OK and she was hungry
The worse trolling is when the troll doesn’t even make an attempt at being funny. rip.
1 Like
Actually, i prefer simpler storylines and straightforward villains, they are the best ones 
Uhm, I’m not even gonna comment on this and just shake my head that you really think this is a valid argument.
Do you guys have a handbook or something you get your lines from. Because everyone seems to like to parrot this. She bought time, she had no where to go, what do you expect her to do after you can no longer run. 
Just because gameplay wise you have to shoot enemies 300 times with a gun in order to kill them doesn’t mean this is actually the case when someone gets shot in the head lore wise.
Death is suffering.
I’m confused because it seems people here are talking about Sylvanas but confusing her with someone actually good and skilled at her job/role.
Also if my arguments aren’t valid, you should be easily able to logically explain why that is the case. Simply saying “I win” doesn’t actually mean you have won, as a certain someone is learning the hard way right now.
1 Like
Eh… Are we though? Are we really? I mean, if you think about it most battles at least loosely follow what economists and sociologists would call ‘the Theory of Rational Action’. I.E. One side needs something and it’s having a hard time getting it. This doesn’t make them monstrous by any definition, in fact it humanizes them. It gives them depth. Especially when you start applying Rules of Engagement: “Don’t kill non-combatants” “Don’t torture captives” “Don’t destroy resources or locations without a tactical or strategic reason”. Things like that.
Then we have the Garrosh’s and the Sylvanas’s. They seem to thrive on extreme violence and cruelty for its own sake. And all of a sudden people want to dive down a philosophical rabbit hole of how best to prosecute a war that may or may not have been necessary if more rational options had been pursued.
Ehhhh its more that I feel that’s kinda tricky to implement. As murder hobos we need proper bait before we’re motivated to do ANYTHING
Same reason why the Raid Boss don’t ignore the tanks and go straight for the healer.
Sorry if I misread what your point is in this. I believe you are stating genocide isn’t really genocide as long as the motive is for resources/survival? In this point I disagree that the word you quoted from the dictionary should not change due to circumstance. But I agree the lens of morality we view it through should temper how we deal with it.
In response to Sylvanas and Garrosh. Garrosh has been muddled up between going evil due to old god corruption or just being brutal to enemies cuz he couldn’t see a world where the Horde would be accepted by the Alliance. Garrosh really isn’t worth the trouble debating if you ask me as that horse is dead and sources are contradictory.
As for Sylvanas, I believe the biggest issue is that her motive (as far as I know) is yet undiscovered. Which makes her quite polarizing. With no motive behind the mask, she can’t be humanized as you put it and thus she is no longer a character but a plot device. Time will tell if she remains so or can grow into something more. My faith in blizz writing is pretty low though.
What is worse, we easily rescue every one of them. Some within the first couple of minutes of arriving in the Shadowlands. I mean why go thru all the trouble and then just leave them guarded by a bunch of no bodies that are easily dispatched.
Isn’t it obvious?
She’s lonely and she wants us to visit. Poor thing.
And then we escape immediately after. But nobody has ever escaped the maw before
Its Nazjatar all over again. “She’s blocking my magic, we can’t teleport out. Champion , go make a portal so we can teleport out”.
1 Like
I would say that it’s not just the motive and intent, but also the execution and results. For example, when we play a match of Arathi Basin for example, the objective is to capture the Lumbermill, not burn it to the ground and slaughter the workers because preserving it intact is more advantageous. To pick another example, let’s use the Siege of Orgrimmar. The objective there wasn’t to raze the city to the ground, reduce everything to rubble and ash, and slaughter every single one of its citizens; it was targeted very specifically at removing Garrosh’s regime. This is what I mean by a conflict of rational actors.
To be fair to Garrosh’s original point of view, he was a Horde loyalist who believed in almost every case that the ends justified the means. I would not classify his attitude as objectively “Evil”. If you want to borrow the D&D alignment wheel, I would say he was more “Chaotic”, moving drastically towards “Chaotic Evil” after becoming corrupted by the Heart of Y’shaarj.
I fully agree with this. And I’ll go one further and say that I strongly doubt there is any possible motive that could logically account for the travesties she has committed. IMHO, Blizzard would probably have to retcon either her personality, and/or her actions. While I would be open to the former, I would reject the latter outright as piss poor writing. They’ve really backed themselves into a corner on this one.
Shes the type to taunt you so im guessing thats why
Makes me think we need to kill her even more.
1 Like
If she killed them wouldn’t they just end up in the shadowlands, except free?
1 Like
Why did Sylv leave Saurfang to kill off Malf? The way she’s written doesn’t always make sense.
As you’ll learn, there is a severe anima drought. My gut instinct tells me that extremely powerful, revered faction leaders can produce enough anima to help her accomplish whatever she’s after.
1 Like
I don’t think you are thinking far enough. I don’t think it’s the faction leaders she’s planning to get the anima from. It’s the players character she’s after.
If you think about how much Blizzard has been hyping up the characters every expansion then it makes more sense that she would want us over the faction leaders for OUR anima.
The faction leaders are simply the bait to draw us there.
Bait most likely. To lure (whoever she is targeting) into Shadowlands.
1 Like