Saurfang vs Sylvanas, after the cinematic!

[yetgdhfgh]

Either die a Hero or live long enough to see yourself become a Quisling traitor or a nostalgia hound pining for a past that aint gonna come back no matter what Anduin says or promises

[bloodmoth13]

Horde is already confirmed evil, fuck it, im with sylvanas. we could cry 'just followin orders' under garrosh, happened once thats ok, but the second time around come on.

saurfang doesnt belong in the horde.

[Zulkhan]

Chances are, Saurfang actually saved the Horde by leaving. Where Anduin could have been mere weeks away from beating Sylvanas, he will wait for Saurfang instead. Trading away his own advantages for his ideals.

I'm not sure if that's trading advantages for ideals or mere dementia.

Of course in all that he's a traitor... but to the Horde, or just Sylvanas?

It depends from the actual justness of his cause. Will Saurfang ponder his actions and make them balanced enough compared to the situation he has to deal with? Will he accept the fact that his personal trauma is indeed an individual matter and not everyone would be of the mood to start a rebellion with the Alliance escalating the war effort? Will he try to serve as a just contrarian ideology balancing Sylvanas', or will he try to splinter the faction? Will he lead extreme actions out of genuine care for the Horde's best interests or for the sake of his idea of what the Horde should or should not be, two aspects that are not mutually exclusive but also not ever and always the same?

All the "traitor" spammers here - is Baine traitor to the Horde too for being unable to stand against Sylvanas while he absolutely disagrees with whatever she has become because if he does, he is gonna be the next "traitor" and taurens will be on a plate?

No, Baine has been a traitor to the Horde when he warned Jaina about the attack on Theramore. What you described here merely makes him an indecisive and whiny moron.

People really are just so terrified of Anduin, aren't they? Anduin is a mildly irritating character at worst. Just because he talked to Saurfang doesn't make him a mastermind guiding his every move. It's not like he gave Saurfang an Alliance army to assault Orgrimmar with.

This was a fucking talk, where Anduin presented himself as vulnerable and afraid for similar reasons to Saurfang. Developing a mutual understanding has been a thing that happened since Warcraft 3.

It's not terror, it's nausea. From the way Anduin is developed and everyone always praises, excuses him or hold unconditioned and barely motivated faith on this guy, you know that no matter how dumb or retarded Anduin may act and look, the plot will bend itself at His Brightness' service.

[Aucald]

Treason isn't relative. Revolutionaries, in this sense, are traitors now matter how positively their viewed.

Treason is a charge that one must be subjected to and tried for, ultimately found guilty or innocent of by some court of law (even if it's of the drumhead or kangaroo variety). If a revolutionary force succeeds then they will not be subject to this trial or even the charge as they delegitimatized or invalidated the body that would charge and try them for it. In the case of Saurfang (like Vol'jin before him) he is charged with treason in the eyes of Sylvanas and her supporters in the Horde, and he could be found guilty of treason if Sylvanas maintains the position of Warchief in the event of his capture. But if Saurfang's coup is successful, or Sylvanas for some reason abdicates, then both the charge and the trial are likely to vanish.

Same thing with Vol'jin - he and his insurrectionists were all traitors to the Horde under Garrosh, until Garrosh was defeated, cast down, and brought in chains to be tried for his many crimes. Once Vol'jin ascended to the seat of Warchief, the charge of treason was nullified (except perhaps in the hearts or minds of Garrosh's remaining supporters) because the government that made the charge was no more.

[Kwento]

One kills her own allies and doesn't give a fuck even it's her very own people and one doesn't, sorry will stick with the one who doesn't.

Another murdered innocents through his entire life, serving demons. They are both pieces of shit, even if Varok dried up a bit more and doesn’t stink so much these days.

[Super Dickmann]

Another murdered innocents through his entire life, serving demons. They are both pieces of shit, even if Varok dried up a bit more and doesn’t stink so much these days.

But don't you remember Saurfang's iconic line?

Sometimes I feel bad about cleaving children. #NotmyWarchief

With penance like that I can't understand why Horde players don't leap at the opportunity to help him bring us into the light of our glorious golden-haired leader.

[shadowmatrix]

Hilarious that Saurfang was beating Sylvanas handily last poll.

A single cinematic changed that. You know, those things that are supposed to build hype for the characters they feature.

It's beyond comical how incredibly intelligent, wonderfully creative and in-touch with the Community Warcraft's writers are.

When you write stories based on popularity of a character rather then an end goal you get the modern Batman comics and the DCEU.

[HavokHeart]

As far as I am concerned Saurfang is Alliance now.

[Wildberry]

Treason is a charge that one must be subjected to and tried for, ultimately found guilty or innocent of by some court of law (even if it's of the drumhead or kangaroo variety).

I don't think we need a court case to call a spade a spade. Rather than getting into tedious parallels where people are found innocent, despite actually committing the crime, what does Rak'gor Bloodrazor say when he deals out the Warchief's punishment for treason? "He knew you were a traitor!"

The problem with your reasoning here is that you're essentially reducing things to whether someone who committed the crime can establish a monopoly on violence or not. If they can, they skate. If they can't, they don't.

Not only does that line of thinking render pretty much every single law, oath and contract largely irrelevant. It also misses the point that we the reader/player/audience don't need a court case to establish guilt or innocence (Which is why a court case would actually be important) because we're largely omniscient. There's no question, on our end, as to whether or not Baine and Vol'jin are traitors, we know they are in every objective sense. Vol'jin winning the rebellion and then choosing not to throw Baine in front of a court immediately after doesn't change the fact that both committed treason.

When you write stories based on popularity of a character rather then an end goal you get the modern Batman comics and the DCEU.

After WoD and the latter end of Legion, we're already in comic book territory as far as writing quality goes. Removing Sylvanas from power was always going to be an extremely contentious issue, why go out of your way to pain a bigger target on her successors back by making him engage in unpopular and arguably character-ruining behaviors?

I think we can make a pretty clear distinction between "Writing fanservice" and "Not making extremely idiotic decisions that will inevitably piss off a pretty large portion of the playerbase who cares about story for a multitude of reasons."

[Friendlyimmolation]

The thought of Sylvanas wanting the Horde to spread and multiply to live an existence she can't partake in is almost as hilarious as being a character in The Walking Dead, and putting a smart zombie in charge of your quarantined base of operations.

And yet that's exactly what she's thinking about in the start of before the storm.

Anything is possible but not all things are probable. Not much to debate here other than "wait and see."

That's our argument, you believe what is most simple will happen, which is a fair guess, but you're also painting things with too broad of strokes and making assumptions that may not be true.

I Believe that Blizzard's writing team does not care about story build up, if they "redeem" Sylvanas, it will feel out of left field for alot of people, and would be hard to make look good, Blizzard could do it either way, pulling it off well is another.

I am reminded of a good theory about Helya and the Val'kyr and how they've been corrupting Sylvanas from that start, and how her redemption could be her killing her own val'kyr. Maybe I'll end up sharing it in a thread where it's appropriate.

[Aucald]

I don't think we need a court case to call a spade a spade. Rather than getting into tedious parallels where people are found innocent, despite actually committing the crime, what does Rak'gor Bloodrazor say when he deals out the Warchief's punishment for treason? "He knew you were a traitor!"

You can accuse - but objectively declaring runs the risk of setting your own opinion (uninformed or otherwise) as static fact. In the case of Rak'gor Bloodrazor it is telling that, at least during that mission, Vol'jin had done nothing that could really be considered traitorous. He had followed the mission parameters to the letter, and even used his Shadow Hunter skills to determine the nature of the Saurok den as ordered by Rak'gor. He spoke of his displeasure and questioned what was to be done with the knowledge uncovered, which is not itself a crime even in the Horde, and was then attacked by the assassin.

The problem with your reasoning here is that you're essentially reducing things to whether someone who committed the crime can establish a monopoly on violence or not. If they can, they skate. If they can't, they don't.

I'm not sure what you mean by a "monopoly on violence." I am saying that Saurfang for example can be accused of treason, but if the government or authority doing the accusation is rendered illegitimate (either by overthrow or popular dissent) then so too is the charge of treason. If Saurfang is never tried and never found guilty, he won't stand as a traitor in any meaningful sense, just as Vol'jin wasn't heralded as a traitor after he became Warchief of the Horde in Garrosh's stead.

Not only does that line of thinking render pretty much every single law, oath and contract largely irrelevant. It also misses the point that we the reader/player/audience don't need a court case to establish guilt or innocence (Which is why a court case would actually be important) because we're largely omniscient. There's no question, on our end, as to whether or not Baine and Vol'jin are traitors, we know they are in every objective sense. Vol'jin winning the rebellion and then choosing not to throw Baine in front of a court immediately after doesn't change the fact that both committed treason.

Committed treason against a regime that was no longer legitimate and was duly overthrown, yes. This is an important distinction - following Garrosh's downfall neither Baine nor Vol'jin stand as traitors, they are essentially declared innocent by right of conquest, if you prefer. Even as external observers to the world of the story we are still not fully omniscient, and Saurfang's status as to whether he is a traitor or not is pretty hotly debated. I would say he is technically a traitor, but what he's a traitor to is seen by many as a regime that has made itself illegitimate in a similar manner to Garrosh's before it. As for Baine, one could even make an argument that he isn't a traitor either - conferring with a foreign leader isn't itself a crime, after all, and since the Alliance and Horde at the time had not formally declared war at the time it may or may not constitute material support of an enemy. This differs from the case of Baine against Garrosh, as I think he did pretty solidly commit treason against the Horde under Garrosh - but then, Garrosh later had himself illegitimized as a leader, making Baine's treason essentially a non-issue for the new regime.

Being accused of a crime and being guilty of a crime are not the same thing. If that were true, the concepts of law and justice wouldn't actually exist.

[Daevied]

Right now, Blizzards is just messing up their history, this PC trend that leaked into lore will be the real downfall of the game. I wont be the only one that will lose their shit and quit the game for real when they make sylvannas a raid boss.

[Deleted]

Yes, Sylvanas is a traitor. No, that does not excuse Saurfang (Who also participated in the same treason Sylvanas did)

https://i.redd.it/x7525d5kmhw11.jpg

what about this? would you feel better if he said this was the reason he didn kill him

[Dravec]

ITT: A lot of hypocritical Sylvanas fanboys that don’t know what “traitor” and “treason” mean.

Saurfang all the way.

[Wildberry]

You can accuse - but objectively declaring runs the risk of setting your own opinion (uninformed or otherwise) as static fact. In the case of Rak'gor Bloodrazor it is telling that, at least during that mission, Vol'jin had done nothing that could really be considered traitorous. He had followed the mission parameters to the letter, and even used his Shadow Hunter skills to determine the nature of the Saurok den as ordered by Rak'gor. He spoke of his displeasure and questioned what was to be done with the knowledge uncovered, which is not itself a crime even in the Horde, and was then attacked by the assassin.

The issue here is that this goes beyond that mission. Given Garrosh's exchange with Rak'gor Bloodrazor, it comes across as a last chance of sorts. Vol'jin had veered into treason-territory far before that. Garrosh simply gave him one more opportunity to get on board with the new order. There isn't really a statute of limitations on treason. As far as legalism goes, Garrosh does end the conversation with:

If he approves, he may live. If he does not -- he is a traitor. Cut his throat.

--"War Crimes," p157

I'm not sure what you mean by a "monopoly on violence."

You get it later on:

they are essentially declared innocent by right of conquest, if you prefer.

I am saying that Saurfang for example can be accused of treason, but if the government or authority doing the accusation is rendered illegitimate (either by overthrow or popular dissent) then so too is the charge of treason. If Saurfang is never tried and never found guilty, he won't stand as a traitor in any meaningful sense, just as Vol'jin wasn't heralded as a traitor after he became Warchief of the Horde in Garrosh's stead.

This is a ridiculous defense, though. What's important is whether or not treason happened, whether or not those that were betrayed survive long enough to call it such and issue punishment is largely irrelevant.

Even as external observers to the world of the story we are still not fully omniscient, and Saurfang's status as to whether he is a traitor or not is pretty hotly debated. I would say he is technically a traitor,

The underlined bit is all we need to call him a traitor. Even if he ends up killing Sylvanas, he is still a traitor in the technical (meaningful) sense.

Being accused of a crime and being guilty of a crime are not the same thing. If that were true, the concepts of law and justice wouldn't actually exist

This seems to contradict what you're arguing above. Sure if Sylvanas were to simply declare Saurfang a traitor one day, that might be open to debate. But as I've said prior, to establish Saurfang as a traitor from an out-of-universe perspective doesn't require courts and convictions. It simply requires the audience seeing treason. Considering we get a front row seat to this, there's no need for a judge and jury to declare him guilty.

- - - Updated - - -

https://i.redd.it/x7525d5kmhw11.jpg

what about this? would you feel better if he said this was the reason he didn kill him

Nope. Because the Horde and Alliance are still at war. Changing Saurfang's intent when sparing Anduin doesn't change the fact that taking out Anduin would deal a heavy blow to Alliance leadership (Blame Blizzard, not me for that). He's oathbound to the Horde, and that takes precedent over returning a nice gesture.

- - - Updated - - -

ITT: A lot of hypocritical Sylvanas fanboys that don’t know what “traitor” and “treason” mean.
Saurfang all the way.

1.) Why are they hypocrites? Because Sylvanas participated in the same treason that Saurfang did at the end of MoP? Saurfang still is +1 on that front
2.) Please tell us how Saurfang's actions aren't treasonous. Enlighten me on what does and doesn't constitute treason. I'm just a Sylvanas fanboy, I need to be educated by a guy rooting for Anduin Saurfang.

[Deleted]

ITT: A lot of hypocritical Sylvanas fanboys that don’t know what “traitor” and “treason” mean.

Saurfang all the way.

Also ITT: a lot of blinkered Saurfang “fans” thinking that deflecting onto Sylvanas whitewashes him of all the things that makes him a textbook traitor. The truth hurts too much for a lot of people...

[Mr. Smith]

Can I stand with Thrall, or Lor'themar or something? Hell, I'd even be happy if we stuffed Ghost'jin into a corpse, but I'm thoroughly sick of both Sylvanas' and Saurfang's shit.

[Kythera]

1.) Why are they hypocrites? Because Sylvanas participated in the same treason that Saurfang did at the end of MoP? Saurfang still is +1 on that front
2.) Please tell us how Saurfang's actions aren't treasonous. Enlighten me on what does and doesn't constitute treason. I'm just a Sylvanas fanboy, I need to be educated by a guy rooting for Anduin Saurfang.

1. If Saurfang is correct and the moral/social compact of the Horde is such that Sylvanas's actions, i.e. genocide against unarmed civilians, is an outlawed/evil/morally repugnant action, then she is the traitor. Even leaders of societies can commit treason.

2. Under many moral philosophies, see e.g. utilitarian, one cannot commit a crime by refusing to do an act that is in itself morally repugnant. For example, under this canon of thought, refusing to obey an order to serve in an immoral war is not justly punishable. Or, if you take something in order to not starve, such an act is morally blameless. Sylvanas's actions were tantamount to genocide. Obeying such an order is objectively evil. Refusing to obey such an order cannot therefore be morally blameworthy, i.e. traitorous. You might label someone that and laws or a court may hold someone to be so, but that does not make it objectively right nor true.

I mean, it is great that you can RP to such an extent, but if you want to be evil, then just accept being evil. At the very least, don't try to hold yourself out as objectively right, because you can't know that.

[Dravec]

Also ITT: a lot of blinkered Saurfang “fans” thinking that deflecting onto Sylvanas whitewashes him of all the things that makes him a textbook traitor. The truth hurts too much for a lot of people...

Saurfang has done literally nothing to be called a traitor. Look up the word, because you don’t know what it means. Unless you consider getting captured as treason.

Sylvanas has betrayed the Horde more than once, and you dare claim Saurfang is a traitor because he doesn’t support that plot armor reinforced skank?

[Wildberry]

1. If Saurfang is correct and the moral/social compact of the Horde is such that Sylvanas's actions, i.e. genocide against unarmed civilians, is an outlawed/evil/morally repugnant action, then she is the traitor. Even leaders of societies can commit treason.

Making an immoral decision isn't "treason," and you're going to have to find one Hell of a citation to argue that it constitutes anything close.

2. Under many moral philosophies, see e.g. utilitarian, one cannot commit a crime by refusing to do an act that is in itself morally repugnant. For example, under this canon of thought, refusing to obey an order to serve in an immoral war is not justly punishable. Or, if you take something in order to not starve, such an act is morally blameless. Sylvanas's actions were tantamount to genocide. Obeying such an order is objectively evil. Refusing to obey such an order cannot therefore be morally blameworthy, i.e. traitorous. You might label someone that and laws or a court may hold someone to be so, but that does not make it objectively right nor true

"Canonical laws, from which we derive labels like 'traitor' and define actions like 'treason' don't actually matter because my PHI 101 Prof. made me read Bentham"

Nope. Sorry, that's not an argument. Saurfang is canonically a traitor at this point, and I don't really care what Bentham and J.S. Mill said. Canon holds far more weight than irl, enlightenment and post-enlightenment literature on morality.