Get back to me when the Alliance destroys a Horde city and all life in it, and we’ll discuss Alliance characters standing trial. That seems to be the litmus for who stands trial. Garrosh did it, Sylvanas did it, and I don’t see any other Horde leaders on trial.
1 Like
She tried to destroy Orgrimmar twice, and failed.
Not even just one time, she tried twice.
She isn’t as good at committing crimes, but she still tried the same crime. Twice.
Someone who attempts a crime and is thwarted is still at least guilty of the attempt.
4 Likes
My personal favorite bit of Void Elf absurdity is that their entire shtick was being so dedicated to protecting Blood Elves that they utilized the Void.
This ostracized them, cause the Void is crazy dangerous.
Yet they were soooo dedicated to protecting their people that they pressed on regardless.
They were so dedicated that they…
-reads smudged writing on hand-
Swore themselves to the Alliance and helped kill Blood Elves?
That can’t be right.
4 Likes
So… no crime, no trial.
The problem is even if Blizzard didn’t make excuses, the Zerdes of the world would still make them.
There’s justifications for a lot of the awful crap Horde has done too, its just that nobody claims that Teldrassil was a morally good act due to Stormheim and it being nobody’s decision but Sylvanas, nor do they give Garrosh a pass because Tyrande literally gave him the choice of war or children starving to death.
5 Likes
Attempting to carry out a crime and being thwarted is considered a crime - just less of a punishment than if they succeeded.
She should have a trial, and get a lesser sentence than Sylvanas. I agreed with you about mitigating circumstances, but that should be brought up at a trial.
5 Likes
No victims to answer to though, so… -Shrugs- Not sure why she needs to be on trial. Again, if we’re looking at what characters on Trial did to get put on Trial, Jaina isn’t close to needing one.
Is there? It feels like there’s more vague allusions to justifications to get the story to work, where it doesnt work, at best. Setting aside Teld, nothing about the WoT as an independent campaign actually made any sense, because the Horde was never allowed to react to the repeated acts of aggression from the Alliance proceeding it. Because those Blue Aggressive acts classically “do not count”. Its the same thing leading up to the Garrosh conflict. As a consequence, the Horde is largely forced to start the Wars on a foundation of half invalidated justifications that “cant” or “dont” count; which defaults to “Evul race do evul things” tropes.
3 Likes
So attempted genocide isn’t a crime in your book?
Whelp….that’s a little worrisome
3 Likes
There’s hundreds of thousands of victims though?
Just because she didn’t succeed, didn’t mean she didn’t attempt to murder them
3 Likes
Really? Who did she hurt/kill?
If a drunk driver could have hit me, but didn’t, am I a victim?
5 Likes
I mean, those things did count. at the start.
It was the only reason literally anyone but Sylvanas’ followers were onboard with the WOT as planned, even if it was entirely forgotten by the narritive shortly after.
Yeah, I wholly agree that it’s garbage that there wasn’t any resolution on Genn precipitating a massive world war by doing the one thing that he swore to Varian that he wouldn’t do, and that nobody on either side calls him out for it.
Yeah, I agree that the Horde and Allaince play by entirely separate narrative rules, as the Alliance is the protected, babied faction that couldn’t even lose a single character when they were literal raid bosses in an expansion that saw handfuls of key Horde characters die.
If the Drunk Driver’s intent was to hit you, then yes they would be guilty of attempted murder. It doesn’t matter if they succeeded or not.
4 Likes
But am I a victim? If they intended to hit me but ended up hitting a telephone pole or something, am I a victim? And I mean this in a, ‘I had no clue they were even trying to hit me,’ manner, as no one in Orgrimmar had any idea Jaina was about to unleash a tsunami on them.
I just want to make sure I’m understanding their argument. Is their argument here that Drunk driving shouldn’t be a crime as long as you don’t kill anyone?
4 Likes
The query is what defines a, ‘victim.’
Not at all. Sylvanas mentions “allusions to EVENTUAL/INEVITABLE Alliance aggression” … never once does her argument hinge on the attacks already occurring. In fact, that was arguably one of many dumb elements to her sales pitch. Its not that the Alliance “could” or “would” attack the Horde, its that they already were and those events were just invalidated. Like, SI:7’s attack on Bilgewater Civilians in Silthus was so botched in Blizz’s whitewashing attempt, they not only had to write not ONE but TWO whitewashing events, but also just straight up default to extremely transparent “EVUL RACE LOL!” justifications. It was crazy!
2 Likes
Why can’t this topic dieeee. No one is gonna budge from their present perspective.
On a more positive note I am going to take the fact the purge came up again as a positive sign that people are struggling to find big issues in the present story to go in circles about. That is good I suppose.
4 Likes
guys, You are literally going around in circles argumentatively:
A) The analogy is wrong, because you as a potential victim did not know at any time that you would have been a potential victim because someone else was in the car with them and tried to turn the wheel around before it hit you.
B) Thrall did not protect the horde military here, it was only about the civilians, if he would know that only military was in orgrimmar…he would have not stopped jaina, he even claimed, jaina has every right to wage war against the horde for what the horde did.
It was never about Orgrimmar, not a single second, it was only about the innocent civilians she would have killed aswell.
If only garrosh and his loyalist would be there, i´m pretty sure he would not stopped her.
1 Like