Blizzard screws the Loyalists over in Shadowlands

[DemonHunter18]

Sylvanas did betray the Horde, and the Speaker/Champion, pretty much directly. She reveals in the Loyalist cut-scene that her entire goal with giving Nathanos the Xal'atath blade that the intent was to raise N'Zoth - and in her own words: "My bargain with Azshara will yet bear fruit. The armies of Azeroth will fight her master, and he will line their streets with corpses. In the end, he too will serve Death." She set this up *before* the Mak'gora at the gates or Orgrimmar, so I'd say she quite literally abandoned the Horde to die by her own actions. She certainly abandoned the Speaker/Champion, directly plotting his or her death along with everyone else who journeyed to Nazjatar:

hm then Idk what people are complaining about.

then again, I didn't follow the entire discussion here.

hell, you might as well say she betrayed the Horde the moment she made a deal with the Jailer way back between WotLK and Cata.

scratch that, she betrayed the world she is living in.

sure, it might be OOC or retcon about Sylvanas' character but that's how Blizzard are going with.

[Mehrunes]

Sylvanas did betray the Horde, and the Speaker/Champion, pretty much directly. She reveals in the Loyalist cut-scene that her entire goal with giving Nathanos the Xal'atath blade that the intent was to raise N'Zoth - and in her own words: "My bargain with Azshara will yet bear fruit. The armies of Azeroth will fight her master, and he will line their streets with corpses. In the end, he too will serve Death." She set this up *before* the Mak'gora at the gates or Orgrimmar, so I'd say she quite literally abandoned the Horde to die by her own actions. She certainly abandoned the Speaker/Champion, directly plotting his or her death along with everyone else who journeyed to Nazjatar:

As @Raisei pointed out, the Blood Oath is absolute. If the Warchief desires to make some individual soldiers sacrificial pawns to achieve the desired results of a deal with Azshara (or for whatever other reason), that is their prerogative. The members of the Horde themselves vowed to be the tools of the Warchief's desire, whatever that desire may be. There is no addendum saying they get a say in what said desire is.

Or did Sylvanas betray Quel'Thalas when she used her soldiers as sacrificial pawns to slow down Arthas?

Besides, even the supposedly canon blurb (you know, the context of this discussion that you as usual chose not to follow) disagrees with you. Because it quite clearly states that Sylvanas betrayed the Horde only when she called it nothing.

Which leaves two possibilities. Either Bad mouthing the Horde is forbidden (even for Warchief), which is supported by nothing. Hell, plenty of characters bad-mouthed Garrosh and his Horde. Saurfang and Baine bad-mouthed Sylvanas's. By this logic they are traitors too, which you (and the people clinging to a blurb written by some editor) consistently try to deny.

Or it's Sylvanas bailing the Horde that made her betray it. But Thrall showed that the Warchief can both step down.

well technically, summary of the book isn't really 100% true although in this case it might be right.

No, no. Of course the stuff on the cover is totes legit canon. A note about author? Top notch canon lore. Publisher data? The publisher totally exists within the story. References to the IP name even when that name isn't ever used in the story itself? Still canon.

Unlike Ask a CDev replies that were explicitly stated to expand the lore, apparently

[DemonHunter18]

No, no. Of course the stuff on the cover is totes legit canon. A note about author? Top notch canon lore. Publisher data? The publisher totally exists within the story. References to the IP name even when that name isn't ever used in the story itself? Still canon.

Unlike Ask a CDev replies that were explicitly stated to expand the lore, apparently

nothing is canon to Blizz.

you think Shadow Rising won't get retconed in a few years xd

[Powerogue]

It's a system that is so ridiculously flawed it is a miracle it has only twice ended in catastrophe.

Which is why it's so great that the Blood Oath is dead forever with the removal of the warchief position. Something they should've done when Thrall came to power, but back then they had a sane leader who ruled with wisdom over force so the Horde almost always followed him willingly.

We can finally stop citing a single obscure quest in Dragonblight as the end-all-be-all singular virtue of the Horde.

[prwraith]

Good. That's what you get for supporting the villian.

Honestly, this. There was clearly a right decision and you chose badly. Enjoy the fruits of your poor decision

[Mehrunes]

Which is why it's so great that the Blood Oath is dead forever with the removal of the warchief position. Something they should've done when Thrall came to power, but back then they had a sane leader who ruled with wisdom over force so the Horde almost always followed him willingly.

We can finally stop citing a single obscure quest in Dragonblight as the end-all-be-all singular virtue of the Horde.

Not only is the Blood Oath mentioned more than once, but the event in question happened when it was still in effect do you don't get to hide behind the position of Warchief being abolished later on.

[Ielenia]

Ah, it's the majority? Fascinating. Pray tell, when did Blizzard release stats on how many players picked which side?


The loyalists outnumbered the Alliance and traitors combined at the end, but whatever helps you maintain your fanfiction.

In your first sentence, you mock the poster for making claims using nothing but assumptions regarding numbers...

And yet in your very next sentence... you make a claim using nothing but assumptions regarding numbers.

Really?

[Powerogue]

Honestly, this. There was clearly a right decision and you chose badly. Enjoy the fruits of your poor decision

For what it's worth I'm really glad we had the loyalist option. From smaller gag bits like "Act like you're going to save Baine at all costs!" as I sat on the sidelines eating popcorn and drinking the free provided health potions, to the completely unique ending quests such as beating and dragging a Horde icon through the streets to be booed and mocked.

I felt like total garbage for that, it was great! And when Sylvanas had the gall to confess everything to my face in the loyalist-exclusive epilogue, I was dumbstruck. It helped that I leveled that character intentionally finding every Sylvanas focused quest, so I thought back to her brainwashing my DK friend in the Plaguelands, raising Dalaran wizards and being scolded by Garrosh in Silverpine, and everything in between.

Even RPing a forsaken death knight who had severe brain damage from being resurrected so many times, with <The Gullible> as a title, it got me to turn on Sylvanas.

[Aresk]

Sylvanas has never had an actual victory since Arthas raised her, other than the TFT campaign. She failed to kill Arthas TWICE, her second in command temporarily overthrew her, almost getting to kill her during the coup, the very guy she raised to help her conquer Gilneas actually got to kill her - looks a bit like failure in my book. Later in Legion, Genn kicked her ass in Stormheim, and in BfA she ultimately failed yet again.

With such a less than stellar record, are we supposed to take her seriously? I mean, she is pretty much a perfect (even if weird) mix of Anti Sue and Villain Sue. In other words, completely cliche and uninteresting, especially as a main antagonist.

She conquered Gilneas. She took Andorhal. She snuffed out "hope" for the Forsaken and killed Calia in Arathi. She burned Teldrassil. She decimated the Alliance fleet by leading them to Nazjatar. She got N'zoth released. She killed Saurfang. She destroyed the helm. She's had her defeats in WoW, but she also had her victories (and it's hard to say she ultimately failed in BfA when her only real failure was losing control of the Horde earlier than she anticipated; she still got the death she wanted and managed to accomplish her overall goal of tearing the veil between Azeroth and Shadowlands).

[javierdsv]

It would have been a great opportunity to create a PVP raid, where loyalists can fight non-loyalists and then Sylvanas show up in the middle of the fight and treat loyalists as garbage trying to kill them for more power so then everyone decide to join against her for the rest of the raid.

[Powerogue]

In your first sentence, you mock the poster for making claims using nothing but assumptions regarding numbers...

And yet in your very next sentence... you make a claim using nothing but assumptions regarding numbers.

Really?

I maintain the implication of the scene are that Sylvanas was putting on a show of being stronger than she was to the forces outside by clustering so many near the walls, while on the inside we see the truth of barren streets, civil unrest, abandoned posts, and resorting to conscripting civilians. A fight between the forces would have devestated everyone and left no one to stop N'zoth.

[Mehrunes]

In your first sentence, you mock the poster for making claims using nothing but assumptions regarding numbers...

And yet in your very next sentence... you make a claim using nothing but assumptions regarding numbers.

Really?

Since you obviously don't know this, let me clue you in on a secret. Paragraphs exist to conveys separate points. The second paragraph I was replying to talked about how losses in the Horde would make it easier for the Alliance to beat it.

Which, unlike the first paragraph, was quite clearly not talking about the players (and how Alliance ones could get an upper hand "beating the Horde ones into submission" in some LARP faction brawl).

As such, it could only talk about lore as there are no other options. And in lore, as mentioned by even Alliance members (who are apparently assumptions now), loyalists characters (and not just players, which is another difference here) outnumbered Anduin's forces and his ex-Horde groupies combined. Exactly like I said.

Simple context. Follow it.

[Ielenia]

Since you obviously don't know this, let me clue you in on a secret. Paragraphs exist to conveys separate points. The second paragraph I was replying to talked about how losses in the Horde would make it easier for the Alliance to beat it.

Which, unlike the first paragraph, was quite clearly not talking about the players (and how Alliance ones could get an upper hand "beating the Horde ones into submission" in some LARP faction brawl).

As such, it could only talk about lore as there are no other options. And in lore, as mentioned by even Alliance members (who are apparently assumptions now), loyalists characters (and not just players, which is another difference here) outnumbered Anduin's forces and his ex-Horde groupies combined. Exactly like I said.

Simple context. Follow it.

You should follow your own advice, sometimes.

It doesn't matter if it's players and NPCs. You mocked the other poster for making an assumption regarding numbers they had no way of knowing, and then in your very next post, you made an assumption regarding numbers you have no way of knowing by saying that the "loyalistst" outnumber the combined might of the Alliance and the Horde rebels.

So how can the loyalists outnumber the Alliance and Horde rebels... if the Horde was losing the war? Where did this sudden influx of soldiers and bodies came from to suddenly "outnumbers" the combined forces of the enemy?

[Aucald]

As Raisei pointed out, the Blood Oath is absolute. If the Warchief desires to make some individual soldiers sacrificial pawns to achieve the desired results of a deal with Azshara (or for whatever other reason), that is their prerogative. The members of the Horde themselves vowed to be the tools of the Warchief's desire, whatever that desire may be. There is no addendum saying they get a say in what said desire is.

In the strictest, legalistic terms I would agree - but in terms of the essence of leadership and the essential spirit of what an oath of loyalty implies and entails, I would say following such an oath to such a leader is pointless and ultimately self-defeating. As I've long maintained, the Warchief is implicitly bound to serve the Horde's interests and that of its people - if they fail in that task, the Blood Oath like all other oaths of loyalty is null and void. Tyrants extract only the loyalty they can enforce through violence, they deserve no loyalty based on fidelity, honor, or patriotism.

Or did Sylvanas betray Quel'Thalas when she used her soldiers as sacrificial pawns to slow down Arthas?

A meaningless aside and patently false frame - Sylvanas' role in raising N'Zoth to "line [the] streets with corpses" and the goal of attempting to save Quel'Thalas from the Scourge, involving necessary sacrifice of willing soldiers, isn't even close to the same thing.

Besides, even the supposedly canon blurb (you know, the context of this discussion that you as usual chose not to follow) disagrees with you. Because it quite clearly states that Sylvanas betrayed the Horde only when she called it nothing.

The context of this discussion and thread is the blight of the Loyalists in general, not specifically the blurb you were originally talking about - and as you've been at pains to establish here, the blurb isn't really canon and thus has no bearing on this or anything else. In-game dialogue, however, is very much canon and speaks to the further topic concerning Sylvanas' betrayal of both the Horde and its Speaker/Champion. I never said that's the *only* way she betrayed the Horde, either.

Which leaves two possibilities. Either Bad mouthing the Horde is forbidden (even for Warchief), which is supported by nothing. Hell, plenty of characters bad-mouthed Garrosh and his Horde. Saurfang and Baine bad-mouthed Sylvanas's. By this logic they are traitors too, which you (and the people clinging to a blurb written by some editor) consistently try to deny.

Or it's Sylvanas bailing the Horde that made her betray it. But Thrall showed that the Warchief can both step down.

There's a huge chasm between "badmouthing" the Horde and/or its current Warchief, and engineering the unnecessary and horrific death of its people at the hands of an external evil that said leader helped raise for the express purpose of killing everyone. Constructively abandoning one's responsibilities as leader will engender a lack of loyalty in one's people - this is almost an objective truth for any leadership structure. You may engineer it such that your people aren't able to rebel, if you're a lucky autocrat - but the Horde isn't such a structure, and the failures of both Garrosh and Sylvanas illustrate that in abundance.

[Mehrunes]

You should follow your own advice, sometimes.

It doesn't matter if it's players and NPCs. You mocked the other poster for making an assumption regarding numbers they had no way of knowing, and then in your very next post, you made an assumption regarding numbers you have no way of knowing by saying that the "loyalistst" outnumber the combined might of the Alliance and the Horde rebels.

So how can the loyalists outnumber the Alliance and Horde rebels... if the Horde was losing the war? Where did this sudden influx of soldiers and bodies came from to suddenly "outnumbers" the combined forces of the enemy?

Except I didn't make an assumption. Which part of it being stated in-lore did you not understand? Do humor me. Alternatively, stop digging your hole deeper for no reason and acknowledge that there is a difference between a claim that the players who picked the traitor path outnumber the ones who picked the loyalist path (with Blizzard never even hinting anything about those numbers) and the statement that in-lore the loyalists (and not just of the player variety) outnumbered the traitors, especially when it's stated even by the other side.

Which also makes your own claim that the Horde was losing the war at that point something you pulled out of the Nether. The Horde may have been losing earlier on, but, as Garrosh put it, things change. Even before going to Durotar Anduin himself stated that he has enough men for one final push, while Saurfang pointed to the handful of Horde soldiers outside the tower as those who joined his noble cause.

In the strictest, legalistic terms I would agree - but in terms of the essence of leadership and the essential spirit of what an oath of loyalty implies and entails, I would say following such an oath to such a leader is pointless and ultimately self-defeating. As I've long maintained, the Warchief is implicitly bound to serve the Horde's interests and that of its people - if they fail in that task, the Blood Oath like all other oaths of loyalty is null and void. Tyrants extract only the loyalty they can enforce through violence, they deserve no loyalty based on fidelity, honor, or patriotism.

That it may be pointless and self-defeating to follow it is immaterial to the point that the members of the Horde vowed it anyway, accepting everything that it entails, pointlessness and all. And your idealistic view on oaths of loyalty in general is even more immaterial in context of an oath this blatantly one sided and demanding such an absolute obedience like the Blood Oath. Especially in a pre-enlightenment society where the concept of social contract is yet to appear.

A meaningless aside and patently false frame - Sylvanas' role in raising N'Zoth to "line [the] streets with corpses" and the goal of attempting to save Quel'Thalas from the Scourge, involving necessary sacrifice of willing soldiers, isn't even close to the same thing.

Why? Because you say so? Was it within her powers as Ranger General to sacrifice her people as she saw fit? Yes. And how willing those soldiers really were? Because Sylvanas only called them arrows in her quiver in her internal monologues. She wasn't telling them "yo, you're going to die now, for the glory of the motherland". Was it within her powers as Warchief to sacrifice her people as she saw fit? Even more so, given how the Blood Oath comically skews the balance of power in favor of the Warchief.

The context of this discussion and thread is the blight of the Loyalists in general, not specifically the blurb you were originally talking about - and as you've been at pains to establish here, the blurb isn't really canon and thus has no bearing on this or anything else. In-game dialogue, however, is very much canon and speaks to the further topic concerning Sylvanas' betrayal of both the Horde and its Speaker/Champion. I never said that's the *only* way she betrayed the Horde, either.

Yet the blurb is the only source that actually claims she betrayed the Horde. This in-game dialogue of yours is Sylvanas' own lines (none of which was "I betrayed the Horde") that lead you to the grand revelation that she confirmed she betrayed the Horde only through you once again deliberately ignoring the power structure of the Horde.

There's a huge chasm between "badmouthing" the Horde and/or its current Warchief, and engineering the unnecessary and horrific death of its people at the hands of an external evil that said leader helped raise for the express purpose of killing everyone. Constructively abandoning one's responsibilities as leader will engender a lack of loyalty in one's people - this is almost an objective truth for any leadership structure. You may engineer it such that your people aren't able to rebel, if you're a lucky autocrat - but the Horde isn't such a structure, and the failures of both Garrosh and Sylvanas illustrate that in abundance.

At this point you're so lost in your argument you're conflating your own claims about Sylvanas' deal with Azshara and the statement of the blurb that I actually talked about in this paragraph.

[Aucald]

That it may be pointless and self-defeating to follow it is immaterial to the point that the members of the Horde vowed it anyway, accepting everything that it entails, pointlessness and all. And your idealistic view on oaths of loyalty in general is even more immaterial in context of an oath this blatantly one sided and demanding such an absolute obedience like the Blood Oath. Especially in a pre-enlightenment society where the concept of social contract is yet to appear.

The Horde banks a lot of its essential philosophy on idealistic notions (e.g. "Honor"), so it scans that they would both apply and construe those notions to their society and leadership as well. This isn't the first time the Horde has cast the Blood Oath aside when they though their leader acted without honor, either. The Blood Oath *has* manifest limits when it comes to practical reality, and the Horde as a whole will set it aside if they must. You can call this illegal if you wish, but this doesn't change the outcome in any way.

Why? Because you say so? Was it within her powers as Ranger General to sacrifice her people as she saw fit? Yes. And how willing those soldiers really were? Because Sylvanas only called them arrows in her quiver in her internal monologues. She wasn't telling them "yo, you're going to die now, for the glory of the motherland". Was it within her powers as Warchief to sacrifice her people as she saw fit? Even more so, given how the Blood Oath comically skews the balance of power in favor of the Warchief.

Because it very obviously is, and I think you know that - trying to claim that the two situations are even close to similar is just sashaying into moon logic on your part. One is a leader making a very sad but required call to sacrifice their soldiers to buy time for critical defense in the goal of preserving their homeland from an aggressor, the other is a leader making a deal with another enemy to release an eldritch horror that will kill and/or corrupt everything it encounters, including said leader's own people, for the goal of increasing said leader's own power. That the Warchief can legally do this changes nothing of its ethical tenor - it's monstrously evil on its face. Laws can be unethical, too.

Yet the blurb is the only source that actually claims she betrayed the Horde. This in-game dialogue of yours is Sylvanas' own lines (none of which was "I betrayed the Horde") that, as usual, deliberately ignore the power structure of the Horde.

This implies that actually betray something one has to announce it plainly? That's ridiculous. Her actions and the intentions behind them betrayed the Horde - we know this to be true already, the blurb is just stating directly for the reader. Its canonincity doesn't even matter in this sense as it's just paraphrasing what we already know or the state of affairs in Orgrimmar at current. Your argument also belies the sense that much of the Horde felt betrayed by Sylvanas at Orgrimmar, as various NPC dialogues relate to the player - so even though you may personally disagree with it, there's still a strong sense of betrayal among the Horde's people regardless just due to her proclamation after the Mak'gora. Sylvanas actually and truly betrayed the Horde at the opening of Nazjatar, this is now a known quantity. Whether or not you agree with her words at Orgrimmar also being a betrayal is irrelevant.

[Dalinos]

ok. i watched this video.



3)
this video guy really needs quickly 5 things:
- going out into the real world and get some RL
- move up his roller blind and open his window
- a shave and a bath
- a nice cup of reality
- less drugs and a less nerdy gaming mindset

but thats just my opinion.

Do me a favour why don't you. Google the man called Samwise Didier. He is a founding member of Blizzard Entertainment, the art director since forever and the lead singer of L70ETC, the WoW metal band. The guy is a multi-millionaire who shows up to work in flip-flops (or thongs, for the Australians), a pair of bermuda shorts and a Megadeath/Metallica/Iron Maiden/other metal band T-shirt.

Hell, at the company I work at, the company owner has a very hands-on approach and works 1 day at each of our 5 stores. Tuesday's he's at my store. He shows up in black trousers, a white shirt, no tie, no blazer, Nike/Adidas sports shoes. The company OWNER. Who's NAME is on the fucking building.

Please realize appearances mean jack shit when you do what you love.

[Omedon]

They were never going to canonically validate the self-casting of “player character as actual villain.” Not in this story, not in this game.

You can RP your character however you choose, but yes, in canon, you are the hero, no question, no deviation. The few times they try to grey this up feel forced and are soon glossed over with “a certain point of view.”

[Hubbl3]

Honestly, this. There was clearly a right decision and you chose badly. Enjoy the fruits of your poor decision

What consequences?

[prwraith]

What consequences?

I mean aside from the leader of the loyalists publicly declaring them worthless, you get a dead storyline. It was obvious to literally everyone that this wouldn't end well. Blizzards writers can't write a diverging storyline, ya'll should have known better lol.

It's like clinging to a ceo who's failed several times in the past expecting this time to be different. Utter insanity.

- - - Updated - - -

Please realize appearances mean jack shit when you do what you love.

They only mean jackshit if you own it or your boss is ok with it. But appearances aside, this guy just looks unhealthy. He absolutely does need to go outside and do something