Scrolls of Lore Forums

Scrolls of Lore Forums (http://forums.scrollsoflore.com/index.php)
-   WarCraft Lore Discussion (http://forums.scrollsoflore.com/forumdisplay.php?f=8)
-   -   Political division among faction's members. (http://forums.scrollsoflore.com/showthread.php?t=32696)

Korath 12-20-2012 09:50 AM

And yet, I fail to see when the Alliance was created because of High Ideal. It was a tool crafted to survive, as much (even mmore, in fact) that the Horde. In my eyes, all this talk about the Alliance, which was always good, etc... It's bad storytelling.

Especially when the undertone is "Follow the Light, you filthy ignorant pagan !"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fojar (Post 600162)
I don't see why the Alliance can't be good guys AND use harsher tactics on the Horde.

Great suicidal wave ? At least, it's what I see on officials forums from US, UK and France (well, technically, the last two are EU but...).

And by harsher tactics, I would include "discovering a conven of Twilight Cultists/Burning Blade followers, who will unleash an horror on the Horde rear-guard and I -Alliance Player -do nothing... execpt killing the Horde spy who has just discovered the coven, not becasue I have orders to do so, but because I think it is needed to save Alliance's lives".

Deicide 12-20-2012 10:38 AM

I'm not talking about Alliance always being good. There are a lot of bad extremists within it.

I saying Alliance is seen as good because its core philosophy is one based on making the world a better place.

The "Follow the Light, you filthy ignorant pagan !" undertone does not really exist because the Light is not a monotheistic religion, but an ideal totally unrelated to gods or faiths. It's about being happy, making others happy and thus make the world better. Forcing someone to follow the Light is a quick way for you to lose touch with the Light.

(Also, unlike in real world, following this path gives you real tangible power. Paladins have been a staple of the Alliance since its foundation.)

While a lot of Alliance characters give just lip service to the Light, it's the base of traditions on most Alliance nations. It's a powerful direction that they follow.

It's because of such underlying philosophy that the orcs were not slaughtered despite it being the most logical decision following the Second War, for instance.

Korath 07-01-2013 01:29 AM

So, since the SoO is closer to us everyday, and its aftermath will be the beginning of a new "era" in WoW, I think that it is a good time to up again this thread, especially because of what Blizzard stated about the Alliance as an "unified juggernaut".

Indeed, I feel it forced, unrealistic and stupid. After such a war, each faction should be more divided than ever : the former rebels of the Horde should still face some lingering loyalty to Garrosh, or at least his ideas and stance toward the Alliance, and there should be differences between each of the Rebellion leaders.

As for the Alliance, we know that their victory at the end of the Second War fractured it, when the more vindicative members left because of the decision to spare the orcs. While it shouldn't be as extreme today, it seem obvious, almost painfully to me, that the High Elves, Night Elves and Worgen, at least, should be highly unhappy with the decision to not destroy the Horde warmachine (and thus Orgrimmar).

So, with the new informations that we have now, what do you think about the idea of real "sub-factions" ? It would allow each player to fight the bigger threat as he deem right, by avoiding neutrals factions forcing him in a role which he doesn't necessary want.

Deicide 07-01-2013 05:02 AM

I'm half expecting things to go bad after the Siege. The Alliance will probably want to occupy the city; the Horde rebels will probably see this as an act of treason and retaliate. War goes on.

I'll be surprised if things end with diplomacy.

CoDimus the Staunch 07-01-2013 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deicide (Post 899157)
I'm half expecting things to go bad after the Siege. The Alliance will probably want to occupy the city; the Horde rebels will probably see this as an act of treason and retaliate. War goes on.

I'll be surprised if things end with diplomacy.

This.

Kellick 07-01-2013 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deicide (Post 899157)
I'm half expecting things to go bad after the Siege. The Alliance will probably want to occupy the city; the Horde rebels will probably see this as an act of treason and retaliate. War goes on.

I'll be surprised if things end with diplomacy.

My main concern from that kind of resolution would be that such an attempt at occupation is inherently doomed to failure, and I do not want to ever deal with the fallout of the Alliance trying and failing to beat the Horde after the Siege of Orgrimmar.

Lord Grimtale 07-01-2013 10:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kellick (Post 899608)
My main concern from that kind of resolution would be that such an attempt at occupation is inherently doomed to failure, and I do not want to ever deal with the fallout of the Alliance trying and failing to beat the Horde after the Siege of Orgrimmar.

Yeah, I would probably rather things end on a more pragmatic level.

Like Varian and Vol'jin agreeing upon a trade of some sorts to help repair the damage done. (Varian could probably convince Vol'jin to trade some of Orgrimmar's coin in exchange for the lumber he could provide from Elwynn, if Ashenvale is out of the question on that.)

I could see the gold helping Stormwind with its poverty, and Elwynn's lumber helping to be used help the resource drought that will occur again in Ogrimmar.

Just a guess on that one.

Omacron 07-02-2013 01:54 AM

I don't think it's unrealistic to have human or other Alliance member races occupying Orgrimmar- no more unrealistic than the Orcs occupying Undercity.

neoshadow 07-02-2013 01:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lord Grimtale (Post 899611)
Yeah, I would probably rather things end on a more pragmatic level.

Like Varian and Vol'jin agreeing upon a trade of some sorts to help repair the damage done. (Varian could probably convince Vol'jin to trade some of Orgrimmar's coin in exchange for the lumber he could provide from Elwynn, if Ashenvale is out of the question on that.)

I could see the gold helping Stormwind with its poverty, and Elwynn's lumber helping to be used help the resource drought that will occur again in Ogrimmar.

Just a guess on that one.

we could give the dead as meat for the westfall transients!



Btw, is it a missed moment of awesome that they never used the ogre juggernaut from the deadmines as an alliance vessel of destruction?

Fojar 07-02-2013 02:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Omacron (Post 899631)
I don't think it's unrealistic to have human or other Alliance member races occupying Orgrimmar- no more unrealistic than the Orcs occupying Undercity.

No but you see it would hurt the ego of the faction that started a global war of genocide so it's off the table.

Korath 07-02-2013 02:00 AM

I never said here that I want the Alliance to occupy Orgrimmar. But after the end of the war, the Alliance shouldn't unfiy. It should be on the verge of implosion, with each races advocating its own agenda : the Night Elves would be outraged to hear that nothing more will be done for Ashenvale and Azshara, the Worgen would want to destoy the Forsaken and reclaim Gilneas at all cost, the High Elves (and maybe ja´na) could advocate against the liberation of the Sunreavers in Dalaran, the Gnomes should push for a true reclaiming of Gnomeregan, etc...

Even the inhabitants of Stormwind should be highly divided between the Nobles and others who believe that peace with the Horde now is better for everyone, and the hardliners who think that trusting the Horde is a folly and that Varian should have ended them.

Unity shouldn't be the theme of the Alliance, since this theme only brought rejected storylines by the Alliance playerbase. Disunity and the trial of Varian and others to prevent the destruction of the Alliance, while seeking to avoid a civil war with the hardliners would be a lot more interesting than

"We all friends. We fight the baddy Legion" or other neutrals enemies who worth nothing in the grand scheme of things.

Yakitori 07-02-2013 02:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Omacron (Post 899631)
I don't think it's unrealistic to have human or other Alliance member races occupying Orgrimmar- no more unrealistic than the Orcs occupying Undercity.

I think the difference is that the Orcs and the Undead were at least on the same faction and the Orcs occupying UC were there to make sure the coup wouldn't happen again (while also keeping an eye on what Sylvanas was up to - not the best job, obviously).

But if the Alliance occupied Org, well, it opens up a bunch of questions.

-Do they get a FP to Org?
-Are the Alliance soldiers neutral to Alliance players? If so, how does this affect the achievements to kill racial leaders? Or Alliance who decide to camp out in the AH/Bank and kill NPCs? Could you imagine the complaints if Alliance guards attacked Alliance players? Would you turn Org into a sanctuary or leave it Horde aligned?
-Who IS Eric Cartman's father?

Nazja 07-02-2013 02:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yakitori (Post 899648)
I think the difference is that the Orcs and the Undead were at least on the same faction and the Orcs occupying UC were there to make sure the coup wouldn't happen again (while also keeping an eye on what Sylvanas was up to - not the best job, obviously).

But if the Alliance occupied Org, well, it opens up a bunch of questions.

-Do they get a FP to Org?
-Are the Alliance soldiers neutral to Alliance players? If so, how does this affect the achievements to kill racial leaders? Or Alliance who decide to camp out in the AH/Bank and kill NPCs? Could you imagine the complaints if Alliance guards attacked Alliance players? Would you turn Org into a sanctuary or leave it Horde aligned?
-Who IS Eric Cartman's father?

Besides, what would prevent the orcs from simply killing the occupying troops? I doubt the Alliance can spare enough soldier to keep the entire population in check, and any reinforcements the allied troops could hope for would take days to arrive. (Depending on who's in charge of writing the novel.)
Now, you could simply turn Org into a weapons-free zone, but can you put magic-inhibiting manacles on all the spell casters? Even then it would be a highly risky matter.

Doesn't really seem practicable to me. I mean, it's not like the Horde would be so much weaker after the coup. The orcs may have lost many warriors, but the rest, likely, remains as strong as they were before the siege.

Noitora 07-02-2013 04:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fojar (Post 600162)
I don't see why the Alliance can't be good guys AND use harsher tactics on the Horde.

Because Obama. Also I doubt we'll see sub factions. It's too much work gameplay wise to have politics. Unless it involves war. They can do it in stories though.

Garotar 07-02-2013 06:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Omacron (Post 899631)
I don't think it's unrealistic to have human or other Alliance member races occupying Orgrimmar- no more unrealistic than the Orcs occupying Undercity.

I don't think the issue is that it's unrealistic in the story sense, but I think it's a bit more unrealistic in the gameplay sense.

But we'll see.

C9H20 07-02-2013 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Garotar (Post 899731)
I don't think the issue is that it's unrealistic in the story sense, but I think it's a bit more unrealistic in the gameplay sense.

But we'll see.

This.

It is not that hard to grasp people, I for one would love if the Alliance occupied Orgrimmar, because it could be fun to instigate or crush a revolution depending on your faction. Plus it would be a unique opportunity for the Alliance to quest in Orgrimmar and interact with the subjugated Horde populace there.

The thing is such ideas while AWESOME lorewise are not something Blizzard is willing to do sadly. Which is why I proposed an idea that allows for the status quo to continue, more or less intact, after SoO. Because otherwise status quo would continue effectively anyway and the Alliance will look stupid because they just backed off for no real pragmatic gain.

But apparently idle fanrage is a better solution if your replies are anything to go by.

Kir the Wizard 07-02-2013 02:12 PM

"Grunts swapped for Ally occupants like in Undercity" won't work.

Why?

Can you imagine Alliance guards beating the shit out of an Alliance raiding party that invaded Orgrimmar to kill the Warchief?

Nazja 07-02-2013 02:20 PM

  • It would be impossible to de-weaponize Orgrimmar.
  • The rebel Horde is, probably, only slightly weaker than the Alliance.
  • The logistics would be a pain in the ass.
  • The Alliance doesn't really gain much out of this move. Aren't we expecting the Horde's leader to no longer be an orc? At most you'd make the orc's resent the humans even more due to the vague resemblance to the internment camps.

Mshadowz 07-02-2013 02:23 PM

How does 6 united races (7 if you include the pandaren) equal the same military strength of 5 loosely allied races? Especially since the humans/dwarves/gnomes tend to mesh their tech together into massive flying battleships, while the orcs/goblins did the same, with the orcs now out of the picture.

Kir the Wizard 07-02-2013 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nazja
It would be impossible to de-weaponize Orgrimmar.
The rebel Horde is, probably, only slightly weaker than the Alliance.
The logistics would be a pain in the ass.
The Alliance doesn't really gain much out of this move. Aren't we expecting the Horde's leader to no longer be an orc? At most you'd make the orc's resent the humans even more due to the vague resemblance to the internment camps.

So, "nobody wins, boring and senseless status quo is restored"?

Nazja 07-02-2013 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mshadowz (Post 900153)
How does 6 united races (7 if you include the pandaren) equal the same military strength of 5 loosely allied races? Especially since the humans/dwarves/gnomes tend to mesh their tech together into massive flying battleships, while the orcs/goblins did the same, with the orcs now out of the picture.

We're only talking about Orgrimmar. The rest of the orcs are still at large. Besides, it still isn't such a large gap. Anyways, the point, which I somehow forgot, was that the Horde could defeat the occupying troops easily, if it set it's mind to doing so.

Arashi 07-02-2013 02:47 PM

Guys.

Guys.

How about this.

How about we go back in time and fix the ending to something more fun. Like everyone losing horrendously.

Noitora 07-02-2013 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nazja (Post 900161)
We're only talking about Orgrimmar. The rest of the orcs are still at large. Besides, it still isn't such a large gap. Anyways, the point, which I somehow forgot, was that the Horde could defeat the occupying troops easily, if it set it's mind to doing so.

That defeats the purpose of "The Alliance Juggernaut", "The Horde picking up the pieces", and "Orgrimmar will be a bloodbath".

Nazja 07-02-2013 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Noitora (Post 900175)
That defeats the purpose of "The Alliance Juggernaut", "The Horde picking up the pieces", and "Orgrimmar will be a bloodbath".

Big words, I assure you. Nothing more. (This is of course not a fact.)

Noitora 07-02-2013 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nazja (Post 900179)
Big words, I assure you. Nothing more.

Blame Kosak


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:19 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.