Will you trust the word of Blizz execs in future lore discussions?

[Kokolums]

Look, its incredibly obvious that "shades of gray" was a bald-faced lie. But how does that impact future lore videos and discussions from the writers and devs? Will you place your trust in their word in the future? Or is their word no longer currency to you?

[Nucrus]

Which statement are you referring to?
The imaginary one?

Feel free to provide a link

[Just1c3]

Look, its incredibly obvious that "shades of gray" was a bald-faced lie. But how does that impact future lore videos and discussions from the writers and devs? Will you place your trust in their word in the future? Or is their word no longer currency to you?

It could have been a bald-faced lie, OR, they were telling the truth, in the sense that they thought what they were delivering a shades of grey situation but they didn't pull it off well. If you believe what you're saying, technically it's not a lie.

[pewpmeiser]

How can we draw conclusions to a story arc that isn't finished yet? We still don't know what is really going on, we only got a new piece to the puzzle. Sylvannas is an incredibly morally grey character.

[Lothaeryn]

Theyve lied mutiple times in regards to lore and development for a while now, WoD with Karabor and that Giant Ogron skeleton city for the Horde being prominent ones that stick out in my mind. Farahlon being a secondary addition to that.

Sylvannas being "morally grey" was a completely untrustworthy statement only designed to mitigate the backlash that everyone was sending their way already from the pathetically predictable plot up to that point (which I might add, was still entirely within her character, ever since Wrath's aftermath).

If Blizzard wrote a somewhat cohesive story, no one would complain as much. But so far we have a entire world tree burned down, with a fairly large portion of Kaldorei still on it when it burned, and only one person being blamed for it; ignoring the whole war effort and killing done to even get to that point that the majority of Horde command gladly executed without question.

To then say the Alliance should just forgive the Horde after all the shit theyve pulled willingly since WoW's start is just a complete asspull at this point. Reparations and a ceasefire? Sure, but ending hostilities outright and calling it even? Fucking hell no.

Granted, we have no choice even if we wanted to go my suggested route, Old God flying spaghetti shadow is out there with Azshara in tow. Can't have that fuckery running about and fight a faction war.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter at this point, the plot has been written as a sideline development to justify gameplay and expansions for years now.

[Powerogue]

Yes, except when they're being intentionally deceptive to hide a plot twist, which is most of the time, in which case no.

[UnluckyAmateur]

Look, its incredibly obvious that "shades of gray" was a bald-faced lie. But how does that impact future lore videos and discussions from the writers and devs? Will you place your trust in their word in the future? Or is their word no longer currency to you?

Watch the loyalist cinematic before you make half baked threads like this. While she does say the horde and everyone was "Nothing" in the grand scheme of things, she is kinda right. We're talking about cosmic eldrich horrors that are older than the universe and maybe time itself. In a very lovecraftian way, everyone on azeroth is nothing.


Edit: I was extremely against the idea that sylvanas was morally grey from day one but the new cinematic literally shows that she knows something and is trying to prepare everyone. She probably can't tell anyone because, you literally get infected by N'zoth and he can see what you see, she can't really trust anyone but herself with whatever information she has.

[Aphrel]

Sylvannas is an incredibly morally grey character.

The what now!?

[Saltysquidoon]

'Morally grey' and not 'Garrosh 2.0' was just obvious shameless damage control because they got data-mined too early and they weren't as good as they thought they were.
If anyone actually believed that after the burning cinematic was revealed, well I've got a bridge to sell you...

[Paperfox]

Software development can be very challenging, and what make it worse is that those who have no idea how hard it can be think it is quite easy.

So I think that there have been many things that they planned and wanted to implement but were never able to do so. And lots of other things that they added because the playerbase wanted it - so they did try but very few liked the implementation.

[Topornic]

It could have been a bald-faced lie, OR, they were telling the truth, in the sense that they thought what they were delivering a shades of grey situation but they didn't pull it off well. If you believe what you're saying, technically it's not a lie.

Whether you believe what you say or don't it is still a lie. The other thing that judgements and opinions cannot be treated binary and can't be lies. Calling something gray depends on the context, culture and the morals.
By "western" morals, Sylvanas is nowhere close to gray just because of Teldrassil being unjustifiable and bearing marks of genocide. By "Horde morals" Sylvanas just might be gray.

[Zuben]

As fickle as it can be, Word of God is still a staple we should bank on when discussing lore, otherwise anything goes.

[JMitchy96]

No, I won't. But not so much for the "morally grey" thing, but the fact that Afrasiabi outright stated that the Azshara Goblin Cannon was going to be fired this expansion. I know it could technically still happen but outside of the faction war I don't see it making much sense (inb4 we use it to fire an Azerite Nuke at N'Zoth once he rises from the ocean).

[Aucald]

There is a difference between what is often referred to as "Word of God," and statements pertaining to directorial or authorial intent. The "morally gray" thing that is often lampooned is a statement of intent - it's what they wanted to do with the story, but whether or not that is ultimately accomplished is not on the director or the author but rather on the part of the viewer/reader. We determine if a thing truly comes across as the director/author intended - execution can be bungled, after all. But if an author or director literally says "this is what character X was thinking/doing" then that's a literal truth we pretty much have to accept, that's what "canon" in a fictional context is.

Intent is a matter of opinion and as such is always subject to debate - canon is a matter of revealed information and is accepted as true by default (it is the literal truth of the story).

[Lolites]

i might be wrong, but as i remember it they said azeroth is not black and white but rather moraly grey, it was not about sylvanas...
about hte cut content, well shit happens, they always had too high ambitions in this regards, vanila should originaly include outland and norhtrend, and emerald dream...

[huth]

Whether you believe what you say or don't it is still a lie.

Wrong. A lie is an intentionally told untruth. You have to know(or at least believe) what you're saying is incorrect.
You cannot accidentally lie.


Since most of the "Blizzard LIED TO ME" come about from people misremembering, misconstruing or plans changing after the statement, yes, i would still trust a Blizzard statement over a fan's headcanon.

- - - Updated - - -

Intent is a matter of opinion and as such is always subject to debate

Amend that to "Whether the intent was achieved" and i'll agree. Otherwise, no, it's not a matter of opinion. What you think about it won't change what my intent is, at least, not without a discussion.

[Heladys]

Oh no, they cut planned content! LIARS!

Give your head a shake.

[Saltysquidoon]

Wrong. A lie is an intentionally told untruth. You have to know(or at least believe) what you're saying is incorrect.
You cannot accidentally lie.

Guys they didn't actually technically lie in the strictest sense of the word, they just made expressions of intent. When they couldn't live up to that intent the best they could do just happened to be exactly what they said they weren't going to do, what a weird coincidence.

I mean its not Garrosh 2.0 right? She's not technically trying to kill everyone except the orcs, shes just trying to kill everyone! Orcs are part of everyone!
It's not SoO 2.0, I mean yeah there was a siege, of orgrimmar, by a combined force of the horde and the alliance, but there wasn't an in game raid so in the strictest most technical sense of the word it is different.

[huth]

I mean its not Garrosh 2.0 right?

Correct. Garrosh had different goals, actions and motivations. They only seem similar when you take a very shallow look at them.

[Arrashi]

Morally gray is nothing compared to "it won't be another garrosh" given the fact that it retracts the same story step by step. Watch her run to alternate dimension quel'thalas and form elflords of azeroth.