I want to know what Greek Myths teach us.
I find myself agreeing with the Horde assertion itt that killing Horde isn’t fundamentally any different from killing Murlocs
It’s a weird flex but I’ll take it.
1 Like
“Blame any unexpected pregnancies on Zeus.”
3 Likes
There is no such thing as a moral-less story.
All stories exist with an inherent message capable of being interpreted by the audience because that’s simply the entire point of storytelling since the dawn of humanity.
4 Likes
Yes. Does that give the Alliance a “break the peace agreement we have now for free because the Horde did then” card? Not really. That’s not how it works. No matter which side breaks peace and starts the war, it’s still blood on their hands.
“Because they attacked us first,” is just an excuse. No better than, “We need to attack now before they attack us later.”
if you start at the top you get a reversal of fortune that end with you dying an ignoble death.
That or never listen to prophets because if you’re not careful you may accidentally kill your father and marry your mother.
i believe they also were very fond of homosexual intercourse.
I think there are plenty of stories that don’t tell any morals. I’ve read lots of criminals which was about detectives finding criminals and it was more about deduction, research and study of human nature.
Some stories are just to repeat the events that already happened but are shown as fiction such as “Study in Scarlet”.
There is a difference between showcasing morals and a message.
The message doesn’t necessarily have to be about morality. Some stories are about stupidity, resourcefulness, how to manage in dire situations. And other stories are made to explain things that are unexplainable.
Not many people know that even the Bible has a section dedicated purposely to economics and governance.
So I think that Morghel simply wanted for game to not focus on morality but focus on crafting entertaining stories. And entertaining stories are when we go from a certain place to another. And I think this is why Alliance (and Horde players by proxy) are frustrated because they’re stagnating with the narrative of moral superiority. If they’re all good, all friendly and all superb, then there isn’t much room for them to explore and grow and change.
I’d really like the proper internal conflict in Alliance, but done in a competent manner where there is an insight on the point of view of one faction and another to see why there is a conflict of interests. This way we could learn something more about the inner Alliance factions, what is their agency, what are their needs, and so on.
And this is why I hated the last patches of BfA, because it showed that plenty of characters really lack agency and plenty of text felt like copy paste. Almost everyone talked the same. It’s beyond lazy and uninspired.
Now for OP - could Alliance become Evil? I think that with right push they could, but I don’t think that devs would allow for that.
I think the best option would be for both Horde and Alliance to have various groups, one that does heroic stuff and another that is causing trouble.
It would show that both factions have their virtues and uglies.
6 Likes
There is literally a message inherent in “detecting finding criminals through deduction and research and human nature”.
All messages inherently have an ethical/moral framework because it operates within a cultural hermeneutic.
2 Likes
The message is not always tied to morality.
Not at all. The stories about origins aren’t, that are trying to explain things that aren’t easy for humans to explain.
Besides, I already elaborated on that in previous post.
To answer the OP’s question, the Alliance is a fundamentally reactive entity so for it to be evil it would need to be trying to stop an external force from doing something good. If you mean “evil relative to the Horde” then it would first require the Horde to start doing good things independently.
2 Likes
Wow, this is actually pretty good.
If it’s addressing an ethical or existential question within the framework of a given culture’s mores, it’s moral.
Of course they are lol, the sequence of Greek theogeny addresses what universal principles came first and thus are more foundation. For the Greeks, Chaos came first and of the first generation after the 6/7 Primordial Deities were the children of Nyx (Strife, Death, Doom, the Fates, Gossip, Pain, etc). It’s “bad” came first, “good” after.
Genesis maintains the universe was a formless Abyss until Light was, and that Nature (Creation) came before Humans, and Humans were given command, control, and dominion of nature.
These all depart moral principles.
2 Likes
There were a lot of rumors about Zeus cheating on his wife but they were all Hera-say.
10 Likes
And this is a connected but different issue with the way the Alliance is written. Leave the capacity for evil on the side for the moment, the Alliance have become so much of a reactive entity that tangible, meaningful internal conflict doesn’t have room to exist. Since that would mean reactive entities would have to react to other reactive entities. Which … is an interesting concept.
The Horde by comparison is an active entity, in many ways because it has to be … otherwise there is no one to act when there isn’t some great external force invading. In the same sort of way that the Horde has to hold onto the burden of so much of the “flaws” and “grey” of this setting.
1 Like
tangible, meaningful internal conflict doesn’t have room to exist. Since that would mean reactive entities would have to react to other reactive entities.
Are you intentionally trying to forget Tyrande? Genn, Jaina?
Its cute you think that any of that for Tyrande wont be diluted into mush within Shadowlands. And Genn and Jaina are already hardcore on the Anduin train. So no, not forgetting anything. Just like with Alliance “grey”, Blizz is hyper noncommittal with Alliance characters being proactive. Its super out of their writing comfort zone. It will be only a matter of time before Tyrande too “see’s the Brat Pitt light”.
Blizz is hyper noncommittal with Alliance characters being proactive.
No kidding. We get to enjoy multiple cutscenes involving Orcs, just to see a resolution neither side cares for. You might understand that, but I’m sure you couldn’t fathom how Orcs on screen is a bad thing.
Did I say it wasn’t going to be diluted? Glad we can agree seeing her actually get to do something (to a former Warchief at that, this is unprecedented she’s made it this far) is far-fetched. What you’re describing is the fact the Alliance aren’t allowed to do anything, and the reason you’re saying that is Anduin? Well, Anduin was very obviously created to be the opposite to horde likes as Garrosh, and Sylvie. You can try to pin the blame on this paraded morality garbage, but everything up until that point seems to look like the Alliance should have been allowed to do something ages ago. Instead. Orc cutscenes.
2 Likes
Yeah, nothing quite like expensive lip-service of what Blizz clearly knows the Horde is supposed to represent to really sell that they don’t really care about what the Horde is supposed to represent. At least not beyond their need to take the Faction for a joy ride to settup future content, like the Plot Device we are. Gorgeous cinematics filled with themes rendered empty because they weren’t allowed to count … until it was convenient that they do. God Blizz’s writing philosophy sucks…
And, we are in agreement. I want the damned Alliance to have a bit of nuance shoved into them. Some tangible flaws (beyond getting hit with the stupid and nerf sticks everytime the weaker faction is forced to punch outside its weight class). Room for internal conflict and disputes. The ability to be proactive, even if that means mistakes and misteps along the way. Just the ability to have some “grey”. If nothing else, so my faction doesn’t have to keep shouldering all of those things alone…
8 Likes
Historically, the most morally complex actors in the Alliance were the Kingdom of Lordaeron and the Kingdom of Quel’thalas. Blizzard destroyed the former and gave its territory to the Horde and the latter straight up were given to the Horde because it would play well in the Korean market.
3 Likes
You’re still getting lip service, you should get over that sooner rather then later.
We are not in agreement at all. You’re rabid over the idea of just picking an Alliance leader at random to be twisted into something unrecognizable so the horde dingbats can experience victimhood again, without the complexities of the internal conflict.
Gonna strum my harp again so I can point out what’s wrong about you saying this.
The ability to be proactive, even if that means mistakes and misteps along the way. Just the ability to have some “grey”
Genn alone is made to stop doing something that has the potential to be devastating for the horde, at Dazar’alor, and Orgrimmar. The writer’s wouldn’t allow something like that to happen to the horde because they know the horde are going to have to accept that it happened. The same with Stormheim. Accept the Alliance had some grey, and expect an appropriate reaction from the horde?
Nah.
Burn down their capitol, horde needs rebuttal stories where they get to kill children’s parents, unhindered run into fortified territories, can’t have a story where the Alliance wins with competence. The horde doesn’t shoulder the grey alone, you’re mad because they’re shouldering the black. We both know you wouldn’t be able to stand a story where the Alliance get to do something black to the horde, and see resolution at the end of it, yet it’s the expectation when the horde does.
Edit: Wait no. You’re not getting lip service. You’re getting exactly what the horde should want in this situation. Getting lip service, would be like having the IDEA that a faction could be grey, and seeing the idea of grey IN ACTION on the other faction, yet not experiencing it at any point when it would make sense. That’s the Alliance POV for those cinematics you’re dissatisfied with. ‘Wow. Conflict where it would make sense’. Can you imagine?
2 Likes