Battle for Lordaeron Lore [spoilers]

[Arrashi]

My replies are snappy, to the point - not a whole page.

- - - Updated - - -



I refer to my answer above - try again.

Also, I do actually read mehrune's comments I've just already answered them elsewhere in the thread, I kinda just really hate repeating myself - also I really enjoy typing tl;dr

Is that so ?

I never read your replies, TL: DR and all that

Could that be beggining of some split personality ?

[Mehrunes]

This is going to keep going on, you clearly have an opinion of me (however wrong it may be) and I of you (though mine just is built from observation)

What a happy and convenient coincidence that things happen to be this way Obviously only you are capable of forming opinions on other posters based on your experiences. After all, someone as clairvoyant as you is bound to reach enlightenment.

now you are just forcing, he have way more claim than her most because he is a citizen of lordaeron and a high member of the alliance

He was a citizen of a hereditary monarchy. He has zero claim to it.

I said they do not want immortality. You said it wasn't true. I proved you it is true and that many, among the "not all", harbor reservations towards the goals she had set.

You've been proven to not have actually read it at all and are now moving goalposts. If you haven't read something or perhaps can't remember things, then you could at least look it up prior to commenting or at least not continue making the same claims.

Except what @Friendlyimmolation said was that not all of them want it, in a reply to your post in which you said that "they" (when referring to Council) disagree with her. It was a perfectly correct counter argument to what you disgraced MMO-C's servers with.

And the quote you gave SUPPORTED his post. So how on earth has he been proven to not have actually read it? Do enlighten me. Especially since the quote did the exact opposite in regards to the one he was arguing against. Because the quote said that it's not "they" that disagreed with Sylvanas, but "some of them". It also still mentions how they have reservations about this, not that they outright reject it.

This is new lows in reading comprehension and new heights in dishonest goalpost-moving, straw-manning squirming devoid of self-awareness and pretending words mean other things that they do, even for you. I mean, in the last sentence you're describing yourself and nothing in that sentence applies to Friendly in this context. The quote you offered to support your claim outright shows that. How can you with straight face pretend it's the other way around? Do you have no shame whatsoever?

What... the city was lost to the Scourge... then the Nathrezim got it... and she took it from the Nathrezim with the aide of Garithos. The city's been sacked and taken over more than once since the Alliance of Lordaeron's fall. I'd say someone conquering a fallen kingdom and instating their own leadership in an area does get more claim than some noble from a fallen nation who was part of a house NOT from the bloodline of a king.

I think our real world idea of possession can be used just as effectively here. She's currently sitting as the ruler and has forces to hold it. Makes for a better claim than "My family lived there once and I wasn't a peasant".... That's sort of what "but he's from a noble family of lordaeron" is.

Exactly this. Another example of upvote button being needed.

by logic, the person with the high rank in the noble and military area of lordaeron, can claim the leadership, all legit. If there is no king, the most high rank noble would rise as king, regent or ruler. Just like it happened with Garithos, he was the guy with most rank and took the leadership

This could be valid to both forsaken and living, With the princess saying she don't care anymore, the leadership should be to the nest high rank noble.

of course, all hypothetical, but at least i can see Turalyon in this way, and would not say he is all wrong.

Except Garithos took leadership of the Alliance of Lordaeron. Because it was a military organization and he was the highest ranked military member that survived the onslaught. That is utterly irrelevant to claims to Kingdom of Lordaeron.

How does saying "they" and then quoting a paragraph which says "many", clearly relating the two with eachother, mean all? What you think as to what I intended to say is different from what I actually said. They clearly addresses those who disagree.

When the subject of the earlier posts was the Desolate Council and you don't clarify you're not talking about about all of them, "they" refers to the subject (that was the Council) because context is a thing and because that's how language fucking works.

Because the way she created a majority that supports her invalidates her claim. It is a claim based on killing of those who had a claim, but were murdered because they wouldn't want her.

That majority would have existed regardless of whether or not Garithos was alive, so this is still an abomination of a point.

Also, if the fanfic of anduin marring Callia happens? this would make Anduin the rightfull owner of lordaeron? unifying the kingdoms ?

geez more deep we look more weird become.

Marrying someone of royal blood doesn't transfer their claims onto their spouse. Their children may have a claim on Lordaeron (that has already fallen), but even that depends on whether or not Calia actually has any right to the throne. And we don't know if Lordaeron allowed women to inherit.

[Captain Douchebag]

My replies are snappy, to the point - not a whole page.

Your replies are quite often silly one-liners that don't really address the points you're quoting. But sure, if you want to label that "snappy, and to the point" in an attempt to paint yourself in a better light, go for it.

Honestly the main reason I don't reply to Mehrune's is because I still haven't figured out the snip thing

One way to do it is to press "reply with quote", and replace the text between the brackets with "-snip-".

[Arrashi]

No I was shitposting Arrashi - I mean I could have MPD but I think I'd know by now. I'm pretty sure it's just me

- - - Updated - - -

Okay let me rephrase, I read the comments about me cause ego etc

Honestly the main reason I don't reply to Mehrune's is because I still haven't figured out the snip thing

Oh man, this is getting better and better.

One way to do it is to press "reply with quote", and replace the text between the brackets with "-snip-".

Now, why would you do this ? It would take him ages to figure it out on his own. You ruined it !

[Mehrunes]

replay the storyline. Sylvanas wasn't present for the taking over of lordaeron or the raising of Kel'thuzad. The only living people she ordered dead were garithos (and the implied killing of his forces that would obviously follow, unclear on how much of them were left since we only see his forces getting pressed by Detheroc (?) and some ironforge reinforcements).

The way you're making things out is more similar to Deathwing's handling of the human lands. Manipulating every angle to put themself on top. She only killed the dreadlords, attacked Arthas, and order Garithos and his forces dead while displaying a great lack of interest in anything that didn't help her some how attain vengeance.

Replaying wouldn't achieve squat here. In Magnagarde's alt-fact world of fanfiction and Universal Values™ it was mostly Sylvanas that razed Lordaeron. Hell, it was probably Arthas that was enslaved by her.

Yeah, because saying "they" and then quoting a paragraph which says "many" and "not all" clearly means I want to say that.

Except the post by Friendly you're having a tantrum about was a reply to a post of yours that didn't even use the word "many". That was a post earlier. Not that it would have been much better, because the word in which you talked about "many" talked about how said "many" referred to people disagreeing with Sylvanas and not the Desolate Council. The Desoalte Council in that post was only used as a cause for the "many" disagreeing with Sylvanas. I.e. you phrased it in a way that implied that it was many Forsaken who disagreed with Sylvanas.

You engaged in word and lore bending to forge your headcanon. You were called out on it. Own up to your bullshit instead of trying to further falsify reality.

Which also happen to be from Lordaeron and part of the nation which apparently chose her to lead them, except they didn't because she had them killed off.

Most of the nation chose her. Do you think leaders are only legitimate if they have unanimous support? Whoopty doo, Varian didn't have that. What a tyrant /s

Nevermind that this remnant force was going to be destroyed regardless of her actions because the leadership was running it into the ground. They only got into the city because of her to begin with.

And never mind the fact that the Forsaken outnumbered them. Or that they supported killing Garithos' force too. Hell, the Forsaken outnumber all living human survivors combined. Speaking of whom, given how at the time of Sylvanas' ascension to queen she didn't kill any other living survivors to enforce unanimous support (since when is that even a requirement) even though none of them supported her either, Magnagarde's narrative is beyond worthless.

Back to the majorities and whatnot, the only other group that could potentially "outvote" the Forsaken was the half of Scourge forces that remained bound to the Lich King. But given how Sylvanas led a successful rebellion against them and her claim rested on said success of said rebellion, their view was obviously irrelevant because of the whole point of rebelling.

I never read your replies, TL: DR and all that

Yeah, 15 paragraphs (with only 9 directed at you) is immense length.

[Captain Douchebag]

Now, why would you do this ? It would take him ages to figure it out on his own. You ruined it !

I was hoping it would get him to, you know, actually respond to the people he quotes.

Sorry if I ruined your fun.

[Mehrunes]

No you didn't, you put a meaningless comment on a day old argument no one cares about anymore. The Alliance playerbase isn't bloodthirsty, but me saying that doesn't matter because you won't agree.

You had Alliance posters justifying conquest of Horde for reasons that aren't even supported by lore in this very thread...

I was arguing against the notion that the Alliance playerbase are somehow a bunch of creeps when it was the Horde playerbase getting mad when they covered Sylvannas' skin up - I'm not sure how that's so difficult to grasp if you actually read it and not just skimmed which I imagine is what you must do to lead you to such half-baked arguments.

Things like creating headcanon for more than a decade (even when it's not necessary like when you want to make an argument about Sylvanas committing evil acts) and constantly throwing a tantrum about it when confronted (even with sources disproving said headcanon) or saying that the Horde must be wiped out (also for more than a decade), or claims that Horde players are evil people IRL, i.e. what many, many Alliance posters engage in here, is indeed more creepy than people complaining about Sylvanas' armor change for a while.

Which you still haven't supported to be a Horde thing. Given how most of it revolved around PC in gaming thing, good luck with that.

Are you talking about the actual Alliance or it's playerbase? Do you know where you are? How are you typing? Nothing you're saying makes sense I'm afraid

Maybe it's an elaborate debating strategy

You write meaningless nonsense like that and it's @Tauror that makes no sense?

One can't really make this up.

I'm really starting to wonder if some posters are of a different species. Like, I dunno, hobgoblins.

My replies are snappy, to the point - not a whole page.

Given how I'm replying to multiple posts at once, so are mine. The longest reply I wrote to a single point was like 6 lines long. If someone has trouble with that amount of text, I can only wish them luck in finishing the first grade.

Your replies are quite often silly one-liners that don't really address the points you're quoting. But sure, if you want to label that "snappy, and to the point" in an attempt to paint yourself in a better light, go for it.

Well, it's not like anyone ever said that people forming alt-fact safe-spaces on the lore forum can apply only them to the actual lore.

[Arrashi]

I was hoping it would get him to, you know, actually respond to the people he quotes.

Sorry if I ruined your fun.

Oh well, i guess its not a total loss. Now he will post even more of his "insightful" responses.

[Aucald]

She killed the Lordaeron's living that fought alongside her to have their home back, breaking the deal she made with them.

If you mean Grand Marshal Garithos and his battalion, recall Garithos' first words on he and Sylvanas gaining victory over Balnazzar and reclaiming Capitol City - he demanded that she and Forsaken, who he personally viewed as no better than the Scourge despite Sylvanas freeing him and his men from Detheroc, leave the place and never return. Garithos being Garithos, he was instantly prejudiced and bigoted against the Forsaken (just as he was all non-humans), and would've never permitted the Forsaken the right to resettle their own lands and live their altered unlives in peace. I do agree that Sylvanas broke her "deal" with Garithos, but given the nature of the deal and the nature of the man it was made with, I can hardly be moved to see that as a bad thing. It could even be argued that breaking the deal was truly in the best interests of the Forsaken, even though Sylvanas' immediate reasons for doing so were as always self-interested and personal.

My reply was also strictly addressing the fact that it was said how the Forsaken are from Lordaeron, whereas the most striking figure of them actually isn't. The ones who disagree with her or do not follow her orders end up like Koltira and those who helped liberate Lordaeron have been killed by her.

Doesn't really matter where she's from or her species if the people choose her - and, rightly or wrongly, choose her they did. I'm not arguing that Sylvanas is a perfect leader (she most certainly isn't) only that she's the legitimate and chosen leader of the Forsaken, who in turn are the legitimate and original denizens of Lordaeron proper. She doesn't force the adulation of the Forsaken with threats, tyranny, or violence as she's never needed to. This may change in the events of "Before the Storm" with the rise of this Desolate Council as a seemingly competing body of leadership, but that remains to be seen.

[Jastall]

I believe that the only way to move things forward in this regard is to actually create more than two factions. Let the Horde and the Alliance fight eachother, but let these other factions pursue their own goals and agendas too.

That would certainly have solved some story problems. Night Elves in particular have no business even being in the Alliance has I see it, and the link of other races like Forsaken and Blood Elves to their faction is tenuous at best and grounded more in gameplay needs than on in-universe logic. Allied Races are just another example of this, especially Nightborne and Void Elves.

Gameplay-wise, it's obviously way too impractical at this point to implement more factions. But if I had my way with the lore there would probably be 4; the Horde of Orcs, Trolls, Taurens and Goblins, the Alliance of Humans, Dwarfs, Gnomes, a faction of Night Elves, Draenei and Worgen, and a final faction of Forsaken, Blood Elves and... something else. Vrykul maybe.

[Syegfryed]

He was a citizen of a hereditary monarchy. He has zero claim to it.

more claim than a high elf from another kindom, thats for sure, but again, he is the person with the most high noble and military rank

Except Garithos took leadership of the Alliance of Lordaeron. Because it was a military organization and he was the highest ranked military member that survived the onslaught. That is utterly irrelevant to claims to Kingdom of Lordaeron.

i don't know man, he took leadership of the alliance but also the leadership of the remnants lordaeron itself first, thats how he got support of the other alliance members. without the monarchy in a kingdom its a bit obvious that the Leadership should go to parents of the monarchy, those absent, for the guy with the most noble rank. Thats how work in real world monarchy too.

Marrying someone of royal blood doesn't transfer their claims onto their spouse. Their children may have a claim on Lordaeron (that has already fallen), but even that depends on whether or not Calia actually has any right to the throne. And we don't know if Lordaeron allowed women to inherit.

yeah, i think the son would have the claim, still weird for me.

But Women are allowed to inherit, first, because blizz would not want to look sexist, and second because sh said she don't want the kingdom anymore, then she could do it.

[Deleted]

more claim than a high elf from another kindom, thats for sure, but again, he is the person with the most high noble and military rank

That's not how claims work. The Napoleons have the same claim on the Kingdom of France as the Bourbons, yet their dynasty came from a minor and modest Corsican family. Again, the Rule of Might it's what defines the claims or not.

[Syegfryed]

That's not how claims work. .

thats how claims can work, not always

[Deleted]

i don't know man, he took leadership of the alliance but also the leadership of the remnants lordaeron itself first, thats how he got support of the other alliance members. without the monarchy in a kingdom its a bit obvious that the Leadership should go to parents of the monarchy, those absent, for the guy with the most noble rank. Thats how work in real world monarchy too.

Actually, you just wrote the scenario of many dynastic and sucession wars that happened in real history. It really doesn't work like that.

thats how claims can work, not always

No, it's always.

Sylvanas and the Forsaken are pretty much the same as Lenin and the Bolsheviks. Were the Romanovs' claims valid? Sure, but the Soviet Union was recognized by the Rule of Might by pretty much the entire world.

[Syegfryed]

Actually, you just wrote the scenario of many dynastic and sucession wars that happened in real history. It really doesn't work like that.

so, it happened many times, but don't work like that? im confused

No, it's always.

Sylvanas and the Forsaken are pretty much the same as Lenin and the Bolsheviks. Were the Romanovs' claims valid? Sure, but the Soviet Union was recognized by the Rule of Might by pretty much the entire world.

im saying the claim can work for the most high noble rank, if we are talking about who have more claim in the "legal sense"

i know they have the rule of myght and the right of the conqueror.

[Deleted]

so, it happened many times, but don't work like that? im confused

When there wasn't a direct heir, that throne became disputed by many "claimants", leading to countless European wars.

im saying the claim can work for the most high noble rank, if we are talking about who have more claim in the "legal sense"

i know they have the rule of myght and the right of the conqueror.

There is no "high noble rank", the claims are dynastic or by right of conquest.

This is what happens when there is no "rightful heir":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_succession

[Syegfryed]

When there wasn't a direct heir, that throne became disputed by many "claimants", leading to countless European wars.

yes, and these claimants are from the noble houses most of time.

There is no "high noble rank", the claims are dynastic or by right of conquest.

This is what happens when there is no "rightful heir":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_succession

well... i know... and thats what im trying to say, there is no such thing of 'rightful heir" or "rightful claim" that forsaken say to have, if it they have, other lordaeron citizens could have the claim as well.

If there is no more heirs of the menethil, the "claimants" are the noble houses, win who have the most high rank with the better influence and military, the forsaken win by conquering the kingdom.

[Magnagarde]

yes, and these claimants are from the noble houses most of time.




well... i know... and thats what im trying to say, there is no such thing of 'rightful heir" or "rightful claim" that forsaken say to have, if it they have, other lordaeron citizens could have the claim as well.

If there is no more heirs of the menethil, the "claimants" are the noble houses, win who have the most high rank with the better influence and military, the forsaken win by conquering the kingdom.

Indeed; people seem to be talking about "rightful claims" and then justify that by bringing up military might and conquest. Those two do not go together.

Bottom line is that they're losing Lordaeron the same way they've taken it, through conquest.

[Deleted]

If there is no more heirs of the menethil, the "claimants" are the noble houses, win who have the most high rank with the better influence and military, the forsaken win by conquering the kingdom.

No, if there are no heirs of the Menethils, it goes back to the Menethil dysnatic tree and to the first branch house, following it down to the surviving heir.

[Combatbutler]

Man Tirisfal looks even more wrecked than usually XD

https://twitter.com/MrGMYT/status/957688157188870146