The alliance need to be better antagonists.

Story Forum
Prev 1 2 3 7 Next
04/15/2018 09:24 PMPosted by Zerde
No. The Alliance doesn't start wars(usually) but it definitely finishes them.


If blizzard cant sell the Alliance as an antagonist then they are woefully failing the horde playerbase which only makes the issue that horde players have raised with this faction more significant.

Simply put, if they cant sell the Alliance as an antagonist, then the faction war is only being written for the alliance playerbase and the Horde is simply being treated as a target to satisfy alliance players.

You cant have a faction war and not have the Alliance as an antagonist for horde players unless your are A) just repeating MoP or B) screwing over the horde players to cater to alliance players.

Blizzard seems to be trying to convince the horde playerbase that the Alliance are antagonists but they are telling us rather than actually showing it which makes it hollow.

After the Lillian Voss retcon though I have become sceptical on how much effort blizzard is taking to set up this story to actually make sense for horde players. I keep holding out, hoping there is something I haven't seen yet which will make it all work and hold my judgement but the more I see the less hopeful I get.
04/15/2018 10:55 PMPosted by Liuv
He would be (and frankly is) utterly validated both in and out of universe in taking the fight to the Horde, at least until he crosses a line somewhere.

That doesn't make him any less of an antagonist.

The Horde feels like we don't have a reason to want to fight the Alliance right now. That's because the Alliance hasn't committed many slights against us; the ones that they do are few and far between, and generally have low impact. If Genn led an army to Hillsbrad to hunt down Forsaken villages and military installations, unprovoked, that would feel fine.

Another example; we Horde players were fine with this war a few months ago, when it was shown that the Alliance attacks Horde forces in Silithus. But that isn't being brought up as a motivation for Sylvanas beginning the war proper. If she referenced Genn's attack on her in Stormheim, and the Alliance's attack on Horde civilians in Silithus, we would feel a lot better about this. But the motivation is, instead, to deny the Alliance a port to smuggle Azerite out of. That feels selfish and a bit contrived, less meaningful and more impersonal.

Validation would have little bearing on how we feel about the war being started. It would have some, of course; if the Eviltotem Tribe of Tauren started sacrificing Alliance virgins and babies to appease the great Baby Eater in the sky, it would feel !@#$ty to have to be on that side of the conflict. But if the validation is vengeance for the past, which is less direct and more morally ambiguous, it would be a much easier pill to swallow.
04/15/2018 11:02 PMPosted by Rokugan
That doesn't make him any less of an antagonist.


Sure it does. Because you don't get to feel good about trying to take him out. Because you know he has better reasons for wanting to hurt "you" then you do for wanting to do the same. Even if he crossed that blood-red line, even if he was slaughtering villages and punting orcish babies he at worst would be lowering himself to the level of his enemy.

Syriyna pretty much spelled this out already. Like, the story as presented? It works fine in universe. Everyones suspicious, no one trusts anyone under another flag, "old hatreds" etc... etc... It's when we, the players, try and take those reasons as presented and use them to justify giving their time, money and emotional investment to the plot that things get dicey.

That's why the Alliance is a bad antagonist. Not because they lack reasons to go to war, but because those reasons (and the faction as a whole) are far more sympathetic then their opposite. And the reasons that would be less so (religious zealotry, racial superiority to pull from your examples) haven't been built into the factions thematic core.
Three things would be enough to justify the Horde's concerns over the Alliance's access to Azerite.

- Genn being the close advisor of a young and inexperienced king

- Genn's attack on the Horde in Stormheim

- The Alliance researching weaponisation of Azerite under Genn's influence

These three things would be enough to make the Horde feel that the Alliance having access to Azerite put the Horde at risk. Genn doesn't even need to be a villain. The distrust is enough. His unprovoked attack during the Legion invasion was justification enough to doubt the Alliance with that power with him having a position of influence over centre of power.

The potential for intent and the capacity is enough for the Horde to act. Beyond that all it takes is aggressive behaviour during the early stages of the war to justify the Horde's perception that the Alliance is incline to use that power aggressively to solidify the Horde viewpoint.

The problem is Blizzard so far has provided none of the indicators that would lead the Horde to have those fears in the narrative and has frankly seemingly worked against making the horde players feel their side has a justifiable viewpoint in the conflict with things like Saurfang's activities.
Stormheim and Silithus were a good start, but even with the Seething Shore seemingly being the start of the war, Blizzard looks like it will ignore that to try and portray the burning of Teldrassil as the start of the war, just as they did with the bombing of Theramore. The actual actions of the Alliance are usually good enough reason for the Horde to hate them, but the narrative does its best to sweep those actions under the rug.
04/15/2018 11:09 PMPosted by Liuv
Sure it does. Because you don't get to feel good about trying to take him out. Because you know he has better reasons for wanting to hurt "you" then you do for wanting to do the same.

That also isn't true. We've been, personally and morally, absolved of Gilneas. It was a part of Garrosh's regime, and we revolted against Garrosh. After that, we 'wiped the slate clean' in a sense.

That, of course, wouldn't make Genn feel any better. He'd still hate Sylvanas for killing his son and conquering his kingdom. He'd still see the Forsaken as vile monsters that held Darius' daughter hostage in Silverpine.

But, again, we've been personally absolved. If Genn attacks us, that's a new slight, from our perspective. And we'd feel justified in retaliating against that slight; if Genn attacks with the aid of Tyrande and the Night Elves, I'd have a hard time feeling bad about killing some Night Elves and Worgen in-game.
I just want to say Jaina is much better villain for the Horde than Greymane.

Her beef is seemingly with the entire Horde, she is still angry about Theramore even though the Horde already disposed of Garrosh. They reconciled in War Crimes yet she is still a fullblown warhawk. She tried to level Orgrimmar once, who knows what she could do with Azerite? Greymane, on the other hand, only has beef with one race(and he may even be done with that now) so it's harder to make him a villain for the entire faction. If I was Blizzard I would be using Jaina as the main Horde antagonist, not Genn.
04/15/2018 11:17 PMPosted by Jayimluz
I just want to say Jaina is much better villain for the Horde than Greymane.

Her beef is seemingly with the entire Horde, she is still angry about Theramore even though the Horde already disposed of Garrosh. They reconciled in War Crimes yet she is still a fullblown warhawk. She tried to level Orgrimmar once, who knows what she could do with Azerite? Greymane, on the other hand, only has beef with one race(and he may even be done with that now) so it's harder to make him a villain for the entire faction. If I was Blizzard I would be using Jaina as the main Horde antagonist, not Genn.


I mean, SHOULD deposing Garrosh solve all the problems?
04/15/2018 11:16 PMPosted by Rokugan
That also isn't true. We've been, personally and morally, absolved of Gilneas. It was a part of Garrosh's regime, and we revolted against Garrosh. After that, we 'wiped the slate clean' in a sense.


I want to say I read somewhere that Chronicles 3 retcon'd things by saying that Sylvanas was the one who pushed for Gilnean invasion. But I can't find that quote. It irks me.

Fundamentally though I think we're talking two very different things. Or at least have different perspectives on how we internalize the in-game story. Like for me, it really doesn't matter if the Horde feels justified in what its doing if I know it shouldn't. Sylvanas can proclaim from the walls of Lordaeron that the Alliance wants to utterly destroy the Horde but... I know thats crap. Or at least vastly overstating the reality of the situation. That she might not know or believe that but it does nothing to get me invested in her story. She's barking up the wrong tree, call me when she finds the right one and the plot can get moving again.
I remember when I had hopes for Before the Storm. Not anymore, it's a book that comes before the scenario and I still have no idea wtf is going on because Blizzard is just focusing on how to sell to people that they are killing Sylvanas and that her pragmatism is wrong that and that Saurfang is right, oh feel bad for him, Sylvanas insulted him, feel super bad dudes.

The whole thing is tactless and completely removed even any motive for me to look forward to the novel, let alone the expansion.
04/15/2018 11:32 PMPosted by Liuv
Like for me, it really doesn't matter if the Horde feels justified in what its doing if I know it shouldn't. Sylvanas can proclaim from the walls of Lordaeron that the Alliance wants to utterly destroy the Horde but... I know thats crap.

I understand what you mean. But I'm not looking for Sylvanas to proclaim that the Alliance wants to destroy the Horde; I'm looking for actions that the Alliance has done to not only make me feel justified, but also justify the feelings of the characters.

Again, going back to Stormheim and Silithus. If those were referenced as motivations for us starting the war, I'd feel a lot better about starting it. "They killed members of our family in the shadow of that blade, and tried to slay the Warchief while we were fighting the Legion. That cannot go unanswered." That would feel like a good reason to fight, at least to me, much more then denying the Alliance a port.
04/15/2018 10:57 PMPosted by Syriyna
Simply put, if they cant sell the Alliance as an antagonist, then the faction war is only being written for the alliance playerbase and the Horde is simply being treated as a target to satisfy alliance players.


Oh please, we all know many Horde fans have wanted this war as well! There is a reason the forsaken remain a fairly popular faction and that we still get bouts of "Garrosh was a great warchief" threads now and then. There are many Horde fans that enjoy being capable of starting crud and being less fettered by morality. There were threads CHEERING when Theramore was destroyed.

I'd say the story is also being written for Horde fans, but probably not for the portion that was interested in honor, redemption etc.
04/15/2018 11:41 PMPosted by Zerde

Oh please, we all know many Horde fans have wanted this war as well! There is a reason the forsaken remain a fairly popular faction and that we still get bouts of "Garrosh was a great warchief" threads now and then. There are many Horde fans that enjoy being capable of starting crud and being less fettered by morality. There were threads CHEERING when Theramore was destroyed.

I'd say the story is also being written for Horde fans, but probably not for the portion that was interested in honor, redemption etc.


I don't think those people are in the majority, moreover, people were responding that way to Theramoore because it was the source of all the Northwatch forces in Kalimdor, something the rest of the narrative never acknowledged
Because the Alliance is written as a happy-go-lucky Empire with zero problems or internal conflict.

Also because Blizzard has an obsession with re-creating Warcraft 2 in WoW, regardless of the consequences.
04/15/2018 11:45 PMPosted by Skytotem
I don't think those people are in the majority, moreover, people were responding that way to Theramoore because it was the source of all the Northwatch forces in Kalimdor, something the rest of the narrative never acknowledged


Well now we know Northwatch(and the Barrens invasions) was in response to Garrosh attacking Ashenvale.

You may be right in that those people are not the majority but at the same time conflict drives WoW story . Right now that means putting Sylvanas as head of the Horde and we will see where the chips will fall from there.
04/15/2018 11:45 PMPosted by Skytotem
I don't think those people are in the majority


I mean, no one who seriously thinks about the story could be considered in the majority. That's why stuff like-

04/15/2018 11:41 PMPosted by Rokugan
"They killed members of our family in the shadow of that blade, and tried to slay the Warchief while we were fighting the Legion. That cannot go unanswered."


- will never happen. We've spent the better part of several months to two years analyzing those events, trying to figure out what they could lead to or should lead to etc... Whereas most people probably forgot about questing content exactly twenty minutes after they did it. Or at least Blizzard isn't going to count on enough people remembering details from that long ago and/or doesn't want to stop the plot dead to get people up to speed.

It's MCU style of continuity. If you you've seen the previous films then great! You have additional context for what you're about to see in the next movie. But none of it will be strictly needed to partake in the currently offered experience.
<span class="truncated">...</span>

Honestly, I wish we’d struck first with the Battle for Lordaeron, then the burning of Teldrassil happened. It would’ve made sense, Genn and Jaina both wanting revenge for different reasons, and Anduin wanting to prove himself as a military leader, along with the obvious fact that it’s their land. Would’ve made things a lot more interesting, but oh well.

But it’s just not their land.


Arguments can be made for both sides. The Forsaken are (mostly) former citizens of the kingdom of Lordaeron, so technically it’s their native land even in death. However, one can also argue Lordaeron belongs to the Alliance, since their kingdom was apart of it before falling to the Scourge. In addition, there’s probably some Lordaeron refugees hanging out in SW or elsewhere still, not to mention Calia Menethil being the only living heir to the throne left.
04/15/2018 11:49 PMPosted by Zerde

Well now we know Northwatch(and the Barrens invasions) was in response to Garrosh attacking Ashenvale.

You may be right in that those people are not the majority but at the same time conflict drives WoW story . Right now that means putting Sylvanas as head of the Horde and we will see where the chips will fall from there.


1. Which is fine, but the narrative acts like Theramoore didn't do ANYTHING and had a bunch of neutral characters show up to help defend it, but then the neutral groups did nothing afterwards.

2. Right now it looks like Siege of Orgrimmar, again.
04/15/2018 09:45 PMPosted by Liuv
04/15/2018 09:29 PMPosted by Rokugan
...
Why not?


Because while both factions were created with the intent of protecting their own only the Alliance had stable lands and kingdoms with decades to millenia of stable existence to back them up. There's no growing pains or political disfunction or real problems accessing vital resources; they got over those issues well before even WC1 started (or at least long since developed ways to handle those issues smoothly).


Please pay more attention to the lore. WoG has it that without the orcish invasion from Draenor providing a reason for the Eastern Kingdoms to unify, they'd have collapsed into internecine warfare. Tensions between the kindoms and their rules were growing at a fever-pitch. Look at how things were between Stromgarde, Alterac, Gilneas, and Lordaeron even WITH the threat of the Horde providing unifying pressure.

And aside from some very specific concerns (Lordaeron, Quel'thalas, the Forsaken etc...) most Alliance members don't really want to own more of the world either. They already got theirs.


Well, unless they find trolls somewhere. Then they have to establish some bases and start trying to wipe the filthy primitives out.
04/15/2018 11:41 PMPosted by Zerde
04/15/2018 10:57 PMPosted by Syriyna
Simply put, if they cant sell the Alliance as an antagonist, then the faction war is only being written for the alliance playerbase and the Horde is simply being treated as a target to satisfy alliance players.


Oh please, we all know many Horde fans have wanted this war as well! There is a reason the forsaken remain a fairly popular faction and that we still get bouts of "Garrosh was a great warchief" threads now and then. There are many Horde fans that enjoy being capable of starting crud and being less fettered by morality. There were threads CHEERING when Theramore was destroyed.

I'd say the story is also being written for Horde fans, but probably not for the portion that was interested in honor, redemption etc.


LOL, I'm sorry, written for Horde fans?!? BAWAWAWAWHAHAHA!!! Yeah Horde fans totally want more civil war. We totally want to be told that one dominant belief within the faction is far superior than the other. We totally want to have a major characters killed off. We very much like watching our faction leaders do nothing while we go questing off with Alliance faction leaders and saving them. We absolutely want to keep having a new Warchief every expansion.

If Horde players wanted a war, it was to be on equal terms with the Alliance, not to have to deal with another war on two fronts as we side with one character only to have to switch sides and be against that character at the end of the expansion.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum