Scrolls of Lore Forums  

Go Back   Scrolls of Lore Forums > WarCraft Discussion > WarCraft Lore Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-28-2018, 02:26 AM
Krainz Krainz is offline

Troubadour
Krainz's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Brazil
Posts: 2,454
BattleTag: Krainz#1972

Default Debate: are there villains in a faction war?

Are there villains in a faction war?
  • In times of war, are there villainous acts?
  • When allying with one group, does that automatically make you eager to kill the opposing group?

I would like everyone to remember how both Alliance and the Horde acted in the First and Second wars, not only the conflicts portrayed in Warcraft. If possibly, address previous conflicts as well, such as the wars between the human kingdoms. Alterac, for instance, is a very relevant factor in this subject.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 03-28-2018, 02:37 AM
SmokeBlader SmokeBlader is offline

Elune
SmokeBlader's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 30,980

Default

One side wants to kill everyone and raise them in undeath, the other defends itself. Clearly no villains there.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-28-2018, 04:10 AM
Krainz Krainz is offline

Troubadour
Krainz's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Brazil
Posts: 2,454
BattleTag: Krainz#1972

Default

Food for thought:

Were the Romans villains when they expanded their territorial dominance and conquered the Iberian peninsula?

When the armies of York killed soldiers from the armies of Lancaster during the War of the Roses, were they villains?

Were the soldiers of Nobunaga villains when killing of the forces of Yoshimoto in Okezahana?

Does every Gilnean that killed other Gilnean people, during the Northgate Rebellion qualify themselves as villains?
__________________

Last edited by Krainz; 03-28-2018 at 06:19 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-28-2018, 05:03 AM
SmokeBlader SmokeBlader is offline

Elune
SmokeBlader's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 30,980

Default

That term doesn't work when applied to real events. Despite bringing civilization with their conquests, in the end Romans still committed horrific actions on the people from extermination and slavery. The english war is another horrible instance of pampered nobles sending commoners to kill each other by the thousands over literal family arguments. And the rebellion comparison doesn't work because what the Horde does in bfa is outright invasion and destruction.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03-28-2018, 05:04 AM
Commander Rotal Commander Rotal is offline

Sha of Disappointment
Commander Rotal's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 13,095

Default

Yes. Azeroth is literally dieing and what're we doing? Recruiting some offshoots to continue clobbing our heads in, fuck that, i say we all march on Orgrimmar (again), pool our resources (again) and kill the Warchief (again). And for fuck sake have the Alliance take over Orgrimmar for an expansion (or even at least a single patch, Undercity-style) and install some NPC guards and Overseers until everyone is satisfied that Warchief Baine is not up to evil shit too.

Everyone not conspiring against Sylvanas is evil. Everyone perpetuating the Faction War is evil. Fuck all of that bullshit.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03-28-2018, 07:51 AM
Patrick_C Patrick_C is offline

Chimaera
Patrick_C's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 251

Default

Rules of engagement are a thing. Throwing mustard gas at a civilian hospital is absolutely NOT the same as exchanging bullets with an enemy combatant just because you are at war.

Self-defense is a thing. Attacking a peaceful country by surprise because you want their resources is absolutely NOT the same as shooting an invading army that's butchering your civilians just because both are war.

Motivation matters. Attacking another country because you want their population to serve as slave labor is absolutely NOT the same as attacking another country because they are ruled by a murderous ideology that is openly threatening to invade your allies to use them as slave labor just because both are acts of aggression.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 03-28-2018, 08:19 AM
Krainz Krainz is offline

Troubadour
Krainz's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Brazil
Posts: 2,454
BattleTag: Krainz#1972

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick_C View Post
Self-defense is a thing. Attacking a peaceful country by surprise because you want their resources is absolutely NOT the same as shooting an invading army that's butchering your civilians just because both are war.

Motivation matters. Attacking another country because you want their population to serve as slave labor is absolutely NOT the same as attacking another country because they are ruled by a murderous ideology that is openly threatening to invade your allies to use them as slave labor just because both are acts of aggression.
So the British, the Mongols, the Romans, the Chinese, the Spanish and even the French are, by that definition, within the greatest villains of human history?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 03-28-2018, 09:01 AM
Kyalin V. Raintree Kyalin V. Raintree is offline

Priestess of the Moon
Kyalin V. Raintree's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 570

Default

"Are there villains?" Yes, there are clearly characters that Blizzard wrote as villains for their actions during faction wars. Garrosh is the most recent example, and both factions raided him for it.

Whether you agree that what he did constitutes villainy is besides the point. Blizzard intentionally wrote Garrosh as a villain, and more importantly: they were able to convince the player base that he was a villain too.

Now, if you clarify that question as "are there currently villains"? You may get a different answer. Blizzard after all claimed the right to say "just kidding!" with datamining content. However, again that's going to depend on what Blizzard is wanting to do with the characters, and crucially, whether the player base is convinced by it. So far though, based on what I've read and what you linked in the past, the answer seems to be "yes".
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 03-28-2018, 02:40 PM
Anansi Anansi is offline

Master Worldbuilder
Anansi's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: A Dying World
Posts: 18,131

Lothar

Yes, the Horde.

Is this some kind of trick question?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmokeBlader View Post
And the HRE was a meme that went too far.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PajamaSalad View Post
You are pretty cool for being one of the bad guys.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronGrackle View Post
I was probably just upset about the Horde fleet in the Second War.

Last edited by Anansi; 03-28-2018 at 02:42 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 03-28-2018, 07:52 PM
Cacofonix Cacofonix is offline

Chimaera
Cacofonix's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 298

Default

Horde Did Nothing Wrong Thread

By the way, if you appeal to Right of Conquest then the Alliance would be in the position to exterminate or at least significantly impede the Horde's ability in a better written setting that wouldn't have to worry about players. What with their superior infrastructure and all.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 03-28-2018, 09:56 PM
Trickster Trickster is offline

Elune
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Trickster's Mighty Keep
Posts: 7,366

Shadow Orb

Well of course when the Horde Warchief was quoted saying she was"like the Lich King, but serving the Horde", one might wonder... I mean, can you imagine Velen saying he's "like Kil'Jaden, but serving the Alliance"?

Besides, you clearly had the Horde in mind when creating this thread and not the Alliance. Therefore, I guess asking the question is answering it...
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brojar View Post
i literally just shit my pants with rage
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 03-29-2018, 01:55 AM
Krainz Krainz is offline

Troubadour
Krainz's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Brazil
Posts: 2,454
BattleTag: Krainz#1972

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cacofonix View Post
Horde Did Nothing Wrong Thread

By the way, if you appeal to Right of Conquest then the Alliance would be in the position to exterminate or at least significantly impede the Horde's ability in a better written setting that wouldn't have to worry about players. What with their superior infrastructure and all.
It's war. Both sides have all the right to conquer everything.

It would also be nonsensical to label one side as villainous because of acts of open aggression during war. If Alliance players compare the slightest act of open aggression on the Horde's part to Garrosh and Hitler, then they would make the same comparisons were their faction to strike first and hard.

Those comparisons are senseless, no matter the side.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 03-29-2018, 10:20 AM
Anansi Anansi is offline

Master Worldbuilder
Anansi's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: A Dying World
Posts: 18,131

Orb of Lightning

Quote:
Originally Posted by Krainz View Post
If Alliance players compare the slightest act of open aggression on the Horde's part to Garrosh and Hitler, then they would make the same comparisons were their faction to strike first and hard.
Didn't the Horde burn down a sacred megatree and leave an Alliance faction without a home?

EDIT: Hey, yeah, there it is in your signature.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmokeBlader View Post
And the HRE was a meme that went too far.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PajamaSalad View Post
You are pretty cool for being one of the bad guys.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronGrackle View Post
I was probably just upset about the Horde fleet in the Second War.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 03-29-2018, 11:31 AM
Krainz Krainz is offline

Troubadour
Krainz's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Brazil
Posts: 2,454
BattleTag: Krainz#1972

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anansi View Post
Didn't the Horde burn down a sacred megatree and leave an Alliance faction without a home?
So? The point of that statement was that, if it was an act by the Alliance, the Alliance players themselves would be comparing that to Garrosh/Hitler and then shouting out to complain that they're getting the "villain bat".

Everyone is a villain in war.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 03-29-2018, 12:47 PM
Anansi Anansi is offline

Master Worldbuilder
Anansi's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: A Dying World
Posts: 18,131

Orb of Lightning

Quote:
Originally Posted by Krainz View Post
So? The point of that statement was that, if it was an act by the Alliance, the Alliance players themselves would be comparing that to Garrosh/Hitler and then shouting out to complain that they're getting the "villain bat".

Everyone is a villain in war.
If it was an act by the Alliance, everyone would be very very surprised, and many Alliance players would likely see it as just deserts for several expansions of being shit over.

But it wasn't an act by the Alliance. So at the end of the day, the Horde is the villain here. Your hypotheticals mean nothing.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmokeBlader View Post
And the HRE was a meme that went too far.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PajamaSalad View Post
You are pretty cool for being one of the bad guys.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronGrackle View Post
I was probably just upset about the Horde fleet in the Second War.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 03-29-2018, 02:15 PM
Nazja Nazja is offline

Trade Baroness - Moderator
Nazja's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: All the lands of Wonder.
Posts: 40,906

Default

We admire the Romans or people like Alexander the Great and Cesar, but that does not mean that all of their actions were admirable; it does not mean that some of their actions could be called villainous. People don't neatly fit into categories, nor does one trait or action invalidate all others.

Were the Romans villainous? The Mongols? The Spanish? Well, it depends on which side of the conflict you ask. On what their motivations were.

Perhaps you consider Sylvanas a hero of the Horde for her preemptive attack, but those who perceive her unprovoked attack as villainous are not wrong either. In fact, considering her actions since being granted undeath, I'd actually say that the balances are tipped in favour of...
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 03-29-2018, 03:13 PM
Anansi Anansi is offline

Master Worldbuilder
Anansi's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: A Dying World
Posts: 18,131

Orb of Lightning

In favor of........?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmokeBlader View Post
And the HRE was a meme that went too far.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PajamaSalad View Post
You are pretty cool for being one of the bad guys.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronGrackle View Post
I was probably just upset about the Horde fleet in the Second War.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 03-29-2018, 07:22 PM
Krainz Krainz is offline

Troubadour
Krainz's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Brazil
Posts: 2,454
BattleTag: Krainz#1972

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anansi View Post
If it was an act by the Alliance, everyone would be very very surprised, and many Alliance players would likely see it as just deserts for several expansions of being shit over.

But it wasn't an act by the Alliance. So at the end of the day, the Horde is the villain here. Your hypotheticals mean nothing.
So you say there are villains in war?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 03-30-2018, 01:13 PM
Anansi Anansi is offline

Master Worldbuilder
Anansi's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: A Dying World
Posts: 18,131

Orb of Lightning

Quote:
Originally Posted by Krainz View Post
So you say there are villains in war?
I'm saying that unprovoked acts of terror against civilians are villainous things to do.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmokeBlader View Post
And the HRE was a meme that went too far.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PajamaSalad View Post
You are pretty cool for being one of the bad guys.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronGrackle View Post
I was probably just upset about the Horde fleet in the Second War.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 03-31-2018, 03:10 AM
Krainz Krainz is offline

Troubadour
Krainz's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Brazil
Posts: 2,454
BattleTag: Krainz#1972

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anansi View Post
I'm saying that unprovoked acts of terror against civilians are villainous things to do.
So Alexander was pretty much a villain then.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 03-31-2018, 12:07 PM
Anansi Anansi is offline

Master Worldbuilder
Anansi's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: A Dying World
Posts: 18,131

Orb of Lightning

Quote:
Originally Posted by Krainz View Post
So Alexander was pretty much a villain then.
I thought this was about faction wars, not historical conflicts.

A war between the Alliance and the Horde has villains and heroes because (a) it is a work of fiction and (b) one side has betrayed a military ally in a calamitous way that resulted in mass loss of life while the other didn't.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmokeBlader View Post
And the HRE was a meme that went too far.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PajamaSalad View Post
You are pretty cool for being one of the bad guys.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronGrackle View Post
I was probably just upset about the Horde fleet in the Second War.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 04-01-2018, 01:53 PM
Cacofonix Cacofonix is offline

Chimaera
Cacofonix's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 298

Default

Horde players have a habit of appealing to Muh Right Out of Conquest and Muh Reality whenever they need to excuse their rampages and find ways for them to not have any suitable consequences for their behavior. Of course, the Alliance doesn't get this benefit.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 04-01-2018, 02:31 PM
Krainz Krainz is offline

Troubadour
Krainz's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Brazil
Posts: 2,454
BattleTag: Krainz#1972

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anansi View Post
I thought this was about faction wars, not historical conflicts.

A war between the Alliance and the Horde has villains and heroes because (a) it is a work of fiction and (b) one side has betrayed a military ally in a calamitous way that resulted in mass loss of life while the other didn't.
You're literally the first one to point these things out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cacofonix View Post
Horde players have a habit of appealing to Muh Right Out of Conquest and Muh Reality whenever they need to excuse their rampages and find ways for them to not have any suitable consequences for their behavior. Of course, the Alliance doesn't get this benefit.
I don't oppose any of the parties having the right to conquer.

The Alliance should go full out on Orgrimmar and Silvermoon.

People should die. The only reason I don't include Sylvanas in my death-wish list is because the Horde would yet again lose another Warchief. That's the only reason, because it would become a boring repetition in the story.

Or heck, dismantle the Horde and have the Alliance conquer the entirety of Azeroth. Build a story upon the consequences of that (lol Wc3 part 2: electric boogaloo). That will never happen in WoW tho, so we must suggest ideas within the realm of both Horde and Alliance coexisting.

Gilneas should become a major player and join forces with Aerie Peak, dominating Hillsbrad and Arathi to build upon the march towards Lordaeron.

Those are all logic steps that should happen in a full-fledged war.

I also don't oppose the Horde completely razing the Eastern Kingdoms and leaving the Alliance down to ruins, having to rebuild up from there.
__________________

Last edited by Krainz; 04-02-2018 at 05:17 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 04-01-2018, 10:17 PM
Cacofonix Cacofonix is offline

Chimaera
Cacofonix's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 298

Default

"we must suggest ideas within the realm of both Horde and Alliance coexisting."

If we need to then this discussion is broken from the start. It concedes that no, what happens in WoW when it comes to Alliance VS Horde isn't believable, consistent, and not consistent in non-believable is it.

In a more believable Warcraft, either the Horde would be in no position to beat the Alliance in conventional warfare from their lack of infrastructure when compared (the Horde has what, some genocide victims and Trolls in mudhuts) or would have been crushed already. More Believable Garrosh would not get to pull superweapons and fleets out of Plothole just to keep him relevant as a threat. The More Believable Horde wouldn't have important neutral NPCs/Factions (see Tirion) conveniently not interfere with their antics beyond a bare notice. The Alliance's shameful actions during Siege of Orgrimmar in particular isn't remotely what a credible, recognizing face, state would do (help Hitler's henchmen overthrow him without even getting Poland back).

Last edited by Cacofonix; 04-01-2018 at 10:49 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 04-02-2018, 02:37 AM
Krainz Krainz is offline

Troubadour
Krainz's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Brazil
Posts: 2,454
BattleTag: Krainz#1972

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cacofonix View Post
"we must suggest ideas within the realm of both Horde and Alliance coexisting."
Yes, that's a requirement. You can even have the Alliance completely destroying Orgrimmar and the Silver Hand attacking the undead Warchief, but in the end Horde and Alliance must remain.

That opens up possibilities, though. If there would be a neutral faction ready to attack a race of the Horde, then there's the possibility that another neutral faction would be ready to offer shelter to the survivors and help them rebuild.
__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
horde bias, world of warcraft

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:54 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.