Why is it ok for Sylvanas to kill Horde troops, but not Baine?

Lore Story Forum
192

The problem with Sylvanas fans is that they cannot agree that her actions warrant consequence.

Note: I did not say punishment. It’s not about good, or bad. It’s about action and consequence.

I have noticed this troubling trend where Sylvanas/Forsaken fans acknowledge the severity of her actions, and don’t deny her morally grey (prior to BFA anyway) MO… but then that’s it.

Any criticism of her or her ilk? Shot down, ridiculed, mocked or written off as Alliance bootlicking.

Any reaction to her actions in-game by characters? Alliance sympathy, treasonous to Horde.

You want to play a realistic nation where good, bad and ugly people exist, and not have the characters face the consequences of their actions? Well, we’d have to go back to WotLK days where it was ambiguous as to what evil actions (of the Forsaken) could be attributed to Sylvanas.

Yet Forsaken/Sylvanas fans never really demonstrate this reasoning. I’ve noticed it’s a lot of memes, acerbic remarks, even echo-chambering.

Just my $0.02 as a bystander for these last few posts.

4 Likes
193

The Horde is not a democratic being, there is no such thing as facing consequences within their organization because everyone bowed to serve the Warchief no matter what.

Therefore whatever the Warchief does he or she doesn’t have to answer to their people or a higher power.

If the actions are good or bad they are irrelevant.

Baine betrayed the Horde and that’s a fact. If it was for good or bad is, again, irrelevant.

1 Like
194

Except this is not the case because Mists of Pandaria.

This poster exhibits the willful ignorance I mentioned, by the way.

1 Like
195

Unlike Mists of Pandaria no third faction is present.

There are no “neutrals” being harmed, this is war with the Alliance.

Again, everyone serves the Warchief if they’re part of the Horde.

Insulting me won’t change that

4 Likes
196

Tortollans are neutral. There are those among vulpera and sethrak that are neutral. Pirates in KT are neutral.

Anyway, that’s moot because Vol’jin’s revolution was more about the Horde than the pandaren, and we are talking about precedents regarding Warchiefs. Nice misdirection regarding neutral parties, faction war, etc tho.

Not sure where you are seeing the insult because your behaviour directly supports my position. But okay.

197

I mean, can’t be more “willfully ignorant” than the current writers of this story.

198

The one thing we can ALL absolutely agree on.

4 Likes
199

Why would the Tortollan, Vulpera, Sethrak or even pirates care about the Horde’s leadership? Neither the Horde nor Sylvanas have done anything to any of those races to warrant involvement unlike Garrosh with the Pandaren.

1 Like
200

Tortollans, Vulpera, and some Kul’tiran pirates should care since they’ve involved themselves in the struggle. A tortollan has joined Talanji’s zanda council, this makes him a leader and a perfectly legal target. Vulpera are targeted for carrying Horde goods and the pirates are harboring Horde forces.

201

None of these are a faction comparable to that of the Pandaren with an entire continent.

Uh, no. You said every action the Warchief does has consequences for she/he which is simply not true, the Horde is bound to obey the Warchief no matter what they think. I said it doesn’t matter if it’s good or bad in their eyes, it’s still an order from their superior.

I brought up third parties to make an example of why your bringing of MoP didn’t apply here, unlike there no 3rd faction which explicitly decided to stay out of the conflict is getting harmed.

You called me ignorant, while complete ignoring my points. I don’t know about you but I don’t need to resort to insults to prove my point here.

202

This person is talking about the “neutral” parts of the races not the ones who have allied with us. I mean, are there any Vulpera in Voldun who don’t ally with the Horde? It seems they all follow Nisha/Kiro. Either way, none of those races has enough power to truly get involved in the Horde’s political affairs without risking huge losses. They are not going to try to put the Warchief on trial lmao.

203

Isn’t this thread just bait? We know the OPs stance and views on Syv for quite some time, nothing really will change OP’s opinion on the matter.

But like others have said, Sylvanas killed troops with friendly fire, Baine kills Horde troopes due to his beliefs which end up aiding the Alliance due to losing a weapon that could’ve been used against it.

12 Likes
204

No, we don’t know whether or not they “destroyed” that plan at all. And I do not think Saurfang and Jaina have even interacted in-game.

205

No it’s a valid argument. It shouldn’t be ok for one to do it, but not the other no matter the circumstance. Killing your own troops is always wrong.

Friendly fire or no, it doesn’t excuse the fact that she still did it when it could have very easily been avoided.

206

We really gonna do this again, Pyro?

19 Likes
207

easily avoided? How can one escape the narrative?

In a battle, honestly who do you think gets more heat, the guy that orders artillery to be fired which causes some friendly fire or the officer who kills their own troops.

Both are bad, but the officer who kills their own troops that benefits the enemy is much worse.

5 Likes
208

Yes! But which one? Trying to excuse Sylvanas killing subjecting her soldiers to an agonizing death or pulling a vivette and redirecting it to the fault of the writers.

Sylvanas can do pretty much anything and be excused because it’s in spite of the Alliance, and this didn’t just start in BfA, this has been an occuring for years.

Oh human experimentation? It was on humans, so don’t see any issue there.

Blighting a civilian populace of southshore? Oh it’s the Alliance, no problem.

Burning potentially thousands of innocents alive? Bah, its the Night elves they deserve it.

Heck, she even apparently had a Horde officer that was assigned to watch the apothecaries after the Wrathgate murdered, Overseer Kraggosh, i believe.

Like, with that logic you can essentially excuse Sylvanas for any repremandable act she commits. She can go murder through 10 orphanages and there’ll still be some excuse for it. There has to be a line to be drawn at some point, even when it comes to dealing with Alliance.

Sylvanas has caused the deaths of thousands of Horde soldiers throughout the years, that’s totally fine. But when Baine kills, like, 7 dudes, oh we can’t have that.

So yes, we are doing this again, intention doesn’t matter when it still results in more deaths. I don’t care about the Alliance, it has nothing to do with my argument. This is about Sylvanas and Baine.

1 Like
209

Sylvanas did what she did for her city and for the Horde. Baine did what he did because looking at Jaina makes him feel guilty, nothing about what he did was for his faction. Also, like, what do you think, how much time did Sylvanas have to think about the decision and the consequences? Seconds? Mere minutes? She had to make a strategic decision for the benefit of the entire army, the Forsaken, and the Blood Elves. Baine’s decision was selfish and poorly thought out when it didn’t need to be. He wasn’t in a time crunch having to make a difficult tactical decision that would impact the people around him immediately.

This is why Lordaeron is excused and Baine’s bs is not. You’d honestly have a better argument bringing up the DC (but please don’t some of us are still trying to wipe the memory of BtS from our brains).

14 Likes
210

If this is the case, why are the vast majority of your points in this post talking about Sylvanas getting a pass on things she did to the Alliance?

The narrative tells us that the soldiers killed by Sylvanas accept that they were out of position, and they paid the price because of it. It’s the equivalent to dropping a bomb on a mass of enemies to halt their progress but a handful of friendlies who were ordered not to be there ended up being there and getting caught in the blast.

Does it suck? Absolutely. But it was a tactically sound decision that would have absolutely crushed the Alliance push had Deus Ex Jaina not shown up and rule of cooled the blight, allowing the Alliance to push forward. It’s very easy to give Sylvanas a pass on this, as she did not do it hinder the Horde, rather to halt the Alliance assault.

Baine on the other hand, his entire scenario with Derek was to sabotage a potential military asset, murder Horde soldiers who gave their lives literally just doing the job they were assigned (guard Derek), and then setting Derek free to the Alliance.

This is such a odd hill to try and die on when there’s so, so much more that you can very easily blame Sylvanas for.

16 Likes
211

Not without reason.