@bagina This is what happens when incompetent writers attempt to reuse Captain Kirk being split into good and bad selves.
@bagina This is what happens when incompetent writers attempt to reuse Captain Kirk being split into good and bad selves.
Why no, people don't just like Sylvie for T&A: https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...ery-Cinematic/
Darkmar comics thing was a mistype by me it was referred to Bambas Grell. Bartholomew basically was freed from Domination, refused to join Sylvanas and left we don't really get any more elaboration outside his disagreements with Sylvanas. Darkmar we literally only know that hse and his accomplices stole from RAS. Not really enough to make a case, in either direction. But Bartholomew is about as representative of the Forsaken as Turalyon is representative of the Defias Brotherhood.
That's the kind of damage i was talking about being retrospectively inflicted. Wasn't even hinted toward previously(Before BtS). With her having to consistantly deal with her choice to enforce free will backfiring, in a variety of ways over the years. The current creative saying "Well the character was like this all along." is something i find hugely disrespectful toward the character's backlog, even if you can commit mental gymnastics to make it kinda fit, without getting an anurism. (Like the time she supposedly organised a violent coup against herself back in Wrath)About the only thing different here is that Sylvanas basically stopped hiding her hypocrisies as she entered more and more into Zovaal's service - as it became increasingly unnecessary for her to do so. The first step happened when she became Warchief, and the necessity of reliance solely on the Forsaken diminished. This was exacerbated by her formally joining Zovaal's cause, and her enthusiastic embrace of feeding both factions to the Maw. From Voss' perspective this is all out of character and strange, but with full knowledge of what's going it's decidedly less surprising.
She hasn't taken any direct action until Calia's presence has been revealed to her, which happened after Calia has openly revealed herself, at the meeting, after the horn has sounded. Is it perfectly just by modern reckoning? no. But interpreting the events as Sylvanas being a trigger happy maniac, who was only looking for an excuse to kill them all is onesided, disingenuous and ignoring the undead condition, where even the generally good aligned ones of later stories have showcased a tendency toward violently lashing out, when things don't go their way and/or they're caught off guard by something. Which is something the DC would be damn well aware of given their being undead.They shouldn't have to "prove their innocence," because innocence is generally the default assumption - this is the reason we have trials, courts, and the trappings of justice to begin with. Not that Sylvanas gave a fig for their innocence or their guilt, really - her only determination was "well they didn't retreat on the first sounding of the horn, time to butcher them all." Calia was also a third party to the goings-on before the reveal that she was Calia, as one of Faol's novices providing services to the assembled Horde and Alliance delegations. Calia declaring her intent might've been due cause to execute or apprehend her, but it's not really cause for Sylvanas to slaughter her own out of hand. It was obviously a chaotic situation with a lot going on she wasn't privy to, and she didn't even care to find out what was going on - her immediate response was "kill them all." A just leader might've actually gotten involved and made a determination with at least some of the facts as opposed to issuing execution squads their kill orders.
That's fair enough and i quite like some of the supplementary stories, but that's the thing they're supplements not a crutch. While i accept that limits of the medium don't necessarily permit them to tell all the stories they'd like i maintain the belief that the in-game only story should be able to stand on it's own two feet. (At the moment it reallly doesn't)I don't really confine myself to solely "in-game storytelling," though; I like my context to include as much of the material as there is from canon sources, including comics, novels, short stories, and developer statements. All of these things provide additional clarity and nuance to the narratives, whereas if you confine yourself solely to in-game lore it's going to be fragmentary and patchwork at best. It's my view that the in-game lore isn't really up to the task of relating the whole story, for better or worse. A lot of IP's have supplementary and tie-in material like this to both enhance and improve the game's story. I do think WoW leans a bit hard on its tie-in material like the novels, though; and that's a valid critique in my view.
You hit the nail on the head here. Because before Sylvanas learned about Calia and decided to send in the Dark Rangers she already came to the conclusion that there's a defection going on. Yet instead of killing them right then and there like the trigger-happy lunatic that always executed anyone that stepped out of the line at all that Aucald made up, she instead decided to test their reaction to the retreat signal (as in, she says that outright to Nathanos) and then calmly chatted with him for a bit. Methinks there's a flaw in the above portrayal, but I can't put my finger as to why, exactly...
Barbabas Grell's reason for his rampage against the Scarlets was because they killed his niece, a very human and relatable reaction based not on hate but because he cared for her and her pointless death understandably angered him. He goes to show that while darkened by undeath, the Forsaken were still very much capable of human emotions outside of the negative. Barthalomew basically didn't accept Sylvanas' core tenet that undeath is a way to exist, and views his own undeath as a sickness or a malady - not something to blithely accept, but to eventually treat or undo. But since that option isn't currently open he opts to use it to his advantage against the Scourge and their agents. Darkmar's essential nobility and humanity is detailed pretty well by Warden Belamoore in her journals. She outright says that in observing Darkmar, she sensed "a humanity within him that, I confess, I sometimes see lacking in the humans around me." In your comparison using the Defias Brotherhood, I would say Barthalomew is more comparable to Wiley the Black, an ex-member of the Defias who, based of a debt he owed to its leader, aided the Westfall Brigade and eventually went on to join the Uncrowned.
Bad writing or lack of foreshadowing aside, that's pretty much what happened. Edge of Night essentially recontexualized the formation of the Forsaken, turning Sylvanas from opportunistic if well-meaning leader of a people into an autocratic tyrant that had always had an eye towards using the Forsaken as (un)living weapons. Her post-BtS/BfA portrayal shed even more light on her essential hypocrisies, putting her earlier seeming charitable acts in a new light, and revealing her for what she had been all along. Shadowlands simply adds a coup de grace by revealing the essential "why" of her characterization in regard to having her soul split via Frostmourne and on it goes. I'm not really going to belabor the subjective part about how the story is badly told, because it is, but that doesn't really detract from the central point that Sylvanas isn't what she sold herself as, and isn't what a lot of people seemed to think she was.
It's not just at all, modern reckoning or no. Calia's presence nor her assertion that she's the rightful ruler of Lordaeron has anything at all to do with the Desolate Council or the accords happening in Arathi anymore than a madperson appearing at the gates of the Undercity declaring themselves the true King/Queen of the Forsaken would be a rationale for Sylvanas executing a bunch of uninvolved randos. As for depicting Sylvanas as being a trigger-happy maniac, no, I don't really think that was it. What Sylvanas did was a lot colder and calculating than that, she didn't kill the Council because she enjoyed killing, she killed them because they were an implicit threat to her agenda, as what they wanted and what she wanted ran counter to one another. It gave her an excuse to remove an irksome obstacle. Her initial view of them was dim to begin with, but Nathanos and a few others talked her out of moving rashly, only to have Calia's idiocy and the Council's tardiness put an excuse right in her lap.
I've always maintained that the novels at least should have some kind of in-game representation - a cinematic or set of cut-scenes, perhaps in the same manner as the Legion or BfA cinematics that explored those expansions more central characters. Especially since the novels are often bridging devices that link expansions to their predecessors like The Shattering, War Crimes, or Shadows Rising novels. This would probably make the story a bit richer for those who don't opt to read the novels, and would be purely opt-in if players don't give a shit about the story.
"We're more of the love, blood, and rhetoric school. Well, we can do you blood and love without the rhetoric, and we can do you blood and rhetoric without the love, and we can do you all three concurrent or consecutive. But we can't give you love and rhetoric without the blood. Blood is compulsory. They're all blood, you see." ― Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead
Do you really think that he will reflect on his actions?
is there something to reflect?
Apparently it would be something like "Revealing against Arthas good", "killing innocents without bad motives".
I mean they are really adding a layer of nonsense and more complexity to something so that in the end it is flatter and less deep.
PS: There is no good half and a bad half. As there is no good faction and a bad faction.
Given that it was concluded off screen? Unless she literally goes there/meets them that's very unlikely to happen.
- - - Updated - - -
The undead we know for certain have a different way of thinking. Their positive emotions and general feeling are greatly diminished, whilst their negative tendencies are amplified. The portrayal of these qualities ahs been less than consistant varying on the character and their exact situation. Former family is known to powerfuly stimulate their emotions, for both good and ill. For every one of these you still have the likes of Putrice, Stillwater, Godfrey or any number of Scourge affiliated characters. (This is getting way off topic, at any rate)
The Edge of Night has not been terribly agregious given the framing of Val'kyr doing their damnest to convince Sylvanas not to commit suicide and they intentionally chose her relationship to the Forsaken to pull on her heart strings. The weapon analogies were there to connect her living and undead attitudes not contrast them.Bad writing or lack of foreshadowing aside, that's pretty much what happened. Edge of Night essentially recontexualized the formation of the Forsaken, turning Sylvanas from opportunistic if well-meaning leader of a people into an autocratic tyrant that had always had an eye towards using the Forsaken as (un)living weapons. Her post-BtS/BfA portrayal shed even more light on her essential hypocrisies, putting her earlier seeming charitable acts in a new light, and revealing her for what she had been all along. Shadowlands simply adds a coup de grace by revealing the essential "why" of her characterization in regard to having her soul split via Frostmourne and on it goes. I'm not really going to belabor the subjective part about how the story is badly told, because it is, but that doesn't really detract from the central point that Sylvanas isn't what she sold herself as, and isn't what a lot of people seemed to think she was.
-"She was brash. Empty? No—a fighter. She had a warrior's heart."
-"Still a warrior's heart? She had grown cold. No, she was the same. In death as in life."
BtS/BfA having her act hard out of character only to brush it away as this secretly being her true self all along is one of the things, which could be called objectively bad writing, especially when concerning a beloved legacy character. (Yes, i know she was never everyone's cup of tea) And overall just served as a wierd character assassination, in an effort to give Zovaal the rub of her namevalue and a hint of legitimacy. (Failed spectacularly)
As far as the split soul thing goes it's a follow up on the "wholeness" before she started getting tortured, in the Darkness. And secondly forcing a retrospective through meeting a version of herself, who really did get the swift death she asked for, instead of basically her whole Warcraft tenure. Any other effects have not been established(yet), even if the cinematic in question did a really poor job of portraying the version of Sylvanas, who got a "swift death" having to face literally everything since then simultaneously.
A bunch of uninvolved randos, who just happened to be disregarding the calls to leave, were defecting and in the presence of Calia doing dumb shit. There are plenty of reasons for her to take action, in that scenario, without tacking on some grand overarching agenda to wipe them out that didn't even exist. (Not like absolute monarchs or warlords were ever concerned with presumption of innocence historically, even without being undead naturally inclined toward rage, hate, bitterness and violent outbursts)It's not just at all, modern reckoning or no. Calia's presence nor her assertion that she's the rightful ruler of Lordaeron has anything at all to do with the Desolate Council or the accords happening in Arathi anymore than a madperson appearing at the gates of the Undercity declaring themselves the true King/Queen of the Forsaken would be a rationale for Sylvanas executing a bunch of uninvolved randos. As for depicting Sylvanas as being a trigger-happy maniac, no, I don't really think that was it. What Sylvanas did was a lot colder and calculating than that, she didn't kill the Council because she enjoyed killing, she killed them because they were an implicit threat to her agenda, as what they wanted and what she wanted ran counter to one another. It gave her an excuse to remove an irksome obstacle. Her initial view of them was dim to begin with, but Nathanos and a few others talked her out of moving rashly, only to have Calia's idiocy and the Council's tardiness put an excuse right in her lap.
They have been connected to expansions, in various ways, but generally have been self contained stories you didn't need to grasp the primary story. You'd probably be baffled what the hell a human woman is doing suspended above the sunwell or wondering why is Garrosh an issue again? But so far the game has done a good enough job of portraying the things directly tying into the expansion's narrative.I've always maintained that the novels at least should have some kind of in-game representation - a cinematic or set of cut-scenes, perhaps in the same manner as the Legion or BfA cinematics that explored those expansions more central characters. Especially since the novels are often bridging devices that link expansions to their predecessors like The Shattering, War Crimes, or Shadows Rising novels. This would probably make the story a bit richer for those who don't opt to read the novels, and would be purely opt-in if players don't give a shit about the story.
Sylvanas novel is different, in that it promises to tell the side of the story, which has been purposefully omitted from the current story to it's grave detriment. Not even getting into things scattered around 2+ years old interviews.
I wouldn't really say they have a different way in as much as their way of thinking is the human norm, albeit darkened and tinged by the negative force of the state of undeath coupled with the traumas of the Third War. Like I said before they do trend toward self-serving maliciousness, but a lot of that is down to what I feel is the combination of both Sylvanas' cult of personality as well as the notion that they're tainted by the legacy of the Scourge and all the stigmas that entails. Beyond that, as I've provided evidence for, the Forsaken are easily capable of positive emotions, friendliness, and even the occasional glint of true altruism. The most abominable of the Forsaken tend to have been madmen and assholes while alive, as well - like Godfrey was. Undeath just took a bad person and made them understandably worse.
The Nine have an agenda and would pretty much do anything to get Sylvanas to see things their way - their projections of the future are also subject to further scrutiny, especially in light of Sylvanas' altered convictions once she accepts their accord. I also don't think Sylvanas really acts out of character in BtS or even BfA, there are inconsistencies and plot holes surrounding, of course; but they don't really boil down to character assassination in my view. If anything, BtS and BfA really just take the Cata and Legion portrayal and bring it to its conclusion - Sylvanas, having had her original gambit from Edge of Night seemingly blocked by Greymane, opts instead to fully throw her lot in with Zovaal and embrace rewriting the cosmos to save her own hide. Everything that follows basically dovetails into this new approach on her part, up to and including the massacre at Teldrassil and her willingness to feed both the Horde and the Alliance to N'Zoth.
Taking action doesn't require cold-blooded murder, either. It's noteworthy that among the deaths was the interim leader of the Desolate Council, whose loyalty to Sylvanas was emphatically confirmed before Sylvanas' kill squad mowed her down. Noteworthy as well is the fact that following the Arathi massacre the Desolate Council ceased to exist as a functional organization. Greymane himself basically agrees with my assessment as well in claiming that the Council had unintentionally signed their own death warrants simply by existing as a governing body and that without the Gathering as an easy excuse, "she’d have done something to them sooner or later."
Anveena was always a weird anomaly in terms of lore (one of several in TBC), but Garrosh's escape from the Temple of the White Tiger in WoD was at least somewhat explored in-game.
The Sylvanas novel is said to be more directly comparable to the Rise of the Lich King novel in that it details her life, death, undeath, and service to Zovaal more in-depth like the former novel did with Arthas. Rise of the Lich King did contain new information that hadn't been explored in-game at that time, such as the origins of Invincible and some other flavor lore, but it didn't really change Arthas' characterization all that much. Whether or not that will be true of Sylvanas remains to be seen.
"We're more of the love, blood, and rhetoric school. Well, we can do you blood and love without the rhetoric, and we can do you blood and rhetoric without the love, and we can do you all three concurrent or consecutive. But we can't give you love and rhetoric without the blood. Blood is compulsory. They're all blood, you see." ― Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead
This would be a much interesting take, to say that there isnt good half and bad half of silvanas soul, but they are both the same person and the half we consider the good self of silvanas would have done the same things than bad silvanas if turned into undead and traumatized by arthas.
The only problem with this is that it leaves the meaning of the whole soul splitting in the air.
EDIT: now that i think of it, a good take on what would mean the difference between a whole soul and a splitted soul in the case of silvanas would be that a silvanas with her whole soul would have a stronger sense of identity, a greater reflection of her actions and a major sense of agency. A whole silvanas wouldnt have those weird emotional outbursts that she has from time to time and wouldnt have burned teldrasil.
Last edited by Piamonte; 2021-12-11 at 08:48 PM.
I'm really not sure how you can ascertain the personality of Argent Tournament Quartermaster, who has literally no unique interactions, for example, but i digress. It's been described to us a number of times what undeath does to people, with their generally dulled emotions and senses, except when it came to the negative side, which was amplified. We've basically never seen any of them tested save the one, who went on a vengeful rampage(as well justified as it was).
That's lovely speculation, but it's not much more than that by the virtue of how little Blizz gave us to work with. Sure, with enough copium you can explain the BfA stuff, within the confines of her previous characterisation, up to 8.2.5 and the announcement of Shadowlands. But you don''t quote seem to grasp that my criticism is in regards to their creative choice of having her betray everything she stood for and write it off as "Well she has always been like that". Retcons like that have always incensed the fanbase of a given franchise no matter if it's broken hermit Luke from Star Wars, deleting Star Trek's canon via timetravel or having the doctor find out she is the original timelord with milions of incarnations to name but a few. Thsi kind of huge retrospective change to a long standing very popular character is never received well, even in the instances where they by some miracle avoid having huge plotholes.The Nine have an agenda and would pretty much do anything to get Sylvanas to see things their way - their projections of the future are also subject to further scrutiny, especially in light of Sylvanas' altered convictions once she accepts their accord. I also don't think Sylvanas really acts out of character in BtS or even BfA, there are inconsistencies and plot holes surrounding, of course; but they don't really boil down to character assassination in my view. If anything, BtS and BfA really just take the Cata and Legion portrayal and bring it to its conclusion - Sylvanas, having had her original gambit from Edge of Night seemingly blocked by Greymane, opts instead to fully throw her lot in with Zovaal and embrace rewriting the cosmos to save her own hide. Everything that follows basically dovetails into this new approach on her part, up to and including the massacre at Teldrassil and her willingness to feed both the Horde and the Alliance to N'Zoth.
Greymane isn't exactly a reliable unbiased source, when it comes to Sylvanas and you're forgetting she isn't an omniscient mindreader again.Taking action doesn't require cold-blooded murder, either. It's noteworthy that among the deaths was the interim leader of the Desolate Council, whose loyalty to Sylvanas was emphatically confirmed before Sylvanas' kill squad mowed her down. Noteworthy as well is the fact that following the Arathi massacre the Desolate Council ceased to exist as a functional organization. Greymane himself basically agrees with my assessment as well in claiming that the Council had unintentionally signed their own death warrants simply by existing as a governing body and that without the Gathering as an easy excuse, "she’d have done something to them sooner or later."
This is the synopsisThe Sylvanas novel is said to be more directly comparable to the Rise of the Lich King novel in that it details her life, death, undeath, and service to Zovaal more in-depth like the former novel did with Arthas. Rise of the Lich King did contain new information that hadn't been explored in-game at that time, such as the origins of Invincible and some other flavor lore, but it didn't really change Arthas' characterization all that much. Whether or not that will be true of Sylvanas remains to be seen.
Not sure if it's malice, incompetence or simple corporate greed, but this is something that promises to offer us a key perspective to the current story. It's not like Arthas, which came out way into Cataclysm and it's not like the other self contained stories, which served to bridge the gaps either.Ranger-General. Banshee Queen. Warchief. Sylvanas Windrunner has borne many titles. To some, she is a hero—to others, a villain. But whether in pursuit of justice, vengeance, or something more, Sylvanas has always sought to control her own destiny.
The power to achieve her goals has never been closer, as Sylvanas works alongside the Jailer to liberate all Azeroth from the prison of fate. Her final task? Secure the fealty of their prisoner—King Anduin Wrynn.
To succeed, Sylvanas will be forced to reflect on the harrowing path that brought her to the Jailer’s side and to reveal her truest self to her greatest rival. Here, Sylvanas’s complete story is laid bare: the breaking of the Windrunner family and her rise to Ranger- General; her own death at the hands of Arthas and her renewed purpose in founding the Forsaken; the moment she first beheld the Maw and understood the true consequences of what lay beyond the veil of death.
But as her moment of victory draws near, Sylvanas Windrunner will make a choice that may ultimately come to define her. A choice that’s hers to make.
His repartee with the PC gives no indication that he's driven by negative emotions or maliciousness - he actually comes across was rather warm and cheery, if a little dotty (as befits his characterization of something of a mad scientist). Again, I agree that undeath darkens one's outlook and generally dulls one's senses, but I think people read way too much into that with an eye toward viewing the Forsaken as a one-note evil race with zero redeeming qualities. The evidence doesn't bear that out.
That's pretty far from speculation as we now know who the Nine served, and what that individual wanted in and from Sylvanas. Their agenda is pretty evident now. "Copium" is also probably one of the most overused memes of the past few years - you do your arguments no service be relying on the twin crutches of memes and reductive arguments. Sylvanas' progression from vengeful Banshee seeking redress of greivances against Arthas (to put it likely) to embodying the qualities of the individual she hates most (who made her what she now is) has been a long one, not a product of "sudden" mischaracterization. It began with her earnest embrace of the Val'kyr, and Garrosh's own surprised observation that little was now different between her and the Lich King. It grew slowly through Legion, as she ascended in power and stature, becoming Warchief, and being forced to choose between her people and her escaping her dark fate. Finally with BfA and Shadowlands she took the final steps toward becoming the thing she claimed to hate, an ironic echo of what Arthas and the Scourge had done to her homeland in the Third War - as she betrayed those who trusted and loved her for a cold dream, just as Arthas did. It's not that "she'd always been like that," it was a journey in which she made the wrong choices again and again, ending in becoming a perversion of what she was, an irony that her Ranger-General self is all too keenly aware of on having to relive the Banshee's life and choices over and over again.
Doesn't make him wrong, though. And Sylvanas' lack of omniscience, or having any intelligence at all on the matter, is pretty much at the core of what I'm talking about.
Doesn't really seem much different from Rise of the Lich King or Illidan to me. I mean hell, Illidan largely dwells on the events of TBC and was only released when Legion came out. Providing embellishment and backstory is kind of what the novels have always done - but the bones of the story are still there in-game, at least.
"We're more of the love, blood, and rhetoric school. Well, we can do you blood and love without the rhetoric, and we can do you blood and rhetoric without the love, and we can do you all three concurrent or consecutive. But we can't give you love and rhetoric without the blood. Blood is compulsory. They're all blood, you see." ― Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead