Is only one of the Covenant Campaigns canon?

[huth]

I just want to point out my observations here and say this is false. I agree with the poster, that the game doesn't really show much of the other player characters and for the most part focuses on your character. But at the end of Theater of Pain, when they're congratulating you they refer to the party as "Maw Walkers" plural.

Or that one is the mess-up and all the quests that imply the PC is the only one by dint of having to be involved if anything needs doing in the Maw are better evidence.

There isn't an absence of evidence here. There's evidence of absence, specificially that there's nobody else who can sensibly operate in the Maw.

Speaking of which, the Accuser left shortly afterwards the purging of Kael'thas, leaving him in the player's care. At which point Kael convinced us to investigate the matter further to provide the Venthyr with a "selfless act" to prove how oh, so redeemed he is. So, the player and Kael went to the town where Tithelord meets with his contact from Maldraxxus, as that was the only clue they had. And, like I already said, they just so stumbled on one such meeting, then stowed away on Tithelord's carriage, stumbled upon the Maldraxxi camp and dealt with it. After which you return to Sinfall and inform the Venthyr of the whole thing.

Ugh, that had me rolling my eyes all the way from Darkhaven back to Sinfall. Yeah, sure, you're oh so selfless and redeemed. Shut up and throw more fireballs.

[Daronokk]

Lore wise it's stated that there's many champions from azeroth that have escaped the maw. Those champions have joined different covenants. The story isn't about a single maw walker but many.

Then why have the title Maw Walker in the first place? It's a stupid title if it's nothing special, why not just call them Champions like before?

Heck, Jaina, Thrall, Baine etc are all Maw Walkers because they have walked the Maw. Why make the player character distinct like that? And now you're telling me there are many people with the title. Why have the title then? It's stupid.

[shimerra]

Then why have the title Maw Walker in the first place? It's a stupid title if it's nothing special, why not just call them Champions like before?

Heck, Jaina, Thrall, Baine etc are all Maw Walkers because they have walked the Maw. Why make the player character distinct like that? And now you're telling me there are many people with the title. Why have the title then? It's stupid.

1. The painfully obvious reason anyone could see. Writing a story reason for why you, and all other "main characters" of which there is a canonically vague amount, are all called Maw Walker gives them an easy way to refer everyone as such and make sense within the story. It's literally no different than any time they called us Champion or order hall leader title X except it's tailored to the Shadowlands. Seems weird to die on this hill now for what amounts to no real reason. The only practical difference is rather than a singular entity doing literally all the things they gave the title to refer to a group of Azerothians who escaped rather than one single lynchpin that does all important story things.

2. You for some reason confuse more than 1 person having done it as automatically not special. In the grand scheme of essentially near infinite life forms going through all total afterlives if even 1,000 "Maw Walkers" happened in a short time frame it would be extremely special.

[Aucald]

Which returns to:

In BLIZZARD'S lore, there is one Maw Walker. Why? Because only the PC is ever referenced as one. The PC is the facilitator through which we experience Blizzard's Warcraft lore - Their story is the perspective of the lore we get. Other Maw Walkers can exist in whatever headcanon you choose to believe, (That is, if and until Blizzard decides to put a descriptor to what makes it possible to travel through the Waystone, but that's an issue I don't expect them to address) but in BLIZZARD'S lore, there is only one.

The remaining Eternal Ones address the presence of multiple other mortals in the Shadowlands, and since there's only one way to get to the Shadowlands as mortal in terms of canon it stands that there are other Maw Walkers active. There's also the developers' word on the matter:

In Shadowlands, the player's character becomes known as a Maw Walker, though this is not a singular title; fictionally, a number heroes of Azeroth like yourself have demonstrated the ability to enter and leave the Maw. We want a sense that it will take many heroes working together and strengthening all four covenants if there is to be any hope of achieving victory over the Jailer. (Source)

Definitionally, Sylvanas is herself also a Maw Walker as she also has free reign to travel to and from the Maw.

[Aucald]

And the portal to and from Azeroth that the Knights of the Ebon Blade were allowed to open. You know - The way Shandris and Talia both got there, safely, without going through the Maw, and was conveniently opened right after the first mortals that the Speaker had seen wandered into Oribos. Making it not stand to reason at all that there are multiple Maw Walkers, since there is in fact another way for mortals to reach Oribos without going to the Maw.

Not that this would be the first time they ignored their own "suicide mission, no going back" intro to reintroduce the same cast of characters moments after it's conclusion via portal magic.

Possibly, but the developer's quote would supersede that understanding.

Which is older than the quest text that got removed from the quest referencing the single Maw Walker, so this has clearly changed on more than one occasion. A more than reasonable explanation for a few text slip ups referencing more than one.

I don't think a quest's text supersedes a direct reference from a developer speaking specifically to the presence of multiple Maw Walkers and the overarching narrative goal of the title. Canonically, we know there are multiple Maw Walkers.

"Definitionally," Jaina, Thrall, Baine, and all of the main characters are also Maw Walkers, because by definition, Maw Walker refers to a mortal who is able to escape the Maw - Yes, even just once, and unrelated to the Waystone, because the Maw is meant to be inescapable.

Sylvanas cannot activate the Waystone, nor can any other person than the PC, who is a singular person in the lore. (And presumably the First Ones minus the Jailer, since the Waystone is in some way related to them.) When referencing the singular "Maw Walker" we are speaking about the singular character in the lore who can activate the Waystone and thus open the path between the Maw and Oribos, making them able to literally leave at will.

And no - We don't know Sylvanas has the ability to leave at will. We know she CAN leave, because of the Jailer's Forsworn, the Val'kyr, and/or powers that we haven't been shown yet, but we don't know she has free reign or can leave at will. She hasn't been shown to have that ability, and for her to gain that ability from the Jailer who also cannot escape the Maw seems a little odd, no?

Jaina, Thrall, Baine, and the rest of the trapped NPC's can't leave the Maw on their own, however; they need the assistance of a Maw Walker to do so. Canonically the Waystone seems to react to those who bear the Heart of Azeroth, borne by "Azeroth's greatest heroes and champions" as a gift from Azeroth herself (of which there are also canonically multiple). Sylvanas was also referred to as "the first Maw Walker" by John Hight during the Shadowlands Q&A at BlizzCon 2019, so it appears her ability to move to and from the Maw more or less at will grants her the title, at least technically.

[Aucald]

If it weren't contradicted in game.

As previously stated, I don't think the quest text either states or necessarily implies there is a single Maw Walker. It could be construed that way - but only with additional effort that is belied by the developers' own positions.

You do not canonically know that, because nothing in game canonically tells you that. The Blizzard quote existed before the quest text, the quest text was then added suggesting the Blizzard quote was inaccurate, now that quest text has changed again. No, that doesn't mean it changed back, it means they changed it again, and as to what it is now, nobody can say.

The developers' intent frames questing context, not the other way around. This isn't a case of quest text somehow trumping a developer's statement of intent - the developer is literally stating how to interpret subsequent quests.

This is entirely a guess based entirely on a guess. You both a) Don't know there were mutliple Hearts of Azeroth (No, canonically, we do not know if there were multiple and there SHOULDN'T have been multiple if there was only one key to N'zoth's prison), and b) don't have any connection between the Waystone and the Heart.

Not only that, but you'd be going against Blizzard's own statement saying there is absolutely no tie between the Titans (Those who created the Heart) and the First Ones. (Those who created the Waystone) Blizzard already confirmed there is no connection there.

We actually do know there are multiple, because it was stated that the Heart was given to "Azeroth's greatest heroes" in the plural sense. Only one person canonically wielded the Heart as a weapon against N'Zoth in the raid that defeated him, sure; but multiple instances of the Heart were still evident due to the aforementioned developer's statement.

The fact that the Heart of Azeroth opened the Waystone doesn't necessarily imply there is a tie between the Titans and the First Ones. We don't know why the Waystone responded as it did as of yet, perhaps it simply recognized the Maw Walker's deeds i.e. the Heart, or it was preprogrammed to respond to certain types of energy signatures of which the Titans were one. We *do* know the Heart was what it responded to (as per the developer's Q&A statements), but we don't know why or what that response means. It is likely a story to be explored later on in the expansion.

[Belloc]

I love how we're on page 6 and people are still arguing that there is only one Maw Walker, despite the fact that there has never been only a single player hero in WoW (it's always a group of us) AND Blizzard has come out and said that there are multiple Maw Walkers.

"That doesn't count!" "It's not ingame!" Like, seriously? Use some common fucking sense here.

[Aucald]

The developer can only speak to their intent at the time of speaking. Hence why I keep bringing up that the quest text (which was eventually removed) wasn't added until after that developer's statement.

In other words: Whether or not what he said was true at the time and changed, untrue, true and remained true, or otherwise is entirely unclear to you or I, because their intents are contradicting due to the fact that they said one thing, implemented another, then changed that implementation later on.

That's not how intent works, especially not when you're speaking about how the framing narrative is meant to work in the first place. In this case the quest text isn't meant to imply there is a single Maw Walker because there are multiple Maw Walkers - it's not an invalidation of developer intent, in other words; nor is it contradictory by its nature.

I literally updated asking not to say this because you know full well this doesn't mean what you think it means. Not only is the royal use of plural words a thing, but "Azeroth's greatest heroes" could still be referring to the singular Heart of Azeroth being given the singular time to the singular greatest hero - Thus, the heart is only given to the greatest heroes, because the one time it was EVER given out, it was given to the greatest hero, and it intends to only be given to the greatest heroes from here on.

I think you're making an unsupported inference here. There is also another statement that the Heart is given to "the world's protectors," again with the plural. So unless you're implying Azeroth has only one great hero and one protector, then your reasoning would be invalid.

And this is just straight up wrong. The Waystone would not respond unless it had reason to respond. Thus, there is a reason that the Waystone responded to US, and specifically US. Something about us made the Waystone respond. If you're suggesting it was the Heart of Azeroth, you're suggesting the Waystone was built knowing it would eventually respond to a Titan made artifact, which it absolutely could not unless it knew what that artifact was - Suggesting a tie in between the Titans and the First Ones which does not exist.

Nevermind that we canonically know the Heart was unpowered in the Shadowlands, AND it's not required that we hold it at all. It's not special. Why would the Waystone respond to a depowered artifact?

And no, we don't know the Heart was what it responded to.

In the linked BlizzCon 2019 video, it's stated specifically that it's the Maw Walker's connection to the Azeroth World-Soul (a connection exemplified by the Heart) that allows us to escape the Maw. 25:55 in this video if you want to manually seek it out:



Depowered also doesn't mean the Heart was completely invalid or otherwise insignificant.

[Engal]

If we're going to nitpick words of the English language, yes, I expect the people who nitpick the words to know what they're speaking about.

Not only that, but they don't just talk about THE Maw Walker.

They literally say it out loud for you:



This isn't just the use of the word the.

This is NPCs in game confirming they have no one else who can go into, or come out of, the Maw, and that you are the only one they know who can, and thus rely solely on you for any Maw related trips.

This is confirming you are the only Maw Walker in the story of the game. Whether your own headcanon contains more than one is up to you, but in BLIZZARD's lore, there is only the one.

I don't have any headcanon, I just read what the game says. You don't play SL as per the other says, so... How do you feel entitled to correct others about it?


And has Tommyhil622 quoted, its from the LEAD DEV of wow :

“In Shadowlands, the player's character becomes known as a Maw Walker, though this is not a singular title; fictionally, a number heroes of Azeroth like yourself have demonstrated the ability to enter and leave the Maw. We want a sense that it will take many heroes working together and strengthening all four covenants if there is to be any hope of achieving victory over the Jailer.”

So, who got a headcanon about how things should be ? That's certainly not me.

[Aucald]

...

Except we know, due to a developer's statement, that there are multiple Maw Walkers - specifically because the developers "want a sense that it will take many heroes working together and strengthening all four covenants if there is to be any hope of achieving victory over the Jailer." No quest invalidates this overarching rationale for the expansion's primary narrative. There's no reason to nitpick over the use of a "royal we" or what have you, because the developers have plainly stated that there are multiple Maw Walkers all working with the various Covenants to oppose the Jailer and his forces.

The Waystone reacts to our presence, not the other way around. But the developers have stated that the reason for the Waystone's reaction is due to the Maw Walker's connection to Azeroth - and the Heart of Azeroth is the conduit of that connection, even if it is depowered and essentially inert while in the Shadowlands (which is more a game mechanic to retire Azerite Traits and Essences than it is an article of lore). The Heart is what connects the Champion to Azeroth, and that connection is what activates the Waystone and allows its bearer to become a Maw Walker. The developers are clear on that as shown in the video above.

Beyond this you seem pretty much set on your viewpoint, even though multiple canon sources have refuted it. If you're going to argue your own headcanon over explicit developer statements then I would say we're at an impasse where no further forward movement can be made.

[huth]

I don't think a quest's text supersedes a direct reference from a developer speaking specifically to the presence of multiple Maw Walkers and the overarching narrative goal of the title. Canonically, we know there are multiple Maw Walkers.

Whatever comes last counts. In this case, that's the quest.

Jaina, Thrall, Baine, and the rest of the trapped NPC's can't leave the Maw on their own, however; they need the assistance of a Maw Walker to do so. Canonically the Waystone seems to react to those who bear the Heart of Azeroth, borne by "Azeroth's greatest heroes and champions" as a gift from Azeroth herself (of which there are also canonically multiple). Sylvanas was also referred to as "the first Maw Walker" by John Hight during the Shadowlands Q&A at BlizzCon 2019, so it appears her ability to move to and from the Maw more or less at will grants her the title, at least technically.

That was in reference to her leaving it back when she impaled herself on ICC.

Heroes and Champions could easily just be because it was an out of universe reference - i wouldn't weigh that to highly. He was simply referring to all player characters.

- - - Updated - - -

Except we know, due to a developer's statement, that there are multiple Maw Walkers - specifically because the developers "want a sense that it will take many heroes working together and strengthening all four covenants if there is to be any hope of achieving victory over the Jailer." No quest invalidates this overarching rationale for the expansion's primary narrative. There's no reason to nitpick over the use of a "royal we" or what have you, because the developers have plainly stated that there are multiple Maw Walkers all working with the various Covenants to oppose the Jailer and his forces.

If that was the goal at the time, they seem to have completely abandoned it. The game doesn't make it feel like that at all, at least lorewise.

[Aucald]

Whatever comes last counts. In this case, that's the quest.

Except the quest doesn't canonically state this - it can only partially imply it, and that only if you don't already know the opposite is true (as shown above).

That was in reference to her leaving it back when she impaled herself on ICC.

Heroes and Champions could easily just be because it was an out of universe reference - i wouldn't weigh that to highly. He was simply referring to all player characters.

That's why it was more a technical distinction.

If that was the goal at the time, they seem to have completely abandoned it. The game doesn't make it feel like that at all, at least lorewise.

The speech by the remaining Eternal Ones at Oribos implies otherwise, however; as it talks about the mortals joining *all* the Covenants and working with them to oppose the Jailer. Since all the Covenants need Maw Walkers to collect souls to fuel their war efforts there remains a strong implication that they all have Maw Walkers in their retinues. This is further backed up by the developer statement itself, as well.

[huth]

The speech by the remaining Eternal Ones at Oribos implies otherwise, however; as it talks about the mortals joining *all* the Covenants and working with them to oppose the Jailer. Since all the Covenants need Maw Walkers to collect souls to fuel their war efforts there remains a strong implication that they all have Maw Walkers in their retinues. This is further backed up by the developer statement itself, as well.

It talks about all mortals joining Covenants. There's also no indication that the other Covenants are getting souls.

[Aucald]

It talks about all mortals joining Covenants. There's also no indication that the other Covenants are getting souls.

The collection of souls from the Maw is a part of all the Covenant campaigns, which would require the active service of a Maw Walker to enter the Maw and recover said souls and leave accordingly.

[Mehrunes]

We don't know that we're the first to hold the Heart of Azeroth, and we don't know that we'll be the last. Hence, these royal uses don't mean a thing but "Only great people can have this."

You still don't understand majestic plural.

Whatever comes last counts. In this case, that's the quest.

Except if you follow the discussion, the quest text about a single Maw Walker that @Fleugen was talking about was changed during beta and as such is meaningless anyway. Not to mention their interpretation of that removed text that leads to the conclusion about a single Maw Walker was flawed anyway.

Well, the part about "you", that is. The part about "THE Maw Walker" they they also harp on technically exists. But in different context. That doesn't do their argument any favors. Because the text "You, the Maw Walker, will be the only working link between the living and The Maw." that they cling to isn't part of the quest text, be it before or after the change. That was just the description of the story written by goddamn Wowhead.

The way "the Maw Walker" is actually used in that text is "Highlord. You have peered into Torghast and guided the Maw Walker through its torments." Which doesn't imply that there is for sure just one Maw Walker. The way "the" is used here can just as well indicate Baine specifying that he's talking about a particular Maw Walker.

And all that's left in @Fleugen's meticulously constructed argument is their misunderstanding of royal we.

So yeah, while newer lore trumps older role in case of conflict is indeed the rule, @Aucald is still in the right on this. Especially since, as has already been mentioned in this thread, there are cases where NPCs talk about multiple Maw Walkers. Like Theater of Pain, where there's no Thrall et al. Which in turns ruins @Fleugen's narrative how these characters are only technically Maw Walkers that truly count due to being attuned to the player, THE Maw Walker.

[huth]

The collection of souls from the Maw is a part of all the Covenant campaigns, which would require the active service of a Maw Walker to enter the Maw and recover said souls and leave accordingly.

It's also never referenced outside the weekly.

[Mehrunes]

It's also never referenced outside the weekly.

Which isn't really relevant. Muckgill isn't referenced outside a single quest, does that mean he didn't exist? Besides, this whole argument is pointless. I just checked around and the player (and not "merely an attuned NPC so it doesn't count") is referred to as Maw Walker in at least Kyrian and Necrolord campaigns (most likely in the other two, but at this point it's already meaningless to check further). Covenants and their campaigns are mutually exclusive, as stated in the quest that forces us to choose one. There is more than one "actual" Maw Walker, case closed (even though it already was).

[huth]

Which isn't really relevant. Muckgill isn't referenced outside a single quest, does that mean he didn't exist? Besides, this whole argument is pointless. I just checked around and the player (and not "merely an attuned NPC so it doesn't count") is referred to as Maw Walker in at least Kyrian and Necrolord campaigns (most likely in the other two, but at this point it's already meaningless to check further). Covenants and their campaigns are mutually exclusive, as stated in the quest that forces us to choose one. There is more than one "actual" Maw Walker, case closed (even though it already was).

If anything, the campaigns being mutually exclusive would speak against that. Besides, it's missing the point; collecting souls isn't valid evidence for multiple Maw Walkers as we have no evidence any Covenant other than the PCs is getting any.

[Mehrunes]

If anything, the campaigns being mutually exclusive would speak against that. Besides, it's missing the point; collecting souls isn't valid evidence for multiple Maw Walkers as we have no evidence any Covenant other than the PCs is getting any.

How, exactly, does that speak against that? It would only do so if there was only one actually canon campaign. Which I'm pretty sure you yourself argued against. The Covenant campaigns are occurring concurrently and NPCs in each of them refer to their mortal helper with the Maw Walker title. That indicates multiple Maw Walkers.

[Aucald]

If anything, the campaigns being mutually exclusive would speak against that. Besides, it's missing the point; collecting souls isn't valid evidence for multiple Maw Walkers as we have no evidence any Covenant other than the PCs is getting any.

The campaigns also refer to events happening in the other campaigns. For example, the Necrolord campaign involves Kael'thas, and Kael'thas' presence requires the Venthyr campaign to be occurring pretty much simultaneously. That means the campaigns aren't mutually exclusive either.