[Speculation][Spoilers] Before the Storm

[Combatbutler]

Well since its 2015 we can assume that blizzard probably doesn't remember that

True but some random intern might mention it and just like that it is back ;P

[Arrashi]

True but some random intern might mention it and just like that it is back ;P

Oh no its a light-shirt guy.

[Koraggar]

you are completely overfly the rotbrain case. you are free to go away, but in the case you endager the forsaken you are a normal enemy like all others. until i missed anything what happens in this case is fundamentaly a coup d'etat and fundation for a civil war. part of the actual government tried to join the enemy faction in the middle of a political summit with the active involvenment of a enemy. in real there are repressions for way less motivations....

I'm not so concerned about killing those that were defecting to a would-be usurper. That's treason and most medival socites would punish that by death.

It's the killing the ones that didn't retreat immediately that's stupid and blatantly OOC. She basically punished them for having a reaction time. And trying to draw meaningless distinctions "but they had hope" is stupid. As if Sylvanas has ever asked or given a damn about how much "hope" someone had when they asked to leave(and if you are leaving you are gonna have some level of hope anyways). This combined with the "And male" line is the most blatant, egrigious character asassination I've ever seen. Either that or Golden just cant' write dark charcters. Specifically dark characters that are supposed to be measured and clever.

It was never said he left with her blessing or knowledge, only that he left.

I never said she was happy about it. I just said she allows people to leave without prerequisite, which she does. She's obviously going to know that he left given that the Argents aren't exactly a private organization and she is a racial leader. And given that all other lore establishes that she allows people to leave so long as they ask nicely, we have no reason to believe it was different in this case.

[Toppy]

I'm not so concerned about killing those that were defecting to a would-be usurper. That's treason and most medival socites would punish that by death.

It's the killing the ones that didn't retreat immediately that's stupid and blatantly OOC. She basically punished them for having a reaction time. And trying to draw meaningless distinctions "but they had hope" is stupid. As if Sylvanas has ever asked or given a damn about how much "hope" someone had when they asked to leave(and if you are leaving you are gonna have some level of hope anyways). This combined with the "And male" line is the most blatant, egrigious character asassination I've ever seen. Either that or Golden just cant' write dark charcters. Specifically dark characters that are supposed to be measured and clever.





I never said she was happy about it. I just said she allows people to leave without prerequisite, which she does. She's obviously going to know that he left given that the Argents aren't exactly a private organization and she is a racial leader. And given that all other lore establishes that she allows people to leave so long as they ask nicely, we have no reason to believe it was different in this case.

The only "established lore" you've presented that she allows people to leave was the traveler, you're building things up with stuff thats in your head.

[sighy]

The only "established lore" you've presented that she allows people to leave was the traveler, you're building things up with stuff thats in your head.

I believe it is said in the Black Mirror short story. Then you have the Tirisfall Glades, where you get to interacti with various undead. One guy chooses to stay in his grave, one guy chooses to create a rebelion, Lilian chooses to go to her family and another guy chooses to become a deathguard. But the only undead who fair reasonably well on their own are the likes of Meryl Felstorm, Lilian Voss, Gunther Arcanus and Alonsos Faol, who are not exactly your random joe.

[Deleted]

In regards to Adal and his Naaru group i really wonder, if they're truly representatives of better characteristics of the Light, or if they manipulated the people around them, played a game, represent themselves better as they really are, as long as the threat of the Burning Legion loomed over them. I hope for the first option though.

And now that Anduin is the new, infallible saviour of the Universe, will Azeroth as a Titan become his love interest and embrace the potential of humans? I mean, at this point i only wait that Anduin, with the help of an ocean of light power, teleports himself into the Seat of the Pantheon, lecturing Illidan and the Titan's including Sargeras, how they could do stuff much better, while they are drooling and hanging on his lips, praising his incredible wisdom.

[Nathasil]

I believe it is said in the Black Mirror short story. Then you have the Tirisfall Glades, where you get to interacti with various undead. One guy chooses to stay in his grave, one guy chooses to create a rebelion, Lilian chooses to go to her family and another guy chooses to become a deathguard. But the only undead who fair reasonably well on their own are the likes of Meryl Felstorm, Lilian Voss, Gunther Arcanus and Alonsos Faol, who are not exactly your random joe.

Meryl Felstorm is not a Forsaken. The source of his condtion is ENTIRELY different and has nothing to do with the Scourge/Lordaeron. He is actually a very old character with a lot of lore behind him, you should read up on it on wowpedia or something.

Concerning Sylvanas....this is more of a debate but fact...but is she really a "monarch" of the Forsaken? I always viewed her as more of an actual democratically "elected" leader. When the Forsaken broke free from the Lich King they turned to Sylvanas for guidance. She did NOT subdue them or force them. She has also always been depicted as a leader that most Forsaken genuinely like...even love.

So yes, i consider Sylvanas to hold the mantle of ruler over the Forsaken because of a democratic decision, not because of some autocratic claimes.

Now the Forsaken changed their minds and elected this Council. It is clear that it was a peaceful, "democratic" choice....not some usurpers. The Council did not even turn directly against Sylvanas...they wanted a different direction, but they chose to approach and tell Sylvanas rather openly.

So the question i raise is: Did Sylvanas have the RIGHT to hinder the Council? Even if they posed a threat to her grip on the Forsaken? Does it not contradict her whole backstory with the Forsaken (which many players state as a redeeming factor for her character) if she becomes a tyrant killing "elected" leaders and hindering the will of the majority of "her" people?

Or did you always depict Sylvanas as an autocratic tyrant ruling over the Forsaken by nothing but force, intimidation and violence? Because i did NOT see her this way. And i say that as someone who does not want her redeemed or anything. Even i saw her as a somewhat benevolent and, yes, even beloved leader of the Forsaken.

[Verdugo]

Meryl Felstorm is not a Forsaken. The source of his condtion is ENTIRELY different and has nothing to do with the Scourge/Lordaeron. He is actually a very old character with a lot of lore behind him, you should read up on it on wowpedia or something.

Concerning Sylvanas....this is more of a debate but fact...but is she really a "monarch" of the Forsaken? I always viewed her as more of an actual democratically "elected" leader. When the Forsaken broke free from the Lich King they turned to Sylvanas for guidance. She did NOT subdue them or force them. She has also always been depicted as a leader that most Forsaken genuinely like...even love.

So yes, i consider Sylvanas to hold the mantle of ruler over the Forsaken because of a democratic decision, not because of some autocratic claimes.

Now the Forsaken changed their minds and elected this Council. It is clear that it was a peaceful, "democratic" choice....not some usurpers. The Council did not even turn directly against Sylvanas...they wanted a different direction, but they chose to approach and tell Sylvanas rather openly.

So the question i raise is: Did Sylvanas have the RIGHT to hinder the Council? Even if they posed a threat to her grip on the Forsaken? Does it not contradict her whole backstory with the Forsaken (which many players state as a redeeming factor for her character) if she becomes a tyrant killing "elected" leaders and hindering the will of the majority of "her" people?

Or did you always depict Sylvanas as an autocratic tyrant ruling over the Forsaken by nothing but force, intimidation and violence? Because i did NOT see her this way. And i say that as someone who does not want her redeemed or anything. Even i saw her as a somewhat benevolent and, yes, even beloved leader of the Forsaken.

She just put the undead corrupted by Human Potential out of their misery. Its like Stratholme, brutal but necessary.

[Arrashi]

She just put the undead corrupted by Human Potential out of their misery. Its like Stratholme, brutal but necessary.

Man i just imagined sylvanas taking calia behind the shed. Followed by single gunshot.

[Koraggar]

The only "established lore" you've presented that she allows people to leave was the traveler, you're building things up with stuff thats in your head.

Aside from traveler(which should be enough because it's canon), I've given you a quote from the val'kyr(who are connected to and acting out Sylvanas' will), and given you multiple names of individuals who were allowed to leave with no questions asked. You're the one choosing to ignore canon lore.

[omeomorfismo]

Meryl Felstorm is not a Forsaken. The source of his condtion is ENTIRELY different and has nothing to do with the Scourge/Lordaeron. He is actually a very old character with a lot of lore behind him, you should read up on it on wowpedia or something.

Concerning Sylvanas....this is more of a debate but fact...but is she really a "monarch" of the Forsaken? I always viewed her as more of an actual democratically "elected" leader. When the Forsaken broke free from the Lich King they turned to Sylvanas for guidance. She did NOT subdue them or force them. She has also always been depicted as a leader that most Forsaken genuinely like...even love.

So yes, i consider Sylvanas to hold the mantle of ruler over the Forsaken because of a democratic decision, not because of some autocratic claimes.

Now the Forsaken changed their minds and elected this Council. It is clear that it was a peaceful, "democratic" choice....not some usurpers. The Council did not even turn directly against Sylvanas...they wanted a different direction, but they chose to approach and tell Sylvanas rather openly.

So the question i raise is: Did Sylvanas have the RIGHT to hinder the Council? Even if they posed a threat to her grip on the Forsaken? Does it not contradict her whole backstory with the Forsaken (which many players state as a redeeming factor for her character) if she becomes a tyrant killing "elected" leaders and hindering the will of the majority of "her" people?

Or did you always depict Sylvanas as an autocratic tyrant ruling over the Forsaken by nothing but force, intimidation and violence? Because i did NOT see her this way. And i say that as someone who does not want her redeemed or anything. Even i saw her as a somewhat benevolent and, yes, even beloved leader of the Forsaken.

she is basically a revolutionary chief, so she is a dictator with the full support of her people.
i mean, probably the only not tyrannic government in warcraft should be the goblin and gnome ones(that give the power fundamentally thanks meritocracy), all other races are or dictatorship (sylvanas, tyrande, lor'themar, orc) or ereditary monarchy (humans, dwarf, troll, tauren), velen is more or less a pope with near immortality so teocratic monarchy?
so she has all the right to do whatever she want, the council isnt a real government , more a temporary one meanwhile sylvanas had to rule the entire horde...

the "queen" title is more because in a medieval-wannabe setting its the prominent nomenclature than other reason...

I'm not so concerned about killing those that were defecting to a would-be usurper. That's treason and most medival socites would punish that by death.

It's the killing the ones that didn't retreat immediately that's stupid and blatantly OOC. She basically punished them for having a reaction time. And trying to draw meaningless distinctions "but they had hope" is stupid. As if Sylvanas has ever asked or given a damn about how much "hope" someone had when they asked to leave(and if you are leaving you are gonna have some level of hope anyways). This combined with the "And male" line is the most blatant, egrigious character asassination I've ever seen. Either that or Golden just cant' write dark charcters. Specifically dark characters that are supposed to be measured and clever.

its not stupid, its basically what a purge it is in a situation that is all other than simple and peaceful.
the weird things its how anduin and genn reacts to the purge, when varian and bolvar managed even badly the stonemason/defias problem and genn, oh god genn and northgate rebellion...

[sighy]

Meryl Felstorm is not a Forsaken. The source of his condtion is ENTIRELY different and has nothing to do with the Scourge/Lordaeron. He is actually a very old character with a lot of lore behind him, you should read up on it on wowpedia or something.

Concerning Sylvanas....this is more of a debate but fact...but is she really a "monarch" of the Forsaken? I always viewed her as more of an actual democratically "elected" leader. When the Forsaken broke free from the Lich King they turned to Sylvanas for guidance. She did NOT subdue them or force them. She has also always been depicted as a leader that most Forsaken genuinely like...even love.

So yes, i consider Sylvanas to hold the mantle of ruler over the Forsaken because of a democratic decision, not because of some autocratic claimes.

Now the Forsaken changed their minds and elected this Council. It is clear that it was a peaceful, "democratic" choice....not some usurpers. The Council did not even turn directly against Sylvanas...they wanted a different direction, but they chose to approach and tell Sylvanas rather openly.

So the question i raise is: Did Sylvanas have the RIGHT to hinder the Council? Even if they posed a threat to her grip on the Forsaken? Does it not contradict her whole backstory with the Forsaken (which many players state as a redeeming factor for her character) if she becomes a tyrant killing "elected" leaders and hindering the will of the majority of "her" people?

Or did you always depict Sylvanas as an autocratic tyrant ruling over the Forsaken by nothing but force, intimidation and violence? Because i did NOT see her this way. And i say that as someone who does not want her redeemed or anything. Even i saw her as a somewhat benevolent and, yes, even beloved leader of the Forsaken.

I posed Meryl as an example of an undead who fairs fairly well in a world, which has a very negative outlook toward the undead.

It depends what you are looking at. On one side she is this savior figure, who basically lead theme ver since they freed themselves. But her approach to it was more often than not as a general, which is pretty much her entire resume up to that point. She is called "the banshee queen" as to how much it actually is an aristocratic title tough to say.


The Desolate Council are political opposition born of the notion that she basically abandoned them to be the Warchief. (which is not true, but i digress) They have not officially taken over the leadership of the Forsaken, but are definately a political entity.

As tot he shitshow at the gathering. It was a combination of factors. Sylvanas was relatively reluctant to do it, but ultimately she agreed to organise it. With some things like the retreating n such. Nowwe get tothe point, where Cailia has herinfluence.....firstly she sort of sneaked in there. Then she had the bright idea to start inspiringpeople to defect.

Sylvanas calls the meeting off, when she notices some suspicious activity, but then one of the people there arrives, with the informationt hatCailia Menethil is trying to instigate mass defection. Which escalates the whole thing into a colosal shitshow.


Basically a politicaly tense situation turned into a massive shitshow, because Cailia was an idiot. A conclusion, which both Anduin and Sylvanas independently agree on.

[Zulkhan]

Well since its 2015 we can assume that blizzard probably doesn't remember that

True but some random intern might mention it and just like that it is back ;P

Oh no its a light-shirt guy.

"Scryers? Aren't they dead?" -Blizzard 2018-

[Wyrt]

And now that Anduin is the new, infallible saviour of the Universe, will Azeroth as a Titan become his love interest and embrace the potential of humans? I mean, at this point i only wait that Anduin, with the help of an ocean of light power, teleports himself into the Seat of the Pantheon, lecturing Illidan and the Titan's including Sargeras, how they could do stuff much better, while they are drooling and hanging on his lips, praising his incredible wisdom.

Blizzard is probably wondering who leaked the future plot to you now.

[Deleted]

So basically the Desolate Council and Calia Menethil were all about to unite the living and the undead of Lordaeron which would mean nothing short of salvation and rebirth for the kingdom and possibly ending war on Lordaeron forever and reforging both groups again as one single people and Sylvanas is the good and justified one for slaughtering them solely to preserve her own power? Not to forget that a united human and forsaken Lordaeron could possibly solve the procreational problem of the Forsaken, as with the example of many undeads who remain themselves and are happy in undeath, more and more humans could be possibly willing to be raised as undeads after their death? Not to forget that the Desolate Council just created the first democracy of Azeroth?

Sorry, may be my Alliance bias but this Desolate Council sounds nothing short of the most heroic and noble group the Alliance and Horde both have ever seen. And they are slaughtered. By Sylvanas. Just to preserve her personal power, knowing that this will lead to more forsaken lives be lost in war.

[Friendlyimmolation]

So basically the Desolate Council and Calia Menethil were all about to unite the living and the undead of Lordaeron which would mean nothing short of salvation and rebirth for the kingdom and possibly ending war on Lordaeron forever and reforging both groups again as one single people and Sylvanas is the good and justified one for slaughtering them solely to preserve her own power? Not to forget that a united human and forsaken Lordaeron could possibly solve the procreational problem of the Forsaken, as with the example of many undeads who remain themselves and are happy in undeath, more and more humans could be possibly willing to be raised as undeads after their death? Not to forget that the Desolate Council just created the first democracy of Azeroth?

Sorry, may be my Alliance bias but this Desolate Council sounds nothing short of the most heroic and noble group the Alliance and Horde both have ever seen. And they are slaughtered. By Sylvanas. Just to preserve her personal power, knowing that this will lead to more forsaken lives be lost in war.

Blame Calia for de-stabilizing the meet up. She didn't just get smacked with the idiot stick, it was broken over her head.

[Deleted]

Blame Calia for de-stabilizing the meet up

Why? She seems to be a peaceful person who wants unity between undeads and humans. Sylvanas is a despot who wants to commit an unprovoked genocide on the people of Stormwind and about whom we know that her people are nothing but a means to an end for her, to flee the rightful punishment she would receive for all the evil deeds she has done in undeath. She is basically sacrificing an utopian future for her people, just for her own genocide fetish and lust for power.

[Friendlyimmolation]

Why? She seems to be a peaceful person who wants unity between undeads and humans. Sylvanas is a despot who wants to commit an unprovoked genocide on the people of Stormwind and about whom we know that her people are nothing but a means to an end for her, to flee the rightful punishment she would receive for all the evil deeds she has done in undeath. She is basically sacrificing an utopian future for her people, just for her own genocide fetish and lust for power.

Because Calia was trying to encourage secession and justified Sylvanas's paranoia. Even Anduin recognizes her as a would be usurper.

also something is obviously wrong with Calia, she wasn't all there, and now she's even further a Naaru pawn.

also calling it a Utopian future is your opinion, you have no way to predict how it would have ended, but one thing is certain, Calia destabilized it.

- - - Updated - - -

Do you think Uther's tomb has something to do with Calia?

or the Duskbringer is coming because lollore

[Wyrt]

Because Calia was trying to encourage secession and justified Sylvanas's paranoia. Even Anduin recognizes her as a would be usurper.

also something is obviously wrong with Calia, she wasn't all there, and now she's even further a Naaru pawn.

also calling it a Utopian future is your opinion, you have no way to predict how it would have ended, but one thing is certain, Calia destabilized it.

Sylvanas was just concerned that her people would be lost to HUMAN POTENTIAL like the Alliance races and knew that death was a far more favorable fate than that.

[sighy]

Why? She seems to be a peaceful person who wants unity between undeads and humans. Sylvanas is a despot who wants to commit an unprovoked genocide on the people of Stormwind and about whom we know that her people are nothing but a means to an end for her, to flee the rightful punishment she would receive for all the evil deeds she has done in undeath. She is basically sacrificing an utopian future for her people, just for her own genocide fetish and lust for power.

Calian meant well, but her presence(and actions) basically ruined the whole thing.

The relationship betweenthe undead and the human kingdoms is questionable at the best of times. Andthe book even descries that quite a lot of the people present simply couldn't get over it one way or another.

Look at it this way. The leader of the faction, whichbasically oposes your own says that he wants your people and his people to meet. Sounds fishy as fuck, but alright guess there is not too much harm in giving it a chance once. Then you see your people talking tohuman priest and leaving toward the enemy settlement, at this point alarm bells start ringing. Then you learn that the priest is a two things. One trying to sway the people present to leave and form "The rightful kingdom of lordaeon"...dafuq....and Two the sister of the one guy she hates more than anything.


A thing people often seem to forget is that the characters indeed are not omniscient.

- - - Updated - - -

Or it's Calia bringing back more Light worshippers like her. I certainly hope for Uther's sake he was well preserved, or the light heals his wounds. The infrastructure is in place for Uther to make a comeback... Given his voice actor is still around, and his character has been getting plenty of attention recently between HoTS and Hearthstone.

I hope whatever they do with him has a purpose, in storyline. It could be anything from guiding Calia to being a pawn of the naaru trying to spread their indoctrination.(realy not sure how to word it better) Or hec could be bothof those things.