In chains, to be quietly executed like Baine. (edit: New favorite scenario for loyalist players: Being arrested and put in this exact situation, only to be rescued by Team Traitor.)
On the extremely long list of "how the situation could have been resolved had Sylvanas decided to not be evil:
Dark Ranger Lyana says: Come along, Unnamed Adventurer. Saurfang trusts you. We'll need you to convince him to return home safely.
Dark Ranger Lyana says: Varok Saurfang! We've found you! I have orders from Sylvanas to escort you safely back to Orgrimmar.
Saurfang: What, really? Kinda thought you were out to assassinate me, so I went into hiding. Unnamed Adventurer, is this true?
You: Yep, that perfectly matches what she told me.
Saurfang: Well OK then but only if Sylvanas actually listens to me this time. The Alliance wants us all dead, and I don't want that to happen any more than you do. The boy-king set me free but I promised him nothing.
Dark Ranger Lyana: So long as you are with us. Let's head back to Orgrimmar!
Last edited by Powerogue; 2019-07-05 at 05:13 AM.
I am with you regarding the thing that Anduin should suffer consequences. He's not in the right place after all.
This character would work out perfectly fine if someone else would take the reins and he would just bei the "voice of compassion". You could even put him through some ordeals, to make him more of the "suffering saint" type. This would have enriched the Alliance, if he would not be the leading commander at the same time. In the current situation, we either need an internal coup in the Alliance (Tyrande+Malfurion and Genn would be a perfect team-up), or Anduin has to step up to the game and become just another statistic of good intentions shattered by reality.
If I have written BfA under the premise that we get a hot war again after the Legion is driven back, then I would have started with Genn pressuring Anduin to attack Undercity, catching Sylvanas somehow unprepared, so she has to resort to the tactics of scorched earth while frantically evacuating the city and trying to take as many enemy troops down as she can. Then, she would have retaliated in Teldrassil. After these huge losses, we go off to the new regions. Anduin cannot cope with all things which have happened and withdraws to support Jaina, while Tyrande, Malfurion and Genn escalate the war further, supported by the parts of the Human military, which are as eager for bloodshed as they are. Alliance puts pressure on the Horde, and their new Zandalari allies, which culminates in the death of King Rastakhan. But just as the moment comes where the Alliance is ready to shatter the Horde once and for all, Azshara rises and changes everything. The Alliance suffers a great blow, losing a huge chunk of their ships in this ordeal (while chasing the last scraps of the remaining Horde fleet to hammer their victory home). In Nazjatar, the situation changes greatly, so we possibly have to return to a more "cold war" status. The Horde gets to be useful against Azshara which prevents the Alliance to crush it once and for all. Anduin can come back to negotiate. We get a new status quo which somehow resembles the situation in Vanilla.
Edit: And instead of having the stupid Saurfang storyline we got, the Horde could instead finally have been the underdog as the faction has been in its conception and would have gotten a war campaign with guerilla tactics etc. - while the Alliance would have been the marching juggernaught. The Forsaken could have shined as the masters of desperate measures, which would have been somehow reasonable in the presence of an overwhelming Alliance. And the Alliance could get the spotlight on them regarding the dissonance of trying to have the moral upperhand in contrast to the harsh reality of war and all the evils that have to be done to put an enemy down which simply refuses to bend the knee. Possibly even something like an internal conflict between Anduin and Velen (and the Dwarves?) on the one side, who don't want to exterminate the Horde, and the other races who want to end the Horde once and for all. Jainas stance would depend on the storyline of Derek. Which probably would have even worked in this concept, because Sylvanas could have been desperate enough.
Also, please stop with this "toxic masculinity" stuff. This is a propaganda statement which does not help the discussion. I don't care who have used it first, it's a dumb clichee.
Last edited by scubi666stacy; 2019-07-05 at 07:44 AM.
The statement was used by Christie Golden when talked in an interview about Anduin, wich, accompanied with the treatment that the guy took in her last book, set up further suspicions on her writing and gave the meme birth.
Back on topic, your idea is pretty nice, I mean, had I had to write this expansion's events, I'd have gone through your way of doing so, or at least a similar one. Although this still makes Sylvanas retarded for the whole BfA.
You can always play the mind control card.
- - - Updated - - -
Of course, but at least it would not have been her plan blowing up in her own face. She suffered a huge loss in Stormheim by Genn, when she lost the means to control the Val'kyr. Then she would have tried to even out the field by securing Azerite for the Horde - and while distracted in this way, the Alliance would have taken UC by surprise.
You could explain her failures and her failing grasp on control by the chain of events unfolding - losing in Stormheim, losing UC, burning Teldrassil, being cornered by the Alliance evereywhere. Sometimes, doing your best against an overwhelming power is just not enough. Especially if you have multiple fronts to cover. This could even be a tragic mirror to the events in Quel'talas back then, when she lost her life to Arthas.
I am not really sure why people think that Anduin betraying the Horde rebels at Thunder Bluff would make him a villain? That's not an evil thing to do, that's just a smart thing to do. It certainly wouldn't be his "Moral event horizon" like Theramore for Garrosh and Teldrassil for Sylvanas.
Here is the thing, the sooner the war is over, the better, and this is clear, because I wouldn't want to ruin your fun but there is a giant satanic sword stuck in the planet's surface. So if you just annihilate both loyalists and rebels and then seize control of Orgrimmar, you have won the war, the world is united under the Alliance and the Horde is dismantled. This gives you the ability to fully focus on the true enemy, which is N'Zoth and his Black Empire.
I want to make this clear: Having Anduin act like a deceitful strategist who played both Saurfang and Sylvanas does not spell into him turning into a raving N'Zoth cultist. It just means that he finally found the balls to end the war no matter the cost.
Expansion Storylines ranking:
Legion > Cataclysm > MoP > BfA up to 8.2.5 > Wrath > TBC > WoD > Dragonflight > BfA 8.3 > Shadowlands
If a bunch of US Senators were in a meeting with the USSR during the Cold War and defected, how long do you figure those guys would last? And vice versa. And those two weren't even in formal war for most of the past fifteen years the way Alliance and Horde were. That is treason, and treason is punishable by death or life imprisonment in nearly every state out there. Past that it's a complete humiliation and delegitimizing for the leader who allows it, showing she has no control of her own nationals, that her high administrators are completely disloyal and that she'll let a pretender who wasn't revealed to her before just slide away with said defectors in tow to continue eventually getting rid of her. No monarch in their right mind would allow it.
As for why she didn't bother with a trial, who cares from an omniscient perspective, we know they're guilty - we know Calia claimed that everyone except Elsie was in the process of defecting and we have no reason to doubt her and we're also told that the Dark Rangers see everyone drifting towards Stromgarde. They are factually defectors and in that situation, you get the death penalty or life in prison. The ones that did come back weren't loyal, they were the ones returning out of convenience, as Sylvanas told Nathanos. Now, she didn't kill them for this perfectly correct reason but because of some nonsense about hope, but that doesn't alter the basic calculus. And even the bit about hope is correct in the sense that these would proliferate an attempt at her overthrow to install Calia because of said one hour meeting and were already in touch with the human king. Treason = death and a high-ranking official defecting to a foreign state to a pretender to the monarch's throne under the veil of a peace meeting is as clear a case as you get. Especially when there was an assassination attempt on that monarch less than a year ago by the same state.
I don't think Saurfang's role in Teldrassil will ever be mentioned by anyone except Tyrande again. He's scott-free, but I don't take issue with their reasoning. Attacking Thunder Bluff isn't some move of prime illogic that some people think it is. If the city stands with Baine, as is implied in the heritage scenario and by Baine having previously banished those who lack his mindset in Tides of War, and that city is then backed by the Alliance as Jaina promises, then it's in open revolt and is within spitting distance of Orgrimmar. If Sylvanas gave a shit about keeping her post, she'd attack it after asking the tauren to return Baine to the Horde's justice and being refused. But if there is a twist, then I'd lean your way and say that she will send the loyalists against Thunder Bluff to get killed against the rebels, and either shoot both with the cannon/plague them and formally leave the Horde since the jig is up and go after Stormwind with N'zoth. I'm honestly not sure where the cannon comes in.Im positive Saurfang lied to Thrall and blamed Sylvanas for Teldrassil and every thing that went wrong since Volgin died. That's why he's quick to think TB will be under attack. If he thinks Sylvanas impulsively torched the tree out of petty retribution, he's thinking shell do the same to TB because of Baine's defiant actions. The payoff for the loyalist player is that Sylvanas has a cannon mole who's keeping tabs on Saurfang's rebellion. She'll know that Thrall will convince Jaina and Anduin to lend troops to defend TB - enter the Mulgore Warfront. In reality she's moving a small loyalist troops to invade an unguarded Stormwind, the real prize. Anduin will look like a bleeding heart fool for chosing to defend a Horde city over his own, and Sylvanas will hold Stromwind hostage.
@Powerogue
The argument about Calia is empty. Sylvanas is the monarch of the state they're pledged to and in a feudal sense has their personal loyalty that if betrayed, she can punish with death. The entire rest I've already covered in earlier posts - everyone was defecting at the time Calia was tempting Elsie to do the same. They only turned when the horn sounded because they wouldn't be able to get away with it. Then they got shot. If you attempt to commit treason and are in the process of committing it, but then pussy out, all again, done within an hour of meeting, then no state in their right mind would keep you around if it means to maintain its internal stability. Their intent is clear by the fact that they were drifting towards Stromgarde in the first place.
Re: Saurfang, I don't see why you bother with this pointless spin. That he didn't sign a written contract with Anduin doesn't mean his freedom isn't entirely contingent on the Alliance's monarch and done with the express purpose of her overthrow. It featured his explicit confession that he'd already spared that king so that he might overthrow his Warchief. He should be executed immediately. That Sylvanas instead even entertains the notion of taking him in is just mishandlnig the situation. Those guys should've torched the hut unannounced and then shot him in the head as he emerged and fed him and memeboi to the crocodiles to remove the evidence.
You know by who's standard? That horrible Sylvanas fanboy Baine, who during Garrosh's trial explained that even threatening your Warchief with death, let alone taking steps to do so and to sabotage your leader made Garrosh giving Vol'jin the death penalty valid. Not that we need his standard, at this point Saurfang meets the textbook US definition of treason by aiding and abbetting the enemy, that being the Alliance that the Horde is at war with, and the act of aid being said sparing of Anduin for the purpose of her overthrow and now being freed from prison in order to try again.
Lying to the player is just prudence as the player was originally guaranteed to betray her due to his hitherto unmentioned loyalty to Saurfang and the Alliance. Even now it's like a fifty/fifty chance that the player is more loyal to Saurfang and the Horde and so needs to be fed bullshit. Not that there's any reason for the player to even be there, since Lyana did all the work, so it's not even that and just Sylvanas being retarded.
Last edited by Super Dickmann; 2019-07-05 at 08:41 AM.
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.
As much as I would love the twist of Anduin taking advantage of the Horde infighting to end the war and the Horde for good, this will never happen. He and Jaina agreed to back off securing a victory at the battle of Dra--- fucking Wakanda. He admitted that would be a huge mistake and still went through with retreating. Instead of obliterating a powerful enemy nation and using the world's largest and only navy to end the war, all he did was kick a hornet's nest. He's fucking stupid and going to get played by Sylvanas yet again.
And to think. If he'd just driven the Kul Tiran fleet to Stormsong and arrested Sylvanas and the Horde leadership, a miniscule amount of people would've died since those ships wouldn't all have fallen down a hole. I do feel for the families of the Nazmir suicide army.
"Did my husband at least die for something?"
"Oh, yes, he gave his life so we could win at Zandalar. The enemy fleet has been totally destroyed. We could win within weeks!"
"Within weeks? So the war is almost over."
"Oh no, victory would make the enemy sad. The king's decided to wait and have our top agents record Horde leadership meetings in Kul Tiras instead"
"Wait, why don't you have those agents just shoot the enemy leader?"
"Er...King's honor, friend."
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.
There won't be one. Eventually the two paths will merge back together -- likely due to Sylvanas betraying the loyalists, or something.
What, you didn't seriously think there'd be actual choices and consequences, did you? Blizzard cannot undertake a course of action that would split the players of a faction in two at a gameplay level.
"Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of men will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice, without constraint." - Alexander Hamilton
I concur, but what is with these comparisions to medival standards? Calia soley has the right to claim the throne of Lordaeron. Sylvanas is by all standards back then would be an illegal ursurper and is immediatly to be removed. If we may judge by medival standards, all members of the council did as they should. If look what the story provides us, Sylvanas had any right to kill them for defecting to the enemy. That is, if it plays out extactly like that in the book. I have only read and watched summarized versions. Why buying addional story material, just so it will be retconned next expansion.
I will object to this interpretation. In his role as a lawyer for Garrosh, Baine cross interogated Vol'jin to legitimise his clients actions. It may not reflect his own beliefs, he just fullfiled his duty as a defense lawyer. Therefore, it is invalid to turn this an ad hominem argument against Baine. There are plenty of arguments against him. There is no need for strawmans.
On the topic: Join me at the Dreadscar, so much power just waiting to be harvested
If you want legal spin, then the state of Lordaeron is defunct and the unnamed Forsaken state may occupy the same territory, but it isn't bound by the rules of succession. In turn, the undead are dead and thus it's dubious if they have any of their living political rights and duties, including loyalty to their former living monarch.
A practical view is that Sylvanas has the factual power there and the one the Desolate Council owe their loyalty to, both as members of the Horde and Forsaken and by choosing a different monarch they are shirking that duty. Prior to BTS, you could also make the case that Sylvanas is the one acknowledged internally and externally as the legitimate sovereign of that particular territory and people. In any case, it's both proportionate for her to kill the high officials defecting under a pretender who by default would seek to overthrow her for the reasons you listed, but also kill that pretender herself to eliminate such a claim. Note too that Anduin doesn't question her legalistic reasoning or her right to rule only the moral dimension of her actions.
I don't think Baine was outright lying, since that isn't really his style. But it is a legitimate legal position voiced in setting and one that is accepted by Vol'jin, himself the Warchief, who doesn't deny that he would pursue a similar course. I'm just using Baine as a rhetorical device to demonstrate that this is an in-universe standard entertained by characters politically opposed to Sylvanas. As I later go on, with virtually any real world standard and definitely with the Horde's absolute dictatorship Saurfang is a traitor and would be open to receiving whatever heavy penalty is associated with it, be it life imprisonment or in this case death.I will object to this interpretation. In his role as a lawyer for Garrosh, Baine cross interogated Vol'jin to legitimise his clients actions. It may not reflect his own beliefs, he just fullfiled his duty as a defense lawyer. Therefore, it is invalid to turn this an ad hominem argument against Baine. There are plenty of arguments against him. There is no need for strawmans.
Side-note: I miss the Empire and Valkorion had the snazziest outfit.
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.
Why waste so much potential? I have heard, there is large horde of demons that have gone unemployed for.... some reason. So many possibilites.
Real Talk: That is quite fascinating. I have played an undead warlock since classic. Note that I did not say forsaken. I am a little bit surprised that there are quite a few warlocks follwong Syllvanas till the end. Loyalty would be the last word I would associate with a warlock. Honor would be the second to last.
That is the conceit of the Scarlet Crusade and the position they take. It's a legally logical position to claim the territory of Lordaeron is under occupation while its legal denizens and monarch are in exile and it needs to be won back. That's not the Argent Crusade's position, mind and it would bear no relevance to the undead, since the second you step away from that position and assume undead are people with a claim, then you also have to acknowledge that the unnamed Forsaken state holds most of Lordaeron even after UC fell and that its people, i.e those of Lordaeron recognize Sylvanas as their ruler.
In terms of how the Forsaken perceive themselves, if you go by Cata then they do consider themselves a continuation of Lordaeron with the same territorial claims but a reformed leadership system where Calia would have no part. If you go by BTS, then they are a wholly separate thing that happens to exist in the same location and hold the corpses of those who were previously citizens of Lordaeron.
But as said, practically speaking Sylvanas has been the acknowledged monarch for fifteen years, the Desolate Council rule in her name and they are bound to her as both members of the state she runs and members of the Horde. Joining someone who's restoration would mean the overthrowing of those loyalties, even if it's just to hug puppies and teddies or what have you, goes counter to that duty and makes them traitors as well as a huge liability to whichever state has them. Killing them is legally coherent as well as a good decision from the view of the state.
Last edited by Super Dickmann; 2019-07-05 at 10:57 AM.
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.
Expansion Storylines ranking:
Legion > Cataclysm > MoP > BfA up to 8.2.5 > Wrath > TBC > WoD > Dragonflight > BfA 8.3 > Shadowlands