Not with the US Colonial one where the main character was half native
In that one Natives = Assassins and Colonists = Templars
But with the Viking one Vikings = Assassins but English = Templars
But the history is odd.
Well, yeah. Cause it’s told from the vikings’ point of view.
A “point of view” issue would be simply one of them feeling justified doing what they are doing but all the bad things are clearly happening. That’s different than a “those who are opposed to your conquest are incompetent or evil”.
Since we’re talking about a work which is done by a US based company, I think it’s a safe assumption to see issues with how the US doesn’t educate well as contributing.
US education really focuses on certain events from wars, often leaving key issues and details out.
Which is pretty much what happens in media portrayals of conflicts. You see a lot of the “snap-shot” of the action, but not much else.
5 Likes
iirc in AC canon, the Roman Empire was taken over by the assassins after the death of Julius Cesar and likewise the Catholic Church was flip flopping between Assassins and Templars between late Antiquity until the death of Pope Alexander VI (Borgia Pope) so the English should be the Assassins by my reckoning at the time of the Viking conquests
And the Vikings wouldn’t be Assassins since that presumes and requires contact with some genealogy from the Ancient Egyptian Order Foundation during Antiquity 
But I digress
To wit, both Golden and Danuser learned about the Tulsa massacre THIS YEAR
Which tells me they simply never researched US Black History in their whole lives nor had a serious history conversation with any knowledgeable person on the matter lmao
1 Like
…
Err, perhaps, a touch of humility is in order at Blizzard.
And not so much a touch, more a dump-truck, of research.
6 Likes
I was talking about my personal feelings on it. That’s why I said theoretically, because I don’t think it’ll ever actually happen.
It’s always weird to see people say this, because Valhalla may actually be the only game I’ve played that really stressed how dire the era was.
Man people died all the time.
I mean, do you see the vikings as people? Yeah. Cause they were. But they aren’t painted as right beyond “we need some place to go” and even then, they’re painted as incredibly cruel “yeah let’s go raid monasteries, they don’t guard their gold! We can kill everyone!”
2 Likes
Why limit yourself to Total War as the only consequence of causing suffering? Sadistic pleasure, self-empowerment for the Alliance, innocent victim status for the Horde? Of course, the next suffering of the Horde, death or “villainous bat” for the characters of the Alliance will spoil the new experience somewhat, but oh well.
I did not quite understand. Did you mean that “absolute war” will receive a pass if one of the parties to the conflict is destroyed during the conflict?
OK. What complex political dances will be inside the Horde?
Russsian
Зачем ограничиваться Total War как единственным последствием причинения страданий? Садистское удовольствие, чувство собственной силы для Альянса, статус “невинная жертва” для Орды? Конечно, очередные страдания Орды, смерть или “злодейская бита” для персонажей Альянса несколько испортят новый опыт, ну да ладно.
Я не совсем понял. Вы имели ввиду, что “абсолютная война” получит пропуск, если одна из сторон конфликта будет уничтожена в ходе конфликта?
ОК. Какие сложные политические танцы будут внутри Орды?
Edit. Grammar.
Because we’re talking about States, also known as Nations, also known as Political Bodies Representing a People.
If either side simply refuses to acknowledge the other’s political existence; so they can possess it entirely, or destroy it, the argument converts into Total War as soon as the other party realizes that is the standard of action.
In other words: It makes the conflict existential.
Any State being sadistic with the people of another State risks conveying that same existential threat. The other State will have to resort to war sooner or later.
The same applies to States self-empowering themselves through punishing other States.
What I was saying that you’re asking about: Neither side can create an environment in a war where theirs is the only way out of the war. That’s a conversion in the war to Total War. Both sides must be aware of the political existence and situation of the other; and calibrate their actions to maintain the political foundation for the fighting.
So, in this case in WoW, the Alliance can not reach into the political system of the Horde and demand it conform to the Alliance’s wishes. Doing so is an existential threat to the political system of the Horde, and at some point will cause a war, and most likely a Total War. (Applies both ways.)
Now to make that clear: Total War is when the Nations involved have no purpose except the destruction of the other Nation. And the Political Body has taken the position of destroying the other State. It is a state of war with no limits on scale or cruelty.
The existence of the idea of Total War is a major reason real Nations acknowledge laws and standards of action in conflicts.
As far as the political dance, my intent there is that both Factions have internal politics. In war in general, those politics are the vital question.
So, to simplify with an example:
Where we have two sides, arguing over lumber; one needs more this summer, but it’s on the other’s land.
- Step one is trying to talk it out, see if an agreement can be made. “We’ll pay, or do, or give, for the desired lumber amount.”
- Step two is threatening, if an agreement isn’t being made. “If we can’t come to an agreement, we will take the lumber, let’s come to an agreement.”
- Step three is war. “Fine, we’ll take it.” And… “No, you won’t.”
Both sides should acknowledge the foundation of the conflict: Lumber, and one side needing it.
At each step both sides need to consider their political reality: “Do we go to the next step?”
Reaching war, both sides need to consider if the act of war is proportional to their political purpose. For instance, if it will take 6 months to rally the army, and the summer is over in one month, the summer need for the lumber does not warrant the time and cost of war.
I do not expect the WoW team to write all that out for conflicts they put in game. But the way they have been writing conflicts always reverts to Total War. That is not realistic on their part, and it is part of why people did not connect to BFA; it went too far and then didn’t deliver.
When players discuss the Faction Conflict, they are constantly falling back into Total War premises because that’s what the writers actually represented, even though they didn’t mean it in light of what happened.
So, Alliance and Horde need their actual Factions developed. So there is story about where the politics of each is. And from that foundation grows the conflicts when they occur. Without crossing the line into existential disputes between the Factions.
9 Likes
New images:
Horde
Alliance
Pantheons:
Cosmic Forces:
3 Likes
…
…
…
That is, any conflict started by any of the incarnations of the Horde at the moment is Total?
So, the Alliance “has the right” to start a Total War against the Horde and not lose much of its “moral purity”?
Is it? This is how the war between Sylvanas and Garrosh ended: the Horde emerged from the conflict. In both cases, this was preceded by a small civil war, but overall “Horde pulled out of the conflict, -1 HP Horde.”
Um … The lumber dispute between the night elves and the Horde seems to me to be understandable: an ordinary dispute, where each side has the same point of view. “Ideal dance” - the least moral and resource losses on both sides?
How does the timber dispute fit into “domestic politics”? The party of traditionalists (kill for timber), isolationists (we will do without timber), traders (we will buy through dummies), “traitors” (buy timber for their rights). The purpose of this dance is to choose a method of obtaining a resource without greatly offending your constituents.
No. There is no active conflict, at the time of initiation the type of conflict would be set.
No. Again, no active conflict.
Civil war is fundamentally different than a war between Nations. The political reality changes based on the majority of the Nation and what they choose.
Proportional, balancing the expected gain against the cost to keep those things as equal as possible.
When it becomes an issue for the State to ask for, instead of just business for the public. When the organs of the State must ask, it becomes political.
I think you’re operating from the view of what has been put in game.
I am not. What has been put in game is badly written and presented, which is what I want them to get away from. Since they’re not following through on Total War between the Factions, they should not write Total War between the Factions.
6 Likes
OK. I give up.
From what point in time do you need “serious politics”? That is, “subject the story to retcon (start the story again)” or “a serious person in the middle of the created mess”?
Since it’s fiction, they can start writing it reasonably at any time.
I do not have a thing I look at and think: This is the best time in the story.
It is best as soon as they can get it in.
Edit.
Should we take into account the demands of the “offended” in the construction of a “serious policy” if we start from now on?
“One side gets to be stupidly evil Holocaust perpetrators, the other gets to be stupidly good Holocaust survivors! If that’s not balance, I don’t know what is*!”
*they really don’t
9 Likes
Why the hell do you people keep capitalizing Total War? It makes it look like you’re talking about the damn video game franchise.
3 Likes
Both sides political realities are material to the beginning, middle, and end of a war.
So, yes.
Do note that who is “offended” is a detail for each war. There is not a single side always right or wrong. (It can also change during the war itself.)
But, we can’t reasonably go back to the extreme events of the past as sources of dispute. As they are extreme, they would move the conflict back towards Total War.
Don’t forget the hybridization of a mushroom cloud look into it too. (3:36 of Warbringers: Sylvanas. Conscious or sub-conscious it shouldn’t have been done. Honestly, I’m concerned it was deliberate, but they decided invoking Oppenheimer was too far.)
It also was particularly trash to do after their own story had:
“Siege weapons,” Saurfang said suddenly. “We double the number of siege engines.”
He walked to the map and began placing the stone figures on Darkshore. “If we bring enough siege weapons to Darkshore and aim them toward Darnassus, we have won. We can rain down death with impunity if they resist. They will make their stand before Darkshore, not after. They will evacuate rather than see a final battle destroy their home. When we arrive, the tree will be undefended.”
Nathanos studied the map and nodded. “He is right, Warchief.”
Sylvanas considered it. “It will slow us down. You will need to task guards to keep the siege crews safe, for they will become prime targets for the kaldorei.” Finally, she nodded, too. “But it will work. Put your plans in motion, High Overlord. We begin in one week.”
It’s a Geopolitical and Strategic term conveying meaning beyond its literal words. On War, by Clausewitz is going to be the go-to work for it. I capitalize and italicize to convey it is a quote and phrase.
Thus, again:
Now to make that clear: Total War is when the Nations involved have no purpose except the destruction of the other Nation. And the Political Body has taken the position of destroying the other State. It is a state of war with no limits on scale or cruelty.
The existence of the idea of Total War is a major reason real Nations acknowledge laws and standards of action in conflicts.
In the 20th century another phrase stood in for Total War between the atomic powers: Mutually Assured Destruction. M.A.D.
Blizzard sloppily invoked the atomic era developments of war for BFA:
“No matter what I do, that will change the balance of power. Azerite sightings are coming in from across the world, Saurfang. We still do not know its full potential, nor does the Alliance. We only know that it will create a new generation of warfare. What will war look like in twenty years? In a hundred?”
Saurfang’s voice had dropped to a low growl. “A hundred years of peace is a worthy goal.” But as soon as the words left his mouth, he wanted to take them back. He knew what Sylvanas would say.
And he would agree with it.
The warchief did not disappoint. “If a hundred years of peace ends with a war that annihilates both sides, it was not a worthy goal. It was a coward’s bargain, trading the future for temporary comfort. The Horde’s children, and their children’s children, will curse our memories as they burn.”
1 Like
Cool. You’ve read a book. Sorry I asked.