How can Sylvanas be redeemed?

[Aucald]

This sounds a bit strange to me. Did she have time to think it through, or was it a spur of the moment decision? Of course, I don't really trust the writing to be at Breaking Bad levels of subtlety. Did Sylvanas realize that Calia acted emotionally because the character was meant to make her decision with that information in mind, or did she only "realize" it for the sake of the reader, which is a very common writing mistake?

It's pretty much done at the speed of thought in general. At first she thinks something is going on with Vellcinda and Anduin as at one point when Anduin catches sight of Vellcinda he bows to her from across the field, and Vellcinda had made a request to meet with Anduin as she herself had no living family to meet with (the request was denied by Sylvanas). Because of this her first impression was that this had all been set-up prior, but on seeing more of what was happening she concludes (correctly as we know from the other perspectives) that Calia's revealing herself couldn't have been precipitated by Anduin or Vellcinda as there wouldn't have been a way for them to plan it without her knowledge. She considers staying her hand briefly, but then decides she can't take the chance of renewed "hope" among her subjects and unleashes her Rangers.

Logically there should have been something between her sounding the horns and ordering the attack that motivated her. She sees something weird is going on on the field > sounds the retreat > realizes that some Forsaken are running towards Stromgarde/realizes who Calia is, which is the major trigger > orders the attack. If nothing of note happens in between, why not do it at the same time? "Sound the horn for show and go kill them".

The horn was sounded because there was a pretty obvious consternation happening on the field when Calia revealed herself - given the small number of people there and the intense scrutiny of the surveying Priests and Rangers, it was easy to see that *something* was happening that was not otherwise planned. One of the Dark Rangers then flew back to Galen's Fall and informed Sylvanas that the source of the consternation was confirmed to be Calia Menethil, which pretty much immediately got Sylvanas' back up. She rocketed through several emotions all at once (and considered it from all angles as related above) and then ordered her Rangers to commence the massacre. As it is ongoing, when Nathanos rounds on her to ask what she's doing, she explains her thinking on the matter and justifies the decision to him.

Her justification is a pretty weird writing choice too. It makes it look like Sylvanas was looking for something to go wrong, likely planning to kill those who found a connection with living relatives anyway, but that would absolve Anduin of any guilt, making him nothing but a boring perfect character. And even if that is the case... is it really a sign of where the story is going, or is it just Golden's fangirl views shining through? Because all the talk so far has been of grey characters, and the BFA launch cinematic does its best to make Sylvanas look cool for Horde fans.

Sylvanas was already waiting for the whole thing to go pear-shaped. She thought the entire idea of the Gathering was pointless and a waste of time, but she allowed it because either way it could be of benefit to her. If it was a trap then she could use it to justify the destruction or disbanding of the Desolate Council and imprison (or likely execute) all its members without looking bad, and if it was successful she could use it as a lever to keep them in line in any case, dangling the idea of hope as a carrot to move them how she needed. She didn't expect Calia Menethil to show her or to have to deal with a possible usurper of her throne, however; and that led to executing the "disloyal" Council members and Calia herself pretty much on the spot.

If anything, she should encourage her people to bond with some living humans, because she needs living humans to make more Forsaken, and becoming Forsaken as a means to spend a second life with dead family members could turn into a popular thing. I've always said there aren't enough people out there who are willing to become undead.

The initial view of the Desolate Council didn't have anything to do with reconnecting with their living families, though; that was all Anduin's idea and doing. What the Desolate Council wanted was the option to die the "Final Death" like Humans do, basically they were suing for the right to die as opposed to Sylvanas' plans to make them immortal. Forsaken existence is a difficult and cursed lot, in their view, and while they were grateful for their second chance at "life" and freedom from the yoke of the Scourge, they wanted to live and die as Humans otherwise would. Sylvanas needs the Forsaken to persist forever (to protect her from her own death), which is what her attempting to enslave Eyir was all about.

It would be great if they actually manage to pull that off. Sylvanas used to be a cool character in TFT. She was a cunning and resourceful freedom fighter who almost took down Arthas and gave a few villains their comeuppance in very satisfying way. She was criminally underutilized in Wrath. Her whole motivation was to get revenge on Arthas, yet she had no cathartic involvement in ICC, and the two times she did show up were embarrassing screw-ups (she lost the Undercity without really being present anywhere else to explain why, and she was almost killed by Arthas in the Halls of Reflection). They did a 180 flip on her in Cata, which I suppose was necessary to give a new motivation to the Forsaken (I'm not really bothered by that given the rate of retcons in WoW), but making her borderline psychotic wasn't really the most appealing choice vs the cold and calculating general fighting for her freedom.

But now the story isn't just about her anymore. If Sylvanas becomes a villain, that would also affect Vol'jin's story, because he was the one who vouched for her and placed her in charge. Garrosh was a great villain, especially for Horde players, but his villainy completely ruined Thrall as a character. And at this point it would affect the Horde's story as a whole, turning us into morons who can't pick a competent leader if the whole world depended on it, not to mention the repeat of the "evil Warchief appointed by naive good guy" would be hilariously bad from a storytelling perspective.

So it's kind of weird to see her pull off borderline irredeemable shit like this. I want the Alliance to have some flaws and internal tensions as well, especially with the humans, so I can justify hating them as a Horde player.[/QUOTE]

I don't really know how to reconcile the current Sylvanas with Vol'jin's dying proclamation - but I assume there is *something* yet to be revealed or discovered that will more clearly explain the impetus behind Vol'jin's promotion of Sylvanas. Sylvanas is primarily motivated by fear of her own Final Death, as well as hatred and anger that still exist in her core that has no outlet with Arthas now dead himself. But she still has moments, fleeting ones and rather few in number, where she reveals a part of herself that is worthwhile or worthy of redemption, if you prefer. She might under different circumstances even be a great leader, but I don't know if she can be salvaged given everything she's already done as Warchief (and will do from what we know of BfA's events).

[Varodoc]

Still waiting for the ancient entity who will say something along the lines of 'The Warchief... She is our only hope of salvation". Since, apparently, Sylvanas is "Kerrigan 2.0".

[Az0na]

She needs to die. Hopefully horrible and painfull as possible.

Shes worse then lichking and we killed that.

Als she seek is to kill everyone and maken them into mindless slaves. At least lichking did to combat the legion in a way. She just want everyone to be as missrible as she is.

[Verdugo]

She needs to die. Hopefully horrible and painfull as possible.

Shes worse then lichking and we killed that.

And then what.

[Friendlyimmolation]

She needs to die. Hopefully horrible and painfull as possible.

Shes worse then lichking and we killed that.

Als she seek is to kill everyone and maken them into mindless slaves. At least lochking did to combat the legion in a way. She just want everyone to be as missrible as she is.

Incorrect, but then again, one doesn’t expect much from a post proclaiming Sylvanas is worse than the lich king

[Az0na]

Incorrect, but then again, one doesn’t expect much from a post proclaiming Sylvanas is worse than the lich king

If you think that then you have not read the book or see bfa beginning yet and if you did and still thing shes not worse then lichking you are blind by love for rotting titties.

Infracted.

[Friendlyimmolation]

If you think that then you have not read the book or see bfa beginning yet and if you did and still thing shes not worse then lichking you are blind by love for rotting titties.

I’d ask you the same thing, you obviously need to re-read, hell even read the book because it’s obvious you haven’t.

[Doffen]

And then what.

Then her mother comes out of the bow and Sylvanas ask, "Is it over?" And her mother respond, "Hell NO, get back up there".

[Mehrunes]

You leap to questions of allegiance very swiftly - I don't think Saurfang's decision had anything to do with his allegiance or his commitment to the ideals of the Horde, it had to do with his own personal code of honor and the very ideals he believes constitutes the bedrock of the Horde. Saurfang considered Malfurion an honorable man, and a worthy opponent - and his rash interference in the battle between Sylvanas and Malfurion (by blindsiding Malfurion) as a black mark on his own honor and that of the Horde as concerned conduct in battle. To atone for this, and to preserve his sense of honor, he saves Malfurion from death until a time they can meet again on the field of battle in an honorable fashion.

He broke the orders from his superiors. How is that not an issue of allegiance? Even if he doesn't turn coat to the other side like his buddy Baine would love to, he still put his personal code of honor above his allegiance to the Horde. Hell, since you brought up commitment to the ideals of the Horde, how does him breaking orders have nothing to do with said commitment either? When one of the fundamental ideals of the Horde is following the Warchief (unless you want to challenge them to Mak'gora). Just like is the case in regards to his allegiances, Saurfang put his code of honor above his commitment to ideals of the Horde as well.

And by doing so allowed one of the strongest individuals on the planet to endanger countless Horde lives in future fights. Good job Saurfang, you secured the shit out of Horde by trying to "maintain its honor" (i.e. projecting his insanity that he calls honor onto the entire Horde). The people that will die to Malfurion will surely be grateful to him.

And he didn't just break the order to finish off Malfurion. He went out of his way to do the absolute opposite of that by personally getting Malfurion out of there to safety, straight to the enemy hands. In that he's arguably even worse than Baine, since Baine had enough of a spine only to leak military secrets rather than personally save enemy members.

You can of course spurn and deride the idea of honor if you like, but it is very important to Saurfang - it is what separates the "New Horde" of Thrall's vision from the depraved and demon-addled Old Horde that once rampaged across Draenor and Azeroth. He allowed himself, for a moment, to indulge that old corruption (in his own view) through his interference, and so he makes up for it.

Yes, "rash interference in battle" between two individuals (as you put it) or lack of thereof is exactly what separates the Old Horde from the New Horde.

He considers Sylvanas to have little to no honor given her underhanded tactics and willingness to adopt any means to assure victory, which slowly but surely becomes the force that leads him away from "her Horde." But let's not forget that his last battlefield declaration at the Battle of Lordaeron is a full commitment to the Horde. His problem, such as it is, concerns the current Warchief and not his loyalty to the Horde itself.

Which is funny, because he berates Sylvanas for deploying the Blight on Horde soldiers when they were pinned between the Alliance and the wall and were done for anyway. Meanwhile he let a walking nuclear weapon go free to kill tons of Horde members for his feels. So as much as he's displeased with Sylvanas' sacrificing Horde lives, he sacrificed even more of them. For something objectively far inferior. Before the Battle for Lordaeron.

Also, like I already said in regards to Baine, a Horde member doesn't doesn't get to be loyal just to a specific vision of the Horde or a specific Warchief. The Blood Oath is sworn towards the Horde and Warchief in general, not the specific Warchief that was in power when someone joins. And it pretty basically equates the loyalty to the sitting Warchief with loyalty to the Horde.

It's "I give my flesh and blood freely to the Warchief. I am the instrument of my Warchief's desire. I am a weapon of my Warchief's command.". Not "I give my flesh and blood freely to my idea of the Horde. I am the instrument of my idea of the Horde's desire. I am a weapon of my idea of the Horde's command. When orders from my superiors within the Horde go against my idea of the Horde, I am allowed to disregard them. When Warchief of the Horde doesn't share my idea of the Horde, I am free to denounce them and my loyalty to them."

Thrall's time has passed. Sylvanas turned the Horde's direction, as was her prerogative as the Warchief. Unless Sylvanas makes the 20th alternative Horde, it's still the same New Horde. Saurfang cannot denounce his loyalty to just "Sylvanas' Horde" without denouncing his loyalties to the New Horde in general. Because they are one and the same, whether he and his Broxigar syndrome like it or not.

[Coconut]

@Aucald Thank you for the detailed explanation. So she only ordered the 12 Forsaken killed after Calia revealed herself. I don't think it matters whether she realized it wasn't planned. It was still a threat, and some of the Forsaken clearly sympathized with her. From her perspective, the other ones might have sympathized too; maybe they were only coming back out of fear or to spread the word in Undercity.

In any case, many other characters did far worse and they were just fine, from Illidan enslaving everyone he could on Outland to fight the Legion to Tyrande killing innocent Wardens to free Illidan in Warcraft 3, to Maiev assassinating Highborne, to Varian refusing to pay the masons who built Stormwind and putting a price on their heads when they turned outlaw, to all the goblins Gallywix abandoned/enslaved/got killed, to Khadgar ordering us to kill "suspect" citizens in the Wisdomball quest line that never actually turn into demons, to everyone forgetting about Grommash's crimes after we free him from HFC, to the Dark Irons getting a pass from the Alliance and the Zandalari getting a pass from the Horde, to Katherine Proudmoor fucking exiling her own daughter to her death (even though she changes her mind and saves her later), to us butchering countless beings because someone finds them mildly annoying or some NPC wanting us to steal shit from them, slaughtering hundreds of Wolvar/Oracles for fun, etc.

I really don't think Sylvanas killing 12 of her own with a fairly good excuse is going to make or break her character. It would have been different if it was a major purging of hundreds of innocents, but as it stands our characters did worse shit (doubly so if you're playing a DK, Warlock or DH). I'll be surprised if it's ever mentioned again, actually.

[Mehrunes]

It wasn't a trap, Sylvanas plan was to take out the Alliance in one swift move, that failed.

You're confusing Teldrassil with Undercity. It's OK though, they are only a continent apart and one is on top of a giant island-tree while the other is a dungeon below ground, so everyone could make the same mistake.

A nuisance that is somehow strong enough to attack the core of Horde lands? Okay...
It doesnt make sense that they were able to do that but its Blizz.

When do Night Elves attack the core of Horde lands?

Barely any ships? You mean 6 ships that were destroyed by the trolls? I wasn't aware that the entire Alliance fleet consists of 6 ships.

You mean the 6 ships that were left after Battle for Lordaeron and then Zul's BBQ of Stormwind harbor? Alliance itself comments on the shit state of their fleet, which is why they go to Kul Tiras in the first place.

[Minikin]

really until i was rescued in deathknell my character was a mindless shocktroop good even to do solid bridges! and precious shield > building material.
and isnt like these "obedients" ignored the retreat horn and returned only after chatted with a menethil (from before the storm) D:

The person she shot didn't ignore the horn, that person hung back long enough to tell Calia to piss off. Her loyalty got rewarded perfectly

[Verdugo]

The person she shot didn't ignore the horn, that person hung back long enough to tell Calia to piss off. Her loyalty got rewarded perfectly

You dont feed the trolls, you ignore them. I think thats the moral of this story.

[Minikin]

You dont feed the trolls, you ignore them. I think thats the moral of this story.

Fine verdugo fine!

[Mehrunes]

He certainly wasn't the only one, as those fleeing towards the Alliance lines were referred to in plural. I think it's fair to assume at least half of them ran. Logically it should be more than half, otherwise the story would have focused on the ones who stayed. Even so, the scale is much smaller than I imagined. I thought this was a culling of sorts, with a a total number of victims in the hundreds, or at least in the high dozens, but this was more like a surgical strike with very few casualties. The innocent victims can be written off easily as a calculated sacrifice.

Would Sylvanas have acted the same if it was a large chunk of her people who wanted to be friendly with the humans? We can't say that anymore. And we can't say that this is the end of any Forsaken with living relatives in Stormwind either, if only 12 of them were killed.

5 were moving with the humans towards Stromgarde. Though only Parqual and the three Felstones started moving towards Stromgarde before shit hit the fan. 1 is confirmed to be against the idea. Rest is unknown.

Impossible to say, as I assume the true numbers are meant to be unclear and thus subject to speculation and political spin by either side - Horde or Alliance. The only true known quantities are Parqual (defector) and Elsie/Vellcinda (loyal), both massacred on the field without any form of trial or interrogation to discern their intentions.

I still don't know how Sylvanas was supposed to discern their intention through trial or interrogation in a manner that would give anything resembling tangible results. The defection was spurned on by. 1. the meeting going better than anticipated 2. the idea there may be no more meetings like that (which is weird, because where I got to in the book Sylvanas, after selling it as her idea, was telling the Forsaken that it will be the first, test meeting, maybe something changes later on) becoming hard to swallow in light of how good it went, 3. Philia urging him that there must be a way and 4. Parqual recognizing Calia and turning to her for help. All three are events that couldn't have been foreseen, especially #4.

So it was spur of the moment thing rather than a pre-planned defection. So there would be no evidence for it one way or another. Especially to the ones who didn't return fast enough. How do you discern if someone wanted to join a spur of the moment happening but didn't only because of fear? There was no way to really determine this and as such mitigate the risk of them being pro-defection that concerned Sylvanas.

It was certainly a culling, of sorts - Sylvanas removing a thorn in her side, and purging the ranks of the Forsaken of those who harbor hope of re-embracing their lost humanity and spreading what she considered a weakness across the Forsaken people. Both Genn and Anduin glumly admit it is a political coup for Sylvanas, who masterfully cleared her ranks of "traitors" and eliminated a would-be usurper of her throne all while keeping her promises to Anduin and not endangering the fragile peace between the two factions at that time.

She didn't call it a weakness. She called it an infection. It is likely that Sylvanas was projecting her own experience with Vereesa where she felt hope only to get burned. And the hope there wasn't a weakness, instead it, combined with the later rejection that Sylvanas may think is going to happen sooner or later to any undead (after all, even out of the handful humans approached my a handful of undead, most already refused) exposed that it was Sylvanas that was too weak to handle it at first.

[Aucald]

He broke the orders from his superiors. How is that not an issue of allegiance? Even if he doesn't turn coat to the other side like his buddy Baine would love to, he still put his personal code of honor above his allegiance to the Horde. Hell, since you brought up commitment to the ideals of the Horde, how does him breaking orders have nothing to do with said commitment either? When one of the fundamental ideals of the Horde is following the Warchief (unless you want to challenge them to Mak'gora). Just like is the case in regards to his allegiances, Saurfang put his code of honor above his commitment to ideals of the Horde as well.

He disobeyed *Sylvanas*, a figure that is increasingly becoming a less and less legitimate leader in his eyes. Saurfang has a great deal of experience with bad leaders - and I doubt he puts as much weight behind the notion that "the Warchief is the Horde" than you do. He is more loyal to the ideal of the Horde than he is any temporal leader, especially one who tarnishes the honor of the Horde with underhanded tactics or reliance on "evil" methods in his eyes.

And by doing so allowed one of the strongest individuals on the planet to endanger countless Horde lives in future fights. Good job Saurfang, you secured the shit out of Horde by trying to "maintain its honor" (i.e. projecting his insanity that he calls honor onto the entire Horde). The people that will die to Malfurion will surely be grateful to him.

A valid complaint, but I doubt Saurfang would see it the same way.

And he didn't just break the order to finish off Malfurion. He went out of his way to do the absolute opposite of that by personally getting Malfurion out of there to safety, straight to the enemy hands. In that he's arguably even worse than Baine, since Baine had enough of a spine only to leak military secrets rather than personally save enemy members.

Well, letting him live is pretty much what the exact opposite would be - so that's not really beyond pale. Leaving him to die of wounds caused by Saurfang's actions would be tantamount to executing him straight out, so that's not on the table insofar as Saurfang is concerned. Giving him back to the Night Elves gives him a chance to recover, and perhaps they can confront one another on more even footing once more.

We also don't know if Baine leaked any "military secrets" in his communiques to Anduin - the most important revelation he shared with Anduin was that the Horde did not betray the Alliance or abandon them at the Broken Shore, which I would hardly call a state or military secret. Stupidity on that continued contact aside, it's unlikely Baine would've betrayed the Horde in so brazen a fashion - more likely the two of them were coordinating to try to head off further conflict before it began in their own ways. I would agree that Saurfang violated a direct order from his commander and was due punishment for that, but Sylvanas seemingly elects not to do so for reasons of her own.

Yes, "rash interference in battle" between two individuals (as you put it) or lack of thereof is exactly what separates the Old Horde from the New Horde.

That's a disingenuous argument because of course it alone isn't - it is, however, part of what does separate the Old Horde from the New. The Old Horde used reprehensible tactics in battle, up to and including genocide, biological warfare, and terror tactics. Saurfang considers all of those things to be a legacy of demonic influence and corruption.

Which is funny, because he berates Sylvanas for deploying the Blight on Horde soldiers when they were pinned between the Alliance and the wall and were done for anyway. Meanwhile he let a walking nuclear weapon go free to kill tons of Horde members for his feels. So as much as he's displeased with Sylvanas' sacrificing Horde lives, he sacrificed even more of them. For something objectively far inferior. Before the Battle for Lordaeron.

A "walking nuclear weapon" is a very odd way to describe Malfurion, an entity who has never been interested in wanton destruction or even destruction for its own sake. It would be more in Malfurion's character to kill only when he has to, and to keep his rage and anger more or less in check at all times. Saurfang would rather potentially sacrifice some future lives to his enemy as opposed to sacrificing what he views as the very soul of the Horde for victory. The worth of that philosophy can be debated, sure, but not the fact that it is what informs Saurfang's actions.

Also, like I already said in regards to Baine, a Horde member doesn't doesn't get to be loyal just to a specific vision of the Horde or a specific Warchief. The Blood Oath is sworn towards the Horde and Warchief in general, not the specific Warchief that was in power when someone joins. And it pretty basically equates the loyalty to the sitting Warchief with loyalty to the Horde.

It's "I give my flesh and blood freely to the Warchief. I am the instrument of my Warchief's desire. I am a weapon of my Warchief's command.". Not "I give my flesh and blood freely to my idea of the Horde. I am the instrument of my idea of the Horde's desire. I am a weapon of my idea of the Horde's command. When orders from my superiors within the Horde go against my idea of the Horde, I am allowed to disregard them. When Warchief of the Horde doesn't share my idea of the Horde, I am free to denounce them and my loyalty to them."

We've already debated the breadth and scope of the Blood Oath, but I'm sure Saurfang probably doesn't really care one way or the other. And since Sylvanas herself doesn't censure or punish Saurfang for his disobeying her command, well, it's kind of a non-issue. If she fails to enforce the rules that bind Horde subjects to their Warchief she can hardly be surprised when those rules break down entirely, as it were.

Thrall's time has passed. Sylvanas turned the Horde's direction, as was her prerogative as the Warchief. Unless Sylvanas makes the 20th alternative Horde, it's still the same New Horde. Saurfang cannot denounce his loyalty to just "Sylvanas' Horde" without denouncing his loyalties to the New Horde in general. Because they are one and the same, whether he and his Broxigar syndrome like it or not.

Thrall's vision created the New Horde, and though he no longer occupies the throne the ideals and vision of the New Horde are still very important to *all* members of the Horde, regardless of their race or the length of time they've been part of the Horde. Sylvanas could be denounced and replaced much in the same way as Garrosh was if she violates these tenets of the Horde too much - which is probably something she should fear already given Saurfang's pronouncements in the Stockades of Stormwind.

[Minikin]

I think if Syl and Nathanos would stop sending each other mixed signals and just bang then maybe we wouldn't be in the situation we're in.

Make Lovecraft not Warcraft XD

This. She just needs a good bit of human potential.

[ausoin]

You're confusing Teldrassil with Undercity. It's OK though, they are only a continent apart and one is on top of a giant island-tree while the other is a dungeon below ground, so everyone could make the same mistake.

I'm saying that Sylvanas wanted to remove the Alliance from the get go by attacking Teldrassil, stupid logic but that's was her plan. She didn't expect or plan to give up on Undercity.

The Undercity would have been cleared of civilians long ago if Sylvanas wanted to give it up. Pure logic. Or maybe she just doesn't give a shit about her subjects lifes, so take your pick.

When do Night Elves attack the core of Horde lands?

On Wowhead is said they are threatening Durotar and are planning an attack on Ogrimmar. Shouldn't be possible but that's what it says.

You mean the 6 ships that were left after Battle for Lordaeron and then Zul's BBQ of Stormwind harbor? The alliance itself comments on the shit state of their fleet, which is why they go to Kul Tiras in the first place.

After the Battle for Lordaeron? As far as I'm aware the Horde didn't attack Alliance ships at all during that battle.

The upper keep and that section were on fire, not the harbor, the part where the ships are docked are undamaged.

[Aucald]

I still don't know how Sylvanas was supposed to discern their intention through trial or interrogation in a manner that would give anything resembling tangible results. The defection was spurned on by. 1. the meeting going better than anticipated 2. the idea there may be no more meetings like that (which is weird, because where I got to in the book Sylvanas, after selling it as her idea, was telling the Forsaken that it will be the first, test meeting, maybe something changes later on) becoming hard to swallow in light of how good it went, 3. Philia urging him that there must be a way and 4. Parqual recognizing Calia and turning to her for help. All three are events that couldn't have been foreseen, especially #4.

Sylvanas was pretty against the Gathering from the get-go, which seemed to give all the members of the Desolate Council the strong impression it would be unlikely to be repeated. But yes, all of the consternation was pretty much spur of the moment with all parties riding high on emotions and thinking less than clearly. As for interrogation - it's more likely Sylvanas would've interrogated and executed all of them for the suspicion of treason in any case, but some strident loyalists such as Elsie/Vellcinda may have been spared with corroborating testimony. Of course now we'll never know one way or the other.

So it was spur of the moment thing rather than a pre-planned defection. So there would be no evidence for it one way or another. Especially to the ones who didn't return fast enough. How do you discern if someone wanted to join a spur of the moment happening but didn't only because of fear? There was no way to really determine this and as such mitigate the risk of them being pro-defection that concerned Sylvanas.

All the Council members (except those who returned early to Galen's Fall after being rejected by their living peers) saw Calia reveal herself and heard Elsie/Vellcinda declare her loyalty to Sylvanas - if they had been detained as opposed to summarily executed this would've been made apparent to Sylvanas as well. Whether or not that would've saved her or any of the other loyalists is impossible to say, though.

She didn't call it a weakness. She called it an infection. It is likely that Sylvanas was projecting her own experience with Vereesa where she felt hope only to get burned. And the hope there wasn't a weakness, instead it, combined with the later rejection that Sylvanas may think is going to happen sooner or later to any undead (after all, even out of the handful humans approached my a handful of undead, most already refused) exposed that it was Sylvanas that was too weak to handle it at first.

This is splitting hairs - the implication is that it would weaken the Forsaken, undermining her rule and spreading false hope among her people. What does an infection do besides sicken and weaken its host? Sylvanas is very definitely projecting her own experiences, though, while forgetting that her circumstances and her personality aren't exactly universally applicable (demonstrated in that many of the Forsaken in the Gathering were having very positive experiences, and even those who didn't could part ways in peace as per what Genn observed).

Sylvanas does explicitly refer to hope as a weakness, though - likely with the idea that it would be the impossible nature of that hope that would harm her people in the end. And she does conclude that the only Desolate Council members she wants at her side are those who have no hope, or as she puts it, the "truly desolate." That's pretty telling all on its own.

[Shadowater]

*snort*she don't need your "redemption."