but neglecting the most important motivation, while giving a completely new one is kinda odd, don’t you think?
but i digress, the point im just trying to make is that her hands were not tied as people seem to imply, she got involved because she wanted to
But that doesn’t make Sylvanas the one who ordered Gilneas to be invaded, which is what was being discussed.
Chronicles isn’t everything. Something not being mentioned in Chronicles doesn’t make it non-canon. It’s very broad strokes.
Sylvanas now wanted Gilneas’ land, but that doesn’t exclude her previous motives.
Delicious headcanon.
That event is cited once at all in the lore, ever, and we know that Sylvanas had plans to kill and raise Stormwind under her command. There was always going to be a war because Sylvanas was put in power and because she wants war. She wants death. Whoever she’s serving, whoever got her on the seat of Warchief to begin with, demands it.
Well yeah, no one said otherwise, she took over the invasion from Garrosh. But Garrosh is still the one who ordered the invasion to happen at all, not Sylvanas.
med’an joke is warranted
Just to be clear, I’m not trying to absolve Sylvanas, I really don’t like her and want her out of the story.
But I don;t support the notion of exaggerating her actions or attributing things to her that aren’t actually her actions. There’s plenty to hate her for already.
What are you talking about, his story was on page 404.
oh of course, silly me
No because chronicle is wonky about a ton of the minor details. Just about everything has some abridged version in chronicle. Her motivations for coming back are not her motivations for taking gilneas. She could have pulled out of the horde and fought the alliance alone, but she chose to go on as a part of them which meant playing ball with garrosh.
I think her hands were tied, if she refused garrosh she would have lost horde support and may have lost the EK to the alliance and been killed. The orc forces helped hold silverpine and saved hillsbrad from the stormpike.
And what did they get out of that pursuit?
Why? Balrig said to convince him. I have a player PoV and I’m addressing someone else who has a player PoV. Now that’s he’s issued his challenge and I’ve responded he’s trying to shift goal-posts and talk about Genn’s perspective but Genn’s perspective doesn’t matter. Genn already thinks that killing or getting killed hundreds of other Forsaken and Alliance soldiers is worth just spiting Sylvanas, and that even the general Alliance probably wouldn’t share it. So why would or should I consider it relevant to this discussion? The emotionally blinded are willing to consider far more things “justified” in getting what they want than people are who are not so emotionally engaged.
And again, you aren’t Genn. You didn’t ask me to prove to Genn that revenge (and necessarily its consequences) was wrong, but to you. So real life applies because you ARE real life, as am I. But I’ll agree to a filter, if you would like, to dissecting it as to the consequences of reading/playing through the game on us, the players. In which case there must necessarily be far greater aggregate harm inflicted on the larger and longer-lasting collection of Sylvanas fans by killing her than was suffered in the attachments to Liam, as short as the experience was. And of course the target of the revenge is entirely misplaced in that case because it’s the exact same figures pushing BOTH deaths.
How ironic.
You accuse me of headcanon (when it is a fact that Saurfang viewed Stormhiem as an example of rampant Alliance aggression).
Yet you pretend to know the motivations of who ever put Sylvanas as Warchief… When we dont even know who it is.
my gold is on some evil death lord
Because you’re arguing a ground level perspective in a vacuum that makes you nothing but an extreme hypocrite to anyone with a removed perspective. I am asking you to take a step back in the hopes that you might see it.
Its great that you think revenge is bad. I just kind of hope you apply it evenly to all like-actors between scenarios.
If its your intention to condemn Sylvanas for her foolish pursuit of revenge as well, then I take it all back. Good on you for standing for principle no matter the line you would otherwise tow.
A False equivalency.
Sylvanas wanted revenge on Arthas and plotted to take her revenge. The Horde and Alliance agreed that Arthas must be dealt with.
Genn’s revenge…before we leave Stormwind, he says “I dont hunt without intending to kill.” or some such. Against Anduin’s orders. Which is why Anduin forcefully rebuked him.
Sylvanas revenge = everyone agreed.
Genn’s revenge = not even the High King of the Alliance agreed.
External agreement doesn’t validate or invalidate the action they wish to pursue or how they feel about who violated them. Its an internal motivation, chief.
That is your opinion. I doubt you are the arbiter of validity.
Are you the Native American Pope to elevate me to a chief? I never imagined.
That aside - the internal motivation is the difference, when these 2 people have the capability to bring 2 whole Factions at War.
With Sylvanas’s goal, the Horde and Alliance agreed and fought for the honor of accomplishing the same goal as her. Most of the planet and some alien races.
Genn did his actions against the High King, the Alliance that the High King commands, and the Horde.
So yes, Genn’s revenge was wholly selfish while Sylvanas’s was not.
Sylvanas’s quest for revenge was part of a united force.
Genn’s was against his leaders commands.
… wat
His point seems to be that Sylvanas wasn’t acting selfishly because everyone was onboard with her revenge. But that Genn was because a lot of people weren’t. Selfishness in the lack of consideration for other peoples’ views on the matter.
I’m aware. Which ignores that she killed her people who disagreed with her, deliberately studied dark magic and blight knowing races would condemn her for it and dragged the Horde in to protect her (SERIOUSLY ITS IN THE ORIGINAL MANUAL YOU GUYS SHOULD KNOW HER STORY BEATS), etc.
Sylvanas is the epitome of self-centered.
And that is ENTIRELY beside the fact that, as a victim, the validity of your desire for revenge against the person who violates you absolutely does not in any way, shape, or form require the approval of others.
I don’t condemn either of them, actually. But I don’t need to do that to think their actions were not justified and came at costs far higher than was or potentially could be achieved, particularly as an outside observer.
No. That’s not the same thing at all. Everyone agreed on trying to get rid of Arthas. They had a variety of intents behind it though. Self defense is not revenge, for instance. There you are seeking to preserve something integral to being. You might end up taking the same or similar actions as one seeking revenge as a process but the goal in the first is preservation of something and the goal in the second is pure destruction.
Maybe not the desire. How selfish or unselfish one’s actions do depend on the the circumstances. Anyway, you should have just said that instead of expressing confusion. I wouldn’t have to bother explaining then.