No it doesn’t.
You can say “Genn attacked Sylvy because of the Broken Shore” without saying “he was right to attack her because valks.” The former doesn’t need the latter to be true.
I…I’m sorry?
People actually…no. No, I apologize. For the sake of my sanity, I’m going to assume that you’re lying. You’re making something up. I have to believe that. I mean no disrespect. But the mind can only take so much.
Seriously.
…there was a bit more to that Battle for Gilneas than that. This wasn’t just, like, a one-on-one fight and Liam jumped in the middle. Sylvanas was essentially committing war crimes (Garrosh had explicitly told her not to use Blight, but it’s Sylvanas, so it’s all part of her plan, because whatever). The intent of the Alliance was to take out what the leader of the Tauren referred to as a valid military target. And the Alliance explicitly allowed people to escape.
Sylvanas wanted to wipe out all life in the entire city, which is considerably larger than Camp Taurajo. But she explicitly allowed the civilians to escape hahaha who are we kidding?
Anyway, I think those are false equivalencies.
This one is infuriating. “Why aren’t you ready to completely and immediately accept a group of elitist elves recklessly using magic with a strict caste system led by a charismatic leader who has ended up working with demons? It’s not like you’ve ever dealt with that exact scenario before.”
I used to wonder when she had the time to make these plans. Then, I remember that Tuesday maintenance used to be six to eight hours, and not one. As she fed more souls to the Maw, she became stronger…and Tuesday maintenance now is only an hour…if that.
I’m not telling you anything you don’t already know.
Well, if she was behind it, it would make sense for it to hit Silithus. It wouldn’t disrupt life on the planet enough for people to really try to do anything about it, and it would also hit a wound that was still healing from C’thun, which could have terrified the world soul, which would have sent a signal to N’zoth that–
AGAIN, I HAVE TO STOP BECAUSE I AM GENUINELY CONCERNED THEY’LL BE OKAY WITH THIS.
3 Likes
Being born into the same universe where, 25000 years previously, Sargeras had gone mad and corrupted/recruited Archie and KJ was of course Step 1 of her plan…
…and she pulled it off MASTERFULLY. Her parents, laying tired happy and sweaty in their silken Silvermoon sheets assumed that it was their own doing, while all along a fertilized ovum undergoing cell division silently attached itself to uterine lining with sinister intent, already moving on to Step 2.
8 Likes
i can answer this one.
it is different in the horde because the warchief IS the horde. or at least until very recently.
While the WARCHIEF represents THE ENTIRE horde, is not the same with the alliance with a different kind of goverment so of course that we can and should blame THE ENTIRE horde for the actions of their warchief.
no surprise that they dissolved the position. a step in the right direction?. 
Based on the knowledge he had at the time he had the right to attack her as she had attempted to have them killed(which we know is true now) by the legion by abandoning them part way through the attack.
So yes his actions were justified in that regard without any other meta knowledge he didnt have at the time.
From his standpoint he was after a woman that he left them to die at the hands of the legion which lead to the death of his friend. I mean if all the alliance forces had died there after the horde retreated the Alliance would have every right to blame the horde.
1 Like
I think you misunderstand me. The Horde and Alliance have to base their future diplomacy with one another on their history, no doubt there.
But neither should use those same tactics, beliefs or mistrust they bring to the table with each other when talking with other parties. And we don’t see it; when the Alliance were coming to terms with the various allied races, they didn’t treat them as they would the Horde coming to a diplomatic table. Not even void elves, and nor should they ('cept maybe void elves). These are people without the baggage of history the Alliance has with the Horde.
Though it occurs to me that the horde has the same problem for different reasons. The Horde shouldn’t use diplomacy with non-Alliance parties the way they do the Alliance. No other group would be okay with terms like “we agree not to murder your civilians, unless we find ourselves with new leadership!” It shouldn’t go over well.
1 Like
Not a point I disputed.
I disputed the argument that the fact Sylvanas later on tries to take the valk retroactively justifies it. Are you missing that bit? It was the whole of my example, not sure how you would miss it.
1 Like
Please don’t feed the Blizzard monster with these thoughts.
Ah, I understand what you’re saying; yes. I think it’s a novel idea, and yes - for effective diplomacy with outsiders, it’s warranted. But keep in mind that characters should have flaws. They should make mistakes. Feeling, and being emotionally affected by one’s history is part of what adds depth to characters.
And this would be the case, yes. With Tyrande and Thalyssra though - it is not the case.
The two fought in the same war. Tyrande lived in this city. Leaving Alliance/Horde baggage out of the decision is possible because Tyrande has first hand prior experience with the Nightborne.
For other allied races, yeah; keep the baggage off the table.
Nope.
Nope to all of that. We have Vol’jin going against Garrosh, Caine going against Garrosh, Lor’themar thinking of just walking away from the whole Horde entirely because of Garrosh, everyone and their deceased ancestor going against Sylvanas (except for those who didn’t). We have tangible proof the warchief isn’t the Horde, and when the warchief goes too far, eventually the Horde rebels against the warchief.
Varian and Anduin, until very recently, have been depicted as acting on behalf of the entire Alliance. And I wouldn’t argue their actions paint the entire Alliance. Because arguments like that work for both sides, and are just as invalid on both sides.
Neither faction is their leader alone, and only one of them has evidence to prove it.
1 Like
thats fine, I was just pointing out if you take meta knowledge out of it the Alliance doesn’t need to justify it with the whole Valk situation.
Based on what genn knew at the time he had every reason to go after her.
As the story played out from there Genn ended up being more that justified by his actions so claims that he needed to be punished for it are stupid.
No, the horde rebels when the warchief directly attacks other horde. not “for going too far”. that was the entire point of mop 1 and 2.
and yet they didn’t, they supported them until it was too obvious that it was time to rebel. IE when garrosh tried to kill voljin. not before.
And yes i know that the position was created so one leader can have all the power.
That is how the position was described in the books.
Not really, they don’t act in behalf of the entire alliance. we do NOT have a blue wachief. and the ally leaders can indeed refuse to their orders.
This is not the same with the horde.
You either obey,die or makgora.
So yes, the warchief WAS the horde.
Good thing they dissolved it, right?.
The first rebelion happened well after Garrosh attacked Vol’jin. The second one you have something of an argument for, but barely; it happened because Saurfang said things were going too far, not because she sent people to attack him.
You are completely ignoring a long history of speaking out against the warchief, something done only because it disproves your point. Come on man.
Until BfA, no Alliance leader broke with the party line. Even then, it has only been Tyrande.
I’ve got nearly every single important Horde leader proving my fact. You have one and your belief.
Eh, thats kinda why its a pet peeve of mine, because i feel as if a lot of people are trying to make a story point out of it. When for story related reasons its makes perfect sense they joined the horde. I feel like people who use this argument use in the sense to say that the lore dosent make sense because of that.
So can anyone list how many horde leaders Sylvanas tried to kill?
Along with those she did kill, like some of her on kind, Forsaken.
not really, first saurfang tries to kill himself and gets captured instead of doing something then sylvanas randomly sends 2 rogues to kill thrall.
Baine was the only one who actually said and did something.
“this is wrong”
procced to do nothing about it and continue to support them
the only one who actually did something was cairne, because you can either makgora, or die. and thats my point.
genn and jaina refused to listen to anduin and varian. it wasn’t only tyrande.
the alliance doesn’t have a blue warchief, while the horde does. and the position was removed due to the problems it caused, I.E forcing the entire horde into war and support their genocide.
- People claiming that the Purge of Dalaran was “a genocide” or “mass murder”.
- Similar to 1, people who think Jaina just went completely insane at the drop of a hat and not from a succession of trauma and betrayal over the years.
The sort of people who would not pay attention to a kid getting bullied constantly until the kid defended themselves then they rush over to be like “WHOA! This calls for punishment!” to the kid in question.
6 Likes
Cause the horde cant be defended lol, blizzard didnt give you anything to defend yourself, its just silly to complain that the horde got done dirty but then act like the things the alliance did to the horde are the same as like theramore and the burning.
anyways on topic when people pretend that sylvanas wasnt evil before bfa.
… You just skipped over the entirety of how the rebellion actually started. you’re aware of that, right?
You just ignored Vol’jin’s rebellion, or wrote it off as “dying”, because it wasn’t a mak’gora.
This is the only part that’s correct. How you got there, however, is incorrect.
You ignored that the second Horde civil war (or whatever they end up calling these rebellions) started before Saurfang got Thrall and actually started when the player-character was tasked with finding Saurfang. You ignore all the times Rexxar, Thalyssra, Mayla, Baine, Lor’themar and the rest spoke up about Sylvanas. You ignore every fact because you want to just say “what the warchief does is blamed on every Horde, because the warchief is the Horde”, regardless of how often that is proven wrong by the game itself.
I don’t think we’ve anything further to discuss here.
2 Likes
Back on topic…
TOP 10 LORE THINGS THAT ANYA REALLY, REALLY DISLIKES.
- Retcons
- People who drink the retcon kool-aid and try to act like said retcon was always the case. Like the smooth-brains who think High King was necessary for the Alliance.
- People who think Hing King is an actual monarch of the entire Alliance. Those people are probably the same idiots who think the US is a ‘democracy.’ Somewhere out there, your social studies teacher is disappointed with you.
- People who only play one faction and think they can chime in on the other factions story.
- The claim that the people of Stormwind and Ogrimmar are 100% okay with beings like Death Knights, Warlocks, Demon Hunters running around.
- The claim that the Night Elves ideals match that of the Alliance. Yeah okay, the rest Alliance really “respects” nature, buddy.
- People who hijack threads like this one to passive-aggressively whine about posters or posting habits they don’t like in this forum.
- Everything that’s happened to the Forsaken since Before the Storm.
- People who act like things such as population numbers matter.
- Cdev’s pretentious attempt to gentrify the World of Azeroth by trying to dispel the mystery and story potential of the factions, their member races, Elune, ect.
BONUS DISLIKEY THINGY!
- The lore-beards who try to explain retcons, missing lore, or logical fallacies in the lore with literal takes on vague statements or their own head-canon.
EDIT: I has post number 100. I is very, very smug now.
14 Likes
Sorry Anya!!
1 Like