[Spoilers] Sylvanas and the Horde in 8.1

[Combatbutler]

A more ambitious undertaking would be the fracturing of existing factions or at least a clear gameplay-based divide in terms of ideology within either one. It could go through in one patch. I don't see them doing something like this, but dividing either faction along the lines of seeking peace and seeking vengeance/war could work.

Blizzard can't even handle the necessary nuance between the two factions, I simply don't trust them to create a storyline of such depth that works out. I expected a flat faction conflict storyline for this xpack and so far it has been the trainwreck I expected it to be. The faction conflict blizz has created during the entirety of wow is a joke.

[GetCrunk]

I was literally thinking this morning, maybe the person who originally said that was like "I don't even know who this Garrosh guy even IS"? Because this is very clearly going down the exact same path.

The only difference is that I could very easily imagine reaching a similar point, except Sylvanas "wins", presumably executing Saurfang (and possible Zekhan). Why the player would be left alive, I don't know; maybe Saurfang denounces your involvement, or asks you to save yourself, you know, "for the real Horde". Or maybe she just considered you too powerful a tool, whereas Saurfang is super old now, and clearly harder for her to control.

Whatever the case may be, I am definitely not impressed with this. As said, this is basically an exact retread of Garrosh.

Here is apost i made yesterday

The problem is not killing her off, the problem is how you kill her. If you put again a character in charge of The Horde just to kill it or have civil war again people gonna call you out or bias.
They had ample opportunity to kill her, ofc Sylvanas fans gonna get mad, but when you repeat the exact same story now you don't get only Sylvanas fans you get Horde fans, lore fans, RP, players that are tired of being force to side with someone they do not care for in a MMORPG. And there are going to be people who going to say is not MOP 2.0 or Garrosh 2.0 because she is not a raid boss but that does not matter, what matter is how you get her down from The Warchief throne.
Let's see:
1. You have the Warchief that wants to secure a continent.
2. Deceive the enemy faction about your plan
3. Destroy enemy city resulting in genocide
4. Get confronted by leaders in your faction
5. Go to a new continent and fight with enemy faction
6. Discover on the new continent new resources and ancient evil
7. Have civil war
8. Send assassin's after the traitor members and fail
9. Have enemy faction characters call for revenge Tyrande using a powerful relic to empower herself to take revenge on the Horde like Jaina did with focusing Iris
And I think there are more similarities between MOP/Garrosh but I got bored.

Blizzard got to deep in the similarities between Garrosh and Sylvans. And most of the players do not like Sylvanas but they are tired of the same story again, plus the fact that they said the buring of Teldrassil will have a plot twist when they know from the start who and why the tree burn down

[Trassk]

There is nothing illegitimate since the "trickery" part is headcanon, there is no mention of it; Vol'jin merely doesn't remember anything because the memory of the whole event have been stripped from him. That's not proof at all that trickery and manipulation took place.

you poor thing, didn't think you'd be a sylvanas sympathizer.

Its very obviously laid out.

- - - Updated - - -

Don't worry, they'll pull a fast one on us, have Sylvanas discover some sort of primal undeath, absorb its power, and turn into a giant glowing angel as she sacrifices herself to kill N'Zoth in a battle that takes place in the skybox while the raid fights off waves of trash mobs in BFA's final raid. Then we'll get a cutscene of Nathanos getting wasted in Razor Hill only for Sylvanas to show up in the doorway, and he follows her out into the light.

are you trying to make me vomit?
*looks are you avatar*
Yes, yes you are.

[Wildberry]

So I think from the start, it's important to address that I only meant "seeds of discontent," as in inspiring criticism of Garrosh, rather than establishing a causal link to the Rebellion itself. Though, I would argue that the two are less disconnected than you're suggesting. Vol'jin didn't have an assassination attempt out of nowhere, after all. If it were just a case of "disagreeing with Garrosh," there were plenty of justifications prior.

I believe it was less a matter of "having to do that" but simply do that because that's what Malkorok has been used to, back from his Dark Horde days. There are usually plenty of steps between "people mumbling mean things and questionable desires about the Warchief" and "blowing up an inn with everyone inside", Malkorok just leaped from one spot to the other in a pretty abrupt way. In fact, I'm also pretty sure we don't even have proof that Garrosh was informed of that particular event, even though he was still responsible of the free reign he granted to his most favored subject.

It's never stated outright that Garrosh knew, but I think (And I can't be bothered to find the relevant text this early) that it's implied that Garrosh knew roughly how Malkorok was stamping out dissent. Granted, the Razor Hill incident was a bit of a step up from the usual beating and/or disappearance.

Though, Razor Hill was the hotspot for dissenters, and they were fantasizing about things like Thrall coming back to oust Garrosh and the like. It's best to stamp that sentiment out early.

With regard to the discontent in general that Theramore caused, not only did it spark those Razor Hill conversations, Baine tried to leverage his loyalty force policy change on Garrosh's end. Not that he'd go through with it of course, it's Baine, after all, but that's pretty treasonous territory.

They weren't but truth be told, the matter have been addressed a mere one time because it's literally a mere one time that Garrosh resorted to those molten giants. It kind of connected with Garrosh's later and abundant use of Dark Shamanism but there isn't just a clear connection between this and the rebellion as one of the main motivations, at the very best it was a relative afterthought. I can imagine things like Sylvanas raising Horde soldiers like mindless skeletons would be used as a similar afterthought, but surely the rebellion would need more than that to ramp up.

The Molten Giants didn't spark any outright treasonous behavior (Although I'm fairly sure it was brought up in one of those subversive meetings, which makes the response questionable), but it did sow some discontent.

Yes but again, it still lacks a connection with the later rebellion. If there is one we can say it's fairly indirect, since it's not the disagreement over the war that truly mounted the rebellious force but rather the approach Garrosh used to deal with it. And this has always been true even towards the Orcs themselves, since Tides of War made it abundantly clear that the Kor'kron turned into a considerably oppressive force, with multiple mentions of people being beaten or outright "disappearing". Even the commitment to the war have turned into a relatively forceful practice by the end of the book. Later, we also learn that some of those very kidnapped people were used as test subjects in the Ragefire Chasm experiments.

Right at the beginning of the war, Vol'jin outright denied Garrosh's authority and stated intent to kill him when "da people grow to despise ya as I do." Though Chronicles muddies the water, Cairne challenged Garrosh over the possibility of a war in Ashenvale. Sylvanas, during Cataclysm, was leveraging loyalty for authority over the invasion of Gilneas, and disobeying orders.

Far before the Kor'kron began stamping out dissent, we were already in treasonous territory. There does, after all, have to be dissent to actually stamp out dissent.

The question here is whether or not that dissent, if left unchecked, would have grown into a rebellion. And considering Vol'jin's statements in the early Cataclysm quest "More Than Expected," I'd say there was a very real risk.

[Hubbl3]

I will come back to WoW just to kill Sylvanas, then I can finally leave the game in peace knowing I've achieved all I've wanted - Gods what a great moment it shall be

Sylvanas won't die by player hand. So you will never achieve your goals.

[dreamfillah]

Quick question, y'all.

Am I the only one who vehemently hopes Talanji will not join the 'pussfoot till we oust ya' squad of Horde leadership under Sylvanas? I had this utopia image of Talanji walking to the Orgrimmar Embassy, where Sylvanas eagerly awaits her to finally make the Oath, and it's all:

Sylvanas: "Queen Talanji, welcome to my seat of Orgrimm-"
Talanji:"Actually, I wish to speak with Rokhan."

I don't want Talanji to be make a quick misjudgement of Sylvanas' character and view her as some sort of saviour of the Zandalari, when Rokhan and the Darkspear were the ones saving her kingdom from Old Gods and Zul's coup while Nathanos was sat waiting in the car (the war campaign ship.)

[Zulkhan]

you poor thing, didn't think you'd be a sylvanas sympathizer.

Its very obviously laid out.

Trassk please, don't even try to go there. Your positions have brutally shifted over the years, only your obsession over Thrall has remained the same.

So I think from the start, it's important to address that I only meant "seeds of discontent," as in inspiring criticism of Garrosh, rather than establishing a causal link to the Rebellion itself. Though, I would argue that the two are less disconnected than you're suggesting. Vol'jin didn't have an assassination attempt out of nowhere, after all. If it were just a case of "disagreeing with Garrosh," there were plenty of justifications prior.

I don't believe there is an utter disconnection but I think that "indirect" and "direct" causes are a thing. In fact, the "indirect" ones led to the more "direct" motivations, but ultimately are the latter that truly mattered and tipped the scale over the idea of outright taking arms against the Warchief.

Though, Razor Hill was the hotspot for dissenters, and they were fantasizing about things like Thrall coming back to oust Garrosh and the like. It's best to stamp that sentiment out early.

I still consider it a vast overreaction nonetheless and one that probably caused more issues than the ones it solved. Disatisfied people reiunited within an inn can say a lot of shit but hardly come up with anything concrete, also because they would have probably chosen a way more discrete place if that was the case. Voicing discontent and controversial opinions is still a far cry from organizing outright rebellious actions. Of course, that doesn't mean a leader shouldn't do anything, when people aren't happy with your leadership the worst thing you can do is doing nothing. But honestly, just maintaining a few spies watching the place would have been enough, if any of the people in the inn was finally going to propose the planning of something truly subversive than you could have just arrested, interrogated them and charged them for treason.

This way, instead, the unfortunate event had to be "covered" as some kind of "incident" and that's a lie people like Vol'jin clearly didn't buy, obviously putting there the first, true spark of rebellious thoughts (this flawed approach have been used even in the attempted assassination of Vol'jin as well and even there it was implied that many people didn't buy the cover up of the event). Last but not least, the incident involved more than Durotan denizens but also two emissaries from the Forsaken and Blood Elves, risking a diplomatic incident with allied forces over an event really hard to justify (I guess Sylvanas and Lor'themar swallowed the lie since they were not really in touch with the events in Kalimdor, even though I can't remember if they ever acknowleged this or not).

Baine tried to leverage his loyalty force policy change on Garrosh's end. Not that he'd go through with it of course, it's Baine, after all, but that's pretty treasonous territory.

You mean when he threatened to pull the Tauren out of the war if Garrosh caused another Theramore? I need a refresh because I haven't touched Tides of War by millennia.

The Molten Giants didn't spark any outright treasonous behavior (Although I'm fairly sure it was brought up in one of those subversive meetings, which makes the response questionable), but it did sow some discontent.

It did, even though I would once again place that among the "indirect" causes, whose most "direct" consequence may have been the Tauren joining Vol'jin's rebellion (but it's kind of a stretch, in fact despite being legitimately bad business and widely present in SoO, Dark Shamanism is never truly mentioned among the rebels, the Tauren in particular are so little developed in general that they truly looked like they tagged along by accident).

Right at the beginning of the war, Vol'jin outright denied Garrosh's authority and stated intent to kill him when "da people grow to despise ya as I do."

Vol'jin's behavior was borderline, but I would still put it on the "disrespect" spectrum rather than the "treason" one. Not because Vol'jin's words weren't harsh or threatening but because actual traitors would likely do the opposite, namely speaking boot-licking loyalty in the face while carefully moving in the shadows to deliver the backstab, which is precisely what Zul has just done with Rastakhan. Vol'jin, on the other hand, has been blunt to a fault and openly spoke his mind. It still warrants a charge for disrespect and consequences because of that but hardly the accusation over a treachery that was never truly put in motion.

Far before the Kor'kron began stamping out dissent, we were already in treasonous territory. There does, after all, have to be dissent to actually stamp out dissent.

Sure, but Garrosh's policies weren't a problem in Cataclysm, they became a problem in Tides of War, mostly because of Malkorok and the free reign granted to his goons. It turned Garrosh's reign into a tyrannical regime by targeting more than leaders of other Horde races, in its frantic obsession over control it closed even Orgrimmar and Durotar within an excessively tight grip, the crime/punishment scale just lost all kind of reasonable balance and the feeling of oppression clearly became unbearable eventually. This direction basically gave validation to Vol'jin's words in Cataclysm and the destiny he "foresaw" for Garrosh's reign, and to prevent that Garrosh just continued to tighten the grip, until he obtained the diametrically opposed result.

The question here is whether or not that dissent, if left unchecked, would have grown into a rebellion. And considering Vol'jin's statements in the early Cataclysm quest "More Than Expected," I'd say there was a very real risk.

I don't think the risk was very palpable, even though the Horde would have probably went through a very troubled course before finally stabilizing. Vol'jin's statements proved to be widely irrelevant since they were later acknowledged by Vol'jin himself for being harsh and that he failed to keep his temper in check, he had Thrall convincing him to remain in the Horde and then going far to admit that Garrosh's intentions were noble even though he disagreed with the methods. From that moment on simply trying to maintain the Horde somewhat stable would have bettered its course, but the turn taken in Tides of War have been dramatically detrimental and resulting in an unstoppable downward spiral.

[Hubbl3]

Let's agree to disagree, maybe the players won't kill her (let's face it we hardly ever actually get the final blow on major lore characters), but I feel her death is certain at this point

Yeah maybe. Or she just get ousted to "find her way" and then turns up in the Void Expansion as a quest giver like Illidan.

[Wildberry]

I don't believe there is an utter disconnection but I think that "indirect" and "direct" causes are a thing. In fact, the "indirect" ones led to the more "direct" motivations, but ultimately are the latter that truly mattered and tipped the scale over the idea of outright taking arms against the Warchief.

Alright yeah, those two classifications are what I was alluding to.

I still consider it a vast overreaction nonetheless and one that probably caused more issues than the ones it solved.

Was it an overreaction? Yeah. Unwarranted? Nah, they deserved it.

Disatisfied people reiunited within an inn can say a lot of shit but hardly come up with anything concrete, also because they would have probably chosen a way more discrete place if that was the case.

If they were average people, they might not be able to come up with anything concrete, but Baine and Vol'jin were in attendance as well. Figures of that stature make things a little more dangerous than if it had just been Farley, Bloodblade and a handful of other minor characters without much political weight.

Voicing discontent and controversial opinions is still a far cry from organizing outright rebellious actions.

So I went and dusted off "Tides of War" for this. Here are some of the statements made:

"Really?" Malkorok looked puzzled. "Yet we have witnesses that put both you and Frandis right in this very inn just last night, in close conversation with both the tauren and the troll, among others. They reported that you were saying things like, 'Garrosh is a fool, and Thrall should return to kick him all the way to the Undercity,' and 'it was cowardly to use the mana bomb on Theramore.'"
"And the elements," put in another of the Kor'kron conversationally as he reached for the jug of grog and refilled his cup.
"Yes, the elements -- something about how it was too bad Cairne hadn't killed him when he had the chance, because Thrall would never utilize the elements in such a cruel and insulting fashion."

--"Tides of War," p263

Basically, alongside two leaders of the Horde, with actual militaries, they're expressing the desire to see Garrosh usurped, and fantasizing about his death. Those statements and the company they were made in are what make this dangerous. It wouldn't be the biggest deal in the world if it were a few Grunts talking about "honor" and whatnot, but it escalated well beyond that with VIPs in attendance.

Not to mention, this is just on the heels of another anti-Garrosh meeting organized by Baine.

Last but not least, the incident involved more than Durotan denizens but also two emissaries from the Forsaken and Blood Elves, risking a diplomatic incident with allied forces over an event really hard to justify (I guess Sylvanas and Lor'themar swallowed the lie since they were not really in touch with the events in Kalimdor, even though I can't remember if they ever acknowleged this or not).

It wasn't mentioned in "Tides of War," there might have been a reaction to it when the scene was replayed in "War Crimes," though. Regardless, it's important to point out that the Forsaken and Blood Elves still fall under Hellscream's authority. It's not like Sylvanas and Lor'themar are strangers to stamping out dissent. We've seen what Sylvanas will do in "Before the Storm," Lor'themar had dissidents mind controlled and exiled. Not that they'd be happy with the situation of course.

Vol'jin's behavior was borderline, but I would still put it on the "disrespect" spectrum rather than the "treason" one. Not because Vol'jin's words weren't harsh or threatening but because actual traitors would likely do the opposite, namely speaking boot-licking loyalty in the face while carefully moving in the shadows to deliver the backstab, which is precisely what Zul has just done with Rastakhan. Vol'jin, on the other hand, has been blunt to a fault and openly spoke his mind. It still warrants a charge for disrespect and consequences because of that but hardly the accusation over a treachery that was never truly put in motion.

In any decent setting actual traitors would have presented themselves as staunch supporters. Zul is one of the few traitors that's written remotely well in Warcraft though and elsewhere, the writing is what it is. Like that time Sylvanas betrayed Garithos, or Gul'dan betrayed Doomhammer, honestly look at how this Saurfang plot is playing out.

Regardless, that sort of statement right off the bat shows pretty significant resistance to Garrosh from a purely ideological perspective. Kor'kron suppression might've provided some kindling, but the sparks were already there.

You mean when he threatened to pull the Tauren out of the war if Garrosh caused another Theramore? I need a refresh because I haven't touched Tides of War by millennia.

Yeah, the exact text is:

"But know this: I fight for the true Horde, not the one that utilizes methods both unnecessary and shameful. There must never be another Theramore -- not if you wish the aid of Baine Bloodhoof!"

--Tides of War, p313-314

Sure, but Garrosh's policies weren't a problem in Cataclysm, they became a problem in Tides of War, mostly because of Malkorok and the free reign granted to his goons. It turned Garrosh's reign into a tyrannical regime by targeting more than leaders of other Horde races, in its frantic obsession over control it closed even Orgrimmar and Durotar within an excessively tight grip, the crime/punishment scale just lost all kind of reasonable balance and the feeling of oppression clearly became unbearable eventually. This direction basically gave validation to Vol'jin's words in Cataclysm and the destiny he "foresaw" for Garrosh's reign, and to prevent that Garrosh just continued to tighten the grip, until he obtained the diametrically opposed result.

I really don't see the case for the former half. Before finding out about the extent Kor'kron suppression:
Vol'jin:
-Has that outburst
-Establishes himself as an outspoken critic of Garrosh ("Tides of War")
-Consistently breaks with Garrosh on policy

Cairne:
-lol rip

Baine:
-Consistently broke with Garrosh on policy
-Held Numerous anti-Garrosh meetings*
-Leveraged his loyalty to the Horde*

Sylvanas:
-Leveraged her loyalty to assume command over the invasion of Gilneas ("Edge of Night")
-Ignored Garrosh's orders

*Done after the Kor'kron kidnappings, but before Razor Hill. Kor'kron suppression not cited or related to the events themselves

The only two who weren't in this territory just from the war and the actions taken during it were Lor'themar and Gallywix. The reason they were as enthusiastic as they were is fairly obvious.

I don't think the risk was very palpable, even though the Horde would have probably went through a very troubled course before finally stabilizing. Vol'jin's statements proved to be widely irrelevant since they were later acknowledged by Vol'jin himself for being harsh and that he failed to keep his temper in check, he had Thrall convincing him to remain in the Horde and then going far to admit that Garrosh's intentions were noble even though he disagreed with the methods. From that moment on simply trying to maintain the Horde somewhat stable would have bettered its course, but the turn taken in Tides of War have been dramatically detrimental and resulting in an unstoppable downward spiral.

I don't think it's entirely fair to chalk the turn in "Tides of War" up to just Kor'kron suppression, though. The initial plan to conquer Kalimdor drew plenty of criticism. The Molten Giants and Mana Bomb brought even more. At the same time Kor'kron suppression was happening Garrosh was escalating a war that was unpopular with his subordinates from the start.

It's worth pointing out, for example, that the Mystery of Disappearing Dissidents isn't brought up in any of the meetings where members are venting their grievances with Garrosh.

[GetCrunk]

It's all about how you frame it.
What I see is a factionleader that, during war, destroys an enemy city. The other faction wants to fight back.

In both cases you have the Warchief who starts a war to secure a continent and resources to ensure there faction survival

We get a new continent/zone every expansion, so that isn't special.

Yes but except you get continent for different reasons in MOP AND BFA is the same reasons to secure the new powers and resource for the Horde.
In BC you go to stop Burning Legion.
In Wotlk you go to stop Lich King.
Cataclysm no new continent just a few new zones
Wod stop iron horde
Legion go and stop the Legion

And at the moment there is no civil war no did Sylvanas send assassin's after traitors. She sent us to jail him and keep him out of Alliance hands.

True at the moment there is no civil war but neither in the first part of the expansion of MOP, the civil war started after Vol'jin assassination attempt. You and the Dark Ranges are send to capture him before the Alliance but the plot twist is the Dark Ranges have orders direct from Warchief to Capture or kill him, is exact same story as Vol'jin scenario

[GetCrunk]

So it's similar because they want to secure resources?
What should they do with resources? Not take them?


1. TBC was to gain allies, just like BFA. Horde wanted the Mag'har and Blood Elves.
2. So what? That's not an argument.
3. We don't go to the BFA-zones for resources.


Yes, it is the EXACT same story because we are not having a civil war? You are really stretching the argument here.
Alliance also doesn't have a civil war right now, that is 100% evidence that we are going to kill Anduin.

And it is not the exact same story as the Vol'jin scenario.
Vol'jin was about killing a dissident.
Saurfang is about keeping a traitor out of Alliance-hands and arresting him.
In what universe is an arrest the same as sending assassins?

TBC was not about allies, The Burning Legion deceive us by making us believe Holiday is muster an army to invaded Azeroth and we go to stop him, and for blood elfs where allowed to join the Horde at Sylvanas request and the Mag'har we did not know they where alive you get a quest in hellfire peninsula that sends you to Thrall and he is sock his people survive all this year's
I say there is no civil war yet. Saurfang says to spread the word about not give up hope for restoring the Horde.
The Dark Range says surrender or I burn you like the elfs.

[Draqson]

Sylvanas is essentially just a manipulative self-centered villain. A very boring character except in how others react to her. Sylvanas wouldn't be interesting if significant portions of the Horde didn't begin to reject her. Without Saurfang, there's nothing to the story besides Sylvanas bullying spineless morons like Baine and running the Horde into the ground to fuel her literally genocidal scheme of killing all humans.

There's a lot of interesting stories which aren't the faction war, and there's lots of people who think the faction war is boring trash. Also, not being downright insane and genocidal isn't always the same as getting along. Sylvanas has been portrayed as insane lately. And a hypocrite too. She's in no place to call out Saurfang on being sentimental.

I havent played a second in the new expansion, so I cant tell about her maniacal ways. She wasnt like that in legion and I still prefer her depiction in Warcraft 3, where she was pretty much backstabbing humans and allied with a nathrezim; metal as fuck, I loved it. Then WoW pretty much went everywhere with her, to softy to nowhere to warchief and now she's coming back home to being ruthless. I agree she is a bad leader for the whole horde, but still perfect for the Forsaken, and it wouldnt make any sense for an undead player to kill her.

In my opinion blizzardstaff has written themselves into a corner, it never made sense to have Sylvanas as Warchief, but Vol'jin heard the spirits and picked her... and now she's just turning crazy and follows a wholly different agenda?! Like seriously? We picked her because destiny but then it isnt. The spirits trolling Vol'jin on his deathbed. Just dumb. I expect them to write a meaningful plot for her, something better than this mess thats literally a copycat of MoP-Lore. The difference being that Garrosh pretty much became warchief by force. If Sylvanas would've taken the Horde "crown" by force, I wouldnt say a single word... it would've fit her character, it would've made sense for the horde to run her down... well except for the undead... they are pretty much bound to her.

[Thage]

are you trying to make me vomit?
*looks are you avatar*
Yes, yes you are.

Saya no Uta is fantastic and I'm not gonna sit here and listen to this blasphemy.

[Claymore]

Everyone liked Illidan, he's the most popular Warcraft lore figure, second only to Arthas, I do not think that's the same for Sylvanas, she's nowhere near as memorable, charismatic or frankly interesting.

I think that's my issue with her, as well. Sylvanas has never changed or shown any kind of growth. She was kind of a bitch from the moment she was introduced, and has never been depicted as anything else, save for the odd moment she *kind* of laments her sisters...also...not....being dead...?

To be perfectly frank? The best thing Blizzard could do, to salvage everything -- and I hold absolutely zero confidence they would actually do this, but -- have Sylvanas show some real vulnerability, some real remorse. Maybe this war gets out of control, and she either gets Nathanos or Vereesa killed, or one of them willingly sacrifices themselves for her. Some kind of moment to "shock" Sylvanas out of the same character we've seen for all this time, something that actually leaves her sort of broken.

I don't think Blizzard would actually do it, because they're sort of on this kick about "strong, independent women". But having Sylvanas deal with a truly deep, emotional loss, I think would do wonders for the character. It would provide reason for her to step down as Warchief, either deeming herself no longer worthy in a rare show of humility, or simply to deal with her own grief.

Sylvanas has basically been "evil" the entire time we've known her. If Blizzard actually wants to make her *interesting*, they need to be willing to change things up. Let the character grow; have Sylvanas show some kind of emotion or grief doesn't make her a "weak" or "submissive" woman; it simply makes her *human*. And really, the best characters are those you feel you can understand.

[Deleted]

I think that's my issue with her, as well. Sylvanas has never changed or shown any kind of growth. She was kind of a bitch from the moment she was introduced, and has never been depicted as anything else, save for the odd moment she *kind* of laments her sisters...also...not....being dead...?

To be perfectly frank? The best thing Blizzard could do, to salvage everything -- and I hold absolutely zero confidence they would actually do this, but -- have Sylvanas show some real vulnerability, some real remorse. Maybe this war gets out of control, and she either gets Nathanos or Vereesa killed, or one of them willingly sacrifices themselves for her. Some kind of moment to "shock" Sylvanas out of the same character we've seen for all this time, something that actually leaves her sort of broken.

How about the her death and subsequent experience of the oblivion at the "Edge of Night" which fundamentally changes the way she feels and treats the Forsaken?

I don't think Blizzard would actually do it, because they're sort of on this kick about "strong, independent women". But having Sylvanas deal with a truly deep, emotional loss, I think would do wonders for the character. It would provide reason for her to step down as Warchief, either deeming herself no longer worthy in a rare show of humility, or simply to deal with her own grief.

Sylvanas has basically been "evil" the entire time we've known her. If Blizzard actually wants to make her *interesting*, they need to be willing to change things up. Let the character grow; have Sylvanas show some kind of emotion or grief doesn't make her a "weak" or "submissive" woman; it simply makes her *human*. And really, the best characters are those you feel you can understand.

How about what Vereesa puts her through in "War Crimes", dangling that carrot of humanity, love, and reunion with her long lost and estranged family, only to have it yanked away at the last minute, leaving her deeply emotionally wounded. Look at how she reacts to, as in "to deal with her own grief", and how she decides to view life from then on. That was definitely a time where she had to "deal with a truly deep, emotional loss" which had an influence on how she views others - "Life is pain, hope fails" in her Warbringers episode, for example.

[Claymore]

How about the her death and subsequent experience of the oblivion at the "Edge of Night" which fundamentally changes the way she feels and treats the Forsaken?




How about what Vereesa puts her through in "War Crimes", dangling that carrot of humanity, love, and reunion with her long lost and estranged family, only to have it yanked away at the last minute, leaving her deeply emotionally wounded. Look at how she reacts to, as in "to deal with her own grief", and how she decides to view life from then on. That was definitely a time where she had to "deal with a truly deep, emotional loss" which had an influence on how she views others - "Life is pain, hope fails" in her Warbringers episode, for example.

Sylvanas was planning to KILL Vereesa (and her children, if I recall) and then rez her (and *not* the children, again, if I recall). Let's not even pretend that she's some "deep, emotional character". That shit is as Saturday-morning-cartoon-villain as it gets. The Warbringers episode didn't do anything to show her any differently.

That's why I think she needs a big, startling change. It's been implied that she loves Nathanos, and while she's planned on killing Vereesa, actually seeing her die -- as a result of Sylvanas' own actions and recklessness -- could still prove to be a compelling arc for the character.

Fact is, Sylvanas is a pretty simple character right now. Her mindset can best be summarized "What would an evil character do here? Then that's what Sylvanas will do".

I'm not saying Sylvanas suddenly needs to become "one of the good guys". Just add a little depth to her, and stop trying to make her "above" having some sort of emotion.

[Deleted]

Sylvanas was planning to KILL Vereesa (and her children, if I recall) and then rez her (and *not* the children, again, if I recall). Let's not even pretend that she's some "deep, emotional character". That shit is as Saturday-morning-cartoon-villain as it gets. The Warbringers episode didn't do anything to show her any differently

Sylvanas decides she wants Vereesa dead after turning down the reunion in "War Crimes". The very fact that Vereesa apologises to Sylvanas for this later in the comic is acknowledgement of how much she hurt her and the blame she accepts for the pain it caused, and it was the only reason Sylvanas called off the signal to have her killed - clearly this is what she needed from Vereesa to give her some sense of closure. Inevitably, it does little to avail Sylvanas's nihilistic outview on life since even after the meeting she still says Vereesa will eventually serve her in death. Vereesa's acknowledgement of blame ultimately did not do much other than give Sylvanas some temporary relief, which is why she delayed the kill order. This in itself highlights how deeply that emotional wound cut her, that even after Vereesa accepting blame it's still not enough to heal it over.

Sylvanas ain't no saint, that much is obvious, and nobody is even trying to argue otherwise - the point here though, is that the purpose of this story was to highlight a genuine depth in Sylvanas's emotions, in that we see that she is not in fact utterly incapable of feeling any positivity or humanity, and the key to this is the connection with her sisters. In other words, if she did not have any feelings for them at all and wanted nothing to do with them, then 1) She would not have pursued the possibility of sharing a life with Vereesa again, and 2) Would not have expressed such deep emotional pain at this prospect being torn away from her at the last moment if she did not care. You may not like her as a character or so much beyond the "lol evul" meme, but there have been times where Blizzard have clearly explored the emotional depth of Sylvanas and her connection to the living, and the story of her reunion with Vereesa is one of them.

[Deleted]

Sylvanas decides she wants Vereesa dead after turning down the reunion in "War Crimes".
....

No, Sylvanas from the beginning plans to kill Vereesa and raise her as an undead, because there's no other way she could actually live with her in Undercity. Vereesa doesn't know that and never learns it.

I do agree however that the way Vereesa just abuses Sylvanas for her own gain and revenge, cozying up to her and then ditches her like it was nothing, not even to her face but with a letter, is absolutely callous and makes Vereesa's constant bitching about how horrible the Horde is and how horrible her sister is all the more annoying.
And it hurt Sylvanas at the only point she could even be hurt anymore and made her harden herself in even that last spot.

[Deleted]

No, Sylvanas from the beginning plans to kill Vereesa and raise her as an undead, because there's no other way she could actually live with her in Undercity. Vereesa doesn't know that and never learns it.

Ah yes I remember that now, thanks for the clarification

[Claymore]

I dunno, I think Sylvanas is just boring. The whole problem is that she's no longer a "character", so much as "a symbol of female empowerment". Which, I actually do *get*. Jaina wasn't exactly a "strong female character", given she was constantly calling for peace at almost laughable lengths (a role taken up by Anduin, when she went batshit crazy). So Sylvanas really had to pick up the slack for being a no-nonsense woman that actually demanded respect.

At the very least, they've never been inconsistent with her character. So it's kind of a blessing and a curse.

For me, I just want to see something more from Sylvanas. Not to "change", but to show some kind of character growth. Make the *character* struggle, give us an actual *person* to relate to. I thought the whole deal with Anduin calling for peace was honestly poorly handled; I think it would have been *MUCH* more compelling is Turalyon and/or Genn Greymane (or even just some radical band of undead-hating Alliance) had began assaulting the Forsaken, sending Sylvanas into full-on defensive mode. It would have given more credence to her killing Calia Menethil, would have solidified why the Forsaken are *actually* part of the Horde, and completely justified Sylvanas burning Teldrassil.

Instead, it's just "Hey, wouldn't it be cool if we kept making Sylvanas even *more* evil all the time?". And you can't say she's "protecting her people" when she literally lures them into the open with false hope and then begins slaughtering them wholesale.