Is Sylvannas good or bad?

[DeadmanWalking]

I don't understand why we have to label a fictional character as good or bad, just like in real life characters in books are capable of being both good and evil all at the same time. One mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist. Anyone who expects otherwise needs to spend less time on video games and more time in the real world.

[Alwek]

She's not purely evil. Her motives are driven by both vengeance, desperation, and survival.

After being killed in Silverpine Forest and the whole "creating new Undead" ordeal -- her allegiance seems to be swaying from netural more towards evil but I think she only makes her decisions based on the survival of her people.

To that extent, could you truly call Garrosh evil either?

I don't know if Garros is the same from Cataclysm, but Garrosh knows the difference between attacking civillians and actual allieged units. A forsaken such as Sylvannas does not.

[Skytotem]

I don't understand why we have to label a fictional character as good or bad, just like in real life characters in books are capable of being both good and evil all at the same time. One mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist. Anyone who expects otherwise needs to spend less time on video games and more time in the real world.

On most subjects I'd agree but Sylvanas is not one of those 'grey' characters anymore she's pretty flatout evil.

---------- Post added 2013-02-26 at 11:05 AM ----------

They were enemies long before the forsaken attacked them.The human survivors would not be all pals with the Forsaken when they were Scourge, if anything both sides would be just as viciously hunting each other down.

Now the forsaken are free? Most Humans couldn't care less that they are free, only the Argent Crusade seems to have a different opinion on this matter. Stormwind, Kirin Tor, Scarlet Crusade, Lorderon Survivors, Arugal and the Gilneans... To all of them they are just vile Undead, and all of them attack them without a second thought.

The ONE source of Alliance forces 'attacking' a forsaken before Sylvanas started murdering Alliance people was a bunch of villagers freaked out that a zombie they couldn't communicate with had gone into their house, they had no idea he was freewilled.

We have NOTHING to suggest that the Alliance would've been unwilling to deal with the Forsaken or at least leave them alone prior to Sylvanas's murdersprees.

[Deleted]

1. We don't really know anything but if you read the vanilla quests it waspretty damn obvious you were supposed to murder the lot of them just because the Forsaken felt like it.

2. What? Southshore was a Lordaeron settlement, and the alliance is only the 'enemy' BECAUSE THE FORSAKEN ARE KILLING THEM.

3. Excited how? They just seem frustrated imo.

1. Ehh. I still stick by my points that, while it is unfair to make the humans abandon their homes, it was foolish of them not to seek sanctuary and a new life with the Argents or leave the country in the decade or so between the Third War and Cataclysm.

2. Well, WoWwiki listed Southshore as, "The survivors of Stormwind arrived at Southshore after fleeing their destroyed kingdom of Stormwind in the First War. It was transformed into a busy seaport during the Second War." and I'm sure the 'But Wait! There's Lore.' programme listed it as being a predominantly Stormwind citizen occupied town. But, WoWpedia does mention that it was part of the kingdom of Lordaeron, so maybe I was wrong on that point. But, it's impossible to know who started the hostilities between the Forsaken and Southshore humans and continued Southshore loyalty to the Alliance, while still living in Forsaken-claimed land, cannot realistically be left unchallenged.

3. Doh! Wish I was subscribed then I could get a quote, but if you talk to the farmer/settlers and Chillwind Camp, you get the impression, or at least I did, that after getting out of Westfall, the Plaguelands will be some sort of promised land/new world (similar impression of hope/optimism as early European immigrants to the States).

[Darmalus]

Like most people, she is selfish. She wants what's best for her and her tribe. This means promoting Forsaken, and by extension Horde, interests. No different from anyone else. Some people just have bigger or smaller views of what their tribe is. I'm pretty sure Thrall considered the orcs, trolls and tauren all part of his tribe. While Garrosh only views the orcs as his tribe.

[baldcore]

1. Scarlet crusade are not alliance.
2. Arugal did no captures of the forsaken at the Kirin tor's behest I don't know where you got that nonsense.

1. Technically the yes and no. The scarlet crusade consists mostly of members of the alliance that have joined their cause. You will find no former horde members amongst their group. In addition the scarlet crusade's goal of conquering lorderon directly benefits the alliance so although they may at times not commit murder in the name of the alliance they are indirectly members as they fight for the alliance on a mutual goal to reclaim lorderon for the repopulation by alliance members.
2. You took my sentence slightly out of context. While im not entirely certain if they took prisoners or not while arugal was in charge, arugal did later take prisoners that were kept inside shadowfang keep. If you played wow prior to cata and went inside shadowfang keep as a horde you would evidence of him capturing forsaken in the form of a prisoner that is freed named Deathstalker Adamant.

[Deleted]

You should visit undercity more often, it is there since vanilla.

Mostly played Alliance except for a tauren I used to check Horde lore, so even playing that I didn't spend much time in there.

[Skytotem]

1. Technically the yes and no. The scarlet crusade consists mostly of members of the alliance that have joined their cause. You will find no former horde members amongst their group. In addition the scarlet crusade's goal of conquering lorderon directly benefits the alliance so although they may at times not commit murder in the name of the alliance they are indirectly members as they fight for the alliance on a mutual goal to reclaim lorderon for the repopulation by alliance members.
2. You took my sentence slightly out of context. While im not entirely certain if they took prisoners or not while arugal was in charge, arugal did later take prisoners that were kept inside shadowfang keep. If you played wow prior to cata and went inside shadowfang keep as a horde you would evidence of him capturing forsaken in the form of a prisoner that is freed named Deathstalker Adamant.

1. No because the Alliance had bloody quests in Vanilla that explicitly noted that the Scarlets were so crazy and xenophobic that they were no longer part of the Alliance.

2. Arugal isn't a member of the Alliance so it doesn't make any bloody difference.

[babo7000]

1. Technically the yes and no. The scarlet crusade consists mostly of members of the alliance that have joined their cause. You will find no former horde members amongst their group. In addition the scarlet crusade's goal of conquering lorderon directly benefits the alliance so although they may at times not commit murder in the name of the alliance they are indirectly members as they fight for the alliance on a mutual goal to reclaim lorderon for the repopulation by alliance members.
2. You took my sentence slightly out of context. While im not entirely certain if they took prisoners or not while arugal was in charge, arugal did later take prisoners that were kept inside shadowfang keep. If you played wow prior to cata and went inside shadowfang keep as a horde you would evidence of him capturing forsaken in the form of a prisoner that is freed named Deathstalker Adamant.

1. No. The Scarlet Crusade says they fight against undeath, but they are so batshit crazy due to Balnazzars influence that they see any non Crusader as an undead. Even a relatively sane Crusader who defects (Joseph the Awakened), ends up completely insane. Clearly almist every Crusader is just as crazy. This in no way benefits the Alliance, if anything, Ally would kill them after the Crusade deals with the Forsaken.
2. Arugal imprisoning the two deathstalkers sent to infiltrate his keep is in no way a testament to the Kirin Tor imprisoning and torturing Forsaken.

[Deleted]

She's evil but that's a good thing.

[foxHeart]

The only people who actually think she's "grey" are people too distracted by her rotting tits to think otherwise.

[mordale]

evil, without a doubt.

her current goal is to kill all living things and rule over a world of undead.

thats WHY shes called the bitch queen now, cause she really is is just a weaker version of the lich king but with tits.

[Darmalus]

The only people who actually think she's "grey" are people too distracted by her rotting tits to think otherwise.

As far as I can tell, the only people distracted by her rotting tits are the ones that mindlessly hate her. My arguments would remain unchanged if she were nothing more than a floating, talking skull.

[Deleted]

There is no good or evil, just those that do what they must to survive.

Doing it by killing others as a pre-emptive strike for the possiblity they might one day attack you is no longer good in my book.

This thread is likely to get massive, so I'd like to get a brief summary of my views on the first page. I'll try be terse, but since she's my favourite character and one that causes much controversy and conflict, it might be difficult.

-She's not inherently evil, I think that she is more or less amoral and narcissistic (clinically so IRL). I say this as I do not believe she actively seeks to make people suffer beyond what is necessary for victory or if she feels they have wronged her and therefore deserve reprisal. That being said, vengeance is seen as evil in many cultures.

-One of the biggest claims for her being evil is her actions in the invasion of Gilneas:
1.) The decision to invade Gilneas was not Sylvanas', it was Garrosh's.
2.) Her use of the plague was the only logistically solid tactic the Forsaken had at their disposal. Garrosh demanded they conquered an entire nation and yet barred them from utilising the only feasible means of achieving victory. The Forsaken can't win a conventional fight. It was use the plague on an enemy they were forced to fight, or throw themselves into a slaughter.
3.) Resurrecting dead humans is not only the sole method Forsaken have at their disposal for bolstering their ranks and making up for losses, where other races can simply recruit and conscript, but it might also be considered a mercy in a universe where the afterlife is so menacingly ambiguous and seemingly controlled by capricious entities. The kindest and most noble human or orc will simply kill their enemies and leave them dead. The Forsaken put them down and then offer them a chance to get up again, albeit a little worse for wear.

-People also accuse her of conducting expansionist policy, which while true, to a degree, I do not think warrants accusing her of being wholly evil.
Let's look at the territories in which the Forsaken have been attempting, often successfully, to occupy and secure:

Hillsbrad Foothills, Silverpine Forest, Western Plaguelands, Arathi Highlands, Alterac and the Hinterlands.

The first 3 areas are indisputably part of Lordaeron and, with the majority of Forsaken (though not Sylvanas herself) being the group with the strongest claim to the blighted nation, there is little reason to describe the securing of these lands for the Forsaken as evil.

The Arathi Highlands are seemingly comprised of parts of Lordaeron (rightfully belonging to the Forsaken now) and the failed and collapsed city-state of Stromgarde, which for many years has been occupied by outlaws and murderous thieves, with no national affiliation. I see such a zone as essentially 'up for grabs'. The remaining citizens of Strom are either scattered and disorganised, with no conceivable government, or are now a part of the Forsaken, happily resigned to their new existence.

Alterac is another collapsed state, one which before the end of the Third War, betrayed the Alliance and the other human kingdoms. Another territory which is, in my opinion, 'up for grabs'. It is also an area inhabited by forces hostile to both factions with no national affiliation.

The Hinterlands is the only area which the Forsaken have moved into which gives me pause. But only very briefly. The Hinterlands as a whole do not belong to any recognised nation. There are forest troll settlements there, which neither faction recognise as sovereign, and some Wildhammer settlements. The Wildhammers have become members of the Alliance once again, so it is only natural for them to expect an imminent conflict with the stronger enemy force to the North. It's an open war, acknowledged by both sides, I see very little evil in moving into an essentially free-for-all zone and dealing with enemy settlements therein.

I think that many of the people who claim that Sylvanas or the Forsaken are evil are those who are upset by the fact that the Forsaken are one of the only faction-races achieving anything close to meaningful victories in an open war.

They're my main points. I'll happily respond to any retorts and likely add more points in defence of Sylvanas' amorality and, at most, passive evilness.

I don't agree on some of your points.
1. Yes, Garrosh wanted the Gilneas harbour. Yet, besides attacking them, there was also the idea of diplomacy. Though Gilneas disliked the orcs before, helping them during the Cataclysm and during their civil war would be seen enough of a help for them to actually at least let the Horde use their harbours.
2. True. For Gilneas alone though.
3. Disagree. I remember a quest somewhere where you bring an undead back and he says that he's been ripped from the glorious afterlife into this undeath state of misery. For those that would have went to WoW-Hell, yes, being undead is better. For those that went to WoW-Heaven it is a curse worse then death.

On Arathi Hinterlands I don't agree at all. In Classic WoW time, Stormgarde was 1/3 controlled by actual loyal Stormgarde troops. The city itself, the zone I could go as far to say that it was half controlled by humans, especially since they were strong enough to battle the Horde at same time. So no, Arathi was not a zone up for grabs. It was a zone with major unrest, yes, but a zone that never attacked the Forsaken. To justify their claim, the forsaken killed Prince Trollbane and brought him back as forsaken. This would be similar as if I killed a president and put a cyborg in his place. It doesn't make my claim right, in fact it makes it even worse.

About Silverpine and Hillsbrad, no, you're wrong. There was also another nation there that, at the time, was neutral to forsaken. Dalaran. Dalaran was not without leadership, it was not without people, it was not a nation that wanted to rejoin their undead brothers. Yet Sylvannas took it by force. Forsaken worked with Dalaran in Northrend, so it was clear Dalaran was neutral at the time, yet they still attacked Dalaran's holds remaining in Eastern Kingdoms for the sole reason that they bordered theirs.

this whole quel'danil fight is very strange. I'm trying to do some research on it, but I'm finding nothing except for the fact that it happened.

the Hiri'watha Research Station is there just to get spider poison from the goddess shandra. that's it. if you quest as horde there, you'll see that they do nothing more than going after shandra. the horde side makes no reference at all to any fight in quel'danil.

perhaps they were attacking quel'danil as a favor to the trolls there? when you talk to a forsaken woman in revantusk village, she talks about how the trolls there are well receptive for the forsaken, and the trolls are enemies with the dwarves and elves there.

either that, or there's some idiot forsaken commander in charge of some stupid troops attacking people outside of their lands for nothing. very weird and unexplained.

You know, very good you remembered me! In Lot'remar's short story, the high elves in Eastern Plaguelands claim they were attacked by Nathanos Blightcaller and the Forsaken to retrieve his old apply letter. The Forsaken killed a few high elves then for something that did not belong to them anymore, the letter of apply. Furthermore, at that time the Alliance and the Horde were at peace.

I think Sylvanas was a hero in the beginning - rallying the freed undead and making themselves a home. Yet the way she just outright disobeys Horde orders, raises the dead, and mercilessly experiments on humans makes her the Lich Queen. I wonder if she even realises how far she has fallen. If somebody cornered her and told her what she'd done and called her the Lich Queen she would probably be horrified herself!

Indeed, though I think she'd only get angry and kill whomever told her the truth.

Interesting points and I suppose it is worth mentioning that we don't know what relations between the Quel'Danil elves and the Revantusk trolls were like. Maybe the elves were openly hostile.

Plus, the Quel'Danil elves are Thalassian expats, something that Sylvanas likely despises seeing as she died defending the land they abandoned. They are open traitors to a Forsaken-allied race as well, openly hostile to members of their own race still loyal to Silvermoon, so attacking them isn't so evil really, I suppose.

They actually did fight for their lands, but when they were told to start sucking magic out of living things to continue, they refused. And Lor'themar kicked them out. They're no more traitors then the Warsong Clan is to the Horde when Thrall said "no more fighting" and they continued. Attacking someone who fought for their lands and was kicked out just because they don't agree with killing stuff and sucking their magic is evil. The high elves (most anyway) are not the traitors here... the blood elves are, for they kicked those that fought with them out. It's the same situation as with Garithos and Sylvannas. Sylvannas and the Forsaken fought the Legion alongside Garithos, yet when it was done, Garithos wanted to kick them out because they were different. I think the high elves would have been fully justified if they would have started killing blood elves... yet they didn't, did they? So that makes the high elves even more in the right!

To that extent, could you truly call Garrosh evil either?

Yes, I could. Garrosh is like a crazy dictator, he wants his master race, his living land, he wants the extermination of lesser races and weak members of his.

But wait... that's also what Sylvannas wants in a way, she wants forsaken to lure, her space, the extermination of other races and of the weaker members of hers. Only she also kills those that disagree with her or takes them to torture (Koltira) and does experiments on prisoners, sending them work labour camps (Hillsbrad) only to kill them afterwards... sounds awfully familiar with some real life leader...

[Zaelsino]

She is WoW's version of Hitler.

Pretty sure Golden said that was Garrosh.

[Verdugo]

She is WoW's version of Hitler.

She would be, if Hitler was changing everyone into aryans.

[Scummer]

She's bad. I want to perhaps call her almost evil but I know the people who like her refuse to let people use that word. She's not a grey character any more and even then she arguably never was given how a lot of what we see her doing now is just her enacting what she's been planning for a long time minus the Val'kyr.

To be frank though I'd rather watch a thread like this . When making a post in a Forsaken/Sylvanas thread you're making a commitment.

[Zuben]

She's evil, but not in the we-must-put-her-down sense. Unless you're Alliance.

[Omanley]

Undead would usually be considered evil by humans (or any living creature, really).
Same with other races of the horde. Orcs are considered evil by humans, trolls by elves.

When there is conflict, the enemy side is quickly labeled evil.

When you, as a forsaken, realize that your former life is gone and how other humans will think of you from now on, maybe you want to make them miserable. Or maybe rejoin them through making them forsaken as well? Who can say what death and rebirth would do to an individual? Evil? Maybe. Maybe you just do not care anymore either, since you already died once or w/e, so death stops being a big deal, and death is just a step of becoming your ally or even friend.

Sylvannas persues her own, secret goals. persueing those will mean conflict with certain factions, which may cause those to see her as evil. Some factions are simply not cut out to be allies, and war will happen. That makes one or even both sides wrong, I suppose, but not evil.

Sylvannas saw in the horde allies that would not judge her undead nature (the old horde had oldschool death knights and skeletons in their ranks, remember) or judge her wish for whatever she's up to.

[Absintheminded]

Full stop right there.

How is it -not- evil to murder a bunch of defenseless farmers for no real reason?


Why does Sylvanas -need- this territory to be secure? The Forsaken could fortify what they have and never need to expand beyond it because they flat out don't need a lot of the resources and considerations that living individuals need, and if they weren't murdering humans left and right there wouldn't be a war on and they wouldn't need to fear invasion.

All is fair in love and war. You've got to be retarded to remain in Horde territory, in the middle of a war, with the enemy approaching, and with the closest thing to an ally half a continent away. Either that, or you've resigned yourself to your destiny as it may play out.

In the end, these wartime actions are no more evil than the actions of other race leaders.