Saurfang
Sylvanas
Spot on reply. Thank you.
And if a murderer kills all judges in his/her country so they can't be put on trial, they aren't a murderer, apparently. Except no. What you said is some weird law-hijacking "if a tree falls in a forest" type of deal. Legal reality and legal criteria of guilt is separate from objective facts. Revolutionaries break the law of their countries and act against their government in an unlawful manner.
Your argument is even more blatantly wrong in regards to a story in which we as the viewers have access to omniscient narration.
They weren't just traitors under Garrosh. Baine himself argued that Vol'jin was a traitor and Garrosh had the right to kill him (even long before his rebellion) after Garrosh was already dethroned. And Baine is not exactly known for being a Garrosh supported. But who knows, perhaps you have access to information that I don't. Because threatening your sovereign with death is objectively treason even if they don't act on it.
Which is fine and dandy, except for the part where Vol'jin wasn't actually summoned to Pandaria as part of Garrosh's expedition or earlier expedition by Nazgrim. He went there on his own to act as a self-appointed supervisory board of the Horde. I.e. he went away from his actual post, during war, all on his own, because of his personal feelings about Garrosh. Vol'jin went AWOL. That is treason. So is threatening Garrosh with death.
Saurfang not being found guilty if Sylvanas falls does not change the fact that he: disobeyed the order of his sovereign to kill Malfurion, went AWOL at Undercity to kill himself, disobeyed the order of his sovereign to retreat at Undercity and then did not even try to kill Anduin because he hoped he'd stop Sylvanas (i.e. tried to have his sovereign killed through negligence and inaction). Players were right there next to him for both of the cases of him disobeying orders. We've seen a cinematic showing him abandoning his post to go beyond his wall to make his last stand. We've seen another cinematic when Saurfang himself confirms the last one. That is objective reality and that doesn't magically change if there is no one to put Saurfang on trial.
It isn't an important distinction whatsoever. The fact of them being traitors doesn't magically untraitorify itself because they put themselves into power. Them being immune from prosecution does not make them innocent. Even if they did actually pardon themselves (which wasn't shown), they would still have needed to commit treason in the first place. Because you can't pardon someone if they haven't committed a crime.
Except there is no way for the Horde to make itself illegitimate, especially through the actions of the Warchief, due to the idiotic power structure of it. People claiming Sylvanas' regime is illegitimate are talking out of their behinds (a common theme with people making anti-Sylvanas argument, so nothing new here). And as mentioned two paragraphs above, we may not be fully omniscient, but we've still seen four cases of Saurfang committing treason. One of those was confirmed by Saurfang himself. There is no way for people to mental gymnastic their way out of it.
Except he sent one last letter to Blanduin (with a part of his own body for his dom to remember him no less) even after Sylvanas told him to cease communication. And what of there not being a formal declaration of war? The Alliance was still already a hostile faction to the Horde at that point. Otherwise the factions wouldn't have needed a ceasefire for even civilians to meet.
Conflating being found guilty of a crime with being guilty isn't an argument.
But if said revolutionaries are successful in overthrowing the governments of their countries and replace them, will they be held in account for the laws broken? If the government in question (the one being overthrown) is corrupt and illegitimate, will anyone think of them as unlawful traitors after their successful revolution? If you believe someone murdered another person but they were accused, tried, and found innocent of the charge - are they still a murderer? Does an accusation make a charge an objective, empirical fact if it is never otherwise proven beyond reasonable doubt?
I've already posited that we aren't omniscient, even as external viewers of the narration - new information is constantly being given to us, even about old events, so obviously even our ability to comprehend the full scope of the story is necessarily limited. Remember when the Old Gods weren't servants of an even greater power?
I didn't deny any of those things, I fully agree that Vol'jin's threat against Garrosh was treasonous - but only and specifically in the context of Garrosh's regime as Warchief. When Garrosh was violently overthrown and replaced by Vol'jin by popular support, the charge of treason was rendered meaningless - the government that would've punished it was gone, the individual betrayed was proven corrupt and unworthy of loyalty, and Vol'jin's legacy is not remembered as that of a traitor to the Horde (rather, he's remembered as one of its saviors). One can say "yes, but he committed treason" until they're blue in the face - the accusation has been rendered irrelevant, it's now just an opinion.
"We're more of the love, blood, and rhetoric school. Well, we can do you blood and love without the rhetoric, and we can do you blood and rhetoric without the love, and we can do you all three concurrent or consecutive. But we can't give you love and rhetoric without the blood. Blood is compulsory. They're all blood, you see." ― Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead
Technically, she didn't. Sylvanas joined the rebellion only in 5.4. In 5.3 it was only stated by Vol'jin she would not have any objections against that. And by 5.4 Garrosh abandoned the New Horde project for his stronger, better, faster and Orcier True Horde project. And publicly proclaimed that the rest aren't a part of his Horde anymore. In a way, it's kinda hilarious that the most shifty member of the Horde is in such a position (well, together with the Pandaren leader, but he exists only hypothetically).
Except the Horde is an absolutist dictatorship to the nonsensical degree where the Warchief's word is law and the Horde's subjects are literally referred to as the tools of the Warchief in the "most fundamental law of the Horde".
And morally repugnant or evil actions do not constitute treason.
But Saurfang wasn't ordered with burning Teldrassil. He was ordered with dealing a killing blow to the enemy leader. A leader that is one of the most dangerous individuals on the planet (and now is killing Horde members en masse in Darkshore in 8.1). He refused. That happened before Teldrassil. In fact Teldrassil happened because he refused to follow that order.
Also, being morally right does not untraitorify traitorous actions. There's nothing about treason that dictates an action must be morally blameworthy for it to be treasonous.
Finally, those moral philosophies arose in 20th century. Azeroth is not exactly at the same stage of philosophical development.
And who is doing that? Aside from Alliance's army of straw-men?
Except for:
1. Refusing to follow the order of his sovereign and military superior to deal a killing blow to the enemy leader.
2. Going AWOL shortly before the battle for Lordaeron because he decided to kill himself in a blaze of glory.
3. Refusing to follow the order of his sovereign and military superior to retreat (you know, kinda why he got himself captured).
4. Not even trying to take down the enemy leader all because he hoped said enemy leader would defeat his own sovereign (which would make him directly implicit in Sylvanas' death).
5. Refusing to return to the Horde when given the opportunity by the Horde team, i.e. abandoning the Horde and his duty towards it, particularly in regards to the Orcs of whom he's the racial leader.
6. Leaving the prison only after said enemy leader released him, knowing full well he did so so that Saurfang could try to take down Sylvanas.
Would you look at all that "not treason". You are truly the master of language. A whole new field of linguistics dedicated solely to the meaning of the word treason should be created just so you could teach it.
Time for a relevant quote for all this drama.
https://youtu.be/A1PuFO5zzWk?t=45
It still blows my mind that despite the fact that they've taken every step possible to make Sylvanas as evil and reprehensible as possible, then went the extra mile by also making her incompetent as well, she's still neck to neck with someone who was one of the most unambiguously liked Horde characters before this expansion. It takes effort to be this out of touch.
Dickmann's Law: As a discussion on the Lore forums becomes longer, the probability of the topic derailing to become about Sylvanas approaches 1.
Tinkers will be the next Class confirmed.
You say all this and then in other threads pretend Alliance isn't a threat to the Horde. Near miraculous consistency.
Saurfang can't readjust his sense of honor because you can't adjust something that has the consistency of water (OK, you can freeze water in a container of a specific shape, but that doesn't really work with honor). Saurfang's honor takes random shapes depending on his mood and what he ate. The only semi-consistent factor of his honor is that it often takes the form of "for me to be honorable I must commit suicide by enemy soldier because I'm braindead".
Also, I vividly recall you defending Saurfang's actions by saying he has no diplomatic experience. But now he's suddenly going to make all the right moves and yank the Horde away from Sylvanas just with his monumental charisma (all of it a broken suicidal rip-off of Chuck Norris jokes can muster)?
Right. Sylvanas does nothing but fly Saurfang's banners all over the places. Yeah, no. She no longer needs Saurfang. The Horde has been successfully rallied to war and the loss of a capital city cemented them on that path.
And her portraying Saurfang's treason as him being broken by the same Alliance against which Horde was already whipped into a frenzy is only going to add fuel to that fire.
The same Eitrigg that merrily joined Sylvanas' quest for new allies? And out of all things decided on the Iron Horde? Right, he's just begging for an opportunity to jump the Sylvanas' ship.
And Thrall? The human lover whose limp-wristed rule led to Alliance declaring the previous faction war? Whose blatant nepotism even when faced with huge opposition from his advisors led to the rise of Garrosh (and the death of the advisor most vocal about it, a Horde icon Cairne)? A rise easily fueled by Garrosh due to the fact Thrall deliberately set up the new Orc capital in a fucking desert to make Orcs "atone" for the Old Horde, even the new generations of Orcs that had nothing to do with it? The guy who left the fight against the Legion to sulk about how the Elements no longer love him because he's so pathetic he had to cheat in a Mak'gora, one of the most important Horde traditions?
Yeah, Thrall has just monumental position in the current Horde. He totally did not spend the last decade completely undermining it with one blunder after another.
And then Sylvanas reveals the information about Baine's secret communication with Blanduin. Which in light of his previous history with aiding the Alliance at the cost of the Horde, is going to discredit him forever.
Except treason isn't predisposed on Garrosh acting on it. He was well within his rights not to. That doesn't unmake Vol'jin's treason. Which is why Baine, one of the strongest Vol'jin sycophants, argued that Vol'jin committed treason. Even after Garrosh has been deposed. Treason also isn't based on subjective feelings of whether a leader is "worthy" or "deserving" of anything. One cannot wash their actions that run against their leader with "welp, I don't like him and the way he cooks his eggs so I'm obviously not a traitor, my moral high ground told me so".
Except in this case the X is the political and legal authority of the nation Saurfang is from. Sylvanas' regime being overthrown and the new regime choosing not to pursue Saurfang for what is nothing more than political capital doesn't change that fact. You're literally arguing against reality itself.
And now you moved the goalposts to "people like Saurfang aren't traitors because they aren't charged with it by new regime and treason somehow rests entirely on the charge" to "welp, they betrayed a good thing so all is swell".
That depends on whether or not Vol'jin was under orders to stay away from Pandaria and defend Durotar or somesuch - he didn't seem to have any kind of "post" in terms of the war, he simply wasn't part of the action. Garrosh never charged or even accused Vol'jin of treason for being there, and as a point of fact gave him a mission simply because of his presence (as part of a plot to kill him, it turned out). If Garrosh never made such a charge it seems rather far-fetched for us to do so. As for the threat to his life, I agreed - this was treason against Garrosh, at the time such things mattered.
Don't disagree with any of that. Like Vol'jin before him, Saurfang is guilty is betraying Sylvanas as Warchief - especially since he is now likely fomenting an insurrection against her directly. But the argument being made isn't whether or not he's guilty of betraying Sylvanas, it is whether he is guilty of betraying the Horde. If Sylvanas is increasingly illegitimate, as Garrosh was before her, and loyalty to Sylvanas is itself disloyalty to the very foundation of ideals of the Horde, then opposition to Sylvanas can easily be seen as loyalty to the essence of the Horde. Ousting an illegitimate and corrupt leader is not a bad thing (except to the supporters of that corrupt leader, of course). So if Saurfang's cause is proven just and he overthrows Sylvanas and claims the Horde by right of conquest - then he's not a traitor, and his charge of treason against her will be as null and void as Garrosh's charge to Vol'jin. It *happened*, yes; but it no longer matters - and nothing will come of it.
They aren't pardoned because their crime no longer exists in a fashion it could be prosecuted. What they were traitors to (a corrupt and illegitimate leader) is gone, the government they betrayed is gone, and no one will stand to hold them to account because no one remains that wants to. If their revolution wasn't popular or there remained figures in power to hold them to account then you would have a different argument and a different outcome. In a world with no formalized rule of law, victorious conquest essentially means the end of the charge. What remains of Sylvanas' supporters if such a thing were to occur would still grumble about treason and traitors, of course; but lacking the ability to actually hold them to account and with their leader deposed or dead (and having no popular support themselves) their words are next to meaningless.
Garrosh made himself illegitimate, lost his popular support, and was violently deposed and replaced. This isn't without existing precedent, so no; I don't think anyone is really talking out of their behinds. Right now Sylvanas still has popular support, and so the notion that Saurfang is a traitor has traction - and perhaps it will end with Sylvanas still in power and Saurfang in chains for his crimes against her, who can really say? But the trajectory we're seeing thus far seems to paint a different story, and if BfA follows the narrative flow of MoP before it then supporters of Sylvanas are going to wind up in the same place as supporters of Garrosh are now - grumbling about betrayal while the popular support of his replacement serenely continues on in power and/or relevance to the story.
Hostility and active war are still two different states - and attempting to try to forge a lasting peace isn't in itself a bad thing (especially not when a greater threat is constantly looming). That being said, I think Baine has less of a defense than Saurfang, and his history of such things lends credence to the notion that his loyalty to the Horde is less than secure.
Last edited by Aucald; 2018-11-07 at 02:03 PM.
"We're more of the love, blood, and rhetoric school. Well, we can do you blood and love without the rhetoric, and we can do you blood and rhetoric without the love, and we can do you all three concurrent or consecutive. But we can't give you love and rhetoric without the blood. Blood is compulsory. They're all blood, you see." ― Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead
Honestly, at this point I'm just lumping in "Actions taken against Garrosh" into one category for ease of comparison. Stating that Sylvanas did X Treason, while Saurfang did Y+Z, while more accurate, gives these people far too much room to misinterpret and twist things. And judging by the amount of mental gymnastics required to make the "Saurfang's not a traitor guys!"-case, it's not something I want to deal with.
Specifically, I was referring to:
-Leveraging the use of her people (still Garrosh's subjects) to take command of an operation Garrosh was handling, despite not having the authority to do so.
-Using the plague despite its ban
-Directly disobeying Garrosh's order in "Tides of War," to personally lead the Forsaken against Theramore.
You know that if I went this route, they'd try to tell me that's worse than Saurfang's stance against Garrosh because "there were three counts!"
Garrosh had no obligation to listen to his advisors, nor was he bound by Thrall's wishes. Thrall wasn't the Warchief anymore, Garrosh was. And as such he had the absolute power over the Horde and could turn it to a faction dedicated to teaching scuba diving classes to Troggs if he wanted to. Objecting to that would not give his advisors the right to defy him.
And it's not like the advisors were acting any better than Garrosh. They threw a shit fit about him even before Thrall made him Warchief and continued their tantrum afterwards. Garrosh wants conflict with the Alliance? It's time to REEEEEE even though Alliance started the goddamn war and the peace process was going nowhere because the manchild Varian constantly cockblocked it by acting like a blatant retard and demanding the sky (which was exploited by the Twilight Hammer).
Because of course they did. Thrall's era's "advisors" were his sycophants that shared in the same delusion that the Horde can peacefully sing kumbaya with the Alliance (which it could do only through a policy of appeasement and deliberately ignoring indictments like Alterac Valley or Bael'dun).
They were stuck in Thrall's bullshit and unrealistic fantasies that he had only because he was raised by humans (and even then only a mere handful of them didn't treat him like an animal) and were as unwilling to listen to Garrosh as Garrosh was unliving to listen to Thrall's advisors. Garrosh fell, the previous faction war ended. But time proved him right and Thrall and his posse wrong. Alliance attacked the Horde for reasons that were getting more moronic with each attack.
Anyway, that's a bit off-topic. Back on track, there's a reason only a few point out that Garrosh started his regime that way when they defend Garrosh with remarks about Vol'jin. Because that is completely immaterial to the topic. Garrosh was acting within his rights. Vol'jin did not.
Except the concept of rules and breaking of those rules (i.e. committing treason in this context) is not some metaphysical idea with "no observable facets". Rules are much closer to the clear and rigid realm of logic than they are to the concepts like love.
There is no room for opinion in regards to whether or not Saurfang disobeyed his sovereign's orders. He either did or he did not. Both are observable if one has an omniscient (or reaching it) perspective like the readers/players of a story. Just so happens he did. Do the rules of the Horde allow that? No, no they don't.
As such, Saurfang is a traitor. And you can raise all the mitigating circumstances in the universe if you want to, but that still remains the objective reality. Because those mitigating circumstances are just that, things that mitigate. Not things that alter reality.
He had reason. He was ordered to. By his sovereign. Him not following that order is literally treason. And you're trying to handwave that away with meaningless trivia. And Teldrassil burning because Saurfang did not kill Malfurion is something even Saurfang came to accept. Read A Good War if you want to discuss the topic of Teldrassil.
He didn't fight Anduin. That's the point. Did you even watch the cinematic this very thread is about?
Getting captured is not deserting. Him not returning when the Horde attempted to rescue him is. And Sylvanas raising the dead Horde soldiers isn't treason because there's no law in the Horde that says she can't do that so the brilliant gotcha you thought you had doesn't really work.
Yeah, because apparently Saurfang is a moron and can't operate in simple context. Anduin can't deal with Sylvanas. He learns Saurfang wants her gone. He releases Saurfang after hearing that. Gee, whatever could have been Anduin's motives for releasing him.
The Horde doesn't stand for anything in particular. It is shaped by the current Warchief. There's absolutely nothing in the Blood Oath that says the Horde members are bound by it only as long as the Horde keeps the shape it had when the particular member joined.
Literally no one in the thread said that. You're arguing with yourself there.
What you just so happened to leave out is that Saurfang's inactivity happened in specific circumstances and not in some philosophical vacuum. Twice it happened was when he was not following an order of his sovereign. The third time it happened was when he did not act against the leader of the faction enemy to the Horde hoping he'd take down his sovereign, which would make him complicit. He didn't "make a mistake". Malfurion didn't escape because Saufang sneezed and had to wipe his nose. Malfurion survived because, despite his orders, Saurfang just stood there and left him be.
And now your argument as to why Saurfang isn't a traitor gained the ability to travel through time. Because Saurfang jumped off the board already before Teldrassil burned. He refused to fulfill his orders because muh honor. And by doing so already committed treason. And brought the destruction of Teldrassil in the first place, because Sylvanas: 1. couldn't hold an Alliance capital with its population still having a high morale and, as such, 2. needed a new symbol of the Alliance to destroy in order to break them.
Because killing Malfurion was the very thing that was supposed to crush Alliance's will to fight in the original plan. From the start. Saurfang knew that. And that destruction of Alliance's spirit was something you claim was was still on board with. Something doesn't click here.
Which totally isn't Saurfang abandoning his post. Not at all. Obviously not an objectively traitorous action universally punished by all militaries.
What "ideal of the Horde"? The "let's sing kumbaya with the Alliance and ignore it when they fuck us in the ass in order to do the singing" crack pipe dream of Thrall and other Baines? That doesn't work in the long term because eventually some Genn or Rogers will attack another Horde fleet? And some greedy Dwarves will ignore Horde's sovereignty over its territory to dig some Titan junk up in ancestral Tauren grounds?
That ideal must burn. And that ideal is not what Saurfang swore an oath to. There's no "as long as the Warchief follows the ideology the Horde had when I joined" clause in the Blood Oath.
Except Horde was never about being against retreating. Horde was about never surrendering. Blackhand's forces retreated from Stranglethorn. Doomhammer retreated from Lordaeron. Garrosh retreated from Ashenvale. Your blatant misrepresentation of what Lok'tar Ogar is postulates that the Horde is a faction of retards that would die for no reason.
And Horde was never about not fighting dishonorably either. Old Horde used the enemy's dead against them. They used assassination to break Stormwind. They enslaved Red Dragons to fight the Alliance.
If you were looking to RP a viking you chose the wrong franchise. Which was obvious as far back as Warcraft I.
Nothing has changed, Sylvanas, as before, could take the soul of Varok as it can now, all the more so Saurfang is not young so as to at least somehow resist Banshee. End discussion
This topic is boring now, Way too many sylvannas and saurfangs "fanboys" repeating the same arguments over and over again. At the end it is 50/50 sylvannas and saurfang, hope the Horde gets to decide wich leader to betray ingame
Last edited by Daevied; 2018-11-07 at 03:09 PM.
It is better then to have Sylvanas as Leader than Saurfang in the armor of the Alliance. This is what the old leaders of the Horde (Kilrogg, Grommash, Blackhand, Kargath) considered as a betrayal, to go over to the side of the nominal enemy in the midst of hostilities. It will not be on the Horde.
Varok said he wanted to return his Horde. He will never be a member of the Alliance, but will go to an alliance with Anduin , as Thrall once united with Varian against Garrosh. This is a more logical way of developing BfA. And maybe wake up N'zoth. And then Sylvana, and Varok, and Genn, and Anduin unite against the Old God.
Why?
I may not like the pathway Blizzard chose for Sylvanas, but I think that she spices up the lore. Windrunner being one of the most important characters in this expansion is good move, though they're just making her another Garrosh(aka being villian and becoming a raid boss soon) and almost making her act like a teenage emo sometimes.
I liked her because she wasn't plain, she had complicated personality that was really interesting to watch.
Personally I don't think that she's going to die, she's too important for the Horde community, her fanbase and for the whole lore.
Well... we have to wait and see what plans do people from Blizzard have.
Last edited by mmoc997d567772; 2018-11-07 at 04:26 PM.