[Spoilers] Calia should face the consequences.

[Qualia]

You do realise, that medieval style interrogation usually contains....rather primarily consists of torture, right?. (How do you think stuff like the spanish inquisition, witch hunts, herecy, etc got so many confessions?)

Keep in mind how very humane Forsaken are to their prisoners...unless the prisoner actually is valuable for leverage or something.

The keyword is "usually". Those are the choice of the interrogator, and not something they absolutely *have* to do no matter what. Funny that you mentioned the Inquisition, the witch hunts and such - surely you are aware that people consider those messed up, yes? Not to mention that in WoW, there are spells that can read people's mind in WoW - one that even a Dalaran apprentice is aware of - I have a hard time believe that Sylvanas wouldn't be able to find any magic caster in the Horde being incapable of using it. Being cruel in this case is a choice, not a must. If you are trying to say that Sylvanas, and maybe some of the Forsaken (not all of them, obviously, as the Gathering has shown that there are - or were - a number of Forsaken capable of positive emotions) is cruel and cold-hearted then yes, she is / they are. That's the point. However, make no misunderstanding. There are other viable and way more benevolent options that could have ended much better for those Forsaken who were returning to her side. Sylvanas just choose not to pick any of those.

Assume we flip the situation around, and a group of Alliance members who *might* (not a confirmed fact) want to leave to live with their Horde friends. Can you imagine Anduin shooting them all down, no question asked?

[Mehrunes]

Genn and Rogers are still pissed at Plague-bombing Gilneas and nuking Theramore.

Both happened in the previous war. An attack in reprisal for that became unjustified the moment the factions made peace. Genn and Rogers have nothing to stand on here. Yet despite actively acting against peace that Anduin supposedly craves very much, all they received was a stern talk.

The Horde never paid for any of that.

Because the Alliance was in no position to demand such a price. They were the ones who ceded territory to the Horde at the end of the war, not the other way around. And since they started the war in the first place, the Alliance doesn't even have a moral justification for demanding such a price. Alliance started a war they couldn't win and got burned in the process. Perhaps they shouldn't have started it.

It would seem Anduin had something to say about the debacle, off screen obviously, because we can't show the Aliance leaders butting heads for some reason. Rogers is more upset about shouthshore, where even the Forsaken say they went overboard.

Rogers' remark about Southshore indicates she was talking about the Old Horde's attack on it during the Second War. She talks how her parents are buried in Southshore because of Horde's actions. Yet no one remained in Southshore to bury the dead after the Forsaken attacked and the Forsaken wouldn't really care to do so (especially since it was too dangerous to walk in even for the Forsaken, let alone to bury anyone).

[Rhlor]

Because she has Human Potential of course.

holy undead potential

[Mehrunes]

How are they instigating a rebellion though? Sylvanas is a shit leader who has said and shown on multiple occasions she does not actually care about the forsaken or horde as people, they are a tool for her to use and nothing else. The desolate council is a council of undead who are representative of a bulk of the forsaken who genuinely care about their people and well being, they dislike sylvanas because they see through her bullshit and they want better.

Except Sylvanas' internal monologues in Before the Storm itself contradict that notion. And Desolate Council isn't a monolith. Some members of it chose to defect and it was on the spot decision.

Calia is the rightful heir to the throne and said before she has no interest in taking it up, but when the forsaken who currently reside in said city actively seek her out and WANT her to take the throne how is that her instigating a rebellion? It's the forsaken who want to prosper that want her to take the throne because it would be better for all of them.

Calia is rightful heir to a pile of ashes that remains from her brother's kingdom. Also, Calia herself admitted she wanted to rule the Forsaken before the gathering took place. And she's the reason the Forsaken there acted the way they did. Before they acted they realized who she is and asked her to help them. Then Calia, still before things started, went to the leader of the Council (who didn't want to defect) and asked her to support her. That's Calia instigating.

[Mehrunes]

You don't need the throne, or Lordaeron for that matter, to rule the Forsaken, though. If she can, one way or another, induce Forsaken to leave the Forsaken (faction) and help them to defect to Alliance (which was what she said that she was attempting to do), she can rule them without infringing upon Sylvanas' queenship - be it the throne, or the land, or the rights over people in her faction.

She said that in regards to this particular event. Her remark about wanting to rule the Forsaken precede that and referred to the Forsaken as a whole. Ruling the Forsaken instead of Sylvanas not only infringes on Sylvanas' queenship, it negates it cimpletely.

Yeah and she's also literally said "arrows in my quiver" before too.

She changed her tune from that 8 years ago (IRL, in story it's ~5 years ago).

Yes i say forsaken as a blanket because i feel that's the majority.

A minority of the Forsaken went to the gathering. Not even all of those who did tried to defect.

And yes i'm not seeing a problem with Calia reconsidering the throne. She said before she has no interest, but after undead say to her face "hey you actually should take it we would really like it if you did" i don't think it's weird or out of character for her to think about it.

She wanted to rule the Forsaken long before the gathering even became an idea.

I'm failing to find any pages that support any of this. Please provide a source page if you would.

Parqual asking Calia to help them (though from Calia's words I think Parqual actually knew who she was even before rather than realizing it at the gathering, then again maybe it's something that still happens during the gathering in the parts that weren't part of the preview) - page 257.
Calia asking Elsie to support her - also page 257.
Elsie not wanting to defect - page 259.
Calia saying she wanted to rule Forsaken - page 274.

[sighy]

The keyword is "usually". Those are the choice of the interrogator, and not something they absolutely *have* to do no matter what. Funny that you mentioned the Inquisition, the witch hunts and such - surely you are aware that people consider those messed up, yes? Not to mention that in WoW, there are spells that can read people's mind in WoW - one that even a Dalaran apprentice is aware of - I have a hard time believe that Sylvanas wouldn't be able to find any magic caster in the Horde being incapable of using it. Being cruel in this case is a choice, not a must. If you are trying to say that Sylvanas, and maybe some of the Forsaken (not all of them, obviously, as the Gathering has shown that there are - or were - a number of Forsaken capable of positive emotions) is cruel and cold-hearted then yes, she is / they are. That's the point. However, make no misunderstanding. There are other viable and way more benevolent options that could have ended much better for those Forsaken who were returning to her side. Sylvanas just choose not to pick any of those.

Assume we flip the situation around, and a group of Alliance members who *might* (not a confirmed fact) want to leave to live with their Horde friends. Can you imagine Anduin shooting them all down, no question asked?

Concidering how Anduin thinks?(doesn't matter what happened so long as you were following your heart) quite unlikely, however i don't believe that the torture racks in the stocades are there, because they look pretty either.

I used the events as a demonstration to highlight that, when it comes to getting confessions by torture more often than not the person will confess regardless of actual guilt. Making the whole ordeal even worse than it was in the damn book, because they would have been tortured extensively on top of being killed. Sadly, if you are doing a medievalish setting and get into the topic of interrogation you are not going to avoid the fact that grand majority was done through the means of torture to the point, where the exceptions are a negligible minority. On top of concidering that the Forsaken have never shown to be humane to their prisoners, except for people used as leverage or something.

So even if there are said alternatives i can't honestly tell you it would be likely or even in character for anybody involved in the process to go out of their way and procure these alternative means.

And if we used the logic "this thing exists and can resolve this problem easier" we would have a cery different story at this point.

[Kraddark]

So what should she do...release a group of potential conspirators into the wider populus of the Forsaken or round the fuckers up and individually interrogate(medieval kind of interrogate)? realy at a loss here

Yeah, rounding up suspects and questioning them is normally the first go to. I imagine there is magic that can be used to ensure their honesty.

Killing "potential" criminals is not the mark of a strong and fair leader.

[Mehrunes]

Not really, he just says that technically by definition it could be considered usurping. The definition of usurper is taking it illegally or by force. It's certainly not illegal since she is technically the rightful heir, but it would be by force since sylvanas wouldn't just let it happen. You're acting like anduin is somehow against it and calling her out when he was simply just talking about the politics of it all.

He flat out calls her a would-be usurper. Nothing about technicalities in there.

[Hubbl3]

Calia saying she wanted to rule Forsaken - page 274.

"Ever since I met Archbishop Faol, I had believed that one day, if I had the chance, I could show that even though I was not Forsaken, I could treat them as my people and rule them well. "

Just in case someone is saying that she only wanted it after the meeting took place.

[Kithelle]

After ruining the potential for Horde-Alliance diplomacy and closer interaction, why doesn't Anduin put her on trial? People died and are going to die in the future because of her actions, so why is she treated as anything but a criminal?

People died because Sylvanas is a selfish little bitch who can't handle losing a single iota of her power, and she killed the actual person who has rightful claim to her lands, and innocent people near by just for having witnessed it?

Sylvanas is the one who should be put on trial, unfortunately she would have murdered anyone who would dare consider reporting her.

[Qualia]

So even if there are said alternatives i can't honestly tell you it would be likely or even in character for anybody involved in the process to go out of their way and procure these alternative means.

And if we used the logic "this thing exists and can resolve this problem easier" we would have a cery different story at this point.

Of course it wouldn't be in character for Sylvanas to go out of her way to use those means. However, it's a fact that there were alternative choices. Sylvanas did what she did not because there weren't any alternative option, but because of three reasons: (1) She is pragmatic and cold-hearted, (2) She was unhappy that the Gathering didn't fail as she expected and mainly (3) Calia's appearance. That was the point of the poster you originally answered to. He was saying that Sylvanas was cruel and cold-hearted, and that she shouldn't have been so hasty to jump into conclusion. Your reply to him implied that Sylvanas' choice was the best (or one of the best) available option - which was why I had to point of that there were other much better, humane options. Sylvanas didn't decide to pick those because she was who she is, not because that was a good choice for anyone with a normal moral compass.

Of course, if every characters acted perfectly, we'd have a much different story. There probably would have been much fewer unnecessary war and conflict. However, that isn't an excuse. The characters (not just Sylvanas) do have their flaws and strengths, which led to the decisions they made. "The story would be different otherwise" isn't a reason why we shouldn't point out and discuss those flaws (or strengths).

[Kithelle]

"Ever since I met Archbishop Faol, I had believed that one day, if I had the chance, I could show that even though I was not Forsaken, I could treat them as my people and rule them well. "

Just in case someone is saying that she only wanted it after the meeting took place.

Except she didn't say she wants to rule, she said if she had the chance she could.

[Hubbl3]

Except she didn't say she wants to rule, she said if she had the chance she could.

Yeah whatever.

[Mehrunes]

I believe in Arthas, it's described that she "at some point she evaded the Scourge, having supposedly hidden in a muddy trench for two days to avoid slavering ghouls as they prowled for her."

Her father's kingdom was in ruins thanks to her brother and all of the Lordaeron citizens were raised as mindless undead.

So, explain exactly how someone who was a young girl abandoned anything and let it be overrun.

She was older than Arthas was at the time. And she didn't reveal herself to the Forsaken in a decade since then.

And no... Sylvanas did not liberate Lordaeron. She freed the citizens from mindless undeath and returned free will to them. Yes, she was their leader, but strictly speaking she has zero claim on Lordaeron. She's squatting as leader, accepted by the undead citizens or not.

She conquered Lordaeron in a civil war. She has all the rights to it that she needs.

By your logic, Aragorn should never have been allowed to become king again.

Did Aragon's line lose Gondor to an uprising?

>"Sylvanas cares for the Forsaken"

> she literally murders her own citizens.

Sylvans fans are really having to reach these days aren't they

Reach for what? The part where you flat out ignore that she killed people she considered defectors? I.e. no longer her citizens?

TBF, we don't know how Lordaeron monarchy worked. If Lordaeron's anything like many European monarchies of the past, Calia would have zero claim on Lordaeron, however, if she married a noble man, he would have, but not her.

She also says that she's never taught politics or strategy, or how to rule, because no one ever expected her to become a ruler. Either Terenas was 100% sure that Arthas would never die before making a baby and inheriting the throne, so he didn't bother to teach Calia anything, or females couldn't become legit rulers, and only their husbands could. Or it's just shitty writing.

That's an oversimplification. Some European nations did allow women to inherit. Austria at some point forced a change in inheritance to the entire HRE so that their female heir could still become an empress. Which only strengthens your point by pointing out how the example of Gilneas where Tess is the heiress now (which I've seen thrown around lately) is pointless. Inheritance rules vary even between neighboring countries.

And, like you said, the fact that Therenas never bothered with teaching Calia, even after he sent Arthas to lead a dangerous expedition to Northrend where he could have died, shows he never considered Calia as a potential heiress to him. Only as someone to be married off for political gain.

Were is the proof they were betraying her? They were choosing their loved ones - not the Alliance. Where did they take up arms against her? Where did they denounce her? Where was the trial? Don't compare them to real traitors because they weren't.

They were going to Stromgarde. Because their loved ones were in Alliance. And Calia outright shouted for them to go to there once Sylvanas ordered an attack. And you don't need to take up arms against your ruler to be a traitor.

But aside from that, Calia was offering the Forsaken a neutral existence outside the Alliance or the Horde to live with their loved ones with Arathi.

Except she tries to convince Elsie by invoking Anduin's and Alliance's protection.

So while Calia was naive and went about it in a horrible way, it doesn't absolve Sylvanas of guilt either. Calia was guilty of coming across as starting a coup. Sylvanas is guilty of having her paranoia reach extremes to where she's willing to kill her own people for disagreeing with her, even though she preaches free will among the Forsaken.

She killed them for treason or being suspected of treason. She didn't even order an attack when she thought it's just a defection, even though they were defecting to an enemy faction. She ordered the attack only when she became aware of Calia being at the center of it.

And what's with people taking free will to ridiculous lengths lately? Sylvanas killed people for treason since Vanilla. Free will does not equal anarchist utopia where one can do anything they please with no consequences.

As you said, it was Faol who said that. But yes, you are right that it was Anduin's responsibility to prevent it. Maybe he should have a tighter security net (I'm sure checking each person's identity wouldn't be too difficult) - but this applies to Sylvanas as well.

I don't think Sylvanas checking the human participants would align with the spirit of the gathering or fly well with the Alliance.

Just goes to show Sylvanas doesn't care about free will for her people.

Sylvanas also killed people that betrayed her for Dalaran in Vanilla, Apothecaries loyal to Putress in WotLK, Stillwater in Cata and imprisoned Koltira. Hint: free will does not equal no laws, nor no repercussions for treason.

To be a traitor, you need to actually take up arms or denounce the people you're betraying - you need to do something to damage them. What did the group of forsaken do against Sylvanas.

Right, because swapping sides to the enemy of the Horde is not denouncing the Horde. Nor is it breaking the Blood Oath. Please.

I know you need to defend her over everything she does wrong but do you even have the capacity to be objective? You're just flat out wrong or lying here, they weren't traitors - they did nothing to Sylvanas.

Is this supposed to be some ironic comedy?

I'm not confused in the slightest, I know evil when I see it.

But apparently you don't know denunciation when you see it, even though you brought it up.

People often say forsaken are given a choice whether they serve, but look at what happens to most of those who choose not to - thanks to Before the Storm, we know Sylvanas doesn't consider the Horde "her people" - and yet they made her their leader, and still she doesn't consider them her people, and we know for sure what some have known for a long time, the forsaken are purely a tool for her own survival.

I like how you go from Sylvanas not considering the Horde her people right to her seeing the Forsaken as a tool for her survival, when the entire point of that inner monologue was her considering the Forsaken specifically to be her people rather than the Horde as a whole. To quote you: do you even have the capacity to be objective?

But they did. They were going to spread hope, as she put it: "They were (running back towards Sylvanas, to safety). But how much of that was fear? How tempted were they until that point? I cannot take the risk. The only Desolate Council members I trust are the ones who returned to me early on, broken and bitter. Truly... Desolate. All the others... I cannot allow that sentiment, that hope, to grow. It is an infection ready to spread. I have to cut it out". You asked what did they do against Sylvanas? They weren't broken and bitter enough, and they were going to spread the hope of co-existing with the humie in her rank. Can't let that happen. Nope. They might not be traitor yet, but as long as they aren't bitter towards the Alliance, she can't risk it. Clearly they need to be shot down.

Except that's a remark she made afterwards. The first reason she gave for shooting them down was them being untrustworthy. On top of that, both of those apply to only one group she shot down rather than the entirety of the Forsaken, which is what Bennet was discussing.

[sighy]

Of course it wouldn't be in character for Sylvanas to go out of her way to use those means. However, it's a fact that there were alternative choices. Sylvanas did what she did not because there weren't any alternative option, but because of three reasons: (1) She is pragmatic and cold-hearted, (2) She was unhappy that the Gathering didn't fail as she expected and mainly (3) Calia's appearance. That was the point of the poster you originally answered to. He was saying that Sylvanas was cruel and cold-hearted, and that she shouldn't have been so hasty to jump into conclusion. Your reply to him implied that Sylvanas' choice was the best (or one of the best) available option - which was why I had to point of that there were other much better, humane options. Sylvanas didn't decide to pick those because she was who she is, not because that was a good choice for anyone with a normal moral compass.

Of course, if every characters acted perfectly, we'd have a much different story. There probably would have been much fewer unnecessary war and conflict. However, that isn't an excuse. The characters (not just Sylvanas) do have their flaws and strengths, which led to the decisions they made. "The story would be different otherwise" isn't a reason why we shouldn't point out and discuss those flaws (or strengths).

Actually that post was responding to me, when i criticised the notion that every character is judged, as if they were omniscient and that given the information she had treason/conspiracy are very real concerns.

The kill order has not been given until Calia was revealed to be there.

It woudn't realy be in character for any forsaken to seek it out. And i would say that those means are actually not used very often in general. Especially on traitors.

[FelPlague]

Well, by the wrong faction tho. And those who get executed usually don't get resurrected.

Just because she came back day sent mean death isn't painful.
Also anduin thinks what she did was stupid, but there was not a shred of evil in it.
Also it showed sylvanans is not the kind to make peace. It showed undead still have humanity, but that sylvansd killed them ALL even those who were coming back...

What happened is not calias fault.
That it happened is.
What happened is sylvanas's fault, but she did not cause it, calia did.

- - - Updated - - -

Actually that post was responding to me, when i criticised the notion that every character is judged, as if they were omniscient and that given the information she had treason/conspiracy are very real concerns.

The kill order has not been given until Calia was revealed to be there.

It woudn't realy be in character for any forsaken to seek it out. And i would say that those means are actually not used very often in general. Especially on traitors.

Except that's not how it worked at all.
They began to walk away
Sylvqnas used the horn
Calia revealed herself and told them to run
They began shooting them doen.
Sylvanans finds out it is calia and decides to go kill her, herself
She did not know who the priest was until after

So that could have been any random priest. Or no priest at all, but as soon as they started running for the keep she would have shot them.

[Mehrunes]

How dare these Forsaken be happy. I'm going to sound a retreat horn just to fuck with their family reunions and test their loyalty. What? How dare they not return to me fast enough, kill them all. Oh but you guys totally have free will, serve me or die.

She didn't sound the horn to fuck the family reunion. She did it to gauge the already ongoing defection.

That's a fantastic argument until you remember she didn't only kill the defectors. She sounded the horn for them to return; some opted to instead stay with their families. (Defectors). Others opted to instead return because she sounded for their return, and the ones who complied were also butchered because Sylvanas is unhinged. Even Nathanos was like "WTF" at her killing the ones who complied.

There's no gray to be found here when it concerns her.

Sylvanas didn't start killing people after sounding the horn. She started killing people after she learned of Calia's presence, which happened afterwards.

Also, you've got an award for being the hundredth person trying to use Nathanos' initial reaction as an argument against Sylvanas while conveniently ignoring the fact that after Sylvanas explained herself to him he accepted it. So congrats!

Yes, it's objective fact that Sylvanas is the most magnanimous, wonderful creature to walk the face of Azeroth and loves her people unconditionally. It's clearly spelled out in the pages that the Horde can do no wrong because it's either the demons fault, old gods fault, the Alliance's fault, Blackmoore's fault, Garithos' fault, Tyrande's fault... and now Calia's. Everything was going to go swimmingly and the Sylvanas was just about to usher in a new age of peace before Calia let out her horrible declaration of war.

What's with Alliance posters that the moment they are contested on anything, in your case filling the gaps with your opinions, they instantly deflect with shitty straw-men?

Also gotta love how people are saying "But Calia has been declined!"...how in the hell is someone on a distant wall supposed to know that? She sees people leaving toward the wrong side and then learns Calia is there, what kind of conclusions is she supposed to make?

You see, because Sylvanas' voice carries across a long distance that means she also has to have the power to hear things from a long distance! Makes perfect sense, really.

She was not instigating a rebellion at any point in time. Sylvanas views it that way, which is why she acts the way she does.

Just because Sylvanas THINKS that's what's happening, doesn't mean it is. It's entirely Sylvanas' fault what happened.

She outright asked the leader of the Desolate Council to support her before shit hit the fan. Even if she hasn't done that, the Forsaken were still defecting to the Alliance. And once Sylvanas attacked Calia outright shouted out who she was and for the defecting Forsaken to follow her to Stromgarde.

It matters a lot, considering this thread is trying to pin blame on Calia.

There was never intent to cause a rebellion, and seeing as there's something about Sylvanas blowing a horn to make them return, I can only guess that Sylvanas was informed of the entire event and even signed off on it with an ok, with the horn being her way of deciding when the event ends.

Sylvanas gave Anduin a list of names to contact, so yes, she clearly cooperated with him on it.

Irrelevant if we take into account the aforementioned Sylvanas knew it was happening and was informed BY the Alliance.

Except it's clear as day she didn't know about Calia being there.

Also, why does she even for a moment think they're returning out of fear, is it because they might possibly see her as some deranged lunatic thats lost any sense of moral compass?

Or because they started to return only after shit hit the fan and fear was a natural emotion to fear in that situation?

[gcsmith]

She didn't sound the horn to fuck the family reunion. She did it to gauge the already ongoing defection.




Sylvanas didn't start killing people after sounding the horn. She started killing people after she learned of Calia's presence, which happened afterwards.

Also, you've got an award for being the hundredth person trying to use Nathanos' initial reaction as an argument against Sylvanas while conveniently ignoring the fact that after Sylvanas explained herself to him he accepted it. So congrats!




What's with Alliance posters that the moment they are contested on anything, in your case filling the gaps with your opinions, they instantly deflect with shitty straw-men?




You see, because Sylvanas' voice carries across a long distance that means she also has to have the power to hear things from a long distance! Makes perfect sense, really.




She outright asked the leader of the Desolate Council to support her before shit hit the fan. Even if she hasn't done that, the Forsaken were still defecting to the Alliance. And once Sylvanas attacked Calia outright shouted out who she was and for the defecting Forsaken to follow her to Stromgarde.




There was never intent to cause a rebellion, and seeing as there's something about Sylvanas blowing a horn to make them return, I can only guess that Sylvanas was informed of the entire event and even signed off on it with an ok, with the horn being her way of deciding when the event ends.

Sylvanas gave Anduin a list of names to contact, so yes, she clearly cooperated with him on it.




Except it's clear as day she didn't know about Calia being there.




Or because they started to return only after shit hit the fan and fear was a natural emotion to fear in that situation?

You don't see how stupid blowing the horn is though? "Lets blow the horn to see who is loyal and kill them all anyway."

[Mehrunes]

Taking them into custody and interrogate them sounds fair enough. There are many methods to capture others. There is also magic to read (not manipulating, read, so there isn't any infringement upon freewill here) mind that can be employed. Sylvanas has both the land and the power to do so. I can somewhat understand killing the ones who were clearly defecting (although I do feel it's "a bit" too harsh), but the bigger issue is that she killed the one returning to her. Not because she considered them traitors, mind you, but because she thought that there were a chance they harbor hope of coexisting with humans / the Alliance, and she doesn't want that hope to spread. Essentially a "if you want a peaceful resolve between two factions, die". One'd expect killing to be the last thing you'd consider, especially against your own people (again, I'm not talking about the defectors), not the first thing you think of. Sylvanas was (understandably) pretty much partly unhappy that her plan didn't go according to expectation and mainly paranoid due to Calia's appearance back then so she did what she did, but let's not trick ourselves thinking that there weren't any better option.

Reading mind is more about reading the thoughts of a person, whereas Sylvanas was concerned about emotions. Secondly, the Will of the Forsaken racial is supposed to represent the resistance of undead that broke out of Lich King's grasp to things like mind control (in WoW Alpha they were outright immune to most forms of CC), so perhaps it extends to mind reading too. Alternatively, mind reading doesn't work on undead because they have no working brains and as such brain waves to detect. Finally, as has been explored in the recent season of Agents of SHIELD, a mind reader on your side still doesn't necessitate truthfulness of obtained information because they may be among those conspiring against you as well. So unless Sylvanas did the mind reading herself, which she can't, she'd need to get other mind readers to read the previous ones ad nauseum (which would turn them against her even if they weren't against her prior to that).

Again, perhaps I missed the page where it says "You should join the alliance" so I would appreciate a link to that page.

Page 259, Calia tries to convince the leader of the Council by pointing to the ones already leaving and saying "They're defecting. Anduin will shelter and protect you all; I know he will".

But so far I haven't seen that. I've understood her point to be "You are welcome to stay with your families" which, again, was the entire point of the event to begin with, and Sylvanas signed off on with an ok.

The point was to meet with families, not stay with families and most certainly not to defect to the enemy faction with the families.

Sylvanas signed off on this event for one reason, and one reason only: She knew EXACTLY how the event would play out, and she fully planned from the very start to murder every single attendee on her side of things. Why? Because the Desolate Council was trying to make decisions for themselves, without her approval. They had already voiced a concern about her raising the undead, and she can't have anyone who disagrees with that in her Horde. ESPECIALLY not those who she herself had already raised.

And yet she says nothing of the sort when she was previously watching the gathering. She doesn't even order the attack after realizing some Forsaken are defecting. She only ordered it after she learned of Calia being there. And the Desolate Council didn't disagree with Sylvanas on resurrecting more undead. Some of them disagreed on Sylvanas trying to make the Forsaken truly immortal.

Assume we flip the situation around, and a group of Alliance members who *might* (not a confirmed fact) want to leave to live with their Horde friends. Can you imagine Anduin shooting them all down, no question asked?

Judging by his remarks in the epilogue, if he decided those who defected were beyond saving because they couldn't be re-converted to his one true vision of the world, probably.

Except she didn't say she wants to rule, she said if she had the chance she could.

Except that's patently false. What she talks about in the "if I had the chance" part is that she'd show the Forsaken she can rule them well. Not that "if I had the chance I'd rule them". You're lying out of your ass about barely more than one line of a text that you outright quoted. In a way, that's impressive. Aside from your lie though, what she said 1) is not what you twisted it into and 2) shows the desire to rule the Forsaken.

Yeah whatever.

Quoting you for prosperity.

Except that's not how it worked at all.
They began to walk away
Sylvqnas used the horn
Calia revealed herself and told them to run
They began shooting them doen.
Sylvanans finds out it is calia and decides to go kill her, herself
She did not know who the priest was until after

So that could have been any random priest. Or no priest at all, but as soon as they started running for the keep she would have shot them.

This is nothing more than a lie. Page 258: Sylvanas realized some Forsaken are defecting, she sounds the horn to see how'd they react and only then is she informed by a Forsaken arriving on a bat that Calia is there. And at the very end of that page she's asked for her orders in that situation. @sighy

You don't see how stupid blowing the horn is though? "Lets blow the horn to see who is loyal and kill them all anyway."

It's almost as if there was a completely unexpected (to Sylvanas) revelation that took place before she sounded the horn and gave the order to attack, which changed the situation from just defecting to a situation where she's facing a usurper directing her people to join the Alliance.

[sighy]

Except that's not how it worked at all.
They began to walk away
Sylvqnas used the horn
Calia revealed herself and told them to run
They began shooting them doen.
Sylvanans finds out it is calia and decides to go kill her, herself
She did not know who the priest was until after

So that could have been any random priest. Or no priest at all, but as soon as they started running for the keep she would have shot them.

Forsaken sighted talking to a priestes and walking in the wrong direction > Horn > a forsaken arriving with information about calia's presence > Dark Rangers sent out > Elsie dies > Calia reveals herself and starts shouting about being "rightful heir to lordaeon"TM > Calia killed in front of anduin