First time was by the warsong clan, the second time was under Garrosh again.
This one I forgot the reasoning for so I don’t really have a point atm.
So said point is, that Saurfang believe into Thrall’s horde which was build under the idea of being a safe haven for outcasts and monsters and not a war machine, the war song incident was during Thrall’s rule but was not planed by him and he did feel remorse in letting it happen under his nose. Thrall’s ideal was ultimately piece with the Alliance and to stop the war, that is why Saurfang was onboard with Sylvanas at the start, because she convinced him that starting a war now (again moron reasoning) would ensure future piece. Saurfang’s Horde is Thrall’s Horde, Sylvanas’ Horde is Blackhand/Doomhammers’ Horde.
Thrall was raised by humans he had no idea what it meant to be an orc all he knew was the that orcs needed to be more civilized like the humans and that backfired on him with Garrosh. Thrall’s Horde was a Metzen era fantasy.
No, I don’t believe I will be doing that. I’m really not interested in debating you on this. We disagree, that’s evident. I’'m not going to push this issue with you. Sorry Evelyssa, I don’t feel like this is an honest discourse.
As a slave, and later learned what it means to be an orc from his time with the Frostwolves, Doomhammer and Hellscream. He saw that they could not survive like this and opted for co-existance. The Blood elves joined Thralls horde, The Forsaken joined Thralls Horde. Would both of these people join the same version of the Horde that did slaughter them before.
So was the pre-Thrall era horde. You point being ?
These differences in community will exist, surely. This is why I also say identity has its limitations. The intersectionality of many things would have a better implementation. Im not going to try and extrapolate what their lives may have been like, what their experiences were/are, and where they come from. Them being those other queer identifying individuals who may not agree with my reading into the Forsaken as I have described.
As a worker, as someone growing up on the south side of Chicago, as an SA survivor, as someone who is queer, the last could go on, I have a reading into the Forsaken that many have found common agreement on. I could presume they have a similar upbringing or experience in the late 90s early 00s on being openly queer, or potentially some other ostracizing characteristic. They may not have had a 70s Stonewall, 80s AIDS experience, but a rough one nonetheless that forced many of us to do questionable things for questionable or unknown reasons. Was it the trauma? Was it society?™️ Was it personal failing? Who knows. Point being, its a shared experience, but not a universal shared experience - especially when you take something like the queer community as a whole.
Still - there are people with certain backgrounds, certain experiences, certain identifiers, that do play a significant role in their reception of what is shown, or as far as Blizzard is concerned, their development. This is why many of us here do criticize Blizzard, and the gaming industry at large, for being a largely white, male, well off, and heterosexual. It all permeates into what we all experience. To not use, or insert, an identity politic or intersectionality into this experience is short sighted and takes away from the goals of these discussion and forum - to critically analyze the story and more deeply discuss the lore and our connections to it.
And I’m am truly happy for you. Finding something in a story that resonates to you is an amazing feeling. However trying to force identity politics into these stories (where clearly there is non) is detrimental, because A) as you have said, this is your reading of it, others may not share it or might find it offensive and B) a lot of us a very tired and/or bored of these talking points, and believe me I mean no disrespect, yes most of us agree with and you deserve to have civil rights and to be treated like regular people, there are scumbags that would like to deny you those rights and we are against that, but the talking point has been beaten like a dead horse, we cannot eradicate all the bigotry and prejudice in the world, it’s part of the whole “free will/free thinking” deal we humans have.
A lot of us love the magic and/or mystery behind a metaphor or allegory, something being so very familiar but not quite the same, the mutants in x-men, the venom symbiote, the forsaken, the orcs, the worgen etc… Let it be your allegory for something but don’t ruin it for others by proclaiming it to be solely yours. Saying stuff like Saurfang hated his son for being forsaken because thats an allegory for being gey, is essentially denying someone else’ reading of the forsaken as being something else. Also its inserting something that was clearly not there, the conclusion to that though obviously is Saurfang=Homophobe, but if you brake down the story you would understand that Saurfang and all living Azerothians have a reason to dislike and distrust the undead, especially under the Lich King era, and that we have no idea what’s Saurfang stance on homosexuality, which I doubt is a positive one when Blizzard said that homophobia does not exist on Azeroth.
… if the only way to make orc culture something better than a perpetual war machine of violent idiots really is to abduct all their children and forcibly raise and educate them in the ways of the white man- er, I mean, Azerothian humans, then oooOOOooo have the writers screwed up and added some REALLY messed-up implications.
Alleria: Sister, why have you abducted me and my husband? Explain yourself!
Turalyon: Whatever it is, it cannot be good. How sad it is for a loved one to fall into darkness.
Alleria: …and what’s up with that stupid new haircut she’s sporting?
Sylvanas: My reasoning for all of this is in fact very simple… I need you two to… DIRECT AND STAR IN A RIP-OFF OF GODZILLA!
But even so, I look back at that despite how irksome & repetitive it had become - I’d rather that than the garbage ‘reasoning’ characters have now to follow other characters like ‘The Jailor’ (Such as Sylvanas) other than for simple power.
In terms of ‘Expansions that fell short’ I feel like Cataclysm had a lot more potential, MoP turned out better than I thought if I’m to be completely honest, - WoD & Shadowlands though seem like … well, I can’t use the words to express how I feel on the forums because I’ll likely get in trouble - but I’m sure you’d agree with them, lol
That’s an Alliance quest. Do you have a Sylvanas’s PoV? And not Alliance propaganda?
Alliance is unreliable narrators when it comes to Sylvanas, she’s an enemy, their quests are going to skew opinion against her. That’s not proof of anything but Alliance bias. That’s a Worgen quest, while they are at war with the Forsaken. Darius Crowley, Sylvanas threatened his daughter.
We don’t have the horde PoV telling us how that Forsaken Dark Ranger ended up with the Scythe, or what Sylvanas wanted with it. But knowing Sylvanas she wanted to use it to control the worgen so she didn’t have to blight Gilneas and the Forsaken would have werewolves as a weapon in their arsenal.
I’m not sure how that’s the case since the Horde is lead by a council now. The solution would be to disband the council which would squander its potential, though Blizzard has squandered potential before.
Because she lied. She wanted the Horde to die, she tried to do the opposite of save it. She doesn’t deserve to be a part of the Horde, because she disagreed with her own statement.
As oppose to seeing Sylvanas’ view? A person who has repeated lied to even her own allies? The proof in the pudding, she wanted the Sythe to use again her enemies, and wouldn’t you know it, two of the races who oppose her are vulnerable to the Sythe’s influence.
The worgen were feral, no one could control them, for all we know she could have tried to do that to stop them from rampaging Lordaeron. Sylvanas is practical. The most practical answer with Sylvanas is usually the answer. She wanted worgen on her side, a force that can be used as a weapon, her weapon.
Do you have something that would backup your claims other than head cannon, because it has been proven several times that you yourself do not fully understand the character to claim what “she actually meant”.
You just answered your own question, if Sylvanas is so practical, why not wipe out all of humanity/night elves, the greatest threat to her kingdom, in one fell swoop and get a blind army that follows her every whim?
Because that’s not practical. She’s not going to alienate her allies because they will turn on her. She’s on thin ice with the Horde since the Wrathgate. That was actually addressed in Before the Storm. She even had to walk on eggshells around the Horde suggesting a war they want, because they don’t trust her to wage “a good war” That’s the whole point of the story A Good War, there’s no such thing as a “good” war, all war is ethically bad.