I disagree, while I found it a bit hard to swallow with Lady Sylvanas' actions, she doesn't represent the entire Horde faction. As a matter of fact she was expressly forbidden from using the plague to begin with. And even then she did it with the intentions of ensuring her species survival because if the forsaken all die out, theres noone to hold territory in 90% of Eastern Kingdoms for the Horde.

So can what she did be interpreted as evil? Sure. Did she do them for purely evil purposes? No. Therefore we go back to the moral gray of wow.

I'm not talking about the Plague. I'm talking about the ruthless and unsubstantiated invasion and massacre of Gilneas. It's the forced conversion of their citizens, then being insulted when they use the free will you gave them to actually think for themselves. Claiming that Lordaeron is rightfully theirs as they were the humans of the land formerly, then taking anothrr's rightful lands away.

Heh, SYlvannas could give a rats patoot about her "species" survival. She's concerned about one thing and one thing only now, her OWN survival and accumulation of power. She spends her tropps like water, and she never has a single regret.

Plus, y'know, making deal with Valk'yr and such. Lying to her allies. Forcing control of dissidents. Etc etc etc....

She's flat out "bark at moon laugh maniacally and monologue" evil.

Now, there are some Not-Evil forsaken, sure (Lillian Voss? Brutal, Vengeful, Amoral, but not "evil"....), but Sylvannas has crossed fully and completely into "One DImensional Charicature Who Will Kill In A Raid Soon" territory.

See, what I took out of Silverpine is that the Forsaken, feeling utterly rejected by the rest of the world, and by humanity in particular, have become fanatically devoted to each other. There are numerous examples of Forsaken selflessly sacrificing themselves to save other Forsaken. There is also the touching mini-questline involving the Forsaken soldier who is utterly terrified of the living.

The Forsaken do come off as ruthless to anyone they see as an outsider, but most are absolutely loyal to each other. Even Sylvanas comes off as a sympathetic character in some ways. So I guess how one interprets those zones is purely in the eye of the beholder. Which is kind of good storytelling.

And I think you guys who think Sylvanas should be a raid boss are nuts. She's the most interesting character in the game. Why on earth would you want to get rid of her? We need more complex characters, not less.

"How dare people not be dead, I kill them now". She's not that complex.

The thing is the invasion of Gilneas was a Horde invasion, not Forsaken. They were the vast majority of the forces for the obvious reason of location. However, Sylvanas didn't want Gilneas, Garrosh did.
The only reason Gilneas has any value to any non-Gilnean is its proximity to the Alliance held southern Eastern Kingdoms.

Garrosh wants it, the Alliance doesn't want Garrosh to have it. Same deal with Tol Barad.

Besides the 'forced conversion' happened to three Gilneans, who all were killed in Shadowfang Keep. The rest became Worgen, were killed, or escaped.

@Plainswander
She used to not care at all about the Forsaken, and use them like water. Same with her rangers while living.
Now she wants to protect them, because they protect her.
At least that is what I got from her perspective on them going from 'Arrows in her quiver' to 'a Bulwark against the infinite'.

You shoot an arrow and don't care about it as long as it hits your enemy, a shield has to be maintained, cared for, or it will fail you.
Again, that's just what I got from it.

@Al,

I hope the rest of your thinking is more complex than that comment suggests, because if that caricature is all that you take away from Sylvanas in the game, I cannot take you seriously.

There's also "I found out I'm hell-bound, so I'm forcing my fate on anyone I can kill as a shield to save myself from the people I couldn't kill." Being a spiteful bitch trying to share damnation still isn't complex.