[Spoilers] Shadowlands: Afterlives Cinematic Discussion

[bagina]

I'm unsure what you mean to imply here?

Oh no, I'm not implying anything at all. Just the impression I've got from your posts, found it funny that you confirmed it just as I was thinking about it.

I mean entitled in the sense of being inherently deserving of privileges or special treatment. Life is a natural right, for as long as it might last and to the degree it can be lived - anything beyond that is neither guaranteed nor promised. I think that context was pretty exclusive in my usage of the term - you are entitled to life, but anything beyond that, well, all bets are off.

I'd agree that is 100% true in real life. But in WoW's universe it's doesn't hold true I think. For one, even the characters in the Shadowlands treat the arrival of souls as natural occurence, a way of live. I'm certain that to most of Shadowlands' citizens the souls *are* indeed entitled to the afterlife, they *want* souls to live, to them the souls are precious and important. I MEAN, that's where the tragedy in the Ardenweald cinematic comes from in the first place. WQ and the faunus believe Ursoc deserves to live and this creates the whole conflict and moral dilemma. The Shadowlands as a whole operate under the notion that a soul belongs to an afterlife. it's being telegraphed by various NPCs thorough the campaign. That's the impression I get from the quest texts and dialogues.

I think it all boils down to the fact that we both see eternal life (in WoW)differently. You see it as a priviledge, a special treatment, a reward for the deserving few, something inherently good. While I percieve it as just another fact of life. Neither inherently good nor inherently bad.

A priviledge and special treatment are manifested in HOW you spend the eternity. You may be given an eternal life in the Maw. You wouldn't call *that* eternal life a priviledge, would you?

[Coconut]

Justified? No, I don't think that is the argument being made - justice is framed by righteousness, but neither the sacrifice nor the tenor of the emotions surrounding their necessity are framed as righteous here. This is desperation, a solemn and somber undertaking, and everyone assembled radiates with the a sense of sorrowfulness that is easily translated from expression, posture, and general atmosphere. You can tell that no one assembled in Ara'lon's grove *wants* to do what they must do, most especially Ara'lon himself - but there was nothing for it. The Winter Queen even gives Ara'lon the choice, and says she will respect his choice - to die along with his charge when the anima runs out, or sacrifice his charge for the good of all. I think in trying to justify your impression that Sylvanas' course is at all comparable to what the Night Fae are being forced to do, you've missed the majority of tonal clues surrounding the fate of Tirna Noch.

Why must you always resort to these flawed arguments about semantics? Instead of having a meaningful, intelligent conversation, it feels like we're trying to teach each other new words.

Justified, adj. - Having a reason, explanation or excuse which provides convincing, morally acceptable support for behavior or for a belief or occurrence.

In this case, the existential threat Ardenweald is faced with provides morally acceptable support for the Winter Queen's behavior of siphoning slumbering souls, therefore the clip frames this behavior as justified. Furthermore, Ara'lon's choice to join in this behavior is presented as the high point of the clip, and as a moment of understanding and personal growth for him, hence why I said it might even be framed as noble.

Righteous, however, has a stronger connotation to the point that you're strawmanning if you're equating the two. Righteous means "free from sin or guilt", "justified religiously" and even "moral and virtuous to the point of sanctimonious". If we were talking about shooting someone in self-defense for example, then justified = "I had a good excuse" and righteous = "they deserved it"; the moral weight falls in very different places.

Your view of the writer's intent seems a bit... conspiratorial, almost? Almost as if you were trying to second-guess the plot as opposed to actually following it? I find that a kind of odd way to go about reading a particular story or narrative, as it kind of puts me manifestly above the actual storyteller, in a sense. I guess the only comparison I can think of is when a person isn't really listening to what another a person is saying except in the capacity of formulating their own counterarguments to what is being said - meaning you're not really listening to the story, you're more picking at it preparatory to fighting against it.

It's a habit from the ASoIaF fandom, where the narrative is consistent on multiple layers and deep analysis rewards readers with hidden arcs, themes, in and out of world references and countless theories that won't be confirmed or denied until G.R.R.M. gets off his ass and finishes The Winds of Winter.

Still, I don't think I'm picking apart this clip as much as I am analyzing it (now, the Bastion one I could pick apart... but perhaps not now since I can hardly afford the time to get into another lengthy debate). Whether or not they were intended by the writers, the arguments and themes I highlighted do arise organically from the clip. You can choose to focus exclusively on the framing and ignore them, but personally I don't think that's the best way of experiencing a story.

I would even say it's a sign of (currently very cautious) respect for the writers to expect them to have some overarching narrative with a few twists and below-the-surface themes. Sylvanas's story, as well as that of the Jailer and that of the Shadowlands themselves were all presented as incomplete puzzles. Were's supposed to speculate and perhaps even be surprised at the final image once all the pieces are revealed. Taking everything at face value strikes me as rather boring in this context, and particularly misguided when some of the things we think we take at face value are actually based on personal assumptions. Case in point:

The Winter Queen is essentially a goddess in her own right, an ancient power set over the land she rules to the point that she and the land are practically indivisible. It neither presumptive nor vain for her to decide on the course for a solution in Ardenweald, she *is* Ardenweald, and the process of its death just as surely spells her own death if a solution isn't found.

Beyond that, though; I think your argument is a bit misplaced. No one is entitled to eternity, and Ursoc had already lived and died multiple times at this point. Not to mention that Ursoc is quite literally a spirit of the balance of nature and the wilds, and we don't really know to what degree he may well have consented to the process of surrendering his anima. The sense I got, and while it can't be conclusively proven without "word of god" from the developers, is that Ursoc choose his own fate - when Ara'lon touched his staff to the wildseed you get the sense that the anima isn't so much forcibly withdrawn as freely given - Ursoc choosing his own death over the death of Ardenweald so many other souls in the groves. I didn't feel as if Ursoc was made a commodity by an uncaring or subversively malicious Winter Queen, but that all present there was witness to a brave and heartfelt sacrifice, even a sense that Ursoc himself did not want Ara'lon to commit himself to an ultimately doomed endeavor, trying in vain to preserve the dying grove of Tirna Noch and himself.

A lot of the arguments you use here are not confirmed at all. Some of them may be framed that way through visual and musical coding (we know how well that served us in Vol'jin's death cinematic), or implied due to generic fantasy and Warcraft-specific tropes, but the clip does not commit to them. You conjure them yourself in your head canon.

We don't know how crucial the Winter Queen is to Ardenweald, and @bagina has made some good points about that. And even if we did, the fact that she is a goddess doesn't preclude us from judging the morality of her actions (if that was the case we wouldn't be able to judge Sargeras either, for example).

In my initial post here, I was also inclined to say that the resurrection of the Wild Gods is a privilege, not a right. But the more I think about it, the murkier the matter becomes. We don't know if the resurrection engine that is Ardenweald was created by the Winter Queen out of the goodness of her heart (leaning more heavily towards the argument that it is a privilege offered by her) or if this was a natural mechanic of the cosmos that she was either created for or took over (leaning more towards it being a cosmic right).

We don't know if there is an agreement with the Wild Gods - thus setting some expectations on their part - or if the Shadowlands get anything out of the process. In a previous post, I mentioned influence over the mortal races who worship these Wild Gods, and the Nathrezim (?) Conspiracy Book claims that knowledge obtained from Ardenweald was used to identify vulnerabilities in the Plane of Life. For all we know, the Winter Queen could be completely oblivious of this, or she could be the very operative mentioned in the book, keeping the trust of the agents of Life for nefarious purposes. Either way, the use of Ardenweald does not come entirely without costs. Its very existence could very well be the key to the undoing of the Plane of Life, and the Cosmos as a whole. Is this risk worth it for the ability to keep bringing back some animal gods?

Speaking of trade-offs, while this might not be immediately apparent (I confess I missed it to at first), the Wild Gods DO pay a price for their resurrection. All other souls coming into the Shadowlands retain their agency. Whether or not they give up their memories or shape later on, they are still freely acting individuals continuing into a new existence. The Wild Gods, however, go straight into the hibernation seeds. They do not get to make their own choices within the Shadowlands, entrusting themselves completely to their carers (one could speculate that this happens in order to limit the amount of information that seeps back from the Shadowlands into the other Planes, which would explain why Ardenweald isn't a staple in the cultures of all Wild God worshipers, but it's no more than that, speculation). Whether you think that this means they waiver their right to consent for the duration or, quite the contrary, that it puts a higher onus on the inhabitants of Ardenweald depends on your own moral fiber, but I'd go with the latter. Ardenweald would be super messed up if all the "Bucks" there were like the Buck from Kill Bill...

[Aucald]

Why must you always resort to these flawed arguments about semantics? Instead of having a meaningful, intelligent conversation, it feels like we're trying to teach each other new words.

Justified, adj. - Having a reason, explanation or excuse which provides convincing, morally acceptable support for behavior or for a belief or occurrence.

Words have distinct meanings - use an incorrect word, with its associated assortment of incorrect context and implications, and you paint an incorrect picture or create a misinformed argument. All arguments are semantic when it comes to text, because the text is quite literally how we relate the ideas that form the core of our arguments. There's no flaw in that, it's the literal point of *all* argumentation. Discussing the meaning, comparing and contrasting the exact terms that suit a given set of ideas, is what a meaningful and intelligent conversation is made of. In this case I was quite literally arguing against the nature of your framing, the entire point of my rebuttal in this case. And, I think, you already knew all the words I used - just as I knew the meaning of the word "justified," I'm just saying your application of the term here is wrongheaded.

In this case, the existential threat Ardenweald is faced with provides morally acceptable support for the Winter Queen's behavior of siphoning slumbering souls, therefore the clip frames this behavior as justified. Furthermore, Ara'lon's choice to join in this behavior is presented as the high point of the clip, and as a moment of understanding and personal growth for him, hence why I said it might even be framed as noble.

It is framed as noble, yes. That is the essence of what the story is directly conveying.

Righteous, however, has a stronger connotation to the point that you're strawmanning if you're equating the two. Righteous means "free from sin or guilt", "justified religiously" and even "moral and virtuous to the point of sanctimonious". If we were talking about shooting someone in self-defense for example, then justified = "I had a good excuse" and righteous = "they deserved it"; the moral weight falls in very different places.

We're talking about the actions of a literal goddess, so "righteous" probably does fit the bill better than justified, though both terms probably fall short of the true mark - which is closer to a kind of divine mandate. You're assuming a frame in which the Winter Queen usurps or claims a power that, you imply, does not belong to her. I see it differently, the Winter Queen is manifestly and directly endowed with the authority to act as she does here - Ardenweald is her domain, and the processes of said domain fall under her sole and complete authority. *Only* the Winter Queen could make this kind of decision. Justice doesn't even figure into it, really; because that would assume another course could even be taken (which would be tantamount to a complete dereliction of her sacred charge and purpose).

It's a habit from the ASoIaF fandom, where the narrative is consistent on multiple layers and deep analysis rewards readers with hidden arcs, themes, in and out of world references and countless theories that won't be confirmed or denied until G.R.R.M. gets off his ass and finishes The Winds of Winter.

Can't say I've ever been a part of or followed the GRRM fandom, as it were; so I concede to your experience on the matter here. It still seems a weird way to go about it, though. People here drill down pretty deep into the narrative meat and bone of the Warcraft universe as well, but seldom with the same apparent antagonism to the author(s).

Still, I don't think I'm picking apart this clip as much as I am analyzing it (now, the Bastion one I could pick apart... but perhaps not now since I can hardly afford the time to get into another lengthy debate). Whether or not they were intended by the writers, the arguments and themes I highlighted do arise organically from the clip. You can choose to focus exclusively on the framing and ignore them, but personally I don't think that's the best way of experiencing a story.

I agree that all the presented information should be parsed, passed through a sieve for consistency, and analyzed with abandon - by all means. But inserting your own conspiratorial narrative into the mix seems - well, it seems wrong to me. You judge the narrative you're given, I guess I'm saying; not the narrative you either wanted or the narrative that would prove some kind of ulterior notion true or false. If a character is presented in the narrative as a force of good, and painted in nobility; you assume that that narrative framing is the intended one - not that the author or authors are trying to trick you. And perhaps they *are* trying to trick you, but in that cause you should probably allow yourself to be tricked, because that's the point a surprise in a narrative, is it not? Like when your friends throw you a surprise party - you'd be a real wet blanket if you were always on guard for a well-intended but unexpected event.

I would even say it's a sign of (currently very cautious) respect for the writers to expect them to have some overarching narrative with a few twists and below-the-surface themes. Sylvanas's story, as well as that of the Jailer and that of the Shadowlands themselves were all presented as incomplete puzzles. Were's supposed to speculate and perhaps even be surprised at the final image once all the pieces are revealed. Taking everything at face value strikes me as rather boring in this context, and particularly misguided when some of the things we think we take at face value are actually based on personal assumptions. Case in point:

A lot of the arguments you use here are not confirmed at all. Some of them may be framed that way through visual and musical coding (we know how well that served us in Vol'jin's death cinematic), or implied due to generic fantasy and Warcraft-specific tropes, but the clip does not commit to them. You conjure them yourself in your head canon.

Much of this is directly implied, if not outright confirmed, in the Ardenweald questing experience. As per the first of the Night Fae you meet, one Lady Moonberry:

Lady Moonberry: Sadly, the Queen cannot grant you an audience. Her spirit is spread thin across Ardenweald.
Lady Moonberry: This drought threatens the entire forst. Your voice is but one bird singing in the night.
Lady Moonberry: The Queen's magic protects every branch, every leaf. If not for her vigilance, all might be lost.
Lady Moonberry: For now, we night fae must act in her stead.

Bolded emphasis on the part I think strongly imply the nature of the Winter Queen, her essence spread "across Ardenweald," her magic protecting "every branch, every leaf." Those are depictions of a being who is strongly integrated into its realm, to the point of nigh inseparability. Additionally, from another Night Fae courtier named Featherlight:

Featherlight: Each wildseed holds a spirit of nature who will one day awaken and return to their world.
Featherlight: The Queen must decide which ones survive... and which wither away, the spirit within lost forever.
Featherlight: It's... a grim task. But until the drought ends, it's one that must be done.

The Queen must decide who survives and who are lost, predicating the function of the Winter Queen as the vested authority of the realm. From the Queen herself:

Winter Queen: Ardenweald's anima is barely enough to sustain our groves, let alone contribute to keeping the Banished One held.
Winter Queen: Groves will die because I have sustained this, instead.
Winter Queen: A hard choice, but better than no groves at all.
Winter Queen: Your journey continues. Know you have gained an ally in me, and in Ardenweald. I await word of your continued deeds.

A choice between saving some and losing all, in other words.

We don't know how crucial the Winter Queen is to Ardenweald, and bagina has made some good points about that. And even if we did, the fact that she is a goddess doesn't preclude us from judging the morality of her actions (if that was the case we wouldn't be able to judge Sargeras either, for example).

We know enough, I would say. You can judge the morality of her actions all day long, of course, but merely sitting in judgment doesn't confer either authority or correctness on your judgments. Admitting that you lack full knowledge to judge is itself an admission that your judgment is limited and quite possibly in error.

In my initial post here, I was also inclined to say that the resurrection of the Wild Gods is a privilege, not a right. But the more I think about it, the murkier the matter becomes. We don't know if the resurrection engine that is Ardenweald was created by the Winter Queen out of the goodness of her heart (leaning more heavily towards the argument that it is a privilege offered by her) or if this was a natural mechanic of the cosmos that she was either created for or took over (leaning more towards it being a cosmic right).

I think that's ultimately a meaningless distinction, whether or not the engine that grants rebirth to the Wild Gods was a creation of the Winter Queen, or a product of the universe, born out of altruism or random chance, it is still not an entitlement. This is demonstrated by the prosaic fact that the Ardenweald can itself die, as it is dying now, and that the wildseeds of the slumbering Wild Gods can also die due to starvation, negligence, or predation. The Ardenweald is a second chance, but it is not guaranteed, and in order for it to persist it must upheld and maintained - thus the Winter Queen and her court, and the oaths of service of the tenders and Dromans of the groves who facilitate that function.

We don't know if there is an agreement with the Wild Gods - thus setting some expectations on their part - or if the Shadowlands get anything out of the process. In a previous post, I mentioned influence over the mortal races who worship these Wild Gods, and the Nathrezim (?) Conspiracy Book claims that knowledge obtained from Ardenweald was used to identify vulnerabilities in the Plane of Life. For all we know, the Winter Queen could be completely oblivious of this, or she could be the very operative mentioned in the book, keeping the trust of the agents of Life for nefarious purposes. Either way, the use of Ardenweald does not come entirely without costs. Its very existence could very well be the key to the undoing of the Plane of Life, and the Cosmos as a whole. Is this risk worth it for the ability to keep bringing back some animal gods?

I highly doubt the Winter Queen is oblivious in light of her purpose and function with Ardenweald. None of the Eternal Ones are like the various monarchs or tyrants of the real world, or even the rulers of nations in Azeroth like the Alliance or the Horde - they're are all a deeply intrinsic part of the realms they oversee, practically an extension of their lands. But if your conspiracy here is true, then that really does matter for the fate of Ursoc specifically, one way or the other.

Speaking of trade-offs, while this might not be immediately apparent (I confess I missed it to at first), the Wild Gods DO pay a price for their resurrection. All other souls coming into the Shadowlands retain their agency. Whether or not they give up their memories or shape later on, they are still freely acting individuals continuing into a new existence. The Wild Gods, however, go straight into the hibernation seeds. They do not get to make their own choices within the Shadowlands, entrusting themselves completely to their carers (one could speculate that this happens in order to limit the amount of information that seeps back from the Shadowlands into the other Planes, which would explain why Ardenweald isn't a staple in the cultures of all Wild God worshipers, but it's no more than that, speculation). Whether you think that this means they waiver their right to consent for the duration or, quite the contrary, that it puts a higher onus on the inhabitants of Ardenweald depends on your own moral fiber, but I'd go with the latter. Ardenweald would be super messed up if all the "Bucks" there were like the Buck from Kill Bill...

That's a metaphysical knot I don't think is easily undone, and the degree to which the slumbering essences of the Wild Gods and related entities that rest for a time in Ardenweald is an open question. I've said previously that I feel that Ursoc was given something of a choice along with Ara'lon as concerns his own fate, but that's also just speculation on my part, and the depiction of the event is vague enough that any formulation of how much agency he had, if any, is up for debate.

- - - Updated - - -

I'd agree that is 100% true in real life. But in WoW's universe it's doesn't hold true I think. For one, even the characters in the Shadowlands treat the arrival of souls as natural occurence, a way of live. I'm certain that to most of Shadowlands' citizens the souls *are* indeed entitled to the afterlife, they *want* souls to live, to them the souls are precious and important. I MEAN, that's where the tragedy in the Ardenweald cinematic comes from in the first place. WQ and the faunus believe Ursoc deserves to live and this creates the whole conflict and moral dilemma. The Shadowlands as a whole operate under the notion that a soul belongs to an afterlife. it's being telegraphed by various NPCs thorough the campaign. That's the impression I get from the quest texts and dialogues.

I think it all boils down to the fact that we both see eternal life (in WoW)differently. You see it as a priviledge, a special treatment, a reward for the deserving few, something inherently good. While I percieve it as just another fact of life. Neither inherently good nor inherently bad.

A priviledge and special treatment are manifested in HOW you spend the eternity. You may be given an eternal life in the Maw. You wouldn't call *that* eternal life a priviledge, would you?

Deserving and entitled are, again, two very different things - one is judged individually, and the other may or may not be granted from some intrinsic authority. I agree that the inhabitants of Ardenweald want their charges to live once more, as seeing them through this transitional period and soothing their troubled sleep before the next life begins is the purpose of the tenders of Ardenweald. But that doesn't itself imply that this practice is deserved, or that those who undergo are necessarily entitled to it, it's a process of an engine set into place long, long ago by powers we scarcely understand. In Ardenweald especially the souls who pass into it don't necessarily belong to it, either; they're there only temporarily - a kind of way station between one life and the next. It's an engine of rebirth, after all, not a permanent residence for the majority of its charges.

I actually don't see the afterlife in WoW as a privilege or special treatment, but neither do I see it as an axiomatic (and thus an entitled) part of the cycle of existence in a metacosmic sense, either. It's a process that's been cultivated, as much of a creation as the physical universe was, in a sense. The Eternal Ones, or perhaps the First Ones, set the engine in place so that existence could continue beyond death, as it were. But it's an existence with rules and exemptions. I scarcely even think of it as an afterlife, to be honest; not in the way I think of the various afterlife scenarios in real-world spirituality or what have you. The Shadowlands in WoW is more or less a parallel reality, another dimension whose primary method of entry is death in the physical world. Your fate there is just as much a product of higher power enacting the design of that reality as it is in the physical universe in WoW. In the physical universe your existence is plotted out (or at least recorded) by the true timeline set in place by the Pantheon in the early days of the universe, and in the Shadowlands you're at the direct whims of powerful beings like the Arbiter, or the Jailer, or the Eternal Ones who rule the various Covenant Realms (or whoever oversees the realm you actually arrive at following the Arbiter's judgment).

[Tyrannica]

Draka is a boring choice, if it was Orgrim, Ner’Zhul, Grom, Blackhand or Garrosh I would roll this zone asap. Now with Draka I get a feminist feeling that this was just to please the PC/Woke cult so I will stay far away from this zone and it’s plotline of strong Independent female needing no man.

But, i can't miss out on fleshcraft! Its the "manly" pvp convenant!

[Coconut]

Words have distinct meanings - use an incorrect word, with its associated assortment of incorrect context and implications, and you paint an incorrect picture or create a misinformed argument. All arguments are semantic when it comes to text, because the text is quite literally how we relate the ideas that form the core of our arguments. There's no flaw in that, it's the literal point of *all* argumentation. Discussing the meaning, comparing and contrasting the exact terms that suit a given set of ideas, is what a meaningful and intelligent conversation is made of. In this case I was quite literally arguing against the nature of your framing, the entire point of my rebuttal in this case. And, I think, you already knew all the words I used - just as I knew the meaning of the word "justified," I'm just saying your application of the term here is wrongheaded.

We're talking about the actions of a literal goddess, so "righteous" probably does fit the bill better than justified, though both terms probably fall short of the true mark - which is closer to a kind of divine mandate. You're assuming a frame in which the Winter Queen usurps or claims a power that, you imply, does not belong to her. I see it differently, the Winter Queen is manifestly and directly endowed with the authority to act as she does here - Ardenweald is her domain, and the processes of said domain fall under her sole and complete authority. *Only* the Winter Queen could make this kind of decision. Justice doesn't even figure into it, really; because that would assume another course could even be taken (which would be tantamount to a complete dereliction of her sacred charge and purpose).

I'm sorry, but that's pretzel logic. I used the correct word with the correct meaning, and you're doing nothing less than projecting your own wrongheadedness on me. You're giving me an entire lecture without actually countering what I said, and then proceed to double down on equating "justified" with "righteous" (I wouldn't equate it with "just" either, by the way)... And it's funny how the first time you were making the straw man that "righteous" does not apply, and now you're trying to argue that it does. Come on, we're both better than this.

As for "divine right", it doesn't even enter the equation for me. I would never consider "divine right" as a justification for anything; I find the notion itself to have unethical connotations. By that logic, Sire Denathrius would have the divine mandate to do whatever he wants with Ravendreth, as would the Jailer with whatever portion of the Shadowlands was rightfully his.

Adapting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights a little, I would say that a good fundamental ethical principle is that "All beings endowed with reason and consciousness come into the world free and equal in dignity and rights, with no distinctions to be made, and every one of them has the right to existence, liberty and security of person". Morally speaking, whoever breaks that, god or otherwise, would need to have a damn good reason. The Winter Queen breaks it both by treating them unequally (selecting herself who lives and who dies) and by denying some their existence in order to protect the chosen.

Now, you seem to be concerned that I am trying to make the Winter Queen look evil or unjust. I am not. Like I said from the start, I do think she has a good justification, the situation is dire enough that whoever is in power has to take some quick and drastic decisions. But her actions are still debatable.

Can't say I've ever been a part of or followed the GRRM fandom, as it were; so I concede to your experience on the matter here.

You should try it, it's great.

It still seems a weird way to go about it, though. People here drill down pretty deep into the narrative meat and bone of the Warcraft universe as well, but seldom with the same apparent antagonism to the author(s).

I agree that all the presented information should be parsed, passed through a sieve for consistency, and analyzed with abandon - by all means. But inserting your own conspiratorial narrative into the mix seems - well, it seems wrong to me. You judge the narrative you're given, I guess I'm saying; not the narrative you either wanted or the narrative that would prove some kind of ulterior notion true or false. If a character is presented in the narrative as a force of good, and painted in nobility; you assume that that narrative framing is the intended one - not that the author or authors are trying to trick you. And perhaps they *are* trying to trick you, but in that cause you should probably allow yourself to be tricked, because that's the point a surprise in a narrative, is it not? Like when your friends throw you a surprise party - you'd be a real wet blanket if you were always on guard for a well-intended but unexpected event.

I think you misjudge my tone and my intent. I'm not antagonizing the writers here. In fact, I said I would applaud them if this whole thing was intended, because it's pretty clever. Not in a perfidious way or anything, but in the sense that writers are actually employing the tools of the trade to direct the players' emotions and expectations towards a twist that would make them go back and reanalyze things. If it's not intended, there's probably some cognitive dissonance at play, but the parallels would still be worth exploring, if any exist.

I don't know why you frame the authors tricking us as a bad thing. It's only bad if it's cheap and unearned. But solid twists are what made ASoIaF great. The kind of twists that make you hurl the book out the window in a rage... only to pick it up and keep reading... and then read it again and concede that it knew where it was going all along. Oh, how I'd wish Blizzard would pull off something like that!

I also disagree about taking framing at face value... Subtext is what makes most stories good. Just imagine reading Vladimir Nabokov's Lolita or John Fowles's The Collector and assuming the way the narrators frame the stories is how you should interpret them...

As for allowing myself to be tricked, that is my choice, isn't it? This is a thread marked "Spoilers", I can speculate about things that might spoil the story... Besides, I was analyzing a complete clip. All of the themes were contained in there, with the parallels to Sylvanas being based on old speculations. I'm sorry if my musings will end up spoiling the story for you, but I guess that's a risk you would expose yourself to anyway by virtue of moderating spolier threads in the Lore forum...

*Winter Queen info*

Those quotes certainly make her look better, but it's interesting that siphoning off the pods doesn't come up in any of them.
The way it's presented here, the ones she can't afford to protect simply wither away...

[Aucald]

I'm sorry, but that's pretzel logic. I used the correct word with the correct meaning, and you're doing nothing less than projecting your own wrongheadedness on me. You're giving me an entire lecture without actually countering what I said, and then proceed to double down on equating "justified" with "righteous" (I wouldn't equate it with "just" either, by the way)... And it's funny how the first time you were making the straw man that "righteous" does not apply, and now you're trying to argue that it does. Come on, we're both better than this.

You seem a bit lost here - I actually expounded on the difference between "justified" and "righteous," which is literally the *exact opposite* of equating them. So I can only take away that you don't understand what I'm saying to you, or you're too busy constructing your own strawman version of my argument and simultaneously claiming that I'm strawmanning you - which both A.) isn't how a strawman argument actually works, and B.) isn't actually even communication. You're arguing with yourself here. I honestly can't tell you if we're both better than "this," because I'm not what "this" even is at this point. The accusation of pretzel logic has never been more ironic.

I'm looking for an honest and open exchange of ideas here, not some kind of bizarre demonstration of rhetorical strength where you shadow-box with yourself.

As for "divine right", it doesn't even enter the equation for me. I would never consider "divine right" as a justification for anything; I find the notion itself to have unethical connotations. By that logic, Sire Denathrius would have the divine mandate to do whatever he wants with Ravendreth, as would the Jailer with whatever portion of the Shadowlands was rightfully his.

Divine right isn't a justification for anything - it's a different modality altogether, you could say. As for Sire Denathrius and the Jailer, you could very well say that; although their desires extend well beyond their own realms and the charges under their "care."

Adapting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights a little, I would say that a good fundamental ethical principle is that "All beings endowed with reason and consciousness come into the world free and equal in dignity and rights, with no distinctions to be made, and every one of them has the right to existence, liberty and security of person". Morally speaking, whoever breaks that, god or otherwise, would need to have a damn good reason. The Winter Queen breaks it both by treating them unequally (selecting herself who lives and who dies) and by denying some their existence in order to protect the chosen.

Some will die regardless, it cannot be helped. The Winter Queen can either allow the vagaries of fate to decide for her, or she can make the decision herself. The situation implies the choice is being made based on the availability of anima, the viability of the lifeseeds she is gathering to the heart of Ardenweald, and an equation of which seeds can successfully be cultivated and which cannot. Again, you can blame her for the cold calculus, but I don't think you can deny that the end-result of either approach is the same. As the Winter Queen herself says: if some are not sacrificed then all will be lost.

Now, you seem to be concerned that I am trying to make the Winter Queen look evil or unjust. I am not. Like I said from the start, I do think she has a good justification, the situation is dire enough that whoever is in power has to take some quick and drastic decisions. But her actions are still debatable.

This seems like you're certainly backtracking from your previous assertion, at least insofar as I understood it. I would agree you could certainly debate her actions, though, insofar as you can debate nigh anything.

I think you misjudge my tone and my intent. I'm not antagonizing the writers here. In fact, I said I would applaud them if this whole thing was intended, because it's pretty clever. Not in a perfidious way or anything, but in the sense that writers are actually employing the tools of the trade to direct the players' emotions and expectations towards a twist that would make them go back and reanalyze things. If it's not intended, there's probably some cognitive dissonance at play, but the parallels would still be worth exploring, if any exist.

That is strange, because antagonism and conspiracy definitely seemed a strong theme in your arguments previously. I'm all for a well-executed twist myself, and if the Winter Queen turns out to be in league with the Jailer or the primary antagonist of Shadowlands then I'd applaud the writer's for a deftly executed bait-and-switch. But I don't think it's the case, really. I would say the Winter Queen's morality is definitely more blue/orange than the customary white/black morality we're accustomed to, and where her actions may ring as callous to a strictly good/evil moral compass there are likely alien and inscrutable rules at play in her judgments we're simply not privy to.

I don't know why you frame the authors tricking us as a bad thing. It's only bad if it's cheap and unearned. But solid twists are what made ASoIaF great. The kind of twists that make you hurl the book out the window in a rage... only to pick it up and keep reading... and then read it again and concede that it knew where it was going all along. Oh, how I'd wish Blizzard would pull off something like that!

Like I said above, well-executed twists are great, but that's not really what I'm talking about. Your approach seemed more like if an author was literally telling you "demons are bad," and your immediate response is to say "but what if demons are good and the writer is just saying their bad to mess with me" apropos of nothing, not even taking the narrative itself at its word. That's what it seemed like you were trying to do, but perhaps you were just talking about subtext and twists and I didn't necessarily follow you - I can't really say.

I also disagree about taking framing at face value... Subtext is what makes most stories good. Just imagine reading Vladimir Nabokov's Lolita or John Fowles's The Collector and assuming the way the narrators frame the stories is how you should interpret them...

Subtext is part of a narrative, and it needs to be taken in along with the rest - it's not a separate entity that you impute onto the narrative from outside. Imagine reading Vladimir Nabakov's Lolita and thinking it was actually about the Tudor dynasty's rise and fall in 15th century Europe, and that regardless of the fact that *nothing* in the narrative is even tangentially related to the Tudor dynasty, you still argued as if it were. Even if Nabakov himself said "no, it's actually a novel about solipsism and the fragility of identity," you just rolled on with the Tudor parallels regardless. That's kind of how this argument has rolled.

As for allowing myself to be tricked, that is my choice, isn't it? This is a thread marked "Spoilers", I can speculate about things that might spoil the story... Besides, I was analyzing a complete clip. All of the themes were contained in there, with the parallels to Sylvanas being based on old speculations. I'm sorry if my musings will end up spoiling the story for you, but I guess that's a risk you would expose yourself to anyway by virtue of moderating spolier threads in the Lore forum...

Not really talking about spoilers here, but more the notion of actually letting an author "trick" you, so to speak; letting yourself be open to the actual mechanical process of being surprised by the story zigging when it should have zagged, so to speak. This is also known as a function of suspension of disbelief.

Those quotes certainly make her look better, but it's interesting that siphoning off the pods doesn't come up in any of them.
The way it's presented here, the ones she can't afford to protect simply wither away...

It's a closed ecosystem that's no longer receiving its animating force (anima from arriving souls, as all anima is now directed into the Maw). As a result, the Ardenweald is crumbling into nothing, dying by inches and ounces. The Winter Queen can't make new anima out of nothing, so even the lifeseeds she saves in the heart of Ardenweald will die without the anima of sacrifices like Ursoc. This is why she petitions Sire Denathrius for the anima from Revendreth - not to restore her realm or even halt the Drought, which is something manifestly beyond her capability, but to conserve those seeds she was able to save. If that anima isn't forthcoming soon (which sadly it is not), then everything will still die and even Ursoc's sacrifice will have been for naught. If Ara'lon had chosen not to sacrifice Ursoc, then Ursoc would've still died - he was starving as it was, due to sheer paucity of anima as Ara'lon relates before the Wild Hunt arrives to his dying grove.

[naeblis495]

I don't have much of a problem with Ursoc's death and i'm a druid . I'm sure he would have gladly sacrificed his life to protect Ardenweld.

What i have a problem with is this little oath breaker bitch faralon/aralon . Oaths should never be taken lightly and yet he took a really ambitious one :"i shall see them reborn in their spring ,NO MATTER WHAT TRIALS I FACE ."

And yet , with the first trial he face (the drought) he break his oath and murder the very soul he was watching over as he took that vow/oath . He then lightly take another oath just as ambitious , as if he didn't even learned his lesson .

Of course sacrificing Ursoc was objectively the right course of action but that isn't the point : oaths should be broken and thus not be taken lightly either . i hope i will not see that traitorous satyr thing ever again because he demonstrated that his words have no value .

[Coconut]

You seem a bit lost here - I actually expounded on the difference between "justified" and "righteous," which is literally the *exact opposite* of equating them. So I can only take away that you don't understand what I'm saying to you, or you're too busy constructing your own strawman version of my argument and simultaneously claiming that I'm strawmanning you - which both A.) isn't how a strawman argument actually works, and B.) isn't actually even communication. You're arguing with yourself here. I honestly can't tell you if we're both better than "this," because I'm not what "this" even is at this point. The accusation of pretzel logic has never been more ironic.

I'm looking for an honest and open exchange of ideas here, not some kind of bizarre demonstration of rhetorical strength where you shadow-box with yourself.

Oh, come on! xD

This was from your original reply:

Justified? No, I don't think that is the argument being made - justice is framed by righteousness, but neither the sacrifice nor the tenor of the emotions surrounding their necessity are framed as righteous here. This is desperation, a solemn and somber undertaking, and everyone assembled radiates with the a sense of sorrowfulness that is easily translated from expression, posture, and general atmosphere.

Here, I said "justification". You replaced it with "justice" and "righteousness" and proceeded to counter the latter. Specifically, you said that it was NOT framed as "righteousness" (which it wasn't).

And then in the subsequent reply:

We're talking about the actions of a literal goddess, so "righteous" probably does fit the bill better than justified, though both terms probably fall short of the true mark - which is closer to a kind of divine mandate. You're assuming a frame in which the Winter Queen usurps or claims a power that, you imply, does not belong to her. I see it differently, the Winter Queen is manifestly and directly endowed with the authority to act as she does here - Ardenweald is her domain, and the processes of said domain fall under her sole and complete authority. *Only* the Winter Queen could make this kind of decision. Justice doesn't even figure into it, really; because that would assume another course could even be taken (which would be tantamount to a complete dereliction of her sacred charge and purpose).

You're arguing that the straw man "synonym" I disagreed with "fits better", and it only probably falls short of your true mark, "divine right" which is something that is irrelevant to any discussion about morality... You go from replacing my words with something else so you can shut them down easier, to telling me you replaced it with something better. How is this NOT pretzel logic? Why didn't you just try to counter "justified"? It should have been easier. xD

But that's just pointless pedantry anyway...

Some will die regardless, it cannot be helped. The Winter Queen can either allow the vagaries of fate to decide for her, or she can make the decision herself. The situation implies the choice is being made based on the availability of anima, the viability of the lifeseeds she is gathering to the heart of Ardenweald, and an equation of which seeds can successfully be cultivated and which cannot. Again, you can blame her for the cold calculus, but I don't think you can deny that the end-result of either approach is the same. As the Winter Queen herself says: if some are not sacrificed then all will be lost.

This seems like you're certainly backtracking from your previous assertion, at least insofar as I understood it. I would agree you could certainly debate her actions, though, insofar as you can debate nigh anything.

I would make more fun of you for acting so sure of yourself without going back to read your own comments, but I guess I was also more critical of the Winter Queen than I remembered in my original comment, though my aim was always to present her actions as "framed as good, but actually grey, with a potential of being interpreted as black". Personally I don't think that she is evil, but I want to accentuate that she could be.

Her true alignment is not that important to me (it's hard to tell given the general lack of knowledge about the history of the Eternal Ones), so there's no need to get your feathers so ruffled defending her. The argument was always about themes and framing, and how it relates to the older theories about Sylvanas pulling a con on the Jailer (or generally opposing the primary antagonist from the Plane of Death) and ultimately saving everyone.

The primary argument against that scenario was that it would lead to a narrative in which the genocide of Teldrassil is justified with bullshit - and as much as I disliked the implications, it was an excellent argument. It felt at that time that Blizzard had placed itself in an impossible position where either Sylvanas or the Night Elves would be shat on by the story. However, at that time the Jailer seemed to be, at worst, Sargeras 2.0, Lucio Fulci edition. Assuming that Sylvanas would engage in a no-holds-barred genocidal long con in order to gain the Jailer's trust instead of simply warning everyone about the threat felt absurd, and the simplicity of that alternative solution weighed against the monumental scale of the atrocities committed.

With the revelations from the newly discovered book of deception, however, the long con theory comes back on the table. This is not just a threat against Azeroth, or the Shadowlands themselves, that we are facing, but a cosmic-scale conspiracy that has been unfolding since ancient times, a conspiracy for which the Burning Legion had been merely a chess move, and which has managed to infiltrate all other Planes of Existence. In a hypothetical situation where Sylvanas uncovers all of this, the easy solution of simply telling everyone is no longer viable. Anyone could be compromised. Even those who fought valiantly against the Legion. Even the vaunted agents of Light and Life. Going to them with the information would only tip her hand and mark her as an enemy. But going all in on the Jailer's side, making it look that she's truly desperate, truly irredeemable, truly willing to be used by him if it means she can survive, would give her the chance to test the waters, see who is compromised and who he deems as a threat, identify vulnerabilities and make a plan to topple him from within. The question is, would the player base (particularly on the Alliance side) accept such a twist, or would they find it morally offensive because they're too hung up on getting vengeance for Teldrassil (especially since players tend to be partisan even at the best of times, crying favoritism and getting offended for the smallest things - and Teldrassil was anything but small)?

And this is why the thematic undercurrents of the Ardenweald clip triggered my radar. Because if you deconstruct the moral questions framed by these two stories, if you take down the fluff (and the Winter's Queen "divine right" is fluff in terms of pure ethics) they are essentially the same: one person faced with the knowledge that their World is imminently wasting away has to decide, alone, if they would throw unwitting innocents into the grinder in order to buy time and try to save it. Blizzard made this short story in which they purposely frame this as morally acceptable. Makes you wonder. Thematic parallels in stories can be good, particularly in complex stories. It makes people subconsciously attuned to certain ideas. It gives them something to compare, so they can shore up their arguments with similarities and contrasts. I would be glad to see that Blizzard actually planned ahead for once, and planted these seemingly unrelated seeds that can be picked later.

Subtext is part of a narrative, and it needs to be taken in along with the rest - it's not a separate entity that you impute onto the narrative from outside. Imagine reading Vladimir Nabakov's Lolita and thinking it was actually about the Tudor dynasty's rise and fall in 15th century Europe, and that regardless of the fact that *nothing* in the narrative is even tangentially related to the Tudor dynasty, you still argued as if it were. Even if Nabakov himself said "no, it's actually a novel about solipsism and the fragility of identity," you just rolled on with the Tudor parallels regardless. That's kind of how this argument has rolled.

Maybe you really didn't get where I was coming from if you thought I was that far off the mark... though talking about the ethics in a clip centered on a pure soul who has to decide whether he'll let the sleeping bear he sword to protect get snuffed from existence for the sake of the world doesn't seem like it's going more than one layer deep.

Not really talking about spoilers here, but more the notion of actually letting an author "trick" you, so to speak; letting yourself be open to the actual mechanical process of being surprised by the story zigging when it should have zagged, so to speak. This is also known as a function of suspension of disbelief.

Theorycrafting is also fun. What else are we going to do on a Lore forum? Aren't you tired of reading nothing but whining, white knighting and unflinching partisan arguments? At least the High Elf threads are gone...

[Aucald]

You're arguing that the straw man "synonym" I disagreed with "fits better", and it only probably falls short of your true mark, "divine right" which is something that is irrelevant to any discussion about morality... You go from replacing my words with something else so you can shut them down easier, to telling me you replaced it with something better. How is this NOT pretzel logic? Why didn't you just try to counter "justified"? It should have been easier. xD

Yes, and you're mincing together two separate trains of thought that weren't previously related and trying to pass them off as if they were always a single argument. I'm going to chalk this down as us talking past one another unintentionally and just focus on the meat of the argument as opposed to this semantic stumbling.

I would make more fun of you for acting so sure of yourself without going back to read your own comments, but I guess I was also more critical of the Winter Queen than I remembered in my original comment, though my aim was always to present her actions as "framed as good, but actually grey, with a potential of being interpreted as black". Personally I don't think that she is evil, but I want to accentuate that she could be.

"Making fun of me" isn't a great way to come across as arguing in good faith, regardless of the argument you're making or how you're making it. As I said before, this isn't a contest of performative, rhetorical strength, and we're not (to my knowledge) in some kind of bizarre competition. Regardless, I don't think the Winter Queen is either good or evil was we reckon such things, but more beholden to a code that is intrinsic or elemental to her. What is happening in Ardenweald, however, still falls more on the side of "good" as opposed to "evil" - not because of the Winter Queen, mind you, but just the actual outcome of saving some Wild God souls as opposed to leaving them all to eventually die.

Her true alignment is not that important to me (it's hard to tell given the general lack of knowledge about the history of the Eternal Ones), so there's no need to get your feathers so ruffled defending her. The argument was always about themes and framing, and how it relates to the older theories about Sylvanas pulling a con on the Jailer (or generally opposing the primary antagonist from the Plane of Death) and ultimately saving everyone.

The primary argument against that scenario was that it would lead to a narrative in which the genocide of Teldrassil is justified with bullshit - and as much as I disliked the implications, it was an excellent argument. It felt at that time that Blizzard had placed itself in an impossible position where either Sylvanas or the Night Elves would be shat on by the story. However, at that time the Jailer seemed to be, at worst, Sargeras 2.0, Lucio Fulci edition. Assuming that Sylvanas would engage in a no-holds-barred genocidal long con in order to gain the Jailer's trust instead of simply warning everyone about the threat felt absurd, and the simplicity of that alternative solution weighed against the monumental scale of the atrocities committed.

Well, you were definitely previously trying to paint the Winter Queen as a probable malefactor - implying that vainglory and tyranny where her primary drivers, which I'd say is a strong argument about her true alignment on your part. I'm less defending her personally (since there's no reason to "defend" an entirely fictional character) and more pointing out why I think you're wrong, based on the major themes that the narrative is conveying. I also don't think the Ardenweald/Winter Queen story has anything at all to do with Sylvanas except in the most indirect of senses - Sylvanas can be said to have caused the Drought (although that, too, is debatable), but the Ardenweald story-arc is about the Drought specifically, and the actions of the Night Fae to combat it (with the Drust as a secondary antagonist). The complete absence of Sylvanas from *any* of the Ardenweald's narrative pretty strongly belies a possible connection between her and the Winter Queen. That could of course change later, though; who can say.

With the revelations from the newly discovered book of deception, however, the long con theory comes back on the table. This is not just a threat against Azeroth, or the Shadowlands themselves, that we are facing, but a cosmic-scale conspiracy that has been unfolding since ancient times, a conspiracy for which the Burning Legion had been merely a chess move, and which has managed to infiltrate all other Planes of Existence. In a hypothetical situation where Sylvanas uncovers all of this, the easy solution of simply telling everyone is no longer viable. Anyone could be compromised. Even those who fought valiantly against the Legion. Even the vaunted agents of Light and Life. Going to them with the information would only tip her hand and mark her as an enemy. But going all in on the Jailer's side, making it look that she's truly desperate, truly irredeemable, truly willing to be used by him if it means she can survive, would give her the chance to test the waters, see who is compromised and who he deems as a threat, identify vulnerabilities and make a plan to topple him from within. The question is, would the player base (particularly on the Alliance side) accept such a twist, or would they find it morally offensive because they're too hung up on getting vengeance for Teldrassil (especially since players tend to be partisan even at the best of times, crying favoritism and getting offended for the smallest things - and Teldrassil was anything but small)?

Personally speaking, I think the community has gone a bit overboard with the whole "Nathrezim missive" - this has the makings of people jumping at literal shadows and blaming anything and everything of being a potential Dreadlord (e.g. "Thrall's been a Dreadlord all along," etc. etc.) or somehow the catspaw of the Dreadlord conspiracy. Assuming you believe it is itself true (also a very open question). I admit it's heady stuff, and the mind can easily spin at the all the implications both gross and subtle, but when faced with a conspiracy you still need to apply Occam's Razor and ask the basic questions: who, what, when, where, how, and why.

Sylvanas, since becoming an undead Banshee and creating the Forsaken to aid her in her vendetta against the Lich King, has been many things - but one of the things she has not been is altruistic. Your conspiracy above would paint her in probably the most altruistic light possible for a single individual, but this has never been one of her traits - it wasn't even one of her traits when she was alive. More pragmatically speaking, why would she even care about this? She's long been driven by very basic and direct goals such as initially vengeance against Arthas/The Lich King, then the furtherance of her own existence as a means to avoid the Maw. More importantly, we *know* her very thoughts from multiple sources, we have a narratively omniscient insight into who and what she is from a variety of vantages. So unless she's hid her foreknowledge of a massive, metacosm-spanning conspiracy from her own innermost thoughts, it stands to reason that she's not actually involved in it except perhaps as a patsy herself (e.g. of the Jailer himself).

And this is why the thematic undercurrents of the Ardenweald clip triggered my radar. Because if you deconstruct the moral questions framed by these two stories, if you take down the fluff (and the Winter's Queen "divine right" is fluff in terms of pure ethics) they are essentially the same: one person faced with the knowledge that their World is imminently wasting away has to decide, alone, if they would throw unwitting innocents into the grinder in order to buy time and try to save it. Blizzard made this short story in which they purposely frame this as morally acceptable. Makes you wonder. Thematic parallels in stories can be good, particularly in complex stories. It makes people subconsciously attuned to certain ideas. It gives them something to compare, so they can shore up their arguments with similarities and contrasts. I would be glad to see that Blizzard actually planned ahead for once, and planted these seemingly unrelated seeds that can be picked later.

*If* the aforementioned parallel to Sylvanas stood up on its own, I would readily agree with the argument that the parallel would be a good one - since I don't feel that it does, however, I think the parallel is inapplicable and can't be forced. Not to mention that one of the purposes of the Ardenweald, as related by the Winter Queen herself, is to keep the Maw shut and the Jailer trapped. If the Winter Queen were complicit in the grand conspiracy, she wouldn't truly act against her own interest by sacrificing wildseeds to save others and try to hold Ardenweald together. Contrast her with Sire Denathrius, who *is* complicit with the Jailer and actively aiding him, or Sylvanas for that matter. Denathrius doesn't give a fig for the dereliction of his ancient duty as he thinks he's found a way beyond it, some path that leads him to a greater claiming of some kind. His entire realm is fraying into pieces and his courtiers and court corrupt to the core, and he doesn't give a toss. The case in Ardenweald, though; totally different - where everyone is making agonizing calls to save what few lives can be saved, trying in vain to scrape by in the hope that a miracle is waiting in the wings (the miracle likely being us).

Maybe you really didn't get where I was coming from if you thought I was that far off the mark... though talking about the ethics in a clip centered on a pure soul who has to decide whether he'll let the sleeping bear he sword to protect get snuffed from existence for the sake of the world doesn't seem like it's going more than one layer deep.

As Sigmund Freud is purported to have said: "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." I don't think Afterlives: Ardenweald is meant to be mind-crogglingly complex or impenetrably deep, really. It's a simple story about a guardian, an oath, and the sad and agonizing choice to uphold an oath when the result violates its very spirit, or to forsake the oath in the name of a greater or nobler act. Sometimes there are problems that don't have a solution or a correct answer, and there are occasions where someone can do everything right and still lose everything in the end. To frame that even more directly, we've spent countless words arguing back and forth about the Winter Queen and her role in the story, but the story of Afterlives: Ardenweald isn't even about the Winter Queen, it's about Ara'lon and his plight, the choice of doing your duty even when the purpose of that duty is impossible, or doing the unthinkable even when you know that in the situation you find yourself in it's the only thing that makes sense. Poor Ara'lon is the protagonist of the story here, and the Winter Queen is really only a background plot point. The weight of the decision, and the ultimate choice that isn't a choice, rests entirely on Ara'lon's shoulders.

Theorycrafting is also fun. What else are we going to do on a Lore forum? Aren't you tired of reading nothing but whining, white knighting and unflinching partisan arguments? At least the High Elf threads are gone...

Like I said, I enjoy open and honest discourse in good faith. We don't have to agree at the end of the day - in fact, we probably won't regardless of how persuasive either of us think we are. I appreciate the luxury of other perspectives, and I actually find your strange conspiracy theory above fascinating even if I don't agree that it's likely. I could very well be surprised, though; and wrong to boot - wouldn't be the first time I took the wrong read of something and zigged when I should've zagged.

[Syegfryed]

You know they did a good job with this cinematic because it can produce such clash among the fanbase, like the first one too, with draka was just awful.

now im more hyped about the last one, lets see if they will do a boring or a good one, do we know the release date?:

I don't have much of a problem with Ursoc's death and i'm a druid . I'm sure he would have gladly sacrificed his life to protect Ardenweld.

What i have a problem with is this little oath breaker bitch faralon/aralon . Oaths should never be taken lightly and yet he took a really ambitious one :"i shall see them reborn in their spring ,NO MATTER WHAT TRIALS I FACE ."

And yet , with the first trial he face (the drought) he break his oath and murder the very soul he was watching over as he took that vow/oath . He then lightly take another oath just as ambitious , as if he didn't even learned his lesson .

he is elf-like creature, of course he would do an elf-like thing, they are like that

[tommyhil622]

You know they did a good job with this cinematic because it can produce such clash among the fanbase, like the first one too, with draka was just awful.

now im more hyped about the last one, lets see if they will do a boring or a good one, do we know the release date?:

This Thursday coming up, the 17th.

[Jastall]

For the nonce I maintain that anyone who has a takeaway from these cinematics that the Covenant leaders/Arbiter are the true evil is trying way too hard to find a hidden meaning where there is none. At worst they will be seen as misguided and mend their ways in another emotional moment of storytelling, while the Jailer and Sylvanas have character designs, voice lines and motivations that just scream evil and one of them has already been said to be the final boss of the expansion. Count on most if not all of Shadowland's problems to be pinned on them or their minions just like every problem in Mists was pinned on Garrosh and every problem in BfA was pinned on Sylvanas also.

This is similar to the people arguing that Thanos was right in Infinity War just because he wasn't a snidely whiplash, mustache twirling villain. Then basically got turned into in Endgame because it's a superhero series after all and the good guys are good while the bad guys are bad. WoW's never really went for depth in its morality (memes aside), I very much doubt it'll really start now, and people looking for true moral ambiguity had best look elsewhere because the writers sure will never be good enough to actually pull it off.

Not saying people shouldn't discuss the cinematic, but remember whose game you're playing is all. This isn't GRRM or Obsidian writing, it's Blizzard writing.

[Coconut]

"Making fun of me" isn't a great way to come across as arguing in good faith, regardless of the argument you're making or how you're making it. As I said before, this isn't a contest of performative, rhetorical strength, and we're not (to my knowledge) in some kind of bizarre competition. Regardless, I don't think the Winter Queen is either good or evil was we reckon such things, but more beholden to a code that is intrinsic or elemental to her. What is happening in Ardenweald, however, still falls more on the side of "good" as opposed to "evil" - not because of the Winter Queen, mind you, but just the actual outcome of saving some Wild God souls as opposed to leaving them all to eventually die.

That comment was tongue in cheek, I hope you realize. xD Especially since I pointed out at my own inconsistencies.

Well, you were definitely previously trying to paint the Winter Queen as a probable malefactor - implying that vainglory and tyranny where her primary drivers, which I'd say is a strong argument about her true alignment on your part.

I was indeed focusing on that potential characterization in order to highlight the contrast between message and framing, which was the core of my argument. I never had any intention to double down on the "Winter Queen is evil" train (as I said, I don't really think that's their intent), and if I did, it was because I got caught up in the rhetoric. My point stands perfectly fine without it, though it's easier to see it like this.

I also don't think the Ardenweald/Winter Queen story has anything at all to do with Sylvanas except in the most indirect of senses - Sylvanas can be said to have caused the Drought (although that, too, is debatable), but the Ardenweald story-arc is about the Drought specifically, and the actions of the Night Fae to combat it (with the Drust as a secondary antagonist). The complete absence of Sylvanas from *any* of the Ardenweald's narrative pretty strongly belies a possible connection between her and the Winter Queen. That could of course change later, though; who can say.

Thematic parallels do not require a character connection. Sylvanas and Illidan never shared a scene, and the scenario I proposed would still draw parallels between them, just like you can draw parallels between Vol'jin and Saurfang even though they don't interact that much and even Anduin and Arthas in that one Lordaeron scene.

Personally speaking, I think the community has gone a bit overboard with the whole "Nathrezim missive" - this has the makings of people jumping at literal shadows and blaming anything and everything of being a potential Dreadlord (e.g. "Thrall's been a Dreadlord all along," etc. etc.) or somehow the catspaw of the Dreadlord conspiracy. Assuming you believe it is itself true (also a very open question). I admit it's heady stuff, and the mind can easily spin at the all the implications both gross and subtle, but when faced with a conspiracy you still need to apply Occam's Razor and ask the basic questions: who, what, when, where, how, and why.

From a Watsonian perspective, I understand why you would doubt that the journal is true, but from the writers' perspective, I can't see the point of that. It's one of the juiciest reveals we've had in a pretty long time. What would be the narrative gain in floating something like this under the players' noses only to say "syke" later on? I mean, 2 or 3 expansions from now, when we go someplace else, they can always backtrack and say "Plane X wasn't really infiltrated", but now I think we're meant to operate under the assumption that the journal is genuine, and this also applies to characters who might have become aware of it.

Sure, deep down a grain of salt should always be implied - it's only logical - but there's no need bringing it up every time we use the book as an argument, or we might end up with high blood pressure. It's not like it's unusual for Blizzard to use unrealistic plot devices in order to convey important imformation to the players (how many times do we listen in to a Big Bad's plan while hiding behind a rock?).

Sylvanas, since becoming an undead Banshee and creating the Forsaken to aid her in her vendetta against the Lich King, has been many things - but one of the things she has not been is altruistic. Your conspiracy above would paint her in probably the most altruistic light possible for a single individual, but this has never been one of her traits - it wasn't even one of her traits when she was alive. More pragmatically speaking, why would she even care about this? She's long been driven by very basic and direct goals such as initially vengeance against Arthas/The Lich King, then the furtherance of her own existence as a means to avoid the Maw. More importantly, we *know* her very thoughts from multiple sources, we have a narratively omniscient insight into who and what she is from a variety of vantages. So unless she's hid her foreknowledge of a massive, metacosm-spanning conspiracy from her own innermost thoughts, it stands to reason that she's not actually involved in it except perhaps as a patsy herself (e.g. of the Jailer himself).

Sylvanas's true character and motivations are still open to speculation. I can formulate multiple scenarios (and altruism need not be a primary motivator in all of them), but that would only derail the discussion. I am not prepared to commit to any one in particular, and you have your own assumptions that probably don't align with mine. It's enough to say that Blizzard claimed we'll learn more about her motivation. Hopefully there will be more to it than the burning of Teldrassil.

Beyond that, however, the scenario works on numerous levels. Sylvanas opposing Dreadlords and outplaying them at their own game is a narrative echo of Warcraft III, which is iconic and highly nostalgic. Sylvanas opposing a Lich King figure and reaching some sort of resolution with Arthas would be giving her what she was unfairly denied in Wrath, and there does seem to be a link between the Lich King and the Jailer. Sylvanas actually having a clever plan beyond kick-starting the next expansion would also be an opportunity to retroactively fix some of seemingly nonsensical decisions and plot developments in BFA. The way Saurfang's rebellion was handled would certainly make a lot more sense (particularly from a loyalist perspective) if it was all a planned contingency to make sure that the war stops and the Horde remains in a relatively stable position once she unmasks herself.

Regarding the last part, there is even some interesting parallel in the Before the Storm novel, where Saurfang and Nathanos have a very public fight in Orgrimmar before the onset of the War of Thorns as some sort of ruse aimed at the Alliance. I am NOT saying that Saurfang was in on it, only that he was cleverly manipulated. In fact, many steps of the Horde war campaign work a lot better if they were aimed at instigating a rebellion and setting it up for a peace with the Alliance at the end, while if we take them at face value they are mostly disjointed failures:

- Sylvanas pointedly pushes Saurfang over the edge at Lordaeron, making him stay behind at the gates to face the entire Alliance army alone, circumstances in which Anduin predictably would have taken him prisoner rather than have him killed. And also predictably he would have given him the idea to rebel with Alliance support, because that's how Anduin operates, and because it had worked so well with Vol'jin.
- The Dark Rangers are sent after Saurfang to inflame him and make sure that he takes the rebellion option. Notice how Sylvanas tells the loyalist player that she has special plans for Zekhan, but then nothing bad happens to him; Zekhan is simply allowed to spread word about Saurfang and gather allies for their underground movement.
- Sylvanas sends assassins after Thrall, who is off in the fuck end of Outland, with no thought whatsoever of interfering with her plans. They lead Saurfang there and the end result is that Thrall is reeled into the rebellion.
- She openly explains to Baine in gory details a most abominable and dishonorable plan of raising Derek Proudmoore and using his mind-broken husk to murder the entire Proudmoore family in their sleep. She then leaves Derek to be "conditioned" in the most accessible of places, with no sign whatsoever that said conditioning is working, which leads Baine to rescue him and mend fences with Jaina.
- She has Baine arrested and floats around the idea that she will have him executed, which leads to Thrall and Jaina mending fences as well, and the Alliance and Horde rebels to start working together.
- She orchestrates the events in Nazjatar, which further cement cooperation between the Horde and the Alliance. Interestingly, loyalist players learn that Nathanos was tasked to use that campaign "as an opportunity to weed out the disloyal", yet both Lor'themar and Thalysra make it through just fine. We never learn who those "disloyal" were, so in truth she might not have meant "potential rebels" at all.
- Finally, she has the very public duel with Saurfang, in which, in spite of winning, she seems to go out of her way to lose support of her loyalists and let the united Alliance and Horde rebels take the city. She even makes a nice play on words that would suggest this was the plan all along: "The Horde is nothing. You are all nothing" + "Nothing lasts" = "The Horde and Alliance will live on".

Sure, you will say this is nothing but wild speculation (with a little bit of logic in it, though). But it's more appealing than random nonsense to me.

*If* the aforementioned parallel to Sylvanas stood up on its own, I would readily agree with the argument that the parallel would be a good one - since I don't feel that it does, however, I think the parallel is inapplicable and can't be forced. Not to mention that one of the purposes of the Ardenweald, as related by the Winter Queen herself, is to keep the Maw shut and the Jailer trapped. If the Winter Queen were complicit in the grand conspiracy, she wouldn't truly act against her own interest by sacrificing wildseeds to save others and try to hold Ardenweald together. Contrast her with Sire Denathrius, who *is* complicit with the Jailer and actively aiding him, or Sylvanas for that matter. Denathrius doesn't give a fig for the dereliction of his ancient duty as he thinks he's found a way beyond it, some path that leads him to a greater claiming of some kind. His entire realm is fraying into pieces and his courtiers and court corrupt to the core, and he doesn't give a toss. The case in Ardenweald, though; totally different - where everyone is making agonizing calls to save what few lives can be saved, trying in vain to scrape by in the hope that a miracle is waiting in the wings (the miracle likely being us).

The only potential hints that the Queen is part of the conspiracy are the vague injustice committed against the Jailer (which may very well be that they foiled his plan to have Death take over everything) and the fact that Ardenweald was used as a source of information to infiltrate the Plane of Life. The second is peculiar, given how insular the Shadowlands realms are, but it's not out of the question at all that they could have learned without her knowledge. Ultimately, there is a possibility, but this scenario is the grain of salt behind other alternatives.

Like I said, I enjoy open and honest discourse in good faith. We don't have to agree at the end of the day - in fact, we probably won't regardless of how persuasive either of us think we are. I appreciate the luxury of other perspectives, and I actually find your strange conspiracy theory above fascinating even if I don't agree that it's likely. I could very well be surprised, though; and wrong to boot - wouldn't be the first time I took the wrong read of something and zigged when I should've zagged.

Looking solely at official lore, I could tell you I zigged when I should have zagged at the very least with Vol'jin's death and the BFA Blizzcon cinematic, and then probably a dozen other things, so amen to that!

[bagina]

Tbh, crazy theories and conspiracies are the best part of lore discussions imo

[Aucald]

Thematic parallels do not require a character connection. Sylvanas and Illidan never shared a scene, and the scenario I proposed would still draw parallels between them, just like you can draw parallels between Vol'jin and Saurfang even though they don't interact that much and even Anduin and Arthas in that one Lordaeron scene.

I've never really seen much of a parallel between Sylvanas and Illidan myself. Even back in the days when Sylvanas was more anti-hero than outright villain (e.g. WC3: TFT and very early WoW), they were anti-heroic in very different ways. Sylvanas was a kind of "go at it alone, screw the hierarchy" type of figure, forging the Forsaken into her army to fulfill a very private grievance against Arthas. There was a heroic outcome in that, as Arthas/The Lich King was definitely a force of evil that needed to be stopped, but that heroism was a distant second to her desire for vindication against the man himself. Illidan, by contrast, is more in the mold of your traditional anti-hero: use your enemies' power against them, a misunderstood iconoclast, made all the more essentially tragic by the need to set themselves apart from the heroes (either due to misplaced loyalty or a need to prove themselves, or in Illidan's case, both). In the course of their long term story-arcs both characters slowly left their initial anti-hero molds and adopted more polar ones: Sylvanas grew more and more villainous as her darkness consumed her, whereas Illidan grew more and more heroic as the rightness of his original cause was proven (though a degree of their original characterization still remains).

From a Watsonian perspective, I understand why you would doubt that the journal is true, but from the writers' perspective, I can't see the point of that. It's one of the juiciest reveals we've had in a pretty long time. What would be the narrative gain in floating something like this under the players' noses only to say "syke" later on? I mean, 2 or 3 expansions from now, when we go someplace else, they can always backtrack and say "Plane X wasn't really infiltrated", but now I think we're meant to operate under the assumption that the journal is genuine, and this also applies to characters who might have become aware of it.

Sure, deep down a grain of salt should always be implied - it's only logical - but there's no need bringing it up every time we use the book as an argument, or we might end up with high blood pressure. It's not like it's unusual for Blizzard to use unrealistic plot devices in order to convey important imformation to the players (how many times do we listen in to a Big Bad's plan while hiding behind a rock?).

Oh, the Dreadlords can still have a Watsonian agenda even if the missive isn't explicitly true as related - there's plenty of power and capital in the notion of claiming a false agency, even insinuating that your hand was behind great events. If nothing else it lures your enemies to you, and it makes them doubt your power-level so to speak - if the Nathrezim can suborn a mighty Titan, or pinch the proverbial cheeks of the Void Lords, then that would make anyone second-guess their prowess. Another wrinkle is that this could just be a kind of PR move on their part - feeling deflated due to the Legion's defeat at Argus and the loss of Sargeras to the Seat of the Pantheon, they author a new legacy seeded in deception, pretending at greater plans and wheels within wheels to assuage their own egos and wounded pride. And of course there remains the open question as to where it is actually from the Nathrezim at all - although I also think that the mounting circumstantial evidence is making them look more and more like the original authors.

Sylvanas's true character and motivations are still open to speculation. I can formulate multiple scenarios (and altruism need not be a primary motivator in all of them), but that would only derail the discussion. I am not prepared to commit to any one in particular, and you have your own assumptions that probably don't align with mine. It's enough to say that Blizzard claimed we'll learn more about her motivation. Hopefully there will be more to it than the burning of Teldrassil.

The rationale behind Teldrassil has already been given, pretty much straight from Sylvanas' own inner monologue. While it is possible that future events or unveiled plans might cause that event to be recontexualized to a degree, I don't think Sylvanas will be the agent of that herself. Influence from the Jailer, some kind of coercion, or any number of possibilities could present themselves, but the core of the rationale won't change - Sylvanas did it for the reasons she provided in A Good War and later explained further at the close of patch 8.2.5. Whether or not someone else was leaning on the tiller of destiny doesn't change her involvement.

Beyond that, however, the scenario works on numerous levels. Sylvanas opposing Dreadlords and outplaying them at their own game is a narrative echo of Warcraft III, which is iconic and highly nostalgic. Sylvanas opposing a Lich King figure and reaching some sort of resolution with Arthas would be giving her what she was unfairly denied in Wrath, and there does seem to be a link between the Lich King and the Jailer. Sylvanas actually having a clever plan beyond kick-starting the next expansion would also be an opportunity to retroactively fix some of seemingly nonsensical decisions and plot developments in BFA. The way Saurfang's rebellion was handled would certainly make a lot more sense (particularly from a loyalist perspective) if it was all a planned contingency to make sure that the war stops and the Horde remains in a relatively stable position once she unmasks herself.

Much of this hinges on what your takeaway on these "nonsensical decisions and plot developments" happen to be. BfA wasn't a great story in and of itself, mostly down to the fact that regardless of the opening salvos the end of the story would also come down to how it actually ended: the resumption of the status quo and some species of effective detente between the Horde and the Alliance. Much of BfA's ludonarrative was necessarily constrained by this ultimate requirement - you can't take either faction off the table, as it were, and so there was no condition in which either faction could "win" the war (or even "lose" it). I agree this doesn't make for a great story, but it's rather easy to understand at the end of the day, there's not a whole lot of available subtext. Saurfang's insurrection was the force that brought the Horde back to the effective status quo of a separate peace, and Sylvanas' regime was doomed from the word "go" since her stated goal was the complete decimation of the Alliance (which can't happen as a result of the game's very nature). The Horde Loyalist campaign was a magician's hand to create a sense of player agency in the outcome, but there was sadly no real way to honor the Loyalist path as it required an impossible outcome to begin with. That's not really nonsensical, though; it's just a gameplay device requiring perhaps a bit too much suspension of disbelief to function properly.

Regarding the last part, there is even some interesting parallel in the Before the Storm novel, where Saurfang and Nathanos have a very public fight in Orgrimmar before the onset of the War of Thorns as some sort of ruse aimed at the Alliance. I am NOT saying that Saurfang was in on it, only that he was cleverly manipulated. In fact, many steps of the Horde war campaign work a lot better if they were aimed at instigating a rebellion and setting it up for a peace with the Alliance at the end, while if we take them at face value they are mostly disjointed failures:

Saurfang was both "in on it" for his part, but also cleverly manipulated as he wasn't given the full picture to begin with. Saurfang was on board with a war that would see the Alliance cowed and no longer willing to fight Horde supremacy - even if that outcome required some reprehensible acts to bring about (such as the murder of Malfurion Stormrage). He was not, however, on board for a war of outright genocide - not the kind of war Sylvanas was ready and quite willing to wage. Complicity in her brazen atrocities briefly silenced him prior to the Battle of Lordaeron, a sense that his willingness to kill an Alliance leader made him unable to judge Sylvanas in the manner befitting her crimes, but as time passed and her shadow grow longer and darker, he decided he must act as there was no one apparently left with the will or capacity to do so.

- Sylvanas pointedly pushes Saurfang over the edge at Lordaeron, making him stay behind at the gates to face the entire Alliance army alone, circumstances in which Anduin predictably would have taken him prisoner rather than have him killed. And also predictably he would have given him the idea to rebel with Alliance support, because that's how Anduin operates, and because it had worked so well with Vol'jin.
- The Dark Rangers are sent after Saurfang to inflame him and make sure that he takes the rebellion option. Notice how Sylvanas tells the loyalist player that she has special plans for Zekhan, but then nothing bad happens to him; Zekhan is simply allowed to spread word about Saurfang and gather allies for their underground movement.
- Sylvanas sends assassins after Thrall, who is off in the fuck end of Outland, with no thought whatsoever of interfering with her plans. They lead Saurfang there and the end result is that Thrall is reeled into the rebellion.
- She openly explains to Baine in gory details a most abominable and dishonorable plan of raising Derek Proudmoore and using his mind-broken husk to murder the entire Proudmoore family in their sleep. She then leaves Derek to be "conditioned" in the most accessible of places, with no sign whatsoever that said conditioning is working, which leads Baine to rescue him and mend fences with Jaina.
- She has Baine arrested and floats around the idea that she will have him executed, which leads to Thrall and Jaina mending fences as well, and the Alliance and Horde rebels to start working together.
- She orchestrates the events in Nazjatar, which further cement cooperation between the Horde and the Alliance. Interestingly, loyalist players learn that Nathanos was tasked to use that campaign "as an opportunity to weed out the disloyal", yet both Lor'themar and Thalysra make it through just fine. We never learn who those "disloyal" were, so in truth she might not have meant "potential rebels" at all.
- Finally, she has the very public duel with Saurfang, in which, in spite of winning, she seems to go out of her way to lose support of her loyalists and let the united Alliance and Horde rebels take the city. She even makes a nice play on words that would suggest this was the plan all along: "The Horde is nothing. You are all nothing" + "Nothing lasts" = "The Horde and Alliance will live on".

Sure, you will say this is nothing but wild speculation (with a little bit of logic in it, though). But it's more appealing than random nonsense to me.

It's an interesting construction, but there's too much that belies out or in some places outright contradicts it. The most pointed is that Azshara reveals, by way of her memory being shown to all, that Sylvanas planned the deaths of everyone who went to Nazjatar - including her "loyal champion" the PC if they were on the Loyalist path:

Azshara: We have a bargain, then. I will bring both fleets crashing to the ocean floor, and your champion will deliver the dagger to me.
Sylvanas: And in turn, you will have the key required to free the Old God from his bonds... and leave him vulnerable.
Azshara: You wound me, Warchief. After all, I am as dedicated to my master as you are to your subjects.
Sylvanas: Indeed. Just be certain that once you have what you need, you dispose of your guests. Let none of the "heroes" escape.
Azshara: I admire your ruthlessness, Windrunner. It seems our interests are aligned... at present.
Sylvanas: At present.
Azshara: Treacherous Banshee! Do you think I am blind to the darkness you seek to unleash?

And as per Blizzard:

If you are a Sylvanas loyalist, the things she said to you at Windrunner Spire were meant to wrap up that specific storyline. She's basically saying "You were with me, you made these choices, you were on the right side of it. Those choices can't save you from what's to come." So it was meant to wrap up that arc because it was not something we wanted to carry forward. (Source)

Sylvanas' own words damn her, and she had no intention of allowing even the Loyalist champion to live - therefore, the odds that she is orchestrating some great plot that requires the Horde and Alliance to survive is similarly greatly lowered. And if there were any notion that the above exchange was somehow faked, Sylvanas blatantly confirms it in the Loyalist finale cutscene:

Sylvanas: My bargain with Azshara will yet bear fruit. The armies of Azeroth will fight her master, and he will line their streets with corpses. In the end, he too will serve Death.

The only potential hints that the Queen is part of the conspiracy are the vague injustice committed against the Jailer (which may very well be that they foiled his plan to have Death take over everything) and the fact that Ardenweald was used as a source of information to infiltrate the Plane of Life. The second is peculiar, given how insular the Shadowlands realms are, but it's not out of the question at all that they could have learned without her knowledge. Ultimately, there is a possibility, but this scenario is the grain of salt behind other alternatives.

Assuming the missive speaks truly, I think that its author is aware that in a case like the scenario occurring now, Ardenweald is basically the weakest link in the chain of Life, so to speak. As a supreme energy-eater of the Shadowlands economy, it is supremely vulnerable to a loss of anima - as it, moreso than any other realm, suffers the greatest due to the Drought's effects. So if the Nathrezim were truly involved in this process, they would seem to have foreknowledge that Ardenweald offers itself as a soft target. Perhaps this is also why the Drust themselves have suddenly become resurgent, who can say.

[Pebrocks The Warlock]

https://twitter.com/Warcraft/status/1305937472019406850

This tweet shows a bit of Revendreth's cinematic with Anima bursting from an Orc, text says "Free your Anima" which I think goes with what I've been saying. The cinematic will feature Denathrius abusing his power on Garrosh who is full of Anima, resulting in him completely dried up and "dead dead".

[Harbour]

He called Sylvanas a bitch, which is the worst crime possible. Garrosh is finished for real.

[Moonrage]

https://twitter.com/Warcraft/status/1305937472019406850

This tweet shows a bit of Revendreth's cinematic with Anima bursting from an Orc, text says "Free your Anima" which I think goes with what I've been saying. The cinematic will feature Denathrius abusing his power on Garrosh who is full of Anima, resulting in him completely dried up and "dead dead".

Yes please, if there's any character i don't want to see return, it's Garrosh.

[Pebrocks The Warlock]

Another Revendresh teaser from Warcraft Spanish twitter.

https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/wo...cussion/645763
https://twitter.com/Warcraft_ES/stat...76705393348612

Random Troll being drained.

[LemonDemonGirl]

Another Revendresh teaser from Warcraft Spanish twitter.

https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/wo...cussion/645763

Random Troll being drained.

Oh shit... so this means that not EVER troll goes to the Other Side on death? Damn...
I wonder who that is, Zalazane maybe?

I don't like this....