It was excellent. It’s one of my favorite books of all time.
1 Like
I never got around to reading the book because the Barnes ‘n Noble near me never carried it.
Thanks for reminding me about the book, I’ll have to look into buying it 
1 Like
My history teacher in high school was just like oooh, Andune I think you would like this and gave me the book!
1 Like
That’s soo awesome. Lucky you! 
1 Like
I notice ever since this was brought up it got pretty quiet.
So we’re racist
Someone let the hamster fall off the wheel and broke the forums, now we’re stick with another….weirdo thread
1 Like
Be nice, life is hard for people who judge everything purely on skin color. Give them time to come up with some excuse or other nonsense.
4 Likes
I never said they should be. I said that it’s good when they are. It’s interesting. The opening act of Pandaria on Alliance-side is one of the extremely few examples of good and interesting faction war content.
Please learn to read better and stop strawmanning.
Firstly, no. The Alliance was not painted as the heroes in the opening acts of Pandaria. The Sha as an antagonist were there as a means to drive home a narrative point about the cycle of violence between the Alliance and Horde. Yes, the Horde struck first in a sense. But it takes two to tango. The sha were released because of Alliance and Horde meddling both. The hero of Azeroth on both sides undergoes a journey to clean up the messes of their people.
Like this isn’t very complex stuff, this was a story written so 12 year olds could understand it. Do better.
MoP’s story would have worked better if it was actually a both sides thing and not a “Garrosh is evil” thing. The story falls flat because Garrosh is actually evil and needed to be dealt with.
I disagree entirely, because the Horde rallies together with the Alliance to take down Garrosh. Vol’jin gets a lot of his characterization in MoP leading to his brief reign as warchief. SoO was done by combined Alliance and Horde forces. Idk what you’re talking about.
At the end yes.
At the beginning when all the panda lecturing is happening the Horde is following Garrosh’s orders still. Taran Zhu even chastises the Alliance player character for having Garrosh as their manifestation of hatred.
In the beginning both sides are driven by pride, hatred, vengeance, anger, etc etc. These things the Sha manifest as. Again, this is the point of the Sha as an antagonistic force. The sky admiral is shown to be blatantly vitriolic and cruel to the point of even her own forces questioning her decisions. The gunning down of surrendering Orcs is meant to be a sign that maybe the Alliance isn’t as pure in this as some people think. Taran Zhu lectures both the Alliance and Horde player characters, and he’s correct to do so.
Through the expansion we see the Sha slowly defeated. We see even in seemingly unrelated raid tiers such as Throne of Thunder the Alliance and Horde forces being forced to confront these emotions and put them aside. SoO was clear in it’s messaging, and it was a very good ending that kept with the themes of the expansion
Taran Zhu being unwilling to listen and only lecture is what got the Vale destroyed.
1 Like
Yes, also a flawed character. He became so blinded by his vitriol for outsiders that he also allowed himself to be corrupted by the Sha. There is literally a dungeon about that, funny enough, with him as the end boss where you free him from the corruption.
Like, this doesn’t mean anything. MoP had a clear message and throughline that it stuck with.
You implied it when you hyper-focused on the Alliance without mentioning what the Horde was doing in the very Alliance questline aka kidnapping villager children to perform twisted rituals.
If you weren’t implying that only the Alliance should face consequences, why did you only bring up the Alliance’s actions?
1 Like
I just think it’s weird to make Garrosh be such an awful and hatable villain and then have the story be all “No, no you shouldn’t hate him, that’s bad” followed by “He needs to be stopped so get to murdering.”
It doesn’t seem that coherent to me.
1 Like
Because it’s what the conversation was about. I didn’t imply anything. You aren’t a child, I don’t need to spell anything out for you.
The Horde were the aggressors in MoP. The Alliance responded and ended up causing more damage.
Like I get it you’re a little baby and need “Horde bad actually :(” in every post but I don’t care.
Wth are you talking about? “Causing more damage”? Is this a joke?
Also, you start the post saying “you aren’t a little child” then conclude it with “you’re a baby”… Yeah, I can see that logic isn’t your forte.
1 Like