That’s not a reason Horde players should be unhappy if they turn neutral. In fact, if they learned to work with the Alliance and meant it, that would in fact be really compelling character growth for them.
10 Likes
Imagine if you had to work with Daelin, he would have survived the whole thing…after he tried to wipe out your people, mind you. That would be the same problem, it would be not really “Fit”. Would you be up for that? As I said, neutrality requires both sides.
and thats the problem of neutral Characters, not any character fits this “Trait” and should not fit this trait.
Alright. Watch me make Kilrogg work with minor tweaking.
As an older chieftain, Kilrogg Deadeye had become more unwilling to throw lives away in combat. In orcish politics older orcs become more pragmatic, which is often mistaken for cowardice by the younger generation. Prior to the sacking of Stormwind, Kilrogg had killed three of his sons and two grandsons already who thought they could rule the clan better
So an Orcish leader who was unwilling to throw away the lives of his men, even when on the Fel. That’s a good quality. Confident in his leadership and strong enough even in age to defend it. Alrighty, cool. Killing his kids? Not a good look, but considering they likely tried to kill him like he had his own father, not too shocking from the Bleeding Hollow.
When Orgrim Doomhammer was forced to withdraw back into Khaz Modan, after sending a large part of the Horde away to kill the treacherous Gul’dan and regain the lost honor of the orcs, Deadeye was one of the few that agreed with his decision.
HONOR! We have honor!
It was there, in the depths of the Shadow Labyrinth slowing the Alliance forces enough for Ner’zhul to make his escape Kilrogg met his end. In a duel with Alliance force commander Danath (honorable, to the latter’s surprise), the human threw his blade at Kilrogg’s throat, taking advantage of the chieftain’s half-blindness. Kilrogg’s throat was slashed open, but he managed to declare that by his blood the Horde would live and that he was returning to his ancestors.
I think this is the big one. Man was still hopped up on that WCII and went out in honorable combat that even a Son of Lothar had to recognize. His dying words? His people will endure and that he was joining the spirts. That’s good Orc talk.
Also, Jorin turned out pretty good. So… might not be a bad dad when his kids aren’t trying to kill him.
So, we have a dude who was on the wrong side, but with lots of good qualities. We can make that work in a neutral setting. Should he fight alongside Alliance heroes, are they now his comrades? How does a reunion with Danath look when they parted on honorable (If not lethal) terms? What would his relationship with his son look like?
The first two points are things Khadgar himself has had to deal with in some way with the Horde’s heroes and his relationship with Garona. All you need to do is build on the foundation.
But again, he’s dead.
7 Likes
He took his part in it, he was there when Stormwind was destroyed by the orcs and largely annihilated.
That would be just like blood elves having to ally with Arthas, believe me, it would be corrosive.
honor? Honor would have been if he killed the warmonger and end the war, you know, that would be honor.
To end an Unjustice War, even if it means you loose.
again, its needs two side to do so, and an orc, involved in the sacking of Stormwind, is not really a good point for him, from the POV of the Alliance, atleast, the sacking of Stormwind was the most horrific crime the old horde have done on Azeroth.
1 Like
Yes, but in this situation the Horde PC isn’t working with someone who tried to wipe them out. You’re explaining why YOU wouldn’t want to work with a Horde character who turned neutral, not why Horde players should hate it if their characters turned neutral.
10 Likes
The last neutral Horde guy was not really a neutral Character,thrall, you know
i play both faction, but really? it was so silly that khadgar went “true neutral”, because the sacking of Stormwind, and the burning of Teldrassil were similar, the destruction of an entire kingdom, until almost the end, and this time Khadgar went off and say “not my beer”, yeah, thats not really Khadgar, atleast not the khadgar we know, who swore to protect the Member of the Alliance and defeat the Threats toward the alliance.
I know, i know, most things are forgotten, but once, in wc2 , he was a sworn member of the alliance and a proud son of Lothar. This Khadgar from wow, had nothing to do with the original concept of khadgar.
i´m against a once Faction now Neutral character, one faction have to lose something to get to this point, and thats even worse. independend neutral Characters are the sollution in my eyes, atleast a better solution…but blizz, you know, everything is somehow today horde/Alliance.
The old guard of the Horde that would be mentioned here though would be just such a case, a guard of characters that tried to wipe out the Alliance, it would be like the Horde having to play with Daelin as a neutral character, or having to be neutral as Blood Elves with Arthas, it would suck.
1 Like
I feel like the best you could ever get to a truly neutral, independent character is to use a race that isn’t affiliated with either faction as your expansion guide, and I don’t see that happening.
That or if not, at least characters that don’t have a faction background in their backstory.
As a fictional example: A Human - born in booty Bay - started traveling there at sea and the sea became his home, he never became a member of the Alliance, helps us in a conflict against…I don’t know, nagas?
We don’t know if he did. He DID take part on an assault on Stormwind alongside Cho’gall, but was pushed back. Llane’s assassination and the razing of SW was later. What we DO know is that Blackhand was furious at him for botching that attack and nearly had him executed. Maybe having him sit out the ‘glorious’ battle was his punishment.
Who? Gul’dan? Do you know how many people TRIED to kill Gul’dan and couldn’t catch him? Ogrim was one of them. Had he the chance, Kilrogg likely would have tried himself, but he got pushed back to Outland not long after that.
It just sounds like you’re trying to exclude nearly every Horde legacy character ever with that. Remember, Saurfang was an Orc who 100% DID partake in plenty of atrocities, yet showed remorse. Why can’t Kilrogg or other legacy characters have lingering regrets? What of other infractions? Is Cairne not good enough for the Alliance because he helped assault Theramore that one time to kill Daelin?
6 Likes
I’d say nah. Just by making them human, you give them more visual attachment to players of one faction over another. Humans are already the normal state for the alliance; less so for the horde. I think you’d have to do something like…I dunno, quillboar or a dragon that doesn’t take a humanoid form.
1 Like
he took place in this event 
sorry, but he was there.
The difference between Saurfang and Killrog is easy to enumerate, Kilrog was in charge, he was a chief, Saurfang was a big shot but he wasn’t in charge, ultimately he could always say I’m following orders, Kil’rogg couldn’t, if he had been so honorfull he should have tried to stop his people but he didn’t.
And yes, sorry, a character who was involved in the Sacking of Stormwind would just as easily be imagined as a neutral character called Sylvanas who was involved in the Burning of Teldrassil, yes, you could certainly work well with that one, of course not!
It would just fail because of that, by the way, that doesn’t mean Killrog wouldn’t have been a cool addition to the Horde, I would have found it cool, but as a Neutralo? No chance. its about NEUTRAL Chars, you have to put the pov of the alliance in this “Dessiccion” aswell.
That’s why I agreed with you, but should it not be possible, the charakcter should not have a faction backstory.
1 Like
I might have misread your previous post then, sorry. It just made me think of the Wastewander Bandits in the last patch of BFA and how I didn’t like seeing them show up as part of Uldum’s neutral questgivers.
No Prob, Sarm.
BtW , Taunka were as neutrals possible (I like them more as tauren…i mean, tauren are cool, but taunka are better in my eyes)
Prior just means before… It’s saying is that by the time Stormwind was sacked he had killed 3 kids and 2 grandkids. That’s all. At best you could maybe imply it, but it would still be vague enough to deny. It’s like saying prior to the robbery on 5th, I was getting a bagel. I wasn’t the one committing the robbery, I just got a bagel before it happened.
The simple answer is yes, but no. Chiefs were certainly high on the totem pole, but not quite at the point where they could just disobey and do whatever as the Warchief could still punish them. Remember, Blackhand was going to execute him AND Cho’gall (Another Chieftain) for failing the first try at sacking SW. Only reason he didn’t was because Blackhand didn’t feel like dealing with a potential uprising among both the Bleeding Hollow and Twilight’s Hammer.
So, yes he definitely had more pull and could have at minimum influenced his own tribe and was safer than most due to his position, but he wasn’t in a place where he could just tell Blackhand to stuff a sock in it. That would be execution time for sure. Not everyone can be a Tirion when it comes to that kinda stuff unfortunately.
He would be! Honestly, I’d be cool with him being ‘Turalyon neutral’. He shows up, helps us against whatever, maybe gets a cool cutscene or two, then rejoins the Horde. Neat. I’d love it.
“What’s a Taunka?” - Blizzard Entertainment
1 Like
Right, but you were trying to explain why you hated Khadgar being neutral by saying “Just imagine if Orgrim went neutral!” Our point is that to Horde players, that doesn’t sound like a tragedy. How Alliance players feel about it would be a completely separate issue.
8 Likes
It shouldn’t matter to alliance players at all.
Blizzard dev - “Isn’t that, like, one of those toy trucks?”
5 Likes
Could explain the significance of this?
So what he regrets it?
Its like those political apologies where they say they are sorry but next week they will do the same thing all over again.
I don’t think I can make myself care about an alleged hero who has repeatedly found himself on the end of the hand holding the butchering-kids-axe for yet another unprovoked war.
1 Like
You should read from the very beginning:
My first statement was that the old guard of the Horde were largely war criminals.
Then came the counter-argument from you. I then told you that it would be the same as if Arthas was made neutral or Daelin.
That was actually my only point
Again, not a consequence, that’s the bare minimum the Alliance needed to do in that situation.
Lemme guess, those ‘citizens’ attacked Alliance soldiers right? I know for a fact if you try to argue Alliance soldiers just slaughtered citizens you are dead wrong.
Nope
That was my first position, that they have no proper Alliance imposed consequences.
No it’s just your definition of consequences is insane.
They do when the Horde declares war against them by committing genocide.
The Zandalari was helping the Horde stage invasions into Kul’tiras with their navy so, yeah they kinda do.
From the Alliance, it’s not really that engaging from an Alliance point of view when all the bad things that happen to the Horde are done to them by other Horde members.