Sylvanas: the only honorable Horde leader

[Unholyground]

I like Thrall. Always have. The problem I had wasn't with him, but rather was with Blizzard's over-reliance on him.

He can come back with his Son and teach him the ways of the Horde. Even if he is just more hardened now, maybe an adviser to the Warchief.

[Mixxy]

He can come back with his Son and teach him the ways of the Horde. Even if he is just more hardened now, maybe an adviser to the Warchief.

Would be neat to see a Horde-flavoured retread of the Varian/Anduin relationship.

[Lord Pebbleton]

All you guys keep talking about this blood oath thing. Remember Saurfang's speech to you before you fight the paragons, when he asks about Nazgrim? How he spoke to Nazgrim to tell him that Garrosh had betrayed his own people so badly that he no longer should feel obligated to obey him? Every race who rose up against Garrosh reached a point where they realized that.

Then why didn't she rebel against Garrosh? If she felt he was trying to murder her people, she should have stood against him. Pretending to obey and doing the thing anyway just makes you an unreliable ally. She didn't because she would have lost the horde support, since at the time there still weren't many tensions bewteen Garrosh and the rest. She just did her thing because it suited her, and there's no honor about that.
I have no idea about what Saurfang says because I main alliance, but he kinda lost my respect after throwing a damn axe in the back of Malfurion and then moping about it being dishonorable lel. You either do it and shut up, or don't do it, what the hell was the point in that.

Anyway, I'm derailing my own post. What I want to get to is: instead of defying the warchief/obeying, she just kinda struck in the middle. Even if she had the right intentions, that's just not how it works if you want to pursue that "honor" thing.

[cparle87]

Then why didn't she rebel against Garrosh? If she felt he was trying to murder her people, she should have stood against him. Pretending to obey and doing the thing anyway just makes you an unreliable ally. She didn't because she would have lost the horde support, since at the time there still weren't many tensions bewteen Garrosh and the rest. She just did her thing because it suited her, and there's no honor about that.
I have no idea about what Saurfang says because I main alliance, but he kinda lost my respect after throwing a damn axe in the back of Malfurion and then moping about it being dishonorable lel. You either do it and shut up, or don't do it, what the hell was the point in that.

Anyway, I'm derailing my own post. What I want to get to is: instead of defying the warchief/obeying, she just kinda struck in the middle. Even if she had the right intentions, that's just not how it works if you want to pursue that "honor" thing.

Doesn't do anything = her people are annihilated.
Does what she did = per people survive.
Rebel against Garrosh right then and there = her people are annihilated.

[Florena]

Sylvanas was all too happy to disobey Garrosh's orders when she could get away with it, and was among those that rebelled against him in the Siege of Orgrimmar. Without anything like an attempted assassination against her.

If Sylvanas didn't care to uphold her oath when it wasn't convenient for her, I see no reason she should expect anyone to do the same for her.

[Kaver]

Sylvanas, despite admitting that her own sense of honor is not as strong as it could be, is so far the only Horde leader to have shown any respect for the Blood Oath. Her Warchief commanded, and she obeyed. Other Horde leaders only obey the Warchief's command as long as it suits them. As soon as they are asked to do something they have qualms with (like hurting the Alliance in Baine's case), they either resort to plotting and scheming behind the Warchief's back or committing open treason.

In fact, Orgrim, Garrosh, and Cairne are the only other three Horde leaders who have done things the intended way and challenged the incumbent Warchief to Mak'gora instead of resorting to treachery. With all of them dead, Sylvanas remains the only Horde leader who respects the Blood Oath.

Dude you know nothing about the lore. It's embarrassing.

[Lord Pebbleton]

Doesn't do anything = her people are annihilated.
Does what she did = per people survive.
Rebel against Garrosh right then and there = her people are annihilated.

Why not stage a coup then? Like the others did when Garrosh wronged her. Faking it would have been acceptable if it was followed by some strong act IMO, be it rebellion or mak'gora or whatever.

[Schattenlied]

All you guys keep talking about this blood oath thing. Remember Saurfang's speech to you before you fight the paragons, when he asks about Nazgrim? How he spoke to Nazgrim to tell him that Garrosh had betrayed his own people so badly that he no longer should feel obligated to obey him? Every race who rose up against Garrosh reached a point where they realized that. Maybe Sylvanas was simply the second, right after Vol'jin.

Yes, and the point is, if it's ok for Sylvanas to break her oath because she felt that Garrosh betrayed her, then it's ok for anyone to break their blood oath when they feel their Warchief has betrayed them, which means it's fine for anyone to break their oath to Sylvanas.

[Alex86el]

troll thread? lol

[Wildberry]

No, he can't. And since Wildberry merely repeated what he said in the last topic on the matter, I'll simply repeat my answer to their point there as well:

So I've had a response that I've been writing for a bit. I've gone and changed some bits and changed references to posters/claims so that it will cover the topics in both threads. If there's anything you feel has been missed by reformatting or the thread transition, let me know.

Forsaken getting a weaker strain of Blight to use in other areas is a pretty clear stance on the Blight. So is the fact that Cromush, Garrosh's legate to observe Sylvanas, was also OK with Blight being used at Shadowfang the moment he was told it is a weaker strain.

What I mean by "unclear stance on the blight" is that:
-"Heart of War," shows Garrosh listing the blight as 'unacceptable conduct.'
-"Edge of Night," shows Garrosh forbidding the use of the plague
-High Warlord Cromush states outright that "the Warchief explicitly forbids using the full plague." He's only "okay" with it when Belmont lies and assures him it's "completely harmless."
-General Warhowl states outright that "Garrosh has explicitly forbidden [the use of the plague]"

Quests like "Agony Abounds" and statements like those from Cromush and Belmont imply diluted plague is okay. Everytime we've seen Garrosh speak directly on the issue, it's considered unacceptable.

That your wondering why the plague is okay in one instance and not okay in another proves the point regardling lack of clarity.

And when Garrosh finally started to finally burn Warlocks, did he exhibit the exact same double think where he burned Warlocks only in the important front, but gave Orcs Warlock noobs to fight on other fronts? No? Then it's not really comparable, is it now?=

Roughly speaking? Yes. Take a look at the "Playing With Felfire" Questline. Draaka utilizes in secrecy making reference to the fact that they're "not to meddle with Demonic energies." She goes through with her plan with as much secrecy as possible. In both quest text, and the readable notes, you see the justification amounts to "We're not supposed to do this, but we're backed into a corner, we're going to die anyway, and once Garrosh sees the results maybe he'll be fine with it."

Garrosh wasn't fine with it, and decides that for Draaka to go unpunished, you need to bring him the head of Durak. Bringing the head to Garrosh results in him removing the bounty placed on your head, but claiming a desire to end your life "on principle."

Seems like a pretty strict stance against Fel Magic to me. And this took place in Ashenvale, which is what Garrosh considered to be the most important front. And despite that stance there, we see Ga'trul, a warlock, as Second-in-Command in Pandaria.

With regard to Magnataur, Kraken, and Dark Shamanism, you're getting away from the point and focusing on "practicality" which is a total red herring. The objection to these things appears to be on moral grounds. Are subsequent Warchiefs "deliberately gimping" their forces by not utilizing them?

Alone, maybe it doesn't. But I mentioned all things to paint the full picture for a reason. Forsaken were deliberately thrown into a chokepoint under the guise of "lel, they are durable", which was disingenuous horseshit that deliberately ignored the fact they are not immortal and their durability wasn't saving them for shit because they were in a chokepoint.

They're not immortal, nobody claimed otherwise. What was claimed is that they're far more durable than other races, and we see instances of that actually saving them within "Edge of Night."

And they were sent into that chokepoint with no tactical benefit behind that decision, because there was a not retarded way of invasion being available even before the wall was breached. And, on top of all of that, they were artificially deprived of the weapon they were allowed to use everywhere else. Garrosh's intent to use Gilneas as an altar to sacrifice the Forsaken on couldn't be more clear unless he started to pay Worgen for each Forsaken killed in the breach.

You and I both know this doesn't prove intent. You might disagree with how Garrosh was conducting the invasion, but there is zero proof of actual intent to genocide the Forsaken, and that's what has been claimed here.

Cparle 87 specifically used the phrase: "literally trying to genocide your species."
Omeomorfismo's routine claim is that Garrosh is deliberately trying to whittle down their numbers
Nymrohd was claiming that the Forsaken were used to prevent Orcish casualties.

Those claims are simply factually incorrect. Proof doesn't exist for them. You disagreeing with Garrosh's tactics doesn't change that. You pointing to Garrosh's inconsistent stance on the blight doesn't change that.

Even on a surface level, the accusation just doesn't make sense. Why would Garrosh use Gilneas as an altar to sacrifice the Forsaken on? We know he wanted to actually claim it. Why did this "attempted genocide" begin and end with one leg of the Gilneas campaign? Why does Garrosh, after Sylvanas can't manage to take Gilneas, send troops from Orgrimmar and consider personally leading the invasion a second time?

If Sylvanas was faltering in Gilneas, and Garrosh wanted the Forsaken gone, wouldn't he have simply done these things after they had failed completely?

Addressing this here since you apparently don't want to address it in the respective thread: no one is calling Taliesin and Evitel "objective". They're simply saying they're not the "white knights" you claim them to be.

Please go read some of the replies to Daemos' original response, and get back to me.

Intent doesn't matter. She knows it's going to happen if she does nothing. So she has to tread very carefully to get him to change course.

Yes, it actually does, because you previously wrote:

when he's literally trying to genocide your species

Furthermore, with regard to "getting him to change course," that's not what you were originally arguing, you were arguing that her betrayal was "acceptable," because of that inaccuracy you were spinning.

Garrosh using them as cannon fodder to the point where his orcs can use their bodies as a ramp to climb the Greymane Wall.

The Cannon Fodder myth has already been debunked in this thread.

All you guys keep talking about this blood oath thing. Remember Saurfang's speech to you before you fight the paragons, when he asks about Nazgrim? How he spoke to Nazgrim to tell him that Garrosh had betrayed his own people so badly that he no longer should feel obligated to obey him? Every race who rose up against Garrosh reached a point where they realized that.

Yeah, an off-the-cuff comment by Saurfang isn't something that's institutionalized within the framework of the Horde. You cannot give a statement like that the same sort of legitimacy as the Blood Oath (which directly contradicts Saurfang's statement).

Which is out-of-character/bullshit writing. And Garrosh was warchief of no one.

No, Garrosh, whether you like it or not, was the legitimate Warchief of the Horde. You can't arbitrarily dismiss that because you don't like the implications.

And we've shown that there are limits to that oath. Even Garrosh challenging Thrall to the mak'gora at the beginning of Wrath was tied to that. He couldn't understand Thrall's decision to have his people eke out a life in a harsh, barren land instead of taking a more fertile one. A point where they go "obeying this oath is no longer in the best interests of my people and something has to change."

Garrosh challenged Thrall to mak'gora. The institution within the Horde specifically designed for leadership changes. That's not in violation of the Blood Oath.

Stop trying to draw false equivalencies.

[Kuntantee]

Yes, and the point is, if it's ok for Sylvanas to break her oath because she felt that Garrosh betrayed her, then it's ok for anyone to break their blood oath when they feel their Warchief has betrayed them, which means it's fine for anyone to break their oath to Sylvanas.

Except Sylvanas didn't turn against Horde. She is targeting Alliance and Alliance only, the enemy of the Horde. Equating Sylvanas with Garrosh doesn't make sense.

[Wildberry]

Except Sylvanas didn't turn against Horde. She is targeting Alliance and Alliance only, the enemy of the Horde. Equating Sylvanas with Garrosh doesn't make sense.

By the time Garrosh "turned on the Horde" a good chunk of them were in open rebellion, and had been engaging in treasonous rabble rousing for far longer.

[Schattenlied]

Except Sylvanas didn't turn against Horde. She is targeting Alliance and Alliance only, the enemy of the Horde. Equating Sylvanas with Garrosh doesn't make sense.

She is betraying the values of the Horde, even breaking rules her own Forsaken hold of the utmost importance (no messing with an undead's free will).

And she disobeyed orders from him LONG before Garrosh "turned against the Horde". There is no stipulation to the blood oath that says she was allowed to disobey a direct order because she didn't agree with his plan for attacking Gilneas, but she did, disobeying a direct order is breaking the blood oath, which is treason. If it's ok for her to break her oath because she doesn't agree with how her warchief was conducting a war, then it's ok for others to do it to her.

[Super Dickmann]

She is betraying the values of the Horde, even breaking rules her own Forsaken hold of the utmost importance (no messing with an undead's free will).

And she disobeyed orders from him LONG before Garrosh "turned against the Horde".

It's like a broken record with you people. Alright, let's do this again. What are the Horde's values beyond loyalty to the Warchief per the Blood Oath? Where are they found?

As for Sylvanas being a traitor to the Horde after disobeying Garrosh, no argument there.

[Mehrunes]

Would be neat to see a Horde-flavoured retread of the Varian/Anduin relationship.

So a really shit version of the last God of War game?

[Super Dickmann]

Would be neat to see a Horde-flavoured retread of the Varian/Anduin relationship.

Saurfang and Memeboi are quite enough.

[Syegfryed]

By the time Sylvanas actually get to participate in the rise against Garrosh, he was no longer her Warchief, as he kicked out the "lesser races" and publicly proclaimed they are no longer a part of his Horde.

why he didn't kick goblins though? the lesser race of all? because he didn't care about rce but loyalty, he only kick then after they joined the rebellion.

- - - Updated - - -

No drama at all. In the short story where Sylvanas makes a pact with the val'kyr she has a vision of her people's future.

>implying visions are always true
>implying she come back because of this and not because eternal damnation

All you guys keep talking about this blood oath thing. Remember Saurfang's speech to you before you fight the paragons, when he asks about Nazgrim? How he spoke to Nazgrim to tell him that Garrosh had betrayed his own people so badly that he no longer should feel obligated to obey him? Every race who rose up against Garrosh reached a point where they realized that.

they rebel before that tough

[Kuntantee]

By the time Garrosh "turned on the Horde" a good chunk of them were in open rebellion, and had been engaging in treasonous rabble rousing for far longer.

No, not really. The Horde rebellion started after assassination attempt of Vol'jin.

[Wildberry]

No, not really. The Horde rebellion started after assassination attempt of Vol'jin.

And Vol'jin was already a traitor by the time Garrosh gave the order to assassinate him.

[Kuntantee]

She is betraying the values of the Horde, even breaking rules her own Forsaken hold of the utmost importance (no messing with an undead's free will).

What value of Horde did she break? And further more, she violated freewill of which Forsaken?

- - - Updated - - -

And Vol'jin was already a traitor by the time Garrosh gave the order to assassinate him.

How so?

/10char