Solution for the Alliance to leave Orgrimmar

90 Night Elf Priest
11725
Idk, I want to start calling Pandaria, Panindor. It sounds cooler, imo.
Yay, Panindor sounds better that Pandaria .
Reply Quote
100 Undead Death Knight
6925
05/12/2013 06:26 PMPosted by Neeber
I will add it will also displease to some Horde players.


Gonna throw this out:
Theramore displeased more then a few Alliance players.
Ashenvale displeased more then a few Alliance players.
5.3 displeased more then a few Alliance players.
Etc, Etc, Etc. Lots more examples.

The fact that a few Horde players wouldn't like something is hardly a valid reason. There really is no compelling reason Orgrimmar can't be destroyed. All the capital perks can be moved to a new area. (Portals, banks, AH, etc call all be moved.)

That said, as cool as it would be for Blizzard to blow everyone's mind, I doubt they will do it. I really doubt Orgimmar in the world will even show an effect of the SoO.

I don't really see how that is out of character. And the hostages provide a change we can see in game. We will never see the territorial gains in the game, so I don't really consider it a good compensation. And sure, the Horde can give back stolen lands but the Alliance needs to have a way to make sure the Horde will remain friendly and don't take thèses lands back again.


Out of character in that the Alliance has no history of taking, holding, etc hostages. It is also a poor tactical move, as whose life really matters enough to the Horde that could be used that way? Faction leaders? Doesn't really make sense.

As to the seeing the territorial gains, that is just it: I think we should see them. Quests showing the withdrawal and phasing to remove Horde NPCs and replace them will Alliance ones. It should happen.

Admittedly it probably wont. Blizzard is fine redoing zones to add to Horde story. After all of kick in the nuts from Cata, Theramore, and the travesty of 5.3 I don't really see a valid excuse not to do some work on Alliance progression and show it in game. It is really unfortunate that it is unlikely to happen. But it is what should happen.


So pissing off the Horde fanbase is justified because... it's their turn? That's pretty low, mate. It's not like we did any of that crap to you. I, Malidictuim, did not make the decision to blow up Theramore. That was Blizzard.
Reply Quote
100 Orc Warrior
18735
We must expel those dirty orcs of the ancient Kalimdor.


Ladies first :D

Don't worry darling, Orgrimmar isn't going anywhere.
Edited by Delurk on 5/12/2013 7:47 PM PDT
Reply Quote
100 Night Elf Druid
15980
I don't think the Alliance taking hostages would be very out of character if they just phrased it as required ambassadors that have to live in Alliance cities under Alliance rule to ensure that conflict will be harder to start in the future. Because we Alliance are trickier with words to hide our true intentions. (I wish the Alliance did more of that, though.)

Then Varian gets to play the mafia boss, saying "things" might "accidentally" happen to the "ambassadors" if the Horde were to start building up a large military again.
Reply Quote
This is a very tough situation. Obviously because of game mechanics we cant just demolish Orgrimmar and decimate the Horde. Though that is how it probably would be handled if this was supposed to be the end of the WoW story.

My idea: During the Siege I believe Grommash Hold should be destroyed. Destroying 1 building and forcing the new Warchief to make a keep elsewhere in the city is not going to really hurt game mechanics. Now after Garrosh is killed/defeated. The Horde chooses its new leader, whoever that may be surrenders to Varian Wrynn to end the war. The terms of the Surrender are this, In the place of Grommash Hold's ruins in the center of Orgrimmar they put up a monument to members of both factions who fell during the war. Then the Alliance gets Gorehowl to display in Stormwind. After that is discussed Jaina teleports the Alliance back to Stormwind, the Alliance players receive a loot chest to take from (Horde can get a loot chest from the new Warchief in Orgrimmar)

Now I know how surrendering sounds to the Horde, but how else can they make this look like an Alliance victory all while keeping Orgrimmar and the Horde intact? Surrendering would be a slap in the face to the Horde and the surrender marking the Alliance's victory in the war would be the fist pumping moment the Alliance was promised, while not demolishing the city and mass slaughter of members of the Horde.
Reply Quote
90 Human Warlock
4755
I want to destroy Orgrimmar. And leave it as a crater, like Theramore D=.


I'm gonna support you in this!
Reply Quote
100 Night Elf Death Knight
17335
Taking hostages is very in-line with medieval tradition.

The word used to have a very different meaning than "some people broke in and held a gun to my head, and they want money or they'll shoot me!"

Historical use of the term actually refers to the voluntary handing over of influential people or children of influential people to a former enemy as a sign of good faith. These hostages were not kept in a prison. They were generally treated as nobility. It was, of course, implied that they'd be killed if open warfare between the two kingdoms flared up again. It was also an opportunity to convince the hostage that, hey, our nation is pretty awesome and you totally shouldn't go to war with us when you're all grown up and running your nation. And how would you like to marry one of our princes or princesses? And let me tell you about how great our religion is.

It wouldn't be strange for the human kingdoms to be familiar with the idea. It doesn't just exist as a threat. It's also considered as a way to strengthen alliances.

The Alliance might not have used the word before, but, really, Jaina's education in Dalaran is very similar to the practice. Kul Tiras certainly wasn't going to start leaning on Dalaran in council meetings with their Grand Admiral's daughter staying there.
Reply Quote
100 Night Elf Death Knight
17335
But, of course, if the Alliance took hostages, Anduin would do something dumb and declare that he's going to live in Orgrimmar, to keep the exchange from being one-sided.
Reply Quote
100 Troll Shaman
5930
So pissing off the Horde fanbase is justified because... it's their turn? That's pretty low, mate. It's not like we did any of that crap to you. I, Malidictuim, did not make the decision to blow up Theramore. That was Blizzard.

Not to mention, that line of thought seems to believe that Horde players haven't been just as peeved about the developments their faction underwent in Cataclysm and WoW.

That's on top of the juvenile assertion that Horde players need to have their experience made deliberately unpleasant because Blizzard didn't cater to their every want.

The seemingly increasing number of posters asking for entire playable cities and/or races to be removed from the game, whether seriously or because of tragic neurological damage preventing them from making the distinction between themselves and their avatars, is also rather disconcerting.

As for the OP's suggestion, taking hostages does seem more than a little bit out of character, especially for Varian, who'll presumably be the main Alliance character in the events of the Siege of Orgrimmar and 5.4 in general.

And since apparently (much to my chagrin), the conflict is supposed to continue after the Siege of Orgrimmar, the suggestion of taking hostages would result in the Alliance effectively getting absolutely nothing, so suggestions should factor in the possibility of not being completely useless (ie. stuff like demilitarizing the Horde won't happen).

Nor do I see anything like the total revamp of most of Cataclysm's content (even with the go to excuse of "but phasing") being a realistic expectation.
Reply Quote
100 Tauren Druid
11055
I leave for a few months, but I see much of the same. You never let me down, Story Forums!

As for the OP's suggestion, taking hostages does seem more than a little bit out of character, especially for Varian, who'll presumably be the main Alliance character in the events of the Siege of Orgrimmar and 5.4 in general.

And since apparently (much to my chagrin), the conflict is supposed to continue after the Siege of Orgrimmar, the suggestion of taking hostages would result in the Alliance effectively getting absolutely nothing, so suggestions should factor in the possibility of not being completely useless (ie. stuff like demilitarizing the Horde won't happen).

Nor do I see anything like the total revamp of most of Cataclysm's content (even with the go to excuse of "but phasing") being a realistic expectation.


Agreed on all counts (as per the usual, Kellick!) I've always argued the revamp seems unlikely and, though I'm not entirely caught up with the storyline since I left, something such as hostages (and especially top tier hostages) doesn't seem to fit. Even as POWs, the idea of being allowed to leave with them doesn't flow for me, either.
Reply Quote
100 Draenei Paladin
13790
But, of course, if the Alliance took hostages, Anduin would do something dumb and declare that he's going to live in Orgrimmar, to keep the exchange from being one-sided.


I like this plan.
Reply Quote
90 Goblin Shaman
0
05/12/2013 07:57 PMPosted by Aviala
I don't think the Alliance taking hostages would be very out of character if they just phrased it as required ambassadors that have to live in Alliance cities under Alliance rule to ensure that conflict will be harder to start in the future. Because we Alliance are trickier with words to hide our true intentions. (I wish the Alliance did more of that, though.)


I like the whole ambassadors idea but the only problem with this idea is...

Then Varian gets to play the mafia boss, saying "things" might "accidentally" happen to the "ambassadors" if the Horde were to start building up a large military again.


Realistically the Horde will need a large military since the Alliance isn't the only thing we are fighting. Many of the indigenous animals and natives of Kalimdor aren't very friendly. The Legion, the Old Gods and their servants and many other enemies we have yet to see are still out there and blackmailing us so we can't defend ourselves is only going to lead to the Horde's destruction.

However unless the Horde magically pulls ANOTHER army our of our a$$ before the Legion arrives (Highly likely) I can definitely see the Alliance doing most of the fighting against the Legion (with the Horde as sort of support).
Reply Quote
100 Human Warrior
7715
The Alliance taking hostages in the sense that they would be political leverage is pretty out of character for almost all of its member states. Gilneas, I may be wrong on this and will gladly concede if proven wrong, took in several members of the Alterac nobility after the Second War in an effort to gain an advantage in gaining political and/or territorial negotiations. However, Alterac was a human nation that bordered Gilneas and though allied with the Horde was not a member of the Horde.

Also, Gilneas does not speak for the entire Alliance (though I will certainly state that Gilneans/Worgen need screen time). And to my knowledge none of the other members advocate taking political prisoners.

More to the point, the Horde view sacrifice as a necessity in warfare (orcs, goblins, and Forsaken in particular). Giving even high ranking members of its factions to the Alliance as prisoners would not stop a renewal of violence. In fact it is more likely that if these prisoners were sacrificed they would be seen as martyrs.

So, to put it bluntly, this idea would not work in the lore.

@Bullcowsby

Welcome back
Reply Quote
Nor do I see anything like the total revamp of most of Cataclysm's content (even with the go to excuse of "but phasing") being a realistic expectation.


what would you suggest, then?

it seems a lot of people are not okay with the idea simply up and leaving the charred hole in the ground, plus the fact that the night elves and worgen (jesus christ the WORGEN) need the resolution to their stories, especially given how the gilnean story revolves entirely around the horde, and given how its been pushed from zombiemelons onto garrosh, it has to be resolved there

simply saying 'oh yeah they totes got their stuff back mm-hmmm' would be heartbreaking at best and 'why is it okay to destroy theramore AND silverwind AND southshore but anything horde is too much and unfair' at worst
Reply Quote
100 Undead Death Knight
13710
Simply saying 'oh yeah they totes got their stuff back mm-hmmm' would be heartbreaking at best and 'why is it okay to destroy theramore AND silverwind AND southshore but anything horde is too much and unfair' at worst?


What did you personally want to to blow up? What would make you feel good about yourself in game to destroy?
Reply Quote
100 Human Mage
19365
Holding hostages, while an interesting idea for some groups, is really not in line with what the Alliance does. It would be very out of character.


It wasn't out of character for Jaina, who took hundreds of blood elves hostage in 5.1.
Reply Quote
90 Dwarf Priest
0
05/13/2013 05:16 AMPosted by Gibbons
Holding hostages, while an interesting idea for some groups, is really not in line with what the Alliance does. It would be very out of character.


It wasn't out of character for Jaina, who took hundreds of blood elves hostage in 5.1.


Hostage in the modern sense, and Hostage in the ancient sense laid out by Syl above, do not coincide with "Political Prisoner" which is what Jaina did. That said, I hardly think a diplomatic exchange of important peoples is out of character.
Edited by Fifira on 5/13/2013 5:41 AM PDT
Reply Quote
100 Night Elf Hunter
20725
05/13/2013 05:16 AMPosted by Gibbons
Holding hostages, while an interesting idea for some groups, is really not in line with what the Alliance does. It would be very out of character.


It wasn't out of character for Jaina, who took hundreds of blood elves hostage in 5.1.


Those hostages motivated the Blood Elves to kill her and her people even more in 5.2, not back off. So really, seems like the whole "Hostage plan" would blow up in the Alliance's face.

Most Horde races would willingly allow almost any hostage to be sacrificed other than the faction leader, and would consider it an honorable death.

Who could you possibly take from the Orcs, Goblins, or Forsaken that they wouldn't sacrifice if it would serve the Horde? Would the Forsaken give up Sylvanas as a hostage, or would the Alliance be willing to kill Thrall and his baby to halt orcs in Ashenvale? What would that even serve?
Reply Quote
90 Dwarf Priest
0
Did everyone just not pay attention to Syl's post at all?
Reply Quote
100 Night Elf Hunter
20725
Did everyone just not pay attention to Syl's post at all?


Her idea that hostages are a good idea because Medieval kingdoms did it was a bad idea.

They also did slavery, women as property, no legal system, and a billion other sociopaths things. Therefore the Alliance should do all those things and become a nightmare distopia worse than Warhammer!
Reply Quote

Please report any Code of Conduct violations, including:

Threats of violence. We take these seriously and will alert the proper authorities.

Posts containing personal information about other players. This includes physical addresses, e-mail addresses, phone numbers, and inappropriate photos and/or videos.

Harassing or discriminatory language. This will not be tolerated.

Forums Code of Conduct

Report Post # written by

Reason
Explain (256 characters max)

Reported!

[Close]