This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please
enable JavaScript
in your browser.
Live
PTR
Beta
Classic
Horde: Graduating into full villainy?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Atik
I've played both Alliance and Horde and I must say that Horde are completely hellbent on destroying the Alliance, not even caring about their common goals.
The main experience I remember about this was The Death Gate in Icecrown. The Alliance were invading with a large force to destroy the Scourge when the Horde noticed them and though "Hey, let's attack the Alliance from behind instead of helping them to kill The Lich King!" After that,
Alliance
have to run around putting the fallen Alliance soldiers out of their misery.
Horde
on the other hand run around finishing off the dying Alliance to show that the Horde may show know mercy.
That's my point. Something to think about.
Go quest in Stonetalon. THAT is exactly the crap Garrosh and Thrall try to stop.
Post by
229054
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
KingArthis
If you notice, most of the evil doers are alliance. Most of Kirin tor are alliance and hundreds of them stray from the good side. Take a look at kel'thuzad, Arugal, members of the cult of the damned, twilight hammer cultists, and many others. Most of the humans are also extremely stubborn and racist. Look at Admiral Proudmoore and Lord Garithos. Malfurion even prolonged the existence of the scourge. Tyrande released a instable Illidan. Maeiv relentlessly marches hundreds of night elves to their death; indirectly helping the Lich king by stopping Illidan.
If you look at the horde leaders. Thrall and Cairne have never provoked a fight. The humans or the centaurs caused them to fight. Kaelthas only wanted what was best for his people and guess who strayed him off the "good" path? Lord Garithos and Malfurion. Malfurion left Kael to rot while he went to search for Tyrande. Lord Garithos the racist caused Kael to join Illidan and eventually lead to kael summoning Kil'jaedin.
The orcs at first on draenor were friendly to the draenei. In fact it was the Draenei that should be blamed for the fel horde in the first place. Kil'jaedin and Archimonde commanded the legion and corrupted the orcs. The orcs killed millions of innocent beings but where under the bloodlust Gul'dan brought to them that was originally part of a draenei's (Kil'jaedin's) plan.
Post by
229054
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
KingArthis
Well that is true. Malfurion does not even thank Kaelthas nor does he even ponder what Kael is to become of. Let him sit in the Dalaran ruins?
This was only one example of many even if it is a it flawed. The point is the bigger picture which you are avoiding by nitpicking on small mistakes. The alliance races or the alliance itself is responsible for an equal if not more amount of chaos than the horde has done.
Post by
oneforthemoney
The humans were one of the most numerous intelligent race on Azeroth until thew scourge so its only natural that the ratio would be rather skewed.
By the way, Thrall may not have started a fight but the fact of the matter is that the majority of humans who detest orcs suffered at the hands of the old horde. Thrall only knew the veterans of the war and that is why he tried to make a new start but the 'New horde'. A such many would naturally find that more than a little antagonizing.
Post by
kamchatmonk
In short, no.
Camp Taurajo showed just how valiant and honorable Alliance is. Or that episode with an Alliance officer who kicked his orc prisoner in the head for speaking up until that prisoner was blind. Or the new dawn of Defias Brotherhood. Or an attempt to kill all the survivors of Kezan just to get rid of the witnesses - there's enough filth on the hands of the Alliance as well.
Horde has always been questionable for common western standarts, and Forsaken have always been amoral - simply because undead cannot have any compassion or understanding of others' fear of pain and death (because the Forsaken themselves have been through pain and death themselves). But in Cataclysm, Blizzard specifically shows us instances of Alliance getting dirty or showing the Horde's order and how they deal with their criminals.
Post by
ChairmanKaga
Camp Taurajo showed just how valiant and honorable Alliance is.
Funny you mention that. I played through Southern Barrens on Alliance last night, and I wondered how Blizz would play Taurajo from the Alliance perspective. I was pleasantly surprised by the conversation with
General Hawthorne
. You can read the whole thing in the comments there, but the TLDR is "it was a hard choice, but we decided strategically it had to go, but we intentionally left a wide hole for the civilians to escape, because we weren't out to kill/capture them like dishonorable bastards."
It's all relative -- each side believes its actions justified and honorable, and there is a wide spectrum of characters on both sides from the honorable to the homicidal (Garrosh vs. Krom'gar is a fantastic example of the contrast). So of course the Alliance thinks Taurajo was a justified strike in the course of war, and of course the Horde views it as genocide because it allows them to engage in saber-rattling and boosting the war effort (and the same thing would happen with the sides reversed). The quests and the story line in game play not to reality, but to each side's perception of it.
If we all knew exactly what the other guy was thinking, it would be a far less interesting world we live in.
(Also,
spoiler alert
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
General Hawthorne
gets murdered, and if you pay attention to gossip text, it's pretty clear that it's an inside job by some high-ranking Alliance who have more of the Krom'gar mentality; i.e., can't let silly notions of "honor" keep getting in the way of our war against our sworn adversary. Oh, and they framed the Horde for it. Life is beautiful, eh?)
Post by
51581
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ChairmanKaga
*cough cough*
no it wasn't
*coughhackwheeze*
Okay, so the Horde did do it. But I bet I know
someone who helped make it possible
.
It is reality, biased from both perspectives. There is no altering of facts or actions, only the way they are presented to you. Play both sides and get all the pieces. ;)
See, this is what I'm trying to say :)
Post by
Skreeran
*cough cough*
no it wasn't
*coughhackwheeze*
Okay, so the Horde did do it. But I bet I know
someone who helped make it possible
.
It is reality, biased from both perspectives. There is no altering of facts or actions, only the way they are presented to you. Play both sides and get all the pieces. ;)
See, this is what I'm trying to say :)I agree with you, although I did the Alliance version first (even though I play mainly Horde).
You can read the multi-page discussion we had about it starting
here
.
Post by
Sigmafel
Funny you mention that. I played through Southern Barrens on Alliance last night, and I wondered how Blizz would play Taurajo from the Alliance perspective. I was pleasantly surprised by the conversation with
General Hawthorne
. You can read the whole thing in the comments there, but the TLDR is "it was a hard choice, but we decided strategically it had to go, but we intentionally left a wide hole for the civilians to escape, because we weren't out to kill/capture them like dishonorable bastards."
Except that, if you want to win a battle, this is exactly what you do. Leave them a chance to run, and they will do it.
Had they not done so, the Camp would have offered a lot more resistance, and likely, a lot more casualties on the Alliance side. Hawthorne may be more centered on honor than Gaines, but he didn't do this because he wanted to save civilians. He did it because otherwise, he risked Taurajo ending his offensive in the Southern Barrens.
Post by
Skreeran
Funny you mention that. I played through Southern Barrens on Alliance last night, and I wondered how Blizz would play Taurajo from the Alliance perspective. I was pleasantly surprised by the conversation with
General Hawthorne
. You can read the whole thing in the comments there, but the TLDR is "it was a hard choice, but we decided strategically it had to go, but we intentionally left a wide hole for the civilians to escape, because we weren't out to kill/capture them like dishonorable bastards."
Except that, if you want to win a battle, this is exactly what you do. Leave them a chance to run, and they will do it.
Had they not done so, the Camp would have offered a lot more resistance, and likely, a lot more casualties on the Alliance side. Hawthorne may be more centered on honor than Gaines, but he didn't do this because he wanted to save civilians. He did it because otherwise, he risked Taurajo ending his offensive in the Southern Barrens.And what do you base that on?
I got the impression that he genuinely didn't want to kill civilians because he hoped for peace in the future.
Post by
Sigmafel
And what do you base that on?
I got the impression that he genuinely didn't want to kill civilians because he hoped for peace in the future.
As everything I say - baseless conjecture meant to offer another view on things (especially since it's an obvious key point of the Art of War, one that's the most cited, in fact). However, Warcraft being Warcraft, Hawthorne is supposed to be a genuine good guy, as he's contrasted by Gaines, the very obvious bad guy who, if the Horde hadn't killed Hawthorne, would have hatched a plan to do it himself. At least, from what we have.
Post by
Skreeran
And what do you base that on?
I got the impression that he genuinely didn't want to kill civilians because he hoped for peace in the future.
As everything I say - baseless conjecture meant to offer another view on things (especially since it's an obvious key point of the Art of War, one that's the most cited, in fact). However, Warcraft being Warcraft, Hawthorne is supposed to be a genuine good guy, as he's contrasted by Gaines, the very obvious bad guy who, if the Horde hadn't killed Hawthorne, would have hatched a plan to do it himself. At least, from what we have.Right, and I understand that. I'm simply asking that we remember what is speculation and keep that separate from the facts.
To say "Hawthorne may be more centered on honor than Gaines, but he didn't do this because he wanted to save civilians." is to present your conjecture as fact. I certainly appreciate viewing things in another way, believe me, but it's confusing to present speculation as fact, and that leads to fanon.
Post by
Sigmafel
To say "Hawthorne may be more centered on honor than Gaines, but he didn't do this because he wanted to save civilians." is to present your conjecture as fact. I certainly appreciate viewing things in another way, believe me, but it's confusing to present speculation as fact, and that leads to fanon.
Yah, I'd like to blame my English skills.
Except that, y'know, I don't think it'd fly so well, even though they are, technically, not as sound as most. But yes, it's baseless conjecture unless something comes up to prove it. I should probably return my sig to "The Anti-Lore" like... a couple of months back? I don't remember when I changed it to the Village People lyric.
Post by
51581
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Sigmafel
I doubt Gaines would stoop that low. His hatred for the Horde in undeniable and unwavering. I do not think he would 'actively' consort with them just to get a thorn out of his side. A decent and competent thorn at that. One, who despite his misgivings and honorarium demeanour, gets the job done. In all probability, it is likely he would not care for the generals death, he would even use it to further his own agenda, but I sincerely doubt he had anything to do with it.
Of course, I might be wrong. I've no idea what Gaines could and would do.
Gaines is, at the very least, extremely interested in a death warrant for Hawthorne.
What's this? A death warrant for the General here! This is good to know... Very good to know...
Post by
51581
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Skreeran
I perceived his reaction more in this way:
"A death warrant for the General here? That's good to know, very good to know! You've done a great thing by telling me this."
*player gets rewarded, leaves*
*Gaines throws the intel in a bonfire. *
"Well, that makes my job a helluva lot easier."
So he knew, he could've prevented it, but he simply doesn't. The result is that he's not only not to blame for Hawthorne's death, but he can also use it to put a like minded individual in charge.(Twinbraid)
Dude's a master playah foo'!
(btw, that honorarium has to be honourable, obviously. Phone's messing with me -.-')Yeah, I never thought that he was directly responsible, at least after I found out about the Horde's version (prior to that, I was convinced that it was his agents, disguised as Horde, who had killed Hawthorne). But he certainly didn't do anything to prevent it, and that's still treasonous IMO.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.
© 2021 Fanbyte
