - even if all sapient, living races were to magically suddenly agree to forgive them of their many, MANY transgressions and become their bestest friends. And this is very clearly a root motivation of hers. We also know she hates the afterlife slated for select people, and wants mastery over it. And lastly, she knows what bridges she’s burned. These are all important and play together to lead her to the conclusions shes making.
Her stated goals are mastery of death, the subjugation of Stormwind, and the propagation of the Forsaken.
I feel her endgame is very clear with that in mind, even if Blizz seems to not want to have it overtly stated yet by a character. Sylvanas is waging war on life because it is the only endgame the Forsaken have. When she argues with Saurfang kernels of this show through. Given enough time, in order to not go extinct, the Forsaken will need to predate on the living. Whether this is the Horde or Alliance is not a factor. If their goal is to continue their brand of “living”, the ultimate truth of their existence is that war with the living is inevitable. And attacking the Alliance and taking Stormwind now means she will have enough Forsaken later when the time comes to lift her pretense and subjugate the rest of the living. This is the pragmatism to her seemingly absurd pre-emptive strike. Its absurd when you try to imagine it as a Sylvanas who cares about the Horde beyond how they may serve her ultimate goals.
To Sylvanas and her goals, this is her do or die moment. This is why she killed the Forsaken who were content to be accepted and eventually die off. Because that ideology is her cancer. No Forsaken can find it in them the resolve to let go and accept that their lot is no different than other humans before them and that they will one day need to perish and let yet more humans take their place. Sylvanas needs the Forsaken to remain Forsaken - apart from the natural order - or she will end up the master of nothing but ash. And that simply won’t do for her ego.
It isn’t about partisanship. You can admit they are semi-legitimate reasons, though certainly not the entire reasons.
“The cause” comes up alot - when I never said there was any single “cause”. There are many causes. We just happen to be discussing a couple of the causes.
When Liam jumping in front of an arrow comes up, that becomes a reason for Genn’s relentless vendetta, which causes Stormheim.
Sylvanas does a good job of listing many of the causes in A Good War. There are far more causes for the war than she mentioned.
Though Stormheim is the one that convinces Saurfang that Sylvanas was correct. That Anduin is a lackadaisical ruler and Genn is an aggressive fiend with no fear of repercussions for usurping Alliance forces to continue his vendetta.
They all share some responsibility. As I said before, Sylvanas was mistaken by placing trust in Faol. Anduin and Faol were misguided and naive. Sylvanas expressly stipulated the terms were to have Faol select an assistant as an individual. She did not say in concert with the High King and Calia. Instead of following the terms, Anduin suggested Calia to Faol upon Calia’s request, and Faol agreed. Calia is to blame for making a spectacle, but Anduin, Faol, and Sylvanas also made mistakes. They all bear some responsibility.
Most discussions of passed events end up leading to the present. And we don’t know the future. So it does tend to be a merry-go-round debate until new information comes out each patch.
That is all well and good. Forgive me if I don’t take your admitted supposition as gospel. I prefer to discuss the narrative Blizzard presents - even if it is not overt enough for your tastes.