the horde loyalist decision

[Aucald]

I think it was legit. I don't think how much we can really take A Good War or even BTS seriously anymore in regards to Sylvanas' characterization, because some things - both her attitude to being Warchief, her view of Vol'jin and even her knowledge of who appointed her simply don't gel with this new reveal, and I think that's mostly a matter of production disagreements rather than author's intent - i.e they hadn't nailed down Sylvanas' motivation and personality yet. That said trust is something she has a lot of issues with is a more long-running and consistent thing than that.

I disagree with this pretty heartily. I think the main takeaway from the reveal of Sylvanas' true allegiance or goal actually puts "Before the Storm" and "A Good War" into clearer focus. Mainly I think this because Sylvanas' strategy for the War of Thorns, and the beginnings of her proposed aggression with the Alliance, never made sense to me. The whole idea she sells Saurfang fang, the infliction of the "would" that would sap the Alliance of their morale and hope, was never a workable strategy. She gussied it up well, so well that she was able to gull Saurfang the rest of the Horde, but even from day one it was pretty obvious that it would be a failure to launch. Why would killing Malfurion and seizing Teldrassil stop the Alliance from working to avenge Malfurion and re-take Teldrassil? It didn't work in the First War when Blackhand took Stormwind, why would it work now? Then the burning of Teldrassil as its replacement "wound," why would this sap the Alliance of the will to fight? Saurfang calls her out on it immediately in "A Good War," and that was basically the moment that Sylvanas' motivations became clearer to me - it wasn't about the infliction of a wound, she just wanted war. Now we know *why* she just wanted war, she wants to feed Death and empower herself. It's a pretty linear evolution of her character through the gradual reveal of her goals ans aspirations. The only outlier here is Sylvanas' stated reticence about wanting to be Warchief, but that is easily explained away by the notion that she was reticent about it until she finally hit on a way to turn the situation to her advantage. That, in turn, feeds into "Before the Storm" and the requirement that she consolidate all power over the Horde for herself. It meant she needed a show of force to make everyone fall in line e.g. blackmailing Baine, killing the Desolate Council, and inciting an incident to stoke Alliance aggression to better facilitate her own casus belli.

We know how she acts when she's tricking someone - oily, friendly, going on about how much better it'd be. We also know that after being backstabbed a million times, including by close family, this is something she takes very seriously. Sylvanas doesn't hide that she's fighting Saurfang to make him suffer, but the tone with which she taunts him and smirks is very different from the tone she uses when she tells him she trusted him. And it's also quite a bit different from how she then moves on to mocking Zekhan and Thrall. Much like her initial outburst about the Horde or the bit with the tree or when she lashes out at Vereesa for not killing Garrosh, it's some genuine emotion peeking through.

This presupposes Sylvanas only has the one method of manipulating people. I also take Sylvanas' accusation about trust to Saurfang in a very different light - I think she thought Saurfang could be a kindred spirit to her much in the same way Nathanos was. He could be made to see the truth of her philosophy, as it were; as evidenced by how quickly and zealously her took to her plans for the war. He didn't betray her by forming a coalition against her, in this context (well he did, but that's not what she's talking about), he betrayed her by failing to be the sort of Orc she thought he was - he failed her by refusing her message, and holding on to what she considers a vain hope about the Horde itself. This is why she basically whispers it to him and him alone, as opposed from the context when she calls him a traitor out loud before the duel starts.

[Faroth]

From a RP perspective, I do think it would be cool for a Forsaken to still be devotedly loyal to Sylvanas and consider themselves a spy within the Horde.

For others races, I can see them still feeling she was taking them on the right path and being disappointed in both her true motives and abandonment of that path while also being frustrated in the resulting direction of the Horde after her departure.

Others, of course, would be outraged and angry, feeling used as pawns for ultimately nothing.

From a character perspective, there are at least a lot of different ways to approach this.

- - - Updated - - -

This presupposes Sylvanas only has the one method of manipulating people. I also take Sylvanas' accusation about trust to Saurfang in a very different light - I think she thought Saurfang could be a kindred spirit to her much in the same way Nathanos was.

*record scratch*

Wait.... I've not been playing and I'm Alliance to begin with. I may have missed some story info, but you just reminded me...... what became of Nathanos? When was he seen last?

[Zulkhan]

Sorry, but as a big fan of Saurfang, I have to point out that the difference old Saurfang and the abomination that is BFA Sadfang, is so overwhelming you could say he was possessed by a dreadlord (and edgelord rather) who had to be "put on his path" by fucking Anduin.

I don't know which bums me out more, the fact that they villain batted Sylvanas until she turned into an idiot, or how they turned Saurfang into Sadfang only to have him sacrificed so Anduin can look great.

Tell me I'm wrong, I don't care, but there was a reason I was worried when they announced Golden was being put on the writing team. Tell me that's just a coincidence.

The writing is full of flaws and biased influences, mostly and especially because of Golden, I don't disagree with that.

That being said, my point still stands regarding what Saurfang and Sylvanas are. Saurfang is indeed a bitter veteran who nonetheless clinged to certain ideals, which is, again, the source of his struggle and hypocrisy; we knew both sides of his character by ages, regardless of Anduin's influence. On the other side, Sylvanas has always been a sociopathic monster, to expect her to not go the worst way after becoming Warchief was delusional, and I say that as someone who wanted to believe in a different outcome not because it made sense but because I wanted to believe that Blizzard put Sylvanas in charge for a reason slightly smarter than that. Unfortunately they didn't, and simply went with the easiest route (she was utterly irredeemable after Teldrassil already) even though the end game is still unclear.

[mickybrighteyes]

*record scratch*

Wait.... I've not been playing and I'm Alliance to begin with. I may have missed some story info, but you just reminded me...... what became of Nathanos? When was he seen last?

He escapes, makes it to the Ghostlands and then disappears into the unknown on some other journey.

[Aucald]

Wait.... I've not been playing and I'm Alliance to begin with. I may have missed some story info, but you just reminded me...... what became of Nathanos? When was he seen last?

To my knowledge, Nathanos disappeared once the Xal'atath blade has been brought to Nazjatar and doesn't re-emerge until the Loyalist cutscene where he meets with Sylvanas at Windrunner Spire in the Ghostlands (after she's abandoned the Horde following the Mak'gora with Saurfang) and declares his love for her, and then travels on to prepare for the next phase of whatever plan Sylvanas is cooking up.

[Super Dickmann]

@Zulkhan

I agree with your interpretation on this entirely and, if the story wasn't as cartoonish overall and if it's end results weren't as undesirable, I'd also be more willing to believe that it was actually intentional. One of the main things that's irritated me about this story is that Sylvanas and Saurfang are such poor antagonists for one another, that they have no prior bond or connection, as compared to the Vol'jin-Garrosh story. But with your phrasing, you can work that in somewhat - that Saurfang wallowing in a cell or waiting on Anduin were meant to be the points where he loses hope and, more so than that, where like Sylvanas wants, he becomes the instrument of others. Hence also his conversation with Anduin in 8.2.5, when he finally gains a realistic assessment of himself and then when he confronts her and he finally decides to stand for something, rejecting hopelessness, which is to say inevitability - that all the people on the walls must die for him to get what he wants, that his Horde is something someone else must bring to him at the expense of lives, to instead take fate in his own hands and win out.

There's the kernel of a good story here, but it's not in an MMO. I will say though that I like both Sylvanas and especially Saurfang a lot more after 8.2.5 than I did before.

I disagree with this pretty heartily. I think the main takeaway from the reveal of Sylvanas' true allegiance or goal actually puts "Before the Storm" and "A Good War" into clearer focus. Mainly I think this because Sylvanas' strategy for the War of Thorns, and the beginnings of her proposed aggression with the Alliance, never made sense to me. The whole idea she sells Saurfang fang, the infliction of the "would" that would sap the Alliance of their morale and hope, was never a workable strategy. She gussied it up well, so well that she was able to gull Saurfang the rest of the Horde, but even from day one it was pretty obvious that it would be a failure to launch. Why would killing Malfurion and seizing Teldrassil stop the Alliance from working to avenge Malfurion and re-take Teldrassil? It didn't work in the First War when Blackhand took Stormwind, why would it work now? Then the burning of Teldrassil as its replacement "wound," why would this sap the Alliance of the will to fight? Saurfang calls her out on it immediately in "A Good War," and that was basically the moment that Sylvanas' motivations became clearer to me - it wasn't about the infliction of a wound, she just wanted war. Now we know *why* she just wanted war, she wants to feed Death and empower herself. It's a pretty linear evolution of her character through the gradual reveal of her goals ans aspirations. The only outlier here is Sylvanas' stated reticence about wanting to be Warchief, but that is easily explained away by the notion that she was reticent about it until she finally hit on a way to turn the situation to her advantage. That, in turn, feeds into "Before the Storm" and the requirement that she consolidate all power over the Horde for herself. It meant she needed a show of force to make everyone fall in line e.g. blackmailing Baine, killing the Desolate Council, and inciting an incident to stoke Alliance aggression to better facilitate her own casus belli.

There's certain elements of BTS that simply fundamentally do not gel with what follows. Among them are that Sylvanas is proud to be Warchief, but also reluctant - that her end goal involves mass necromancy of specifically Stormwind, which is stated to be her 'heart's desire' not surviving in particular, as well as her ignorance of who it was that gave her her position, believing it was Vol'jin and his spirits. There's also that her end goal involves the Horde still having a role as it splits the lands between itself. Additionally, her reticence extends not just to beign Warchief but to starting a war in the first place - she points out in her own mind how a war would not be necessary were Varian alive. Incidentally, every single one of these elements is exclusive to BTS and early parts of Legion, with Sylvanas reacting in shock and grief at Vol'jin and Varian's deaths - something reinforced in her internal monologue, and being out of place in wanting the role of Warchief.

I think that these aren't part of a single ongoing plan, but elements of earlier concepts of where her character would go - first as someone who's actually pro-Horde, like we see in the Legion and BFA intro cinematics, which we know were made well before how the Burning went down was decided, then as an antagonist, but a different kind of antagonist who just wanted to push what she was already doing to the next level in BTS, which you can track by how the blurb of the book changes to become continually less positive about Sylvanas and the book's delay, and finally her AGW and BFA versions, which differ mostly in that AGW Sylvanas is much less stupid but already have higher goals in place. I will agree with your core conclusion though - i.e that Sylvanas meant to kill Malfurion in order to incite a faction war where it's either victory or death and 'death was hers to master' as she tells Baine. AGW Sylvanas fits in with the other Sylvanases. This also gets into the other character point and why I think these portrayals were not meant to be read in tandem:

This presupposes Sylvanas only has the one method of manipulating people. I also take Sylvanas' accusation about trust to Saurfang in a very different light - I think she thought Saurfang could be a kindred spirit to her much in the same way Nathanos was. He could be made to see the truth of her philosophy, as it were; as evidenced by how quickly and zealously her took to her plans for the war. He didn't betray her by forming a coalition against her, in this context (well he did, but that's not what she's talking about), he betrayed her by failing to be the sort of Orc she thought he was - he failed her by refusing her message, and holding on to what she considers a vain hope about the Horde itself. This is why she basically whispers it to him and him alone, as opposed from the context when she calls him a traitor out loud before the duel starts.

I agree that she was looking for Saurfang as a kindred spirit, but I'll extend that further. If I were to do some canon-welding and this is basically just headcanon, so take it with a grain of salt, then after BTS's events with the Forsaken is when Sylvanas lost faith in them. She realized they did not have her view by default and they were not 'her' people. In Saurfang, Delaryn and the undead night elves in general, as well as with the PC, she's looking for a 'friend' - someone who's as depressed and downcast as she is and is amenable to her philosophy. The personal anger she takes when she whispers Saurfang that he betrayed her while having a hurt look on her face is the same mentality that she had when Vereesa ditched her in War Crimes.

This coincides with her ditching her previous form of necromancy. I've pointed out often that Sylvanas does very little raising throughout BFA with the exception of Derek and the skellies - who are tools in her eyes, and the night elves - who fit the above companion mould. Given the writers a big benefit of the doubt I'd say that's intentional and ties into her giving up on the Forsaken - if she raises those bodies, they exist and protect her physically, but if they die, they go to hell and no longer aid her, which doesn't happen if their souls go to her instead.

And, if I were to wedge her paternalistic mindset from BTS into this, that she also views this as a good thing - that she's saving them from hell, and while they didn't listen to her while alive, as she laments in the loyalist ending, they will when they're in the afterlife. Her rant isn't just that they're nothing to her personally - it's that 'nothing lasts', i.e - that they fight for fleeting material things while walking into hell, the same way she did, which is why she viewed her living self as a fool.

[sunxsera]

... some people take "faction pride" and NPC "loyalty" way too serious.
People insulting each other because of a NPC is amusing to watch, though.

[Aucald]

There's certain elements of BTS that simply fundamentally do not gel with what follows. Among them are that Sylvanas is proud to be Warchief, but also reluctant - that her end goal involves mass necromancy of specifically Stormwind, which is stated to be her 'heart's desire' not surviving in particular, as well as her ignorance of who it was that gave her her position, believing it was Vol'jin and his spirits. There's also that her end goal involves the Horde still having a role as it splits the lands between itself. Additionally, her reticence extends not just to beign Warchief but to starting a war in the first place - she points out in her own mind how a war would not be necessary were Varian alive. Incidentally, every single one of these elements is exclusive to BTS and early parts of Legion, with Sylvanas reacting in shock and grief at Vol'jin and Varian's deaths - something reinforced in her internal monologue, and being out of place in wanting the role of Warchief.

I think I already showed a rationale for her reluctance, as at the beginning of "Before the Storm" she'd not yet formulated a way to use her new position to her distinct advantage (rather relying on her old tactics of working from the shadows to achieve her goals). Her plan for mass necromancy at Stormwind dovetails neatly enough with her revealed goals in 8.2.5 - killing everyone in Stormwind would feed Death, and enrich her, while at the same time boosting the ranks of her (at that time) loyal Forsaken. A zero-sum game for Sylvanas, and obviously a well conceived future strategy. Who set Sylvanas up as Warchief is a remaining question, as I don't think Sylvanas did that - my current working theory is that N'Zoth did, in his own version of "4D Chess" as part and parcel of his agenda to secure his freedom. N'Zoth needed a well-placed leader who could be bent toward what it wants (chaos and death), and Sylvanas was pretty much tailor-made to facilitate such a goal. The fact that they entered in a seeming alliance shortly afterward is not, I feel, a coincidence. Sylvanas' statement about Varian actually takes on a bit of a chilling, new resonance now that we know more of true agenda - the war (specifically the War of Thorns) wouldn't have been necessary if Varian had survived because Varian would probably start the war himself, given time and the right kind of motivation. Most of us, myself included, chalked what she said up to a kind of grudging respect - but now I think it was nothing of the sort, and she was being quite literal about her war not being necessary if Varian were still High King.

I think that these aren't part of a single ongoing plan, but elements of earlier concepts of where her character would go - first as someone who's actually pro-Horde, like we see in the Legion and BFA intro cinematics, which we know were made well before how the Burning went down was decided, then as an antagonist, but a different kind of antagonist who just wanted to push what she was already doing to the next level in BTS, which you can track by how the blurb of the book changes to become continually less positive about Sylvanas and the book's delay, and finally her AGW and BFA versions, which differ mostly in that AGW Sylvanas is much less stupid but already have higher goals in place. I will agree with your core conclusion though - i.e that Sylvanas meant to kill Malfurion in order to incite a faction war where it's either victory or death and 'death was hers to master' as she tells Baine. AGW Sylvanas fits in with the other Sylvanases. This also gets into the other character point and why I think these portrayals were not meant to be read in tandem:

I think the main difference between AGW and BfA Sylvanas isn't any change in her characterization, it's simply that the format of "A Good War" gives us the ability to actually linger on Sylvanas' inner world and thoughts, whereas being an in-game device BfA obviously doesn't do that. But, if my theorizing is right, "A Good War" (like "Before the Storm") is also a kind of subversion - the authors told us just enough of the character's inner thoughts and drives to let us come to a very specific conclusion, one that they could later turn on its head without requiring a patent retcon or any kind of external wizardry to justify. The clues were there, but there was a bit of intentional misdirection in the manner they were revealed, I think - all part of the storytelling device to perform a one-two narrative gut punch in 8.2.5.

I agree that she was looking for Saurfang as a kindred spirit, but I'll extend that further. If I were to do some canon-welding and this is basically just headcanon, so take it with a grain of salt, then after BTS's events with the Forsaken is when Sylvanas lost faith in them. She realized they did not have her view by default and they were not 'her' people. In Saurfang, Delaryn and the undead night elves in general, as well as with the PC, she's looking for a 'friend' - someone who's as depressed and downcast as she is and is amenable to her philosophy. The personal anger she takes when she whispers Saurfang that he betrayed her while having a hurt look on her face is the same mentality that she had when Vereesa ditched her in War Crimes.

This coincides with her ditching her previous form of necromancy. I've pointed out often that Sylvanas does very little raising throughout BFA with the exception of Derek and the skellies - who are tools in her eyes, and the night elves - who fit the above companion mould. Given the writers a big benefit of the doubt I'd say that's intentional and ties into her giving up on the Forsaken - if she raises those bodies, they exist and protect her physically, but if they die, they go to hell and no longer aid her, which doesn't happen if their souls go to her instead.

And, if I were to wedge her paternalistic mindset from BTS into this, that she also views this as a good thing - that she's saving them from hell, and while they didn't listen to her while alive, as she laments in the loyalist ending, they will when they're in the afterlife. Her rant isn't just that they're nothing to her personally - it's that 'nothing lasts', i.e - that they fight for fleeting material things while walking into hell, the same way she did, which is why she viewed her living self as a fool.

I wouldn't disagree with that line of reasoning, actually; and the Desolate Council and other Forsaken like them probably started her down the path that would later lead to wholesale abandonment. Her goal with the Dark Rangers, especially individuals like Sira and Delaryn, are an attempt to find people more like her - people who have given up on their preconceived notions of what is good, who have abandoned both faith and hope in exchange for power over the more fundamental forces of existence itself (in this case, Death). And, of course, Sira and Delaryn could betray her like the Forsaken did (by clinging on to hope in "life"), or like Saurfang did by holding on to his sense of honor. In her philosophy there's no place for backward or weak sentiment, as she views both life, honor, and hope for some greater calling or state of being. There's only Death, and those who would be its masters.

[Super Dickmann]

I think I already showed a rationale for her reluctance, as at the beginning of "Before the Storm" she'd not yet formulated a way to use her new position to her distinct advantage (rather relying on her old tactics of working from the shadows to achieve her goals). Her plan for mass necromancy at Stormwind dovetails neatly enough with her revealed goals in 8.2.5 - killing everyone in Stormwind would feed Death, and enrich her, while at the same time boosting the ranks of her (at that time) loyal Forsaken. A zero-sum game for Sylvanas, and obviously a well conceived future strategy. Who set Sylvanas up as Warchief is a remaining question, as I don't think Sylvanas did that - my current working theory is that N'Zoth did, in his own version of "4D Chess" as part and parcel of his agenda to secure his freedom. N'Zoth needed a well-placed leader who could be bent toward what it wants (chaos and death), and Sylvanas was pretty much tailor-made to facilitate such a goal. The fact that they entered in a seeming alliance shortly afterward is not, I feel, a coincidence. Sylvanas' statement about Varian actually takes on a bit of a chilling, new resonance now that we know more of true agenda - the war (specifically the War of Thorns) wouldn't have been necessary if Varian had survived because Varian would probably start the war himself, given time and the right kind of motivation. Most of us, myself included, chalked what she said up to a kind of grudging respect - but now I think it was nothing of the sort, and she was being quite literal about her war not being necessary if Varian were still High King.

There can be canon-welding applied, but some of it is very strained, which is why I only think certain elements are really usable. Mind, I draw a distinction between the raising of people in Stormwind as Forsaken and killing tons of people across the world to up the body count, without necessarily raising them, but instead calling dibs on their souls. The framing of the novel specifically points out Stormwind as the thing, with the Horde splitting what's left, which I'd argue in light of Sylvanas' actions in 8.2.5, wouldn't really work out. The Sylvanas we currently know doesn't win all that much from a quick win like that and she wins even less from the Horde taking over shit in the aftermath - she wins if the war continues as long as possible, involves as many new parties as possible - like the Zandalari and Kul Tirans and then keeps rolling on. This is not like the kind of personal dislike she and Nathanos have directed at Stormwind in the book.

I'd apply about the same to your reading on the situation with Varian or her reluctance and pride at being Warchief. They can be spun, but they weren't intended to - she talks about how she didn't want to run away at the Broken Shore, how she wished she could have bailed him out but her Warchief's order compelled her to leave her behind. It's very strong language speaking of a hidden commitment to things we don't see in her later. If I were to headcanon it, then I hope the solution they go with is to go back and show when she learned about how to do her mass soul gathering plan and thus her shift from being concerned with worldly things like extending the Forsaken or taking over the world to the cosmic scale she's apparently operating on right now.

I think the main difference between AGW and BfA Sylvanas isn't any change in her characterization, it's simply that the format of "A Good War" gives us the ability to actually linger on Sylvanas' inner world and thoughts, whereas being an in-game device BfA obviously doesn't do that. But, if my theorizing is right, "A Good War" (like "Before the Storm") is also a kind of subversion - the authors told us just enough of the character's inner thoughts and drives to let us come to a very specific conclusion, one that they could later turn on its head without requiring a patent retcon or any kind of external wizardry to justify. The clues were there, but there was a bit of intentional misdirection in the manner they were revealed, I think - all part of the storytelling device to perform a one-two narrative gut punch in 8.2.5.

I agree re: AGW. You can easily gel AGW Sylvanas with current Sylvanas, it's just that AGW is better written. I don't think you can say the same about BTS Sylvanas though for the reasons I've said above. You can make it work, you just have to basically sidestep certain things and overemphasize others.

I wouldn't disagree with that line of reasoning, actually; and the Desolate Council and other Forsaken like them probably started her down the path that would later lead to wholesale abandonment. Her goal with the Dark Rangers, especially individuals like Sira and Delaryn, are an attempt to find people more like her - people who have given up on their preconceived notions of what is good, who have abandoned both faith and hope in exchange for power over the more fundamental forces of existence itself (in this case, Death). And, of course, Sira and Delaryn could betray her like the Forsaken did (by clinging on to hope in "life"), or like Saurfang did by holding on to his sense of honor. In her philosophy there's no place for backward or weak sentiment, as she views both life, honor, and hope for some greater calling or state of being. There's only Death, and those who would be its masters.

I agree, though I'd expand to say that it's that she does recognize a greater calling and that that's what this is about and it's others refusing to see that calling that pisses her off. It's just it doesn't exist within 'life', i.e physical existence in regular reality. Everything done there is irrelevant, worse, self-destructive as you just waste time deluding yourself before you burn in hell. People who are proud of this, like the followers of the orcish ethos, or would accept their end, like the Desolate Council, disgust her because they refuse to see the foregoing. In turn, she washes her hands of the regular Forsaken for similar reasons - they cling to life in the sense that they cling to things like their bonds to their families or their kingdom, even if they do this in a negative sense, like how the Putress-style of undead we see do, that's still a form of attachment, and therefore something she dismisses. Only people who've given up on the physical world altogether fit the bill.

This of course ties into her hypocrisy and self-hatred - she dismisses them for still having bonds to life, while she herself is still sentimental about her family, like in Three Sisters, livid about Arthas, like when she loses her shit at Calia and yearning for companionship, be it with Nathanos, who's a lot more open about his feelings than she is with him, despite us having her interior perspective that she does care, or with the Dark Rangers/Saurfang, who she reaches out to, but can only phrase in cold terms that fit with her image of herself.

[Zulkhan]

@Zulkhan

I agree with your interpretation on this entirely and, if the story wasn't as cartoonish overall and if it's end results weren't as undesirable, I'd also be more willing to believe that it was actually intentional. One of the main things that's irritated me about this story is that Sylvanas and Saurfang are such poor antagonists for one another, that they have no prior bond or connection, as compared to the Vol'jin-Garrosh story. But with your phrasing, you can work that in somewhat - that Saurfang wallowing in a cell or waiting on Anduin were meant to be the points where he loses hope and, more so than that, where like Sylvanas wants, he becomes the instrument of others. Hence also his conversation with Anduin in 8.2.5, when he finally gains a realistic assessment of himself and then when he confronts her and he finally decides to stand for something, rejecting hopelessness, which is to say inevitability - that all the people on the walls must die for him to get what he wants, that his Horde is something someone else must bring to him at the expense of lives, to instead take fate in his own hands and win out.

Yeah, the execution of said story remains atrocious but there are surely a few points worth exploring. Pondering about it, I found iconic that of all people, Saurfang outright admits that he "never knew honor". Now, that's possibly even too hard on himself since he indeed has an honor code of sort, but that harsh self-criticism of his implies the awareness that he indeed committed many mistakes and much like the Old Horde was built over a lie, he too, a veteran of that very Horde, struggled to find a steady and coherent line truly defining the word. That is the reason why he couldn't become Warchief, he carried with him an historical and emotional background that would have never allowed the Horde to truly shatter the bonds chaining them to the past, because no matter his regrets, Saurfang IS the past. Which means that it made even less sense that he should have become Warchief at the expense of the Horde's future, the young warriors fighting on both sides of Orgrimmar's gate. After all the doubts and contradictions, he definitely found his complete resolve at the end and realized that the only sensible thing for him to do was, on the contrary, to sacrifice his existence, a living relic of the past, for the sake of the Horde's future.

But Sylvanas is also worth exploring in this scenario as well. There were many people who were waiting for Sylvanas to say that she doesn't give a shit about the Horde and of course the cinematic granted tons of confirmation bias to all the people we know, but the implication isn't as straightforward as they want to believe. I think the fatal mistake is to imagine Sylvanas as a Gul'dan 2.0, that she just sacrificed the Horde for her own personal gain. Problem is, Sylvanas is not Gul'dan and never was. When she says "the Horde is nothing" she genuinely believes it, not because she cares more about herself but because she doesn't care, period. The Horde is nothing because the Horde is meaningless; its future, its ideals, its traditions, the struggle to survive and forge a path ahead, this is all meaningless before the hungering oblivion and the inevitability of death. And "death" is something that is becoming a more and more tangible concept the more the plot goes on, to the point where "In the end, Death claims us all" may be more than just a predictable statement about the nature of things.

Sylvanas is a person who originally came from a place where she had purpose and fought for something; the current Sylvanas is the result of that same person who had that purpose brutally stripped away from her and was left with...nothing.

[Faroth]

To my knowledge, Nathanos disappeared once the Xal'atath blade has been brought to Nazjatar and doesn't re-emerge until the Loyalist cutscene where he meets with Sylvanas at Windrunner Spire in the Ghostlands (after she's abandoned the Horde following the Mak'gora with Saurfang) and declares his love for her, and then travels on to prepare for the next phase of whatever plan Sylvanas is cooking up.

Thanks for the update! @mickeybrighteyes as well.

[DotEleven]

^^^ QFT

.....And even worse, Blizzard haven't seen the problem with this.

Blizzard rapes Horde players over and over... They have killed or otherwise removed 4 warchiefs (only 1 for Alliance) and two additional faction leader (Tauren and Zandalari)
Blizzard have allowed Alliance armed forces in Horde capital twice and now, Alliance is on Orgrimmar's doorstep once more; Horde have never sacked Storm wind or any other Alliance capital.
Blizzard gave us choice with showing support to Sylvanas, but they still overruled the massive majority, and have now exiled her.
Blizzard tried to make it cool to be traitor.

Why do we continuesly accept this Alliance favoritism?

Excuse me, never sacked any Alliance capital? THEY LITERALLY BURNED DOWN TELDRASSIL.

After completely outsmarting the Alliance by tricking them into sending all of their forces down to Silithus and then BLEW UP THEIR OWN CAPITAL Undercity.

The only traitor is Sylvanas. Every knew she was only in it for herself or at most just the Forsaken and never cared for the Horde.

[Oneirophobia]

I’m really confused how we went from Sylvanas genuinely concerned about Vol’jin being stabbed and “do not let the horde die dis day” saving everybody with her val’kyr to “lmao Let’s kill everybody I hate everyone, y’all mean nothing to me”.

Just let the legion kill everyone. Let the alliance kill everyone. Accidentally “wrath gate” orgrimmar.

[Aresk]

You reread it, because Nathanos comments on some Forsaken returning to Thoradin's Wall only after the whole thing turned into a meatgrinder. Between that and Sylvanas sounding the horn in the first place multiple other events have passed. That took time. Meaning that the return to Thoradin's Wall wasn't immediate. I also noticed that you offered no counterargument whatsoever to Calia's statement about how 11 out of 12 Forsaken killed were already defecting prior to Sylvanas sounding the horn. I wonder why is that, exactly?

Page 258 of my copy, Elsie heard the horn. She turned to Calia, said, "I'm sorry, Your Majesty. I can't betray my queen. Not even for you." Then she shouted to retreat.

Page 259, Anduin hears the horn, sees dark rangers on bats flying toward the field, and then notes that people are already spread out across the field, some heading toward Thoradin's Wall and some retreating to the keep.

Page 264, Nathanos says that some of the people attacked were running back to the wall. Sylvanas acknowledges that they were and continues on to clarify that she doesn't want them to bring any hope back with them, that it is an infection ready to cut out.

Sylvanas didn't kill them because they didn't return right away. She killed them because she considered them a threat to her kingdom. The retreat seemed to immediately follow the sound of the horn, except for the time it took to say three short sentences to Calia. By the time readied dark rangers had time to fly into the field, some people had already spread out toward Thoradin's Wall. (Edit for clarification) While some of the Forsaken were defecting, not all were, and those who retreated immediately were still killed.



Incidentally, I wonder why Sylvanas hates hope so much. Is hope something that can somehow interfere with her plans? Or is it some red herring she's throwing out that has nothing to do with her ultimate goals? I don't think we have enough info at this point to say one way or the other, but I've seen some conversations about cosmological balance in this thread, and hope doesn't really seem to match any particular force, so it seems a bit odd to me that she has made that her enemy.

[Nuggsy]

There just no arguing with Sylvanas fans. They will try to justify everything. =/

[Mehrunes]

Page 258 of my copy, Elsie heard the horn. She turned to Calia, said, "I'm sorry, Your Majesty. I can't betray my queen. Not even for you." Then she shouted to retreat.

Page 259, Anduin hears the horn, sees dark rangers on bats flying toward the field, and then notes that people are already spread out across the field, some heading toward Thoradin's Wall and some retreating to the keep.

Page 264, Nathanos says that some of the people attacked were running back to the wall. Sylvanas acknowledges that they were and continues on to clarify that she doesn't want them to bring any hope back with them, that it is an infection ready to cut out.

Sylvanas didn't kill them because they didn't return right away. She killed them because she considered them a threat to her kingdom. The retreat seemed to immediately follow the sound of the horn, except for the time it took to say three short sentences to Calia. By the time readied dark rangers had time to fly into the field, people had already spread out toward Thoradin's Wall.

It's been over two years since BtS was released. Why are people still ignoring half of what Sylvanas said to Nathanos to explain herself? Hell, you even quote the page for people to check, where they'd see you left out a part of her explanation. The first thing Sylvanas says to Nathanos is that the Forsaken that were returning to Thoradin's Wall may have done so only out of fear. Meaning that she risked letting potential traitors back into her kingdom.

And the thing is, they wouldn't be suspicious in that context if they started to return immediately as they were ordered. Because there was nothing for them to fear when the horn was just sound (if they weren't defecting, that is). Because as they were informed prior to the Gathering, the horn was just a signal to end the meeting and go home. The fear became a factor only when Sylvanas deployed the Dark Rangers.

Which, as we can see on both the bit about Anduin hearing the Horde you mentioned and an earlier bit 257-258 about Sylvanas noticing something was off and then getting informed by one of her Priests about Calia, happened a bit later from the sounding of the horn. Because between those two events Sylvanas chitchats with Nathanos, then with the Priest and then ponders on how much she hates the Menethils. Then and only then does she deploy the Dark Rangers off screen. It could also be argued that it'd take a moment for the Forsaken still on the field to also take a moment that Sylvanas deployed them as well.

So, looping back to what was said in the second paragraph, if Sylvanas wasn't sure they were returning out of loyalty or fear, with fear becoming a factor only after the Dark Rangers were deployed, which in turn happened a bit after the horn was sound, they started to return late.

Also, since we're referring to pages of the book, on the same page as Elsie hearing the horn Calia tells them that everyone else other than her was already defecting. So even if Sylvanas decided who'd survive and who'd die with the flip of a coin, most of the Forsaken that died still happened to be traitors.

And speaking of Elsie: as explained above, there was some time that passed between the sounding of the horn - which is when Elsie shouted retreat - and Sylvanas sending the Dark Rangers to the field. Then they'd also need some time to reach the field. And yet, by the time Elsie is killed by the Dark Rangers she's still right in front of Calia, still arguing with her.

Meaning that Elsie didn't heed her own call for retreat. Meaning that she didn't obey Sylvanas' orders about the retreat, because as per Sylvanas' orders the retreat was to be immediate after the horn signal. And Elsie knew about that, because Sylvanas said that twice, once upon her own inquiry.

So we have 11 defectors, some of whom tried to crawl back to Sylvanas after the threat posed by the Dark Rangers put fear in their hearts and one Elsie who broke Sylvanas' orders despite earlier pondering how they should be absolutely obeyed due to the delicate nature of the event where any misstep could start a war.

Incidentally, I wonder why Sylvanas hates hope so much. Is hope something that can somehow interfere with her plans? Or is it some red herring she's throwing out that has nothing to do with her ultimate goals? I don't think we have enough info at this point to say one way or the other, but I've seen some conversations about cosmological balance in this thread, and hope doesn't really seem to match any particular force, so it seems a bit odd to me that she has made that her enemy.

Likely it's just that Sylvanas is seeing it as flaw of the living because she'd rather brood in the undeath that she now sees as superior to life. And then projected her own feelings on the matter onto the Forsaken as a whole.

There just no arguing with Sylvanas fans. They will try to justify everything. =/

Correcting you doesn't constitute a justification.

[Aresk]

It's been over two years since BtS was released. Why are people still ignoring half of what Sylvanas said to Nathanos to explain herself? Hell, you even quote the page for people to check, where they'd see you left out a part of her explanation. The first thing Sylvanas says to Nathanos is that the Forsaken that were returning to Thoradin's Wall may have done so only out of fear. Meaning that she risked letting potential traitors back into her kingdom.

And the thing is, they wouldn't be suspicious in that context if they started to return immediately as they were ordered. Because there was nothing for them to fear when the horn was just sound (if they weren't defecting, that is). Because as they were informed prior to the Gathering, the horn was just a signal to end the meeting and go home. The fear became a factor only when Sylvanas deployed the Dark Rangers.

Which, as we can see on both the bit about Anduin hearing the Horde you mentioned and an earlier bit 257-258 about Sylvanas noticing something was off and then getting informed by one of her Priests about Calia, happened a bit later from the sounding of the horn. Because between those two events Sylvanas chitchats with Nathanos, then with the Priest and then ponders on how much she hates the Menethils. Then and only then does she deploy the Dark Rangers off screen. It could also be argued that it'd take a moment for the Forsaken still on the field to also take a moment that Sylvanas deployed them as well.

So, looping back to what was said in the second paragraph, if Sylvanas wasn't sure they were returning out of loyalty or fear, with fear becoming a factor only after the Dark Rangers were deployed, which in turn happened a bit after the horn was sound, they started to return late.

Also, since we're referring to pages of the book, on the same page as Elsie hearing the horn Calia tells them that everyone else other than her was already defecting. So even if Sylvanas decided who'd survive and who'd die with the flip of a coin, most of the Forsaken that died still happened to be traitors.

And speaking of Elsie: as explained above, there was some time that passed between the sounding of the horn - which is when Elsie shouted retreat - and Sylvanas sending the Dark Rangers to the field. Then they'd also need some time to reach the field. And yet, by the time Elsie is killed by the Dark Rangers she's still right in front of Calia, still arguing with her.

Meaning that Elsie didn't heed her own call for retreat. Meaning that she didn't obey Sylvanas' orders about the retreat, because as per Sylvanas' orders the retreat was to be immediate after the horn signal. And Elsie knew about that, because Sylvanas said that twice, once upon her own inquiry.

I'm not saying Sylvanas was right or wrong to kill them. Yes, she was worried about what those who were retreating would do. My point was only that some people were retreating pretty much right away. If we look at the events from Anduin's perspective, he hears the horn. He groans. Genn asks what's wrong. Velen says "It is the bell." Anduin says, "The retreat. It's dangerous." In that span of time, the dark rangers are already mounted. Some people are already retreating to Thoradin's Wall. Arrows haven't even been loosed yet. While Calia claimed "all the others" were defecting, this directly contradicts Anduin's observation that Forsaken were retreating before the bat riders started to fire. Given that Nathanos and Sylvanas corroborate Anduin's claim and that Anduin's claim is based on a character observation instead of spoken word, I think it's safe to say that Calia was exaggerating in what she told Elsie.

If we go back before the horn blew, we can see that Sylvanas had already planned to deal with Elsie. When Anduin bowed to Elsie (page 252), an angry Sylvanas almost considered sounding the retreat, but she opted not to because "this was not enough to convict Vellcinda in the eyes of the council." She allowed the meeting to continue, ordering that Elsie and the priestess (an unrecognized Calia at that point) be watched carefully. It's a bit of speculation on my part, but it seems to me that Sylvanas was just waiting for Elsie to slip up and never intended to let her survive this meeting once she saw how comfortably she was standing among the Alliance guests.

Sylvanas killed the Forsaken on that field because she didn't trust them. Those who followed her instruction were killed because that obedience wasn't enough for her. As you point out, she thought they may only obey from fear, not loyalty. She felt that they may spread the hope for seeing their kin in Stormwind to the rest of her people if they did return, and like the others, they may try to defect in the future. It wasn't a lack of obedience that killed them; it was the risk they posed to her kingdom's stability that got them killed, regardless of whether they truly posed a risk or not. She couldn't take that chance.

[FuxieDK]

Excuse me, never sacked any Alliance capital? THEY LITERALLY BURNED DOWN TELDRASSIL.

1: I said STORMWIND, not capital
2: I omitted Tendrassil for a reason: Horde lost UC as a "quid pro quo". Those two capitals are directly interchangeable.

[DotEleven]

1: I said STORMWIND, not capital
2: I omitted Tendrassil for a reason: Horde lost UC as a "quid pro quo". Those two capitals are directly interchangeable.

Horde have never sacked Storm wind or any other Alliance capital.

And bullshit. Alliance lost Teldrassil because the Horde raided it. Horde lost Undercity because Sylvanas fucking plagued the hell out of it.

[Rozz]

So just worked my way through this. And I gots me a question.

If you were loyal to sylvanas because:
1. She is the best thing for the horde
2. Screw the alliance, red forever
3. She is the rightful warchief

I never chose the loyalist route for any of these reasons.

and now you find out that in fact she was not working for the horde after all as speculated many times over. I mean her wanting death for everyone includes you too . So......what does the loyal player does then?

She quite clearly states we were working for her, which is why she sees Saurfang's desertion as a betrayal. I never once had any other belief that she cared for anyone besides herself, Nathanos, her sisters/BEs, her ambitions, and the Forsaken. Now she abandons the Forsaken, because she feels they've come to a crossroads. They cling to a hope she has abandoned, so she leaves them to continue on her path. She doesn't care about the PC, but she values loyalty (arrows) and has yet to leave them unrewarded. I'm banking on that last part.

I mean we now have beautiful cgi proof that she doesnt care about the horde. the ones against or the ones for. they are all dumb and weak to her as per the monologue. And if you have been following her about because she cares for the horde well what now?

Tbh the Horde is dumb and weak. What has she forced them to do? Enabled them to wage war they willingly fought?
I honestly don't care, because she's right. The Horde and Alliance are both dumb. They are nothing. They are like children. I was a loyalist, because I was tired of the factions. It isn't that I want them dissolved, it's that I wanted to have a story and agency outside of pitiful leaders (including her). Working for Sylvanas gave me a chance to lash out at the system, even if it meant nothing. At the very least it was cathartic. I didn't need Sylvanas to survive or win, I just enjoyed the feeling following her gave.

Which is why I will continue helping her whenever she wants. Even if her plan means being a pawn in the end, that's at least a servitude I chose. I don't enjoy being a slave to the random feelings and actions of leaders that don't even realize they're worse than her.