So what were the consequences of Theramore...

Story Forum
Prev 1 3 4 5 8 Next

Honestly blaming alliance players is one of the stupider comments I've seen posted. During Cataclysm the alliance did absolutely nothing, had really no story and the leadership did nothing aside from afk in their capitols, the alliance players wanted to see the alliance do something, so apparently destroying Theramore was Blizzard's great idea.


This isn't Cataclysm, is it?

Blaming the alliance players for Jaina is stupid and you should feel bad for posting that.


I posted it because I agree with Jaina, not the Alliance posters. Unlike you, I actually understand that the Alliance and Horde aren't monolithic entities that all think and act alike. Jaina understands that there are things in the world bigger than her emotions (Like Dalaran's comittment to neutrality), and Jaina understands that not every person in the Horde likes Garrosh, agrees with Garrosh, or wants war with the Alliance. In fact, that is the entire point of the Horde storyline right now; collecting allies who oppose Garrosh.

Keep calling me stupid, though. It makes you look so rational and wise in comparison.


Too bad there's a war on and it doesn't matter if the orc trying to plant an axe in your face is actually a fine, upstanding person that disagrees with whats being done, he's still trying to put an axe in your face.

War was declared. It's time for Jaina to shut the hell up and get her assets moving. She can get weepy and moralize after operations are over.
Being rational is not one dimensional. Stay classy, though.


Her rational for leaving the Eastern Kingdoms and working with the Orcs amounted to "because Medivh told her to" Jania left Lordaeron even before !@#$ hit the fan. Everyone and everything she knew was still standing, but she left and took as many people as she could convince to go with her.

And she didn't take them to Ironforge. Or Stormwind. Or any of those other bastions of Alliance power. She took them half way around the world to a completely unknown continent...all because Medivh told her to.


So did Thrall. And guess what? They saved the world because of it.

Jania is a TERRIBLE character. She abandons everything and everyone. She abandoned Arthas. She abandoned Lordaeron/Dalaran. She abandoned her men who died fighting Thrall. She abandoned her father. She abandoned Theramore and the Alliance.

The only thing she hasn't abandoned...IS THE HORDE!


She did not abandon Arthas; she knew what he was doing was morally wrong. She did not abandon Lordaeron as she was never a citizen of it; in fact, she took people from Lordaeron with her and founded a nation. She did not abandon Dalaran; Antonidas told her to leave. Her father abandoned her for racial hatred. She did not abandon Theramore; she fought for it until the bitter end, and almost destroyed Orgrimmar in retaliation. As for the Alliance, she is bringing Dalaran back into the Alliance after the Sunreaver's betrayal.

As for her views on the Horde, she told Thrall to go to hell, and now is kicking the Sunreaver's out of Dalaran (For good reason, but she is still taking a stand).

You are skewing the facts to fit your narrative.

Too bad there's a war on and it doesn't matter if the orc trying to plant an axe in your face is actually a fine, upstanding person that disagrees with whats being done, he's still trying to put an axe in your face.

War was declared. It's time for Jaina to shut the hell up and get her assets moving. She can get weepy and moralize after operations are over.


War is not an excuse to abandon morality for the sake of vengeance. As a member of the Alliance, you should be well aware of that.
12/09/2012 10:41 AMPosted by Kellick
In the case of Theramore, every single person who stayed behind did so with the express intention of either fighting the Horde or supporting the forces doing the fighting, so it's disingenuous to claim the bomb killed any non-combatants.


So by that logic, you'd be perfectly fine if the Alliance killed off every man, woman and child in Orgrimmar who does anything what-so-ever to support Garrosh's war? Before you answer keep in mind that Garrosh even has children taking part in the war effort.


War is not an excuse to abandon morality for the sake of vengeance. As a member of the Alliance, you should be well aware of that.


Pft.

Since when did morality have any place in warfare? You want to stand up for some pointless ideals while other people suffer? Go join the priesthood and let the Army do it's dammed job.
12/09/2012 11:50 AMPosted by Banquiero
In the case of Theramore, every single person who stayed behind did so with the express intention of either fighting the Horde or supporting the forces doing the fighting, so it's disingenuous to claim the bomb killed any non-combatants.


So by that logic, you'd be perfectly fine if the Alliance killed off every man, woman and child in Orgrimmar who does anything what-so-ever to support Garrosh's war? Before you answer keep in mind that Garrosh even has children taking part in the war effort.


Ah-ah-AH! Thats hurting the horde! We can't have that now, can we? If we did it would mean the Alliance isn't in WoW to be the whipping boys of Metzens contrived fanfiction!
So by that logic, you'd be perfectly fine if the Alliance killed off every man, woman and child in Orgrimmar who does anything what-so-ever to support Garrosh's war? Before you answer keep in mind that Garrosh even has children taking part in the war effort.

If the Alliance gives everyone in the city the chance to escape without repercussions, and those who refuse stay behind take up arms against them, the Alliance would be stupid to let people brandishing weapons go.

Note that I hadn't been defending the morality of bombing Theramore, merely correcting the incorrect use of a knee-jerk expression.

It'd be no less tragic, but just as defensible from a purely tactical perspective.
12/09/2012 11:50 AMPosted by Banquiero
In the case of Theramore, every single person who stayed behind did so with the express intention of either fighting the Horde or supporting the forces doing the fighting, so it's disingenuous to claim the bomb killed any non-combatants.


So by that logic, you'd be perfectly fine if the Alliance killed off every man, woman and child in Orgrimmar who does anything what-so-ever to support Garrosh's war? Before you answer keep in mind that Garrosh even has children taking part in the war effort.


I forgot about that.

Well, since every man, woman and child in Orgrimmar is now a combatant, by Kellick's logic, they're fair game.

Here, I'll lead the bomber wings on the orphanage myself. After all, they might grow up to raise arms against us. See? I used Garrosh's logic there.
12/09/2012 11:56 AMPosted by Advic
I used Garrosh's logic there.

You're actually using Jaina's logic.

Almost word for word, in fact.

Since when did morality have any place in warfare? You want to stand up for some pointless ideals while other people suffer? Go join the priesthood and let the Army do it's dammed job.


First of all, Jaina is not a soldier. She was the sovereign leader of Theramore, and is now the head of the Council of Six, the ruling body of Dalaran. You cannot expect Jaina to think or act like a soldier.

Second of all, morality in war is what peace at the end of the war is build upon. Fighting someone in war is moral. Using WMDs, executing POWs, or ignoring a surrender for butchery are not.
12/09/2012 11:58 AMPosted by Kellick
I used Garrosh's logic there.

You're actually using Jaina's logic.

Almost word for word, in fact.


Which was used by Garrosh first:


High Overlord Saurfang says: I think it was the sounds of the draenei children that unnerved most of them... You never forget...

High Overlord Saurfang says: Have you ever been to Jaggedswine Farm? When the swine are of age for the slaughter... It's that sound. The sound of the swine being killed... It resonates the loudest. Those are hard times for us older veterans.

Garrosh Hellscream says: But surely you cannot think that those children were born into innocence? They would have grown up and taken arms against us!
12/09/2012 12:01 PMPosted by Advic
Which was used by Garrosh first:

Yes, but the deliberate destruction of the Orgrimmar orphanage was a specific case Jaina rationalized in Tides of War.

Which does nothing to address the fact you're attacking a strawman of my argument rather than my actual argument which was that a knee-jerk expression was being tossed around incorrectly to elicit an emotional response.
12/09/2012 11:56 AMPosted by Kellick
So by that logic, you'd be perfectly fine if the Alliance killed off every man, woman and child in Orgrimmar who does anything what-so-ever to support Garrosh's war? Before you answer keep in mind that Garrosh even has children taking part in the war effort.

If the Alliance gives everyone in the city the chance to escape without repercussions, and those who refuse stay behind take up arms against them, the Alliance would be stupid to let people brandishing weapons go.

Note that I hadn't been defending the morality of bombing Theramore, merely correcting the incorrect use of a knee-jerk expression.

It'd be no less tragic, but just as defensible from a purely tactical perspective.


Not all those who stayed behind in Theramore took up arms against the Horde as you can see from the original quote. Some stayed to support the forces within the city, not necessarily by supplying arms or armor but by making meals and tending the wounded (they weren't as you put it "brandishing weapons"). I wouldn't call these people combatants, not by any stretch of the imagination. So it's fair game to kill those who render aid to the wounded, it's fair game to kill the inn keeper who is doing nothing but cooking meals?

*playing the devil's advocate here*
12/09/2012 12:15 PMPosted by Banquiero
So it's fair game to kill those who render aid to the wounded, it's fair game to kill the inn keeper who is doing nothing but cooking meals?

I've seen many people justify killing every Orc within Orgrimmar with that.
12/09/2012 12:17 PMPosted by Pyronaptor
I've seen many people justify killing every Orc within Orgrimmar with that.

In this thread and others, yeah.

We even had a handful of threads titled "Jaina was right", supporting her initial decision to kill every last person in all of Durotar back when Tides of War first came out.

Edit: Heck, people in those thread weren't just calling it a tactically sound decision, but one that was morally laudable.
Not all those who stayed behind in Theramore took up arms against the Horde as you can see from the original quote. Some stayed to support the forces within the city, not necessarily by supplying arms or armor but by making meals and tending the wounded (they weren't as you put it "brandishing weapons"). I wouldn't call these people combatants, not by any stretch of the imagination. So it's fair game to kill those who render aid to the wounded, it's fair game to kill the inn keeper who is doing nothing but cooking meals?


I get the feeling that you're trying to expand the context of Theramore and apply this logic to all cases in all situations.

In the context of Theramore (and the hypothetical attack on Orgrimmar under similar circumstances) your answer is "Yes".
12/09/2012 12:27 PMPosted by Kokyo
Not all those who stayed behind in Theramore took up arms against the Horde as you can see from the original quote. Some stayed to support the forces within the city, not necessarily by supplying arms or armor but by making meals and tending the wounded (they weren't as you put it "brandishing weapons"). I wouldn't call these people combatants, not by any stretch of the imagination. So it's fair game to kill those who render aid to the wounded, it's fair game to kill the inn keeper who is doing nothing but cooking meals?


I get the feeling that you're trying to expand the context of Theramore and apply this logic to all cases in all situations.

In the context of Theramore (and the hypothetical attack on Orgrimmar under similar circumstances) your answer is "Yes".

Actually, I'm not trying to expand it to all cases in all situations. As for the hypothetical attack on Orgrimmar, don't forget the final patch in this expansion involves a non-hypothetical attack on Orgrimmar. In this attack on Orgrimmar the Alliance are to protect the non-combatants (which I agree with) but just trying to clarify what a 'non-combatant' is (again, playing the devil's advocate).
Nuking Theramore was only done so that Horde players wouldn't complain that the Alliance got Dalaran and they get nothing.

People are saying that she needed to be leader of the Six so that when the opportunity presented itself, she could move Dalaran back into the Alliance, and to that I ask: Why?

Why did it HAVE to be Jaina? Wouldn't Rhonin, or Modera, or pretty much any other member but Aethas, (maybe even him) decide after the Sunreaver betrayal to throw them out or at the very least inter them? Blowing up Theramore was just so that the Alliance could have a particularly bloody city swap, which while interesting from a story perspective, also means in-game we traded an actual city for being told that we have another one, and a crater.

Theramore was nuked to keep things "fair".
The way I see it Garrosh doesnt care if you were or were not a non combatant. He didnt know exactly know what was going on in people's heads in Theramore. He didnt know the kids would escape, he only cared to level all of Theramore. For that he needs to die a horrible death along with Blackrocks and anyone who continues to support him.
Actually, I'm not trying to expand it to all cases in all situations. As for the hypothetical attack on Orgrimmar, don't forget the final patch in this expansion involves a non-hypothetical attack on Orgrimmar. In this attack on Orgrimmar the Alliance are to protect the non-combatants (which I agree with) but just trying to clarify what a 'non-combatant' is (again, playing the devil's advocate).


I think the discussion spawned from the use of the words, "combatant" and more importantly, "civilian". The latter term being used as an emotional appeal.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum