Yeah, Jaina’s idea of neutrality is all over the place. I mean Theramore was neutral until she decided to let the Alliance use it as an invasion point into the continent. That’s not an act of neutrality. But to be honest, that character is all over the place in more ways than one. I wish they’d just retire her. Send her off the same way they retired Sylvanas, until someone else decides to make her their avatar in game.
11 Likes
As pointed out in the Landfall quest line, Jaina lets the Alliance use Dalaran. She wasn’t neutral and she wasn’t keeping Dalaran neutral, she just didn’t want the Horde to use it.
5 Likes
I don’t think Jaina ever claimed neutrality in-game, but its been an extremely common defense of her actions
I cannot stress this enough, Theramore WAS NEVER NEUTRAL.
She let BOTH factions use Dalaran. But it was under tacit view that the people in Dalaran were not going to use it/it resources for war.
So if a common Stormwind soldier was there to drink or a blood elf was peddling there were Jaina was probably ok with it.
Jaina was all over the place, because different writers kept using her for different things with conflicting motivations. It is the sylvanas/forsaken problem with the volume turned down a bit.
4 Likes
From World of Warcraft’s own Manual:
Chapter 11
Horde Versus Alliance
The war between the Horde and Alliance has been at the core of
the Warcraft mythos for years. Recently, a ceasefire was agreed
> upon by the Horde chief Thrall and the Alliance leader Jaina
> Proudmoore, but the fact remains that animosity is still high
between the two factions. In some places, this undercurrent of
hostility has erupted into open warfare.
In World of Warcraft, the tension between the factions is reflected
in the player versus player game system. Players from different
factions can attack each other and continue the race war between
Horde and Alliance through their in-game skirmishes.
Is that the old 2004 classic manual? Imagining them terming it a ‘race war’ in 2024 would be pretty…bad.
While I agree there are plenty of players like this, but I feel that the inverse is also true: there are plenty of Horde players who take any and every hint of grey Alliance actions and proclaim it to be 100% absolute grade-A evil, and decry any explanation or in-character justification of them - even those not explaining away the wrong actions, but just providing a reason for a character/faction to take that grey action in the first place - to be “oh, they can’t stand not being perfect”.
The middle ground of grey Alliance actions - dark, cruel, or evil actions, but nevertheless actions that seem reasonable or necessary to the character(s) at that moment - has been eroded from both sides.
Like, I thought Taurajo was a pretty good grey story. The Alliance was trying to be as merciful as it could in letting the villagers flee… but it was still invading and firebombing a village full of civilians. Even without the ‘whoops, the escape path was actually full of quillboar so the villagers still got slaughtered’ plus the ‘whoops, our press-ganged criminal troops refused to obey the whole ‘mercy’ thing’, it would still be a grey action. And it bugs me that such explanations are seen as “whitewashing”, when it’s just providing context for why a not-fully-evil character would do something that cruel to civilians. I’d rather all faction characters get this level of justification (and visible to their own faction, too) rather than remove/neglect their reasoning for the evil things they do.
That’s what grey faction conflicts should be, to my mind - the PC’s own faction’s needs are placed higher than the other faction’s, so they do these actions even if they regret the necessity and try to make it as bearable as possible. That’s one thing that makes it so much fun to play both factions, so that I can uncover why character A did that thing I saw only a glimpse of from the other faction’s POV, even if it doesn’t change my mind on whether they should have done that thing.
And I worry that writing off any players defending such a grey action by lumping them all into “they just want to be correct all the time”, is just as dangerous as the few people who really do want their faction to be in the right all the time.
Honestly, I think the Purge of Dalaran was a decent example of a grey story, where the Alliance does something really dark, but with enough reasons behind it that it doesn’t immediately alienate the Alliance player (or at least not all of them). I wish the Horde’s actions were treated this well - and that’s exactly why I think arguing that the Purge is pure evil is bad for the Horde story, because it’s telling the writers that they shouldn’t bother giving nuance to villainous faction characters/stories (which all too often are given to the Horde).
9 Likes
I mean how would you term it? The faction were literally at war because of which race joined which faction. And I would say on 2004 it was would be “acceptable” term it as race war even if nowadays that would be considered gauche.
The primary goal of the Sunreavers was to return to their studies in Dalaran. There were some Sunreavers who were battle mages or guards, but the majority were just former Dalaran citizens wanting to return to their homes and studies.
The Silver Covenant on the other hand is explicitly a militant hate group that formed with the sole purpose of opposing the Sunreavers.
3 Likes
That story has never made sense even when you discount the whole “letting the villagers escape” thing going wrong. As in, I can’t figure out what the Alliance’s objective was, if you assume that everything went according to plan. They didn’t want to kill civilians, so they waited to attack until all the people who were trained in fighting were gone? How did they think that was going to go? Was their aim just to destroy the buildings and infrastructure? How is that going to weaken the Horde? All those hunter types who were supposedly learning to become fierce warriors at Taurajo will just relocate and keep training elsewhere, and they’ll be extra angry since the Alliance, y’know, burned down their training camp. How does any of this benefit the Alliance in any way?
In all seriousness, Chronicle IV is going to confirm the softer version of the purge, either that or be so vague in description as to be useless (like the goblin starter experience “caught in the crossfire”). Simply put, Blizzard wants Jaina, from now on, to go back to being an unobjectionable figure for all Warcraft players to be fine with liking. Overall they seem to be trying to leave the faction war behind, so a simple “Alliance was fine, Horde was just The Bad Warchiefs” is what they’re probably going to do.
I’m disappointed with how it all went down, but at this point just burying it all seems like the best option to me.
1 Like
At the end of the day, the Alliance condemned Jaina’s actions, with the High King personally confronting her about it as she ruined the negotiations to bring the Blood Elves back into the fold.
The Alliance will look clean either way. The Purge is clearly something that it did not want as it forced the Blood Elves back into the Horde.
1 Like
That did not answer my question though. The Sunreavers have civilians, but I’m asking for proof that it is stated to be civilian and not military in nature. I provided examples of them having a military presence which would make it not a strictly civilian organization even if there are civilians in it.
Is it a fact or an assumption that the Sunreavers are majority civilian?
I can’t remember where but I’m pretty sure in one of the Cata quests it was stated that it was twofold: To cut off land transport of troops and supplies to Orgrimmar and to deprive the Horde of a training area for soldiers. The major one was to cut off Thunder Bluff from Orgrimmar. This did work for a time, considering the Tauren had to build a huge wall and the siege was not broken until the Horde player arrives to help.
It was an answer. Their goals were not military, their goals were for blood elves to be allowed to return to living and studying in Dalaran. You just didn’t like the answer.
1 Like
I didn’t like the answer because it’s not sufficient to the question that I posed. Where is it stated that it is a civilian organization?
Even if their goal is nonmilitary that doesn’t mean it is a civilian organization. You see what I mean? Their goal was to establish a presence in Dalaran after it came under the command of Garithos in WC3 and the Blood elves cut ties with the Alliance in WC2. That can be done with the military intent for Horde to use Dalaran for military assets in WOTLK, which they did. Just as the Alliance did. They were ambassadors on the part of the Horde in WOTLK. Even if they are doing ambassador work, that does not mean they’re civilians.
Organizations are civilian by default. I don’t know what else you’re expecting. If it was military it would have been explicitly stated as military like the Silver Covenant was.
The Sunreavers remained neutral in the faction conflict while the leader of the Kirin Tor and the leader of the Silver Covenant were actively engaged in hostilities with the Horde. If they were a Horde military branch they wouldn’t have stayed neutral.
2 Likes
I’m not sure this is true. There are military organizations. Not all organizations are military, but all militaries are organizations.
Even the Silver Covenant was not explicitly stated to be military though. It was explicitly stated to be in opposition to the Sunreavers rejoining. That can be done through military or non-military means. I think that they were just as militant as the Sunreavers, but I don’t think it was ever explicitly stated.
The Silver Covenant carried out no violent actions to the Sunreavers until the purge. If you have an example of this being the case I would like to see it. From my memory, I do not recall the Sunreavers and Silver Covenant ever having active hostilities until MOP.
2 Likes
They’re literally described as a militant group in game:
“A militant core of high elves that rejects the admission of blood elves into the Kirin Tor. They’ve united under the banner of Vereesa Windrunner and joined the Alliance forces in Northrend.”
2 Likes
Okay, that’s my mistake. They are in fact explicitly stated to be militant. As I said, I think that they are militant but I wasn’t sure they were explicitly stated to be so.
With that out of the way, do you have any examples of the Silver Covenant doing anything violent towards the Sunreavers prior to the purge? Because I’m fairly certain they didn’t really do much of anything in WOTLK. They can oppose the Sunreavers with political bickering and saber rattling, but that doesn’t equate to military action.
It’s clear Blizzard had some intent for the Sunreavers and Silver Covenant to have direct hostilities between each other in Crystalsong, but this never came to fruition, with the two military camps there not being used for anything.