*Spoilers* Tyrande's reaction to end of 4th war

[lummiuster]

I hope we get to kill both, together with Jaina and Baine, as presented in the End Times Dungeon.

Na, I hope we could just kill those peaceful fucks like Baine/Jaina/Tyrande/Anduin. And only have leaders like Sylvanas and Garrosh.

[Trumpcat]

...
Can you imagine what would happen if Blizz kill off Tyrande and redeem Sylvanas?

Why do you have to disturb my inner peace with such disgusting thoughts...

[Tyrandecool]

if blizz give choice, no one follow Anduin, only LGBT community

Infracted.

[Halyon]

Yes, Sylvanas personally fired all those catapults at Teldrassil.

Oh, and the Horde kept following her after that. Only Saurfang objected.

'Cus rebellion during active war-time, especially around a tyrant like Sylvanas, has always ended well, amirite?

[Mehrunes]

You're just taking snippets of his entire paragraph again. Read the WHOLE thing again.

No I didn't. In regards to the first post of theirs I addressed, I addressed their actual point. Was I supposed to address their historical comparison separately even though it was made to support the point I addressed anyway? And whatever has happened to your earlier assertion they explained how Lor'themar did that? Moving the goalposts here because I pointed out they didn't actually provide anything other than a claim won't magically validate you. And in regards to their second post I quoted, I quoted the entire two sentences of it and addressed it as a whole. So please, stop your BS about how I'm taking snippets out of things when time and time again it's all for everyone to see that's not the case and you're just trying to pull wool over people's eyes because you don't like what I said but don't have it in you to provide actual counterarguments other than your false, fallacious nonsense. Who are you trying to fool?

[Jalham]

if blizz give choice, no one follow Anduin, only LGBT community

So being a young man who isn't married = LGBT ? what kind of logic is this.

[KaPe]

What are you even talking about ? She literally AOE one shots soldiers left and right after her ascension, for a pure priestess that's a huge power boost. Doubt we have seen her fully power yet too, since she barely got a handle on it when she first got it and we didnt see her use it again since then.

Random vehicle quest has you aoe one shot dozens of soldiers - be it azerite warmachine or bat dropping exploding poop. For a ritual that supposedly channels the fury of a god, killing a few soldiers isn't exactly impressive.

[Eggroll]

Na, I hope we could just kill those peaceful fucks like Baine/Jaina/Tyrande/Anduin. And only have leaders like Sylvanas and Garrosh.

Wut? Since when was Tyrande a peaceful fuck? Like - never.

[united]

What are you even talking about ? She literally AOE one shots soldiers left and right after her ascension, for a pure priestess that's a huge power boost. Doubt we have seen her fully power yet too, since she barely got a handle on it when she first got it and we didnt see her use it again since then.

Isn't Tyrande also considered one of the best archers? She's always been pretty strong, it's just that she got demigod tier powers that Blizzard loves to give the Alliance for some reason.

[Every Pwny]

No, I need things addressed. The evidence we have does not default lead to Tyrande believing Sylvanas is still a threat because all the evidence we have that Tyrande would know could lead to her no longer believing it. And yes, Sylvanas did all that ... but Tyrande had two people informing her of the LACK OF THREAT (without actually "spelling it out to her") and rather than address her feelings of Sylvanas still being a threat went "I WILL HAVE VENGEANCE" both times. That is poor writing because even if she does consider Sylanas a true threat on any level ... they are focusing on her emotion making it seem like it is the only motivation she has.

No one is saying Sylvanas is no longer a threat. I like how "all that" is just "oh yeah the little thing of genocide, raising the night elf dead and fighting malfurion 1v1, but Anduin is probably implying sylvanas is not a threat now so she shouldn't try to go after Sylvanas!". That's literally not how it works. It's actually irrational to believe that sylvanas is no longer a threat, and if you think that is what Anduin and Shandris are implying that here (which they aren't) it would only make them irrational. Pretending characters only have one motive to do anything is pretty stupid as well, she is the only one trying to actually help the people who were still in Darkshore and now it seems she's trying to set up a new home for them in Hyjal, Anduin really only seems concerned with what the horde thinks so much that he went behind her back to make a treaty with them and expected her to agree to it.

Isn't Tyrande also considered one of the best archers? She's always been pretty strong, it's just that she got demigod tier powers that Blizzard loves to give the Alliance for some reason.

Those powers literally did not help her out, she needed Malfurion's help with Nathanos and still failed to stop him from raising their dead and he just walked away. If Tyrande has demigod powers even Nathanos has more power than her, and definitely Sylvanas.

[united]

Those powers literally did not help her out, she needed Malfurion's help with Nathanos and still failed to stop him from raising their dead and he just walked away. If Tyrande has demigod powers even Nathanos has more power than her, and definitely Sylvanas.

He was empowered by Val'kyr, and was injured by that fight.

[Every Pwny]

He was empowered by Val'kyr, and was injured by that fight.

And she was empowered by Elune and needed help against him. Also what was his injury? A cut? Because he was completely fine in the raid when he was fighting back the alliance.

[Darththeo]

No one is saying Sylvanas is no longer a threat. I like how "all that" is just "oh yeah the little thing of genocide, raising the night elf dead and fighting malfurion 1v1, but Anduin is probably implying sylvanas is not a threat now so she shouldn't try to go after Sylvanas!". That's literally not how it works. It's actually irrational to believe that sylvanas is no longer a threat, and if you think that is what Anduin and Shandris are implying that here (which they aren't) it would only make them irrational. Pretending characters only have one motive to do anything is pretty stupid as well, she is the only one trying to actually help the people who were still in Darkshore and now it seems she's trying to set up a new home for them in Hyjal, Anduin really only seems concerned with what the horde thinks so much that he went behind her back to make a treaty with them and expected her to agree to it.

Do you ever read my posts or do you just make your strawman and reply to that?

I am never claiming any character stated Sylvanas wasn't a threat. My statement is she is a diminished threat (and lack of threat also doesn't imply "no threat", but rather no real or current threat, I am sorry that you assume that, but I assume you actually read my posts, but based on evidence, I am going to start assuming you haven't read one.) ... that goes from a lowered threat to no threat, not just no threat. You can't take something I state and accept as "evidence" that I am wrong. Seriously, I have never in my time dealing with creationists, flat earthers and anti-vaxxers dealt with someone who strawmans as much as you do.

I am not pretending anything, why seriously, stop this crap, it's annoying. I have been arguing that you have a character that should have multiple motives that you know you show them. You have Anduin and Shandris arguing that both the Horde and Sylvanas are a diminished threat, and that there are other things that people should be focusing on. How difficult would it have been to put in a line where Tyrande states "I will not underestimate the Banshee again." or the like? It shows, not lists multiple motives ... but to you that listing them. I am arguing that Tyrande should have multiple motives and good story telling is showing those motives ... they had five lines, five tries to show that ... they chose to show one. Therefor, it is only assumption that Tyrande even views Sylvanas as a threat because her lines support possibilities that she doesn't.

You bring up what she did as Warchief of the Horde with a large army and forces under her command ... Sylvanas doesn't have that now. Sylvanas' action are know to have turned some of her former allies against her. You have other alliance leaders speaking to Tyrande that Sylvanas is a diminished threat and they need to focus on other issues for the moment. That is the right time to show exactly what level of threat Tyrande views Sylvanas ... they chose not to show and the only thing worse the telling is expecting your readers to come to your assumed conclusion based on limited info.

And on top of all this, it is possible that even Shandris, based on one of her lines as SHE is realizing that Tyrande is acting irrationally and that is she worried what the actions of Tyrande is going to do to Tyrande and Tyrande's relationships with the other Alliance leaders. You have somewhat decent writing next to a person that is just all just "VENGEANCE!"

[Every Pwny]

Do you ever read my posts or do you just make your strawman and reply to that?

I am never claiming any character stated Sylvanas wasn't a threat. My statement is she is a diminished threat (and lack of threat also doesn't imply "no threat", but rather no real or current threat, I am sorry that you assume that, but I assume you actually read my posts, but based on evidence, I am going to start assuming you haven't read one.) ... that goes from a lowered threat to no threat, not just no threat. You can't take something I state and accept as "evidence" that I am wrong. Seriously, I have never in my time dealing with creationists, flat earthers and anti-vaxxers dealt with someone who strawmans as much as you do.

And yes, Sylvanas did all that ... but Tyrande had two people informing her of the LACK OF THREAT (without actually "spelling it out to her")

Really just stop change your argument every time you're shown to be incorrect. That part never happened, they never implied Sylvanas was a lack of a threat, I called you out for it and now you are pretending you did not say it.

Therefor, it is only assumption that Tyrande even views Sylvanas as a threat because her lines support possibilities that she doesn't.

It's also a baseless assumption that she does not view Sylvanas as a threat, Tyrande viewing Sylvanas as a threat is backed up more by previous event than the other way around.

You bring up what she did as Warchief of the Horde with a large army and forces under her command ... Sylvanas doesn't have that now. Sylvanas' action are know to have turned some of her former allies against her. You have other alliance leaders speaking to Tyrande that Sylvanas is a diminished threat and they need to focus on other issues for the moment. That is the right time to show exactly what level of threat Tyrande views Sylvanas ... they chose not to show and the only thing worse the telling is expecting your readers to come to your assumed conclusion based on limited info.

And on top of all this, it is possible that even Shandris, based on one of her lines as SHE is realizing that Tyrande is acting irrationally and that is she worried what the actions of Tyrande is going to do to Tyrande and Tyrande's relationships with the other Alliance leaders. You have somewhat decent writing next to a person that is just all just "VENGEANCE!"

Which includes 1v1ing Malfurion. A super powerful evil entity that still has a bunch of followers is a threat regardless. This all really comes down to you needing that clarification that Tyrande views Sylvanas as a threat, which has more evidence to suggest that she does than she does not. There is NO reason to ignore the threat of Sylvanas, Anduin is being entirely irrational if you think he sees her as a "lack of a threat" same goes for Shandris (Shandris who has been more of a proponent for humans than her own people throughout her war campaign).

[Darththeo]

Really just stop change your argument every time you're shown to be incorrect. That part never happened, they never implied Sylvanas was a lack of a threat, I called you out for it and now you are pretending you did not say it.

I haven't once. Please prove where I have that wasn't just either your strawman or your assumption of my argument.

It's also a baseless assumption that she does not view Sylvanas as a threat, Tyrande viewing Sylvanas as a threat is backed up more by previous event than the other way around.

Except when other characters that have seen more of her powers are preaching caution. Just because you see one assumption as "baseless" doesn't A) grant any other assumption anything or B) makes it actually baseless.

Which includes 1v1ing Malfurion. A super powerful evil entity that still has a bunch of followers is a threat regardless. This all really comes down to you needing that clarification that Tyrande views Sylvanas as a threat, which has more evidence to suggest that she does than she does not.

Except my point is you can still look at everything and see that Tyrande appears to care far more for her vengeance on Sylvanas than any threat she may pose. Which means despite your personal feelings, another viewer would be 100% justified in the stance of going "Wait, does Tyrande even view Sylvanas as a threat anymore?" Which has been my point this entire argument that you claim I changed. Dude, your strawmen were never my argument.

The "changes" were me responding to your inane strawmen.

[Every Pwny]

I haven't once. Please prove where I have that wasn't just either your strawman or your assumption of my argument.

And yes, Sylvanas did all that ... but Tyrande had two people informing her of the LACK OF THREAT (without actually "spelling it out to her")

I am never claiming any character stated Sylvanas wasn't a threat. My statement is she is a diminished threat (and lack of threat also doesn't imply "no threat", but rather no real or current threat, I am sorry that you assume that, but I assume you actually read my posts, but based on evidence, I am going to start assuming you haven't read one.) ... that goes from a lowered threat to no threat, not just no threat.

I used your words of "lack of a threat". No character has said or implied Sylvanas is a "lack of a threat", Sylvanas is still a big threat. Tyrande stating that doesn't change that fact and is unneeded in a conversation where Anduin has been unwilling to help the night elves after his bad intel lead to the destruction of the night elves home.

Except when other characters that have seen more of her powers are preaching caution. Just because you see one assumption as "baseless" doesn't A) grant any other assumption anything or B) makes it actually baseless.

The claim that Sylvanas is a "lack of a threat" is the baseless one.

Except my point is you can still look at everything and see that Tyrande appears to care far more for her vengeance on Sylvanas than any threat she may pose. Which means despite your personal feelings, another viewer would be 100% justified in the stance of going "Wait, does Tyrande even view Sylvanas as a threat anymore?" Which has been my point this entire argument that you claim I changed. Dude, your strawmen were never my argument.

The "changes" were me responding to your inane strawmen.

Your point has been Tyrande needs to say or imply Sylvanas is a threat or she is being irrational. And again saying Tyrande doesn't view Sylvanas as a threat has far less evidence than her viewing her as a threat, she can go after her for more than just vengeance even if that could be a primary motivator, crazy I know.

[Darththeo]

I used your words of "lack of a threat". No character has said or implied Sylvanas is a "lack of a threat", Sylvanas is still a big threat. Tyrande stating that doesn't change that fact and is unneeded in a conversation where Anduin has been unwilling to help the night elves after his bad intel lead to the destruction of the night elves home.

"She no longer leads the Horde" can be read like that. Lack of threat =/= no threat. That's not changing the argument, that you playing semantics to build a strawman. And given in prior posts I have stated "diminished threat", you have no excuse for reading "lack of threat" as no threat.

So thank you for showing exactly how you are strawmanning ... good job. /slow clap.

The claim that Sylvanas is a "lack of a threat" is the baseless one.

It is 100% not, because that is built on the assumption "Lack of threat" means no threat.

Your point has been Tyrande needs to say or imply Sylvanas is a threat or she is being irrational. And again saying Tyrande doesn't view Sylvanas as a threat has far less evidence than her viewing her as a threat, she can go after her for more than just vengeance even if that could be a primary motivator, crazy I know.

She is being irrational by doing for seeking vengeance. Vengeance isn't a rational motive ... period. Doing anything for vengeance is irrational behavior.
She is being irrational, regardless of whether or not she views Sylvanas as any level of threat or not.

Yes, she can ... but you have to get this show that motivation ... I know, that's crazy. You don't leave it up to people to assume it ... that's shitty writing. You don't need to tell it either, you have to show it.

I have literally stated this numerous times to you already, but thanks for continuing to prove you don't read.

[Every Pwny]

"She no longer leads the Horde" can be read like that. Lack of threat =/= no threat. That's not changing the argument, that you playing semantics to build a strawman. And given in prior posts I have stated "diminished threat", you have no excuse for reading "lack of threat" as no threat.

That is specifically in relation to the horde, not Sylvanas. Shandris is trying to imply the horde is no longer evil because Sylvanas isn't in charge, but that is also a naive statement as she had massive support prior to her running away and Garrosh had massive support as well. Tyrande is being understandably cautious. No one is implying Sylvanas is "a lack of a threat".

It is 100% not, because that is built on the assumption "Lack of threat" means no threat.

It is, and no one is implying Sylvanas is "a lack of a threat". She is still a threat and getting rid of her would be a good thing for Azeroth.

She is being irrational by doing for seeking vengeance. Vengeance isn't a rational motive ... period. Doing anything for vengeance is irrational behavior.
She is being irrational, regardless of whether or not she views Sylvanas as any level of threat or not.

Yes, she can ... but you have to get this show that motivation ... I know, that's crazy. You don't leave it up to people to assume it ... that's shitty writing. You don't need to tell it either, you have to show it.

I have literally stated this numerous times to you already, but thanks for continuing to prove you don't read.

She's absolutely not being irrational, getting rid of Sylvanas is a rational and good goal even if she is motivated by vengeance. Imply things is fine writing, you don't need her to state it. The writing in wow is low tier shit and has been for a long time, giving night elves next to no content in BFA is a huge indicator of this. You are pretending Tyrande needs to spell out all her intentions in the short amount of text blizzard is giving her in this entire expansion, we have no idea what the night elves are even doing really even after WoT. So yes the writing in wow is complete shit, but not because Tyrande isn't saying "I think Sylvanas is a threat", it's for A LOT of other shit and neglect of races in the story.

[Darththeo]

That is specifically in relation to the horde, not Sylvanas. Shandris is trying to imply the horde is no longer evil because Sylvanas isn't in charge, but that is also a naive statement as she had massive support prior to her running away and Garrosh had massive support as well. Tyrande is being understandably cautious. No one is implying Sylvanas is "a lack of a threat".

"Can be read" means that it can be viewed as such. Your view =/= Fact. You take your opinion on a statement, make that opinion fact and anyone who potentially reads it differently than you is wrong.

It is, and no one is implying Sylvanas is "a lack of a threat". She is still a threat and getting rid of her would be a good thing for Azeroth.

Will it? We don't know the plans for the future. And yes, they are by choosing to focus resources on another threat. That means she is a diminished threat, they are devoting some resources to her, but right now the larger issue is N'Zoth. It is a reduced threat, sorry, facts are on my side here.

She's absolutely not being irrational, getting rid of Sylvanas is a rational and good goal even if she is motivated by vengeance. Imply things is fine writing, you don't need her to state it. The writing in wow is low tier shit and has been for a long time, giving night elves next to no content in BFA is a huge indicator of this. You are pretending Tyrande needs to spell out all her intentions in the short amount of text blizzard is giving her in this entire expansion, we have no idea what the night elves are even doing really even after WoT. So yes the writing in wow is complete shit, but not because Tyrande isn't saying "I think Sylvanas is a threat", it's for A LOT of other shit and neglect of races in the story.

No, vengeance is an emotional response, therefor cannot be rational. You can't respond rationally and emotionally.

You are making the ends justify the means argument, which itself isn't a rational argument. It is an argument that attempts to rationalize the irrational. Killing Sylvanas is good, therefor any reason to kill her also good ... that isn't a good argument, it is bad.

We have a character with less lines make her intention clear in the same few lines ... but expecting the same for Tyrande is too much? Shandris argued for why the Horde shouldn't be viewed as the enemy right now, possibly we should move beyond Sylvanas for the moment AND spoke her concern over Tyrande's actions ... in three. But Tyrande in five can't show more than a single motive? Are you kidding me right now?

[Every Pwny]

"Can be read" means that it can be viewed as such. Your view =/= Fact. You take your opinion on a statement, make that opinion fact and anyone who potentially reads it differently than you is wrong.

Yeah, you can be interpreting it incorrectly, as Tyrande specifically addresses the horde after, but that's on you. It's pretty clear what is being said as shandris is also talking specifally about the leadership immeidately after:

Shandris: The Banshee Queen no longer leads the Horde. Those who do seem more inclined toward peace than war.

Tyrande: If the wolf is rabid, it matters not who rides it. Sooner or later, the beast will bare its fangs.

Will it? We don't know the plans for the future. And yes, they are by choosing to focus resources on another threat. That means she is a diminished threat, they are devoting some resources to her, but right now the larger issue is N'Zoth. It is a reduced threat, sorry, facts are on my side here.

It could be, but as we have seen Sylvanas pretty much just does evil things. But you should now be complaining that Blizzard hasn't spelled out what would happen if Sylvanas dies, just as they didn't spell out all the reasons Tyrande is going after Sylvanas.

No, vengeance is an emotional response, therefor cannot be rational. You can't respond rationally and emotionally.

You are making the ends justify the means argument, which itself isn't a rational argument. It is an argument that attempts to rationalize the irrational.

Anduin's quest for peace is also driven by emotion, same as his desire to trust the horde, but I don't see you screaming about him acting irrationally. Anduin intentionally prolonged the war by withdrawing the troops from the troll city because he didn't want to be like Sylvanas, another "irrational" decision to you. Most things people do are driven by emotion, but that doesn't mean they are all irrational.