So answet ro q about who tells Vol'Jin to put Sylvanas as a warchief is simple...

[tyrlaan]

Exactly, especially as it leaves more plotholes than a ton of Swiss cheese and poses more questions than it answers

What are the plot holes?

I've honestly assumed since the day I first experienced the events at the Wrathgate that Sylvanas had to have had some level of knowledge or involvement in it.

It doesn't make sense in any conext, that she staged and acted out it the whole time. The coup from Varimathras almost got herself killed and lost her Forsaken and Lordaeron, if it wasn't for the Horde saving her after it happened. Sylvanas might be evil, shady and cunning, but braindead, not seeing the obvious red flags from Putress and Varimathras? Even she isn't that stupid.

Or... she was smart enough to know that she would be okay because the rest of the Horde would have her back since she had scapegoats.

Except it's not a retcon, we were never given any proof that she didn't do it, nor any confirmation from Blizzard that she didn't do it... All we ever had was her word that she didn't do it, which of course she would say she didn't.

Retconning something requires changing something that was previously canon, this doesn't do that, it just fills in missing information to reveal something that was previously unclear.

I'm convinced there are very few people on this forum that know what a retcon actually is or what the word means. It's become as useless a term as "Mary Sue".

[Deleted]

Are you one of those people that thinks Sylvanas wasn't a bad person before BFA? Because she was, extremely... She's the one who ordered the creation of the Blight used at the Wrathgate in the first place, and that IS canon, and has been since vanilla, and all the way back in vanilla the quests that held that information detailed it's intended use as 'the rest of Azeroth" and "Plaguing an entire world".

If you think it doesn't make sense, you haven't been paying much attention to her actions.

No, you're twisting my words on purpose for some reason. Just because we know she created the Blight and just because we don't know definitively (in lore) if she ordered it or not, it does not change the fact that it would NOT make sense for her to have done. See? Just becuase it would be an "evil" act and she has the capacity to be "evil" it does not automatically mean it would make sense for her to have ordered it, because there's so many other factors people are not considering - all they seem to be looking at is "well it's an evil thing to do, and she's evil, so it's obvious it makes sense that she did it", which is flawed and ignorant logic to all else that we know about Sylvanas thus far, and also up to that point in time.

[Zandalariprelate]

Not this again, seriously I can't wait for the C'thulhu show so we can forget this shitshow

[Deleted]

Vol'jin was possessed by Ba'd Wri-Ting, the Loa of the Mists of Pandaria script.

Dat be a mighty Loa!

[Deleted]

Vol'jin was possessed by Ba'd Wri-Ting, the Loa of the Mists of Pandaria script.

I admit I lol'd much more than I should have.

[SirKickBan]

Do you have any proof it was?


Fact Check: Nope.

Fact check: Yes.

"I've heard these discussions on the internet about 'she's going off the rails', but is she? I've been writing Sylvanas personally since 2006, and this is pretty much - the Wrathgate and the Blight and the Forsaken - in character. Those were all under Sylvanas' orders. What we're seeing now is an escalation of the plans Sylvanas has, clearly, and we're in the middle of that."

-Afrasiabi, November 8th, 2018

https://www.eurogamer.net/amp/2018-1...n-for-sylvanas

[Deleted]

Fact check: Yes.

"I've heard these discussions on the internet about 'she's going off the rails', but is she? I've been writing Sylvanas personally since 2006, and this is pretty much - the Wrathgate and the Blight and the Forsaken - in character. Those were all under Sylvanas' orders. What we're seeing now is an escalation of the plans Sylvanas has, clearly, and we're in the middle of that."

-Afrasiabi, November 8th, 2018

https://www.eurogamer.net/amp/2018-1...n-for-sylvanas

He is asking for proof in lore (game, publications etc) - the word of somebody who has a history of making blunders with his own lore is not 'proof', and especially when the statement in question is as ambiguous as this.

[Nerovar]

Vol'jin was possessed by Ba'd Wri-Ting, the Loa of the Mists of Pandaria script.

I thought it was the Loa of fan service (the same who resurrected Illidan).

[sam86]

Hello there.

Answer is, the devs don't know why, and at this very moment they still think about how to explain it.

most likely this, we still waiting for explain how come BL is one and same across all dimensions, while their boss is different for each AU sh8t, or explanation for how Archimonde in AU and MU is same, while there is 2 velen, or Sorochar, or many sh8t since WOD

[Super Dickmann]

I thought it was the Loa of fan service (the same who resurrected Illidan).

They're a team and Blizzard make deals with them often.

[SirKickBan]

He is asking for proof in lore (game, publications etc) - the word of somebody who has a history of making blunders with his own lore is not 'proof', and especially when the statement in question is as ambiguous as this.

"Like most good lies, Sylvanas Windrunner's account of the rebellion in the Undercity contained some truth. Grand Apothecary Putress had truly attempted to overthrow her, and Varimatharas truly was trying to claim the Forsaken in the name of the Burning Legion.

But the plague had been created at her direction. Sylvanas was willing to take vengeance against the Lich King at almost any cost, even by making a weapon as deadly as the plague. Whether she was aware that Putress and Varimathras were planning to use the concoction remained a mystery. Rumors persisted that she knew about the attack at the Wrath Gate beforehand, and her denials did not assuage the doubts of her detractors."

-Warcraft Chronicles 3

I trust we can put two and two together, right? When Chronicles, a piece of

proof in lore (game, publications etc)

ties in so very nicely with what the person in charge of writing the character also has to say? Or would you care to move the goalposts again?

[Grazrug]

"Like most good lies, Sylvanas Windrunner's account of the rebellion in the Undercity contained some truth. Grand Apothecary Putress had truly attempted to overthrow her, and Varimatharas truly was trying to claim the Forsaken in the name of the Burning Legion.

But the plague had been created at her direction. Sylvanas was willing to take vengeance against the Lich King at almost any cost, even by making a weapon as deadly as the plague. Whether she was aware that Putress and Varimathras were planning to use the concoction remained a mystery. Rumors persisted that she knew about the attack at the Wrath Gate beforehand, and her denials did not assuage the doubts of her detractors."

-Warcraft Chronicles 3

I trust we can put two and two together, right? When Chronicles, a piece of ties in so very nicely with what the person in charge of writing the character also has to say? Or would you care to move the goalposts again?

No, we have other sources that go against this claim. This is just a "lolz I am so evil taht I gas my own stuff without even gaining any capital from it, because that's what the evil people do lololololol." This is neither an explanation, nor a motivation. Just senseless dirt throwing and retcon from Blizzard. All people already hate Sylvanas anyways, so this is pointless. Just imagine if Dranosh woul die due to te blight instead of from the Lich King, like it happened in the wrathgate cinematic(another pointless and stupid retcon IF it would happen).

[SirKickBan]

No, we have other sources that go against this claim. This is just a "lolz I am so evil taht I gas my own stuff without even gaining any capital from it, because that's what the evil people do lololololol." This is neither an explanation, nor a motivation. Just senseless dirt throwing and retcon from Blizzard. All people already hate Sylvanas anyways, so this is pointless. Just imagine if Dranosh woul die due to te blight instead of from the Lich King, like it happened in the wrathgate cinematic(another pointless and stupid retcon IF it would happen).

retcon from Blizzard.

Retcons are canon, regardless of whether you like them or not.

[Super Dickmann]

Retcons are canon, regardless of whether you like them or not.

If one off-dev statements were to be canon no questions asked then Outland is a Death Titan and the Emerald Nightmare is part of the Shadowlands. Luckily, we have the sense of mind not to just blindly hang onto one line, unless of course we're desperate to push a line.

[Deleted]

"Like most good lies, Sylvanas Windrunner's account of the rebellion in the Undercity contained some truth. Grand Apothecary Putress had truly attempted to overthrow her, and Varimatharas truly was trying to claim the Forsaken in the name of the Burning Legion.

But the plague had been created at her direction. Sylvanas was willing to take vengeance against the Lich King at almost any cost, even by making a weapon as deadly as the plague. Whether she was aware that Putress and Varimathras were planning to use the concoction remained a mystery. Rumors persisted that she knew about the attack at the Wrath Gate beforehand, and her denials did not assuage the doubts of her detractors."

-Warcraft Chronicles 3

I trust we can put two and two together, right? When Chronicles, a piece of ties in so very nicely with what the person in charge of writing the character also has to say? Or would you care to move the goalposts again?

Except your entire premise is based off nothing but assumption because it's convenient for you to do so - you are taking unconfirmed speculation around the "rumours" as proof, adding them to your personal interpretation of an ambiguous statement as further proof, and drawing a factual conclusion, which is about as erroneous a conclusion as you can possibly make. Wanna know why you're grasping at these straws? Because it oh so conveniently does not categorically state anywhere in "Chronicles" that she had any knowing involvement in the Wrathgate. You are essentially one of the gossiping peons permeating said rumours because it's what they wanna beleive rather than have any proof to support their suspicions. That's what happens when "put two and two together" like this - you get five.

[Eats Compost]

If one off-dev statements were to be canon no questions asked then Outland is a Death Titan and the Emerald Nightmare is part of the Shadowlands. Luckily, we have the sense of mind not to just blindly hang onto one line, unless of course we're desperate to push a line.

As much as it's true that a lot of the weird one-liners out there aren't significant enough to take seriously, Chronicle is a bit different. It's written from a narrator's perspective and exists to summarize, clarify and occasionally revise/retcon the content that it covers. That makes it the definitive source for pretty much everything it covers, until something more recent contradicts it. It's not like it's particularly padded for length, either - it's all pretty deliberate.

So, for the Wrathgate thing, if Chronicle made a point of saying that whether or not she had advance knowledge of the Wrathgate attack is unknown, that should be taken to be accurate until new information - whether that means further details not included in Chronicles, or a contradiction of what's in Chronicle - comes out.

[Super Dickmann]

As much as it's true that a lot of the weird one-liners out there aren't significant enough to take seriously, Chronicles is a bit different. It's written from a narrator's perspective and exists to summarize, clarify and occasionally retcon the content that it covers. That makes it the definitive source for pretty much everything it covers, until something more recent contradicts it.

So, for the Wrathgate thing, if Chronicles made a point of saying that whether or not she had advance knowledge of the Wrathgate attack is unknown, that should be taken to be accurate until new information comes out.

The thing is that Chronicle not only takes no definitive stance on this issue, it actually implies how that comment is meant to be read in its later sentences by drawing attention to Sylvanas creating the Blight as the center of her guilt, which we already knew, while her knowledge of the attack is ambiguous at best. That said, they do include a possibly more substantive retcon that has major implications, and that's with Saurfang junior. In the cinematic he gets killed by the LK, but Chronicle's phrasing implies that he died as a result of the plague. That could also just be innocuous, or it could be part of the setup they did with that book as regards the Saurfang vs. Sylvanas conflict. The book does take a few other shots at her earlier characterization, such as muddying her role in allying the blood elves and making her intend to attack Gilneas, which is logistically impossible per Edge of Night.

[Foolicious]

So "Did sylvanas order the wrathgate?" is the new "are the old gods dead?"?
I love it

[Grazrug]

As much as it's true that a lot of the weird one-liners out there aren't significant enough to take seriously, Chronicle is a bit different. It's written from a narrator's perspective and exists to summarize, clarify and occasionally revise/retcon the content that it covers. That makes it the definitive source for pretty much everything it covers, until something more recent contradicts it. It's not like it's particularly padded for length, either - it's all pretty deliberate.

So, for the Wrathgate thing, if Chronicle made a point of saying that whether or not she had advance knowledge of the Wrathgate attack is unknown, that should be taken to be accurate until new information - whether that means further details not included in Chronicles, or a contradiction of what's in Chronicle - comes out.

I won't take it legit until the game itself tells me. Aka Sylvanas admitting it was her all the time, since she is the only person left as witness with Putress and Varimathras dead.

[Eats Compost]

The thing is that Chronicle not only takes no definitive stance on this issue, it actually implies how that comment is meant to be read in its later sentences by drawing attention to Sylvanas creating the Blight as the center of her guilt, which we already knew, while her knowledge of the attack is ambiguous at best. That said, they do include a possibly more substantive retcon that has major implications, and that's with Saurfang junior. In the cinematic he gets killed by the LK, but Chronicle's phrasing implies that he died as a result of the plague. That could also just be innocuous, or it could be part of the setup they did with that book as regards the Saurfang vs. Sylvanas conflict. The book does take a few other shots at her earlier characterization, such as muddying her role in allying the blood elves and making her intend to attack Gilneas, which is logistically impossible per Edge of Night.

The ambiguity itself is the point it's trying to make, though. Very little of the Chronicle content is phrased as something that might have happened, or as an ongoing mystery, so outlining it as such (as opposed to outlining how involved she was as a matter of fact, on top of mentioning the rumors) was definitely deliberate. That's not to say that it means she did know about the attack, of course; all it confirms is that, at present, it's unconfirmed, in contrast to what we may have already known or assumed.

The Saurfang thing is interesting. It wouldn't be too surprising if the intent was to set that up for BfA's plot.