This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Why so much hate towards the Dark Lady?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
46491
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
306612
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
So was thinking of the opening quest that was linked; true then and there you have a choice to walk away from the Forsaken, but if your raised on the battlefield, and you turn to flee from it, rather then join your fellow undead in the glory of battle....you'll probably end up being cut down.
Of course, her mass raising has backfired on her lately; or is everyone else forgetting the shotgun to the back of her head after that little experiment with Godfrey and his people?
Post by
306612
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
355559
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
306612
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
229054
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
neoscorpio
I don't buy this "Forsaken can't procreate. So we need to raise undead" argument. All this time, until WotLK, Sylvanas and many Forsaken used to whine that they have been raised to undeath against their will and have been turned into these
monstrosities
as they used to refer to themselves. Some even wanted to find a cure for their
disease
as they used to call it. But now Sylvanas is doing the very same thing to her fallen enemies. And her argument which I've mentioned above is just her way to justify her actions and convince herself that she isn't doing anything wrong.
If in case, it was someone like Lilian Voss, who I believe didn't get either a happy life or a good death, to be resurrected, then Sylvanas would be doing them a favour and she would be like a god to them for giving them another chance.
But some people would have just wanted to stay dead like Sylvanas herself as we can understand from her quotes which were -
Sylvanas to Balnazzar:
Arthas murdered my people and
turned me into this...monstrosity.
and
Sylvanas to Arthas:
A quick death...like the one you gave me? No. You're going to
suffer as I did.
Wouldn't she have mourned and sworn vengeance if any of sisters fought beside her against Arthas and if they would have died and turned into undead? Wouldn't Danath Trollbane do the same if he discovered that his cousin Galen is now undead?
The question is why would Sylvanas want to torture others the way she was tortured? It is clearly one of the following conclusions:
A - She's turning evil. or B - It is just poor writing by Blizzard (just like their slightly poor writing for Varian and very poor writing for Garrosh. Blizzard is killing their own lore. Looks like some interns are writing their lore now, like how there was a complete absence of Sylvanas and Darion Mograine - both of them who would have wanted to see Arthas fall more than anyone else - during the final battle against the Lich King.)
Only time will tell. I'm betting on first option.
Post by
Patty
Or B being covered up with a thrown together mesh of A.
Post by
632573
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
306612
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
The thing with RAS though, is that the apothecaries choose to follow Veri; they weren't tricked into it or anything of the like. Yes, one and all, they were 'evil' and slaughtered a mass of Horde and Alliance, and they got their just desserts for it, but that doesn't take away the fact that they were independent when they made the choice.
But, that incident has probably driven Sylvanas even farther down the path of insanity: As far as she knew, she had both Putress and Veri under her 'thumb' and the pair of them almost killed her.....then again with Godfrey in Cata, it's just proving(to her mind at least), that if the Forsaken does not swear loyalty to her as soon as they raised, they could more then likely end up as her enemy and attempt to kill her again, and her survival, at least now, is the one thing she prizes above everything else; can't remember the exact wording, but doesn't she more or less say that the Val'kyr did as they were suppose when they brought her back, even though it cost them their lives?
Post by
Skreeran
The thing with the Forsaken not feeling bad about ressurecting other people is this, I think: While initially the Forsaken universally reviled their state for it's downsides (dulled emotions, crippled sense of touch, apparent hideousness), they have come to value it to some extent for its upsides (no need for rest, ability to survive more than an average living person, practical immortality through Shadow Priests), and they think that everyone else who they raise will "get over it" like they did. What they most hated about the Scourge was not being resurrected against their will, but they fact that they got no will at all afterwards. What made Sylvanas hate the Lich King most was the fact that he not only raised her as a banshee, but he cruelly forced her body to kill her people despite her wishes.
Had the Lich King merely killed them and raised them back, but not forced them to join him and kill their kinsmen, I think they'd be angry and frustrated, but I don't think they'd have the same undying hatred that the Forsaken do.
Or maybe they would. I suppose we'll see, come Cataclysm, what the New Forsaken's thoughts are. It's clear that some, like Marshall Redpath, hold a grudge. On the other hand, others, like Lilian Voss and Godfrey (even though he's still evil) have been seen to accept it.
Post by
Adamsm
Godfrey (even though he's still evil) have been seen to accept it.That's more because it keeps him from being turned into a worgen though heh; yes he wants the Forsaken dead, but he wants the mongrels dead first.
Post by
229054
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
The thing with RAS though, is that the apothecaries choose to follow Veri; they weren't tricked into it or anything of the like. Yes, one and all, they were 'evil' and slaughtered a mass of Horde and Alliance, and they got their just desserts for it, but that doesn't take away the fact that they were independent when they made the choice.
Ok, look. The RAS is completely unrelated to this because you can't compare Forsaken choosing to leave Undercity peacefully and a genocidal rebellion. You don't need to be a crazed queen of the liberated undead to realize that when people are out to kill you and un-do your nation, you've got to do something.
Why not? Both are independent after all; and I was going from the view point of the Crazed Queen: seems like any time she leaves non-affiliated forsaken free, they attempt to kill her. So the idea of her, if given the chance, killing those to stop them from 'becoming' a threat in the future well....or maybe it just cuts too close to home, what with her own attempts to slaughter Arthas after the Forsaken broke free in the first place.
You know, she seems to be echoing a lot of what Arthas did....
Post by
229054
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
but everything points out to Sylvanas not killing those who choose not to follow her.Far as we can tell at this time with the information we have.
But seriously, pretty much everyone here knows my feelings on Sylvanas, and just saying, from what we see in Cata in regards to her, it would seem more in line with her 'new' persona(the whole evil stuff), that if the Forsaken attempt to not follow her, the one who 'raised' them in first place, she wouldn't be happy with them, and would remove them if she could.
You talk about governments, but Sylvanas' is more like a dictatorship.
Post by
457614
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
306612
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.