What’s the alternative? 5 times as many civilian dead in a conventional campaign. You are arguing for more death.
Um…bull****? There’s no reason a conventional campaign would kill that many civilians. 5 times as many soldiers? Absolutely. 5 times as many civilians? Not unless you were committing a bunch of other atrocities instead.
10 Likes
The estimated Japanese losses, both military and civilian, was expected to exceed 2 million (lower estimate) and 10 million (higher estimate) in Operation Downfall. Partially because the Japanese would force their own civilians to commit suicide in territories they were losing, like Okinawa.
If we look at Imperial Japanese orders in the mainland in 1945, they were handing knives out to School girls so they could stab US troops, so its apparent they expected literally everyone to die for the Emperor.
We must also consider that if an Invasion were carried out, the Soviets would probably also mount their own invasion of mainland Japan, and the Soviets don’t play nearly as nice.
1 Like
Incidentally Humans have all squished at least one bug even without knowing it. Karma demands Humanity be wiped out…
Every creature has killed(if not dead on/before/shortly after birth). No one is innocent no matter how you try to whitewash it!
If Karma was absolute all Life would have ceased to exist ages ago! The Universe is far more merciful than Karma.
Karma goes against Mercy and is considered Cruel yet Fair.
Cold Unfeeling Karma is not something you want as a God!
2 Likes
That was one of the new night elf posters; forget her name.
Anyone advocating for the Alliance to do to a Horde race what was done to the night elves is short-sighted. We don’t want both factions to suffer under that sort of writing, and we should be heavily against Blizzard ever doing something like that again.
On the other hand, people who claim that what the Alliance has done to the Horde is in any way equitable to what the latter’s done in turn are also being pretty biased.
That’s the crux of the issue, the writers keep having the Horde do things they shouldn’t be doing from a healthy writing perspective, and then ramming through their story anyway. Before they started on this writing path back in Cata, the Horde had an identity that was reasonably divorced from the Alliance, now not so much. A cold war is the best idea from a writing perspective, because it allows for a balance of themes between the factions, and keeps the possibility for teamups. The most iconic cutscene in the entire game features a Horde hero and an Alliance hero teaming up, and though it ends badly for them, that’s still one of the best moments, where the factions are distinct, may be at odds later, but work together in a way that’s more rival than enemy.
20 Likes
muhh honor
3 Likes
Unless the Alliance are willing to throw their own morality and their chance of survival on Azeroth away then they’re welcomed to try to exterminate the Horde.
3 Likes
I do agree that the Alliance is not justified in committing atrocities against the Horde in spite of repeated acts of aggression and the murder of an unknown but likely enormous number of civilians. What the Alliance is justified in doing is defending itself; which I would argue the Alliance has not been allowed to do as well as it should. As to what the Alliance should do to the Horde in response to Teldrasil I’m honestly not certain.
From a player vs player perspective the answer is obvious; nothing. Horde players have no more say in story decisions than Alliance players and should not be punished. From a gameplay perspective all players pay the same 15 dollars a month so again; nothing.
From a story perspective things become tricky. Realistically, a response to an attack on the scale of Teldrasil alone would not so much be required as expected from the Alliance (hence the entire war). As to whether a response after the war is justified that then asks a question presented in another thread about reparations.
Without getting into and getting back to the OP the question isn’t would the Alliance be moral in the story but rather would they feel justified. And whether or not that may be used later in the story. That could tie into an expansion with the Alliance being the aggressor in a faction war because they believe they are justified in defending themselves regardless of morality. Whether such an expansion would be good or not I couldn’t say without more details. Whether an atrocity would be moral or not; it wouldn’t. But its debatable how many characters and players would care.
4 Likes
I do find it funny that Alliance Posters basically prove Sylvanas right. The Alliance will never be satisfied until they have complete domination of the universe, and they will mete out vengeance for every perceived wrong the moment the Horde can no longer retaliate. All the Alliance’s talk of preemptive war because of future aggression, racial enmity, retribution… it has been there for years.
Baine might have ruled the destruction of Taurajo as a legitimate military target, but some of his people either wished for vengeance or remained angry. When Sylvanas mentions it in BtS, it’s like a gavel that silences the room filled with Tauren. It is hard to defend the Alliance’s intentions when she mentions it. And we have a Tauren Leatherworking NPC who doesn’t seem to care about Teldrassil and just wants Alliance blood. Alliance Posters always try to hand wave it away as irrelevant and old news… but some people in game are still raw about it. Much less Horde fans.
When Jaina purged Dalaran, she gets away with it. There is no justice or retribution for her. In fact, in BfA, she simply tells the bitter Blood Elf mage “your quarrel is with me!”
No Jaina… our quarrel is with who ever enables the ice witch. The witch who twice tried and failed to destroy every man, woman and child in Orgrimmar. The witch who purged Dalaran based on race. The witch who assaulted Dazaralor and helped murder Rastakhan. How many more must she kill. As Rexxar says, she has killed too many.
Again, Alliance Posters bend over backwards to dismiss that, too. They feel any action they do is justified. Always have. They can do no wrong in their own eyes. Which is why they are fine with any crime or deed the Alliance commits, but cry foul when the Horde responds.
14 Likes
Name One War with the Horde Alliance started.
Just one.
Go ahead I’ll wait.
4 Likes
This is obviously a very productive thread and it deserves all my attention.
1 Like
Why, that is easy: the most current wars. The War of Thorns / 4th War. They fired the opening salvo at Stormheim.
The High King gave Alliance assets to one of his commanders, and that commander went on to use those Alliance assets in an attempt to ambush and assassinate the Horde’s Warchief after both sides had ceased hostilities at the Broken Shore. The Alliance fired the first shot after their cooperation, and it was meant to be a deathblow to the Horde’s leader.
Saurfang specifically ruminates on the events involving Stormheim when he agrees with Sylvanas in A Good War. He considers that it was against Anduin’s orders, but no consequences seemed to occur. Genn and Stormheim give Saurfang evidence that Sylvanas’s claims about the Alliance may be true. Even when he is talking to Tyrande, he defends everything up to the burning as necessary for the Horde’s survival.
Using the truth to manipulate people can be effective, as Sylvanas displayed.
11 Likes
Started by Sylvanas/Saurfang you mean. She only used Stormheim to get Saurfang on her side. So…name an actual war the alliance started with the Horde. And we all know Sylvanas was up to no good in Stormheim, so Genn stopping her was a good thing.
5 Likes
You mean when Graymane stopped the Horde from going to war with one of our active Allies against the Legion?
Here let me help you.
1st War: Horde Invade Azeroth sacks Stormwind. Horde Started.
2nd War: Horde invades Lordaeron gets defeated.
4th War: Horde engages in genocide against the night Elves.
Yes Graymane went after Slyvanas during Stormheim. Because she…surprise Surprise…committed genocide against Gilneas and rendered large swaths of it uninhabitable with a Biological weapon.
Graymane didn’t start the 4th War Sylvanas did.
If Graymane hadn’t intervened in Stormheim…then Slyvanas would have enslaved Odyns Val’kyr and turned one of our most important allies against the Legion…against us, potentionally even to the point of Odyns forces attacking both factions, but I understand Horde think slavery is just a part of life.
So allow me to help you.
The Horde has started every single War it’s had with the Alliance, and in turn LOST every single war it’s had with the Alliance.
And people wonder why Alliance players have had enough of it.
I also Wager by your Logic the Allies started World War 2 right?
8 Likes
Character morality =/= narrative morality =/= player morality
3 Likes
Oh… you are saying Sylvanas used factual Alliance aggression at Stormheim to convince Saurfang that the Alliance’s aggression was insatiable… I can agree that she did have the actual facts and events as proof of Alliance aggression to convince Saurfang.
Actually, that remains to be seen. She says privately to Nathanos that she wanted to save her people. Her goal in Stormheim is not exactly known, other than enslaving the Valkyr. It is a bit early to say. Some have suggested Genn may have inadvertently caused issues in the Shadowlands by breaking her little lamp. The whole scope of that is not yet revealed.
However, what is plainly true, is that the Alliance struck first after the unity at the Broken Shore.
But to address the Poster who initially asked me, I will point out your head canon drives your perspective:
Where is it ever said that Odyn would do that? That is merely an assumption on your part. Head canon.
It is entirely possible he could just make a new one. He made Helya, and when she split, he had another. And what is to say he would even care? Or withhold his support? Or that we would have needed him, anyway, if Sylvanas used her new Valkyr army to defeat the Legion? Odyn doesn’t send us to stop Sylvanas or threaten us for working with her. He wants our help even while we help Sylvanas.
To say Odyn would have been at all angry at Sylvanas for winning is as much head canon as saying Odyn would have cheered her for her victory while giving her a drink.
Ah. So you admit that Genn attacked the leader of the Horde based on events that occured prior to the treaty following Pandaria and the unity at the Broken Shore. Initiating new hostilities based on events that occured prior to a brokered peace. Starting the war.
9 Likes
Different people have different moral systems. So it very well could be how it works for them.
Factually incorrect.
6 Likes
Lets not pretend Greymane had everyones best interest at heart. He wanted revenge and saw a chance to get it and took it.
Odyn barely did jack against the Legion… so much for his help.
This is a technicality a lot of players skip over. The Horde wasn’t at fault in this scenario. There was a truce and the alliance broke it. Its ok to let the alliance take the blame for this one event. Justified or not? We’ll never agree on it.
As a predominantly horde player, it’s annoying to see people justify every alliance action while being damned for every horde action. I did pick the more “Chaotic” leaning faction, but the alliance is just as capable of faults… or atleast they should be.
13 Likes
There’s nothing to skip over because several times after that event, it is agreed the Horde and Alliance were not at war. Say what you will about Genn, both sides agreed his actions did not begin a new war.
8 Likes