We need to set the record straight on lore morality

They broke a truce and made it clear they would assassinate the Warchief of the horde if the opportunity arose… even during a world ending invasion. Maybe they glossed over this in cannon but realistically thats plenty of reason to start a war. Blizzard isn’t afraid to gloss over facts to force an outcome (Teldrassil, taurajo, purging of dal, gilneas… every atrocity thats happenned in wow tbh)

The war didnt start until War of the Thorns, but when did both sides agree that this event was a non factor? I’m pretty sure sylvanas states in a good war that the alliance wont be happy until the hordes eventual defeat, which they proved in stormheim.

5 Likes

We’re not talking about what ‘realstically’ would happen. We’re discussing what actually took place.

I didn’t say it didn’t play into motivation. I’m saying it did not start a war, factually speaking. They say several times they were not at war after this and later that Sylvanas’ actions did put them at war.

There’s a difference between an action giving someone a desire to go to war and an action actually starting a war.

5 Likes

Started by and initiated by Sylvanas and the HORDE. Sylvanas was just using that as justification to start a new war with the alliance based on something that may or may not occur.

1 Like

The world at large does, actually.

The UN and Hague court are not the arbiters of absolute morality you absolutely deluded Westphalian Brained liberal

I don’t even think any of the US political party shills would come out with this take.

7 Likes

You do realize the only way you can argue Sylvanas was right would also be to admit Daelin was right? Sylvanas honey coated words are little more than a justfication for imperialism and the Horde’s attempt at world domination.

Do you really want to compare lists? Brennedam is literally a stones throw away and I can tell you right now they suffered greater than the blood elves. At least Jaina tried to just jail those cooperative enough not to struggle.

5 Likes

So we’re arguing semantics? Genn gave Sylvanas a damn good reason to go to war… but Sylvanas technically started the war… so all the blame is on her? I know we’re both smart enough to know thats not true.

Something that did occur during a time when the world was threatened and the factions were in a truce. Perfectly reasonable they’ll do it again after the legion is defeated and have plenty of breathing space.

Again, anything done against sylvanas and the Horde is justified, and the horde is damned if they dare retaliate.

Of course it’s justified, the horde proved time and time again they will break their word and genocide the alliance the second the chance presents itself, as the horde proved multiple times already. Anything the alliance does, they can simply point to all the times the horde initiated a new war based on insert warchief reason number 1000 here

2 Likes

You do realize Sylvanas was proven to not be innocent and was actually plotting something malevolent even then? I’d also point out BtS was a point in time where war was a possible, not an innevitability.

3 Likes

We both know there are people who will justify just about anything their second rate hand me down Lich Queen does.

We’re discussing pretty meaningful differences.

Not really. Her reason was pretty weak. ‘The Alliance will never stop’ isn’t very sound when the factions have only existed for a couple decades.

I didn’t comment on blame, it was a factual clarification. Genn did not start the war, Sylvanas did.

But she certainly has the vast majority of the blame. I’d say 80% or more.

I don’t feel the need to put in passive aggressive jabs. But I will if that’s the kind of thing you want.

6 Likes

Absolutely. Especially with our knowledge of shadowlands, it was without a doubt for evil reasons. But the alliance had no knowledge of those events. Genn attacked for revenge, no altruistic motivation whatsoever.

and before someone quotes that letter from Aszuna… thats not mentioned anywhere in the stormheim intro quests for the alliance. The alliance was planning to intercept a Horde fleet based off of information gained from a alliance spy.

Only a jab if it applied to you. It was moreso a “Lets see reason here”.

She did commit genocide in retaliation, so thats quite fair.

Case and point. You aren’t even listening. Horde will always be evil in your eyes, alliance is always justified. If I disagree with this statement… I support the lich queen… lIke thats not at all what I’v said but ok.

6 Likes

Wasn’t talking about you, but if you want to take it personally, that’s a YOU problem. I just said there are people on this forum who will justify anything she does. That’s all.

‘You’re stupid if you don’t agree with me’ is a pretty needless, in my opinion. Whatever your intent, that’s the implication.

All I want from a god is for it to not lay squid eggs in my brain.

Complete nonsense. A few knives get handed out and we extrapolate that to mean the entire country would commit suicided?

If everyone was expected to die, why didn’t they? Why did they surrender? This is just a ridiculous caricature to justify that we took the easy way out, over the bodies of millions of civilians.

5 Likes

Ok

Thats a gross simplifcation and not what I said… I’ll clear it up.

I made this statement. This statement is absurd. If you believe this, you are unreasonable. I’m allowed an opinion. I didn’t attack anyone. Motivations and actions are caused for war. I’m arguing Both sides have culpability.

Here I was referring to you. We are both smart enough, aka, we can both agree.

People here usually misinterpret my message unless im blunt. Whether thats a fault of mine, theirs, or failure to convey/understand the message through text on a screen… idk. But it’s nothing personal.

We’re all arguing over a completely inconsistent story, you could say we’re all asinine for that. Yet here we are.

1 Like

The difference is that instead of unreasonable you used the comparison ‘smart enough’.

Again, if I disagree, you’re claiming I’m not smart enough. Hence ‘if you disagree, you’re dumb’ or less smart to be generous. Whatever your intent, it does not remove that implication from the phrase.

Genn initiated the first hostilities after the unity and brokered peace between the Factions. Are you suggesting Sylvanas had to retaliate and declare a formal war immediately, during the Legion’s invasion, for it count as Genn starting it? I disagree.

Sylvanas was patient enough to withhold retaliation during the Legion’s invasion. She even tells Saurfang that wounds need mending and crops need to be planted and harvested, but to prepare for the invasion in defense from Alliance aggression. She explicitly planned to wait until the Horde was replenished and the Alliance could be tricked by her misinformation, before she attacked. A plan which Saurfang agreed to make, with Stormheim on his mind as evidence of the Alliance’s warmongering.

6 Likes

I’m saying that’s what Sylvanas, Anduin, and all the leaders involved said. That’s the lore.

She could have done if afterwards too, but that still was not the case. She and the Horde still agreed their enactment later was starting the war.

1 Like

I will never not love the story forums for the fantastical one-man circuses it brings out to argue about morality

Aurdo “Two Bombs Wasn’t Enough” Mew
Aurdo “World War Two Needs A Round Two” Mew
Aurdo “Atrocity? More Like Virtuosity” Mew

10 Likes