View Poll Results: Would you support Sylvanas Windrunner if you still had the choice?

Voters
356. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, I would support Sylvanas

    132 37.08%
  • No, I would not support Sylvanas

    198 55.62%
  • Other / Not sure / It's complicated

    26 7.30%
Page 9 of 18 FirstFirst ...
7
8
9
10
11
... LastLast
  1. #161
    Quote Originally Posted by Daemos daemonium View Post
    Your free to read chronicles or the arthas book for his/his fathers perspective on it
    Hm the King and Prince not mentioning anything about how they could have messed up and/or been ignorant or indifferent about the orc's fate... You're right, that DOES sound like a good, unbiased portrayal of events. I'm convinced. The account of potential perpetrators resulting in them NOT implicating themselves is a shocking turn of events, to be sure.

  2. #162
    Stood in the Fire Muxtar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Ukraine
    Posts
    445
    Yes, I'd still support her, but if she explained her motivation logically.
    Not because I justify her doings in BfA (burning of Teldrassil could be set up a lot more logical than it was) - to be honest it was completely out of her pre-BfA character, and I am sure that writers just fucked up her character in that expansion turning her to cartoon villain. But she still can be redeemed as a character, even now, although I fear that is not possible with this incompetent bunch of 'writers' that we have atm.
    I always fancy playing for the grey/bad side, because being always goold ald lawful is damn boring. It is a video game after all, if I want to vent some steam, I'd do it here rather than in real life.
    Last edited by Muxtar; 2021-01-28 at 07:42 AM.

  3. #163
    Quote Originally Posted by huth View Post
    No, it's not. The Horde was able to do that after recovering from their catatonia. At the end of the second war, it was not a viable option. One could even argue that the camps were the only thing that allowed this to happen, since otherwise they wouldn't have had a viable population.
    didnt some orcs manage that without ever being caught and put in the camps?
    hellscream and warsong clan, doomhammer and so on (its been a while since i read lord of clans)

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Sagenod View Post
    And he was right for attacking her in Stormheim, she was going to enslave the leader of the Valarjar Val'kyr, which would have caused problems with Odyn, who was instrumental to defeating Helya, who has been causing problems since as far back as Wrath. Why even should Genn be punished for this?
    bcs he had no fucking clue its going to happen when he attacked?
    dont put events that happen AFTER the attack as reason for atack please, it shows you are extremely biased and just look for any justification...
    Last edited by Lolites; 2021-01-28 at 07:48 AM.

  4. #164
    The Insane Daemos daemonium's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Land of moose and goose.
    Posts
    16,469
    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    Hm the King and Prince not mentioning anything about how they could have messed up and/or been ignorant or indifferent about the orc's fate... You're right, that DOES sound like a good, unbiased portrayal of events. I'm convinced. The account of potential perpetrators resulting in them NOT implicating themselves is a shocking turn of events, to be sure.
    I take it you’ve not read the book then as what you suggest doesn’t make any sense to the context of it.

    The arthas book covers, the king dealing with the the tax’s to pay for the camps.

    Arthas going to inspect the camp and asking about the well being of the orcs where he’s presented with thrall as an example.

    Minor mentions of Blackmore being chewed about the camps after thralls escape.

    Neither arthas nor the king are answering to any one when it comes to there dealings with Blackmore (well arthas is reporting to his father but that doesn’t matter to his interactions with Blackmore) they wouldn’t need to worry about implicating them selfs as there is no one to implicate them selfs to.

    But let’s pretend none of that is the case, you can go read chronicles which is from a Meta perspective and you’ll get the same events but with far less detail.

  5. #165
    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    That's not what I'm referring to, I'm referring to the post-War times, i.e. effectively the WC3 period.
    As I said, someone like Thrall would not have happened if not for the human influence.

    If you're saying you wouldn't kill an innocent to save the entirety of creation, I'm calling hypocrisy right there.
    "Save the entirety of creation". Probably not what is happening, since she just could have told us her goal then. It's not an innocent. It's a good portion of the Alliance's and Horde's forces. Also it's reaching very far to assume that Sylvanas has a noble goal, since she never had one before (as Undead).

  6. #166
    Quote Originally Posted by LordVargK View Post
    "Save the entirety of creation". Probably not what is happening, since she just could have told us her goal then. It's not an innocent. It's a good portion of the Alliance's and Horde's forces. Also it's reaching very far to assume that Sylvanas has a noble goal, since she never had one before (as Undead).
    Obviously that's an extreme example, but the stakes could very well approach that - we don't know. In any event, there is a sort of moral relativism at play here that may (or may not) justify her actions depending on the actual stakes.

    It also doesn't have to be a "noble" goal. It could be entirely self-serving. Her wanting to prevent the destruction of Azeroth might, for example, be an entirely selfish motivation for her; since she, you know, lives and works there. But it could still end up justifying the means she employed.

    Or it might not. Could be she's just evil, shortsighted, and full of spite. That would be boring and disappointing, but it's entirely possible. Point being WE DON'T KNOW YET. And until we do, I personally am reserving my judgement of her actions so far.

    Do I personally EXPECT her actions to be proven justifiable? No. Not for reasons relating to her character, but purely because WoW writing is shitty and one-dimensional, and I don't expect them to deal with truly difficult moral dilemmas. But I don't know, and I have been surprised before in the past; so I'm sitting back and waiting for now.

  7. #167
    Quote Originally Posted by Lolites View Post
    didnt some orcs manage that without ever being caught and put in the camps?
    hellscream and warsong clan, doomhammer and so on (its been a while since i read lord of clans)
    Aren't they the most aggressive and violent Orc clans today? So the one's in the camp certainly came out better.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    Obviously that's an extreme example, but the stakes could very well approach that - we don't know. In any event, there is a sort of moral relativism at play here that may (or may not) justify her actions depending on the actual stakes.

    It also doesn't have to be a "noble" goal. It could be entirely self-serving. Her wanting to prevent the destruction of Azeroth might, for example, be an entirely selfish motivation for her; since she, you know, lives and works there. But it could still end up justifying the means she employed.

    Or it might not. Could be she's just evil, shortsighted, and full of spite. That would be boring and disappointing, but it's entirely possible. Point being WE DON'T KNOW YET. And until we do, I personally am reserving my judgement of her actions so far.

    Do I personally EXPECT her actions to be proven justifiable? No. Not for reasons relating to her character, but purely because WoW writing is shitty and one-dimensional, and I don't expect them to deal with truly difficult moral dilemmas. But I don't know, and I have been surprised before in the past; so I'm sitting back and waiting for now.
    Yes, we don't know. So we just can go by what we know and that's not very favourable for Sylvanas. If she behaves like a mass murdering psycho doing villian speeches then chances are that she is a mass murdering psycho villian. Warcraft is pretty blunt in that area. Big twists aren't what Warcraft writers are known for. That might change, but she is unredeemable at this point.
    Last edited by LordVargK; 2021-01-28 at 08:53 AM.

  8. #168
    Absolutely. Fuck these tree hugging alliance-lovers, Sylvanus is the true warchief.

  9. #169
    Quote Originally Posted by Oakshana View Post
    Greymane attempted to kill Sylvanas. You mean the person that attempted to blight his lands, kill everyone with the plague and killed his son in an effort to kill him?

    I'd say Greymane was a tad justified trying to take a shot at Sylvanas.

    Sylvanas had zero provocation to attack Gilneas, other than Garrosh wanted their lands.
    Then why do you blame her instead of Garrosh? And his son was dumb as fuck. I wish they both were dead. Old stinky dog is more annoying character than Nathanos.

  10. #170
    Quote Originally Posted by LordVargK View Post
    Yes, we don't know. So we just can go by what we know and that's not very favourable for Sylvanas. If she behaves like a mass murdering psycho doing villian speeches then chances are that she is a mass murdering psycho villian. Warcraft is pretty blunt in that area. Big twists aren't what Warcraft writers are known for. That might change, but she is unredeemable at this point.
    I don't really care what the "chances" are; only what actually happens. It may color my expectations, but not my judgement - that will come once I know enough.

    Is she irredeemably evil? Another very absolute statement. It would be easy to write a redemption for her - she only pretended to be a psycho to convince the Jailer, she's tormented by the bad things she had to do in order to save the universe, yada yada yada. Would be pretty shitty writing, but that's WoW. Do I expect it? No. But is it impossible? Also no.

  11. #171
    Quote Originally Posted by MrDaemon View Post
    Then why do you blame her instead of Garrosh? And his son was dumb as fuck. I wish they both were dead. Old stinky dog is more annoying character than Nathanos.
    Probably because Garrosh gave the specific order not to use the blight and Sylvanas ignored that order? Also "I was following orders" is a terrible excuse. Her being even more aggressive than the order told her to do makes things only worse.
    And "his son was dumb as fuck"? How does that justify anything??

  12. #172
    Quote Originally Posted by OwenBurton View Post
    In the last expansion, Sylvanas was an extremely controversial and ruthless Warchief -- but many players, especially from the Horde, still sympathized and supported her regardless.

    Even after she left Orgrimmar, many Banshee Loyalists remain loyal to her cause. Even today, many players still believe she has some greater motives at play -- or that she may possibly somehow redeem herself, possibly by improving the Shadowlands or ending the flaws of the Pantheon of Death once and for all. If you given the choice to support Sylvanas, would most players actually be willing to support her?
    The question alone...

    SHE. IS. TRYING. TO. KILL. ALL. OF. US

    and destroy reality as a bonus.

    And why? Because she feels that after all her crimes she deserved better then being send to hell, while gladly sending thousands of innocent Nightelves to exactly that fate.

    Seriously... how would you ever justify supporting this? She is a monster. We kill monsters. It is that simple.

  13. #173
    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    I don't really care what the "chances" are; only what actually happens. It may color my expectations, but not my judgement - that will come once I know enough.

    Is she irredeemably evil? Another very absolute statement. It would be easy to write a redemption for her - she only pretended to be a psycho to convince the Jailer, she's tormented by the bad things she had to do in order to save the universe, yada yada yada. Would be pretty shitty writing, but that's WoW. Do I expect it? No. But is it impossible? Also no.
    Non of what you said is an actual redemtion though. I can hardly see the WoW writers come up with something convincing. If she brings her victims back to life and then some, maybe that would redeem her. But that's shitty writing nontheless.

    And my judgement might change, but since this thread is based on what we know now, we have to judge on what we know now, not what might be.

  14. #174
    Quote Originally Posted by Candy Cough View Post
    It's not like they were mind controlled by the man named the deciever or anything
    Indeed it is not, they CHOSE to drink the blood. No one forced them. That should have become clear when after Garrosh's little time travel the Orcs actually CHOSE not to drink and then went on the exact same murder spree.

  15. #175
    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    This isn't an accurate portrayal, though. Sylvanas didn't specifically set out to murder children - she obliterated a settlement, with all the casualties of war that entailed. That's what happens in war. You think the Alliance waited for all the civilians to get out when it attacked Horde cities? It's only a difference in scale, not in action.

    Whereas the orc concentration camps were SPECIFICALLY designed to break the spirit of an entire species, including all its members from birth to death, AFTER the war was over and won. Talk about committing genocide.
    Mmh no ?

    The concentration camp were set up because they did not know what to do with the orcs since they all lost their will to fight and live in some case.

    Mind you, some nations wanted to eradicate them, but they still not did it.

  16. #176
    Quote Originally Posted by Candy Cough View Post
    I want to blight them because they never pay for their crimes. Greymane attenmpted to kill Sylvanas and all he got was a slap on the wrist
    After she murdered his people and his son as a bonus you mean? I mean he literally says that his attack is vengeance for his son. Are you deliberately ignoring reality or does that just happen when one needs to excuse every atrocity the Horde commited?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    Sorry, accusing me of black-and-white thinking while grossly misrepresenting the situation after the war is a bit sketchy. The options discussed were 1. kill them all; or 2. put them in camps. There was no 3. leave them alone and maybe they'll just die. Also, as I said originally, those were NOT the ONLY options. Nothing disqualifies, for example, going with 4. contain them, but try and help them rebuild their civilization and educate them towards peace and friendship. You know, the REHABILITATION aspect of incarceration that should be the first goal. Nothing says that COULDN'T have worked - nothing says it MUST HAVE worked either, but it was an OPTION. And to say it wasn't is disingenuous at best and morally negligent at worst. And there's several other options as well (ship them off to uninhabited parts of the world, or give them unoccupied lands, or whatever) which weren't considered because they were inconvenient - not because they didn't exist.
    They were alien mass murderers that allied with demons, genocided the peaceful draenei and slaughtered entire human cities for fun (TWO TIMES) and you talk about REHABILITATION... are you hearing yourself?

  17. #177
    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Raisei View Post
    After she murdered his people and his son as a bonus you mean? I mean he literally says that his attack is vengeance for his son. Are you deliberately ignoring reality or does that just happen when one needs to excuse every atrocity the Horde commited?

    - - - Updated - - -



    They were alien mass murderers that allied with demons, genocided the peaceful draenei and slaughtered entire human cities for fun (TWO TIMES) and you talk about REHABILITATION... are you hearing yourself?
    You are aware that he did it in the middle of the largest legion invasion ever? The entire war could have gone to hell if the warchief died, the horde would be destabilized

    He did it out of petty vengeance during a truce

    The attack on Gilneas was part of a war that ended. The person responsible, Garrosh, has even been tried in court and killed in mak’gora

    This score was settled

    Everything past MoP is a new act of aggression.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Raisei View Post
    Indeed it is not, they CHOSE to drink the blood. No one forced them. That should have become clear when after Garrosh's little time travel the Orcs actually CHOSE not to drink and then went on the exact same murder spree.
    Jesus christ

    The man is named THE DECIEVER, and is the de facto leader of a star spanning empire lead by a titan that can cleave planets in half

    The orcs are stupid stone age people. You cant honestly believe that manipulating them into drinking blood would be hard for the guy that can destroy cities with a snap of his fingers

    The orcs are nothing more than a tragic story about how the Draenei screwed them
    Last edited by Candy Cough; 2021-01-28 at 10:16 AM.
    An'u belore delen'na

  18. #178
    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    That's my point, though. This was an OPTION - it wasn't easy, it wasn't convenient, but it was there. It could have been tried. It MIGHT have failed. But it didn't HAVE to fail. They made the choice not to consider this as a real alternative; but it was there. And to now go on about how "there were only two options" is completely disingenuous and mostly serves exculpatory function, i.e. the whole "yes it was wrong but we didn't have a choice" thing.
    No it was not. Just put yourself into the Alliance's shoes for a fraction of a second before making up reasons why the camps were sooo horrible.

    We beat them once. Instead of changing their ways and trying to live peacefully what did they do? Yes, they attacked AGAIN. Letting them just go after they started TWO FRIGGIN WARS with untold numbers slaughtered by them, is ridiculous and foolish.

    Nothing would stop them from recovering and attacking again killing even more. And people like Grommash would have done exactly that, if it had not been for Thrall.

    The camps were the merciful and only option. Exterminating them was what they easily deserved twice over.

  19. #179
    Quote Originally Posted by Raisei View Post
    They were alien mass murderers that allied with demons, genocided the peaceful draenei and slaughtered entire human cities for fun (TWO TIMES) and you talk about REHABILITATION... are you hearing yourself?
    Apparently no one ever taught you about "two wrongs don't make a right", but that's beside the point - I'm not saying anything about what the orcs did or did not "deserve". My point is specifically about Alliance hypocrisy that portrays their actions after the war as being the benevolent choice taken out of only two options (1. kill them all; or 2. put them in concentration camps). Putting orcs in camps wasn't a good deed, and pretending it was anything but the convenient alternative to outright murder is a misrepresentation. They could have tried harder and didn't, and now they're pretending that was never possible and they did all they could. THAT is my problem.
    Quote Originally Posted by Raisei View Post
    No it was not. Just put yourself into the Alliance's shoes for a fraction of a second before making up reasons why the camps were sooo horrible.

    We beat them once. Instead of changing their ways and trying to live peacefully what did they do? Yes, they attacked AGAIN. Letting them just go after they started TWO FRIGGIN WARS with untold numbers slaughtered by them, is ridiculous and foolish.

    Nothing would stop them from recovering and attacking again killing even more. And people like Grommash would have done exactly that, if it had not been for Thrall.

    The camps were the merciful and only option. Exterminating them was what they easily deserved twice over.
    This is exactly how cycles of violence work. If you think the fact that orcs had to live for years under confinement and degradation played no role in their continued resentment of the Alliance, you're representing a grossly biased perspective. Were the orcs a peace-loving innocent race? Of course not. But you can't go around going "yeah we imprisoned them like animals for a couple of years but THEY STILL HATE US! I guess they must be just evil or something, idk".
    Last edited by Biomega; 2021-01-28 at 10:03 AM.

  20. #180
    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    Apparently no one ever taught you about "two wrongs don't make a right", but that's beside the point - I'm not saying anything about what the orcs did or did not "deserve". My point is specifically about Alliance hypocrisy that portrays their actions after the war as being the benevolent choice taken out of only two options (1. kill them all; or 2. put them in concentration camps). Putting orcs in camps wasn't a good deed, and pretending it was anything but the convenient alternative to outright murder is a misrepresentation. They could have tried harder and didn't, and now they're pretending that was never possible and they did all they could. THAT is my problem.

    This is exactly how cycles of violence work. If you think the fact that orcs had to live for years under confinement and degradation played no role in their continued resentment of the Alliance, you're representing a grossly biased perspective. Were the orcs a peace-loving innocent race? Of course not. But you can't go around going "yeah we imprisoned them like animals for a couple of years but THEY STILL HATE US! I guess they must be just evil or something, idk".
    The convenient choice would have been to put them all out of their misery. A leader must protect his people, not care about those that slaughtered them before after no provocation.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •