People still misunderstand topics from many years ago. Unfortunately, such is the way of the world. How reasonable you find such misunderstandings is, of course, your prerogative.
At least Blizzard made a point to say the Hordeâs attack on Ashenvale and Darkshore were military blunders. The Night Elves fought the entire might of the Horde to a stalemate with nothing but a skeleton force and town militia. Honestly, Sylvanas probably burned Teldrassil because occupying it would be near impossible and only further drain the Horde of resources.
2 Likes
Actually, what Iâm saying is that the cinematic doesnât imply that Sylvanas was âtriggeredâ into an emotional response by some light Night Elf sass.
And it doesnât because the novella A Good War describes Sylvanas as already trying to think of a way to salvage their overall plan even before she notices the Night Elf. And then goes on to describe her explaining to Saurfang that burning Teldrassil is a way to salvage thier overall plan.
But considering it in isolation. Sylvanasâ voice is not raised, we see no emotional response from her at all. What we in fact see is a flashback that shows Sylvanas dying that then fades into a look at her face that is as impassive and emotionless as a death mask.
1 Like
Ignoring your sarcasm for the moment, Iâm guessing youâre new to the story forum. Or else youâd know that in the opinion of many Horde posters here, âgetting attention from the devsâ and âwinning fightsâ arenât automatically good things. If the attention you get makes you a villain and you are shown to win fights in underhanded ways and encouraged to feel bad about winning them (in fact, about being in the fight at all), then thatâs really nothing to envy.
11 Likes
That doesnât make sense. I asked why the cinematic in isolation, without reference to other sources, doesnât imply that, and you say itâs because of another source.
If you just saw the cinematic and didnât read the novella, why would you not think Sylvanas burned the tree because of sass?
ETA: Oops, just saw your last bit. Not raising her voice seems pretty in-character for Sylvanas, though. I donât think itâs proof that sheâs not angry.
Telling that to a Nelf fan⌠Lol, Horde has nothing on us when it comes to Dev Mistreatment.
Aki, Iâm sympathetic to the Night Elf complaints and have said so on several occasions. We can all have justifiable gripes with the devs. In fact, I think we all do.
9 Likes
Eh, she seems emotional when giving the burn it command.
This. Also, I strongly doubt the people who made the cinematic and the guy who wrote the novella even communicated with each other during the creation of their respective contributions to the story.
2 Likes
Yeah but what youâre asking for doesnât make sense. You believe it is implying something, it is up to you to prove it is implying something.
To answer your question though, this implication canât reasonably be seen as part of the story because Sylvanasâ voice was not raised and her face did not portray an emotion.
People have inferred her response was emotional, myself included, for the following three reasons.
First. Her action seemed irrational at the time. We now know it wasnât.
Second. Her actions contradicted orders given a moment ago by her own field commander. This made it seem impulsive. We now know the train of thought that lead to her changing the plan.
Third. Her order to burn it was given immediately after an emotional flashback. We take this to mean she was remembering those emotions, but I now think the more reasonable interpretation is to show us how much she changed between now and then.
I was talking about the creepy moment when she was turning Delarynâs face to watch her home burn. I probably wasnât very clear on that point.
She gave the âburn itâ command loudly because you need people to hear your countermanding orders.
3 Likes
Her expression and tone seemed emotional to me at the time, thatâs all Iâm saying.
1 Like
Iâm with Irenaus. I hear real hatred and spite in that shout.
Only because youâre doing the work of stitching together two unrelated sources that say or imply different things. In the cinematic, it looks irrational.
1 Like
No, she did it loudly because people hesitated. As if they couldnât believe what she was ordering⌠When you give an order that gives pause to the A-hole zombie who calls you Senpai and skips after you everywhere you go⌠Then perhaps you should rethink your decision.
ya and the sad thing is. They said if Tyrande was there the horde wouldnât of been able to advance.
The only reason horde even made it was because Sylvanas kept countering Malfurion. One race being able to hold off the entire military might of the horde, horde is nothing but a jokeâŚ
Literally there is nothing to be proud of or fist bump on the horde side. Our war campaign is about raising dead humans and recuriting them. Our leader/Characters keep getting punked and punched around by alliance OP counter parts. When was the last time a horde character owned their alliance counter part? or when has the horde won anything without a super weapon or underhanded tactics.
Again horde is narrative is a joke, we arenât even heroes in our own story. And remind you 2 of our races still do not have racial leadersâŚ
7 Likes
But thatâs what you do as a viewer of someone elseâs story. A lot of people here are so hung up on insisting thereâs incongruence here where there doesnât need to be. There is no overt contradiction. She planned to burn Teldrassil, the moment she chose to issue the command had her a bit emotional. Thatâs all we need to take away and both accounts fit with one another. The bigger picture seems to simply be she wasnât exactly triggered, and had planned it, but was still emotional to some degree because people have emotions.
1 Like
You mean the time Saurfang one-shot Malfurion?
I donât particularly care, but your example âto be proud ofâ per what Airetam was talking about is a guy sneak attacking someone else in a 2v1 situation where heâd already been fighting. Not sure that quite fits given it had underhanded tactics.
1 Like
Serevèn, youâre just starting from a different premise than I am, namely that the various sources are meant to work together and create a coherent story. From where Iâm standing, it looks clear that they are three separate attempts at explaining the same event that just happen not to completely contradict each other. If youâre willing to do the work of stitching them together, have at it. Iâm not interested in doing it for myself, partly because I still expect a further revelation: âSee, THIS was her real motivation all along!â
2 Likes
I am aware of our different approach. I feel yours is just asking yourself to get annoyed at every step, and ultimately just isnât our place as readers. Word of God can only ever supersede ours. In cases like this where their word works well enough to compliment their previous words, especially, I feel its just best to do what we can to interpret it earnestly, in good faith. Rather than see a crack, declare it a hole, and scream into the abyss about all these darned holes everywhere.
Iâm just saying, in cases like this where there isnât an obvious, glaring contradiction, it just doesnât serve us to fret over it and continue to argue against Word of God and its clear intentions.
Actually, I feel like itâs saving me a lot of annoyance. I can just shrug and say, âObviously the devs didnât have it figured out and they tried a few different explanations.â Trying to make it all fit together seems like a lot more work. Especially because I donât think even the picture that emerges when you try to use all three sources holds together well or represents a good plan.
4 Likes