World of Warcraft®

How exactly can anyone be exaggerating Sylvanas' crimes when she is doing exactly what Arthas did? Should we have stood idle and refused to raise a hand against the Scourge? We spent near enough a decade seeking vengeance against the Scourge, enduring many hardships and tragedies along the way. So when the seeds of a second major undead threat are sown it makes zero sense for either the Horde, the Alliance or the various neutral factions to stand idle. Nor does it matter if she's aligned with the Horde, either - she's still desecrating the mind, bodies and souls of her victims through necromancy.

Not to mention, we've killed off much more important characters for lesser reasoning. I don't see why she should get off unscathed.

Exactly what Arthas did......what? The rise to power of Arthas and Sylavanas really cant be compared. Arthas was actively beeing manipulated by Ner'zhul, ending with his complete corruption by Frostmourne. Sylvanas is acting out of her own free will. Shes not trying to sugar coat it, shes not pretending to be doing honourable things. Dont you honestly think that if people truly believed she was going to become something like a Lich King, they would have acted up already? Its all major speculation, and to be honest, i dont feel that a character should be killed off based on that. What shes doing isnt pretty, but its damn effective and Garrosh understands that.

And please list some of the crimes you think warrant the death of Sylvanas.

And please list some of the crimes you think warrant the death of Sylvanas.

How about the fact that she use necromatic energies to force fallen enemies into life of undeath, forever denying them contact to the light or the natural world, the very same act that she cursed Arthas for doing to her?

I'm not sure why so many fans of Sylvanas struggle to cope with the realisation that she's a villain. She has always been portrayed as manipulative and quick to scheme since being reanimated. It's only become openly obvious in recent years, though the now removed quests paint a pretty solid picture of her caring little for the Horde - and that was before the Wrathgate fiasco.

Let us also not forget that she laid siege to Gilneas, a kingdom that was not even involved with the Alliance at the time. There, she not only defied orders given by Garrosh himself, she assassinated Liam Greymane. Sylvanas and Arthas certainly enjoy spilling royal blood, don't they?

Not to mention, manipulating Lor'themar and the blood elven race as a whole is in pretty poor taste, especially given everything they've gone through.

She does not have to die. But anything which can be "OK, bad things happened, Alliance will shake hands with the new Lich Queen for the greater good" or "OK, we removed Garrosh from power, so Alliance has no more reason to fight the Horde", well, anything which makes Alliance peacefully tolerate that Lordaeron usurper or stupidly surrender her some territory or incompetently come to fight her only to be raised as zombies stopped being acceptable long time ago.

Story of Lordaeron needs to progress. That includes the Alliance as well, not only the Horde. If that means her death, then so be it, it's far better than the current state of things. It's not, however, something I'd love to see, it's kinda the easy solution, just like some pathetic sort of "redemption" would be.

Her story did develop, and for now she is one of the better written characters in WoW, but when I compare Sylvanas "what joy is there in this curse" Windrunner with the current Lich Queen, I can't help but think that her story did somehow regress.

Anyway, Garrosh is not the only thing Alliance has to fight in the Horde and I hope developers won't forget that.

[EDIT]: Oh, Silvermoon needs independence. If she has to die, I'd like her to die by either blood elves, Gilneans, or someone from Lordaeron, living or undead.

Yeah she's pure evil.She's marching an army across the Eastern Kingdoms using the blight to turn people into undead.She won't stop either until most of the Eastern Kingdoms are under Forsaken control.

Then she will get foothold on Kalindor betray the Horde and turn them into undead also.Her ultimate goal is a world of undead under her control.

I think she's a great character though.Having said that she could easily be replaced by a new undead major lore figure like say...Garrosh?

Well, her story kinda gave her maniacal campaign a bit more depth.

Writing lesson of the day: "Poor writing in the past does not justify poor writing in the future."

Sylvanas is guilty of a great many crimes. Sylvanas deserves death, more so than any of the other current leaders.

This does not mean she should be killed.

A story revolves around conflict, and the "Lich Queen" creates conflict in abundance. This makes her an asset to the overall stories, and assets should not be scrapped unless said scrapping creates new assets.
The common scenario - that Tirion/Calia/Varian/Thrall/whoever creates an army, marches on the Plaguelands and kills her off would make for a poor story, without creating new assets. This makes it a poor choice in the long run.
"Reclaiming" Lordaeron is a bad idea. Not because it isn't "right", but because... "then what?". The story must move on, and a reclaimed Lordaeron doesn't have anywhere to move on to.

No asset lasts forever. This includes Sylvanas. Still, the time for her to die has not come yet. Not only do we still lack proper candidates for new assets to take her place, but the focus is elsewhere.
Why would we suddenly assemble an army and march on Sylvanas, when the story focuses on Garrosh and Pandaria?
An event like this needs buildup, and WoW is not in a position to deliver that right now.
Will it ever?
Or will we have to wait for WoW2/WC4?
I don't know, but I do know I want this to be done right, not merely done.

Just my thoughts.

I don't think she should be killed.

I DO think certain characters should be acting as if they want to, acting in a way as ifthey were setting it up.

-looks at Darion and Tyrion-.

It's bad for the game if she gets killed off as things currently stand. But refusing to acknowledge that from the perspective of many in game characters she should be killed off is equally as bad.

I don't think she should be killed.

I DO think certain characters should be acting as if they want to, acting in a way as ifthey were setting it up.

-looks at Darion and Tyrion-.

It's bad for the game if she gets killed off as things currently stand. But refusing to acknowledge that from the perspective of many in game characters she should be killed off is equally as bad.

Yes we should be trying to kill her, we should shave a few valkryies off her life and neutral people should be trying to send her flying into the afterlife.

The common scenario - that Tirion/Calia/Varian/Thrall/whoever creates an army, marches on the Plaguelands and kills her off would make for a poor story, without creating new assets. This makes it a poor choice in the long run.
"Reclaiming" Lordaeron is a bad idea. Not because it isn't "right", but because... "then what?". The story must move on, and a reclaimed Lordaeron doesn't have anywhere to move on to.

Yes I pondered this, say Sylvannas dies, then what of the forsaken, who leads them? what are their goals? what is the leaders goals? why would the forsaken still be in the horde if she annoys the horde so much they decide she has outlived her usefulness?

I wonder if we kill Sylvannas what next? What wil happen in Lordaeron, the forsaken cannot disapear and the alliance reclaim it (though some small parts like a town with alliance in with phasing could work)

So what reason could they decide that the forsaken still hold the place? maybe some dreadlords attack the place with some scourge they stole off Arthas and force the neutrals to fight them as Sylvannas dodges a narrow bullet and the alliance have to fight these guys the next few expansions as they are in the way.

So basically I think we should expand "the risen" in lore, what does anyone else think on Sylvannas and her future, she deserves to die for sure but after she dies lordaeron will be a more boring place lorewise.

12/03/2012 17:13Posted by Souldead

You're damn right this is pure speculation.

Yes, its speculation. Nothing wrong with that.

Point 1 is nothing but speculation after you already speculated.

The same. Its pointing out a potential raid mechanic. Others have done the same.

Point 2 is also speculation, if not a naive standpoint towards the unfairness that the Alliance story has been treated with. The current Horde faction leaders tolerate each other

Barely. Garrosh is a racist Orc supremicist. Baines values and those of the tauren are very different. Vol'jin has gone so far as to threaten thim. Sylvanas is in the Horde only for so long as she needs its protection. The BElfs are fair weather friends at best and don't like the Horde. Gallywix is in it only for so long as its good for him and didn't really join willingly either.

Point 3 is a balance issue. There wouldn't be a story without the game, and the interest of the game goes above the need for a story. While many Alliance players complain many of their severly underused territories lost Alliance-movement-acceptability, most of those areas were neck deep in Horde territory and caused a severe imbalance of questing and friendly/hostile-territory.

Which would be fine. If it were true. Its not. It is perfectly feasible for Blizzard to craft a story around shared zones that didn't denigrate the Alliance. The quality of the game is not measured by how may zones each faction controls and the game would be far better if Blizzard hadn't placed this marker of "equality" above little side issues such as quality and involvement for both sides.

The idea that both sides need equal number of zones is a complete fallacy. Even were it to be true, there were far better ways to implement that policy than to make one of the main factions look like idiots.

EJL

21/04/2012 13:49Posted by Redemptioner

No I agree in lore why she should die, but in game their is no alternative forsaken faction leader, look at how much lor'themar sucks, the forsaken revolve around her, they need an alternative before we send her screaming into the fiery afterlife

This much is true.

I don't believe that Sylvanas story can be taken much further. As it is, we've been given a reason to kill her. Shes doing terrible thing to the living and her own people because she is terrifed of dying. She been given the basis for what may be an interesting raid mechanic. The Val'kyr. And Catacslym shas emphasised her estarngement from the Horde and even the BElfs.

***IF*** MoP were to provide a suitable candidate for a replaceemnt leader, then she needs to watch out.

Right now..there are two.

The first is Nathanos Blightcaller. He ahs a good bit of lore and is a bit of a fan fave. he has been criminally underutilised in cataclysm for some reason though but anyone familiar with his backstory should realsie why he is decent choice.

The second is Liam Greymane. Killed by Sylvanas herself, he showed immense prmoise of being a great King of Gilneas. Its doubtful Sylvanas was able to recover hios body but if she did, and raised him it would provide a good candidate for a new Forsaken leader.

Contrary to popular opinion, I do not think Calia Menethil would be a good Forsaken leader. And it would be a bit of a stretch to have her in that role. I thinka better story would be for her to still be alive, to be crowend Queen of Lordaeron and have that set up be the basis of further conflict in the Northlands.

EJL

I find it silly that people believe that just because Sylvanas killed Genn's son or used the Plague in Gilneas, she has to die.
Furthermore, WoW is not some greek tragedy where every crime and act of hubris will necessarily end in the doer's demise or suffering nor is it Law & Order or some police television series where the whole point of the plot is for criminals to be killed/imprisoned. This is World of Warcraft, and as of right now, with great emphasis on the 'War' in Warcraft. People do terrible things in war, that does not mean that they all -must- get their due punishment.

I hope Blizzard lets Sylvanas live and continues developing her character; perhaps once she assures her people's dominion over Lordaeron and Gilneas she can actually start following a path that will lead to redemption. Or continue the one she is on right now -shrug-

It'd be really disappointing if Blizzard decides to kill one of their more well-developed and three-dimensional character just so the Forsaken(and as a result the Horde) won't stray into more morally gray areas(and the Alliance fan boys can stop crying about them).

I find it silly that people believe that just because Sylvanas killed Genn's son or used the Plague in Gilneas, she has to die.
Furthermore, WoW is not some greek tragedy where every crime and act of hubris will necessarily end in the doer's demise or suffering nor is it Law & Order or some police television series where the whole point of the plot is for criminals to be killed/imprisoned. This is World of Warcraft, and as of right now, with great emphasis on the 'War' in Warcraft. People do terrible things in war, that does not mean that they all -must- get their due punishment.

I hope Blizzard lets Sylvanas live and continues developing her character; perhaps once she assures her people's dominion over Lordaeron and Gilneas she can actually start following a path that will lead to redemption. Or continue the one she is on right now -shrug-

It'd be really disappointing if Blizzard decides to kill one of their more well-developed and three-dimensional character just so the Forsaken(and as a result the Horde) won't stray into more morally gray areas(and the Alliance fan boys can stop crying about them).

I would not say that she need to die because the murder of Prince liam, or the sacking of Gilneas, heck I could even look the other way concerning her chemical weapons. As you, it is war, some people have their ideals and "honor codex" refusing to get their hands dirty, other people fight using ever weapon at their disposal and fight smart just like Sylvanas.

What she -do- need to die for however is her act of creating new undead and forcing the same curse upon others that happend to herself, the same unforgiveable act she hates Arthas for. It is unforgiveable and makes her appear as a whiny hypocrite, what right do she have to whine about her situation when she willingly force it upon others as well.....

Well, I haven't seen her whining much in Cataclysm about her undeath(though I may be wrong). Sure, she might be hypocritical but such personality flaws actually make characters more interesting. The same goes with Wrynn, he can become the embodiment of rage sometimes yet he still condemns the orcs and the Horde for that. Instead of killing characters with flawed personalities, Blizzard should just develop them, work on them through quests and stories etc. so they can become better characters. Not execute them in the name of Mary Sues.

22/04/2012 13:28Posted by Aelwenn

Well, I haven't seen her whining much in Cataclysm about her undeath(though I may be wrong). Sure, she might be hypocritical but such personality flaws actually make characters more interesting. The same goes with Wrynn, he can become the embodiment of rage sometimes yet he still condemns the orcs and the Horde for that. Instead of killing characters with flawed personalities, Blizzard should just develop them, work on them through quests and stories etc. so they can become better characters. Not execute them in the name of Mary Sues.

The question remain in such case, why killing Arthas if we should pretend to be best buddies with Sylvanas and her ilks. Do not get me wrong, I love Sylvanas...or atleast how Sylvanas used to be, and I adore her racial story. How she act in cata makes me seriously dissapointed in Blizzards writing team however...then again dissapointed in so many other things concerning the lore and their stories lately...

So as people have said before, she do not have to die, in fact it might be a bad move since she brings a lot to the story, but she certainly deserves to die

Sylvanas isn't as bad as the LK, guys ^^. O, I have a question for you: how would you act when you died while defending your homeland, got ressed and everyone threats you like it's your fault that you're a monster? I'm pretty sure everyone would be happy, don't be jealous and just live happily on your own ...

Did she ever make a flesh giant of living children, women and men? Don't think so. (She did created a flesh giant in Gilneas, but atleast people were dead when it was created. While Thaddius is one of the most disturbing things I've ever seen in WoW)

Did she ever torture women just because she thought it was fun? Don't think so.

Did she ever betray her own father & people? Don't think so.

...

Although I'm pretty sure Sylvanas has some surprises for the Alliance, hidden in the depths of Undercity (yey!).
And indeed, Arthas was corrupted by Frostmourne, but the fool wasn't able to fight his rage. It's pretty much his fault aswell, no mercy.It's a war,guys. People die in wars, be it with honor, or without.

What do you want Sylvanas to use instead of blight? Send her troopers and lose some of her people instead of winning easily with blight because of faceroll alliance?
And btw, I'm quite sure undead troopers are far scarier to see as your last thing when you die than dieing in the blight. Can you imagine you're bitten to death? Or the last thing you see is a mutilated, decaying corpse or an abomination? Can you imagine the horror?

+ Most undeads are extremely loyal to her (perhaps the new generation isn't that much, but they seem to be less smart and could be easily mislead by "original" forsaken), I doubt some would accept a new leader and perhaps most of them would go rogue & fight like assassins. Nothing is as bloody as guerilla warfare.

Don't kill Sylvanas, without her, the Forsaken are nothing. Who do you want to lead the Forsaken when she's dead? Koltira >.>? Nathanos? I think that the Forsaken will be killed when she's gone.

22/04/2012 10:03Posted by Talen

The first is Nathanos Blightcaller. He ahs a good bit of lore and is a bit of a fan fave. he has been criminally underutilised in cataclysm for some reason though but anyone familiar with his backstory should realsie why he is decent choice.

I think Nathanos is a lot more cruel than Sylvanas. I wouldn't mind him as Forsaken leader though.

22/04/2012 10:03Posted by Talen

The second is Liam Greymane. Killed by Sylvanas herself, he showed immense prmoise of being a great King of Gilneas. Its doubtful Sylvanas was able to recover hios body but if she did, and raised him it would provide a good candidate for a new Forsaken leader.

Yeah, I really want an alcoholic as leader. And why would the Forsaken accept him as leader? He's a gilnean of the Greymane family, most of the forsaken are former lordaeron members, I think they will be happy to have him as leader after Gilneas being cowards every time. And the WLF (worgen liberation front) has most likely increased the Forsaken's rage since most undeads think the WLF wanted to conquer Lordaeron again.

@ above poster

pure fanboism at its worst.

22/04/2012 14:47Posted by Cruciani

Sylvanas isn't as bad as the LK, guys ^^. O,

blue poster said she is more scorge like every day and is being watched by concerned ebon knights and argent crusaders.

22/04/2012 14:47Posted by Cruciani

I have a question for you: how would you act when you died while defending your homeland, got ressed and everyone threats you like it's your fault that you're a monster? I'm pretty sure everyone would be happy, don't be jealous and just live happily on your own ...

The humans did not reject the forsaken, the forsaken were given a chance by Garithos of all people and she at one point calls them pawns and kills them when they want the city back and in the Sylvannas short story the common forsaken having just been freed says "but what of the humans" and Sylvannas notes the forsaken view them as differant from themselves and is pleased.

Oh and undeads soulds are improperly attached and considering possivle mind control from Sylvannas, the forsaken are really not tragic people you think they are.

22/04/2012 14:47Posted by Cruciani

Did she ever make a flesh giant of living children, women and men? Don't think so. (She did created a flesh giant in Gilneas, but atleast people were dead when it was created. While Thaddius is one of the most disturbing things I've ever seen in WoW)

abominations dude...

She makes loads of them and when we retake gilneas city they already have a bunch being built, guess where they got the parts from? you got it the gilneas people.

Oh and they enslaved a bunch of gilneans, so no I do not buy that she has any morals in torturing women and children, a gilneas quest has us go find several children for a mother and we are told forsaken do not care if the living are young or not.

Did she ever betray her own father & people? Don't think so.

She has had her champion attack high elves and she blackmails blood elves and, also Arthas betrayal of his kingdom was when he was undead and his soul trapped in frostmourne, it is quite similar.

22/04/2012 14:47Posted by Cruciani

And indeed, Arthas was corrupted by Frostmourne, but the fool wasn't able to fight his rage. It's pretty much his fault aswell, no mercy.It's a war,guys. People die in wars, be it with honor, or without.

That is fine but your post makes little sence, you were just whitewashing her actions then say war is evil so never mind, Also she started the war in gilneas as she wanted the scythe of Elune, starting a war and then enslaving people, torturing. experimenting on and killing people indisciminately is not sound of morals and as Garrosh is going to be brought down bacause of this, your defence of "it was war" is invalidated.

22/04/2012 14:47Posted by Cruciani

What do you want Sylvanas to use instead of blight? Send her troopers and lose some of her people instead of winning easily with blight because of faceroll alliance?

She flattens entire towns like Southshore, so while I expect if from her I frown that Garrosh is going to be brought down and Sylvannas is the elephant in the room when we have a quote that the war will end in MOP and Thrall will return.

Also the blight is as effectiv as its launching device, it should not be consideed the super weapon you think it to be, fast moving worgen scouts and aerial bombardment against slow moving devices that can be chucked only as far as a catapult can throw the blight does not scare me.

22/04/2012 14:47Posted by Cruciani

And btw, I'm quite sure undead troopers are far scarier to see as your last thing when you die than dieing in the blight. Can you imagine you're bitten to death? Or the last thing you see is a mutilated, decaying corpse or an abomination? Can you imagine the horror?

Blight is used to wipe out entire towns, soldiers can pick targets and choose to not kill civillians, the blight melts everyone so blight is a nono, and besides the warchief banned it.

Most undeads are extremely loyal to her (perhaps the new generation isn't that much, but they seem to be less smart and could be easily mislead by "original" forsaken), I doubt some would accept a new leader and perhaps most of them would go rogue & fight like assassins. Nothing is as bloody as guerilla warfare.

except for the huge forsaken civil war in undercity, forsaken leaving to join the argent crusade, and her forsaken friend Godfrey put a bullet in her skull, so yea great loyalty their.

22/04/2012 14:47Posted by Cruciani

Don't kill Sylvanas, without her, the Forsaken are nothing. Who do you want to lead the Forsaken when she's dead? Koltira >.>? Nathanos? I think that the Forsaken will be killed when she's gone.

This is the only bit I agree with you on, do not whitewash the forsaken or their actions like the blood elves but let their stroy continue. Without Sylvannas the forsaken are blood elves without Lor'thmear a joke race with no motivations and its heart ripped out.

But in lore it is silly that she is getting away with her actions, even if she is not killed we should be trying to kill her at least. Until the forsaken get a replacement leader that is interesting and clear with motivation then it would suck to have her die.

22/04/2012 14:47Posted by Cruciani

Yeah, I really want an alcoholic as leader. And why would the Forsaken accept him as leader? He's a gilnean of the Greymane family, most of the forsaken are former lordaeron members, I think they will be happy to have him as leader after Gilneas being cowards every time. And the WLF (worgen liberation front) has most likely increased the Forsaken's rage since most undeads think the WLF wanted to conquer Lordaeron again.

your making stuff up, you know the Gilneas liveration front is a defencive force defending their homes from forsaken invaders, their is no hint so far of their planning to invade lordaeron.

and in any event Thoras Trollbane was an alliance lord of Stromgarde, the forsaken bought him back so their is no problem here

This isn't a fairy tale.

Characters don't need to be killed because they've done terrible crimes, the world isn't fair, evil people don't get their punishment a lot of the time.

This isn't a fairy tale.

Characters don't need to be killed because they've done terrible crimes, the world isn't fair, evil people don't get their punishment a lot of the time.

She does not need to be taken out, but if the story is to make any sense, Alliance should be trying to remove her. Nothing else. As far as I care, she can continue making her new Scourge and making that look like reclaiming of Lordaeron.