Actually “Fantastic Racism”.
Because some people will assume i am talking about IRL for some reasons…
Weirdos 
Given that Andiun actually apologizes for killing them, it was clearly the Alliance.
I always liked how some posters treat this. Sending messengers who don’t return is a classic literary device. It means the other side would kill about of hand rather than listen. But instead we have posters who call even a hint of evil on the Horde as “proof”. Or in this case “objective proof”. But then they are “well maybe they had an accident”, as if there was any chance the author was trying to tell us they died by accident.
8 Likes
M? Can I have a source?
2 Likes
3 Likes
If it was intended to be that clear it would have been in Chronicles, but Chronicles specifically muddies the waters by saying that nobody really knows what happened to those emissaries.
It does strongly hint that they never actually made it to the Alliance though.
1 Like
In Before the Storm, Andiun writes to Sylvanas and says ““When you approached the Alliance, seeking a home for your people, you were refused.””
1 Like
Even if it wasn’t confirmed that the envoys made it in Anduins letter, it was clear enough to anyone who wanted to see. I mean, I don’t think you can hold the writers responsible for spinning possibilities that makes little sense to the story.
He doesn’t confirm it. In fact, Anduin’s letter is really bizarre in that regard because the purpose of Sylvanas sending out emissaries wasn’t even “seeking a home for her people.” It was seeking military allies. She had already conquered the land that the Forsaken ended up controlling in Vanilla (With Alliance help in fact, before she betrayed them)
So Anduin is referring to an event that as far as we know, straight up never happened.
Uhhhhhhhhhhhh
4 Likes
Ay, ay, ah, what an inconvenient wording, you can’t even sew on Garitos. Ok, you won.
Really, this what you are going with? Trying to claim an explicit event referred to by the actually writers never happened? Good luck with that.
7 Likes
Two sources contradict each other. One of the accounts is supported by in-game evidence in the RTSes, and the other stands on its own and contradicts everything else.
And since Anduin is a fallible character with no actual connection to the events he’s talking about it stands to reason that he’s wrong, and all the things that contradict him which are presented omnisciently are correct.
7 Likes
Anduin is actually more believable because he has no excuse to give Sylvanas any credit. If he said she was looking for a new home for her people, why would he try to humanize an enemy like that if there wasn’t a scrap of truth in it?
1 Like
Just Blizzard’s alliance bais ruining the fun for the Horde as usual. That is all they do. Make the Horde suffer while the Alliance gets more and more powerful each eexpansion. If we want to change things we need a revolution.
If you call fun the unbridled desire to destroy, kill, and fight (die) for abstract honor, that’s fine.
Small condition. Let’s be fully armed, okay? So that certainly no one on both sides survived and the kobolds seized power.
He doesn’t, actually. He only apologizes for turning them away. He says nothing about them being killed.
Of course, we have to take into account that Anduin may not even know what happened and is only going by secondhand accounts. But nothing in Anduin’s letter tells us anything about what actually happened to the emissaries.
9 Likes
They don’t.
You are simply taking the most narrow definition of “seeking a home for her people” (which can easily include defending the land they had conquered) and trying to use it to try and ignore explicit reference to something in Chronicles.
You claim “objective fact” and you have nothing but alternate explanations that don’t really hold water.
And yes, Anduin may not know first hand Sylvanas motivations (which also makes your claims of contradiction flimsy) but he it was his own father those envoys were sent to.
Lets see what you have to assume for this. That one set of envoys got lost or something, but that a second set were sent and turned away. But for some reason the chronicles specifically mentions the envoys that would then be irrelevant (because the others arrived) but doesn’t mention, and ascribes the course of following events, to the one that wouldn’t have mattered.
You really think this works?
Chronicles explicitly says that the emissaries never made it to Stormwind.
That would be seeking security, not seeking a home. You don’t seek something that you already have.
9 Likes
You can’t criticize other people for making assumptions when you yourself are making assumptions, which is what everyone has to do because Blizzard was deliberately vague in presenting the events under question.
10 Likes
" You can’t criticize other people for making assumptions when you yourself are making assumptions, which is what everyone has to do because Blizzard was deliberately vague in presenting the events under question."
I can when they claimed “objective facts”.