Vote: The Redepemtion Arc!

[Varodoc]

It would be interesting in concept, but in practice I think we would quickly hit a wall when we realize that the Sylvanas we are then interracting with is not the same one that we used to interract with and might as well be a completely different character.

Let's for the sake of argument say that the good Sylvanas ended up in Maldraxxus or something. What would the character be like? She wouldnt have interracted with any of hte faction leaders, she wouldnt have led the freed Scourge to become the Forsaken, she wouldnt have become the twisted and bitter version of herself that was willing to kill innocent farmers to perfect a weapon of mass destruction.

It might be neat to see a good Sylvanas, but the only reason it kinda works for Uther is because all the relevant parts about his story were from before he was dead, with only a tiny bit after with pretty much no personality, leaving the Bastion Uther to essentially just be the Uther we know except with amnesia.

I don't think people understand that Uther's soul split because of the Light's intervention, as Uther was a blessed champion of the Light and amongst the first paladins of mankind. That's why a portion of his soul made it to the Shadowlands, while the other portion was trapped by Frostmourne -- as literally every other victim of Frostmourne.

Sylvanas did not have that luxury, as she was just a random archer. There's nothing "grand" or "cosmic" about that.

"Sylvanas' soul was split like Uther's!!!" theories are nonsense frankly.

Plus I mean..... you can just check for yourself by rewatching Warbringers: Sylvanas. Very clearly her soul did NOT split like Uther's.

[ZazuuPriest]

Good news, she's not a Horde leader anymore.

People keep talking about her "pulling a Kerrigan" but Blizzard made it clear where they stand on that.


Though that does make me wonder of pulling a twisted Kerrigan as an ironic ultimate punishment. Doing the mindwipe process from the Kyrians on her by force and having her shell tasked with rescuing the innocent damned from the Maw.

Thats probably better than the writing we will actually get

[Coconut]

And you don't see the irony of you arguing that reddeeming Arthas is silly when he has done so much evil, and then immediately transitioning to stating that Sylvnaas is just misunderstood?

What is there to say Arthas didnt do everytning out of hte kindness of his heart, which indeed the material actually supports, or that he was unjustly controlled, which again the material supports.

Your argument here is basically to assume Arthas is evil because his evil deeds speak for themselves, and even if they didnt a redemption would just cheapen the character and writing as a whole. And then at the same time argue that the similar overt villainy of Sylvanas is just the writers projecting a front so conceal her true motives.

Sometimes the writers are just out ot make a character a villain, and in the case of Sylvanas the fall was not that far, and indeed one could argue makes the character better as it in a way finishes her twisted arc as the dark mirror of Arthas.


Just to put it concisely, why should Arthas be assumed ot be completely evil and beyond redemption for destroying cities, when Sylvanas is not for similarly destroying cities, torturing people and indeed conspiring to release an Old God.
It just seems like blatant hypocrisy to me.

Redeeming Arthas is bad for several reasons that do not apply to Sylvanas, as I have pointed out:

1. Because his finished story was already compelling, and this would completely negate it. Sylvanas did not have a coherent "fall into villainy" arc, it all happened off screen (ironically, after a soul-searching arc was promised in Legion). There is nothing to lose by negating it, and there is room to turn all the smoke and mirrors into a "misunderstood" philosophical twist. In fact, the narrative sort of demands the missing pieces to be filled, and filling them with what we think we already know would be plain old boring, which is a Doylist argument on why a twist would work best, but a strong one nonetheless.

2. Because there is nothing for Arthas to do after Shadowlands. Sylvanas can either stay behind as an agent of the Shadowlands, either as penitence or as an achieved goal, or she can return to Azeroth to get the Forsaken back on their feet and give the Alliance a reason to hate the Horde again - because if Sylvanas's goals were ultimately good, it would be in the Horde's nature to take her back, as seen with Grom in Warcraft III, the Zandalari in BFA, the Blood Elves after all the stuff Kael pulled off, the former Garrosh and Banshee loyalists, etc., but the Alliance would never forgive her. This hearkens back to the Pandaren starting zone and the philosophical differences between Ji Firepaw and Aisa - the Horde respects action even if it's damaging. I can't see Arthas returning to Azeroth, and having him take over a function in Shadowlands would be unearned pandering.

3. Most importantly, because a scenario in which Arthas is redeemed specifically through defeating Sylvanas would be extremely messed up. Imagine Tyrande goes crazy with Moon power, nukes Thunder Bluff, and Sylvanas redeems herself by showing up and killing her. Would you enjoy that? Or would you be outraged? Arthas could redeem himself perhaps by healing Sylvanas, but even then the first two points remain, and it's kind of lame to make the story about him.

Bonus point: If Arthas shows up to redeem himself, what purpose does Bolvar serve? They would both be former Lich King good guys dude bros. Fighting a mega bad guy Lich King dude bro. Kind of crowding the one motif there... Even if he returns as a paladin, he'd be crowding Anduin, Turalyon and the recently deceased Fordring. How many paladin human dudes do we need?

The only tasteful way Arthas could play a part is as a minor bit in Sylvanas's story. She could either save Arthas too, among others in the Maw, in her true goal twist reveal, showing that she is over the suffering he caused her and feels empathy even for his soul (emphasis on soul, as opposed to caring for how the living get into the Afterlife), OR she can show her cruelty by torturing a terrified child-soul Arthas into anima pulp, taking the revenge she was denied in Wrath, but in a petty, ugly way - in case she's meant to remain a villain.

[Rolling]

Think about it:

I liked all the thing you wrote. It's pretty good. A shame blizz probably won't go that way.

[Jonnusthegreat]

I hope there's no redemption and it's also found that she's been helping us the entire time. This option isn't present. I love a good ole misunderstood hero!

[Sondrelk]

Redeeming Arthas is bad for several reasons that do not apply to Sylvanas, as I have pointed out:

1. Because his finished story was already compelling, and this would completely negate it. Sylvanas did not have a coherent "fall into villainy" arc, it all happened off screen (ironically, after a soul-searching arc was promised in Legion). There is nothing to lose by negating it, and there is room to turn all the smoke and mirrors into a "misunderstood" philosophical twist. In fact, the narrative sort of demands the missing pieces to be filled, and filling them with what we think we already know would be plain old boring, which is a Doylist argument on why a twist would work best, but a strong one nonetheless.

2. Because there is nothing for Arthas to do after Shadowlands. Sylvanas can either stay behind as an agent of the Shadowlands, either as penitence or as an achieved goal, or she can return to Azeroth to get the Forsaken back on their feet and give the Alliance a reason to hate the Horde again - because if Sylvanas's goals were ultimately good, it would be in the Horde's nature to take her back, as seen with Grom in Warcraft III, the Zandalari in BFA, the Blood Elves after all the stuff Kael pulled off, the former Garrosh and Banshee loyalists, etc., but the Alliance would never forgive her. This hearkens back to the Pandaren starting zone and the philosophical differences between Ji Firepaw and Aisa - the Horde respects action even if it's damaging. I can't see Arthas returning to Azeroth, and having him take over a function in Shadowlands would be unearned pandering.

3. Most importantly, because a scenario in which Arthas is redeemed specifically through defeating Sylvanas would be extremely messed up. Imagine Tyrande goes crazy with Moon power, nukes Thunder Bluff, and Sylvanas redeems herself by showing up and killing her. Would you enjoy that? Or would you be outraged? Arthas could redeem himself perhaps by healing Sylvanas, but even then the first two points remain, and it's kind of lame to make the story about him.

Bonus point: If Arthas shows up to redeem himself, what purpose does Bolvar serve? They would both be former Lich King good guys dude bros. Fighting a mega bad guy Lich King dude bro. Kind of crowding the one motif there... Even if he returns as a paladin, he'd be crowding Anduin, Turalyon and the recently deceased Fordring. How many paladin human dudes do we need?

The only tasteful way Arthas could play a part is as a minor bit in Sylvanas's story. She could either save Arthas too, among others in the Maw, in her true goal twist reveal, showing that she is over the suffering he caused her and feels empathy even for his soul (emphasis on soul, as opposed to caring for how the living get into the Afterlife), OR she can show her cruelty by torturing a terrified child-soul Arthas into anima pulp, taking the revenge she was denied in Wrath, but in a petty, ugly way - in case she's meant to remain a villain.

1. Sylvanas kinda did if you read a bit more into it. However the prudent question is whether that really matters when the arc has already happened.
Sylvanas has had an admittedly very hit and miss arc from freed undead to evil tyrant, several moments where she was evil, moments where she was good, and moments where the line was blurred.
Can you really look at her imprisoning Koltira for wanting peace instead of war and think that this is a character that isnt just that one step away from abject villainy?


2. What is there for Sylvanas to return to though? The Alliance is likely to start prepping hte nukes if she is accepted into the Horde, and even with that she has killed Saurfang and poisoned their relationship with the Alliance. Everything Tyrande said about the Horde being abject evil would be proven true if they accept her back.
And why would the Forsaken accept her back at all? Voss has stated her distrust of her, and of the few that might accept her having sacrificed their home for her goals, who among them is insane enough to accept her back when she fairly recently slaughtered her own citizens for the crime of finding happiness? Is the Forsaken actually just that, a hivemind of the completely soulless? Because that bolsters the Alliance's case in exterminating them, if nothing else to spare them a life of misery.

Sylvanas killed Saurfang, yelled that the Horde was nothing, then left them to fight against N'zoth after indeed being the person at least partially responsible for freeing him. I somehow doubt the Horde will accept her back with open arms after being the cuase of so much death and misery.


3. Noone is saying that Arthas is the one that will kill Sylvanas. He could be complete evil in Shadowlands, but even without that the writersd have carefully placed hints ever since Warcraft 3, and more importantly WotLK that Arthas is not necessarily fully to blame, and indeed with Shadowlands at least everything done with the Helm of Domination seems to be attributable to the Jailer, arguably even when Arthas picked up Frostmourne. Sylvanas does not have anything similar to cling onto unless we are literally going for a similar thing where the Jailer is controlling her directly.
And to be fair I wouldnt hate that angle, it could lead to some fascinating implications if we get Arthas and Sylvanas both rebelling against the person who ruined their lives, but that still doesnt mean either of them can realistically return to Azeroth after what they have done.

And even if we assume the mind control angle is what the writers are going for, is that what you want from Sylvanas? For her to be mind-controlled likely since the end of WotLK? All her interraction to potentially be fake?


Bolvar doesnt really serve a purpose anyways, he was only really there to facilitate the potential reintroduction of the Scourge. Arthas is also completely dead anyways, unless we literally get complete maagical ressurections then he will stay in the Shadowlands, possibly as the new Jailer.

Arthas will be a part of Uther's story more like. Blizzard showed their hand too early when they showed Uther throwing him into the Maw. His arc in the Shadowlands now has to in some way include getting Arthas out of hte Maw so he can be properly judged.


Sylvanas torturing Arthas is also a fairly likely option. Unless he is somehow wandering around the Maw he is likely stuck in Torghast somewhere.
What this would facilitate is showing how far gone Sylvanas is, torturing Arthas and likely turning him to a slave similar to what happened to her. Tyrande's ending in this might be to accept that torturing Sylvanas is wrong, and that she should simply forget about her.

[Overlord Anrakyr]

Not after genociding thousands of people. You don't come back from that.

[Feanoro]

Just to put it concisely, why should Arthas be assumed ot be completely evil and beyond redemption for destroying cities, when Sylvanas is not for similarly destroying cities, torturing people and indeed conspiring to release an Old God.
It just seems like blatant hypocrisy to me.

Because Arthas doesn't look good in a bikini.

[Hubbl3]

Not after genociding thousands of people. You don't come back from that.

Kerrigan did. And no, the whole "she was mind controlled, she was totally a good girl"-thing was a retcon. They could just as easily make Sylvi mind controlled. And yes, of course it greatly diminished Kerrigan's character.

[Overlord Anrakyr]

Kerrigan did. And no, the whole "she was mind controlled, she was totally a good girl"-thing was a retcon. They could just as easily make Sylvi mind controlled. And yes, of course it greatly diminished Kerrigan's character.

Yes and she died. The new entity has nothing of Kerrigan in it.

Kerrigan can be more accurately compared to Darth Vader. He became an asshole and killed millions, which is why he became unredeemable in life.
None of the characters that are directly responsible for the deaths of many innocents, survive the ending of a show despite sorta turning around by the end. Darth Vader, Sandor Clegane, etc... After a certain point they can't be redeemed in life, and can only be offered a glorious end.

[Hubbl3]

Yes and she died. The new entity has nothing of Kerrigan in it.

The redemption arc basically started with WoL, she was "saved" by the end of WoL and Kerrigan was still Kerrigan until the end of LotV (including the stupidity that was the Zerus re-zergification-arc). That is equal to Sylvi being saved at the beginning of Shadowlands, working with us together to bring down the Jailer and in the end becoming Savior of whatever-entitity (and then no longer being Sylvanas). That is hardly Darth Vader, who changed sides 2 Minutes before his death.

I'm not a fan of this kind of stuff and totally agree that Sylvi's arc should end in Shadowlands. But Blizzard will retcon anything they want and have done so in the past. That Sylvi killed people is no argument against it.

[Coconut]

*snip*

I feel like the argument is derailing a bit.

My original response was on your litmus test questions about Slvanas's potential redemption arc/validation twist. They were both fair points, and I think I brought decent answers as to how that could work and why I think it would be a better story than playing it straight. I also responded in detail to the Arthas redemption story scenario because I find that prospect particularly ill-conceived (maybe you don't want him to come back specifically to repeat what he did to Sylvanas in Warcraft III - I tried not to accuse you of it anyway - but I've seen people making excited comments about it and it's gross).

However, I don't really want to dissect every one of Sylvanas's misdeeds, because it's been done to death (heh...) already. I will tell you that Teldrassil is pretty much the only one that gave me serious qualms - had I been given an in-game choice, I would have defied her and tried to help the NElves. The rest is generally fine with me, well within acceptable range for the racial flavor of the Forsaken and the themes & tone of the character. Certainly the Koltira episode didn't phase me, he was an idiot (and also fine in Legion).

I think the moralism displayed on these forums with regards to some characters is misguided. And not because I'm some "Evil Horde" fanboy - quite the contrary in fact, I actually like the Warcraft III vibes when the factions/characters come together and get along - but because the franchise was never meant for that. The game is supposed to be epic and metal and fun, and it always played fast and loose with these things. from the constant grinder of what the RTS was, to the endless train of world ending events we got in the MMORPG, to placing characters like Grom, Illidan etc. on pedestals, to always showing "genocided" races at their maximum coolness after loss after loss after loss, to its very name and core game mechanics. It's always been more like a comic book universe than an anti-war seminar, and that is ok.

[Shadowferal]

It's always been more like a comic book universe than an anti-war seminar, and that is ok.

Well, I remember the old X-Men original Dark Phoenix saga... The writer Claremont wanted to strand Grey on a planet as punishment for destroying a world and killing billions. Editor-in-chief Jim Shooter overruled that saying she gets the death penalty; he didn't care how it was written, only that she doesn't come back afterwards. (And written so well I did sniffle a bit...dammit)
Of course that was when comics did kill off a character they stayed dead.

[Melsiren]

Am I voting on what I want?
Or
Am I voting on what I think will happen?

[Minikin]

Am I voting on what I want?
Or
Am I voting on what I think will happen?

What you think will happen.

[Coconut]

Well, I remember the old X-Men original Dark Phoenix saga... The writer Claremont wanted to strand Grey on a planet as punishment for destroying a world and killing billions. Editor-in-chief Jim Shooter overruled that saying she gets the death penalty; he didn't care how it was written, only that she doesn't come back afterwards. (And written so well I did sniffle a bit...dammit)
Of course that was when comics did kill off a character they stayed dead.

I was thinking more of the recent Harley Quinn cartoon series, but I guess you "got me", there are exceptions. I'm not that well versed in comic book lore.

Edit: But when a writer makes their character destroy a planet for shock value, and then the editor overrules their creative decisions and dictates that the character must be killed off for their "crimes", that's pretty toilet rag level, 100% Doylist, executive interfering, moralistic writing. Was she even "executed" officially for as part of the story, or just randomly killed off?

[Shadowferal]

I was thinking more of the recent Harley Quinn cartoon series, but I guess you "got me", there are exceptions. I'm not that well versed in comic book lore.

Edit: But when a writer makes their character destroy a planet for shock value, and then the editor overrules their creative decisions and dictates that the character must be killed off for their "crimes", that's pretty toilet rag level, 100% Doylist, executive interfering, moralistic writing. Was she even "executed" officially for as part of the story, or just randomly killed off?

Knowing that she'd turn into a murdering monster across the universe, she committed suicide.
As written, she had the choice of being a goddess of destruction, and being human...with a capacity for self-sacrifice.
The Dark Phoenix Saga is usually ranked among the top 5 greatest storylines ever made in comicbooks. Claremont admitted later that it was a better ending than his initial offering. It really hit hard if you followed the story.
panel one
panel two

[Coconut]

Knowing that she'd turn into a murdering monster across the universe, she committed suicide.
As written, she had the choice of being a goddess of destruction, and being human...with a capacity for self-sacrifice.
The Dark Phoenix Saga is usually ranked among the top 5 greatest storylines ever made in comicbooks. Claremont admitted later that it was a better ending than his initial offering. It really hit hard if you followed the story.
panel one
panel two

That's a different spin than what you originally said. It's not "character does bad thing -> gets punished by the narrative", but "in spite of great personal struggle, character finds the strength to sacrifice herself for the good of others". Jean Grey comes off as a hero, not as a villain that's been made an example of through righteous retribution, and that is in spite of the billions she killed. I don't know what dramatic ramifications there are to the destruction of that planet (i.e. whether you care all that much for it versus your emotional investment in Jean Grey), but from the short version of the story, it sounds like all those deaths rather serve to "rule of cool" the character, to pump up her power level and implicitly the power level of the part of her she must suppress in order to self sacrifice, when the arc itself is rather similar to the self sacrifice of someone who self-quarantines, for example, but taken up to 11 billion.

Ironically, it's exactly that "spark of humanity inside a tortured monster" - or rather the "Elven heart", as Balnazzar put it in TFT - that made Sylvanas sympathetic and compelling before Blizzard arguably pushed her too far with Teldrassil... And yet you DO NOT want a redemptive Jean Grey-like ending for her, you want a savagely punitive one, "her worst fears realized". Perhaps you are subjective because you were more invested in Teldrassil than in Random Planet with Billions of People, and less invested in Sylvanas prior to BFA than you were in Jean Grey back when you were reading X-Men?

[Shadowferal]

That's a different spin than what you originally said. It's not "character does bad thing -> gets punished by the narrative", but "in spite of great personal struggle, character finds the strength to sacrifice herself for the good of others".

That was the writer's words. The editor didn't care how it was written. But he did say it that way. (Not as contradictory as it sounds as the editor and writer is "god," and in control of a character's fate)
Quite frankly I'm certain you'd have to read the story all the way through. There's no "rule of cool" here. Just damn good writing.
Something sorely lacking these days...for Blizz as well.

But I guess that's enough of the off topic stuff.
I certainly don't see anything resembling good writing for Sylvanus.
I did see it for Arthas. And he got what he deserved.
And I will rarely accept taking the big baddie from a previous story and shine him up to play the hero. Illidan's arc was hamfisted nonsense that only served to rob everyone of a villain from an earlier expansion to appease players of the well maligned WoD. And worse, it seemed rushed. They had a couple of years for that, and they couldn't do any better? I'd like to give points for a mediocre effort, but it doesn't feel as if they put even that much into it.

I'd say scrap the Silvanus arc but it's too late for that.
But that's how I feel about much of the lore for the whole of WoW post WoD.
Had Silvanus been destroyed fighting Arthas and freeing the Forsaken of his control that would have been glorious and heroic...and freed the story for something more fresh...new.

[Coconut]

That was the writer's words. The editor didn't care how it was written. But he did say it that way. (Not as contradictory as it sounds as the editor and writer is "god," and in control of a character's fate)
Quite frankly I'm certain you'd have to read the story all the way through. There's no "rule of cool" here. Just damn good writing.
Something sorely lacking these days...for Blizz as well.

I can't say I'm a fan of that mentality, even though the writer was professional enough to hide the behind the scenes rationale from the narrative and actually gave the character an emotionally satisfying arc. It reminds me of the old horror movie trope where the sexually active girl always got killed, a symbolic "punishment of the sinner" meant to send the message that sex outside of marriage is dangerous and bad (being a black person hanging out with whites was probably coded as a "sin" too, now that I think about it...). It evokes the same kind of logic as the 90's paranoia that "violent video games make people kill" - "we can't allow the hero to remain unpunished after killing people, because then readers will think killing people is cool!".

I also disagree that a writer who always exercises complete control over the character's fate is good. If you don't allow your characters to grow on their own, if you don't explore them to the point that they surprise you, then they certainly can't be very deep, or very consistent.

I certainly don't see anything resembling good writing for Sylvanus.
I did see it for Arthas. And he got what he deserved.
And I will rarely accept taking the big baddie from a previous story and shine him up to play the hero. Illidan's arc was hamfisted nonsense that only served to rob everyone of a villain from an earlier expansion to appease players of the well maligned WoD. And worse, it seemed rushed. They had a couple of years for that, and they couldn't do any better? I'd like to give points for a mediocre effort, but it doesn't feel as if they put even that much into it.

Arthas had an excellent arc in Warcraft III. More than that even, he got an epic story in three acts. And he reached his zenith as a villain. Arthas was basically the winner of TFT, as far as we knew. It literally ended with him on top of the world. His story in Wrath wasn't really that great, he monologued a lot, kept leaving his minions to deal with us like a Saturday morning cartoon, and didn't have much of an objective besides the obvious "turn everyone into zombies" - at least we never saw him that invested in anything. But everyone accepted that there was no other way than down for him, and he was pretty epic with his new Nazgul look, so he made a great end boss.

Illidan, Kael'thas and Vashj were beloved antiheroes, however. From a storytelling perspective, Illidan and Kael still had unfinished business and room to grow, but at that time WoW was less story-driven, so it was mainly that people didn't perceive them as villains and wanted to hang out with and getlegendary quests from them. I remember a lot of people, including myself, were very disappointed with how they were used in TBC. It felt like a huge waste to villain bat them and throw them into raids. I strongly disagree that resetting Illidan's role in WoW robbed us of anything. Rather, it restored something that had been discarded to easily in the past.

Don't get me wrong, I would have preferred something new. But all in all, Illidan was handled better, and there was more to gain from his reintroduction (playable Demon Hunters, a few cool edgy moments from him) than the AU bullshit in WoD, or the repeat of the Scourge themes in Shadowlands (at least that's what I feel so far). And he wasn't the only nostalgic nod to Warcraft III in Legion.

I'd say scrap the Silvanus arc but it's too late for that.
But that's how I feel about much of the lore for the whole of WoW post WoD.
Had Silvanus been destroyed fighting Arthas and freeing the Forsaken of his control that would have been glorious and heroic...and freed the story for something more fresh...new.

The problem is that there wasn't a Sylvanas arc so far. There were disjointed actions, motivated by something that has been kept in the dark. Even now, we don't really know the how and the why of what's been going on with her all this time.

I have a strong feeling that the original plans for her at the start of Legion were very different (we were still gonna get a war and Shadowlands, but with different narratives), but then Metzen left and the new writers wanted to do it a different way. In early Legion, there was a mellowing down of Sylvanas compared to how she acted in Cata. Even in WoD, there was a particular quest chain where she sent a Dark Ranger to you, and she turned out to be very useful and saved the life of an inkeeper. The way they presented Vol'jin's death cinematic, it doesn't play like there's something ominous going on. The emotions on Sylvanas's face play to what's going on in the moment, not some distant scheming. Even the BFA cinematic (which was still developed under Metzen) gives totally opposite vibes from where Sylvie started in BFA.

It felt like a complete hijack by Danuser, Golden & Co., a hijacked I strongly empathize with, because they hijacked my character too. There's no way in hell my character would have stood by during the Burning of Teldrassil, yet the writers said that's exactly what he did. So if I have to step out of the story to explain my part in it, I can just as easily do it for Sylvanas, and place the burden on the writers to deal with that episode without "punishing" the character. If they want to force me to want her dead with this blatantly Doylist curveball, I'm just going to resent them more. If, however, this is some meta tactic to make me empathize with her desire to be in control of her own fate... I'll have to admit they're pretty clever.