What do you think the future of the Forsaken will be under Calia Menethil? [Spoilers]

[VladlTutushkin]

In practice, our positions are entirely pointless past forum arguments since Blizzard don't give a shit and in so far as they answer complaints is mostly the Twitterati, but within our own field, it is two positions. If you're opposed to any further conflict and want the Horde races turned into bland sludge because you hate the forgiveness tango, then that's a coherent position. If you're for further conflict and want the races to come to blows over their respective grievances because you hate the world peace and blandification mouthpieces, that's also a coherent position. But you can't be both.

If you demand complete righteousness, which defining the Alliance as purely defensive, which is slightly less farcical than the actual NATO being an exclusively defensive alliance, though not by much, then the only position you can sensible take is the blandification of the other faction to dysfunctionality. Even in BFA where the Horde lose most all of the time on-screen, and Cataclysm, if you run it by the numbers, comes up about even, but it's presented so poorly and the Alliance is cast as such a victim instead of an independent party that its playerbase is massively unsatisfied. Ditto, because the Alliance was cast as pure good incarnate the Horde spent most of its time tearing itself up how they were harming a hair on their heads. This doesn't cut it. The ultimate experience of this kind is to not put the races into conflict at all and to sideline the Horde entirely, as is the case in say, SL or Legion.

In turn if you do want to fight the Horde that requires accepting the Alliance as a political actor instead of a kind samaritan, which means occasionally it'll have to do shit. I don't bitch about Camp Memejo or Dalaran or the topical issues in so far as they're signs of the Alliance being worse whatever, but that because of the Alliance as a samaritan, the Horde isn't allowed to react to them as a sensible political entity in the long-term. Cataclysm and Mists both take these events into account as they'd appear to their target without drawing equivalences, but those are ditched moments later.

The Alliance as samaritan and universal force of good, represented by Anduin has destroyed first its own faction and then the Horde and runs counter to the conflict-derived point of the game. In so far as you disagree because you're frustrated by its knock-on effects, that's fine enough, but wanting to have your cake and eat it too is what gets us in this position too. See the nigh universal praise for Jaina's BFA story which did nothing but revert her to her terrible WC3 peacenik persona that was a narrative black hole. Supporting that kind of story and then being upset that your side isn't proactive is self-defeating.

After several expansions (most of them really) i grew tired of faction conflict. Post-Legion i would have really loved the “unifaction” and peacenick Jaina. But BfA just made it narratively impossible yet they chose to try and push “past factions” THEN.

Its just weird, its bizarre, its stupid. I mean Legion was perfect place to just chop the faction conflict like they did after BfA.

Just cut it off and be done with it, leave some small scale shit like “the warden towers” or something.

But no, they chose to ramp up the hatred, piss Alliance players off with gruesome torture porn and THEN said “okay, weapons down guys its over, peace”.

What the fuck they were even thinking? First missing the best lore point to end the conflict and then using the worst lore point for that.

[Mehrunes]

She also fled Lordaeron to escape the Scourge, leaving her people to their fate. I don't understand why the Forsaken would even want her, instead of looking to self governance once again through an entity like the Desolate Council (which was another thing Calia ruined, giving Sylvanas justification for disbanding it and killing the members).

There has been nothing said about the Desolate Council being disbanded. And since some of its members survived, it should still be a thing, especially since I don't recall the recent Sylvanas book changing anything on the issue either.

And as i said - if some literally nobody, as people here keep claiming, "no true forsaken", not even a forsaken at ALL back then, a "hated Menethil" runs out and starts "provoking" is this absolute pussy of a Banshee got THAT scared of THIS situation?

If she genuinely thought that this was a threat to her reign then her reign was not worth crap to begin with. She was a failure of a leader and Forsaken are better off without her.

Yes, let's willfully ignore the part where there were openly defecting high ranking Forsaken members that were running the affairs of the goddamn Undercity in Sylvanas' absence that were her primary target.

Absolutely right.

Except for the part where Sylvanas was right and the Forsaken still at the Gathering (with the exception of Elsie, who openly disobeyed orders anyway and instead chose to chit-chat with a usurper to Sylvanas' throne) were defecting. This wasn't a dictator acting out of a paranoia and killing innocents because they aren't loved. It was a dictator killing few defectors that don't reflect on the majority of the Forsaken for shit. Who also happened to be high ranking members of the Forsaken government, making their defection high treason. Which is typically a capital offense.

Both are true as far as I can tell.
Calia has sway, because in Before the Storm, it is forsaken characters that plead with her to reveal herself at the gathering, after being recognized. Terenas was a beloved king. They still held Calia in high enough regard that they considered her presence there to be empowering to them.
And as you've said, Sylvanas, like many other real life dictators, grew paranoid of threats to her rule. And therefore murdered indicriminately. Those who defected AND those who didn't. Many didn't, and did nothing wrong, as she herself had approved of the Gathering in first place. Some of them were running back to her, worshipped her, and she slayed them just the same. Pretty ironic that free will was such a foundational concept for the forsaken and Sylvanas herself, because she ended up an authoritarian tyrant who murdered innocents because they might one day change their minds on her rule.

Except as you people keep deliberately ignoring despite it being years since the book's release, the Forsaken that were retreating to the Wall were shown to be retreating only after Sylvanas already ordered the deployment of the Dark Rangers and the prospect of getting Dark Rangered hanged over their heads, making the mere fact of them returning meaningless. Even though they were given explicit orders to retreat immediately after hearing the horn signal, with equally explicit warning of dire consequences should they fail to do so. On top of that before the deployment of the bats Calia, the very person warned by the defectors of what they were planning and someone who was right there to see what was going on told Elsie (who was the only Forsaken the book confirmed was not defecting, though she still failed to obey the orders about the retreat even though the second time Sylvanas explained those rules was upon her own inquiry) that all of the other Forsaken still on the field were indeed defecting.

If she killed only those who ran away that would have being more justified, still scummy but not as bad.

She however killed everybody. Even those who were absolutely loyal to her.

The only one that was actually confirmed by the book to be still loyal to Sylvanas was Elsie and she openly disregarded the very same rules about the retreat she herself inquired Sylvanas about. Your usage of plural here is completely unjustified.

The total Gathering bodycount is a staggering twelve people, of which a minimum of 6 actually were defecting and there's only one (1) person who was confirmed not to, Elsie, who was talking to Calia herself. Indeed, if we take Calia at her word, and she's an author's mouthpiece so we should, 'everyone' on that field who wasn't explicitly rejected already, i.e all eleven people save Elsie, were defecting. This is all moot of course because giving every appearance of defecting to a foreign power and then quitting when push comes to shove, which they did only when the arrows came out doesn't speak well of your ultimate goal to defect.

Let's add to that that Calia had the power of two human eyes and after realizing what was going on because she was outright approached by the defectors, could simply see what was going on afterwards as well. And given how pure and already Blanduinised she was, the chances of her lying were rather slim.

Calia will of course be accepted with open arms and turn the Forsaken into the Forgiven or what have you, but that's because the people in Warcraft are fickle morons who will canonically and unquestionably accept any decision, be they reds or blues, so long as it comes from someone associated with Anduin. See Genn, the night elves, the Horde ready to kill him in front of the gates but who let him chair a funeral in Orgrimmar and so on. NPCs zealously defending one position and then swapping because Sylvanas said some mean words is canonically an essential social factor.

Please don't give Blizzard ideas...

What is a Forsaken, though? Is being a free-willed undead enough to make one Forsaken? Not all of them joined Sylvanas's faction. Is being loyal to the Horde as one of its faction required? Did guys like Batholomew the Revered stop being considered Forsaken when they joined the neutral Argent Dawn? Is it tied to the fact that their living Alliance relatives no longer acknowledge them and they are "forsaken" in that way?

Seems to me the Forsaken are a melting pot of different possible definitions that various members meet some but not others. For instance Calia meets two of those candidates, being a free-willed undead and being at least not hostile to the Horde, while she has definitely NOT been cast off by her living allies. So does the aforementioned Bartholomew. He's a free willed undead and cast off from his former living allies, but is not part of the Horde's forsaken faction.

Being a follower of Sylvanas, clearly. Which is confirmed everywhere, from the Chronicle, to the narrator in Forsaken intro to in-game books about the history of the Scourge. If Forsaken were some catch-all term for all free-willed undead the Knights of the Ebon Blade would be considered Forsaken, yet they never are.

If you want to play it this way then…

You shall also officially, in a typed form withdrew all the whinge about Jaina’s actions in Dalaran and entirely absolve her of her “crime” while also admitting that she did nothing wrong.

Since the situation was very similar, she was a ruler of the city… and according to the lore she killed around a dozen blood elves in total, all of which attacked her. While the rest were imprisoned until the end of SoO.

A failed apples-to-oranges comparison. Sylvanas was an absolute monarch. Jaina was the leader of the Council of Six, a position so devoid of any additional power over a standard member of the Council they don't have a tie-breaking vote or can't even leave Dalaran without informing the rest. The issue with Jaina's actions in Dalaran is not that she purged per se, but that she had no power to do so on her own whim (which is kinda why the purge isn't performed by the Kirin Tor but by Vereesa's personal militia that has no legal position within Dalaran, as well as reinforcements from an Alliance member). Also, unlike Sylvanas at the Gathering, had fuck all of evidence. All she had was a portal going from Darnassus to Dalaran that for all she knew could have been created by a local Furbolg. What makes it even better is the Blood Elf aiding the player in Darnassus wasn't even a Sunreaver but a member of the Reliquary, making Jaina's already significant leap of logic simply wrong. There's also the part where she violated Dalaran's neutrality first, by her own standards established in Tides of War.

[VladlTutushkin]

There has been nothing said about the Desolate Council being disbanded. And since some of its members survived, it should still be a thing, especially since I don't recall the recent Sylvanas book changing anything on the issue either.




Yes, let's willfully ignore the part where there were openly defecting high ranking Forsaken members that were running the affairs of the goddamn Undercity in Sylvanas' absence that were her primary target.




Except for the part where Sylvanas was right and the Forsaken still at the Gathering (with the exception of Elsie, who openly disobeyed orders anyway and instead chose to chit-chat with a usurper to Sylvanas' throne) were defecting. This wasn't a dictator acting out of a paranoia and killing innocents because they aren't loved. It was a dictator killing few defectors that don't reflect on the majority of the Forsaken for shit. Who also happened to be high ranking members of the Forsaken government, making their defection high treason. Which is typically a capital offense.




Except as you people keep deliberately ignoring despite it being years since the book's release, the Forsaken that were retreating to the Wall were shown to be retreating only after Sylvanas already ordered the deployment of the Dark Rangers and the prospect of getting Dark Rangered hanged over their heads, making the mere fact of them returning meaningless. Even though they were given explicit orders to retreat immediately after hearing the horn signal, with equally explicit warning of dire consequences should they fail to do so. On top of that before the deployment of the bats Calia, the very person warned by the defectors of what they were planning and someone who was right there to see what was going on told Elsie (who was the only Forsaken the book confirmed was not defecting, though she still failed to obey the orders about the retreat even though the second time Sylvanas explained those rules was upon her own inquiry) that all of the other Forsaken still on the field were indeed defecting.




The only one that was actually confirmed by the book to be still loyal to Sylvanas was Elsie and she openly disregarded the very same rules about the retreat she herself inquired Sylvanas about. Your usage of plural here is completely unjustified.




Let's add to that that Calia had the power of two human eyes and after realizing what was going on because she was outright approached by the defectors, could simply see what was going on afterwards as well. And given how pure and already Blanduinised she was, the chances of her lying were rather slim.




Please don't give Blizzard ideas...




Being a follower of Sylvanas, clearly. Which is confirmed everywhere, from the Chronicle, to the narrator in Forsaken intro to in-game books about the history of the Scourge. If Forsaken were some catch-all term for all free-willed undead the Knights of the Ebon Blade would be considered Forsaken, yet they never are.




A failed apples-to-oranges comparison. Sylvanas was an absolute monarch. Jaina was the leader of the Council of Six, a position so devoid of any additional power over a standard member of the Council they don't have a tie-breaking vote or can't even leave Dalaran without informing the rest. The issue with Jaina's actions in Dalaran is not that she purged per se, but that she had no power to do so on her own whim (which is kinda why the purge isn't performed by the Kirin Tor but by Vereesa's personal militia that has no legal position within Dalaran, as well as reinforcements from an Alliance member). Also, unlike Sylvanas at the Gathering, had fuck all of evidence. All she had was a portal going from Darnassus to Dalaran that for all she knew could have been created by a local Furbolg. What makes it even better is the Blood Elf aiding the player in Darnassus wasn't even a Sunreaver but a member of the Reliquary, making Jaina's already significant leap of logic simply wrong. There's also the part where she violated Dalaran's neutrality first, by her own standards established in Tides of War.

All i can say to your downright lawyeristic levels of term-juggling, headcanon mixing with canon, assumptions, some terminology cover and strategic use of strawman…

If Calia was indeed an “usurper” who swayed “high ranking forsaken”. And if being a “Forsaken” means serving Sylvanas…

With Sylvanas now abdicated in all but written form, you know, abandoning the Horde and fleeing to the Shadowlands and then staying there to do civil service in the Maw…

That means Calia now is indeed a legitimate claimant to the “throne”.

Since she “clearly” can make Forsaken follow her, even high ranking ones, after meeting them for the first time no less.

Sylvanas is gone, so “forsaken” are just a term now, they have no one to follow.

And she also has backing of Lilian Voss, who became a part of Forsaken firmly in BfA.

See? Embrace your new Queen and be in awe! In awe of her might and beauty. Oh and wisdom too.

[Magical Mudcrab]

There has been nothing said about the Desolate Council being disbanded. And since some of its members survived, it should still be a thing, especially since I don't recall the recent Sylvanas book changing anything on the issue either.

Hmmm, I thought it had been disbanded. That said, it could be accidental headcanon, made from inferring the disbanding of the council due to the majority of the councilors were killed.

[Ardenaso]

Probably because they know what the Horde does at the slightest provocation, and they don't care to be the next smoking crater.

to be fair those are of the Blackrock Clan

[mickybrighteyes]

All i can say to your downright lawyeristic levels of term-juggling, headcanon mixing with canon, assumptions, some terminology cover and strategic use of strawman…

If Calia was indeed an “usurper” who swayed “high ranking forsaken”. And if being a “Forsaken” means serving Sylvanas…

With Sylvanas now abdicated in all but written form, you know, abandoning the Horde and fleeing to the Shadowlands and then staying there to do civil service in the Maw…

That means Calia now is indeed a legitimate claimant to the “throne”.

Since she “clearly” can make Forsaken follow her, even high ranking ones, after meeting them for the first time no less.

Sylvanas is gone, so “forsaken” are just a term now, they have no one to follow.

And she also has backing of Lilian Voss, who became a part of Forsaken firmly in BfA.

See? Embrace your new Queen and be in awe! In awe of her might and beauty. Oh and wisdom too.

Problem here is that Forsaken are not Lordaeron. They started with a majority from Lordaeron but that is not what they are exclusively. The Undercity is also not Lordaeron for the same reasons Istanbul isn't Constantinople..... Calia had Claim to Lordaeron, a claim that should not at all be extended to a totally different nation simply because the writing team thinks some of the Forsaken/undead identify with Lordaeron. But another problem exists in this set up where the writing team entirely forgot that there existed a Forsaken leadership.... yeah they shoved in the Desolate council and barely fleshed them out before largely forgetting about them too... but then they shoved in an outspoken NON-forsaken as the mouthpiece of the faction with no real explanation as they stepping stone their way to Calia on the basis of "Undercity was Lordaeron" for this nation of people who are made up of Lordaeron/Gilnean/Strom/Alteraci (and possibly assorted elven and other non-human 'lordaeron' residents).


IMO shoving Calia in is sort of like having Toralyon make a play at taking over... well anything. Neither has claim to the post WC3 established nations and just stands as a figure associated to some historical events

[VladlTutushkin]

Problem here is that Forsaken are not Lordaeron. They started with a majority from Lordaeron but that is not what they are exclusively. The Undercity is also not Lordaeron for the same reasons Istanbul isn't Constantinople..... Calia had Claim to Lordaeron, a claim that should not at all be extended to a totally different nation simply because the writing team thinks some of the Forsaken/undead identify with Lordaeron. But another problem exists in this set up where the writing team entirely forgot that there existed a Forsaken leadership.... yeah they shoved in the Desolate council and barely fleshed them out before largely forgetting about them too... but then they shoved in an outspoken NON-forsaken as the mouthpiece of the faction with no real explanation as they stepping stone their way to Calia on the basis of "Undercity was Lordaeron" for this nation of people who are made up of Lordaeron/Gilnean/Strom/Alteraci (and possibly assorted elven and other non-human 'lordaeron' residents).


IMO shoving Calia in is sort of like having Toralyon make a play at taking over... well anything. Neither has claim to the post WC3 established nations and just stands as a figure associated to some historical events

Well why should they consider all that when it never stopped them from fucking up other races before?

What makes forsaken so special that their cultural heritage, lore and themes shouldnt be butchered and torn apart, spread between several factions and carted off to Alliance partially when other races suffered even worse bastardisation?

[Combatbutler]

Well why should they consider all that when it never stopped them from fucking up other races before?

What makes forsaken so special that their cultural heritage, lore and themes shouldnt be butchered and torn apart, spread between several factions and carted off to Alliance partially when other races suffered even worse bastardisation?

Because at one point blizz should stop, before they reach the final flavor of absolute blandness. Blizz pushes the races into the general human mold and it utterly ruins them, they don't have to stop with the forsaken and they won't but at the rate they are going, the already pitifully fleshed out cultures of the warcraft universe will be be in utter shambles.

[VladlTutushkin]

Because at one point blizz should stop, before they reach the final flavor of absolute blandness. Blizz pushes the races into the general human mold and it utterly ruins them, they don't have to stop with the forsaken and they won't but at the rate they are going, the already pitifully fleshed out cultures of the warcraft universe will be be in utter shambles.

They should undo the changes they made to other races first then.

[Combatbutler]

They should undo the changes they made to other races first then.

Indeed, but they won't. Because it would require genuine effort, but one look at all the things the jailer said during the xpack tells you everything you need to know about the complexity of the universe.

Calling it a saturday morning cartoon would be foolish, since those have much higher standards nowadays.

[Powerogue]

Only a few were defecting. Most were going back to her, and from the story we know they were loyal. Those few who ran after Calia were outliers, not the majority.

We literally watch the scene from the perspective of one of those murdered forsaken, the loyalest loyalist to ever loyal, Velicinda, and yet this argument still goes on for no reason.

Honestly even if the completely fictional (well, more fictional) scenario of every single one of them running for the Alliance happened, Sylvanas was threatened...how? That'd be like 5 or 6 civilians defecting. Maybe if Calia was still alive to direct them or encourage others to leave, which is why I never fault her for that part.

Sylvanas was not threatened whatsoever by the civilians she butchered any more than the civilians alive on Teldrassil. She was against what they represented. Hope.

(Back to the threat topic of Calia and the Forsaken, I maintain hope that the Forsaken do not sand off their distinctive edge of being the most evil playable race, even though I get how the loss of Sylvanas and Gallywix are supposed to represent real positive change towards the Horde permanently ending its role as the "more often than not evil faction." Again, I feel like Voss's co-leadership is a critical part of striking that balance.)

[Super Dickmann]

We literally watch the scene from the perspective of one of those murdered forsaken, the loyalest loyalist to ever loyal, Velicinda, and yet this argument still goes on for no reason.

Honestly even if the completely fictional (well, more fictional) scenario of every single one of them running for the Alliance happened, Sylvanas was threatened...how? That'd be like 5 or 6 civilians defecting. Maybe if Calia was still alive to direct them or encourage others to leave, which is why I never fault her for that part.

I wonder why 11 out of 12 of the representatives of your capital's civilian government still on the field defecting to a claimaint of the throne who's policy would explicitly require the destruction of the present state and who would be backed by a military superpower who just tried to assassinate the head of state during a war with Satan would be something worth using force to resolve. Treason is a capital offense in all legal systems across the world and there's no more obvious case of treason than joining an enemy power you were at war with under a leader who's entire claim hinges on toppling the nation.

[mojusk]

voss wouldve been a better choice

[Darth-Piekus]

The first thing a Forsaken does when getting ressurected is a choice. You can choose to go back to the grave, choose to join the Forsaken or choose to go wherever you want. It's the fundamental of the Forsaken Free Will and it's the cornerstone that Sylvannas built with their society. Lilian Voss decided to go off her own. The council members gathered there had every right to go back with their living relatives. Anduin Wrynn built the foundation of that happening.

Sylvannas was a paranoid bitch and a control lover who wanted to keep her Forsaken under her absolute control and always miserable. She wanted to snuff every idea that there is hope outside of her society so she simply killed them. She was working for the Jailer years now it's no wonder to think that she killed them also to empower him further.

I don't know why is that even up for debate when Sylvannas herself after becoming whole again saw the error of her ways. I mean that is the official story the devs created. If Sylvannas admits what she did was terrible and accepts the punishment then that trumps the headcannon of anyone who can claim otherwise.

[Varodoc]

I wonder why 11 out of 12 of the representatives of your capital's civilian government still on the field defecting to a claimaint of the throne who's policy would explicitly require the destruction of the present state and who would be backed by a military superpower who just tried to assassinate the head of state during a war with Satan would be something worth using force to resolve. Treason is a capital offense in all legal systems across the world and there's no more obvious case of treason than joining an enemy power you were at war with under a leader who's entire claim hinges on toppling the nation.

It's funny how you Horde players have no problem relying on irl laws, when it suits you. But then, when it comes to Golden listing all of Garrosh's crimes, including genocide, you just roll your eyes, because "Azeroth is a fantasy world", "it shouldn't have Geneva Convention", "Horde did nothing wrong", "Crimes should be allowed on Azeroth"...

Or when the novel literally stated that Sylvanas committed genocide at Teldrassil, you just say "Ohhh but it's a fantasy world, Geneva Conventions don't exist, she did nothing unusual or wrong".

I guess referencing irl laws works only when it justifies the Horde, huh?

[Ersula]

Or when the novel literally stated that Sylvanas committed genocide at Teldrassil, you just say "Ohhh but it's a fantasy world, Geneva Conventions don't exist, she did nothing unusual or wrong".

False equivalence. If you're saying that apparatus of state using any kind of violence is inherently wrong I'm with you. But if you're suggesting every other faction in this world don't punish treason with capital punishment, you're 100% wrong.

[Varodoc]

False equivalence. If you're saying that apparatus of state using any kind of violence is inherently wrong I'm with you. But if you're suggesting every other faction in this world don't punish treason with capital punishment, you're 100% wrong.

Then punish Lor'themar for trying to defect to the Alliance in MoP. Until then, it's selective punishment, which is hypocritical and scummy.

I also don't remember the Alliance ever killing people for treason. Aside from the Purge of Dalaran, which was clearly, explicitly, and officially condemned by Alliance High King Varian Wrynn.

So Yes, I am suggesting that the Alliance never punished treason with capital punishment.

[Alanar]

Then punish Lor'themar for trying to defect to the Alliance in MoP. Until then, it's selective punishment, which is hypocritical and scummy.

I also don't remember the Alliance ever killing people for treason. Aside from the Purge of Dalaran, which was clearly, explicitly, and officially condemned by Alliance High King Varian Wrynn.

So Yes, I am suggesting that the Alliance never punished treason with capital punishment.

This doesnt make any sense..

- - - Updated - - -

When Voss was first introduced..
Oo she is lame ripoff, op purple shadow power out of nowhere, we hate her.

Couple years later..
We hate calia, she is only recent undead ligjtforged bs we hate her and now people like voss and she should be leader.

Calia will be fine next year history repeats intself.

[Ersula]

Then punish Lor'themar for trying to defect to the Alliance in MoP. Until then, it's selective punishment, which is hypocritical and scummy.

I also don't remember the Alliance ever killing people for treason. Aside from the Purge of Dalaran, which was clearly, explicitly, and officially condemned by Alliance High King Varian Wrynn.

So Yes, I am suggesting that the Alliance never punished treason with capital punishment.

For one, Lor'themar is a head of state, nothing he does can be considered treason. The Horde/Alliance are only allegiances, there is no real governing body for the faction leaders themselves.

Secondly, let's ask Alleria how she feels about melting brains? Cause it seems like if we don't have a hard example we can defer to the real-world medieval (and contemporary) stance on treason.

[Varodoc]

For one, Lor'themar is a head of state, nothing he does can be considered treason. The Horde/Alliance are only allegiances, there is no real governing body for the faction leaders themselves.

Secondly, let's ask Alleria how she feels about melting brains? Cause it seems like if we don't have a hard example we can defer to the real-world medieval (and contemporary) stance on treason.

I hope you have the self-awareness to realize that the idea of heads of state being unable to commit treason is scary and disturbing.

Secondly, not what I asked. I asked for examples of the Alliance slaughtering traitors.

- - - Updated - - -

@Feanoro You should check this out:

For one, Lor'themar is a head of state, nothing he does can be considered treason.

The things that some Horde players here say are legit scary, disturbing, and terrifying tbh.