View Poll Results: Where do you stand now ?

Voters
1029. This poll is closed
  • Saurfang

    525 51.02%
  • Sylvanas

    504 48.98%
Page 34 of 43 FirstFirst ...
24
32
33
34
35
36
... LastLast
  1. #661
    Titan Wildberry's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Multicultural Orgrimmar
    Posts
    11,585
    Quote Originally Posted by Mehrunes View Post
    Ask, and you shall receive. Skip to 4 minutes, 37 seconds.
    And it's still just as funny as it was the first time.

  2. #662
    Quote Originally Posted by Broken Fox View Post
    Terrified? Can you stop crowbarring your bullshit into everything? No, he’s just lame and robs screen time from more interesting characters.
    Spot on reply. Thank you.


    Quote Originally Posted by Aucald View Post
    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.
    And if a murderer kills all judges in his/her country so they can't be put on trial, they aren't a murderer, apparently. Except no. What you said is some weird law-hijacking "if a tree falls in a forest" type of deal. Legal reality and legal criteria of guilt is separate from objective facts. Revolutionaries break the law of their countries and act against their government in an unlawful manner.

    Your argument is even more blatantly wrong in regards to a story in which we as the viewers have access to omniscient narration.


    Quote Originally Posted by Aucald View Post
    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.
    They weren't just traitors under Garrosh. Baine himself argued that Vol'jin was a traitor and Garrosh had the right to kill him (even long before his rebellion) after Garrosh was already dethroned. And Baine is not exactly known for being a Garrosh supported. But who knows, perhaps you have access to information that I don't. Because threatening your sovereign with death is objectively treason even if they don't act on it.


    Quote Originally Posted by Aucald View Post
    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.
    Which is fine and dandy, except for the part where Vol'jin wasn't actually summoned to Pandaria as part of Garrosh's expedition or earlier expedition by Nazgrim. He went there on his own to act as a self-appointed supervisory board of the Horde. I.e. he went away from his actual post, during war, all on his own, because of his personal feelings about Garrosh. Vol'jin went AWOL. That is treason. So is threatening Garrosh with death.


    Quote Originally Posted by Aucald View Post
    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.
    Saurfang not being found guilty if Sylvanas falls does not change the fact that he: disobeyed the order of his sovereign to kill Malfurion, went AWOL at Undercity to kill himself, disobeyed the order of his sovereign to retreat at Undercity and then did not even try to kill Anduin because he hoped he'd stop Sylvanas (i.e. tried to have his sovereign killed through negligence and inaction). Players were right there next to him for both of the cases of him disobeying orders. We've seen a cinematic showing him abandoning his post to go beyond his wall to make his last stand. We've seen another cinematic when Saurfang himself confirms the last one. That is objective reality and that doesn't magically change if there is no one to put Saurfang on trial.


    Quote Originally Posted by Aucald View Post
    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.
    It isn't an important distinction whatsoever. The fact of them being traitors doesn't magically untraitorify itself because they put themselves into power. Them being immune from prosecution does not make them innocent. Even if they did actually pardon themselves (which wasn't shown), they would still have needed to commit treason in the first place. Because you can't pardon someone if they haven't committed a crime.


    Quote Originally Posted by Aucald View Post
    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.
    Except there is no way for the Horde to make itself illegitimate, especially through the actions of the Warchief, due to the idiotic power structure of it. People claiming Sylvanas' regime is illegitimate are talking out of their behinds (a common theme with people making anti-Sylvanas argument, so nothing new here). And as mentioned two paragraphs above, we may not be fully omniscient, but we've still seen four cases of Saurfang committing treason. One of those was confirmed by Saurfang himself. There is no way for people to mental gymnastic their way out of it.


    Quote Originally Posted by Aucald View Post
    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.
    Except he sent one last letter to Blanduin (with a part of his own body for his dom to remember him no less) even after Sylvanas told him to cease communication. And what of there not being a formal declaration of war? The Alliance was still already a hostile faction to the Horde at that point. Otherwise the factions wouldn't have needed a ceasefire for even civilians to meet.


    Quote Originally Posted by Aucald View Post
    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.
    Conflating being found guilty of a crime with being guilty isn't an argument.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kangodo View Post
    Does the CIA pay you for your bullshit or are you just bootlicking in your free time?
    Quote Originally Posted by Mirishka View Post
    I'm quite tired of people who dislike something/disagree with something while attacking/insulting anyone that disagrees. Its as if at some point, people forgot how opinions work.

  3. #663
    Moderator Aucald's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Epic Premium
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA-US
    Posts
    45,577
    Quote Originally Posted by Mehrunes View Post
    And if a murderer kills all judges in his/her country so they can't be put on trial, they aren't a murderer, apparently. Except no. What you said is some weird law-hijacking "if a tree falls in a forest" type of deal. Legal reality and legal criteria of guilt is separate from objective facts. Revolutionaries break the law of their countries and act against their government in an unlawful manner.

    Your argument is even more blatantly wrong in regards to a story in which we as the viewers have access to omniscient narration.
    But if said revolutionaries are successful in overthrowing the governments of their countries and replace them, will they be held in account for the laws broken? If the government in question (the one being overthrown) is corrupt and illegitimate, will anyone think of them as unlawful traitors after their successful revolution? If you believe someone murdered another person but they were accused, tried, and found innocent of the charge - are they still a murderer? Does an accusation make a charge an objective, empirical fact if it is never otherwise proven beyond reasonable doubt?

    I've already posited that we aren't omniscient, even as external viewers of the narration - new information is constantly being given to us, even about old events, so obviously even our ability to comprehend the full scope of the story is necessarily limited. Remember when the Old Gods weren't servants of an even greater power?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mehrunes View Post
    They weren't just traitors under Garrosh. Baine himself argued that Vol'jin was a traitor and Garrosh had the right to kill him (even long before his rebellion) after Garrosh was already dethroned. And Baine is not exactly known for being a Garrosh supported. But who knows, perhaps you have access to information that I don't. Because threatening your sovereign with death is objectively treason even if they don't act on it.
    I didn't deny any of those things, I fully agree that Vol'jin's threat against Garrosh was treasonous - but only and specifically in the context of Garrosh's regime as Warchief. When Garrosh was violently overthrown and replaced by Vol'jin by popular support, the charge of treason was rendered meaningless - the government that would've punished it was gone, the individual betrayed was proven corrupt and unworthy of loyalty, and Vol'jin's legacy is not remembered as that of a traitor to the Horde (rather, he's remembered as one of its saviors). One can say "yes, but he committed treason" until they're blue in the face - the accusation has been rendered irrelevant, it's now just an opinion.
    "We're more of the love, blood, and rhetoric school. Well, we can do you blood and love without the rhetoric, and we can do you blood and rhetoric without the love, and we can do you all three concurrent or consecutive. But we can't give you love and rhetoric without the blood. Blood is compulsory. They're all blood, you see." ― Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead

  4. #664
    Quote Originally Posted by Wildberry View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Wildberry View Post
    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
    Technically, she didn't. Sylvanas joined the rebellion only in 5.4. In 5.3 it was only stated by Vol'jin she would not have any objections against that. And by 5.4 Garrosh abandoned the New Horde project for his stronger, better, faster and Orcier True Horde project. And publicly proclaimed that the rest aren't a part of his Horde anymore. In a way, it's kinda hilarious that the most shifty member of the Horde is in such a position (well, together with the Pandaren leader, but he exists only hypothetically).


    Quote Originally Posted by Kythera View Post
    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.
    Except the Horde is an absolutist dictatorship to the nonsensical degree where the Warchief's word is law and the Horde's subjects are literally referred to as the tools of the Warchief in the "most fundamental law of the Horde".

    And morally repugnant or evil actions do not constitute treason.


    Quote Originally Posted by Kythera View Post
    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.
    But Saurfang wasn't ordered with burning Teldrassil. He was ordered with dealing a killing blow to the enemy leader. A leader that is one of the most dangerous individuals on the planet (and now is killing Horde members en masse in Darkshore in 8.1). He refused. That happened before Teldrassil. In fact Teldrassil happened because he refused to follow that order.

    Also, being morally right does not untraitorify traitorous actions. There's nothing about treason that dictates an action must be morally blameworthy for it to be treasonous.

    Finally, those moral philosophies arose in 20th century. Azeroth is not exactly at the same stage of philosophical development.


    Quote Originally Posted by Kythera View Post
    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.
    And who is doing that? Aside from Alliance's army of straw-men?


    Quote Originally Posted by Dravec View Post
    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?
    Except for:
    1. Refusing to follow the order of his sovereign and military superior to deal a killing blow to the enemy leader.
    2. Going AWOL shortly before the battle for Lordaeron because he decided to kill himself in a blaze of glory.
    3. Refusing to follow the order of his sovereign and military superior to retreat (you know, kinda why he got himself captured).
    4. Not even trying to take down the enemy leader all because he hoped said enemy leader would defeat his own sovereign (which would make him directly implicit in Sylvanas' death).
    5. Refusing to return to the Horde when given the opportunity by the Horde team, i.e. abandoning the Horde and his duty towards it, particularly in regards to the Orcs of whom he's the racial leader.
    6. Leaving the prison only after said enemy leader released him, knowing full well he did so so that Saurfang could try to take down Sylvanas.

    Would you look at all that "not treason". You are truly the master of language. A whole new field of linguistics dedicated solely to the meaning of the word treason should be created just so you could teach it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kangodo View Post
    Does the CIA pay you for your bullshit or are you just bootlicking in your free time?
    Quote Originally Posted by Mirishka View Post
    I'm quite tired of people who dislike something/disagree with something while attacking/insulting anyone that disagrees. Its as if at some point, people forgot how opinions work.

  5. #665
    Time for a relevant quote for all this drama.

    https://youtu.be/A1PuFO5zzWk?t=45

  6. #666
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Mehrunes View Post
    Saurfang not being found guilty if Sylvanas falls does not change the fact that he: disobeyed the order of his sovereign to kill Malfurion, went AWOL at Undercity to kill himself, disobeyed the order of his sovereign to retreat at Undercity and then did not even try to kill Anduin because he hoped he'd stop Sylvanas (i.e. tried to have his sovereign killed through negligence and inaction). Players were right there next to him for both of the cases of him disobeying orders. We've seen a cinematic showing him abandoning his post to go beyond his wall to make his last stand. We've seen another cinematic when Saurfang himself confirms the last one. That is objective reality and that doesn't magically change if there is no one to put Saurfang on trial.
    Ah thank you, somebody else who also gets it - context is irrelevant.

  7. #667
    It still blows my mind that despite the fact that they've taken every step possible to make Sylvanas as evil and reprehensible as possible, then went the extra mile by also making her incompetent as well, she's still neck to neck with someone who was one of the most unambiguously liked Horde characters before this expansion. It takes effort to be this out of touch.
    Dickmann's Law: As a discussion on the Lore forums becomes longer, the probability of the topic derailing to become about Sylvanas approaches 1.

    Tinkers will be the next Class confirmed.

  8. #668
    Quote Originally Posted by KrakHed View Post
    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.
    You say all this and then in other threads pretend Alliance isn't a threat to the Horde. Near miraculous consistency.


    Quote Originally Posted by KrakHed View Post
    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.
    Saurfang can't readjust his sense of honor because you can't adjust something that has the consistency of water (OK, you can freeze water in a container of a specific shape, but that doesn't really work with honor). Saurfang's honor takes random shapes depending on his mood and what he ate. The only semi-consistent factor of his honor is that it often takes the form of "for me to be honorable I must commit suicide by enemy soldier because I'm braindead".

    Also, I vividly recall you defending Saurfang's actions by saying he has no diplomatic experience. But now he's suddenly going to make all the right moves and yank the Horde away from Sylvanas just with his monumental charisma (all of it a broken suicidal rip-off of Chuck Norris jokes can muster)?


    Quote Originally Posted by KrakHed View Post
    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.
    Right. Sylvanas does nothing but fly Saurfang's banners all over the places. Yeah, no. She no longer needs Saurfang. The Horde has been successfully rallied to war and the loss of a capital city cemented them on that path.

    And her portraying Saurfang's treason as him being broken by the same Alliance against which Horde was already whipped into a frenzy is only going to add fuel to that fire.


    Quote Originally Posted by KrakHed View Post
    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.
    The same Eitrigg that merrily joined Sylvanas' quest for new allies? And out of all things decided on the Iron Horde? Right, he's just begging for an opportunity to jump the Sylvanas' ship.

    And Thrall? The human lover whose limp-wristed rule led to Alliance declaring the previous faction war? Whose blatant nepotism even when faced with huge opposition from his advisors led to the rise of Garrosh (and the death of the advisor most vocal about it, a Horde icon Cairne)? A rise easily fueled by Garrosh due to the fact Thrall deliberately set up the new Orc capital in a fucking desert to make Orcs "atone" for the Old Horde, even the new generations of Orcs that had nothing to do with it? The guy who left the fight against the Legion to sulk about how the Elements no longer love him because he's so pathetic he had to cheat in a Mak'gora, one of the most important Horde traditions?

    Yeah, Thrall has just monumental position in the current Horde. He totally did not spend the last decade completely undermining it with one blunder after another.


    Quote Originally Posted by KrakHed View Post
    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.
    And then Sylvanas reveals the information about Baine's secret communication with Blanduin. Which in light of his previous history with aiding the Alliance at the cost of the Horde, is going to discredit him forever.


    Quote Originally Posted by Aucald View Post
    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.
    Except treason isn't predisposed on Garrosh acting on it. He was well within his rights not to. That doesn't unmake Vol'jin's treason. Which is why Baine, one of the strongest Vol'jin sycophants, argued that Vol'jin committed treason. Even after Garrosh has been deposed. Treason also isn't based on subjective feelings of whether a leader is "worthy" or "deserving" of anything. One cannot wash their actions that run against their leader with "welp, I don't like him and the way he cooks his eggs so I'm obviously not a traitor, my moral high ground told me so".


    Quote Originally Posted by Aucald View Post
    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.
    Except in this case the X is the political and legal authority of the nation Saurfang is from. Sylvanas' regime being overthrown and the new regime choosing not to pursue Saurfang for what is nothing more than political capital doesn't change that fact. You're literally arguing against reality itself.


    Quote Originally Posted by Aucald View Post
    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.
    And now you moved the goalposts to "people like Saurfang aren't traitors because they aren't charged with it by new regime and treason somehow rests entirely on the charge" to "welp, they betrayed a good thing so all is swell".
    Last edited by Mehrunes; 2018-11-07 at 01:51 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kangodo View Post
    Does the CIA pay you for your bullshit or are you just bootlicking in your free time?
    Quote Originally Posted by Mirishka View Post
    I'm quite tired of people who dislike something/disagree with something while attacking/insulting anyone that disagrees. Its as if at some point, people forgot how opinions work.

  9. #669
    Moderator Aucald's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Epic Premium
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA-US
    Posts
    45,577
    Quote Originally Posted by Mehrunes View Post
    Which is fine and dandy, except for the part where Vol'jin wasn't actually summoned to Pandaria as part of Garrosh's expedition or earlier expedition by Nazgrim. He went there on his own to act as a self-appointed supervisory board of the Horde. I.e. he went away from his actual post, during war, all on his own, because of his personal feelings about Garrosh. Vol'jin went AWOL. That is treason. So is threatening Garrosh with death.
    That depends on whether or not Vol'jin was under orders to stay away from Pandaria and defend Durotar or somesuch - he didn't seem to have any kind of "post" in terms of the war, he simply wasn't part of the action. Garrosh never charged or even accused Vol'jin of treason for being there, and as a point of fact gave him a mission simply because of his presence (as part of a plot to kill him, it turned out). If Garrosh never made such a charge it seems rather far-fetched for us to do so. As for the threat to his life, I agreed - this was treason against Garrosh, at the time such things mattered.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mehrunes View Post
    Saurfang not being found guilty if Sylvanas falls does not change the fact that he: disobeyed the order of his sovereign to kill Malfurion, went AWOL at Undercity to kill himself, disobeyed the order of his sovereign to retreat at Undercity and then did not even try to kill Anduin because he hoped he'd stop Sylvanas (i.e. tried to have his sovereign killed through negligence and inaction). Players were right there next to him for both of the cases of him disobeying orders. We've seen a cinematic showing him abandoning his post to go beyond his wall to make his last stand. We've seen another cinematic when Saurfang himself confirms the last one. That is objective reality and that doesn't magically change if there is no one to put Saurfang on trial.
    Don't disagree with any of that. Like Vol'jin before him, Saurfang is guilty is betraying Sylvanas as Warchief - especially since he is now likely fomenting an insurrection against her directly. But the argument being made isn't whether or not he's guilty of betraying Sylvanas, it is whether he is guilty of betraying the Horde. If Sylvanas is increasingly illegitimate, as Garrosh was before her, and loyalty to Sylvanas is itself disloyalty to the very foundation of ideals of the Horde, then opposition to Sylvanas can easily be seen as loyalty to the essence of the Horde. Ousting an illegitimate and corrupt leader is not a bad thing (except to the supporters of that corrupt leader, of course). So if Saurfang's cause is proven just and he overthrows Sylvanas and claims the Horde by right of conquest - then he's not a traitor, and his charge of treason against her will be as null and void as Garrosh's charge to Vol'jin. It *happened*, yes; but it no longer matters - and nothing will come of it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mehrunes View Post
    It isn't an important distinction whatsoever. The fact of them being traitors doesn't magically untraitorify itself because they put themselves into power. Them being immune from prosecution does not make them innocent. Even if they did actually pardon themselves (which wasn't shown), they would still have needed to commit treason in the first place. Because you can't pardon someone if they haven't committed a crime.
    They aren't pardoned because their crime no longer exists in a fashion it could be prosecuted. What they were traitors to (a corrupt and illegitimate leader) is gone, the government they betrayed is gone, and no one will stand to hold them to account because no one remains that wants to. If their revolution wasn't popular or there remained figures in power to hold them to account then you would have a different argument and a different outcome. In a world with no formalized rule of law, victorious conquest essentially means the end of the charge. What remains of Sylvanas' supporters if such a thing were to occur would still grumble about treason and traitors, of course; but lacking the ability to actually hold them to account and with their leader deposed or dead (and having no popular support themselves) their words are next to meaningless.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mehrunes View Post
    Except there is no way for the Horde to make itself illegitimate, especially through the actions of the Warchief, due to the idiotic power structure of it. People claiming Sylvanas' regime is illegitimate are talking out of their behinds (a common theme with people making anti-Sylvanas argument, so nothing new here). And as mentioned two paragraphs above, we may not be fully omniscient, but we've still seen four cases of Saurfang committing treason. One of those was confirmed by Saurfang himself. There is no way for people to mental gymnastic their way out of it.
    Garrosh made himself illegitimate, lost his popular support, and was violently deposed and replaced. This isn't without existing precedent, so no; I don't think anyone is really talking out of their behinds. Right now Sylvanas still has popular support, and so the notion that Saurfang is a traitor has traction - and perhaps it will end with Sylvanas still in power and Saurfang in chains for his crimes against her, who can really say? But the trajectory we're seeing thus far seems to paint a different story, and if BfA follows the narrative flow of MoP before it then supporters of Sylvanas are going to wind up in the same place as supporters of Garrosh are now - grumbling about betrayal while the popular support of his replacement serenely continues on in power and/or relevance to the story.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mehrunes View Post
    Except he sent one last letter to Blanduin (with a part of his own body for his dom to remember him no less) even after Sylvanas told him to cease communication. And what of there not being a formal declaration of war? The Alliance was still already a hostile faction to the Horde at that point. Otherwise the factions wouldn't have needed a ceasefire for even civilians to meet.
    Hostility and active war are still two different states - and attempting to try to forge a lasting peace isn't in itself a bad thing (especially not when a greater threat is constantly looming). That being said, I think Baine has less of a defense than Saurfang, and his history of such things lends credence to the notion that his loyalty to the Horde is less than secure.
    Last edited by Aucald; 2018-11-07 at 02:03 PM.
    "We're more of the love, blood, and rhetoric school. Well, we can do you blood and love without the rhetoric, and we can do you blood and rhetoric without the love, and we can do you all three concurrent or consecutive. But we can't give you love and rhetoric without the blood. Blood is compulsory. They're all blood, you see." ― Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead

  10. #670
    Titan Wildberry's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Multicultural Orgrimmar
    Posts
    11,585
    Quote Originally Posted by Mehrunes View Post
    Technically, she didn't. Sylvanas joined the rebellion only in 5.4. In 5.3 it was only stated by Vol'jin she would not have any objections against that. And by 5.4 Garrosh abandoned the New Horde project for his stronger, better, faster and Orcier True Horde project. And publicly proclaimed that the rest aren't a part of his Horde anymore. In a way, it's kinda hilarious that the most shifty member of the Horde is in such a position (well, together with the Pandaren leader, but he exists only hypothetically).
    Honestly, at this point I'm just lumping in "Actions taken against Garrosh" into one category for ease of comparison. Stating that Sylvanas did X Treason, while Saurfang did Y+Z, while more accurate, gives these people far too much room to misinterpret and twist things. And judging by the amount of mental gymnastics required to make the "Saurfang's not a traitor guys!"-case, it's not something I want to deal with.

    Specifically, I was referring to:
    -Leveraging the use of her people (still Garrosh's subjects) to take command of an operation Garrosh was handling, despite not having the authority to do so.
    -Using the plague despite its ban
    -Directly disobeying Garrosh's order in "Tides of War," to personally lead the Forsaken against Theramore.

    You know that if I went this route, they'd try to tell me that's worse than Saurfang's stance against Garrosh because "there were three counts!"

  11. #671
    Quote Originally Posted by Aucald View Post
    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).
    Garrosh had no obligation to listen to his advisors, nor was he bound by Thrall's wishes. Thrall wasn't the Warchief anymore, Garrosh was. And as such he had the absolute power over the Horde and could turn it to a faction dedicated to teaching scuba diving classes to Troggs if he wanted to. Objecting to that would not give his advisors the right to defy him.

    And it's not like the advisors were acting any better than Garrosh. They threw a shit fit about him even before Thrall made him Warchief and continued their tantrum afterwards. Garrosh wants conflict with the Alliance? It's time to REEEEEE even though Alliance started the goddamn war and the peace process was going nowhere because the manchild Varian constantly cockblocked it by acting like a blatant retard and demanding the sky (which was exploited by the Twilight Hammer).

    Because of course they did. Thrall's era's "advisors" were his sycophants that shared in the same delusion that the Horde can peacefully sing kumbaya with the Alliance (which it could do only through a policy of appeasement and deliberately ignoring indictments like Alterac Valley or Bael'dun).

    They were stuck in Thrall's bullshit and unrealistic fantasies that he had only because he was raised by humans (and even then only a mere handful of them didn't treat him like an animal) and were as unwilling to listen to Garrosh as Garrosh was unliving to listen to Thrall's advisors. Garrosh fell, the previous faction war ended. But time proved him right and Thrall and his posse wrong. Alliance attacked the Horde for reasons that were getting more moronic with each attack.

    Anyway, that's a bit off-topic. Back on track, there's a reason only a few point out that Garrosh started his regime that way when they defend Garrosh with remarks about Vol'jin. Because that is completely immaterial to the topic. Garrosh was acting within his rights. Vol'jin did not.


    Quote Originally Posted by Aucald View Post
    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.
    Except the concept of rules and breaking of those rules (i.e. committing treason in this context) is not some metaphysical idea with "no observable facets". Rules are much closer to the clear and rigid realm of logic than they are to the concepts like love.

    There is no room for opinion in regards to whether or not Saurfang disobeyed his sovereign's orders. He either did or he did not. Both are observable if one has an omniscient (or reaching it) perspective like the readers/players of a story. Just so happens he did. Do the rules of the Horde allow that? No, no they don't.

    As such, Saurfang is a traitor. And you can raise all the mitigating circumstances in the universe if you want to, but that still remains the objective reality. Because those mitigating circumstances are just that, things that mitigate. Not things that alter reality.


    Quote Originally Posted by Dravec View Post
    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?
    He had reason. He was ordered to. By his sovereign. Him not following that order is literally treason. And you're trying to handwave that away with meaningless trivia. And Teldrassil burning because Saurfang did not kill Malfurion is something even Saurfang came to accept. Read A Good War if you want to discuss the topic of Teldrassil.


    Quote Originally Posted by Dravec View Post
    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?
    He didn't fight Anduin. That's the point. Did you even watch the cinematic this very thread is about?


    Quote Originally Posted by Dravec View Post
    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.
    Getting captured is not deserting. Him not returning when the Horde attempted to rescue him is. And Sylvanas raising the dead Horde soldiers isn't treason because there's no law in the Horde that says she can't do that so the brilliant gotcha you thought you had doesn't really work.


    Quote Originally Posted by Dravec View Post
    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...
    Yeah, because apparently Saurfang is a moron and can't operate in simple context. Anduin can't deal with Sylvanas. He learns Saurfang wants her gone. He releases Saurfang after hearing that. Gee, whatever could have been Anduin's motives for releasing him.


    Quote Originally Posted by Dravec View Post
    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.
    The Horde doesn't stand for anything in particular. It is shaped by the current Warchief. There's absolutely nothing in the Blood Oath that says the Horde members are bound by it only as long as the Horde keeps the shape it had when the particular member joined.


    Quote Originally Posted by Aucald View Post
    But that's the thing, really - do you really want an accusation to be the sole arbiter of objective fact? Put yourself in the shoes of the victim: you do the noble thing, and turn against some evil force you previously served, you spin around and do what is right even if that means you betray an oath you had previously made. In so doing, you find that those who still believe in this evil force (out of greed, or malevolence, or ignorance) label you a base and vile traitor, they hunt you and hound you. But you *are* doing what is right, at least insofar as you know it - turning against this evil regime and trying to make it something better. And if you succeed in overturning this evil force, do you think it is fair to have people still hound you and hate you, even though they were wrong and you were truly right? Is that how you think it should be?
    Literally no one in the thread said that. You're arguing with yourself there.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kangodo View Post
    Does the CIA pay you for your bullshit or are you just bootlicking in your free time?
    Quote Originally Posted by Mirishka View Post
    I'm quite tired of people who dislike something/disagree with something while attacking/insulting anyone that disagrees. Its as if at some point, people forgot how opinions work.

  12. #672
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Super Dickmann View Post
    It still blows my mind that despite the fact that they've taken every step possible to make Sylvanas as evil and reprehensible as possible, then went the extra mile by also making her incompetent as well, she's still neck to neck with someone who was one of the most unambiguously liked Horde characters before this expansion. It takes effort to be this out of touch.
    It just goes to show how deeply the stain of treachery can run, as in, in spite of all the things we've seen Sylvanas do that the act of treason is considered the ultimate crime.

  13. #673
    Quote Originally Posted by Aucald View Post
    The purpose of this aside isn't to derail an argument, but rather to make one - an argument whose purpose stands in opposition to your central thesis, that Saurfang is *objectively* a traitor. If you want want to make the claim that Saurfang is a traitor to the very ideal of the Horde I would say you are wrong. If you want to claim that he was inactive, and that his inactivity hurt the Horde then I would say you are right. Making a mistake and causing harm to the organization you cherish is not tantamount to betraying or being a traitor to it, though - it's just an error in judgment, and one he is now attempting to rectify.
    What you just so happened to leave out is that Saurfang's inactivity happened in specific circumstances and not in some philosophical vacuum. Twice it happened was when he was not following an order of his sovereign. The third time it happened was when he did not act against the leader of the faction enemy to the Horde hoping he'd take down his sovereign, which would make him complicit. He didn't "make a mistake". Malfurion didn't escape because Saufang sneezed and had to wipe his nose. Malfurion survived because, despite his orders, Saurfang just stood there and left him be.


    Quote Originally Posted by Aucald View Post
    Saurfang was on board to enact the war he understood it to be - to take Teldrassil captive and hold it against and its territories against the Alliance, to use it as a stalking-horse in an attempt to force the Alliance down, and in so doing to bleed their will to fight away and ensure the Horde's dominance (which would usher about a lasting peace for the Horde). When Sylvanas turned the tables on Saurfang at Darkshore by committing an atrocity against Teldrassil the war that Saurfang fought for disappeared, as did his zeal for fighting it.
    And now your argument as to why Saurfang isn't a traitor gained the ability to travel through time. Because Saurfang jumped off the board already before Teldrassil burned. He refused to fulfill his orders because muh honor. And by doing so already committed treason. And brought the destruction of Teldrassil in the first place, because Sylvanas: 1. couldn't hold an Alliance capital with its population still having a high morale and, as such, 2. needed a new symbol of the Alliance to destroy in order to break them.

    Because killing Malfurion was the very thing that was supposed to crush Alliance's will to fight in the original plan. From the start. Saurfang knew that. And that destruction of Alliance's spirit was something you claim was was still on board with. Something doesn't click here.


    Quote Originally Posted by Aucald View Post
    Lordaeron was not Saurfang's choice of battleground, as Sylvanas herself says in "A Good War" Lordaeron was an inevitability due to her actions at Teldrassil, she knew the Alliance was going to come for her and her homeland. Saurfang was present at Lordaeron initially to kill himself - to go out in a final blaze of glory against the enemy of the Horde in a half-crazed attempt to somehow redeem himself.
    Which totally isn't Saurfang abandoning his post. Not at all. Obviously not an objectively traitorous action universally punished by all militaries.


    Quote Originally Posted by Aucald View Post
    That Saurfang has made errors in judgement is not a debatable fact, in my opinion - he misjudged Sylvanas for one, and then he compounded that error by not acting when he could have. But do those errors in judgement make him a traitor to the Horde, or worse, an explicit enemy of the Horde (especially the ideal of the Horde, and not specifically Sylvanas' regime within the Horde)? I would say "no, they don't." Saurfang wants to save the Horde that he understands, the one he wants to return to, before atrocities like Teldrassil and Lordaeron.
    What "ideal of the Horde"? The "let's sing kumbaya with the Alliance and ignore it when they fuck us in the ass in order to do the singing" crack pipe dream of Thrall and other Baines? That doesn't work in the long term because eventually some Genn or Rogers will attack another Horde fleet? And some greedy Dwarves will ignore Horde's sovereignty over its territory to dig some Titan junk up in ancestral Tauren grounds?

    That ideal must burn. And that ideal is not what Saurfang swore an oath to. There's no "as long as the Warchief follows the ideology the Horde had when I joined" clause in the Blood Oath.


    Quote Originally Posted by sam86 View Post
    then either u don't know horde principles or u choose to ignore them
    -horde should (i know vol'jin didn't do that) prefer to die than to run away, Lok'tar Ogar, blizz sh8t on that and made vol'jin order retreat, and even consider that a 'good' horde move (wtf?)
    -horde should prefer defeat than to fight dishonorable, for a horde it is better that alliance win than we ever use plague, or a mana bomb, or any cheap tactics like that "Blood and Honor", yeah irl that would be stupid and cause our extinction (like vikings), but this isn't rl, i can fantasize about being honorable savage because if i die, my orc hunter will get rezzed again at a spirit healer
    seriously why we have fantasy genre if we going to tie it with rl problems ?
    Except Horde was never about being against retreating. Horde was about never surrendering. Blackhand's forces retreated from Stranglethorn. Doomhammer retreated from Lordaeron. Garrosh retreated from Ashenvale. Your blatant misrepresentation of what Lok'tar Ogar is postulates that the Horde is a faction of retards that would die for no reason.

    And Horde was never about not fighting dishonorably either. Old Horde used the enemy's dead against them. They used assassination to break Stormwind. They enslaved Red Dragons to fight the Alliance.

    If you were looking to RP a viking you chose the wrong franchise. Which was obvious as far back as Warcraft I.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kangodo View Post
    Does the CIA pay you for your bullshit or are you just bootlicking in your free time?
    Quote Originally Posted by Mirishka View Post
    I'm quite tired of people who dislike something/disagree with something while attacking/insulting anyone that disagrees. Its as if at some point, people forgot how opinions work.

  14. #674
    Nothing has changed, Sylvanas, as before, could take the soul of Varok as it can now, all the more so Saurfang is not young so as to at least somehow resist Banshee. End discussion

  15. #675
    This topic is boring now, Way too many sylvannas and saurfangs "fanboys" repeating the same arguments over and over again. At the end it is 50/50 sylvannas and saurfang, hope the Horde gets to decide wich leader to betray ingame
    Last edited by Daevied; 2018-11-07 at 03:09 PM.

  16. #676
    Quote Originally Posted by dragnipur View Post
    I hope Saurfang joins the Alliance and stays there.But the way Blizzard's story team is since WoD i don't have high hopes for a proper writing.
    Honorable Orc allied race for the Alliance confirmed!

  17. #677
    Quote Originally Posted by Sunderella View Post
    Honorable Orc allied race for the Alliance confirmed!
    It is better then to have Sylvanas as Leader than Saurfang in the armor of the Alliance. This is what the old leaders of the Horde (Kilrogg, Grommash, Blackhand, Kargath) considered as a betrayal, to go over to the side of the nominal enemy in the midst of hostilities. It will not be on the Horde.
    Varok said he wanted to return his Horde. He will never be a member of the Alliance, but will go to an alliance with Anduin , as Thrall once united with Varian against Garrosh. This is a more logical way of developing BfA. And maybe wake up N'zoth. And then Sylvana, and Varok, and Genn, and Anduin unite against the Old God.

  18. #678
    Quote Originally Posted by Mehrunes View Post
    Yeah, no. Just no. This is blatantly false. First of all, Alliance posters on this forum would sooner turn into pillars of salt than vote on Sylvanas on any poll where the vote for her is in her favor.
    Why?
    I may not like the pathway Blizzard chose for Sylvanas, but I think that she spices up the lore. Windrunner being one of the most important characters in this expansion is good move, though they're just making her another Garrosh(aka being villian and becoming a raid boss soon) and almost making her act like a teenage emo sometimes.
    I liked her because she wasn't plain, she had complicated personality that was really interesting to watch.


    Personally I don't think that she's going to die, she's too important for the Horde community, her fanbase and for the whole lore.
    Well... we have to wait and see what plans do people from Blizzard have.

  19. #679
    Quote Originally Posted by Eazy View Post
    Personally I don't think that she's going to die, she's too important for the Horde community, her fanbase and for the whole lore.
    Well... we have to wait and see what plans do people from Blizzard have.
    Not like they can take it back.

    But then again I'd love to see how her fanbase deals with it. Let's see how they sell her death and destruction to her fans.

  20. #680
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Vyil View Post
    So either follow someone who is true to the standards that define the horde? (Strength & honour) > Saurfang
    Or follow someone who would do anything to have her way of the horde (And all other horde leaders hate her) > Sylvanas

    Jeez though choice.
    Except, as has been countlessly repeatedly explained over the last 35 pages Saurfang's behaviour has been the very antithesis of strength and honour. Also, drop the cliche hyperbole already - Saurfang and Memeboi does not equal "all other Horde leaders"
    Last edited by mmoc997d567772; 2018-11-07 at 04:26 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •