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 12-05-2012 11:20 AM

Political division among faction's members.
 
So, first, I'm a French, so english is not my native language, forgive my possible mispelling. Oh, and it's my first post on SoL, so please... be gentle (If you read with a woman's voice while your a guys, watch less hentai, ;)).

--------------------------------------

Here's the problem : I stalk the Us forums, and I'have seen that both in the Horde and the Alliance, there is a great rift among players. An easy way to summurize it is that there is a part for whom Rogers/Garrosh, is a monster, no matter why, and another who think that the former is on of the only "real" characters in WoW (I side with them, even if I leaved WoW somewhere before the Destruction of Theramore) and the latter as a guy who got an explosive situation created by the former warchief, and try to do what is best to his people, even in bad ways.

But Blizzard tend to paint the factions has homogenous (and boring) things. Especially Alliance side, but I was an Alliance die hars fan (to the point that even if I leveled a troll priestress to level 85, I was often angry when I crushed with ease any Alliance guy during quests) so I can by biased.

So, here's my question : Why Blizzard wouldn't create splinter factions who remains in their greater Factions (namely Horde and Alliance) and have political struggle to direct their Faction in a way which is the "good one" in their eyes ?

Here's an exemple :

-The Children of the Horde are a members of a political movements who refuse to surrender to Alliance whishes; they strongly believe that even if Garrosh has fallen from grace, he was right when he tried to conquer Ashenvale, etc...
-The Honorbound are members of a political movement who think that only peace with the Alliance could achieve an improvement for Horde's people; they refuse to use dark means to achieve a good end.

-The Guardians of Harmony is an ideological movement among Alliance citizen who strongly believe that the Alliance should be a "Lawful good" thing, at any cost, because you are nothing if you're not a man/woman of Good (the current Alliance npc sans Roger and Vereesa -the two Alliance Hope-, actually).
-The Patriots are their counterpart. They believe that a world where the Horde has been purged is the only world where the Alliance's people could achieve peace; they refuse to let the monsters from the Horde to crush and kill their people, or even threaten them.

Those splinters'factions are obviously intelligent : if the Burning Legion, the Scourge, the Old Gods (or whatever cosmics threats could appear) they would fight alongside the other to protect their worlds. But they would use differents methods : the more "cooperatists" would fight whith honour while the others would be moire brutals (even going as to use members from the others factions as baits to lure the enemy or firing in a melee where there is only Horde/Alliance againt demons).

In time of peace, those splinters groups would bring some sens of strife in the game : not an open war, but more something like guerrilla warfare (and maybe new bg).

A level 90 could join one of those groups and having quests to influence leaders, peasant, military, etc... It would allow to every players even the most ferocious/peaceful, vindicative or forgiving won't feel alienated in their own faction.

What do you think about it ?

Deicide 12-05-2012 11:48 AM

I think factions like these do exist in lore, they just go nameless. Unfortunately, we just lose a lot of lore depth because Blizzard often focus on external rather than internal conflicts - there's no time to show the many factions within the Horde because we need to fight the Burning Legion now and the Lich King later.

Indeed, the current conflict is pretty much fueled by these internal schisms. Garrosh's followers are the younger orcs who, having grown up in internment camps hearing tales of their former heroes, just want payback from perceived crimes of the Alliance.

Meanwhile, we see Alliance's extremists rising to power in the Barrens conflict.

In Night Elf Society there are those against the return of the Highborne, while the young elves are interested in arcane magic once again.

The dwarves... well, their story is pretty much defined by internal conflict.

But these internal factions sure could be better developed and explored, of course.

Garotar 12-05-2012 12:47 PM

By better developed and explored for the Alliance ones, you mean acknowledged at all, right?

Yes there's a bit of an exaggeration there but I tend to get the humans and friends feeling from the Alliance more than anything story wise.

Omacron 12-05-2012 01:17 PM

Just reminding you that WCII was the best installment in the Warcraft series when it came to realpolitik.


Dat Alterac. Dem Stormreavers. UNF.

Deicide 12-05-2012 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Garotar (Post 593638)
By better developed and explored for the Alliance ones, you mean acknowledged at all, right?

Yes there's a bit of an exaggeration there but I tend to get the humans and friends feeling from the Alliance more than anything story wise.

Those were just examples.

Wanna Horde examples?

The taurens in the barrens, which suffered because of the Alliance offensive (to help the elves with supplies against Horde aggression, but the tauren don't care about it) are a lot more warlike and vegenful, to the point of blowing up Bael Modan. In ToW, Baine talks about how he exiled from Mul'gore those who insisted in retaliating the Alliance.

There's the Grimtotem Tauren also.

Orcs we discussed. There's the war-weary old guard who wants to follow Thrall, and the new generation who wants payback from the Alliance.

There are those who embranced Shamanism, and those who still cling to Warlock magic (but still see themselves as part of the Horde)

There are those who came from the Dark Horde (Dragonmaw and Blackrock). What actions will they take if Garrosh falls?

Forsaken... While the majority see Sylvannas as their savior and leader, a few have begun to doubt their actions. I remember finding one in Western Plaguelands saying that something changed in her (he was working with the Argent Crusade). Others may have the same feelings. (Ok, I'm grasping at straws in this case; very few examples)

I'm just more familiar with the Alliance.

BaronGrackle 12-05-2012 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Omacron (Post 593649)
Just reminding you that WCII was the best installment in the Warcraft series when it came to realpolitik.


Dat Alterac. Dem Stormreavers. UNF.

It's even better when you realize that the Stormreavers were the strongest orcish presence during the Northlands/Alterac campaign. Why them? We'll never know, and it's not canon anymore.

Another fun time for faction infighting is in WCII: Beyond the Dark Portal, during Act I of the orcish campaign. It's called "Draenor, the Red World", but it's really just reunification of the Horde under Ner'zhul.

Level I: Slayer of Shadowmoon
Ner'zhul's Horde, pre-battle: Shadowmoon Clan, partial Bleeding Hollow Clan
Mogor's forces, pre-battle: Laughing Skull Clan, Shattered Hand Clan, a subjugated Death Knight order
Other clans: Warsong Clan (Grom Hellscream is held prisoner), Bonechewer Clan, Thunderlord Clan
Outcome of the Battle: Grom Hellscream pledges his clan to Ner'zhul, Kargath Bladefist surrenders his clan to Ner'zhul, Mogor is killed and his clan surrenders to Ner'zhul.

Level II: The Skull of Gul'dan
Ner'zhul's Horde, pre-battle: Shadowmoon Clan, Warsong Clan, Shattered Hand Clan, Laughing Skull Clan, partial Bleeding Hollow Clan
Other clans: Bonechewer Clan, Thunderlord Clan
Outcome of the Battle: Thunderlord Clan temporarily joins Ner'zhul against the Bonechewers, but soon reneges.

Level III: Thunderlord and Bonechewer
Ner'zhul's Horde, pre-battle: Shadowmoon Clan, Warsong Clan, Shattered Hand Clan, Laughing Skull Clan, partial Bleeding Hollow Clan
Anti-Ner'zhul Horde, pre-battle: Bonechewer Clan, Thunderlord Clan (wishing to do the same thing Doomhammer did, only better)
Outcome of the Battle: Thunderlord Clan surrenders to Ner'zhul, Bonechewer Clan surrenders to Ner'zhul, full unification of the Horde


It's fun to reflect on, considering the campaign would've happened before any of the levels in the Human campaign (and thus they would've had a strong possibility of being canon, since these levels offer no contradiction of events in the Human campaign).

And when you reflect on the game's later depictions of the Laughing Skull Clan (serving as active Horde forces at the beginning of the Human campaign, no mention of Mogor anywhere else--even when they work with the Alliance during the end of the Human campaign), it paints a picture easy to speculate on, one in which I imagine Mogor's successor to have supported Ner'zhul only for fear of his life and his clan, until he had the means to stand against him and seize control over dying Draenor. But of course, most of that isn't canon anymore. ;)


EDIT: And of course, there is the interracial dimension. As my avatar indicates, there was a time when Alterac's traitors were joined by High Elves and Gnomes who felt they were more secure cooperating with the Horde. In the streets of Alterac, Human fought alongside Orc, High Elf fought alongside Forest Troll, and Gnome flew alongside Goblin, along with Ogres and a random dragon.

Likewise the Trolls and Goblins found themselves in the crossfire of the orcs' infighting, warring against their own kind during the Gul'dan Crisis. Was this based on the Trolls and Goblins disagreeing with themselves, over which orcish faction to support? Or were they all just swept up in the chaos of the moment, with no ability to make sense of whose side they were fighting on?

On Draenor, these Troll and Goblin survivors then found themselves divied up among the various clans (this part is explicitly stated in the manual), where they again chose a horse to bet on and fought their own brethren, until Draenor's Horde was unified. Good stuff. And Warcraft III still showed the Forest Trolls serving on Draenor at this time.

Of course, according to the novels, none of the Trolls or Goblins crossed to Draenor. And none of them were at the Broken Isles, at least among Cho'gall's forces (or Gul'dan's forces, which were now exclusively warlocks). And before that, there were no Horde forces fighting alongside Alterac, nor were there any High Elves or Gnomes there, nor Humans even since there was no real battle at the Alterac site. So none of that interracial infighting is canon anymore, save the orcs with Gul'dan and an adapted version of Draenor. :)

Lord Eliphas 12-05-2012 03:24 PM

Realpolitik - the only real reason why Warcraft politically is interesting.

C9H20 12-05-2012 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lord Eliphas (Post 593688)
Realpolitik - the only real reason why Warcraft politically is interesting.

So you are enjoying a purely hypothetical part of the story then? Yeah me too /pat


Anyway I find the OPs idea has great potential, even though its essence has been proposed since forever I feel his idea to actually formalize the two groups into pseudo political parties is the exceptional part. It would be a great platform for Blizzard to actually implement the idea into the game, something many great ideas totally disregard.

Another thing I'd like would be for those factions to be less specific about the AvH stuff, sure some can be about that but it would be better if their ideologies were on a higher philosophical level then "they're killing our dudes right now, we're pissed. That comes of as somewhat fickle, yes? Also it is based on the poor writing strategy of having the factions lean on each other instead of having legitimate goals of their own (as in not strictly involving their counterpart).
To give an example, The Children of the Horde shouldn't be as simplistic as "Garosh was right, the Alliance stinks" but more along the lines of people who recognize that his pragmatist view of the Alliance being a huge threat in the future (and the present) that needs to be neutralized in some way was essentially correct. In fact same goes for any other faction that might poses a threat to the Horde, and this antagonistic and selfserving attitude needs to continue until the Horde is the sole master of Azeroth, the others can live... but only in the Horde's shadow.They of course reject his failings such as causing deep fractures in the Horde, getting lost in corruptive powers, but above all for losing. They appreciate pragmatism and power above all.

I guess the above is the kind of stance I would hold if I was a hypothetical Horde citizen, I would probably be in the fringe element of the party that argues showing great mercy to the defeated however.

In closing besides what I've already written I would argue for there to be as many as 3-4 of such parties as opposed to just two per faction, and for third party states such as the possible Second Pandaren Empire to have such political movements too.

HlaaluStyle 12-05-2012 05:22 PM

I'd really love to see something like this as well, but it's unlikely to occur simply because it's of little interest to the player base, and would require Blizzard to do a lot more work in setting up quests and so forth.

Homogeneity does seem to be the rule in WoW, which is unfortunate. It does give fans more room to think up of alternatives like this, however, so it's not all bad.

Shroombie 12-05-2012 09:28 PM

I think it would be a great idea to have two separate groups in each faction. Maybe make them like the Aldor or Scryers, so you can only rep up with one at a time, and they both offer unique quests.

CoDimus the Staunch 12-05-2012 09:56 PM

Nice idea, Korath. This'll definitely make the story more interesting. It will also appease all the Alliance and Horde fanboys who hate each other's faction.

Thunderbraid 12-06-2012 12:32 AM

This does touch upon the issue that's been niggling at me for a while, even in real life when we're all humans the 'best of friends' nations still disagree and bicker... Quite regularly. We don't see this happen in WoW despite there being ENTIRELY DIFFERENT races involved.

And whenever it does actually happen it is because of outside forces manipulating the situation and not the race itself being big-headed. (Magni going to Stormwind for aid and being rejected as an example).

It's a bit jarring.

For the Alliance I'd find it much more compelling if the Alliance always banded together -despite- differences in opinion instead of being happy skippy friends all the bloody time.

I'd be interested to see what will happen when the dwarves attempt to retake Blackrock and Thaurissian, with all the land associated with those places and have their claim contested by -Morgan- of all people. (Who wants to establish her own kingdom because... A fire elemental appeared in the city and blew up her home? What? Even in Warcraft I don't think that's a legitimate reason to set up an entirely new kingdom). If Stormwind backs Morgan then that would be a major derp moment.

http://www.wowpedia.org/Morgan

No, she can't have the Burning Steppes either.

Which is -another- interesting point of potential conflict. Which kingdom is the Burning Steppes under the jurisdiction of? Who deserves it? Who can make the most use out of it? Both Stormwind and Ironforge have pretty substantial claims to it, but I am not so sure.

Korath 12-06-2012 02:35 AM

Well, thanks to your answers. :)

@C9H20 : I agree that the "sub-factions" shouldn't be only "Alliance/Horde focused" but act against other threats as well, but it's easier to begin with a simple picture to made a point, and then build up the idea in more complexes ways.

Furthermore, I don't think that Blizzard can manage a great story with too much political movements in each factions, so more simples movements are probably better if we hope a good story.

By the way, for the more extremes movements, I think that they shouldn't believe that Garrosh/Rogers are martyr, but more people who were right in their belief, but wrong in their means. Something like this :

"Sure, Garrosh has gone bullshit crazy : no one, NO ONE should try to control dark powers as the Sha, and he was a racist ! But he were right when he said that the Horde can't allow that anyone stand between it and the radiant destiny of its children !"

"Rogers as gone to far, that's right. But look at the Burning Steppes, Ashenval, Gilneas ! The Alliance can't be weak, because its weakness bring death to its people. Our leaders should fight to the Alliance, not work with some... neutrals. The y shoudl be Patriots !"

Fojar 12-06-2012 03:07 AM

Comparing Rogers to Garrosh at all is fallacious.

Deicide 12-06-2012 03:07 AM

One of the things that was a major let-down for me in WoW when it started was the fact that Blizzard originally got rid of the orcs clans in the Horde. The Burning Blade and Twilight's Hammer had become generic cults, the Blackrock and Dragonmaw were just evil, the Shattered Hand had become a secret service and the only clans in the Horde were the Warsong and Frostwolf, but usually you wouldn't see any clan divisions.

It was only in TBC that the clans appeared again, and in the "Fel" Horde serving Illidan.

At least now the Blackrock and Dragonmaw are at least partially back in the fold, but I'd love to see clans having political impact once again. Bring back Thunderlords, Bleeding Hollow, Laughing Skull and others!

Korath 12-06-2012 03:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fojar (Post 593879)
Comparing Rogers to Garrosh at all is fallacious.

I'm a natural pessimistic : I'm sure that Roger will end as a raid boss in SoO... sadly, because she was an beacon of hope among the boring Alliance'characters, so far.

Edit @ Deicide : I agree, and I can't understand why Thrall din't try -at least- to recreat the old clans, while it could have pacified some hot heads.

Omacron 12-06-2012 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fojar (Post 593879)
Comparing Rogers to Garrosh at all is fallacious.

You will learn in the land of make believe, or be crushed beneath it!

Korath 12-06-2012 12:25 PM

So, I've been thinking about how Blizzard could implement such political factions in a practical level. So, here's an exemple :

Let's say that the next expansion deal with new remnants of Draenor, where there is Alleria, Turalyon, Kilrogg deadeye (and another leader of the Old Horde). In the fist zone, each player from each Faction make some quests which allow him to choose a side and a subfaction. He will then go and encounter the Figure of his movement :

-Tyralyon for the Guardians of Harmony
-Alleria for the Patriots
-Kilrogg for the Honorbounds
-The other Horde guy (or gal) for the Children of the Horde

This figure will then tell him that there is two small outposts of Draeneļ (Alliance side) or Ogre (Horde side) which as sided with the other Faction, but is far different than the usual Draeneļ/Ogre : the draeneļ don't whorship the Light and the Naaru anymore, because the genocide made them distrustful and use mean such as warlocks and things like that, and the Ogre, -if stupids and dangerous could be tamed- still whorship dangerous entities (Gronn, or even renegeade demons, whatever).

The Honorbound will try to bring the Ogre strongly against the Burning Legion, and so, will remove the thing they whorship and help them during the transition to full Horde commitement, by undermining the Gronn/Demons actions, and prove the rightness in their way, which will improve the Horde and even Army of Light bastions.

The Children, on the other hand, will brutaly kill, or enslave the whorshipped thing and use the Ogre from the second outpost as kamikaze troops, so they can allow Horde's lives to be spared for some battles; while doing so, they will save a lot of people, even Alliance side, because the suicidal assault launched by the Ogre will break a Legion army rear.

Meanwhile, the Patriots will go and talk to the Draeneļ about the Alliance, how its fight against the orcs and the Horde, how they think that the life of its people is more important than being a "Light only" follower. They will take decisive actions who will save many Alliance lives, but those draeneļ will further diverge from the "Velenite" way of life, which will bring some struggle between them.

The Guardians will go to the second draeneļ outpost and try to prove that if the draeneļ come back to the Light, they will be stronger than ever, and prove that the Light, combined with Elune and arcane magic can bring them more than using shaddy means, because they can save lives instead of simply kill. Then, the warlocks wiil turn again to arcane/Light and they will bring an united front againt the Legion.

Of course, the more a player will go in this xpac, the more the choices will have drastic impact on the world : if an Honorbound refuse to use Legion weaponry which could corrupt the little army which follow him, he will win a battle to discover than a bastion of the Alliance as been destroyed and the survivors will think that it was an Horde's scheme.

And if a Patriot use such weaponry to buff his soldiers, they will crush the Demons, but go berserk and kill neutral/Horde's people who trid to help them, which could bring strife among factions. But their victory would allow that the Army of Light has the possibility to strike against a decisive battlepoint.

By doing so, each subfactions should face the consequences, the good and the bad, of their choices.

Eterna 12-11-2012 02:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Omacron (Post 593649)
Just reminding you that WCII was the best installment in the Warcraft series when it came to realpolitik.


Dat Alterac. Dem Stormreavers. UNF.

I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one who gets a hard on for political turmoil.

CoDimus the Staunch 12-11-2012 03:49 AM

I want to see tensions between the humans and nelves, because frankly, these races are completely different. Nelves frown upon Arcane magic, while Humans love it. Both races are highly stubborn and proud. And since humans have very short lifespans, I'd like to see the night elves treat them like little children, and let humans resent this. And I'd also like to see differences arising because of their alignment-Humans being mostly lawful good, while nelves tend to be chaotic/neutral good.

Of course, I also want to see tensions between gnomes and night elves as well.

Kir the Wizard 12-11-2012 05:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thunderbraid (Post 593861)
Which is -another- interesting point of potential conflict. Which kingdom is the Burning Steppes under the jurisdiction of? Who deserves it? Who can make the most use out of it? Both Stormwind and Ironforge have pretty substantial claims to it, but I am not so sure.

I would say it's a de-jure part of Anvilmar dynasty's old united High Kingdom of Khaz Modan, the one being above the three crowns of Ironforge, Shadowforge and Northeron.

Apparently, a part of it was considered to be the northern Redridge Mountains before the coming of Ragnaros. Madam Morgan is a suspicious character, one than can be suspected of either being a member of some old local Azerothian dynasty... or, perhaps, a black dragon in hiding. Maybe she did not misspoke when she told the story of Ragnaros destroying her lands as if she was present during the elemental's coming.

Korath 12-11-2012 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Call of duty 1 (Post 596018)
I want to see tensions between the humans and nelves, because frankly, these races are completely different. Nelves frown upon Arcane magic, while Humans love it. Both races are highly stubborn and proud. And since humans have very short lifespans, I'd like to see the night elves treat them like little children, and let humans resent this. And I'd also like to see differences arising because of their alignment-Humans being mostly lawful good, while nelves tend to be chaotic/neutral good.

Of course, I also want to see tensions between gnomes and night elves as well.

I would appreciate such frictions. But I think that there should be political divisions even among the less populous races (the draeneļ for instance : why the hell do they continue to follow brainlessly Velen ? The guy had failed to predict a damned genocide !).

In fact, I think that the oversimplification of both factions (Lawful good overdrive and.... "Dumbasses villainous but noble savages" - I can't even understand what the Horde is actually...) is really bad and had bring a bad storytelling.

We know that the devs have difficulties to bring interesting story to the Alliance because... well, all its diversity seem to have disappeared, somewhere between TBC and Wrath. And they seem to do the same to the Horde ("It's Garrosh' faults, everyone else is fine" and such things).

So, I think that the acceptation that there is a multiplicity of reasons which bring lore's fans in one factions and reflect those reasons in strife, discomfort and actual differences among playable races would be beneficial to WoW.

Korath 12-20-2012 08:21 AM

I will use my thread instead of creating a new one because I think it could be used :

I was reading this topic and I has see that Resileaf said : "The Alliance players want to be the good guys".

And here, I was frozen in awe, because I think that it summarize the difference between the hardliner and softliner in the Alliance : the later want to be the good guys.

But, from my -limited, I must confess- experience, it's not what the former want. They... weel, I, at least, thrive to be the guy who does what he should do, no matter how grim, or amoral, or even immoral. For instance, if I could do the Purge of Dalaran, Alliance side, with my old Human's paladin, or my Draeneļ warrior, I would kill all the civilian Sunreavers. Not because they are Sunreavers, or Blood Elves.

Because they belong to the Horde, and they are dangerous : if they live, they will kill Alliance soldiers, maybe some civilians, like in Theramore.

But is it unlawful ? Listening to your dead and avenge them, think that you should do grim, even evil acts, not out of anger, or hatred, or more exactly, not only out of anger and hatred, not mainly fueled by anger by hatred, but out of... sense of duty for your loved ones, your people, the Alliance... And with no sense of pride, or joy after the action, but more like a great sadness, because I know that there is no one to do it, except me.

Does it make me a monster ? A rabbid beast who should be swiftly but to its death ? Or does it make the grim shield of the Alliance, the one who do what should be done, no matter how others will see him ?

I think that such a npc should be bring to existence in the Alliance, not to be killed quickly but to confront the "White-Knight", the "Good One", the "Great Hero".

Seriously, the Alliance need a Batman, at least (or a Punisher, maybe ?).

Fojar 12-20-2012 08:52 AM

I don't see why the Alliance can't be good guys AND use harsher tactics on the Horde.

Deicide 12-20-2012 09:13 AM

The thing about the Alliance is that it's founded on higher ideals. This is a world where faith's power, and the widespread faith of the Alliance is mostly the Holy Light: a philosofy based on doing good to others will make the world better. Your happiness brighten the world, but other peoples' sadness make it darker, so you need to spread happiness throught respect, tenacity and compassion.

While not all Alliance members share this belief, it's widespread enough to make a huge difference. Also, the ones who don't follow it (mostly Night Elves and Gnomes, some dwarves and a few Gilneans) know that they can trust the ones who do follow it.

The Horde, on the other hand, is bound together because they need each other to survive. They have no common faith: what does the Forsaken have in common with orcs? What belief can Blood Elves and trolls share?

The only common occurrance within the Horde is the need to be strong, to fight to win, to prove your mettle in battle, to survive. Most also valor Honor (will exclude Goblins and Forsaken from this), but each race has a very different takes on honor. To the Tauren, you honor the earth, your family and even your enemies. To the orcs, honor is all about fair combat. To the Blood Elves, honor seems to be to follow their leaders and defend their people (and damn everything else!).

So, it's fairly easy to see Alliance as the "nice" or "good" faction.

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 jaļna) 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.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:32 AM.

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