So, uh... anyone defending Sylvanas anymore? (SPOILERS!!!)

[Celista]

Blizzard doesn't know how to write 'morally grey'. They know typical good guys and typical bad guys and that's it. Really unfortunate.

Yup truly unfortunate.

[Deleted]

you know... much of the rest of your post was obviously biased... but this part here.

Given how we've seen Alliance forces handling Horde survivors, you still think they'd take prisoners? Suarfang and high profile types, sure. Rank and file grunts? Did rogers and genn not show up at the battle?

You're right. So instead of an execution let's melt their flesh from their bones and use their remains as cannon fodder.

[OpieOP]

That's a no then. Even during the Broken Shore scenario it's stated "Something has changed, this isn't the same legion we fought before." So clearly the legion has new tricks up their sleeves, so there's no reason to believe that Vol'jin was as good as dead as soon as he was stabbed.

Wow, nice selective way of thinking. Perhaps they meant... their warmachines since the legion deployed some new nasty stuff to them like... spaceships and some kind of new artillery ? Naaah they surely meant that the legion has changed how an entire school of magic works . But go ahead believe what you want to believe, its been this way around these forums forever since cataclym on both sides and I don't really mind anymore.

[Magnagarde]

Yep, because the guy you quoted is totally one of the enlightened unbiased people, a guy who still genuinely believes the Broken Shore fiasco was a "Horde betrayal" even though the lore is fucking beating on everyone's head that it was not, even within the last novel.

Not saying I agree with him on that(while it sure as hell wasn't betrayal, the Alliance has all the reason to believe that it was as that's what they percieved at the Broken Shore), but what he said in the part that I quoted is not untrue.

At this point it is hard to tell whether people are actually trolling with all the Sylvanas whitewashing.

[Mixxy]

And yet you probably believe that the Horde was the one starting the Ashran conflict. Am I wrong?

The Alliance told the Horde what they were doing and what they were after and why they were after it. Full co-operation and transparency. Then the Horde, for literally no reason, decided the Alliance was lying and was gonna stab them in the back... so they stabbed the Alliance in the back.

In Silithus, on the other hand, the Horde basically discovered magic-uranium and was like "HOT DAMN WE CAN MAKE SO MANY BOMBS WITH THIS BETTER GET IT ALL AND KEEP IT SECRET".

With a Warchief who as early as the Argus campaign was planning on laying siege to the capital city of their ally, and at some point between then and BFA launched an attack on Teldrassil in order to - in her OWN words - "Win a war before it starts by destroying a vital location and shattering the Alliance leadership."

That bolded part is really, really important. Even Sylvanas herself admits that she started the war by attacking Teldrassil.



So yes. Both Ashran and Silithus were a result of the Horde's paranoia that the Alliance will suddenly declare war with them at any moment for any reason. A paranoia that, ironically, has lead to the Horde starting almost almost every conflict in the game.

[mickybrighteyes]

You're right. So instead of an execution let's melt their flesh from their bones and use their remains as cannon fodder.

you still seem to be focused on how horde troops were killed and making it the main point... disregarding the enemy army that was overrunning the position which was the primary target.

[Mixxy]

I don't get it. Anduin is no the saint either. In Battle for Undercity, with all the blight around, he goes "We will stand and die for what we believe in". So he is intentionally killing his own people. Also, if you can justify nuclear bomb on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, you can also justify the blight reaction.

Honestly it's pretty hard to justify the nuclear bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. The best justification for it is more or less "It's probably better that we did it first."

[Deleted]

Honestly it's pretty hard to justify the nuclear bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. The best justification for it is more or less "It's probably better that we did it first."

The best justification for that is that in the end it actually saved more lives because it made Japan to surrender than continue the conflict.

[mysticx]

Honestly it's pretty hard to justify the nuclear bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. The best justification for it is more or less "It's probably better that we did it first."

Well, the Japanese would probably have fought to the last man, woman or even child if they were invaded the “traditional” way, the Japanese did that before on other islands, so Hiroshima and Nagasaki were less costly in lives for both sides than trying to win another way...

[Bigby]

I don't get it. Anduin is no the saint either. In Battle for Undercity, with all the blight around, he goes "We will stand and die for what we believe in". So he is intentionally killing his own people. Also, if you can justify nuclear bomb on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, you can also justify the blight reaction.

Did they remove the, "If we retreat now, we'll always be on the run" line?

[Deleted]

Did they remove the, "If we retreat now, we'll always be on the run" line?

No they didn't, he still says it. He says if they retreat they'll just become prey.

[Biomega]

So yes. Both Ashran and Silithus were a result of the Horde's paranoia that the Alliance will suddenly declare war with them at any moment for any reason. A paranoia that, ironically, has lead to the Horde starting almost almost every conflict in the game.

The Horde is formed of people who have had their share of being on the victim side. And you don't get points for waiting until you are hit unprepared.

So let's say the Horde doesn't launch a first strike. They mine Silithus for Azerite, using its power to advance the Horde in who knows how many ways (including peaceful applications). You're saying that the Alliance would just sit back and accept that they found it first, watching peacefully as the Horde uses this new source of strength? Literally the FIRST thing the Alliance thinks when they hear the news is "we can't let them have it"!

And you have the gall to cry 'paranoia'.

I don't agree with everything Sylvanas did, but preemptive strikes have always been a part of military strategy. For a reason. If you wait for the other side to attack first, that very often puts you in a disadvantaged position. And for what? The moral high ground of "Greedo shot first"? What a comfort that will be to the dead Horde soldiers, to know that at least they didn't start this, they just died so we can now say the OTHER side started it.

To give an RL example where this was a very important, following the Cuban Missile Crisis there was significant debate in legal circles about the nature of preemptive attacks and defensive actions. Previously, international law had been fairly clear, and you had to wait to be actually physically attacked to have just cause. However with the advent of nuclear weapons people suddenly realized that if you wait until someone rains down nukes on you, things might just be over before you can strike back. It sparked a lot of changes in international laws etc. and the debate continues to this day. TL;DR: it's not as easy as "just wait until you're attacked".

As for what Sylvanas did to the Forsaken who wanted to defect... well, defection is generally not looked upon kindly. Aside from the morale problem, it's a very real intelligence concern. Even civilians can be potential threats to safety; think if these had been e.g. Undercity residents with knowledge of the city's layout and defenses etc. WoW isn't 21st century earth after all, things are more dire, and threats more immediate. But even in our time, if e.g. a civilian employee that had worked for US defense in some capacity suddenly decided to live in China, you can be sure there will be concerns. And possibly steps taken. Particularly if said employee were to be told "you can't do this" by their government (and the US government has ways to do so), and they do it anyway. Treason still carries the death penalty in several US states.

Sylvanas may have acted a bit extremely in the way she handled things, but she did not do what she did without justification. This is wartime. You don't just go "aw shucks they want to be with their families, I guess it's okay if they also give away secrets to our enemy in the process and inspire more defection in other people". I'm sure the Alliance would just be "alright you go and take care now" if, say, a large number of dwarves from Ironforge decided they were now going to be with the Horde. They'd just happily let them go and be on their merry way, just like they were when the High Elves decided to now be Blood Elves and fight for the other side.

[Deleted]

The Horde is formed of people who have had their share of being on the victim side. And you don't get points for waiting until you are hit unprepared.

So let's say the Horde doesn't launch a first strike. They mine Silithus for Azerite, using its power to advance the Horde in who knows how many ways (including peaceful applications). You're saying that the Alliance would just sit back and accept that they found it first, watching peacefully as the Horde uses this new source of strength? Literally the FIRST thing the Alliance thinks when they hear the news is "we can't let them have it"!

And you have the gall to cry 'paranoia'.

I don't agree with everything Sylvanas did, but preemptive strikes have always been a part of military strategy. For a reason. If you wait for the other side to attack first, that very often puts you in a disadvantaged position. And for what? The moral high ground of "Greedo shot first"? What a comfort that will be to the dead Horde soldiers, to know that at least they didn't start this, they just died so we can now say the OTHER side started it.

To give an RL example where this was a very important, following the Cuban Missile Crisis there was significant debate in legal circles about the nature of preemptive attacks and defensive actions. Previously, international law had been fairly clear, and you had to wait to be actually physically attacked to have just cause. However with the advent of nuclear weapons people suddenly realized that if you wait until someone rains down nukes on you, things might just be over before you can strike back. It sparked a lot of changes in international laws etc. and the debate continues to this day. TL;DR: it's not as easy as "just wait until you're attacked".

As for what Sylvanas did to the Forsaken who wanted to defect... well, defection is generally not looked upon kindly. Aside from the morale problem, it's a very real intelligence concern. Even civilians can be potential threats to safety; think if these had been e.g. Undercity residents with knowledge of the city's layout and defenses etc. WoW isn't 21st century earth after all, things are more dire, and threats more immediate. But even in our time, if e.g. a civilian employee that had worked for US defense in some capacity suddenly decided to live in China, you can be sure there will be concerns. And possibly steps taken. Particularly if said employee were to be told "you can't do this" by their government (and the US government has ways to do so), and they do it anyway. Treason still carries the death penalty in several US states.

Sylvanas may have acted a bit extremely in the way she handled things, but she did not do what she did without justification. This is wartime. You don't just go "aw shucks they want to be with their families, I guess it's okay if they also give away secrets to our enemy in the process and inspire more defection in other people". I'm sure the Alliance would just be "alright you go and take care now" if, say, a large number of dwarves from Ironforge decided they were now going to be with the Horde. They'd just happily let them go and be on their merry way, just like they were when the High Elves decided to now be Blood Elves and fight for the other side.

I understand where you're coming from and I do understand this line of thinking where Azerite is concerned. I myself have argued in a few other threads that a real peace between the Alliance and the Horde is almost unachievable, especially if it wants to include the Horde as a whole, because while many people in the Alliance may now be inclined to believe that not all orcs are out for their blood, and may believe a peace with Tauren, Pandaren and Bloodelves is possible anyway, only very few in the Alliance would actually keep a peace with the Forsaken and I even went as far as to say Anduin may have a rebellion on his hands if he tries to broker a peace with them. So... that said...

One of the first things we read in Before the Storm is that Sylvanas wants to start a war as soon as possible. She wants to go for Stormwind as long as the Alliance is still licking their wounds from the battle against the Legion and she assumes the Horde are simply more suited to war so they won't need to have a rest as long as the Alliance do. That is before she knows anything about Azerite, that is how it all starts out.

When the Azerite comes in both Sylvanas and Anduin realize the potential and the first thing Anduin thinks is: we need peace or this will be the end of us all. And then he does the only thing I'd have thought viable as an actual first step towards peace, he tries to convince his own people to have a look at the Forsaken, so the sentiment that they may actually deserve to live in peace too can even begin to grow. Of course one meeting would not secure peace at once. But it is a first step and it is something that would need to grow slowly over time. But it would grant the chance that one day he can bargain for peace with the Forsaken without there being too much resistance from his own people and a chance that more might be willing to leave the Forsaken alone.
This is a true effort for a lasting peace.
So you can't actually say the Alliance really wanted to wipe the Horde out and use the Azerite for war. And even Sylvanas has no reason to suspect this. Well, she does at one point (when she gets told that Calia is there), but she suspects foul play from the Alliance only one moment and realizes shortly after this was Calia's doing and not the Alliance's. So she knows their offer and wish for peace still stands.


Next thing is about the defectors. I do think that most people understand that defecting at this very moment was the most stupid (even if understandable) thing you could do. No matter in what high regard you may hold Sylvanas, you can't possibly think she'd just let this go where everyone can see it. Especially if you remember that she may let them go if they just ask afterwards. Maybe not to the Alliance, but to some neutral point where they could meet and live too.
The real problem is Sylvanas killing even the loyal ones and of course her premise that she does it, because she has to cut out hope for a brighter future. Which brings us back to the original thought of her wanting to go to war. This time it's her who may have a rebellion on her hand if she has 'hopeful' people who actually like some of the enemy and she wants a war. And she can't have that.
Her actions are understandable and logic only if you keep in mind that she wants war and her people to be ready for it, hateful and desperate.

[StaeleAilar]

Sylvanas as warchief is the best thing that could happen to the Horde. Finally leader who is not scared to do anything for the survival of the Horde.

Honor means nothing to a corpse.

I agree that she's willing to do anything. But i do question where this "for the horde" stuff comes from (other than her saying it once in the cinematic everyone loves). She has NEVER been "for the horde" she has been "for the preservation of Sylvanas" and her actions have always reflected that mentality.

The for the horde in the cinematic was awesome (i say that as a predominantly alliance character person) and it did make me think "Wow, maybe she actually does care for someone else now"... but the excerpts from the novel, and what i have seen on the beta do not follow along that. Perhaps as some people have been suggesting, a lot of what's been datamined is just there to throw us all off and she's going to be very different when it goes live. But the path she's going down currently... she is worse than Garrosh, and she will have to be put down, not just for the safety of the alliance, but also for the safety of the horde.

For those who have done the seige of undercity thing on the beta, you cannot justify her actions (and the rammifications on her OWN soldiers and followers) with a straight face...

[Deleted]

I agree that she's willing to do anything. But i do question where this "for the horde" stuff comes from (other than her saying it once in the cinematic everyone loves). She has NEVER been "for the horde" she has been "for the preservation of Sylvanas" and her actions have always reflected that mentality.

The for the horde in the cinematic was awesome (i say that as a predominantly alliance character person) and it did make me think "Wow, maybe she actually does care for someone else now"... but the excerpts from the novel, and what i have seen on the beta do not follow along that. Perhaps as some people have been suggesting, a lot of what's been datamined is just there to throw us all off and she's going to be very different when it goes live. But the path she's going down currently... she is worse than Garrosh, and she will have to be put down, not just for the safety of the alliance, but also for the safety of the horde.

For those who have done the seige of undercity thing on the beta, you cannot justify her actions (and the rammifications on her OWN soldiers and followers) with a straight face...

Well, Sylvanas cant survives without the Horde. Horde must prevail if she wants to live. The stronger Horde the higher chance she will survive. Its selfish view but the end justifies the means. She must make Horde strong.

She can and will do very dark things if it means the horde will win.

[StaeleAilar]

Well, Sylvanas cant survives without the Horde. Horde must prevail if she wants to live. The stronger Horde the higher chance she will survive. Its selfish view but the end justifies the means. She must make Horde strong.

She can and will do very dark things if it means the horde will win.

I suppose that's one way of looking at it that i hadn't really thought about all that much.

[Astalnar]

Bad writing is just that, bad writing. It doesn't seem it's going to get any better any time soon. I learnt to just let it slide and not bother with it, since Blizzard will always do what they've always done - their own thing. Whether we like it or not.

[Biomega]

So you can't actually say the Alliance really wanted to wipe the Horde out and use the Azerite for war.

Which is why I didn't. War doesn't have to be genocidal to be a terrifying prospect, and whether or not the Alliance would use the Azerite themselves is also somewhat immaterial. The only thing that matters is that the Alliance would have used force in order to prevent the Horde from acquiring the Azerite sooner or later. That much is a virtual certainty. You may believe in Anduin's desire for peace and it may very well even be genuine, but put yourself in Sylvanas' position - there is just no way whatsoever that she, or any leader of the Horde, would be able to afford to gamble on that .001% chance that the enemy leader (who blames you for his father's death no less) is a) sincere in his quest for peace; b) able to actually see it through with his own people; c) accomplish all of it in a way that is satisfying to both sides. To think so would be incredibly naive, and politics just doesn't work that way. It's easy as an outside observer with godlike knowledge to go "but Anduin really WANTED it!", but the characters involved would act very differently based on their knowledge and disposition.

The real problem is Sylvanas killing even the loyal ones and of course her premise that she does it, because she has to cut out hope for a brighter future. Which brings us back to the original thought of her wanting to go to war. This time it's her who may have a rebellion on her hand if she has 'hopeful' people who actually like some of the enemy and she wants a war. And she can't have that.
Her actions are understandable and logic only if you keep in mind that she wants war and her people to be ready for it, hateful and desperate.

Isn't that arguing with superior knowledge again, though? Could Sylvanas seriously afford to take that risk? Could anyone? You think if a bunch of, say, Chinese-American civilian defense contractors went to meet their families in China, half of them going "we want to defect" and the other "we don't, promise!" the US would just nod their head and go on believing the latter half to be loyal with no further steps taken? Please. (I mean yeah they wouldn't kill them all but WoW is more extreme in many respects, it's not 21st century Earth.) Imagine what something like that would have looked like during, say, the European Middle Ages (i.e. the general template for most fantasy settings). You think there wouldn't have been drastic measures taken to make sure? That people would not put the security of an entire nation ahead of a few lives, even possibly innocent ones? I'm sure you don't have to search the records hard to find examples.

People are quick to decry such behavior as paranoid, but only because THEY KNOW WHAT'S ACTUALLY HAPPENING. But Sylvanas doesn't, and Anduin doesn't, and all the other characters don't, either. We do. But that doesn't help, does it, when it comes to characters' choices and motivations.

[Deleted]

Which is why I didn't. War doesn't have to be genocidal to be a terrifying prospect, and whether or not the Alliance would use the Azerite themselves is also somewhat immaterial. The only thing that matters is that the Alliance would have used force in order to prevent the Horde from acquiring the Azerite sooner or later. That much is a virtual certainty. You may believe in Anduin's desire for peace and it may very well even be genuine, but put yourself in Sylvanas' position - there is just no way whatsoever that she, or any leader of the Horde, would be able to afford to gamble on that .001% chance that the enemy leader (who blames you for his father's death no less) is a) sincere in his quest for peace; b) able to actually see it through with his own people; c) accomplish all of it in a way that is satisfying to both sides. To think so would be incredibly naive, and politics just doesn't work that way. It's easy as an outside observer with godlike knowledge to go "but Anduin really WANTED it!", but the characters involved would act very differently based on their knowledge and disposition.


Isn't that arguing with superior knowledge again, though? Could Sylvanas seriously afford to take that risk? Could anyone? You think if a bunch of, say, Chinese-American civilian defense contractors went to meet their families in China, half of them going "we want to defect" and the other "we don't, promise!" the US would just nod their head and go on believing the latter half to be loyal with no further steps taken? Please. (I mean yeah they wouldn't kill them all but WoW is more extreme in many respects, it's not 21st century Earth.) Imagine what something like that would have looked like during, say, the European Middle Ages (i.e. the general template for most fantasy settings). You think there wouldn't have been drastic measures taken to make sure? That people would not put the security of an entire nation ahead of a few lives, even possibly innocent ones? I'm sure you don't have to search the records hard to find examples.

People are quick to decry such behavior as paranoid, but only because THEY KNOW WHAT'S ACTUALLY HAPPENING. But Sylvanas doesn't, and Anduin doesn't, and all the other characters don't, either. We do. But that doesn't help, does it, when it comes to characters' choices and motivations.

Nah, I don't mean Sylvanas has to know what's going on. But you (and me, really) are already arguing her as being like-minded to people we all know are tyrants (spoken in an over-simplified way) and had or have no regard for their people or troops above thinking about them as expendable or useful assets to their personal goals. And I don't agree that anyone who actually wants peace and the chance for another way than war would kill the ones coming back. Which is all I wanted to emphasize: She does not want peace.
No one should argue that the world of Azeroth after the meeting at Arathi goes to war in spite of Sylvanas showing her will for peace, because she didn't. The war starts because that was always the plan. Only after Arathi Sylvanas has a better argument for it.

Also, it's not actually the Alliance trying to get hold of most of the Azerite and keeping other people from it. It's Magni and Azeroth itself. Only they don't have the power to enforce it.

[Biomega]

But you (and me, really) are already arguing her as being like-minded to people we all know are tyrants (spoken in an over-simplified way) and had or have no regard for their people or troops above thinking about them as expendable or useful assets to their personal goals.

I think this is a misrepresentation. She's a tyrant in the classical sense, but not in the way we understand them now - especially when it comes to personal goals. Sylvanas is, at her core, a selfless person. Everything she's doing she's doing not for her own personal gain, but for that of her people; the Forsaken first, yes, but with the Horde as a whole in mind as well. She does have a personal vendetta every now and then, but she is a far cry from the egomaniac despots madly in pursuit of wealth and power that we have come to associate with the term "tyrant" these days.

That being said, she is certainly a leader with a very uncompromising style of leadership. Her solutions are direct, and sweeping, and she errs on the side of caution at nearly any expense. She's not perfect by any stretch. But she's not malicious, and she's not cruel. Ruthless, perhaps, but not for self-aggrandizement but for a clear, and ultimately selfless purpose - survival of the Forsaken and of the Horde, at virtually any cost.

You can argue where the line is drawn, but it's difficult to judge her without falling prey to biases of hindsight and omniscience. Could she have done things differently? Without a doubt. Who couldn't have, after the fact? But she's effective, and she thinks big-picture. Ultimately, her methods, though with more casualties now, may actually end up saving lives if they lead to a more stable aftermath. Azeroth isn't a very forgiving place. Hard choices need to be made. And Sylvanas is someone who by her very nature is at least imbued with the ability to display the calculating, disinterested efficiency needed to make those tough choices.

And I don't agree that anyone who actually wants peace and the chance for another way than war would kill the ones coming back. Which is all I wanted to emphasize: She does not want peace.

That, I think, is the most glaring misunderstanding. She does want peace. She just doesn't BELIEVE it's going to happen the way Anduin thinks and says it will. Sylvanas isn't a warmonger. Fighting doesn't interest her as such. It's a means to an end. She chooses war purely because she sees it as the best option to ensure survival for her people. If there was a way to absolutely certainly guarantee that which didn't involve warfare, she'd be the first to sit down at the table. But she won't gamble. The responsibility she has, as the Queen of the Forsaken as much as the Warchief of the Horde, does not afford her the luxury to believe in mere words. And she's not wrong to do so, given the deep resentments remaining in many parts of the Alliance, which are almost impossible to ever be bridged in the near future.

Also, it's not actually the Alliance trying to get hold of most of the Azerite and keeping other people from it. It's Magni and Azeroth itself. Only they don't have the power to enforce it.

And who exactly appointed the Alliance executor of the planet's will? Don't tell me it's all selfless actions for the benefit of Azeroth, it's very clear that the first thing in the mind of the Alliance leaders is the military potential of Azerite - be it using it themselves, or keeping the Horde from using it. And it's not like Azeroth will perish if the tiniest crumb of Azerite is removed. It's negotiable. But you can bet anything that the Alliance would never let the Horde do the negotiating. They'd go to war over it, even if, say, Magni were to promise that the Horde wouldn't take everything. They wouldn't believe it anymore than the Horde would believe the Alliance.