I think it's absolutely absurd that raising ONE GUY is being depicted as the straw that broke the camel's back instead of either burning an entire island of civilians alive or raising the Horde's army in Siege of Undercity.
it seems like the scourge happened in the scourge faction.
in a serious note, i wonder why they are giving derek so much focus.
is this the miracle that chinese leak was talking about? because if derek kills jaina that would be a miracle.
but that would still not explain how would turn the tide in favor of the horde.
and is funny how burning childrens alive is okay but raising this human is going too far.
the best part is "well, maybe something else named her warchief but we still can trust her"
hmm okay?
i truly hope that this derek plan backfires, there are better ways to turn the tide in favor of the horde that isn't derek, but seeing so much focus on him..
i will just say that i am currently scared in many ways to see how this will play out.
also, lol, the vulpera are becoming an allied horde race for sure.
"i understand that the alliance has to stop the horde but killing rasthakan is going too far" wtf
in a serious note, i wonder why they are giving derek so much focus.
is this the miracle that chinese leak was talking about? because if derek kills jaina that would be a miracle.
but that would still not explain how would turn the tide in favor of the horde.
and is funny how burning childrens alive is okay but raising this human is going too far.
the best part is "well, maybe something else named her warchief but we still can trust her"
hmm okay?
i truly hope that this derek plan backfires, there are better ways to turn the tide in favor of the horde that isn't derek, but seeing so much focus on him..
i will just say that i am currently scared in many ways to see how this will play out.
also, lol, the vulpera are becoming an allied horde race for sure.
"i understand that the alliance has to stop the horde but killing rasthakan is going too far" wtf
i doubt he will be able to kill jaina, after all, she is the allied race leader for kul'tirans on par with talanji10/28/2018 08:09 PMPosted by Etheldaldbecause if derek kills jaina that would be a miracle.
So, I've seen a few people ask "Why the hell is Sylvanas doing this right out in the open." Well, there are a couple of reasons she might be doing this.
1) Demonstrate power and authority. A typical move of authoritarians who have just had their power challenged in such a way as what happened with Sylvanas is to have some method of demonstrating control. Here, the resurrection of Derek serves as a show of power, and a promise by her of how she will demonstrate her dominance over the Alliance.
2) Life in the dreaded "bubble" (and no not the paladin one). Another common problem with authoritarians is that they become closed to alternate opinions or options. If the only voices of open dissent previously were those the individual does not respect to begin with (such as Baine) then she will conclude that by dent of her authority and the strength of her arguments that those other advisors will now or in due time agree with her.
3) For the Horde, she may believe that since she is operating from a place of sincere conviction that this will turn the tide, all actions are admissible and damn the torpedoes and all that.
edit:@ Yaggar, its a psychological phenomena studied enough in real life, its happens alot more than we want to realize.
1) Demonstrate power and authority. A typical move of authoritarians who have just had their power challenged in such a way as what happened with Sylvanas is to have some method of demonstrating control. Here, the resurrection of Derek serves as a show of power, and a promise by her of how she will demonstrate her dominance over the Alliance.
2) Life in the dreaded "bubble" (and no not the paladin one). Another common problem with authoritarians is that they become closed to alternate opinions or options. If the only voices of open dissent previously were those the individual does not respect to begin with (such as Baine) then she will conclude that by dent of her authority and the strength of her arguments that those other advisors will now or in due time agree with her.
3) For the Horde, she may believe that since she is operating from a place of sincere conviction that this will turn the tide, all actions are admissible and damn the torpedoes and all that.
edit:@ Yaggar, its a psychological phenomena studied enough in real life, its happens alot more than we want to realize.
10/28/2018 07:57 PMPosted by Withpuppysi dont think they take class abilities into consideration regarding story10/28/2018 07:54 PMPosted by Yersynia...
And, I mean, Talanji had no issues at all with me resurrecting dead trolls to beat up other trolls. I mean, do we really think my Army of the Dead is pulling humans out of the swamps of Nazmir?
Hell, if Iâm raising Blood Trolls into ghouls, Iâm even probably mindslaving siblings against each other!
And Iâm the Champion of Azeroth! End this unrealistic double standard for necromancy. Even the average Human Paladin will happily devour the crystallised souls of his foes for vitality if his friend the warlock serves them up fresh.
Who, I ask you, are we to judge?
But they do. That was the plot of Legion. They even call back to atrocities committed by DKs in KulâTiras - class identity is a plot factor. This story does not belong to light-priests and paladins. Warlocks, DKs, Shadow Priests and the like all have a stake in this story as well - the former artefact weapon of that last group is even of primary plot relevance.
Trying to appeal to some kind of universal morality is asinine as storytelling when Blizzard happily shows player characters tormenting, damning and enslaving people all the time for both the greater good and the faction war. You canât just say that Blood DK themes and incidental storytelling donât count, because the point of this narrative is to include the PC as a protagonist with whom the NPC characters have a relationship. We even have our own choices in 8.1 about our loyalties, Horde-side at least.
So Blizzard makes the Sanâlayn out to be evil monsters for drinking blood and sacrificing their allies for power, but warlocks and DKs do that all the time and I am *friends* with Rokhan and Talanji.
Sylvanas is expected to be punished for a moral standard that nobody applies to the greatest heroes of the world, one of whom (for those playing a âdarkâ class) is literally the chosen of the world-soul.
So yeah. There is a double standard here with this Derek thing. If Sylvanas is deposed in a rebellion, Baine might say to the (including Tauren DK players) âOnce she used the dead as a weapon against their family, that was a line we could not crossâ, and all the unholy DKs in the audience will have no mouth but they must scream.
@Etheldald
I think its just the more personal nature of the Derek thing thats got them ruffled; also the fact that she CAN condition someone to even murder their own family is probably not the most comforting knowledge to have. As for the Derek Plan ... I do think that he'll probably have at least one kill, but no I don't see it going down the way Sylvie wants (especially not with Jaina asking about Calia in the same patch).
Beyond that ... I doubt its Sylvie's only play here. She'll probably hit Boralus at some point, a lot of the 8.1 Horde Warfront questing seems to be implying that her target for retaliation is Kul Tiras.
I think its just the more personal nature of the Derek thing thats got them ruffled; also the fact that she CAN condition someone to even murder their own family is probably not the most comforting knowledge to have. As for the Derek Plan ... I do think that he'll probably have at least one kill, but no I don't see it going down the way Sylvie wants (especially not with Jaina asking about Calia in the same patch).
Beyond that ... I doubt its Sylvie's only play here. She'll probably hit Boralus at some point, a lot of the 8.1 Horde Warfront questing seems to be implying that her target for retaliation is Kul Tiras.
... Wait, has Sylvanas ever actually said those words aloud? Now that I'm thinking about it I recall that being her internal monologue.10/28/2018 07:15 PMPosted by JerolanThe uncredited one even mentions the "Arrows in the Quiver" quote that points towards one of the older Forsaken.
I think she used the phrase in one of the allied race recruitment quests.
10/28/2018 07:32 PMPosted by KurogasaEDIT: It doesn't really matter if the other characters are seeing this for the first time for not - if they're trying to pass this off as a "Forsaken are going too far" moment for the players, they really need to rethink WoW's history.
Exactly. This scene is being shown for the benefit of the players, so it has to make sense to us.
10/28/2018 07:18 PMPosted by ResĂŹleaf10/28/2018 07:17 PMPosted by KurogasaI'm just confused as to why raising Derek is being presented as the straw breaking the camel's back. Seems pretty tame compared to all the other stuff that's happened so far.
I assume it's the "Mind break him into killing his entire family" part that's rubbing people the wrong way.
Even the "mind break" deal is a bit off - all it took to get Stone to be a loyal Forsaken was to feed her some plants and let Lilian talk with her a bit. Not sure what we had to do with Valentine, but same deal - he served willingly enough.
if the proudmoore's are willing to accept derek back, and even attempting to reunite with him and open their arms (and backs)
wouldn't that destroy the entire argument of "the alliance doesn't accept the forsakens!"?
wouldn't that destroy the entire argument of "the alliance doesn't accept the forsakens!"?
@Kazala, remember our discussion about Blizzard misunderstanding where their player's headspace is at (themes etc)? I definitely think this is one of those times.
@Etheldal, I think I may have made that exact point a time or two, and how that frames and fits with Sylvanas' narrative arc :-P
@Etheldal, I think I may have made that exact point a time or two, and how that frames and fits with Sylvanas' narrative arc :-P
10/28/2018 08:16 PMPosted by Etheldaldif the proudmoore's are willing to accept derek back, and even attempting to reunite with him and open their arms (and backs)
wouldn't that destroy the entire argument of "the alliance doesn't accept the forsakens!"?
That argument was destroyed in BTS and nobody's used it since.
Alliance cares more about Horde civilians than the Horde.
I think that it's more than that. In the middle of a battle, in the chaos of the field, while trying to save as many people as you can... I can actually understand why Sylvanas might raise troops.
This is different. This isn't being done out of necessity. This is being done for revenge. For the Zandalari who loathe necromancy, because the Horde lost the straight up fight.
Out of every atrocity that Sylvanas has committed this expansion, this is the one thing she has done in public view. She didn't speak to the other Horde leaders about doing it. She doesn't have the excuse of battle to rationalize her actions. And she can't make the claim that she is actually going to use this for a grander battlefield strategy. She is raising the beloved son of Kul'tiras, to betray his people. Torturing him to do force him to give into her will, and she did it without consulting anyone.
Imagine if Baine were to ever go against Sylvanas for whatever reason. Not even go to war with him. Imagine his reaction if she were to go to Cairne's grave and threaten to raise him. Imagine if she went to Sen'jin, and did the same to force Rokhan to do some act. With this act, the Horde leaders know that no one's families are going to be safe. Not even after their service has been complete. For Derek was slumbering for decades beneath the sea. They had his body for a good long while. She knew exactly what she was going to do with it. That's why I think this is a breaking point for the rest of the Horde. It's the point where they realize that if they were to ever oppose her, no one would be safe from her wrath in any respect.
This is different. This isn't being done out of necessity. This is being done for revenge. For the Zandalari who loathe necromancy, because the Horde lost the straight up fight.
Out of every atrocity that Sylvanas has committed this expansion, this is the one thing she has done in public view. She didn't speak to the other Horde leaders about doing it. She doesn't have the excuse of battle to rationalize her actions. And she can't make the claim that she is actually going to use this for a grander battlefield strategy. She is raising the beloved son of Kul'tiras, to betray his people. Torturing him to do force him to give into her will, and she did it without consulting anyone.
Imagine if Baine were to ever go against Sylvanas for whatever reason. Not even go to war with him. Imagine his reaction if she were to go to Cairne's grave and threaten to raise him. Imagine if she went to Sen'jin, and did the same to force Rokhan to do some act. With this act, the Horde leaders know that no one's families are going to be safe. Not even after their service has been complete. For Derek was slumbering for decades beneath the sea. They had his body for a good long while. She knew exactly what she was going to do with it. That's why I think this is a breaking point for the rest of the Horde. It's the point where they realize that if they were to ever oppose her, no one would be safe from her wrath in any respect.
10/28/2018 08:20 PMPosted by Tewdee10/28/2018 08:16 PMPosted by Etheldaldif the proudmoore's are willing to accept derek back, and even attempting to reunite with him and open their arms (and backs)
wouldn't that destroy the entire argument of "the alliance doesn't accept the forsakens!"?
That argument was destroyed in BTS and nobody's used it since.
Alliance cares more about Horde civilians than the Horde.
Actually tewdee, I would say that it is exactly tied to the Argument that sylvanas uses to push for the war in A Good War. It is why this war is framed as a war of total annihilation by Sylvanas. She still can not accept that there can be forgiveness or love or hope imo.
10/28/2018 08:16 PMPosted by Etheldaldif the proudmoore's are willing to accept derek back, and even attempting to reunite with him and open their arms (and backs)
wouldn't that destroy the entire argument of "the alliance doesn't accept the forsakens!"?
Sylvanas has this set up as a win-win, insofar she is confident in her ability to condition Derek. If they accept him, he will be able to betray and attack them. If they donât, heâll serve as proof that the Alliance want to wipe out the Forsaken.
Sylvanas doesnât believe that the Alliance canât accept the undead - she has evidence to the contrary. She just believes that such ties, and trust in general, are foolish and will eventually lead to your ruin, which is a lesson sheâs been taught a few times before and during WoWâs story. She wants to exploit that.
Whatever her development is to come, learning to trust at least a little bit will probably need to feature if sheâs not a raid boss. I am optimistic.
10/28/2018 08:16 PMPosted by Etheldaldif the proudmoore's are willing to accept derek back, and even attempting to reunite with him and open their arms (and backs)
wouldn't that destroy the entire argument of "the alliance doesn't accept the forsakens!"?
That's what I'm hoping happens and we get to see Sylvanas humiliated and discredited in front of everyone when her trying to create a mind slave is revealed and she has another, less subtle, freak out like the in BtS.
10/28/2018 08:22 PMPosted by YersyniaSylvanas has this set up as a win-win, insofar she is confident in her ability to condition Derek. If they accept him, he will be able to betray and attack them. If they donât, heâll serve as proof that the Alliance want to wipe out the Forsaken.
Sylvanas doesnât believe that the Alliance canât accept the undead - she has evidence to the contrary. She just believes that such ties, and trust in general, are foolish and will eventually lead to your ruin, which is a lesson sheâs been taught a few times before and during WoWâs story. She wants to exploit that.
Whatever her development is to come, learning to trust at least a little bit will probably need to feature if sheâs not a raid boss. I am optimistic.
She's also the one who !@#$ed up her relationship with Vareesa in "War Crimes".
Sylvie just couldn't be happy with her sister reaching out to reconnect with her, she had to make her convenient too. She had to use Vareesa's grief against her, by tempting her into assassinating Garrosh (not just to kill Garrosh, but also to isolate Vareesa from the Alliance). She just HAD to also secretly plan on murdering her sister once this deed was done and reviving her as a Forsaken. And ... she's the one to have the gall to believe that Vareesa betrayed HER when her sister remembered "oh yeah ... I have two of the ugliest children waiting for me at home, maybe I should be there for them" and rather would take care of her kids that take revenge.
No question.10/28/2018 08:18 PMPosted by Saiphas@Kazala, remember our discussion about Blizzard misunderstanding where their player's headspace is at (themes etc)? I definitely think this is one of those times.
My immediate reaction the moment the second and then the third option slid into the Saurfang quest -- in a game that's never been multiple choice at major plot junctures -- was, "OH GOOD LORD THEY REALLY THOUGHT EVERYONE WOULD STILL BE ON THE TRAIN".
We'd already seen the foreshadowing of that total disconnect with their obnoxious self-congratulatory remarks after the release of Old Soldier.
I think the story the writers are trying to tell is frankly perfectly simple and transparent, and we severely over-complicate it because we assume that they're writing it from a perspective on characters and themes similar to our own.
They're not.
We have personal emotional investments in things that are just empty plot devices and plastic chess pieces to Cdev.
10/28/2018 08:32 PMPosted by KazalaNo question.10/28/2018 08:18 PMPosted by Saiphas@Kazala, remember our discussion about Blizzard misunderstanding where their player's headspace is at (themes etc)? I definitely think this is one of those times.
My immediate reaction the moment the second and then the third option slid into the Saurfang quest -- in a game that's never been multiple choice at major plot junctures -- was, "OH GOOD LORD THEY REALLY THOUGHT EVERYONE WOULD STILL BE ON THE TRAIN".
We'd already seen the foreshadowing of that total disconnect with their obnoxious self-congratulatory remarks after the release of Old Soldier.
I think the story the writers are trying to tell is frankly perfectly simple and transparent, and we severely over-complicate it because we assume that they're writing it from a perspective on characters and themes similar to our own.
They're not.
We have personal emotional investments in things that are just empty plot devices and plastic chess pieces to Cdev.
I think they have just a different kind of investment (though not necessarily a good one). It's like... say a new DM who gets so wrapped up in world building and the story they wish to tell that they forget that the story is there for their players to engage in, to be a part of, and to be invested in. Does that make sense?
10/28/2018 08:10 PMPosted by Withpuppysi doubt he will be able to kill jaina, after all, she is the allied race leader for kul'tirans on par with talanji
certainly it would not be expected, but the fact that tandreed is alive means that she isn't the last proudmoore anymore, of course the bloodline can't end. but i can see blizzard putting some crazy-plot twist that literally no one expects
but i would say that her plot armor has become stronger after 8.1. that is why i said "miracle".
10/28/2018 08:29 PMPosted by DroitĂ©10/28/2018 08:22 PMPosted by YersyniaSylvanas has this set up as a win-win, insofar she is confident in her ability to condition Derek. If they accept him, he will be able to betray and attack them. If they donât, heâll serve as proof that the Alliance want to wipe out the Forsaken.
Sylvanas doesnât believe that the Alliance canât accept the undead - she has evidence to the contrary. She just believes that such ties, and trust in general, are foolish and will eventually lead to your ruin, which is a lesson sheâs been taught a few times before and during WoWâs story. She wants to exploit that.
Whatever her development is to come, learning to trust at least a little bit will probably need to feature if sheâs not a raid boss. I am optimistic.
She's also the one who !@#$ed up her relationship with Vareesa in "War Crimes".
Sylvie just couldn't be happy with her sister reaching out to reconnect with her, she had to make her convenient too. She had to use Vareesa's grief against her, by tempting her into assassinating Garrosh (not just to kill Garrosh, but also to isolate Vareesa from the Alliance). She just HAD to also secretly plan on murdering her sister once this deed was done and reviving her as a Forsaken. And ... she's the one to have the gall to believe that Vareesa betrayed HER when her sister remembered "oh yeah ... I have two of the ugliest children waiting for me at home, maybe I should be there for them" and rather would take care of her kids that take revenge.
Yes. She views attachments as a weakness and largely views everyone based on their utility. But she is also not totally âinhumanâ, for want of a better term. She wants to be closer to her sisters (by killing them, at first). She does care for the Forsaken (to her, authoritarianism is just tough love!) She clearly has *some* attachment to the Horde (She puts herself and her people on the line for them more than bare necessity dictates). All of those things are true, but warped through her !@#$ed up and pretty obviously trauma-warped view of relationships. Godfrey, Garrosh, Garithos and Genn are just one letter of the trust-%^-* alphabet.