Revendreth doesNOT mean a soul is redeemable or did nothing wrong

[bagina]

Peculiar then that most of the testing is done on the living instead of the readily available Scourge.

Irrelevant. You can create your own assumptions and headcanons but that don't change anything.

[Aucald]

The Warchief position was a scapegoat for Horde aggression; it was with Garrosh and grotesquely so was in BfA with Sylvanas. There is no acknowledgement of the inherent raider mentality of the orcs whose culture was formed in a world that was exceedingly dangerous and where they were constantly hunted, so they had to take to survive and felt righteous in doing so since they mostly would take from those in a position of privilege. Abolishing the Warchief position does little directly to change that mentality which is rapidly apparent the moment Geyarah opens her mouth.

It is by no means a complete change, I agree - but it does signal a willingness to change and a recognition that the Warchief position was a problem with the Horde's overall governance. I didn't claim the Horde 180'd overnight with the resolution of the Fourth War, but this is the first time they've taken steps in that direction, which is an auspicious sign if nothing else. Even after the fiasco with Garrosh the Horde did nothing to really change their hierarchy save swapping Garrosh for Vol'jin, which would've only changes things for Vol'jin's tenure in the position (a tragically short one). In-game characters remark on this as well, showing a wide array of opinions from cautious optimism to understandable skepticism.

[NED funded]

I dont think the narrative was supposed to cast Uther's vengeance on Arthas as bad bc it was vengeance and thats bad but more so bc of the implications that those in charge of ferrying the souls can now throw you in the maw if they so wish

[Kallisto]

The Undead's role in the afterlife has been retconned a bit so it's hard to really say what will happen to them. Initially the Undead were technically in their "afterlife" and would see nothing after dying again. It's why the punishment in the Forsaken "true death" was actually a real punishment. It was also one of the reasons why Undead were essentially damned, once they "died" as an undead they were out.

This isn't true at all. During quests in wrath, we literally see the souls of the undead ascend into the afterlife.

[Super Dickmann]

Yeah I still want to believe that Sylvanas is a more interesting character who is entirely tragic and everything she screams at us is something she deeply doubts and has to suppress in order to deal with her trauma.

Oh, no, it's plainly apparent she's 100% one note and motivated by being a bitch and will get dunked accordingly. She's barely there in her own expansion and her lines come out of a Villainy 101 Guidebook. It's more that it's baffling how this completely personality-less figure is actually harder to make gel than the far more deep result of continuity in getting you to the same end. You don't need to retcon anything.

I think you read a bit too much into the narrative's goals here, and perhaps misattribute character-based intent as authorial intent. Tyrande is hyper-focused on vengeance, and Calia calls her out on her apparently recklessness - that *is* a dig, sure, but not one intended to undermine Tyrande's very character or "stunt her position." It's an understandable reaction from someone like Calia, reserved and often introspective, to Tyrande's apparent bloodthirsty zeal (which is also very out of character for her, as observed by her own adopted daughter Shandris). Tyrande's proceeding callout of Calia plays into this, as Calia had both nothing to do with the Forsaken's actions in Darkshore, and nothing at all to do with the Horde's campaign in BfA - she only formerly joined at the end of BfA, and then only with an eye toward fostering peace and amity (themselves laudable goals both in-universe and realistically). Similarly, I don't view Genn's evolution of character i.e. the Forsaken as an elimination of an aspect anymore than I would view a character's ultimate catharsis as "destroying their previous characterization." Genn changed organically as a result of things happening to him, which is what realistic characters ought to do. An unchanging character isn't very realistic, unless they're insane and wholly incapable of recognizing the world outside of their own minds. Now you may not subjectively *like* a given change in a character, perhaps because you favored an original aspect of a given story - but things do change, sometimes for the better, and sometimes for the worse.

Things like Mayla and Voss's comments are pretty transparent written by the author for the audience more than they gel as some kind of coherent narrative for the pair. Mayla tells you how Baine has suffered deeply representing all that's good in the Horde, despite the sum of his suffering amounting to being chained up in prison, a fate preferable to the captain that he brained to bust out Jaina's brother. Voss tells you how she thinks you're a tool for not seeing that Sylvanas was always 100% pure evil and also that she's an enlightened soul free of vengeance who means to step aside for God-Queen Calia, despite her whole prior characterization being founded on justifiable revenge against the Scarlet Crusade who raised her at teh expense of her childhood to be a killing machine, then rejected her when she was twisted and wanted nothing more than to destroy her race. Tyrande has no reason to have a grievance with Calia or associate her with the Forsaken and the conflict is even more forced given that all share the inexplicable urge to redeem the undead night elves, so if anything Tyrande should be for it, but instead, Tyrande is put opposite Calia to show her opposing the immaculate being that is this utterly cancerous character and thus showing the need for her to be fixed later.

[Aucald]

This isn't true at all. During quests in wrath, we literally see the souls of the undead ascend into the afterlife.

You can actually see that all the way back in Classic with quests in EPL, where you kill Ghouls and other undead in the Plaguewoods to release the souls of the converted of Darrowshire.

[bagina]

Ah just noticed the avatar. Thanks, bye

I accept your concession.

[Aucald]

Things like Mayla and Voss's comments are pretty transparent written by the author for the audience than they gel as some kind of coherent narrative for the pair. Mayla tells you how Baine has suffered deeply representing all that's good in the Horde, despite the sum of his suffering amounting to be chained up in prison, a fate preferable to the captain that he brained to bust out Jaina's brother. Voss tells you how she thinks you're a tool for not seeing that Sylvanas was always 100% pure evil and also that she's an enlightened soul free of vengeance who means to step aside for God-Queen Calia, despite her whole prior characterization being founded on justifiable revenge against the Scarlet Crusade who raised her at teh expense of her childhood to be a killing machine, then rejected her when she was twisted and wanted nothing more than to destroy her race. Tyrande has no reason to have a grievance with Calia or associate her with the Forsaken and the conflict is even more forced given that all share the inexplicable urge to redeem the undead night elves, so if anything Tyrande should be for it, but instead, Tyrande is put opposite Calia to show her opposing the immaculate being that is this utterly cancerous character and thus showing the need for her to be fixed later.

Again, I see these less as authorial digs and more as characters expressing themselves organically and somewhat believably in terms of the narrative universe they reside within. Mayla has a pretty obvious hero-complex when it comes to Baine (constituted both by what is likely physical attraction as well as her own imposter syndrome as leader of Highmountain in her father's stead), so it is both believable and understandable that she'd play up Baine's travails in Sylvanas' dungeons and emphasize his accomplishments and role in the peace to follow. Similarly, Voss can easily see her prior incarnation in Sylvanas, and knows full well the price of vengeance (as it almost killed her when Gandling was able to dominate her will and force her to attack you within Scholomance). Voss came to understand she was more than the killing-machine the Crusade authored, and more than her need for vengeance against those who wronged her - lessons that could do Sylvanas well if she were capable of integrating them (and she apparently isn't). I mean Sylvanas chose suicide once she'd succeeded in her ambition to see Arthas dead, which kind of underlines the essential problem with her mentality as concerns vengeance. Tyrande is also being eaten alive by the power of the Night Warrior and isn't thinking clearly or rationally - that's not a dig at her, it's just the grim reality of what's happened to her. It is fully possible to be right for the wrong reasons about a given a cause or position.

- - - Updated - - -

But again, the Warchief position is not the problem. The issue is not governance. The Horde HAD a system to deal with challenges to the Warchief after all. Yet Saurfang only found the spine to ask for Mak'gora at the very end and no one acted before hand. Nor did they do so with Garrosh beyond actually threatening to kill him but outside the parameters that would legitimize it.

Hey Blizzard might actually show the Horde changing in the future if that's the story they want to push. But abolishing the Warchief position will not be the reason that the Horde changes. Because the issue is not that they conduct war, it's how they choose to conduct war.

It is *a* problem, and apparently the only one the Horde is ready to deal with at the current time. Mak'gora is a very poor system for dealing with challenges, as it is basically "might makes right" incarnate - I don't need to enumerate history for anyone to see how *that* kind of system is going to be horribly abused. Not that Saurfang's Mak'gora with Sylvanas was ever going to accomplish with the Mak'gora is ideologically meant to do - his loss was a given, and was more the very point in the undertaking. Saurfang subverted the Mak'gora to ultimately win, a tactic that Sylvanas wasn't expecting and ultimately stepped right into in her arrogance.

As I said before, the Horde has many problems - and so does the Alliance. I think Taran Zhu basically said it best, the two sides have to mutually agree to leave the past in the past and move forward in some semblance of a separate peace, if nothing else. If they both keep using the past to justify current hostilities they'll just repeat the same pattern over and over. No one likes setting aside a valid grievance, but there comes a point when you sort of have to if you want to go on living. Or else you kill your enemy decisively in a manner that brooks no further actions, but the history of Warcraft has shown that isn't really possible here, for either faction.

[StationaryHawk]

But again, the Warchief position is not the problem. The issue is not governance. The Horde HAD a system to deal with challenges to the Warchief after all. Yet Saurfang only found the spine to ask for Mak'gora at the very end and no one acted before hand. Nor did they do so with Garrosh beyond actually threatening to kill him but outside the parameters that would legitimize it.

Hey Blizzard might actually show the Horde changing in the future if that's the story they want to push. But abolishing the Warchief position will not be the reason that the Horde changes. Because the issue is not that they conduct war, it's how they choose to conduct war.

Mak'gora doesn't work. It's been proven twice now that being the strongest doesn't make you the best fit to lead. It worked (barely) when it was just orcs, but the Horde now has a dozen races to take into consideration and situations like Garrosh are undesirable for obvious reasons.

[Super Dickmann]

Again, I see these less as authorial digs and more as characters expressing themselves organically and somewhat believably in terms of the narrative universe they reside within. Mayla has a pretty obvious hero-complex when it comes to Baine (constituted both by what is likely physical attraction as well as her own imposter syndrome as leader of Highmountain in her father's stead), so it is both believable and understandable that she'd play up Baine's travails in Sylvanas' dungeons and emphasize his accomplishments and role in the peace to follow. Similarly, Voss can easily see her prior incarnation in Sylvanas, and knows full well the price of vengeance (as it almost killed her when Gandling was able to dominate her will and force her to attack you within Scholomance). Voss came to understand she was more than the killing-machine the Crusade authored, and more than her need for vengeance against those who wronged her - lessons that could do Sylvanas well if she were capable of integrating them (and she apparently isn't). I mean Sylvanas chose suicide once she'd succeeded in her ambition to see Arthas dead, which kind of underlines the essence problem with her mentality as concerns vengeance. Tyrande is also being eaten alive by the power of the Night Warrior and isn't thinking clearly or rationally - that's not a dig at her, it's just the grim reality of what's happened to her. It is fully possible to be right for the wrong reasons about a given a cause or position.

The narrative you present for Baine and Mayla is honestly much more interesting than what we actually had and something I wish we actually saw. Mayla in general is kind of a non-entity, a Baine-lite in a council that consists of barely anything but them. If the story did more to play off of the similarities you note and how they're both out of place as leaders but Baine has more experience than she does, along with his work in solving such a big deal to the Highmountain as the Necrodark, I'd feel a lot closer to her. But given how silent she was through BFA and how Baine is repeatedly cast as some kind of great victim, a damsel we rescue endlessly, despite the small harm he actually suffers long-term, I can't help but read it as the author more than Mayla. All that I can say for Mayla is magnified for Voss.

Put simply, Voss's approach doesn't gel with what we've seen her before. She has no reason to let go of her dislike of the Scarlet Crusade - what her father did to her is unconscionable, what, in her perspective at least, they would do to her group is equally as unconscionable. For her to equate Sylvanas's issue with being about vengeance, despite nu-Sylvanas being motivated solely by powerlust and being very evil, while at the same time lecturing the player for helping Sylvanas, something she did for most of the expansion seems nothing more than the writers sitting on their soapbox trying desperately to cram the lesson into the player's uncooperative brain. Especially as it ends with an oblique comment about her stepping down for Calia. It's the writers lashing out at the players for struggling with their intended narrative direction. It's why every line relating to Calia talks about how good she is for the Horde and the Forsaken and how much she's done, despite both amounting to absolutely fuck all.

@StationaryHawk

The entire conflict is resolved by Mak'gora.

[Cyanu]

seriously wtf does post mortem redemption means anyways?

i mean after seeing the Maw (if it's as terrible as implied) anyone would 'repent'

[Aucald]

seriously wtf does post mortem redemption means anyways?

i mean after seeing the Maw (if it's as terrible as implied) anyone would 'repent'

They don't really get to see or experience the Maw to have that kind of knowledge, though. Once you experience the Maw, it's all you're going to experience from thereon out. The only exceptions are those who willingly join the Jailer (a very rare occurrence).

[StillMcfuu]

This isn't true at all. During quests in wrath, we literally see the souls of the undead ascend into the afterlife.

Why would you not quote the part where that was retconned?

[Aucald]

The narrative you present for Baine and Mayla is honestly much more interesting than what we actually had and something I wish we actually saw. Mayla in general is kind of a non-entity, a Baine-lite in a council that consists of barely anything but them. If the story did more to play off of the similarities you note and how they're both out of place as leaders but Baine has more experience than she does, along with his work in solving such a big deal to the Highmountain as the Necrodark, I'd feel a lot closer to her. But given how silent she was through BFA and how Baine is repeatedly cast as some kind of great victim, a damsel we rescue endlessly, despite the small harm he actually suffers long-term, I can't help but read it as the author more than Mayla. All that I can say for Mayla is magnified for Voss.

I mean I think that information is all there, but it is subtextual - if Mayla ever gets time in the spotlight it may become more than that, but for now it's pretty much a behind the scenes distinction related by the ways she talks to and about Baine (both in Legion and in BfA). Mayla doesn't have a big role in BfA but what role she does have is pretty important for establish her priorities as concerns the Horde/Hightmountain relationship - and the fact that she puts Baine above the Horde pretty strongly as per her dialogue at the leaders' summit in 8.1.5.

Put simply, Voss's approach doesn't gel with what we've seen her before. She has no reason to let go of her dislike of the Scarlet Crusade - what her father did to her is unconscionable, what, in her perspective at least, they would do to her group is equally as unconscionable. For her to equate Sylvanas's issue with being about vengeance, despite nu-Sylvanas being motivated solely by powerlust and being very evil, while at the same time lecturing the player for helping Sylvanas, something she did for most of the expansion seems nothing more than the writers sitting on their soapbox trying desperately to cram the lesson into the player's uncooperative brain. Especially as it ends with an oblique comment about her stepping down for Calia. It's the writers lashing out at the players for struggling with their intended narrative direction. It's why every line relating to Calia talks about how good she is for the Horde and the Forsaken and how much she's done, despite both amounting to absolutely fuck all.

Lilian killed her own father, though; revenging herself in the primary sense but finding no relief - she turned on the Scourge remnant in WPL as a result, finding a continued need to vent her rage. Lilian also isn't privy to Sylvanas' inner thoughts, and probably doesn't know about her deal with the Val'kyr, or the Jailer, etc. etc. She can only rationalize or reason from the basis of her own knowledge - hence imputing her own circumstance onto Sylvanas and vice-versa. We, however, do know Sylvanas' thought processes as well as her reasons for action, but it would be a disservice to the narrative to reflexively impart this knowledge to other characters and expect them to act on it, or accordingly to it. That being said, it doesn't take a god's eye view to see Sylvanas as evil - she's both a flagrant hypocrite and makes no apology for her own selfish actions, both in her own mind and to her underlings. Lilian also states on her recruitment as a Champion in BfA that she wants to watch Sylvanas, and you, with the implication that she is sitting in judgment of both. And again I can't really see that as the authorial soapbox but rather a character making a logical and consistent judgment call based on their existing characterization. I was not personally surprised that Voss wasn't towing the company line of Sylvanas, and her desire to help Stone and Zelling is the most visible aspect of this characterization (e.g. realizing what goes into being a Forsaken and trying not to embrace the worst or darkest elements of the undead experience). It's pretty much all there if you want to take it in, I feel - though I often feel like the narrative may be better served if some subtextual elements were made a tad more textual, so to speak.

[Sangris]

I though all undead go to the Maw? I think that's why Sylvanas went there, because she's undead

There are Forsaken souls in Bastion. The myth that being undead condemns you to the Maw is officially debunked.

[Raisei]

I don’t care for Sylvanas one way or the other, I care about people being hypocritical.
Arthas purges his home before the Legion was an afterthought to him. He betrayed his soldiers and Magni seeking a sword in his quest for vengeance against Mal’ganis. Those are the points I’m making. Arthas’ world would have also been a world of slaves under his control. That isn’t selfless, it’s selfish and still puts him above all others. The only good being done is for himself.
Sylvanas, who also did evil things, has shown she is doing what she does to free people from the shackles of life and death.
Keep in mind, I never once stated she should be redeemed. I simply tried pointing out if Blizzard went that way it makes a hell of a lot more sense than Arthas getting a redemption arc.

You are completely missing that the Lich King was controlling Arthas, at the very least from the moment he touched Frostmourne. The sword sucked out his soul and from then on he was nothing but a slave to Ner'zhul. Blaming him for all the crimes of the Lich King is as dishonest as blaming Sylvanas for what she did when she was the slave of Arthas.
Arthas however only received his freedom in death again. Sylvanas was freed earlier and what did she choose to do with it? Murder anyone that looked at her shifty, develop and test a plague that would kill the living and so on. Nothing she did had any higher purpose then her own vengeance or her own survival. No idea how you can see her as a candidate for Revendreth.
To receive redemption, one first must have remorse and she has not shown even a tiny bit.

[NED funded]

You are completely missing that the Lich King was controlling Arthas, at the very least from the moment he touched Frostmourne. The sword sucked out his soul and from then on he was nothing but a slave to Ner'zhul. Blaming him for all the crimes of the Lich King is as dishonest as blaming Sylvanas for what she did when she was the slave of Arthas.
Arthas however only received his freedom in death again. Sylvanas was freed earlier and what did she choose to do with it? Murder anyone that looked at her shifty, develop and test a plague that would kill the living and so on. Nothing she did had any higher purpose then her own vengeance or her own survival. No idea how you can see her as a candidate for Revendreth.
To receive redemption, one first must have remorse and she has not shown even a tiny bit.

Wait is this what Blizzard is running with?? I thought the point of the Frozen Throne was that Arthas took the path he did willingly even when Nerzhul's powers had greatly weakened and a good chunk of the undead were freed from his control

[Super Dickmann]

I mean I think that information is all there, but it is subtextual - if Mayla ever gets time in the spotlight it may become more than that, but for now it's pretty much a behind the scenes distinction related by the ways she talks to and about Baine (both in Legion and in BfA). Mayla doesn't have a big role in BfA but what role she does have is pretty important for establish her priorities as concerns the Horde/Hightmountain relationship - and the fact that she puts Baine above the Horde pretty strongly as per her dialogue at the leaders' summit in 8.1.5.

I really don't think she has much potential as a character without major focus on Baine, who himself seems to only exist when it's time for him to be captured or tell us about the faults in the Horde and how we must be more like Anduin. Mayla, being effectively the satellite character in charge of a satellite race that has next to no distinction with the main one save for geography and very minor cosmetics. Hence why I think the summary of Baine's character and journey is done less for her character and more to introduce him to new/returning players and to reiterate BFA's main points. There's simply nothing there we haven't seen much of before and it doesn't gel too much with what we've seen.

Lilian killed her own father, though; revenging herself in the primary sense but finding no relief - she turned on the Scourge remnant in WPL as a result, finding a continued need to vent her rage. Lilian also isn't privy to Sylvanas' inner thoughts, and probably doesn't know about her deal with the Val'kyr, or the Jailer, etc. etc. She can only rationalize or reason from the basis of her own knowledge - hence imputing her own circumstance onto Sylvanas and vice-versa. We, however, do know Sylvanas' thought processes as well as her reasons for action, but it would be a disservice to the narrative to reflexively impart this knowledge to other characters and expect them to act on it, or accordingly to it. That being said, it doesn't take a god's eye view to see Sylvanas as evil - she's both a flagrant hypocrite and makes no apology for her own selfish actions, both in her own mind and to her underlings. Lilian also states on her recruitment as a Champion in BfA that she wants to watch Sylvanas, and you, with the implication that she is sitting in judgment of both. And again I can't really see that as the authorial soapbox but rather a character making a logical and consistent judgment call based on their existing characterization. I was not personally surprised that Voss wasn't towing the company line of Sylvanas, and her desire to help Stone and Zelling is the most visible aspect of this characterization (e.g. realizing what goes into being a Forsaken and trying not to embrace the worst or darkest elements of the undead experience). It's pretty much all there if you want to take it in, I feel - though I often feel like the narrative may be better served if some subtextual elements were made a tad more textual, so to speak.

The thing is, Lilian has basically no relationship with Sylvanas whatsoever. The two have never exchanged a line of dialogue and Lilian is explicitly the one to not take Sylvanas's offer to go into the fold. She comes to the Forsaken experience naturally after evading the easy way out - she seeks her old life and is rejected. She sees that the Scarlet Crusade want to wipe her and what is now her kind out. She then goes after the necromancers, her only relationship with Sylvanas then being an implied one where Sylvanas directs her to her enemies. It's only in BFA that she joins the Forsaken and only then that she seems to take Sylvanas's message on board, acting as though she had faith in her already despite Sylvanas herself being a necromancer. Her hatred of necromancy comes up even in her cameo appearance in WoD. Her ascension is both inexplicable, given the total absence of ranking Forsaken, but also begrudging in story and out, as she seems to be warming the seat for Calia. Her criticisms only make sense for someone who's been there and apart from Sylvanas from early on, but she hasn't at all. Her giving a lecture to the player is especially out of place when her prior appearance, also a shilling exercise for Calia, has her prostrate herself before her and Derek to ask their forgiveness, admitting the same culpability that she's now chewing the player out on.

[Aucald]

I really don't think she has much potential as a character without major focus on Baine, who himself seems to only exist when it's time for him to be captured or tell us about the faults in the Horde and how we must be more like Anduin. Mayla, being effectively the satellite character in charge of a satellite race that has next to no distinction with the main one save for geography and very minor cosmetics. Hence why I think the summary of Baine's character and journey is done less for her character and more to introduce him to new/returning players and to reiterate BFA's main points. There's simply nothing there we haven't seen much of before and it doesn't gel too much with what we've seen.

I'm not going to disagree that Mayla is a fundamentally weak or unexplored character, because she is. That being said, I think there is more substance to her than popularly attributed, albeit not a great deal regardless. Unless of course one of the writers wants to pick her up, dust her off, and give her a story with more meat on its bone than she got in Legion and BfA, but that's neither here nor there.

The thing is, Lilian has basically no relationship with Sylvanas whatsoever. The two have never exchanged a line of dialogue and Lilian is explicitly the one to not take Sylvanas's offer to go into the fold. She comes to the Forsaken experience naturally after evading the easy way out - she seeks her old life and is rejected. She sees that the Scarlet Crusade want to wipe her and what is now her kind out. She then goes after the necromancers, her only relationship with Sylvanas then being an implied one where Sylvanas directs her to her enemies. It's only in BFA that she joins the Forsaken and only then that she seems to take Sylvanas's message on board, acting as though she had faith in her already despite Sylvanas herself being a necromancer. Her hatred of necromancy comes up even in her cameo appearance in WoD. Her ascension is both inexplicable, given the total absence of ranking Forsaken, but also begrudging in story and out, as she seems to be warming the seat for Calia. Her criticisms only make sense for someone who's been there and apart from Sylvanas from early on, but she hasn't at all. Her giving a lecture to the player is especially out of place when her prior appearance, also a shilling exercise for Calia, has her prostrate herself before her and Derek to ask their forgiveness, admitting the same culpability that she's now chewing the player out on.

Lilian doesn't have to have the inside line on Sylvanas to stand in judgment of her, though; that's simply not required. I can't speak for you but I judge people I don't have relationships with all the time - leaders, managers, associates, and co-workers. You don't even have to have a dialogue with someone to judge their actions or how they effect you or the people you know; though it helps inform one's opinion it isn't necessary. Lilian also strong implies that she joined the Forsaken (after a number of entreaties from Sylvanas) to kind of act as a check to her overreaching, although she played it very close to the vest, probably because had Sylvanas known that she was critical of her leadership she might've arranged Nathanos to cause her to have an "accident" in Kul Tiras. Regardless, Voss proved to be what the Forsaken needed in the right place at the right time, and her ascension was a product of that lucky aligning of the stars as a power vacuum opened up due to Sylvanas' departure. A lot of people who don't really know Sylvanas have criticized her, too; so I think you place a lot of unnecessary emphasis on the idea that you have to have some form of intimacy with someone to criticize their leadership. What Sylvanas was doing was readily apparent to anyone with functioning eyes and ears, and being close to her only made it worse as opposed to better. Her insistence on Calia being the leader of the Forsaken is kind of odd, but I think that actually comes down to the fact that she personally doesn't want the job and isn't really thinking overly of the ramifications of Calia taking it (she's neither a politician nor an experienced leader herself). She also admits culpability for Derek's plight because she was involved with it, if only peripherally.

[Jastall]

At this point I'm curious as to exactly what it takes for someone to be punted straight to the Maw, if the likes of Garrosh and Kael'thas visit them vampires first. At the time of her death in Wrath Sylvanas had done nothing that these two hadn't and far more besides, and it seems that Devos and Uther thought there was at least a chance that Arthas would escape the Maw, else why bother throw him there themselves?

Maybe the Arbiter always sends even the very worst souls to Revendreth first so they at least have a chance at repentance. Not just people who joined or aided a cosmos-destroying superpower, but the leaders thereof. So for instance maybe Sargeras would end up in the Maw were he to somehow be sent to the Shadowlands, but not even the likes of Gul'dan and KJ would.

Considering the Maw is supposed to be an eternity of suffering with no way back whatsoever, it does make some sense that the instant one-way trip there would be an extraordinarily rare occurrence. That's a fate far, far worse than any other.