Was Doomhammer “Honorable”?

Lore Story Forum
42
10/27/2018 06:16 PMPosted by Saiphas

That's fair, though I would argue that it was more the Peace following WC2 was morally grey rather than the war itself. (Side note, the BDF starting right after doomhammer's defeat set to work trying to destroy the Alliance from within).


Even the start had some elements of it. Orgrim needed to wage war or watch his people die. Zul'jin had a long standing grudge against the High Elves for stealing their ancestral land. Gul'dan was a necessary evil that ended up biting Orgrim in the butt.

The ending had the most moral greyness though, definitely. It was a hard moral choice that ultimately tore the Alliance a part.

Meanwhile Sylvanas goes to war on an assumption while the most peace-focused leader the Alliance has ever had sits on the throne.


This here I disagree with, Orgrim never sought any other way, not once, remember he takes over the horde before the destruction of SW. He could have chosen peace, and tried to explain what had transpired to SW. He did not, nor did he even think to.
43
10/27/2018 06:39 PMPosted by Saiphas

This here I disagree with, Orgrim never sought any other way, not once, remember he takes over the horde before the destruction of SW. He could have chosen peace, and tried to explain what had transpired to SW. He did not, nor did he even think to.


You can make a case that Stormwind as a kingdom can support the entire orcish population, but saying they could support both their own population and the orcish Horde starts to become pretty unbelievable to me, personally.

Especially when you factor in the demon blood still coursing through the veins of the orcs, driving them to inherent violence and a need to fight. I don't see any attempt at cohabitation going any better than relations between the orcs and draenei did.

Maybe Orgrim could have tried the peaceful approach, but I highly doubt it would have worked.
44
10/27/2018 06:58 PMPosted by Kisin
10/27/2018 06:39 PMPosted by Saiphas

This here I disagree with, Orgrim never sought any other way, not once, remember he takes over the horde before the destruction of SW. He could have chosen peace, and tried to explain what had transpired to SW. He did not, nor did he even think to.


You can make a case that Stormwind as a kingdom can support the entire orcish population, but saying they could support both their own population and the orcish Horde starts to become pretty unbelievable to me, personally.

Especially when you factor in the demon blood still coursing through the veins of the orcs, driving them to inherent violence and a need to fight. I don't see any attempt at cohabitation going any better than relations between the orcs and draenei did.

Maybe Orgrim could have tried the peaceful approach, but I highly doubt it would have worked.


Yes, but the point I am driving at is he never considered it. It never entered into his thought process. That to me removes the moral greyness. It is one thing to make a hard call, it is another to never waver at what the only solution can be.
45
10/27/2018 06:59 PMPosted by Saiphas

Yes, but the point I am driving at is he never considered it. It never entered into his thought process. That to me removes the moral greyness. It is one thing to make a hard call, it is another to never waver at what the only solution can be.


I disagree that it removes the moral greyness of the decision. He saw two paths, one where his people died and the other where they didn't. The existence of a third option that by all logic is a non-option as well doesn't really change that.

We can just agree to disagree on this note though. Moral greyness is ultimately subjective.
46
10/27/2018 06:59 PMPosted by Saiphas

Yes, but the point I am driving at is he never considered it. It never entered into his thought process. That to me removes the moral greyness. It is one thing to make a hard call, it is another to never waver at what the only solution can be.


I disagree that it removes the moral greyness of the decision. He saw two paths, one where his people died and the other where they didn't. The existence of a third option that by all logic is a non-option as well doesn't really change that.

We can just agree to disagree on this note though. Moral greyness is ultimately subjective.


You are right that it is subjective, to me your dichotomy IS no choice, because one will ALWAYS choose the lives of their people. That choice is not "hard" at all. A truly "hard choice" would have been to examine all options, and then make a determination. But as you said, this is all subjective.
47
Honor is a tricky subject. As was mentioned earlier in the thread, different cultures have had different ideas of honor throughout human history.

I think an interesting thought experiment to this effect would be to sit down and try to determine the definition of "honor" to each member of the Horde or Alliance, rather than try to sum up either organization into one honor code, as that usually ends up turning into Human vs. Orc, as per the original title of this game series.

By far the most interesting to me is Sylvanas and the Forsaken's take on honor. They are the newest "race" to grapple with the subject. Obviously it's not "they have none", because if that were the case, Sylvanas would go full Lich Queen and not allow free will in any capacity in risen individuals. Personally, I think the free will aspect, as well as the greater respect for death (even at the expense of respect for life) is the hallmark of "Forsaken honor". Dun Garok is a good example of this. If I remember correctly, the Forsaken murder all the living dwarves there, but allow their spirits to remain in undeath unaccosted for the most part.

So, to the topic of the thread, I don't think Sylvanas and Doomhammer should be compared by the same nebulous measure of generic honor, but by how true they are to their OWN concepts of honor.

In that exercise, I actually think Sylv comes out on top. I have not played through the Horde's side of the expac thus far, so I don't know if she shackles any sentient undead individual to her will, but presuming she does not, she is adhering to her own sense of honor more than Doomhammer had by using deathknights or Gul'dan.

As a last point, I disagree strongly with the "war in 100 years" concept. Maybe. MAYBE if Azerite had not surfaced, the Horde and Alliance would have kept peace for a few years before Greymane demanded his city back, or the Night Elves demanded the expulsion of all logging efforts in Ashenvale, but ultimately the Alliance rebuilding whay they've lost since the Third War means the Horde ceding ground. Once Azerite was in the picture, I agree with Sylvanas that war was absolutely inevitable. Either the Alliance has more, or the Horde has more, and whoever it is becomes the dominant super power on Azeroth. The dominant super power calls the shots, and only someone unfamiliar with the whole history of both factions would believe that they would trust one another in that role whatsoever, Alliance Peace King or no.
48
10/27/2018 03:55 PMPosted by Jakkø
10/27/2018 03:51 PMPosted by Demonflayer
Doomhammer did what he did for the sake of his people, even though he didn't do it in the right way. Depending on who's writing her, Sylvanas's prime concern is Sylvanas.


THIS.

Doomhammer did many nasty things because he believed that's what he had to do to save his people. He's actually a VERY good example of what a "morally grey" character looks like - noble ends, achieved through not-so-noble means.

Sylvanas is only looking out for number one, and everyone knows it.


Except...she's not, though. Or doesn't think she is, anyway. For example, her actions in Stormheim were not for herself, but to "save" her people. That's canonical fact, from her thoughts in BtS. So that has to be accounted for.
49
10/27/2018 03:55 PMPosted by Kazala
Doomhammer remains a hero to Thrall's Horde because he broke Gul'dan's control over the orcs,


Doomhammer even sent nearly half of his forces to chase Gul'dan to kill him once and for all after the warlock fled to the Tomb of Sargeras.

Doomhammer would rather see Gul'dans head on a spike than conquer Lordaeron.

In all honestly, I doubt I would see Sylvanas doing that any time soon. Maybe pre-cata Sylvanas, but not the one we have now.
50
10/27/2018 04:57 PMPosted by Lintsehsu
Its pretty ironic that theres slavery allowed in the city named after Orgrim if he was honored for freeing the orcs from slavery.


It is something that has confused tons of people, ever since the Varian comics came out.
51
10/27/2018 09:24 PMPosted by Carmageddon
Except...she's not, though. Or doesn't think she is, anyway. For example, her actions in Stormheim were not for herself, but to "save" her people. That's canonical fact, from her thoughts in BtS. So that has to be accounted for.


it is a tough subject to understand.

Some sources say that she more or less sees her people as meat shields to protect her for what is to come when she dies. Hence why she wanted more Val'kyr, as half of the original 8 she had are now dead. 3 die to bring her back after Godfrey killed her, and the alliance killed the 4th one in the western plaguelands. (discounting the one who took her place in the shadowlands when she committed suicide). And I believe a 5th one dies during the Darkshore quests in 8.1

However BtS hints that she actually cares for her people. Blizzard needs to be consistent when it comes to characters motivations.
52
It is a strange day and age when members of the Alliance are defending Orgrim Doomhammer.
53
10/27/2018 09:24 PMPosted by Carmageddon
10/27/2018 03:55 PMPosted by Jakkø
...

THIS.

Doomhammer did many nasty things because he believed that's what he had to do to save his people. He's actually a VERY good example of what a "morally grey" character looks like - noble ends, achieved through not-so-noble means.

Sylvanas is only looking out for number one, and everyone knows it.


Except...she's not, though. Or doesn't think she is, anyway. For example, her actions in Stormheim were not for herself, but to "save" her people. That's canonical fact, from her thoughts in BtS. So that has to be accounted for.
Except For One Thing, Sylvanas Views Her People As Her "Bulwark Against The Infinite" They Exist To Keep Her Out Of Hell. So keeping the forsaken going is in her own personal interest.

So her actions in stormheim were for herself. Because she needs the forsaken to be around to protect her
54
10/27/2018 11:38 PMPosted by Darethy
It is a strange day and age when members of the Alliance are defending Orgrim Doomhammer.


I still desperately want to see Turalyon's reaction when he heard about Orgrimmar.
55
10/27/2018 11:36 PMPosted by Denona
10/27/2018 09:24 PMPosted by Carmageddon
Except...she's not, though. Or doesn't think she is, anyway. For example, her actions in Stormheim were not for herself, but to "save" her people. That's canonical fact, from her thoughts in BtS. So that has to be accounted for.


it is a tough subject to understand.

Some sources say that she more or less sees her people as meat shields to protect her for what is to come when she dies. Hence why she wanted more Val'kyr, as half of the original 8 she had are now dead. 3 die to bring her back after Godfrey killed her, and the alliance killed the 4th one in the western plaguelands. (discounting the one who took her place in the shadowlands when she committed suicide). And I believe a 5th one dies during the Darkshore quests in 8.1

However BtS hints that she actually cares for her people. Blizzard needs to be consistent when it comes to characters motivations.


It doesn't "hint." It states it, outright, by showing us her thoughts on the matter. It is canonical that she cared enough for her people to risk her unlife to "save" them.
56
10/28/2018 12:21 AMPosted by Withpuppys
<span class="truncated">...</span>

Except...she's not, though. Or doesn't think she is, anyway. For example, her actions in Stormheim were not for herself, but to "save" her people. That's canonical fact, from her thoughts in BtS. So that has to be accounted for.
Except For One Thing, Sylvanas Views Her People As Her "Bulwark Against The Infinite" They Exist To Keep Her Out Of Hell. So keeping the forsaken going is in her own personal interest.

So her actions in stormheim were for herself. Because she needs the forsaken to be around to protect her


But that doesn't make sense, because she puts herself right on the front lines, repeatedly. Say what you will about Sylvanas, but she definitely isn't hiding behind any "bulwark." She leads the Horde attack at the Broken Shore. She personally handles the Eyir mission in Stormheim, handing off the rest of her forces to help the PC secure the Aegis. She hunts Malfurion herself, even though she acknowledges that her odds against him are 50/50 at best. She leads the counterattack in the BfA cinematic.

No other leader on either faction leads more from the front.

I've been pretty up front about my problems with Sylvanas this expansion, but she isn't a coward and she cares for her people, in her way. That's canonical fact.
57
10/27/2018 11:38 PMPosted by Darethy
It is a strange day and age when members of the Alliance are defending Orgrim Doomhammer.


We often choose to defend a subject we normally wouldn't defend when it helps to frame a second subject as worst in comparison. It's less about defending the subject, and more about harming the second.

I'm sure this phenomena has a name, but I don't know what it is.
58
10/28/2018 12:59 AMPosted by Carmageddon
But that doesn't make sense, because she puts herself right on the front lines, repeatedly.


10/28/2018 12:59 AMPosted by Carmageddon
She personally handles the Eyir mission in Stormheim
naturally, enslaving eyir was critically important to sylvanas, she needs val'kyr of the 9 that made a pact with her, as of 8.1 only 3 remain, and if she dies one more time she will be left with none. not only that but she would need val'kyr to make new forsaken.

and if you want something done right, then you have to do it yourself, so yes sylvanas did have to put herself at risk, but the potential gain for sylvanas vastly outweighed the risk. with eyir enslaved she would access to unlimited val'kyr as she can just keep making more and more and more. she would pretty much be untouchable.

10/28/2018 12:59 AMPosted by Carmageddon
She leads the Horde attack at the Broken Shore.
remember why the legion was here, to burn our world. so if they succeeded sylvanas would die regardless of how large how bulwark is. the world would still burn. so sylvanas probably did not want to leave anything to chance.

10/28/2018 12:59 AMPosted by Carmageddon
She hunts Malfurion herself
again the reward outweighed the risk, if she killed malfurion, she could bring the war of thorns to an easy close and use the occupation of teldrassil to splinter the alliance which was the original plan. this would have put her in less harm than what we are seeing now.

10/28/2018 12:59 AMPosted by Carmageddon
She leads the counterattack in the BfA cinematic.
i question how canonical since we play through the battle of lordaeron but never see her take the front lines. in fact the only time we see her put herself in any risk is at the end, because she was luring them in for a trap to try and kill off the alliance leadership but most importantly, she had an out

but lets pretend the cinematic is canonical. sylvanas may be undead, but she still understands some living concepts like morale, and morale is very important to win battles which she definitely wants, it would be a morale boost to see your warchief lead at the front.

what we are seeing as that sylvanas mainly only puts herself at risk if the risks help secure long term safety for herself.

10/28/2018 12:59 AMPosted by Carmageddon
but she isn't a coward and she cares for her people, in her way.
i dont doubt that she cares for her people, but the way she cares about them is vastly different than how anduin or genn care about theirs.

to put it simply she cares about her people in the same way i care about my swords. they are a tool that is useful to me but if my swords broke i would simply replace them if i could not repair them. the same applies to sylvanas, if 200 forsaken were slaughtered and their corpses burned by the alliance, sylvanas will shed no tears over them. she will simply shrug and raise 200 more to replace them.
59
10/28/2018 01:17 AMPosted by Nairdrix
10/27/2018 11:38 PMPosted by Darethy
It is a strange day and age when members of the Alliance are defending Orgrim Doomhammer.


We often choose to defend a subject we normally wouldn't defend when it helps to frame a second subject as worst in comparison. It's less about defending the subject, and more about harming the second.

I'm sure this phenomena has a name, but I don't know what it is.


That sounds about right. WC1 and WC2 were wars on a scale and viciousness that eclipse anything we've had thusfar. Orgrim would of likely wiped Azeroth clean of humanity and built the Orcish empire over their graves, Sylvanas at her worst has still displayed more capacity to reason then either Orgrim or Blackhand.

Terenas captured Orgrim and kept trying to fervently negotiate a peace treaty even while the orcs were thoroughly defeated in order to co-exist with a group of people bent on wiping him and his nation out to the man. The poor treatment of Orcs in the camps undercuts that it both wasn't their intention, and was an unfortunate side effect of the viciousness of their keepers(Trollbane and Blackmoore respectively.) when their entire purpose was to spare the orcs destruction.

When people defend Orgrim I feel like they are defending Thrall more then anyone. He, and the entire western Horde, has a mythologized view of what Orgrim and Grommash actually were. It was a very different time and place compared to where we are now.
60
I, like Withpuppys, personally subscribe to the bulwark against the infinite theory, and I think her reasonings for going out on the frontlines constantly are twofold:

A) Sylvanas is a very powerful person, and she knows it. She's capable of getting what she needs done done. Much of the time, relying on herself to perfectly complete her goals is better than relying solely others.

B) Constantly sending out people to do her job for her would not look good for her, and would also raise some eyebrows her had someone found out her motivations - what she does a lot of the time isn't exactly popular. Do you think she expected the Horde player to enslave Eyir of their own volition? I doubt they'd be okay with that.
61
I, like Withpuppys, personally subscribe to the bulwark against the infinite theory, and I think her reasonings for going out on the frontlines constantly are twofold:

A) Sylvanas is a very powerful person, and she knows it. She's capable of getting what she needs done done. Much of the time, relying on herself to perfectly complete her goals is better than relying solely others.

B) Constantly sending out people to do her job for her would not look good for her, and would also incriminate her had someone found out her motivations. Do you think she expected the Horde player to enslave Eyir of their own volition? I doubt they'd be okay with that.


The problem is that pretty much everything about Windrunners internal dialogue contradicts that, and the more time goes on the more I realize if she so selfishly cared about her lives she would of just been saving them up until now. Many leaders aren't frontline fighters, going out to the charge is unnecessary at best and wouldn't cause any suspicion.

Windrunner both obviously cares about where the Forsaken are going(in her own twisted way.) and has been hands on enough with them at this point that any other explanation would be illogical.