Because at this point in the story, with how Sylvanas is portrayed, how could anyone in their right mind consider anyone who supports her in any other way?
False.
Gee, I wonder why that is. Couldn’t possibly be because the Horde has destroyed 3 major Alliance settlements, could it?
You speak as if the writers owe the Horde players anything. Because being the pet faction of the devs with the last 3 of 4 expansions being centered around Horde characters or themes and making jokes at the Alliance’s expense isn’t enough?
While we’re here calling things we read on the forums pathetic, I do agree that the “I’m voting for Sylvanas out of spite” posts in that one thread ranked up there for me. Not sure I’d call the posts here among them, though.
So many of them read as people whose Straw Sylvanas has been set ablaze alongside Teldrassil by a perfectly in character Sylvanas portrayal in game and its just, eugh.
I get the people who want the variety of characterization back for the Forsaken as a whole though. Its just the Sylvanas Sycophant Squad in particular whose posts I find a little difficult to chew through out of - mostly - second hand embarrassment.
…what, when did the alliance get involved with this choice?!
This is between the Horde and Blizzard you and alliance leaning people have no impact on this choice what so ever, honestly not even a blimp on our radar.
Slightly feel like that’s a problem that most horde players, most honestly don’t even care about the Alliance at this point and is more angry at blizz cuz we can’t be remotely angry at the Alliance.
This feels so weird tbh, supposed to be fighting each other and most horde is over here looking at a different problem, while alliance is on standby like “Can…Can we go back to fighting or…nah?”
And no horde has been good longer then evil, only time they were evil was due to them being ticked by the legion and now the last 2 faction wars due to blizzard writers wanting them so…
See the problem??? Blizzard doesn’t care about horde pride, development or story. Where is Thrall in all this?
Blizzard just show horns horde into whatever they need to make allaince look good and Nobel. MOP horde was under a blood thirsty orc warlord, who went to war because his people were starving. But ended up being stupid evil and fraction his race.
Now under Sylvanas horde is the mini sourge, it to a point where they change the existing lore and have character say stuff that doesn’t make sense like rexxar, or any time the horde has a justification it is pushed under the rug like dalaran and Genn
People disagreeing with you happens, man. Turns out people other than Horde players are affected by the story even when its focusing entirely on the Horde. You can’t just will them out of talking because you’ve stopped caring. Support for Sylvanas’ continued leadership of the Horde and antagonism of the Alliance is not a partisan matter only for Horde to speak with privately to daddy Blizz about. It affects us and the fact that 1. We don’t actually get a “vote” and 2. You are asking crap like “Since when did the Alliance have a say?!” really speaks volumes about where we as players sit with both one another and Blizz.
I’ll let Roghter fill in an answer for me since I agreed with them when this was posted a bit ago:
I mean… Roghter is straight up wrong. The plan was to invade. Then, she got mad, and utterly flipped, to the point that the single person in the world who is most devoted to her looked at her like she had two heads.
Unless it was her “true goal” from the start, which is equally out of character for being so utterly stupid and genuinely likely to alienate her powerbase(see Blizz’ talk of her preference for plausible deniability).
It’s not that Alliance can’t comment on it, it’s that Ivalesse was strawmanning that the support for Sylvanas was explicitly to spite you lot.
You’re allowed to have opinions on it, totally, but you don’t enter at all into OUR opinions on the matter, except for those of us who feel sympathy for you being trapped in this simultaneously sinking and burning ship with us.
I mean, this goes further and is why I see this Straw Sylvanas thing to begin with. Her arc has always always been emotionally driven. She dragged the undead remnants of a human kingdom off a moral cliff in pursuit of revenge. There was no pragmatism in commissioning the plague and study of Old God blood, half-heartedly pursuing reconciliation with other human kingdoms, opting to take advantage of Thrall’s bleeding heart, outright assassinating her people when they do find peace with humanity, rounding up innocent human, tauren, whomstever and experimenting on them. It was all for an appeal to her emotional state.
And was not only all perfectly valid as a character arc, it has remained in character for her to act that way.
I don’t fully agree with their post but, the typical rhetoric I read has people saying they are voting for Sylvanas out of spite. Its in spite of Blizzard, as I understand, but I don’t see Ivalesse’ redirecting of the word to illuminate how that spite affects the Alliance as entirely strawman. Its a pretty common bit of wordplay really.
I’m halfsies on the matter I guess. I do see that she acted out of emotion but I don’t see him as wrong at all, I see him being careful to use the word “triggered” and find it applicable to Ninh’s “volatile”. Sylvanas got emotional, but through all source materials provided we know the burning was an act on her mind. Her being prompted to act on it sooner than planned is hardly what I’d call her being volatile or triggered. But she’s absolutely in character to act on emotion to do things she’s had on her mind for a good while.
She’s perfectly in character now, putting her people at risk to pursue a goal she believes is valid, killing anyone even tangentially related to the path she’s on, killing dissidents among her own people. All of this is a reiteration of things she’s done in the past.
I’m not sure why you mention the plague, but yes that is the most practical thing the Forsaken have ever done; especially before the Val’kyr when their forces were literally unreplenishable.
But I don’t really care about Sylvanas being an anger-driven character, I care about the fact that the primary method for conveying the story (the cutscene) has her go from calm to blazing rage within a second. Meanwhile A Good War is only able to justify it with the ‘A wound that will never heal’ line that also only appears in A Good War.
If they hadn’t had her yelling ‘BURN IT’ at her commanders faces like a crazy person, then yeah it’d likely be Sylvanas at peak Sylvanas.
Convenient tangential benefits is not pragmatism. She developed the plague at the cost of building relations with half the world. That was half the point of the Horde-as-meat-shield storyline in Vanilla. She pursued dark magics in the blind, emotional pursuit of Arthas’ descruction, often to the detriment of her people. That is not pragmatism. That is ruthless and emotional. And as I said - entirely valid for her to pursue. Nothing I said was a condemnation.
Not Saronite. Bloodstone. This was long before the world at large knew Old God blood was a substance that existed. Vanilla, friend.
The plague was, again, practical only in that it was useful for killing crap. In fact we know the plague wound up not even being instrumental in Arthas’ defeat, though that’s hindsight. The plague was developed at extreme detriment to public perception of the Forsaken, putting it lightly. And in the greater topic of Sylvanas’ actions not being representative of the characterization of the people as a whole - a thing that should resonate with Horde posters, this is Patient Zero. John Q Forsakenguy did not need the plague. Sylvanas did. Because she was emotionally driven.
We now have graves in Arathi for a bunch of Johns and Janes who didn’t need the plague, and it made Sylvanas very angery at them.
Not really? For the most part, the blight wasn’t even known until it’s first major field use at the Wrathgate; and by then, the Forsaken had largely burned their bridges with anyone besides the Horde.
And did the Desolate Council actually say anything against the blight? Cause I’m relatively sure they were just a civilian government.
Because the Forsaken thought it was a good weapon to use. That’s the rationale we’re given. It is pragamatic if said benefits are what are being sought.
And unless Bloodstone is entirely worthless (from what I see, the researchers didn’t think that) then the point remains.
![:grinning:](https://d38bqls1q93fod.cloudfront.net/en/wow/images/emoji/twitter/grinning.png?v=6" ":grinning:")