Sylvanas Has The Support Of The People And Thrall Knows He’s Committing Treason Against Them

[Veloran-wyrmrest-accord (Veloran)]

That’s a non sequitur.

In what way? Talrendis Point is in the midst of a forested section of the zone. In order to think both that the Night Elves allowed the Horde Azshara’s lumber and that they continue to hold Talrendis Point, we would need to think they’re content with allowing the Horde to log in and around the immediacy of their own base. Do you really think that could be the case?

Perhaps you should clarify, because your point is extremely unclear, then.

Originally, the conversation had to do with whether or not Sylvanas’ death would be satisfactory enough retribution for the Night Elves. Amadis believes that it, along with the Horde’s expulsion from Night Elf lands, would be satisfactory, and cited the Horde’s supposed abandonment of Ashenvale in the MoP treaty as his support. I disagreed with that on a number of levels, and the one on which we’ve gotten bogged down in arguing was on whether or not that abandonment even happened to begin with.

Frankly, whether or not they left doesn’t even play that much into the greater context of the conversation.

‘They didn’t leave after one treaty (with unknown negotiation and terms), so a different treaty (which might have different terms) wouldn’t get them to leave’. That is the precedent I find weak.

That section you quoted from was really about two precedents, first the Night Elves’ motivations and what they’d accept as terms of peace, and second that there is simply little evidence the Horde left and evidence against it on a number of counts, and neither was as your statement expressed. While there is something to be said towards the main argument for the Horde not having left before and the Night Elves having accepted it, that’s far from the point.

Appeal to ignorance.

In what way is evidence directly against those intentions coming to pass an appeal to ignorance?

In classical [rhetoric] and [logic], begging the question

Once again, this is not the fallacy you claim it to be. It is self-evident that the Horde desires territory in Ashenvale, they’ve fought multiple wars over the region and it’s resources. It’s very reasonable to ask why they would accept forfeiting quite a swathe of that area. It’s not a circular argument, it’s merely a question that takes the history and character of the Horde into account.

No you don’t. You’re appealing to ignorance again.

Is the BfA mission table showing there’s no garrison at Theramore ignorance? Is the stated status of Gilneas as a deserted ruin in BtS ignorance? Is the Night Elves still claiming a forested area in Azshara ignorance?

All of these things are direct evidence against what Varian and Tyrande said in SoO. The only one that’s even slightly arguable is Talrendis Point, but even that would require assuming an absurd breach of the Night Elves’ character to accept. The only one displaying ignorance here is you, because you’re not even bothering to look at any of the evidence against your positions.

The fallacy is your ignoring the author’s (Blizzard’s) existent writings

What writings have I ignored? Tyrande and Varian’s dialog in SoO? Many of my previous posts, including this one, have dealt with how Blizzard’s later writing proves their words wrong.

Tyrande and Varian’s intentions are applicable because Blizzard as “the author was expected to have the information, was intending to give a complete account of the situation, and the item was important enough and interesting enough to deserve to be mentioned at the time.”

So you think that according to those criteria, this situation with the treaty is applicable? Why?

However, that is different, because those are factual canon situations that Blizzard specifically writes as still being the case,

Is there a particular reason I should consider this situation and these settlements different from Blizzard’s standard fare of writing the world’s settlements as static and consistent?

Appeal to ignorance again.

And again, all you’re doing is accusing me of a fallacy. Is it really so hard to provide a valid reason for why I should accept those settlements being abandoned?

You’re the one who claimed they were to begin with, and since then you’ve also said that the situation is unprovable and that we don’t know. If you want to keep slinging around fallacies, you’ll either need to admit your original point was wrong on the basis you first made it, or you need to admit that you’ve been guilty of every charge you’ve levied at me from the very start.

[Imerus-moon-guard (Imerus)]

In what way? Talrendis Point is in the midst of a forested section of the zone. In order to think both that the Night Elves allowed the Horde Azshara’s lumber and that they continue to hold Talrendis Point, we would need to think they’re content with allowing the Horde to log in and around the immediacy of their own base. Do you really think that could be the case?

I do think it could be the case, yes. That is why I do not think it follows.

Originally, the conversation had to do with whether or not Sylvanas’ death would be satisfactory enough retribution for the Night Elves. Amadis believes that it, along with the Horde’s expulsion from Night Elf lands, would be satisfactory, and cited the Horde’s supposed abandonment of Ashenvale in the MoP treaty as his support. I disagreed with that on a number of levels, and the one on which we’ve gotten bogged down in arguing was on whether or not that abandonment even happened to begin with.

And you think, what, that the Night Elves agreeing to peace without needing the Horde to leave their land proves they are more receptive to peace than Amadis thinks?

[Veloran-wyrmrest-accord (Veloran)]

I do think it could be the case, yes. That is why I do not think it follows.

Okay, so why do you think it’s the case?

And you think, what, that the Night Elves agreeing to peace without needing the Horde to leave their land proves they are more receptive to peace than Amadis thinks?

Just the opposite, actually. It’s not if they’re more receptive, it’s about what they want and what will satisfy them. Amadis insisted that Sylvanas’ death and the Horde leaving their lands would be all the retribution they need and have ever needed, and that alone would be all the prosperous conclusion they desire.

I think they need much more than that. I think if you look at their history of peace with the Horde, their demands in exchange for peace have risen in accordance with what the Horde has done to them. I think Teldrassil is such that, really, they should not be willing to accept any peace with the Horde, or at the very least none that doesn’t exact upon them retribution due equal to what has already transpired, if not more. I think believing they’d accept a return to status quo when many are literally infused with the wrath of their god is absurd.

[Imerus-moon-guard (Imerus)]

Okay, so why do you think it’s the case?

Why do I think it is possible to log around the immediacy of someone else’s base if they allow it? Because if they allow it, the other party can do it.

I think they need much more than that. I think if you look at their history of peace with the Horde, their demands in exchange for peace have risen in accordance with what the Horde has done to them.

Apparently they didn’t even need the Horde to leave their lands last time to agree to peace. Can you outline this list of growing demands?

[Veloran-wyrmrest-accord (Veloran)]

Why do I think it is possible to log around the immediacy of someone else’s base if they allow it? Because if they allow it, the other party can do it.

There’s quite a bit of timber inside their base though. Not to mention, aren’t the Night Elves supposed to be fervent protectors of nature? That’s why I said it would be in opposition to their character, to just sit and watch trees be felled right in front of them. It would be an extremely odd arrangement in any case.

Apparently they didn’t even need the Horde to leave their lands last time to agree to peace. Can you outline this list of growing demands?

In Wrath, they agreed to peace for nothing, the Horde simply kept all their holdings and only later did the Night Elves cut off trade in protest of the Wrathgate. In MoP, they (Supposedly) agreed to peace on the condition of the Horde abandoning their lands. It seems unbelievable that they’d simply go back to that agreement, or one only of similar severity, in the wake of Teldrassil and everything that followed from it. They have every reason to want to see the Horde destroyed.

[Imerus-moon-guard (Imerus)]

There’s quite a bit of timber inside their base though. Not to mention, aren’t the Night Elves supposed to be fervent protectors of nature? That’s why I said it would be in opposition to their character, to just sit and watch trees be felled right in front of them. It would be an extremely odd arrangement in any case.

Given her suggestion of allowing the Horde Azshara’s lumber, clearly she was accepting of a situation where they cut the trees down. And her opinion is usually the one that matters. Given that she allowed the Highborne reintroduced and spoke in support of Demon Hunters.

In Wrath, they agreed to peace for nothing, the Horde simply kept all their holdings and only later did the Night Elves cut off trade in protest of the Wrathgate. In MoP, they (Supposedly) agreed to peace on the condition of the Horde abandoning their lands. It seems unbelievable that they’d simply go back to that agreement, or one only of similar severity, in the wake of Teldrassil and everything that followed from it. They have every reason to want to see the Horde destroyed.

But you do not even agree the Night Elves actually got the Horde to leave in the treaty. So it sounds like they actually got nothing both times. That is what I mean when your point seems to support the opposite precedent. That there’s no escalating demands, they just return to the status quo.

[Amadis-draka (Amadis)]

@Imerus-moon-guard

@Veloran-wyrmrest-accord

In what way? Talrendis Point is in the midst of a forested section of the zone. In order to think both that the Night Elves allowed the Horde Azshara’s lumber and that they continue to hold Talrendis Point, we would need to think they’re content with allowing the Horde to log in and around the immediacy of their own base. Do you really think that could be the case?

I do think it could be the case, yes. That is why I do not think it follows.

I agree with Imerus.

@Veloran-wyrmrest-accord

It is self-evident that the Horde desires territory in Ashenvale, they’ve fought multiple wars over the region and it’s resources.

• Ipse dixit (bare assertion fallacy) – a claim that is presented as true without support, as self-evidently true, or as dogmatically true. This fallacy relies on the implied expertise of the speaker or on an unstated truism.[94][95]

The fallacy of defending a proposition by baldly asserting that it is “just how it is” distorts the argument by opting out of it entirely: the claimant declares an issue to be intrinsic, and not changeable.[2]

@Veloran-wyrmrest-accord

It’s not a circular argument, it’s merely a question that takes the history and character of the Horde into account.

This is very much a circular argument. You have concluded that the Horde would not leave, and your evidence that the Horde did not leave is your conclusion that that the Horde would not leave. As described, “It is a type of circular reasoning: an argument that requires that the desired conclusion be true.”

@Veloran-wyrmrest-accord

Is the BfA mission table showing there’s no garrison at Theramore ignorance?

BfA mission table doesn’t show there’s no garrison. It only says both sides are looking into the ruins of Theramore themselves to see if they could work as an additional base. So yes, you are appealing to ignorance in saying there is no evidence for a garrison near Theramore so there is no garrison near Theramore.

@Veloran-wyrmrest-accord

Is the stated status of Gilneas as a deserted ruin in BtS ignorance?

Appealing to ignorance in that there’s no evidence towards efforts the Alliance made for Gilneas so the Alliance have made no efforts towards Gilneas.

@Veloran-wyrmrest-accord

Is the Night Elves still claiming a forested area in Azshara ignorance?

For once you’re not appealing to ignorance, no. You’re just jumping to conclusions that the Night Elves still being in Azshara means they wouldn’t let the Horde use the lumber.

• Hasty generalization (fallacy of insufficient statistics, fallacy of insufficient sample, fallacy of the lonely fact, hasty induction, secundum quid , converse accident, jumping to conclusions) – basing a broad conclusion on a small sample or the making of a determination without all of the information required to do so.[50]

@Veloran-wyrmrest-accord

Many of my previous posts, including this one, have dealt with how Blizzard’s later writing proves their words wrong.

You have never proven this, as I have consistently shown you haven’t actually had any grounds for your points.

@Veloran-wyrmrest-accord

So you think that according to those criteria, this situation with the treaty is applicable? Why?

Appeal to ignorance again: “This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes the possibility that there may have been an insufficient investigation to prove that the proposition is either true or false.[1] It also does not allow for the possibility that the answer is unknowable, only knowable in the future, or neither completely true nor completely false. [2] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used in an attempt to shift the burden of proof.”

@Veloran-wyrmrest-accord

Is there a particular reason I should consider this situation and these settlements different from Blizzard’s standard fare of writing the world’s settlements as static and consistent?

The invincible ignorance fallacy [1] is a deductive fallacy of circularity where the person in question simply refuses to believe the argument, ignoring any evidence given. It is not so much a fallacious tactic in argument as it is a refusal to argue in the proper sense of the word, the method instead being to either make assertions with no consideration of objections or to simply dismiss objections by calling them excuses, conjecture, etc. or saying that they are proof of nothing; all without actually demonstrating how the objection fit these terms (see ad lapidem fallacy).

@Veloran-wyrmrest-accord

And again, all you’re doing is accusing me of a fallacy.

Frankly because I’m tired of you using these kinds of fallacies over and over again and thinking you’re actually making a point.

@Veloran-wyrmrest-accord

Is it really so hard to provide a valid reason for why I should accept those settlements being abandoned?

Believing status quo maintained is canon is headcanon. We simply don’t know. You don’t want to accept the possibility that they are abandoned, and ignoring that possibility is the problem, not simply being unconvinced that it is the case.

@Veloran-wyrmrest-accord

You’re the one who claimed they were to begin with

In this case, it was actually you who made a claim first:

@Veloran-wyrmrest-accord

@Amadis-draka

Removing one actor is the road to peace if it gets the Horde out of the Night Elf lands

MoP the Horde actually stayed in Night Elf lands

I said “if it gets the Horde out of the Night Elf lands.” You’re the one who established the claim that the Horde stayed. And you’ve been trying to shift the burden of proof ever since.

@Veloran-wyrmrest-accord

you need to admit that you’ve been guilty of every charge you’ve levied at me from the very start.

Highly plausible. I am always open to admitting when I’m wrong.

@Veloran-wyrmrest-accord

I think believing they’d accept a return to status quo when many are literally infused with the wrath of their god is absurd.

It is entirely within Blizzard’s, as we like to call it around here, bad writing to simply have it be that case. So, for calling it absurd:

Argumentum ad lapidem (English: “appeal to the stone”) is a logical fallacy that consists in dismissing a statement as absurd without giving proof of its absurdity.[1][2][3]

Ad lapidem statements are fallacious because they fail to address the merits of the claim in dispute. The same applies to proof by assertion, where an unproved or disproved claim is asserted as true on no ground other than that of its truth having been asserted.

[Aeliren-moon-guard (Aeliren)]

Thrall: “I know what it is to fight against them. To feel the loss and rage of war in your heart. Turns the legs to jelly. I ask you to what end? Dread it, run from it, destiny arrives all the same. And now, it’s here. Or should I say, I am.”

[Veloran-wyrmrest-accord (Veloran)]

Given her suggestion of allowing the Horde Azshara’s lumber, clearly she was accepting of a situation where they cut the trees down. And her opinion is usually the one that matters. Given that she allowed the Highborne reintroduced and spoke in support of Demon Hunters.

Sure, but making a policy and expecting your people to watch something they hate firsthand isn’t exactly the same.

But you do not even agree the Night Elves actually got the Horde to leave in the treaty.

No, but I think it’s important to argue from perspectives you might not agree with.

That there’s no escalating demands, they just return to the status quo.

Again, Teldrassil and what followed it kind of raises the stakes. Tyrande abandoned everything important to her to become an instrument of Elune’s wrath, it would be mind-boggling if she was satisfied simply with Sylvanas’ death and the Horde returning to their own territories. I can only really see the fulfillment of Varian’s vow to be the conclusion they’d settle for.

The [fallacy] of defending a proposition by baldly asserting that it is “just how it is” distorts the argument by opting out of it entirely: the claimant declares an issue to be intrinsic, and not changeable.[[2]]

Do you really want me to provide citations for every single statement I make? I presume you to know enough about the lore that I don’t need to get too detailed on how the Horde wants those resources and that territory.

Also your assertion of another fallacy is incorrect because of the second half of that statement, in which I make reference to their long history of fighting for control of the region. If I had left that out - And you actually believed it was a baseless claim - You might have a point, but you don’t.

You have concluded that the Horde would not leave, and your evidence that the Horde did not leave is your conclusion that that the Horde would not leave.

What? My assertion is that the Horde wouldn’t leave because they didn’t leave in the past because they desperately wanted the resources of the region. The only way you can say it’s circular is if you axe everything after the because, which is doing nothing but entirely ignoring my argument.

BfA mission table doesn’t show there’s no garrison. It only says both sides are looking into the ruins of Theramore themselves to see if they could work as an additional base. So yes, you are appealing to ignorance in saying there is no evidence for a garrison near Theramore so there is no garrison near Theramore.

If there was a garrison near Theramore, why would both sides want another garrison right there? For the Horde it would be building a base almost on top of an enemy base, and for the Alliance it would simply be doubling up at the same location.

Not to mention, if there was an Alliance base in that area, why would it be one of the only places Sylvanas doesn’t spy on? An enemy base and it’s waters close to your own territory should be pretty high on the list of places to spy.

Appealing to ignorance in that there’s no evidence towards efforts the Alliance made for Gilneas so the Alliance have made no efforts towards Gilneas.

You assert the Alliance made efforts to rebuild Gilneas without evidence, therefore I can dismiss that claim without evidence.

You keep citing an appeal to ignorance as though the burden of proof is on me and I’m the one trying to shift it, but it’s you who made the claims first. If you can’t provide evidence for your claims, they can be ignored out of hand.

For once you’re not appealing to ignorance, no. You’re just jumping to conclusions that the Night Elves still being in Azshara means they wouldn’t let the Horde use the lumber.

On what grounds do you suppose this is a hasty generalization? The Night Elves’ love for nature and desire to protect it is well documented and has been a major facet of their culture since their inception. Do you not believe this is a well-supported ideal? Or do you think this doesn’t apply to the Night Elves at that location in particular?

You have never proven this, as I have consistently shown you haven’t actually had any grounds for your points.

I’ve provided evidence that is, at a minimum, suggestive to the contrary of those character’s words. Meanwhile you’ve provided zero evidence for any of your claims, that any of what was said actually happened, all you’ve done is attack my counter-arguments. You can’t even prove me wrong, you can only insist I’m not right. That’s a worthless way to hold a conversation, considering that this line of argumentation can never prove any of what you’ve said, it can only waste our time.

Appeal to ignorance again:

How? I’m literally just asking you how this situation with the treaty fits the criteria of an argument from silence as outlined in the previous quoted section. Are you just replying that copy/paste at my quotes at random now?

The invincible ignorance fallacy

I’m asking you to give me reasons to believe your claims, are you going to give me reasons or are you going to keep telling me I’m wrong for asking?

Frankly because I’m tired of you using these kinds of fallacies over and over again and thinking you’re actually making a point.

A person can make a valid point while using a fallacy, you know? All you’re doing is committing a fallacy fallacy and resorting to accusations rather than formulating your own, better, line of reasoning.

Believing status quo maintained is canon is headcanon. We simply don’t know. You don’t want to accept the possibility that they are abandoned, and ignoring that possibility is the problem, not simply being unconvinced that it is the case.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)

When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo.

In this case, it was actually you who made a claim first: I said “if it gets the Horde out of the Night Elf lands.” You’re the one who established the claim that the Horde stayed. And you’ve been trying to shift the burden of proof ever since.

Maybe you should have paid closer attention to your own post.

This is MoP 2.0. Removing one actor is the road to peace if it gets the Horde out of the Night Elf lands, and that’s all the retribution they have ever needed and probably will be the same again. Old. Hat.

Here, you are claiming that the Horde was ejected from Night Elf lands, that this is the only retribution the Night Elves ever needed for peace, and that this is the only retribution they’ll need again.

You’re the one who made the claim first, not me. Multiple claims, in fact. Claims of the future, and a generalization of the beliefs of their entire race. Maybe it was jumping the gun to state the opposite rather than simply dismiss your baseless claim outright, but the fact remains that the burden is on you.

Highly plausible. I am always open to admitting when I’m wrong.

So were you wrong?

So, for calling it absurd:

Calling something absurd is not a fallacy. Calling something absurd which has no basis in being so, is. In this example, we have every reason to believe that Tyrande accepting peace would be absurd, she was literally transformed by an ancient blood sacrifice invoking Elune’s most ruthless face into an instrument of wrath, at which point she says “The time for mercy is over” and that she is “The Kaldorei’s vengeance”. The bad writing that might have her make peace for nothing in spite of all of this that you’re talking about is inherently illogical and relying on it to prove your insistence on a logical fallacy is - Dare I say it - Absurd.

[Imerus-moon-guard (Imerus)]

Sure, but making a policy and expecting your people to watch something they hate firsthand isn’t exactly the same.

I believe they could manage.

No, but I think it’s important to argue from perspectives you might not agree with.

I typically do not care to engage in a point someone does not actually believe in. Someone can make strong arguments for most anything given enough time and effort. So I prefer to discuss something they actually think, rather than entertain something neither side agrees with for the sake of it. I could join a debate club for that.

Again, Teldrassil and what followed it kind of raises the stakes. Tyrande abandoned everything important to her to become an instrument of Elune’s wrath, it would be mind-boggling if she was satisfied simply with Sylvanas’ death and the Horde returning to their own territories. I can only really see the fulfillment of Varian’s vow to be the conclusion they’d settle for.

We will have to see. I think it depends on a lot of details of how the war is resolved. But I wouldn’t put such a thing past Blizzard.

[Veloran-wyrmrest-accord (Veloran)]

I believe they could manage.

Why?

I typically do not care to engage in a point someone does not actually believe in. Someone can make strong arguments for most anything given enough time and effort. So I prefer to discuss something they actually think, rather than entertain something neither side agrees with for the sake of it. I could join a debate club for that.

Debate clubs usually force you to argue for things you don’t believe in or are even directly opposed to. I sometimes think of arguments as a series of tiers or steps, where you might be arguing on multiple points simultaneously even if they’re effectively incompatible.

We will have to see. I think it depends on a lot of details of how the war is resolved. But I wouldn’t put such a thing past Blizzard.

I also think Blizzard’s incompetency is immeasurable.

[Imerus-moon-guard (Imerus)]

Why?

They have managed other awkward situations before. The Sentinels always seemed a disciplined enough military to me.

Debate clubs usually force you to argue for things you don’t believe in or are even directly opposed to.

If I wanted that experience, I could join one, was my point. I prefer addressing things people actually think. Not arguing for the sake of arguing.

I also think Blizzard’s incompetency is immeasurable.

Most people here seem to agree on that, at least.

[Veloran-wyrmrest-accord (Veloran)]

They have managed other awkward situations before. The Sentinels always seemed a disciplined enough military to me.

The first known battle after WCIII between the Night Elves and the Horde happened because the Horde baited the Sentinels into attacking them at Warsong Gulch by clearcutting trees. It was in the WoW comic, issue 4 I believe.

If I wanted that experience, I could join one, was my point. I prefer addressing things people actually think. Not arguing for the sake of arguing.

I don’t think it’s arguing for the sake of arguing. The point of it is getting experience debating viewpoints from different angles.

Most people here seem to agree on that, at least.

Well, they’ll probably just use that angle to stir up another faction war down the line once they need another off expansion.

[Imerus-moon-guard (Imerus)]

The first known battle after WCIII between the Night Elves and the Horde happened because the Horde baited the Sentinels into attacking them at Warsong Gulch by clearcutting trees. It was in the WoW comic, issue 4 I believe.

A force that included Humans and Dwarves. And after they were told it was an ambush, they did not rush in there. A big part of the conflict was trying to stop the Warsong from harvesting Ashenvale. So obviously it stands to reason they would go somewhere to stop it.

I don’t think it’s arguing for the sake of arguing. The point of it is getting experience debating viewpoints from different angles.

I don’t really care about getting that experience here. I’m interested in what people genuinely think.

[Pellex-hyjal (Pellex)]

Okay, this is kind of a double-yew-tee-eff moment, but it seems relevant to this thread. From lead encounter designer Morgan Day:

https://www.mmorpg.com/world-of-warcraft/interviews/new-world-of-warcraft-82-info-tyrande-sylvanas-customization-oh-my-1000013638

“Put yourself in the shoes of someone in the Horde. They’ve known nothing but conflict for over 20 years. They believe that Sylvanas is the person who will bring an end to this. She’s the one who can unite the Horde in ways it’s never been before. You can see how people would want that. They might think, “I would like to know peace, please. Sylvanas will get us there.” The people know what Baine and Saurfang and Thrall lead to – it’s just the same conflict they’ve seen. Sylvanas is bringing something no one’s ever brought before. So it’s interesting to see different sides of that. She has a plan.”

[Amadis-draka (Amadis)]

@Veloran-wyrmrest-accord

In this example, we have every reason to believe that Tyrande accepting peace would be absurd, she was literally transformed by an ancient blood sacrifice invoking Elune’s most ruthless face into an instrument of wrath, at which point she says “The time for mercy is over” and that she is “The Kaldorei’s vengeance”. The bad writing that might have her make peace for nothing in spite of all of this

Just out today. Interview with Senior Game Producer Shani Edwards:

Shani began by saying that Tides of Vengeance gave the team its chance to “tell a little bit of Tyrande’s story” but that the focus in Nazjatar is going to shift to delve into other characters and to see more of what Sylvanas and Anduin are up to.


“I think she had her moment where we told some of her story and she got her revenge for the Night Elves. I don’t think we’re exploring her story too much more in Nazjatar though.” Shani said.

New World of Warcraft 8.2 Info: Tyrande, Sylvanas, Customization, OH MY! |...

@Veloran-wyrmrest-accord

I also think Blizzard’s incompetency is immeasurable.

As I said, old hat.

[Daetra-hyjal]

the Horde is what Thrall says it is.

Gave me chills! SO much this.

[Carmageddon-hyjal (Carmageddon)]

“Put yourself in the shoes of someone in the Horde. They’ve known nothing but conflict for over 20 years. They believe that Sylvanas is the person who will bring an end to this. She’s the one who can unite the Horde in ways it’s never been before. You can see how people would want that. They might think, “I would like to know peace, please. Sylvanas will get us there.” The people know what Baine and Saurfang and Thrall lead to – it’s just the same conflict they’ve seen. Sylvanas is bringing something no one’s ever brought before. So it’s interesting to see different sides of that. She has a plan.”

So, instead of the prior conflicts, Sylvanas offers bigger and better conflicts? Also, regular defeats? Also, horrific crimes by almost any measure? Because she sure as hell hasn’t offered “peace” - her first action post-Legion was to embark on a massive war!

So what we are to understand is that the people of the Horde, and by extension the player characters, who also followed Sylvanas into this, are morons? Or possible just all sociopaths? Or possibly moronic sociopaths?

#factionpride

[Moreesth-fizzcrank]

Sylvanas need the war to give her reason to survive for war is her reason to survive

she need war to give her reason to live, she selfish creature, to her this war allow her a reason to live and keep going. when she toke her life she didn’t see a reason to keeping going. the defeat of legion give her less of reason to live yet a war with alliance give her a reason to keep going. to her Peace with alliance mean an end to her exist. this war for Sylvanas was never about the alliance and horde it mean to keep going. when one take one own life they their more focus on themselves and nobody else they care about themselves and nobody else.

there is no I in horde. they is family in the horde. it same with garrosh he only cared about his own desire for gloried and not about the family that is the horde.

[Veloran-wyrmrest-accord (Veloran)]

A big part of the conflict was trying to stop the Warsong from harvesting Ashenvale. So obviously it stands to reason they would go somewhere to stop it.

That’s my point. They moved to attack because they were disgusted with the Orc’s actions.

Just out today. Interview with Senior Game Producer Shani Edwards:

As Pellex just above you notes, that interview is practically backwards. Even in ToV there’s dialog with the Alliance saying the Horde has to pay more. You know as well as I do that Tyrande and the Night Elves didn’t get their vengeance from Darkshore.

Anyway, not going to respond to my previous post?