I read your post, and I still find the notion confusing. I’m arguing about the failure of this story to present the flaws that you are attributing to these characters - and I have seen you constantly reframe the matter to issues that weren’t in the presentation - or just don’t make sense period. Are you trying to graft legion’s narrative on Demon hunters onto this or something?
SO much wasted potential, i wanted lorthemar warchief since sylvanas got the seat, he shouldve beaten sylvanas on a mak gora and be the next warchief instead we got saurfang’s suicide by cop.
i may not agree with you on many things but im always repulsed when i see that scene where he compliments “lady calia’s wisdom” ffs…
2 Likes
Sure it could make for interesting story points. To some degree and depending on what would be done. The concept is a nice idea. But you know I’m at this point way too cynical to consider such a thing from Blizzard. It’s more the clone machine joke. If it would have an effect, your description here would be a welcome one.
1 Like
I’m sorry to hear that.
Funny, I thought you wanted us to get back on-topic?
All I did was provide my original statement that started the conversation.
Or they just don’t make sense to you.
See, you keep making these wide reaches and assumptions, no wonder you’re so confused.
Dude, if Lor’themar were Warchief, I would seriously consider maining sin’dorei.
Blood Chief? I’ll take it.
2 Likes
I’m asking you these questions about your position because up to now it hasn’t been clear. Please stop being a mule and clarify.
Ick, if the warchief position stuck around, I would not have been happy to see Lor’themar in the position. Sylvanas was one thing because if you squint really hard and ignore the whole “unblemished (if discolored) elf” bit, she was still technically a zombie. But using the horde’s thematic inversion to become the new face of the monster faction seems really lame on a meta level.
2 Likes
Yes, that’s a very civilized way of asking for clarification.
I suggest you be grateful I’m such a patient person, because I frankly hate repeating myself:
If even this is somehow “TL;DR” for you:
You seem to be suggesting, “Party A (Humans/Kaldorei) are not bigots if they judge/abuse Party B (Orcs/Illidan and demon hunters) for past crimes, because Party A has no way of knowing if Party B is capable of being better going forward.”
Which, again
and, of course, sets a very dangerous precedent for Alliance-Horde relations post-Teldrassil.
And you wonder why some Horde players genuinely want the Alliance to go back to being full-on racist?
Once upon a time when I was trustful naive poster (A.K.A. end of MoP) I dreamed of Rommath inaugurating an Arcane oriented faction geared to make stronger the mages of the Horde and share into the different arcane knowledge in the Horde races (cause while we barely know stuff about Belf arcane knowledge, we literally know NOTHING about Forsaken/Goblin/Orc/Troll/Vulpera/Pandaren one)… oh and the dream had him taking a female Darkspear Troll as personal apprentice because I´m sure he´s pragmatic enough to admit a Troll -supposedly an ancient “enemy”- as apprentice if he sees the actual potential of the individual in question.
Well, I suppose you were realistic enough and pragmatic enough to see miles ahead the course the Warchief position was gonna get in the game.
I like to think that even villain batted, Lor´themar would have looked waaay less repulsive than how he ended up looking while saying downright idiotic stuff like “Your wisdom Lady Menethil” /vomits.
Anyone with a sensible appreciation of the character does, cause repulsive is INDEED the proper adjective to attach to that event.
4 Likes
Thank you for the clarification. Unfortunately, in order to pursue this I’m going to have to ask a few more questions.
Let us assume that Party A commits a crime. We’ll make it simple. A just murdered B. C brings A to justice. Are C’s actions morally invalid?
I think we’d first have to clarify who C is, as well as the initial crime in question.
If we’re using the Alliance (A) and Horde (B) as examples, is Party C one of the races of either side (Night elves/Blood elves) or a neutral faction entirely?
Because that would make a big difference; for example, Thrall has vowed to lop off Sylvanas’ head for Tyrande. Normally, this would be problematic, except that Sylvanas is no longer affiliated with the Horde.
Which makes her fair game.
Well Terenas didn’t even want to do the campus originally, he believed after their defeat they would calm with time but with the other leaders of his allies calling for blood the internment camps where the only mercy Terenas could give them.
1 Like
The original crime is murder, as stated. We’ll assume that C is a police officer or someone affiliated with B.
?
I’m not sure what you’re trying to get at with this comment. I wasn’t making a prediction. I was just sharing how I’d feel about Lor’themar being the face of the horde.
Already I can see this becoming confusing with the letter system, so let’s promote a little more clarity here:
If a leader from the Alliance—say, Tyrande or Greymane, since they’re our most likely candidates right now—goes and pulls another “Taurajo,” or goes and blows up Silvermoon City in revenge for Teldrassil/Gilneas, that is morally-abominable. It doesn’t mean Teldrassil was right, but it doesn’t mean this is right, either.
Now, granted, I don’t see Tyrande going down that road given where she is now, because thankfully, she identifies Sylvanas personally as the culprit, rather than the Horde at large (the Darkshore Warfront corroborates this, with the majority of the Horde forces being specifically Forsaken as compared to the “core races” seen in Arathi).
And then we’d be in basically a reverse situation of where we are now: the Alliance has done something wrong, where’s the retribution? If another Alliance leader—say, Malfurion or Velen—vowed to bring Greymane down as a peace offering to Baine or Lor’themar, I’m personally fine with that.
…of course, all of this naturally relies upon the writing team’s ability to portray the Alliance as anything but morally-absolute, which is still the core of all our problems.
Well no, I feel that you’ve confused it here. The question is really quite simple - it has to do with whether we pursue justice for crimes.
So I’ll skip a few steps. Most reasonable people would agree that C is justified in the watered down situation I described. So from there I have to ask: in what situations does C’s justification go away, and why?
I haven’t confused it; in response to your question, I would say there is a difference between justice and revenge.
Justice can be violent, certainly, but it should be directed solely at the truly-guilty party or parties.
Revenge almost always involves unnecessary casualties.
See, the problem with your “example,” though, is the fact that it is watered-down.
If there’s anything we’ve learned from Warcraft by now, it should be that context (such as the difference between factions and the individuals in those factions) is everything.
1 Like
Well, we were talking about him getting the job instead of Sylvanas A.K.A. Legion times. So when you said you dreaded him becoming “the face” of the Horde, I interpreted that as you correctly predicting the Warchief job was gonna get villain batted into nonexistence.
Btw he IS basically the political face of the Horde for the players… weirdly enough, the only character that he submits towards Is Thrall -who literally says “lul nope, not interested in becoming your Boss again Lortie” everytime the Belf Regent tries to put the leadership mantle back on Thrall (this actually is funny for me btw)-; meanwhile the rest of the leadership cast seem to follow into Lor´themar´s initiative post BfA?.
The reason I presented this information has to do with how you framed my argument.
You seem to be suggesting, “Party A (Humans/Kaldorei) are not bigots if they judge/abuse Party B (Orcs/Illidan and demon hunters) for past crimes, because Party A has no way of knowing if Party B is capable of being better going forward.”
Put another way.
“C is not a bigot if they judge/abuse party A for killing party B because Party C has no way of knowing if Party A is capable of being better going forward.”
I don’t think you meant to frame it this way, but I read your objection to that statement as possibly being a rejection of justice as a concept. A’s slaying of B was necessarily in the past in relation to C’s ability to judge A, and therefore C is wrong for precluding the idea that A could turn over a new leaf now and be a better person. Bringing the situation in context, I feel like you’re trying to say that if someone raids a series of villages, kills civilians and their minions mutilate their bodies, then you shouldn’t bring that person to justice because in the future they could do something better.
And that seems kind of absurd to me, so clearly we need to inject something else here to make this work.
Oh, nope. I was purely talking about visual representation, which is why I tried to draw a distinction between having Sylvanas in the spot over a living blood elf.
Please explain cause then I confess I honestly don´t get your point. I mean, he would be dreadful cause he´s a living Blood Elf?
/glares
Are you one of the “muh mudhut only savage allowed Hurde” posters, Sarm?
1 Like