I hope they change the original lore so the tension between Sylvanas and the dreadlords is deepened. Sylvanas is a BMX rider while the dreadlords all skateboard.
No, it doesnt add up.
Again, in your theory, is there any possibillity for dreadlords to have ever lost anything? No, because you assume every loss was planned and faked. Tell me this is not true.
Your response in a nutshell âNo, youâre wrong because I said so!â
Its a simple question.
For me to agree with your theory, I have to assume they never lose. This is my point.
This is a logical leap because in the campaign, the dreadlords lose every battle they fight against Sylvanas. None of these losses were ever shown, in the campaign, as a victory towards the dreadlords. Nothing Sylvanas does is within the Dreadlords plans of ruling lordaeron, of which they already held power in.
You had to assert that they didnt want to rule ti support Sylvanasâ wins. You had to assert that they faked all their losses. You had to assert that they motivated Sylvanas solely, despite her already stating that she wants her freedom at the veru beginning.
What you have here is a very twisted narrative. I have shown you the widely accepted narrative through my wowpedia link.
This is not disagreeing for thr sake of disagreeing. I am literally giving you proof of the widely accepted canonical story.
Err no⌠youâre not even making any sense, nor do you even know how the Dreadlordâs work.
It doesnât need to change. Not everything has to be thoroughly explained to be obvious. I tire of needless exposition in narrative, it just bogs everything down.
I want people to stop putting Sylvanas on this pedestal.
Then you need to show me other people who have made the same theories as you have if it is so obviously a flaw of my own perspective.
I am showing you that even on wowpedias explanation, your theory doesnt even exist as a speculation note. Just show me one theory made by someone else that aligns with yours, if it is so obvious.
I dont believe it is obvious at all, which is why I am bringing up the wowpedia explanation to support the canon telling of the story, unbiased to my own perspective considering this existed well before any of my arguments here.
Youâre using WOWpedia to explain your points yet you complain when I bring up WOW lore which proves that the entire thing was a setup to get Sylvanas to be a figurehead.
HypocriteâŚ
3 Likes
Bexause you yourself denounced WoW lore in this conversation.
If we were to use WoW lore to support the argument then you are already wrong considering the dreadlords arent puppeteering Sylvanas or the Forsaken, and only hold power through the Scarlet Crusade there.
The explanation on WoWpediia pertains to the TFT events. It doesnt even insert the WoW revisionist history such as faked deaths.
Does not look that bad. Hell as long as the lore isnât a reflection of Christine Goldenâs Twitter posts, Iâm probably ok with any adjustments.
Double standards eh? Iâm done arguing with you, you are completely wrong and delusional, that is all there is to it. You contradicted everything you said when you brought up WOWpedia.
The explanation does not pertain to TFT events. It is WOWpedia, not Warcraftpedia, they use all the retconned WOW lore in it.
There is no disputing this. Your hypocrisy is beyond unreal. The fact that you argued with me for this long proves that you only care about proving me wrong⌠but ultimately you have nothing left to add to the argument anyways. I proved you wrong ages ago and you refuse to see the facts.
The lore states that it was a setup and Iâve proven that it was building up to being a setup.
You have no ground to stand on dude, give it up.
2 Likes
Er, read the descriptor in the article.
The lore pertains to Warcraft 3 and only uses WC3 sources. They do a good job of explaining and listing every source. Nothing pertaining to WoW is in that article.
If there is, please show me and I will gladly take it back.
I hope you realize that WOWpedia proved absolutely none of your points to be correct.
At least realize that muchâŚ
Also: This article or section contains lore taken from Warcraft_III:_Reign_of_Chaos , Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne, the manuals, and/or official bonus maps.
Not what you said in the slightest. It just says it contains lore from Warcraft 3⌠of course it does, how could It not have lore from Warcraft 3 when it happened in Warcraft 3.
There was no mention of the word âOnlyâ.
In addition: 1. [^] Arthas: Rise of the Lich King Page 269 - He knew they were mindless, that they would obey whoever was the strongest.
Arthas Rise Of The Lich King uses WOW lore (page also claims that Detheroc was the leader⌠the guy who got told off by Balnazzar who was clearly meant to be the leader in Warcraft 3, not one of Christies best ideasâŚ)
If youâre going to argue against that then Ashbringer uses Warcraft Lore too⌠so youâre still wrong.
You seem to do a very good job at being wrong, if being wrong was a career choice, you could be a very wealthy and successful person.
Edit: Looks like WOWpedia was making assumptions that Kelâthuzad chose not to get involved and got involved right afterwards⌠more hypocrisy right there, Kelâthuzad wasnât even mentioned at that point in Warcraft 3, it just transitioned to Arthas the moment the Forsaken conquered Lordaeron. You just linked a source that goes against everything you just said.
1 Like
Yes, itâs all wrong because you have built a false narrative in your head that assumes everything is wrong. Again, Iâve pointed this out many times and you are proving it once more.
If you can show me a 3rd party explanation reaffirming your ideas, Iâm welcome to take a look. You say Iâm wrong yet you have no proof that I am. I never claimed Detheroc was or was not a leader, I never claimed Kelâthuzad choosing to or not to get involved. I donât see how it âgoes against everything i saidâ when I havenât made any assumptions about those characters.
The point is the Dreadlords lost to Sylvanas and that is what is apparant in the WoWpedia explanation and in all other sources Iâve seen and researched. Not one source I have seen has ever mentioned the Dreadlords planning Sylvanasâ reign. You can nitpick my sources and strawman them all you want, it doesnât change the narrative that the Dreadlords lost.
If it were so obvious, then someone surely would have come to the same conclusion as you have. So show me one source to prove how obvious it is.
I understand, but I think itâs a bit late for that.
But, I think when Blizzard says itâs going to relate to WoW with the reforged, it means tidying up retcon present today in the lore.
For example, in the campaign of the broken islands, Maiev says that Suramar was completely sunk after the great Fission. That suffered retcon in Legion. I think Blizz wants to sort out those dialogues.
Reforged also will not tell the story of WoW. The operation ends at the Orgrimmar Foundation events.
A lot of time will pass before the game is released, and I really hope Blizzard will listen to the community and put an end to that retcon madness. Warcraft lore has already been butchered enough in WoW, no need to bring that to the older games.
1 Like
The gameâs releasing this year. Itâs too late for that.
Besides, I disagree entirely with your opinion of WoWâs lore.
There are still up to 9 months before the game is released. Depending on how advanced they are on lore-related stuff, everything may still happen.
You are perfectly entitled to like WoW lore. But even if you donât like the term âbutcheredâ, this is a fact: WoW lore is much, much different from the first 3 games lore. There were so many retcons, so many changes in the general atmosphere once WoW came out, so much exaggeration in some aspects of the universe, so many parts of WoW story that donât make sense according to what happened in the previous games (and not to mention the art style), I just donât feel like Iâm playing in the same universe. Not so much in vanilla, but it got worse and worse with each expansion. And Iâm far from being the only one to think that. This is one of the reasons why I stopped WoW, actually.
1 Like
While it is different, I think we need to see the full context of changes before making full judgement.
While some people will be purists yo the death, Ive seen many other opinions that are much more accepting of WoW elements given that it isnt in-your-face about changes.
Blood Elf green eyes for example. I think it eould be fine so long as they can properly weave it into the story and show us the change, but I think would be a mistake if they just made all High Elves have green eyes just for the sake of matching WoW. I think green eyes has become a significant identifier for then over the years. Many will not agree, but I think its already inevitable so we might as well hope for the best, otherwise stick to the original campaign.
You said you would take back everything you said if I show you anything pertaining to WOW in that article
I showed you something pertaining to WOW in that article
You havenât taken back your statement
You lied
Now you ask me for sources
Ok, read AshbringerâŚ
Oh look Balnazzar and Varimathras are meeting up in a forest discussing their plans.
Oh look Varimathras clearly has an agenda to screw over Sylvanas
Oh look, World Of Warcraft has a quest line where Varimathras userps Sylvanas from her throne and takes over Lordaeron.
Hereâs your sources:
xhttps://wowwiki.fandom.com/wiki/Varimathras
Says everything I just said.
Happy now?
Well based on your argument, I cant lose because I lied because I am manipulating you into thinking you won. Prove me wrong.
Also, wrathgate is your reply to this then yes, you are right. Varimathras usurps control. That is why he is the current leader of the forsak- oh wait he lost again and was shown tortured by the legion in the most pathetic way possible he is definitely always on the winning side
Im not sure how that is a smart plan from the beginning if he, you know, was supposed to be in control but never actually had control, and worse off when he did he outed himself as the bad guy against both factions and got his butt kicked for it.
If Legion were different, maybe it should have not tortured him because he was successful in sowing chaos amongst the factions when they were most united? But again, that isnt what happened.