Releasing Saurfang was smart

Lore Story Forum
21
11/09/2018 03:26 PMPosted by Carmageddon
What if Saurfang and Sylvanas have just continued their game of 4d chess from the War of Thorns, and this part of the plan was for Saurfang to get Anduin to feel sympathetic to him (easy enough) and thus further the division in the Alliance?

Do I think that's what's happening? Nah, Blizzard isn't that subtle. But it would be an amazing twist.

OH MY LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORD.
If you don't make a thread quoting this EXACT post, I WILL.
22
I keep thinking of it like Germany releasing Lenin into Russia during World War I.

...I suppose that makes me a communist revolutionary. Oh well, I can dust off that SoO title.
23
11/09/2018 03:58 PMPosted by Galenar
You act like it's choice. Why can't they both be guilty? They're both culpable for the current war and Saurfang deserves a punishment as much as Sylvanas. Getting to just walk off back to the Horde because Anduin is a peacemonger isn't justice at all. I'd like to see Anduin explain that one to the Night Elves that remain.
Because it is a choice.

You got a chance to destabilize Sylvanas' regime from the inside. The understanding is that there is honor involved... and if you go back on it for the sake of punishing all the "guilty" parties, you discredit yourself, make such deals or negotations in general more difficult, and prolong the war most likely.

Or you take neither option, try to punish both without Saurfang's help, and fight the war in a less inefficient manner because you want to spite Saurfang.

So the question is, what's you're answer to this question, if you were to give one to it?

11/09/2018 01:48 PMPosted by Rothiron
Which of the two actors in this equation deserve to be punished more? Sylvanas or Saurfang? Better question, which one do YOU want to punish more?


Edit: This is an honest question, to be clear. Given the choice of one or the other, what's you're preference?
24
So the question is, what's you're answer to this question, if you were to give one to it?


Sylvanas obviously. But that's not the approach I would ever take. Letting Saurfang go to start a revolution doesn't bring back the people he murdered at Teldrassil. Telling your allies "sorry, the man who was partly responsible for the genocide of your people is more valuable as a pawn to end the war so we let him out of prison to return to the enemy. Deal with it." is just going to infuriate the NE's and drive them further from the Alliance than they already are. But sure, let's reward the war crime because he's a useful tool.
25
Wouldn't it be awesome / hilarious if this comes back to bite Anduin in the worst way?

Like Saurfang leads his rebellion, defeats Sylvanas, becomes Warchief...

Then turns around and CONTINUES the Horde's war against the Alliance.

Because he knows that, however peaceful Anduin is, there are other Alliance leaders who won't settle for anything less than the Horde's dismantling.

"What is the meaning of this, Saurfang? I let you go so you could stop Sylvanas!"
"You let me go so I could save the Horde. That's EXACTLY what I'm doing..."
26
11/09/2018 05:18 PMPosted by Jakkø
Wouldn't it be awesome / hilarious if this comes back to bite Anduin in the worst way?


I do so hope this whole thing is leading up to his "The First Duty" moment. It feels like all we're going to get is Anduin being proven right in everything and his way being correct but god I hope Blizzard don't do it.
27
Posted by Rothiron
Which of the two actors in this equation deserve to be punished more? Sylvanas or Saurfang? Better question, which one do YOU want to punish more?

Edit: This is an honest question, to be clear. Given the choice of one or the other, what's you're preference?


The writers
28
11/09/2018 05:15 PMPosted by Galenar
Sylvanas obviously. But that's not the approach I would ever take.
So you wouldn't go for the approach that potentially wins the war more efficiently and at less cost in casualties for you?

11/09/2018 05:15 PMPosted by Galenar
Letting Saurfang go to start a revolution doesn't bring back the people he murdered at Teldrassil.
I mean, neither does killing or punishing him, to be honest. You realize the cliche is "Vengeance doesn't bring back the dead" for a reason, right?

11/09/2018 05:15 PMPosted by Galenar
Telling your allies "sorry, the man who was partly responsible for the genocide of your people is more valuable as a pawn to end the war so we let him out of prison to return to the enemy. Deal with it." is just going to infuriate the NE's and drive them further from the Alliance than they already are.
That's down to politics at this point. Frankly, if you can end a war without incurring as many casualties as otherwise pursuing it, including additional casualties to the NEs, then better to grit your teeth and go for the common good. They'll be sore about it most likely, but more of them will be alive and they'll have their homelands back, not a terrible deal overall and well worth the "Tyrande disapproves" penalty. Besides, its doubtful the NEs just break off from the Alliance entirely, considering the defense benefits the Alliance have against the Horde (after all, the NEs tossing that away just means they're in a 4v1 against the Horde races based in Kalimdor).

11/09/2018 05:15 PMPosted by Galenar
But sure, let's reward the war crime because he's a useful tool.
It's really more like "Let's use the war criminal to spare needless casualties and end the war quicker", but I suppose you think your phrasing of it is more logical.

11/09/2018 05:23 PMPosted by Galenar
I do so hope this whole thing is leading up to his "The First Duty" moment. It feels like all we're going to get is Anduin being proven right in everything and his way being correct but god I hope Blizzard don't do it.
Anduin not being proven right means that the faction war keeps going after Sylvanas is gone and peace is impossible between the two factions. Do you really want that?
29
I mean, neither does killing or punishing him, to be honest. You realize the cliche is "Vengeance doesn't bring back the dead" for a reason, right?


There's a difference between justice and vengeance. Letting him go means he doesn't answer for anything that he did. At all. I'm not sure why you're so convinced it's a better alternative.

They'll be sore about it most likely, but more of them will be alive and they'll have their homelands back, not a terrible deal overall.


What makes you think that? Like the Horde are going to stop pressing their newfound advantage in Kalimdor and push the NE's even further out of their land.

considering the defense benefits the Alliance have against the Horde (after all, the NEs tossing that away just means they're in a 4v1 against the Horde races based in Kalimdor).


You mean the defense benefits of being ignored by the Alliance military commander because he considers securing a new allies' land and attacking the trolls more important than defending an old one? Those benefits?

11/09/2018 06:04 PMPosted by Rothiron
Anduin not being proven right means that the faction war keeps going after Sylvanas is gone and peace is impossible between the two factions. Do you really want that?


I think people should be held accountable for their actions. Why should a war criminal be allowed to just return to their people and carry on like they didn't just take part in the mass murder of a people?
30
11/09/2018 05:18 PMPosted by Jakkø
Wouldn't it be awesome / hilarious if this comes back to bite Anduin in the worst way?

Like Saurfang leads his rebellion, defeats Sylvanas, becomes Warchief...

Then turns around and CONTINUES the Horde's war against the Alliance.

Because he knows that, however peaceful Anduin is, there are other Alliance leaders who won't settle for anything less than the Horde's dismantling.

"What is the meaning of this, Saurfang? I let you go so you could stop Sylvanas!"
"You let me go so I could save the Horde. That's EXACTLY what I'm doing..."

yeah, but that would assure that the alliance win and wipe out the horde. Sylvanas is losing and is cheating hard. How could the horde ever stand upto the entire alliance after fighting a civil war.
31
Couldn't help but notice you dodged this question.

So you wouldn't go for the approach that potentially wins the war more efficiently and at less cost in casualties for you?


So do I take it that you're saying yes to it?

11/09/2018 06:12 PMPosted by Galenar
There's a difference between justice and vengeance. Letting him go means he doesn't answer for anything that he did. At all. I'm not sure why you're so convinced it's a better alternative.
Yeah, and vengeance is often masqueraded as justice to make the avenger feel better about it. And Blizzard said something about the Alliance having to decide whether or not they're about vengeance. Pretty sure getting more of your people killed because you don't want to do an "Enemy Mine" gambit with the lesser of two evils (if you can even call Saurfang that to be honest) is a far cry from justice.

Consider it a plea deal. You let a crony off the hook so you can snag a juicier prize of justice and take down the head honcho.

11/09/2018 06:12 PMPosted by Galenar
What makes you think that? Like the Horde are going to stop pressing their newfound advantage in Kalimdor and push the NE's even further out of their land.
Because Anduin being at the head of the wheel and honoring his gentleman's agreement with Saurfang, and vice versa, means that two heads of state can at least sign a truce, restore the NE's their lands, and stop outright hostilities for give or take years, probably enough time for the NEs to refortify and rest up if (big if to be honest given the signs) the faction war starts up?

I know you got a grudge against Saurfang, but what makes you think that he wouldn't be amenable to peace talks with Anduin once Sylvanas is gone? You realize that Sylvanas was the one that prodded him into thinking that war was the best option, right? He was more than content to keep up the ceasefire when she originally broached the subject.

Sidenote, again, you are omitting parts of my quotation, including the fact that under your preferred method of carrying out the war in the name of "justice", you'd probably get more NEs killed.

11/09/2018 06:12 PMPosted by Galenar
You mean the defense benefits of being ignored by the Alliance military commander because he considers securing a new allies' land and attacking the trolls more important than defending an old one? Those benefits?
The defense benefits that prevented Teldrassil from being torched years ago by holding the Horde settlements, actually. And look at you, so confident that the Night Elves can go 1v4 against the Horde. And so grateful that the Alliance partnership also opened up an evacuation path for the refugees.

Don't knock it, it literally made it so that Teldrassil actually had survivors.

11/09/2018 06:12 PMPosted by Galenar
I think people should be held accountable for their actions. Why should a war criminal be allowed to just return to their people and carry on like they didn't just take part in the mass murder of a people?
So you DO want more of the faction war storytelling that to this point torched your capital city? I didn't take you for a masochist.
32
11/09/2018 06:38 PMPosted by Rothiron
So you DO want more of the faction war storytelling that to this point torched your capital city? I didn't take you for a masochist.


Can I just say you were right and I was wrong so I don't have to answer all your points? This long !@# back and forth is exhausting. I usually just post nonsensical $%^- for likes. Using my brain stuff is hard.
33
11/09/2018 06:51 PMPosted by Galenar
Can I just say you were right and I was wrong so I don't have to answer all your points? This long !@# back and forth is exhausting. I usually just post nonsensical $%^- for likes. Using my brain stuff is hard.
I can show you a way, young grasshoppah... The way... to debate on the interwebs.

(You're actually like 50 times better than this snozzberry I was just exchanging posts with on Facebook a few minutes ago. Dude was only skimming my posts and blatantly misquoting.)
34
11/09/2018 07:00 PMPosted by Rothiron
I can show you a way, young grasshoppah... The way... to debate on the interwebs.(You're actually like 50 times better than this snozzberry I was just exchanging posts with on Facebook a few minutes ago. Dude was only skimming my posts and blatantly misquoting.)


I know I can do it. But after a while it makes me feel tired, especially if I'm getting boxed into a corner by a superior argument. It's like getting wailed on in boxing, eventually you just want to stop.
35
11/09/2018 05:18 PMPosted by Jakkø
Wouldn't it be awesome / hilarious if this comes back to bite Anduin in the worst way?

Like Saurfang leads his rebellion, defeats Sylvanas, becomes Warchief...

Then turns around and CONTINUES the Horde's war against the Alliance.

Because he knows that, however peaceful Anduin is, there are other Alliance leaders who won't settle for anything less than the Horde's dismantling.

"What is the meaning of this, Saurfang? I let you go so you could stop Sylvanas!"
"You let me go so I could save the Horde. That's EXACTLY what I'm doing..."


This is literally the last hope I have for the story to be redeemed in my eyes, but I don't think Blizzard is capable of expectation subversion. Every time they have left room for doubt, it always ends up being the most straightforward and obvious path.
36
11/09/2018 07:32 PMPosted by Jellex
This is literally the last hope I have for the story to be redeemed in my eyes, but I don't think Blizzard is capable of expectation subversion. Every time they have left room for doubt, it always ends up being the most straightforward and obvious path.
I dunno, I think they subverted expectations pretty hard when it came to the Illidan prophecy nonsense.

That said, I don't know if you should really want Blizzard to subvert those expectations in this particular instance. Because it would most likely mean... more faction war content.

Which the general consensus I got from the forums is "Awwwwww hell naaaaw!!!"
37
11/09/2018 07:43 PMPosted by Rothiron
That said, I don't know if you should really want Blizzard to subvert those expectations in this particular instance. Because it would most likely mean... more faction war content.


I'd be just fine with faction war if they could write it worth a damn. I also really, really, really don't want the faction war content to "end" with the Horde "weeks away from defeat" and only surviving because the naga conveniently attacked the Alliance before they could launch further operations.

Nobody wants that. (Which is precisely what we're getting, unless I miss my guess.)
38
11/09/2018 05:23 PMPosted by Galenar
11/09/2018 05:18 PMPosted by Jakkø
Wouldn't it be awesome / hilarious if this comes back to bite Anduin in the worst way?


I do so hope this whole thing is leading up to his "The First Duty" moment. It feels like all we're going to get is Anduin being proven right in everything and his way being correct but god I hope Blizzard don't do it.


Ppl forget that Sylvanas was made warchief for a reason that we do not know yet. It was meant to be, though.

She will save the Horde. She'll save us all!
39
i just hope that this plan backfires to anduin one way or another.

And also, that sylvanas plan backfires.

a double rebellion will help to understand why the horde hasn't finished the alliance and vice-versa.

They both deserve to fail. and sylvanas literally cannot win.
40
11/10/2018 04:56 AMPosted by Kekeyo
Ppl forget that Sylvanas was made warchief for a reason that we do not know yet. It was meant to be, though.


But now Vol'jin is essentially saying that he was duped. So that 'reason' was basically a load of bull that he bought into on his deathbed.