The alliance need to be better antagonists.

Story Forum
Prev 1 2 3 4 7 Next
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


Yes, all those bouts. Y'know? The bouts? I mean, we get them all the time.

04/15/2018 11:41 PMPosted by Zerde
There were threads CHEERING when Theramore was destroyed.


They cheered for that event six years ago. I don't know if I've seen anyone cheering the burning of Teldrassil. The closest I can recall is people cheering the usage of blight at the battle for Undercity.

04/15/2018 11:49 PMPosted by Zerde
Well now we know Northwatch(and the Barrens invasions) was in response to Garrosh attacking Ashenvale.


*In response to Garrosh sending troops into Ashenvale.
No, they don't need to be "better" antagonists. They need to be "antagonists" period, because right now, I would trust the Horde in the hands of Anduin Wrynn more than our "Warchief". Sylvanas needs to die, and this stupid faction war needs to end.

The Alliance has done nothing to justify the level of force used on it. It's like dropping a nuke on a city for having too high a crime rate.
They cheered for that event six years ago. I don't know if I've seen anyone cheering the burning of Teldrassil. The closest I can recall is people cheering the usage of blight at the battle for Undercity.


Then you don't go the general forums that often enough.

Yes, all those bouts. Y'know? The bouts? I mean, we get them all the time.


Any particular hate of the word bout?
04/16/2018 12:03 AMPosted by Ronstin
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.


Oh yes. The Dark Portal dungeon. BC lore. Yes.

Well then fair enough. Allow me to revise:

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 after reforming post WC3 (or at least since developed ways to handle those concerns smoothly and internally). 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.

Which is... yeah kind of an issue compared to the Horde doctrine of "we must conquer everything we can see in order to thrive". At least if you're trying to portray both factions as somehow morally equivalent.


There we go.

04/16/2018 12:03 AMPosted by Ronstin
Well, unless they find trolls somewhere. Then they have to establish some bases and start trying to wipe the filthy primitives out.


Well if they're going to insist on raiding, looting and eating people...
The Darkspear weren't doing anything of the sort on the Darkspear Islands, the Kul Tirans still decided to plop down a base so they could hunt the troll natives. And they still weren't doing anything of the sort when they moved to the Echo Isles, only for Daelin to go "trolls? Here? Load the grapeshot, boys". And even after all that, they STILL weren't raiding, looting, or eating people and yet who does the Alliance try and go after first, in Durotar, in Stonetalon, etc? The trolls yet again.
04/15/2018 09:24 PMPosted by Zerde
No. The Alliance doesn't start wars(usually) but it definitely finishes them.


Started this one.
04/15/2018 09:55 PMPosted by Rokugan
Wars don't need to happen over resources or territory. The Crusades were motivated entirely by boredom and religious zeal.


No the Crusades were sparked by the Muslim invasion of Europe and the Holy Land.
No. The Alliance doesn't start wars(usually) but it definitely finishes them.
By what measure?
04/16/2018 05:35 AMPosted by Floren
No. The Alliance doesn't start wars(usually) but it definitely finishes them.
By what measure?


Apparently by conceding territory in a war Horde players insist we won.

As another note, Sylvanas after the broken shore has dialog mentioning that she expects the Alliance to retaliate. Genn attacked because he and the rest of the Alliance felt betrayed, Sylvanas expected this attack and both didn't prepare for it nor tried to communicate with the Alliance to smooth it over.

The great war of misunderstandings. Truly blizzard's crowning achievement in writing.
Started this one.


That is still to be see. Besides, if you want to get technical about the Alliance has had a reason to go to war with the Horde since Ashran.
Heres the thing.

I don't care about who started this or that. The problem with getting hung up on who started what, is that it leads to this slippery slope where each side tries to back peddle into what may or may not have caused the current conflict. None of that matters. People go into this back-and-forth to search for justification, but the truth is, you can justify just about anything you want to yourself. Alliance justifications don't matter to Horde, and vice versa.

The main problem is, as Yagarr has said, is that the Alliance is not a clear existential threat to the Horde. Anyone who says that they are is deluding themselves. The Alliance already had that chance, and they showed clemency to the Horde that no sane ruling body throughout history would've.

We all know the faction conflict can't end with a definitive winner. However, if the Alliance did win, we know what would happen - because it did. If Horde won, they would likely exterminate Alliance to the last in creatively brutal fashions. Stormsong is supposed to emphasize this. This is why the Horde cannot win any conflict they get into, because they can't help themselves from going too far. It escalates to a definite end point, while with Alliance, this is not the case.

Horde doesn't need to change. Alliance does. This has been said since Cata, but the Alliance needs to go harder on the Horde. It doesn't matter if Alliance picks off some miners and start the conflict, the point is the Horde escalates it to the point of destroying an entire city (if indeed Sylvanas does destroy Teldrassil). Alliance has only done this to Taurajo, and now Undercity, and in the case of Taurajo there were all these strings attached that made the Alliance look as good as they could in that situation. In Undercity's case, it isn't the Alliance that destroy it but Sylvanas herself.

Alliance are the ones that need to escalate to match Horde. It needs to get to a point of such senseless slaughter from both sides that it ends in a M.A.D scenario.

Otherwise you get these situations where people debate Sylvanas's use of the blight and raising skeletons because Alliance doesn't lay that kind of destruction on Horde. If they did, even Alliance would be able to see the need for the Horde to do whatever it takes.
04/16/2018 12:06 AMPosted by Kelisaria
No, they don't need to be "better" antagonists. They need to be "antagonists" period, because right now, I would trust the Horde in the hands of Anduin Wrynn more than our "Warchief". Sylvanas needs to die, and this stupid faction war needs to end.

The Alliance has done nothing to justify the level of force used on it. It's like dropping a nuke on a city for having too high a crime rate.


#Bludhaven
#Deathstrokewasright

I do actually agree with you. The Alliance isn't without its sins, but the narrative has gone to great efforts to remind us that, as a whole, they'd leave us alone if we'd stop infecting them with axe-to-face disease.
04/16/2018 08:09 AMPosted by Abendrothe
However, if the Alliance did win, we know what would happen - because it did.
And it is rational to assume history would repeat itself? Seems like a stretch.

I agree Blizzard hasn't made the Alliance a clear existential threat (despite seemingly wanting to per saying Sylvanas sees them as such). But I also think they are reasonably capable of doing it through Genn, Rogers, and Tyrande.
04/16/2018 08:15 AMPosted by Floren
04/16/2018 08:09 AMPosted by Abendrothe
However, if the Alliance did win, we know what would happen - because it did.
And it is rational to assume history would repeat itself? Seems like a stretch.

I agree Blizzard hasn't made the Alliance a clear existential threat (despite seemingly wanting to per saying Sylvanas sees them as such). But I also think they are reasonably capable of doing it through Genn, Rogers, and Tyrande.


History constantly repeats itself in WoW.
04/16/2018 08:10 AMPosted by Kirango
axe-to-face disease.

A scourge that only pales when compared to even worse maladies such as kidney perforationitis, hoof in rectum disease, and facial liquefaction syndrome.
04/16/2018 08:09 AMPosted by Abendrothe
If Horde won, they would likely exterminate Alliance to the last in creatively brutal fashions. Stormsong is supposed to emphasize this. This is why the Horde cannot win any conflict they get into, because they can't help themselves from going too far.

See, this isn't even the perspective that Horde players are given. Alliance players feel like the Horde is on a mission to wipe out every last member of every last Alliance race--but as a Horde player, I feel like we just want space and safety, and that doesn't necessitate the G-word. I haven't even heard Sylvanas ever talk about wiping out the entire Alliance in-game, but the devs are assuring us that that's what she truly believes in. It's possibly encouraging in the sense that they're not asking us to see our side as just plain evil ... but it's weird to have no motivation at all to attack the Alliance and yet have the Alliance convinced that the Horde wants to exterminate them.
04/15/2018 09:26 PMPosted by Jacksouth
But we’re not antagonists, we’re the good guys.


Antagonist doesn't mean bad guy. It means the opponent. If you are following the story of the bad guy, then the bad guy is the protagonist because the story is about him. Consequently, the good guy he faces is the antagonist.

Protagonist and antagonist are not moral words. They have to do with the narrative of a story.
04/16/2018 08:21 AMPosted by Pellex
04/16/2018 08:09 AMPosted by Abendrothe
If Horde won, they would likely exterminate Alliance to the last in creatively brutal fashions. Stormsong is supposed to emphasize this. This is why the Horde cannot win any conflict they get into, because they can't help themselves from going too far.

See, this isn't even the perspective that Horde players are given. Alliance players feel like the Horde is on a mission to wipe out every last member of every last Alliance race--but as a Horde player, I feel like we just want space and safety, and that doesn't necessitate the G-word. I haven't even heard Sylvanas ever talk about wiping out the entire Alliance in-game, but the devs are assuring us that that's what she truly believes in. It's possibly encouraging in the sense that they're not asking us to see our side as just plain evil ... but it's weird to have no motivation at all to attack the Alliance and yet have the Alliance convinced that the Horde wants to exterminate them.


I get that impression when I play Horde. As Horde, the Alliance don't feel like a threat. Although, the last time there was a focus on interfactional violence was MOP and coincidentally that's the last time I really played Horde.

While some of the Horde's conflicts do fit into the lens of defense, such as defending Durotar, Horde always pushes it too far. Which wouldn't be a bad thing if the writers could get Alliance to do that. There's plenty of motivation to do so, but when you play Alliance you never feel like you're doing as much as you could. You're always being held back against an enemy that will not hold back against you.

Again, as I said, the Alliance could've started this by picking off a few miners to prevent them from getting Azerite. The Horde solution is to immediately raze everything from Orgrimmar to Teldrassil and maybe even Teldrassil itself.
04/16/2018 08:16 AMPosted by Abendrothe
04/16/2018 08:15 AMPosted by Floren
... And it is rational to assume history would repeat itself? Seems like a stretch.

I agree Blizzard hasn't made the Alliance a clear existential threat (despite seemingly wanting to per saying Sylvanas sees them as such). But I also think they are reasonably capable of doing it through Genn, Rogers, and Tyrande.


History constantly repeats itself in WoW.
And it also doesn't quite often.
04/16/2018 08:33 AMPosted by Abendrothe
I get that impression when I play Horde.

From which quests or scenes? Any of them date from post-MoP? (I'm genuinely interested to know, because I want to know what you're seeing that I'm not.)

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum