Sylvanas’ Culpability *spoilers*

[Aucald]

Do we actually know her other half is some good, innocent soul?

So who's to say Sylv's other half isn't as bad if not worse?

The story in Folk and Fairy Tales of Azeroth strongly implies that the sundered part of Sylvanas' soul, the one that the Jailer seems to have restored to her, is an innocent and more or less "good" aspect of her selfdom that she's been missing since her conversion into a Banshee at Arthas' hand via Frostmourne. This is likely reflective of the sense that while most Forsaken are darkened by their current state and the traumas that created them, they have an essential humanity that still clings to them, a quality that Sylvanas has always seemed to lack.

The restoration of this portion of Sylvanas' soul makes her neither good nor innocent, but it may give her cognizance of just how far she's allowed herself to fall, and the rank hypocrisy of willingly embracing the same power that ground her kingdom and people into dust. Arguably, this could be a punishment far worse than even death, but that depends on whether the narrative opts to go that route as opposed to complete redemption.

[LordVargK]

Oh fuck I forgot that. I loved the part where Illidan killed the Naaru. But then...nothing. No consequences, no vendetta. No tensions within the Alliance. Just a pretty cinematic.

Ouside of the Draenai and the lightforged the Alliance doesn't give a fuck about the Naaru. LF were not officially Alliance then, Draenai were wise enough to see, that the Naaru's vision isn't always right. Turalyion was pretty mad and distrusted Illidan. But in the end Illidan is now sealed away after he achieved his (and the Alliance's) goal. So what vendetta do you want?

[Uzkin]

So, Sylvanas is either a gullible idiot or a sockpuppet. Honest to god, I don't know which is worse.

We had a long line of Horde leaders whose excuse for everything was "Demons made me do it" followed by "Daddy didn't love me enough made me do it" to now going back to the "Devil made me do it".

She's definitely not a sock puppet, since no one was explicitly controlling her. She's actually extremely resilient against being controlled. She's the first forsaken to break free of the Lich King's control, and even the Jailer had to resort to lies and half-truths to win her over, whereas he could directly take control over the likes of Anduin and Bolvar(temporarily).

Sylvanas is not a gullible idiot, either. She's simply gullible, just like everyone else. She had personally witnessed that after death, a forsaken is unfairly condemned to Maw without a trial (she got there after jumping off of ICC). She then met or came to know of the Jailer, who was also chained and trapped there and claimed to have been unfairly condemned there. It was thus natural for her to believe the Jailer's version of the story, that there's some cosmic tyranny going on which she could help overthrow.

- - - Updated - - -

The restoration of this portion of Sylvanas' soul makes her neither good nor innocent, but it may give her cognizance of just how far she's allowed herself to fall, and the rank hypocrisy of willingly embracing the same power that ground her kingdom and people into dust. Arguably, this could be a punishment far worse than even death, but that depends on whether the narrative opts to go that route as opposed to complete redemption.

She "allowed herself to fall" only in the sense that as the Ranger-General she lost her fight against Arthas. The events after that, caused by the effects of losing her soul against her will, are not her(= the restored Sylvanas) fault.

Sure, with her soul restored, she will probably initially feel awful about the memories she has from her time as undead -- like any good person would. But eventually she should be able to accept that she(= the restored Sylvanas) is not to be blamed for that; this allows her to love herself again and move on with her life.

[geco]

Well, that's just how things are in fiction in which the concept of soul is real. Losing one's soul profoundly changes one's personality. If one's soul is removed against one's will, then that person is not to be blamed for the decisions and actions he/she made due to not having a soul.

When she got her soul back her personality transformed back to someone who would (likely) not nuke a city full of civilians. The soulful Sylvanas is not culpable for the actions made by the soulless Sylvanas.

So we are making a mistake.
Because we are taking a fantasy concept based on real logic and we should use fantasy logic.

And we still keep the same all that of the soul is like a free pass to do whatever you want.
I kill an entire orphanage and then corrupt myself with Nzoth. ready I'm not the same as before free pass.

[Aucald]

Sure, with her soul restored, she will probably initially feel awful about the memories she has from her time as undead -- like any good person would. But eventually she should be able to accept that she(= the restored Sylvanas) is not to be blamed for that; this allows her to love herself again and move on with her life.

That's generally not how these things tend to work, especially not when a person is confronted with horrific and terrible deeds done by their own hand, even when they're not completely in charge of their own faculties. It's difficult to assess because having a portion of your soul missing and then restored has no real-world analogues we can easily point to, but it's equally possible Sylvanas feels horrified and disgusted with herself in a long-term sense, underscoring no essential difference between who she was prior to her restoration and who she may be afterwards. Basically saying "I still did it, even if it wasn't fully myself, I'm still responsible." I wouldn't disagree with her on that stance, either.

[Ivarr]

[Uzkin]

So we are making a mistake.
Because we are taking a fantasy concept based on real logic and we should use fantasy logic.

And we still keep the same all that of the soul is like a free pass to do whatever you want.
I kill an entire orphanage and then corrupt myself with Nzoth. ready I'm not the same as before free pass.

If you want a better analogy with what happened with Sylvanas it is that you first get corrupted by N'Zoth against your will, then you kill an entire orphanage, then you get purified of the corruption. Is the purified you culpable for what happened? No.

[Eggroll]

You're assuming she doesn't think she should answer for her crimes, which im sure she will now.

I don't think oblivion would be justice for her, it's revenge for a nelf mother who lost her kids in the fire, but its not justice. Try to be Objective.

There is no such thing as true objectivity. Objectivity is a figment of our imagination. Objectivity would mean to objectify the victims of Sylvanas's crimes and their suffering, and that in itself is called emotional violence.

You cannot really judge something or someone in a bubble. Because everything happens in various contexts that are all to be factored in when judging a situartion.

I think Sylvanas said it best herself in the cinematic: "I will never serve", she said, thereby claiming responsibility for all her actions. So she is fully culpable IMO.

The reason for everything she did, for the genocide etc. was just for her to escape her fate in the Maw.

Varian sacrificed himself to save others.

Sylvanas sacrificed thousands to save herself (from the Maw) - and now she actually succeded. Should she be rewarded for this? HELL NO!

[geco]

If you want a better analogy with what happened with Sylvanas it is that you first get corrupted by N'Zoth against your will, then you kill an entire orphanage, then you get purified of the corruption. Is the purified you culpable for what happened? No.

The closest thing to reality is that you are drunk or high. How good depends the country that increases or decreases the Penalty.

[Ivarr]

Motte:

If you want a better analogy with what happened with Sylvanas it is that you first get corrupted by N'Zoth against your will, then you kill an entire orphanage, then you get purified of the corruption. Is the purified you culpable for what happened? No.

Bailey:

She's definitely not a sock puppet, since no one was explicitly controlling her. She's actually extremely resilient against being controlled.

[WaltherLeopold]

Now with her soul being fully restored we can see what kind of retrospect she’ll have on her own actions. She wasn’t mind controlled, she still had her free will, but she was heavily manipulated and influenced by the lack of her “good half”.

But she's reunited with her good part and no longer mentally ill in the context of this discussion.

Huh? That makes no sense. My side is that sylvanas is not as culpable as someone who did everything she did but with a whole soul, but still responsible for a certain amount. Some people choose to ignore this and just scream "revenge" as if they had a personal stake in teldrassil.

Thats what happened with her, Lack of good soul = lack of mental meds. I made that very clear.

Where is it stated that the soul is the progenitor of what is good, undeads already have a part of their soul, it's how they are undead, it's just not perfectly attached.

Why would she feel additional remorse now, when she is literally the same person.

https://web.archive.org/web/20200927...steve-danuser/

[Thage]

Ted Bundy, a diagnosed clinical sociopath, sentenced to death. A mental illness whose hallmarks are extreme self-centered thinking and no capacity for empathy did not absolve him of culpability for his actions.

Jeffrey Dahmer, diagnosed with borderline personality disorder, schizotypal personality disorder, and a psychotic disorder, sentenced to 15 consecutive life sentences. His mental illness did not absolve him of culpability for his actions.

Ed Gein, diagnosed with schizophrenia, found incompetent to stand trial, but was later deemed capable of standing trial. Found not guilty by reason of insanity, and spent the rest of his life in mandatory psychiatric care at a mental hospital. Mental illness did not absolve him of culpability for his actions, only altered the consequences.

Pedro Lopez, diagnosed sociopath with avoidant personality disorder. Sentenced to 16 years (served 14) and served time in a mental hospital in Columbia. Though he absconded after being released early on bail, he was still held culpable for his actions despite his mental illness.

Drawing these parallels, a personality disorder doesn't absolve you of culpability for your actions. You have to be genuinely incapable of understanding the impact of your actions--either through several mental development disabilities or significant brain damage, or something similar. And there comes a point where the sheer body count demands you be held culpable even if you weren't in control of your actions at the time; the scope of Sylvanas's actions have long since taken the "I couldn't know what I was doing was wrong, my soul was fragmented" defense out of her hands once you consider she consigned millions to torture and slavery in the afterlife for personal gain.

[Uzkin]

The closest thing to reality is that you are drunk or high. How good depends the country that increases or decreases the Penalty.

My version was a better analogy of Sylvanas' situation than yours. You're just nerdraging because your head-canon didn't come to pass.

[Ivarr]

"You can kill us, but you can not kill hope."

"Can't I? BURN IT!"

So not only did she burn Teldrassil, she also explicitly tried to demoralise her enemies. It wasn't just genocide, it was also terrorism. What was the point of the latter? What did Sylvanas gain here other than sadistic glee?

[geco]

My version was a better analogy of Sylvanas' situation than yours. You're just nerdraging because your head-canon didn't come to pass.

You mean in the end the "You don't know where Nathanos is" thing didn't have any weight in the story if it bothered me enough.

But I don't know what is relevant.

"You can kill us, but you can not kill hope."

"Can't I? BURN IT!"

So not only did she burn Teldrassil, she also explicitly tried to demoralise her enemies. It wasn't just genocide, it was also terrorism. What was the point of the latter? What did Sylvanas gain here other than sadistic glee?

But suddenly in SW he feels bad for us and Anduin

[Uzkin]

Motte:

Bailey:

You really don't know what a sock puppet is, do you? Hint: current Anduin is one. Pre-restored Sylvanas was not.

[Sorrowseer]

If you want a better analogy with what happened with Sylvanas it is that you first get corrupted by N'Zoth against your will, then you kill an entire orphanage, then you get purified of the corruption. Is the purified you culpable for what happened? No.

Yes, the corruption does not take away your choosing to kill that orphanage.

[WaltherLeopold]

If you want a better analogy with what happened with Sylvanas it is that you first get corrupted by N'Zoth against your will, then you kill an entire orphanage, then you get purified of the corruption. Is the purified you culpable for what happened? No.

But the whole point about the forsaken is that, undeath with free will is strictly not corruption, they are the exact same people they were during their life. This whole argument is based on such flawed premises, because being undead doesn't make you evil, or even incline you to be more evil.

[Beastiel]

The problem with this whole angle is that they never portrayed sylvanas while dead as someone lesser than who she used to be. In fact they've gone out of their way to tell us she was basically always this way, that even as a living elf she viewed her soldier's as "arrows in a quiver", to be tossed away and disposed of in pursuit of an objective.

There has never been any point in the story where she was talking to one of her sisters and they said something along the lines of "you aren't who you used to be". Or any similar implication.

Besides, all she has wanted to do for the last decade is die. When Arthas caught up to her she wished for a clean death. When Arthas died, she wanted to kill herself until she realized how miserable her existence in hell would be. Now she that she can actually just die with no consequences and noafterlife, wouldn't she WANT to? Hasn't this been her goal for a long ass time?

[sighy]

And you dont think that Alliance will riot outright and throw Anduin out because he spared a certified genocidal maniac?

And not to mention that Sylvanas now without Jailer's protection and within Tyrande's reach.

It's kind of established that whatever Turalyon will do is not going to end well so Anduin is likely to have his hands full, with other problems once he is retrieved. Lingering issues post-domination not withstanding since we've never seen a character fully recover from domination magic before, at least not on this ballpark. Since both Ner'zul and Arthas got basically ripped to shreds and were driven insane. (Seriously there are like 4 or 5 pieces of Arthas's that we know of) Plus if she is the one to save him It'd be pretty hard to argue, in favor of him doing anything.

As far as Tyrande goes she is all out of the Elune juju too and lucky she even survived it. (Notably unlike every other Night Warrior, in the history of the universe) So I'd expect her to be shelved for some time to heal up. That said i would expect that meeting to happen at some point. Again they don't have to like each other, in order to recognise the universe is fucked if they don't put their issues on the back burner. I realise Blizzard writing sometimes makes them look severely autistic, but they're not supposed to be. Not even Tyrande.(Whose streak has been going strong since the Knaak retcons in the WotA trilogy)