Uh huh. Which involved throwing your faction under the bus. Is this just a way to make Alliance fans suffer for playing the wrong faction? Seems like it.
1 Like
Not an evil warmonger. Just a warmonger. As Darethy said above, they donāt have to be synonymous.
Iām fine with the leaders of both sides being hostile to each other. Iād just prefer it if neither one was 100% right and the other 100% wrong.
1 Like
Funnily enough, Alex said that Sylvanas isnāt 100% wrong. Which just makes me all sorts of confused of where the story is going.
Is BfA going to end with us finding out Darnassus was housing an enormous azerite death ray or something?
BtS is still before the WoT. It is still before the start of current hostilities. If your hypothetical has to abrogate and change significant portions of the story, then it might as well be unworkable.
Regardless, the High King is not the Warchief, and can not impose their will such as the Warchief can and has done since itās inception. These are fundementally different governance structures.
1 Like
But I donāt! Iām trying to find a way that neither side has to go through whatās happening now! I donāt know what Iām saying wrong that is not getting this idea across.
Pellex your idea would necessitate fundamentally changing the structure of how the Alliance is written, thatās what I am trying to tell you.
Secret underground gnomish installations built into Teldrassil?
Thatās no tree, thatās a space station.
1 Like
Iām sorry Saiphas, I would answer back in kind but Iām stuck on how you have all day to squat in this thread and talk at me when Iāve made it clear I have no use for you. Youāre kind of making me sad.
Since Iām feeling sorry for Saiphas lets try and find some common ground. We could have Genn Greymane lock Anduin in a tower or something for this Alliance aggression plotline.
After heās faked evidence of Horde aggression but before Anduin has a chance to uncover his deceit.
If the war is just starting or ongoing when Anduin disappears Anduin has no heir so Genn could convince the rest of the Alliance leadership to present him as temporary High Commander. That way pure Anduinās āthemesā arenāt changed at all.
No, it wouldnāt. I am only talking about the personalities and desires of the individuals filling the existing positions of the Alliance.
1 Like
they are going to say that sylvanas had a vision of the future or some BS like that. i can smell it.
1 Like
The point of the hypothetical is to exemplify why the Alliance structure isnāt the problem. And it sounds like you donāt want to engage in said hypothetical because you donāt want to agree. I mean, if I was to have a future hypothetical, I would have to know how the current war ended.
And while technically untrue, it also doesnāt matter. The Alliance, past and current, has plenty of reason for wanting war. There is no necessity for some fundamental change. This is how things have been and are. The Alliance doesnāt need a Warchief for this.
1 Like
The key problem I have is two fold: One the Alliance cannot be the aggressor, itās member states would never agree to that. Two, the Alliance cannot simply seize power, there needs to be a situation that convinces the Alliance leaders to make choices of questionable ethics.
Cataclysm had a great example of this actually. Twlights hammer kills some Alliance, Alliance overreacts and begins to hoard resources starving the Horde population, the Horde population replies by attacking because really are you just going to sit there and starve?
This is a morally ambiguous situation. The Alliance isnāt wrong for imposing a sanction per say, but it can be argued they are wrong for how extreme the sanction is and the Horde is not wrong for fighting for survival. If you want a story centered on a factional conflict, nuance like this is important.
1 Like
Heh, the benefits of being caught up in my work.
Your idea once again, does nothing for the Alliance narrative, it abrogates Genns character development, and furthermore doesnāt really accomplish what you set out, because again, the Dwarves et al have zero need to listen to Genn and can just say ānopeā we arnt sending forces. Then sure, SW gets sacked, but the Alliance still would not be warmongering, their one faction would be left high and dry.
And this, as much as anything, is something I donāt agree with.
And Iād say thereās been and can easily be such a situation. I donāt think there needs to be, but sure.
I donāt want this for either faction, but I know alliance wonāt ever have to worry about it so I guess my own point is moot.
What? The Warchief can impose their will? Or that the High King is not the Warchief? Warchiefs since Blackhand and doomhammer, heck even thrall, have been able to impose their will on their constituent parts. The effectiveness has been in question, but their ability? Thatās been constant.
1 Like
So Pellex, how is what you are asking for not devolve into exactly what has happened previously? You are asking for either the personality changes or character changes of the entire alliance leadership as well as making it so they magically all agree that they need to attack the Horde, even though the majority of the peoples of the Alliance are defensive in nature. Soā¦how exactly does this not fundementally alter how the Alliance is written?
2 Likes
As awful as it is to say, I would jump on board that ship so fast the world would glitch me into it.
I mean itās not like it would be the first time she had a vision of the future.
1 Like
i disagree, giving characters meta-knowledge of the future ruins their entire capacity to be a character with choices or hard decisions. no one wants that.
if you basically know what to do, what is the point of being a character?