wow Alternative Ending Added to the Fate of Saurfang Questline in Patch 8.1

[Stan 5,240]

Blizzard added an alternative ending to Saurfang's storyline in this week's 8.1 PTR Build 28202. The article contains major story spoilers. Proceed with caution!

If you read our preview of Saurfang's story in Patch 8.1, you probably know what's cooking for Varok in Tides of Vengeance. From the quest it appears that Saurfang has sided with the Alliance (Shaw) and members of the community consider him a traitor now, but the questline forced them to side with Saurfang and Zekhan.

Blizzard recently added an alternative ending to the story. After Zekhan appears and offers the "Grim Tidings" quest, there's a new option available, which allows you to tell Zekhan that you will not betray Sylvanas.

A new window pops up, informing you that your choice will prevent you from completing the main Fate of Saurfang quests and receiving the Worn Cloak toy. Instead, you will be given an alternative quest to return back to Sylvanas and Zekhan will remember this!

For the Queen

You chose not to side with the traitor Saurfang and his troll lackey. Now that you know where Saurfang is, and who is with him, you should report to Sylvanas to see if she has any further orders.

Now you must return back to Sylvanas in Orgrimmar. The quest rewards Artifact Power and you learn that Sylvanas has special plans for Zekhan.

Your loyalty will not go unrewarded, champion. Lyana departed here only moments ago. I have dispatched the dark ranger and a contigent of loyal deathguard to apprehend the traitor Saurfang in Swamp of Sorrows. He may come peacefully, or he may not. Your hands should not, in any case, be bloodied in this confrontation. You are to remain a hero, golden in the eyes of the people, as we have need of. And as for that troll you mentioned, I have special plans for him.

Quote

Lady Sylvanas Windrunner says: I never doubted you for a moment.

Lady Sylvanas Windrunner says: For the Horde!

Who's Telling the Truth?

It's interesting to see an alternative ending to the storyline, but is Sylvanas really telling the truth?

After you finish "Tracking Tipoff" and Zekhan appears, Dark Ranger Lyana tells you that she must return back to Sylvanas.

Quote

Dark Ranger Lyana says: I must report back to the warchief. You are to take no further action until you hear from me again. Understood?

When you choose to side with Zekhan and accept "Grim Tidings", he tells you that Lyana actually wants to kill him and that she's not reporting back to the warchief.

In Orgrimmar, however, Sylvanas tells you that Lyana departed just a few moments ago from there when you arrive to finish the questline.

What do you think?

[Durf24 42]

I'm interested to see if the story will actually differ or if it'll just be a faction later down the line that you'll either start off at a higher reputation threshold if you helped Zekhan and Saurfang and lower if you didn't, possibly hated until you do some make up quest. Though, I like that we're being given a choice instead of just doing what we're told like we've done since the game's conception even if it turns out meaningless in the end, it shows that they have the means of doing something like this later down the line and adding new possibilities.

[Arcling 898]

34 minutes ago, Durf24 said:

I'm interested to see if the story will actually differ(...)

Unlikely, they would have to make two different storylines and how this expansion could move forward, while they have to acknowledge different resolutions? It will likely lead to same outcome, just different perspectives and ways to get there. Also, no choice appears on Alliance side (though they are the ones backing Saurfang).

Edited October 25, 2018 by Arcling

[Sholto 32]

Yes, this is a moral dilemma for the Horde alone.  They can choose to follow evil and the true traitor to the Horde, Sylvanas, or they can be on the right side of history.  There will be plenty who make the easy choice to simply follow Sylvanas to their eventual end as yet another disposable pawn in her scheme.

[Dejo93 1,023]

Yeah, I'm with ZappyBoi on this one

[Elendorei 3]

Quote

10 hours ago, Sholto said:

Yes, this is a moral dilemma for the Horde alone.  They can choose to follow evil and the true traitor to the Horde, Sylvanas, or they can be on the right side of history.  There will be plenty who make the easy choice to simply follow Sylvanas to their eventual end as yet another disposable pawn in her scheme.

 

Who says that Sylvanas is a traitor ?! , if this is true it will be another Garosh and seems like blizzard has lazy writers , Sylvanas did what had to be done but ones like you in the Horde didn't have heart to do it . We cant stay friendly with A forever , we have some major problems with them , starting with the boy king itself , And btw if you think choosing Saurfang is freedom you are wrong , you will forever be a pawn in this game no matter which side you choose bro...

[Skayan 52]

(Alliance player here) Kill Saurfang, we will take care of Sylvanas. Problems solved.

Edited October 26, 2018 by Skayan
.

[Drachar 45]

I think it is great Blizzard is offering us a choice, even if it won't make much of a difference in the end. There where plenty of people who back during MoP wanted to back Garrosh for example.

[Aernath 173]

I love the idea of choice, it's what the MMORPG's RP part heavily needs, I hope they'd add more of these in game. 
And yes, I would gladly stand with Garrosh back then if I had the similar choice, just like how Nazgrim did.
Because for some of us loyalty and real honor is much more important than advertising "Lok'tar" but not going "Ogar" and kneel at the end instead, that's what Varok did, you know. 

During the Battle for Lordaeron, he went out to die in battle but when he got defeated he kneeled and made himself a prisoner.
How's that Victory or Death? 

If he'd really wanted to die in battle, he'd make a last move at the boy-king's throat and would have his wish, but he didn't.
And as the matter goes on, every move he's making is contradicting with himself, loyalty and honor.

I really wonder where this is going, but I'm also starting to lose my faith in Blizzard's promise that "Sylvanas won't be Garrosh 2.0"
We'll all wait and see I guess... 

Until then, I personally stand with Warchief, because:
"Honor means nothing to a corpse."

 

[Sholto 32]

21 hours ago, Elendorei said:

Who says that Sylvanas is a traitor ?! , if this is true it will be another Garosh and seems like blizzard has lazy writers , Sylvanas did what had to be done but ones like you in the Horde didn't have heart to do it . We cant stay friendly with A forever , we have some major problems with them , starting with the boy king itself , And btw if you think choosing Saurfang is freedom you are wrong , you will forever be a pawn in this game no matter which side you choose bro...

 

Who says?  

You don't even know how this war was started.  Go tell that warmed over propaganda to someone as ill informed.  You know nothing of your leader much less Anduin.  Why don't you start by getting educated on why Arathi is the first Warfront and see about what happened there.  On top of this there's the whole idea that her schemes re:Azerite put the entire world at risk.

No, she's not another Garrosh.  She's a wannabe Lich Queen who falls somewhere between Gul'Dan and the Burning Legion.

Edited October 27, 2018 by Sholto

[Weltenfeind 40]

17 hours ago, Aernath said:

I love the idea of choice, it's what the MMORPG's RP part heavily needs, I hope they'd add more of these in game. 
And yes, I would gladly stand with Garrosh back then if I had the similar choice, just like how Nazgrim did.
Because for some of us loyalty and real honor is much more important than advertising "Lok'tar" but not going "Ogar" and kneel at the end instead, that's what Varok did, you know. 

During the Battle for Lordaeron, he went out to die in battle but when he got defeated he kneeled and made himself a prisoner.
How's that Victory or Death? 

If he'd really wanted to die in battle, he'd make a last move at the boy-king's throat and would have his wish, but he didn't.
And as the matter goes on, every move he's making is contradicting with himself, loyalty and honor.

I really wonder where this is going, but I'm also starting to lose my faith in Blizzard's promise that "Sylvanas won't be Garrosh 2.0"
We'll all wait and see I guess... 

Until then, I personally stand with Warchief, because:
"Honor means nothing to a corpse."

 

There's a BIG difference between being loyal to your country (faction in this case), and loyal to a government (the warchief)

Basically: Saurfang is loyal to the Horde (in fact, he clearly loves it deeply), but not the Warchief which he feels isn't upholdning the principles of the Horde. Victory or Death has no meaning, if he has nothing to fight for.

[Brutalis 165]

“Lok'tar ogar! Victory or death - it is these words that bind me to the Horde. For they are the most sacred and fundamental of truths to any warrior of the Horde.

I give my flesh and blood freely to the Warchief. I am the instrument of my Warchief's desire. I am a weapon of my Warchief's command.

From this moment until the end of days I live and die - For the Horde!”

Daily reminder that anyone who doesn’t support Sylvanas is an oathbreaker and has no place in the Horde.

[Elendorei 3]

On 10/27/2018 at 9:17 AM, Sholto said:

 

Who says?  

You don't even know how this war was started.  Go tell that warmed over propaganda to someone as ill informed.  You know nothing of your leader much less Anduin.  Why don't you start by getting educated on why Arathi is the first Warfront and see about what happened there.  On top of this there's the whole idea that her schemes re:Azerite put the entire world at risk.

No, she's not another Garrosh.  She's a wannabe Lich Queen who falls somewhere between Gul'Dan and the Burning Legion.

I see no point in your sentence dude , you are telling me that Sylvanas is a traitor to "the Horde" and yet you tell me check how the war started . 

On 10/27/2018 at 12:16 AM, Aernath said:

I love the idea of choice, it's what the MMORPG's RP part heavily needs, I hope they'd add more of these in game. 
And yes, I would gladly stand with Garrosh back then if I had the similar choice, just like how Nazgrim did.
Because for some of us loyalty and real honor is much more important than advertising "Lok'tar" but not going "Ogar" and kneel at the end instead, that's what Varok did, you know. 

During the Battle for Lordaeron, he went out to die in battle but when he got defeated he kneeled and made himself a prisoner.
How's that Victory or Death? 

If he'd really wanted to die in battle, he'd make a last move at the boy-king's throat and would have his wish, but he didn't.
And as the matter goes on, every move he's making is contradicting with himself, loyalty and honor.

I really wonder where this is going, but I'm also starting to lose my faith in Blizzard's promise that "Sylvanas won't be Garrosh 2.0"
We'll all wait and see I guess... 

Until then, I personally stand with Warchief, because:
"Honor means nothing to a corpse."

 

^This

[JojotheLich 1]

18 hours ago, Brutalis said:

“Lok'tar ogar! Victory or death - it is these words that bind me to the Horde. For they are the most sacred and fundamental of truths to any warrior of the Horde.

I give my flesh and blood freely to the Warchief. I am the instrument of my Warchief's desire. I am a weapon of my Warchief's command.

From this moment until the end of days I live and die - For the Horde!”

Daily reminder that anyone who doesn’t support Sylvanas is an oathbreaker and has no place in the Horde.

My life is For the Horde.
I live and die, For the Horde.

Lok'tar Ogar. Victory or death. I am a child of the Horde. I give my life freely for the Horde. I will take up arms, For the Horde. 
I fight, For the Horde. The Horde is not Sylvannas. The Horde is the inhabitants. The races that fill the ranks of the Horde. I fight and die for them. Even if I'm branded as a traitor by Sylvannas' Horde, I will live and die knowing everything I've done was with honor and I did it For. The. Horde.

[Sholto 32]

21 hours ago, Elendorei said:

I see no point in your sentence dude , you are telling me that Sylvanas is a traitor to "the Horde" and yet you tell me check how the war started . 

The pretext Sylvanas used to start this off, breaking the cease fire, in a combination of her paranoia that everyone was somehow like her and about to do to her what she would do to them, was this event called "The Gathering".  Where did it occur, you ask?  Arathi.  It's no coincidence this is the site of the first Warfront, not Darkshore.

Who was killed by Sylvanas' dark rangers?  Every member of the The Forsaken's "Desolate Council" in attendence, which was formed in her absence so that the Undercity and its citizens could still have a functioning community, because everyday shit still had to get done while Sylvanas was off figuring out how to not just preserve her finite number of Forsaken but figure out how she was going to turn Stormwind and all Humans into Forsaken 2.0 as well as exacerbate the damage already done to Azeroth by having the Goblins go to town turning Azerite into weapons.

She was not doing this "For the Horde".  She was not doing this for The Forsaken, who do not want to be immortal and her property in perpetuity.  She's doing it for herself, risking all.

Oh, and she also murdered Calia Menethil, who's now a Lightforged Undead and even more capable of being the leader The Forsaken need, even if some of them don't deserve her.  But she slaughtered all of the Forsaken that were present so that there would be no witnesses to counter her version of the events she would give for why they were all dead and why The Horde should once again go to war.
 

Edited October 29, 2018 by Sholto

[Sholto 32]

Even prior to this, Sylvanas was threatened by the presence of the Desolate Council.  Not even truly acknowledging that the group formed out of necessity, because she was not there to run the Undercity.  She's both insecure as well as paranoid.  She's been lying to them this whole time and removing all hope from them so that they have no choice but to view her as the center of their world, the only one who will ever care for them and protect them.    You know that speech that the little dwarf psychic gives to the family in Poltergeist about "the Beast" and its lies to all the souls trapped in the house, including Carol Anne?  That's Sylvanas.  She's "the Beast".

She's no better than an average mentally abusive but co-dependent spouse.  Her soul is gone and the fact that The Forsaken are not actually like her, and some still do have a desire for connection to the living world, is a threat.  And ultimately she would sacrifice every single one of them if it meant she got a whole new crop of undead to serve her, which would also solve their desire to be reunited with their Human families and friends.

That's not opinion, that's born out in the lore now.  That's who she is.  In so many words.  

And if in all that you don't see a betrayal of not only "her people" but The Horde, well, I can't help you.  Maybe The Horde deserves the destruction she will bring down on you.   It was formed out of pure evil anyway.  Too bad about the Tauren.

Edited October 29, 2018 by Sholto

[PatrickHenry 293]

On 10/26/2018 at 3:46 PM, Aernath said:

During the Battle for Lordaeron, he went out to die in battle but when he got defeated he kneeled and made himself a prisoner.
How's that Victory or Death?

SIGH...

yea not at all tired from fighting off virtually the entire Alliance leadership and their champions.  Not tuckered out at all. Totally bowing to their king.

[Sholto 32]

Or maybe as one of the (seemingly) few thinking Orcs, maybe he recognizes that dying for nothing, or winning for wrong, maybe, just maybe, he realizes this slogan is B.S. and he wants more than a binary existence that benefits others who would use him.  Maybe his heart really isn't in it and he recognizes that solidarity "For the Horde" blindly, uncritically, is the way of the simple bitch.

[Kurosu 58]

On 10/26/2018 at 12:48 AM, Sholto said:

They can choose to follow evil and the true traitor to the Horde, Sylvanas

Lol, saufarg willingly becomes a puppet for a faction he hates knowing he will be the cause of countless horde ( non forsaken ) deaths.

You cannot top that treason.Sylvanas has shit morals but she is loyal as fuck.She doesnt even abandon the zandalari after the raid despite the fact that they can no longer offer their navy.

[Sholto 32]

On 11/1/2018 at 5:18 PM, Kurosu said:

Lol, saufarg willingly becomes a puppet for a faction he hates knowing he will be the cause of countless horde ( non forsaken ) deaths.

You cannot top that treason.Sylvanas has shit morals but she is loyal as fuck.She doesnt even abandon the zandalari after the raid despite the fact that they can no longer offer their navy.

You're simply naive and ignorant to how foolish the Horde are to follow her at this point.  Every Horde life lost is on her.  And, I will say again, this war was kicked off by Sylvanas ordering her dark rangers to slaughter every Forsaken partaking in The Gathering.

Sylvanas is not "for the Horde", she is not "for the Forsaken", she is for herself.  Period.  It's only naivete to the explicit story and lore that is now cannon that allows you and any other foolish Horde to think otherwise.

edit: and even though it's thick headed to interpret Saurfang's actions as you describe, it would still be better to be puppet to a good man than slave or puppet or willing fool to an evil one.

Edited November 3, 2018 by Sholto

[Kurosu 58]

4 hours ago, Sholto said:

You're simply naive and ignorant to how foolish the Horde are to follow her at this point.  Every Horde life lost is on her.  And, I will say again, this war was kicked off by Sylvanas ordering her dark rangers to slaughter every Forsaken partaking in The Gathering.

Sylvanas is not "for the Horde", she is not "for the Forsaken", she is for herself.  Period.  It's only naivete to the explicit story and lore that is now cannon that allows you and any other foolish Horde to think otherwise.

edit: and even though it's thick headed to interpret Saurfang's actions as you describe, it would still be better to be puppet to a good man than slave or puppet or willing fool to an evil one.

Let me guess :  alliance player? You guys do tend not to understand the lore at all.

[Sholto 32]

On 11/3/2018 at 5:18 AM, Kurosu said:

Let me guess :  alliance player? You guys do tend not to understand the lore at all.

Let me guess, you aren't even versed on "the lore" for what we're going through now.  Because following Sylvanas right now means you're either ignorant, or just an asshole.  And you're not actually "For the Horde" at all, or just don't know the difference in validity between fighting for survival legitimately and fighting to survive a self-inflicted situation. 

 

edit: but it doesn't matter which type of Horde player you are, the dupe or the bully, because she will not be the Warchief by end of this expansion and The Horde will come to actually know her.   Whether they want to interpret how she evolves as "Garrosh 2.0" or not is immaterial now.  There's no redemption, only cleansing and folks have a diminishing window to escape the shame of being on her side.

Edited November 4, 2018 by Sholto

[Kurosu 58]

On 11/4/2018 at 6:03 PM, Sholto said:

Let me guess, you aren't even versed on "the lore" for what we're going through now.  Because following Sylvanas right now means you're either ignorant, or just an asshole.  And you're not actually "For the Horde" at all, or just don't know the difference in validity between fighting for survival legitimately and fighting to survive a self-inflicted situation. 

 

edit: but it doesn't matter which type of Horde player you are, the dupe or the bully, because she will not be the Warchief by end of this expansion and The Horde will come to actually know her.   Whether they want to interpret how she evolves as "Garrosh 2.0" or not is immaterial now.  There's no redemption, only cleansing and folks have a diminishing window to escape the shame of being on her side.

Case in point.You actually believe whether a leader in this game is "good" or "bad" its dependant on if he survives.So what that she will lose her rank? But if you want to follow your own logic, take a moment to reflect on how varian suicided (yes I said it) and consider how someone's "death" defines him.Or are you that deep in the alliance fanboyism that you didnt even understand how he died?

 

edit : oh and sorry to be the bearer of "bad news" but  blizzard announced sylvanas is not planned to die or anything yet.

Edited November 11, 2018 by Kurosu

[Sholto 32]

On 11/11/2018 at 8:37 AM, Kurosu said:

You actually believe whether a leader in this game is "good" or "bad" its dependant on if he survives.

No.  In fact that's one of the most clueless interpretations of something I've said I've ever read/heard.  I've spent way, way too much time pointing out how *bad*, not "bad", some are based on actions.

LOL

[Sholto 32]

On 11/11/2018 at 8:37 AM, Kurosu said:

oh and sorry to be the bearer of "bad news" but  blizzard announced sylvanas is not planned to die or anything yet.

Sorry to be the bearer of worse news, I know what's going to happen with her already, and though she deserves death I've not really called for her death because good villains should be kept around.  And that is what she is, for The Horde as well, they just don't know it (yet) most of them.

 

Edited December 18, 2018 by Sholto