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

[Super Dickmann]

Though I'm not sure why we're discussing BfA in a conversation that was original about Thrall's reclamation of the Horde.

In reference to your question on why I think Saurfang is an irresponsible egotist. Past that, not much at all, hence why my replies prior were focused on Thrall.

He doesn't necessarily decline to kill Malfurion - he hesitates, and then the choice is removed entirely from him. You can blame him for that hesitation as many do, but this isn't quite the same as him flat-out declining to do so out of so-called egotism. His later reply to Sylvanas is pithy because of the situation she put him in (pretty much equally as stupidly as Saurfang's hesitation), but we know he didn't actually get to make a final choice either way before Tyrande put him in a star-shard death necklace. Malfurion's death also isn't necessary to complete the plan as he understood it and Sylvanas has laid it out earlier in "A Good War" - it's icing on the cake, sure; but the taking and holding of Teldrassil is the foundation of the plan. The original plan would've ensured Malfurion couldn't have been a great danger to the Horde without endangering his own captured people in Teldrassil, but Sylvanas' later overthrow of that plan is what makes Malfurion the threat he becomes (since Teldrassil can no longer be leveraged as a check against him). Sylvanas is equally as responsible for the plight the Horde finds itself in, if not moreso through incensing the Kaldorei through needless mass murder.

We've rehashed this before and I maintain that your position is either disingenuous or the result of faulty reading. Saurfang himself takes ownership of his decision to spare Malfurion and feels good about it, when others accuse him of not doing it, he accepts that this is the case. There's no reason to exempt him from that decision and pretend it was an outside power forced him to when both the narrative and Saurfang himself attest to him identifying with the choice. Sylvanas not killing Malf is stupid, that's true, but the plan had already been set up as not working without demoralization because the night elf population is mentioned as armed and possessing combat training, making opposition costly and set to be resisted. Saurfang himself agrees with this reasoning when Sylvanas points it out and the novella supports this theory. On top of this, the only thing that had kept Malfurion from stopping the Horde singlehanded at this stage was Sylvanas, if not, thousands would have been lost, per the novella again. Sylvanas burning the tree pissed the night elves off more, but it's not like the Horde hadn't steamrolled through their home at this stage and killed thousands.

In either case, the Burning is irrelevant to my argument regarding killing Malfurion. Killing Malfurion is a good in and of itself, and Saurfang had no issue killing even young night elves five minutes earlier. Him sparing Malfurion is a matter of pride, because he couldn't beat him in a fight. His responsibility to prevent the deaths of more of his people is something he acknowledges and then dismisses, because he places his own feeling good about sparing Malfurion ahead of it. It's a selfish and stupid act. Incidentally, it's another decision he promises to deal with the consequences of and then does fuck all about to add to the list.

Zekhan's influence was what made Saurfang opt not to commit suicide by army - it's not like he made some form implicit pact or deal with Zekhan beyond living another day "without honor." What Zekhan does or doesn't believe is immaterial, though Zekhan's readiness to join Saurfang speaks that he's not necessarily 100% on board with Sylvanas either (buttressed further by what we know from the 8.1 scenario). He doesn't consider himself worthy to challenge Sylvanas because he's complicit in her doings, the same as he felt in "A Good War." He does consider the Alliance, specifically Anduin, worthy though - they're the wronged party, after all.

The line is 'without armor'. I'm speaking solely on a level of an interpersonal relationship. Saurfang's presentation before Zekhan was false. Zekhan looks up to a version of Saurfang that doesn't exist because we know from Lost Honor that Saurfang was willing to let everyone there bite the big one if it meant Anduin could get rid of Sylvanas. His complicity in Sylvanas' choices is also true, but irrelevant, because he also considers himself to be the one who defines what the Horde is and isn't about and later accepts doing this for Anduin.

He rejects his rescuers because he had no desire to return to Sylvanas' Horde implicitly or explicitly - which is exactly what he tells you when you're there the first time. He knows you're not there to retrieve him in any case, which means Sylvanas has no interest in him being free either. He also doesn't ask Anduin to free him - in fact he threatens the man almost straight out when asked why he didn't kill Anduin at Lordaeron, which isn't indicative that he respects or even cares for Anduin at all. He tells Anduin what he wants when asked - he doesn't ask to go free, and he doesn't ask to be allowed to restore it, he doesn't expect to be released. The implication that he's somehow complicit with the Alliance is a charge that doesn't stand up unless you've already decided it is so for external reasons.

Rokhan, the PC and Thalyssra are not ideologically aligned with Sylvanas over Saurfang, or at least won't be in five minutes. Yet he still tells them to piss off. Him seeing that the Horde is more than Sylvanas was the point of his exchange with Zekhan in Old Soldier and it's something he wholly rebuffs by the time of Lost Honor. For him 'His' Horde, which he does fuck all about, is being ruined by Sylvanas and only an external actor in the form of Anduin can resolve it. His threats are bunk because Anduin holds all the power in this case and because it's Anduin's words that sway him into being released. No one in the Horde convinces him to do anything or has any impact on his decisions. If Anduin didn't meet up with him, he would've stayed in that cell stewing about how the bad lady took away his Horde until the cows came home.

The difference between Saurfang and Sylvanas is that the narrative is well aware that Sylvanas is evil and picks no bones about it. Saurfang is presented to us as a hero and some emblem of what the Horde should be, when he empathically isn't and that's the main reason he pisses me off, on top of the fact that 'his' Horde is Thrall's Horde 2.0 and my thoughts on that one I've laid out pretty clearly in this thread.

[Aucald]

We've rehashed this before and I maintain that your position is either disingenuous or the result of faulty reading. Saurfang himself takes ownership of his decision to spare Malfurion and feels good about it, when others accuse him of not doing it, he accepts that this is the case. There's no reason to exempt him from that decision and pretend it was an outside power forced him to when both the narrative and Saurfang himself attest to him identifying with the choice. Sylvanas not killing Malf is stupid, that's true, but the plan had already been set up as not working without demoralization because the night elf population is mentioned as armed and possessing combat training, making opposition costly and set to be resisted. Saurfang himself agrees with this reasoning when Sylvanas points it out and the novella supports this theory. On top of this, the only thing that had kept Malfurion from stopping the Horde singlehanded at this stage was Sylvanas, if not, thousands would have been lost, per the novella again. Sylvanas burning the tree pissed the night elves off more, but it's not like the Horde hadn't steamrolled through their home at this stage and killed thousands.

And as I've said before - I think you've an external agenda that inclines or forces you to do much the same. Saurfang doesn't take ownership of the decision to spare Malfurion as he doesn't actually spare Malfurion - he tells Sylvanas he didn't kill Malfurion, which is true, and that it wasn't his place which is an echo of what he had said previously. The reason to exempt from the decision is because he quite literally didn't and couldn't have made it, as Tyrande removed the option from him shortly after Sylvanas idiotically left the scene. There's no way to read the sequence of events and somehow see Saurfang as sparing Malfurion when after a moment's hesitation he is paralyzed by Tyrande (unless you equate that brief hesitation with a literal decision to put the axe down and carry Malfurion to safety) - and if you do, I would say you're simply in the wrong. The actual events between Saurfang, Malfurion, and Tyrande exempt him, regardless of what he says later; we know better because we were privy to what actually occurred.

Considering that Darkshore and Ashenvale were sparsely populated with Kaldorei forces (due to the bulk of the Alliance armies being en route to Silithus) I doubt their casualties in the field would be in the "thousands." The Horde offensive through Ashenvale and Darkshore were a lightning strike through mostly undefended territories. I would put Kaldorei losses (excepting the burning of Teldrassil) in the field closer to the low hundreds. Both the novels and the in-game content make a point of demonstrating that Kaldorei lands are currently sparsely defended, with the bulk of the Kaldorei forces having been warned and on the way back from southern Kalimdor.

In either case, the Burning is irrelevant to my argument regarding killing Malfurion. Killing Malfurion is a good in and of itself, and Saurfang had no issue killing even young night elves five minutes earlier. Him sparing Malfurion is a matter of pride, because he couldn't beat him in a fight. His responsibility to prevent the deaths of more of his people is something he acknowledges and then dismisses, because he places his own feeling good about sparing Malfurion ahead of it. It's a selfish and stupid act. Incidentally, it's another decision he promises to deal with the consequences of and then does fuck all about to add to the list.

I don't think "feeling good" factors into it - Saurfang's attitude implies that he knows the personal cost of Malfurion's continued survival, and he'll seek to rectify later on the battlefield. Of course, I place the blame on both Saurfang and Sylvanas, instead of making Saurfang the complete villain of the tableau. Sylvanas was almost unforgivably stupid to delegate the task in such a manner, especially to someone she already knew was conflicted about their interference. Something as important as the death of Malfurion shouldn't be made into a test of loyalty for a general. I agree Saurfang was hypocritical to place honor over Horde lives, as well; but then Saurfang was expecting the war to continue as it was described - not the horrorshow that Sylvanas then proceeded to create by burning Teldrassil.

The line is 'without armor'. I'm speaking solely on a level of an interpersonal relationship. Saurfang's presentation before Zekhan was false. Zekhan looks up to a version of Saurfang that doesn't exist because we know from Lost Honor that Saurfang was willing to let everyone there bite the big one if it meant Anduin could get rid of Sylvanas. His complicity in Sylvanas' choices is also true, but irrelevant, because he also considers himself to be the one who defines what the Horde is and isn't about and later accepts doing this for Anduin.

If you believe that, then Saurfang wasn't too ideologically different from Sylvanas - who was willing to meaninglessly sacrifice Horde lives for a chance to trap and kill Anduin. I also don't think Zekhan and Saurfang have any kind of established relationship in that cinematic, it's just a younger warrior looking up to an honored general and speaking to him for the first time. Interpersonal relationship is apt to come later, perhaps in 8.1 and beyond, as the two join forces and do whatever it is they've got planned for the Horde. You're also speculating that Saurfang even had a plan at that point, which seems unlikely as just moments before the man was preparing to kill himself in battle. His idea to throw the fight with the Alliance forces and Anduin is most likely something that didn't occur to him until later, perhaps during the battle in the courtyard itself.

Rokhan, the PC and Thalyssra are not ideologically aligned with Sylvanas over Saurfang, or at least won't be in five minutes. Yet he still tells them to piss off. Him seeing that the Horde is more than Sylvanas was the point of his exchange with Zekhan in Old Soldier and it's something he wholly rebuffs by the time of Lost Honor. For him 'His' Horde, which he does fuck all about, is being ruined by Sylvanas and only an external actor in the form of Anduin can resolve it. His threats are bunk because Anduin holds all the power in this case and because it's Anduin's words that sway him into being released. No one in the Horde convinces him to do anything or has any impact on his decisions. If Anduin didn't meet up with him, he would've stayed in that cell stewing about how the bad lady took away his Horde until the cows came home.

Their alignment with Sylvanas isn't of consequence, regardless of timeframe. He tells them he won't return to Sylvanas' Horde, which basically sums up everything that need be said - he knows he'd be a target outside of the Stockades. He Rokhan and company returned with him to Orgrimmar he'd be executed, and if they freed him then he'd be a target for Sylvanas' assassins (which is what happens in 8.1) as well as SI:7. There's no version of freedom in that context that gives him much of a chance. Saurfang doesn't think he can oppose Sylvanas on his own - but he feels that Anduin and the Alliance is better positioned (by dint of being more than one person, and having an equally sized armed force at their back). As for staying in his cell, well, it isn't as if he has a lot of choice - he's pretty much stuck by dint of the same scenario described above. That is until Anduin changes the equation somewhat, making freedom dangerous but not a guaranteed death/recapturing.

The difference between Saurfang and Sylvanas is that the narrative is well aware that Sylvanas is evil and picks no bones about it. Saurfang is presented to us as a hero and some emblem of what the Horde should be, when he empathically isn't and that's the main reason he pisses me off, on top of the fact that 'his' Horde is Thrall's Horde 2.0 and my thoughts on that one I've laid out pretty clearly in this thread.

Saurfang is more heroic than Sylvanas, that's pretty much a given. Whether he is what the Horde should be is more open to debate, but he likely still represents a better future for the Horde than what Sylvanas intends. If the decision is between serving someone who is out-and-out evil as compared to someone I may not get along with, I would probably still choose the latter as opposed to choosing out-and-out evil. That is just my $0.02, of course.

[Super Dickmann]

And as I've said before - I think you've an external agenda that inclines or forces you to do much the same. Saurfang doesn't take ownership of the decision to spare Malfurion as he doesn't actually spare Malfurion - he tells Sylvanas he didn't kill Malfurion, which is true, and that it wasn't his place which is an echo of what he had said previously. The reason to exempt from the decision is because he quite literally didn't and couldn't have made it, as Tyrande removed the option from him shortly after Sylvanas idiotically left the scene. There's no way to read the sequence of events and somehow see Saurfang as sparing Malfurion when after a moment's hesitation he is paralyzed by Tyrande (unless you equate that brief hesitation with a literal decision to put the axe down and carry Malfurion to safety) - and if you do, I would say you're simply in the wrong. The actual events between Saurfang, Malfurion, and Tyrande exempt him, regardless of what he says later; we know better because we were privy to what actually occurred.

This is false.

Seconds passed, then whole minutes, and Saurfang could not bring it down

This is prior to any action by Elune or Tyrande. He has minutes left to kill him and he declines to do so. Saurfang later identifies with this decision:

Still, a great burden had been lifted from his soul. It felt right that Malfurion had survived. It felt honorable.

His lips did not smile, but his eyes did. He was happy—happy!—about this.

He identifies with his decision, Sylvanas, Tyrande and Nathanos all point out him sparing it and he doesn't deny it, he approves. The blame on Sylvanas is putting the cart before the horse. Yes, Sylvanas was stupid to not just kill him, but this stupidity is born out of faith in Saurfang doing what he was doing until five minutes ago and following his oath to the Warchief. That he fails to do either is a poor mark on her as a leader, but it's a worse mark on him as he's the one actually failing at the task. Sylvanas thinking more highly of Saurfang than she should have is a point against Sylvanas, but a bigger one against Saurfang.

Considering that Darkshore and Ashenvale were sparsely populated with Kaldorei forces (due to the bulk of the Alliance armies being en route to Silithus) I doubt their casualties in the field would be in the "thousands." The Horde offensive through Ashenvale and Darkshore were a lightning strike through mostly undefended territories. I would put Kaldorei losses (excepting the burning of Teldrassil) in the field closer to the low hundreds. Both the novels and the in-game content make a point of demonstrating that Kaldorei lands are currently sparsely defended, with the bulk of the Kaldorei forces having been warned and on the way back from southern Kalimdor.

I'm fairly sure that the book explicitly gives the figure as high and we know that even civilians were enlisting en masse to resist the Horde. Saurfang for his part sends hundreds of rogues to kill hundreds of targets as the preliminary part, let alone the whole invasion. The damage up to that point was already severe, which is further set up when we later learn that the Horde has expelled the night elves from Ashenvale and Darkshore basically completely up until 8.1

I don't think "feeling good" factors into it - Saurfang's attitude implies that he knows the personal cost of Malfurion's continued survival, and he'll seek to rectify later on the battlefield. Of course, I place the blame on both Saurfang and Sylvanas, instead of making Saurfang the complete villain of the tableau.

Sylvanas's stupidity extends farther in that she has no reason to spare Malfurion except to enable the plot and no reason to not just tell Saurfang that Malf is to be killed and this was essential to the plan, especially considering she's completely clear about this to the player. That however doesn't absolve Saurfang of his failure, because Malfurion's action in the war up to this point should have given anyone with a half a brain reason enough to kill him, especially in Saurfang's position and he was directly ordered to do it by his Warchief. Occupation was at that point impossible and it was questionable in how possible it was even if Malfurion was killed, hence Sylvanas musing that eventually their bluff with the catapults would be called and Teldrassil would burn.

If you believe that, then Saurfang wasn't too ideologically different from Sylvanas - who was willing to meaninglessly sacrifice Horde lives for a chance to trap and kill Anduin.

This sentence is a contradiction. If it's to kill the enemy leader and three of his most powerful assets then it wasn't meaningless and the sacrifice is an explicit one. They know they're there to see this goal through. Even those who were hit by the Blight died to achieve an instrumental purpose in the interest of winning the battle. By contrast, Saurfang's decision is hidden, and rather than being for his own side it's about hoping that side and its soldiers die on a gamble while still being publicly seen as someone who's doing this battle for them. Saurfang is worse than Sylvanas in this particular regard. A plan is not necessary, intention informing his actions are and we know he did both. The intention was for Sylvanas to get taken out, even if it meant an Alliance victory and more Horde casualties and the action was sparing Anduin.

He tells them he won't return to Sylvanas' Horde, which basically sums up everything that need be said - he knows he'd be a target outside of the Stockades. He Rokhan and company returned with him to Orgrimmar he'd be executed, and if they freed him then he'd be a target for Sylvanas' assassins (which is what happens in 8.1) as well as SI:7. There's no version of freedom in that context that gives him much of a chance. Saurfang doesn't think he can oppose Sylvanas on his own - but he feels that Anduin and the Alliance is better positioned (by dint of being more than one person, and having an equally sized armed force at their back).

He has no reason not to tell of those fears to Rokhan or to explain things to the player, nor is there any reason to believe they wouldn't be able to protect him considering Sylvanas' capture/assassination of Saurfang is secret and by your own argument in other topics she'd supposedly based the war on his support. You can't have both positions. Either Sylvanas could easily have Saurfang killed without meaningful reaction in the Horde or he's essential and she can't have him killed because he has equal to or higher popular support than her. It's reasonable to assume that Saurfang believes the former - that the Horde wouldn't act for him, hence why 'his' Horde has to be brought in externally through Anduin.

Saurfang is more heroic than Sylvanas, that's pretty much a given. Whether he is what the Horde should be is more open to debate, but he likely still represents a better future for the Horde than what Sylvanas intends. If the decision is between serving someone who is out-and-out evil as compared to someone I may not get along with, I would probably still choose the latter as opposed to choosing out-and-out evil. That is just my $0.02, of course.

Saurfang's honor is masochistic and contradictory, and basically amounts to what he feels like doing at that minute. Sylvanas is evil and will likely eventually turn on the Horde to twirl her mustache with the Old Gods, but the fact that despite this Saurfang is a terrible candidate speaks volumes. Sylvanas is at least someone who temporarily advances the interests of her own faction, Saurfang turned on that faction, undermined it at every turn from sparing Malfurion onwards and after being enabled by the Alliance leader sets out to remake it on the basis of what he decides it should be. From an in-story perspective, sure, he's better because Anduin is angelic and Sylvanas is Satan. From an out of story perspective I'd sooner go down with the ship as a villain than be taken over by a self-destructive Alliance lackey that the narrative insists on telling me is a hero and have defeat, sympathy with the enemy over your own and regression to a status quo that failed spectacularly already be the defining faction identity from then on.

[Grazrug]

And as I've said before - I think you've an external agenda that inclines or forces you to do much the same. Saurfang doesn't take ownership of the decision to spare Malfurion as he doesn't actually spare Malfurion - he tells Sylvanas he didn't kill Malfurion, which is true, and that it wasn't his place which is an echo of what he had said previously. The reason to exempt from the decision is because he quite literally didn't and couldn't have made it, as Tyrande removed the option from him shortly after Sylvanas idiotically left the scene. There's no way to read the sequence of events and somehow see Saurfang as sparing Malfurion when after a moment's hesitation he is paralyzed by Tyrande (unless you equate that brief hesitation with a literal decision to put the axe down and carry Malfurion to safety) - and if you do, I would say you're simply in the wrong. The actual events between Saurfang, Malfurion, and Tyrande exempt him, regardless of what he says later; we know better because we were privy to what actually occurred.

Considering that Darkshore and Ashenvale were sparsely populated with Kaldorei forces (due to the bulk of the Alliance armies being en route to Silithus) I doubt their casualties in the field would be in the "thousands." The Horde offensive through Ashenvale and Darkshore were a lightning strike through mostly undefended territories. I would put Kaldorei losses (excepting the burning of Teldrassil) in the field closer to the low hundreds. Both the novels and the in-game content make a point of demonstrating that Kaldorei lands are currently sparsely defended, with the bulk of the Kaldorei forces having been warned and on the way back from southern Kalimdor.



I don't think "feeling good" factors into it - Saurfang's attitude implies that he knows the personal cost of Malfurion's continued survival, and he'll seek to rectify later on the battlefield. Of course, I place the blame on both Saurfang and Sylvanas, instead of making Saurfang the complete villain of the tableau. Sylvanas was almost unforgivably stupid to delegate the task in such a manner, especially to someone she already knew was conflicted about their interference. Something as important as the death of Malfurion shouldn't be made into a test of loyalty for a general. I agree Saurfang was hypocritical to place honor over Horde lives, as well; but then Saurfang was expecting the war to continue as it was described - not the horrorshow that Sylvanas then proceeded to create by burning Teldrassil.



If you believe that, then Saurfang wasn't too ideologically different from Sylvanas - who was willing to meaninglessly sacrifice Horde lives for a chance to trap and kill Anduin. I also don't think Zekhan and Saurfang have any kind of established relationship in that cinematic, it's just a younger warrior looking up to an honored general and speaking to him for the first time. Interpersonal relationship is apt to come later, perhaps in 8.1 and beyond, as the two join forces and do whatever it is they've got planned for the Horde. You're also speculating that Saurfang even had a plan at that point, which seems unlikely as just moments before the man was preparing to kill himself in battle. His idea to throw the fight with the Alliance forces and Anduin is most likely something that didn't occur to him until later, perhaps during the battle in the courtyard itself.



Their alignment with Sylvanas isn't of consequence, regardless of timeframe. He tells them he won't return to Sylvanas' Horde, which basically sums up everything that need be said - he knows he'd be a target outside of the Stockades. He Rokhan and company returned with him to Orgrimmar he'd be executed, and if they freed him then he'd be a target for Sylvanas' assassins (which is what happens in 8.1) as well as SI:7. There's no version of freedom in that context that gives him much of a chance. Saurfang doesn't think he can oppose Sylvanas on his own - but he feels that Anduin and the Alliance is better positioned (by dint of being more than one person, and having an equally sized armed force at their back). As for staying in his cell, well, it isn't as if he has a lot of choice - he's pretty much stuck by dint of the same scenario described above. That is until Anduin changes the equation somewhat, making freedom dangerous but not a guaranteed death/recapturing.



Saurfang is more heroic than Sylvanas, that's pretty much a given. Whether he is what the Horde should be is more open to debate, but he likely still represents a better future for the Horde than what Sylvanas intends. If the decision is between serving someone who is out-and-out evil as compared to someone I may not get along with, I would probably still choose the latter as opposed to choosing out-and-out evil. That is just my $0.02, of course.

Saurfang isn't even close to be heroic. It is kinda sad to see that simpletons fall this easy into the obvious MoP 2.0 trap Blizzard has set for them and don't think twice about it. Really sad.


Infracted for flaming.

[Trassk]

This is desperate. Kinda like how far right or far left think only their side is correct.

Thralls not responsible for the hordes current state, I'd say it's not even vol'jin fully to blame since he was manipulated

But of course, when an obvious evil leader starts f**king things up, it's everyone else's fault but said leaders.

[karumayu]

We can only speculate as to why Sylvanas decided to leave the killing blow with Saurfang. It can also be that she wants the Nightelves (Tyrande) to be pissed with Saurfang and it gives her a plausible out if the Alliance should corner her, by making Saurfang the big bad.

Like she did with Putress and Varimathras.

[Aucald]

He identifies with his decision, Sylvanas, Tyrande and Nathanos all point out him sparing it and he doesn't deny it, he approves. The blame on Sylvanas is putting the cart before the horse. Yes, Sylvanas was stupid to not just kill him, but this stupidity is born out of faith in Saurfang doing what he was doing until five minutes ago and following his oath to the Warchief. That he fails to do either is a poor mark on her as a leader, but it's a worse mark on him as he's the one actually failing at the task. Sylvanas thinking more highly of Saurfang than she should have is a point against Sylvanas, but a bigger one against Saurfang.

I see a strong division between ownership of the act (something I feel he can't really do), and feeling as though it were the right thing to do so based on his honor. He can find the outcome to be right without necessarily "owning" it. He hesitated, yes, but he didn't actually get the chance to actually spare Malfurion; which would've involved him taking an active role in surrendering Malfurion back to the Alliance. Tyrande is the active agent here, not Saurfang. Saurfang's role is completely passive - hesitation, followed by complete paralysis due to Tyrande's magic.

I'm fairly sure that the book explicitly gives the figure as high and we know that even civilians were enlisting en masse to resist the Horde. Saurfang for his part sends hundreds of rogues to kill hundreds of targets as the preliminary part, let alone the whole invasion. The damage up to that point was already severe, which is further set up when we later learn that the Horde has expelled the night elves from Ashenvale and Darkshore basically completely up until 8.1

I'd have to go back and read the two novellas, but I think you're inflating the numbers a good deal. I doubt the few Kaldorei settlements in Ashenvale would actually support hundreds of assassination targets in any case. They've just got one or two hamlets and a few outposts in the forest, after all.

Sylvanas's stupidity extends farther in that she has no reason to spare Malfurion except to enable the plot and no reason to not just tell Saurfang that Malf is to be killed and this was essential to the plan, especially considering she's completely clear about this to the player. That however doesn't absolve Saurfang of his failure, because Malfurion's action in the war up to this point should have given anyone with a half a brain reason enough to kill him, especially in Saurfang's position and he was directly ordered to do it by his Warchief. Occupation was at that point impossible and it was questionable in how possible it was even if Malfurion was killed, hence Sylvanas musing that eventually their bluff with the catapults would be called and Teldrassil would burn.

Saurfang is willing (if somewhat reluctantly) to kill Malfurion in combat if he can, his reticence in the event under discussion is a product of his interference in Sylvanas and Malfurion's prior duel. Saurfang obviously has a great deal of respect for the Night Elven leader (understandably given their shared history from WC3), but he's still willing to do what needs to be done for the good of the Horde.

This sentence is a contradiction. If it's to kill the enemy leader and three of his most powerful assets then it wasn't meaningless and the sacrifice is an explicit one. They know they're there to see this goal through. Even those who were hit by the Blight died to achieve an instrumental purpose in the interest of winning the battle. By contrast, Saurfang's decision is hidden, and rather than being for his own side it's about hoping that side and its soldiers die on a gamble while still being publicly seen as someone who's doing this battle for them. Saurfang is worse than Sylvanas in this particular regard. A plan is not necessary, intention informing his actions are and we know he did both. The intention was for Sylvanas to get taken out, even if it meant an Alliance victory and more Horde casualties and the action was sparing Anduin.

I am contrasting Saurfang's failure to kill Malfurion and the ensuing loss of Horde life with Sylvanas' failure at Lordaeron, both sacrificing Horde lives for essentially nothing (e.g. a failed plot vs. the concept of "honor"). Sylvanas being taken out would likely end the war as well, which would actually save Horde lives in the long run given that this faction conflict is a meat-grinder for both the Horde and the Alliance.

He has no reason not to tell of those fears to Rokhan or to explain things to the player, nor is there any reason to believe they wouldn't be able to protect him considering Sylvanas' capture/assassination of Saurfang is secret and by your own argument in other topics she'd supposedly based the war on his support. You can't have both positions. Either Sylvanas could easily have Saurfang killed without meaningful reaction in the Horde or he's essential and she can't have him killed because he has equal to or higher popular support than her. It's reasonable to assume that Saurfang believes the former - that the Horde wouldn't act for him, hence why 'his' Horde has to be brought in externally through Anduin.

Except Anduin won't be the one bringing about "his" Horde - Saurfang is preparing to do that himself from what we've seen. Other than that, Saurfang's reasoning concerning his imprisonment stands pat. Saurfang isn't required to tell Rokhan (or the player) anything at the moment, either internally or from a narrative standpoint. Exploration of Saurfang's rationale was meant to be a point of content for later use (as we're now preparing to see in 8.1).

[Super Dickmann]

I see a strong division between ownership of the act (something I feel he can't really do), and feeling as though it were the right thing to do so based on his honor. He can find the outcome to be right without necessarily "owning" it. He hesitated, yes, but he didn't actually get the chance to actually spare Malfurion; which would've involved him taking an active role in surrendering Malfurion back to the Alliance. Tyrande is the active agent here, not Saurfang. Saurfang's role is completely passive - hesitation, followed by complete paralysis due to Tyrande's magic.

Saurfang enables Malfurion's survival by doing nothing. To spare someone you don't need to do more than that. He spends several minutes not doing it and he ulimately decides he can't go through with it before the choice is taken away from him. He agrees with the choice that he made and Tyrande treats it as a choice and rightly so. That you treat Sylvanas' decision to leave it to Saurfang as a huge mistake is demonstrative of this. You know he wouldn't have done it and the reason he wouldn't have done it is his ego.

I'd have to go back and read the two novellas, but I think you're inflating the numbers a good deal. I doubt the few Kaldorei settlements in Ashenvale would actually support hundreds of assassination targets in any case. They've just got one or two hamlets and a few outposts in the forest, after all.

The Horde army is described as 'thousands upon thousands', Sylvanas as having saved 'thousands' in fighting off Malfurion, Saurfang speaks of 'thousands' of skirmishes going on which necessitates thousands of soldiers on both sides. The narrative even acknowledges my point through Tyrande by her calling Saurfang out that he's already killed so many for nothing.

Saurfang is willing (if somewhat reluctantly) to kill Malfurion in combat if he can, his reticence in the event under discussion is a product of his interference in Sylvanas and Malfurion's prior duel. Saurfang obviously has a great deal of respect for the Night Elven leader (understandably given their shared history from WC3), but he's still willing to do what needs to be done for the good of the Horde.

While I do think that if Saurfang was aware it was essential to the plan he'd probably do it, and thus Sylv is a moron for not telling him, he wasn't told, so as you also acknowledge, he wouldn't have done it and Sylvanas was stupid to expect it of him. I.e, even without outside intervention, he'd not kill Malf and thus do what I'm condemning he did.

I am contrasting Saurfang's failure to kill Malfurion and the ensuing loss of Horde life with Sylvanas' failure at Lordaeron, both sacrificing Horde lives for essentially nothing (e.g. a failed plot vs. the concept of "honor"). Sylvanas being taken out would likely end the war as well, which would actually save Horde lives in the long run given that this faction conflict is a meat-grinder for both the Horde and the Alliance.

Except Sylvanas' failure was a failure of execution brought on by factors outside of her control, whereas Saurfang's failure was a deliberate choice that he approved of despite its consequences. And the latter point is bunk as Saurfang didn't believe this himself at the time, the last we see of his mindset he believes that this war will only end with annihilation, yet he still would rather the Alliance win at Lordaeron and the Horde lose.

Except Anduin won't be the one bringing about "his" Horde - Saurfang is preparing to do that himself from what we've seen. Other than that, Saurfang's reasoning concerning his imprisonment stands pat. Saurfang isn't required to tell Rokhan (or the player) anything at the moment, either internally or from a narrative standpoint. Exploration of Saurfang's rationale was meant to be a point of content for later use (as we're now preparing to see in 8.1).

Nothing obligates Saurfang to do it, but he engenders no support by concealing his means and motive except creating artificial tension, nor is there anything laudable in his mistrust for people who we're meant to believe are his ideological allies. No matter how you spin it, he's only able to do anything because Anduin freed him and gave him a pep talk and he cooperated with no one in the Horde prior to bring change, nor did he ever voice his complaints to them.

[Grazrug]

I see a strong division between ownership of the act (something I feel he can't really do), and feeling as though it were the right thing to do so based on his honor. He can find the outcome to be right without necessarily "owning" it. He hesitated, yes, but he didn't actually get the chance to actually spare Malfurion; which would've involved him taking an active role in surrendering Malfurion back to the Alliance. Tyrande is the active agent here, not Saurfang. Saurfang's role is completely passive - hesitation, followed by complete paralysis due to Tyrande's magic.



I'd have to go back and read the two novellas, but I think you're inflating the numbers a good deal. I doubt the few Kaldorei settlements in Ashenvale would actually support hundreds of assassination targets in any case. They've just got one or two hamlets and a few outposts in the forest, after all.



Saurfang is willing (if somewhat reluctantly) to kill Malfurion in combat if he can, his reticence in the event under discussion is a product of his interference in Sylvanas and Malfurion's prior duel. Saurfang obviously has a great deal of respect for the Night Elven leader (understandably given their shared history from WC3), but he's still willing to do what needs to be done for the good of the Horde.



I am contrasting Saurfang's failure to kill Malfurion and the ensuing loss of Horde life with Sylvanas' failure at Lordaeron, both sacrificing Horde lives for essentially nothing (e.g. a failed plot vs. the concept of "honor"). Sylvanas being taken out would likely end the war as well, which would actually save Horde lives in the long run given that this faction conflict is a meat-grinder for both the Horde and the Alliance.



Except Anduin won't be the one bringing about "his" Horde - Saurfang is preparing to do that himself from what we've seen. Other than that, Saurfang's reasoning concerning his imprisonment stands pat. Saurfang isn't required to tell Rokhan (or the player) anything at the moment, either internally or from a narrative standpoint. Exploration of Saurfang's rationale was meant to be a point of content for later use (as we're now preparing to see in 8.1).

If you have the chance to take down an enemy leader who is literally a demigod, all shouts of MUH HONORRRR becomes pointless. There isn't anything to win in 1 vs 1 combat like Malfurion or Jaina.DEMIGOD POWERS, they can't be taken down in some mak'gora MUH honor crap, less even in the middle of an open battlefield. This archaic Orc logic cost the Horde more lifes and soldiers than it saved. Prior to this nobody but Sylvanas had the guts to do something about it. See broken shore retreat. The entire Horde would be dead by now, if not for this tactical decision. Yet the only thing Saurfang cares is to die in some 1 on 1 he can't win against some enemies far too big.

[tyrlaan]

We can only speculate as to why Sylvanas decided to leave the killing blow with Saurfang. It can also be that she wants the Nightelves (Tyrande) to be pissed with Saurfang and it gives her a plausible out if the Alliance should corner her, by making Saurfang the big bad.

Like she did with Putress and Varimathras.

Honestly I think it was a test of Saurfang, and he failed.

Sylvanas is many things, but idiot is not one of them. I'm sure she wanted to see how loyal he would be and this was a good push against that honor orcs talk about so much.

Prior to this nobody but Sylvanas had the guts to do something about it. See broken shore retreat. The entire Horde would be dead by now, if not for this tactical decision.

You mean the tactical decision she made because Vol'jin told her not to let that day be the end of the Horde?

Credit where credit is due.

[Grazrug]

Honestly I think it was a test of Saurfang, and he failed.

Sylvanas is many things, but idiot is not one of them. I'm sure she wanted to see how loyal he would be and this was a good push against that honor orcs talk about so much.



You mean the tactical decision she made because Vol'jin told her not to let that day be the end of the Horde?

Credit where credit is due.

Any Saurfang trope of Orc would just say "Fuck it." and kept fighting, and then dying. And the Alliance would be sheering because they can take all the credit for taking down the Burning Legion and later laughing about the stupid Horde, for finishing itself off. That's the major problem with most orcs, and Orc RPers and Garrosh supports aren't able to reflect on this properly.

[tyrlaan]

Any Saurfang trope of Orc would just say "Fuck it." and kept fighting, and then dying. And the Alliance would be sheering because they can take all the credit for taking down the Burning Legion and later laughing about the stupid Horde, for finishing itself off. That's the major problem with most orcs, and Orc RPers and Garrosh supports aren't able to reflect on this properly.

I'm going to confess, I completely do not understand what you are saying here.

[My User Name]

Thrall didn't ruin the Horde, Green Jesus did.

The legendary Warchief whose name was Thrall died with Cataclysm.

[sighy]

Thrall rectified his poor choices by not only helping Vol'jin's revolution, not only facing Garrosh in Siege of Orgrimmar, and not only fighting the Iron Horde on AU Draenor, but also landing the killing blow on Garrosh in AU Nagrand.

However, it has always been written that Thrall's decisions were the best at the time. He chose Garrosh because of his bravery in Northrend, but we quickly saw that the young Hellscream couldn't handle any huge decisions to be a good, fair leader. Thrall chose to have Gallywix remain the leader of the Bilgewater Cartel, despite the fact that the entire cartel had been against this for much of the Goblin starting zone - the first quests are about gaining popularity to dethrone him. Thrall also brought forth the idea to have Vol'jin as the Warchief after Garrosh, which was debatable as a good decision or not in the forums (and still is).

The current problems aren't all Thrall's fault, but he didn't help it. Sylvanas, Gallywix, and Garrosh are not blameless in their decisions themselves.
-Gallywix was given a second chance, and still does morally dubious stuff with his cartel for profit and fame. He didn't need to bring up Azerite to Sylvanas at all.
-Garrosh didn't need to make half the decisions he did in Cataclysm and Pandaria - it didn't even make coherent sense at the time, considering he was angered by the corruption of the orcs, yet immediately chose to be corrupted by the heart of Y'Shaarj in SoO. Even then, Garrosh was given a second chance after his trial, and he didn't need to escape and make the Iron Horde.
-Sylvanas was given a second chance after the Wrathgate/Battle for Undercity, and immediately began to use her blight in Gilneas (after Garrosh specifically tells her not to). She didn't need to attack the Alliance, yet she chose to (with her original idea being Stormwind, then changing it to Teldrassil after the discovery of Azerite).

In the end, Thrall hasn't been in the picture for a while. He wasn't even a very important part of WoD, with his only major contribution being Garrosh's death. His only major contributions in Legion were making a bridge on the Broken Shore, and providing Doomfist to enhancement shamans. All the other characters were given a chance to do what they can with the Horde now, and they are making poor choices themselves.

Thrall broke the rules of Mak'gora(cheated), in order to defeat Garrosh

Gallywix is acting like you would expect a goblin to act, except he has the power and smarts to do it on a greater scale than any goblin before him. Shoutout to Gazlowe and Steemwheedles, for seniority, becaue they joined the horde, before the second war even started. And as far as Azerite is concerned he knew what it was and knew the Horde could greatly benefit from it.

Garrosh has been brough up, as a Warsong Orc and solved issues as a Warsong Orc would. His fall was more owed to racism toward everything that wasn't an Orc

Conquest of Gilneas was Garrosh's initiative, however Sylvanas handled the execution and used the Blight to prevent casualites on her side. It was brutal and morally ambiguous, however it prevented Gilneas, from becoming a senceless meat grinder. Chronicles goes as far as suggesting it was meant to wipe out a substantial portion of the Forsaken, on Garrosh's part.

[Grazrug]

Thrall broke the rules of Mak'gora(cheated), in order to defeat Garrosh

Garrosh has been brough up, as a Warsong Orc and solved issues as a Warsong Orc would. His fall was more owed to racism toward everything that wasn't an Orc

Will this myth about Thrall cheating at Mak'gora ever stop? Or the hordes(lol) of garrosh fans jumping to his defense?

[sighy]

Saurfang enables Malfurion's survival by doing nothing. To spare someone you don't need to do more than that. He spends several minutes not doing it and he ulimately decides he can't go through with it before the choice is taken away from him. He agrees with the choice that he made and Tyrande treats it as a choice and rightly so. That you treat Sylvanas' decision to leave it to Saurfang as a huge mistake is demonstrative of this. You know he wouldn't have done it and the reason he wouldn't have done it is his ego.

Adding some arguments to your stuff. There is a point, when indecision becomes a decision of it's own. A leader should under no circumstance expect their highest ranking general to betray them. Because, if they do odds are they need a new highest ranking general.

The Horde army is described as 'thousands upon thousands', Sylvanas as having saved 'thousands' in fighting off Malfurion, Saurfang speaks of 'thousands' of skirmishes going on which necessitates thousands of soldiers on both sides. The narrative even acknowledges my point through Tyrande by her calling Saurfang out that he's already killed so many for nothing.

By the end of War of Thorns the forces, from Silithus have returned and got absolutely crushed.

While I do think that if Saurfang was aware it was essential to the plan he'd probably do it, and thus Sylv is a moron for not telling him, he wasn't told, so as you also acknowledge, he wouldn't have done it and Sylvanas was stupid to expect it of him. I.e, even without outside intervention, he'd not kill Malf and thus do what I'm condemning he did.

Saurfang made that plan and Sylvanas even says so later, in the good war. Something along the lines of "It was your strategy Saurfang, you failed to execute it and i had to improvise now they will come for us, in pain. Not in glory." And Saurfang is pissed about it, but condones it with somethign along the lines of "Saurfang was furious and wanted to spill her blood, where they stood, but she was right. The story of Malfurion's miraculous survival would spread..."(ofc it's not exact quotes, but it's how i remember them in essence)

Except Sylvanas' failure was a failure of execution brought on by factors outside of her control, whereas Saurfang's failure was a deliberate choice that he approved of despite its consequences. And the latter point is bunk as Saurfang didn't believe this himself at the time, the last we see of his mindset he believes that this war will only end with annihilation, yet he still would rather the Alliance win at Lordaeron and the Horde lose.

At Lordaeon it was a Deus Ex machina that stopped Sylvanas's plan from working, while Saurfang was simply being a moron or traitor(take your pick)

Nothing obligates Saurfang to do it, but he engenders no support by concealing his means and motive except creating artificial tension, nor is there anything laudable in his mistrust for people who we're meant to believe are his ideological allies. No matter how you spin it, he's only able to do anything because Anduin freed him and gave him a pep talk and he cooperated with no one in the Horde prior to bring change, nor did he ever voice his complaints to them.

I believe he doesn't trust the rescue party, however it still is an act of treason to the Horde(well desertion)

- - - Updated - - -

Will this myth about Thrall cheating at Mak'gora ever stop? Or the hordes(lol) of garrosh fans jumping to his defense?

Well it's not a myth. Mak'gora rules are specific in that regard. One is forbidden, from wearing armor and only allowed one weapon. No magic.

[Aresk]

Definition of "Tyrant":

"A person who governs oppressively, unjustly, and arbitrarily; despot"

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/di...english/tyrant

In no way shape or form is Sylvanas a "tyrant" - people who use this buzzword either have no idea as to it's actual definition, or use it disingenuously on purpose as a way of expressing their distaste. Either way it's the wrong word to use.

If you want to point to arbitrary rule, we can look at War of Thorns: Sylvanas sets out to kill Malfurion and occupy Teldrassil. While she does order Malfurion's death, she then proceeds to burn Teldrassil because one dying night elf makes a defiant remark to her.

If you want to point to her oppressive governance, let's look at the meeting in Arathi between undead and human Lordaeron citizens. She ordered her troops to return to her as soon as they heard the horn. She blew the horn; several started running back, and she had her rangers murder them. Not just the defectors, but those who were doing exactly as she requested, all because she didn't agree with her view of what it meant to be undead.

As for her unjust qualities, both of the above offer evidence to that. She has called for the deaths of many noncombatants.

I think Sylvanas is cunning and ruthless. I find her an interesting character and am curious to see where the story goes. I don't agree with her methods in a real world setting, but in terms of a work of entertainment, I think she adds something interesting to the narrative. While I hope the Horde breaks free of her leadership, I'd like to see her remain a major player in WoW lore. I didn't initially consider her a tyrant, but after reading your definition, I must reluctantly agree with those who label her such. Hopefully you can provide some good counterexamples to dissuade that label.

[sighy]

If you want to point to arbitrary rule, we can look at War of Thorns: Sylvanas sets out to kill Malfurion and occupy Teldrassil. While she does order Malfurion's death, she then proceeds to burn Teldrassil because one dying night elf makes a defiant remark to her.

She trusted her highest ranking general to finish his own strategy. And the burning of Teldrassil was more in consequence of him failing to do so rather than her chat, with Delarin Summermoon. As depicted, in A Good War. Even Saurfang has to concede the logic behind her actions, at the time, even if it angers him to no end.

If you want to point to her oppressive governance, let's look at the meeting in Arathi between undead and human Lordaeron citizens. She ordered her troops to return to her as soon as they heard the horn. She blew the horn; several started running back, and she had her rangers murder them. Not just the defectors, but those who were doing exactly as she requested, all because she didn't agree with her view of what it meant to be undead.

They were potencial conspirators of an usurper. And her actions were a response to other participants willfully breaking the previously established rules of the meeting. The way it is in the book Sylvanas doesn't act until Calia's true identity is revealed and she starts screaming that she is the "rightful ruler of Lordaeon going to free them..." or someshit. The Forsaken there have either been guilty of high treason or by association. None the less it was a minor portion of the Desolate council, in the grand scheme of things.

As for her unjust qualities, both of the above offer evidence to that. She has called for the deaths of many noncombatants.

She gives the chance to potentially problematic characters to prove themself. San'layn, Zandalari, even a Dreadlord to name a few examples. That's more than you can say, for nearly any other leader in Azeroth. Everyone is given a chance to prove their value and loyalty or otherwise, at their own risk. As for the Teldrassil thing as i said the objective of that campaign was to strike a blow that would tear the aliance apart, in the long run. And from what we see she did.

I think Sylvanas is cunning and ruthless. I find her an interesting character and am curious to see where the story goes. I don't agree with her methods in a real world setting, but in terms of a work of entertainment, I think she adds something interesting to the narrative. While I hope the Horde breaks free of her leadership, I'd like to see her remain a major player in WoW lore. I didn't initially consider her a tyrant, but after reading your definition, I must reluctantly agree with those who label her such. Hopefully you can provide some good counterexamples to dissuade that label.

Sylvanas works as an anti-hero that means not everybody is going to like her methods. She ultimately works, for the good of the Horde, as far as we know.(this line is important) Doing what she can to build a world peace on Horde's terms(her own words).

[chrisisvacant]

-Gallywix was given a second chance, and still does morally dubious stuff with his cartel for profit and fame. He didn't need to bring up Azerite to Sylvanas at all.

And the alternative was...

[Seylene]

Agree but not for the same reason, the moment thrall turned his back on the Nordrassil accord that was literally the whole "Woah guess we all jumped the gun here were good now." and had the world at peace because he didn't want to risk home support by scolding his orcs. Was when the Honorable WC3 horde was ruined.