Talk:Jaina Proudmoore: Tides of War

Discrepancies

posting my reasoning here in talk so it (hopefully) won't devolve into an edit war.

i'm removing some non-neutral language (seriously, "the novel acts as if"?), as well as the following notes in their entirety:

In the original Cataclysm questline, a few fleeing civilians of Camp Taurajo - Krulmoo Fullmoon, Yonada, Dranh, and Omusa Thunderhorn - had been killed, accidentally or not, during the Alliance's attack and were later put to rest by Horde adventurers. ( [10-30] Honoring the Dead) This was possibly retconned by the novel where Baine claims that Hawthorne had refused to slaughter civilians, and had ensured that the civilians of the camp would be allowed to leave unharmed. (Jaina Proudmoore: Tides of War, chapter 7, 8)

^ this doesn't sound like a discrepancy. the general refused to give orders to kill civilians and also gave them a way to get out of the camp. unless there's something in tides of war that says no civilians died at all for any reason, the two versions don't seem mutually exclusive.

Baine Bloodhoof suffers no repercussions for preventing the tauren from utilizing their right to retribution, yet the  [15-30] Blood Oath of the Horde says the right to retribution is a blood oath of the Horde.

^ this sounds an awful lot like we're saying he should have suffered repercussions. this is not our place to decide. do we even know how that part of the blood oath works? do we know that it applies when someone of the same race tells their people not to take retribution? or is this just extrapolation of some dialogue from a totally unrelated quest?

Baine expelled the tauren of Vendetta Point, (Jaina Proudmoore: Tides of War, chapter 2) when the game shows all the tauren are honorable, only attack military forces actively threatening the tauren and Jorn Skyseer, Baine's friend from The Shattering: Prelude to Cataclysm, being part of the camp.

^ i... honestly don't even know what this one is trying to say. that baine's decision was wrong? that he was acting out of character because his friend was there? either way, it feels like a judgment of the writing rather than an actual discrepancy.

tldr we cannot be singling out a book as "incredibly inaccurate" and nitpicking characters' actions. our job is to neutrally present what official sources say. nothing more.

thank you. Eithris (talk) 21:19, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

^ this doesn't sound like a discrepancy. the general refused to give orders to kill civilians and also gave them a way to get out of the camp. unless there's something in tides of war that says no civilians died at all for any reason, the two versions don't seem mutually exclusive.

Baine claims no civilians died as does the narrator, the game shows this is untrue.

^ this sounds an awful lot like we're saying he should have suffered repercussions. this is not our place to decide. do we even know how that part of the blood oath works? do we know that it applies when someone of the same race tells their people not to take retribution? or is this just extrapolation of some dialogue from a totally unrelated quest?

'Based off the laws established in  [15-30] Blood Oath of the Horde, Baine preventing the tauren from excerising their right to a  [Blood Oath of the Horde] should get him punished as those oaths are supposed to be a right of all Horde citizens, including tauren.

'^ i... honestly don't even know what this one is trying to say. that baine's decision was wrong? that he was acting out of character because his friend was there? either way, it feels like a judgment of the writing rather than an actual discrepancy.

Baine in the novel paints the tauren of Vendetta Point as a bunch of unreasonable assholes like the Grimtotem tribe, when the game shows they were literally the people who prevented the Alliance from taking down the  Great Gate of Mulgore, were fighting warcriminals like the genocidal bigot Twinbraid and that one of their leaders, Jorn Skyseer was Baine's friend in The Shattering: Prelude to Cataclysm. That is a huge contradiction. Gann Stonespire (talk) 21:42, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

• 1. from the novel:
  • "The tauren army pressed forward in an attack before, not after the late general Hawthorne had ensured that the civilians of Camp Taurajo would be allowed to leave unharmed. It wasn’t like them." (narrator)
  • "'Yes,' said Baine. 'They took down a military target. And their general refused to slaughter civilians. He could have given the order to massacre everyone. But he didn’t.'

where does it say that no civilians died?

2. do we have literally any details about how the oath works? do we have confirmation that it's a law? do we have confirmation that what baine did is breaking that oath? baine is a tauren himself. does it still count if he tells other tauren not to take retribution? we don't know. you're taking a single sentence from a single quest, deciding what it must mean, and placing extreme importance on it.

3. a character saying or doing something you disagree with is not a discrepancy. this note is just criticizing the way baine is written. Eithris (talk) 22:04, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

1. Ensured indicates it happens, when the game shows Hawthorne made token efforts, but civilians still died, includuing complete non combants like unarmed cowering, Yonada, whom wanted to flee. Its a contradiction for Baine to act like no civilians died or that Taurajo was a military after all the hunters had left as clarifeid  [10-30] Intelligence Warfare.

2. Will the Horde grant me chance to battle the Scourge?

 Yes, taunka. Retribution is a given right of all members of the Horde.

There you hae it, given right and the context means someone like Baine shouldn't be able to take away given rights away from people for no reason. Imagine the President of the United States exiling whose soldiers for fighting back when Canada is invading. Again thats a contradiction, Baine shouldn't be allowed to do that, especially under Garrosh Hellscream without repercussions.

3. We literally have unused audio showing Baine talking about reinforcing the tauren of Vendetta Point, he was meant to support them. Given all the mistakes, especially lately, what makes you so sure that Golden was aware of the ingame lore shown for the Horde? If anything I should question your motivations given the stance you are pushing is basically that Horde civilians deserve death and fleeing herbalists are military targets. Gann Stonespire (talk) 22:18, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

all right, i'm not doing this. you're putting words in my mouth, insulting me, making leaps of logic based on singular words & phrases, and calling upon unused content. come back when you've chilled the heck out and are willing to engage in actual good-faith argument. Eithris (talk) 22:27, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

You've continually put words in my mouth and repeatedly accused me of being biased against this novel and putting that in the article, when all I've done is point out the inconsistencies that very much exist in the novel. How about you calm down and consider going over my points about the inconsistencies in the novel. Gann Stonespire (talk) 22:37, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

RE: "Baine claims no civilians died." Actually, running a search for word "civilian" shows no result for such a sentence. Do you have the page for it?

Anything related with civilians and Camp Taurajo are the two points posted above by eithris.

Upon reading eithris' and mmwq's reasoning, I agree with the notion that these two mentions focus on Hawthorne's initial intentions and orders. What happened later - that some civilians did ultimately die - are not part of Baine's thoughts / dialogue at that certain moment in the book, and thus could easily happen in the game - meaning there shouldn't be a contradiction between Tides of War and the Southern Barrens storyline. -- Mordecay (talk) 22:10, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Hawthorne can ensure the civilians have a way out. If the civilians refuse this option and fight to their deaths, it does not take negate his action of providing them a way out. PeterWind (talk) 00:03, 11 January 2022 (UTC)