Saurfang vs Sylvanas, after the cinematic!

[KrakHed]

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

I'm pointing out that the context of "sparing Anduin's life" is unclear, since we've only seen the opposite. But it makes sense that Saurfang barely processes Anduin as an enemy. He sees him as a leader who is soft. His weak leadership was, in fact, what drove him to accept the war because he was convinced that Anduin might be undermined.

Anduin has thoroughly demonstrated himself to be the least effective High King the Alliance could possibly have. Saurfang started the war seeing others like Genn as the threat, not Anduin. That's just basic sanity. Anduin is no tyrant nor warmonger. He's simply someone unwilling to truly make hard choices himself. He's someone too scared to be seen as a tyrant to keep control of things in the long term. Too scared of wrongdoing to do drastic harm to the Horde outside of naivety.

Saurfang is unlikely to process Anduin as a relevant enemy. He isn't scared of people following Anduin's orders, he's scared of people not following Anduin's orders and Anduin letting them get away with it. Anduin is so willing to throw away advantages that killing him would probably hurt the Horde's chances of winning, especially since Anduin chose Genn as his current successor in BFA and Anduin would no longer be holding Genn's leash if that were the case.

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?

I think Saurfang will be readjusting his sense of Honor. That's pretty fucking clear. But serving merely as balance to Sylvanas would feel hollow. Also, I don't think Saurfang would need to splinter the faction so drastically as you think. With the right moves, he could probably yank large chunks right out from under Sylvanas with minimal damage. Orgrimmar is an Orc city. There is no Siege of Orgrimmar 2.0 needed. Sylvanas knows her popularity is tanking, and she used Saurfang's popularity with the Orcs to drive the war.

Calling Saurfang out as a traitor would demoralize her armies, the ones she used Saurfang to motivate. There might be no civil war at all.

Let's say Saurfang talks to Thrall and gets him onboard, while Zekhan acts as a rabble-rouser in Orgrimmar. Saurfang would now has tremendous political power, using both their reputations together. The current highest ranking Orc is Eitrigg, who would both be a fellow ranking Blackrock to Saurfang and a close friend of Thrall's. Do you really think Eitrigg would choose Sylvanas after hearing such concerns?

Fuck no. Eitrigg ditched the Horde for honor reasons before. He's been close friends with humans too, who were willing to turn against their superiors to save them for the sake of honor, so accusations of treason won't phase him much at all. Some of his best friends have been traitors, and he considered them all the more honorable for it. Eitrigg could then talk to his Mag'har buddies and likely get them on his side.

In such a short and simple move, through the mere power of speech, Sylvanas would find herself without a reliable power base in Orgrimmar.

As for Tauren? Saurfang would literally just need to walk up and say "Hi". If he already started building up political momentum, Baine would leap at the chance to join him and bring the Highmountain along too. As well as literally everyone else Baine himself may have gathered in his own private political talks. Continue with the momentum from there, a simple social revolution instead of a violent one, and there will be no need for a Siege.

The only challenge will be moving the Blood Elf and Forsaken stories to the right point.

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.

Three lies will he offer you. I believe Anduin will face consequences, but not out of his malice. "Nothing, not even the King is more important than the Alliance" is lie #1. Anduin will prioritize his own morals over the safety of the Alliance. "I can't beat her" is lie #2. He can beat her, but he's unwilling to do what's necessary. He could beat her in weeks, but he doesn't want to. He let an enemy commander escape again, one who is likely to become his enemy in the future, because he was scared of dirtying his hands.

And yes. Saurfang is likely going to continue the war. Is likely going to have to fight Malfurion and Tyrande again. Tyrande hasn't forgiven him, and Anduin seems to have kept Saurfang's release a secret. This moment is likely to be Anduin's eventual downfall, especially if he ends up wasting a perfectly good opportunity for victory because he's waiting on Saurfang.

[Deleted]

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?

Hmm OK, let's reel them off:

1 - He spared Malfurion, the key component of the mission, because of his guilty conscience and selfish sense of honour. This in result directly lead to the Burning, something he fully admits to. Furthermore, he willingly does this knowing full well how many Horde lives this will cost, thus betraying them in turn.

2 - He spares the enemy again, this time at Lordaeron and letting Anduin live in the hopes he would stop Sylvanas instead and help to undermine his own faction.

3 - He deserts the Horde in a time of war when his leadership is very much needed, instead putting his own conscience before everyone the faction he supposedly loves, and furthermore purposely declines Horde help when he has the opportunity to return to them

4 - He collaborates with the same enemy leader he spared earlier by accepting Anduin's offer to let him escape in direct reference to taking down Sylvanas.

So as you can see, quite an extensive list for somebody who is not a traitor. At every given opportunity he has helped the Alliance at every turn, and as we are now hearing in 8.2. we are seeing the direct consequences of that betrayal with Malfurion's slaughter of Horde soldiers in Darkshore.

So now onto the definition of "Treason", as you so demanded:

"The crime of helping your country’s enemies or attempting to illegally remove its government"
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dic...nglish/treason

So as you can see, Saurfang a perfect fit no matter how much you deny it or try to twist it out of some desperate sense of denial - he is a textbook traitor.

Deal. With. It.

[Hubbl3]

snip

snip

Thank you both for your replies. I basically agree with both of you except that I think that the faction war should stay as a concept. Right now I'm most annoyed with the constant flip flop of faction identity. I mean if Blizz wants to get rid of Sylvanas and they've decided that the moment she was made Warchief and not just after Legion, there are way better ways to make her an raidboss without resorting to yet another civil war.

Personally I would love a Doomhammer-type Warchief.

[KrakHed]

Thank you both for your replies. I basically agree with both of you except that I think that the faction war should stay as a concept. Right now I'm most annoyed with the constant flip flop of faction identity. I mean if Blizz wants to get rid of Sylvanas and they've decided that the moment she was made Warchief and not just after Legion, there are way better ways to make her an raidboss without resorting to yet another civil war.

Personally I would love a Doomhammer-type Warchief.

I don't think there's going to be a civil war at all. Saurfang isn't going to wind up needing to force the Horde to play nice.

The good people in the Horde are already there, even if Saurfang can't see them right now. Even if they're still buying into the war, for now. Talanji may be upset about her dad, but she's not going to forsaken her morals for it.

Not all revolutions are bloody.

[Magnagarde]

When we help Saurfang escape, he tells the player to pray to never have to pick between loyalty and honor and to learn the difference between the two. He's clearly conflicted about everything he has to do, but that is not his fault. The fault is on Sylvanas who has brought this Scourge mentality into the Horde, the Horde Saurfang helped build and fought for; the Horde that is his home, that gave him hope for a better future for his people.

Saurfang's story is actually the most compelling one out of all the ones we see in BfA, alongside Jaina's, though her story is has had 15+ years of screentime through various games and it isn't a fair comparison to make. He's an orc that's conflicted between reason, emotion, loyalty, honor and crime. Players want characters that are decisive and know what they want at every step, though that is not proper storytelling as character come with their weaknesses, flaws and dilemmas that are not easy to solve internally.

[Aucald]

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 can accept that, except the issue that disapproval isn't (in my view) tantamount to being a traitor - any leader that would brand their subordinates as traitors because they don't see eye-to-eye while still following their orders isn't a leader worthy of following (or deserving of any measure of loyalty). I agree that Vol'jin had a history of outright threatening Garrosh earlier on, but Garrosh opted not to pursue that or bring Vol'jin up on charges for it, and he retained all his authority as a leader within the Horde. Garrosh's order of "if he at any point voices disapproval, then kill him" is that of a tyrant - which is exactly what Garrosh was and precisely why he was overthrown and ended up in exile in a different dimension.

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.

Not really - real-world history is littered with examples of technical traitors and those who committed high treason against their former regime that are now lauded as heroes. As the old axiom goes: "one man's traitor is another man's revolutionary."

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.

No, then he would be a traitor in the personal sense - in X person's opinion he's a traitor. If he's never called on it, and the authority that charged him is overthrown (by him), and no one else with suitable authority can charge him, then he won't be a traitor. You or I might think he's a traitor, but that's really the extent of it. From a purely external standpoint (e.g. people debating about a story) all we can really have are our opinions. Treason is a charge, an accusation that is (hopefully) buttressed by facts and figures - just like justice it is not an immutable or tangible object in objective reality.

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.

Sylvanas has already declared Saurfang a traitor - to her, her regime, and her supporters he definitively is a traitor. That, at least, is not open to debate. But that has a very defined context, and a *lot* of semantic drift. This is a very different concept than calling Saurfang an out-and-out traitor, with all the stigmas and connotations that term carries. To go back to Vol'jin - he's remembered and celebrated as a hero, the individual who took down a tyrant and a monster in the form of Garrosh and returned the Horde to its essential roots. He *was* a traitor - but what he betrayed was a kingdom of violent and corrupt monsterdom that would've gone on to destroy the world had it been left to fester and grow. What he betrayed was a good thing to betray - he opposed tyranny, corruption, darkness, and evil; things that the Horde under Garrosh was beginning to exemplify. Saurfang, too, may be in the process of doing the same thing. He is technically a traitor now, but he may be remembered in the annals of history as a hero for ending the reign of Sylvanas. The fact that he was at one time a traitor will mean almost less than nothing, if that is the case.

[Broken Fox]

I don't think there's going to be a civil war at all. Saurfang isn't going to wind up needing to force the Horde to play nice.

The good people in the Horde are already there, even if Saurfang can't see them right now. Even if they're still buying into the war, for now. Talanji may be upset about her dad, but she's not going to forsaken her morals for it.

Not all revolutions are bloody.

If the story has an ounce of integrity left there will absolutely be some kind of civil war. The majority still back Sylvanas’ war. The only way it could end without blood is if she voluntarily gtfo.

[HCLM]

If he had killed Anduin the Alliance would have lost the one person willing to hold back, tell me again who would give a dam about just having the gnomes drop an irradiation bomb on org?

What bomb? Gnome didn't do anything in last few xpacs. It is goblings who made the bomb used to destroy Theramore. There is nothing that would hold Alliance together if Cryduin dies. Malfurion and Tyrande would close themselves in the forests, the dog race will try to take Gilneas back, gnomes and dwarfes will be the same as they are now - invisible. Maybe Void Elves would create a new EMO song band

[Evilfish]

What bomb? Gnome didn't do anything in last few xpacs. It is goblings who made the bomb used to destroy Theramore. There is nothing that would hold Alliance together if Cryduin dies. Malfurion and Tyrande would close themselves in the forests, the dog race will try to take Gilneas back, gnomes and dwarfes will be the same as they are now - invisible. Maybe Void Elves would create a new EMO song band

Still a better story than what the Alliance has now.

[KrakHed]

If the story has an ounce of integrity left there will absolutely be some kind of civil war. The majority still back Sylvanas’ war. The only way it could end without blood is if she voluntarily gtfo.

The majority still seem to back it, sure, but how many back Sylvanas? Of the people who witness her latest scheme, absolutely zero seem to support it.

I think Saurfang would have the edge here, it's just not immediately apparent given that the story is about hesitance and doublethink, where people are trusting orders against their better judgement.

If someone with enough clout openly called Sylvanas out, it could easily gain momentum by forcing people to think and reconsider their attitude.

[Deleted]

The majority still seem to back it, sure, but how many back Sylvanas? Of the people who witness her latest scheme, absolutely zero seem to support it.

Voicing discomfort or concern at one tactic =/= outright rejecting her as Warcheif and her justification for war as a whole - that is hyperbole and a false equivalence

[Broken Fox]

inb4 Sylvanas executes Zappy Boy for treason and that’s enough to turn the entire Horde against her

[Evilfish]

inb4 Sylvanas executes Zappy Boy for treason and that’s enough to turn the entire Horde against her

Dibs on the killing blow.

I hate memes.

[ello]

If the story has an ounce of integrity left there will absolutely be some kind of civil war. The majority still back Sylvanas’ war. The only way it could end without blood is if she voluntarily gtfo.

Hell, there is a civil war right now. In 8.1 Horde players literally side against each other. Blizzard are putting more effort in this Horde vs Horde shit than Horde vs Alliance. It's asinine but here we are.

I don't know how Blizzard is gonna reconcile this so both sides can "win". It's not a good time to be Horde.

- - - Updated - - -

inb4 Sylvanas executes Zappy Boy for treason and that’s enough to turn the entire Horde against her

Fucking good. I hate it when meme characters become elevated like this.

[Wildberry]

I can accept that, except the issue that disapproval isn't (in my view) tantamount to being a traitor - any leader that would brand their subordinates as traitors because they don't see eye-to-eye while still following their orders isn't a leader worthy of following (or deserving of any measure of loyalty). I agree that Vol'jin had a history of outright threatening Garrosh earlier on, but Garrosh opted not to pursue that or bring Vol'jin up on charges for it, and he retained all his authority as a leader within the Horde. Garrosh's order of "if he at any point voices disapproval, then kill him" is that of a tyrant - which is exactly what Garrosh was and precisely why he was overthrown and ended up in exile in a different dimension.

I really don't think you can feasibly decouple Garrosh's orders here, with Vol'jin's past statements.

Not really - real-world history is littered with examples of technical traitors and those who committed high treason against their former regime that are now lauded as heroes. As the old axiom goes: "one man's traitor is another man's revolutionary."

This is literally my point here. Regardless of whether or not people find it justified, or Sylvanas gets overthrown, Saurfang is still technically a traitor.

From a purely external standpoint (e.g. people debating about a story) all we can really have are our opinions.

Okay, let's compare this to another example: Baine Bloodhoof and Theramore. Baine's treason there isn't really a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact. We can reference the Blood Oath, or just use the most lenient definitions of treason we can find. No matter which metric we choose (Of course, the canon source holds more weight than others), Baine is a traitor.

Does it matter that Garrosh was unaware of that, and thus couldn't charge him to apply the label? No. Does it matter that the betrayed party got usurped by rabble-rousers with authority issues? Nope. Baine is a traitor. We don't need to establish it in court because we've experienced it firsthand. Some people might think it was justified, or permissible, but "morally righteous" treason is still treason.

[Odintdk]

This is actually hilarious, the amount of Alliance players coming into these threads then voting and defending Saurfang, is actually pretty satisfying to me. If Sylvanas is triggering so many of you to the point where you sit on the forums and bitch about her all day, then she is absolutely doing her job as a Warchief CORRECTLY.

[Aucald]

I really don't think you can feasibly decouple Garrosh's orders here, with Vol'jin's past statements.

I don't, but even Vol'jin's past statements aren't necessarily alone and in a vacuum. Garrosh pretty much immediately started talking down to and belittling his advisers, this despite his previous Warchief's (and father-figure at the time) request that he at least heed their counsel if not accede to it. Both Cairne and Vol'jin were shocked by Garrosh's immediate belligerence, with Vol'jin being the less tempered of the two, but even Cairne finally snapping and challenging the upstart Warchief to Mak'gora. Much is made of Vol'jin's threats to Garrosh when it people come to Garrosh's defense, but very few point out that Garrosh himself started out his regime by trying to marginalize his keys to power, a bad move on any leader's part (and one that eventually led directly to his ouster).

This is literally my point here. Regardless of whether or not people find it justified, or Sylvanas gets overthrown, Saurfang is still technically a traitor.

Technically, yes; and then only in that specific and now irrelevant context. A leader is pardoned or held to task by the people that they lead - and if the people don't treat him as a traitor, then he has effectively been pardoned by them.

Okay, let's compare this to another example: Baine Bloodhoof and Theramore. Baine's treason there isn't really a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact. We can reference the Blood Oath, or just use the most lenient definitions of treason we can find. No matter which metric we choose (Of course, the canon source holds more weight than others), Baine is a traitor.

I didn't disagree - Baine betrayed, and was a traitor to, Garrosh's regime of the Horde. He was, however, pardoned by Vol'jin either implicitly or explicitly - so as Garrosh's reign ended, and Vol'jin's reign began, Baine ceased to be a traitor because Vol'jin (as well as the majority of the Horde) continued to view him as a leader. Baine never stepped down, nor was he formally charged under Vol'jin's regime. Baine is in a similar situation now in Sylvanas' regime, although Sylvanas has yet to formally charge him either - and likely can't, as Sylvanas is in the unfortunate predicament of needing all her keys to power loyal or at least beholden to her (whereas Garrosh didn't give a fig if he kept the loyalty of his keys to power).

Does it matter that Garrosh was unaware of that, and thus couldn't charge him to apply the label? No. Does it matter that the betrayed party got usurped by rabble-rousers with authority issues? Nope. Baine is a traitor. We don't need to establish it in court because we've experienced it firsthand. Some people might think it was justified, or permissible, but "morally righteous" treason is still treason.

There you've entered a gray area, which is adjacent to the very concepts we're discussing. Objective reality has a limited scope, and when it comes to matters of intangibles (abstract concepts with no observable facets like love, honor, mercy, or loyalty) there is ample room for difference of opinion or perspective. You are quick to declare something *is* without also accepting the implication that it only is for you and for the people who agree with you. Since we're all not in lock-step with that assessment, and the objective facts are open to debate (as I've done here), then it stands to reason that the objective reality is not quite like you say it is. There is, to put it succinctly, room for more than one person's viewpoint or assessment. Context is important.

- - - Updated - - -

This is actually hilarious, the amount of Alliance players coming into these threads then voting and defending Saurfang, is actually pretty satisfying to me. If Sylvanas is triggering so many of you to the point where you sit on the forums and bitch about her all day, then she is absolutely doing her job as a Warchief CORRECTLY.

I don't think "triggering people" is supposed to be the job of the Warchief of the Horde - at least not in the internal sense of the story. If you're referring to Sylvanas' job as the character of Warchief, well, I'd be forced to disagree with that as well. I think this is true of both Horde and Alliance players, as the case may be.

[Deleted]

Honestly I feel like a lot of people who are putting Saurfang down as a traitor for working with the Alliance are waaay overestimating Anduin's part in their "collaboration" here. I haven't played anything from the next patch so maybe I'm missing something but it doesn't seem to me like they're actively working together? All Anduin did was confirm Saurfang has no love for the current Warchief and then allowed him to leave. Leaving the door to the cell open as he left wasn't "okay come hang with me at the strategy table and we'll deal with this together", it was more like "okay the guards are on break just get out of here and do your thing". Whatever Saurfang does at this point is all him.

I agree Saurfang should have issued a Mak'gora like any good Horde mutineer but I imagine he was somewhat hesitant to do so with his whole blood oath "hand of the Warchief" dealie. Old Soldier made it clear that he went to Lordaeron with the intention to kill himself instead but Zekhan changed his mind. Perhaps for Varok throwing down a Mak'gora against the Warchief is a way bigger deal than it would be to anyone else to the point where he would literally rather die or at least stay his blade at a critical moment and allow Anduin a clear shot at Slyvanas. That (to me) makes him preferable to somebody like Nazgrim and the rest of his dumbass Kor'kron who stood with their idiot, monster Warchief despite everything until his dying breath because duty.

[Dravec]

Hmm OK, let's reel them off:

1 - He spared Malfurion, the key component of the mission, because of his guilty conscience and selfish sense of honour. This in result directly lead to the Burning, something he fully admits to. Furthermore, he willingly does this knowing full well how many Horde lives this will cost, thus betraying them in turn.

2 - He spares the enemy again, this time at Lordaeron and letting Anduin live in the hopes he would stop Sylvanas instead and help to undermine his own faction.

3 - He deserts the Horde in a time of war when his leadership is very much needed, instead putting his own conscience before everyone the faction he supposedly loves, and furthermore purposely declines Horde help when he has the opportunity to return to them

4 - He collaborates with the same enemy leader he spared earlier by accepting Anduin's offer to let him escape in direct reference to taking down Sylvanas.

So as you can see, quite an extensive list for somebody who is not a traitor. At every given opportunity he has helped the Alliance at every turn, and as we are now hearing in 8.2. we are seeing the direct consequences of that betrayal with Malfurion's slaughter of Horde soldiers in Darkshore.

So now onto the definition of "Treason", as you so demanded:

"The crime of helping your country’s enemies or attempting to illegally remove its government"
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dic...nglish/treason

So as you can see, Saurfang a perfect fit no matter how much you deny it or try to twist it out of some desperate sense of denial - he is a textbook traitor.

Deal. With. It.

1. Sylvanas could of killed Malfurion. Saurfang had no reason to kill someone that’s helped them save the world many times. He saved the Warchief, who wanted to kill Malfurion, not Saurfang. Not killing Malfurion lead to the tree burning? Lmao, are you real? How is Sylvanas throwing a bitch fit and suddenly deciding to burn the tree Saurfang’s fault?

2. When did Saurfang fight Anduin? In the cinematic? The one where Genn saved Anduin from Saurfang? And what the fuck would killing Anduin achieve? You think the Alliance would surrender because one of their leaders died? Really?

3. Getting captured is deserting now? His tactics are invaluable? If that was the case Sylvanas wouldn’t of burned the tree. Saurfang is so invaluable that Sylvanas sent assassins after him and the party that went to the stockades weren’t even there for him. You also leave out how this is the third time Saurfang has to witness the Horde going down a dark path. The tree burning no doubt triggered his PTSD of what he did with the demon blood, and Sylvanas willynilly raising dead Horde soldiers (but its ok if Sylvanas does something traitorous, amirite?) absolutely reminded him of what happened to his son. It’s probably safe to assume he was going through a mental crisis and gave up on the Horde for a while.

4. Collaborates? Wut? Letting him out of his cell is collaborating now too? There is literally nothing on the PTR suggesting Saurfang is in cahoots with the Alliance beyond the fact that they have the same goal of getting rid of Sylvanas. Sylvanas collaborated with the Alliance to defeat Garrosh, where was your high and mighty sense of faction pride then? Oh right, it’s ok when Sylvanas does it...

At every opportunity Sylvanas mocks what the Horde stands for, and even the likes of the Lich King and Bwonsamdi are saying she’s completely out of control. But yeah, waifu pride.

[Deleted]

1. Sylvanas could of killed Malfurion. Saurfang had no reason to kill someone that’s helped them save the world many times. He saved the Warchief, who wanted to kill Malfurion, not Saurfang. Not killing Malfurion lead to the tree burning? Lmao, are you real? How is Sylvanas throwing a bitch fit and suddenly deciding to burn the tree Saurfang’s fault?

Saurfang admits it straight out of "A Good War" that it was his fault - FACT

Her expression didn’t waver. “This was your battle. Your strategy. And your failure. Darnassus was never the prize. It was a wedge that would split the Alliance apart. It was the weapon that would destroy hope. And you, my master strategist, gave that up to spare an enemy you defeated. I have taken it back.

When they come for us, they will do so in pain, not in glory. That may be our only chance at victory now.”

He wanted to kill her. He wanted to declare mak’gora and spill her blood in front of Horde and Alliance alike.

But she was right.

A wound that can never heal. That had always been the plan. And Saurfang had failed to inflict it.

No amount of mental gymnastics and whitewashing will get you out of that.

2. When did Saurfang fight Anduin? In the cinematic? The one where Genn saved Anduin from Saurfang? And what the fuck would killing Anduin achieve? You think the Alliance would surrender because one of their leaders died? Really?

Try watching the actual cinematic the thread is about before making yourself look like such a fool. Anduin literally asks Saurfang "Why did you spare my life?" - FACT

3. Getting captured is deserting now? His tactics are invaluable? If that was the case Sylvanas wouldn’t of burned the tree. Saurfang is so invaluable that Sylvanas sent assassins after him and the party that went to the stockades weren’t even there for him. You also leave out how this is the third time Saurfang has to witness the Horde going down a dark path. The tree burning no doubt triggered his PTSD of what he did with the demon blood, and Sylvanas willynilly raising dead Horde soldiers (but its ok if Sylvanas does something traitorous, amirite?) absolutely reminded him of what happened to his son. It’s probably safe to assume he was going through a mental crisis and gave up on the Horde for a while.

Again you would really save yourself the embarassment if you actually paid attention to the established events in game - Saurfang gave himself up by throwing himself into a suicidal last stand to die "honourably" against the Alliance, a fight we now know he could have won but spared their leader. Then later, he outright refuses to return to the Horde despite it losing lives left, right, and centre in the middle of a war. That is textbook desertion - FACT.

4. Collaborates? Wut? Letting him out of his cell is collaborating now too? There is literally nothing on the PTR suggesting Saurfang is in cahoots with the Alliance beyond the fact that they have the same goal of getting rid of Sylvanas. Sylvanas collaborated with the Alliance to defeat Garrosh, where was your high and mighty sense of faction pride then? Oh right, it’s ok when Sylvanas does it...

And for a third time you embarass yourself by evidently not watching the source material - Anduin opens the cell door, tells Saurfang that he cannot stop Sylvanas alone, and Saurfang then leaves. So let's see, on the one hand he refuses help from his own faction when he had the chance, but as soon as the enemy presents with the opportunity he jumps at the chance and suddenly changes his mind. That is collaboration with the enemy - FACT.

At every opportunity Sylvanas mocks what the Horde stands for, and even the likes of the Lich King and Bwonsamdi are saying she’s completely out of control. But yeah, waifu pride.

When you gotta draw on the support of two of the most amoral and immoral entities in the known Warcraft universe as some kind credibility for your argument, you've already lost.