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
611800
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
457614
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Patty
She means to do to him what the Soviets and Chinese have done to political prisoners for decades. I doubt she will become personally involved unless it proves necessary, but that makes her no less culpable for what horrible acts will surely follow, assuming someone doesn't stop it somehow.
Yeah, because obviously the 'evil communists' were the only ones who didn't care much for human rights. She is going to punish Koltira. That may involve experimenting, that may involve torturing. We don't know for sure, so it's a moot point when they
could
just be having a chat over tea and crumpets. Is it highly unlikely? Yes. Is it proven? No.
Post by
611800
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Skreeran
No, they aren't the only ones. But they are the most outstanding examples that come to my mind.
And yes, you can argue we don't
know
. But that's usually a standpoint taken by people who have no more cogent point to present than 'we can't ever know anything at all until it happens so neener neener neener you can't be right therefore I win'. Here's your cake, enjoy. :DPoint is, we can't judge Sylvanas for actions that we aren't fully aware of yet. She's doing
something
with Koltira, but we don't know if he'll end up as a mindless puppet, a mind-controlled slave, or whatever other possibilities there might be.
Koltira speculation now is about as valid as Bolvar speculation was back when we first saw the Immolated Champion in Ulduar. We don't know what will happen, and we shouldn't pass judgments until we see the full ramifications.
Post by
611800
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Patty
My point is I present a viewpoint backed by what we
do
know and in the face of no lore-leg to stand on the rebuttal comes down to the old 'if I can't be right then nobody can' defense.
Characters develop over time. Garrosh was a cry-baby in TBC, and in Wrath and Cata he's a macho man. The first time I saw Garrosh in Nagrand, I did not believe I was peering at the orc who would lead the Horde campaign in Northrend. All we know is that Koltira was forced back to the Undercity by Sylvanas. She may simply be giving him training, to block his emotions (which are already limited by the fact that he's undead), educating how he and Thassarian are now enemies, or it could indeed be something far more sinister.
Post by
611800
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Skreeran
Once again, you can present no better counter-argument as there is no hard information to back up your viewpoint.
But yes, I agree. Characters develop over time(though in Garrosh's case I think we were better off with whiny emo-orc). And look what Sylvanas is developing into. Will she turn away from the direction made plain by so many quests, dialogues and other in-game lore? We can only wait and see. But I wholeheartedly agree with
Argent Apothecary Judkins
.
Argent Apothecary Judkins
said:
I once worked for the so-called "Banshee-Queen", Sylvanas, as an apothecary. I used to admire her, but something's changed within her. She's not herself anymore.All I'm saying is that, like with the middle chapters of a book, we shouldn't judge Sylvanas on what she
might
do, or
probably
did. Rather than judging her based on speculation, I think we should wait and see where Blizzard is going with this before passing judgments.
Post by
611800
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
299264
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Patty
All of the Alliance races consider the Forsaken to be abomination and so not to have the right to exist;
It follows that the Alliance feels that the Forsaken, since they don't have the right to exist, certainly aren't entitled to the lands of Lordaeron;
Whoa. That's quite an assumption.
Please note it is not my intention to disparage any nation or people in the real world in any way, I am merely associating what I see as a similar geo-political association.
I see the point you're trying to make, but really, the part I quoted is
not
like the Middle East at all.
Post by
611800
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
299264
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Skreeran
All of the Alliance races consider the Forsaken to be abomination and so not to have the right to exist;
It follows that the Alliance feels that the Forsaken, since they don't have the right to exist, certainly aren't entitled to the lands of Lordaeron;
Whoa. That's quite an assumption.I don't know, it seems like a valid assumption to me...
The Alliance
seems
to give
that impression
sometimes.
And yes, I'm aware that the Forsaken have several references to genocide as well (probably even more), but you can understand why some Forsaken might fear that their only options are domination or extinction.
Post by
229054
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
611800
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
611800
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
606213
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.