1. #33901
    Quote Originally Posted by Seradi View Post
    So you have no argument of your own, good to know.
    If they truly retconned the Wrathgate to be her doing, (which still makes no sense at all given the implied-Sargeras chewing out of Varimathras), then there is compelling argument that she is at least Evil aligned and an antagonistic force, even if you don't want to use the term villain. Because it would mean her actions through Vanilla involving the plague and such would be to that end.

  2. #33902
    Quote Originally Posted by Vakir View Post
    The amount of hand wringing involved with justifying Sylvanas and her immunity as her being "polarizing."

    She's not polarizing for story reasons. She's polarizing for meta reasons. It's the inconsistency of her actions/internal monologue and her incessant Karma Houdining up to this point. This was the same reason Garrosh was initially unpopular back in Wrath. The shift from seemingly being a one off throwback in Nagrand to Borean Tundra was considered very jarring and his first appearance with his new personality was contrasting a then-fan favorite, Saurfang.

    Sylvanas isn't polarizing because she does bad things. Lots of beloved characters do that and keep popularity. She's polarizing because the story has to cave in on itself to avoid consequences being swift enough that it puts people off. If you think about it, for example, the entire Mak'gora where she lost her cool was pointless. The Horde and Alliance will remain at a bullshit standstill, their presence in the Shadowlands is irrelevant compared to the Covenants, and she accomplished her goal effortlessly barely any time later. It's at the point where if she could wipe out that many Death Knights that quickly, why even 5D chess for a war when she can probably just massacre swaths of people independently.

    Hence why there needs to be SOME sort of reckoning. Whether it's death or not. Hell, even if there's some bullshit good reason for what she's doing. Otherwise it's unsatisfying storytelling and doubles down on a very obvious Creator's Pet.
    Well, the point of the Mak'gora wasn't to have her defeated in battle it was so that the Horde and Alliance wouldn't have to continue fighting the war and those who didn't side with Sylvanas could pretend they were the good guys all along despite being involved in the war from its inception up until that point. It wasn't the narrative caving in for Sylvanas. It was the narrative caving in because the writers wanted to make the Horde do shitty things but not actually have to own up to anything they did with a last-minute "atonement". Though I'm not sure if that was actually the point you were making about "avoiding consequences".

    Quote Originally Posted by Vakir View Post
    If they truly retconned the Wrathgate to be her doing, (which still makes no sense at all given the implied-Sargeras chewing out of Varimathras), then there is compelling argument that she is at least Evil aligned and an antagonistic force, even if you don't want to use the term villain. Because it would mean her actions through Vanilla involving the plague and such would be to that end.
    Sure she's evil, I mean I was never arguing against that. I said her character origin story didn't have her set up as a villain... you know like Guldan. Basically, they've been saying it's fine to want to play an evil race for 15 years. They've been creating Forsaken content that has you testing the blight and blighting towns for over a decade and it's not just Sylvanas making the poor Forsaken do this. Having the Classic zones come back has shown that since their inception the Forsaken have been the comically evil mad scientist race.
    Last edited by Seradi; 2019-11-13 at 06:02 PM.

  3. #33903
    Quote Originally Posted by Seradi View Post
    Well, the point of the Mak'gora wasn't to have her defeated in battle it was so that the Horde and Alliance wouldn't have to continue fighting the war and those who didn't side with Sylvanas could pretend they were the good guys all along despite being involved in the war from its inception up until that point. It wasn't the narrative caving in for Sylvanas. It was the narrative caving in because the writers wanted to make the Horde do shitty things but not actually have to own up to anything they did with a last-minute "atonement". Though I'm not sure if that was actually the point you were making about "avoiding consequences".
    Except the big emotional thrust was that Saurfang saved countless lives. It would be a shame if despite that, life and death would be upended regardless, the Scourge would run wild and kill tons of people and then untold amounts of anima would funnel directly into the Maw that only (lorewise) a handful of champions somehow escaped from. Resulting in likely as many casualties and suffering. Barely ANY time later, effortlessly.

    Oh, wait. That's exactly what happened. Rendering the entire fucking pyrrhic victory utterly pointless.

  4. #33904
    Quote Originally Posted by EbaumsTipster View Post
    Nobody asked the same thing about Gul'dan because they said that he would be dealt with in the Legion Blizzcon overview. Why they didn't do the same for Sylvanas is beyond me: they barely said anything about the story at the panel itself.
    Legion Blizzcon was a couple of months after announcement.
    https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...lopment-thread
    Quote Originally Posted by Nevcairiel View Post
    If you are suggesting to take my Night Elfs Shadowmeld away, then please find some pike to run yourself through, tyvm.

  5. #33905
    Quote Originally Posted by Vakir View Post
    Except the big emotional thrust was that Saurfang saved countless lives. It would be a shame if despite that, life and death would be upended regardless, the Scourge would run wild and kill tons of people and then untold amounts of anima would funnel directly into the Maw that only (lorewise) a handful of champions somehow escaped from. Resulting in likely as many casualties and suffering. Barely ANY time later, effortlessly.

    Oh, wait. That's exactly what happened. Rendering the entire fucking pyrrhic victory utterly pointless.
    I mean pretty much all of BFA was just pyrrhic victories for both sides. But the point of this one was to unite the factions cos Sylvanas is a big meanie. It doesn't matter that you or I think it's hamfisted and contrived, people who don't care about the story liked it because it was a big flashy emotional moment.

  6. #33906
    Quote Originally Posted by Seradi View Post
    I mean pretty much all of BFA was just pyrrhic victories for both sides. But the point of this one was to unite the factions cos Sylvanas is a big meanie. It doesn't matter that you or I think it's hamfisted and contrived, people who don't care about the story liked it because it was a big flashy emotional moment.
    I'm saying within the internal logic of the story that it did not matter.

    Sylvanas has literally never had a setback. The Wrathgate was, but now that's just as keikaku. We thought in the lead up that her losing Lordaeron was for her, but it was a bomb trap. Saurfang exposed her but she still got to monologue like an amateur Dungeon Master jerking off his pet bad guy NPC and got the last word in. She couldn't even get wrecked by shadow claws in mega-Hell without it looping back to being a 5D plan for her to do something cool later. She couldn't have even been inconvenienced by becoming Warchief without them retroactively making it her plan all along.

    She is simultaneously hyperemotional and vindictive and also having characterization that she is cool and in control and it literally cannot be both.

    Do you understand why I'm saying people being polarized is both not an argument for quality and immunity?

  7. #33907
    Quote Originally Posted by Vakir View Post
    She is simultaneously hyperemotional and vindictive and also having characterization that she is cool and in control and it literally cannot be both.
    Becoming Warchief was not part of her plan, as explained in her internal monologue in Before the Storm (And we don't have any good reason to discount her own isolated thoughts as lies. Rather that she expressed that remaining in the shadows would have been easier to act on her goals.

    Also she is not "hyperemotional". She expresses her anger. But it doesn't hurt her decisions. Destroying the Crown was part of her plan all along & Burning teldrassil was an *improvisation,* not something according to plan, but rather an action to fix a plan when it goes wrong.

  8. #33908
    Quote Originally Posted by Vakir View Post
    I'm saying within the internal logic of the story that it did not matter.

    Sylvanas has literally never had a setback. The Wrathgate was, but now that's just as keikaku. We thought in the lead up that her losing Lordaeron was for her, but it was a bomb trap. Saurfang exposed her but she still got to monologue like an amateur Dungeon Master jerking off his pet bad guy NPC and got the last word in. She couldn't even get wrecked by shadow claws in mega-Hell without it looping back to being a 5D plan for her to do something cool later. She couldn't have even been inconvenienced by becoming Warchief without them retroactively making it her plan all along.

    She is simultaneously hyperemotional and vindictive and also having characterization that she is cool and in control and it literally cannot be both.

    Do you understand why I'm saying people being polarized is both not an argument for quality and immunity?
    Belluar had a few videos going over her history and came to the conclusion that the dissonance you're seeing is a deliberate characterization where she's cold, calculating and ruthless in most circumstances, but that when she gets emotionally heated that part of her gets overwritten by impulsiveness in the moment. Which she'll then attempt to rationalize to herself later rather than taking the blame for it. He also pointed out that this characterization is consistent, but also very difficult to pick up on because of how fractured the WoW narrative is, where you have books, comics, in-game stuff and the consistency is hard to pick up on because everyone's seeing various parts that are hard to reconcile without seeing the pattern repeat over and over again.

  9. #33909
    Quote Originally Posted by kirblar View Post
    Belluar had a few videos going over her history and came to the conclusion that the dissonance you're seeing is a deliberate characterization where she's cold, calculating and ruthless in most circumstances, but that when she gets emotionally heated that part of her gets overwritten by impulsiveness in the moment. Which she'll then attempt to rationalize to herself later rather than taking the blame for it. He also pointed out that this characterization is consistent, but also very difficult to pick up on because of how fractured the WoW narrative is, where you have books, comics, in-game stuff and the consistency is hard to pick up on because everyone's seeing various parts that are hard to reconcile without seeing the pattern repeat over and over again.
    Get a better lore "expert" than Belluar. His lore theories are less accurate than Taliesen's. With even worse clickbait

  10. #33910
    Quote Originally Posted by Ersula View Post
    Becoming Warchief was not part of her plan, as explained in her internal monologue in Before the Storm (And we don't have any good reason to discount her own isolated thoughts as lies. Rather that she expressed that remaining in the shadows would have been easier to act on her goals.

    Also she is not "hyperemotional". She expresses her anger. But it doesn't hurt her decisions. Destroying the Crown was part of her plan all along & Burning teldrassil was an *improvisation,* not something according to plan, but rather an action to fix a plan when it goes wrong.
    Well, no, it was quite based on emotion as she was still planning to only take control of Teldrassil up until the moment Delaryn backtalked her that she couldn't take their hope away.

  11. #33911
    Elemental Lord Makabreska's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Streets Strange by Moonlight
    Posts
    8,425
    Quote Originally Posted by Seradi View Post
    Because they’re dumb but they’re not dumb enough to kill off a cash cow fan favorite legacy character and OG racial leader whose origins are not that of a villain. Hell, they didn’t even kill off Azshara and she’s always been a villain. Maybe she’ll have a fight like Jaina or Azshara but I think people are just setting themselves up for disappointment looking to sate their hate boners for an intentionally polarizing character.

    I pretty much guarantee they will never kill off Sylvanas, Thrall or Jaina. They’re pretty much untouchable in a meta sense as far as important franchise characters are concerned.
    Ye man, they won't kill a character they've been hard antagonizing entire BfA, that also been working with nasty powers against us for her own gain, and was the sole reason Shadowlands even are happening. Varian died, so no one is untouchable.
    Last edited by Makabreska; 2019-11-13 at 09:35 PM.
    Sometimes, the light of the moon is a key to other spaces. I've found a place where, for a night or two, the streets curve in unfamiliar ways. If I walk here, I might find insight, or I might be touched by madness.

  12. #33912
    Quote Originally Posted by Ersula View Post
    Becoming Warchief was not part of her plan, as explained in her internal monologue in Before the Storm (And we don't have any good reason to discount her own isolated thoughts as lies. Rather that she expressed that remaining in the shadows would have been easier to act on her goals.)
    This is what I'm referring to. That was an interesting hook. BUT. In the Q&A they backtracked on this. They all but stated that this was a long con to gain power at all costs. So Sylvanas is so cunning that she broke the fourth wall and gained independent sentience to hide her thoughts from Christie Golden to make us believe she didnt want Voljin to name her when she did, as by this point she already was working with the Jailer.

    This is what I mean when I say the controversy is meta and rooted in story frustration and contradiction.

    Also she is not "hyperemotional". She expresses her anger. But it doesn't hurt her decisions. Destroying the Crown was part of her plan all along & Burning teldrassil was an *improvisation,* not something according to plan, but rather an action to fix a plan when it goes wrong.
    This is also wrong and contradictory. A Good War reflects this thinking, but the animated cinematic does not. Sylvanas is acting out of spite towards Delaryn. She forces her to watch. She's pinged by her pity hence the sudden music chord and anger she expresses. Plus the direct counterpoint it has to her own fall. This is such basic bitch visual storytelling that I don't know how it still eludes people.

    Then we have the Mak'gora. Sylvanas fucks up by accidentally outing herself and losing a sizable chunk of her cult following and losing an opportunity for thousands to kill each other in the process. This is driven by a serious overreaction to a minor injury plus Saurfang goading her. The entire reason it even happened is by Saurfang appealing to her pettiness. "You want to make me suffer."

    Of course, in response to this, nothing actually prevented her from doing what she wanted anyway, so I again don't consider it a setback.

    We also have Stormheim. Her arrogance and need to be cruel and verbally slighting towards Genn distracted her from the fact that he got the lantern.

    Of course, now they're retconing THIS motivation as well ("What her plan was at Stormheim/with Helya may not be what you think...") because Sylvie just can't actually lose.

    So yeah. We have distinct evidence on several accounts of Sylvanas misplaying by way of being a woman-child. They just also backtrack after the fact to make it just as planned, resulting in a fragmented and dissociative portrayal of her character.

  13. #33913
    Void Lord Aeluron Lightsong's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    In some Sanctuaryesque place or a Haven
    Posts
    44,683
    Until we actually know what sylvanas wanted with that latern, crying retcon is presumptious so hold your horses.
    #TeamLegion #UnderEarthofAzerothexpansion plz #Arathor4Alliance #TeamNoBlueHorde

    Warrior-Magi

  14. #33914
    Quote Originally Posted by huth View Post
    As a minor aside, the Oribos logo is also on the Eternal Traveler transmog chest. So the faction seems to be tied to Oribos somehow.
    yeah, that's what he pointed out. that symbol though, is the exact same as the snake carved into the dark portal on azeroth's side. why would it be there, when the portal was connected to the legion?

    Quote Originally Posted by Prophet June Bug View Post
    No, because you and he are reading into things that aren't there.
    literally look in game right now at the chest of the eternal traveler gear. that symbol is exactly the same as snake carved into the portal. you can see both of these things in game right now.

  15. #33915
    Quote Originally Posted by Aeluron Lightsong View Post
    Until we actually know what sylvanas wanted with that latern, crying retcon is presumptious so hold your horses.
    OK, but everything else up to this point has indeed been retconned or glossed over so no true failure happens. God, at least the Lich King walks away hacking and coughing on the verge of death - twice, actually, if you count the destruction of his heart - in his own expansion.

    I'm banking on "I knew the lantern would be destroyed, I wanted it to happen so less Val'kyr could be made so their souls could not be spared the hungering dark!" no matter how illogical it is.

  16. #33916
    Void Lord Aeluron Lightsong's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    In some Sanctuaryesque place or a Haven
    Posts
    44,683
    Quote Originally Posted by Vakir View Post
    OK, but everything else up to this point has indeed been retconned or glossed over so no true failure happens. God, at least the Lich King walks away hacking and coughing on the verge of death - twice, actually, if you count the destruction of his heart - in his own expansion.

    I'm banking on "I knew the lantern would be destroyed, I wanted it to happen so less Val'kyr could be made so their souls could not be spared the hungering dark!" no matter how illogical it is.
    What are you even going on about, you acting like the game has been retconned extensively, it hasn't. Not on a whim or how fast this forum vomits out the term "Ret-con."
    #TeamLegion #UnderEarthofAzerothexpansion plz #Arathor4Alliance #TeamNoBlueHorde

    Warrior-Magi

  17. #33917
    Quote Originally Posted by Aeluron Lightsong View Post
    What are you even going on about, you acting like the game has been retconned extensively, it hasn't. Not on a whim or how fast this forum vomits out the term "Ret-con."
    I agree the forum overuses this term. They think any new info that clarifies is a retcon, just as idiots tend to conflate lying with gaslighting. However...

    Sylvanas intending the Wrathgate to happen is a retcon. The implication Sargeras goaded Varimathras into setting it off was glossed over.

    Sylvanas going from cursing Vol'jin in her own internal monologue to having planned it all along for a death conspiracy is a retcon. And also a total violation of story POV.

    Sylvanas improvising Teldrassil as an intention to end the war rather than it being a crime of rage and emotional outburst is not necessarily a retcon, as its debatable which was written first, but it is a wild contradiction of continuity between sources.

    And now, while we don't know the real reason yet, you will have to forgive me that when they say "the reason for the lantern may not be what you think!" in reference to her plan, I'm a biiiiit suspect it won't be a massive crock of shit when her Legion implied plans that fit with Edge of Night/Cata Silverpine are now wildly different post-BFA/SL that don't fit with the motivation to raise more Forsaken at all. They're going to HAVE to retcon her intentions for this new Sylvanas plan to make sense.

    But you'd know all this if you actually read the full conversation you're replying to.
    Last edited by Vakir; 2019-11-13 at 11:24 PM.

  18. #33918
    Quote Originally Posted by Vakir View Post
    This is what I'm referring to. That was an interesting hook. BUT. In the Q&A they backtracked on this. They all but stated that this was a long con to gain power at all costs. So Sylvanas is so cunning that she broke the fourth wall and gained independent sentience to hide her thoughts from Christie Golden to make us believe she didnt want Voljin to name her when she did, as by this point she already was working with the Jailer.
    Then its a misconception on your part:

    1.) Working with the Jailer & Working for the jailer are not the same thing. Ion directly said Sylvanas & the Jailer's goals are not the same, and NEITHER of their goals is the simple acquisition of power. She is gathering power from the maw to achieve a certain, unknown goal: The power itself is NOT her goal.
    2.) I think you're conflating political power & magical power. Sylvanas is adaptable & worked toward her goal while also being a good warchief, the problem, was that she was *too* good as warchief. If her attention wasn't elsewhere, she might have realized the rest of the Horde prefer some restraint when raining destruction down on their enemies.
    3.) You're assuming the voice that told vol'jin to make Sylvanas warchief was the Jailer. But as you can see, that's the main problem. But it could be N'zoth, as we see with the Blade of the Black Empire, he thought he could use her to keep it away from him, but clearly Sylvanas did not act according to his plan. We still don't have an explanation at this point. But just because the plan *is going well* doesn't mean there were no missteps. Becoming Warchief & being overthrown being one of those missteps.

  19. #33919
    Quote Originally Posted by Ersula View Post
    Then its a misconception on your part:

    1.) Working with the Jailer & Working for the jailer are not the same thing. Ion directly said Sylvanas & the Jailer's goals are not the same, and NEITHER of their goals is the simple acquisition of power. She is gathering power from the maw to achieve a certain, unknown goal: The power itself is NOT her goal.
    The semantics aren't the issue. The point is acting in service to the Maw but this is contradicted with the other aspects covered in Before the Storm. They're cursing the idea of being Warchief, but the entire point of her plan, whatever purpose it is in service to, was to facilitate a war through being Warchief. The Q&A in question mentioned that her actions IN Legion were in service to that. Go watch it.

    2.) I think you're conflating political power & magical power. Sylvanas is adaptable & worked toward her goal while also being a good warchief, the problem, was that she was *too* good as warchief. If her attention wasn't elsewhere, she might have realized the rest of the Horde prefer some restraint when raining destruction down on their enemies.

    3.) You're assuming the voice that told vol'jin to make Sylvanas warchief was the Jailer. But as you can see, that's the main problem. But it could be N'zoth, as we see with the Blade of the Black Empire, he thought he could use her to keep it away from him, but clearly Sylvanas did not act according to his plan. We still don't have an explanation at this point. But just because the plan *is going well* doesn't mean there were no missteps. Becoming Warchief & being overthrown being one of those missteps.
    "She's just too good at being an asshole in a position that is no longer exclusively for war time" is an, uh, interesting take. Yeah. That's the word I'll use to avoid consequence. Interesting.

    Seriously up there with "so beautiful it's a curse ;_;" for character traits.

    Point remains, her internal dialogue in BtS is contradiction, not missing information, as they've established she wanted that power now even if she verbalized otherwise in the book. Whether the Jailer whispered Vol'jin or not (he did btw), she was aiming for that as their pact, whatever form that pact is, was already in service at that time.

    Am I assuming? Yes. But I'm also assuming correctly.

    "Hey I wonder who starts the war----"
    "It's Sylvanas"
    "B-b-b-but we dont know that! That art with her on front of the tree could be a red herring."
    "It was Sylvanas."
    "But...but what if she was trying to stop it because it was corrupted!"
    "Then she'd have said something."
    "What if it was JAINA?"
    "...It was Sylvanas."

    And then it was Sylvanas. Shocked Pikachu.

    It couldn't have been N'Zoth that spoke to Vol'jin, because at that time, Xalatath hadn't even entered the board yet, and the entirety of your assertion is that it was involved, when Sylvanas and her plan to work with Azshara was totally unrelated and concocted on her own to have us murder one another. He'd have no reason to think Sylvanas would go near the dagger to even try to get it away from him...since Azshara made that bid ON HER OWN.

    The only logical figure is the same guy the devs have confirmed she was already working with or someone tangentially related. This desperate bid to think otherwise to defend an indefensible character is silly when the entire narrative of the next expansion is Sylvanas empowered herself through a war she started BECAUSE she was Warchief.

    The blurb for Shadowlands literally describes its own story as a conspiracy long in the making.

    ...or if you want to just cut all that and look at Blizzard's style of unsubtle visual storytelling, the things that assault you to stop you from learning more in the Vol'jin questline are fucking death shades in the style of the Domination visual "kit" (i.e. Torghast). But no, it totally could've been N'Zoth.
    Last edited by Vakir; 2019-11-14 at 01:54 AM.

  20. #33920
    Void Lord Aeluron Lightsong's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    In some Sanctuaryesque place or a Haven
    Posts
    44,683
    Sylvanas intending the Wrathgate to happen is a retcon. The implication Sargeras goaded Varimathras into setting it off was glossed over.
    She didn't really care too much at the Horde and Alliance dying, the Plague that was developed to kill the Scourge AND the living(Who she has allies that are alive at the time). That shows how shady she is and the fact she was ok with the Plague sorta already shows what most of us know. She can't be trusted, she's ruthless.


    Sylvanas going from cursing Vol'jin in her own internal monologue to having planned it all along for a death conspiracy is a retcon. And also a total violation of story POV.
    Probably because pushing her into the spotlight is not what she wanted and as she's said herself, she prefers to stay in the shadows. Jailor or somebody whispered to Vol'jin for Warchief position gives her more to deal out death. We also don't know the details of why she aligned herself with the Jailer. Sylvanas is not a servant type of character and we will learn more in Shadowlands so we can't say for certain there is retcons.

    Sylvanas improvising Teldrassil as an intention to end the war rather than it being a crime of rage and emotional outburst is not necessarily a retcon, as its debatable which was written first, but it is a wild contradiction of continuity between sources.
    I don't see this as an issue, people wanted to believe Sylvanas was just at the wrong place at the wrong time and some third party started it but no, she did it on her own. Its not so crazy to believe she would do that or that her character is inconsistent. Unstable and emotionally driven(When she loses her shit).



    And now, while we don't know the real reason yet, you will have to forgive me that when they say "the reason for the lantern may not be what you think!" in reference to her plan, I'm a biiiiit suspect it won't be a massive crock of shit when her Legion implied plans that fit with Edge of Night/Cata Silverpine are now wildly different post-BFA/SL that don't fit with the motivation to raise more Forsaken at all. They're going to HAVE to retcon her intentions for this new Sylvanas plan to make sense.
    Because with no army she can't kill more people and she can't keep herself alive either. Sylvans cares more about preventing her final death, far more then the Forsaken's fate. That has never changed, she was willing to kill some of her own Forsaken when some were gaining hope to see their familes in before the Storm(Again more little nods to hope which....was mentioned more then once).

    The Lantern and what it's purpose was is unknown and you can scoff at it and find it bullshit all you want but if you noticed, she was able to use the Horde for her own ends in whatever plan she has going on.
    #TeamLegion #UnderEarthofAzerothexpansion plz #Arathor4Alliance #TeamNoBlueHorde

    Warrior-Magi

Posting Permissions

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