This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.5
PTR
10.2.6
An article on Varian Wrynn being right
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Skreeran
Jaina (choosing the alliance with the horde over her own father some will argue that it was for the best but think about it lets say some new race has come and you're trying to keep peace with them but they need to kill your father for he will break the peace would you let them?
What Jaina did was Heroic. Her father came in to attack a force that she was at peace with, and instead of just siding with her father for emotional reason, she chose the right thing and helped the Horde. She even tried to explain the New Horde to him, but he was too closed-minded to listen.
Thrall does need to be more proactive, but that doesn't mean Varian is right either. Thrall's problem is inaction, Varian's is overaction.
Yes, Garrosh needs an attitude adjustment, but Varian was just as much at fault at the summit as well. Garrosh drew his weapons with little provocation, but immediately following that Varian was the one who challenged him. They're both at fault. But Garrosh is just a commander, Varian is a king.
Post by
Supremacy
This may have already come up, but the pre-ulduar patch cinematic shows whats wrong with varian wyrnn.
If he is so stupid and arrogant as to refuse to help fight an
old god
because he hates the horde, then he risks the world. if a leader cant see the bigger picture then he shouldent lead. similarily, if he cant rise above his personal grudges (think Velen, Thrall ect, the decent leaders) then again, he isnt the right leader.
This could be a bit off topic, but iv yet to find a post about his to vent off in :)
It's not off topic at all. It's actually right on topic.
And usually, that would make perfect sense. There's a much larger threat at stake. If ever there was a time to put aside differences, it would be this time.
Of course, the fact that someone from the camp that you're trying to team up with just tried to kill you during that meeting? That makes it hard to work together. This gets progressively worse if you had just tried putting aside differences with these people before, and some of their people killed a bunch of yours.
When you also consider the fact that you have a history with these people which involves - among other things - them burning your home to the ground? And they seem to keep stabbing you in the back? You know, maybe it's not the best thing to work with them.
It has nothing to do with hatred, bigotry, hotheadedness, or any of the things people keep saying about Varian. What he's doing makes sense from a diplomatic and political standpoint. Is it what other would do, knowing more about the situation? Probably not. It is the only play? No. It is justifiable?
History speaks for itself. Yes, it is. Just because you don't agree with something doesn't mean it's not rational.
People say "Varian's risking everything by not working with the Horde." But you can just as easily say "Varian would be risking everything by working with them."
Post by
Skreeran
Like I said, Garrosh and Varian both challenge eachother. Garrosh didn't try to kill him until Varian said "Come kill me if you can!"
Also, where exactly does the Horde stab the Alliance in the back over and over? You keep saying this, and all I can think of is Garona (which wasn't the Horde, althoguh he could see it that way), and the Wrathgate (which also wasn't really the Horde).
The Broken Front happened after they were at war, and though I don't support what happened there (because of the Scourge there), as they say, all's fair in love and war, so you can't say they stabbed them in the back. It's more like a group that you challenge to a war made a very tactically unsound decision.
Where else exactly did the Horde stab them in the back?
Not counting skirmishes and isolated fighting.
Post by
Supremacy
Yes, Garrosh needs an attitude adjustment,
but Varian was just as much at fault at the summit as well. Garrosh drew his weapons with little provocation, but immediately following that Varian was the one who challenged him.
They're both at fault. But Garrosh is just a commander, Varian is a king.
No.
This viewpoint has no perspective based in reality.
You do not blame someone for defending themselves against a lethal attack. There is no gray area, here.
If I pull a gun on someone with the intent to kill, and they pull a gun on me to defend themselves? You cannot later blame them for not standing there and letting themselves be shot to death.
We are not both at fault.
I am at fault.
Post by
Skreeran
Yes, Garrosh needs an attitude adjustment,
but Varian was just as much at fault at the summit as well. Garrosh drew his weapons with little provocation, but immediately following that Varian was the one who challenged him.
They're both at fault. But Garrosh is just a commander, Varian is a king.
No.
This viewpoint has no perspective based in reality.
You do not blame someone for defending themselves against a lethal attack. There is no gray area, here.
If I pull a gun on someone with the intent to kill, and they pull a gun on me to defend themselves? You cannot later blame them for not standing there and letting themselves be shot to death.
We are not both at fault.
I am at fault.Garrosh hadn't even attacked him yet. Varian basically said "Come and get me!"
That is a challenge.
That is no self-defense.
Garrosh drew his weapons and did not attack until Varian challenged him.
Post by
229054
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Skreeran
IMO, neither the King or the general can be seen as victims here, both wanted a fight.At first you can say that Varian was defending himself, but rather in a defensive combat position.
If Varian really was up to being rational and to ignore his own lust for blood, he wouldn't say "What are THEY doing here?", the same way Garrosh wouldn't have drawn his axes.
Btw, is "neither" a word?Neither is a word... :P
And not only did he say "What are THEY doing here?" but like I said...
"You want my blood! Come then, dog!"
If that's not a challenge, I don't know what is...
Post by
229054
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Skreeran
Its not a challenge because Garrosh was entering combat postion (was drawing his axes).But Thrall had just reprimanded Garrosh and no actual fighting had started. It's a challenge because Varian was goading Garrosh on.
Like I said if "You want my blood? Come then, dog!"is not a challenge, I don't know what is. That's saying. "You want to fight? Let's fight!"
Varian challenged Garrosh in reponse to Garrosh's advances, but it was a challenge. "I think Thrall would have gotten Garrosh under control if Varian hadn't challenged him. And yes, I know that this will be contested, and while Thrall certainly didn't have Garrosh under control during and after the fight, before any actual fighting started, I think that he could have kept him under control.
Garrosh: I thought I smelled the stench of Alliance pigs! *draws weapons*
Thrall: Control yourself!
Garrosh: But we must slay the cowards!
Thrall: Be still Garrosh. We cannot decend to useless fighting.
Garrosh: A real warchief would fight. *puts away weapons*
Et cetera. I think the situation would have been diffused.
Instead Varian only encouraged the fight.
The fight might have been avoided if he hadn't have said that.
Post by
138638
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Skreeran
What Jaina did was Heroic. Her father came in to attack a force that she was at peace with, and instead of just siding with her father for emotional reason, she chose the right thing and helped the Horde. She even tried to explain the New Horde to him, but he was too closed-minded to listen.
Thrall does need to be more proactive, but that doesn't mean Varian is right either. Thrall's problem is inaction, Varian's is overaction.
Yes, Garrosh needs an attitude adjustment, but Varian was just as much at fault at the summit as well. Garrosh drew his weapons with little provocation, but immediately following that Varian was the one who challenged him. They're both at fault. But Garrosh is just a commander, Varian is a king.
I agree with you about everything EXCEPT Jaina being heroic. I know she was doing what she thought was best but she's not even loyal to her family to let the Alliances enemy attack her father I personally find this VERY VERY similar to drakham in the Sunwell trilogy or w/e his name is and in my book that would be treason
although I'm not saying Jaina isn't heroic just not in that aspect she has done some very heroic aspectsHer people would have been wiped out otherwise. Dealin was in the wrong. The Hord was in the right. Jaina did what was right and sided with the Horde despite her father being the enemy.
That is heroic.
It's like the story of King Saul and his son Jonathan helping David. It was in opposition of his father, but it was the right thing to do.
Post by
229054
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
138638
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Skreeran
Being more specific, she affirmed her neutrality (assuring Thrall's trust) and then asked the warchief not to attack the citizens and soldiers of Theramore.Correct. But she did not take her father's side, which was basically taking the Horde's side.
This won't get us very far tell me just how the horde were in the right and Dealin in the wrong so we got something go with and we can work with those details and not talk in general like we are nowDaelin attacked the Horde unprovoked despite Jaina's explanation and with disregard to her safety (if they were as bad as he made them out to be, they could have just destroyed Theramore in retaliation). It's people like him that keep the olds hatreds alive.
The Horde was peaceful at that point and so they were in the right. Daelin was in the wrong.
Post by
ruleofthumb
But she did not take her father's side, which was basically taking the Horde's side.
I don't think so. Jaina knew her father's current (and future) actions would lead to a greater strife between Thrall's new Horde and the human nations. She did not take Thrall's side, but instead chose non-action. Daelin and Thrall cast the die, and Jaina let it land where it may.
Saying that she took Thrall's side because she didn't take her father's is like saying "If you're not my friend, then you're my enemy." Its too extremist of Jaina, and she's not one to be like that.
Post by
Skreeran
But she did not take her father's side, which was basically taking the Horde's side.
I don't think so. Jaina knew her father's current (and future) actions would lead to a greater strife between Thrall's new Horde and the human nations. She did not take Thrall's side, but instead chose non-action. Daelin and Thrall cast the die, and Jaina let it land where it may.
Saying that she took Thrall's side because she didn't take her father's is like saying "If you're not my friend, then you're my enemy." Its too extremist of Jaina, and she's not one to be like that.Alright, perhaps you're right. Which side Jaina's on is extremely pertinent though. :P
Post by
ruleofthumb
Which side Jaina's on is extremely pertinent though. :P
It kind of is. Hard telling who she would join (or even if she would) if Varian and Thrall decide that another all-out war would be a great idea. Jaina likes and trusts Thrall (and visa-versa), but the people of Stormwind are her kinsmen. Honestly, if another war broke out, Jaina and her people of Theramore and Kul Tiras(?) could be a deciding factor. She'd probably choose to remain neutral (again).
The only real threat to the human nations is Garrosh and his Warsong clan. Garrosh is completely out of touch with reality and his hot-headed counterpart (Wrynn) will be their own undoing.
Post by
138638
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ruleofthumb
what do you think on him wearing doomhammers armor this'll be interesting :)
I think it would be a great honor in the orcs' eyes. It would be like wearing George Washington's coat from an American's stand point. Orgrim liberated the orcs from
concentration
internment camps (with Thrall and Drek'thar's help, of course). He was a great hero in their eyes, and as well he should be.
While the humans may not like it, its going to have to be something they get used to. They were fierce enemies back then, of course they are going to label him as a "war criminal" and such.
I'm sure if US-England relations now-a-days resembled that of the orcs and humans, they wouldn't appreciate the US' capital named after General Washington.
Post by
Skreeran
Which side Jaina's on is extremely pertinent though. :P
It kind of is. Hard telling who she would join (or even if she would) if Varian and Thrall decide that another all-out war would be a great idea. Jaina likes and trusts Thrall (and visa-versa), but the people of Stormwind are her kinsmen. Honestly, if another war broke out, Jaina and her people of Theramore and Kul Tiras(?) could be a deciding factor. She'd probably choose to remain neutral (again).
The only real threat to the human nations is Garrosh and his Warsong clan. Garrosh is completely out of touch with reality and his hot-headed counterpart (Wrynn) will be their own undoing.Well we know that Jaina would either remain neutral or (less likely) join the Horde, so it doesn't really matter, in my opinion.
In fact, I'm certain that she'd remain neutral. They should phase Theramore now so that it's a neutral hub, perhaps with higher level quests.
But yeah, I agree that the Garrosh situation needs to change. He needs a reality check or a quick death. And while Blizz may kill off Garrosh, I doubt they'll do anything about Wrynn. Blizz wants war, and Wrynn is going to be the one to start it. It almost makes me sad. :(
I wish the Alliance and the Horde could work together, but if that's not what Blizz wants, it's a shame what's going to have to happen. Wrynn isn't going to change, and it's just going to mean more crap for both sides.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.