And if she sticks around, like Jaina?
But the people calling it a betrayal are doing it from the perspective of the Horde. Whatever Anduin thinks doesn’t matter, it matters what the Horde thinks about it, and nobody has brought it up.
But again, the point is exactly that what the characters think =/= what is reality. It doesn’t matter if nobody criticizes Jaina for something, anybody here can criticize her just fine. You don’t need the backing of a character’s opinion to be correct.
You mean the same Anduin who released Saurfang from prison and forgave him because he spent the whole time being sadfang? His opinion isn’t worth jack.
By necessity, sure. But by actual use, no. You are essentially arguing the idea that because technically a word can be used in a certain way, it means that (or at least that it should have enough doubt to think that). And that is absolutely not the case. It depends on the more common use and context to try and understand the meaning.
This is why your stance is either misinformed for disingenuous. We are not discussing technicalities, but reasonable inferences.
More neutral? Sure. Neutral overall? No. Again, it absolutely has an overwhelmingly strong use/connotation with both those words. There are numerous sources for this.
And yet the context and terms used clearly shows it was an attack to me.
And attacks do not necessarily create a war.
It does not need to specifically use any of those words. Because we can interpret the language to constitute as much.
Clearly. That does not change my assertion that the language is definitive enough to make that conclusion.
I disagree. The statements both indicate it was an attack. Because it all indicates the common use of the word incursion. Which is, an attack, an invasion, force being used in a way that was clearly aggressive (again, an attack).
The claim of weakness is what is disingenuous. You want me to ignore context and common word use for technical possibility. But that is not what the discussion is.
‘John walked up to the tree, axe in hand. He needed wood. His son would be upset by this because he has planted the tree. John cleaved the tree.’ In this instance, you would be someone arguing the use of the word ‘cleaved’ means ‘forming an emotional attachment’ in spite of the various use and context clues. Even then, I think your claim is weaker than that, since you aren’t even arguing a differing word use, but technical exception.
Yes it is. Again, the book itself is largely written as fact. It goes out of the way to specify uncertain events. Such as when Sylvanas sent emissaries to the Alliance or Wrathgate.
Again, you are ignoring the greater context that he was launching incursions into lands mostly owned by the Night Elves, which was threatening war, he was taking by force, and he was not willing to negotiate/trade with the Night Elves for. All contextual inference clearly indicates this was not ‘suspicion’, but actual events taking place.
The comment I am sourcing claims Theramore (beside Taurajo) had attacked the Barrens in general in respond to Garrosh going after the Night Elves.
Except they aren’t clearly not resisting. They have weapons raised. That doesn’t mean I think their resistance is worth of death. Just the idea they were resisting.
Then I keep wishing for her death? I spent 15 or so years doing it, I can do it for another 15 years. Who know if she live we get another expansion where she drags down the Horde. That will at least be fun to watch.
At least with Jaina around I actually expect the Alliance to try to keep as much of the high ground as possible.
I am pretty sure that even was the straw that finally broke Saurfang back. The expansion is young, if we get another warcrimes style book we will have plenty of opportunity to yell all her crimes back at her face.
As oppose to Tyrande who let him live? Tyrande let him live because she thought it would benefit her agenda. Anduin did the same.
If S’aara corrupts Derek against Jaina and turns out to be aligned with Sylvanas(“The Light has struck a bargain with the enemy of all.”) how would Jaina react to this betrayal by the Naaru?
You yourself earlier made the argument that because an interpretation wasn’t true by necessity, it shouldn’t just be taken as such.
Words can be used in many ways in different contexts. You’re essentially arguing that because one is more popular than another, it must be the case. That’s wrong, and I’ve explained multiple times why there are many holes in that interpretation, even to the point of counter-evidence which suggests things that run in opposition to the idea.
I think my interpretation is very reasonable. It’s supported by quests and lore from that time period, and the wording of chronicle allows for it to be true. If we can’t say for sure which interpretation of chronicle is correct, we should look instead to other evidence, which I would say favors my outlook.
You say it’s “overwhelmingly strong”, but that’s just wordplay to try and insist that no other existing use of the word can be true, which is wrong.
It doesn’t show that to me. On the contrary, the passages offer the exact explanation for why it wouldn’t be an attack, namely that the territory wasn’t all the Night Elves. Given it’s more than reasonable to say Garrosh’s actions were an incursion even without him actually breaching their territory, you’d need to prove that he actually did so.
So Garrosh invading the Night Elves’ land in something you consider synonymous with an attack didn’t constitute the start of a war?
Yes, it does need to specifically use those words. Because right now, all you’re doing is taking your interpretation to be all of those things and insisting it’s true. As long as an alternative interpretation with the capability of being valid exists, that means your interpretation alone is not evidence. And because your argument lacks other evidence beyond that interpretation, while mine does not, that means yours is much weaker.
I’d say it isn’t even close to definitive enough. In fact, I’d go as far as to say that if the passage was meant to be definitive and say that Garrosh started the war, it is hugely deficient to that purpose.
Just the opposite really, I’d even say it was just that vague on purpose. As far as authorial intent goes, we know from Loreology that Blizzard doesn’t want to openly say who started the war, they want to keep it muddy. As such, I could conclude that because weaker terms were used rather than stronger ones, and information allowing for those actions not to be acts of war were included, it was done specifically to allow for interpretations in which Garrosh’s actions didn’t start the war, but instead merely raised tensions.
You can disagree all you want, that doesn’t make your popularity-based interpretation correct.
That’s a far more wild interpretation than what I’ve suggested, because the two uses of “cleaved” effectively mean opposite things, while the uses of “incursion” we’re talking about effectively mean the same thing, simply differing in application. Something can be an incursion without being an attack or trespass, and the word’s meaning is still the same, because at it’s root the word only means “run to”.
And if I were to rewrite your statement to be more applicable to our situation here, it might be something like “John walked into the forest, axe in hand. He needed wood. His son would be upset by this, because he had planted some of the trees. John cleaved down a tree.”
That leaves the question - Did John cut one of the trees his son planted? Or did he cut down a random tree? The information we have available shows that there are more trees in the forest than just those planted by the son, and the one that was cut wasn’t specified. In that case, to insist that the tree being cut must have been one of the son’s, is quite literally missing the forest for the trees.
No, it isn’t. Again, many parts of the books are written as facts even though they’re merely the perspectives of certain players, like with the explanations of Sargeras’ or Arthas’ motives. At multiple points, passages are framed objectively, as factual even though we know them to be wrong.
And I know people tend to overly harp on this, but it’s arguable how much of chronicles is true. It leaves a lot of things out, even things of fair importance, or which we should know to be wrong. It’s hard to tell what’s a retcon, what’s new information, or what’s old information mistakenly packaged.
I think you’re the one ignoring the context here. Because yes, while Garrosh did a lot to escalate tensions, other things were mistakenly attributed to him, and nothing explicitly says that he ever attacked the Night Elves first. If the context is supposedly so obvious, why has nothing ever directly stated it?
Also, your argument there is somewhat circular. You’re saying that the context proves those statements to mean what you think they mean, while also defining the context using those statements. As such, if I interpret those lines in different ways, the context is not the same, meaning your support for that interpretation is nonexistent.
You say “going after”, but that’s not what the quote says. The source says they acted on the basis of what they thought Garrosh wanted. Not what he had done, but what he might do.
Also, once again, ToW literally does say that Theramore invaded under a false premise. One which had nothing to do with the Night Elves, actually.
That’s not resistance. In what world is standing there doing nothing as you’re executed “resisting”? That’s why I said it would need to be an absurdly stringent interpretation of the term, and why it would constitute a retcon.
So if Sylvanas is still guilty even if she lives with the same circumstances as Jaina and regrets her choices, why is Jaina not still guilty too?
Not really, he never even brought it up.
She’d scream “I AM MY SCARS!!!” and destroy it with a fusillade of arcane cannons. And I’d enjoy it as much as I did when Illidan blew Xe’ra into dust. Which I enjoyed so freaking much.
Going to try and make this (a little) more concise. Please do not respond to the longer version if you saved it.
I was saying it means you can make an argument for it. Not that I necessarily agree with that argument.
I am not claiming it must be the case.
The common use of the word incursion has an extremely strong aspect of ‘attack’ or ‘invasion’. So much of a use that we should interpret it that way without a very strong reason otherwise. That both are interpretations are already not equivalent from that basis. Confirmed by dictionaries and people in this thread of how the word is mostly used.
The context further supports such an interpretation. That Garrosh is ‘taking by force’ what he would not trade or negotiate with the Alliance. He wouldn’t need to trade, negotiate, or take by force what was already his. That it upset the Alliance and threatened war, which all seems unlikely if it was already owned by him. As well as the setting context. That Jaina is a peacemaker and Garrosh is the warmonger.
Depending on what you meant by ‘constitute the start of a war’, sure.
Firstly, Blizzard has often given inconsistent statements. The Chronicle was said to be a ‘definitive’ lore source. Secondly, ambiguity does not assist your case as you are asserting Jaina was definitively the first attacker, not that the situation was unclear.
It is not a much more wild interpretation to me as you are arguing a much different meaning than the common use merely because it is a possible reading. The attack aspect is an extremely strong connection in the term.
This actually supports my view because the books goes out of the way to posit that these are their views or unclear and not objective fact. Much like the Forsaken reaching out to the Alliance or Wrathgate being uncertain.
In my view? 1. Because there is plenty to draw that conclusion. 2. Blizzard has sloppy writing.
Again, you are referencing a Tides of War section I am not. And as for Scrolls of Lore, it is probably written as to what he wants because he had not achieved it at that point.
In a world where you are raising a weapon in what could be considered a combative stance.
While I’m not sure about hate at the very least I do think that Jaina has earned ire from people. Though I blame that on Blizzard inability to decide what they want Jaina to be and the inconsistencies with the character.
Like her going back and forth with her feelings about the Horde. She trusted us due to Warcraft 3, she hates us after Theramore is nuked and considers us monsters like Garrosh, except in War Crimes she decides the Horde isn’t Garrosh.
In WoD Jaina objected to Khadgar working with the Horde but ultimately accepted, albeit grudgingly, as a necessary evil to defeat the Iron Horde and helped Khadgar in empowering our legendary ring. And yet in Legion she’s so vehemently against working with the Horde against an even worse threat that she leaves the Kirin Tor after the majority of the council vote to welcome back the Horde back.
Then you have BfA where Jaina is taking the fight to the Horde to win the war and then decides the Alliance should pull back so we could mourn King Rastakhan. From what I read on wowhead Jaina treats rescuing Baine as repaying Baine for delivering Derek to her and as a favor to Anduin but immediately declares that she’ll stand with Thrall to defend Thunder Bluff.
I don’t hate Jaina, I just can’t take her seriously.
Blame the writers. She’s been pretty inconsistent since Tides of War. Then again, can you blame her? At least the MoP hate-train had a valid reason, and her thing in Legion was somewhat believable.
Keep in mind, she couldn’t have seen the fact that the Horde was getting their junk kicked in, and they were about to be flanked. All she saw was Sylvanas’ archers pulling back in retreat after Sylvanas blew her horn. To her, Genn, and any Alliance person who was fighting in that valley, it looked like the Horde was betraying them, and it resulted in Varian’s death. You can’t really blame her for losing her temper like that, especially since Theramore was still fresh in her mind (It was only about 4 years prior that Garrosh wiped her city off the map, and about 3 or so that the Sunreavers helped steal the Divine Bell from Darnassus and passed it through Dalaran.).
Was she right? Not really. But remember that characters within the story do not see the same things that we as players do. It’s like the old trope of someone screaming at someone in a slasher film not to go into a room or open a door because the killer’s there.
In BfA, it’s perfectly reasonable that after the Battle for Lordaeron, she was told about Darnassus, and given her history with the Horde, she’d want to prevent another disaster on that scale.
As for her pulling back after BoD, that makes no sense.
With Thunder Bluff, keep in mind that she’s had a very strong friendship with Thrall (despite trying to kill him in the aforementioned Tides of War when he tried to stop her from wiping Orgrimmar off the face of Azeroth with a massive tidal wave made of Water Elementals), to the point where he’s pretty much the only orc she trusts after Theramore, Dalaran, and other issues. And rescuing Baine wasn’t just payback for freeing Derek, but it could also be recognition of other times Baine helped her, such as when he warned her about Garrosh coming to attack Theramore (Even if he didn’t know about the mana bomb, Garrosh played that pretty close to the chest, he still meant well, and owed her for helping him retake Thunder Bluff after Magatha took it over in a coup after Cairne was killed.). In the end, she sees Sylvanas as a threat to be stopped, and is willing to stand with pretty much the only two Horde leaders she likes and respects to stop her.
Haha she doesnt even regret her choices. That is problem one with Sylvanas. Problem two is not once has she tried to mend fences with the Alliance. Jaina gave the Horde a second chance, a chance they threw on her fact the moment they had an opportunity.
Again, the expansion is young. Now that Aszhara is done I expect a full focus back on the faction wars.
The peace at the beginning of the comics was the same peace that the Alliance and Horde had when the game started with Classic. Nothing retroactive about it.
And during that peace treaty we had during Classic we also had Warsong Gulch and the other Battlegrounds that happened despite the peace treaty, and in the case of Warsong Gulch it being the Night Elves and the Alliance fighting the Horde out of Ashenvale.
The Horde lost the battle in Ashenvale before the Shattering in the Warcraft Comic, and lost the battle in Ashenvale again after the Shattering in Wolfheart.
The Alliance and the Horde were at peace after Wrath. Garrosh broke the peace by invading Ashenvale.
You have given no evidence of anything you have claimed, and I have shown you are factually incorrect.
Do you think anyone actually believes anything you’ve posted on this point?
I’m done correcting you. People can see for themselves that you don’t actually post based on the lore as we have it.
And to be clear, no, I will not be responding to you any more on this, so you can keep on pretending to believe in your headcanon world if you want.
Firstly as others have pointed out Jainas actions during the purge weren’t evil. At most they are grey moment where a character is left with little options but needs to act similar to Arthas and stratholme. There are a couple of important things to take into account.
I mean when you have a group of people who may be hiding terrorists who have the ability to destroy cities. Her actions were never influenced because they were elves or because of they’re political standing. Her actions to deal with them needs to be swift and effective so they didn’t have to to act.
While It wasn’t a great call by Jaina to involve the Silver Convent , she should have used kirin tor or used both with Kirintor supervision. However the fact stands that the Sunreavers needed to be dealt with when Aethas refused to leave.
And in the Grand scheme of things it seems so in consequential when you consider the lives lost due to the actions of those Sunreaves that did help the Horde. I mean how many lives were lost because they made Garrosh the mana bomb. How many lives could have been lost if the Divine bell wasn’t destroyed?
The Divine Bell was the first instance of the Sunreavers loyal to Garrosh doing so. While the Focusing Iris was revealed to have been obtained by the Horde, there is nothing to suggest that the Sunreavers were involved in this effort. Tides of War even points out that prior to the reveal that the Horde had it, anyone could have obtained as there was no identifying markers of who took it from the blues.
While Jaina wards may have been geared towards stopping anyone from stealing the Divine Bell someone as smart as Jaina would know that Garrosh simply wasn’t going to stop in trying to get it. Thus at the very least the head of the Kirin Tor was tactically aiding the Alliance against the Horde.
Jaina gets the blame she allowed the Silver Covenant, a group known for their anti blood elf stance, to go wild against them. One of the first things we see Horde side is the Silver Covenant harassing Sunreaver civilians and even feeding one to to a shark. Without Jaina’s permission none of that would have happened. The smart thing would have been for Jaina to mobilize the Kirin Tor, which would increase odds of the Sunreavers submitting to the authorities to get the matter settled peacefully as many of them were unaware of what the Garrosh loyalist had done. What they knew was that Aethas was suddenly imprisoned, Silver Covenant were coming after them, and Jaina was allowing it.
Furthermore things are murky with exactly who is responsible for the atrocities. The novels paint the picture that it was Vereesa’s doing and yet quest Unfair Trade has Vereesa saying that she doesn’t completely agree with Jaina’s methods.
Can’t post links but here’s the finish dialogue of Unfair Trade.
While I can’t say I agree completely with Jaina’s methods, I do understand her motives.
The Sunreavers did not make the mana bomb. While Tides of War cites the mana bomb as a Blood Elf creation the novel implies that it was done by the blood elves of Quel’Thalas. There is nothing to suggest or even imply that the Sunreavers were responsible for it’s creation.
https://wow.gamepedia.com/Thalen_Songweaver
This was the Sunreaver who made the mana bomb for Garrosh, and then tried to weaken the defenses of Theramore during the siege. In fact, he’s still at large after the events of War Crimes.
So, yeah. Sunreavers have been helping Garrosh from the get-go.
yikes @ the people who think that because some guy you work with broke the law that it’s okay to gun you down in the street…
Not going to lie I forgot that scene in War Crimes which established that Thalen was behind it’s creation and I did look it back up to 100% sure before hand. Though he takes sole credit for it’s creation and even still it’s always been implied it was a small number of Sunreavers aiding Garrosh to the point most blame Jaina and Garrosh for Purge per word of god.
The best way I can make sense of it is that while the majority of the Sunreavers were more loyal to Aethas, the few pro Garrosh ones were among the more powerful which explain exactly how Thalen could be solely responsible for the Mana Bomb’s creation and how they were able to prevent the Night Elves from detecting the portal their portal.
I find it interesting that in this debate all of the Alliance or a certain race can be condemned because of what Jaina or Garithos did but within the same context Sunreavers or Blood Elves are not guilty because in the end it was just one person (Thalen and Garrosh) who were at fault and we should not judge everyone the same way.
I am not sure I can respect this sort of argumentation as it basically sets different standards depending on who we are talking about.
Who said this? Jaina is at fault because Jaina made the decision and carried it out.
I know. You don’t seem to respect any pro-horde arguments from what I’ve seen on here so I can’t say I’m surprised.