Why did they go with Sira Moonwarden?

[Super Dickmann]

No, it's not more effective since the moment you lose mindcontrol, they will turn on you. For the last time, Godfrey, etc. are exceptions, otherwise she wouldn't have been able to raise an army of undeads loyal to her during cata and would have stopped with that.
You are implying that the LK is a dumbass who didn't even know that he didn't have to use mindcontrol. It's even worse when you take into account that the LK KNEW that he would lose his powers. That makes his decision to use mind control even dumber.

No, they aren't exceptions, I just listed everyone who turned on her, which just so happens to be basically every named character Sylvanas ever raised from the dead except Sira and that rando dude from the first Forsaken quest. It has a rate of constant failure that continually bites her in the ass - it did with the Rotbrains who rebelled in the first zone, it did with Godfrey who cost her three val'kyr, it did with Galen and his troops who cost her Arathi, it did with Zelling, who spoiled her whole plan with Derek and Derek himself who is now in charge of her population.

Even after the LK was replaced, just the latent goons he had left over were a world-ending threat, instead of getting into poetry or moping over it, and the Scourge side-groups remained a threat. Delaryn switched sides the second Sylvanas bailed, Anub'arak - a slave, could only give a pithy remark after dying twice for his master.

The idea that characters with no defined personality or virtues, when put into a situation where their alternatives are hell, having their positive feelings reduced by virtue of their state and in a position where they're mentally manipulatable, wouldn't be open to manipulation, yet at the same time an entire army's worth of a cult bent on the world's destruction that has as many if not more night elves than the Forsaken ever did is somehow entirely fair is bonkers.

[Itori]

I guess they wanted to give nathanos someone to project how sylvanas treats him.

[eurojust]

No, they aren't exceptions, I just listed everyone who turned on her, which just so happens to be basically every named character Sylvanas ever raised from the dead except Sira and that rando dude from the first Forsaken quest. It has a rate of constant failure that continually bites her in the ass - it did with the Rotbrains who rebelled in the first zone, it did with Godfrey who cost her three val'kyr, it did with Galen and his troops who cost her Arathi, it did with Zelling, who spoiled her whole plan with Derek and Derek himself who is now in charge of her population.

Even after the LK was replaced, just the latent goons he had left over were a world-ending threat, instead of getting into poetry or moping over it, and the Scourge side-groups remained a threat. Delaryn switched sides the second Sylvanas bailed, Anub'arak - a slave, could only give a pithy remark after dying twice for his master.

The idea that characters with no defined personality or virtues, when put into a situation where their alternatives are hell, having their positive feelings reduced by virtue of their state and in a position where they're mentally manipulatable, wouldn't be open to manipulation, yet at the same time an entire army's worth of a cult bent on the world's destruction that has as many if not more night elves than the Forsaken ever did is somehow entirely fair is bonkers.

Your bunch of characters doesn't change the fact that she raised entire armies of undeads loyal to her. Galen ,Zelling and Derek were never killed by the Forsaken so it's off topic.
So now you are assuming that Sylvanas is dumb for raising undeads and that she failed during cata? Btw valkyr were just here to demonstrate her new plot armor, there's plenty of them.
Delaryn, etc switched sides perhaps, but they still sided with her/the Horde. They probably fucked off because they lost the warfront and Sylvanas stopped caring.

No it's not "bonkers", it's just a gross plot to have victims siding with their aggressor in mass. And AGAIN, it breaks WoW lore. Like i said one of the key characterization of the Forsaken and Sylvanas is that they wanted revenge against the Scourge. That's the opposite of the point of the whole mental "bonker" gymnastic you're doing.
Where were all of those freewill undeads who remained loyal to Arthas? Btw, why didn't Arthas let Sylvanas had freewill while raising her? If she's just like Delaryn, she would have kissed him immedialty.

[Super Dickmann]

Your bunch of characters doesn't change the fact that she raised entire armies of undeads loyal to her. Galen ,Zelling and Derek were never killed by the Forsaken so it's off topic.
So now you are assuming that Sylvanas is dumb for raising undeads and that she failed during cata? Btw valkyr were just here to demonstrate her new plot armor, there's plenty of them.
Delaryn, etc switched sides perhaps, but they still sided with her/the Horde. They probably fucked off because they lost the warfront and Sylvanas stopped caring.

No it's not "bonkers", it's just a gross plot to have victims siding with their aggressor in mass. And AGAIN, it breaks WoW lore. Like i said one of the key characterization of the Forsaken and Sylvanas is that they wanted revenge against the Scourge. That's the opposite of the point of the whole mental "bonker" gymnastic you're doing.

If the practice having continually bit the character in the ass doesn't make a light go up, no more than the baddies of an expansion consisted of an entire group committed to destroying the world and thus themselves and knowingly supporting this goal, then I can't really help you. It breaks nothing about lore to have a subset of people who're not good people - the whole game is about this - some individuals are weak and none too committed to the state they were members of. That number would spike accordingly if they a) had positive emotions suppressed, b) were already culpable in fighting them during what is basically a fugue state, c) were in a closed society where they'd be exposed to support for their new home, d) that closed society is their only support structure since those they previously belonged to want to wipe them out, e) were mentally manipulatable in a magical way and f) the alternative to this is going to hell and suffering forever. This does not mean most people would be such, and indeed, we're exceedingly shown that those raised by Sylvanas turn on her when they get the opportunity and when she breaches whatever their personal goals may have been, whereas those raised by the Lich King only turn on him when his control lapses, as well as that the latter structure is far more powerful given that just its remnants can end the world if cut loose.

Is that kind of mindset good? Nope. Should it be explored in a T-Rated game? Arguably not, since it's really bleak stuff and requires a far more deft hand to portray than what Blizzard do, but it's neither the least plausible change that has happened, nor some world-ending travesty and the endless lines of bitching it has produced are far more tiresome than the event itself, especially given that it concluded in the fashion everyone knew it would - with the undead night elves turning against the one who did it en masse.

[eurojust]

If the practice having continually bit the character in the ass doesn't make a light go up, no more than the baddies of an expansion consisted of an entire group committed to destroying the world and thus themselves and knowingly supporting this goal, then I can't really help you. It breaks nothing about lore to have a subset of people who're not good people - the whole game is about this - some individuals are weak and none too committed to the state they were members of. That number would spike accordingly if they a) had positive emotions suppressed, b) were already culpable in fighting them during what is basically a fugue state, c) were in a closed society where they'd be exposed to support for their new home, d) that closed society is their only support structure since those they previously belonged to want to wipe them out, e) were mentally manipulatable in a magical way and f) the alternative to this is going to hell and suffering forever. This does not mean most people would be such, and indeed, we're exceedingly shown that those raised by Sylvanas turn on her when they get the opportunity and when she breaches whatever their personal goals may have been, whereas those raised by the Lich King only turn on him when his control lapses, as well as that the latter structure is far more powerful given that just its remnants can end the world if cut loose.

Is that kind of mindset good? Nope. Should it be explored in a T-Rated game? Arguably not, since it's really bleak stuff and requires a far more deft hand to portray than what Blizzard do, but it's neither the least plausible change that has happened, nor some world-ending travesty and the endless lines of bitching it has produced are far more tiresome than the event itself, especially given that it concluded in the fashion everyone knew it would - with the undead night elves turning against the one who did it en masse.

Why are you moving the goalpost with your "bad people exist"? What does it have to do with the topic?
YES it completely breaks the lore because FORSAKEN exist. Why would the Scourge use mindcontrol when their defeated enemies would lick their boots anyway? Why did the Forsaken want revenge against the Scourge? Why did NONE of the Forsaken remained loyal to Arthas? You can't answer to these simple questions and therefore try some mental gymnastic with a wall of text when even Blizzard didn't bother that much and just explained this by "they are angry about Elune dude" or "death makes you that way".

[Super Dickmann]

Why are you moving the goalpost with your "bad people exist"? What does it have to do with the topic?
YES it completely breaks the lore because FORSAKEN exist. Why would the Scourge use mindcontrol when their defeated enemies would lick their boots anyway? Why did the Forsaken want revenge against the Scourge? Why did NONE of the Forsaken remained loyal to Arthas? You can't answer to these simple questions and therefore try some mental gymnastic with a wall of text when even Blizzard didn't bother that much and just explained this by "they are angry about Elune dude" or "death makes you that way".

What goal post moving is there? Your claim is based on there being no explanation, when there is and on letting people go free being more effective in keeping them under control than mind control, and both are blatantly false, hence why in the span of a few posts you've gone from 'no one turns on Sylvanas' to 'oh, people constantly turn on Sylvanas, but they don't count' . The explanation I'm giving to you is no different from the one the game itself provides, only putting into perspective, given what the game has already portrayed and what has been accepted - night elves working to destroy the world, siding with the Legion and some people being weak and being happy to accept it in the extenuating circumstances listed above.

[eurojust]

What goal post moving is there? Your claim is based on there being no explanation, when there is and on letting people go free being more effective in keeping them under control than mind control, and both are blatantly false, hence why in the span of a few posts you've gone from 'no one turns on Sylvanas' to 'oh, people constantly turn on Sylvanas, but they don't count' . The explanation I'm giving to you is no different from the one the game itself provides, only putting into perspective, given what the game has already portrayed and what has been accepted - night elves working to destroy the world, siding with the Legion and some people being weak and being happy to accept it in the extenuating circumstances listed above.

I never said that there was no explanation. I'm perfectly aware of the stupid excuses Blizzard pulled out to justify Sylvanas being Arthas BUT the people she killed love her.
Wait, what? How is using mindcontrol and having the entire people turning on you the moment your power weakens more effective than having 90% of the people you killed willingly worshipping you?
yes exceptions like Godfrey don't count when the operation as a whole is a success and when we watch what happened to the LK the moment his power weakened.
Again what do Highbornes have to do with the fact that people have stockolm syndrom x1000 and would willingly side with their enemies is stupid???

[Super Dickmann]

I never said that there was no explanation. I'm perfectly aware of the stupid excuses Blizzard pulled out to justify Sylvanas being Arthas BUT the people she killed love her.
Wait, what? How is using mindcontrol and having the entire people turning on you the moment your power weakens more effective than having 90% of the people you killed willingly worshipping you?
yes exceptions like Godfrey don't count when the operation as a whole is a success and when we watch what happened to the LK the moment his power weakened.
Again what do Highbornes have to do with the fact that people have stockolm syndrom x1000 and would willingly side with their enemies is stupid???

We're going in circles here, since you're repeating shit you already disavowed earlier. To summarize:
1. Godfrey isn't an exception. Every named character Sylvanas raises except Sira turns on her, as well as the unnamed followers of Galen and the undead night elves themselves. The entirety of Sylvanas's support collapses the nanosecond she leaves.
2. The LK has a far higher success rate (not that it's hard to beat 1 named character out of all) and the Scourge is powerful enough to end the world passively at the time of Wrath and will still be a major issue in S-lands.
3. Night Elves have joined the Twilight's Hammer and the Burning Legion, humans have joined the Cult of the Damned, a big portion of the blood elf armies sided with the demons who made the LK and thus had their home destroyed. All of these groups work to the direct detriment of those involved in them, compared to the Forsaken who's pitch is that you can pick this or you can go to hell forever and, in the case of the non-night elves, that those you were with five minutes ago want to off you.
4. The undead night elf story is still crap because the night elves are entirely open to taking them back, so they have a support structure right there, they don't have the afterlife issue since we see their wisps rebel and attack you and their ultimate turn is based on Calia taking them in despite their total lack of commonalities.

Though on that last one, this becomes even more of a non-issue since the Val'kyr apparently have a retconned in scanner for what souls would be willing or not per the Horde Darkshore quests, if their dialogue is any indication, wisps attack you when you try to raise some of those and despite said filter, virtually all of them turn on Sylvanas later on anyway.

[eurojust]

We're going in circles here, since you're repeating shit you already disavowed earlier. To summarize:
1. Godfrey isn't an exception. Every named character Sylvanas raises except Sira turns on her, as well as the unnamed followers of Galen and the undead night elves themselves. The entirety of Sylvanas's support collapses the nanosecond she leaves.
2. The LK has a far higher success rate (not that it's hard to beat 1 named character out of all) and the Scourge is powerful enough to end the world passively at the time of Wrath and will still be a major issue in S-lands.
3. Night Elves have joined the Twilight's Hammer and the Burning Legion, humans have joined the Cult of the Damned, a big portion of the blood elf armies sided with the demons who made the LK and thus had their home destroyed. All of these groups work to the direct detriment of those involved in them, compared to the Forsaken who's pitch is that you can pick this or you can go to hell forever and, in the case of the non-night elves, that those you were with five minutes ago want to off you.
4. The undead night elf story is still crap because the night elves are entirely open to taking them back, so they have a support structure right there, they don't have the afterlife issue since we see their wisps rebel and attack you and their ultimate turn is based on Calia taking them in despite their total lack of common points.

1. He is an exception. Otherwise Sylvanas wouldn't bother with raising undeads and you missed the whole plot of cata. Some of the characters turning on her AFTER the defeat doesn't make the plot less stupid and at that point Sylvanas already achieved her goals and left.
2. Who cares if the scourge is powerful enough (that's not even the case, the scourge in WoW is a joke which even lose to blood elves, and Arthas had to bait 25 nonames to turn the tides). It doesn't change the fact that there's no explanation for the entire Forsaken turning on him when WoW states that people you kill will love you.
3. Yes, there were evil Night Elves? What does it have to do with the topic? Were Delaryn, etc. part of the Twilight's Hammer and that their endgoal was always to genocide their own kind eventhough they just died defending it?

[Super Dickmann]

1. He is an exception. Otherwise Sylvanas wouldn't bother with raising undeads and you missed the whole plot of cata. Some of the characters turning on her AFTER the defeat doesn't make the plot less stupid and at that point Sylvanas already achieved her goals and left.
2. Who cares if the scourge is powerful enough (that's not even the case, the scourge in WoW is a joke which even lose to blood elves, and Arthas had to bait 25 nonames to turn the tides). It doesn't change the fact that there's no explanation for the entire Forsaken turning on him when WoW states that people you kill will love you.
3. Yes, there were evil Night Elves? What does it have to do with the topic? Were Delaryn, etc. part of the Twilight's Hammer and that their endgoal was always to genocide their own kind eventhough they just died defending it?

The examples of the Cult of the Damned, Legion, Twilight's Hammer and so on is that all of these are self-destructive organisations and they nevertheless have tons of members and that the Forsaken pitch is better. In a setting where people join the former, joining the latter doesn't break anything, especially given the extenuating factors I already went and listed. The examples of every named person raised turning on Sylvanas speaks for itself, ditto how poor of a foundation this was as compared to the Scourge, who didn't need the PCs, Arthas just wanted them because he's a dumbass - we're told right after he dies that if he had just attack + moved his entire army across Azeroth he'd have won.

Also, as already mentioned - apparently the Val'kyr have a scanner for willing souls, and yet even then, when they raise those present, half of them attack you as wisps and later all of them except Sira switch sides to be against Sylvanas anyway. The quests have us believe those who do end up raising them are self-hating bints, and given that they had nill characterization before hand, I don't have trouble believing this. Sira herself has zero personality - you are projecting positive traits on these people that they don't have. Nothing contradicts them being the kind of people who'd turn coat over this, because they have no established characteristics before that.

[omeomorfismo]

Why are you moving the goalpost with your "bad people exist"? What does it have to do with the topic?
YES it completely breaks the lore because FORSAKEN exist. Why would the Scourge use mindcontrol when their defeated enemies would lick their boots anyway? Why did the Forsaken want revenge against the Scourge? Why did NONE of the Forsaken remained loyal to Arthas? You can't answer to these simple questions and therefore try some mental gymnastic with a wall of text when even Blizzard didn't bother that much and just explained this by "they are angry about Elune dude" or "death makes you that way".

because the scourge had an entire lordaerian cult, the entire 2° gen dks and who know how much more of willingly people joining it.

i mean, now that i think about it, the only difference between 2° gen dks and dark warden is that instead of having the population hating them for their plague immunitiy, the latter have the entire religion/philosophy against their undead state.


and probably the loyal and freed undeads simply went in the plaguelands after the civil war? i mean, wow is set 10 years later, so there isnt simply the opportunity of explore that side of the story.

[Tupolew519]

This is all but paranoia. I can't get it at all. Maybe she was corrupted by the jailer and his lackeys of the maw. Don't you think so?

[Hellspawn]

This is all but paranoia. I can't get it at all. Maybe she was corrupted by the jailer and his lackeys of the maw. Don't you think so?

She was rezzed right after she was killed... its maybe possible but from what I saw so far in the shadow lands I doubt it.

[Razion]

If they were planning to put in Dark Ranger customization options or a class like that or Warden, this would be the kind of groundwork that would make those kinds of options more likely.

[eurojust]

because the scourge had an entire lordaerian cult, the entire 2° gen dks and who know how much more of willingly people joining it.

i mean, now that i think about it, the only difference between 2° gen dks and dark warden is that instead of having the population hating them for their plague immunitiy, the latter have the entire religion/philosophy against their undead state.


and probably the loyal and freed undeads simply went in the plaguelands after the civil war? i mean, wow is set 10 years later, so there isnt simply the opportunity of explore that side of the story.

The people joining them willingly never fought them and died by their hands. 2nd gen Dks (retconned by WoW btw) are a bunch of corrupted paladins? What does it have to do with the topic again?

[omeomorfismo]

The people joining them willingly never fought them and died by their hands. 2nd gen Dks (retconned by WoW btw) are a bunch of corrupted paladins? What does it have to do with the topic again?

2° gen dks are literally lordaerian paladins and warriors that disillused by the outcome of arthas' campaign went to northrend to submit willingly to the scourge. when they were retconned?

[eurojust]

The examples of the Cult of the Damned, Legion, Twilight's Hammer and so on is that all of these are self-destructive organisations and they nevertheless have tons of members and that the Forsaken pitch is better. In a setting where people join the former, joining the latter doesn't break anything, especially given the extenuating factors I already went and listed. The examples of every named person raised turning on Sylvanas speaks for itself, ditto how poor of a foundation this was as compared to the Scourge, who didn't need the PCs, Arthas just wanted them because he's a dumbass - we're told right after he dies that if he had just attack + moved his entire army across Azeroth he'd have won.

Also, as already mentioned - apparently the Val'kyr have a scanner for willing souls, and yet even then, when they raise those present, half of them attack you as wisps and later all of them except Sira switch sides to be against Sylvanas anyway. The quests have us believe those who do end up raising them are self-hating bints, and given that they had nill characterization before hand, I don't have trouble believing this. Sira herself has zero personality - you are projecting positive traits on these people that they don't have. Nothing contradicts them being the kind of people who'd turn coat over this, because they have no established characteristics before that.

You don't join an evil organization when you opposed it and got murdered by it. That doesn't make any sense.
Arthas is perhaps a dumbass, but losing half of your army and Lordaeron isn't a good thing, no matter how much mental gymnastic you will pull.
Being bitter is one thing, wanting to genocide your own people you just defended and side with your murderer is another.
Again, the trope of "undeads love their murderer" is here since cata. It's not even specific to the night elves.
For the last time : Why didn't the Forsaken remain loyal to the LK like the countless undeads Sylvanas raised since cata?

- - - Updated - - -

2° gen dks are literally lordaerian paladins and warriors that disillused by the outcome of arthas' campaign went to northrend to submit willingly to the scourge. when they were retconned?

WoW lore never mentions them. Arthas is the first DK when the 2nd gen DK happened before Arthas.

[omeomorfismo]

You don't join an evil organization when you opposed it and got murdered by it. That doesn't make any sense.
Arthas is perhaps a dumbass, but losing half of your army and Lordaeron isn't a good thing, no matter how much mental gymnastic you will pull.
Being bitter is one thing, wanting to genocide your own people you just defended and side with your murderer is another.
Again, the trope of "undeads love their murderer" is here since cata. It's not even specific to the night elves.
For the last time : Why didn't the Forsaken remain loyal to the LK like the countless undeads Sylvanas raised since cata?

- - - Updated - - -



WoW lore never mentions them. Arthas is the first DK when the 2nd gen DK happened before Arthas.

no, the w3 descrition mention explicity that they appear after the disband of the alliance (aka after arthas and the scourge won)
and basically most of the high ranking dks in original naxxramas and plaguelands are 2° gen paladins (i mean, to be fair all of them are, but we dont exactly know how the training ones are made as dks)

[eurojust]

no, the w3 descrition mention explicity that they appear after the disband of the alliance (aka after arthas and the scourge won)
and basically most of the high ranking dks in original naxxramas are 2° gen paladins (i mean, to be fear all of them are, but we dont exactly know how the training one are made as dks)

is there some evidence that they are 2nd gen dks?
wc3 manual :
"Death knights were once heroic, virtuous defenders of humanity.
However, they were corrupted by the subtle machinations of the
Lich King and lured to his dark standard. These former heroes were
given untold power and the promise of immortality in exchange for
their loyalties. Although they retained their humanity, their twisted
souls were bound to the Lich King's will for all time"

tdlr, it's just another case of corruption and getting manipulated. Nothing comparable with hundreads of soldiers who just got killed and immedialty side with their murderer without even thinking once.

[omeomorfismo]

is there some evidence that they are 2nd gen dks?
wc3 manual :
"Death knights were once heroic, virtuous defenders of humanity.
However, they were corrupted by the subtle machinations of the
Lich King and lured to his dark standard. These former heroes were
given untold power and the promise of immortality in exchange for
their loyalties. Although they retained their humanity, their twisted
souls were bound to the Lich King's will for all time"

tdlr, it's just another case of corruption and getting manipulated. Nothing comparable with hundreads of soldiers who just got killed and immedialty side with their murderer without even thinking once.

oh true, i assumed that the web description was the same

http://classic.battle.net/war3/undea...thknight.shtml

and they are pretty much comparable with the dark warden...
i mean, most of the nelf corpse become angry whisp and attack you, the same nelfs that are so prone to any form of corruption existing in warcraft...