Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst
1
2
3
LastLast
  1. #21
    The Lightbringer Storm the Sorrow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Pleasure Planet
    Posts
    3,704
    Quote Originally Posted by Jester Joe View Post


    I think the real question is, when do we become a sword, or when do we start to identify as a sword
    I think the real answer is your attempt at being witty is not witty enough. You might wish to try again Bragg.

    History won't let me lie, for Alexandros Mograine was well-known as The Ashbringer.
    Thus I beseech thou dost not make inevitably unsuccessful attempt at brandishing thine feeble wit.
    Be wary of the ones who yell: "Off with the satire!", for trash is always displeased with the broom.

    Please refrain from speaking your mind or having an opinion.

    This signature holds no images yet violates signature rules.

  2. #22
    If only Fordring would have merged with the Ashbringer, revealing that the Wake of Ashes is a path the wielder of the blade must walk until he becomes one with the collective will of those who brought Ashes before him (all two of them).

    But alas. Dead to Krosus.

  3. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Storm the Sorrow View Post
    I think the real answer is your attempt at being witty is not witty enough. You might wish to try again Bragg.

    History won't let me lie, for Alexandros Mograine was well-known as The Ashbringer.
    Thus I beseech thou dost not make inevitably unsuccessful attempt at brandishing thine feeble wit.
    I would just reply back that to your comment, the answer is also obvious.

    They didn't want to give paladins an extra title based on their spec. No other class got that, nor would it make sense to have a prot paladin running around as "The Ashbringer". Also, Tirion was known as Highlord, and not Tirion the Ashbringer.

    Also, when it comes to the Artifact flavor text, they are usually referencing the past for the most of them. So in this case, when it says "over time the blade and wielder became to be known as one", by "the wielder", it could very well mean just Alexandros. Alternatively, we haven't been wielding the weapon that long.

  4. #24
    I am Murloc! jasontheking1234's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    The Core of my World.
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Eurytos View Post
    You said canonically. The game is not canon. Also, even in the game, as a single hero, we are not close to the most powerful. Just start to think of any named NPC, Malfurion, Tyrande, Illidan, Turalyon, Sylvanas, Thrall, Khadgar, etc. All of these are way more powerful. Also, don't forget...we don't get to keep the artifacts. My bet is they are somehow "sacrificed"(read that as broadly as you want) in order to defeat KJ or Sarg. In the end, we don't keep them.

    Point is, the game isn't canon. So, your statement is just plainly false.
    ..WHAT?!

    Does that mean...that...all this time...the deaths of certain characters meant nothing to us?

    No, we're canon. You just refuse to accept it.

  5. #25
    The Lightbringer Storm the Sorrow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Pleasure Planet
    Posts
    3,704
    Quote Originally Posted by Jester Joe View Post
    I would just reply back that to your comment, the answer is also obvious.

    They didn't want to give paladins an extra title based on their spec. No other class got that, nor would it make sense to have a prot paladin running around as "The Ashbringer". Also, Tirion was known as Highlord, and not Tirion the Ashbringer.

    Also, when it comes to the Artifact flavor text, they are usually referencing the past for the most of them. So in this case, when it says "over time the blade and wielder became to be known as one", by "the wielder", it could very well mean just Alexandros. Alternatively, we haven't been wielding the weapon that long.
    Would that make your rebuttal hold any credibility? Answer may indeed be obvious.

    No other class did receive such shitty, pathetic, awful, gutwrenchingly terribad mobility but paladins. Dies it make a lot of sense? Does our class mount make a lot of sense? Yet the one who wields the Ashbringer is the Ashbringer, and this holds true and makes sense from lore standpoint. Why not give Retribution a proper title? Because "no other class did receive such treatment"? Why yes indeed, no other class or spec was ever treated like Retribution. That's what makes us special.

    Also, you are purposefully ignoring the Alexandros Mograine point.
    Alternatively, we could be till wet behind ears to be called "Highlord".
    Be wary of the ones who yell: "Off with the satire!", for trash is always displeased with the broom.

    Please refrain from speaking your mind or having an opinion.

    This signature holds no images yet violates signature rules.

  6. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Storm the Sorrow View Post
    Would that make your rebuttal hold any credibility? Answer may indeed be obvious.

    No other class did receive such shitty, pathetic, awful, gutwrenchingly terribad mobility but paladins. Dies it make a lot of sense? Does our class mount make a lot of sense? Yet the one who wields the Ashbringer is the Ashbringer, and this holds true and makes sense from lore standpoint. Why not give Retribution a proper title? Because "no other class did receive such treatment"? Why yes indeed, no other class or spec was ever treated like Retribution. That's what makes us special.

    Also, you are purposefully ignoring the Alexandros Mograine point.
    Alternatively, we could be till wet behind ears to be called "Highlord".
    Class balance has absolutely nothing to do with titles, completely irrelevant. Far easier to keep the titles balanced than it is classes. Also, you're ignoring that if you gave Ret an "the Ashbringer" title, there's nothing to stop a Prot paladin from using that title. Class specific titles exist, but there are no class specific ones and I imagine they don't exactly have a way to implement that at the moment. Which isn't very accurate to the lore, since you have to wield the Ashbringer to BE the Ashbringer.

    And I'm not, I pointed out that Tirion wasn't called Ashbringer despite wielding the Ashbringer for far longer than us, which calls in the "over time the blade and wielder became to be known as one".

  7. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Jester Joe View Post
    I would just reply back that to your comment, the answer is also obvious.

    They didn't want to give paladins an extra title based on their spec. No other class got that, nor would it make sense to have a prot paladin running around as "The Ashbringer". Also, Tirion was known as Highlord, and not Tirion the Ashbringer.

    Also, when it comes to the Artifact flavor text, they are usually referencing the past for the most of them. So in this case, when it says "over time the blade and wielder became to be known as one", by "the wielder", it could very well mean just Alexandros. Alternatively, we haven't been wielding the weapon that long.
    While I don't agree with him, I will say that another class has an extra title they earn with their spec. Restoration Druids earn Guardian of G'hanir.
    http://www.wowhead.com/title=475/guardian-of-ghanir

  8. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Sixnalia View Post
    While I don't agree with him, I will say that another class has an extra title they earn with their spec. Restoration Druids earn Guardian of G'hanir.
    http://www.wowhead.com/title=475/guardian-of-ghanir
    Well then.

    Is it usable cross spec? That's interesting.

  9. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Jester Joe View Post
    Well then.

    Is it usable cross spec? That's interesting.
    Yeah, it's usable across each spec. I assume it is because in-game and I guess in-lore, you wield every weapon. So while you may be using the Claws, you're still the wielder of G'hanir.
    Last edited by Sixnalia; 2017-07-01 at 08:34 PM.

  10. #30
    The Lightbringer Lothaeryn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Maryland, U.S.
    Posts
    3,967
    Quote Originally Posted by Talvindius View Post
    OP you forget that Turalyon has a great weapon himself, he has Lothar's broken sword. He used it to beat Doomhammer.

    He doesn't need our pathetic Ashbringer when he himself has the DOOMSLAYER tm.
    Considering the Light is literally his weapon made manifest to complete a broken sword, the Ashbringer is just a trinket in comparison.

    Though I imagine if Turalyon wielded the Ashbringer and channeled the light through it, half of the legion army would have been turned to cinders before he even cut someone with it.
    Fod Sparta los wuth, ahrk okaaz gekenlok kruziik himdah, dinok fent kos rozol do daan wah jer do Samos. Ahrk haar do Heracles fent motaad, fah strunmah vonun fent yolein ko yol
    .

  11. #31
    Pit Lord Eurytos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dirty South
    Posts
    2,339
    Quote Originally Posted by Zapanth View Post
    This whole thread about us not deserving Ashbringer and it needing to be displayed in the order hall is silly. Laugh worthy, even. Hey guys the legion is invading so we're going to display the most powerful paladin weapon in our order hall collecting dust cause of reasons. Im happy that we got Ashbringer, nay, I was, and still am in awe of this blade! To give ret pallies any other weapon that wasn't ashbringer wouldn't have worked for so many reasons. If you don't want the ashbringer play another class or spec. Or mog out of it. Problem solved.
    Of course I log out of it. Doesn't solve the story telling problem I believe exists. Nor the fact that it cheapens it. Giving ret a different artifact would make complete sense...if you tell a good story, possibly one like I've mentioned.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Camet View Post
    I don't normally post on forums cause I see most as cancer, but this one...just wow. From a lore prospective, Your character is the only one walking around with the Ashbringer. Seeing everyone else with it is because it is a GAME. The single player aspect is the lore part. And on the who makes up the raids in lore to kill the bosses....it is generally accepted that it is a conglomeration on who kills the boss (some horde and alliance working together for legion) Several of the books reference the game and "groups of unnamed heros" combating the forces that attack Azaroth. If you cant see past the fact that the MMO part shows a bunch of people on your screen with the same gear/weapon as you or another NPC....then maybe MMOs are not for you.
    This is kinda my point. First, lore-wise, this is incorrect. Second, everyone having it, in game, cheapens it.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Jester Joe View Post
    Do you have a blue post stating the game is not canon?
    Nice trick...I think the claim was made first that it was. Burden is on you to prove it.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Jester Joe View Post
    Malfurion, who was defeated by a Shade of Xavius.
    Illidan, who was defeated by the group of adventures that Mehman mentioned.
    Thrall, who is just an normal orc at this point, since he has no shamanistic powers at the moment.

    I don't understand what you're trying to prove here.
    Illidan was killed by Maeiv. Malfurion wasn't killed, Thrall is hardly just a normal orc, you're making things up. To say that a single adventurer is as powerful as any single hero of warcraft is ridiculous, is my point. Made clear by the fact that even if the game was canon it takes anywhere from 10-30 of us to defeat said bad guy. Heroes of Warcraft, as a single hero, have done far more powerful things on their own than we ever could. Read any of the books, you'll see this.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Jester Joe View Post

    I think the real question is, when do we become a sword, or when do we start to identify as a sword
    Alexandros Mograine is The Ashbringer. This is not debatable. The sword wasn't named upon its making. It was named for what it did to enemies, when Mograine used it. The naming of the weapon and the man are linked, not one before the other.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Talvindius View Post
    OP you forget that Turalyon has a great weapon himself, he has Lothar's broken sword. He used it to beat Doomhammer.

    He doesn't need our pathetic Ashbringer when he himself has the DOOMSLAYER tm.
    Uhhh, this is kinda my whole point. A better story would have been that we take up that sword after Turalyon went missing, it ties in with everything happening this expac, all the way up to meeting Turalyon on Argus. All while not cheapening the Ashbringer. Which was also my point.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by iFool View Post
    If only Fordring would have merged with the Ashbringer, revealing that the Wake of Ashes is a path the wielder of the blade must walk until he becomes one with the collective will of those who brought Ashes before him (all two of them).

    But alas. Dead to Krosus.
    This is another option. I think there is a lot of potential with a story and a weapon related to Fordring and his sacrifice. I like the Turalyon story better, but this coulda worked too.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by jasontheking1234 View Post

    No, we're canon. You just refuse to accept it.
    Once again, claims being made with no proof. Blizz decides what's canon. Not us, not wowwiki, not wowhead. Please present some proof, and I will accept it.There are massive problems with the idea that players in game are somehow part of the canon. By its very definition, something that is canon cannot fluctuate the way that the game does. It doesn't make logical sense.

    In the books, when adventurers are referred to...its obviously never by name...why would some no name adventurers be given the Ashbringer in lore and canon? This would be a terrible story. It is a terrible story.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Lothaeryn View Post
    Considering the Light is literally his weapon made manifest to complete a broken sword, the Ashbringer is just a trinket in comparison.

    Though I imagine if Turalyon wielded the Ashbringer and channeled the light through it, half of the legion army would have been turned to cinders before he even cut someone with it.

    I'm not sure I agree. Nonetheless, this CERTAINLY cheapens the iconic stature of the Ashbringer. Not really a buttress to the arguments being made against my position.
    http://us.battle.net/wow/en/characte...rytos/advanced

    If there's one thing I'm not, it's in control.

  12. #32
    I am Murloc! jasontheking1234's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    The Core of my World.
    Posts
    5,486
    Why would no names be given the Ashbringer?

    Cause, if they were given a name, then everyone that isn't named after that 1 named person would complain...

    Cause, everyone must be a "Special Snowflake" for some reason....

  13. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by Eurytos View Post
    Nice trick...I think the claim was made first that it was. Burden is on you to prove it.
    Except in game events are clearly canon.

    Like pointed out, Tirion's death as one example.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eurytos View Post
    Illidan was killed by Maeiv. Malfurion wasn't killed, Thrall is hardly just a normal orc, you're making things up. To say that a single adventurer is as powerful as any single hero of warcraft is ridiculous, is my point. Made clear by the fact that even if the game was canon it takes anywhere from 10-30 of us to defeat said bad guy. Heroes of Warcraft, as a single hero, have done far more powerful things on their own than we ever could. Read any of the books, you'll see this.
    Maeiv took the final blow, but even the Light's Heart Scenario shows he was mostly defeated by a group of adventures.

    Have you played a shaman this expansion? Doomhammer has forsaken Thrall. The elements no longer answer him. He is, by all means, a normal orc at this point. Roll an Enhancement Shaman and see.

    And not really? I mean, the only thing that comes to mind is Varian killing Onyxia basically alone. The rest are either assisted (Thrall and the Dragon Soul), or something that's not even really a feat of strength and more of just last ditch effort (Tirion breaking Frostmourne).

  14. #34
    Pit Lord Eurytos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dirty South
    Posts
    2,339
    Quote Originally Posted by Jester Joe View Post
    Except in game events are clearly canon.

    Like pointed out, Tirion's death as one example.



    Maeiv took the final blow, but even the Light's Heart Scenario shows he was mostly defeated by a group of adventures.

    Have you played a shaman this expansion? Doomhammer has forsaken Thrall. The elements no longer answer him. He is, by all means, a normal orc at this point. Roll an Enhancement Shaman and see.

    And not really? I mean, the only thing that comes to mind is Varian killing Onyxia basically alone. The rest are either assisted (Thrall and the Dragon Soul), or something that's not even really a feat of strength and more of just last ditch effort (Tirion breaking Frostmourne).
    Just because events that happen in game can be canon, doesn't mean that all things that happen in game are. Specific events here and there, I agree. But its a slippery path to go down if you're saying every thing is canon. I mean, the caverns of time alone presents significant problems. Shall we go back and change the entire war of the ancients?

    Which brings me to my next point, dude, the war of the ancients, the things malfurion, illidan, tyrande did back then. Medivh, Khadgar, other Guardians, far more powerful. Regular non-guardian mages like Jaina, Antonidas, all more powerful. Plenty more to name and the things they did. There are books about this...which are in fact canon.

    In regards to thrall specifically, while 'm not very attached to shamans the way I am paladins, I might think many shamans had some real issues with Doomhammer being given to every tom, dick, and harry who rolled a shaman. As far as the story of the Doomhammer(by the way, another weapon and person named for each other) forsaking him, thats interesting, though I still don't think it makes thrall an ordinary orc. Before he was a shaman, he was trained by Orgrim, so he's a feirce warrior in his own right. Less powerful, sure. Regular orc, I don't think so.

    - - - Updated - - -

    I would also point out that much has been retconned. In this light, I guess I could be wrong about some things. I know that pretty much the only things one could guarantee are canon at this point are the Chronicle books. Even still, I don't think its possible to make the argument that everything we do in game, as a champion/adventurer can be claimed as canon. Canon, by its very nature, is supposed to have some semblance of rigidity. It can't just change on a whim. Otherwise, why call it canon? And the game, has to be malleable. It's got to change. I quite enjoy going back in time, doing all sorts of crazy things, knowing they don't truly affect the canon, but are fun things to play in the World of Warcraft. I can keep them separate in my mind just fine.
    http://us.battle.net/wow/en/characte...rytos/advanced

    If there's one thing I'm not, it's in control.

  15. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by Eurytos View Post
    Of course I log out of it. Doesn't solve the story telling problem I believe exists. Nor the fact that it cheapens it. Giving ret a different artifact would make complete sense...if you tell a good story, possibly one like I've mentioned.

    - - - Updated - - -



    This is kinda my point. First, lore-wise, this is incorrect. Second, everyone having it, in game, cheapens it.

    - - - Updated - - -



    Nice trick...I think the claim was made first that it was. Burden is on you to prove it.

    - - - Updated - - -



    Illidan was killed by Maeiv. Malfurion wasn't killed, Thrall is hardly just a normal orc, you're making things up. To say that a single adventurer is as powerful as any single hero of warcraft is ridiculous, is my point. Made clear by the fact that even if the game was canon it takes anywhere from 10-30 of us to defeat said bad guy. Heroes of Warcraft, as a single hero, have done far more powerful things on their own than we ever could. Read any of the books, you'll see this.

    - - - Updated - - -



    Alexandros Mograine is The Ashbringer. This is not debatable. The sword wasn't named upon its making. It was named for what it did to enemies, when Mograine used it. The naming of the weapon and the man are linked, not one before the other.

    - - - Updated - - -



    Uhhh, this is kinda my whole point. A better story would have been that we take up that sword after Turalyon went missing, it ties in with everything happening this expac, all the way up to meeting Turalyon on Argus. All while not cheapening the Ashbringer. Which was also my point.

    - - - Updated - - -



    This is another option. I think there is a lot of potential with a story and a weapon related to Fordring and his sacrifice. I like the Turalyon story better, but this coulda worked too.

    - - - Updated - - -



    Once again, claims being made with no proof. Blizz decides what's canon. Not us, not wowwiki, not wowhead. Please present some proof, and I will accept it.There are massive problems with the idea that players in game are somehow part of the canon. By its very definition, something that is canon cannot fluctuate the way that the game does. It doesn't make logical sense.

    In the books, when adventurers are referred to...its obviously never by name...why would some no name adventurers be given the Ashbringer in lore and canon? This would be a terrible story. It is a terrible story.

    - - - Updated - - -




    I'm not sure I agree. Nonetheless, this CERTAINLY cheapens the iconic stature of the Ashbringer. Not really a buttress to the arguments being made against my position.
    they named the ashebringer before it was even a sword when they purified the crystal they got a vision that it would be a sword call the ashebringer. this is in both the ashbringer comic and ingame quest.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Eurytos View Post
    Just because events that happen in game can be canon, doesn't mean that all things that happen in game are. Specific events here and there, I agree. But its a slippery path to go down if you're saying every thing is canon. I mean, the caverns of time alone presents significant problems. Shall we go back and change the entire war of the ancients?

    Which brings me to my next point, dude, the war of the ancients, the things malfurion, illidan, tyrande did back then. Medivh, Khadgar, other Guardians, far more powerful. Regular non-guardian mages like Jaina, Antonidas, all more powerful. Plenty more to name and the things they did. There are books about this...which are in fact canon.

    In regards to thrall specifically, while 'm not very attached to shamans the way I am paladins, I might think many shamans had some real issues with Doomhammer being given to every tom, dick, and harry who rolled a shaman. As far as the story of the Doomhammer(by the way, another weapon and person named for each other) forsaking him, thats interesting, though I still don't think it makes thrall an ordinary orc. Before he was a shaman, he was trained by Orgrim, so he's a feirce warrior in his own right. Less powerful, sure. Regular orc, I don't think so.

    - - - Updated - - -

    I would also point out that much has been retconned. In this light, I guess I could be wrong about some things. I know that pretty much the only things one could guarantee are canon at this point are the Chronicle books. Even still, I don't think its possible to make the argument that everything we do in game, as a champion/adventurer can be claimed as canon. Canon, by its very nature, is supposed to have some semblance of rigidity. It can't just change on a whim. Otherwise, why call it canon? And the game, has to be malleable. It's got to change. I quite enjoy going back in time, doing all sorts of crazy things, knowing they don't truly affect the canon, but are fun things to play in the World of Warcraft. I can keep them separate in my mind just fine.
    i'm pretty sure cannon wise there are 1 of each class that have gone though all the events of wow, in the illidan novel it mentions the adventures fighting illlidan but it never mentions there race or faction so for all we know its a mix group of both.

  16. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by Eurytos View Post

    Once again, claims being made with no proof. Blizz decides what's canon. Not us, not wowwiki, not wowhead. Please present some proof, and I will accept it.There are massive problems with the idea that players in game are somehow part of the canon. By its very definition, something that is canon cannot fluctuate the way that the game does. It doesn't make logical sense.


    Directly from the Dev interview, on front page of mmo-champ: " Players often say they miss being a humble adventurer, rather than being a hero and champion. The story has advanced beyond that. When you are Level 90 or 100, you aren't just a faceless person anymore. You have defeated Onyxia, defeated the Lich King, defeated other great threats to the world, so you are becoming a peer to other heroes like Thrall, Jaina, and Varian. As we get stronger, the threats we face get stronger. At the same time, the team tries to keep in mind relative power scales. When we took on Deathwing, we had the assistance of the dragon aspects to make it a fair fight."

    There, you can accept it now.

  17. #37
    I think artifacts in general should've been customisable items unique to every player rather than immersion-shattering canon weapons with preexisting story significance. Let us make our own sword, give it our own name, and have our own story to go with it. There are so many things about the way artifacts were handled from a narrative perspective that cater to the player power fantasy on the absolute shallowest level.

  18. #38
    Honestly it baffles me that Blizzard turns Order Hall bodyguards into generic ''Silver Hand Knight'' but didn't make it look like everyone except the player wielded generic weapons.
    ''The man who tells the tale is the one who decides history, he tells it wrong, and you have nothing more than a pretty story, he tells it right, and you have a legacy, you want a story told right, you ask someone who helped make it happen...''

  19. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by Iconja View Post
    Honestly it baffles me that Blizzard turns Order Hall bodyguards into generic ''Silver Hand Knight'' but didn't make it look like everyone except the player wielded generic weapons.
    Would ruin the point of getting prestigious/rare artifact skins.

    Also, there's a bit difference between just changing the name, and changing the appearance (The bodyguard still looks the same)

  20. #40
    Pit Lord Eurytos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dirty South
    Posts
    2,339
    Quote Originally Posted by Fairchild View Post
    Directly from the Dev interview, on front page of mmo-champ: " Players often say they miss being a humble adventurer, rather than being a hero and champion. The story has advanced beyond that. When you are Level 90 or 100, you aren't just a faceless person anymore. You have defeated Onyxia, defeated the Lich King, defeated other great threats to the world, so you are becoming a peer to other heroes like Thrall, Jaina, and Varian. As we get stronger, the threats we face get stronger. At the same time, the team tries to keep in mind relative power scales. When we took on Deathwing, we had the assistance of the dragon aspects to make it a fair fight."

    There, you can accept it now.
    This isn't an entirely fair representation of the claims made about players and canon. And this particular quote doesn't necessarily even address the issue of canon, merely pointing out the things we have done in game. I might even say, due to the amount of changes made, retcons, etc. there isn't a real canon for the Warcraft universe. The story changes as Blizzard sees fit. Which they have every right to do, it is their story.

    Though, it is clearly a representation of our relative power. We are more powerful than I originally thought we were, granted. I'm not entirely sure how I feel about that. I think I am on the side of these players who enjoy being an adventurer, maybe known through out our given kingdoms as great champions, but not on the level as the big name heroes of Warcraft. Mainly because I think it has a negative effect on story telling. I.E my view on canon and the story being told.
    http://us.battle.net/wow/en/characte...rytos/advanced

    If there's one thing I'm not, it's in control.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •