[Spoilers] 7.3 Blood elf discussion.

[derpkitteh]

Let's not forget Vol'jin was more ok about leaving the Bell on Garrosh's hands than the Alliance's. Just sayin'. From the Horde's perspective the Alliance getting the Bell was nothing but bad business and Jaina clearly favoring them could have only be considered a blatant violation of her proclaimed neutrality.

Anyone can find all the excuses of the world to justify such behavior but arguing in favor of the argument "Jaina didn't break any neutrality" is just silly.

i mean, it's not even just a perceived break of the neutrality.

it's a nation formerly-aligned with the other nation giving it a weapon of mass destruction.

if anything, the bell should have been given to the dragonflights to safeguard, they're the only true neutral party.

[Zulkhan]

i mean, it's not even just a perceived break of the neutrality.

it's a nation formerly-aligned with the other nation giving it a weapon of mass destruction.

if anything, the bell should have been given to the dragonflights to safeguard, they're the only true neutral party.

What makes it better is that even by looking things from the Alliance's perspective, you have Varian far an inch from using the Sha himself if it wasn't for Anduin opposing Rogers' boner on the matter. If Anduin would have failed, the first thing the Alliance would have once they had the Bell was weaponizing it to get (or attempt to get, given the shown collateral effects) the upper hand against the Horde.

[Friendlyimmolation]

We have no recorded objection from the council? So why do you assume that silence was opposition to Jaina's actions? What is most likely then, that the Council was against Jaina's actions but said nothing, or that their silence was a tacit endorsement?

We know atleast one counil member, Modera, was agaisnt it.

[Al Gorefiend]

The fact that blood elves have their own thread already at 11 pages when no other race gets so much as a mention shows that people are passionate about Blood/High Elf lore, and Blizzard should do more good lore for them. If there were tons of threads about Tauren, or gnomes, that would indicate a similar passion for those groups. If something isn't getting much attention from fans, it shouldn't get as much attention from Blizzard. Any attention the Blood Elves got post-WotLK minus 5.2 is bad attention designed only to build up humans.

Burning Crusade minus Kael'thas turning evil was love, as was Sunreavers kind of, as was 5.2. Everything else has been to make blood elves out to be incompetent and dependent on humans for everything, which is not love. Maybe if you're one of those weird blood elf fans that hates Quel'thalas and loves Dalaran, it could be considered love, but not me.

That's called endless feedback looping and it makes for shit storytelling. If the fans decide they like Ron better than Harry, the books aren't renamed Ron Weasley and the Half-Blood Ginger.

Humans and elves get more love than anyone else and you complain humans and orcs are done to death yet I'd argue BEs and NEs are just as bad.

[Magnagarde]

I have thick skin so you can keep it up if you like.

So your plan is to simply say "She could have other things she wanted her for" and leave it at that? Brilliant. Ambiguous as hell and leaves plenty of maneuvering room. Let's try and figure out what "other things" could mean based off of what was going on in the cinematic.

Eyir chained and immobile...check.
Sylvanas torturing her...check.
Sylvanas stating "Submit"...check.
Slvanas stating "The Valkyr are mine!"...check.
Genn stating that he's "taken away her future"...check.

1)We can dismiss seeking an alliance off the bat.
2)Killing isn't entirely off the table, it could possibly take Eyir verbally giving her control over the Valkyr.
3)Enslavement is highly likely since she'd need Eyir to be able to make more Valkyr other than those that are current.
4)Giving her to Helya is a possibility, but only if Helya could give Sylvanas the ability to make more Valkyr and this isn't known. Also begs the question of why she didn't just take here there after capturing her since the cinematic opens with her already torturing Eyir.

There is no point in arguign about this on these forums, especially with avid Sylvanas fans.

[Friendlyimmolation]

There is no point in arguign about this on these forums, especially with avid Sylvanas fans.

Because only your interpretation of something is true, and when someone points out that there is no confirmation because we don't know the details of the plan nor the bargain you immediately shriek "sylvanas fan!"

so what you should have said is "there is no point in trying to peddle bullshit."

[RyanEX]

Because no one ever subdues anyone ever in an attempt to win them over to their side.



highly likely because you say so. I can say its highly likely that Helya would give Sylvanas Val'kyr in trade.





so basically what are you arguing, that Sylvanas was going to enslave Eyir based off assumption while trying to say there is no room for assumption?

She'd already restrained Eyir before the cinematic. By the time the cinematic picks up she's in the process of torturing Eyir for said undisclosed reason. All we have to go on are her words "Submit" and "The Valkyr are mine".

Also, my point was that we could assume that Sylvanas made a deal to hand over Eyir to Helya. But the question remained that if the Soulcage had Eyir already restrained why was Sylvanas torturing her and not preparing to move her? You can spin it anyway you want but no matter the answer nothing will paint Sylvie in a positive light. It's just differing levels of damning.

[Friendlyimmolation]

he'd already restrained Eyir before the cinematic. By the time the cinematic picks up she's in the process of torturing Eyir for said undisclosed reason. All we have to go on are her words "Submit" and "The Valkyr are mine".

I dont think anyone here is trying to argue other wise.

Also, my point was that we could assume that Sylvanas made a deal to hand over Eyir to Helya. But the question remained that if the Soulcage had Eyir already restrained why was Sylvanas torturing her and not preparing to move her? You can spin it anyway you want but no matter the answer nothing will paint Sylvie in a positive light. It's just differing levels of damning.

subduing someone before you move them is easier than just moving them. Even if they are bound.


Also lol, this entire thing came up because someone thought that if they bring up Sylvanas, Vereesa will no longer be a terrible cliche character.

[derpkitteh]

She'd already restrained Eyir before the cinematic. By the time the cinematic picks up she's in the process of torturing Eyir for said undisclosed reason. All we have to go on are her words "Submit" and "The Valkyr are mine".

Also, my point was that we could assume that Sylvanas made a deal to hand over Eyir to Helya. But the question remained that if the Soulcage had Eyir already restrained why was Sylvanas torturing her and not preparing to move her? You can spin it anyway you want but no matter the answer nothing will paint Sylvie in a positive light. It's just differing levels of damning.

the reason sylvanas wanted the eyir is pretty obvious. she wants to be able to create val'kyr to keep herself alive and raise more forsaken to put between herself and anything that wants to kill her.

i don't think she was going to turn eyir over to helya, she was going to use her to produce val'kyr.

note, i hate sylvanas. i hate what the forsaken are now. i also hate genn, both of these character should fucking die. nathanos too, for having the gall to speak to me like an underling.

[Stormdash]

the reason sylvanas wanted the eyir is pretty obvious. she wants to be able to create val'kyr to keep herself alive and raise more forsaken to put between herself and anything that wants to kill her.

i don't think she was going to turn eyir over to helya, she was going to use her to produce val'kyr.

note, i hate sylvanas. i hate what the forsaken are now. i also hate genn, both of these character should fucking die. nathanos too, for having the gall to speak to me like an underling.

Think Helya's interest was just in depriving Odyn of Eyir's services; Sylvanas was there to claim Eyir as her own.

I was actually really disappointed by the way the story took shape in Stormheim -- in the lead-up to launch, it seemed like there was a more customary Joseph Campbell hero's journey underway with Sylvanas, culminating in the Broken Shore sequence, we see her fighting heroically, of course, we see her both showing a broader sense of loyalty/concern for the Horde generally than she used to (riding to Vol'jin's aid, when she sizes up the losses and injuries), and also a real genuine sense of regret when she abandoned the Alliance to their chances at her Warchief's command (since she and Varian had a sort of URST-y work spouse vibe in the launch cinematic and the scenario). I was expecting a less arch-seeming heel than we get out of her first major move being trying to enslave Eyir, thought that "out of the shadows" line from Vol'jin was something thematic for her storyline, but not so much. And of course she's been totally absent since.

[Zulkhan]

There is no point in arguign about this on these forums, especially with avid Sylvanas fans.

What a luck I had in taking my daily wisdom pill before sleeping.

[Mehrunes]

I have thick skin so you can keep it up if you like.

Ugh, I give up. arguing 4 v 1 is no fun especially when 3 of those 4 seem to take everything as a personal attack and are abrasive in response. I'm just gonna move on.

Thick as the crust of the Earth even.

So your plan is to simply say "She could have other things she wanted her for" and leave it at that? Brilliant. Ambiguous as hell and leaves plenty of maneuvering room. Let's try and figure out what "other things" could mean based off of what was going on in the cinematic.

Considering that's how language works, yes. What other proof of the fact that it's unknown she wanted to enslave Eyir do you want other than the only source on her plans stating otherwise, there being other possibilities, her words not indicating slavery innately and her pact with Helya being completely unknown when it comes to its contents? Because this reeks of a desperate (and extremely shitty) attempt at deflection.

In general, lack of solid confirmation of a claim and other possibilities remaining open is enough to showcase that something is indeed an assumption. That you try to pretend otherwise is, once again, desperate. Also sad and pathetic.

Eyir chained and immobile...check.
Sylvanas torturing her...check.
Sylvanas stating "Submit"...check.

All of which don't innately indicate slavery. Again, giving her up to Helya is a possibility. And Sylvanas may wanted her to submit to the bindings completely. Because she still needed to transport her somewhere.

Slvanas stating "The Valkyr are mine!"...check.

Haven't said which Val'kyr. Haven't said how she plans to get them. It's almost as if half of this quest was cut, making it ambiguous and unclear or something.

Genn stating that he's "taken away her future"...check.

Genn prevented her plan of getting more Val'kyr. His words say fuck all about what this plan was, specifically. He probably didn't know the details to begin with. So I'm not sure what the fuck you're checking. Maybe the levels of you not having a clue about slavery.

1)We can dismiss seeking an alliance off the bat.

Look at all the mentions of a possible alliance.

2)Killing isn't entirely off the table, it could possibly take Eyir verbally giving her control over the Valkyr.

4)Giving her to Helya is a possibility, but only if Helya could give Sylvanas the ability to make more Valkyr and this isn't known. Also begs the question of why she didn't just take here there after capturing her since the cinematic opens with her already torturing Eyir.

Congrats on shooting your argument pile of extremely literate bullshit in the foot. And Sylvanas didn't transport Eyir to Helheim when we arrived there moments after her? No waiii. I forgot that creating a highway to Helheim is one of Sylvanas' powers.

3)Enslavement is highly likely since she'd need Eyir to be able to make more Valkyr other than those that are current.

If she stole her power like the only source on her plans indicated, she'd be able to make Val'kyr without Eyir. If she got Val'kyr from Helya she wouldn't need Eyir.

There is no point in arguign about this on these forums, especially with avid Sylvanas fans.

Because arguing with headcanon peddlers that expose time and time again they have fuck all of a clue on the topic and even continue that after their gaps in knowledge have been pointed out to them, because it's more convenient to omit them (you know, like you) is so much more productive.

Also, my point was that we could assume that Sylvanas made a deal to hand over Eyir to Helya. But the question remained that if the Soulcage had Eyir already restrained why was Sylvanas torturing her and not preparing to move her? You can spin it anyway you want but no matter the answer nothing will paint Sylvie in a positive light. It's just differing levels of damning.

Now take a hike to the horseshit about Sylvanas being LK 2.0 you wrote that started this subtopic. Because it's almost as if context was a thing that existed in this world. Sylvanas taking Eyir to Helya may have been a different level of damning, but it's not something LK would have done.

What a luck I had in taking my daily wisdom pill before sleeping.

Woke up fresh, rested and lobotomized, I take it?

[Stormdash]

I'm a pretty big Sylvanas fan, but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

It's not like just kidnapping Eyir and handing her over to Helya or just kidnapping her and stealing her power somehow are "good", or "okay", or otherwise decent or reasonable behavior, after all. Her personal errand in Stormheim was pretty unambiguous black hat no matter how you interpret her intentions. And as I said, it's a pretty sharp right turn from the path that the launch events of Legion seemed to suggest for her.

[Zulkhan]

I'm a pretty big Sylvanas fan, but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

It's not like just kidnapping Eyir and handing her over to Helya or just kidnapping her and stealing her power somehow are "good", or "okay", or otherwise decent or reasonable behavior, after all. Her personal errand in Stormheim was pretty unambiguous black hat no matter how you interpret her intentions. And as I said, it's a pretty sharp right turn from the path that the launch events of Legion seemed to suggest for her.

I'm not a fan of Sylvanas whatsoever and I don't really believe that. Nothing between her Legion bio or Vol'jin's promotion suggested the idea of Sylvanas becoming a great and good person who would not shit over people to reach a goal she deems necessary. I could even go far and say that such could even be one of the very reasons as for why she got the Warchief promotion in the first place. All the hinted "positive" turns are entirely bound to her relationship with the Forsaken and, to a lesser extent, the Horde, not really about the achieving of a pious redemption (at least not in the eyes of the people outside of the Forsaken/Horde sphere).

[Mehrunes]

We have no recorded objection from the council? So why do you assume that silence was opposition to Jaina's actions? What is most likely then, that the Council was against Jaina's actions but said nothing, or that their silence was a tacit endorsement?

We have no recorded confirmation from the Council either. But what we have recorded is Jaina breaking Dalaran's law and acting on her own, as well as breaking Dalaran's neutrality to aid the Alliance. So, again, this could have been an example of that happening again.

Jaina, and the Council -again, we are never told of any disagreement- decided to keep the Bell safe in Darnassus. Definitely an alliance biased decision, but that's what Jaina and the Council decided was for the best, and again we are in no way to believe Jaina took this decision on her own. When the horde stole the bell, they acted AGAINST Dalaran's interests and decision, an aggression against Dalaran's sovereignty. Stealing the bell was an act of war against Dalaran helped by treason within the Sunreavers themselves. You might have issues with how Jaina handled things, but you can't deny that the theft of the Bell was the Horde acting against Dalaran's sovereignty. Dalaran's Goal was to keep the Bell safe, the Horde acted against that.

When a Sunreaver helped steal the Bell, he was only following Jaina's bright example that "picking sides" in the war despite being Dalaran being neutral was fair game. And yeah, Jaina acting on her own immediately afterwards totally leaves no room for the possibility she acted on her own before that. And hey, let's roll with your sovereign decisions of Dalaran. The moment they decided to aid the Alliance against the Horde, their neutral status went fuck itself and they acted against the Horde's interests. Because aiding the Alliance and even capturing/killing Horde soldiers was an act of war. The Horde, Sunreavers included, had all the right to treat Dalaran as co-belligerent. Making Jaina's claims of Sunreavers breaking neutrality utter nonsense. Treason, yeah, OK (though since Sunreavers were officially still Horde members, they automatically became a hostile force the moment Dalaran broke its obligations as a neutral state and aided the Alliance).

This betrayal within the Sunreavers and the Horde's actions against Dalaran had to be met with consequences -those are what we can disagree on- but the moment the Horde acted against Dalaran it made Jaina's mind.

Again, Dalaran acting against the Horde's interests had to be met with consequences first. It was. Jaina treating it as some great betrayal is special pleading. And Jaina breaking Dalaran's neutrality had to be met with consequences beforehand. It wasn't, making her a hypocrite and robbing her of all legitimacy on neutrality grounds. Also, Jaina's mind in itself matters nothing in Dalaran. Dalaran is not an autocracy.

Again, assuming that Jaina acted against the council's wishes is just that, an assumption, and with no objections being presented at the moment, it IS safer to assume their silence is endorsement. The moment the Horde acted against Dalaran and stole the bell broke the neutrality agreement in Jaina's eyes, repaying that breach with escalation. The purge itself reveals she had already made the executive decision of severing ties with the Horde per their actions, that's the whole point of the Purge, to remove the horde and join the alliance. Assuming that the council was against that is pointless, because we would have know had it been so.

Which is totally confirmed by the fact that Jaina didn't consult the decision with anyone and started the Purge on her own despite her, you know, not having the power to do so on her own. So the only choice she left the Council was "silently endorse it" or "move back in time". Also, Modera was against it and Khadgar worked with the Horde even against Jaina's direct orders. And, I don't know for which time, Dalaran openly acting against the Horde already broke neutrality agreement. Jaina's eyes are irrelevant for both the legal reasons as well as the fact she already proved in Tides of War her grasp on neutrality is atrocious.

If the council had been against Jaina's actions, it would have most certainly led to in-faction disputes, yet on 5.2 we saw Dalaran happily working for the alliance, barely a peep about the whole mess. Does that sound like the stance the council would have taken if they had abhorred Jaina's actions so much?

What a surprise that a faction that thanks to Jaina's actions became the enemy of the Horde during a world war turned to the Alliance afterwards. 'Tis even more mysterious with Garrosh leading the Horde. Because Garrosh would care oh, so much about Dalaran's internal drama and would patiently wait for their explanations before escalating things even further.

As far as we know, the council was complicit in Jaina's action by omission on the least. That Jaina used Alliance forces to uproot the Horde from Dalaran after she considered the theft of the Bell as the breaking point of Dalaran's neutrality is expected, both to make things less awkward and to avoid more duplicity within the Kirin Tor. She IS uprooting the horde from Dalaran, she can't rely on people that might have divided loyalties, don't you agree with that?

Which is again irrelevant. Jaina broke Dalaran's law by acting on her own and put the Council in a position when they had to react to her shit show only after the fact. With the bridges with the Horde burned they were given only one path. Also again, Jaina broke neutrality first. But Dalaran didn't officially rejoin the Alliance until after the Purge, so her using Alliance forces to carry out her Purge (especially with the narrative she weaved in her mind) was dealing with a breach of neutrality through a breach of neutrality.

I'm a pretty big Sylvanas fan, but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

It's not like just kidnapping Eyir and handing her over to Helya or just kidnapping her and stealing her power somehow are "good", or "okay", or otherwise decent or reasonable behavior, after all. Her personal errand in Stormheim was pretty unambiguous black hat no matter how you interpret her intentions. And as I said, it's a pretty sharp right turn from the path that the launch events of Legion seemed to suggest for her.

Except in this case walking like a duck is wanting to kill all life and quacking like a duck is rising those killed just to mentally enslave them forever. Both of which are not present in Sylvanas. Kidnapping people or stealing their power is not good behavior (which is why no one said it is, imagine that) but it's not acting like the Lich King.

[Captain Kennedy]

Except in this case walking like a duck is wanting to kill all life and quacking like a duck is rising those killed just to mentally enslave them forever. Both of which are not present in Sylvanas. Kidnapping people or stealing their power is not good behavior (which is why no one said it is, imagine that) but it's not acting like the Lich King.

Sylvanus raised Alliance soldiers as Forsaken during the SoO. Lor'themar even threatens to kill her if she raises any blood elf corpses.

[Magnagarde]

I'm a pretty big Sylvanas fan, but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

It's not like just kidnapping Eyir and handing her over to Helya or just kidnapping her and stealing her power somehow are "good", or "okay", or otherwise decent or reasonable behavior, after all. Her personal errand in Stormheim was pretty unambiguous black hat no matter how you interpret her intentions. And as I said, it's a pretty sharp right turn from the path that the launch events of Legion seemed to suggest for her.

There is nothing wrong with liking a character out of the wrong reasons(ie Arthas is the most iconic character in Warcraft and many like his character despite Arthas turning into a villain). However, there are people that go out of their way to whitewash a character's story because they like a character so much that they can't accept the fact that he/she is evil in the universe they're a fan of.

I used to be a huge Old Horde fan out of the wrong reasons(ie plain cool and not the usual fantasy bunch, brutal, unrelenting), but I'd never say that they're the good guys just because I like them. Tons of Warcraft fans are fans of the Scourge and their story.

[Captain Kennedy]

There is nothing wrong with liking a character out of the wrong reasons(ie Arthas is the most iconic character in Warcraft and many like his character despite Arthas turning into a villain). However, there are people that go out of their way to whitewash a character's story because they like a character so much that they can't accept the fact that he/she is evil in the universe they're a fan of.

I used to be a huge Old Horde fan out of the wrong reasons(ie plain cool and not the usual fantasy bunch, brutal, unrelenting), but I'd never say that they're the good guys just because I like them. Tons of Warcraft fans are fans of the Scourge and their story.

I think a lot of this has stemmed from race and faction identity in WoW. Where as back in the RTS days, you didn't stick to an identity like in an MMO. This is why you had fans of the Old Horde, Arthas, The Scourge, Mal'Ganis, etc. But WoW has introduced this weirdly intense race/faction identity thing, where players seem to grow this very one dimensional view of certain characters. And also feel the strange need to defend their actions, or spew hate for their actions. Look no further than Vareesa and Lor'themar. Who are a great dichotomy, but people get really emotional and intense about picking sides and yelling about how their's is unquestionably the morally right side. Rather than appreciate that neither of them were right or wrong.

[Mehrunes]

Sylvanus raised Alliance soldiers as Forsaken during the SoO. Lor'themar even threatens to kill her if she raises any blood elf corpses.

Congrats on ignoring the other two aspects.

There is nothing wrong with liking a character out of the wrong reasons(ie Arthas is the most iconic character in Warcraft and many like his character despite Arthas turning into a villain). However, there are people that go out of their way to whitewash a character's story because they like a character so much that they can't accept the fact that he/she is evil in the universe they're a fan of..

Go on, quote that whitewashing in this thread.

[Zulkhan]

Sylvanus

I must have missed the memo but when exactly this way of misspelling Sylvanas has become so popular? I literally shake my head everytime I see that.

Go on, quote that whitewashing in this thread.

It's so incredibly objectionable seeing someone throwing buzzwords and assumptions around while purposefully avoiding direct confrontations because, well, these didn't go that well in the past.