Why is Sylvanas becoming this?

[themaelstorm]

Seriously guys, do you know what Immortal means?

It does not mean unkillable. Or Invincible.

Mortal=you die eventually. You decay.

Immortal=Not the above.

Sylvanas is not the above.

Sylvanas is immortal. It has nothing to do with wow standards.

She is NOT unkillable.
She is NOT invincible.
She is NOT indestructable.
She IS immortal.

If you don't believe me, maybe you will believe in Oxford (I will include their example sentence as it's very fitting)
1. Living forever; never dying or decaying.
‘our mortal bodies are inhabited by immortal souls’

If you leave Sylvanas on her own, she will survive forever. Just like the thousands of years old night elf banshees and ghosts we see here and there.

[Aucald]

That is the thing though anything in wow can die, there is no such thing as real immortality. Sylvanas wants val'kyr so it is harder to kill her off, but she is basically already wow immortal.

Biological immortality doesn't confer or imply invincibility. There are several races or beings in the Warcraft universe that are naturally (or unnaturally) immortal - demons, Eredar (even naturally they seem impossibly long-lived, one of the Draenei in Azuremyst recalls Argus before its corruption, so he must be more than 10,000 years old), Ancients, Faceless Ones, etc. etc. All of these beings can be destroyed by violence, but if left to their own devices would functionally persist forever. Undead aren't completely immortal, I believe - though the Necromantic energies that raised them also sustain their decaying forms, those energies do leech away slowly. Undead beings unable to maintain themselves become subject to failing limbs and growing mental instability - the Necromantic energies can be renewed, though, and replacement limbs acquired if need be. I guess you could say the Undead are functionally immortal as long as they have the means to maintain themselves.

[Aquamonkey]

A true immortal by definition can't die, at all. It comes from Latin, meaning "deathless" or "undying." This is not how Warcraft uses the term.

Immortals in Warcraft are generally resistant to sickness and injury, but immortality does not confer invulnerability. Immortal beings can still be wounded and even killed. Indeed, many immortals have perished over the course of recorded history, particularly during the War of the Ancients. The death of an immortal is just as real as any mortal death and, barring a few extraordinary cases, just as permanent.

What, then, does the term immortality mean in Warcraft? Immortal creatures essentially stop aging when they reach adulthood, and thus, they cannot die merely from old age. (WC Encyclopedia)

[Combatbutler]

Immortality doesn't confer or imply invincibility. There are several races or beings in the Warcraft universe that are naturally (or unnaturally) immortal - demons, Eredar (even naturally they seem impossibly long-lived, one of the Draenei in Azuremyst recalls Argus before its corruption, so he must be more than 10,000 years old), Ancients, Faceless Ones, etc. etc. All of these beings can be destroyed by violence, but if left to their own devices would functionally persist forever. Undead aren't completely immortal, I believe - though the Necromantic energies that raised them also sustain their decaying forms, those energies do leech away slowly. Undead beings unable to maintain themselves become subject to failing limbs and growing mental instability - the Necromantic energies can be renewed, though, and replacement limbs acquired if need be. I guess you could say the Undead are functionally immortal as long as they have the means to maintain themselves.

Which is my point, in other franchises there exists true immortality, but not in wow anything can die.

[Aucald]

Which is my point, in other franchises there exists true immortality, but not in wow anything can die.

In the Warcraft universe I'd imagine only entities of pure Light or pure Void would be both biologically and essentially immortal - as both forces are essentially dualistic and reciprocate.

[Aquamonkey]

Elune can grant (true?) immortality. She did this for Omen.

But this celebration is muted by the eternal torment of one of their own -- Omen, blessed by the moon goddess Elune, has risen again from the depths of Moonglade’s lake. Driven mad by the Burning Legion’s tainted magics during the War of the Ancients, Elune’s blessing of immortality means that he will forever be cursed to return in his maddened state at the advent of a new year. Heroes are called to help ease this tormented Ancient’s suffering, in the hopes that perhaps next year will see him return with a clearer mind. (Source)

"Defeating Omen sent his spirit back to the waters of Elune'ara. Although the beast himself is blessed by Elune and so cannot die, his anger will subside for another year."

[Mehrunes]

The way you keep clinging to the word "cure" is what's hilarious. Don't call it a cure then, call it a solution. You got anything else to add to your mediocre argument? Please go right ahead.

And now you just showed you're completely lost. Tirion said he wanted to cure him. Which is exactly why your argument is bullshit and me "clinging to the word 'cure'" is showing exactly that. You once again proved you have fuck all knowledge about the questline you so pathetically tried to twist. Considering how lost you are in your own nonsense, you're not exactly in any position to call other people's arguments lost. Which is still hilarious by the way.

...You heard it from me first. : <

Well, since you're already a bit OT with GoT, clear your inbox again if you want something via PMs <.<

Let's be fair :P While it seems you don't have good impression of Highwhale in another thread, he wasn't really wrong here. The poster he quoted said "Plus, if it was JUST about her, she is already immortal (remember she is a banshee), why would she need a Valkyr?", implying that Sylvanas wouldn't need a Val'kyr - which is wrong. She is only at best biologically immortal, she can still be killed through unnatural means - taking a bullet to the head, for example. She is far from being a true immortal or physically invulnerable. She still need the Val'kyrs to avoid dying for real if she ever got killed (which would, in her opinion, bring her back to that "hell" place).

Nope, Highwhale is indeed really wrong here. The other poster is not. Forsaken exist in state of preserved decay and can live forever. As per quote by Aqua, that qualifies as immortality under WoW standards. And said poster aside, I'm not sure how saying that Sylvanas "at best can be killed only through unnatural means" is a counterargument to Arafal's post you quoted that says exactly that.

Biological immortality doesn't confer or imply invincibility. There are several races or beings in the Warcraft universe that are naturally (or unnaturally) immortal - demons, Eredar (even naturally they seem impossibly long-lived, one of the Draenei in Azuremyst recalls Argus before its corruption, so he must be more than 10,000 years old), Ancients, Faceless Ones, etc. etc. All of these beings can be destroyed by violence, but if left to their own devices would functionally persist forever. Undead aren't completely immortal, I believe - though the Necromantic energies that raised them also sustain their decaying forms, those energies do leech away slowly. Undead beings unable to maintain themselves become subject to failing limbs and growing mental instability - the Necromantic energies can be renewed, though, and replacement limbs acquired if need be. I guess you could say the Undead are functionally immortal as long as they have the means to maintain themselves.

Forsaken can live forever if they keep their bodies intact, which isn't any different than (once) immortal Night Elves.

Unfortunately, it's not fun to read what you write. You could be a more fun person if you actually read who you are quoting said, instead of picking sentences off context.

I'd say this is exactly what makes Highwhale a fun poster.

[themaelstorm]

A true immortal by definition can't die, at all. It comes from Latin, meaning "deathless" or "undying." This is not how Warcraft uses the term.

Actually, also by definition it's pretty much how warcraft uses it ^^ https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/immortal

[Aquamonkey]

Actually, also by definition it's pretty much how warcraft uses it ^^ https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/immortal

Warcraft doesn't use the "living forever" or "never dying" bit, it only uses the "never decaying" part.

[Traveler Voltin]

genn dies
Sylvanas saves Anduin, and stops being crazy.
i am calling it now.

[themaelstorm]

Warcraft doesn't use the "living forever" or "never dying" bit, it only uses the "never decaying" part.

I don't mean to cling on to this, but...

From your quote:
"What, then, does the term immortality mean in Warcraft? Immortal creatures essentially stop aging when they reach adulthood, and thus, they cannot die merely from old age"
What does oxford say?
"Living forever; never dying or decaying."

What does neither say?
Invulnerable. Indestructible. Unkillable.

Pretty much the same

- - - Updated - - -

genn dies
Sylvanas saves Anduin, and stops being crazy.
i am calling it now.

She needs to be crazy in the first place to be able to stop doing so =P

[Aquamonkey]

I don't mean to cling on to this, but...

From your quote:
"What, then, does the term immortality mean in Warcraft? Immortal creatures essentially stop aging when they reach adulthood, and thus, they cannot die merely from old age"
What does oxford say?
"Living forever; never dying or decaying."

What does neither say?
Invulnerable. Indestructible. Unkillable.

Pretty much the same

The etymology of immortal comes from "deathless" and opposite of mortal (subject to death, having a transitory life). Living forever and never dying means unkillable. Focusing solely on "never decaying" is cherrypicking part of a definition from a single site for what you want immortal to mean. True immortality is free from all forms of death, not just aging.

[themaelstorm]

I believe language would be very different if we always had to take into account the etymology of the word and opposite of "having a transitory life" is also the same thing I'm saying but okay, if you say so

[Aucald]

Biological and essential immortality are being conflated here. A biologically immortal entity isn't subject to senescence (the aging process) - it does not age and therefore cannot die unless it is destroyed through external means, such as by violence. There are a few biologically immortal things in real life such as cancerous cells, virii, and some types of jellyfish. All of them are essentially ageless, but not invulnerable. Essential immortality implies invulnerability, after a fashion; an essentially immortal being would simply be reborn as it was upon its destruction, or (in the case of divine or godlike entities) would simply be immune to all means of harming it.

These two concepts seem worthy of differentiating as the Warcraft universe essentially contains examples that may be either (or both). The greater entities such as Wild Gods, Naaru, Void Lords, or Elune could be considered essentially immortal. Certain races such as demons, Eredar, Night Elves (pre-Third War), or undead might be considered biologically immortal.

[Qualia]

Nope, Highwhale is indeed really wrong here. The other poster is not. Forsaken exist in state of preserved decay and can live forever. As per quote by Aqua, that qualifies as immortality under WoW standards. And said poster aside, I'm not sure how saying that Sylvanas "at best can be killed only through unnatural means" is a counterargument to Arafal's post you quoted that says exactly that.

I believe the point isn't whether she is immortal under WoW standard or not, but that she isn't true immortal (which was what I believe Highwhale was referring to) and thus, still need the Val'kyr. That other poster implied that Sylvanas wouldn't need a Val'kyr because she is an immortal - which is wrong.

[Friendlyimmolation]

I believe the point isn't whether she is immortal under WoW standard or not, but that she isn't true immortal (which was what I believe Highwhale was referring to) and thus, still need the Val'kyr. That other poster implied that Sylvanas wouldn't need a Val'kyr because she is an immortal - which is wrong.

She just needs to kill the other princes of the universe.

[Sigxy]

Well, since you're already a bit OT with GoT, clear your inbox again if you want something via PMs <.<

...I don't get it. </3

[Tripzzz]

And now you just showed you're completely lost. Tirion said he wanted to cure him. Which is exactly why your argument is bullshit and me "clinging to the word 'cure'" is showing exactly that. You once again proved you have fuck all knowledge about the questline you so pathetically tried to twist. Considering how lost you are in your own nonsense, you're not exactly in any position to call other people's arguments lost. Which is still hilarious by the way.

Tirion said he wanted to cure him. Doesn't mean there is a cure. Burning the bodies is a valid and effective solution. No one said the solution was going to be sunshine and rainbows. You failing to understand that is not my problem. Your argument is shit. Get your head out of your ass you egomaniac.

Infracted.

[Mehrunes]

...I don't get it. </3

Hmm, quoted wrong person. Sorry.

[Deleted]

They wont kill sylvanas, she got too many husbandos