Morally Grey? ARE YOU KIDDING ME.[Spoilers]

[Mehrunes]

Pretty decent cinematic. The shift to Sylvanas' smile was a bit jarring, but then again perhaps it was deliberate to make it look creepy.

There are some weird things about it though. First of all, the technicalities of burning the tree. Blizzard couldn't even get their siege weapons straight. In game we see demolishers, in cinematic we see catapults. According to what some people have said in this thread, Blizzard apparently wrote the story for Warbringers months in advance, even before Golden was signed up as an actual Blizzard employee.

Couldn't they, in all that time, manage to keep their story together? Recently there was some short interview type of thing on main page of MMO-C on how storytelling changed over the years for WoW. In particular, that in Vanilla the story devs could not place NPCs, but it was changed later on for them to tell better stories. Let's say the devs didn't communicate then. Beta rolled with demolishes, artists made Warbringers with catapults. Did the story devs not watch the Warbringers vid internally before it hit live, at least? Couldn't they use their power to put NPCs to replace the demolishers with catapults?

Secondly, how the hell did they reach Teldrassil from Darkshore? How did some shitty catapults manage to burn it? The tree is humongous. It should have bark that's thicker than a brick. And it's constantly kept humid due to being right in the middle of the ocean. There was nothing special about the projectiles. Even smallest azerite chunks we've seen were the jagged glowy stuff and this wasn't it.

Second issue is Saurfang. Blizzard just made him the flip flopping equivalent of Jaina on Horde side. Oh no, the tree. So evil. Now, let me go to Undercity to defend it. Then Saurfang's cinematic hit live and he actually tried to get himself killed. OK, that would salvage post-Warbringer Saurfang. Except he comes back because zappyboi points out his bullshit to him and reminds him that the Horde is worth fighting for. Then there's the BfA cinematic in which Saurfang gets actually inspired by Sylvanas. Only to end with him going back to suicide by soldier mode and betraying the Horde. Splendid.

There was also the slight issue of Sylvanas' change in goals, since even at the start of the cinematic she wanted to invade the tree. But, contrary to what people were saying, this wasn't Sylvanas lashing out. Sylvanas lashing out ends up badly for those around her and she'd have ripped the limbs out of the Night Elf. She was collected, thought for a bit and when she came to a realization she found satisfactory, she turned with a smug smile to her. It was clearly a solution to breaking their hope, because she realized the Nelf is right that as things stand now, she won't achieve it.

Now, at first I must admit I was thinking it's a pretty pisspoor sample size, because one Night Elf staying defiant even in face of death is just one person, and Sylvanas already had a plan about breaking their spirit through killing Malfurion. But then I played through the questline and noticed that Sylvanas ordered Saurfang to bring her Malfurion's head, which is something that I missed when I was merely reading up on the quests before they hit live. Which in retrospect made sense, because Sylvanas would have needed proof of his demise to show to Nelfs in Darnassus.

And as we saw in the questline, for obvious reasons, Saurfang returned without any heads. So her first plan for breaking their spirit went fuck itself thanks to Saurfang's treason. And with Night Elven spirit unbroken, holding Teldrassil hostage would have been rather costly. Hence Sylvanas spending some time to think on how to break their hope instead. And as can be seen from Delaryn's face at the end, she looked rather hopeless and broken in the end. @Raelbo made a good summary of this in another thread: https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...1#post49856871

Speaking of the short story, Sylvanas planning for divine intervention from Elune in some way and being OK with it is the most bizarre part of this story.

Back to the burning of Teldrassil itself, the last problem I see with it is how Blizzard handled the issue. It's like they wanted to have their cake (or have their Sylvanas burn the World Tree) and eat it too (by making it look otherwise).

Mixxy Scratch made a good argument about it:

It was only unexpected because Blizzard had spent the better part of the last couple of months constantly insisting (without actually saying) that there was more to the story than initially meets the eye. That there was gonna be twists and turns and they had some big amazing reveal to throw at us to make us go "Oooh NOW I see!"

If it weren't for Blizzard's constant, relentless implying that the most obvious thing wouldn't happen, everyone would've expected it. Because it's the most obvious thing. Sylvanas invaded, tried to kill Malfurion, failed, had a little temper tantrum and razed an entire island to the ground to prove that she's the biggest kid in the playground.

You wanna know the first thing that I thought when I finished the War of Thorns stuff? Literally the very first thing. "Wait so the big dramatic twist they've been building up is that there ISN'T A TWIST AT ALL? What?!"

And it wasn't just me. Literally every single person in my guild had the exact same initial reaction. We were all lead to believe there'd be some big shocking surprise. That it looked like Sylvanas did the thing, but there was really more to it. But that was just dishonest misdirection. Blizz deliberately mislead everyone into having bigger expectations just so that they could wiggle their fingers and go "WOOOO YOU DIDN'T SEE THAT COMING DID YOU?!"

It's not bad writing, but it's not good writing, either. If you're writing a story and your big shocking twist relies on something outside of the story to make it into a twist... it's not a goddamn twist.

Blizzard basically went M. Night Shama-lama-ding-dong in the happening with the twist being there being no twist. Which is lazy. And pointless.

Now, admittedly, they didn't say Sylvanas or even Teldrassil were morally grey per se, just that Azeroth in general is. However, they made those remarks somewhat recently. And they made similar statements even after Blizzcon. As someone already quoted in this thread, they said they regret spoiling Teldrassil and Undercity so early, then added that Anduin wouldn't attack Undercity only for the right reasons, while making an opposite remark about Horde and Teldrassil.

But OK, that was then, so let's put it aside and focus back on more recent moral greyness. Sure, they didn't clarify things. But given how they repeatedly said such stuff in context of complaints about Teldrassil, them not clarifying things is still a mistake on their part. A mistake they went through time and time again in the past, by the way.

And what's with muddying the waters by keeping the person who burned the tree a secret for no reason when the most obvious contender turned out to be right? Why muddy the waters even more by deliberately releasing things that indicated it may not be Sylvanas instead?

Blizzard handled this in a very weird way. But hey, they doubled down on "wait and see", which at this point makes it clear it's a later patch development (and only due to circumstances, not because Blizzard made the *gasp* effort to specify that on their own), so perhaps there's something to be seen there after all. Or maybe they were caught with their pants down and simply repeat their past claims at random, while they scurry to somehow manage this.

Don't worry, i'm sure her fanbase will spin some epic tale of headcanon in an effort to convince you she is still grey-white.

Either way, that is true saturday morning cartoon villainy right there folks.

Of course they will, it's what they're good at.

I wonder when will you get that the only people that talk about Sylvanas being good are the likes of you, to straw-man people the moment your fanfiction is called out. Correcting false information does not constitute claiming Sylvanas is good, imagine that.

You know how much I enjoy this whole thing. I already predicted this would really be a Garrosh 2.0 but these ridiculous fanboys of Sylvannas could never accept the truth even if it hit them in the face.

I hope now that you can finally stop the excuses and face reality. It seems that I was right again. This is the Horde that their playerbase deserves when they sent Thrall away with their mindless crying and bitching. Yet another Azeroth Villain that we have to snuff out. I am gonna enjoy making the Lich Warchief my loot piniata and dismantling the Horde.

And yet Blizzard instantly doubled down on their "there's more than meets the eye" mantra.

Yup. Varian is probably rolling in his grave right now.

Eh, I'd imagine it's pretty hard to roll in a grave after you died via disenchanting.

Last time I checked Sylvanas has a significantly larger body count than Jaina, and Jaina didn't burn down Dalaran because a Sunreaver taunted her. Sylvanas is truly a saturday morning cartoon villain.

Yeah, instead she committed an ethno-political cleansing in it because a Sunreaver refused her request for Sunreavers to leave the city, even though she had no authority to make that request in the first place.

My theory of the Alliance dismantling the Horde and then getting dismantled because the Horde doesnt exist anymore and the unification of both factions into an Army of Light lead by Anduin while Sylvannas ushers in the coming of Old Gods in her third and final Loot Piniata death seems to be coming to life piece by piece.

I can't say I didn't warn you people a long time now about the new Warchief but some fanboys lived in delusions of a misunderstood person.

Considering how she died the third time around 8 years ago, your theory is coming to fruition aaaaaany day now.

Except she only killed those who attacked her. The Silver Covenant was the one that chimped out and had their antifa moment. Jaina didn't tell them to do that, Vereesa did.

Actually, Vereesa said she doesn't fully agree with Jaina's methods during the Purge.

I hope this will finally, finally quell the fanboys who kept defending Sylvanas every time I called her out on her crap.

Given how you "calling her out on her crap" is as per usual a bunch of falsehoods, good luck with quelling anything by repeating it. Also, do try to spot the difference between defending and correcting a bunch of falsehoods.

Let's list her crimes, shall we? And I'm not talking about "oh, this is war, we do what we have to do". Cut it out. She's gone far, far out of her way to do this.

• Raises people and offers them a so-called "choice": join her and kill in her name, or die. Choosing to live your new, undead life outside of the Dark Lady is not an option. All the while, she is touting how she has given her Forsaken "free will". Egotistical maniac.

Proven wrong by the very first quest of Forsaken post-Cata. Spreading fake nonsense that is disproven by the first quest should be an infractable offense to be honest. Even more so in light of you spreading this falsehood numerous times, having been corrected about it numerous times and still deciding to spread it.

• Invades a non-hostile, neutral territory and begins slaughtering its inhabitants left and right en route to her "objective"

Garrosh invaded Gilneas. Sylvanas wasn't even in the region when the war started. Also, the Worgen were hostile to the Forsaken since Vanilla and the Horde had no way of knowing there was some split among the Worgen.

• Begins gassing the land so as to make uninhabitable should the citizens of that land attempt to return to their homes

You pulled that motive out of a dark crevice of fanfiction.

• Also begins raising the people she just killed, forcing them to join her or die.

Still false, as per the first quest of Forsaken starting experience.

• Invades another non-hostile, neutral territory and begins slaughtering its inhabitants left and right en route to her "objective"

The Forsaken didn't invade Stormheim any more than the Worgen did. They sailed there for Aegis.

• Brought toxic waste to said territory because screw their land, she's bringing the most nasty weapons she wants for the pain

Because when waging a war against the Legion not bringing your best weapon makes all the sense.

• Enslaved the deity of said territory to forcibly raise more people

She tried to enslave Eyir to make the Forsaken immortal. Which would remove the need for creating more Forsaken.

• Shoots her people like a North Korean/USSR border guard because they want to go home. So much for free will, amiright?

First of all, they wanted to go with their relatives. You have nothing to base the claim that they weren't originally citizens of Lordaeron that simply had relatives in Stormwind (particularly Lordaeronians themselves that simply escaped there). Secondly, the Gathering ended up in open defection, seemingly in support of a pretender. Killing defectors isn't unique to Sylvanas or even the Horde.

• Invades yet another non-hostile territory and begins slaughtering its inhabitants left and right en route to her "objective"

Yeah, no. Alliance is hostile to the Horde. Anduin acknowledged as much in the letter proposing the Gathering. You're arguing against the High King of Alliance on this one. Also, the Horde side only shows the Horde killing combatants and either personally directing the civilians to safety or, in case of Auberdine, with the NPC outright informing the player the orders are to kill military personnel alone.

• Destroys the home of yet another country just to spite a single dying woman.

She did that to break their spirit, because Saurfang failed to kill Malfurion.

Sylvanas fanboys: "but you see, she's in pain because she's cursed and it's totally okay because leaders have to do what must be done for their people and the Alliance are the baddies so it's totally justified, it's morally greeey"

Arguing against your magnificent preemptive straw-man doesn't magically make your list something else than a bunch of falsehoods. Sorry. So, kindly, listen to your own request below:

Stop.[/QUOTE]

I'd change the name to Sylvanas Internet Defense Agency, short for SIDA. Because it's spreads like a STD.

SIDA Director Mehrunes will soon address the grieving nation. He is consulting the chief for public affairs Friendlyimmolation on how to handle the PR.

Infracted.

Why on earth would I grieve? It'd be nice if you stopped living in the land of Universal Values all the time and could operate with actual arguments of your opponents. Because I haven't insisted on Alliance character doing it at all. I merely pointed out that it may not be Sylvanas' doing. Because 1. it conflicted with the goals of the Horde and 2. Blizzard deliberately made the issue muddy with their comments and hiding the perpetrator of the burning until the end. That is just reality of things. Which is why I pointed it out.

Because I don't give a flying fuck that Sylvanas burned the tree. I maintained a consistent argumentation for months that 1. Alliance must be crushed for the sake of Horde's prosperity, because long term peace is impossible and 2. that the Teldrassil is utterly worthless. Sylvanas burning the tree doesn't stand in opposition of either of them, in fact it plays into the first point.

So sorry, but as always your attempt at a gotcha against me was a failed one.

Might be waiting a while, pretty sure this one triggered an aneurysm in the pair.

I'd also suggest Sylvanas Tactical Defense, just go all the way and call them an STD.

Same reply as to Magnagarde above.

I'm not sure what you are feeling vindicated for. Not wanting Sylvanas to be evil wasn't necessarily fanboying, it was just hoping for a good, nuanced story. Now that's pretty much out the window, because the options are:

1. She is Garrosh 2.0, a rehash of memetic proportions that will break any investment Horde players might have in their faction as they do pro-Sylvanas quests for 3/4 of the expansion while they fully expect to condemn all that stuff later and farm her in a raid.
2. She will get a ridiculous redemption in the end, which is also a rehash of Kerrigan's plot in Starcraft II, asking Alliance players to "forgive and forget", or worse, choke on the idea that "Sylvanas was right/the chosen one all along".

Face it, the moment they decided to kill Vol'jin and make her Warchief, the only way to have a good story would have been to ditch her Cata-era cartoon villain insanity and turn her into a compelling, truly morally grey character. The worst part is that there are some echoes of that in Legion, the BFA cinematic and the way her voice actress plays her, but unfortunately Blizzard (or should I say Christie Golden) dropped the ball hard.

Why would Alliance players need to forgive and forget Sylvanas? She only needs to be justified in the eyes of the Horde, once the eternal faction stalemate is brought back into the forefront of the faction relations. Pleasing Alliance players about Sylvanas is pointless anyway, they'd find another Horde character to bitch about and turn into the poster character of the MUH HORDE BIAS conspiracy theory.

Quality was never Blizzard's strong suit, hell I'd be surprised if their writers even talk to eachother.

The discrepancies between short stories, the book, the game and the cinematics give a rather clear answer here. They couldn't even get the Horde siege weapons shooting at Teldrassil straight between various mediums.

That's not the nature of the act, though. We may argue whether the initial assault fit that, but this burning clearly wasn't done to gain any "strategical advantage" for Sylvanas and her people. It wasn't done to deliver a blow against the Alliance's morale. It was done upon a decision on the spot because Sylvanas was enraged due to a dying Elf's bitter final words. She pretty much went against her original plan, threw a tantrum, pulled both the Horde and the Alliance into a massive war, and killed innocent NE civilians because of her own outrage. I'm pretty sure there isn't anything morally grey about that.

Except it was done precisely to deliver a blow against their morale. And while A Good War that made it clear she burned the tree because Saurfang failed to kill Malfurion was leaked only after the cinematic, that was already clear from the cinematic and the quests. First of all, Saurfang didn't return with Malfurion's head as ordered. Secondly, if you think this was enraged Sylvanas, you haven't paid any attention to either the cinematic or Sylvanas' lore. Sylvanas was first lost in thought, then gave the Night Elf a smug smile once she came to her conclusion. Meanwhile the last time we saw Sylvanas actually enraged, she was ripping animals to shreds with her bare hands. A teeny tiny difference between the reactions here.

don't they have meetings and stuff ?

A better question is if they stay awake at those meetings.

What do we call it when you burn a lot of innocents alive - on purpose - in an effort to strike terror into your enemies? TERRORism. Terrorism. Ain't nothing morally grey about terrorism.

All commonly accepted definitions of terrorism specify the act must be committed by a non-state actor.

Like someone else said earlier, I'll give FI that he can give and take jokes. Meanwhile, last I saw, Mehrunes is currently banned and therefore can't participate in all the fun. I can only imagine the screams.

Yes, you can only imagine the screams. Just like you imagined me having a reason to scream about anything here in the first place. Meanwhile in the real world, no such reason exists.

Except the Alliance and Horde weren't at war. They were at their most peaceful since Wrath of the Lich King (probably even more peaceful than that).
She started a war by comitting genocide upon innocents simply because a footsoldier upset her.

They were so peaceful the factions needed a ceasefire to even meet. Top notch peace.

With "since" I ment after (right after the Lich King died until the Forsaken moved into Gilneas). Now that I think about it, the Forsaken are always the ones to fuck over peace.

Did they mind-control Varian to declare war? Or to attack their fleet at Vengeance Landing even before Wrathgate happened?

Baine has never had balls. He did nothing about Garrosh either. I don't know why Alliance posters expect anything from him.

Because they want an Alliance sycophant as Warchief.

She had loaded catapults with fire in the background before that, she came there to burn the tree from the start.

Except she didn't. Just because we didn't see the catapults being loaded doesn't mean they were loaded before. Nathanos was surprised by the order in the cinematic. So was Saurfang after it. The cinematic started with Sylvanas ordering the tree to be invaded, as was the goal. People really paid zero attention to what happened in the cinematic.

Ok. So... Garrosh bombs the shit out of Theramore, a city that had stood for a good long while without issues towards the Horde, despite being a part of the Alliance. A city that housed numerous "innocents" that you so fondly speak of. She had an opportunity to literally drown Orgrimmar. And she didn't. She let reason and control in again. And she preached tolerance. And peace. And once again was fucked over. Doesn't matter by who and how. It was the Horde. Period.

So, you can sit there and clang your drum about how she killed innocents in her city, but she game them chances. And the difference between Garrosh's act destroying Theramore was that it came without warning in a cowardly manner and with ZERO provocation. Spin it all your like, her actions in a time of war between the Alliance and the Horde were somewhat justified.

I don't know what story you've been following, but it wasn't Warcraft. Theramore stood with without issues towards the Horde and gave no provocation to attack them? You mean Jaina didn't let Alliance reinforcements from EK use her city as a staging ground for the invasion into Horde territory into central Kalimdor? An invasion made all the easier with the new fancy highway from Theramore straight into the Barrens? Spearheaded by Northwatch Expeditionary Force? With Northwatch being under Theramore's control? And said force attacking the Horde in the Horde territory of: Southern Barrens, Northern Barrens, Durotar and Mulgore, as well as engaging in fights in Stonetalon and Azshara? Fascinating.

Also, if Thrall wasn't there to stop her, she'd have drowned Orgrimmar without any issue. And she preached tolerance and peace so much in Dalaran that she broke Dalaran's neutrality and aided Darnassus against the Horde the first time an opportunity arose. A Sunreaver helped to steal the Bell only after that. Finally, Dalaran wasn't exactly "her" city. It's ruled by the Council of Six. The leader of the Council doesn't even have a tie-breaker vote. They have been shown to be nothing more than a representative to other nations.

SHE is worse then garrosh! He liked all the "cool tough races" such as orcs, tauren and trolls. Sylvanas End goal is described as all life slayed ressurcted to be ruled by her. That is. 1 race. Forsaken, and we dont really know how much of a dictaor garrosh where.

It's a shame it's only ever described as such by posters like you on the forums and not by Sylvanas herself in the lore.

Fuck your stupid tree.

That's more of Archimonde's thing.

They are putting in for faction changes.

Not unless I get a BBQ Night Elf sub-race option.

Not canon mate not canon.

The Alliance storyline is the canon one and there nothing of that happend.

Feels shit to be called out again and again but living so far in denial that it takes this video to finally see the truth.

And as always you won't provide a source to these claims.

This whole expansion is built on smoke and mirrors. From the beginning we were yelling "OLD GODS" and didn't really buy into the faction war thing, but they keep pushing it so strongly that I feel like it really is hiding their ultimate intent. I also don't believe Blizzard is dumb enough to not realize the fan outcry from making Sylvanas a villain. So, I think they still do have an ultimate goal in mind.

Maybe it will be good, maybe it will be shit, but either way they really messed up the execution. Like holy shit this reaction has been negative. Even if they have some amazing twist I don't know if the fans will forgive them.

I have my own theory, but for now I'll just revel in the shitshow until it calms down a bit.

What if their ultimate goal is not having a goal and making it up as they go, because making plans in advance takes too much effort?

I will exist as long as you believe in me.

Reminds me of a movie about Merlin.

I doubt either care, Thalyssra is getting a massage in Silvermoon , and Mayla is helping Baine look for his balls.

So you're saying Mayla won't do anything productive in this expansion (or throughout the rest of her life)?

In all honesty, the people who have been justifying and whitewashing Sylvanas in the past few weeks have always been irrationally involved in doing so. The only thing that could make them stop - and now turn on the writers and blame them for "bad writing"(read consistency with Sylvanas' character) - is Blizzard literally making her order the burning of the capital in the most psychopatic way possible.

Blizzard never needed to say anything for a bandwagon of her supports to flood each and every WoW-related board with justifications of the unjustifiable. There was, honestly, only so much time that charade could keep up.

I really wonder what's so hard at spotting the difference with correcting fanfiction (like your latest idea of how there were non-Desolate Council members at the Gathering on Forsaken side, which you continued peddling even after Dickmann proved you wrong with a quote from the book) and claiming Sylvanas is good. Personally, I'm not seeing the difficulty.

At least now, with all the cards on the table, we can perhaps enter genuine discussions. The dust in regards to their "Bad writing cuz it isn't going my way!" tantrum first needs to settle.

So you're going to finally stop complaining about how Forsaken and Blood Elves joined the Horde? I must admit, that's some progress.

Look, we've already been through this same story with Garrosh. We don't need another story about a zealous warchief driving a wedge between the members of the Horde. It's been done.

Well, Blizz does like their repetition.

Oh, please. This wasn't a practiced move. This isn't something she planned ahead for. She didn't think it through, provide contingencies for results or failures.

She literally had a temper tantrum because a random dying sentinel pissed her off.

When Sylvanas throws a tantrum she rips living things apart with her hands. This was Sylvanas being smug and taunting. And it's not because a random Sentinel pissed her off, but because Saurfang returned without Malfurion's head, which ruined the second goal of the campaign (breaking Night Elven spirit). Without which conquering the tree would not work out that great. Unbroken Elves would run rampant.

So instead of having a tree full of human (or, in this case, mostly Night Elf) shields to prevent the Alliance from retaliating, we just set them all on fire, because that's totally the way to keep the Alliance from striking back twice as hard.

What kind of savvy leader provokes a sleeping lion into full focus and rage before they have troops and equipment in place to counter any possible retaliation????

Judging by Alliance's performance in every past Alliance-Horde conflict, the Alliance is maybe a sleeping ferret.

That Nathanos of all people reacted in that fashion shows just how far gone Sylvanas really is. During the short story pre-Legion where Nathanos is given his "new" body, it explains that being infused with that life force brought back various things such as his sense of smell, and most interestingly, pangs of guilt over the family (his own cousin I believe) who was slain in order to create that body for him. It humanized him, if only a little, and now he gets a taste of Sylvanas at her worst.

You're reading too much into it. Just moments earlier he was ordered to prepare for invading the tree, which is what he knew to be the goal (the new short story even shows Nathanos was not informed about everything Sylvanas and Saurfang knew, because of all the Alliance spies roaming about, plus Sylvanas decided to burn it only due to the latest circumstances of Saurfang not killing Malfurion). Burning the tree stood in contradiction to what he was ordered just moments earlier. He was took by surprise because of that. That's about it.

And it is genocide, it all is.

"the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular nation or ethnic group."

Educate yourself.

Good job leaving out the most crucial part of genocide's definition to make this point.

The straws. Pretty hard to grasp them, isn't it?

And it was just one guy and his regiment, he wasn't sanctioned by the Alliance nor would the Alliance ever have condoned it.

The leader of the Alliance wasn't sanctioned by the Alliance?

The actions she participated in cannot be justified(other than just killing civillians and wanting to start a full war).

How on earth is it the actions other than killing civilians and wanting to start a full war (i.e. the burning of the tree) that are the ones that cannon be justified?

Sigh, once again into the breach. Our alliance will be saving the world from Horde crazies for which time now? 3rd or is it 4th? Kinda lost count.

Putress, Garry and now Sylvanas... not to mention 50 shades of Horde we had in past.

Arthas, Fandral and Benedictus say hi. Great moral high-ground here.

2 Yes, its neutral territory, Horde does not have right to it, its cenarion land not theirs, so for the Alliance to go and take some is no where near a war crime. also you seem to forget they tried to talk to the horde about it but the horde refused to respond AND EVEN KILLED SPIES Also its not trespassing, if you and me are out in the town and enter a store, you cannot then shoot me for "trespassing" it is public property THAT YOU DONT OWN. Also resisting arrest? how the fuck did they "resist arrest"

Except Tanaris isn't neutral territory. The land that belonged to Cenarius Circle was neutral, because they were a neutral faction. There's nothing supporting the notion that Tanaris as a whole is neutral territory. And even then, Cenarius Circle lost their hold on the land they had thanks to Sargeras resetting the zone. Horde and Alliance hand camps in Silithus since Vanilla. Their camps were their territory, as is the case with their camps in any other zone.

So yes, Alliance spies walking into Horde territory were trespassing, as well as infringing on the Horde's sovereignty. They had no right whatsoever to go there. Because a Horde camp belongs to *gasp* the Horde. And that'd be the case even if Tanaris as a whole was neutral.

3. no i think you forget the horde is sent to silithus to mine azerite and kill any alliance they see, as they DO NOT WANT THE ALLIANCE TO FIND OUT, they then refuse communication, and kill alliance on sight, even attacking the alliance camp as it is being built. The horde then kills spies and the alliance is forced to start sending in troops to retaliate.

First of all, you don't attack the Alliance camp in Horde questline. Secondly, you have nothing to support the notion that this event that didn't even take place happens before the Horde kills Alliance spies (that were trespassing). For obvious reasons.

4. again "civilian goblins" is not really a thing, again they tried to negotiate but the horde was killing alliance ON SIGHT and refusing to talk to them, these goblins are hired mercs by gallywix with bodyguards and shredders with massive BLADES (not something you use for mining is it)

The Horde is under no obligation to talk with the Alliance. Alliance isn't the Horde's sovereign or even an ally. That doesn't give them the right to walk into Horde camps.

5. lol i love how you skip 5 cause you know you are speaking out of nothing.

*says FelPlague after ignoring half of @misstres' reply about point #2 in order to glue together a reply*

[steelballfc]

Pretty decent cinematic. The shift to Sylvanas' smile was a bit jarring, but then again perhaps it was deliberate to make it look creepy.

There are some weird things about it though. First of all, the technicalities of burning the tree. Blizzard couldn't even get their siege weapons straight. In game we see demolishers, in cinematic we see catapults. According to what some people have said in this thread, Blizzard apparently wrote the story for Warbringers months in advance, even before Golden was signed up as an actual Blizzard employee.

the horde can have both catapults and demolishers tho.

[ausoin]

Good job leaving out the most crucial part of genocide's definition to make this point

the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group

noun
noun: genocide; plural noun: genocides
the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular nation or ethnic group.
"a campaign of genocide"
synonyms: racial killing, massacre, wholesale slaughter, mass slaughter, wholesale killing, indiscriminate killing; More

You were sying?

And seriously how much time did you spend making this post to all those comments? Good god.

[Skildar]

You pulled that motive out of a dark crevice of fanfiction.

haha you take so much time and effort to answer only to show everyone that you have never done the worgen starting zone and silverpine forest questing experience. Have fun doing those and you'll realize Sylvanas has been a major horrifying leader for quite some time!

[DisposableHero]

the horde can have both catapults and demolishers tho.

I don't see why you'd ever need demolishers if your catapults have the range to hit Darnassus from Darkshore.

[Nelle]

Mugabe, Kim Jong-Il, Adi Amin, Lenin, Ho Chi Minh, Saddam Hussein, Ismail Enver Pasha, Omar al-Bashir, Pol Pot, Josef Stalin, Adolf Hitler and Mao Zadong were all just Morally Grey by Blizzard standards.

[Daevied]

I bet that it have something to do with the fanboys and girls that are in charge of the lore since Pandaria. Its obvious they have a hard on for Anduin, cliche writing and the alliance

[steelballfc]

I don't see why you'd ever need demolishers if your catapults have the range to hit Darnassus from Darkshore.

i know
but it's not like they actually can't have both in the field.

[Mehrunes]

the horde can have both catapults and demolishers tho.

They can. Buy they don't.

You were sying?

I was indeed saying. And the point, that flew over your head apparently, is that that her actions don't fit the full definition.

haha you take so much time and effort to answer only to show everyone that you have never done the worgen starting zone and silverpine forest questing experience. Have fun doing those and you'll realize Sylvanas has been a major horrifying leader for quite some time!

I've done it just fine. Nothing in what Sylvanas says about the use of Blight supports the claim I replied to.

[Val the Moofia Boss]

Proven wrong by the very first quest of Forsaken post-Cata. Spreading fake nonsense that is disproven by the first quest should be an infractable offense to be honest. Even more so in light of you spreading this falsehood numerous times, having been corrected about it numerous times and still deciding to spread it.

Proven correct in the Silverpine Forest questline, where Sylvanas repeatedly says that those she raises will either serve her forever, or return to the grave. In one of the first quests, Garrosh is so horrified

Garrosh invaded Gilneas. Sylvanas wasn't even in the region when the war started. Also, the Worgen were hostile to the Forsaken since Vanilla and the Horde had no way of knowing there was some split among the Worgen.

I'm assuming that at this point, you simply haven't played through the Silverpine Forest questline. It is indeed Forsaken forces which first make landfall in Gilneas and Forsaken catapults which lob the plague towards the city. If Sylvanas can't have what she wants, no one can.

You pulled that motive out of a dark crevice of fanfiction.

*laughs*

Still false, as per the first quest of Forsaken starting experience.

*still laughing*

The Forsaken didn't invade Stormheim any more than the Worgen did. They sailed there for Aegis.

Sylvanas never attempts to go after the Aegis in the Stormheim questline; the player did. She sails by the coast, is intercepted by Genn, and then starts fighting through Vyrkul on her way to Eir, without even as much as trying to explain "hey, we're looking for an artifact that could save the world, including you guys" or "hey, would you be able to introduce me to your deity so that I can ask her to please resurrect more Forsaken?"

Because when waging a war against the Legion not bringing your best weapon makes all the sense.

Given Sylvanas' track record of using biological weapons so far, I'd say the plague isn't so much her best weapon as it his her way of expressing a temper tantrum over losing.

She tried to enslave Eyir to make the Forsaken immortal. Which would remove the need for creating more Forsaken.

This does not in any way excuse her actions. Yes, she's undead. Yes, we know it sucks. No, she doesn't need to be a jerkass and drag other people in to her misery by enslaving other people to raise people in to this curse. At the very least, she could have at least asked. Politely.

First of all, they wanted to go with their relatives. You have nothing to base the claim that they weren't originally citizens of Lordaeron that simply had relatives in Stormwind (particularly Lordaeronians themselves that simply escaped there). Secondly, the Gathering ended up in open defection, seemingly in support of a pretender. Killing defectors isn't unique to Sylvanas or even the Horde.

Sylvanas' so called "free-willed Forsaken" doesn't exist when they cannot exercise it. Furthermore, "defection" implies that they are running away to join the enemy. At that point in time, the Alliance and the Horde were in the middle of a peace with which other. Sylvanas knows very well that Anduin would never make the first strike against her, and would seek to build a lasting peace. There is also no indication that the Forsaken would join the Alliance's ranks against her, even if they decided to live within the Alliance.

Yeah, no. Alliance is hostile to the Horde. Anduin acknowledged as much in the letter proposing the Gathering. You're arguing against the High King of Alliance on this one.

Anduin acknowledged that there were "lingering hostilities", not that the Alliance was hostile to the Horde.

We are not currently at war. But I am not so naive as to believe that means hostilities do not still linger. We have experienced recent tumultuous change to our very world in the form of Azerite = a manifestation of the pain Azeroth herself is feeling. With unity, we could direct our exploration of this substance in ways that can save her. Let us therefore focus on a smaller but no less important gesture of unity as a first step toward a potential future that benefits bot h the Horde and the Alliance.

Once again, the Alliance isn't going to make the first move against the Horde if their long term goal is the build a peace. That means they won't attack unless attacked or an attack is imminent. That means they are non-hostile.

Also, the Horde side only shows the Horde killing combatants and either personally directing the civilians to safety or, in case of Auberdine, with the NPC outright informing the player the orders are to kill military personnel alone.

The evacuation of the civilians were under Saurfang's express orders to minimize casualties, while Sylvanas was gleefully encouraging the player to slaughter Furbolg villages and chuck torches at Ancients.

She did that to break their spirit, because Saurfang failed to kill Malfurion.

This does not excuse the genocide of thousands of elves.

Arguing against your magnificent preemptive straw-man doesn't magically make your list something else than a bunch of falsehoods. Sorry. So, kindly, listen to your own request below:

Stop.

*still laughing*

[Oakshana]

And seriously how much time did you spend making this post to all those comments? Good god.

Nobody takes Warcraft more seriously than Mehrunes.

...nobody.

[Val the Moofia Boss]

You were sying?

And seriously how much time did you spend making this post to all those comments? Good god.

The lengths people will go to to defend their favorite character from criticism is - and always have been - truly astounding.

[Hctaz]

I didn’t think Garrosh was horribly writing, doing it again and so soon, is horrible writing!

That's what I meant, sorry. Worded in in the wrong order. Garrosh wasn't bad writing. Repeating the exact same storyline in the same game franchise is bad writing, and we already did this exact thing with Garrosh.

[ausoin]

I was indeed saying. And the point, that flew over your head apparently, is that that her actions don't fit the full definition.

Please explain.

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.

http://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.html

[exochaft]

Well after reading through the Horde novella, really wish Blizz would've added a little more context in-game, as there are things explained in the novella that are left as subjective gaps in-game. Big takeaway is that the invasion is almost exclusively Saurfang's plan as Sylvannas has him flesh out the victory conditions and the planning. However, Saurfang messed up his own plan in a big way by not killing Malfurion, as it was a victory condition he agreed upon. The consequence thereof is that allowing Malfurion to live ruined their chances of avoiding an all-out war instead of their desired wedging issues between the various races. Saurfang and Sylvannas both realize this around the in-game cinematic (according to the novella), and they're all thinking and debating what should be done to salvage Saurfang's mistake of letting Malfurion live. Obviously, we know what happens, as the Sentinel that Sylvannas converses with in the cinematic gives her the solution she's currently looking for at that moment to resolve Saurfang's screw-up: burn the tree. While Saurfang doesn't necessarily like how things were done, even he thought her rational for burning the tree was correct and the result of his failure.

So I guess the 'morally gray' comes in as to how one feels about the solution used. Technically, it was the best option in the eyes of Sylvannas and Saurfang to fix the situation. Saurfang feels regret for these actions despite agreeing with the rationale, Sylvannas does not feel regret as she figures this is the only way to legitimately avoid the annihilation of the Horde, however most importantly neither of them really wanted this outcome.

[Huntag]

Honestly even after reading the short story they put out earlier, her motivations are still hot garbage. Going to war in the first place was beyond a stretch, and even if you put aside that disbelief the rest of her character is amazingly cunning and deceptive towards saurfang throughout the whole thing. But then you get to where she burns the tree and it's just bad writing. It goes against her whole character, and plan to even do something that stupid. All she accomplished was making the alliance a lot stronger by having them all rallied against her now, as well as most of the people among her own faction likely to hate her for it as well. Not to mention you can't claim to be morally grey just because you have some form of reasoning for something, it doesn't change that the action itself is just completely black.

[exochaft]

Honestly even after reading the short story they put out earlier, her motivations are still hot garbage. Going to war in the first place was beyond a stretch, and even if you put aside that disbelief the rest of her character is amazingly cunning and deceptive towards saurfang throughout the whole thing. But then you get to where she burns the tree and it's just bad writing. It goes against her whole character, and plan to even do something that stupid. All she accomplished was making the alliance a lot stronger by having them all rallied against her now, as well as most of the people among her own faction likely to hate her for it as well. Not to mention you can't claim to be morally grey just because you have some form of reasoning for something, it doesn't change that the action itself is just completely black.

The point was because of Saurfang's screw-up, an all-out war as inevitable regardless of their initial plans. Her rationale is to come from a position of power, not weakness (that was the point of the entire plan to begin with). While the Alliance will come for vengeance, even Saurfang realizes that Horde has better odds fighting an Alliance fueled by vengeance than fighting a cool-headed Alliance. While an emotionally charged warrior focused on vengeance can likely hit harder and more viciously, they're also more susceptible to making mistakes which can be exploited (applies even in real life).

[blehmeh]

So I guess the 'morally gray' comes in as to how one feels about the solution used. Technically, it was the best option in the eyes of Sylvannas and Saurfang to fix the situation. Saurfang feels regret for these actions despite agreeing with the rationale, Sylvannas does not feel regret as she figures this is the only way to legitimately avoid the annihilation of the Horde, however most importantly neither of them really wanted this outcome.

Don't want to have the annihilation of the Horde?

Then maybe don't piss off the "super power" faction that can easily annihilate the Horde by burning down Teldrassil, or even starting this war to begin with. Especially when it's obvious that Anduin originally seeks peace between the Horde and Alliance.

"Muh Azurite" isn't really enough of an excuse to justify genocide. Sylvannas just wants power, and moreso power over the Alliance, and doesn't see anything wrong with killing people to obtain it. Even in the cinematic she clearly implies to the dying Night Elf that death is somehow a good thing, because she's undead herself and just wants to push her suffering to others.

There's almost nothing here "morally grey". It's just shock-value writing to start a war and sell an expansion.

[shrek09]

Honestly even after reading the short story they put out earlier, her motivations are still hot garbage. Going to war in the first place was beyond a stretch, and even if you put aside that disbelief the rest of her character is amazingly cunning and deceptive towards saurfang throughout the whole thing. But then you get to where she burns the tree and it's just bad writing. It goes against her whole character, and plan to even do something that stupid. All she accomplished was making the alliance a lot stronger by having them all rallied against her now, as well as most of the people among her own faction likely to hate her for it as well. Not to mention you can't claim to be morally grey just because you have some form of reasoning for something, it doesn't change that the action itself is just completely black.

Garbage motivations? I think it's pretty clear in the novellas that her motivation is conquest. It's simple...She thinks the Horde should rule over Azeroth and will wage war as necessary to accomplish that. The Mongols, Roman Empire, Spanish, English, etc all waged war in the simple name of conquest throughout history and slaughtered millions of innocent civilians in the process; many of their leaders are historically well-regarded and their deeds are not generally discussed as morally black.

All she accomplished was complete dominance of Kalimdor and most of the Azerite supply on Azeroth as well as the destruction of an enemy fleet while gaining more ships for her fleet and some momentum to push the war to the EK's...how is that not a major victory?

[Mehrunes]

Proven correct in the Silverpine Forest questline, where Sylvanas repeatedly says that those she raises will either serve her forever, or return to the grave. In one of the first quests, Garrosh is so horrified

I'm sorry, I'm confused. Your tone indicates you think you're making a counterargument, yet the actual content of what you wrote is an exhibit B in why your litany here is a bunch of falsehoods. There appears to be some kind of dissonance between what you wanted say and what you actually said.

Why, you may ask?

The first quest you linked doesn't say anything about the choice the newly risen are given. It merely says what Sylvanas intends to use Lorna for (and even then, it was blackmail).
The second quest you linked also doesn't say anything about the choice the newly risen are given. It merely says that Sylvanas wants to create more Forsaken.
The third quest, you guessed it, doesn't say anything about the choice the newly risen are given either. I'm noticing a pattern here. It also states Sylvanas wants more Forsaken, without a single mention of the choice they are given. Not the quest text, not Agatha's dialogue during the quest, not what the risen say.

And in case you need your memory jogged about your own posts, the point of yours that I replied to was how Sylvanas gives only the choice to serve or to die to those she raises.

Sylvanas' desire to create more Forsaken is not the same as the choice the risen are given. Because words have meanings. None of the quests you linked talk about the choice, i.e. your point that I contested.

You know which quest talks about it? The one I referred you to. I handed it out to you in a silver platter and it was still to much to manage, apparently. So here, I'll link it instead:

<name>!

Rise, <name>!

Welcome back to the realm of the living. With the blessing and power from the Dark Lady, I have freed you from death's grip.

You are no slave, <name>. You are free to follow whatever path you choose from here. If you choose to serve the Dark Lady Sylvanas, I recommend you speak with Undertaker Mordo. You will find him behind me, in the graveyard.

Would you look at that, they are free to follow whatever path they choose. And joining the Forsaken is also presented as a choice. Which makes your claim that they are given a choice between serving her and returning to the grave wrong. Hell, you outright said that "Choosing to live your new, undead life outside of the Dark Lady is not an option." Which is outright wrong as well.

Which is further corroborated by the second and fifth Forsaken quests after Cata. I know, I know, if you couldn't be bothered to inform yourself even about the first one, requiring you to know the second or fifth is a bit unfair. But hey, when you repeatedly spread your litany of falsehoods and the moment you finally graced a post that points that out with your reply you decided to spread even more falsehoods, you basically insisted on being schooled. So here we are.

Out of the four dead the player interacts with in those quests, only two join the Forsaken. Darnell and Valdred Moray. Redpath and Lilian Voss go their way. None return to the grave.

I'm assuming that at this point, you simply haven't played through the Silverpine Forest questline. It is indeed Forsaken forces which first make landfall in Gilneas and Forsaken catapults which lob the plague towards the city. If Sylvanas can't have what she wants, no one can.

Landfall? Really now, Landfall? You talk about landfall yet have the gall to throw some brilliance about how I "haven't played through the Silverpine Forest questline" in my direction? Let me school you some more then. First of all, Silverpine Forest? You do realize Silverpine Forest takes place after Gilneas, yes? Which in turn takes place after Edge of Night?

Secondly, try to spot the difference between "Forsaken forces" and "Sylvanas". While the initial army assaulting Gilneas was mostly Forsaken (but not entirely), it was led by Garrosh. Sylvanas was still on her way from Icecrown. It's made clear in Edge of Night.

And, looping back to your brilliant mention of landfalls, so is the fact that the naval invasion that was led by Sylvanas was an alternate take on how to tackle Sylvanas once she returned and took over from Garrosh who was deliberately wasting her people. Because the invasion of Gilneas started by Garrosh was a land one, with Garrosh trying to force his way through the Greymane Wall.

Finally, Chronicle v3 confirms it was Garrosh who invaded it.

*laughs*

How about you try to support your claims instead? Oh, right, you can't: https://wow.gamepedia.com/Quest:The_Hunt_For_Sylvanas Sylvanas decided to use the Blight after Worgen retook the city. To kill them. Not to "make the land uninhabitable should the citizens of that land attempt to return to their homes" like you claimed. Because, let me to connect the dots here for you, if Worgen retook the city from Sylvanas and drove her out, they *gasp* already returned to their homes there. So there was no "preventing" them from doing so anymore at that point.

*still laughing*

You *still laughing* won't magically fix your claims from the first paragraph. Nothing will, for that matter.

Sylvanas never attempts to go after the Aegis in the Stormheim questline; the player did. She sails by the coast, is intercepted by Genn, and then starts fighting through Vyrkul on her way to Eir, without even as much as trying to explain "hey, we're looking for an artifact that could save the world, including you guys" or "hey, would you be able to introduce me to your deity so that I can ask her to please resurrect more Forsaken?"

Sylvanas dedicates almost the entire fleet to aid the player in their quest for Aegis. She only took one ship with her on her hunt for Eyir. Furthermore, Sylvanas was aware the Aegis can be obtained only through some trials even before the fleet sailed from Orgrimmar, so "trying to explain" anything to whoever you want her to have explained things to would have been pointless. Finally, what happened to your claims of her having invaded Stormheim? /s

Given Sylvanas' track record of using biological weapons so far, I'd say the plague isn't so much her best weapon as it his her way of expressing a temper tantrum over losing.

First of all, this is abject falsehood. The mere idea of Blight caused the Worgen to abandon the entirety of Gilneas. Southshore was obliterated by the Blight. Shadowfang Keep's forces were kept contained with Blight when it was assaulted. It obliterates a huge part of Alliance forces at Undercity.

This does not in any way excuse her actions. Yes, she's undead. Yes, we know it sucks. No, she doesn't need to be a jerkass and drag other people in to her misery by enslaving other people to raise people in to this curse. At the very least, she could have at least asked. Politely.

I'm not sure which part of me stating at the start of my reply to you that indicated the existence of a difference between correcting your false statements and excusing her actions flew over your head, exactly.

Sylvanas' so called "free-willed Forsaken" doesn't exist when they cannot exercise it. Furthermore, "defection" implies that they are running away to join the enemy. At that point in time, the Alliance and the Horde were in the middle of a peace with which other. Sylvanas knows very well that Anduin would never make the first strike against her, and would seek to build a lasting peace. There is also no indication that the Forsaken would join the Alliance's ranks against her, even if they decided to live within the Alliance.

It exists as per Word of God. Secondly, if Forsaken lacked free will they wouldn't have the capacity of making a choice that Sylvanas would see fit to punish. Thirdly, free will does not mean freedom from the consequences of their choices. Fourthly, defection implies no such thing. It merely requires:

: conscious abandonment of allegiance or duty (as to a person, cause, or doctrine) :

Fifthly, the Alliance and the Horde were so super peaceful they needed a ceasefire to even meet. A ceasefire requires conflict. Sixthly, all Forsaken present at the Gathering were Desolate Council members. Leaders of Undercity in Sylvanas' absence. They were a source of intel for the Alliance. Also, due to their position they could inspire other Forsaken to follow suit. Seventhly, you ignored the part where Calia, a pretender to Sylvanas' throne, was mixed into the situation and eventually outright proclaimed who she is to the Forsaken and urged them to follow her to Stromgarde. So I rank your counterarguments here 5/7, but only if 5 equaled 0.

Anduin acknowledged that there were "lingering hostilities", not that the Alliance was hostile to the Horde.

Lingering hostilities between who? Alliance and the Legion? Or Alliance and the Horde, as per the context of the letter? Gee, I wonder what relations can be described with "lingering hostilities". Or what relations would require a ceasefire for non-combatants to meet.

Once again, the Alliance isn't going to make the first move against the Horde if their long term goal is the build a peace. That means they won't attack unless attacked or an attack is imminent. That means they are non-hostile.

*Meanwhile in Stormheim* *Meanwhile in the last faction war started by the Alliance because Varian failed to beat the Horde to the punch in taking Undercity from the rebels*

The evacuation of the civilians were under Saurfang's express orders to minimize casualties, while Sylvanas was gleefully encouraging the player to slaughter Furbolg villages and chuck torches at Ancients.

Neither the ancients nor the Furbolgs were civilians. Neither are relevant to the point.

This does not excuse the genocide of thousands of elves.

I'm just going to requote myself: I'm not sure which part of me stating at the start of my reply to you that indicated the existence of a difference between correcting your false statements and excusing her actions flew over your head exactly? Also, there was no genocide because burning of Teldrassil doesn't meet the definition. And because you grace me with your wisdom further, no, that still doesn't mean I'm claiming Sylvanas wasn't evil there.

*still laughing*

Let's tally up. Paragraph 1 was you spreading alternative truth in order to claim how your previous post wasn't full of alternative truth. Paragraph 2 is more alternative truth. Paragraph 3 is a non-argument. Paragraph 4 is a non-argument (while also being a spiritual repeat of paragraph 1, i.e. alternative truth). Paragraph 5 was more alternative truth and you moving the goalposts. Paragraph 6 was alternative truth again. Paragraph 7 was a non-sequitur that also ignored what I said at the start of my previous reply to you. Paragraph 8 was more alternative truth mixed with your lack of understanding what either defection or free will actually entail. Paragraph 9 and 10 (part of the same point) were more or less a repeat of your alternative truth from paragraph 8. Paragraph 11 was another non-sequitur. Paragraph 12 was the repeat of the first non-sequitur, mixed with your very honest conflation of correcting alternative truth with excusing what Sylvanas did.

So at this point I'm forced to assume you're resorting to brilliant stuff like *still laughing* because you realized you don't have actual arguments.

The lengths people will go to to defend their favorite character from criticism is - and always have been - truly astounding.

I'm just going to requote myself: I'm not sure which part of me stating at the start of my reply to you that indicated the existence of a difference between correcting your false statements and excusing her actions flew over your head exactly? Also, there was no genocide because burning of Teldrassil doesn't meet the definition. And because you grace me with your wisdom further, no, that still doesn't mean I'm claiming Sylvanas wasn't evil there.

Also, using language correctly and actually comprehending the legal concept I'm talking about isn't exactly some great length. Though I assume it's a YMMV type of thing.

Please explain.

http://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.html

This is sad. Your own link explains it aplenty. "The intent is the most difficult element to determine. To constitute genocide, there must be a proven intent on the part of perpetrators to physically destroy a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. Cultural destruction does not suffice, nor does an intention to simply disperse a group". That intent was lacking here. Sylvanas burned the tree to break Alliance's spirit (a goal she thought could be achieved by killing just Malfurion).

Now, that doesn't mean Sylvanas gave a damn about the Night Elves still on the tree. But that'd made them accidental casualties of her decision, i.e. recklessness form of intent. Genocide requires direct intent. So intent to destroy already flies out of the window. But let's delve further.

"A national, ethnical, racial or religious group.". Alliance was the target of this war, not Night Elves as a whole. The Alliance is a political entity. It's not a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. The definition not including political groups is a criticism of the definition of genocide, as noted by your link, but it is what it is.

Finally, "in whole or in part". Obviously, it's not in whole, because there are Night Elves that survived. So, in part. Except the part has to be a specific part. If any part would be enough, any murder based on national, ethnical, racial or religious grounds would constitute genocide. And that'd be rather stupid and go against the purpose of making genocide a separate crime.

Now, what part is required, you may ask? Well, you really shouldn't, because your article answers that too, you just haven't read it. The part must be "identifiable" and “substantial.” Now, admittedly it doesn't say what substantial is in the context of genocide. So let's visit Wikipedia. "The part targeted must be significant enough to have an impact on the group as a whole." as well as that "If a specific part of the group is emblematic of the overall group, or is essential to its survival, that may support a finding that the part qualifies as substantial within the meaning of Article 4 [of the Tribunal's Statute]."

Now, is the attack on Teldrassil significant enough to have an impact on the group as a whole? Particularly in that it is essential to Night Elven survival? Let me present you with thread by ausoin, which argues against that notion: https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...ngered-species

Oh, wait, my bad. You are ausoin. That is your thread. Making the argument for how the attack on Teldrassil does not meet the third criterion of genocide for me (and, to clarify, it'd need to meet all three anyway). So thanks for that.