The voice of N'Zoth confirmed (Blackfathom Deeps)

[Qualia]

But thats another fcking reason why they shouldnt be dead in the 1st place, why are we heroes destroying Azeroth by killing Old gods?!?

Because, otherwise, they kill us. We might not have the luxury to defeat and imprison them, or we didn't consider that an option. I'm not sure if you realized, but defeating and imprisoning something usually is harder and takes more efforts than just defeating and killing that thing. Not to mention that the corruption of the Keepers proved that imprisoning the Old Gods might not be as good of an idea as it appeared, anyway.

Additionally, while it was crappy for a few months, all ended well in the end. The world is slowly getting healed back, we don't need to worry about C'Thun & Yogg again (until someone / something manage to revive them). There are some troublesome leftovers like the Sha or the Faceless Echoes, but they are far less dangerous than the even the imprisoned Old Gods. Not a bad situation at all, if I may say.

Also this:
''Thus, Aman'Thul, the Highfather himself, reached down through Azeroth's skies and heaved the Old God from the surface of the world. In that moment, the massive bulk of the Old One was ripped apart, and its deathrattle caused entire mountains to shatter and hundreds of titan-forged to be instantly obliterated where they stood.''

This clearly states that theyre huge, how could we have killed them when it takes a titan to do it?

Different method of killing. Aman'thul brutally ripped Y'Shaarj's body apart because of how big he (Aman'thul) was - he didn't have any weaker form of attack at that time of emergency (the Keepers' army were on the verge of being wiped out). On the other hand, we surgically strike at their fatal organs (heart, brain, or whatever). Both methods certainly can work. Think of it as how a person can die - he can be ripped apart by a train, or a bunch of small viruses can destroy his brain. Aman'thul is the train, we are the bunch of viruses.

"Taking a titan to do it" makes it sounds like the Old Gods are more powerful than they are. Reminder that Aman'thul only took part in killing Y'Shaarj, and he did it as effortlessly as we plucking a weed out of our yard. All other Old Gods were defeated then imprisoned by the Keepers, and they were imprisoned only because there were a big wound on Azeroth bleeding out Titan's blood / arcane energies so the Keepers couldn't risk damaging Azeroth any further by killing more Old Gods. The wound have healed since then so we have a lot more leeways.

So tell me what makes more sense? Destroying azeroth by killing old gods, OR Weakening the old gods so they stay imprisioned?

What makes more sense is what Blizzard said. They said the Old Gods are dead, so they are dead. If sometime in the future they changed their mind and say that the Old Gods actually are alive, then they'd be alive. For now, it's the truth that they are dead. Your opinions or mine are of no consequence.
Moreover, keep in mind that we do NOT always take the best choice. We've taken plenty of decisions that were not optimal (killing Illidan, killing Arthas, killing Malygos, etc.). The heroes / player characters aren't god, we are not omnipotent. So far, we have been dealing with most of the big threats by one simple method - killing / destroying them (KJ was the only exception IIRC, and it was only because he was too powerful for us to fight).

[Dellis0991]

I'm hoping we do see N'zoth this expansion - there's talk of a new zone being added in a patch, I think it's a perfect candidate for Ny'alotha, the city of the Old Gods where N'Zoth sleeps - N'Zoth's prison is very near to the Broken Isles, and it'd be perfect if Ny'alotha were to rise from the deeps and surface near the Tomb of Sargeras. Rather than fighting N'zoth, it's more likely we'll actually be joining forces with him, however briefly. N'Zoth has every reason to fight against the Legion - he needs Azeroth to survive so he can corrupt and control it. The Alliance and the Horde can't afford to turn down any potential allies, and N'Zoth and his forces could have the power we need to tip the scales against the Legion.

'course, it's not as if N'Zoth is actually friendly - we'll doubtlessly have to be ready for him to become a major threat once the Legion has been thwarted.

That sounds like a good twist, the enemy of my enemy is ally.....till my enemy is dead then your my enemy. I like that.

[Varitok]

illidan is dead.
if you had the beta or watched some legion vids you would know that illidans soul is in the twisting nether.
illidan just comes back, like every other demon, because you know, DEMONS REGENERATE THEIR BODIES.
or can get back to their bodies if its not destroyed.

That was a complete ass pull made up later. As someone posted earlier a Herald Volazj quote "They do not die; they do not live. They are outside the cycle."

[Raetary]

That was a complete ass pull made up later. As someone posted earlier a Herald Volazj quote "They do not die; they do not live. They are outside the cycle."

because npc text is so canon right....

[Qualia]

That was a complete ass pull made up later. As someone posted earlier a Herald Volazj quote "They do not die; they do not live. They are outside the cycle."

I was the one who posted that. However, keep in mind that Herald Volazj was an Old Gods' follower. Those followers have proven to, more than once, grossly overestimate their masters. Anything came from any character are subjected to the Unreliable Narrator trope (which basically is that since characters are biased, what they say might or might not be true). It's true that he might have been speaking the truth. However, we also have the omnipresent narrator text in C'Thun quest stating he was dead, and Yogg screaming how the shadow of his corpse will choke the land for eternity - those were released in game before or shortly after Herald Volazj were introduced when WoTLK was released. Yogg aside since he is an NPC too, the contradicted quest text were described from an omnipresent perspective, so I'm not sure if what Volazj said were meant to be taken seriously at the start.

[skulmar]

In *any* community, not just WoW or Blizzard-related franchises, Word of God is considered an official source. By definition, the latest released information from an official source is considered canon and override previous canons (unless refuted later by another official source). Just being a statement from Blizzard, or a piece of established lore, doesn't make it automatically canon. It need to be the one released most recently. Thus, being a part of the established lore doesn't matter if Blizzard later said something else contradicting to it. What is released last about the matter, especially with little to no room being misinformation, is canon, and thus the truth *until it is changed*. Arguing against it is just ridiculous.


I regards to the "Death of the author" trope: Keep in mind that it was about interpretation and the author's intentions. It, however, was not about whether something is canon or not. "There is no canon" is a misinterpretation of the trope. It is basically that there are many interpretations, and the author's original intention might not be the only valid one. However, being a valid interpretation does NOT make it canonical truth if it contradicts what the author said.

For example, let's use an Old God related story - we get the bits about C'Thun stalemated a Titan, and both fell in Silithus. One can interpret it as is - C'Thun fought a Titan to a draw. Another can interpret it as mere lies recorded by Prophet Skeram, an Old God's follower. Maybe there are other interpretations, I just can't think of one for now. With Chronicle, Blizzard made the later interpretation (that it was likely just incorrect information) out to be canon. Yet, it doesn't make the first interpretation invalid, just non-canon. You can claim that the first interpretation is a valid one, just keep in mind that is isn't canon.
Another example would be the pre-Cataclysm events - there are people who argued that it was the Old Gods' deaths started those, and others claimed that Deathwing's rampage in the Elemental Plane crossed the border to affect Azeroth. Both have their own merits and are as valid as each other, but there is only one canonical truth - what Blizzard said (well, they haven't said anything in detail in regard to this matter, though).

All in all, "death of the author" is more about the validity of interpretations. One can use it to argue whether a bit of information can be interpretation as this or that, but it has little to do with whether an interpretation is canon or not.

I just dont think it is quite so black and white. Truth is hard enough to agree upon in real life, let alone in a fiction. It is a fairly complex issue, and trying to simplify it with absolute rights and wrongs does little, imo, other than silence what could otherwise be an interesting debate.

Also, there is quite a lot of debate on whether or notan author has the right to go back and change an existing work, take for example George Lucas and the Star Wars special editions, particularly the arguments about whether or not Han shot first.

This can get even murkier in a case where there are multiple authors (like WoW) or when the original author no longer has control of the property. For example, now that Disney owns Star Wars do George Lucas' statements still matter? Can he still make retcons? Does the board of directors at Disney have the right to go back and change what "really happened" in the original trilogy? Could Christopher Tolkien make authorititative statements about the Lord of the Rings that contradict the text because he is the original author's legal heir?

Also, creators are only human. A lot of the answers at Blizzcon panels seem off, some are obviously wrong, and imo are likely the result of the ome answering the question either misunderstanding what was being asked or not having a clear recollection of the answer. Keep in kind these are off the cuff questions shouted across a noisy auditorium with no time for the answerer to ponder, research, or confer about the answer.

Heck, I make mistakes all the time when answering questions about things I have written simply because I have all sorts of previous drafts and abandoned premises floating around in my head, and I wouldnt trust "word of god" over the printed text in those cases. On the other hand I also make mistakes in the writing, typos, continuity errors, and ambigous wordings that leave the intent of the text unclear and hard to decipher without a statement of authorial intent or clarification.

Again, mot saying you are wrong, I just think you are doing yourself a disservice by looking at things in such a black and white manner.

[Aquamonkey]

Heck, I make mistakes all the time when answering questions about things I have written simply because I have all sorts of previous drafts and abandoned premises floating around in my head, and I wouldnt trust "word of god" over the printed text in those cases.

In the case of Old Gods, the printed text has repeatedly stated they are dead. The WoG is just supplementary. And in Blizzard's case, WoG is used to clarify things with the body of canon (usually for people who didn't bother looking into it). Rarely do Blizzard CDevs just make up retcons or new lore on the fly. When they do say something controversial, it's in lead of something they are about to release.

[Mehrunes]

That was a complete ass pull made up later. As someone posted earlier a Herald Volazj quote "They do not die; they do not live. They are outside the cycle."

And it the same expansion Yogg-Saron said this when we killed him: "Your fate is sealed. The end of days is finally upon you and ALL who inhabit this miserable little seedling. The shadow of my corpse will choke this land for all eternity."

Kinda blows the idea that we just weakened or re-imprisoned him apart because for there to be a corpse he kinda had to die.

[Kelathos]

If we get more old god stuff I expect it to be in another expansion, and not in Legion...

In Pandaria, the final raid of Orcs lead us into the Orc Expansion.
In Warlords, the final raid of Demons lead us into the Demon Expansion.
In Legion, at least one raid (may) involve the theme of the next expansion.

And that N'Zoth void theme would be suitable.

[Qualia]

I just dont think it is quite so black and white. Truth is hard enough to agree upon in real life, let alone in a fiction. It is a fairly complex issue, and trying to simplify it with absolute rights and wrongs does little, imo, other than silence what could otherwise be an interesting debate.
<...>

I believe that everything is not, but very close to black and white when it comes down to canonical truth *after we get a conclusive answer about how things are*, without any room for other interpretations, though. It's one thing when the canons are still descriptive in nature - in form of novel, in-game-text and such, and are open to interpretations. It's another thing when the authoritative figure(s) decides to give us the prescriptive version of canon, sit down and say "okay, here is how that is". At that point, regardless of how valid your interpretation is, or if it was even canon the moment before, it'd either fall into the correct side (align itself with what the authors said), or not.

In light of what I just said, bringing up real life matters isn't a good argument here. It's harder to come to a mutual agreement in regards to truths in real life because we don't have an absolute authoritative figure that actively communicate with us, telling us what things are. Thus, we have to rely on our interpretations which can be subjected to our biases. If we are to think of real life as a game, then we are mere NPCs and might or might not be trust worthy; Yet the Devs kept being silent, so every events are open to the players / readers' interpretations. It's not the case with WoW (or other fictions) where we got the inputs of the authors.

Moreover, the debate about whether something can be considered canon if it doesn't appear in (or contradicts with) the original source material, or that the ambiguity of canon is a good thing, isn't something happen that frequently. More often than not, it pretty much just pop up when people want to push their preferred version of the lore, or their own theories / interpretation against the canonical version. The debate certainly exists, but I wouldn't say it has made any change to canon definition (yet). Most of the time, we still use original definition of canon when it comes to discussing current lore of fictions.

It's true that creators are only human. It's also true that authors - not just Blizzard ones - do change the stories here and there, or occasionally give weird answers even in regards to their own works. However, no matter how off the answers might seem to be, they wouldn't be wrong at the time they were given. It's not that the authors always give correct answers to their works. It's that what they say become the truth instead - similar result, but not the same. They could say something that go completely against everything they've said for years, and it'd still become the truth. I'm not arguing that Metzen & Afrasiabi must have given the correct answer according to the lore back then (it might not be). However, the moment they answered, the lore would reshape itself to fit their answer and it'd remains canon until Blizzard go back on that answer (i.e: giving a "Oops, they were wrong" or "The OGs are still alive" kind of statement). That's the nature of WoG.

All in all, according to canon definition, the moment Blizzard state something, it will become the truth until they decide to change it. I can understand that people have their own interpretations of the events in game and might be unhappy with what Blizzard said. I'm open to discussing whether one interpretation does (or doesn't) have any merit, or if it's better than canon or not. However, that doesn't change the canonical nature of things.

[derpkitteh]

But then, there's the thing in the Well of Eternity instance:

[video=youtube;5FBBUuLuvO8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FBBUuLuvO8[video]

Which is twice as creepy imo.

Do Old Gods keep only one voice?
Maybe the Blackfathom one is a minion, but it's labeled as Old God in the files for easy organization.

that voice is lame, blackfathom is much better.

well of eternity voice is typical, macho deep voice blah blah shit.

i'd like one of these things to have a voice exactly the same as blackfathom, but with a female base instead of a male base. female voices have more ability for creepiness than male voices do in this kind of thing imo.

[A Dark Knight]

for gods sake, the faceless ones are echoes.
and they are dead.
only because they can whisper to you doesnt mean they are alive.
if we go by that logic then our gul'dan is also alive because his skull whispers to its wielder too.

titans cant kill old gods, sure as hell we cant neither

[Raetary]

titans cant kill old gods, sure as hell we cant neither

aman'thul pretty much did that with y'shaarj....

[LordHuffnPuff]

So uh, you can all argue about what Death of the Author means, but like, this is a settled question. It's not a "trope," it's a philosophical stance with regards to how one should approach reading of a text. The term originates from Roland Barthes essay, helpfully titled "The Death of the Author." Go read it, I encourage you! Reading the followup essay, "From Work to Text" should also help.

Now, you can choose to reject Barthes - many critics do! You can analyze texts from a multitude of stances - utilize psychoanalysis, read through the lens of gender, consider a Marxist perspective, place emphasis on the reader's response rather than the text, whatever you like! However, "Death of the Author" itself is a carved-in-stone non-debatable thing with regards to how it functions - somewhat ironic, because carved-in-stone readings of literature are anathema to Barthes! However, criticism is not literature and if we try and apply Barthes to himself we may never escape...

Anyway, now to address some specifics:

Also, there is quite a lot of debate on whether or notan author has the right to go back and change an existing work, take for example George Lucas and the Star Wars special editions, particularly the arguments about whether or not Han shot first.
[snip]
Again, mot saying you are wrong, I just think you are doing yourself a disservice by looking at things in such a black and white manner.

The reinvention and recapitulation of text is nothing new. Walt Whitman published no fewer than six (and some count nine) different editions of Leaves of Grass throughout his lifetime, continually adding and removing parts as he aged. None of these versions are "more valid" or "less valid" as definitive editions, instead they are, all of them, Leaves of Grass. However, with Star Wars, Warcraft, Lord of the Rings et al, the concern is not whether the author has the right to rework their text (and of course they do,) but which version of that text readers should accept as the definitive narrative. When it comes to narrative continuity in serial fiction, the most recent edition or statement is considered "canon" because it reflects the author's best attempt to present a cohesive whole spanning multiple works. To wit: after finishing The Dark Tower series, Stephen King rewrote parts of the first book so that it did not contradict where he ended up taking the story. Likewise, the chapter of The Hobbit entitled "Riddles in the Dark" was significantly revised by Tolkien to reflect the events described in The Lord of the Rings. More recently, J. K. Rowling has added dozens of small facts about the world of Harry Potter to her narrative tapestry through Twitter and Pottermore. Do you reject all of these additions because they are not the original or are spawned from sources considered "extratextual?" Put more bluntly: do you think Dumbledore is straight?

We must understand that when we consider "text" in these cases, as I said in my last post, we cannot simply look at the game alone because of the transmedia nature of the endeavor. The story of Warcraft is still being written, it is not complete. Any work in progress is subject to revision and reinvention. To hold an author to their off-the-cuff remarks or creative decisions of a decade or more ago, when clearly they did not have a full picture of where their story would end up, is bordering on mania. Allow Blizzard their revisions, because if you attempt to make them conform to their statements of yesteryear you will only succeed in frustrating yourself. They are acting, in this way, in a grand literary tradition that is both entirely reasonable and time-honored.

[ryudaraku]

titans cant kill old gods, sure as hell we cant neither

Titans can kill Old Gods like popping a zit.

The problem comes in that a Titan killing an old god is akin to using a sledgehammer to pop a zit.

[mizeri]

why do all the evil voices always sound british?

[Deleted]

In Legion you will travel to Ulduar during a questline, where you encounter Yogg'Sarons voice and some of his minions. It points towards the fact that the Old Gods aren't entirely dead and gone despite having been killed as raid bosses. Nobbel87 points ou tthat Yogg isn't dead either in one of his recent vids.

[Aquamonkey]

titans cant kill old gods

Not every Old God is still alive and plotting. The Titans actually did kill a lot. (Source)

Plus Chronicle where Aman'Thul rips Y'Shaarj out of Azeroth with 1 hand like pulling a weed.

[Kallisto]

In Legion you will travel to Ulduar during a questline, where you encounter Yogg'Sarons voice and some of his minions. It points towards the fact that the Old Gods aren't entirely dead and gone despite having been killed as raid bosses. Nobbel87 points ou tthat Yogg isn't dead either in one of his recent vids.

If you picked up the skull of Gul'dan you can have very interesting conversations with it. Doesn't mean that MU Gul'dan is alive.

[Therougetitan]

In Legion you will travel to Ulduar during a questline, where you encounter Yogg'Sarons voice and some of his minions. It points towards the fact that the Old Gods aren't entirely dead and gone despite having been killed as raid bosses. Nobbel87 points ou tthat Yogg isn't dead either in one of his recent vids.

They are called echoes. He's dead but that doesn't mean dead things don't have an affect. Even his death quote is "My shadow will choke this land for all eternity."