No the quote is saying the Horde innocent and that the only bad person here is Sylvanas.
It is pretty much absolving the Horde as a whole.
They showed more concern over Baine’s arrest than whatever they did at Teldrassil at whatnot. It was at best a “this is concerning”.
Nothing in my face like Jaina advocating that we should not attack the Horde because their king died.
No he was generally telling us that war is bad, it is a real downer while supposedly I am defending myself. He brings up horde honor and innocents more than all the Alliance has supposedly suffered.
Its like He and Jaina are more concerned about Horde safety than my own faction.
No, it actually isn’t. Not by any stretch of the imagination. You have to willfully ignore what’s actually said and insert something entirely different to come to that conclusion. I’m sorry, but no.
Again, you’re completely and willfully ignoring what has actually been said in-game in favor of a constructed narrative of your own making.
Again, you can only come to this kind of conclusion if you are intentionally ignoring everything that has happened and has been said in the game, the cinematics and outside media, and then constructed your own narrative only loosely based on those events. Because every example you’ve given thus far has explicitly not said what you seem to want it to say. Most have said the opposite.
I would happily agree that the story of BfA has been spotty at the best of times and pants on head wrong most of the time, but you’re trying to turn it into something different entirely for no other reason than to create a narrative where you are personally wronged at every turn.
I’m done with you, good sir or madam. Have a nice day.
Then why use language that singles out Sylvanas as the sole cause of everything?
The only thing Lorthemar has said is “Teldrassil showed a schism in the Horde” that is all he said.
Nothing about how evil it is. If you have any actual examples please post them because I didn’t come across any.
There were however a lot of dialogue about how concerning the arrest of Baine was.
Jaina’s bipolar habits are why I think she’s less of a character and more of a plot device to push whatever plot the writers want down our throats. She forces the establishment of the narrative because she has the raw sue-like powers to enforce it. unlike say Anduin, who’s wants are reinforced by the narrative bending over backwards to justify him.
I would have found it more significant if Thrall was actually apologetic and tried make us cooperate rather than Jaina. It just doesn’t make sense to me.
Saurfang smiling and saying “your king is not alone” was pretty much the last nail in the coffin that he and the Horde will bear any responsibility for anything.
Exactly. Anduin want’s “peace” any any cost (even if it means sweeping genocide that his ignorance provoked under the rug), and Jaina’s power forces the narrative to behave in accordance of Anduin’s wishes.
The Alliance isn’t allowed to have any real revenge, it makes Anduin feel bad and tarnishes that image of white knight purity of pureness. The Night elves are screwed thanks to being tied to an alliance that cares more about its moral high ground than having a coherent story.
When WoW dies, I want the writing team to pull the plug, so they can let us down one last time.
Enthusiastic is not the word I’d use for it; but she has rebounded back to a closer version of herself before Theramore (if nothing else, the callbacks and parallels of that cinematic are good).
Besides, Jaina was presented as going off the deep end in no small part because she sacrificed her father and nation for the Horde; and then the Horde betrayed her and stole what she had left. Her mellowing the hell out after she reconnected with her nation and family (things she believed for a long time were lost to her) does make sense on some level.
Plus, she’s been recovering from her insanity at least since Kalec talked her down in Tides of War; and this was especially apparent this was the direction her character was planned on going as of the conclusion of War Crimes.
Blizzard makes a really gut wrenching event to generate interest.
They make cinematic that hypes you for this epic confrontation which ends up a miserable failure.
Lordaeron with Sylvanas getting away a nuking anything of worth)
Or
Terror of Darkshore which ends with a cliffhanger and our sole retribution is one nameless Val’kyr killed in exchange for a bunch of NE heroes switching sides because of Lol no time to explain.
We then have several events that leaves everyone unsatisfied (Dazaralor siege) and now we are forced to work with the Horde again.
Nay, we are begging Thrall to let us help him.
I think all of this stems from the fact that Blizzard is afraid of punishing the red team because it makes up the bulk of their player base. Alliance numbers are dwindling anyway so there is nothing wrong in screwing them.
I had no idea hating the Horde was considered insane. Well thanks for the clarification.
Her going completely unhinged and trying to drown an entire city full of civilians; and leading purge squads against Sunreavers in Dalaran (with Vareesa going so far as to have the Silver Covenant kill off the ONLY means of escape for the BEs) is deranged. Hating the Horde is one thing, her method of exercising that ideal drove her down a pretty dark path.
Or have you not noticed the parallels between Sylvie and Jaina this expansion? One that was pulled back from following in Arthas’ footsteps in terms of fanaticism and tactics; because she had people she still trusted enough to heed. The other is such a control freak that she surrounds herself with yes-men, and thus waltzed down the path of Arthas without a single person to intervene.
If you think that what Sylvanas is doing is motivated by “Hostility” … I’m not sure exactly what to tell you. I doubt she really gives a crap about the Kaldorei in any emotional way; nor do I think this War was ever really about the Horde (all “A Good War” tells us is the reasons she gave to Saurfang; not her own). She doesn’t seem the type to be emotionally invested in their downfall.
Pretty sure at this point that Sylvie’s “True Objectives” are liable to end up being the reason she wanted this war so much; and burned the tree. My … personal guess is that she’s under a similar deal with Helya as the Horde PC is currently with Bwon (and this war was never really about the Horde/Alliance conflict, it was about Sylvie’s quest for immortality to thwart the afterlife she’s so terrified of … just like Stormheim was). She’s got a kill quota to fill, and thats it.
I don’t much care what Sylvanas personally wants done. I am more concerned about the Horde as a whole. I don’t think she is half as clever as Blizzard or players pretend.
Yes, I am aware of that. You have made it very apparent that what you want is the Kaldorei to get a style of revenge that punishes the Horde Faction and Playerbase in such a way that it would permanently cripple the faction for any future stories.
All I said in this thread in regards to the Baine rescue video was for Thrall to actually apologize and make his case of why the Horde is worth fighting for.
Not only for Alliance players but Horde players too I guess.
Instead we got Jaina convincing Thrall.
Its like the Alliance faction telling the Horde faction “Come on you ain’t so bad, lets group up! We are both just as bad, lets bury the hatchet”
So we got this travesty.
I am guessing even this request or expectation cripples the Horde playerbase experience as you like to say?
I would have liked that too … but I doubt very much that there was anything he could have said that would have resonated with you had he attempted to. He also did reach Jaina on an emotional level (it was subtle, but did you notice she only looked at him when he repeated her own sentiments about “Feeling like he did everything wrong”). Girl was frigid cold to Thrall up until that point.
No reasonable or just foreign policy makes it okay to do massive war crimes in response to the wrongdoing of the other foreign power. It ties into the simple moral concept of why “eye for an eye” is garbage; it leads to cycles of revenge and can often not be proportionate whatsoever. You can also be punishing people who didn’t actually do the thing you are mad about. At that point you have done the same bad thing they did, or worse.
When Germany and Japan were carpet bombing entire cities the Allies responded in kind.
This is why we have had no nuclear war yet because everyone assumes “If I fire my missiles. They will fire their missiles… so lets not do that”.
The Cold War would have been scorching hot if the Soviets knew America will never nuke them back for moral reasons no matter what the Soviets did.
I guess we disagree, mutually assured destruction is a powerful deterrent.
If one side bears no risk then why not try and try again until they succeed?
Simply citing real world events without explanation does no help. A brief overview of say, the Dresden Bombing shows it as a controversial subject even among the British. There was doubts on the actual military value of doing so. Of course, that gets into another problem- the bombings were part of a war effort not just to be retribution.
" But they are strategically justified in so far as they tend to shorten the war and preserve the lives of Allied soldiers. To my mind we have absolutely no right to give them up unless it is certain that they will not have this effect. I do not personally regard the whole of the remaining cities of Germany as worth the bones of one British Grenadier."
Mutual assured destruction is a very good way to screw over everyone. And the idea is to avoid starting it as much as possible. This is the context of “you launch nukes, then we will launch nukes”. It is not “you destroyed this small city, therefore we will go and wipe out an entire population center some time later”.