Stupid myths about lore of Warcraft

[Houle]

It wouldn't be as bad if they at least stayed consistent about it. Which, in typical Blizzard style, they did not. There was severe flip flopping on the whole Ner'zhul issue throughout WotLK.

Ya the whole Ner'zhul thing is still one of the worst fuck-ups Blizz ever did.

[Magical Mudcrab]

That Old Gods can't die, even though we know they very well can. Parts of them may continue to spread corruption (i.e.: Heart of Y'sharrj), or there may be ways to bring them back to life (which Cho'gall attempts to do to C'thun), but neither of these things are restricted only to Old Gods. We've even killed two Old Gods in game, and imprisoned a third, with C'thun and Yogg-saron being considered dead, confirmed by Alex Afrasiabi and Patrick Dawson at Blizzcon 2018. They did leave caveats for their return but, again, this is a loophole that isn't unique to Old Gods.

- - - Updated - - -

It wouldn't be as bad if they at least stayed consistent about it. Which, in typical Blizzard style, they did not. There was severe flip flopping on the whole Ner'zhul issue throughout WotLK.

Unless my memory is foggy, both Arthas: Rise of the Lich King and Chronicle: Volume 3 also both have different interpretations on what happened to Ner'zhul. I believe the former states Ner'zhul was destroyed, but the latter states that Ner'zhul was just utterly dominated by Arthas and driven to madness within the crown.

Through force of will, Arthas clawed his way though the orc's mental wounds and tore apart Ner'zhul's mind. As the Lich King's body sat motionless on the Frozen Throne, Arthas took complete control. The process was agonizing for Ner'zhul. Not only did Arthas drown him in his guilt, but he deliberately snapped the bonds of his sanity, causing the orc to spiral further and further into despair.

When the final battle was through, nothing remained of Ne'zhul but a wail of sorrow in the back of the Lich King's conciousness. Arthas found it easy to ignore.

[Mehrunes]

Unless my memory is foggy, both Arthas: Rise of the Lich King and Chronicle: Volume 3 also both have different interpretations on what happened to Ner'zhul. I believe the former states Ner'zhul was destroyed, but the latter states that Ner'zhul was just utterly dominated by Arthas and driven to madness within the crown.

I mean, there's that, but those two instances are separated by over a decade. Meanwhile back in WoW around the time of world first LK (or LK HC) kill we had two drastically different Blizzard tweets or blue posts about it in less than a month. One saying that there's more to Ner'zhul's story and the other saying that Ner'zhul's done. Then there are things like the LK talking about his Shamanistic path in 3.0 and similar back and forth throughout the expansion.

[Zendhal The Black]

The biggest myth of all: Characters can die in World of Warcraft

[Dazmalak]

There is a myth that anything in WoW lore is canon. I used to believe in such, but recent developments have taught me it's all flexible and open to interpretation. There is no canon lore in WoW, it's all easily changed on a whim and can be retconned at any time for any reason. Or no reason. It really doesn't matter.

[Garymorilix]

There is a myth that anything in WoW lore is canon. I used to believe in such, but recent developments have taught me it's all flexible and open to interpretation. There is no canon lore in WoW, it's all easily changed on a whim and can be retconned at any time for any reason. Or no reason. It really doesn't matter.

This is true to basically any piece of fiction.
Canon means the most recent officially confirmed series of events. That's all.

Don't act like WoW is the first to retcon stuff.
I am not certain you know what an actual retcon is tho.

[Makabreska]

Anduin x Wrathion

[TigTone]

Biggest myth?

Undead Slyvanas caring about others.

[Soon-TM]

This is true to basically any piece of fiction.

Yeah, no. On top of my head: Sherlock Holmes, Sam Spade, Millennium, Wallander, Dune (the books by Herbert Sr.) do not have retcons of any kind.

Don't act like WoW is the first to retcon stuff.

The poster you quoted never claimed that WoW is the first fiction to retcon stuff. Nice strawman.

- - - Updated - - -

Biggest myth?

Undead Slyvanas caring about others.

Well, she cared enough as to vow for belfs introduction to the Horde, providing them with military and diplomatic support at the moment they were strained the most. Her being retconned into a parody of Chaotic Evil (much later on), doesn't change the fact that in the beginning she was pretty much a good ol' Lawful Evil character.

Though they lack any moral scruples that may impair their work, a cautious villain will respond well to concepts like "loyalty", "duty" and "honour".

[Garymorilix]

Yeah, no. On top of my head: Sherlock Holmes, Sam Spade, Millennium, Wallander, Dune (the books by Herbert Sr.) do not have retcons of any kind.



The poster you quoted never claimed that WoW is the first fiction to retcon stuff. Nice strawman.

What?

I am pretty sure Sherlock Holmes has at least a dozen different interpretations while WoW is a single, continueous narrative.

If we were to apply the definition of a retcon to Sherlock Holmes that would mean that sh*t was retconned every other book/film.
I don't know what the rest is and I don't care because they are irrelevant.

Any piece of fiction can be retconned the moment the creator decides to. It's that simple.
You cannot selectively choose your canon. Canon is everything that is currently officially accepted as canon EVEN IF they might retcon some of it in the future.
You do not know if or what they will retcon down the line so you have literally zero right to call something non-canon because "but they might change it later".

Also, typing out strawman as a form of an insult is both pathetic and weak as fuck. The fact that you even type it out is hypocritical and provides zero value outside of the illusion of validation you receive from other people who frequently type out the phrase.

[Mehrunes]

What?

I am pretty sure sure Holmes has at least a dozen different interpretations while WoW is a single, continueous narrative.

If we were to apply the definition of a retcon to Sherlock Holmes that would mean that sh*t was retconned every other book/film.

Every books/film? What? Are you even remotely familiar with the concept of an adaptation? Those other interpretations do not form the same narrative. Hence the word "other" there. Ergo, they literally can't retcon each other no matters how many pointa of divergence arise between them. That's why Warcraft movie doesn't retcon WoW and its other related material either, despite having many differences in terms of story.

I don't know what the rest is and I don't care because they are irrelevant.

Riiight. Examples someone used to prove your previous claim wrong are totally irrelevant to that point. Stellar logic you employees here.

Any piece of fiction can be retconned the moment the creator decides to. It's that simple.
You cannot selectively choose your canon. Canon is everything that is currently officially accepted as canon EVEN IF they might retcon some of it in the future.
You do not know if or what they will retcon down the line so you have literally zero right to call something non-canon because "but they might change it later".

None of that actually addresses the post you were replying to.

Also, typing out strawman as a form of an insult is both pathetic and weak as fuck. The fact that you even type it out is hypocritical and provides zero value outside of the illusion of validation you receive from other people who frequently type out the phrase.

You taking it as an insult for some godforsaken reason doesn't mean @Soon-TM typed it out as an insult. It's likely to simply be a statement of a fact. And if you think it's hypocritical (even if one went with your insult interpretation), you don't know what hypocrisy (or fallacies) mean.

[Lodreh]

I mean, there's that, but those two instances are separated by over a decade. Meanwhile back in WoW around the time of world first LK (or LK HC) kill we had two drastically different Blizzard tweets or blue posts about it in less than a month. One saying that there's more to Ner'zhul's story and the other saying that Ner'zhul's done. Then there are things like the LK talking about his Shamanistic path in 3.0 and similar back and forth throughout the expansion.

The 'much more' to Ner'zhul's story was Warlords of Draenor (AU Draenor).

[Mehrunes]

The 'much more' to Ner'zhul's story was Warlords of Draenor (AU Draenor).

Even putting aside how by Blizzard's admission they work two expansions in advance, meaning that at that point they were just drafting MoP, that's precisely why they quickly followed that statement with "Nerz'hul is done" with no indication whatsoever they were taking about two different Ner'zhuls.

[Garymorilix]

Every books/film? What? Are you even remotely familiar with the concept of an adaptation? Those other interpretations do not form the same narrative. Hence the word "other" there. Ergo, they literally can't retcon each other no matters how many pointa of divergence arise between them. That's why Warcraft movie doesn't retcon WoW and its other related material either, despite having many differences in terms of story.




Riiight. Examples someone used to prove your previous claim wrong are totally irrelevant to that point. Stellar logic you employees here.




None of that actually addresses the post you were replying to.




You taking it as an insult for some godforsaken reason doesn't mean @Soon-TM typed it out as an insult. It's likely to simply be a statement of a fact. And if you think it's hypocritical (even if one went with your insult interpretation), you don't know what hypocrisy (or fallacies) mean.

1)
Ofc they do not form the same narrative, that's why I pointed out if they wanted to compare ONE book to a multi-platform franchise we gonna have to treat the whole brand of the book as ONE piece.
If they had compared ONE book to ONE movie then nobody would have a problem.

2)
Examples of what?
Here is the original post I replied to:
"There is a myth that anything in WoW lore is canon. I used to believe in such, but recent developments have taught me it's all flexible and open to interpretation. There is no canon lore in WoW, it's all easily changed on a whim and can be retconned at any time for any reason. Or no reason. It really doesn't matter."

This logic can be literally applied to anything ever, hence, why it makes absolutely zero sense.
So again, what did anyone prove wrong?

3) Read point 2.

4) Statement of fact, eh?
I think you are bending words here. I'm pretty sure you are aware of the tone and general meaning of saying "sTRawMan" on this forum, especially with that 10 year tag.
The sad thing here is people endorsing this strawman bullshit. It's really easy to disregard the opposition when all you have to say is a single word and mods rush to the defense.

[Foivos Karkanis]

2.We fought only with the avatars of the Old Gods. Its very hard for people to, well, accept the fact that we defeated all the old gods (the basic 4 , 3 without Ysharj). I think its Blizzard's fault as well but in vanilla they didnt care about the lore so much so they sacrifised Cthun to a bunch of t2 geared guilds.