10/28/2018 01:37 AMPosted by
Darethy
I, like Withpuppys, personally subscribe to the bulwark against the infinite theory, and I think her reasonings for going out on the frontlines constantly are twofold:
A) Sylvanas is a very powerful person, and she knows it. She's capable of getting what she needs done done. Much of the time, relying on herself to perfectly complete her goals is better than relying solely others.
B) Constantly sending out people to do her job for her would not look good for her, and would also incriminate her had someone found out her motivations. Do you think she expected the Horde player to enslave Eyir of their own volition? I doubt they'd be okay with that.
The problem is that pretty much everything about Windrunners internal dialogue contradicts that, and the more time goes on the more I realize if she so selfishly cared about her lives she would of just been saving them up until now. Many leaders aren't frontline fighters, going out to the charge is unnecessary at best and wouldn't cause any suspicion.
Windrunner both obviously cares about where the Forsaken are going(in her own twisted way.) and has been hands on enough with them at this point that any other explanation would be illogical.
You bring up good points, but I don't think it's necessarily
all contradicted. Sylvanas is a tactician. A good one at that. If you ask me, she understands the value of opportune strikes instead of constantly biding time and resources.
And yes, she does care about the Forsaken. But it's in the twisted way that Withpuppys described - she cares about them like a blade. The blade dulls, you get a new one.
Sylvanas is a tactician.
i would say she is more of a strategist than a tactician
Sylvanas is a tactician.
i would say she is more of a strategist than a tactician
tac·ti·cian
nouna person who uses a carefully planned strategy to achieve a specific end.
strat·e·gist
nouna person skilled in planning action or policy, especially in war or politics.
Eh... both maybe.
10/28/2018 01:37 AMPosted by
Darethy
...
The problem is that pretty much everything about Windrunners internal dialogue contradicts that, and the more time goes on the more I realize if she so selfishly cared about her lives she would of just been saving them up until now. Many leaders aren't frontline fighters, going out to the charge is unnecessary at best and wouldn't cause any suspicion.
Windrunner both obviously cares about where the Forsaken are going(in her own twisted way.) and has been hands on enough with them at this point that any other explanation would be illogical.
You bring up good points, but I don't think it's necessarily all contradicted. Sylvanas is a tactician. A good one at that. If you ask me, she understands the value of opportune strikes instead of constantly biding time and resources.
And yes, she does care about the Forsaken. But it's in the twisted way that Withpuppys described - she cares about them like a blade. The blade dulls, you get a new one.
I believe her preferred term is arrows in the quiver.
You bring up good points, but I don't think it's necessarily all contradicted. Sylvanas is a tactician. A good one at that. If you ask me, she understands the value of opportune strikes instead of constantly biding time and resources.
And yes, she does care about the Forsaken. But it's in the twisted way that Withpuppys described - she cares about them like a blade. The blade dulls, you get a new one.
That was a theory that got tossed around a lot in Cata, and as time progressed I bought less and less into it. I feel people view sacrifices for their 'greater good' as the same as disposing of people on a whim. Windrunners empire is her legacy, during the battle for Undercity in Wrath she comments on how absolutely beautiful it is, in BtS she is upset by the fact that she can't be there to personally lead the day to day of it's happenings, she still rigs it with a bomb when the Alliance comes calling because even though she adores it, it doesn't mean she's incapable of sacrificing it for the Horde.
Windrunner tells you to go out and collect badges of the fallen for an enormous registry of the dead that the Forsaken keep to honor their service members, she takes you aside for a personal chat through Silverpine to explain her motivations and how important Lordaeron is to her people, she sends you on a mission to retrieve cowering Forsaken in a burning village because we don't leave our people behind. None of these actions are completely practical, if it's a PR stunt it's one of the most elaborate i'v ever witnessed because by this measuring stick it looks like she cares more about the Forsaken then
half the !@#$%^- Alliance leadership does about their own people.In fact, all of this actually shows she cares more about the Forsaken now then she did in Wrath BEFORE she knew, when her officers order you to kill Forsaken in Scarlet Crusade cages to keep them from talking. Protection by it's nature creates empathy, and over time it's clear as day to me that Windrunner started to believe in the Forsaken as a people.
I'm gonna be honest here - what we're both putting forth is now a level of subjectivity. I could argue that her impractical and compassionate actions are indeed a PR stunt, but it would subjective. As would saying that they weren't. So... I really hate saying this, but... we're at a level of wait and see now. The viewpoint of her actions is based on the beholder. Do they stem from a place of legitimate care for her people? Or is she merely concerned about keeping them happy so they'll be compliant? We've only been given enough information to form a speculation.
I'm gonna be honest here - what we're both putting forth is now a level of subjectivity. I could argue that her impractical and compassionate actions are indeed a PR stunt, but it would subjective. As would saying that they weren't. So... I really hate saying this, but... we're at a level of wait and see now. The viewpoint of her actions is based on the beholder. Do they stem from a place of legitimate care for her people? Or is she merely concerned about keeping them happy so they'll be compliant? We've only been given enough information to form a speculation.
I think the problem is the answer to your question is actually in the middle of both. In Wrath she was the latter, she had RAS take criminal Forsaken for experimentation but didn't really care about their crimes, when fighting the Scarlet Onslaught the Forsaken were killed basically to save the effort of rescuing them. When Windrunner commits a similar act of brutality in BtS it's because
they are actively defecting from her and she thinks that they are going to be a danger to undercity if they come back.Windrunner wants her people compliant, wants to foster the Cult of Personality BECAUSE she cares about them. Because she thinks that the Alliance will destroy them, and that she has the only real vision for going forward. It's pretty much word for word what Cdev has to state about her: She's power hungry, oppressive, but genuinely cares about the people she's leading.
Cdev can say what they'd like, but the story they put forth has to match it, since it tends not to. I'm not keen on letting word of god excuse contradiction. I personally don't think I'm seeing the same story as you, but I'm a different beholder. Sure, she dialed down much of her extremism towards the Forsaken, but that was back when they were in the home stretch against Arthas - an argument can be made about how she has to shift up her image and viewpoint to thrive in the long run, rather than the singularity.
I am absolutely not saying you're incorrect, but anything that has to do with her motivations for the Forsaken is 100% a subjective viewing given the events that have taken place up until now.
The problem is, I don't really think it's subjective. It's not just Cdev saying this, it matches up 100% with her thought process in Cata, is reinforced by what she thinks internally in BtS, it's actually hard for me to interpret the story they are putting forth differently.
That's what makes Windrunner such a massive threat. She's not doing this for her, she's convinced the Alliance is going to continue a cycle of hatred and one way, or another, she wants it to stop. The only reason WE, the players, know there's a chance for peace is because we can also see into Anduin's and Genn's internal monologues while she can't.
The problem is, I don't really think it's subjective.
And I don't think her using the Forsaken as a bulwark is subjective, and yet here we are. Your perception of her thought process and what it means in terms of the story beforehand is not an absolute, as it is clearly meant to be a divisive thing. Therefore, regardless of your own view on it, Sylvanas's motivations and characterization is subjective.
End of the day, it's only a problem if you push for it to be one.
The problem is, I don't really think it's subjective.
And I don't think her using the Forsaken as a bulwark is subjective, and yet here we are. Your perception of her thought process and what it means in terms of the story beforehand is not an absolute, as it is clearly meant to be a divisive thing. Therefore, regardless of your own view on it, Sylvanas's motivations and characterization is subjective.
End of the day, it's only a problem if you push for it to be one.
The issue is that her thought of them as her bulwark is not
incompatible with caring about them as people. These are not mutually exclusive to one another.
Cdev, Cata's Silverpine Questing, the intro cinematic to BfA, BtS, the description of the bloody
hoodie that made half the forum vomit in it's mouth. There's so much Signposting at this point that the only way it could get more blatant is if someone wrote the words 'I care about my people' on her forehead in red crayola.
Search your feelings,
you know it to be true.
@Grabdblade read from my link down
See if that can help bridge the gap. I think you guys are talking past each other a little bit.
https://us.battle.net/forums/en/wow/topic/20769608097?page=2#post-38
10/28/2018 02:31 AMPosted by
Saiphas
@Grabdblade read from my link down
See if that can help bridge the gap. I think you guys are talking past each other a little bit.
https://us.battle.net/forums/en/wow/topic/20769608097?page=2#post-38
Yes, I think that discussion would help put things into perspective a bit.
...Where was I again? Ah right,
Orgrim Doomhammer is a dirtbag.
10/28/2018 02:27 AMPosted by
Darethy
The issue is that her thought of them as her bulwark is not incompatible with caring about them as people. These are not mutually exclusive to one another.
Cdev, Cata's Silverpine Questing, the intro cinematic to BfA, BtS, the description of the bloody hoodie that made half the forum vomit in it's mouth. There's so much Signposting at this point that the only way it could get more blatant is if someone wrote the words 'I care about my people' on her forehead in red crayola.
Search your feelings, you know it to be true.
No, it's not mutually exclusive, but that doesn't change it from being a point of contention. The signposting and inferences made on these forums are often discarded for being insufficient proof towards something, and in other parties seen as irrefutable gospel. All the things you listed - save for Cdev, which if the mind control debate tells us anything, is a weak appeal to authority; you gotta show, don’t just tell - can be perceived in different ways by different parties. When someone such as me, Saiphas, Treng, or Jerolan watch it, we'll probably see it as her "playing a part" (to quote Nixxiom's vid). And when someone such as you, Carmaggedon, Yersynia, or Threeslotbag view her, you’ll see her as a ruler who cares. Had they intended it to be a non-negotiable thing, they wouldn’t add such heavy divisiveness that can only be perceived as divisive thought (the Gathering, Saurfang, the commentary from Valtrois and Zelling upon raising Derek).
Sylvanas is meant to be a divisive character. The fact that you like her yet can criticize her actions, and I despise her yet can acknowledge where she’s coming from proves that she’s doing her job as a subjective character.
I’m not arguing for any one truth. I’m saying that you shouldn’t disregard the presence of the debate simply because you think there’s irrefutable proof that discredits the debate itself.
10/28/2018 02:27 AMPosted by
Darethy
The issue is that her thought of them as her bulwark is not incompatible with caring about them as people. These are not mutually exclusive to one another.
Cdev, Cata's Silverpine Questing, the intro cinematic to BfA, BtS, the description of the bloody hoodie that made half the forum vomit in it's mouth. There's so much Signposting at this point that the only way it could get more blatant is if someone wrote the words 'I care about my people' on her forehead in red crayola.
Search your feelings, you know it to be true.
No, it's not mutually exclusive, but that doesn't change it from being a point of contention. The signposting and inferences made on these forums are often discarded for being insufficient proof towards something, and in other parties seen as irrefutable gospel. All the things you listed - save for Cdev, which if the mind control debate tells us anything, is a weak appeal to authority; you gotta show, don’t just tell - can be perceived in different ways by different parties. When someone such as me, Saiphas, Treng, or Jerolan watch it, we'll probably see it as her "playing a part" (to quote Nixxiom's vid). And when someone such as you, Carmaggedon, Yersynia, or Threeslotbag view her, you’ll see her as a ruler who cares. Had they intended it to be a non-negotiable thing, they wouldn’t add such heavy divisiveness that can only be perceived as divisive thought (the Gathering, Saurfang, the commentary from Valtrois and Zelling upon raising Derek).
Sylvanas is meant to be a divisive character. The fact that you like her yet can criticize her actions, and I despise her yet can acknowledge where she’s coming from proves that she’s doing her job as a subjective character.
I’m not arguing for any one truth. I’m saying that you shouldn’t disregard the presence of the debate simply because you think there’s irrefutable proof that discredits the debate itself.
Of course, and I don't disagree that that she's a divisive character. My issue is that I think the division is supposed to be in the
how she's doing things rather then the
why of what she's doing, minus the ending of the Cycle of Hatred itself which was billed to be controversial. There's been little focus on Sylvanas's own quest for immortality in BfA, but what there has been a fixation on is her methodology.
What we've been zero'd in on this entire expansion isn't Sylvanas's life in any other way then how removing it would remove her as a warmonger for the Horde. But Derek, Darnassus, BtS, are all about how she uses fear, aggression, and death to control and manipulate people to her ends.
Ok, so sounds like Sylvanas’ motivations are subject to some debate if darethy and grandblade are anything to go by.
But hypothetically lets assume for now that Sylvanas DOES truly care about her people, and what she does IS for their sake.
All else being equal would that make her about as honorable as Orgrim, (albeit more paranoid, since Orgrim’s belief that peace was impossible was more rooted in fact)?
Ok, so sounds like Sylvanas’ motivations are subject to some debate if darethy and grandblade are anything to go by.
But hypothetically lets assume for now that Sylvanas DOES truly care about her people, and what she does IS for their sake.
All else being equal would that make her about as honorable as Orgrim, (albeit more paranoid, since Orgrim’s belief that peace was impossible was more rooted in fact)?
This is kind of subjective, because it depends on how much you value good intent. Sylvanas, even if we take the worst interpretation of her as someone who wants to wipe Azeroth of non-undead life, still does so because she wants those people to continue on in a more peaceful harmonious world. None of those people would agree with that most likely, but there you go.
Orgrim and the Horde didn't really butcher or maim people as an extension of psychological warfare so much as just plain cruelty, even though Orgrim at the same time didn't relish the idea of wiping out humanity to ensure his own peoples survival...he still absolutely attempted to do so with all the brutality that entails from the Old Horde. It's likely that if the Amani, for example, had overcome Quel'thalas it would of probably wound up like Darnassus if not
several times worse. Zul'jin's hatred for the High Elves was so intense that he equated them to the
Aqir.Food for thought.
10/27/2018 03:55 PMPosted by
Kazala
Coming to grips with the gap between his fantasy version of figures like Doomhammer and Hellscream and the reality of their enormous failures and flaws was a major component of Thrall's story.
Sorry you missed all that.
I DID miss all that, actually! Was it in a quest? A book?
Thrall talked about how his people must atone for their crimes and made them stay in a barren wasteland because of it. But I never saw any dialogue from him about the heroes he idolizes being flawed. The point where he SHOULD have realized they aren’t good role models is with the whole Garrosh incident, right?
But you know what Thrall says when he realizes Garrosh internalized all the wrong things from his idols?
“You are not worthy of your father’s legacy.”
What a thing to say! Unbridled war and victory by any evil means necessary WAS Grom’s legacy up until the very end where he brought the corruption he helped start to an end. At best he fixed his own mistake, but the only “legacy” grom left was something Garrosh was copying to a T.
Hey Kazala, sorry to bother you again with this but did you ever find the quest or cutscene or book where Thrall talks about how he was wrong to idolize his “fantasy versions of Doomhammer and Grom”?
That would really help me understand the horde’s relationship with her legacy heroes, and why they keep honoring them. I know Thrall doesn’t represent the entire horde’s attitude, but still!
Hm, it would have to be after MoP, right? Because at that point Thrall was still talking up Grom as if he had left some great “Legacy” to be honored.
Oh god, I hope this dialogue wasn’t in the comics, I wasn’t a fan of those. (But I’ll accept them as canon anyway of course!) I know you’re probably busy but please get back to me when you can, I look forward to learning about it!
Also, while i'm here. I would say Orgrims thought that peace was impossible didn't really have any roots in fact, it's just something he thought while the King of Lordaeron was literally trying to convince him of peace. Sylvanas, after Stormheim and the botched Gathering, plus the sudden appearance of what is essentially Plutonium everywhere, has WAY more reason to fight.
Hell it's unclear if Sylvanas even wants to wipe out the Alliance, only that she's willing to brutalize them to achieve peace. If Orgrim's plans all went off without a hitch Zul'jin would of been holding up Anastarian Sunstriders severed head as he watched his people burned alive, Darnassus is an impersonal slaughter of innocence compared to the sheer malice behind some members of the Old Horde. While Sylvanas is doing what she's doing to crush morale, force a surrender, the orcs literally chased people down in the streets hunting them for sport like animals for the sake of it.
The very fact that Sylvanas even had the thought process of holding the city hostage and carving the Alliance apart, piece by piece, in a dismantling makes her firmly divided from Orgrim.
THEN AGAIN WC1 IS APPARENTLY MORALLY GREY, SO WHAT DO I KNOW.
10/27/2018 03:55 PMPosted by
Jakkø
Sylvanas is only looking out for number one, and everyone knows it.
I actually disagree.
In a bit of irony, Before the Storm makes it pretty clear that Sylvanas does care for the Forsaken, and seems to be acting primarily in their interest.
Course, there are other aspects to it as well. Chiefly that Sylvanas is also an Utilitarian who is convinced her vision of how the Forsaken should be is the "right" vision, and must be enforced at all costs.
But, in the end, I'd say she does care for them. And is acting in what she perceives as their benefit.