Pretty much this… The Alliance has no actually resolution for their victories, the Kaldorei in particular. Often times, an Alliance victory is saving the Kaldorei.
1 Like
No it’s not. Not one shred of material so much as intimated any such thing. It’s a tree they hollowed out and where both faction’s druids learned.
Manifestly untrue, in Cataclysm and in general. You saw victories in Stonetalon. You saw them in Darkshore and in Feralas. You saw them. You see them all over night elf questing. But because you only see them shown as phased and destroyed Horde or Horde-allied civilian centers one time (more than that for Alliance in general but only one time for night-elf focused content), they magically don’t count.
1 Like
Trees are sacred, and they didn’t hollow it out, they grew it that way.
Nope, try playing as Alliance.
1 Like
I find your stance on this pretty incredible.
I think it speaks volumes about today’s problem with people seeming to exist on two alternate planes of reality.
I have already explained to you how Horde and Alliance Victories differ from each other.
Horde is constantly shown to be attacking somewhere and more often than not the Alliance location is either in flames or is completely destroyed.
This does not even cover the fact that during cataclysm virtually every Horde settlement became massive iron fortresses in Kalimdor dotting the landscape meanwhile Alliance towns stayed exactly as they were during vanilla. New Alliance settlements were ussually camps or old vanilla models under construction.
These are all facts my friend. Each and every single one is a fact.
On both sides of the questing experience BOTH Alliance and Horde players will have their chance to kill enemy NPCs in droves and have good feeling of “beating” the enemy.
But at the end of the day the context vastly changes when you play blue team (Always on the defensive and reactionary) versus red team (Always on the offensive and directly attacking major enemy settlements.)
These are absolute. Undeniable. FACTS.
There is in fact ONE. Only ONE. single example of the Alliance attacking a major Horde settlement and that’s Stonard but even then the Horde town is not destroyed and the player is told to go elsewhere and spare the Horde because they learned their lesson.
Are you going to deny these facts and continue to pretend there is nothing wrong in the narrative disparity between both factions?
2 Likes
“Evil” may a very subjective term, but IMHO, the Forsaken at least has always been the most ruthless and shady race out of all the Alliance and Horde ones. Have you done any of their quests from years back??
ya most of what you said doesn’t matter if the Demi god him self though he was in the wrong. But you seem you have an issue with thebhorde as a faction.
Calling the Horde evil doesn’t necessarily mean the person saying as much has a “problem” with them. For me personally, I like antagonists and people willing to do evils in stories. They keep things moving. What I see so often on these forums is plainly evil stuff (I am REALLY not interested in Jr debate club rehash of what morality truly means. I am using evil in its colloquial, easily digested rhetorical form.) that in any other story or medium would be classed as such out of hand and everyone would move on and enjoy the book/movie/whatever. But in the Horde’s case, because we can play as them, people hear “Genocide is evil.” and their response becomes “Well now hold on.” And it leads to all sorts of silliness.
If you take a step back, though, you can easily see how the people you’ve been talking to have been more or less pleading to the aether to be evil too. By and large, the Alliance playerbase doesn’t hate the Horde characters for being evil, we want to join in. We want to have even footing in the plot. And for as much as you folks who don’t have our investment want to dictate how and what it is we are witnessing, and how pleased with it we should be, we’re not. Just like you!
Both faction’s players have problems with the writing presented to us. I’m not entirely sure why, other than maybe you guys being able to lean on majority and a bit of an echo chamber here, you wall up and so vehemently invalidate and deny the misgivings of one half of the playerbase.
1 Like
The reason I said that was because he was trying to say horde were in the wrong for cutting wood. I was trying to explain how both orcs and elf’s were in the right on their own perspective. But the conversation kept going in circles.
Anyhow I know there are short comings in the allaince sorry as well. But I want to point out the flaw on the horde side.
Saying stuff like that is who they are and if you don’t like it don’t play horde is counter productive.
And this is why I prefer outsider’s perspective for discussion. Do you agree with the orcs? To what point?
If we insist on ground level or in-character perspective for discussing the narrative things just get weird. And I feel you wind up stalling before the good questions if you just want to insist the orcs were in the right from their perspective. The narrative disagreed, for one. Grom went on a whole arc about all that. It was more than the blood. The blood was emblematic of the larger elephant in the room: Orcs lust for conquest. Grom learning he could deforest quicker if he killed off the Furbolg in the area, and shouting “WAAAARG WORTHY ADVERSARIES” was condemned by the narrative immediately when a demon lizard-taur and vampire had a chuckle about it one scene later.
So was it okay in the orc’s perspective? Or did they go on a whole personal journey of self realization and finding their shamanistic roots at odds with what Grom, a stand in for the behaviors of their past, struggled to overcome? Did the story actually add a moderately complex narrative point later in WoW by presenting the orcs as still ideologically at odds with their actions in Elven land, but dug in and too far entrenched to back out, or were they actually okay with conquest?
These questions can’t be answered if we just excuse what the orcs, Forsaken, or Horde at large do because “its okay from their pov”. If we can’t take a step back and just agree on basic points like baby eating being bad, how can we ever hope to move forward to greater narrative discussion?
Ahem.
/10chars
5 Likes
I disagree orcs don’t lust for conquest, and would even take it further that the races that define conquest in wow is humans and night elfs. They have actually created empires and have taken nations from other races. They also did this without outside influences.
So if you consider orcs migrating to kalimdor as path to conquest. Then I don’t know what you would say to what humans did to trolls.
Again I wasn’t trying to go that far, but I’m just trying to defend that horde hasn’t always been evil. In fact the tribal horde is very capable of living in peace. And are not about conquest, deforestation and destruction.
So I ask this, would be okay by you if horde as a faction is good in its own story? Or is that too much to ask or expect since according to you horde is a evil faction.
1 Like
I’ve had no problem with the Horde in its Vanilla and BC incarnations. I prefer when both factions do terrible crap while trying to be good people. Its more interesting to me.
They very much have, routinely, in the past and present. But like I just got done saying, I’ve preferred them in their WC3 iteration where they tried to move away from that. Wanting to do good and wrestling with the ghosts of their past. Grom was a fantastic character arc showcasing all the bad and good the race was capable of doing in a story. He was a bridge from the actions of the orcs in WC1 and 2, and the Thrall’s idealism. Wonderful execution.
I mean, we rail against WoD for a lot of things but I do sort of at least admire the intent Blizz had with it. They wanted to show the modern Horde rejecting the warmongering of their past. “WE WILL NEVER BE SLAVES. BUT WE WILL BE CONQUERORS.” was met with their immediate rejection. It was the worst possible way to execute it, birthing “SEE! EVEN WITHOUT BLOOD THEY WARMONGER!”, but there is a credit for Blizz’s apparent intent there.
Anyway, back on point to the question you asked. I’ve said multiple times in other threads and I have no problem saying it again. The Horde was my favorite faction overall in WC3 through to BC.
And you still ask me that question as one assuming I say “They are evil for doing and supporting evil things.” as condemnation. And I reiterate: It is not. I actually would love for the Alliance to do more evil to balance it out. I miss Warcraft being a story about jerks doing crappy things to each other. In the past who was “more evil” was obvious, but it also didn’t matter at all. Everyone was awful, one just happened to be a victim. I liked that a lot.
Could you explain what you mean by that? I think the reason the conversation keeps going in circles is due to the subjective nature of your statements.
And maybe his/her’s as well.
So when are you going to defend nature from the Horde?
As soon as you get to win a glorious battle. In other words, when the writers let me.
7 Likes
We weep together, then.
Plain and simple, when the horde lives up to its own morals and traditions.
Or as surfang would say be honorable.
I don’t think anyone has a problem with that.
The issue is the Horde has consistently been the aggressor which results in Horde doing despicable things and Alliance being the punching bag.
And all this is finalized in a wet fart that was SoO that satisfied literally nobody.
If blizzard is going to keep selling this idea that Horde is honorable then maybe they should show it.
Because so far I and many others find little evidence of it.
4 Likes
Ya that is my point, in its own story and morals the horde doesn’t live up to them.
Re the Stonetalon thing, Kazala had a good post on the old board about it, if this will let me post the link.
2 Likes