New leader for the Forsaken?

[Super Dickmann]

I understand what you're saying, we simply disagree on a salient part of your approach here. I do not think "the history of this place" concerns the geographic area of Lordaeron at all and only concerns what it means in the context of Parqual's offense, namely the history of Lordaeron as the residence of Humans and his despire to re-embrace that past. To be more specific the Ruins of Lordaeron as well as Brill aren't denied the Forsaken, there's no need to deny them so long as the Forsaken embrace them as Forsaken, not as former Humans pining for a standard that (as per Sylvanas' position) is no longer attainable or desirable. Parqual's "crime" isn't trespass, it's nostalgia - nostalgia for his days when he was a living Human back under the reign of King Terenas Menethil, alongside his Human family. Sylvanas doesn't care if the Forsaken stroll about the surface of Lordaeron (obviously, as many of them do), but she doesn't want them to do so in the former lodgings or homes as Humans - she wants to emphasize a demarcation between their Forsaken lives and their former Human lives, and only reference that shared past when it accentuates or underscores the essential separation of the Forsaken from Humanity (e.g. what she does in the Hallow's End speech she gives annually). That's the essential divide in what we've been arguing about in this particular context - essentially the nature of the crime Parqual is being punished for. That Sylvanas' downward pressures could translate into a fear of the world above for those in the Undercity is understandable, but it isn't what I'm talking about - and I don't think that sense of fear is Sylvanas' intent (at least not fully, though it probably doesn't hurt either).

You are correct about the micro level, but you're ignoring the macro level. Their own lodgings and the books they have as mementos are as much a part of their former lives as the history of those lives themselves in the state of Lordaeron. You are ignoring the very clearly written dichotomy between the upper and undercities as symbolic of the divide between Lordaeronian and Forsaken and expressions thereof. Instrumental use of the Keep would be fine, militarily or otherwise, but leisure is not, because it'd be partaking in human activity in the places they used to as humans. This goes counter to the guards' statement to Parqual, and it is why Elsie is so terrified at the idea of leaving the Undercity to go to Lordaeron Keep, specifically. Compare and contrast Terenas' Tomb, Hallow's End and the other issues we've hashed out a million times already. Your perspective is, while still inconsistent, more nuanced but therein lies your error - the book is not nuanced. The line between former and new life is intended to be total in post-retcon Forsaken society. That's also why Sylvanas is so salty about Elsie changing her name back.

It is Sylvanas' dialogue, after all - if she intended that then why not just come out and say it plainly as opposed to leaving it entirely to inference in this manner? She'd be fully justified in doing so, after all, as pretty much everyone is in agreement that Koltira had a few lapses in judgment in this scenario. Difficult to say if Koltira is incompetent or if he simply doesn't care overly about the faction conflict as both he and Thassarian were sent there to deal with the Scourge of Andorhal as representatives of their factions - once the Scourge is dealt with he and Thassarian opt not to fight, at least until a gaggle of Human farmers (not under Thassarian's orders as per the Alliance version of "The Battle Resumes!") decide to unilaterally break the truce and attack the Forsaken side of Andorhal. Sylvanas, hankering for a Val'kyr-themed weapons taste in any case (as per her standing orders to the Horde PC in the area in her disguise) had no interest in a truce and desired to attack the Alliance as soon as the Source presence was contained. I think it more likely the two Death Knights were there as Scourge specialists and once they did their part, had no interest in fighting each other until external circumstances on both their ends more or less forced Andoral into a resolution (in this case a Horde victory).

I agree with your reading about how the KotB saw their role, but Koltira intentionally making errors of judgment is identical in result to incompetence. In fact worse, because Koltira is not there in his capacity as a KotB, Thassarian even has to remind him of this - he's already sworn himself to the Horde and to Sylvanas specifically, calling her his Queen. Yet he still pulls all this stuff. You need to take into account Sylvanas (and the other Forsaken's) overall criticism of Koltira throughout the zone rather than just the final dialogue, since he was given a fair bit of leeway to fail before Sylvanas got tired and took over.

I don't agree with that conclusion because, as we've seen and she's seen multiple times, they don't come to the same conclusions. I would agree that Sylvanas is hamstrung by her own credos (to which she at least maintains some credence to), but this whole arc is about how her hypocrisy grows with time and relative desperation - she takes more and more shortcuts with implicit covenant she has with the Forsaken, which tracks on from "Before the Storm" into BfA was things such as the raising of Derek Proudmoore. With Derek Sylvanas doesn't have the luxury of the "wait and see" approach she took with Voss, Galen, Zelling, or Stone - she needs a weapon and more than that she needs a "win," and she's willing to cheat to stay in the latter of the law while destroying its proverbial spirit. I don't think her intent was to have Derek be free-willed at all (hence his hanging in Dazar'alor and apparently being tortured by some kind of shadow energy), she wanted to hollow him out and make him the "bomb" that Derek himself references when he's freed by Baine and delivered to Jaina. That was her plan all along. Sylvanas is new to raising the Night Elves as Forsaken and probably not quite sure what tack to take with them to seduce them to her cause - she gives the appearance of feeling them out as she did with earlier such projects, and Delaryn would be a special case regardless (not unlike Voss and the others). Direct influence is for unique and special cases, not the rank and file of the Forsaken polity.

There's not much material to indicate that Sylvanas undertook any more special a treatment with some than others, in this particular context, mind. The choice given to Voss is the same as the one given the Rotbrains, the one to Amalia the same as Zelling. I agree that she's hampered by her own credos - her belief in allowing the Forsaken free will has repeatedly bit her in the ass given how many of them have betrayed her by this point, not just those like Zelling but Galen, Godfrey and so on. That the conclusion is not always the same is the point - Sylvanas doesn't intervene if the result is not the desired one (another soldier in her army who views the world as she does), she intervenes when there's a threat to her reign. That is what separates Derek somewhat, but doesn't quite go back to what she did pre-Cata in just having banshee possession as her go to. I disagree that Derek wasn't intended to internalize things, his mind was still his own and he controlled his body too, he references Sylvanas telling him 'lies' about Jaina's role in his father's death. It's the torture that's a form of cheating because it goes from mental manipulation to darker territory.

For reference, what was done with Derek isn't like what the Lich King does, but as I've spoken about earlier, it's arguably morally worse, owing precisely to the fact that Sylvanas has a personal investment and beliefs to prove through people whereas Arthas didn't. Being a spectator in your own body as you commit atrocities is one thing, being so broken down you do them of your own volition is worse.

Re: Golden and authorial intent. The intent of a rewrite I think is fairly clear, the lack of any reference to a different status quo speaks for itself, along with the first paragraph, but that goes beside the point. As does the Garrosh digression, admittedly.

[Aucald]

You are correct about the micro level, but you're ignoring the macro level. Their own lodgings and the books they have as mementos are as much a part of their former lives as the history of those lives themselves in the state of Lordaeron. You are ignoring the very clearly written dichotomy between the upper and undercities as symbolic of the divide between Lordaeronian and Forsaken and expressions thereof. Instrumental use of the Keep would be fine, militarily or otherwise, but leisure is not, because it'd be partaking in human activity in the places they used to as humans. This goes counter to the guards' statement to Parqual, and it is why Elsie is so terrified at the idea of leaving the Undercity to go to Lordaeron Keep, specifically. Compare and contrast Terenas' Tomb, Hallow's End and the other issues we've hashed out a million times already. Your perspective is, while still inconsistent, more nuanced but therein lies your error - the book is not nuanced. The line between former and new life is intended to be total in post-retcon Forsaken society. That's also why Sylvanas is so salty about Elsie changing her name back.

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," in this case and context the lack of stated nuance doesn't require or imply that no nuance be present. I disagree with your take on the macro level in this case, and I don't think the Forsaken are denied leisure explicitly (again so long as this leisure isn't in the form of re-embracing Humanity). "Before the Storm" presents the Forsaken plight as a given, and indeed doesn't have a great deal of nuance or exploration of its themes, but it is also not about that unfortunately - it assumes a chain of reasoning by inference and implication, but it's not explicit (more's the pity). I don't think there's any inconsistency in my perspective, however, as I've given solid and explainable rationale for all the elements you mention here: Elsie's fear, Lordaeron Keep, Terenas' Tomb, Hallow's End, and so forth. Elsie is the nominal head of the Desolate Council which stands partly in opposition to Sylvanas' regime, it scans she would be very careful of any appearance of impropriety as a Forsaken citizen (e.g. being keen to avoid Parqual's errors). Lordaeron Keep and the Terenas' monument have no need to be forbidden anyone as they are instruments of the state in their own right (viewed under this light), and the Hallow's End observance is used as an element of Lordaeron-that-was twisted to accentuate the Forsaken state as opposed to being used in memoriam for the Human state. Elsie changing her name is a sign of re-embrace of her former Human identity, which scans as something Sylvanas is keen to frown upon.

I agree with your reading about how the KotB saw their role, but Koltira intentionally making errors of judgment is identical in result to incompetence. In fact worse, because Koltira is not there in his capacity as a KotB, Thassarian even has to remind him of this - he's already sworn himself to the Horde and to Sylvanas specifically, calling her his Queen. Yet he still pulls all this stuff. You need to take into account Sylvanas (and the other Forsaken's) overall criticism of Koltira throughout the zone rather than just the final dialogue, since he was given a fair bit of leeway to fail before Sylvanas got tired and took over.

Like I said, Koltira messed up - that's not in contest. I don't recall anyone ridiculing Koltira save Sylvanas (both in and out of her Lindsay Ravensun guise) - I just checked over the quest chain myself and there doesn't seem to be anything of there to back up this assertion. Again, I agree Koltira didn't take his mission very seriously, and obviously the conflict wasn't very "real" to him in the sense of being a Horde general on the field. But Sylvanas is the only one who demonstrates an issue with this, and most of her complaints concern his friendship with Thassarian and not his actual performance on the field. The truce between the two Death Knights wasn't violated by Thassarian's orders, and so the unilateral action of the farmer's militia kind of came out of left field for all involved. Based on everything Sylvanas says and implies, I think Koltira's behavior (e.g. his friendship with Thassarian) was more damning in her eyes than his actual performance (and he was ultimately victorious in the battle and drove Thassarian and the Alliance back to Chillwind Camp).

There's not much material to indicate that Sylvanas undertook any more special a treatment with some than others, in this particular context, mind. The choice given to Voss is the same as the one given the Rotbrains, the one to Amalia the same as Zelling. I agree that she's hampered by her own credos - her belief in allowing the Forsaken free will has repeatedly bit her in the ass given how many of them have betrayed her by this point, not just those like Zelling but Galen, Godfrey and so on. That the conclusion is not always the same is the point - Sylvanas doesn't intervene if the result is not the desired one (another soldier in her army who views the world as she does), she intervenes when there's a threat to her reign. That is what separates Derek somewhat, but doesn't quite go back to what she did pre-Cata in just having banshee possession as her go to. I disagree that Derek wasn't intended to internalize things, his mind was still his own and he controlled his body too, he references Sylvanas telling him 'lies' about Jaina's role in his father's death. It's the torture that's a form of cheating because it goes from mental manipulation to darker territory.

I highly doubt Sylvanas even thinks about the Rotbrains except as rejects to be occasionally culled when they become too numerous - they're left alive as symbol, a pretty small one all told, and one that Sylvanas may not have even been directly involved in (basically it could just be the overseers of Deathknell's way of communicating or demonstrating the Forsaken ethos). We can be semantic about what was involved in Derek's plight all day, but at the end of the day the recognition of transgression is enough to underline the point. As for Godfrey, he actively fooled Sylvanas - it was never a question of granting him free will or not. He feigned obeisance long enough to get himself close enough to Sylvanas to actually kill her, albeit temporarily as it happened. The rest are the basic tack - manipulate, cajole, and/or pressure until loyalty is confirmed. The results vary, the basic process is the same, and Sylvanas will play within the "letter of the law" to get the outcomes she desires.

For reference, what was done with Derek isn't like what the Lich King does, but as I've spoken about earlier, it's arguably morally worse, owing precisely to the fact that Sylvanas has a personal investment and beliefs to prove through people whereas Arthas didn't. Being a spectator in your own body as you commit atrocities is one thing, being so broken down you do them of your own volition is worse.

I don't think Sylvanas is capable of that kind of control, thankfully for the Forsaken. The result in this context is the same, though; and as you acknowledge are implicit violations of Sylvanas' own credos as concerns the Forsaken. I would also agree that it's worse than the Lich King in this sense as it is both a deeper violation as well as deeply hypocritical. The Lich King never pretended to care about free will or self volition.

Re: Golden and authorial intent. The intent of a rewrite I think is fairly clear, the lack of any reference to a different status quo speaks for itself, along with the first paragraph, but that goes beside the point. As does the Garrosh digression, admittedly.

Obviously I disagree with the idea of the "rewrite," although I would agree Golden took the Forsaken along a very different path than I would've envisioned for them based on their previous depictions. Like I said before, though; neither you nor I get to make the decision about how and where they go from point A to B to C, as it were. Golden is authorized to create canon, and we can only discuss the outcomes based on her designs. I don't think she retconned them, I just think the road she created for their journey was a strange one and, as I've previously said, I don't think she does well by the character of Sylvanas (an issue from which the current Forsaken derive their plight).

[Powerogue]

That is common misconception. Forsaken players are not the forsaken lore. What you guys want doesn't matter. You are not the characters of the lore. It has to make sense for them, not you. Calia makes all sense from what we learned in the book. Edge lord players don't like? Too bad. It's not about making sense to you, but it's about making sense to the characters in the lore. The ex lordeanron residents wich they were in their previous life and about their still alive residents they would like to be with again.

The thing is players RP based off the sort of forsaken they encounter that gives them an idea of what the race is like. For every John McJohnson the mushroom seller there's a Shredder McSmashface encouraging you to bash human seedlings in with a shovel.

(Actually bad example, that one is totally the PC's idea, but I just love that quest so much. Pick any other forsaken themed quest from their zones then.)

Lilian is not fit to lead, but i could see her being part of a new council.

I could deal with that. Desolate Council 2. I'd be curious, if they go that route, what other people you'd want on that council? Apothecary Lydon? (Guy who helps you deal with Stillwater in Hillsbrad) Helcular? (from southshore) Deathstalker Belmont? (from the Gilneas/Silverpine questline) Payson the roach guy? (he won in a landslide on my poll thread)

[Mehrunes]

It's interesting on that book quote about smuggling books into the Undercity that, the reason why people even thought this position of Sylvanas's on former lives had ever even changed was because of those books. So what if we just said that the lore books scattered throughout the Undercity were smuggled? Problem solved. Nothing ever changed. That seems substantially easier.

And left right in the open for anyone interested to read despite Undercity being a police state supposedly before the monument to Golden's ineptitude that's BtS. Because that's exactly what police states do.

I could deal with that. Desolate Council 2. I'd be curious, if they go that route, what other people you'd want on that council? Apothecary Lydon? (Guy who helps you deal with Stillwater in Hillsbrad) Helcular? (from southshore) Deathstalker Belmont? (from the Gilneas/Silverpine questline) Payson the roach guy? (he won in a landslide on my poll thread)

What's the point of making Desolate Council 2 when Desolate Council 1 has never been dissolved and still has members on it?

[Super Dickmann]

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," in this case and context the lack of stated nuance doesn't require or imply that no nuance be present. I disagree with your take on the macro level in this case, and I don't think the Forsaken are denied leisure explicitly (again so long as this leisure isn't in the form of re-embracing Humanity). "Before the Storm" presents the Forsaken plight as a given, and indeed doesn't have a great deal of nuance or exploration of its themes, but it is also not about that unfortunately - it assumes a chain of reasoning by inference and implication, but it's not explicit (more's the pity). I don't think there's any inconsistency in my perspective, however, as I've given solid and explainable rationale for all the elements you mention here: Elsie's fear, Lordaeron Keep, Terenas' Tomb, Hallow's End, and so forth. Elsie is the nominal head of the Desolate Council which stands partly in opposition to Sylvanas' regime, it scans she would be very careful of any appearance of impropriety as a Forsaken citizen (e.g. being keen to avoid Parqual's errors). Lordaeron Keep and the Terenas' monument have no need to be forbidden anyone as they are instruments of the state in their own right (viewed under this light), and the Hallow's End observance is used as an element of Lordaeron-that-was twisted to accentuate the Forsaken state as opposed to being used in memoriam for the Human state. Elsie changing her name is a sign of re-embrace of her former Human identity, which scans as something Sylvanas is keen to frown upon.

I think we're running in circles over things we agree on at the micro scale, but not the macro one. To put my argument as succinctly as possible. The book does not have a nuanced take on what is a permissible tie to their former lives and what isn't. The differentiation is intended to be total. The dichotomy is Lordaeron - Undercity. This is both literal - the actual areas they should and shouldn't reside in and metaphorical - representations of their former lives. On the micro level, this means Parqual can't go to his old lodgings, but on the macro level it also means he can't leave the city without a purpose and has to smuggle books and Elsie is scared of the upper city. This totality is in contrast to prior content which, at the most charitable, presents this as more of a spectrum. Such treatment, of the kind you suggest, may make more sense in line with prior content and this as a shift, but it does not reflect the black and white, unnuanced take of the novel.

Based on everything Sylvanas says and implies, I think Koltira's behavior (e.g. his friendship with Thassarian) was more damning in her eyes than his actual performance (and he was ultimately victorious in the battle and drove Thassarian and the Alliance back to Chillwind Camp).

This is a bit of an incomplete picture. As we've already discussed, the Forsaken and Koltira's ideas of victory here differ. Sylvanas and the Forsaken want Andorhal claimed as part of their Lordaeron reconquista. They don't care whether there's Scourge there per se, the Scourge are just a stepping stone to full conquest. In comparison, Koltira considers the Scourge a primary possibility and given he's not Forsaken it's possible he doesn't really understand his role there and that's why he keeps giving leeway. But his victory is one enabled by Sylvanas, from her mustering of reinforcements to her virtual takeover of the battle after the undead were being pushed back under Koltira's command. His ties are the cause of his failure, but before that failure was manifested Sylvanas was fine with him doing this thing and he had sworn to her cause.

I highly doubt Sylvanas even thinks about the Rotbrains except as rejects to be occasionally culled when they become too numerous - they're left alive as symbol, a pretty small one all told, and one that Sylvanas may not have even been directly involved in (basically it could just be the overseers of Deathknell's way of communicating or demonstrating the Forsaken ethos). We can be semantic about what was involved in Derek's plight all day, but at the end of the day the recognition of transgression is enough to underline the point. As for Godfrey, he actively fooled Sylvanas - it was never a question of granting him free will or not. He feigned obeisance long enough to get himself close enough to Sylvanas to actually kill her, albeit temporarily as it happened. The rest are the basic tack - manipulate, cajole, and/or pressure until loyalty is confirmed. The results vary, the basic process is the same, and Sylvanas will play within the "letter of the law" to get the outcomes she desires.

I don't think there's any proof of the former claim. Rather it's a demonstration of her credo - yes, you can be undead and leave the Forsaken, but if you stand against the Forsaken, you will be destroyed. What I'm getting at with examples of Galen, Godfrey, Zelling and so on is that because of Sylvanas' adherence to her credo, she repeatedly allows herself to be betrayed. The method may differ - Godfrey was fawning and recruited on the basis of his prior grievances, only to secretly kill Forsaken that other Forsaken protect in the questing. Whether this is out of a genuine twisted conviction and desire to have her views validated or because she must perform like this or be rejected, it's a consistent element of her character and one that I agree is twisted with Derek. Though by this point we've kind of vacated the point since we're just analyzing her character.

[Powerogue]

What's the point of making Desolate Council 2 when Desolate Council 1 has never been dissolved and still has members on it?

We don't know what happened to that handful of utterly soul-crushed forsaken Sylvanas allowed to live, not even any of their names. DC2 I was working under the assumption of taking control after Sylvanas is ousted from power. The current council is either disbanded or an irrelevant puppet of Sylvanas at this stage.

Let's put that up on the board of "things they should clarify when Calia shows up in-game."'

edit: Aha, I was wrong! We did get one name: https://wow.gamepedia.com/Annie_Lansing Every other named member was murdered by Sylvanas.

[Aucald]

I think we're running in circles over things we agree on at the micro scale, but not the macro one. To put my argument as succinctly as possible. The book does not have a nuanced take on what is a permissible tie to their former lives and what isn't. The differentiation is intended to be total. The dichotomy is Lordaeron - Undercity. This is both literal - the actual areas they should and shouldn't reside in and metaphorical - representations of their former lives. On the micro level, this means Parqual can't go to his old lodgings, but on the macro level it also means he can't leave the city without a purpose and has to smuggle books and Elsie is scared of the upper city. This totality is in contrast to prior content which, at the most charitable, presents this as more of a spectrum. Such treatment, of the kind you suggest, may make more sense in line with prior content and this as a shift, but it does not reflect the black and white, unnuanced take of the novel.

I think the differentiation is not intended to be total, and is instead implied to be in context. There's no dichotomy of scale, either. I disagree with your entire take on the macro argument entirely, and see it only as a contrivance to try to cast the novel as a retcon (and as such is unnecessary by implication). The argument doesn't hold up with what we know to be true both before *and* after "Before the Storm," and thus is inapplicable on its face. Nuance is great, but it isn't a requirement - the whole notion of this sequence of events constituting a retcon requires several elements of the narrative either be contorted well out of true, and the misapplication of known fact where that's not the case. Simply put, Occam's Razor supports my argument, as does the flow of narrative itself.

This is a bit of an incomplete picture. As we've already discussed, the Forsaken and Koltira's ideas of victory here differ. Sylvanas and the Forsaken want Andorhal claimed as part of their Lordaeron reconquista. They don't care whether there's Scourge there per se, the Scourge are just a stepping stone to full conquest. In comparison, Koltira considers the Scourge a primary possibility and given he's not Forsaken it's possible he doesn't really understand his role there and that's why he keeps giving leeway. But his victory is one enabled by Sylvanas, from her mustering of reinforcements to her virtual takeover of the battle after the undead were being pushed back under Koltira's command. His ties are the cause of his failure, but before that failure was manifested Sylvanas was fine with him doing this thing and he had sworn to her cause.

I don't disagree with the idea of Sylvanas approaching it from the angle of a Lordaeronian reconquista, and Koltira doing so from the angle of Scourge containment - that's on Koltira (and Sylvanas too for not making it clear and instead pretending to be someone else for reasons unclear). His victory is indeed aided by Sylvanas once it comes down to fighting the Alliance presence, but since it's also Sylvanas' fault (due to her recruitment effort at Felstone) that the Alliance farmer's attack unilaterally that's also a bit besides the point. Simply put, Koltira and Thassarian declared a truce after the Scourge's defeat to allow their forces a period to rest before finally settling the Battle of Andorhal, and Sylvanas caused the truce to be broken by attacking the Alliance elsewhere in the WPL and forcing both Koltira and Thassarian's hands to resume the fighting. Sylvanas' "reinforcements" involved killing and raising the dead of Felstone as Forsaken. Koltira only "failed" from Sylvanas' perspective, in that sense - though I agree his truce with Thassarian and the whole idea of a temporary armistice that could cost more Horde lives while they had the position of power was rather reckless. Sylvanas never makes that plain nor really seems to care, though.

[Mehrunes]

We don't know what happened to that handful of utterly soul-crushed forsaken Sylvanas allowed to live, not even any of their names. DC2 I was working under the assumption of taking control after Sylvanas is ousted from power. The current council is either disbanded or an irrelevant puppet of Sylvanas at this stage.

Let's put that up on the board of "things they should clarify when Calia shows up in-game."'

edit: Aha, I was wrong! We did get one name: https://wow.gamepedia.com/Annie_Lansing Every other named member was murdered by Sylvanas.

Murder is an unlawful killing of another person. An absolute ruler ordering traitors to be dealt with doesn't meet the criterion of unlawfulness. Also, the surviving members of the Council wouldn't have been on that Council to begin with if they were irrelevant. Neither would they suddenly turn irrelevant just because they chose not to be traitors like the ones that were killed.

[Powerogue]

Murder is an unlawful killing of another person. An absolute ruler ordering traitors to be dealt with doesn't meet the criterion of unlawfulness. Also, the surviving members of the Council wouldn't have been on that Council to begin with if they were irrelevant. Neither would they suddenly turn irrelevant just because they chose not to be traitors like the ones that were killed.

What do you think the current Desolate Council, if it has in fact been allowed to exist by Sylvanas, would do besides follow everything she says out of constant terror that they'd be next on the hit list? There's at least one left, and all of her named friends are dead.

Remember we're talking new leader of the forsaken, so are you speaking a hypothetical where the surviving one or two people after the massacre consider themselves a "council" still after Sylvanas is ousted and keep at it in her stead? I can't imagine them making very good leaders. It took the whole council just to "manage things while Sylvanas was gone", so a handful of terrified remnants doesn't even seem worth calling a governing body anymore.

About all we know about them is that Annie knows how to sew blankets.

[Varodoc]

I prefer a single leader over a council. As we can see from the Council of Three Hammers, Blizzard does not know how to develop each member of the ruling council in an equal way, with each of them appearing only sporadically (actually, Muradin does not even appear anywhere aside from the warfront). My money is on Calia ruling the Forsaken if the factions are dissolved, or the Lightforged Undead allied race if they remain. If it's the latter, Voss will replace Sylvanas.

[ilgynoth]

I prefer a single leader over a council. As we can see from the Council of Three Hammers, Blizzard does not know how to develop each member of the ruling council in an equal way, with each of them appearing only sporadically (actually, Muradin does not even appear anywhere aside from the warfront). My money is on Calia ruling the Forsaken if the factions are dissolved, or the Lightforged Undead allied race if they remain. If it's the latter, Voss will replace Sylvanas.

Im gonna tell you and everyone who is betting his money on Calia, its not going to happen. 99,99 % not. We have 2 AR left and Calia is building up to lead as an AR leader. Its most likely that Voss is the next leader. Since she joined in BfA the Forsaken, shes being build up to lead the new risen Forsaken and show them how it is to live as one of them. Something Calia cant do, because she doesnt know and will never know how it is.
Calia will showup, take some of the Lordaeron loyal People from the Forsaken and they will join her. And probably some dead or undead People of Stormwind, who will most likely die during the attack in patch 8.2.5

[Varodoc]

Im gonna tell you and everyone who is betting his money on Calia, its not going to happen. 99,99 % not. We have 2 AR left and Calia is building up to lead as an AR leader. Its most likely that Voss is the next leader. Since she joined in BfA the Forsaken, shes being build up to lead the new risen Forsaken and show them how it is to live as one of them. Something Calia cant do, because she doesnt know and will never know how it is.
Calia will showup, take some of the Lordaeron loyal People from the Forsaken and they will join her. And probably some dead or undead People of Stormwind, who will most likely die during the attack in patch 8.2.5

Lmao, that is literally what I said in the final part of my post.

[Maxilian]

I could deal with that. Desolate Council 2. I'd be curious, if they go that route, what other people you'd want on that council? Apothecary Lydon? (Guy who helps you deal with Stillwater in Hillsbrad) Helcular? (from southshore) Deathstalker Belmont? (from the Gilneas/Silverpine questline) Payson the roach guy? (he won in a landslide on my poll thread)

To be fair from those, the only one who i could actually see as part of the council is Helcular, also i would like the first council members to form this, maybe even resurrect the fallen members of the first council (unsure if its possible, but they were not given a true death -Their head was not destroyed, so i assume a Valkyr could bring back those slain)

[Nefastus]

you are a man of impeccable taste.

100% agree. I loved being the villainous horde of wc1-2, and wanted more of it in wc3 and got.... thrall's band of merry men?

i identified more with the scourge than the WC3 horde, and if given a choice between WoW horde or WoW Scourge i'd have gone evil scourge.

Same buddy, same!

Was such a letdown to play the prologue/tutorial with Thrall, I remember thinking wtf was that peaceful orc talk.

[justandulas]

Same buddy, same!

Was such a letdown to play the prologue/tutorial with Thrall, I remember thinking wtf was that peaceful orc talk.

Not my horde. That’s why I went zombie warlock (evil wizard) to which people still think I should be the hero. No just no

[Powerogue]

Interesting speculation by Taliesin here. Like him or hate him he's always great at overthinking things. I'm with him that Calia starting a separate lightforged allied race doesn't seem as likely as her trying to assert herself as leader of the existing forsaken.



While the forsaken variants not having visual distinctions seems unusual (should Calia stay with the Alliance), we do have precedent with pandaren.

[Nagawithlegs]

I think Calia will lead both Lightforged and Forsaken Undead, but there will be a token Forsaken leader (either Nathanos or Voss) to stick around to be their figurehead.

Also Light Undead will 100% look significantly different than Forsaken: likely will look very close to Human (it even parallels the Void Elves with Light Humans vs Void Blood Elves)

- - - Updated - - -

Also I'm not sure that Calia is a lock for Alliance.

[mickybrighteyes]

Also I'm not sure that Calia is a lock for Alliance.

I think her friendly relation with Anduin and her actions against Sylvanas say otherwise, but OK.

[Nagawithlegs]

I think her friendly relation with Anduin and her actions against Sylvanas say otherwise, but OK.

Sylvanas =/= Horde if we're going by the narrative Blizzard is pushing within BFA. Calia will easily join the Horde post-Sylvanas.

[mickybrighteyes]

Sylvanas =/= Horde if we're going by the narrative Blizzard is pushing within BFA. Calia will easily join the Horde post-Sylvanas.

And for what reason would Calia have to associate and interact with the orcs/trolls/tauren? Do keep in mind she's old alliance that was party to being under the pressure of the old horde invasion and witnessed the conflict with the same trolls the likes of Daelin had faced. Why would she NOT fall in with the nations that were her families old allies?

edit:

Calia thus far has been in good with Anduin and Jaina prior to her taking a stand to call for Undercity defectors to rally to Stromgarde. The issue here is that she really has NO ties or reasons to fall in with the horde in any capacity except that she isn't Sylvanas and could lead teh forsaken... but that's barely justifying her position to actually lead the forsaken.