So, uh... anyone defending Sylvanas anymore? (SPOILERS!!!)

[Minikin]

It did no such thing. Sylvanas always killed or at least severely punished traitors. The Forsaken who defected to Dalaran in Vanilla, Putress and Apothecaries loyal to him, Rotbrains, Stillwater, Koltira. This isn't new. This doesn't run contrary to free will.

To me free will means, no holds barred do whatever you wish so long as you arent detrimental you wont be attacked, but even if attacked you are still allowed to think what you wish.

I feel that they are turning away from that quality of sylvannas in a very......familiar way. Not to mention there have been multiple posters who claim how she allows free will, that you can join the forsaken or not join its your choice (of course posters arent a reliable source but just saying).

To me these following parts were very interesting, as it seems like a departure perhaps:

Chapter 33:
Elise turned her grey green face back toward the wall and the Forsaken banner that had been unfurled. "I'm sorry, Your Majesty," Elise said. "I cant betray my queen. Not even for you." She turned and shouted "Retreat! Retreat!"

In that chapter, the only CONFIRMED defector by name and action is Parqual at that moment. We have Elise who openly states that sylvannas is her queen and she will not betray her. The other mentioned are the three forsaken brothers meeting their living mother. Parqual got shot. Elise got shot too. The brothers got shot too.

Now of course theres two parts. 1. Sylvannas isnt omnipresent, 2. The actions taken.
Gonna start with 2 piece by piece because to me thats where it seems very Garrosh like, as in this is not really her, and it seems an about face just like he did after stonetalon mountains.

so.
Parqual. Open defector. Goes and tells Calia to proclaim herself. Gets shot. Makes sense.
Elise. Loyal even in the face of open rebellion. Gets shot. Dont look good and the only thing one can say is point 1. Sylv isnt omni present.
The brothers. They grab their mother and run for the alliance keep. This is the 50/50 marker. You have one character (Parqual) openly defecting, one extreme, you have one character (elise) openly loyal, one extreme. The brothers are the middle ground. They grabbed their old living mother and ran to get her to safety.

The author mentions this move, Page 266 "Not even any of the Felstone boys, who were running toward to the keep as fast as their long legs could go. One of them cradled the frightened, elderly Emma in his arms, trying to shield her with his own body not understanding that he and his undead brothers were the ones in danger, not their mother".

The sequence is important because this is mentioned right after Parqual gets shot and Philia and Parqual are escaping in a different manner, Page 265, "There was Philia, with her father, Parqual, running with her arm around him protectively, as if she were the parent not he".

That is not the quality of a leader who champions free will and we know they arent threats because they cover that pn page 264 too, where the forsaken being killed are just laborers and merchants. Basically pointed out by the author as no threat and not worth fighting over. Yet she orders them all killed, the loyal one along with the questionable one.

Author goes out of their way to show two extremes and a middle ground, basically covering all aspects, and then shows all of them getting equally cut down, baked in with the following scenario, on page 264
"No Nathanos. I cannot take the risk. The only Desolate Council members I trust are the ones who returned to me early on, broken and bitter. Truly Desolate. All the others...I cannot allow that sentiment, that hope, to grow. It is an infection ready to spread. I have to cut it out."

This has two parts though. One hopeful that she wants the people back who are ironclad in forsaken first, everyone else second, and she will happily take those. The other part is...not so good...because it shows that she intends to be the only one in power for the forsaken and only her vision must be followed. Not a good great for a leader who looks out for her/his people and it rings close to the "arrows in my quiver" statement from the short story.

Point iam getting at is that they have cut down quite a few things. e.g. take three people. Person A. a loyal horde supporter. Person B. a neutral person. Person C. a loyal alliance supporter.

Person A in the case of sylvannas would make arguments that are based around, nuance and how she is a survivor and does what needs doing. Person C would make arguments that are based around, no morality, killing your own people, dictatorship. Person B would find the middle ground between these two.

Now they have essentially cut away at some of the things person A would use to explain sylvannas situation in the sense of a good person or a benevolent leader. As in you can definitely still argue and in many cases win that debate that sylvannas has good leadership capabilites and is a brilliant strategist (also proven on page 280, where her politics and tactics are commended). But as of this moment, until we get more info, they have completely eradicated her as a good person not just for the alliance but also the horde with these two quotes,
Page 19, "Warchief," he said, 'it is time. Your people await you."
Your people. No. Her people were back in the Undercity, missing her and feeling slighted, unaware that she would like nothing more than return and be among them once more.

Page 281, "I believe," said Anduin Llane Wrynn, "that Sylvanas Windrunner is well and truly lost."

A warchief of the Horde cares for all the horde, not just the race they come from. Again very familiar of what Garrosh did. But again there is a slight hope because she shows actual care and wanting for her people.

The quote about andiun is important because as we all know, blizzard likes to leave bread crumbs and uses those to push a story. Perhaps they use this as a linear story using that quote, or perhaps they use it to show andiun development by proving he was wrong about sylvanas, later on.

Her becoming warchief has kinda put her on this path. I have said many times before that she was best left in the shadows, where she could work her plans with this scruitny of morality cuz honestly, shes a zombie undead. She is not supposed to have morals or emotional breakdowns. They mention that too in the novel on page 18.

edit:
looking at the poll, i havent voted, cuz as neutral as i work to remain, i play alliance so it doesnt apply to me, but it is interesting to see that 50-50 divide. though who knows poll could be completely hogg wash with alliance loyal players hitting no, not my warchief, when it doesnt apply to them.

[Tabrotar]

Hmm, when was that? Actually, wowhead - which is what I've been using for the preview lately because MMO-C was missing some pages - also misses the part about Valeera Shandalay mentioned and I recall seeing her being mentioned elsewhere, so I guess it's not complete either... Why is Amazon preview such a mess that everyone sees different things?




Sylvanas couldn't have blown the horn earlier because the thing that seals the deal for the Horde and forces them to retreat are the spaceships. Which bombarded the Horde immediately before they sounded retreat. And they arrived on the battlefield just before they started shooting, being completely outside of Horde's parameters beforehand due to not being even on the same planet. Since the Horde lacks a Velen, they couldn't have predicted the spaceships arriving. As such there was no reason for them to sound the horn earlier than they did.

And since one salvo from the spaceships completely shattered them, they were in no position to stay. Not only could they not fight against the demons effectively anymore, but the next salvo would obliterate them. And them retreating changed nothing for the Alliance's immediate circumstances. The demons from the ridge couldn't get to the Alliance without taking a scenic detour across the entire island and the anti-air was covered by the gunship's arrival.




And your comparison would only be valid if your mom knocked on your door AS SHE OPENED because she was attacked by spaceships of an inter-dimensional demonic army that warped in to bombard her mere moments before she knocked. The fact that she still bothered to knock and inform you under such circumstances is something to commend her for in this situation. Outside of that extremely specific situation that the mother couldn't have predicted, your equivalence remains false no matter how many times you say it.




Which is why he commends Sylvanas for saving the Horde after she called retreat. Looks like her calling for a retreat happened to be in line with what he told her.

Because other poster have said that if they were logged in they then could use the search version and if you would search for certain words/names then it would show you the pages with them or something. That´s why we got more information then just the few review pages.

[Minikin]

What if they are setting up Sylvanas for a redemption plot like Kerrigan?

Sylvanas goes Super Sonic against the void lords.


Please fucking no

ive been wondering about that for a long long LONG while. because kerrigan had the same things. mass wiping of humans. attacks. protoss (the elves of that universe) engagements. and then she gets saved and redeems herself.

I maybe Nathanos Jim Raynor Blightcaller will use his human potential to redeem her?

[Mehrunes]

To me free will means, no holds barred do whatever you wish so long as you arent detrimental you wont be attacked, but even if attacked you are still allowed to think what you wish.

People joining the enemy faction are detrimental. Even more so if they are conspiring with a usurper to do so. Not just that, given how Sylvanas is the Warchief now, they broke the Blood Oath to her on top of that.

I feel that they are turning away from that quality of sylvannas in a very......familiar way. Not to mention there have been multiple posters who claim how she allows free will, that you can join the forsaken or not join its your choice (of course posters arent a reliable source but just saying).

People being free to join the Forsaken or not is canon. It's shown in, you know, the very first you get in post-Cata Forsaken starting experience. The thing is, freedom to not join the Forsaken is irrelevant here. Because those people already did join the Forsaken. And while people are also free to leave the Forsaken as seen in Forsaken who left to factions like the Argent Crusade, that does not equal freedom to betray people.

That is not the quality of a leader who champions free will and we know they arent threats because they cover that pn page 264 too, where the forsaken being killed are just laborers and merchants. Basically pointed out by the author as no threat and not worth fighting over. Yet she orders them all killed, the loyal one along with the questionable one.

Laborers and merchants of a race that's unnaturally strong in undeath. That have been considered to be openly defecting to enemy faction in support of a usurper. There's nothing in Sylvanas' eyes that precluded the possibility of them acting against her in military matters once Calia escaped to safety and could further act in what Sylvanas considered to be an attempt to get Lordaeron back. Even if they didn't rise in arms against her, they were still 1. traitors and 2. sources of information. Which is the exact same situation as the Forsaken who stole Sylvanas' Bloodstones in Vanilla. Yet despite them having been killed for that in Vanilla Blizzard confirmed the presence and importance of free will in Forsaken society. Because free will isn't lawlessness.

Author goes out of their way to show two extremes and a middle ground, basically covering all aspects, and then shows all of them getting equally cut down, baked in with the following scenario, on page 264
"No Nathanos. I cannot take the risk. The only Desolate Council members I trust are the ones who returned to me early on, broken and bitter. Truly Desolate. All the others...I cannot allow that sentiment, that hope, to grow. It is an infection ready to spread. I have to cut it out."

This has two parts though. One hopeful that she wants the people back who are ironclad in forsaken first, everyone else second, and she will happily take those. The other part is...not so good...because it shows that she intends to be the only one in power for the forsaken and only her vision must be followed. Not a good great for a leader who looks out for her/his people and it rings close to the "arrows in my quiver" statement from the short story.

And what risk Sylvanas refers to here? What is with people cherry-picking one part of her reason to strike everyone equally? When the first reason she gave was that she couldn't trust those people anymore, because they very well could have been returning to her only out of fear. Which would mean getting potential traitors, in a situation when there's a pretender supported by the Alliance going for her throne, back in Undercity, working as a fifth column.

Person A in the case of sylvannas would make arguments that are based around, nuance and how she is a survivor and does what needs doing. Person C would make arguments that are based around, no morality, killing your own people, dictatorship. Person B would find the middle ground between these two.

Now they have essentially cut away at some of the things person A would use to explain sylvannas situation in the sense of a good person or a benevolent leader. As in you can definitely still argue and in many cases win that debate that sylvannas has good leadership capabilites and is a brilliant strategist (also proven on page 280, where her politics and tactics are commended). But as of this moment, until we get more info, they have completely eradicated her as a good person not just for the alliance but also the horde with these two quotes,
Page 19, "Warchief," he said, 'it is time. Your people await you."
Your people. No. Her people were back in the Undercity, missing her and feeling slighted, unaware that she would like nothing more than return and be among them once more.

First of all, Sylvanas has never been a benevolent leader. She is a pragmatic leader. And pragmatism is better at getting results positive for one's subjects than Anduin's benevolence. And just Sylvanas doesn't consider other Horde races to be her people doesn't mean she doesn't care for them at all. She's still seen as taking her responsibility to the Horde seriously in BtS.

Page 281, "I believe," said Anduin Llane Wrynn, "that Sylvanas Windrunner is well and truly lost."

Being lost in the eyes of someone as bland as Blanduin is a good thing. Especially since he said that because he realized Sylvanas doesn't want to change into what he wanted her to change. And what did Anduin want Sylvanas to change into? A spineless, bootlicking Alliance sycophant that ignores any Alliance aggression, like Baine. That's what Anduin wants the entire Horde to change into.

Even when that Alliance aggression is against the Warchief of the Horde, during peace and during a war against a common enemy, as happened in Stormheim. Which, even though BtS shows Anduin understands that the Horde didn't betray the Alliance at Broken Shore, which makes Genn's and Rogers' attack completely unjustified, still went unpunished. All Genn and Rogers got was a stern talk (I think that's the wording BtS used).

If Anduin was truly genuine about his desire for peace, he'd actually punish the people on the Alliance that act against that peace, especially if they do so through not only an outright attack against the most important member of the Horde, but also by breaking his own orders. To show to the Horde such things will not be tolerated. But he isn't genuine about peace. He's genuine about wanting to turn the Horde into a legion of traitorous shits like Baine that will mindlessly bask in his glory while singing kumbaya with their human overlords.

As long as Genn and Rogers go unpunished, Anduin trying things like the Gathering was nothing but an empty gesture. So no shit Sylvanas didn't want to change to his whims.

A warchief of the Horde cares for all the horde, not just the race they come from. Again very familiar of what Garrosh did. But again there is a slight hope because she shows actual care and wanting for her people.

Not considering Orcs her people does not equal not caring. The other races aren't her people, they are her subjects. And that remark was a part of Sylvanas' larger monologue about being salty Vol'jin pushed her out of the shadows and away from Undercity. She doesn't treat other races as useless parasites leeching the glorious Orc master race dry as Garrosh did.

Because other poster have said that if they were logged in they then could use the search version and if you would search for certain words/names then it would show you the pages with them or something. That´s why we got more information then just the few review pages.

There's that, true. But there's also the thing where different people could see different pages in the actual preview. I think it's region based, can't really think of other rational explanation. For example, when I read the preview directly on Amazon myself, I saw some development with Valeera, yes it was missing on wowhead. At first I thought MMO-C got pages only from one region (following my theory for the disparities) since it had around the same amount of pages available as what I could see myself, while wowhead had more so I assumed they consolidated pages available to different people. But then I remembered the Valeera thing and it turns out wowhead is missing some as well.

I checked the search function when someone mentioned it, and while it indeed can show, for example, mentions of Alleria, what it shows is individual sentences, not entire pages that got screenshotted to MMO-C/wowhead. Though the point I inquired about in what you quoted could be something someone saw through search function.

[Deleted]

they ruined her after cata

[TheramoreIsTheBomb]

they ruined her after cata

nice meme.
10chars

[Minikin]

People joining the enemy faction are detrimental. Even more so if they are conspiring with a usurper to do so. Not just that, given how Sylvanas is the Warchief now, they broke the Blood Oath to her on top of that.

My knowledge is lacking on this blood oath. what is this?

People being free to join the Forsaken or not is canon. It's shown in, you know, the very first you get in post-Cata Forsaken starting experience. The thing is, freedom to not join the Forsaken is irrelevant here. Because those people already did join the Forsaken. And while people are also free to leave the Forsaken as seen in Forsaken who left to factions like the Argent Crusade, that does not equal freedom to betray people.

I should have been more clear. i was talking about the people being raised and given a choice, to either join her or go their way. mind you in some cases jury is still out on how that works cuz we have very limited knowledge of the process, beginning with, who wants or doesnt want to be raised in the first place and now stuck as undead even though they didnt want to join.

Laborers and merchants of a race that's unnaturally strong in undeath. That have been considered to be openly defecting to enemy faction in support of a usurper. There's nothing in Sylvanas' eyes that precluded the possibility of them acting against her in military matters once Calia escaped to safety and could further act in what Sylvanas considered to be an attempt to get Lordaeron back. Even if they didn't rise in arms against her, they were still 1. traitors and 2. sources of information. Which is the exact same situation as the Forsaken who stole Sylvanas' Bloodstones in Vanilla. Yet despite them having been killed for that in Vanilla Blizzard confirmed the presence and importance of free will in Forsaken society. Because free will isn't lawlessness.

Eh we can argue both points here. But to me the author put that note in the book for a reason. Word count is a thing and we have to remember that in the end this is a fantasy universe that revolves around what blizz says regardless of how much we dont like it or like it. The point they made in the book was, laborers and mechants that are not worth starting a war for. Thus meaningless.

Also Elise wasnt a traitor. She realized what Calia said and still chose sylvannas. But got shot anyway. The only clear traitor that the author pointed out was Parqual. The brothers were the median. And Elise was still loyal to sylvannas. They got killed too. Now you could say, if they were loyal why did they run to the alliance keep. Well, if you are in the field and bullets start flying. You would run to the people NOT shooting at you. Besides the author showed the comparision too to clear that up by pointing out how philia was protecting parqual and how the brothers were protecting their mother.

And what risk Sylvanas refers to here? What is with people cherry-picking one part of her reason to strike everyone equally? When the first reason she gave was that she couldn't trust those people anymore, because they very well could have been returning to her only out of fear. Which would mean getting potential traitors, in a situation when there's a pretender supported by the Alliance going for her throne, back in Undercity, working as a fifth column.

As for free will and lawless. This wasnt about the law. Sylvanans herself states that on page 264, "the only thing i can do and still hang on to my kingdom as it is," she said. "They were defecting."
"Some were running back here to, to safety," he replied.
"They were," she agreed. "But how much of that was fear? How tempted were they until that point?" She shook her head. "No Nathanos. I cannot take the risk. The only Desolate Council members I trust are the ones who returned to me early on, broken and bitter. Truly Dsolate."

This is not about lawless more so she wants blind complete hopeless obidience, as stated in those quotes specifically. This was stated BEFORE the laborers and merchants quote on the same page. As in the laborers and merchants were not considered a threat, not condsidered worthy of fighting over. This is about control. But is the price is pretty glaring as how they are showing it. However as I said, they have left enough of a gap for us to hope that it wont end up as a generic, horde bad alliance savior thing. This is only a preview and if I remember correctly there is supposed to be another novel from the horde's side no?

First of all, Sylvanas has never been a benevolent leader. She is a pragmatic leader. And pragmatism is better at getting results positive for one's subjects than Anduin's benevolence. And just Sylvanas doesn't consider other Horde races to be her people doesn't mean she doesn't care for them at all. She's still seen as taking her responsibility to the Horde seriously in BtS.

My point is more wondering why the author put that there because it rings close to the "They are no longer part of MY horde!".

Being lost in the eyes of someone as bland as Blanduin is a good thing. Especially since he said that because he realized Sylvanas doesn't want to change into what he wanted her to change. And what did Anduin want Sylvanas to change into? A spineless, bootlicking Alliance sycophant that ignores any Alliance aggression, like Baine. That's what Anduin wants the entire Horde to change into.

Eh I dont really get into the, which character is interesting or how awesome this writer is because in the end this is a business first, fantasy game second, and story 3rd. Most people I know since I started playing in BC dont really care so much about the story once the raid group forms and dps meters start racking up for eventual loot.

I mean hell. They add elves. People thow a fit. They focus on humans. People throw a fit. They add horde being extreme. Horde fractures. They add alliance being a bit bad and mean. People cant take it. Lol whatever they do doesnt work to please the masses. So at this point I put down peoples opinions on characters as just that, opinions, the root story goes on regardless.

Even when that Alliance aggression is against the Warchief of the Horde, during peace and during a war against a common enemy, as happened in Stormheim. Which, even though BtS shows Anduin understands that the Horde didn't betray the Alliance at Broken Shore, which makes Genn's and Rogers' attack completely unjustified, still went unpunished. All Genn and Rogers got was a stern talk (I think that's the wording BtS used).

yeap you are right. they are just spinning story for this stupid faction war. Honestly if anything about lore can be be argued (at least in my opinion) is that this shit worked when we were still exploring back in bc and vanilla. But we now have more than enough info to realize that far bigger problems exist besides this, horde mean, alliance unfair waaa. But here we are again. And next expansion like clockwork we will hold hands and win again followed by a general "[INSERT PLACE] IS FREEEEEE!!!".

If Anduin was truly genuine about his desire for peace, he'd actually punish the people on the Alliance that act against that peace, especially if they do so through not only an outright attack against the most important member of the Horde, but also by breaking his own orders. To show to the Horde such things will not be tolerated. But he isn't genuine about peace. He's genuine about wanting to turn the Horde into a legion of traitorous shits like Baine that will mindlessly bask in his glory while singing kumbaya with their human overlords.

As long as Genn and Rogers go unpunished, Anduin trying things like the Gathering was nothing but an empty gesture. So no shit Sylvanas didn't want to change to his whims.

I dont think sylvanas was being made to change to his whims as she herself also agreed to it. Neither parties what calia was planning save Saa'ra and herself. The reason why anduin says she is lost is because that is how he is written and anyone who is NOT written like sylvannas would say that with varying degrees, anduin being the most extreme and nathanos being the least. Which is evident in this preview too.

Not considering Orcs her people does not equal not caring. The other races aren't her people, they are her subjects. And that remark was a part of Sylvanas' larger monologue about being salty Vol'jin pushed her out of the shadows and away from Undercity. She doesn't treat other races as useless parasites leeching the glorious Orc master race dry as Garrosh did.

I was just wondering like before on their choice of wordings. It just seems to me they are drawing alot of points from their previous stories. Spinning their story.

[Aucald]

I asked you to explain what you meant in clear context of the low amount of people participating in the gathering. On both sides. Because even if your baseless speculation in regards to the Forsaken happened to be true, all those fearful Forsaken that wanted to participate in the gathering still didn't have anyone to participate with anyway. Because their close ones still rejected them (and I very much doubt it was because they feared Anduin). I.e. there was no path open for them and they didn't have an opportunity to bask in Blanduin's holy light like the Forsaken killed by Sylvanas.

We don't know if the amount of people participating in the gathering was low. A minority of the Forsaken could be anywhere from 1% to 49%, but even 15% of the Forsaken taking the field with the loved ones, friends, or relations from the Alliance side of things would be a pretty sizable gathering (and the passages from the preview seem to bear out that it was a sizable gathering). As for the claim of it being baseless, well, it will remain to be seen - as it serves as a narrative and ironic echo of Sylvanas' own claims about the number of the Desolate Council who may have returned to her side out of fear, I think the chance is good there are those in the ranks of the Forsaken who sympathized with the Desolate Council even if they didn't formally join or take the field at Arathi.

[Friendlyimmolation]

When I am done, half of the forums will be upset. And when you are banned, I hope they remember you.

or whatever he says.

[sam86]

Did blizz (again) eat their own words or something ? For start the main reason Forsaken became bitter and hating everyone because their living families tried to burn them alive as soon they were released from the scourge, which is why they became forsaken in first place, and joined horde, because pretty much everyone wants to punish them for 'horrible crime' of dare to exist
Now both aspects are against established lore, the first is alliance actually ok with forsaken to reunite with their families and not try to burn them on stick, and Sylvanas killing forsaken for wanting to return to them, Sylvanas - as shown in FUCKING game at Silverpine forest quests - will do anything FOR them (her own words), and i'm pretty sure killing them is nothing good 'for' them

this is stupid, blizz is shitting on their own story, yay another Garrosh, time for 'horde bias' to turn orgrimmar to updated loot piniata, if only blizz bias alliance for once

ps : i didn't vote yet, i admit probably because my horde bias but i want to learn full story first, mostly because i really hope blizz didn't shit - even more - on their established lore and changed it, fucking again

I still feel pissed that no one at horde when Vol'jin said to withdraw to 'save the horde' decided to fuck vol'jin and sylvannas and any fucking horde 'leader' who decided that 'Lok'tar Ogar' means run away like little girls, a true horde would fight to death, not run away, i LOVED horde for Lok'tar Ogar, not for Lok'tar run away like little girls, a real hordie would view withdraw as the true death of horde, not fighting to the end, even if all that mess was because the horde fault to trust alliance not to fuck up on intel (as we all saw in rogue campaign)

[Darth-Piekus]

Has anyone ever thought that perhaps Sylvannas brain might deteriorate over time? Or perhaps there is an influence of an Old God that slowly makes her mad?

On another note I remembered that MMO Champion user Northem who liked to RP about the existence of High Elves, Calia Menethil and the conquering of Lordaeron. I guess his dreams have become a reality.

[The Stormbringer]

I didn't say it was better or worse, but you're painting Eyir and her valy'kyr some kind of saintly angels when they're guilty of the same thing as Sylvanas.

I really don't think it's the same. Different types of undeath mean higher quality of existence, as well as it being willing rather than unwilling.

[therealbowser]

Who said that.

Other than Alliance fanboys projecting.

More than half of the arguments I see for Sylvanas pretend like everything she does is acceptable -- justifiable, even -- and far lesser things (that are ironically similar to what Sylvanas does herself in some cases) that other characters do -- especially Genn Greymane, since he dislikes Sylvanas -- are horrible.

IE; Sylvanas can do no wrong. The level of obsession some people (not all) have with her is insane.

- - - Updated - - -

Perhaps if people weren't so determined to place everyone into the "Pro-Sylvanas" and "Anti-Sylvanas" camps, some actual discussion could occur. The Desolate Council was a governing body set up the moment Sylvanas turned her back. It's not hard to see why they, and those that followed them, were obvious threats to her rule. You can acknowledge that while still believing her retaliation was extreme, and that the whole "morally grey" line is bullocks regardless of motivation. However, we've seen similar extremism from other factions towards defecting parties throughout the story as well.

Unless I'm mistaken, the Desolate Council was non-violent. Unless they were committing violent acts of retaliation against Sylvanas, yes, it was extreme. Sylvanas's acts have always been extreme and it just goes to show that Syvlanas has in fact always been acting in her own benefit, not for her people.

"A threat to her rule" is a load of garbage, as is the fact that they were "extremists" from everything I've heard of them so far. I'm sure there's more context, but it doesn't really matter. Sylvanas chose to execute them rather than talk to them, because she's Sylvanas. But it's totally justifiable because they obviously had it coming since they dared to oppose her absolute rule, right?

Malfurion had his own brother imprisoned indefinitely for saving a resource his society still benefits from to this day. Surprisingly, he's not demonized for it.

Illidan literally recreated the same force that nearly led to the destruction of Azeroth, and he didn't do so out of nobility, he did so for his own selfish reasons. Whether he deserved to be imprisoned for eternity is another story, of course, but what he did was an atrocity in the eyes of the people that just saw a cataclysm that nearly destroyed Azeroth, let alone that it supposedly attracted the Legion to their world in the first place.

[Gref]

unbelievable. as of now it is 255/255 perfectly balanced. lol.

[ls-]

Did blizz (again) eat their own words or something ? For start the main reason Forsaken became bitter and hating everyone because their living families tried to burn them alive as soon they were released from the scourge, which is why they became forsaken in first place, and joined horde, because pretty much everyone wants to punish them for 'horrible crime' of dare to exist
Now both aspects are against established lore, the first is alliance actually ok with forsaken to reunite with their families and not try to burn them on stick, and Sylvanas killing forsaken for wanting to return to them, Sylvanas - as shown in FUCKING game at Silverpine forest quests - will do anything FOR them (her own words), and i'm pretty sure killing them is nothing good 'for' them

They didn't, kinda...

First of all, only a handful of families or friends from the Alliance chose to actually meet their Forsaken relatives and buddies. It's mentioned in the book that there's many more refusals to even meet w/ them than acceptances, which also disappointed Anduin quite badly. So your average Ally still sees the forsaken as undead monsters.

Sylvanas wasn't against the meeting, she cooperated w/ Anduin to organise it and provided the Alliance w/ lists of her people who wanted to meet w/ Ally f&f.

Shit went south, when Calia revealed herself, stated who she was and told the forsaken to follow her and go fo the keep. Before that only the signal to end/pause the Gathering was given.

To Sylvanas it looked like a coup, even Anduin and Genn said that Calia looked like a would-be usurper in that case.

The only questionable thing Sylvanas actually did in this case is killing those who were slow to get to her position for whatever reason because she decided to get rid of all possible defectors, traitors, conspirators. Even Nathanos questioned her decision. It'll def bite Sylvanas in the ass later, because among those people who're slow were also people who actually supported Sylvanas, but were telling Allies to piss off, e.g., Elise, a member of the Desolate Council. I don't agree w/ this action of hers either, it's too much.

Many people in this thread twist the whole thing in a way that's beneficial for them, like they always do, they purposefully ignore everything what other characters in the book, even the ones from the opposing faction, say about this situation. Heck, many people who argue in this topic haven't even read the preview w/ additional pages themselves, they've only seen some biased highlights, some don't even know or ignore that Calia was later reanimated, that Anduin called her out, although almost immediately forgave her, and so on.

[Mehrunes]

More than half of the arguments I see for Sylvanas pretend like everything she does is acceptable -- justifiable, even -- and far lesser things (that are ironically similar to what Sylvanas does herself in some cases) that other characters do -- especially Genn Greymane, since he dislikes Sylvanas -- are horrible.

IE; Sylvanas can do no wrong. The level of obsession some people (not all) have with her is insane.

But those aren't the same. You've reached levels of inability to cope with the fact that some people may like a character that offends you so comedic, that you're effectively straw-manning even yourself. That's fascinating.

But since you're still projecting that straw-man onto other people, you have yet to prove @Verdugo wrong. But hey, at least you got the part about some people obsessing about her to insane levels right.

[sam86]

-snip-.

that actually makes it far more better and fitting in her character even more, she now feel everyone around her is planning how to get rid of her, of course she is going to be more paranoid
regardless my opinion will still be the same even with Garrosh, i'd stand with Garrosh against alliance any day (and their 'allies') than to help a non hordie attack another hordie, ever
She isn't Garrosh still, but if time comes to take her down, i'd do as Saurfang said in War Crimes, an honorable challenge, not attack with ppl i know hate the horde for existing (and literally tried to wipe out 4 of 6 horde main races for dare to exist)

[Firefall]

I'm a forsaken player and a huge fan of Sylvanas. I still support Sylvanas. I continue to not support Golden. She is ruining the character. I hope they aren't boring enough to repeat Garrosh but I think they will, raid or not.

At the same time a non-Horde/alliance aligned Sylvanas could be cool. Maybe have her be a crazy anti hero doing stuff the factions won't?

[Arrashi]

The only questionable thing Sylvanas actually did in this case is killing those who were slow to get to her position for whatever reason because she decided to get rid of all possible defectors, traitors, conspirators. Even Nathanos questioned her decision. It'll def bite Sylvanas in the ass later, because among those people who're slow were also people who actually supported Sylvanas, but were telling Allies to piss off, e.g., Elise, a member of the Desolate Council. I don't agree w/ this action of hers either, it's too much.

Many people in this thread twist the whole thing in a way that's beneficial for them, like they always do, they purposefully ignore everything what other characters in the book, even the ones from the opposing faction, say about this situation. Heck, many people who argue in this topic haven't even read the preview w/ additional pages themselves, they've only seen some biased highlights, some don't even know or ignore that Calia was later reanimated, that Anduin called her out, although almost immediately forgave her, and so on.

Blessed is mind too small for doubt. Those guys simply failed.

[Deleted]

I'm a forsaken player and a huge fan of Sylvanas. I still support Sylvanas. I continue to not support Golden. She is ruining the character. I hope they aren't boring enough to repeat Garrosh but I think they will, raid or not.

At the same time a non-Horde/alliance aligned Sylvanas could be cool. Maybe have her be a crazy anti hero doing stuff the factions won't?

Sylvanas' character was ruined the moment they gave her spotlight after Arthas was dead. (and thus, the death of her meaningful story)

I liked her before, but since Cata blizzard just went: "Whoops its a cartoony villain now"

Her suicide should have killed her for the final time.

BTW: Can anyone explain the Human Potential meme to me?