How did Jailor get Sylvannas' "other half"?

[Mokrath]

Kyrian players get a quest in Bastion that explains it and fits in with previous lore regarding Liches, Undead, Demons, Elementals etc...
If someone is raised into undeath they are sent back, or pulled back, from the Shadowlands, denied death by necromancy.
Liches do it to themselves via Phylacteries and the rest are raised by necromantic magics and energies.
Similarly Demons and Elementals are sent back to their respective places and not the Shadowlands. So either the Twisting Nether or Elemental Planes in those cases.

The quest really should have been part of the leveling story and not Covenant locked.

[Dzonathan]

If the souls splitting thing doesn't make sense to you OP then its only because it doesn't make any sense at all. There are in fact 4 Uther's Souls in WoW.

- Uther in ICC (Shadowmourne quest)
- Uther in EPL (Uther's Tomb)
- Uther in Bastion
- Uther's crystal in Torghast

The first two cannot be any of the later two because the first two clearly show tone of forgiveness in the dialogues which is the exact opposite what Uther has going for in Shadowlands because he cannot forgive the bubu Arthas did to his chest with Frostmourne.

[Ersula]

Did they, though? Afaik only Sylvanas and Uther's souls were split in half. As far as we know everyone else killed by Frostmourne went directly to the Maw.

Give us an example. Because as far as I know we have zero examples of this. The only other named character killed by Frostmorne we ever see again was Arthas' dad & we only see him as a ghost in Frostmorne just like Uther.

As demonstrated souls are quantum entangled, so even if they're in pieces they're still connected to those fragments of soul & they will eventually reform together in the shadowlands, unless otherwise trapped. It seems raising them as a death knight or banshee gave Zovaal the go-ahead to move those souls into a stone, so he would have control over them.

I thought it would be an ironic twist if they revealed that Arthas actively saved Uther from this fate by raising Sylvanas instead of Uther.

- - - Updated - - -

The first two cannot be any of the later two because the first two clearly show tone of forgiveness in the dialogues which is the exact opposite what Uther has going for in Shadowlands because he cannot forgive the bubu Arthas did to his chest with Frostmourne.

They haven't explained it but I have to assume ghosts are like the echos we see in the Emerald Dream: When you dream you can project yourself into the Emerald Dream & vice versa. Ghosts are like when people in the Shadowlands dream. While dreaming they aren't totally aware of what's going on but are still recognizable.

- - - Updated - - -

If someone is raised into undeath they are sent back, or pulled back, from the Shadowlands, denied death by necromancy.

Yes but this also suggests Forsaken aren't really undead. The tainted grain just mutated them as when they die they just go to the Shadowlands like normal, IE we see Forsaken souls in Bastion as forsaken, not human.

But then that makes Valkyr Forsaken even more confusing. This lore is a real mess.

[cparle87]

And why is this the case for Sylvannas? From what was established, instead of draining the other half into the frostmourne, he used it instead to turn Sylvannas undead. If that were the case we'd be seeing Sylvannas missing half at some point since she was trapped inside of the blade, which is not the case.

This is just another part of flimsy storytelling where bad writers are trying to piggyback off something that was good and then claiming "we totally planned this 10 years ago", which is farsical.

- - - Updated - - -



The frauds telling the story are trying to convince us otherwise.

Did you read my post? The different is Uther died so his other part was brought to the Shadowlands, judged, and went to Bastion. Sylvanas was raised into undead before a kyrian did anything if one was present. Remember we have the WQ where the kyrian deliberately don't involve themselves with souls they see claimed or about to be claimed by other groups.

Actually, it's less good and bad and more past and current. The parts of their souls exist as they did at the time they were killed. It's more like past Uther/Sylvanas suddenly being confronted with everything their other halfs did in the meantime. It would be like if say high school you suddenly appeared before you, judged you for everything you've done, and then became a part of you.

[Hctaz]

We never really knew that on top of its soul-stealing nature that Frostmourne had an ulterior purpose as well, though. This isn't as much a retcon as it was a previously unknown or undivulged functionality of the blade on top of its existing properties. The Lich King himself probably had no idea that Frostmourne was intrinsically connected to the Jailer, either. It doesn't really change the functionality or nature of Frostmourne as much as it simply adds to it. We don't know where the part of Terenas that emerged from Frostmourne is, at the moment; it could be in the Shadowlands or it could be bound to Azeroth, or even wholly in the Maw somehow. The parts of Halakh and Gavinrad from Frostmourne were trapped in Icecrown after the blade was broken, as you encounter them in the Death Knight artifact quests during Legion, so it's possible Terenas is still there somewhere as well. Perhaps he's looking for the soul of his son, seeing as how we now know it was whisked away by Devos and Kyrian Uther and delivered to the Maw.

The Frostmourne situation is basically the very difference of a retcon.

It's retroactive continuity. It's when a new piece of story is written that reframes prior parts of the story. Frostmourne being a blade that splits souls was not told to us before Shadowlands because it hadn't been thought of prior, and that new information retroactively affects parts of the story now.

There's more than one way to write a retcon. I think a lot of people assume it ONLY means a new piece of information that is contrary to previously established lore, but that's not always the case. Frostmourne's retcon specifically isn't contradicting previously established and well-defined lore, but it is reframing events that we saw take place in the past. It's expanding the backstory of the sword with information that was not part of its history when it was conceived in the story.

An example of something that isn't a retcon would be if Frostmourne's ability to split souls was a NEW thing. Like the sword is reforged and either now has the power to split souls
OR
It had the power before its destruction but the Lich King/Arthas didn't use this power previously so none of the prior story is affected.

When new information retroactively affects old story, it's a retcon.

[Aucald]

The Frostmourne situation is basically the very difference of a retcon.

It's retroactive continuity. It's when a new piece of story is written that reframes prior parts of the story. Frostmourne being a blade that splits souls was not told to us before Shadowlands because it hadn't been thought of prior, and that new information retroactively affects parts of the story now.

There's more than one way to write a retcon. I think a lot of people assume it ONLY means a new piece of information that is contrary to previously established lore, but that's not always the case. Frostmourne's retcon specifically isn't contradicting previously established and well-defined lore, but it is reframing events that we saw take place in the past. It's expanding the backstory of the sword with information that was not part of its history when it was conceived in the story.

An example of something that isn't a retcon would be if Frostmourne's ability to split souls was a NEW thing. Like the sword is reforged and either now has the power to split souls
OR
It had the power before its destruction but the Lich King/Arthas didn't use this power previously so none of the prior story is affected.

When new information retroactively affects old story, it's a retcon.

"Retroactive continuity" implies a change in continuity, but nothing about the continuity is altered here - the events that occurred still occurred as they did, with no deviation from the continuity previously established. The revelation of additional details and/or effects of said continuity don't imply or require that the existing continuity be altered, retroactively or otherwise. Frostmourne still did all the things it previously did, but it *also* did this additional thing we weren't previously aware. Similarly, that Frostmourne is a creation of the Jailer and/or Runecarver needn't retroactively change the continuity of Frostmourne being "created" by the Legion and given to the Lich King, because it only extends that continuity and doesn't necessarily alter it. The Legion got the blade from somewhere, after all, and we were never privy to how it was created or what was involved in its creation beyond the fact that suddenly the Legion had it to give to Ner'zhul.

You're confusing "retroactive" with "re-contextual," and those aren't the same things. Any new information can cause a re-contextualization of one's view of previous events - like finding out that the reason someone stole a loaf of bread was to feed their starving family. It doesn't change the established fact that the bread was stolen, but it puts the theft and our sympathies in a new context.

[Archmage Xaxxas]

Both of Uther's fragments were kept/used by Zovaal.

He wanted Uther to go to Bastion as a plant, right? To reveal his success on Azeroth to Devos and The Kyrian. To deliver him Arthas's soul.

And then Frostmourne(Arthas) basically kept his other half dominated within ICC and the blade.


And, Zovaal kept/used both of Sylvanas's fragments as well.

It's seems that Frostmourne's wounding of the soul doesn't just auto-split, but ultimately gives the wielder, or Zovaal in this case, complete ownership of the soul.

[Hctaz]

"Retroactive continuity" implies a change in continuity, but nothing about the continuity is altered here - the events that occurred still occurred as they did, with no deviation from the continuity previously established. The revelation of additional details and/or effects of said continuity don't imply or require that the existing continuity be altered, retroactively or otherwise. Frostmourne still did all the things it previously did, but it *also* did this additional thing we weren't previously aware. Similarly, that Frostmourne is a creation of the Jailer and/or Runecarver needn't retroactively change the continuity of Frostmourne being "created" by the Legion and given to the Lich King, because it only extends that continuity and doesn't necessarily alter it. The Legion got the blade from somewhere, after all, and we were never privy to how it was created or what was involved in its creation beyond the fact that suddenly the Legion had it to give to Ner'zhul.

You're confusing "retroactive" with "re-contextual," and those aren't the same things. Any new information can cause a re-contextualization of one's view of previous events - like finding out that the reason someone stole a loaf of bread was to feed their starving family. It doesn't change the established fact that the bread was stolen, but it puts the theft and our sympathies in a new context.

"Retcon is a literary device in which new information is introduced that puts a new meaning on previous events in the story."

The previously established lore was that the souls of those slain by Frostmourne were trapped inside of the blade.

Now that we know the sword actually splits souls, it gives a new meaning to previous events in the story.

I'm not saying that retcons are inherently good or bad. It depends on the way its used. In this case, it does create some inconsistency but it isn't necessarily a direct contradiction to the previous events.

[Aucald]

"Retcon is a literary device in which new information is introduced that puts a new meaning on previous events in the story."

The previously established lore was that the souls of those slain by Frostmourne were trapped inside of the blade.

Now that we know the sword actually splits souls, it gives a new meaning to previous events in the story.

Well, it sounds like the definition of "retcon" has been sufficiently merged with re-contextualization, meaning that retcons aren't really a bad thing anymore, I guess. A revelation or new information that puts known information into a new context is a pretty much time-honored story device - calling the notion that learning something new effectively changes how we evaluate old information a bad thing would be consigning most of literary history to the garbage bin.

For example, we knew Darth Vader was an evil galactic overlord, and then we learned that he was also Luke's father and had previously been a good guy as well. You could call that a retcon if you were so inclined, but it's definitely not a bad thing from a storytelling standpoint.

[Theangryone]

Ah the jailer’s private collection. I got banned from the WoW forums for three days for referring to it as a soul spank bank.

[Pandragon]

I think I'm missing something here...
How did Jailor get hold of it in the 1st place so he would return it to her?
If her soul got split just like Uther's, that means her "good" side should've still gone to the Shadowlands and be judged by the Arbiter, and then sent to its proper realm.
So how in the world did he get her instead???

When Frostmourne kills someone it rends their soul in two. Separating their good half and their evil half. One half is pulled into Frostmourne, while the other half is sent to the Jailer to be fuel for his army. Some souls he decides to keep in a special vault. Uther's soul was split and one half was kept in Frostmourne, while the other half was taken to Bastion because Uther was praying to the Light as he died. This allowed the Kyrian to get to him before the Jailer could. When Arthas died and Frostmourne was shattered, the Jailer claimed the half of Uthers soul that was in Frostmourne.

When Arthas killed Sylvanas, she wasn't connected to the Light as Uther was, thus her good half was sent right to the Jailer, while Frostmourne kept, and subsequently raised, her evil half as a banshee.

Frostmourne can bypass the Arbitor, as it's directly connected to the Maw. Souls killed by it don't follow the same cycle of death as those who died by other means.

[Aucald]

Ah the jailer’s private collection. I got banned from the WoW forums for three days for referring to it as a soul spank bank.

Heh, it's not too difficult to see a bored Zovaal sort of sitting in the Ossuary of the Banished and "admiring" his various trophies.

[Hctaz]

For example, we knew Darth Vader was an evil galactic overlord, and then we learned that he was also Luke's father and had previously been a good guy as well. You could call that a retcon if you were so inclined, but it's definitely not a bad thing from a storytelling standpoint.

Right, and that's why I say that retcons are inherently bad. I think people typically use "retcon" pertaining to a head-scratching contradiction like when a superhero dies and then comes back to life by some magic plot device.

The way I think of a retcon (and what it appears to be defined as) is just any time a writer invents something new *Edit for clarity* that requires past events to be explained in order for the new info to make sense. In the case of Darth Vader, I would say that it is a VERY good example of why retcons don't always mean bad story writing. The ONLY question that needed answering afterwards was, "Why did Obi-Wan lie to Luke then?" There wasn't an obvious case you could make that it wasn't intended from the beginning.
Honestly, I'd only consider it a retcon if Lucas hadn't intended Darth Vader to be Luke's father when he wrote the original movie's plot. I honestly don't know whether or not this was the case, but it's written so well that it could honestly go either way.

[Pendragon]

Trying to make sense of danuser's nonsense is pointless because there aren't any answers that actually exist..or none that make sense. Uther appeared to us many times as a ghost but how did he manage that if he was taken directly to the shadowlands as a depressed blue guy? There is no answer because danuser and his team are in charge.

[Nokura]

I think I'm missing something here...
How did Jailor get hold of it in the 1st place so he would return it to her?
If her soul got split just like Uther's, that means her "good" side should've still gone to the Shadowlands and be judged by the Arbiter, and then sent to its proper realm.
So how in the world did he get her instead???

iirc the jailer was the old arbiter

[Aucald]

Right, and that's why I say that retcons are inherently bad. I think people typically use "retcon" pertaining to a head-scratching contradiction like when a superhero dies and then comes back to life by some magic plot device.

The way I think of a retcon (and what it appears to be defined as) is just any time a writer invents something new *Edit for clarity* that requires past events to be explained in order for the new info to make sense. In the case of Darth Vader, I would say that it is a VERY good example of why retcons don't always mean bad story writing. The ONLY question that needed answering afterwards was, "Why did Obi-Wan lie to Luke then?" There wasn't an obvious case you could make that it wasn't intended from the beginning.
Honestly, I'd only consider it a retcon if Lucas hadn't intended Darth Vader to be Luke's father when he wrote the original movie's plot. I honestly don't know whether or not this was the case, but it's written so well that it could honestly go either way.

Well, there's a variety of reasons as to why something might need to be explained or belabored in order for it to "make sense," and many of them have no bearing on the quality of the writing or lack thereof, such as someone simply not following the narrative very well. As for why Obi-wan lied to Luke, he wanted to spare him from the associated trauma and guilt of knowing that he was the son of a murderous and evil man - that's not really hard to follow, IMO. What you're really doing here is making an argument from quality and not from composition, in other words - basically saying "it's fine if it's done well," without acceding to the notion that "done well" is a very subjective rubric. That's not really the same argument as the one above, either.

This isn't to say that I think WoW's narrative is without error, either; it's got loads of them. But this may well not be one of them, depending on your take.

[Hctaz]

What you're really doing here is making an argument from quality and not from composition, in other words - basically saying "it's fine if it's done well," without acceding to the notion that "done well" is a very subjective rubric. That's not really the same argument as the one above, either.

This isn't to say that I think WoW's narrative is without error, either; it's got loads of them. But this may well not be one of them, depending on your take.

I'm not trying to come off as explaining it that way though so I'm probably just explaining myself incorrectly.

Whether or not you have to explain past events is only relevant because, without that, you wouldn't have anything to retcon. If nothing from the new story extends back and impacts the old story, there's no retroactive continuity. It's just new story.

The extent at which you need to explain the past events and how believable/plausible those explanations are also are not factors that determine whether or not a retcon took place, they just merely explain how well the retcon fits into the narrative.

In the Star Wars example, I was saying that it could or it could not be a retcon based on how well its written into the story to show that it's extremely plausible that it could have been planned from the beginning. Whether or not it is a retcon solely depends on whether or not Lucas intended for Darth Vader to be Luke's father from the beginning, or if it's something he came up with for the second movie to create more drama. It's just written well enough that I would believe it if he told me it was all planned from the very beginning.

With the Frostmourne situation, I honestly have an incredibly difficult time believing that any of this expanded lore was intended from the beginning in any way. If they had given Frostmourne this ability NOW when it never had it before, it wouldn't be seen as a bad retcon or a retcon at all since it wouldn't change the past. Since they gave it this ability and showed that it DID affect the past characters, they now have to explain how this ability works. This new ability seems extremely inconsistent and not well thought out because of the way the story had been written in the past. It doesn't flow well into the new story.

[Nynax]

They're LITERALLY HALVES. That's how they're framing it.
So why did Sylvannas' part of soul end up in the Maw, but NOT Uthers?

Uther wasn't immediately resurrected into an undead, If he was then his soul wouldn't have made it to Bastion.

That's literally all there is to it. Arthas didn't give Sylvanas soul a chance to be anything but a banshee, while a part of it he stole when he stabbed her.

[Aucald]

I'm not trying to come off as explaining it that way though so I'm probably just explaining myself incorrectly.

Whether or not you have to explain past events is only relevant because, without that, you wouldn't have anything to retcon. If nothing from the new story extends back and impacts the old story, there's no retroactive continuity. It's just new story.

The extent at which you need to explain the past events and how believable/plausible those explanations are also are not factors that determine whether or not a retcon took place, they just merely explain how well the retcon fits into the narrative.

In the Star Wars example, I was saying that it could or it could not be a retcon based on how well its written into the story to show that it's extremely plausible that it could have been planned from the beginning. Whether or not it is a retcon solely depends on whether or not Lucas intended for Darth Vader to be Luke's father from the beginning, or if it's something he came up with for the second movie to create more drama. It's just written well enough that I would believe it if he told me it was all planned from the very beginning.

With the Frostmourne situation, I honestly have an incredibly difficult time believing that any of this expanded lore was intended from the beginning in any way. If they had given Frostmourne this ability NOW when it never had it before, it wouldn't be seen as a bad retcon or a retcon at all since it wouldn't change the past. Since they gave it this ability and showed that it DID affect the past characters, they now have to explain how this ability works. This new ability seems extremely inconsistent and not well thought out because of the way the story had been written in the past. It doesn't flow well into the new story.

New information in the same ongoing story or linear line of events is almost always going to reframe or re-contextualize past events, though. It's almost impossible for it not to unless you constantly shift both characters and settings (in which your narrative arguably isn't linear anymore, or even the same narrative). What you believe is true of Lucas, for example, is just more subjective justification for whether or not you want to employ the term "retcon" and doesn't speak to either a flaw in composition or in construction that said retcon may or may not have caused. I'm saying it doesn't actually matter one way or the other, because the plasticity of narrative supports the contextualizing of the new information without breaking continuity in any real way, it's just new information dynamically shaping the way in which you digest the story.

To answer your question in regard to Frostmourne, the answer is "no," this expanded lore wasn't at all indeed from the beginning, but it's that very requirement that is at issue here. It's not required that the new lore have justification retroactively, it need only be able to peaceably coexist with the previous lore, which it can and does, at least insofar as this Frostmourne thing is concerned. Now there are some elements of Shadowlands that don't meet that criteria, unfortunately, and cause some issues with digestion. For example how Necromancy works with beings like Kyrian aspirants or Soulshaped Night Fae stewards, etc. I think the soul-splitting behavior of Frostmourne actually supplies a good deal more explanation for a few things, like why Sylvanas became the way she is/was, as well as giving Uther an expanded and interesting story despite his death early on in Warcraft's story. From the subjective standpoint, it kind of depends on what a given person wishes to accentuate or dwell upon.

[Mehrunes]

It's not how they're framing it, but it's also neither here nor there. And as I said, we literally go retrieve the "half" of Uther's soul from the Maw inside Torghast during the quest "A Paladin's Soul" that's part of the 9.1 campaign series. Uther's soul "half" is *in* the Maw, and so was Sylvanas', but apparently kept in another location.

So "half" of Uther went to the Shadowlands when he died at Arthas' hands, and the other "half" went into Frostmourne and/or the Maw.

You forgot the third half we interact with in ICC. And the fourth half in WPL. So the mathematically correct conclusion here is that Frostmourne first duplicates a soul, then shatters the two souls and then through some soul-magic scattershit they end up all over the place.