Saurfang the patsy

Story Forum
Prev 1 2 3 8 Next
11/02/2018 01:14 PMPosted by Rothiron
So Saurfang is working for Anduin...

...even though Anduin hasn't set any terms.

Hasn't imposed any requirements from Saurfang.

Hasn't threatened him with anything to compel cooperation.

And was simply let free from his cell with no negotiations.

But he's totally working for Anduin, guyz, for real. Saurfang is a traitor, lol.


I use the term quisling half jokingly, but there is some truth to it. He may not be under contract, nor is he obligated to aid Anduin in any way. But make no mistake, he IS working to the Alliances benefit and there's no way he doesn't know it.
I get that people are defending this by saying Saurfang isn't working for Anduin, but releasing a PoW to overthrow a government without any assurance of peace afterwards is stupid.
11/02/2018 01:16 PMPosted by Darethy
I use the term quisling half jokingly, but there is some truth to it. He may not be under contract, nor is he obligated to aid Anduin in any way. But make no mistake, he IS working to the Alliances benefit and there's no way he doesn't know it.
Him working for the Alliance's benefit is at best a side effect. Because he's working primarily for the Horde's benefit. That's the important bit.

It'd be Hir'eek guano insane to ignore benefits to the Horde just because it involves benefits to the Alliance.
11/02/2018 12:04 PMPosted by Withpuppys
11/02/2018 12:02 PMPosted by Darethy
YEEEEEEEEEEEEEES, QUISLING HORDE IS A GO!
quisling?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quisling
It really is a damn shame, such a strong character they were building up, only to have him depend on an act of generosity from the Alliance to continue his storyline....
11/02/2018 01:20 PMPosted by Rothiron
11/02/2018 01:16 PMPosted by Darethy
I use the term quisling half jokingly, but there is some truth to it. He may not be under contract, nor is he obligated to aid Anduin in any way. But make no mistake, he IS working to the Alliances benefit and there's no way he doesn't know it.
Him working for the Alliance's benefit is at best a side effect. Because he's working primarily for the Horde's benefit. That's the important bit.

It'd be Hir'eek guano insane to ignore benefits to the Horde just because it involves benefits to the Alliance.


The problem is the best patsies use that exact line of reasoning. The leaders who think they are working in the nations best interests when in reality they are just a smokescreen or worse for another power are the most dangerous. Saurfangs a commander of several decades, he should know this, but he's buying into the idea that he can pull the Horde together after he 'cleans it up' so to speak.

I'm hoping he actually does have a different plan then deposing Sylvanas, otherwise he either looks like a naive old fool or a puppet, and a willing puppet at that.
11/02/2018 01:20 PMPosted by Rothiron
It'd be Hir'eek guano insane to ignore benefits to the Horde just because it involves benefits to the Alliance.

How does an unstable, weakened Horde benefit said faction? Let's ignore the meta about this being a 2-faction game and in-universe ask what would be stopping the Alliance from just curb stomping the Horde into eternal submission? I'd rather have an evil Warchief that leads a stable Horde rather than some dumbass going on about "muh honor" and "not muh Horde" who in all fairness will most likely die in 2-3 expansions and be replaced by another evil warmonger.
11/02/2018 01:20 PMPosted by Rothiron
11/02/2018 01:16 PMPosted by Darethy
I use the term quisling half jokingly, but there is some truth to it. He may not be under contract, nor is he obligated to aid Anduin in any way. But make no mistake, he IS working to the Alliances benefit and there's no way he doesn't know it.
Him working for the Alliance's benefit is at best a side effect. Because he's working primarily for the Horde's benefit. That's the important bit.

It'd be Hir'eek guano insane to ignore benefits to the Horde just because it involves benefits to the Alliance.

I think you're taking every upset post as too word-for-word literal, when the general theme you should be extracting is that most posts roughly translate to "I fear that this cinematic is evidence that SoO 2.0 is happening, or that the Alliance will once again be shown as the only thing that can save the Horde." It's an epic moment or whatever for Saurfang and his fans, but you're not really listening to the true flowing currents of what's being expressed: what Saurfang does and what this means for his loyalties isn't something that anyone here is really concerned with.
11/02/2018 01:24 PMPosted by Darethy
The leaders who think they are working in the nations best interests when in reality they are just a smokescreen or worse for another power are the most dangerous.
The Alliance is more dangerous than the Horde? In what timeline?
11/02/2018 01:24 PMPosted by Darethy
The problem is the best patsies use that exact line of reasoning. The leaders who think they are working in the nations best interests when in reality they are just a smokescreen or worse for another power are the most dangerous. Saurfangs a commander of several decades, he should know this, but he's buying into the idea that he can pull the Horde together after he 'cleans it up' so to speak.

I'm hoping he actually does have a different plan then deposing Sylvanas, otherwise he either looks like a naive old fool or a puppet, and a willing puppet at that.
So Saurfang is naive if he doesn't assume Anduin has a shadowy non-altruistic motive for simply letting him go with no strings attached. And that by acting in concert with the guy who can end hostilities once the primary aggressor, Sylvanas, is removed from the equation, Saurfang is really serving as a smokescreen for the vile and dangerous Alliance.

Alternative is that Sylvanas drives the Horde into the ground provoking ill-advised wars that result in her side promptly losing ground even without Saurfang's rebellion being a factor. Not to mention her driving close allies away with her reckless acts of evil (including Baine and Voltrois), perverting the ideals of your faction.

Pick your poison.

11/02/2018 01:26 PMPosted by Azsharin
How does an unstable, weakened Horde benefit said faction? Let's ignore the meta about this being a 2-faction game and in-universe ask what would be stopping the Alliance from just curb stomping the Horde into eternal submission? I'd rather have an evil Warchief that leads a stable Horde rather than some dumbass going on about "muh honor" and "not muh Horde" who in all fairness will most likely die in 2-3 expansions and be replaced by another evil warmonger.
How does Sylvanas being a genocidal murderer benefit the Horde? She's the precise reason the Alliance want to pursue the war. Her removal is Anduin's victory condition. And most importantly, THE HORDE IS NOT STABLE WITH THE EVIL WARCHIEF IN POWER. Sylvanas is driving away supporters left and right, and blatantly lying to her most capable agents so she can pursue a cloak and dagger policy of ruling.

11/02/2018 01:32 PMPosted by Galka
I think you're taking every upset post as too word-for-word literal, when the general theme you should be extracting is that most posts roughly translate to "I fear that this cinematic is evidence that SoO 2.0 is happening, or that the Alliance will once again be shown as the only thing that can save the Horde." It's an epic moment or whatever for Saurfang and his fans, but you're not really listening to the true flowing currents of what's being expressed: what Saurfang does and what this means for his loyalties isn't something that anyone here is really concerned with.
lol, I'll address "SoO: Electric Boogaloo" arguments when they're made, not when I should be telepathically divining them from honestly irrelevant gripes. But suffice to say, I've my own speculations that the expansion won't go in that direction. And even if it does, oh well, nothing to throw a hissy fit over.
There's nothing 'shadowy' about it, he outright states he can't win this war on his own and so Saurfang is going to help him win it. First, and foremost, his dedication is to the Alliance and whatever terms get hashed out after all the fighting are going to be to the Alliances benefit. It's not rocket science, it's not even that shady, Anduin is giving Saurfang what he wants and he gets what he wants.

Further, starting a civil war in the middle of this fight is going to get a lot of people in the Horde killed, going to reduce the Hordes capacity to function as a global power, and if we're being honest it'll reduce them to second class Azerothian citizens for all intents and purposes. The Alliance might do what it thinks is good for them, but it'll be dividing up resources by what benefits it first and foremost.
Sylvanas is driving away supporters left and right, and blatantly lying to her most capable agents so she can pursue a cloak and dagger policy of ruling.

Which can all be solved by some sort of internal Horde council about the Hordes leadership but since Blizzard seemingly has a raging !@#$% for another rebellion plotline we won't get that. The only cloak and dagger policy she has so far is with Saurfang who she views as a traitor and possibly working with the Alliance. Garrosh on the other hand was killing dissenters left and right with his secret police which, so far, Sylvanas has not done.

And most importantly, THE HORDE IS NOT STABLE WITH THE EVIL WARCHIEF IN POWER.

Yet seemingly Blizzard continues to push for evil Warchiefs. I'd rather have a single villainous leader for the Horde that doesn't get hit with the "Horde hates their Warchief because our ^-*!ty writing demands it" than a "too-good to wage war on the Alliance without provocation" like how Vol'jin and Thrall were. Thrall isn't coming back because Metzen most likely is done with anything Blizzard related and Vol'jin might come back.

How does Sylvanas being a genocidal murderer benefit the Horde?

Never said anything about genocide being a good thing for the Horde, just the fact that a single evil Warchief is better than an internal civil war. Was genocide the right thing to do to push for another faction conflict? No, it wasn't but not that they decided to go with it we have to suffer than this slop of a storyline that will ultimately lead to the biggest let down in the games history.

Her removal is Anduin's victory condition.

And? This war was going to happen and no matter who was in power for the Horde their removal would've still been Anduins victory condition.

Also, you can still be villainous/evil without having to resort to stuff like genocide but Blizzard can't write for @#$% so they have to make everything blatantly clear as to how we should feel and who we should support.
11/02/2018 02:03 PMPosted by Azsharin
Which can all be solved by some sort of internal Horde council about the Hordes leadership but since Blizzard seemingly has a raging !@#$% for another rebellion plotline we won't get that. The only cloak and dagger policy she has so far is with Saurfang who she views as a traitor and possibly working with the Alliance. Garrosh on the other hand was killing dissenters left and right with his secret police which, so far, Sylvanas has not done.
Remember the last time there was a council of people who respected Sylvanas but didn't agree with her policies entirely? Yeaaah, I don't see Sylvanas reacting positively to an Electric Boogaloo of that variety. Problem with Sylvanas' position is that it's not democratic, a council of leadership in opposition to Sylvanas would do jack.

And Sylvanas is literally pulling a Garrosh with Saurfang in 8.1. Lying to the hero so they go away and then sending loyalists to kill Saurfang. So bad comparison.

11/02/2018 02:03 PMPosted by Azsharin
Never said anything about genocide being a good thing for the Horde, just the fact that a single evil Warchief is better than an internal civil war. Was genocide the right thing to do to push for another faction conflict? No, it wasn't but not that they decided to go with it we have to suffer than this slop of a storyline that will ultimately lead to the biggest let down in the games history.
...You realize that the civil war sparked from the evil Warchief, right? Like, its just a fact of life, if you're unpopular and you botch things, you get a civil war... That's not !@#$ty writing, that's reality ensuing.

11/02/2018 02:03 PMPosted by Azsharin
And? This war was going to happen and no matter who was in power for the Horde their removal would've still been Anduins victory condition.

Also, you can still be villainous/evil without having to resort to stuff like genocide but Blizzard can't write for @#$% so they have to make everything blatantly clear as to how we should feel and who we should support.
Sylvanas believed this war was going to happen. Anduin gave her the perfect opportunity to avoid it entirely, and Sylvanas just believed it was a Machiavellian scheme in a bout of Cerseian logic.

And no, Sylvanas is not interchangable in this equation unless you get someone with similar morals in her place, like Gallywix. Anduin would not be the same actor in this equation if Baine was the leader.
11/02/2018 02:21 PMPosted by Rothiron
Anduin would not be the same actor in this equation if Baine was the leader.

Baine will never be Warchief though, because as the meta demands the Horde needs to be antagonistic towards the Alliance in order to justify more of the same faction conflict we've seen since at least Cataclysm.

11/02/2018 02:21 PMPosted by Rothiron
And no, Sylvanas is not interchangable in this equation unless you get someone with similar morals in her place, like Gallywix.

Gallywix sure but Blizzard constantly goes on about how they've preplanned most expansions so if it was Sylvanas who wasn't in charge of the Horde in BfA than it would be someone else who would've ordered Teldrassil to burn.

11/02/2018 02:21 PMPosted by Rothiron
Sylvanas believed this war was going to happen. Anduin gave her the perfect opportunity to avoid it entirely, and Sylvanas just believed it was a Machiavellian scheme in a bout of Cerseian logic.

It doesn't matter if she believed it would've happened or not, the issue is that the crux of the matter is that Blizzard has this asinine reasoning as to why the faction conflict needs to happen all the time. Again my statement is that the Horde will always be the warmongers so no matter who is in charge there will be conflict between the two sides and if Blizzard doesn't think a character is war-hungry enough than they'll either be removed from power or never chosen as Warchief to begin with.

...You realize that the civil war sparked from the evil Warchief, right?

I'm not denying that Sylvanas isn't the cause of the internal strife. If you think I am than you need to read what I've previously stated on the matter of having another Horde civil war. However in short, the Warchief can be villainous without having to resort to internal conflict. Blizzard just needs to turn down the mustache twirling, otherwise they'll write themselves into a corner like they have now.

Like, its just a fact of life, if you're unpopular and you botch things, you get a civil war... That's not !@#$ty writing, that's reality ensuing.

Nations in the real world don't just decide to have a civil war because they hate their current leaders. They vote them out.

Remember the last time there was a council of people who respected Sylvanas but didn't agree with her policies entirely?

You must be retarded because I'm obviiusly not talking about BtS but instead the Hordes racial leaders getting together and having a pow-wow about Slyvanas' current actions as Warchief. Hell, Saurfang could've straight up Mak'gora her for the position or at least make his feelings heard but he didn't because of some dumbass reason.

And Sylvanas is literally pulling a Garrosh with Saurfang in 8.1. Lying to the hero so they go away and then sending loyalists to kill Saurfang. So bad comparison.

Who else among her current dissenters has she killed when it comes to the Hordes current direction?

Problem with Sylvanas' position is that it's not democratic, a council of leadership in opposition to Sylvanas would do jack.

Considering it's never been tried we don't actually know. Maybe the writers should give it a shot instead of rehashing old storylines so they could pat themselves on the back while berating Horde players for their choice in teams
11/02/2018 01:20 PMPosted by Rothiron
Because he's working primarily for the Horde's benefit.


Sparing enemy leaders is to the Horde's benefit? Wishing for enemy leaders to kill your forces and your Warchief is to the Horde's benefit? Personally killing Horde troops is to the Horde's benefit?

It's a good thing Anduin was dumb and had to be bailed out at Lordaeron. It would have been pretty sad for, say, Zekhan, to have died "honorably" in the battle instead of having been saved by Sylvanas' "dishonorable" trap and retreat.
11/02/2018 02:47 PMPosted by Veloran
Sparing enemy leaders is to the Horde's benefit? Wishing for enemy leaders to kill your forces and your Warchief is to the Horde's benefit? Personally killing Horde troops is to the Horde's benefit?
Alright, I get what you're saying...

...but you're leaving out the part where Sylvanas is perverting the Horde's name, driving apart the commanders, and provoking wars of aggression the Horde doesn't really have much of a chance to win (as we see play out in 8.1 with grim forecasts even before Saurfang has a proper rebellion started up). As well as the genocidal actions at Teldrassil.

By your logic, Operation Valkyrie, the coup against Hitler, would've been something to be opposed to because it was somewhat divisive and aimed against the fellow countrymen and not the enemy. Except it was against Hitler. There are obvious mitigating factors to be considered.

11/02/2018 02:47 PMPosted by Veloran
It's a good thing Anduin was dumb and had to be bailed out at Lordaeron. It would have been pretty sad for, say, Zekhan, to have died "honorably" in the battle instead of having been saved by Sylvanas' "dishonorable" trap and retreat.
It was easily possible for Zekhan to have been killed by Sylvanas' actions, like mass blighting the battlefield and indiscriminately hitting her own solders (and promptly raising their bodies with necromancy).
...but you're leaving out the part where Sylvanas is perverting the Horde's name, driving apart the commanders, and provoking wars of aggression the Horde doesn't really have much of a chance to win


A war now is the only chance the Horde ever has to win. The Alliance has always had the upper hand, especially after MoP, and the opportunity to contest them in the wake of the Legion can't last forever. In twenty years it would have been impossible to challenge the Alliance, and the Horde would be in the same bad position that it's always occupied when compared to them.

Not to mention, "war of aggression"? The Alliance has already shown that it's willing to aggress against the Horde with a pass from it's leadership. The Horde has no reason to trust their good intentions, even with Anduin at the helm, because he's shown to be either too incompetent or too cunning (As Sylvanas remarks may be the case in BtS regarding how he allowed Calia into the gathering) to control his own people.

By your logic, Operation Valkyrie, the coup against Hitler, would've been something to be opposed to because it was somewhat divisive and aimed against the fellow countrymen and not the enemy. Except it was against Hitler. There are obvious mitigating factors to be considered.


Except Azeroth isn't Earth, and despite what you may think Sylvanas isn't Hitler. Teldrassil was more analogous to Hiroshima or Nagasaki in intent or execution than the holocaust, the issue is in that we call Teldrassil a genocide because it was the population center of the Night Elves rather than a population center of the Japanese. If Warcraft had a world that was appropriately scaled, Teldrassil might have just been one of many major Night Elven cities rather than their only one, but it doesn't, so the issue is magnified. But if you consider the war to be against the Alliance and not the Night Elves, wiping out one of the Alliance's cities in a shocking bid to disrupt them is something completely in line with fighting a world war.

11/02/2018 03:07 PMPosted by Rothiron
like mass blighting the battlefield and indiscriminately hitting her own solders


Except that's wrong, because the troops were recalled before the battlefield was blighted. Everyone you save afterward apologizes for their own mistakes in getting cut off.
11/02/2018 03:57 PMPosted by Veloran
A war now is the only chance the Horde ever has to win. The Alliance has always had the upper hand, especially after MoP, and the opportunity to contest them in the wake of the Legion can't last forever. In twenty years it would have been impossible to challenge the Alliance, and the Horde would be in the same bad position that it's always occupied when compared to them.
Maybe true, but missing several key points. One, Anduin is a big proponent for peace that Sylvanas just ignores because of her Cerseian vision, thinking everyone is an enemy. And two, Sylvanas would've gained infinitely more of an advantage holding Teldrassil hostage as opposed to burning it down out of spite, thereby triggering the current war that the Horde is actually losing as of Patch 8.1. Emphasis mine.

11/02/2018 03:57 PMPosted by Veloran
Not to mention, "war of aggression"? The Alliance has already shown that it's willing to aggress against the Horde with a pass from it's leadership. The Horde has no reason to trust their good intentions, even with Anduin at the helm, because he's shown to be either too incompetent or too cunning (As Sylvanas remarks may be the case in BtS regarding how he allowed Calia into the gathering) to control his own people.
And Sylvanas had her goblins attack a surveying team and kidnap a prominent Alliance engineer just prior to the Gathering. Minor skirmishes are par for the course between Alliance and Horde. While the Stormheim incident was a cause for concern, it wasn't really at the forefront of everyone's mind in the aftermath of the war with the Legion.

As for "Anduin's cunning", *snicker*, Sylvanas suffers from Cerseianism. A condition that causes people to project their own Machiavellianism onto people who simply have good intentions, inadvertently causing themselves more trouble than they'd have if they simply took said good intentions at face value.

11/02/2018 03:57 PMPosted by Veloran
Except Azeroth isn't Earth, and despite what you may think Sylvanas isn't Hitler. Teldrassil was more analogous to Hiroshima or Nagasaki in intent or execution than the holocaust, the issue is in that we call Teldrassil a genocide because it was the population center of the Night Elves rather than a population center of the Japanese. If Warcraft had a world that was appropriately scaled, Teldrassil might have just been one of many major Night Elven cities rather than their only one, but it doesn't, so the issue is magnified. But if you consider the war to be against the Alliance and not the Night Elves, wiping out one of the Alliance's cities in a shocking bid to disrupt them is something completely in line with fighting a world war.
I'd equate Teldrassil more with Pearl Harbor actually, an action meant to cripple and deter the enemy force but ultimately roused them to action, if we're talking about equivalence with real life events and their purposes... and outcomes. Though we'd have to upscale it, considering Teldrassil was like a small country with a population stranded in the branches. Which makes it genocide in intent no matter how you slice it, as bombing a city is very different from bombing a country. Especially since Sylvanas' intent was to shatter Night Elf morale.

Sidenote, I'm very well aware that Azeroth isn't Earth and Sylvanas isn't Hitler. You miss the point I was making by bringing up the example, which is that we think very differently of treachery when its enacted upon a morally questionable regime.

11/02/2018 03:57 PMPosted by Veloran
Except that's wrong, because the troops were recalled before the battlefield was blighted. Everyone you save afterward apologizes for their own mistakes in getting cut off.
Got specific quotes? Because all Sylvanas orders is "Prepare the Blight!" before making it rain acid in the cutscenes. I don't remember seeing mention of any such recalls.
11/02/2018 08:25 PMPosted by Rothiron
Got specific quotes? Because all Sylvanas orders is "Prepare the Blight!" before making it rain acid in the cutscenes. I don't remember seeing mention of any such recalls.


NPCs that get rescued especifically said this on the scenario -lul, you Mr. nuSylvanas-is-Hitler chose to spread the blight? Caue that was the other only option on the scenario...
11/02/2018 08:34 PMPosted by Ariël
NPCs that get rescued especifically said this on the scenario -lul, you Mr. nuSylvanas-is-Hitler chose to spread the blight? Caue that was the other only option on the scenario...
*cleans out ear*

Nyeh? I'm sorry, I don't see a specific quote in that post.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum