Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ...
2
3
4
5
LastLast
  1. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by username993720 View Post
    Not necessarily:





    The 'Dark Lord' is an entity that Mal'ganis mentions several times. We used to think it was Sargeras. Now we know it was probably Zovaal.
    wtf lol.
    that line always meant ner'zhul.
    zovaal did not exist, back when that line was written. hell, not even the IDEA of zovaal existed back then. thats not even a discussion, its a fact.
    The crooked shitposter with no eyes is watching from the endless thread.

    From the space that is everywhere and nowhere, the crooked shitposter feasts on memes.

    He has no eyes to see, but he dreams of infinite memeing and trolling.

  2. #62
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    Er, contextually The Dark Lord of the Dead who tells Arthas to kill Mal'ganis is obviously Ner'zhul the Lich King. There would be no reason for Zovaal to tell Arthas to kill his own Nathrezim agent.

    You have to realize that the Warcraft 3 story was written at a time when Shadowlands was never even invented or conceptually planned, and that the story of Warcraft 3 was meant to be self contained to the characters within it. Zovaal was never created back then, he is an invention of today, a complete shoehorning and retcon of past events. Contextually, the Dark Lord mentioned in the Warcraft 3 campaign only makes sense to be Ner'zhul, who was actively defying his Legion masters and wished to use Arthas to free himself from his Nathrezim jailors.


    I wouldn't put much effort in trying to fit Zovaal into Warcraft 3 dialogue. It wasn't written with him in mind, and there's really no point in trying to string it into the Warcraft 3 plot circa 2001. We have to be mindful that Zovaal is literally a creation of now, that hasn't actually been seeded but rather shoehorned where best fit. It's like implying Draenei were always Blue Space Goats was hinted at in Warcraft 3, when it's the opposite and the old lore was retconned to connect two completely unrelated races to each other. The Warcraft 3 Outland Draenei had nothing to do with the Eredar, and all the lore that exists today is a retcon of past events with no actual connection in the Warcraft 3 game or storyline. Reforged was originally planned to add in a bunch of WoW lore in where it didn't exist before, but even that never happened since they scrapped the Remade campaign and just kept the original one, voices and all.

    We have to be clear of terminology here. Zovaal is a new character in the context of Blizzard writers progressing the lore. He is not a character that had ever been seeded into the story before Shadowlands. Even Sylvanas' short story involving her dying had absolutely no hint or mention of the Shadowlands, and everything in the lore about Zovaal is newly built to support the current storyline, retcons and ancient backstory included. Of course he is 100% canonized as a lore figure who has existed for eras and is responsible for many of the events in Warcraft history, but that doesn't make him any less regarded as a completely new creation that has been inserted into the backstory. The Dark Lord that Arthas hears in the Warcraft 3 game is not Zovaal, even with the retcons in mind. It was still Ner'zhul.

    -edit-

    https://wowwiki-archive.fandom.com/w...(Warcraft_III)

    'Dark Lord of the Dead' is even directly linked to Lich King Ner'zhul in the WoWpedia entry. It was never Sargeras, and definitely not Zovaal.
    Nerz'hul sounds like a Dark Lord to you?
    Of course Zovaal wasn't in the plans back then. But, it fits right now with the new lore.
    You see the Nathrezim working for Nerz'hul? It was the Jailer who orchestrated the Helm of Domination and Frostmourne shenaningans onto Azeroth. Nerz'hul was just a puppet. I don't see why Zovaal wouldn't kill one of his agents. Does he look like a merciful being? Arthas wanted revenge and he gave it to him (probably to make a better Lich King). Besides, Mal'ganis just rematerialized in the Shadowlands (or the Twisting Nether), as we see him in patch 9.1.
    Nerz'hul is old news (in regards to being in control). We know Arthas was not fully responsible to his actions due to Zovaal's domination magic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Houle View Post
    wtf lol.
    that line always meant ner'zhul.
    zovaal did not exist, back when that line was written. hell, not even the IDEA of zovaal existed back then. thats not even a discussion, its a fact.
    No shit, sherlock. That's what called a retcon. Dreadlords were working for the Burning Legion back then and the instruments of domination (helm and blade) were sent by Kil'jaeden if i'm not mistaken.

    Now, as of Shadowlands, there's new lore which you can apply to the old one.
    Read First! (Very Important)
    Dear Scrapbot or Moderator:
    Before you, recklessly, hand out an infraction - if i, accidently, broke the rules without being aware, i would very much appreciate a warning first, in the manner of a green text/edit or a private message.
    Thank you in advance.

  3. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by username993720 View Post
    Nerz'hul sounds like a Dark Lord to you?
    Does it matter what I think? It is who they were referring to in the lore and in the canon. No dispute about it in the context of the WC3 campaign where you are pulling your sources from.

    Ner'zhul is old news
    And yet you are pointing at 'old news' as a source. Dark Lord is still Ner'zhul.

    I said the jailer came out of nowhere. He never existed before. If this was a character that was seeded in Warcraft 3, then sure, but clearly he was not, and the Dark Lord you are referring to is your own misinterpretation. Seems pretty obvious since you seemed to think it was Sargeras even. It was always Ner'zhul, and I sourced the Frostmourne WoWpedia entry that links Dark Lord of the Dead straight to the Lich King.

    You see the Nathrezim working for Nerz'hul? It was the Jailer who orchestrated the Helm of Domination and Frostmourne
    We can regard Zovaal as the Jailer who created Helm of Domination and Frostmourne and had Nathrezim agents. We can have him being responsible for some of Arthas ' corruption. The rest of the details are unknown, and you are trying to fill in the blanks with your own speculation. Why?

    Zovaal's specific manipulations of the events of Warcraft 3 have to be shown for us to regard exactly what happened, otherwise you're trying to pass off your own speculation of what Zovaal *may have done* as canon. Did any Nathrezim ever refer to him during WC3 or did he keep himself secret? Are they talking about Zovaal when they mention Dark Lord to Arthas? Blizzard hasn't connected Zovaal as the Dark Lord mentioned by Nathrezim. In the context of Warcraft 3 campaign, it is undeniably Ner'zhul, and that will _only_ change if Blizzard specifically retcons that to being Zovaal, not because you happen to think it fits better.

    Let us be clear where the line is drawn - you are SPECULATING that the Dark Lord mentioned im WC3 is Zovaal, with absolutely no proof to correlate this claim and nothing but further speculation to assume he would kill his own agents to allow Arthas to have revenge. Let us be clear that this is not actually lore, and that we actually don't know the extent of his manipulation of Arthas. What you have suggested is pure speculation of very broadly retconned events.

    Zovaal is a new character that never existed before. He came from nowhere and was never mentioned or hinted at prior to Shadowlands. We both agree that he is new lore. Honestly, I'm not sure why you wish to even argue this point as though Blizzard had seeded him in Warcraft 3 dialog, since we both know he is a newly invented character that was never hinted at prior to Shadowlands lore.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2021-06-09 at 09:23 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Since Arthas used Frostmourne, which is a Runeblade, and Frostmourne's power eminates from those runes, that made him a Runemaster by default.

  4. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    Does it matter what I think? It is who they were referring to in the lore and in the canon. No dispute about it in the context of the WC3 campaign where you are pulling your sources from.
    It's like referring to Snape or Malfoy's father as the Dark Lord instead of Voldermort. It just doesn't sound that appropriate.

    Yes, and I said the Jailer was a new character in the lore. New lore, new character, you say this yourself so what exactly are you disagreeing here?

    Again I said the jailer came out of nowhere. He never existed before. If this was a character that was seeded in Warcraft 3, then sure, but clearly he waa not, and the Dark Lord you are referring to is your own misinterpretation. Seems pretty obvious since you seemed to think it was Sargeras even. It was always Ner'zhul, and I sourced the Frostmourne WoWpedia entry that links Dark Lord of the Dead straight to the Lich King.
    Of course Zovaal was not thought about back then and of course the page would link you to Nerz'hul. But, i beg you. Use your common sense. Why repeat this Dark Lord instead of the Lich King or Ner'zhul? to remain obscure. It just so happens that the new lore about the Dreadlords and the vessels of domination match the WC3 storyline? Don't you think it kinda fits right in?

    So here is the problem- we can regard Zovaal as the Jailer who created Helm of Domination and Frostmourne and had Nathrezim agents. We can have him being responsible for some of Arthas ' corruption. We can't actually pin point him in the WC3 campaign as evidence that he was always there - this is simply a twisting of lore to fit latest retcons, and it doesn't work like that.

    Zovaal's specific manipulations of the events of Warcraft 3 have to be shown for us to regard exactly what happened, otherwise you're trying to pass off your own speculation of what Zovaal *may have done* as canon. Did any Nathrezim ever refer to him during WC3 or did he keep himself secret? Are rhey talking about Zovaal when they mention Dark Lord? If Blizzard hasn't clearly said Zovaal was the Dark Lord, then you can't go around claiming that as if it's lore just because it fits your personal suspicions. In the context of Warcraft 3 campaign, it is undeniably Ner'zhul, and that will only change if Blizzard chooses to retcon that to being Zovaal, not because you happen to think it fits better.

    Let us be clear where the line is drawn - you are SPECULATING that the Dark Lord mentioned im WC3 is Zovaal, with absolutely no proof to correlate this claim and nothing but further speculation to assume he would kill his own agents to allow Arthas to have revenge. Let us be clear that this is not actually lore, and that we actually don't know the extent of his manipulation of Arthas.

    Zovaal is a new character that never existed before. He came from nowhere and was never mentioned or hinted at prior to Shadowlands. We both agree that he is new lore. Honestly, I'm not sure why you wish to even argue this point as though Blizzard had seeded him in Warcraft 3 dialog, since we both know he is a newly invented character that was never hinted at prior to Shadowlands lore.
    Do the math. It's pretty obvious by now.
    Read First! (Very Important)
    Dear Scrapbot or Moderator:
    Before you, recklessly, hand out an infraction - if i, accidently, broke the rules without being aware, i would very much appreciate a warning first, in the manner of a green text/edit or a private message.
    Thank you in advance.

  5. #65
    Quote Originally Posted by username993720 View Post
    It's like referring to Snape or Malfoy's father as the Dark Lord instead of Voldermort. It just doesn't sound that appropriate.

    Of course Zovaal was not thought about back then and of course the page would link you to Nerz'hul. But, i beg you. Use your common sense. Why repeat this Dark Lord instead of the Lich King or Ner'zhul? to remain obscure. It just so happens that the new lore about the Dreadlords and the vessels of domination match the WC3 storyline? Don't you think it kinda fits right in?

    Do the math. It's pretty obvious by now.
    The math has subtracted nerzhul and added zovaal. That equation came from nowhere.

    You can't apply your own speculation to better fit the equation when the Dark Lord the Nathrezim were talking about is still Ner'zhul in the context of WC3.

    Blizzard hasn't retconned that campaign or the specific lore of the Dark Lord to better fit Zovaal. So no, you are still 100% wrong in trying to use this point as evidence of Zovaal having been hinted in WC3.

    Not being an ass, just pointing out what is lore and what is speculation. I have no interest in regarding your speculation since we literally have zero information regarding how much control he had over Arthas. I have no interest in regarding your speculation here until we know how much more Blizzard intends to change the actual WC3 lore.

    Even if Ner'zhul is regarded as the puppet, he is still called the Lich King, and referred to as the Dark Lord of Death. There is no reason to dispute this particular part of the lore when Blizzard themselves have not changed it. Your speculation involves downplaying Ner'zhuls importance, but you can not disregard that he was still the Lich King who created Icecrown and manipulated the events that brought Arthas to Northrend. The Dreadlords still worked with him under the Legion, and would still refer to him through titles as was always intended in the story.

    It's not a matter of who we think the Dark Lord title fits better, it's about what Blizzard has kept canon. And canonically speaking, Zovaal's existence was kept completely secret until Shadowlands.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2021-06-09 at 09:59 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Since Arthas used Frostmourne, which is a Runeblade, and Frostmourne's power eminates from those runes, that made him a Runemaster by default.

  6. #66
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    The math has subtracted nerzhul and added zovaal. That equation came from nowhere.

    You can't apply your own speculation to better fit the equation when the Dark Lord the Nathrezim were talking about is still Ner'zhul in the context of WC3.

    Blizzard hasn't retconned that campaign or the specific lore of the Dark Lord to better fit Zovaal. So no, you are still 100% wrong in trying to use this point as evidence of Zovaal having been hinted in WC3.

    Not being an ass, just pointing out what is lore and what is speculation. I have no interest in regarding your speculation since we literally have zero information regarding how much control he had over Arthas. I have no interest in regarding your speculation here until we know how much more Blizzard intends to change the actual WC3 lore.

    Even if Ner'zhul is regarded as the puppet, he is still called the Lich King, and referred to as the Dark Lord of Death. There is no reason to dispute this particular part of the lore when Blizzard themselves have not changed it. Your speculation involves downplaying Ner'zhuls importance, but you can not disregard that he was still the Lich King who created Icecrown and manipulated the events that brought Arthas to Northrend. The Dreadlords still worked with him under the Legion, and would still refer to him through titles as was always intended in the story.

    It's not a matter of who we think the Dark Lord title fits better, it's about what Blizzard has kept canon. And canonically speaking, Zovaal's existence was kept completely secret until Shadowlands.
    I'm not saying he was hinted. I'm saying this type of obscure reference matches with them introducing Zovaal this expansion as the true Jailer of the damned.

    And keeping Nerz'hul as the ultimate entity of that reference is kinda narrow-minded. You gotta look at the bigger picture than what was portrayed back then (or haven't changed yet, canonically).

    P.S. - i don't see any links in the transcript, though: https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Fro...an)#Transcript

    Nor in the link you sent: https://wowwiki-archive.fandom.com/w...(Warcraft_III) (which is WoWWiki - an older, outdated version of WoWpedia)
    Last edited by username993720; 2021-06-09 at 10:11 AM.
    Read First! (Very Important)
    Dear Scrapbot or Moderator:
    Before you, recklessly, hand out an infraction - if i, accidently, broke the rules without being aware, i would very much appreciate a warning first, in the manner of a green text/edit or a private message.
    Thank you in advance.

  7. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by username993720 View Post
    I'm not saying he was hinted. I'm saying this type of obscure reference matches with them introducing Zovaal this expansion as the true Jailer of the damned.

    And keeping Nerz'hul as the ultimate entity of that reference is kinda narrow-minded. You gotta look at the bigger picture than what was portrayed back then (or haven't changed yet, canonically).

    P.S. - i don't see any links in the transcript, though: https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Fro...an)#Transcript

    Nor in the link you sent: https://wowwiki-archive.fandom.com/w...(Warcraft_III) (which is WoWWiki - an older, outdated version of WoWpedia)
    A retcon is a retcon.

  8. #68
    Quote Originally Posted by draugril View Post
    A retcon is a retcon.
    I don't understand. Do you agree with me or not?
    Read First! (Very Important)
    Dear Scrapbot or Moderator:
    Before you, recklessly, hand out an infraction - if i, accidently, broke the rules without being aware, i would very much appreciate a warning first, in the manner of a green text/edit or a private message.
    Thank you in advance.

  9. #69
    Quote Originally Posted by username993720 View Post
    I'm not saying he was hinted. I'm saying this type of obscure reference matches with them introducing Zovaal this expansion as the true Jailer of the damned.
    Theres more than one Jailer of the damned, and Ner'zhul was one of them. There have been three known Lich Kings, and no reason why any one but Ner'zhul would be called the Dark Lord of Death during the WC3 campaign. This was not Sargeras, Kil'jaeden or a potential Zovaal. It was Ner'zhul.

    Again, you aren't just pointing out an obscure reference, you're implying a retcon that doesn't exist, which includes speculating Zovaal giving Arthas the pleasure of killing Mal'ganis.

    Zovaal is a new creation that came from nowhere. Theres no way anyone could fathom his existence prior to Shadowlands. There has been no hints of his existence, and what you are pointing at is still talking about Ner'zhul, the first known Lich King.

    You gotta look at the bigger picture than what was portrayed back then (or haven't changed yet, canonically).
    I did look at the bigger picture. It's the reason why I can point at Zovaal as a new character that came from nowhere, rather than being someone like Sargeras who has been seeded in lore since Warcraft 1.

    Azshara was seeded in WC3 manual backstory. Old gods were seeded from Arthas' encounter with a Forgotten One in WC3. Even Mueh'zuela was seeded in obscure quest lore. But Zovaal? He's 100% new no matter how you look at it. There were no hints for any _true_ Jailer of the Damned considering the whole term itself originated with Wrath of the Lich King, and only to serve the purpose of continuing the Lich King character with Bolvar in its place. There was never any indication of a higher creator considering we already knew the origin of the helm and frostmourne to be from Kiljaeden and the Legion-bound Nathrezim. Everything new that retconned this literally comes from nowhere.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2021-06-09 at 10:41 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Since Arthas used Frostmourne, which is a Runeblade, and Frostmourne's power eminates from those runes, that made him a Runemaster by default.

  10. #70
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    Theres more than one Jailer of the damned, and Ner'zhul was one of them. There have been three known Lich Kings, and no reason why any one but Ner'zhul would be called the Dark Lord of Death during the WC3 campaign. This was not Sargeras, Kil'jaeden or a potential Zovaal. It was Ner'zhul.

    Again, you aren't just pointing out an obscure reference, you're implying a retcon that doesn't exist, which includes speculating Zovaal giving Arthas the pleasure of killing Mal'ganis.

    Zovaal is a new creation that came from nowhere. Theres no way anyone could fathom his existence prior to Shadowlands. There has been no hints of his existence, and what you are pointing at is still talking about Ner'zhul, the first known Lich King.



    I did look at the bigger picture. It's the reason why I can point at Zovaal as a new character that came from nowhere, rather than being someone like Sargeras who has been seeded in lore since Warcraft 1.

    Azshara was seeded in WC3 manual backstory. Old gods were seeded from Arthas' encounter with a Forgotten One in WC3. Even Mueh'zuela was seeded in obscure quest lore. But Zovaal? He's 100% new no matter how you look at it. There were no hints for any _true_ Jailer of the Damned considering the whole term itself originated with Wrath of the Lich King, and only to serve the purpose of continuing the Lich King character with Bolvar in its place. There was never any indication of a higher creator considering we already knew the origin of the helm and frostmourne to be from Kiljaeden and the Legion-bound Nathrezim. Everything new that retconned this literally comes from nowhere.
    Could you clarify the links in my previous post?

    As for Nerz'hul, the Dreadlords were entrusted by Archimonde to watch over the Scourge and the Lich King. Their Dark Lord was Sargeras at the time. They didn't know Ner'zhul took control over the helmet and was trying to betray them. The Lich King was, literally, their subordinate. Do you really think they would address someone under their care as the Dark Lord?

    I didn't mean Zovaal wasn't a new character altogether, but that he was probably created with WC3 in mind.
    Read First! (Very Important)
    Dear Scrapbot or Moderator:
    Before you, recklessly, hand out an infraction - if i, accidently, broke the rules without being aware, i would very much appreciate a warning first, in the manner of a green text/edit or a private message.
    Thank you in advance.

  11. #71
    Quote Originally Posted by username993720 View Post
    I don't understand. Do you agree with me or not?
    Not at all.

    Even if Blizzard, out of the blue (pun intended) went out of their way to say Mal'ganis was actually referring to the Jailer, it doesn't change that he was referring to the Lich King specifically as written. It would be a retcon, but it isn't since they haven't went out of their way to make that change. It's your own head canon retcon.

  12. #72
    Quote Originally Posted by username993720 View Post
    Could you clarify the links in my previous post?
    https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Fro...an)#Transcript

    Scroll down to the section "Arthas's Vengeance". It is part of an article, not direct transcript.

    And right in the same article:
    "Frostmourne's sinister whispering is heard again. After a moment, Arthas answers that the Dark Lord (Lich King) tells him that the time for his vengeance has come."

    As for Nerz'hul, the Dreadlords were entrusted by Archimonde to watch over the Scourge and the Lich King. Their Dark Lord was Sargeras at the time. They didn't know Ner'zhul took control over the helmet and was trying to betray them. The Lich King was, literally, their subordinate. Do you really think they would address someone under their care as the Dark Lord?
    It was not Sargeras because he is not the 'Dark Lord of Death', nor was he even considered active at that point in the story. The focus of the Legion was centered around Archimonde and Mannaroth.

    And again, the context of WC3 clearly had the Nathrezim referring to Ner'zhul, not any of the Legion's mysterious masters. At this point I'm not sure if you're simply unaware of this, or actively trying to avoid it. I haven't been the only one to point this out, and even WoWpedia links to it (in the actual article section)

    The context includes the Dark Lord foretelling of Arthas coming to Northrend. This was credited to Ner'zhul's planning, and we know this because Kel'thuzad carried out his orders in other cutscenes. There's no reason to credit this to anyone else unless you are cherry picking this out of context and pretending the rest of the campaign never happened. Again, the context is specific to Zovaal not having ever existed. Kel'thuzad and the Dreadlords worked with Ner'zhul in WC3, not with WoW retconned Zovaal, so you can't exactly point at WC3 as though it's already been retconned.

    I didn't mean Zovaal wasn't a new character altogether, but that he was probably created with WC3 in mind.
    Yeah, but coming from nowhere has nothing to do with intention.

    My original comment was more about how no one could have predicted such a character would even exist. He comes from nowhere, having no roots in the lore whatsoever. You can't have guessed that Ner'zhul was merely a puppet of _a second_ dark force that was not the Legion. Trying to fit Zovaal retroactively into WC3 lore the way you are going about it doesn't address my point that his character came out of nowhere. We're talking about Blizzard changing the lore for this character to exist.

    I'm not saying he was hinted.
    Actually, you were, because I said he came from nowhere and you replied 'not necessarily' and tried to prove it.

    If you'd been in agreement at the start and only wanted to show speculation, you wouldn't have said 'Not necessarily' and you could have just jumped straight into your speculation. By disagreeing with my point, you took the stance of a counter argument; implying he didn't come from nowhere. I have zero reason to assume you weren't saying he was hinted if you were countering my statement and trying to prove that he was.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2021-06-09 at 07:02 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Since Arthas used Frostmourne, which is a Runeblade, and Frostmourne's power eminates from those runes, that made him a Runemaster by default.

  13. #73
    Quote Originally Posted by username993720 View Post
    Nerz'hul sounds like a Dark Lord to you?
    Of course Zovaal wasn't in the plans back then. But, it fits right now with the new lore.
    You see the Nathrezim working for Nerz'hul? It was the Jailer who orchestrated the Helm of Domination and Frostmourne shenaningans onto Azeroth. Nerz'hul was just a puppet. I don't see why Zovaal wouldn't kill one of his agents. Does he look like a merciful being? Arthas wanted revenge and he gave it to him (probably to make a better Lich King). Besides, Mal'ganis just rematerialized in the Shadowlands (or the Twisting Nether), as we see him in patch 9.1.
    Nerz'hul is old news (in regards to being in control). We know Arthas was not fully responsible to his actions due to Zovaal's domination magic.



    No shit, sherlock. That's what called a retcon. Dreadlords were working for the Burning Legion back then and the instruments of domination (helm and blade) were sent by Kil'jaeden if i'm not mistaken.

    Now, as of Shadowlands, there's new lore which you can apply to the old one.
    exactly. "no shit sherlock." thats EXACTLY what triceron meant when he said the jailer came out of nowhere.
    he didnt exist before SL. he was brought in out of nowhere. and even IF they retcon that "dark lord of the dead" line to be about zovaal (which they specifically havent yet, so its not about him so far), its still just a retcon that CAME OUT OF NOWHERE.

    the character zovaal will always be a random blue man, who was pulled out of the hat bc they wanted a new big villain with ties to the lich king
    Last edited by Houle; 2021-06-09 at 05:05 PM.
    The crooked shitposter with no eyes is watching from the endless thread.

    From the space that is everywhere and nowhere, the crooked shitposter feasts on memes.

    He has no eyes to see, but he dreams of infinite memeing and trolling.

  14. #74
    Quote Originally Posted by Houle View Post
    wtf lol.
    that line always meant ner'zhul.
    zovaal did not exist, back when that line was written. hell, not even the IDEA of zovaal existed back then. thats not even a discussion, its a fact.
    LMAO right!?

    do people seriously think Blizzard made up the Jailer and all this nonsense back during WC3 era xd

    I saw this shit on Twitter a year ago when people were praising Blizzard on how they made this up during Warcraft 3.

    Jailer is a character made up on the spot.

    they literally said he is an entirely new bland character.
    Last edited by DemonHunter18; 2021-06-09 at 05:05 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nerovar View Post
    They had no prior build-up and instead tried to leech off of already established things people are familiar with. The Scourge? Maldraxxus did that. The Lich King? The Jailer did that. Frostmourne? The Runecarver made that. Sargeras corruption by demons and everything resulting from that? Also the Jailer's plan.

  15. #75
    Quote Originally Posted by DemonHunter18 View Post
    LMAO right!?

    do people seriously think Blizzard made up the Jailer and all this nonsense back during WC3 era xd

    I saw this shit on Twitter a year ago when people were praising Blizzard on how they made this up during Warcraft 3.

    Jailer is a character made up on the spot.

    they literally said he is an entirely new bland character.
    Even calling him a "character" is generous. He's a plot device.

  16. #76
    Quote Originally Posted by draugril View Post
    Even calling him a "character" is generous. He's a plot device.
    right

    terrible one at that.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nerovar View Post
    They had no prior build-up and instead tried to leech off of already established things people are familiar with. The Scourge? Maldraxxus did that. The Lich King? The Jailer did that. Frostmourne? The Runecarver made that. Sargeras corruption by demons and everything resulting from that? Also the Jailer's plan.

  17. #77
    blue dragon spec

    spellweaver
    ranged
    builds draconic power through attacking the target

    main skills
    dragon bolt:
    instant cast
    deals damage to a target and builds draconic energy
    during draconic fury damage is increased and does not consume dragons eye stacks on cast

    dragon wrath:
    2s cast
    deals damage to target and 2 nearby enemies
    leaves dragons eye debuff on target
    when empowered by draconic fury places debuff on secondary targets and benefits from the damage buff
    dragons eye:
    debuff on target that increases damage and draconic energy generation of dragon bolt by X% stacks up to 5 times
    1 stack is consumed per dragon bolt cast

    dragons fury:
    instantly fill draconic energy
    2 min CD

    pretty basic but the general idea is there

  18. #78
    Quote Originally Posted by draugril View Post
    Not at all.

    Even if Blizzard, out of the blue (pun intended) went out of their way to say Mal'ganis was actually referring to the Jailer, it doesn't change that he was referring to the Lich King specifically as written. It would be a retcon, but it isn't since they haven't went out of their way to make that change. It's your own head canon retcon.
    I'm aware of it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Fro...an)#Transcript

    Scroll down to the section "Arthas's Vengeance". It is part of an article, not direct transcript.

    And right in the same article:
    "Frostmourne's sinister whispering is heard again. After a moment, Arthas answers that the Dark Lord (Lich King) tells him that the time for his vengeance has come."
    Since we now know Zovaal was responsible for the creation of the helm and sword and his specialty is domination magic, i can see him being the one whispering to Arthas as the Lich King, while Nerz'hul took a back seat.

    It was not Sargeras because he is not the 'Dark Lord of Death', nor was he even considered active at that point in the story. The focus of the Legion was centered around Archimonde and Mannaroth.

    And again, the context of WC3 clearly had the Nathrezim referring to Ner'zhul, not any of the Legion's mysterious masters. At this point I'm not sure if you're simply unaware of this, or actively trying to avoid it. I haven't been the only one to point this out, and even WoWpedia links to it (in the actual article section)

    The context includes the Dark Lord foretelling of Arthas coming to Northrend. This was credited to Ner'zhul's planning, and we know this because Kel'thuzad carried out his orders in other cutscenes. There's no reason to credit this to anyone else unless you are cherry picking this out of context and pretending the rest of the campaign never happened. Again, the context is specific to Zovaal not having ever existed. Kel'thuzad and the Dreadlords worked with Ner'zhul in WC3, not with WoW retconned Zovaal, so you can't exactly point at WC3 as though it's already been retconned.
    You know Sargeras is the top dog of the Legion, right? even if he didn't feature in the game. I can see Archimonde being referred to as master. But Dark Lord is way too ominous, like Voldermort.

    Who is Kel'thuzad working for right now? is it Nerz'hul? or Zovaal? yea, think about that...

    Who are the Dreadlords working for now? they work for Death. Specifically, Sire Denathrius who works with Zovaal.

    Just think about it. It all makes sense.

    Yeah, but coming from nowhere has nothing to do with intention.

    My original comment was more about how no one could have predicted such a character would even exist. He comes from nowhere, having no roots in the lore whatsoever. You can't have guessed that Ner'zhul was merely a puppet of _a second_ dark force that was not the Legion. Trying to fit Zovaal retroactively into WC3 lore the way you are going about it doesn't address my point that his character came out of nowhere. We're talking about Blizzard changing the lore for this character to exist.
    You're right. He's out of nowhere. But, you can kind of see where he fits in with previous lore, given the new info we got in Shadowlands.

    Actually, you were, because I said he came from nowhere and you replied 'not necessarily' and tried to prove it.

    If you'd been in agreement at the start and only wanted to show speculation, you wouldn't have said 'Not necessarily' and you could have just jumped straight into your speculation. By disagreeing with my point, you took the stance of a counter argument; implying he didn't come from nowhere. I have zero reason to assume you weren't saying he was hinted if you were countering my statement and trying to prove that he was.
    I didn't mean it was set in motion back then. But, just like Sylvanas actions makes sense given the new info we got about her recently, so does the Jailer in the grander scale of things.

    Quote Originally Posted by Houle View Post
    exactly. "no shit sherlock." thats EXACTLY what triceron meant when he said the jailer came out of nowhere.
    he didnt exist before SL. he was brought in out of nowhere. and even IF they retcon that "dark lord of the dead" line to be about zovaal (which they specifically havent yet, so its not about him so far), its still just a retcon that CAME OUT OF NOWHERE.

    the character zovaal will always be a random blue man, who was pulled out of the hat bc they wanted a new big villain with ties to the lich king
    Can't argue with that.
    Last edited by username993720; 2021-06-10 at 01:58 PM.
    Read First! (Very Important)
    Dear Scrapbot or Moderator:
    Before you, recklessly, hand out an infraction - if i, accidently, broke the rules without being aware, i would very much appreciate a warning first, in the manner of a green text/edit or a private message.
    Thank you in advance.

  19. #79
    Quote Originally Posted by username993720 View Post
    Who is Kel'thuzad working for right now? is it Nerz'hul? or Zovaal? yea, think about that...
    There's no point in speculating.

    Blizzard has to retcon Kel'thuzad to having directly worked with Zovaal in Warcraft 3 for your speculation to work, and they have not done that. It's like speculating if Azshara was corrupted by N'zoth before she was turned into a Naga and if we can blame N'zoth for everything bad that Azshara has ever done. It's pure speculation. Nothing comes out of it because Blizzard has not gone down that route. We know Azshara was over ambitious to begin with, before having any contacts with dark powers, and that the lore doesn't have her contacting Old Gods any time before she was actually turned into a Naga.

    Nothing suggests Kel'thuzad had always been a minion of Zovaal since Warcraft 3. Blizzard has not retconned Kel'thuzad's connections in Warcraft 3.

    I'm literally shutting down your speculation on the basis of it simply not being canon, and frankly making zero sense. If you are making this speculation, then it further implies that any mention of 'The Lich King' would also be talking about Zovaal. Kel'thuzad says ""I am reborn, as promised! The Lich King has granted me eternal life!", so we're talking about Zovaal doing this since Ner'zhul is just his puppet, right? You're suggesting Zovaal granted Kel'thuzad eternal life, which implies he is the Lich King, which breaks all the dialogue in WC3 because Kel'thuzad also says "Tell him nothing! Only you can hear me. The dreadlords cannot be trusted. They are the Lich King's jailors!". So if Zovaal is the Lich King, then the Nathrezim are his jailers? You see, it doesn't work.


    We have no reason to assume any character in Warcraft 3 acknowledged Zovaal, since he was not in the story.

    Who are the Dreadlords working for now? they work for Death. Specifically, Sire Denathrius who works with Zovaal.
    Yet that doesn't change the context of their dialogue in Warcraft 3. Even if they are secretly working for Zovaal or Denathrius, they are not referring to them by name to anyone in the campaign. They aren't telling Arthas of Zovaal when they mention 'Dark Lord', they are still talking about Ner'zhul. There's no reason to change the context of the dialogue when the new retcons are implied to be 100% carried out in secrecy, even to the player.

    But, you can kind of see where he fits in with previous lore, given the new info we got in Shadowlands.
    Where he fits best is in the background of the lore, just like the Old Gods and their influence. We don't need to retrofit characters in the RTS openly referring to Yogg Saron or N'zoth. The canon is that Warcraft 3 story does not formally acknowledge their existence, the only exception being the Forgotten One that Arthas fights. Blizzard can acknowledge that the lore has Old Gods existing during this time, and even present in Northrend (sleeping Yogg), but they aren't directly connected in any way into the Warcraft 3 campaign, and we can't just string together hints of dialogue as if they were always being hinted at. Naga are not openly talking about N'zoth in Warcraft 3 even though they know exactly who he is.

    Just think about it. It all makes sense.
    No it doesn't. What you're implying breaks the Warcraft 3 dialogue and context. I've explained very thoroughly that you can't just apply the retcons this way.

    You can't assume Dreadlords are talking to Arthas about a character who doesn't exist in the lore at that point.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2021-06-10 at 07:29 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Since Arthas used Frostmourne, which is a Runeblade, and Frostmourne's power eminates from those runes, that made him a Runemaster by default.

  20. #80
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    There's no point in speculating.

    Blizzard has to retcon Kel'thuzad to having directly worked with Zovaal in Warcraft 3 for your speculation to work, and they have not done that. It's like speculating if Azshara was corrupted by N'zoth before she was turned into a Naga and if we can blame N'zoth for everything bad that Azshara has ever done. It's pure speculation. Nothing comes out of it because Blizzard has not gone down that route. We know Azshara was over ambitious to begin with, before having any contacts with dark powers, and that the lore doesn't have her contacting Old Gods any time before she was actually turned into a Naga.

    Nothing suggests Kel'thuzad had always been a minion of Zovaal since Warcraft 3. Blizzard has not retconned Kel'thuzad's connections in Warcraft 3.

    I'm literally shutting down your speculation on the basis of it simply not being canon, and frankly making zero sense. If you are making this speculation, then it further implies that any mention of 'The Lich King' would also be talking about Zovaal. Kel'thuzad says ""I am reborn, as promised! The Lich King has granted me eternal life!", so we're talking about Zovaal doing this since Ner'zhul is just his puppet, right? You're suggesting Zovaal granted Kel'thuzad eternal life, which implies he is the Lich King, which breaks all the dialogue in WC3 because Kel'thuzad also says "Tell him nothing! Only you can hear me. The dreadlords cannot be trusted. They are the Lich King's jailors!". So if Zovaal is the Lich King, then the Nathrezim are his jailers? You see, it doesn't work.


    We have no reason to assume any character in Warcraft 3 acknowledged Zovaal, since he was not in the story.



    Yet that doesn't change the context of their dialogue in Warcraft 3. Even if they are secretly working for Zovaal or Denathrius, they are not referring to them by name to anyone in the campaign. They aren't telling Arthas of Zovaal when they mention 'Dark Lord', they are still talking about Ner'zhul. There's no reason to change the context of the dialogue when the new retcons are implied to be 100% carried out in secrecy, even to the player.



    Where he fits best is in the background of the lore, just like the Old Gods and their influence. We don't need to retrofit characters in the RTS openly referring to Yogg Saron or N'zoth. The canon is that Warcraft 3 story does not formally acknowledge their existence, the only exception being the Forgotten One that Arthas fights. Blizzard can acknowledge that the lore has Old Gods existing during this time, and even present in Northrend (sleeping Yogg), but they aren't directly connected in any way into the Warcraft 3 campaign, and we can't just string together hints of dialogue as if they were always being hinted at. Naga are not openly talking about N'zoth in Warcraft 3 even though they know exactly who he is.



    No it doesn't. What you're implying breaks the Warcraft 3 dialogue and context. I've explained very thoroughly that you can't just apply the retcons this way.

    You can't assume Dreadlords are talking to Arthas about a character who doesn't exist in the lore at that point.
    "Kel'Thuzad subsequently used his position and influence over Sin'dane to begin turning the houses of Maldraxxus against each other through treachery and deceit in order to further the plans of his true master, the Jailer."

    The question that needs to be asked is when was this pact made?

    "The nathrezim originate from Revendreth, one of the infinite realms of the Shadowlands, the afterlife. They were created by Sire Denathrius countless ages ago, just after the first venthyr and Court of Harvesters were sired, to infiltrate the other cosmic forces and spread the influence of Death."

    We know it was way before the Lich King was even created. So, granted they serve Death indirectly, do we see them answering to the likes of Ner'zhul? only if Ner'zhul's bidding is their master's bidding. I can see how the text doesn't match if we apply my theory directly. But, hear me out. What if the Dark Lord is Zovaal, yet Ner'zhul was in control of the helmet? That way, the Nathrezim still serve him, yet Ner'zhul secretly still wants his independence.
    Read First! (Very Important)
    Dear Scrapbot or Moderator:
    Before you, recklessly, hand out an infraction - if i, accidently, broke the rules without being aware, i would very much appreciate a warning first, in the manner of a green text/edit or a private message.
    Thank you in advance.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •