War of the Thorns annoyances

[Setanta]

Millennia. The Highborne were exiled from Kalimdor about 7k years ago. BE/HEs do not live that long at all. The fact that the Rogue was around then is due to Blizz forgetting that bit of lore. Even still, until we actually see how Lor'themar and others react, we cannot really say for certain how the BEs view it.

The rogue wasn't around then. He was born in the EK and heard the stories from older generations.

[Valnaaros]

He was born in the EK, but he was born specifically in Tirisful Glades. The Highborne lived in Tirisful Glades 7k years ago. Anasterian Sunstrider ruled for 2.8k years, and he was considered ancient and frail when he was killed by Arthas. Seeing as he didn't immediately take the throne from his father Dath'remar, he may have been closer to 4k years old by the time he was killed. So, for some reason, Lorash is 7k years old and still youthful physically, even though he should've died of old age at least 3k years ago.

[Sukurachi]

Ugh, just did the Alliance side of Lordaeron.
While yes the Alliance come across as the "good guys" in all of this, I have to say that the cutscenes and the gameplay were way more epic from the Horde perspective.
Also tiny details left out of the cutscenes from one side to the other really change the perception of what happens.

[Wain]

The Horde cinematic is definitely worth watching for the extra nuances, esp. Baine.

What was with the focus on Alleria glancing at the ceiling just before Sylvanas does her banshee escape trick? It was like she anticipated it.

[Krysteena]

I do wonder if she heard something up above her. There was a very soft sound (around 2:53 for the Horde cinematic) from above that I think she picked up on. My money is she heard either Nathanos or someone else making those last second 'preparations' before everything went boom.

[Wain]

Ahh that makes sense. I guess I didn't hear that bit.

[Sukurachi]

The Horde cinematic is definitely worth watching for the extra nuances, esp. Baine.

What was with the focus on Alleria glancing at the ceiling just before Sylvanas does her banshee escape trick? It was like she anticipated it.

::SPOILERS AHEAD::







If you haven't seen the Horde version then you may not get what that was.
The cutscene is almost identical, with the difference that before the Alliance leaders enter Sylvanas gives her bow to Nathanos who goes up to a better vantage point. We presume that he's there to shoot anyone who would attack the queen, or to set up the explosions that destroy the domed room. So we assume that she heard crumbling rocks cause by his movements overhead.

[cowmuflage]

But how did he get up into the tower then? XD

[Wain]

Maybe one of those heavy metal album cover women flew him up there.

[Wain]

Regarding the questioning of ethics of players for the storyline actions of their characters, it's possible to enjoy a good villain in a movie just as much as it's possible to enjoy playing a villain in a game, and still believe the polar opposite in real life. I don't think it's fair to question someone's morality based on actions that the player is mostly removed from. Though there are limits and I would question both the ethics and mental health of someone who enjoys rape and torture fantasies.

Regarding Sylvanas's action, I agree with most that there's nothing that can excuse it even though I can understand her reasoning.

But at the risk of becoming extremely controversial (I may regret this), think on this real-world situation that real-world people - who aren't stereotype villains - still rationalize to this day. This is simply to illustrate how messy ethical situations can become when removed from the comfort of a fictional world : To end Japan's involvement in WWII, the allies, with the collusion of the countries of many of us here, dropped nuclear bombs on the cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. This killed 130,000 or more innocent people on the first day alone, and about as many again died after prolonged agony in the several months following. The argument given to this day is that it prevented the deaths of even more people in prolonged war, and you'll find people even now that support that. I'd like to think we're better than that now, and indeed nothing of that scale has ever been used again. But the rationalizations given in the game by NPCs aren't that different to real life, and there are people in our own communities that still justify them and, while I find that way of thinking repulsive, they're not fairytale villains.

[Valnaaros]

That's true, and that would've worked out fine if that was Sylvanas' true intent -- ending the war as soon as possible with minimal casualties (even if her logic was flawed). But going by the novella, her intention was to destroy the Kaldorei people, their holy sites, and their lands. This is basically the definition of genocide. In the Alliance novella, Anduin even calls what Sylvanas did as attempted genocide.

I have little doubt that the rest of the Horde leadership would be against this (at least Baine and Saurfang), but it has been made abundantly clear that Sylvanas has a completely different goal and motive than the rest of the Horde.

[Lupis]

But at the risk of becoming extremely controversial (I may regret this), think on this real-world situation that real-world people - who aren't stereotype villains - still rationalize to this day. This is simply to illustrate how messy ethical situations can become when removed from the comfort of a fictional world : To end Japan's involvement in WWII, the allies, with the collusion of the countries of many of us here, dropped nuclear bombs on the cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. This killed 130,000 or more innocent people on the first day alone, and about as many again died after prolonged agony in the several months following. The argument given to this day is that it prevented the deaths of even more people in prolonged war, and you'll find people even now that support that. I'd like to think we're better than that now, and indeed nothing of that scale has ever been used again. But the rationalizations given in the game by NPCs aren't that different to real life, and there are people in our own communities that still justify them and, while I find that way of thinking repulsive, they're not fairytale villains.

No no, I think this is important!

There's a very big, important difference between "understanding" and "agreeing" that I don't see always defined as well as it needs to be. I can understand why a lot of horrible things happen, by looking at what lead up to it and the reasoning of people involved. But I don't agree with them- it's the difference between letting a friend vent about something where they're not entirely in the right and understanding why they feel the way they do vs. telling them they're right and validating them.

This is important for every side of the debate to remember. Yes, we can raltionalize why NPCs and people do what they do- but "i understand why the circumstances lead to this happening" shouldn't branch into "so it was the right thing to do". But similarly it's worrying when people see "I understand why this happened" and read it as "I agree with this happening." Those are two very, very different statements.

To clarify: I don't think it's wrong at all to understand the Horde side of things, or why characters are doing what they're doing. Similarly, it's not wrong to understand the Alliance side. It just starts to get hairy when anyone on any side starts agreeing with what, in real life, are war crimes. Going "yeah this makes sense for the story and I enjoy seeing where it's going" is awesome, and that's why the story is there! Going "yeah this makes sense for the story and I think they're in the right and would personally agree" is totally different.

As far as fictions vs real life- it's a hairy thing, for sure, and a topic that takes pages of discussion. But, in essence, I think that topics as heavy as intentional genocide that we're shown in great detail and take part in should probably be handled with a considerable amount of care. I won't go into what I think of Blizzard's ability to write with that much nuance, but it's definitely a subject that they've gone too far into to try and make it just a source of drama. You really, really shouldn't make the player take part in genocide just for the drama. That kinda shit matters.

[Teigan]

I think that it's too easy to dismiss fiction as fiction. Many great works of literature, of which the War of Thorns is not, are fiction. Fiction helps us illuminate and understand the world and ourselves. Even not-so-great fiction can make one think.

[Setanta]

Besides, going all the way back in the lore, someone is always being threatened with genocide.

One day everyone will realize that Mekkatorque is really Skynet

[Castile]

Another real life quote "Bad things happen when good men do nothing" - hopefully the good folk/leaders in the Horde don't just stand by and let those bad things to continue to happen.

[cowmuflage]

Anduin should invest in a muzzle for Genn ;p

[Castile]

Anduin should invest in a muzzle for Genn ;p

So should the rest of the horde for your warchief then -.-

[Valnaaros]

Anduin should invest in a muzzle for Genn ;p

So should the rest of the horde for your warchief then -.-

[cowmuflage]

Anduin should invest in a muzzle for Genn ;p

So should the rest of the horde for your warchief then -.-

Only when Genn stops acting like he has always cared about Lordaeron

[Castile]

Anduin should invest in a muzzle for Genn ;p

So should the rest of the horde for your warchief then -.-

Only when Genn stops acting like he has always cared about Lordaeron

Maybe he does? His kingdom was like next door. And he has every reason to hate the forsaken too. He doesn't need to be muzzled or skinned alive or whatever the comments have been about him for the last two freakin expansions...

Horde players don't like what alliance have been saying about them since the last patch yeah?....maybe we're alittle sick of the comments about him too (for a MUCH longer time).