Fate of Sylvanas Loyalist Players

[ilgynoth]

Dont start this discussion again. Sylvanas is the rightful ruler over Lordaeron/Undercity by conquer. There are no doubts and it is not arguable. The Forsaken arent the living humans anymore they were in life.
You can say if the Alliance manage to remove the blight from Lordaeron that they are now the rightful ruler by conquer, but that is something which would need to happen in the future (if it will ever happen, maybe the new forsaken leader will just conquer Undercity back)

- - - Updated - - -

Interesting that you pointed out that Sylvanas is a usurper, because she is indeed a usurper as she betrayed King Arthas Menethil and seized the throne for herself despite having absolutely no claim to it.

Are you serious? You cant betray anyone who you are not following willingly. Sylvanas never betrayed Arthas, because its not possible to betray someone (after getting your free will back) who mind controlls you.
In fact Sylvanas never betrayed Arthas, she got her free will back and stopped following him

[Varodoc]

Dont start this discussion again. Sylvanas is the rightful ruler over Lordaeron/Undercity by conquer. There are no doubts and it is not arguable. The Forsaken arent the living humans anymore they were in life.
You can say if the Alliance manage to remove the blight from Lordaeron that they are now the rightful ruler by conquer, but that is something which would need to happen in the future (if it will ever happen, maybe the new forsaken leader will just conquer Undercity back)

- - - Updated - - -



Are you serious? You cant betray anyone who you are not following willingly. Sylvanas never betrayed Arthas, because its not possible to betray someone (after getting your free will back) who mind controlls you.
In fact Sylvanas never betrayed Arthas, she got her free will back and stopped following him

Your state of mind or personal feelings are not factors. If you go against your sovereign king, you are a traitor. It's simple, really.

I didn't say that she was wrong to betray Arthas, I said she was a traitor, which is a fact.

[Super Dickmann]

But why are we ignoring all the living Lordaeronians?

We don't ignore them, they've historically made for good fertilizer for the mushroom farms.

@Void Fallen

Technically, Sylvanas is a conqueror rather than a usurper, since she's not a Lordaeronian citizen and doesn't owe that loyalty to Arthas. She's still illegitimate under that view in any case.

[ilgynoth]

But why are we ignoring all the living Lordaeronians?

Why shouldnt we? Sylvanas conquered Lordaeron for the Forsaken. It was a place for the undead Lordaeronians. The fact that there are some living people of the old Lardaeron civilization doesnt change the fact that Lordaeron doesnt belong anymore to the living. It was conquered by the undeaths

- - - Updated - - -

Your state of mind or personal feelings are not factors. If you go against your sovereign king, you are a traitor. It's simple, really.

I didn't say that she was wrong to betray Arthas, I said she was a traitor, which is a fact.

She was not a traitor, thats a fact. Mind controlled people who get her free will back and dont want to follow the Person who mind controlled them, are not traitors.

Arthas was never Sylvanas sovereign King, what are you talking about??? Anasterian Sunstrider was Sylvanas sovereign King

[Varodoc]

Why shouldnt we? Sylvanas conquered Lordaeron for the Forsaken. It was a place for the undead Lordaeronians. The fact that there are some living people of the old Lardaeron civilization doesnt change the fact that Lordaeron doesnt belong anymore to the living. It was conquered by the undeaths

- - - Updated - - -



She was not a traitor, thats a fact. Mind controlled people who get her free will back and dont want to follow the Person who mind controlled them, are not traitors.

Arthas was never Sylvabas the sovereign King, what are talking about??? Anasterian Sunstrider was Sylvanas sovereign King

Western Lordaeron was conquered by the Forsaken you mean, before the Alliance kicked them out. I did not see any Forsaken flag over Hearthglen, Stratholme, the Light's Hope Chapel, Scholomance, and Tyr's Hand.

She was not a traitor, thats a fact. Mind controlled people who get her free will back and dont want to follow the Person who mind controlled them, are not traitors.

Having free-will is not a factor. So if Saurfang justified his actions by saying that he was never loyal to Sylvanas, he was just faking it, does it mean that he was not a traitor at the end of the day?

Following your logic, Varimathras was not a traitor because he never wanted to serve Sylvanas willingly, so at the first chance he got he rebelled.

Arthas was never Sylvanas sovereign King, what are you talking about??? Anasterian Sunstrider was Sylvanas sovereign King

She was Scourge, so Arthas was her King.

[Newname1234567890]

They'll be forgiven. As was most of the horde that followed Garrosh

[ilgynoth]

Western Lordaeron was conquered by the Forsaken you mean, before the Alliance kicked them out. I did not see any Forsaken flag over Hearthglen, Stratholme, the Light's Hope Chapel, Scholomance, and Tyr's Hand.


Having free-will is not a factor. So if Saurfang justified his actions by saying that he was never loyal to Sylvanas, he was just faking it, does it mean that he was not a traitor at the end of the day?

Following your logic, Varimathras was not a traitor because he never wanted to serve Sylvanas willingly, so at the first chance he got he rebelled.



She was Scourge, so Arthas was her King.

I never heard such nonsense before. You literally have no idea what you are talking about.

Having free will is a factor. If you join the Horde, you are willingly accepting the blood oath to follower your Warchief.

If you getting mind controlled and forced to join an army/undeath "kingdom" you are not willingly a part of them = if you leave after getting your free will back, you are not a traitor.

If you join the US Army, you willignly accepting their rules and concequences.

If you getting captured by the enemy army, ensalved and forced to work for them, you are not willingly a member of them. After you have the chance to escape from th slavery YOU ARE NOT A TRAITOR!!

by god, I never heard such stupid nonsense ever before

[Varodoc]

Having free will is a factor. If you join the Horde, you are willingly accepting the blood oath to follower your Warchief.

Saurfang was just faking loyalty, so he was not a traitor because he was forced to serve willingly. Done, you can no longer accuse him of treason.

If you getting mind controlled and forced to join an army/undeath "kingdom" you are not willingly a part of them = if you leave after getting your free will back, you are not a traitor.

Failing a direct command from your King, no longer being loyal either willingly or not to your King, actively supporting his enemies, that is the definition of Treason.

Evil people can be betrayed. It's not that just because the traitor is morally better, she did not betray anyone. Arthas, the rightful King of the Scourge of which Sylvanas was a member of, was backstabbed quite literally by one of his subjects, so again it doesn't matter if he was evil, because he was her King, and she dumped him as soon as she got the chance to. Much like Varimathras did later to her in an ironic twist of fate.

If you join the US Army, you willignly accepting their rules and concequences.

Yes, and Baine joined the Horde back when Thrall was Warchief, and there is a world of difference between Thrall and Sylvanas.

If you getting captured by the enemy army, ensalved and forced to work for them, you are not willingly a member of them. After you have the chance to escape from th slavery YOU ARE NOT A TRAITOR!!

Too bad that free-will was never a factor when defining what a traitor is. Do you think that a rebellious slave wouldn't be marked as a traitor?

Free-will is also the right to change your opinion. That means that if you no longer want to be bound by an oath that you swore to a completely different leader, you should not be branded as a traitor. And yet you are, because again, your personal reasons are justifications as to why you betrayed your leader, but they don't change the fact that you betrayed him.

Notice how Saurfang and Baine do not deny that they betrayed Sylvanas, they just don't care because they know it is the right thing to do.

If Sylvanas is not a traitor, then neither are Baine and Saurfang, because back when they swore that oath, it was to Thrall. Since free-will is important, they have every right to forsake that oath now that the Warchief has changed, without having to suffer being accused of treason.

[Super Dickmann]

The lands under the AD's control, given that the AD moved in to replace the Scarlets in Mardenholde, Stratholme and Tyr's Hand are quite a significant chunk of Lordaeron's fairly massive borders and have been under the control of living Lordaeronians, not Forsaken for the majority of that time. And while neither the AD nor the Crusade make claims on the crown, they still both set up states within Lordaeron were the customs of the old Kingdom remained. What I am disputing is that Lordaeron as a state is defunct, since the Scarlet and Argent successor states carry on the traditions, population and iconography of the old Kingdom. If we elaborate this position with the retcons of BTS were Sylvanas is actively suppressing any connection to Lordaeron, it is clear she is a usurper. I mean I know BTS is bullshit but it's still canon bullshit.

You are just being flippant here. Again, why are the claims of living Lordaeronians less important than those of the undead ones?

The point here is that if you occupy the position that Sylvanas is both illegitimate as a usurper and that undead Lordaeronians have the same political ties as living ones, you have a weaker case. The strongest case is the Scarlet Crusade one - undead have no rights, only the living do. Lordaeron is under Scourge occupation but continues as a government in exile with reclamation in progress. Who the undead and others acknowledge doesn't matter as they lack rights. Ditto, the massive numerical difference between living and undead Lordaeronians, especially after the Forsaken have repeatedly cleaned house and raised more into undeath, likewise doesn't matter.

The Argent Crusade doesn't particularly matter because not only is it gutted post-Legion, but even if it weren't, it's a group with no pretensions towards claiming all of Lordaeron and which consists of a bunch of unrelated races. Orcs, night elves, tauren and whatever others are in the Crusade have no footing to be deciding what's the legitimate state of Lordaeron and what isn't. THey don't even use the iconography, they use the sunburst instead. So neither demographically, in terms of stated goal or even appearance does the Crusade pose as a continuation of the state of Lordaeron.

Finally, the biggest weakness of acknowledging the undead is that the second you do, not only do the undead Lordaeronians outnumber the living, but the ones loyal to Sylvanas alone outnumber the living and are members of the Forsaken state, which, under the post-retcon BTS canon, has as its official postiion that it has no ties to Lordaeron and being undead, these people are separate from who they were in life, up to and including loyalties. Within that Forsaken state, of which the Desolate Council are citizens, loyalty is to the autocrat Sylvanas and additionally to Sylvanas again in her capacity as Warchief. Acknowledging Lordaeronian identity in any way is forbidden and so in order to express it they need to renounce their allegiance to the Forsaken state and tie it with the claim of a continuing Lordaeron from Calia, which they did. This would then render them traitors and they'd be killed.

By acknowledging that undead have rights you also enter into outside legitimacy - Sylvanas has been the de-facto ruler of most of Lordaeron since Cataclysm and has been acknowledged as such not just by the entirety of the Horde, but by the Alliance as well under Anduin, who does not dispute that she acted within her political right. Groups that do claim continuity, like the Scarlet Crusade, have been marginalized and have their claim dismissed by both world powers. You can also enter into the public approval of sovereignty portion, wherein the majority of Lordaeronians acknowledge Sylvanas if we count both alive and undead and again, following BTS canon, do not acknowledge the existence of Lordaeron or a Lordaeronian identity at all.

Edit: Off for a couple days, if it's still relevant I'll answer whatever replies are up when I'm back.

[ilgynoth]

Saurfang was just faking loyalty, so he was not a traitor because he was forced to serve willingly. Done, you can no longer accuse him of treason.



Failing a direct command from your King, no longer being loyal either willingly or not to your King, actively supporting his enemies, that is the definition of Treason.

Evil people can be betrayed. It's not that just because the traitor is morally better, she did not betray anyone. Arthas, the rightful King of the Scourge of which Sylvanas was a member of, was backstabbed quite literally by one of his subjects.


Yes, and Baine joined the Horde back when Thrall was Warchief, and there is a world of difference between Thrall and Sylvanas.


Too bad that free-will was never a factor when defining what a traitor is. Do you think that a rebellious slave wouldn't be marked as a traitor?

I cant argue with you anymore. Thats some hardcore nonsense here. Literally hardcore nonsense.
By your logic every black person who was enslaved back then is a traitor.

- Someone faking his loyalty doesnt matter, since the person joined willingly a faction (Horde) anda ccepted willingly (the blood oath) the rules.
If you join the army and say "haha, I was just pretending doing it" youre going to have a reality slap in your face.

If you join the Army and the person in charge or your commander change - it doesnt make any difference. The rules for the Army (faction/horde/blood oath) were made and you accepted them. It doesnt matter who is in power and how often the power position will change.


Also since you repeat it over and over: Arthas was not a King before he become the Lich King. He was a Death knight who followed Nerzhuls/Lichkings orders.

[Varodoc]

By your logic every black person who was enslaved back then is a traitor.

If you were a slave and you led a revolt against the government you would indeed be a traitor and be branded as one, because again, people don't give a shit about your justifications when defining what treason is. Indeed, Arthas and Kel'thuzad rightfully referred to Sylvanas and her Forsaken as traitors because from their perspective they are indeed turncoats who jumped ship at the first opportunity they got. Yes, I know, what a cruel world.

- Someone faking his loyalty doesnt matter, since the person joined willingly a faction (Horde) anda ccepted willingly (the blood oath) the rules.
If you join the army and say "haha, I was just pretending doing it" youre going to have a reality slap in your face.

Likewise, if you swear loyalty to a noble leader, and then that leader gets replaced by a tyrant, you have every right to complain and forsake that oath that you swore to a different person.

You make a big deal of the value of free-will, of personal agency, of the right to choose who you want to follow, of doing what you want to do, then you tell me that someone should be forced for the rest of their lives to commit genocide just because they swore an oath 10 years ago to a completely different person?

If you join the Army and the person in charge or your commander change - it doesnt make any difference. The rules for the Army (faction/horde/blood oath) were made and you accepted them. It doesnt matter who is in power and how often the power position will change.

Then when will we hold Sylvanas accountable for betraying Garrosh in Cataclysm when she forsake his direct commands?

Also since you repeat it over and over: Arthas was not a King before he become the Lich King. He was a Death knight who followed Nerzhuls/Lichkings orders.

He was the King of Lordaeron, as is repeated several times in The Frozen Throne. Sylvanas betrayed him when she backstabbed him and usurped his throne. It doesn't mean she did a bad thing, it means she was a traitor and a usurper against the new order estabilished by Arthas.

This discussion is going nowhere and you are insufferable with your attitude (you did not even have the guts to call me by name that time, you had to resort to insulting me by calling me a "salty dude"), so I'm out.

[Sinraye]

The most lame thing would be if Sylvanas betrayed the player because Blizzard wrote themselves in a corner. My character dies/dissappears when Sylvanas dies/dissappears. Lorewise, my character travels back in time to classic to prevent this disaster.

[eurojust]

I cant argue with you anymore. Thats some hardcore nonsense here. Literally hardcore nonsense.
By your logic every black person who was enslaved back then is a traitor.

- Someone faking his loyalty doesnt matter, since the person joined willingly a faction (Horde) anda ccepted willingly (the blood oath) the rules.
If you join the army and say "haha, I was just pretending doing it" youre going to have a reality slap in your face.

If you join the Army and the person in charge or your commander change - it doesnt make any difference. The rules for the Army (faction/horde/blood oath) were made and you accepted them. It doesnt matter who is in power and how often the power position will change.


Also since you repeat it over and over: Arthas was not a King before he become the Lich King. He was a Death knight who followed Nerzhuls/Lichkings orders.

Dunno about the rest of your discussion but Arthas in TFT was the King of Lordaeron. This is what Ner'zhul probably promessed him. This is the logical step after that he killed his father and said "succeeding you father".
https://wow.gamepedia.com/King_Arthas_(WC3_Undead)
First mission in undead campaign (TFT) : "King Arthas"
"I have returned, lich, but you will now address me as King. This is, after all, my land."

Second mission,
Sylvanas : "And what of King Arthas? What about his powers?"
, etc.

[StillMcfuu]

The whole thing is set up for Sylvanas to say, "it was a prank bro" at the end, so nothing is going to happen to the Horde loyalist players.
If you actually play the line, the only thing you do is kill other people loyal to the warchief.

[Varodoc]

Dunno about the rest of your conversation but Arthas in TFT was the King of Lordaeron. This is what Ner'zhul probably promessed him. This is the logical step after that he killed his father and said "succeeding you father".
https://wow.gamepedia.com/King_Arthas_(WC3_Undead)
First mission in undead campaign (TFT) : "King Arthas"
"I have returned, lich, but you will now address me as King. This is, after all, my land."

Second mission,
Sylvanas : "And what of King Arthas? What about his powers?"
, etc.

Interesting how Sylvanas called Arthas "King", so she herself aknowledged that Arthas was the rightful King of Lordaeron. Otherwise she would just refer to him as "Arthas the Usurper" or simply "Arthas".

[justandulas]

Why waste so much potential? I have heard, there is large horde of demons that have gone unemployed for.... some reason. So many possibilites.

Real Talk: That is quite fascinating. I have played an undead warlock since classic. Note that I did not say forsaken. I am a little bit surprised that there are quite a few warlocks follwong Syllvanas till the end. Loyalty would be the last word I would associate with a warlock. Honor would be the second to last.

Loyalty to the cause then. My warlock would rather die than work with alliance, again.

I hated it that I was forced to for siege of Orgrimmar, and I hate it much worse round 2.

My characters will just RP die fighting for sylvanas and I’ll exist in classic.

[ilgynoth]

If you were a slave and you led a revolt against the government you would indeed be a traitor and be branded as one, because again, people don't give a shit about your justifications when defining what treason is. Indeed, Arthas and Kel'thuzad rightfully referred to Sylvanas and her Forsaken as traitors because from their perspective they are indeed turncoats who jumped ship at the first opportunity they got. Yes, I know, what a cruel world.

Thats where I disagree with you. Your definition of a "Traitor" is a different one then it is used by the common

Likewise, if you swear loyalty to a noble leader, and then that leader gets replaced by a tyrant, you have every right to complain and forsake that oath that you swore to a different person.

Thats right, but you will be officially branded as a Traitor until you succeed with your rebellion.

Then when will we hold Sylvanas accountable for betraying Garrosh in Cataclysm when she forsake his direct commands?

right, Sylvanas disobeyed the orders of her Warchief. This can be considered as a crime, but questionable, if one can regard this as a betrayal and brand her as a traitor.

He was the King of Lordaeron, as is repeated several times in The Frozen Throne. Sylvanas betrayed him when she backstabbed him and usurped his throne. It doesn't mean she did a bad thing, it means she was a traitor and a usurper against the new order estabilished by Arthas.

again, Sylvanas is not a member of Lordaeron and she wasnt when she was a mind controlled scourge.


This was my last comment on this, since you are literally just throw hardcore nonsense and try very hard to be in right here, when you are not.

- - - Updated - - -

Dunno about the rest of your discussion but Arthas in TFT was the King of Lordaeron. This is what Ner'zhul probably promessed him. This is the logical step after that he killed his father and said "succeeding you father".
https://wow.gamepedia.com/King_Arthas_(WC3_Undead)
First mission in undead campaign (TFT) : "King Arthas"
"I have returned, lich, but you will now address me as King. This is, after all, my land."

Second mission,
Sylvanas : "And what of King Arthas? What about his powers?"
, etc.

oh I see, looks like I forgot that dialogue. Well then he was a King. Thanks for the source

- - - Updated - - -

Interesting how Sylvanas called Arthas "King", so she herself aknowledged that Arthas was the rightful King of Lordaeron. Otherwise she would just refer to him as "Arthas the Usurper" or simply "Arthas".

You have to consider, that she did it when she was Mind controlled

[eurojust]

Sylvanas was mind controlled just like the entire Scourge except perhaps members of the Cult of the Damned (necromancers, Acolytes).
Arthas considers people of the scourge as his subjects and they consider Arthas as their King (however Ner'Zhul is still the big boss).
Therefore indeed, Sylvanas betrayed Arthas when she broke free. This is why Balnazzar is saying : "The lich, Kel'Thuzad, is far too loyal to betray his master. But you, on the other hand..."
https://wow.gamepedia.com/A_Kingdom_...d_(WC3_Undead).

Note that the details about the mind control were always vague : For exemple Arthas never directly mind controlled Sylvanas. It was Ner'zhul. It is perhaps why he didn't know that she broke free.
Sylvanas Windrunner: "How could I not? For some reason I no longer hear the Lich King's voice in my head. My will is my own once again."
https://wow.gamepedia.com/Sylvanas%2...l_(WC3_Undead)

Here it's implied that hearing the Lich King's voice = being under mind control.

This is why lot of people think that Arthas was just a puppet of Ner'zhul, like any member of the Scourge, having no free will since he took frostmourne. Hence why Malganis thought that he won when Arthas picked the sword :

Arthas: "You waste your breath, Mal'Ganis. I heed only the voice of Frostmourne now."
Mal'Ganis: "You hear the voice of the Dark Lord. He whispers to you through the blade you wield. What does he say, young human? What does the Dark Lord of the Dead tell you now?"
https://wow.gamepedia.com/Frostmourne_(WC3_Human)

[Tenebrous]

Side-note: I miss the Empire and Valkorion had the snazziest outfit.

This man certainly had the class and charisma (and a great voice for that matter), Palpatine lacked during his emperor days.

Back to WoW:

If you want legal spin, then the state of Lordaeron is defunct and the unnamed Forsaken state may occupy the same territory, but it isn't bound by the rules of succession. In turn, the undead are dead and thus it's dubious if they have any of their living political rights and duties, including loyalty to their former living monarch.

Does Lordaeron have a constitution? Though Calia maybe could claim the lands by birthright. It could even be possible that loyalty still applies to the legal successor since the forsaken (or some of them) decided to see themselves as successors of Lordaeron. The latter is of course conjecture on my part. By the way, about the Lordaeron succession. Would you kindly provide me with a source? It sounds interesting (Please, let it not be BTS!).

I don't think Baine was outright lying, since that isn't really his style. But it is a legitimate legal position voiced in setting and one that is accepted by Vol'jin, himself the Warchief, who doesn't deny that he would pursue a similar course. I'm just using Baine as a rhetorical device to demonstrate that this is an in-universe standard entertained by characters politically opposed to Sylvanas. As I later go on, with virtually any real world standard and definitely with the Horde's absolute dictatorship Saurfang is a traitor and would be open to receiving whatever heavy penalty is associated with it, be it life imprisonment or in this case death.

My objection was towards the bolded part. You made it sound like these are Baines own beliefs, when it is highly unlikely. I thought you were strawmanning.
To the rest, I agree. I can not wrap my head around as to why they had to make Saurfang a traitor. If he had challenged her in a traditional way, I would have immediatly charged or heroic jumped to his side. Then came "I hoped you would stop her". It felt like billions were crying out in terror und were suddenly silenced.

[ilgynoth]

Sylvanas was mind controlled just like the entire Scourge except perhaps members of the Cult of the Damned (necromancers, Acolytes).
Arthas considers people of the scourge as his subjects and they consider Arthas as their King (however Ner'Zhul is still the big boss).
Therefore indeed, Sylvanas betrayed Arthas when she broke free. This is why Balnazzar is saying : "The lich, Kel'Thuzad, is far too loyal to betray his master. But you, on the other hand..."
https://wow.gamepedia.com/A_Kingdom_...d_(WC3_Undead).

Note that the details about the mind control were always vague : For exemple Arthas never directly mind controlled Sylvanas. It was Ner'zhul. It is perhaps why he didn't know that she broke free.
Sylvanas Windrunner: "How could I not? For some reason I no longer hear the Lich King's voice in my head. My will is my own once again."
https://wow.gamepedia.com/Sylvanas%2...l_(WC3_Undead)

Here it's implied that hearing the Lich King's voice = being under mind control.

This is why lot of people think that Arthas was just a puppet of Ner'zhul, like any member of the Scourge, having no free will since he took frostmourne. Hence why Malganis thought that he won when Arthas picked the sword :

Arthas: "You waste your breath, Mal'Ganis. I heed only the voice of Frostmourne now."
Mal'Ganis: "You hear the voice of the Dark Lord. He whispers to you through the blade you wield. What does he say, young human? What does the Dark Lord of the Dead tell you now?"
https://wow.gamepedia.com/Frostmourne_(WC3_Human)

Arthas considering the scourge as his subjects doesnt change the fact that they are only his subjects because they have no choice. They are mind controlled. They cant do anything against it. So I disagree calling it a "betray" when you got your own will back. When you can move your body as you want and not as the whispers/Lich King telling it you.

This is why lot of people think that Arthas was just a puppet of Ner'zhul, like any member of the Scourge, having no free will since he took frostmourne. Hence why Malganis thought that he won when Arthas picked the sword :

Actually it wasnt Arthas his choice to kill (or not only his choice) Mal'Ganis, it was the Lich King himself who wanted it. Mal'Ganis mistake was to think that the Lich King is the burning Legions puppet, when he actually was planning all the time to go against them and making his own thing.