(SP) Jaina, a valid alternative or wrong?

Story Forum
1 2 3 12 Next
In light of Jaina fanning the flames of faction conflict it is once more worthwhile to examine her character and what her purpose may be for the overall story. In this specific thread the question will be, is Jaina supposed to represent a valid alternate point of view to give voice to a wider range of views and beliefs among the Alliance playerbase, or is Jaina the wrongheaded war monger blinded by her hate to the real threat, facilitating the plot by rendering her faction irrelevant and strengthening the need for player characters and class halls?

For those who haven't read one of the three threads specifically about Sylvanas' actions. She retreated when it looked to be a choice between retreat and death. Varian died in the same battle after she retreated. Jaina has dubbed this tactical withdrawal to be betrayal, she refuses to have the Kirin Tor work with the Horde, and plots vengeance. Velen and Anduin were present for Jaina's report and, though Velen's dialogue was not included in this transcript, the context makes it pretty clear that he stands with Anduin in providing direct opposition to Jaina's point of view.

Something to consider in the "wrongheaded extremist" category is that Jaina's point of view is also not likely to represent conventional wisdom or rational thought. When she reaches this conclusion, she's still in charge of the Kirin Tor. By the time the game content launches, she is not in charge of the Kirin Tor and the Kirin Tor's new leadership is doing exactly what she refused to do. The compressed nature of the storytelling makes it unlikely that there is a second disagreement that Jaina is likely to have with the entire rest of the council of six, which means this hard line position is what most likely gets her removed from power.

Another point in the wrongheaded extremist category is the overall story of the expansion. In this expansion various groups of like minded people will be ignoring the faction division and setting aside what animosity they may feel to instead save the world. Jaina stands opposed to this philosophy.

On the other hand, in the 'valid alternate point of view' category, it is worth while to point out that Jaina is not alone. Genn Greymane, under utilized though he may be, still counts as a faction leader and thus a major character and he shares her point of view.

I strongly suspect individual points of view on this topic will likely be determined by whether you agree with Jaina, but even so it'd be interesting to know what people's thoughts are regarding what Jaina can still bring to the story, or even the importance of providing an alternative point of view or philosophical temperament in each of the factions.
I see Blizzard using Jaina as a Hollow Strawman created to give us a physical example of why The Conflict is stupid and why we need to work together. Shes supposedly speaking on behalf of every salty Alliance Player that hates the Horde so much that theyd rather focus on pushing them out of the way before tackling the big bad. She is there to reinforce the importance of the Horde and nothing more.
04/14/2016 08:16 PMPosted by Teldryn
I see Blizzard using Jaina as a Hollow Strawman created to give us a physical example of why The Conflict is stupid and why we need to work together. Shes supposedly speaking on behalf of every salty Alliance Player that hates the Horde so much that theyd rather focus on pushing them out of the way before tackling the big bad. She is there to reinforce the importance of the Horde and nothing more.

I love how Blizzard shoves how stupid the faction war is down our throats, but when people complain about it they say it has to stay because PvP.

Pick a side Blizz.
04/14/2016 08:18 PMPosted by Phlynch
Pick a side Blizz.
Why settle for eating their cake when they can also have it.
It's an alternative, but if we're talking about how Blizzard acts in regards to its policies and its storytelling, there's no way in hell it's going to end up as being a valid or viable one.
Theyre acting like a kid whos losing so they want to change to a different game. The Horde beat the hell out of The Alliance and when it comes time for The Alliance to do the same they roll out why the faction war is stupid and that we should all be friends.
Jaina's perspective is a valid one but will be treated in-story as the worst crime anyone on Azeroth can commit. The entire exercise will be pointless because 10 people will completely roll the Legion and kick them off the planet because Blizzard doesn't have the sand to actually have us lose.
04/14/2016 08:07 PMPosted by Dorcy
Another point in the wrongheaded extremist category is the overall story of the expansion. In this expansion various groups of like minded people will be ignoring the faction division and setting aside what animosity they may feel to instead save the world. Jaina stands opposed to this philosophy.


I agree with your point, but I wouldn't argue it's extremist. Try to see it if you actually lived on Azeroth and didn't have the information we the players have. From the point of view from the Alliance is that the feeling of betrayal cannot be singled out alone to Greymane and Jaina. We can tell other faction leaders feel that they were betrayed, but due to their limited resources didn't want to wage war at the same time with the Horde.

It's complicated for us as players to note this difference from our position as people who have so much more information on the world and the game's story. These guys don't have that available so they feel bitter and betrayed yet we sorta know why, but no context beyond it.

I would wager that the Horde narrative will clear this up, but I'm sure on the Horde side they may very well be feeling some remorse or anger at Sylvanas for abandoning the Horde forces. Do we know if Vol'jin leads the attack unto the Broken Shore or was it Sylvanas alone?

I'm guessing it was both and Vol'jin either dies or disappears mid battle and orcs, trolls, and forsaken etc flee when they realize the toll, but not before suffering heavy losses.

I can see trolls and orcs being furious on leaving the battlefield while their allies and their friends are dying all around them. It's dishonorable to say the least, but for Forsaken and Goblins this is perfectly rational.

I'm grasping at straws on what may of happened in the interim. We know that when we finish the Broken Shore Jaina is till the leader of the Kirin Tor and some point between the battle and Legion launches she's deposed or resigns.

The rest of the Six agree to let the Horde forces reside within their city as they move towards the Broken Shore.

I'm guessing many Dalarani forces also agree with Jaina, but also recognize the importance to be at best neutral towards the Horde for the time being thus why they are invited into their city once again...

Who's hoping we see a two part event for this expansion?
04/14/2016 08:44 PMPosted by Tienzan
Do we know if Vol'jin leads the attack unto the Broken Shore or was it Sylvanas alone?


I believe we have data stating that Vol'jin will be there, meanwhile Baine and Lor'themar are all also present on Broken Shore as they appeared in the artwork for the Broken Shore cinematic.
If the horde abandoned them without signaling the alliance they were retreating it absolutely a valid alternative. Additionally Jaina is not the first to express this opinion, and not even the first after the broken shore events, so Jaina's view is the view of the people at the broken shore who were abandoned by the horde.

It's a valid alternative to the people on the alliance front who were left to die by a force they were working with. Even more valid if the horde didn't signal to the alliance they were retreating.
04/14/2016 08:53 PMPosted by Healstime
If the horde abandoned them without signaling the alliance they were retreating it absolutely a valid alternative.

"Excuse me, mister Alliance, would it be okay with you if we retreated now that our position is utterly hopeless?"

Since apparently the Horde military answers to the Alliance, now.
04/14/2016 08:56 PMPosted by Kellick
"Excuse me, mister Alliance, would it be okay with you if we retreated now that our position is utterly hopeless?"

Since apparently the Horde military answers to the Alliance, now.


If you are working with another force and then just leave without informing them you are leaving, and leave them to die, you have betrayed them. They were depending on the horde to hold their position, then if they just left it without informing them it's valid for the alliance to be angry with them, it's insane you would think otherwise.
Dorcy, I'm shocked. Shocked and appalled. You didn't include spoiler tags. Jaina being involved is clearly a spoiler and should not be in a thread title.
04/14/2016 08:18 PMPosted by Phlynch
04/14/2016 08:16 PMPosted by Teldryn
I see Blizzard using Jaina as a Hollow Strawman created to give us a physical example of why The Conflict is stupid and why we need to work together. Shes supposedly speaking on behalf of every salty Alliance Player that hates the Horde so much that theyd rather focus on pushing them out of the way before tackling the big bad. She is there to reinforce the importance of the Horde and nothing more.

I love how Blizzard shoves how stupid the faction war is down our throats, but when people complain about it they say it has to stay because PvP.

Pick a side Blizz.


Why should Blizzard pick a side? It's not like they want to choose between your subscription dollars and mine, nor is there any reason they would have to.
Jaina seems to be wrong verging on evil this time, but it's hard to say by how much until the cinema and Horde side come out.
Lets start a war during a war.

Jaina logic
04/14/2016 09:33 PMPosted by Zanjin
Lets start a war during a war.

Jaina logic


Look, it's the only way Jaina can go to the gay bar gay bar GAY BAR
I'm surprised this is even a question.

The wrongheaded extremist is one of Blizzard's favorite tropes, and we've seen this movie before about how any and all faction conflict is bad when the Alliance is seen as partaking in it.
Here's how I see it:

Jaina's Perspective:
  • The Horde retreated in a battle and left the Alliance there.
  • If they didn't signal and just left without a word, that can also influence this.
  • There have been multiple times when Jaina herself has worked for peace, only to have it crumble due to the Horde (from her perspective)
  • There has been at least one time when the Horde has back-stabbed the Alliance in the midst of a battle against the big bad (Broken Front)
  • There has been at least one other time when the Forsaken apparently back-stabbed the Alliance in the midst of a battle against the big bad (Wrathgate)
  • Jaina, unlike us, cannot see Sylvannas' sound files, therefore she doesn't know exactly why Sylvannas retreated.
  • Therefore:
  • Jaina has probably come to the conclusion that the Horde back-stabbed the Alliance as they have done before.
  • Jaina does not have the knowledge that Sylvannas did it because she thought the position was lost. If no communication was given, this lack of knowledge is compounded.
  • Jaina's conclusion, with the misinformation she has, is Entirely Warranted


    Sylvannas' Perspective:
  • The Horde was about to be overrun by demons (presumably)
  • The Alliance will hopefully realise the same and retreat
  • Sylvannas also possibly sends a message, but it is somehow stopped from reaching the Alliance
  • Therefore:
  • The Horde must retreat, the Alliance will presumably follow suit.
  • Sylvannas' reasons are also Entirely Warranted, especially if she attempted to warn/notify the Alliance
    04/14/2016 11:32 PMPosted by Mithard
    Jaina's conclusion, with the misinformation she has, is Entirely Warranted


    04/14/2016 11:32 PMPosted by Mithard
    Sylvannas' reasons are also Entirely Warranted,


    See the problem here is that this is reasonable, and we can't have that.

    One side must be right and the other wrong!

    For ''insert faction here''!!!!

    Join the Conversation

    Return to Forum