So what were the consequences of Theramore...

Story Forum
Prev 1 6 7 8 Next
Anyone have a video I can watch of the events? I'm not inclined to take Threeslotbag's analysis as truth and I don't know Monica well enough to believe they're not twisting the representation either.
I haven't gotten to the Purging of Dalaran. I suspect in a few days I will.
I like this screenshot better: http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/12/wowscrnshot121012152048.jpg/

Even though she's just murdered 3 kirin tor members FOR NO REASON the other 2 are still standing there peacefully...about to be murdered.

The poor fools.


Self-defense is not murder. Never become a lawyer.
Threeslotbags, that screenshot proves nothing. All it has is Aethas denying Jaina's charges. There's no indication of why Jaina had to kill the ones she's killed so far, and no indication she is about to attack anyone "defenseless" next.
12/10/2012 06:13 PMPosted by Jaelara
Threeslotbags, that screenshot proves nothing. All it has is Aethas denying Jaina's charges. There's no indication of why Jaina had to kill the ones she's killed so far, and no indication she is about to attack anyone "defenseless" next.


I wasn't trying to prove anything. I was just posting another of Vrynn's screenshot's that showed some dead and the others standing there, not attacking even with their cohorts just murdered.

Although, I'm pretty sure looking at their "stance" and the fact they didn't fight back doesn't tell us anything meaningful...it just tells us whoever made the quest gave them no AI. They really just stand there and let jaina shoot them one at a time slowly like target dummies.
I wasn't trying to prove anything. I was just posting another of Vrynn's screenshot's that showed some dead and the others standing there, not attacking even with their cohorts just murdered.


Just because you keep calling it murder doesn't make it so. They were effectively pointing guns at Jaina.
12/10/2012 05:56 PMPosted by Mordstreich
Anyone have a video I can watch of the events? I'm not inclined to take Threeslotbag's analysis as truth and I don't know Monica well enough to believe they're not twisting the representation either.


You'll have to excuse Threeslotbag, too many times she's come in with wild accusations with no proof to substantiate them.
While I don't know Monica I'd be more inclined to believe her version of what happens (at least until I get to experience it for myself).
12/10/2012 05:56 PMPosted by Mordstreich
Anyone have a video I can watch of the events? I'm not inclined to take Threeslotbag's analysis as truth and I don't know Monica well enough to believe they're not twisting the representation either.


Unfortunately, I couldn't find a video showing the quest in its entirety. I will say that, from the Alliances' viewpoint, it was presented in a mostly-humane way. Left to her own, it seemed like Vereesa would've done far worse.

Here are the objectives for the quests:

  • Kill the Sunreavers defending the Sunreavers' Sanctum
  • Kill the Sunreavers mobilizing in the sewer
  • Disable or kill the Dragonhawks.
  • Kill a Sunreaver before he robs the bank
  • Kill the hostile blood elf merchants supporting the sunreavers
  • The mount quest still confuses me, though. Still trying to wrap my head around it. It felt out of place. The blood elf commoners were left alone or imprisoned, rather than attacked. Only the hostile elves were killed, and yet their mounts were removed. All I can think is that they wanted to cut off the opposition.

    Also, I figure it is worth noting: When you do the next major storyline quest, alliance NPC's further claim that what Jaina did was right and that the Sunreavers were in the wrong (Despite Varian's disapproval). From an Alliance players POV, we were depicted as having reacted to an attack, instead of initiating one. I'm sure the horde quests are different, though.
    12/10/2012 12:29 PMPosted by Abal
    They didn't save the world by accident; they saved the world because Medivh brought them together to save it. You didn't address it because it hurt your argument.


    Again, I didn't address it because it's beside the point I'm making; that Jania abandoned everyone and everything she cared about for practically no reason.

    You have absolutely no proof that, if Jaina had stayed, Lordaeron would have been better off. Or even Arthas, for that matter.


    The Scourge did not become a major threat until Arthas became a traitor. The Cult of the Damned' made head-way because they were using new tactics on an unsuspecting population that had been infilitrated at every level of society. It wasn't until Arthas returned from Northrend that the Scourge gained a major foot hold into the Eastern Kingdoms and Jania left before that.

    They also helped save the world. He also would not listen to his own daughter, who had seen that act with her own eyes. You can put your fingers in yours ears all you like, but the orcs were an integral part to the victory in Warcraft III.


    Saving the world or saving their own butts against a mutual threat? You don't give someone kudos for doing something in their own self-interest. Certainly, the orcs didn't actually do anything except fight commit horrendous acts of violence, just like they'd always done.

    I imagine that Jaina would have gravely insulted the Six, the Kirin Tor, and Dalaran if she had turned down their offer. You could also say that she was returning to her people, as she was raised in Dalaran and was being groomed to be Antonidas' successor.


    Okay, so she wasn't as invested in Theramore as we've been lead to believe. No skin of her nose if they all up in die or become refugees in another land.

    Let me ask you a question: if Thrall had remained in charge, or if he had handed over the reigns to, say, Saurfang or Cairne, would Theramore have still been destroyed? Would the war have even started at all?


    I'd like to think so. Although I'm sure Theramore wouldn't have lifted a damn finger with Thrall in charge since Jania's a big damn fangirl, though Thrall seems to have that effect on everyone...
    Question: Jaina has very clearly stated her neutrality when you visit her in Dalaran. She outright says she refuses to get involved with the war and will not aid the Alliance in any meaningful way.

    However, when all the Alliance leaders meet in the Shrine of Seven Stars to discuss their plans, she's there.

    Why?
    *Shakes head in confusion* I dunno...
    @DaveKosak Some people say the line Jaina says about having Darnassus on lockdown isn't really a neutral action. Can you clear that up?

    @jleskovjan WAS it a neutral action? Let the debate begin!


    https://twitter.com/DaveKosak

    I almost wonder if the Cdevs look on with wicked glee as we argue ourselves in a circle.
    @DaveKosak Some people say the line Jaina says about having Darnassus on lockdown isn't really a neutral action. Can you clear that up?

    @jleskovjan WAS it a neutral action? Let the debate begin!


    https://twitter.com/DaveKosak

    I almost wonder if the Cdevs look on with wicked glee as we argue ourselves in a circle.


    The action itself, by definition, isn't neutral... but I think the problem here is that a lot of people on the Story forum have this idea that being a neutral faction somehow implies never taking a side on anything, which I don't think is right.
    12/11/2012 11:57 AMPosted by Aureus
    The action itself, by definition, isn't neutral... but I think the problem here is that a lot of people on the Story forum have this idea that being a neutral faction somehow implies never taking a side on anything, which I don't think is right.


    Being neutral consistently demonstrates exactly that.

    See: Malfurion, Jaina, Velen, etc
    @DaveKosak Some people say the line Jaina says about having Darnassus on lockdown isn't really a neutral action. Can you clear that up?

    @jleskovjan WAS it a neutral action? Let the debate begin!


    https://twitter.com/DaveKosak

    I almost wonder if the Cdevs look on with wicked glee as we argue ourselves in a circle.

    In general? It seems to be a relatively decent idea to not let someone like Garrosh get a powerful artifact <The Divine Bell> with possibly world-threatening results when said folk has a track record of using previous powerful artifacts <The Focusing Iris> for very destructive measures. One could potentially take it as an everyone benefiting from 'keep the doom device away from the madman'. I'm sure there's other perspectives folks could argue for, however.
    @DaveKosak Some people say the line Jaina says about having Darnassus on lockdown isn't really a neutral action. Can you clear that up?

    @jleskovjan WAS it a neutral action? Let the debate begin!


    https://twitter.com/DaveKosak

    I almost wonder if the Cdevs look on with wicked glee as we argue ourselves in a circle.


    Oh now that's a tease!

    A TEASE I TELL YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


    https://twitter.com/DaveKosak

    I almost wonder if the Cdevs look on with wicked glee as we argue ourselves in a circle.


    The action itself, by definition, isn't neutral... but I think the problem here is that a lot of people on the Story forum have this idea that being a neutral faction somehow implies never taking a side on anything, which I don't think is right.


    That is exactly right however.

    Prime example being Tirion. He's set up shop basically next door to someone who's basically continuing Arthas's work and he's doing is watching her closely.

    I suppose he's waiting for her to announce her intention to take up the mantle as the new Lich Queen since apparently everything else she's done hasn't warranted action.
    @DaveKosak Some people say the line Jaina says about having Darnassus on lockdown isn't really a neutral action. Can you clear that up?

    @jleskovjan WAS it a neutral action? Let the debate begin!


    https://twitter.com/DaveKosak

    I almost wonder if the Cdevs look on with wicked glee as we argue ourselves in a circle.


    Curiously I think they created this situation on purpose. After all even ingame characters argue over if Dalaran is neutral or not.

    Poor Aethas is going to have to put up with endless 'I told you so' from Rommath.
    12/11/2012 11:57 AMPosted by Aureus
    The action itself, by definition, isn't neutral... but I think the problem here is that a lot of people on the Story forum have this idea that being a neutral faction somehow implies never taking a side on anything, which I don't think is right.


    I think the point those who argue about neutrality are trying to make or atleast in my case, isnt that they shouldnt take a side. All individuals and organisations will logically make decisions and take sides based on what matters to them.

    However the moment you pick a side you are no longer neutral. Neutrality comes from not picking a side. The moment the Kirin Tor picked a side they stopped being neutral. After all neutrality by it definition means not taking or favoring sides.
    12/11/2012 12:36 PMPosted by Trook
    The action itself, by definition, isn't neutral... but I think the problem here is that a lot of people on the Story forum have this idea that being a neutral faction somehow implies never taking a side on anything, which I don't think is right.


    I think the point those who argue about neutrality are trying to make or atleast in my case, isnt that they shouldnt take a side. All individuals and organisations will logically make decisions and take sides based on what matters to them.

    However the moment you pick a side you are no longer neutral. Neutrality comes from not picking a side. The moment the Kirin Tor picked a side they stopped being neutral. After all neutrality by it definition means not taking or favoring sides.


    Indeed....so...

    Join the Conversation

    Return to Forum