Does Sylvanas finally make sense to you?

[Super Dickmann]

"A Good War" shows us that Nathanos isn't quite in lock-step with Sylvanas on all things, similar to "Before the Storm" when he explains the state of affairs in the Undercity and gently reminds Sylvanas of the dangers of power vacuums (which always struck me as him softly upbraiding her for being a bit careless with her own adopted people). Since my outline of events doesn't involve a drastic 180 as you put it, this isn't really germane to the model at hand. Influence is also not tantamount to controlling someone's action as you can push a person in such a way that they'll do what you want them to (even if that thing is manifestly not in their best interests) with them thinking all the while that it is indeed what they wanted to do all along.

What I'm getting at re: Nathanos is that he would notice if there were a significant shift in goal, which is demonstrably the case - no mention is made of the whole business with the Maw throughout the book and Nathanos as her confidante is privy to her plans. Past that though, the issue with influence is that it's a vague term, and in this case it has to be supernatural influence so as to set aside Sylvanas's awareness of the goings on and clear up contradictions. None of this is in evidence in the text or even suggested, we are assured, heavily so, that she is acting of her own volition in pursuit of her own plan. The issue is not that Sylvanas is doing something without knowing the implications thereof, but that what she goes on to do differs drastically depending on the work.

I agree, but then I also think your argument is self-sealing and assumes a great expanse of otherwise unknown quantities - where I am theorizing elements that close the apparent gaps and inconsistencies, you are assuming nothing exists in those spaces and decrying the narrative is irreparably broken. As I've already said many times, I don't know what the story will be come Shadowlands, so my modeling is definitely in the vein of speculation and hypothesizing - and there's nothing at all wrong with that, in my view. I do, however, think it's bad form to *know* that more story explaining these gaps is forthcoming and simultaneously cry about the gaps existing in the first place - especially when it's a very real possibility that the seeming inconsistencies will be ironed out in the end. It would be like reading the penultimate book in a trilogy and then decrying that the series didn't end very well and a bunch of stuff was left unexplained, all because you deny the final book exists or don't want to read it.

I do not believe Sylvanas has achieved meta-fictional awareness of her role in the story, however; I find the very concept to be farcical. The reason Sylvanas didn't execute Malfurion is because she callously wished to rub Saurfang's face in his own seeming "dishonor," and the reason she doesn't kill Baine is because he'd become something of an obvious lightning-rod figure among the Horde leadership and she didn't want to make him a martyr (and she also uses his imprisonment to ferret out Saurfang and the other dissidents in her court). Both cases are consistent with her previous behaviors.

I agree that the scenario I present is farcical, which is why I used it - it's the kind of position you're free to take once you set aside textual evidence or prior coherence as requirements. Once you've adopted an argumentative lens, as you have, where you can set aside large swathes of the character's mental processes on the basis of a purely theoretical exercise like her being insane, mind-controlled, influenced or what have you, as well as that she was thinking about things that we have not seen her do or entertain thoughts not in keeping at all with what we're told her thoughts later are, you adopt a position that's unfalsifiable. Any evidence from the current text can be dismissed as at best incomplete or irrelevant because of whatever mental impairment we're ascribing to Sylvanas in this case. It's a lens that leaves any kind of argumentation impossible because we're not working within the material actually there but presupposing the existence of additional material to explain away gaping flaws.

Hence the Sylvanaspool-theory. Yes, you can say that she left Malfurion to Saurfang out of overconfidence and to humiliate the night elves or that she spared Baine to bait out the others into a trap. Much like I have been telling you of Sylvanas' actual, canonical reasoning in BTS and EoN for her actions. But much like the mind control or insanity stances, the Sylvanaspool is self-justifying. I can tell you for example that Sylvanas was actually angry because she was aware of her powerlessness as regards Malfurion because of his protection within the plot and her thoughts were just for cover. Or that, given that she has you sabotage her own trap in the loyalist version of that questline, that she knew she was causally trapped regardless of her actions since the plot could only ever go one way. Is there any evidence for this? Nill. But it wouldn't be dismissable because hypothetically future material could take this position.

You read *a lot* more out of Sylvanas' brief eulogizing of Varian in "Before the Storm" than I did. For me, it seems more like a recognition of grudging respect for the man who sacrificed himself so others may life, an ironic echo of Sylvanas' death at Arthas' hands in the Third War. I certainly didn't feel Sylvanas suddenly had a deep well of feeling for Varian or Vol'jin - merely that just view their loss as a waste to both the Horde and the Alliance. She may well have even relished the chance to go toe-to-toe with Varian when it came time to culminate her own plans based on whatever she the Jailer might've been cooking up, if indeed they were at this point in time. You posit almost as if Sylvanas were friends with Varian due to the Broken Shore, when really they were nothing more than enemies with a grudging respect for one another's prowess in battle, one warrior to another you might say. As for having yet to do so, that information is likely due soon in Shadowlands.

I disagree on both counts. Firstly because while there's some side lines presaging it, like Sylvanas musing about how "King Wrynn" meant Varian for so long or bemoaning how his son doesn't have his organisational ability or what have you, it's never actually confirmed up until the end from Sylvanas's perspective what she made of Varian or the Broken Shore scenario. We are with Anduin when he confronts her about his dad's death and then the half a chapter is spent recounting her view of this, her thoughts on Varian, her wishes to stay there and so forth - it's not friendship, but it's definitely respect and understanding and most of all an unwillingness to ditch him, despite the risk to her own life, were it not for Vol'jin's orders. Tellingly, she also says she wouldn't ever admit this in person and doesn't do so, instead only giving Anduin a vague denial because admitting her own emotional state during the Broken Shore would be a breach of her persona and for her a sign of weakness. Vol'jin is an even more obvious case - references to her pride in being Warchief, her unwillingness to be so, her admiration for Vol'jin's organisational ability but condemnation for having appointed her are throughout the book even before we learn that it was his order that formed the main reason she didn't stay back at the Broken Shore. There's a lot of material in this book - you would be correct if you only had the broad strokes of "Sylvanas felt regret about Varian's death" or "Sylvanas was unhappy and surprised with being made Warchief" but those aren't the case - there's explanation and context in the book manifestly incompatible with the mindset you describe.

I disagree completely on that score. Post Third War Sylvanas would've had as little love for the Horde as she did the Human kingdoms, given that the Horde in the Second War put Quel'Thalas to the torch and their Troll allies wouldn't have gone over well either due to the High Elves' long struggles with the Amani (and "Shadows of the Horde" show us that the Alliance doesn't really differentiate between tribes of Trolls when it comes to being prejudiced against them). It makes sense that when desperately looking for allies that Sylvanas would go for her former allies in the Alliance over her more recent enemies in the Horde, at least initially - and then on having them ruthlessly murdered she'd go to the enemy of her new enemy, so to speak. Lordaeron was also previously a client-state of the Alliance as well, so it also stands on the score. I've already stated my view that the take on Varian seems way too overblown, and probably doesn't factor into any of her decisions at all in "Before the Storm," other than being a dramatic set-piece between her and Anduin early on at the Gathering. Sylvanas also doesn't strike me as a micro-manager, either; especially not in light of the fact that she permits not one but two coups to start under her leadership - first the one that comes to head with Putress, and another minor coup in the form of the Desolate Council. Sylvanas prefers to plot and scheme under cover of shadow, moving about pieces as she needs them, but disdaining non-important pieces as non-existent, at least until they come back to bite her (e.g. Zelling in BfA). None of these are the signs of a micro-manager.

Correct, she has even less reason to turn to the Horde. She has the most reason to turn to Quel'thalas, who also rejected her. Ditto, it makes sense for her to reach out for the Alliance too - what I'm taking issue with is that she'd take Stormwind's rejection so personally as to make it her life's mission (In BTS) to take revenge on them, when this whole thing was an inconvenience at best, lacking even the personal betrayal for services rendered that her being rejected by the blood elves was. As for Sylvanas not being a micromanager - pre-BTS I'd agree, she demonstrably wasn't, in Vanilla because she just wanted to set the Forsaken against ARthas and the rest didn't matter, opening herself up to being betrayed by Varimathras/Putress, and in Cataclysm because she allows pretty much anyone to leave if they aren't a risk to the Forsaken and her personally. The BTS Sylvanas however is - we see her extremely invested in things like Vellcinda's name change, she's running an Orwellian police state (in absentia and apparently for years but nevermind dredging that nonsense up again) based around molding the lives of everyone there up to a point, she gets angry about the Desolate Council - who are a bunch of nobodies in practice wishing to die, equates the possibility of rejection at the Gathering with her own, etc, etc. She's not negligent, far from it, she's extremely controlling and her real wish is to ditch the Warchief post to go back to running UC - she views the Forsaken, down to the individual, as both her property and extensions of herself. This is in stark contrast to both her pre-BTS and BFA demeanour on the topic. I do not for a moment buy that BTS Sylvanas would leave the Forsaken behind. She'd want to drag them down with her wherever she goes and destroy those who weren't willing to go down with her because she'd feel their rejection a personal slight.

Not sure what you mean by a "sense of self-awareness" in this context. Voss doesn't make an issue out of Calia's woolgathering because she wants Calia for something, and she's shrewd enough not to sweat the small stuff when setting up a crucial introduction of sorts. Also quite possible that Voss' father may not have always been so terrible, and she may have memories of the man he was prior to him getting a head full of Nathrezim corruption after the fall of Lordaeron courtesy of Balnazzar. I don't think Voss would expect Calia to be familiar with her or her plight, either; considering it happened well after Calia had fled Lordaeron and was basically thought to be dead by everyone else, Forsaken or Human. The scene is meant to show Calia is a caring individual, and she tries to build a bridge with Voss based on their history (as one would expect), not fully knowing or understanding the nature of that history for Voss as, well, she's not omniscient by any means. Similar too with the Dark Rangers - there's no expectation they share anything but undeath in that tableau, but that's enough, really. I am not quite sure what you're looking for in that scene. I think it has become an element of rumor and in-game speculation at this point that Calia has some kind of affinity or ability to soothe the damaged psyche of the undead as she did with Derek, and that's the capacity she is called to be there in.

She could have, but the last time we saw it was when she killed her dad, where she tells us directly that she was raised as a weapon, made to be a tool against the undead. Her last experience with him was killing him, where she brings up that her upbringing was for that purpose. Yet we get nothing out of Voss, a fairly emotional character in her own right on that vein. Instead, more attention is spent on Voss flagellating herself over Derek. It's pathetic. I agree that the purpose of the scene is to show Calia able to see past who the people of Lordaeron are now to what they were to her when she was alive, but it's completely tone deaf and met with zero irony. As said, I take no issue with Calia's writing there - I take issue with Voss's response and especially the dark rangers. The dark ranger thing is a complete farce. The night elf dark rangers have more in common with the regular Forsaken or hell, the Ebon Blade, than they do with Calia. The idea that these people would cross continents to meet someone with whom they share neither race, nor history nor faith, over trauma based around an event that Calia has no frame of reference to is absurd.

If you have an issue with Voss suddenly being the Forsaken figurehead, I'd kind of agree - but I think that down to the fact that there aren't many prominent Forsaken who could do the job required of the current leader of the Forsaken. Most of the ones we know are probably staunch Sylvanas loyalists or dead. Voss was both close to the inner circle by virtue of her role in BfA and uniquely placed to serve in the role despite her own misgivings about it. That her place seems rather quickly achieved isn't that big of a deal - as Sylvanas had her eye on Voss since Cata it scans she'd try to bring her in whenever it became feasible to do so.

I don't mind Voss's arc before she was flung into the whole affair with Calia. Voss deciding to hook up with the Forsaken to help others not suffer the same trauma she did upon undeath is a good development. But to use her as the face of the Forsaken produces the same vibe as having Belmont and Faranell at Darkshore only ot put all the focus on Sira and her grievance with Maiev, which is past being petty, also completely irrelevant to any Forsaken story. BFA Voss would be a fine Forsaken character, what she isn't fine as is the sole Forsaken character, or as someone who we're meant to take can make the decision to bring Calia in as their leader/therapist while not a soul of the previous cast is seen.

[Mehrunes]

I know. Horde players are really desperate to hold on to the Stormheim thing because it's one of the few things they have.

Given how I already replied to you and pointed out the point that weirdly enough has squat to do with anything you said here before you wrote that reply to @Verdugo, are you sure you want to talk about being desperate? Besides, between Alliance instigating most of the outbreaks of faction conflict in Vanilla, starting the faction war in Wrath, restarting it in Cata, Stormheim and Silithus, yeah, there's so few things to put the Alliance in bad light.

This is why i wish we were getting a Chronicle V4, so we could finally put an and to the whole GeNn'S InTeL iS nOn CaNoN thing they love to spew.

Ah, yes, a weak straw-man. The greatest foundation one can build an argument upon. Because the argument isn't that Genn's intel isn't canon, it's that there's no proof that he even had any intel and that if he had any that it is canon. Because despite that the people trying to vindicate Genn repeatedly treat it as such, putting the burden of proof on them.

Yet whenever they are questioned on that they end up empty handed for some inexplicable reason. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that every bit of evidence we do have including Genn's own statements after the attack (Alliance posters ignoring the Alliance side of things continues to be the best aspect of them spreading falsehoods by the way) indicate otherwise, so very apt usage of "spewing" there. Trying to portray pointing out lore facts as "spewing" in order to dismiss them is perfectly in line with your constant fanfiction peddling.

So unless Chronicle v4 drastically changes things around, we're likely to end with another case of Battle for the Undercity and Chronicle v3 confirming that Varian did indeed declare war in there. Not that it put an end to Alliance posters trying to vindicate him though, it only changed the content of the spins.

Oh, no. Then they might have to go back to just Taurajo and the "Purge" of Dalaran.

So when confronted with the fact that purge is simply another term for cleansing when you were denying that the Purge of Dalaran is a case of cleansing (with very convincing arguments like treating the totally accurate in-game numbers as sacrosanct despite the Purge being described as violent in later novels), rather than to reevaluate your position you decided to double down and deny it being a purge as well, despite it being the officially used term? Interesting position to be sure, though I doubt it will result in anything in terms of making a valid point.

What the hell are you two talking about. He is asking why this unstable bitch isnt killing crippled Genn in a fit of rage and instead she just stands there calmly.

What makes it even better here is that the origin of this tangent is @Yarathir's own post. And yet they missed the context of what they themself wrote. And the answer to your question is obvious. They are totally owning dem Horde fanbois, that's what they are talking about.

[Arrashi]

What the hell are you two talking about. He is asking why this unstable bitch isnt killing crippled Genn in a fit of rage and instead she just stands there calmly.

Obviously because it was his turn and he decided to mash "Run away" option in combat menu.

[Mehrunes]

Obviously because it was his turn and he decided to mash "Run away" option in combat menu.

What shitty combat system is it that you're not standing turned away for one more turn after selecting "run away" for the enemy to hit you one last time?

[Arrashi]

What shitty combat system is it that you're not standing turned away for one more turn after selecting "run away" for the enemy to hit you one last time?

Literally every Wizardry clone made in japan in past 25 years.

[Mehrunes]

Literally every Wizardry clone made in japan in past 25 years.

Having no risk attached to flee option sounds questionable. Any turn based RPGs I played had, at the very least, a chance for the flee to fail. And even then bosses and other fights related to the narrative (which is a category that Sylvanas vs Genn would logically fall under) couldn't be escaped from.

[Yarathir]

What the hell are you two talking about. He is asking why this unstable bitch isnt killing crippled Genn in a fit of rage and instead she just stands there calmly.

The same reason Genn, Alleria and Jaina let Sylvanas saunter on to Anduin at the Battle for Undercity just so that she can REEEE in his face and fly out of a nonexistent window and escape.

- - - Updated - - -

Not really. They'd just use the argument "he should have waited until the Legion invasion was over, then politely confront her through letters to ask her why she did that, and apologize if he sounded too rude or he didn't mind his business" more often.

Ugh he should just get over his grudges and hold hands with Sylvanas.

[Varodoc]

The same reason Genn, Alleria and Jaina let Sylvanas saunter on to Anduin at the Battle for Undercity just so that she can REEEE in his face and fly out of a nonexistent window and escape.

- - - Updated - - -


Ugh he should just get over his grudges and hold hands with Sylvanas.

Alleria in particular makes no sense because she actually saw Sylvanas' BS banshee form in the Three Sisters comic, so she would've known very well what Sylvanas was trying to pull. But as usual Alliance characters are dumbed down so that Sylvanas doesn't get defeated in 10 minutes.

[Yarathir]

Alleria in particular makes no sense because she actually saw Sylvanas' BS banshee form in the Three Sisters comic, so she would've known very well what Sylvanas was trying to pull. But as usual Alliance characters are dumbed down so that Sylvanas doesn't get defeated in 10 minutes.

It's extra funny because before that battle takes place, Anduin himself says that there can be no peace so long as Sylvanas is alive.

If that was true, he should've had Jaina and Alleria fill her with arrows and magic the moment he saw her, unarmed in the throne room. Alas, WoW lore is primarily made up of capeshit ripoff and yass kween moments anymore.

[Varodoc]

It's extra funny because before that battle takes place, Anduin himself says that there can be no peace so long as Sylvanas is alive.

If that was true, he should've had Jaina and Alleria fill her with arrows and magic the moment he saw her, unarmed in the throne room. Alas, WoW lore is primarily made up of capeshit ripoff and yass kween moments anymore.

Totally. Alleria was even ready to shoot an arrow, she could have easily killed Sylvanas as soon as she heard that sound coming from the wall (that was a big red flag).

[Super Dickmann]

It's extra funny because before that battle takes place, Anduin himself says that there can be no peace so long as Sylvanas is alive.

If that was true, he should've had Jaina and Alleria fill her with arrows and magic the moment he saw her, unarmed in the throne room. Alas, WoW lore is primarily made up of capeshit ripoff and yass kween moments anymore.

Anduin decides that after BTS and does absolutely nothing because proactivity is anathema to Blizz Alliance writing. As for characters arbitrarily losing powers, Sylvanas never uses the banshee scream that offs everyone in the room and silences by Anduin's own BTS monologue and Alleria doesn't just void portal Sylvanas and cap her in the head. You can at least excuse the latter with familial attachment, but you'd still have the gaping flaw of Jaina never teleporting to Orgrimmar, as she's shown to be easily able to do in 8.2, shooting Sylvanas in the head with a gun and then porting out.

[Oneirophobia]

If you read the books & comics she 100% make sense. The true tragedy of her World of Warcraft lore is that none of that is in game and she just comes off as an insane psycho bitch with no character development.

Absolutely not the case. Virtually all her internal monologue in Before the Storm contradicts stuff blizzard directly told us at BlizzCon.

They said it was always her goal to be Warchief, yet she specifically says I'm before the storm to herself in her own head that she never wanted it and curses vol'jin for dumping it on her.

Come BlizzCon were told she conspired with the Jailor since Wrath to become Warchief and the wrathgate was all her doing.

They simply pulled another Garrosh with her, except this time it isn't a fully voiced quest with him throwing a bad orc off a cliff for killing civilian night elves, it's the entire basis for an expac retcons their most recent book.

[Mehrunes]

The same reason Genn, Alleria and Jaina let Sylvanas saunter on to Anduin at the Battle for Undercity just so that she can REEEE in his face and fly out of a nonexistent window and escape.

And what reason is that? Could it be character inconsistency?

Alleria in particular makes no sense because she actually saw Sylvanas' BS banshee form in the Three Sisters comic, so she would've known very well what Sylvanas was trying to pull. But as usual Alliance characters are dumbed down so that Sylvanas doesn't get defeated in 10 minutes.

As opposed to Sylvanas not doing the thing you yourself just mentioned and breaking their bones with her voice with them being unable to do anything about it unless you want to argue that Jaina could have conjured a voice-stealing muzzle for her in an instant. Alliance characters had so much chance to achieve anything here if everyone involved weren't acting stupidly. Never mind that if not for their numerous deus ex machinas they would have been Blight goo before they even got the chance to walk into that throne room. Hell, they shouldn't even had been able to land on Tirisfal's shore if Blizzard paid attention to the balance of naval power at the start of BfA they talked about in A Good War.

If that was true, he should've had Jaina and Alleria fill her with arrows and magic the moment he saw her, unarmed in the throne room. Alas, WoW lore is primarily made up of capeshit ripoff and yass kween moments anymore.

The same unarmed Sylvanas that vaporized Saurfang? Sure, people acted stupid in that situation. But the characters that would come out on top if that wasn't the case are not the ones you're thinking about. Unless you think that Alliance characters doing something when seeing Sylvanas yet Sylvanas just acting like a sitting duck in the same situation constitutes realistic outcome. In which case, yay for double standards. They make amazingly solid arguments.

[Powerogue]

No, we were supposed to die when the ships smashed into Nazjatar according the the stuff from the new raid.

No, releasing N'zoth was part of it, play the loyalist ending, she just straight up admits it. That's how shameless she is. She figured her allies in the Shadowlands would mop up the pieces after N'zoth killed everyone.

[Aucald]

What I'm getting at re: Nathanos is that he would notice if there were a significant shift in goal, which is demonstrably the case - no mention is made of the whole business with the Maw throughout the book and Nathanos as her confidante is privy to her plans. Past that though, the issue with influence is that it's a vague term, and in this case it has to be supernatural influence so as to set aside Sylvanas's awareness of the goings on and clear up contradictions. None of this is in evidence in the text or even suggested, we are assured, heavily so, that she is acting of her own volition in pursuit of her own plan. The issue is not that Sylvanas is doing something without knowing the implications thereof, but that what she goes on to do differs drastically depending on the work.

I think you give Nathanos a bit too much credit, here. His tendency is more to roll with the punches and the changes in Sylvanas' rationales - just like he does stemming from the change in "Edge of Night" and Sylvanas bringing the Val'kyr home with her from Northrend, etc. etc. As for the influence thing, it's an inference based on the various changes in Sylvanas' methodology and rationale going from Cata to MoP to Legion to BfA (including the events in "Before the Storm" and "A Good War" accordingly). The changes have been gradual enough, and congruent enough, to ascribe to a growing corruption or influence from the Jailer.

I agree that the scenario I present is farcical, which is why I used it - it's the kind of position you're free to take once you set aside textual evidence or prior coherence as requirements. Once you've adopted an argumentative lens, as you have, where you can set aside large swathes of the character's mental processes on the basis of a purely theoretical exercise like her being insane, mind-controlled, influenced or what have you, as well as that she was thinking about things that we have not seen her do or entertain thoughts not in keeping at all with what we're told her thoughts later are, you adopt a position that's unfalsifiable. Any evidence from the current text can be dismissed as at best incomplete or irrelevant because of whatever mental impairment we're ascribing to Sylvanas in this case. It's a lens that leaves any kind of argumentation impossible because we're not working within the material actually there but presupposing the existence of additional material to explain away gaping flaws.

I kind of wish I hadn't brought up the mind control/influence line of speculation now, because you seem to have assumed it's the only line of speculation there is. It's not a great one either, for reasons you've outlined here, but it's still possible to some degree or another. Although I think gradual and/or low-level influence is more probable than complete mind control or domination from the Jailer. That aside, other possibilities are a change in their plans due to external concerns (to be detailed later in Shadowlands), or divergence from the existing plan so that Sylvanas can do whatever she is planned to do to one-up the Jailer so to speak and attempt to wrest control of the plan from him. Either way, you're left with an explored gap or narrative chasm where details from Shadowlands would be necessary to reconcile what we know with what the ultimate reality of the story is.

Hence the Sylvanaspool-theory. Yes, you can say that she left Malfurion to Saurfang out of overconfidence and to humiliate the night elves or that she spared Baine to bait out the others into a trap. Much like I have been telling you of Sylvanas' actual, canonical reasoning in BTS and EoN for her actions. But much like the mind control or insanity stances, the Sylvanaspool is self-justifying. I can tell you for example that Sylvanas was actually angry because she was aware of her powerlessness as regards Malfurion because of his protection within the plot and her thoughts were just for cover. Or that, given that she has you sabotage her own trap in the loyalist version of that questline, that she knew she was causally trapped regardless of her actions since the plot could only ever go one way. Is there any evidence for this? Nill. But it wouldn't be dismissable because hypothetically future material could take this position.

Except your "actual, canonical reasoning" is largely based on hyperbole, memes, and the assumption that the narrative gaps cannot or will not be addressed in Shadowlands - making them, well, less than compelling as arguments and lacking in terms of being canonical. I can't take the "Sylvanaspool" theory serious at all, and its presence really just degrades anything adjacent to it - I know you're not being serious either, but really it's so bad it makes the rest of your surrounding arguments appear worse than they are.

I disagree on both counts. Firstly because while there's some side lines presaging it, like Sylvanas musing about how "King Wrynn" meant Varian for so long or bemoaning how his son doesn't have his organisational ability or what have you, it's never actually confirmed up until the end from Sylvanas's perspective what she made of Varian or the Broken Shore scenario. We are with Anduin when he confronts her about his dad's death and then the half a chapter is spent recounting her view of this, her thoughts on Varian, her wishes to stay there and so forth - it's not friendship, but it's definitely respect and understanding and most of all an unwillingness to ditch him, despite the risk to her own life, were it not for Vol'jin's orders. Tellingly, she also says she wouldn't ever admit this in person and doesn't do so, instead only giving Anduin a vague denial because admitting her own emotional state during the Broken Shore would be a breach of her persona and for her a sign of weakness. Vol'jin is an even more obvious case - references to her pride in being Warchief, her unwillingness to be so, her admiration for Vol'jin's organisational ability but condemnation for having appointed her are throughout the book even before we learn that it was his order that formed the main reason she didn't stay back at the Broken Shore. There's a lot of material in this book - you would be correct if you only had the broad strokes of "Sylvanas felt regret about Varian's death" or "Sylvanas was unhappy and surprised with being made Warchief" but those aren't the case - there's explanation and context in the book manifestly incompatible with the mindset you describe.

That Anduin isn't (yet) the same king that Varian had been is more or less a given - that observation by Sylvanas doesn't mean she has any depth of feeling for Varian. She probably also doesn't trust Anduin, either; his closeness to the Light puts him reflexively as her enemy on a thematic standpoint in a way Varian never was. Never mind his relative youth, inexperience, and his inability to control his peers. I'd agree she respects him, why wouldn't she - but I still disagree that this respect rises from a place of affability or even camaraderie. She respected him as a warrior and as a shrewd opponent, the respect one warrior gives another despite them being on opposite sides of the proverbial board. Beyond that they don't really know one another to begin with, and their brief meetings as leaders within the Alliance and Horde aren't going to endear them to one another either (as Varian calls Sylvanas a "scheming witch" as of WotLK). I simply don't agree with your takeaway of "Before the Storm," nor do I feel her feelings i.e. being Warchief are discordant or inconsistent. As I said before, a person can exhibit multiple feelings about a thing - reluctance and pride can easily co-exist as feelings one has for a given thing, as can hate and respect for that matter. Your model only works if you believe a person can only feel one thing in a given context, and that neither nuance nor conflict are a thing a person can have in their emotional spectrum. It's a very surface read and relegates characters to essentially being cardboard cut-outs.

Correct, she has even less reason to turn to the Horde. She has the most reason to turn to Quel'thalas, who also rejected her. Ditto, it makes sense for her to reach out for the Alliance too - what I'm taking issue with is that she'd take Stormwind's rejection so personally as to make it her life's mission (In BTS) to take revenge on them, when this whole thing was an inconvenience at best, lacking even the personal betrayal for services rendered that her being rejected by the blood elves was. As for Sylvanas not being a micromanager - pre-BTS I'd agree, she demonstrably wasn't, in Vanilla because she just wanted to set the Forsaken against ARthas and the rest didn't matter, opening herself up to being betrayed by Varimathras/Putress, and in Cataclysm because she allows pretty much anyone to leave if they aren't a risk to the Forsaken and her personally. The BTS Sylvanas however is - we see her extremely invested in things like Vellcinda's name change, she's running an Orwellian police state (in absentia and apparently for years but nevermind dredging that nonsense up again) based around molding the lives of everyone there up to a point, she gets angry about the Desolate Council - who are a bunch of nobodies in practice wishing to die, equates the possibility of rejection at the Gathering with her own, etc, etc. She's not negligent, far from it, she's extremely controlling and her real wish is to ditch the Warchief post to go back to running UC - she views the Forsaken, down to the individual, as both her property and extensions of herself. This is in stark contrast to both her pre-BTS and BFA demeanour on the topic. I do not for a moment buy that BTS Sylvanas would leave the Forsaken behind. She'd want to drag them down with her wherever she goes and destroy those who weren't willing to go down with her because she'd feel their rejection a personal slight.

Quel'Thalas was almost defunct that point, not really in a place to assist even if it were inclined to. I also don't think it's Sylvanas' "life's mission" to take vengeance on Stormwind - it simply gives her a justification to do what she already wants to do, is all. Nathanos seemed to have taken Stormwind's actions more personally than Sylvanas did from what we've seen. Sylvanas wanted more Forsaken, and she had a kingdom (Stormwind) full of people who were most easily converted (Humans), and a good call for doing so (their murder of the ambassadors) as well as a means to carry it (control of the Horde). It's a win-win for Sylvanas' purposes. In "Before the Storm" Sylvanas only takes up tighter reins on the Forsaken because, for the first time in their wretched existence, they've deigned to challenge her rule via the existence of the Desolate Council. That's not micro-management, it's fear of usurpation, Sylvanas' vanity and pride not allowing even the existence of a competing worldview in her immediate domain. The Desolate Council's desire to reconcile with their living relatives in the Alliance also goes contrary to Sylvanas' goals on several different levels depending on the way you take the story: the fact that she wanted conflict to begin with (e.g. war on Stormwind), the fact that she may have had plans within plans (e.g. whatever she was cooking up with the Jailer), and the existing notion that she needed the Forsaken overwhelmingly loyal to her to act as her bulwark against true death as of "Edge of Night." By the time of the close of the Fourth War, Sylvanas is at a place where she no longer needs this bulwark, either because she now has the complete backing of the Jailer (who himself controls Death apparently) or because her plans have reached a critical juncture where the Forsaken are surplus to requirement. My money is more on the former than the latter, but either is possible.

She could have, but the last time we saw it was when she killed her dad, where she tells us directly that she was raised as a weapon, made to be a tool against the undead. Her last experience with him was killing him, where she brings up that her upbringing was for that purpose. Yet we get nothing out of Voss, a fairly emotional character in her own right on that vein. Instead, more attention is spent on Voss flagellating herself over Derek. It's pathetic. I agree that the purpose of the scene is to show Calia able to see past who the people of Lordaeron are now to what they were to her when she was alive, but it's completely tone deaf and met with zero irony. As said, I take no issue with Calia's writing there - I take issue with Voss's response and especially the dark rangers. The dark ranger thing is a complete farce. The night elf dark rangers have more in common with the regular Forsaken or hell, the Ebon Blade, than they do with Calia. The idea that these people would cross continents to meet someone with whom they share neither race, nor history nor faith, over trauma based around an event that Calia has no frame of reference to is absurd.

"Raised," yes, but "raised" to be a weapon isn't exactly "born" to be a weapon. She may have had tender childhood years with the elder Voss not corrupted by the Dreadlord, whereas her late childhood and teens may have been spent in rigorous training to become the weapon she refers to, following his corruption in the Crusade. We really don't know, but it's not inconceivable to think it may well be the case. I don't really follow this whole "flagellating herself over Derek" thing - she apologizes for her role and presence in what happened, but she neither fawns over him nor do they discuss it at length. To me it felt more like her trying to smooth things over in a political sense as opposed to any heartfelt sentiment of actual remorse on her part, especially in light of the closing words she speaks more to herself as Calia and Derek depart. I think your distaste for Derek has skewed your read on this little set-piece, but I couldn't say. Calia desires to minister to the Forsaken and other undead, and Voss wants Calia for some reason or another, so it scans that Calia would meet with her (and Derek is more a tag-along in any case, but he's not really got a lot going on).

I don't mind Voss's arc before she was flung into the whole affair with Calia. Voss deciding to hook up with the Forsaken to help others not suffer the same trauma she did upon undeath is a good development. But to use her as the face of the Forsaken produces the same vibe as having Belmont and Faranell at Darkshore only ot put all the focus on Sira and her grievance with Maiev, which is past being petty, also completely irrelevant to any Forsaken story. BFA Voss would be a fine Forsaken character, what she isn't fine as is the sole Forsaken character, or as someone who we're meant to take can make the decision to bring Calia in as their leader/therapist while not a soul of the previous cast is seen.

I suppose so, though I don't really consider Darkshore to be a "Forsaken story" in the same manner you seem to. I also agree with the oddness of her being the new face of the Forsaken, as it were, but as I said previously there aren't really many Forsaken with the narrative weight to pull it off. Voss has a lot more development than either Faranell or Belmont. I'm fine with the Darkshore Warfront being "Nigh Elves effected by the Night Warrior" vs. "Night Elves taken by undeath," as well - I think that actually makes more sense in light of "A Good War" than it being a purely Forsaken set-piece. Especially since the context for the Warfronts is supposed to be Horde vs. Alliance and not race vs. race, specifically.

[Oneirophobia]

"I didn't want Varian to die and am only going to go to war because I can't trust his son to keep control" "I feel sad that Vol'jin died and didn't want to be Warchief. I'm proud to be Warchief and jealous of how well he ran the Horde" "I want to preserve the Forsaken that's why I nabbed Eyir" "I really want to take over Stormwind and gush about this in my own mind despite never having expressed such interest before and never wanting to do so after".

There's no amount of fanfiction that can glue pre-BTS Sylvanas, BTS Sylvanas and BFA Sylvanas together. Kosak didn't write EoN with the Jailor in mind, nor did anyone in Vanilla/Cataclysm write the laughable Orwellian state of BTS. In turn, Golden didn't write Sylvanas with the goal of killing as many people as possible or having planned Vol'jin and Varian's deaths. Hell, the writers in BFA didn't know if Sylvanas had told her dark rangers about her plans or not or whether she intended to ditch the Horde or not because they had to hastily rewrite the plot to fit the loyalist option.

Thank you, finally someone else who is aware of this stuff. It's like Garrosh all over again except dialed up to 11.

Blizz needs to sit down and have a talk about the damn plot.

[Yarathir]

And what reason is that? Could it be character inconsistency?

Blizzard being more interested in creating third-rate capeshit moments than a story.

The same unarmed Sylvanas that vaporized Saurfang? Sure, people acted stupid in that situation. But the characters that would come out on top if that wasn't the case are not the ones you're thinking about. Unless you think that Alliance characters doing something when seeing Sylvanas yet Sylvanas just acting like a sitting duck in the same situation constitutes realistic outcome. In which case, yay for double standards. They make amazingly solid arguments.

1. They didn't know that.
2. Oh yeah I forgot Jailer powers give her the ability to take on Anduin, Jaina, Genn and Alleria at the same time.

[Super Dickmann]

Skipping the Voss stuff since that's better off for a different topic and it's not like we won't argue about Calia again.

I think you give Nathanos a bit too much credit, here. His tendency is more to roll with the punches and the changes in Sylvanas' rationales - just like he does stemming from the change in "Edge of Night" and Sylvanas bringing the Val'kyr home with her from Northrend, etc. etc. As for the influence thing, it's an inference based on the various changes in Sylvanas' methodology and rationale going from Cata to MoP to Legion to BfA (including the events in "Before the Storm" and "A Good War" accordingly). The changes have been gradual enough, and congruent enough, to ascribe to a growing corruption or influence from the Jailer.

I disagree. There have been no changes to speak of in methodology between Sylvanas's objectives from Cataclysm to Mists and what she does in Legion. Her characterization within those is coherent. If you're going to state that these changes (whatever they are), are congruent enough to ascribe to some kind of corruption, influence or what have you that would culminate in the drastic change between her BTS mental state and her actions in BFA, nevermind BTS in general, you need to actually point out what these changes are going there. And even that would get you nowhere as you are, by your own admission, basing your entire argument based off of hypothetical future elements that at present don't exist. Your position is effectively that changes you don't describe and may not exist are enough backing to justify a drastic change we can observe, on the basis of a story element that has not been alluded to at best and been dismissed at worst (The Devs saying this is Sylvanas's own plan and she and the Jailor are partners, not a master-servant relationship).

I kind of wish I hadn't brought up the mind control/influence line of speculation now, because you seem to have assumed it's the only line of speculation there is. It's not a great one either, for reasons you've outlined here, but it's still possible to some degree or another. Although I think gradual and/or low-level influence is more probable than complete mind control or domination from the Jailer. That aside, other possibilities are a change in their plans due to external concerns (to be detailed later in Shadowlands), or divergence from the existing plan so that Sylvanas can do whatever she is planned to do to one-up the Jailer so to speak and attempt to wrest control of the plan from him. Either way, you're left with an explored gap or narrative chasm where details from Shadowlands would be necessary to reconcile what we know with what the ultimate reality of the story is.
Except your "actual, canonical reasoning" is largely based on hyperbole, memes, and the assumption that the narrative gaps cannot or will not be addressed in Shadowlands - making them, well, less than compelling as arguments and lacking in terms of being canonical. I can't take the "Sylvanaspool" theory serious at all, and its presence really just degrades anything adjacent to it - I know you're not being serious either, but really it's so bad it makes the rest of your surrounding arguments appear worse than they are.

On the contrary, think of it as preparation for when you'll have to argue from this position in Shadowlands. The flaw with your position here isn't what semantic term is being used to get across the concept of magic being the reason why Sylvanas doesn't remember doing or planning things we now know she did or having emotional reactions to things we're told she never cared about. It's why I put influence, mind control and so forth under the same denominator - whatever it is, it's still bunk, and the reason it's bunk is always the same - it has no textual backing. There's nothing in the text, at any point, to suggest any sort of corruptive influence got Sylvanas where she was. What you're asking is that anyone consuming this material take your word for it not just that there'll be an explanation forthcoming - that's, if excessively optimistic after BFA, at least sensible - but that a variant of this explanation is pending, and more so than that, arguing on the basis that this explanation has already been delivered. Your visceral reaction to the Sylvanaspool theory is right - it's a load of shit, but it has the same explanatory character and backing in text as the idea that anything regarding her thoughts and actions in said novel were the product of mental influence, that being absolutely nothing.

That Anduin isn't (yet) the same king that Varian had been is more or less a given - that observation by Sylvanas doesn't mean she has any depth of feeling for Varian. She probably also doesn't trust Anduin, either; his closeness to the Light puts him reflexively as her enemy on a thematic standpoint in a way Varian never was. Never mind his relative youth, inexperience, and his inability to control his peers. I'd agree she respects him, why wouldn't she - but I still disagree that this respect rises from a place of affability or even camaraderie. She respected him as a warrior and as a shrewd opponent, the respect one warrior gives another despite them being on opposite sides of the proverbial board. Beyond that they don't really know one another to begin with, and their brief meetings as leaders within the Alliance and Horde aren't going to endear them to one another either (as Varian calls Sylvanas a "scheming witch" as of WotLK). I simply don't agree with your takeaway of "Before the Storm," nor do I feel her feelings i.e. being Warchief are discordant or inconsistent. As I said before, a person can exhibit multiple feelings about a thing - reluctance and pride can easily co-exist as feelings one has for a given thing, as can hate and respect for that matter. Your model only works if you believe a person can only feel one thing in a given context, and that neither nuance nor conflict are a thing a person can have in their emotional spectrum. It's a very surface read and relegates characters to essentially being cardboard cut-outs.

Depth of feeling is not required. The book doesn't claim that Sylvanas and Varian pranced through the meadows. What it says - explicitly and clearly is that she viewed Varian as a very competent ruler who had the respect of his subjects and that she considered the idea of leaving him behind an impossible choice, one solved only by the order from her Warchief. That does not prevent her from viewing him as an opponent in other contexts, but it does prevent her from plotting his demise at that very location, because if she were doing so, she'd not need the order of someone she also we're later told she had no respect for as a tiebreaker. At the end you accuse me of believing a person can only have one thought on a thing, but that's far from the case - hell, we see in the novel that Sylvanas purposefully denies bringing this up to Anduin and admitting to such a feeling and that despite her thoughts on this, she still followed orders and left him behind, likewise still harboring a grudge against his city. No one within this topic or anywhere who's been telling you of the blatant incongruity between her thoughts in BTS, her actions previously and the statements on her thought process in Shadowlands is saying that she can't have contradictory feelings. But that such contradictory feelings exist must actually be in evidence and nothing within the book or with any prior material could ever lead you to that conclusion, you've admitted that yourself.

Quel'Thalas was almost defunct that point, not really in a place to assist even if it were inclined to. I also don't think it's Sylvanas' "life's mission" to take vengeance on Stormwind - it simply gives her a justification to do what she already wants to do, is all. Nathanos seemed to have taken Stormwind's actions more personally than Sylvanas did from what we've seen. Sylvanas wanted more Forsaken, and she had a kingdom (Stormwind) full of people who were most easily converted (Humans), and a good call for doing so (their murder of the ambassadors) as well as a means to carry it (control of the Horde). It's a win-win for Sylvanas' purposes. In "Before the Storm" Sylvanas only takes up tighter reins on the Forsaken because, for the first time in their wretched existence, they've deigned to challenge her rule via the existence of the Desolate Council. That's not micro-management, it's fear of usurpation, Sylvanas' vanity and pride not allowing even the existence of a competing worldview in her immediate domain. The Desolate Council's desire to reconcile with their living relatives in the Alliance also goes contrary to Sylvanas' goals on several different levels depending on the way you take the story: the fact that she wanted conflict to begin with (e.g. war on Stormwind), the fact that she may have had plans within plans (e.g. whatever she was cooking up with the Jailer), and the existing notion that she needed the Forsaken overwhelmingly loyal to her to act as her bulwark against true death as of "Edge of Night." By the time of the close of the Fourth War, Sylvanas is at a place where she no longer needs this bulwark, either because she now has the complete backing of the Jailer (who himself controls Death apparently) or because her plans have reached a critical juncture where the Forsaken are surplus to requirement. My money is more on the former than the latter, but either is possible.

Once again, your argument only holds water if one has the broad strokes of the novel but hasn't actually got it open to read what it says in detail. For someone who accuses others of surface level reading, you are content to consume the most basic level of the goings on in the book, but then fill in whatever flagrantly doesn't fit later on with your ideas rather than extrapolating on the ideas that the book actually presents. Sylvanas does not speak of Stormwind in practical terms - she says it's the battle 'they both longed for', not "a convenient enough way to mass more zombies". In the same chapter she says, in her own mind, in the most plain possible text that she went to Stormheim in order to get more Val'kyr to raise more Forsaken and to keep them from ever dying again. Additionally, in your haste to explain away problems, you're once again contradicting the book. Firstly because as we've rehashed a thousand times, BTS in its nature as a retcon presents Forsaken society as always having been tight and totalitarian, but notwithstanding that, even if it were a shift, BTS clearly represents a heavy loosening of Forsaken society - the Desolate Council were able to form and Sylvanas doesn't even know about it until Nathanos tells her, nor does she do much of anything with this information. It's totalitarian not because Sylvanas fears she's slipping control - it's already totalitarian, and it only has that dissent because she isn't there. And to get back to the start of the paragraph and to how you ended your response to the last one - you adopt an extremely surface level and one-dimensional reading, ignoring the core of the book - the essence of Sylvanas's control of Forsaken society in BTS is her micromanaging of their lives, the personal offense she takes when any single one of them achieves something denied to her, that being positive connection with their past lives or development outside the parametres she was able to develop in, and how extremely controlling she is of them. She's controlling of them despite the fact that she doesn't need to be and that in the Horde itself she has a larger and more powerful tool. BTS is incongruous with what came before, but it's also incongruous with what came after.

[Varodoc]

Blizzard being more interested in creating third-rate capeshit moments than a story.

1. They didn't know that.
2. Oh yeah I forgot Jailer powers give her the ability to take on Anduin, Jaina, Genn and Alleria at the same time.

Sylvanas is overrated. Even in that Bolvar fight she had to carefully dodge every attack from the Lich King because if he got her just once she'd be done. Alleria alone is most likely around Sylvanas' level of power, throw Jaina and Greymane in the mix and she'd be roflstomped.

Blizzard knew this, that's why they had the Alliance do nothing.

[Raisei]

Anduin decides that after BTS and does absolutely nothing because proactivity is anathema to Blizz Alliance writing. As for characters arbitrarily losing powers, Sylvanas never uses the banshee scream that offs everyone in the room and silences by Anduin's own BTS monologue and Alleria doesn't just void portal Sylvanas and cap her in the head. You can at least excuse the latter with familial attachment, but you'd still have the gaping flaw of Jaina never teleporting to Orgrimmar, as she's shown to be easily able to do in 8.2, shooting Sylvanas in the head with a gun and then porting out.

Well, they do have to be careful with any kind of proactivity from the Alliance side. The Horde tends to turn any and all kind of proactivity (even if it follows already commited war crimes) into justifications for more genocide.
Jaina prepares for the chance that Garrosh attacks, which by reading his character was no surprise for anyone. And people here put the entire following war down as her fault.
Varian invades the Undercity after the Forsaken sabotage the Alliance war effort in Northrend and murder a good chunk of soldiers, and he is suddenly the guilty party. Genn stops Sylvanas from attaining power, knowing that Sylvanas never had any plan that benefited anyone but herself and he is responsible for the entire Blood War including the Burning of Teldrassil.

Every time the Alliance acts even remotely proactive the Horde wants to destroy one of our cities (and the writers oblige for some reason). No wonder it does not happen too often, else we had no hub anymore...