View Poll Results: Sylvanas is...

Voters
247. You may not vote on this poll
  • She's Evil

    168 68.02%
  • She's Good

    20 8.10%
  • She's Misunderstood

    59 23.89%
Page 9 of 15 FirstFirst ...
7
8
9
10
11
... LastLast
  1. #161
    Quote Originally Posted by Super Dickmann View Post
    The TBC trio of Kael, Illidan and Vashj are why I can't take anyone going on about how Sylvanas is irredeemable seriously, seeing as how they all intended to either destroy the world, destroy the universe, punt people's souls into the Void or in the case of the former two actually did permanently destroy people's souls to fuel their tools and they mostly got a good shake. What sets Illidan apart from Sylvanas, besides the Doylist part that people take what she does more seriously because she does it to playable factions as already said, is the coherence of presentation. Illidan in WC3, TBC and Legion might be three separate characters, but within each individual product they're entirely coherent. Sylvanas has played coy for ages for no real reason other than that the writers had no idea what they wanted to do with her and still don't. That's why a reveal doesn't really work for her case. If her goal, as she alludes to with Anduin is really that the afterlife is fucked and so she intends to destroy it all and then sort out people's souls, with the Jailer as a means to an end, that's megalomaniacal and evil, but also allows us to get some point. But unlike Illidan, she's cast as a clueless dupe who is inexplicably trusting of the Jailer. The Maw, unlike Legion soul destruction has the rather obvious get out of jail free card that anyone there can also be dragged out and put somewhere else, but the story doesn't bother with this.
    This is the most weird thing and I sure hope it gets explained. How does she justify to herself working for the guy responsible for her life going to shit? Did Zorvaal tell her that he wasn't really controlling Arthas or something or is she at this point so far beyond reason and logic that she does no longer care? Or does she really not see the connection? Sylvanas is many things but she is neither stupid nor forgiving so there better be some pay off for this.
    She does seem to assume a sort of loyalty that the Jailer extented to his allies/underlings, otherwise her asking after a plan to free Denathrius would make no sense and it's quite ironical that as someone who has systematically betrayed everyone that ever took her side, she is now the one witnessing the betrayal. So does she really believe in this guy?

    I suppose it depends on the big secret that we have yet to learn: The reason why he is imprisoned in the Maw. He was apparently able to frame that into a tale of "great injustice" that Devos eagerly ate up, probably Sylvanas knows it, but for some reason we do not. Do the Eternal Ones actually have a reason to believe we would take his side too if we knew? It reaaaally seems unlikely and I am not really believing in big twists in WoW stories anymore but...

    Quote Originally Posted by Super Dickmann View Post
    And even then, this is her third grand goal in as many years. She went from wanting to destroy Stormwind and take over the world for the Horde in her mind, to wanting to become mistress of death and killing everyone to now only wanting to kill people out of solidarity, with actions associated with each of these portrayals. But these actions don't make sense for either other version of the character. In BFA she was built up so monotonously to be pure evil for no reason in that expansion that any motive retroactively added to her can't shovel its way out. Illidan didn't have this problem because he always used the most extreme methods possible and the only thing that they needed to change was to give him a goal. On the other hand, Shadowlands Sylvanas who gets to actually have the VA deliver lines with some measure of nuance even if they're nonsense and gets some interiority instead of twee one-liners is difficult to parse doing what her BFA version did, ditto the other way around. Does anyone seriously think the Sylvanas who spoke exclusively in smarmy villain monologues of BFA/Shadows Rising would feel bad about enslaving Anduin when she ditched her family and lover and torched a city's worth of people for a 1-up?
    Depending how much Danuser wants to piss us off, he might just declare that during BFA the Jailer was "assuming direct control" of her and thus Teldrassil and all that are not her fault. Frankly, by now, I believe there is nothing he won't do to give her a redemption arc.

    Quote Originally Posted by Super Dickmann View Post
    Afrasiabi and Danuser were both taking the character in shit, but mutually exclusive directions, as was Golden in the book. Afrasiabi's version in BFA is by far the worst one on her lonesome, but any version needs to deal with the baggage of the other two, hence any reveal will be incoherent no matter what it is. Illidan never had this problem and that, not morality, is the difference between recontextualizing him and recontextualizing Sylvanas.
    I agree on the baggage. Danuser seems to want to pretend that BFA and Teldrassil never happened, so he can tell the story of the tragic anti-hero he wants her to be. Unfortunately for him, that just won't work. The players, especially on the Alliance side, do not forget shit like this.
    As I said above, it's nearly impossible to explain away a genocide, especially when it is directed at one of the player factions. Illidan did not have that issue and even then I would not call him redeemed. He was a useful weapon that we turned against our enemies, but that was pretty much it. If he had returned to Azeroth we would likely have imprisoned him again.

  2. #162
    Quote Originally Posted by Raisei View Post
    This is the most weird thing and I sure hope it gets explained. How does she justify to herself working for the guy responsible for her life going to shit? Did Zorvaal tell her that he wasn't really controlling Arthas or something or is she at this point so far beyond reason and logic that she does no longer care? Or does she really not see the connection? Sylvanas is many things but she is neither stupid nor forgiving so there better be some pay off for this.
    She does seem to assume a sort of loyalty that the Jailer extented to his allies/underlings, otherwise her asking after a plan to free Denathrius would make no sense and it's quite ironical that as someone who has systematically betrayed everyone that ever took her side, she is now the one witnessing the betrayal. So does she really believe in this guy?
    At the moment it looks like she's just really stupid. She knows he's associated with the Lich King and the helmet and co were made on his command. She knows that he employs Kel'thuzad who was the one Arthas invaded Quel'thalas to revive and is the reason for everything that's happened to her up to this point. On the less personal ground she's also seen him ditch Denathrius once he's no longer needed and there's the slight bit about the Jailer operating an eternal torture factory. Nevermind whether her goals are altruistic or selfish, whether she's consistent or not. The idea that she trusts this guy at all is absolutely bonkers.

    Now, his motive is still up in the air. My pet theory and what I think is far more likely is that he wants to expand the reach of Death over the other cosmic powers as other powers can circumvent it at present and can grow, while Death is mostly a stable ecosystem. Because that would throw the balance out of whack he got kicked into the Maw and the Arbiter was created, with his family taking up control of the other afterlives or in the case of Revendreth, creating them. We know that Ardenweald at the least existed before the Winter Queen and Maldraxxus may have existed before the Primus. His goal then is just to take back what's his, i.e control of the Shadowlands and then go back to the great game and beat the other powers. What he's told Devos, Sylvanas etc. is all bullshit meant to achieve his aims. He doesn't care at all about the order of the Shadowlands being unjust so much as it represents from him what's taken from him and how those who imprisoned him left themselves open to the machinations of the other expansionistic cosmic powers. Ditto he doesn't care about individual souls.

    Sylvanas in that case, could be motivated by either trusting his motive if she's a dumbass, or if the writers are marginally more clever as her meaning to use the souls she punts there into the Maw and his resources to achieve the goal, then ditch him. This would solve a whole lot of characterization problems while keeping her an antagonist, in that she'd consider any soul punted to the Maw as being on loan there, to be freed when she achieves her goals, but who's suffering is a price worth paying if everyone else is free. Hence the spiel she goes on about how no one has any choice anyway - it's an excuse for her to cover both herself and the suffering she's enabled. It doesn't look like they're going this route though, given that she's a mid-way boss in the Gul'dan role. She could survive of course, and Danuser might for the redemption role, but it'd be on a foundation bound to satisfy no one if the inciting cause is her inexplicable trust for someone who's not trustworthy.

    Depending how much Danuser wants to piss us off, he might just declare that during BFA the Jailer was "assuming direct control" of her and thus Teldrassil and all that are not her fault. Frankly, by now, I believe there is nothing he won't do to give her a redemption arc.
    Danuser's writing of the character is marginally better than Afrasiabi, but still completely beside the point. The line about there 'still being some of the Ranger-General' in her summarizes it best. No one who's a fan of the character does so because of her role as Ranger-General, everything is based on what she becomes after, that's her inciting incident, her background. It's much like how Arthas without his journey from Stratholme on and his time as a Death Knight is just a generic paladin. He's hearkening to elements of her characterization that are not even blase, but interest no audience. Her detractors hate it because it sets her up to be better, those who like her because it turns her into a dupe who's been faking it for fifteen years and is actually a sad flower child who needed a hug. It satisfies no one except him.

    I agree on the baggage. Danuser seems to want to pretend that BFA and Teldrassil never happened, so he can tell the story of the tragic anti-hero he wants her to be. Unfortunately for him, that just won't work. The players, especially on the Alliance side, do not forget shit like this.
    As I said above, it's nearly impossible to explain away a genocide, especially when it is directed at one of the player factions. Illidan did not have that issue and even then I would not call him redeemed. He was a useful weapon that we turned against our enemies, but that was pretty much it. If he had returned to Azeroth we would likely have imprisoned him again.
    Again, Illidan nearly destroyed the world on behalf of a demon lord, ditto Kael and Vashj, notwithstanding the whole slavery, drugging orcs business. But his characterization in every separate version hearkened to the appeal of the character and he also only hurt NPC factions no one cares about. And it still was hamhanded in Legion. The entirety of the game for two years was fixated on presenting this character as pure evil who anyone of any persuasion should hate. It was extremely incompetent in some regards on this front, but it still happened and all those things still occurred. And unlike say, Maiev's stint in the Knaak novel, this isn't in a sidebook but was actually in the game for ages, so it can't be easily cut. The proper call would've been to have her usurp the Jailer and become the Big Bad, doing something akin to what she tells Anduin about - you've got a motive, you've got a proper boss fight built up for ages and it gives you more to work with later. This whole angle of making her a dupe for an entirely new character while at the same time reducing her entirely to a victim just doesn't pan out.
    Dickmann's Law: As a discussion on the Lore forums becomes longer, the probability of the topic derailing to become about Sylvanas approaches 1.

  3. #163
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Conceptuel View Post
    Hoo boy. I love that textbook demonstration of the "glittering generalities" fallacy. It's not a genocide because they're bad. It's not using human wave tactics, it's using your resources efficiently. It's different. Why? Because it is.

    Add to that how you've called it "character assassination" when she's literally always acted exactly like this. I'm not going to deny she was flanderized to no end, courtesy of Shadowlands and BfA, from her previously-pragmatic self, but she's always been a rebel leader who acts like, well, a real-life rebel leader should; self-obsessed and utterly consumed by a single-minded pursuit of vengeance. She was always an arrogant manipulator who was concerned with vengeance alone, and this then changed to being consumed with the desire not to die, then it came to be the "we live in a universe" scheme of destroying the entire natural order because bad things happen to people sometimes.
    And that is exactly what makes "genocide" acceptable here? Again, it's kinda the point to kill your enemy, not to cuddle with them. Especially if said genocide is validated by the actions of your enemy. There is no fallacy here, this is the way to treat your enemies.

    She's literally always acted exactly like what? Like a moron that does tactical mistake after tactical mistake because she's bad-evil-no-good-lady and after years of being cold and calculated loses her cool cause some nobody said some words? The "character assassination" lies in, like I already said, turning an interesting and relatable character into an equivalent of primitive alliance characters that do "good" for good's sake, are always in the right (because Bliz said so) and are absolutely boring to watch. At least, Tirion became something more than a cardboard cutout of a paladin in SL, but we've yet to see where that goes.

    Obviously, Sylvanas isn't "good". But neither is she evil. And if they don't turn her into a Garrosh 2.0 and make a proper redemption arc for her (not like for that demonclown that never deserved one), she may yet become a great character again.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Raisei View Post
    Wow. Haven't had a post that made me sick to my stomach like that for a while. Calling the targeted slaughter of civilians "clearing bio trash" is disgusting but then again not really surprising. Sylvanas attacks the Nightelves, slaughters them, steals their land and burns their civilians and you are applauding her for this "virtue".
    The Horde is truely drawing the most wonderful people to it's playerbase. Glad I am not there.
    You'd rather side with treacherous, racist trash that won't even admit anything bad they did and keep believing that you're the "good guys". Gotcha, carry on. Please don't ever switch side

    Infracted.
    Last edited by Aucald; 2021-04-14 at 03:43 PM. Reason: Received Infraction

  4. #164
    Quote Originally Posted by Draylock View Post
    And that is exactly what makes "genocide" acceptable here? Again, it's kinda the point to kill your enemy, not to cuddle with them. Especially if said genocide is validated by the actions of your enemy. There is no fallacy here, this is the way to treat your enemies.

    She's literally always acted exactly like what? Like a moron that does tactical mistake after tactical mistake because she's bad-evil-no-good-lady and after years of being cold and calculated loses her cool cause some nobody said some words? The "character assassination" lies in, like I already said, turning an interesting and relatable character into an equivalent of primitive alliance characters that do "good" for good's sake, are always in the right (because Bliz said so) and are absolutely boring to watch. At least, Tirion became something more than a cardboard cutout of a paladin in SL, but we've yet to see where that goes.

    Obviously, Sylvanas isn't "good". But neither is she evil. And if they don't turn her into a Garrosh 2.0 and make a proper redemption arc for her (not like for that demonclown that never deserved one), she may yet become a great character again.

    - - - Updated - - -



    You'd rather side with treacherous, racist trash that won't even admit anything bad they did and keep believing that you're the "good guys". Gotcha, carry on. Please don't ever switch side
    The only racist here is you. And quite a trashy one at that. I mean, i saw some hot takes but yours are downright steaming... piles. I hope you are trolling because if not... well, thats just not a good look and i dont want to accuse you of being a bad person IRL but you have some really weird morality compass.

    Infracted.
    Last edited by Aucald; 2021-04-14 at 03:44 PM. Reason: Received Infraction

  5. #165
    Quote Originally Posted by Draylock View Post
    And that is exactly what makes "genocide" acceptable here? Again, it's kinda the point to kill your enemy, not to cuddle with them. Especially if said genocide is validated by the actions of your enemy. There is no fallacy here, this is the way to treat your enemies.
    Oh and what exactly did the Night Elf civilians do to Sylvanas that validates murdering them? They were no threat. Your fantasies not withstanding, Sylvanas was the aggressor in this war. She attacked first. The Night Elves defended their home. Not that by this point I expect you to understand reason but your argument is build on nothing but your insane bias and Sylvanas' own propaganda. You can stop believing her now, she doesn't care.

    Quote Originally Posted by Draylock View Post
    Obviously, Sylvanas isn't "good". But neither is she evil. And if they don't turn her into a Garrosh 2.0 and make a proper redemption arc for her (not like for that demonclown that never deserved one), she may yet become a great character again.
    No of course not. Genocide isn't evil. Experimenting on captives isn't evil. Wanting to murder your own sister and nephews isn't evil and you do not have some serious problems with your moral compass... /s. Sometimes I wonder if Blizzard did not make a huge mistake in making this game, it obviously brings out the worst in some.

    Quote Originally Posted by Draylock View Post
    You'd rather side with treacherous, racist trash that won't even admit anything bad they did and keep believing that you're the "good guys". Gotcha, carry on. Please don't ever switch side
    Considering that, except in your twisted fantasy, none of these adjectives fit the Alliance and would much much better fit the Horde, as any objective viewer would see, yes I think I will stick with them.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Super Dickmann View Post
    Sylvanas in that case, could be motivated by either trusting his motive if she's a dumbass, or if the writers are marginally more clever as her meaning to use the souls she punts there into the Maw and his resources to achieve the goal, then ditch him. This would solve a whole lot of characterization problems while keeping her an antagonist, in that she'd consider any soul punted to the Maw as being on loan there, to be freed when she achieves her goals, but who's suffering is a price worth paying if everyone else is free. Hence the spiel she goes on about how no one has any choice anyway - it's an excuse for her to cover both herself and the suffering she's enabled. It doesn't look like they're going this route though, given that she's a mid-way boss in the Gul'dan role. She could survive of course, and Danuser might for the redemption role, but it'd be on a foundation bound to satisfy no one if the inciting cause is her inexplicable trust for someone who's not trustworthy.
    You are most likely correct with the assessment of the Jailer. It would fit the Dreadlord story. They are sleeper agents waiting for the moment when the Jailer is ready to strike at the other cosmic forces, while weakening them by turning them against each other. Though it feels like that is not all. It's surely reason enough, but... the sheer disgust the other Eternal Ones seem to feel for him makes me wonder if there is something else. Plus, there is no need to hide such a tale from us. We would quite easily see that his goal will not be in our interest and pledge to stop him, yet we aren't told of it. Again, not believing in a big twist, but maybe we will be surprised for once.

    As for Sylvanas, I also assumed she would usurp the Jailer or die trying, but it doesn't feel like it. She geniunely seems to believe in him (unless she already made a secret plan with Anduin before turning him into Arthas 2.0) and that is truely weird. Either the Jailer is an absolute master of sweet talking or something else is going on or (and this is unfortunately more likely) Danuser has written himself in such a corner that he can only get out by completely twisting her.
    In any case, I think it is extremely unlikely that she will die in the raid. The Accuser will pick her up, clean her face of the crusty mascara and in 9.3. we will face the Jailer with Thrall, Jaina, Baine, Anduin and freshly cleansed Ranger General Sylvanas, then she will take the place of the Jailer in the Maw to atone for her crimes for all eternity. Anduin will cry for her and Danuser can pretend she has been redeemed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Super Dickmann View Post
    Danuser's writing of the character is marginally better than Afrasiabi, but still completely beside the point. The line about there 'still being some of the Ranger-General' in her summarizes it best.
    Exactly. That line shows such an immense removal from everything we saw in her for the last two decades. It's actually a lot more unlikely then Afrasiabis assumption that she orchestrated the Wrathgate incident. That at least fits what we have seen of her, even if there is compelling evidence to the contrary. The Ranger-General has not been seen anywhere since WC3 and it's coming really out of the left field.

    Quote Originally Posted by Super Dickmann View Post
    It satisfies no one except him.
    Which by now feels like the only goal he has with her. He laments on us not understanding her and having our minds made up before having the facts, but he gives us no reason to change what we think... how long does he expect people to wait until forming an opinion? We have known her for over 15 years and she has always been a bitch and villain in every iteration we have seen. Expecting us to change that view by just dropping that there is good in her is ludicrous.

    It's pretty much the same as in Star Wars. Vader gets redeemed in the end and I sit there and wonder... hooooow? The guy killed children in cold blood destroyed planets with billions of lifes and because he throws Palpatine down a reactor shaft that is all forgotten? What?
    Last edited by Raisei; 2021-04-14 at 09:54 AM.

  6. #166
    Quote Originally Posted by Raisei View Post
    You are most likely correct with the assessment of the Jailer. It would fit the Dreadlord story. They are sleeper agents waiting for the moment when the Jailer is ready to strike at the other cosmic forces, while weakening them by turning them against each other. Though it feels like that is not all. It's surely reason enough, but... the sheer disgust the other Eternal Ones seem to feel for him makes me wonder if there is something else. Plus, there is no need to hide such a tale from us. We would quite easily see that his goal will not be in our interest and pledge to stop him, yet we aren't told of it. Again, not believing in a big twist, but maybe we will be surprised for once.
    The track record of plot twists thus far is why I think it'll be something like what I said. Usually the most obvious route is the go-to one, and it's why I'd put money on the reason they aren't telling us what he did being two-fold - the Doylist one that they want it to be a reveal and the Watsonian one that whatever he did ties into the Jailer's goal and would give out info they don't want said. Then again, if I gave the writers slightly more credit, it's possible that the twist is that they struck first. The Jailer, back when he was the Arbiter, wanted to expand the power of Death over the other realms in light of the risk they pose and his siblings, who're not native to the Shadowlands more than he is, struck first to stop him from enacting his plan past the covert subversion of the Dreadlords and threw him into the Maw. This familial betrayal is why both sides take it so personally. More than just being pissed at being imprisoned, when Zovaal stabs the Archon he brings up that it's his sister who did it to him. They then took over the Shadowlands and ruled over the realms as they liked, filling the empty spot he left behind we can see in Oribos with the Arbiter, a thing they created which carries his heart.

    What's possible but would surprise me, but ties into the new 9.1 spoilers is that Sylvanas destroys Torghast to cover for him. So while she may have misread his end goal it could be he really doesn't intend to torture everyone forever past the point where it serves his goal. I completely agree that she's been made into a patsy to enable a story. I doubt she'll die either, but whether she lives or dies her agency in this story was sacrificed to enable this guy's, so I'd be fairly glad if any of the above turns out to be correct. It's absurd for her to trust this guy either way, but it may be slightly more reasonable if busting up the symbol of the eternal suffering she wants to escape is actually part of his plan and she knows it.

    Exactly. That line shows such an immense removal from everything we saw in her for the last two decades. It's actually a lot more unlikely then Afrasiabis assumption that she orchestrated the Wrathgate incident. That at least fits what we have seen of her, even if there is compelling evidence to the contrary. The Ranger-General has not been seen anywhere since WC3 and it's coming really out of the left field.
    The Wrathgate thing is peak illogic, but it at least is fairly irrelevant beyond making her retroactively dumber and more evil which is Afrasiabi's sole goal. Making her the patsy for the Jailer in order to hearken back to a characterization she last had for about 20 total lines of screen time in an RTS that's twenty years old is comical. Humanizing the character is good after how she's set up, but she's set up as part victim, part dumbass, instead of an actor in this. The raid encounter looks interesting and her generic evil lines in the Ardenweald campaign suggests she might still be on the antagonist train but it remains to be seen. The only thing that makes me think they might have some slight idea what they're doing is what happens with Torghast and what it implies about both him and her.
    Dickmann's Law: As a discussion on the Lore forums becomes longer, the probability of the topic derailing to become about Sylvanas approaches 1.

  7. #167
    Quote Originally Posted by Raisei View Post
    Oh and what exactly did the Night Elf civilians do to Sylvanas that validates murdering them? They were no threat. Your fantasies not withstanding, Sylvanas was the aggressor in this war. She attacked first. The Night Elves defended their home. Not that by this point I expect you to understand reason but your argument is build on nothing but your insane bias and Sylvanas' own propaganda. You can stop believing her now, she doesn't care.



    No of course not. Genocide isn't evil. Experimenting on captives isn't evil. Wanting to murder your own sister and nephews isn't evil and you do not have some serious problems with your moral compass... /s. Sometimes I wonder if Blizzard did not make a huge mistake in making this game, it obviously brings out the worst in some.



    Considering that, except in your twisted fantasy, none of these adjectives fit the Alliance and would much much better fit the Horde, as any objective viewer would see, yes I think I will stick with them.
    And here's where you lose all your credibility and start sounding like a typical "objective" alliance fanboy. "Proudmoure did nothing wrong". And concentration camps are cool too if it's humans making them. And murdering orcs over some trees is ok too, obviously, trees are more important than sentient creatures. And treating High Elves like trash is also ok. After all, anything alliance does is always good.

    Let me explain it to you in simpler terms - in war, there are no civilians. You either support your side by remaining with them, or you defect to neutral/other side. Night elves in Teldrassil supported Tyrande/Malfurion. They paid the price. Even though it was a tactical mistake to burn that tree, using them as hostages would yield much better results.
    And yes, she attacked first. So what? That's what you do with enemies. Also, there's this little caveat of SI:7 agents killing goblins in Silithus first, but who cares about that, it's ok if greenskins die.
    It's not my moral compass that's wrong, it's your extreme bias, naive worldview, and simplistic white/black understanding. Try taking off the paladin pink sunglasses and understanding that the kind of merry tea party with Anduin and Baine that they are forcing on us is not to anyone's taste, who's older than 20 and has any experience with how conflicts really work, not how some idealistic kids view them. Especially since one of the sides, as you are clearly showing, is completely unable to see any fault of their own.
    You can keep whining about "kill bad, family good" stuff, but I bet you had no issues with Velen green-lighting the "murder" of his brothers, for example? Cause why would you? All this classical alliance moral talk only works when it's in your favor.

    Edit: oh, and speaking of torture - wasn't that exactly what night elves did to undead? In "A Good War". Genocide - Camp Taurajo and Bael Modan. But I guess those are justified somehow.
    Last edited by Draylock; 2021-04-14 at 03:19 PM.

  8. #168
    Considering all this shit...

    Yeah, she's definitely evil.

  9. #169
    Quote Originally Posted by VladlTutushkin View Post
    The only racist here is you. And quite a trashy one at that. I mean, i saw some hot takes but yours are downright steaming... piles. I hope you are trolling because if not... well, thats just not a good look and i don't want to accuse you of being a bad person IRL but you have some really weird morality compass.
    The only "wrong" thing about my moral compass is that I say what other think
    Also, how exactly am I racist? Alliance is bio trash not due to their races or looks. It's due to their creed, general hypocrisy, and constant white-washing by Blizzard and tasteless sycophants that wanna be "good".

  10. #170
    Moderator Aucald's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA-US
    Posts
    34,138
    This thread needs to settle down. Stop flinging insults and ad hominem attacks, discuss your points civilly and rationally.
    "We're more of the love, blood, and rhetoric school. Well, we can do you blood and love without the rhetoric, and we can do you blood and rhetoric without the love, and we can do you all three concurrent or consecutive. But we can't give you love and rhetoric without the blood. Blood is compulsory. They're all blood, you see." - Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead

  11. #171
    Quote Originally Posted by Draylock View Post
    And that is exactly what makes "genocide" acceptable here? Again, it's kinda the point to kill your enemy, not to cuddle with them. Especially if said genocide is validated by the actions of your enemy. There is no fallacy here, this is the way to treat your enemies.

    She's literally always acted exactly like what? Like a moron that does tactical mistake after tactical mistake because she's bad-evil-no-good-lady and after years of being cold and calculated loses her cool cause some nobody said some words? The "character assassination" lies in, like I already said, turning an interesting and relatable character into an equivalent of primitive alliance characters that do "good" for good's sake, are always in the right (because Bliz said so) and are absolutely boring to watch. At least, Tirion became something more than a cardboard cutout of a paladin in SL, but we've yet to see where that goes.

    Obviously, Sylvanas isn't "good". But neither is she evil. And if they don't turn her into a Garrosh 2.0 and make a proper redemption arc for her (not like for that demonclown that never deserved one), she may yet become a great character again.
    Define "great character". Blizzard was never exactly a haven for budding maestros of storytelling here. Just because a character is edgy an brooding doesn't make them complex. She's definitely had an emotional edge, even if it was admittedly flanderized in BfA, but I wouldn't raise it to character assassination. Furthermore, her tactical idiocy is so extreme that she trusted a Dreadlord for the longest time. She was always portrayed as being a vengeance-blinded incompetent, dude, no matter how much they tried to make her look clever.

    What kind "redemption arc" do you give someone who commits genocide and then condemns everyone she kills to Hell, anyway? That sounds like someone who's pretty much beyond any kind of redemption, period.

    Finally, yes, there is a fallacy there. You're lumping everyone who slightly opposes or disagrees with her into the group of "enemies". Furthermore, you don't kill enemies of a leader, you kill enemies of the nation. The only person who would kill harmless political opponents like the Desolate Council is as an objectively evil despot. There's a reason we have this word, "war crimes". You don't kill civilians in war, and there's a certain way of treating your enemies. If we just "killed our enemies", people would be throwing nuclear bombs and chemical weapons like there were no tomorrow. However, since most leaders have a "moral compass", as some call it, they consider alternative options of, say, actually fighting the military.

    And because I know you will say "but medieval law is different from modern law!"; firstly, it's a little closer to a renaissance setting and we probably should stop pretending we're still in some hardcore, gritty medieval dark fantasy and admit this is an anime with medieval trappings, and secondly, they already put a leader on trial using a modern court system rather than just cut his head off like they would in real life. Azeroth has a definition of "war crimes" (though I have no idea where they come from since there was never a Geneva Convention).

    - - - Updated - - -



    You'd rather side with treacherous, racist trash that won't even admit anything bad they did and keep believing that you're the "good guys". Gotcha, carry on. Please don't ever switch side

    Infracted.
    Both of you are hilariously emotionally overinvested in this.

  12. #172
    I dont get how anyone can say not stupid?

    She is cartoonish evil.. you will never kill hope" OH cant i? commit genocide"

    She is poorly written, and just overpowered because the power of "lol"

  13. #173
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Conceptuel View Post
    Define "great character". Blizzard was never exactly a haven for budding maestros of storytelling here. Just because a character is edgy an brooding doesn't make them complex. She's definitely had an emotional edge, even if it was admittedly flanderized in BfA, but I wouldn't raise it to character assassination. Furthermore, her tactical idiocy is so extreme that she trusted a Dreadlord for the longest time. She was always portrayed as being a vengeance-blinded incompetent, dude, no matter how much they tried to make her look clever.

    What kind "redemption arc" do you give someone who commits genocide and then condemns everyone she kills to Hell, anyway? That sounds like someone who's pretty much beyond any kind of redemption, period.

    Finally, yes, there is a fallacy there. You're lumping everyone who slightly opposes or disagrees with her into the group of "enemies". Furthermore, you don't kill enemies of a leader, you kill enemies of the nation. The only person who would kill harmless political opponents like the Desolate Council is as an objectively evil despot. There's a reason we have this word, "war crimes". You don't kill civilians in war, and there's a certain way of treating your enemies. If we just "killed our enemies", people would be throwing nuclear bombs and chemical weapons like there were no tomorrow. However, since most leaders have a "moral compass", as some call it, they consider alternative options of, say, actually fighting the military.

    And because I know you will say "but medieval law is different from modern law!"; firstly, it's a little closer to a renaissance setting and we probably should stop pretending we're still in some hardcore, gritty medieval dark fantasy and admit this is an anime with medieval trappings, and secondly, they already put a leader on trial using a modern court system rather than just cut his head off like they would in real life. Azeroth has a definition of "war crimes" (though I have no idea where they come from since there was never a Geneva Convention).



    Both of you are hilariously emotionally overinvested in this.

    In the world of Blizzard universes, a "Great Character" would be anyone that isn't as flat as all alliance characters are, for example. Bland, boring, simple, reactive in nature. While she doesn't exactly represent the strongest of characters in fantasy writing, within her universe and her competition - she's pretty damn high at the top. She was never portrayed as "incompetent" or stupid, at least not intentionally. This itself raises the question of whether we should attribute characters qualities that incompetent writers intended to give them or ended up actually giving them.

    They had no problem redeeming Illidan. Torture, murder, lots of other fun stuff. And still, he somehow becomes the "tortured anti-hero" in the end. Might as well give the same treatment to a character that's actually worthy of it. If only for how much she triggers allies.

    And no, I wouldn't bring real-life morals here, medieval or modern, in this discussion at all. In real life gassing a battlefield will result in completely unpredictable results, casualties among your own, and a similar response from the enemy. In WoW everybody has magic gas masks that are 100% reliable and a single spell from a mediocre mage removes poisonous gas completely. Two cases have wildly different consequences and are very different in the difficulty of solving.

    It's not any "moral compasses" that stop most leaders from using nuclear and chemical weaponry. It's pragmatism. In real life, nuclear fallout will sooner or later bite you in the ass. So will chemical weapons. Or you'll simply eat a similar retaliation. If real-life worked on WoW rules, and you could clean up nuclear fallout with a snap of fingers, how many milliseconds do you reckon would it take someone like putin to turn half of the globe into a wasteland?

    As for civilians, especially in WoW - is a blacksmith that arms the military really a civilian? Is a farmer that feeds them? Engineers, that build machines of war? You could say that children don't fit into any of these categories and are completely innocent, which they are. But that's about it with civilians. And as we've all seen, there are about 100 children in the whole of Azeroth anyway.

    And finally, and most importantly, what exactly is wrong with being emotionally invested in your faction? What's the point of playing a RPG (even if in name only) if you're not gonna immerse yourself and "support the cause"?

  14. #174
    She's a little bit evil

  15. #175
    Quote Originally Posted by Raisei View Post
    This is true. However, the crimes she commited make that point unimportant. She is a psychopathic mass murderer that wanted to kill everyone on Azeroth and happily send them to the Maw where they could enjoy torture for the rest of their existance.

    Seeing as this is the case... who the fuck cares about her reasons? There is no reason that would justify these unmitigated evil acts. Danuser in his fanboyism might think that with the right explanation we would all cheer for his beloved Banshee and feel super bad about being mad at her, but no, it's just not gonna happen.

    Even before Teldrassil it was nearly unfathomable how she could be accepted as the leader of a non-evil faction, now it is is downright laughable. If Danuser wanted her to be redeemable, then maybe he should have given her some relatable and positive qualities, instead of just decrying that we don't understand her, not like he does.

    And now we have an arc where the same Sylvanas that murdered thousands of Nightelven children without so much as flinching looks very sad about mind controlling Anduin and we are supposed to believe that it is because there is something of the Ranger General left. Riiiiight.

    Tldr: Danuser will make up some reason for it all and expect us accept it as redeeming, even if that train has left the station years ago. The only reason for that being that he cannot accept that his Dark Lady will die as the villain she always has been.
    Again, context matters, if she can stop the jailer (its stupid to believe she is working with him to serve HIS ends and not hers) and stop eternal torment for everyone then would those deaths matter? if the option was live your life, die then experience eternal torment vs die immediately, experience temporary torment, then be saved, the latter would be more appealing.

    Again, illidan destroyed a planet, almost destroyed azeroth, enslaved orcs, killed hundreds of his followers binding demons to them and a bunch of other shit, but his tactics worked against the legion and were necessary. Arthas killing the innocents in stratholme is regarded as the right move by many because the risk they posed.

    Again that depends on the context. I wont argue that the story is good, its just not told well, and we find out very soon what happens anyway.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Super Dickmann View Post
    The TBC trio of Kael, Illidan and Vashj are why I can't take anyone going on about how Sylvanas is irredeemable seriously, seeing as how they all intended to either destroy the world, destroy the universe, punt people's souls into the Void or in the case of the former two actually did permanently destroy people's souls to fuel their tools and they mostly got a good shake. What sets Illidan apart from Sylvanas, besides the Doylist part that people take what she does more seriously because she does it to playable factions as already said, is the coherence of presentation. Illidan in WC3, TBC and Legion might be three separate characters, but within each individual product they're entirely coherent. Sylvanas has played coy for ages for no real reason other than that the writers had no idea what they wanted to do with her and still don't. That's why a reveal doesn't really work for her case. If her goal, as she alludes to with Anduin is really that the afterlife is fucked and so she intends to destroy it all and then sort out people's souls, with the Jailer as a means to an end, that's megalomaniacal and evil, but also allows us to get some point. But unlike Illidan, she's cast as a clueless dupe who is inexplicably trusting of the Jailer. The Maw, unlike Legion soul destruction has the rather obvious get out of jail free card that anyone there can also be dragged out and put somewhere else, but the story doesn't bother with this.

    And even then, this is her third grand goal in as many years. She went from wanting to destroy Stormwind and take over the world for the Horde in her mind, to wanting to become mistress of death and killing everyone to now only wanting to kill people out of solidarity, with actions associated with each of these portrayals. But these actions don't make sense for either other version of the character. In BFA she was built up so monotonously to be pure evil for no reason in that expansion that any motive retroactively added to her can't shovel its way out. Illidan didn't have this problem because he always used the most extreme methods possible and the only thing that they needed to change was to give him a goal. On the other hand, Shadowlands Sylvanas who gets to actually have the VA deliver lines with some measure of nuance even if they're nonsense and gets some interiority instead of twee one-liners is difficult to parse doing what her BFA version did, ditto the other way around. Does anyone seriously think the Sylvanas who spoke exclusively in smarmy villain monologues of BFA/Shadows Rising would feel bad about enslaving Anduin when she ditched her family and lover and torched a city's worth of people for a 1-up?

    Afrasiabi and Danuser were both taking the character in shit, but mutually exclusive directions, as was Golden in the book. Afrasiabi's version in BFA is by far the worst one on her lonesome, but any version needs to deal with the baggage of the other two, hence any reveal will be incoherent no matter what it is. Illidan never had this problem and that, not morality, is the difference between recontextualizing him and recontextualizing Sylvanas.
    Honestly its not that hard to recontextualize sylvanas into a coherrent story, but i dont trust that they will.
    You are completely right about the writers pulling her in different directions, its the same shit that happened with garrosh, you get stonetalon noble warrior garrosh and you get brown hitler. One was the driving force behind a successful horde, the other wanted to fight the whole planet.

    Blizz have never given us any hint at what sylv is up to and the lack of narrative has completely undermined what could have been a good story.

  16. #176
    Quote Originally Posted by bloodmoth13 View Post
    Again, context matters, if she can stop the jailer (its stupid to believe she is working with him to serve HIS ends and not hers) and stop eternal torment for everyone then would those deaths matter?
    Yes, yes they would. She literally send children to hell. There is no guarantee that even if they can be freed and revived they will be able to live normally ever again after the kind of torment that was inflicted upon them.

    For one, the only reason that so many souls are going through eternal torment at the moment is because of Sylvanas herself and the breaking of the machine of death that surely she has had a hand in one way or another. Otherwise only the worst of the worst of people would go to the Maw.
    And secondly, Sylvanas has lied to everyone for decades. She is simply not trustworthy and any world she thinks might be an improvement does not have to be for any of us, especially if it is bought with the suffering and blood of everyone except for herself.
    If her goals were noble she could have come to us and explained them, but instead she tried to murder us all, first in a war then by unleashing an Old God. This makes any sort of reasoning she delivers now very suspect. Which is actually pointed out by Anduin laughing in her face when she tries and fails to convince him.

    It's a simple case of "too little, too late".

    Quote Originally Posted by bloodmoth13 View Post
    if the option was live your life, die then experience eternal torment vs die immediately, experience temporary torment, then be saved, the latter would be more appealing.
    Again, the eternal torment part only happens because Sylvanas and her new boyfriend wrecked the system that was in place otherwise good people would be send to their fitting afterlives, not a torture dimension.

    Quote Originally Posted by bloodmoth13 View Post
    Again, illidan destroyed a planet, almost destroyed azeroth, enslaved orcs, killed hundreds of his followers binding demons to them and a bunch of other shit, but his tactics worked against the legion and were necessary. Arthas killing the innocents in stratholme is regarded as the right move by many because the risk they posed.
    1) I never entertained the idea that Illidan was redeemed. We used him for his knowledge and power. Fighting fire with fire. He hasn't suddenly become a hero. Of course, that does not make the actions of Xe'ra any better.

    2) Stratholme is a veeeery different story. Arthas killed the people there out of mercy, because otherwise they would have turned into zombies and forced to kill their families and friends. He saved them from a horrible fate and saved Lordaeron from being overrun by the undead. If he had not succumbed to his ego and fallen into Mal'ganis trap, the Scourge would have ended there.

  17. #177
    Quote Originally Posted by bloodmoth13 View Post
    Again, context matters, if she can stop the jailer (its stupid to believe she is working with him to serve HIS ends and not hers) and stop eternal torment for everyone then would those deaths matter? if the option was live your life, die then experience eternal torment vs die immediately, experience temporary torment, then be saved, the latter would be more appealing.
    If, yes. But those aren't the options. The Shadowlands as they were may not have been perfect, but they were hardly "eternal torment" unless you end up in the Jailer's domain, in which case he's the one responsible for the torment, too. That is, if he didn't obliterate your soul to use as raw materials.

    So now we have Sylvanas not only damning people people to torment and possible cessation of existence when previously they would simply have gotten something where they can engage in an activity they sought out in live for eternity, she wants to doom those that already got the old deal to that torment and cessation as well. That's not a very good image.

  18. #178
    Elemental Lord Kithelle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Somewhere where canon still exists
    Posts
    8,549
    Is she the evilest? No

    Is she definitely evil? Yes

    Will she get a pass even though she did much of her evil of her own free will? Probably, because waifu
    #WithoutRespectWeReject

  19. #179
    I'm 100% sure she's understood, but there will be a story point in the future that makes it so we go "Oooooh, she was just misunderstood! Genocide and damning their souls was just the only way haha if she didn't do that then even more would have died!!!1"
    *Insert every single ridiculous PC parts detail here that no one cares about*

  20. #180
    Quote Originally Posted by TheramoreIsTheBomb View Post

    Manipulated hundreds of people in believing she cares about them only to amass to millions of people years later and abandon them all together after claiming they are nothing in the grand scheme of things.
    This is only evil when you string it like this in this exact scenario. This logic ignores much of the storyline to assert that everything was a lie to get to the point of betrayal. We have the getting propped up of a less than ideal leader that didn't care in the first place. A following of cult of personality trope mixed in with psychopaths (aka the forsaken as told throughout WoW) and a mix of the leader having the inner monologues that indicate actual care and opposing LACK of care at times in points that indicate great retconning of material...

    and the last bit about value of the individual.... this part tells me a lot of people didn't learn from Gunny.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Kithelle View Post
    Is she the evilest? No

    Is she definitely evil? Yes

    Will she get a pass even though she did much of her evil of her own free will? Probably, because waifu
    basically this. She's gonna get a pass because she's valuable as free advertising at this point... either because she's too many fan's favorite or because they've invested too much development solely in this mess and can't simply Garrosh another character again without fucking things up more.

Posting Permissions

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