Fate of Sylvanas Loyalist Players

[Soon-TM]

What if Sylvanas explains the true meaning of honor to Zekhan and then he publicly denounces Saurfang, Baine and Thrall?

Tbh I don't think that Sylvie is the right person to give MUH HONOR speeches. That's what Sadfang, Manduin and his bethrothed Baine are for.

[Wilfire]

Tbh I don't think that Sylvie is the right person to give MUH HONOR speeches. That's what Sadfang, Manduin and his bethrothed Baine are for.

Would be funny if Sylvanas told Saurfang that he's dishonorable though.

[baskev]

At this moment a "Sylvi is a good girl"-twist feels just wrong. And I say this as a loyalist. Maybe I've missed it but currently everyone in game has no idea what Sylvi's endgame is, including Nathanos. So any twist just feels super cheap.

-snip-

I know it feels wrong and that is why it is going to go this way. My reasons are:

- they do weird plot twist ( they is blizz)
- they said she is not garrosh 2.0
- most of the leaks ( who i think are not real) say it is a plan to save us or she was mind controlled ( i mention this because some leaks seem to have some real stuff in it). But this one might be useless.
- so far she has acted very strang, like we have not seen the whole picture of her plans. Meaning she is either the most idiotic faction leader their is or she has kept her end game hidden well. And i do not think blizz writing is so bad that she has no plan.
- and it would fit with the screw the alliance theme that has been going on for several expansions now. ( little biase remark since i am alliance and night elf ). Because making her evil , would screw with fans of her like you, with horde who dislike her and make alliance happy. So alliance can say...see...she is evil....so what is more likely you think:

A.) she is evil, horde fans get mad, horde anti fans get mad . And alliance gets happy. Blizzard makes a garrosh 2.0
B.) she is doing it under control of something or to save us etc. Her horde fans are happy, her horde anti fans are happy. And alliance gets the short end of the stick...(again) and blizzard does not do a garrosh 2.0 ( what they already said).

So sorry. But she will get a twist like this. Same reason we knew thrall would return, same reason we know genn and or tyrande will go semi jaina/sylvannas/garrosh.

[Friendlyimmolation]

Would be funny if Sylvanas told Saurfang that he's dishonorable though.

He’d run to the nearest cliff and jump off of it.

[Varodoc]

B.) she is doing it under control of something or to save us etc. Her horde fans are happy, her horde anti fans are happy. And alliance gets the short end of the stick...(again) and blizzard does not do a garrosh 2.0 ( what they already said).

She will become Kerrigan 2.0, fuck off to fight the Void never to be seen again, after apologizing to Tyrande for destroying Teldrassil. She will be replaced as warchief by Baine, while Calia becomes the new Forsaken leader.

Who got the short end of the stick now?

[Omedon]

I think it’s worth mentioning that “she won’t be garrosh 2.0,” “she won’t die in a raid,” and even “she won’t die” still leave a lot of room for “she loses in the end” or “she absolutely will not be an option for canonically supported direct player allegiance.”

If she ends up the caretaker of Helheim, thus securing a non-hellish afterlife/eternity for her people, every “for the dark ladyism” baked into the forsaken is still valid even while they have a new racial leader in game.

Also... Calia has what is clearly a poke line to the tune of "honor the past, but look to the future" or some such. Just sayin'.

[Varodoc]

If anything, I think that her not dying might hint at an even more gruesome fate for her. What if she does not die because she will be tortured for eternity when she loses? Sargeras did not exactly die at the end of Legion despite his crimes, and yet I doubt he is having fun right now. So Blizzard saying that a character won't die does not mean that they will come out on top in the end.

[Shampro]

I love how to sleep better you have to come up with desperate and (frankly funnily pathetic) stuff like ''oooh that just means she'll be tortured!.

Hahahaha I love it. Can't take the fact that Blizzard isn't serving her even though the picture has been clear for months when both Jaina and Azshara survived.

[Rafoel]

He’d run to the nearest cliff and jump off of it.

Sadly no... he would just become even more sad and blame Sylvanas for his loss of honour, claiming the only way for him to regain honour is getting rid of her.

[Omedon]

I love how to sleep better you have to come up with dumb and (frankly funnily pathetic) shit like ''oooh that just means she'll be tortured!.

Hahahaha I love it.

Speaking for myself, I don't think we're going to see her tortured and screaming for eternity. That would be way too cringe and a huge disservice for the worthy "pro Sylvanas" players that aren't necessarily "Pro-Teldrassil." There is a narrow lane here where being for the warchief, for the dark lady and for the oaths sworn to the warchief aren't outside the kind of role WoW is looking to cast the player in. It is for those people that the loyalist path exists. The player character isn't canonically pro-teldrassil, no player character is. That's just a fact, as the game is a heroic fantasy, but there is a loyalist pro-Sylvanas playerbase that Sylvanas' "ending" still has to serve as a satisfactory farewell to. Torture isn't that road, and won't be her road, I predict.

[Super Dickmann]

Speaking for myself, I don't think we're going to see her tortured and screaming for eternity. That would be way too cringe and a huge disservice for the worthy "pro Sylvanas" players that aren't necessarily "Pro-Teldrassil." There is a narrow lane here where being for the warchief, for the dark lady and for the oaths sworn to the warchief aren't outside the kind of role WoW is looking to cast the player in. It is for those people that the loyalist path exists. The player character isn't canonically pro-teldrassil, no player character is. That's just a fact, as the game is a heroic fantasy, but there is a loyalist pro-Sylvanas playerbase that Sylvanas' "ending" still has to serve as a satisfactory farewell to. Torture isn't that road, and won't be her road, I predict.

Bitch please, the Forsaken questlines have had you feed plague to prisoners, execute civilian officials on your own side for failure and brain people on the ground with shovels. In the Demon Hunter story you're doing the bidding of a guy who bred and drugged slaves for mass sacrifice to achieve his goals. In the Death Knight one you're doing the bidding of the Lich King of all people and trying to raise one of the most heroic characters in the setting from the dead while using the hallowed dead of the Argent Crusaders who gave their lives at the Broken Shore as fodder for a distraction.

[Varodoc]

Speaking for myself, I don't think we're going to see her tortured and screaming for eternity. That would be way too cringe and a huge disservice for the worthy "pro Sylvanas" players that aren't necessarily "Pro-Teldrassil." There is a narrow lane here where being for the warchief, for the dark lady and for the oaths sworn to the warchief aren't outside the kind of role WoW is looking to cast the player in. It is for those people that the loyalist path exists. The player character isn't canonically pro-teldrassil, no player character is. That's just a fact, as the game is a heroic fantasy, but there is a loyalist pro-Sylvanas playerbase that Sylvanas' "ending" still has to serve as a satisfactory farewell to. Torture isn't that road, and won't be her road, I predict.

And her not paying for her crimes would be a huge disservice to the Alliance playerbase, which is obviously larger than the Pro Sylvanas playerbase. So who gets the priority here?

Sylvanas being imprisoned or tortured would satisfy both parties. The Pro Sylvanas fanboys can pray that she returns in the future, much like people do with Sargeras now (another major villain who ultimately avoided death), while we Alliance players are satisfied that she paid for her heinous crimes against Life. This would also be consistent with Blizzard's statements that she would not die like Garrosh, and if she did die, it wouldn't be quick.

[Combatbutler]

Sylvanas being imprisoned or tortured would satisfy both parties. The Pro Sylvanas fanboys can pray that she returns in the future, much like people do with Sargeras now, while we Alliance players are satisfied that she paid for her heinous crimes against life. This would also be consistent with Blizzard's statements that she would not die like Garrosh, and if she did die, it wouldn't be quick.

Or she just becomes a death entity, the most easy route to take, which makes it a likely one.

[Shampro]

Or she just becomes a death entity, the most easy route to take, which makes it a likely one.

Especially when she's BFF's with a Death Goddess basically. I'll take it.

[Omedon]

And her not paying for her crimes would be a huge disservice to the Alliance playerbase, which is obviously larger than the Pro Sylvanas playerbase. So who gets the priority here?

I don't disagree with you, but I also think that a "NOOOOOOO NOT THE BEES" eternal torment sort of ending isn't in the cards because, at the end of the day, being "pro-Sylvanas" isn't an evil if it's for the "right" reasons.

Or she just becomes a death entity, the most easy route to take, which makes it a likely one.

Especially when she's BFF's with a Death Goddess basically. I'll take it.

I really, really want this ending too!

[Omedon]

I'd argue it's worse. Doing evil for the lulz shows that someone is insane. Doing evil because the end justifies the means is imo arguably worse.

By "right reasons" I mean pro-Sylvanas, but anti-burning-of-Teldrassil. There is, as I've said, a narrow lane here where you can believe in the dark lady, or in your oaths to the office of warchief, and dislike the way Saurfang and Baine are approaching things, without "YEAAAH HORDE IS ABOUT BURNING BABIES!"

That said, if the way they merge the loyalist and rebellion lanes is that she turns on the player regardless of choice, flush it all, rebellion is canon, and I'm certainly not complaining haha!

[Soon-TM]

Sadly no... he would just become even more sad and blame Sylvanas for his loss of honour, claiming the only way for him to regain honour is getting rid of her.

He would never challenge her to a Mak'gora though, because the Loa forbid he can actually die in honourable combat

[arcaneshot]

And her not paying for her crimes would be a huge disservice to the Alliance playerbase, which is obviously larger than the Pro Sylvanas playerbase. So who gets the priority here?

Well then you'd just be where the Horde sees Jaina right now-- heinous Raid Boss on one hand, being told to work together with her for the greater good on the other.

You're all worried that Sylvanas is going to get away scot free when that is happening with Jaina right now, but you're okay with that because Jaina's Alliance.

[Friendlyimmolation]

He would never challenge her to a Mak'gora though, because the Loa forbid he can actually die in honourable combat

“I challenge you Sylvanas!”

“Ok then let’s do it.”

“Now let’s hold on a second.”

[Super Dickmann]

I am not really ok with the Alliance getting away with killing Rastakhan either tbh. It was so . . . stupid? I still don't get the entire point of the Battle for Dazar'alor. The Alliance should have showed up, blown up the fleet, collectively mooned the Horde then left.

I liked the motivation of the Genn and Anduin that existed in the Zandalari scout's imagination. They were much deeper characters. Genn was rude to Rastakhan and Anduin was driven to sack the city by his desire for troll poon. Seems like a trend in this one for the Alliance characters that the Horde cast imagines to be more interesting than their real counterparts. A Good War, Zuldazar...