Sylvanas didn’t ruin the Horde, Thrall Did...

[Razaron]

That depends entirely on the perspective you put on it.

What does "oppressive" even mean?

oppressive
/əˈprɛsɪv/Submit
adjective
1.
inflicting harsh and authoritarian treatment.

Nothing more harsh then bombing your own troops and going to war for morally grey reasons. >.>

In a collective such as the Horde, no member has ever had a 100% equal voice in things. There were some parts that led, and others that followed - from the inception of the Horde continuously to the present day. Its leaders always silenced dissenters to some degree - and so does the Alliance. Does that make them "oppressive"? Sylvanas isn't fencing off ghettos and calling people second-class citizens like Garrosh did. She's making sacrifices, but that's how wars are fought, and won.

I'm not arguing that previous leaders weren't oppressive. Which is far from the point I made.

And what is "unjust", pray tell?

Whats just about burning adults and children alive, burning homes? pray tell?

Who is to stand in to define justice for the Horde, and tell them what they can and cannot do - the Alliance, perhaps? If anything, "justice" probably doesn't mean as much as "honor" to many of the Horde - but "honor" is also not something particularly sacred to many members of the Horde. Why do the Forsaken, Blood Elves, and Goblins have to be subject to an Orc/Tauren understanding of "honor" in the first place?

Because they joined Thralls horde, Thralls horde didn't join the forsaken or the blood elves.

And the Trolls have their own particular view of it, too. And what, pray tell, was "just" about the Alliance deciding that the Horde wasn't allowed to have the Azerite - the existence AND properties of which THEY discovered, I might add. And let's not even talk about the past, and fun things like orc concentration camps (such justice, very honor, much righteous) or Admiral Proudmore's little adventure.

Again, I'm not arguing that there wasn't some dishonorable things done by humans or other races, again you're going of on a tandem.

"Arbitrary" at least is obviously ridiculous, since Sylvanas is anything but that. She is calculated in her decisions, even the ones that look passionate (like torching Teldrassil). It's what undead are like. A glandular problem, I suspect.

I don't dare question that blizzard will have some Illidan makeover for her, redeeming her of all her past evil actions and then make it out like she's planned it from the start. Doesn't mean she's not a tyrant.

Sylvanas is not a tyrant. She's a leader that doesn't act in full agreement with her subordinates; or, in other words, she's a leader. Yes, she's not exactly acting in accordance with HUMAN codes of ethics, or ORCISH principles of honor - but, then again, she's neither, so why would she.

Again, bombing your own troops, being anti-living and burning adults and children alive. Totally your every day sane leader. >.>

[Deleted]

oppressive
/əˈprɛsɪv/Submit
adjective
1.
inflicting harsh and authoritarian treatment.

Nothing more harsh then bombing your own troops and going to war for morally grey reasons. >.>



I'm not arguing that previous leaders weren't oppressive. Which is far from the point I made.



Whats just about burning adults and children alive, burning homes? pray tell?



Because they joined Thralls horde, Thralls horde didn't join the forsaken or the blood elves.



Again, I'm not arguing that there wasn't some dishonorable things done by humans or other races, again you're going of on a tandem.



I don't dare question that blizzard will have some Illidan makeover for her, redeeming her of all her past evil actions and then make it out like she's planned it from the start. Doesn't mean she's not a tyrant.



Again, bombing your own troops, being anti-living and burning adults and children alive. Totally your every day sane leader. >.>

You're changing the goalposts by fixating on a different word now. Could you not find any examples to support your assertion that Sylvanas was a "Tyrant" after all then...?

[Razaron]

Funny, and yet absolutely none of that has anything to do with the definition of a "Tyrant" as posted - that's just you using it as a buzzword to express your own personal dislike (just as I pointed out earlier) making it not only a disingenuous but also fundamentally wrong choice of words. Care to try again?

Buzzword? Whats not cruel about bombing your own people. Did you even read what I said, bloody hell! XD

[Grazrug]

Bashiok was part of the WoW team during WoD, and started out on the WoW team during Classic. The gist of the post has been corroborated multiple times since then.



Kil'jaeden posed as Rulkan to Ner'zhul, appearing in his dreams and warning him of the "nefariousness" of the Draenei. Presumably he pulled a similar trick on the rest of the elder Shaman of the Orcish clans as well, as they reported their closest ancestor spirits told them much the same as the false Rulkan did to Ner'zhul.

- - - Updated - - -



Indeed, and both basically turned their backs on the Orcs for similar reasons.

Not really. Elemental spirits couldn't care less about what kind of morality and rulership shenenigans mortals have going on at any moment. Which is why the whole "Thrall cheated as Mak'gora" is such nonsense in the first place. Elemental spirits grant you their powers out of sheer respect towards them, not because one mortal group is being mean to the other one.

[Razaron]

You're changing the goalposts by fixating on a different word now. Could you not find any examples to support your assertion that Sylvanas was a "Tyrant" so you've moved onto another instead?

No, I argued that Sylvanas was a tyrant, he was arguing something completely different. You're not very good at reading.

[Deleted]

Buzzword? Whats not cruel about bombing your own people. Did you even read what I said, bloody hell! XD

You were using that as apparent evidence to support your case that Sylvanas is apparently a "Tyrant" and yet, as I pointed out, it does not even remotely connect to the definition. Where is "cruelty" mentioned in that definition?

[Razaron]

You were using that as apparent evidence to support your case that Sylvanas is apparently a "Tyrant" and yet, as I pointed out, it does not even remotely connect to the definition. Where is "cruelty" mentioned in that definition?

tyrant
/ˈtʌɪr(ə)nt/Submit
noun
1.
a cruel and oppressive ruler.
"the tyrant was deposed by popular demonstrations"
synonyms: dictator, despot, autocrat, absolute ruler, authoritarian, oppressor
"an evil tyrant who has imprisoned all who oppose his regime"

Look, arguing that Garrosh and warchiefs in the past were tyrants doesn't make Sylvanas null and void. Same with humans, concentration camps, etc etc. It's not what I argued, I said Sylvanas is a tyrant. I'll say it again, if you believe bombing your own troops and starting unjust wars killing adults and children is not tyrannical then we'll not agree. I will warn you to strap yourself in though, because it's not going to be the end of the questionable acts the Banshee Queen will do and your post will look very silly in a few years time.

[Grazrug]

No, I argued that Sylvanas was a tyrant, he was arguing something completely different. You're not very good at reading.

She really isn't. Not even close. THIS is what tyranny looks like.

http://i.imgur.com/jDg3k8s.jpg
https://wow.zamimg.com/uploads/scree...all/385737.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/2nYVGrO.jpg?1


And appearently Garrosh fans tend to ignore everything that happened during and prior to SoO out of delusion.

[Razaron]

She really isn't. Not even close. THIS is what tyranny looks like.

http://i.imgur.com/jDg3k8s.jpg
https://wow.zamimg.com/uploads/scree...all/385737.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/2nYVGrO.jpg?1


And appearently Garrosh fans tend to ignore everything that happened during and prior to SoO out of delusion.

I agree Garrosh was a tyrant. That doesn't mean Sylvanas isn't.

Also just because I'm calling Sylvanas a tyrant doesn't mean I'm a Garrosh fan.

>.>

[Kwento]

Thrall ruined the Horde by allowing Sylvanas to join, yes

[Kaver]

Thralls short sighted decision to make Garrosh was the catalyst that eventually led the Horde down to this dark path.





He doesn’t deserve to be Warchief again.

Sure. But Sylvanas is not exactly "fixing" the Horde.

[AcidicSyn]

They shouldve make a soap show about the horde. So much drama

This made me imagine Sylvanas and Nathanos having a spanish tele-novela style argument. Thank you for that.

[Grazrug]

I agree Garrosh was a tyrant. That doesn't mean Sylvanas isn't.

Also just because I'm calling Sylvanas a tyrant doesn't mean I'm a Garrosh fan.

>.>

Name one tyrannic like thing that Sylvanas has done without counting brainless Horde troops straight up running into the flying blight bombs without thinking twice, and minus those desolate council defecters. I'll wait.

[Deleted]

tyrant
/ˈtʌɪr(ə)nt/Submit
noun
1.
a cruel and oppressive ruler.
"the tyrant was deposed by popular demonstrations"
synonyms: dictator, despot, autocrat, absolute ruler, authoritarian, oppressor
"an evil tyrant who has imprisoned all who oppose his regime"

Look, arguing that Garrosh and warchiefs in the past were tyrants doesn't make Sylvanas null and void. Same with humans, concentration camps, etc etc. It's not what I argued, I said Sylvanas is a tyrant. I'll say it again, if you believe bombing your own troops and starting unjust wars killing adults and children is not tyrannical then we'll not agree. I will warn you to strap yourself in though, because it's not going to be the end of the questionable acts the Banshee Queen will do and your post will look very silly in a few years time.

OK for one, I notice you have conveninetly Googled an alternative definition of "Tyrant" to fit your argument, which in itself exposes how little weight your argument has in itself. But even besides that, you STILL do not account for what part of Sylvanas is apparently oppressive. Claiming she fits part of the definition because she happens to be cruel and taking that to mean she fits it wholly is outright stupid - if that were the case then practically every leader in Warcraft history could be labelled as a "Tyrant" because they have all done questionably 'cruel' things at some point or other in their lifetimes. Definitions exist for a reason, because they stipulate specific criteria by which something or someone is categorised - you don't get to pick and choose which part of it fits your ill-informed notions of somebody and ignore the rest because it's inconvenient. Like it or not, none of the actions you have described Sylvanas as doing makes her a "Tyrant". It may make her other things, but a "Tyrant" is not one of them. If you wanna disagree with an established disctionary definition, then be my guest - that just makes you more wrong than you were before.

[sighy]

I agree Garrosh was a tyrant. That doesn't mean Sylvanas isn't.

Also just because I'm calling Sylvanas a tyrant doesn't mean I'm a Garrosh fan.

>.>

(and the other stuff i didn't quote you posted earlier)

Alright blight at Lordaeon was winning maneuver and soldiers being out of position. Any tactician would sacrifice a couple troops to win the entire battle, if not the war.

She had to burn the tree, after Saurfang let Malfurion go, in order to achieve the effect needed, otherwise the campaign would have been in vain. Saurfang himself understood that she was right, in that moment, despite how much he hated her, for doing it.

Also the Night Elves were never her subjects to begin with so that entire argument is a bit silly.

[Aucald]

Not really. Elemental spirits couldn't care less about what kind of morality and rulership shenenigans mortals have going on at any moment. Which is why the whole "Thrall cheated as Mak'gora" is such nonsense in the first place. Elemental spirits grant you their powers out of sheer respect towards them, not because one mortal group is being mean to the other one.

Not exactly, as "Rise of the Horde" demonstrates. Although the Elements' concerns don't tend toward to the mortal sphere, they're still interested in such things (especially insofar as they intersect with their own interests). In the case of MU Draenor it is likely the Elements saw the Old Horde as slowly becoming a threat to the Spirit of the Wilds - the "balance" to which they were referring, which both the Draenei and the Orcs are naturally a part of. It turns out they were quite correct in their assessment as the Orcs go on to enact genocide on multiple races of Draenor and blight the land with Fel magic.

I don't think Thrall really ever cheated at Mak'gora, at least not insofar as the Elements were concerned. His inability to use his powers fully likely stems from his own doubts and inner conflicts, just as it did during the Cataclysm until he resolved them for a time.

[AcidicSyn]

He's also there reason there is a Horde. Without knowing the final outcome and whatever hidden agenda Sylvanas has, if any, the blame lies with Vol'jin, who placed his trust in the least honorable person on his council. Garrosh showed promise, a diamond in the rough, then went Hitler on the whole thing all of a sudden. Sylvanas has never been good.

Ignoring the whole 8.1 stuff about Voljin apparently being tricked-

I don't think his logic was about her honor or being good; but rather with the legion crashing down onto Azeroth, that she was the leader best suited to handle what was, for all intents and purposes, the apocalypse. I think that is why the focus is on his words to her "Do not let the Horde die this day"; which I take to mean more than just that battle. The Horde had to survive the legion, that's all that mattered, that single objective in whatever form that meant, if it survives, then it can be reformed.

Granted, I know that would mean giving the writing credit and I know how taboo that is here. But it's more fun than whining.

[ohwell]

I don't think anyone's arguing that Thrall should be Warchief again, and really no one could've foreseen Pandaria being rediscovered and Garrosh going full old-god madshit.

I'm sorry, did you not play WotLK or Cataclysm? Hell the first zone in WotLK shows Garrosh's idiocy and violence. Also the old gods had nothing to do with his actions until the very end. He didn't have the heart until just before SoO. It was literally the final catalyst for the raid. Hell Taran Zhu was more old god afflicted during MoP.

[Razaron]

OK for one, I notice you have conveninetly Googled an alternative definition of "Tyrant" to fit your argument, which in itself exposes how little weight your argument has in itself.

Or I just know what tyrant means and I'm linking it to you proving you wrong.

But even besides that, you STILL do not account for what part of Sylvanas is apparently oppressive.

Forcing the Horde go to war when there is many who didn't want to? It's why we get to choose if we want to side with Saurfang or Sylvanas in a future quest. The playerbase is spilt and a lot of horde players feel like they're doing stuff that they don't want to.

Claiming she fits part of the definition because she happens to be cruel and taking that to mean she fits it wholly is outright stupid

Yup, it's totally stupid of me to highlight the fact that she's cruel which is a key attribute of a tyrannical leader. Sorry I brought it up and made you look silly.

if that were the case then practically every leader in Warcraft history could be labelled as a "Tyrant" because they have all done questionably 'cruel' things at some point or other in their lifetimes.

Many Warcraft characters have been tyrants, why is this suddenly a bombshell moment for you?

Definitions exist for a reason, because they stipulate specific criteria by which something or someone is categorised - you don't get to pick and choose which part of it fits your ill-informed notions of somebody and ignore the rest because it's inconvenient. Like it or not, none of the actions you have described Sylvanas as doing makes her a "Tyrant". It may make her other things, but a "Tyrant" is not one of them. If you wanna disagree with an established disctionary definition, then be my guest - that just makes you more wrong than you were before.

I mean it's really rich you saying I'm picking and choosing, but you haven't defended Sylvanas at all. All you've said is she's not because I'm wrong. Really good argument there.

I've made the argument why she's oppressive and cruel ruler, you haven't got an answer for it.

[AcidicSyn]

There has yet to be a warchief who hasn't fucked everything up eventually.

Vol'jin almost made it and then RIGHT BEFORE HE DIED fucked it up.

- - - Updated - - -



Actually Gallywix unearthed a really super powerful scroll in Pandaria and turned it into the Lorewalkers (I can't remember for certain but I'm pretty sure it was the Lorewalkers) instead of Garrosh even though he stood to profit more than anything ever by turning it into Garry.

Even Gallywix has redeeming qualities. Sadly, still waiting on Sylvanas'.

To be fair, Garrosh was using Goblins for target practice. Gallywix plays the long game, he won't take a huge payout now if he knows he'll be dead before he can spend it. That's why he's so pro-Sylvanas. She couldn't care less what he does so long as his reports keep coming in and contain good news.