You want the Horde to feel honorable again… but then say the complaints of the Night Elves is not relevant… Even though the key moment in the Horde’s evil narrative in BfA is the genocide of the Night Elves…
I am not talking about the past as it is done, I was thinking of going forward. That being said, they can keep horde honorable and it will not effect night elf’s narrative.
For example, you can have night elfs raze cross roads and still have the horde honorable.
OKay… but at this point, can the Horde be honorable? Complacency with genocide? Consistent aggressors in war? Slave owners? The Orcs in particular talk a lot about honor but have very little of it, and that’s been true since Thralls rule… There is a whole other thread about that actually.
Ya they can, deal with Sylvanas internally. Then someone tries to make peace with alliance but alliance won’t have it. Or have sylvanas redeem her self, say via sacrificing herself to save the world or something.
It will also help when in our own questing we aren’t labeled bad. Like our new war campaign has kul tirans calling Rexxar murder for killing Daelin. It is is true he killed him. For horde PC why wouldn’t you rather focus on the side of things, say how Daelin and Kul tirans invaded Duratar. Give horde some motivation to invest in the war.
The Night Elves should deal with Sylvanas… But probably wont because Blizzard thought it more important to talk about how Saurfang feels sad about the Burning of Teldrassil, rather than give the Night Elves any sort of recognition or vindication on anything.
Why wouldn’t Anduin have it? It’s Anduin…
Boring.
Does the Horde want morally grey or honor? if you want morally grey, then be prepared to have your morals challenged.
Maybe I’m speaking out of turn here, but I think when people have been asking for morally gray stuff, what they’re really asking is to be morally “elevated” to that point like Blizzard promised this war would be. Right now it feels morally black, and coming from this as a starting point, any step toward one would be the same as the other.
Personally, of the two options, I’d rather go for honorable if I had the choice. But even having your morals challenged would be a step up over the current narrative not even acknowledging them at all. Although I can’t see how honor is believable after the whole War of Thorns nonsense.
1 Like
@Akiyass
A poorly introduced and disliked storyline isn’t much of a narrative. “Here, have your story! You should feel bad for doing this (there’s no alternative or means to intervene), you’ve done something you can never make up for and you just destroyed all the story build-up you’ve had over the years with your heinous actions.”.
The Horde gets to go against everything it believed in, the Forsaken’s bonds with the Horde are now broken and all of those relations built with the Horde over the years are now gone. It is a bad story that no-one wants.
If this sounds familiar, it’s because it’s happening to the Night Elves (and has been for some time) right now.
Having no narrative is better than having a bad one. I would sooner take stagnation and no story progression over having this calamitous (profanity)fest occur in the first place.
12 Likes
It’s not the best story but surely not the worst… honestly, to me it just feel like Blizzard continuous malice toward the Night Elves… but from a Horde perspective, I feel like it was only a matter of time before the Eastern Horde and the Western Horde come to blows, and have to fight for the soul of the Horde.
Sadly, this feels more true as of late.
3 Likes
Honour is far from objective. It’s a code of conduct yes, but one whose central tenets stem from the society that birthed it and where the emphasis primarily lies on how you are viewed by others rather than acting in a moral fashion.
The Orcish concept of Honour is poorly defined and generally just a word that gets bandied around but it isn’t as inherently paradoxical as some people seem to think it is.
9 Likes
Honor is objective. Followings rules of engagement. Fairness in battle. Honesty. Integrity. This is something universal across all cultures.
The most subject honor can be is eye for an eye. Where perceptions can be skewed, but such a thing even exists in pragmatism.
Honour is primarily concerned with maintaining you and/or your famailies reputation and social standing.
If a particular culture requires following a strict moral code then it is followed not to be a ‘good person’ but because failing to do so would bring oneself into disgrace amongst your peers which is in some cases worse than death.
As for the subjective aspect, there are modern examples of cultures that work on the notion of maintaining ‘family honour’ that commit unthinkable acts (that are also illegal) to their own family members because to them maintaining their families honour is more important than following the law.
6 Likes
eg. Honor Killings. Usually done by males to female family members that bring dishonor to the family. Although it’s not strictly tied to male on female family members, but it’s the most common modern example.
Ironically, Saurfang seems to be on a mission to commit an “honor killing” on Sylvanas. Take that symbolism whichever way you want.
2 Likes
I’d hate to think Blizzard had purposefully set the Sylv/Saurfang dynamic up to be construed that way, and I personally consider it debateable to what degee a company or individual can be held accountable for what amounts to an individual’s intepretation of a story or piece of work. That said, the parralels are certainly there…
1 Like
Oh get of your high horse you whiner, “honor killing” someone bc they broke a marraige contract or whatever the call isnt the same as “honor killing” someone that commited genocide and brought forth a total war scenario
This is false and reveals a gross misunderstanding of honor. They have always been moral codes and ideals, often associated with martial arts and warfare and sometimes even religious. Some examples include Havamal, Chivalry and Bushido. They were early history’s Geneva Convention and rule of law. You can see to this day that people pervert such things, but that does not invalidate it’s moral value and importance.
Well then. There’s certainly some out of the box thinking getting thrown around this morning.
Here’s one! So, its been openly talked about for decades now how Sylvanas’ story in WC3 was a really well told allegory running parallel to one of a victims’ loss of sexual agency and how her pursuit to regain that agency showed great dimensionality of character. An uncommonly well told and tasteful arc, especially for the medium.
So! Who’s a fan of Delaryn’s mirror of that arc, but having gutted the last part of the message from “Victim fights for her sense of self worth and agency by retaliating against her violator.” To “She was willing all along ;^)”?
Well, I don’t really like undeath being revealed as something a spirit must agree too… And the implications of that actually screw up so much of the lore that I am willing to just ignore much like how I ignore Broxigar. I know the lore is the lore, but I have to draw the line somewhere.
With that being said, I don’t think Delaryn was “willing”. I think she willingly subscribed to Undeath, but not to be loyal to Sylvanas… I think she is going to be a thorn in Sylvanas’ side much like Sylvanas was to Arthas.
I can’t wait for Delaryn to ambush Sylvans with a poisoned arrow, paralyzing her. And as she describes all the wonderful torture she’s about to inflict, Nathanos comes running in to save her.
1 Like
I think Delaryn will be a less vindictive version of Sylvanas. Unlike Sylvanas, who talked about how much she hated Arthas and how she was going to torturing him and all that, I suspect Delaryn being far more compassionate.
“I grieve for you.”