What was the point of siding with Sylvanas in BFA?

[FuxieDK]

The Nürnberg process only sent to the gallows a handful of Nazi kingpins. Several others who found shelter in South America, the US and even West Germany. But history isn't your strong suit, it seems... Just google "Odessa" (not the Russian city nor the American one of the same name) and see for yourself.

Your statement was that the top escaped prosecution. Nürnberg Process dealt with the 24 (that was captured) that was considered the very top.

[Soon-TM]

Your statement was that the top escaped prosecution .

Incorrect.

[FuxieDK]

Incorrect.

Figureheads.. Sought refuge... Found it..

Oh yes, you claimed the top escaped prosecution...

[Soon-TM]

Figureheads.. Sought refuge... Found it..

Oh yes, you claimed the top escaped prosecution...

You can be a figurehead without necessarily being the #1 big bad, for instance Adolf Eichmann in this case. But I guess that might be too much for you, my bad.

[Thage]

What was the point of introducing branching in BFA war campaign questline if the choices don't have any impact and all we got in the end is Garrosh 2.0?
Did I miss something here? Was something scrapped out of the game or just not completed at all?
I don't see any suitable conslusion for those who chose to side with Sylvanas, and now with Nathanos' death there surely be none coming.

Because people got mad that the story they were constantly told wasn't just a retread of 5.1-5.4 turned out to be a retread of 5.1-5.4, right down to Lor'themar and Jaina striking up a wary ceasefire after remembering Taran Zhu reading them the riot act. Some of them just wanted to have their cake and eat it, openly supporting an omnicidal maniac while still playing generally-heroic characters, because she wasn't omniciding her own team yet. So there was a lot of complaining on the forums and Blizzard hastily patched in the loyalist route, which culminated in the omnicidal maniac outing herself to everyone but, for some reason, the loyalist player continues helping her on her agenda of omnicide, because I guess the loyalist character is almost as much of a bootlicker as Nathanos.

The conclusion is that the character got played and disposed of the second they ceased to be useful, just like Nathanos. Anyone who honestly thought there would be any other conclusion with Sylvanas hasn't paid attention to anything she's done from the second she made her first appearance (after getting her body back) in The Frozen Throne.

[Raisei]

If the conclusion is the same disregarding choices, what was the point of introducing them in the first place? To create an illusion of choice?

The choice was put in because proponents of the "Evil Horde 4Life" camp demanded to be able to side with the genocidal monster after being denied that opprtunity with Garrosh.
Blizzard hadn't planned for it when they designed the plot, hence why it was never going to go anywhere. Sylvanas was always going to be the enemy of the next expansion in the end. The player however cannot be the enemy of an expansion, hence it was always clear that she would drop you and (again) try to kill you.
And it was also clear that her hardcore fans would not accept this reality and demand to stick to her in Shadowlands no matter how many times she told them to their faces how little she cared.

Again I need to resist the temptation to make irl political comparisons... just open your eyes Loyalists! She does not need you, does not want you and will kill you without a second thought. Stop supporting someone that is obviously unfit to lead anyone.

Way to miss the point. The thing is, why open the possibility of allying with her if the ending was going to be the same as the rebel choice? Oh, and spare me your morality lessons, I don't need the one Alleria fan in these boards to tell me that her sister is EvVVuUUulL.

@Vardoc is hardly the only Alleria fan in the forum, just the most obvious one. And even if you don't need to be reminded how depraved Sylvanas is, many many people are still in hard denial of this reality.

[Varodoc]

Because people got mad that the story they were constantly told wasn't just a retread of 5.1-5.4 turned out to be a retread of 5.1-5.4, right down to Lor'themar and Jaina striking up a wary ceasefire after remembering Taran Zhu reading them the riot act. Some of them just wanted to have their cake and eat it, openly supporting an omnicidal maniac while still playing generally-heroic characters, because she wasn't omniciding her own team yet. So there was a lot of complaining on the forums and Blizzard hastily patched in the loyalist route, which culminated in the omnicidal maniac outing herself to everyone but, for some reason, the loyalist player continues helping her on her agenda of omnicide, because I guess the loyalist character is almost as much of a bootlicker as Nathanos.

The conclusion is that the character got played and disposed of the second they ceased to be useful, just like Nathanos. Anyone who honestly thought there would be any other conclusion with Sylvanas hasn't paid attention to anything she's done from the second she made her first appearance (after getting her body back) in The Frozen Throne.

Indeed, Varimathras even remarked in WC3 that Sylvanas was becoming more and more like the Nathrezim. The Nathrezim being conniving devils who see people as mere pawns to be used and discarded once they are no longer useful.

The writing was so much on the wall that it was literally digging inside said wall.

@Vardoc is hardly the only Alleria fan in the forum, just the most obvious one. And even if you don't need to be reminded how depraved Sylvanas is, many many people are still in hard denial of this reality.

The funny thing is that I'm not a Sylvanas fan and I still know her personality better than these Sylvanas fanboys. From WC3:

Varimathras: Come now, you have no intention of giving them their lands back.
Sylvanas Windrunner: Of course not. The humans are simply a means to an end.
Varimathras: You sound more like one of us with every passing day, my lady.
Sylvanas Windrunner: Watch it, dreadlord.

Sylvanas fanboys: "WHAT! HOW COULD SHE BETRAY US! I DON'T BELIEVE IT! UNFATHOMABLE! I TRUSTED HER!"

[Raisei]

Sucks that loyalists are forced to kill Nathanos anyways.

Aren't you bitter enemies in the fight over Sylvanas' attention? Killing him seems perfectly in line with that. Not that she cares about Nathanos or the Loyalists so it's a bit pointless, but there you go.

[Malania]

If the conclusion is the same disregarding choices, what was the point of introducing them in the first place? To create an illusion of choice?

Of course it was. It's to give the player a choice on whether they believed she was right an ending (really the only players who did are RP'ing anyway).

But that's where it logically has to end otherwise how do you branch into the next expansion if you're on her side? You can't raid with the loyalists and raiding your own side is somewhat pointless. The story ends there because it has to for you to have any sort of ability to play the next expansion or you can sit in jail. Or I guess Blizzard can give you a job as a raid boss and when you die, your account gets suspended for a week Then you can say your choice mattered,

[Raisei]

..or a little redemption questchain....

That would require people to first accept that it was wrong to support her. Not seeing that.

[Baneto]

snip

You seem to take this game very serious, maybe a little too serious.

[Fewane]

If the conclusion is the same disregarding choices, what was the point of introducing them in the first place? To create an illusion of choice?

I don't think it was the same as disregarding choices. You got the extra cinematic and bit of lore with it. Yes, not a big difference, but for those playing in RPG way, it was a nice nod for not forcing players to do something their characters wouldn't - something I wish the game did more, regardless of whether there are rewards, consequences, or such. That said, it was clearly an early test on how choices might work in WoW done in a very (disappointingly) limited way. I hope there will be more, and the next ones to carry more weight.

[Zolaris192]

they kinda forgot about the point

[Malania]

Sucks that loyalists are forced to kill Nathanos anyways.

You're not forced to do anything. There's nothing stopping you from not completing the quest. Joining Sylvannas is a roleplay choice. If you choose to do that for RP, stick to your guns. If gear matters more than your choice, then you're just a gear hunting traitor and have no loyalty to her.

[Lawlhero]

People who sided with sylvanas were dumb. Clearly siding with Saurfang was the only choice solely because you got a toy.

[Raisei]

The funny thing is that I'm not a Sylvanas fan and I still know her personality better than these Sylvanas fanboys. From WC3:

Sylvanas fanboys: "WHAT! HOW COULD SHE BETRAY US! I DON'T BELIEVE IT! UNFATHOMABLE! I TRUSTED HER!"

As one of my favourite villains once said: "Admiration is the emotion furthest from understanding."

People see what they want to see, even if reality is not cooperating. Normal people will at some point realize their error, but there are those that are so fanatically loyal that they will deny reality just so their world view is not disturbed.

[Powerogue]

What was the point of introducing branching in BFA war campaign questline if the choices don't have any impact and all we got in the end is Garrosh 2.0?
Did I miss something here? Was something scrapped out of the game or just not completed at all?
I don't see any suitable conslusion for those who chose to side with Sylvanas, and now with Nathanos' death there surely be none coming.

With Garrosh, we did not get that option to side with him. To be on the wrong side of history and all that. Exploring that this expansion was honestly really fun and I have no regrets leveling a forsaken DK to embrace it. Yeah there was some quest overlap, but particularly the last few quests knocked it out of the park, as we saw behind the walls of Orgrimmar to a city of empty streets with vendors abandoning their posts to watch the show, queues stretching out of the portal room to leave, Nathanos resorting to conscripting civilians for a militia as meatshields, and making the choice to fight veterans who have fought longer than the Horde Sylvanas is destroying existed.

Playing the bad guy can be interesting. It's why doing it on my forsaken death knight was such a perfect choice.

Yeah we come around by the end when Sylvanas backstabs us too, but we see behind the curtain on Loyalist side in a way the Honor/Traitor side doesn't get to see.


(snipped, but the sign says "gone to watch the fight")

(self aware humor is the best)

(if I had to pick a favorite moment of the loyalist questline it'd be this)

[Raisei]

With Garrosh, we did not get that option to side with him. To be on the wrong side of history and all that. Exploring that this expansion was honestly really fun and I have no regrets leveling a forsaken DK to embrace it. Yeah there was some quest overlap, but particularly the last few quests knocked it out of the park, as we saw behind the walls of Orgrimmar to a city of empty streets with vendors abandoning their posts to watch the show, queues stretching out of the portal room to leave, Nathanos resorting to conscripting civilians for a militia as meatshields, and making the choice to fight veterans who have fought longer than the Horde Sylvanas is destroying existed.

Playing the bad guy can be interesting. It's why doing it on my forsaken death knight was such a perfect choice.

Yeah we come around by the end when Sylvanas backstabs us too, but we see behind the curtain on Loyalist side in a way the Honor/Traitor side doesn't get to see.

From an in-character perspective I need to point out that the Ebon Blade would be the last to join someone like Sylvanas as she is in BFA. They did the whole following of evil undead overlords (that treat their people like expendable pawns), which did not end well for them and they should be smart enough to not do it willingly.
(though of course playing a DK is always good)

I get it though. As I have pointed out in many threads, I understand liking the villain. What I don't understand is trying to make excuses for them because people can't accept that they are villains.
I mean I like Tarkin and Palpatine as characters, but that does not make me defend them for blowing up Alderaan.

- - - Updated - - -

Obviously you cannot "save" him - but you could decide not to kill him by just not accepting the quest.

But what is loyalty compared to a guranteed ilv 115 weapon...or two ?

Anyway, the cinematic indicated to me that him dying actually play into his hands...as he thinks he will go where Sylvanas went...or so I understood it.

Raidboss next maybe?

Gods I hope not. It was already ridiculous that he was able to fend of 30 of us by himself. He is just a Dark Ranger, nothing more. We should be able to solo him easily. Making him a Raid Boss is giving him by far more recognition then he deserves.