Which still has the Sentinels put him above themselves.
2 Likes
Seeā¦ this is what I mean. You are not here in good faith, you are not here to have a discussion. You are here to āwinā to āproveā something.
I donāt fully understand, you admit to nelf matriarchyā¦ So you are not arguing that. But you are seemingly obsessed with some kind of Male/Druid dominance, and the very notion that might not be a thing sends you into an attack mode where you twist and distort the lore, trying to manipulate and gaslight supportā¦
ā¦ I canāt say itās a sexist view, because I canāt say itās motivated by gender. Perhaps itās just a very fervent bias. But my big take away from this discussion isā¦ I donāt want to say you are a bad person, but you have really aggressive and domineering personality traits that is not very nice.
ironic he could save others from death, but not himself.
1 Like
Oh Ill admit, I am here because I donāt like sexism and I get off at calling people out.
Of all the posters here, you are the one with the most aggressive and domineering personality traits, and probably proudly so, so Iām not even sure you would consider this a bad thing. At best, I consider myself patient.
I am most certainly biased towards Druids, no denying that. And I think it is very endearing how much the Night Elves love Malfurion.
Given the opportunity, I will happily post about lore related to this, whenever anyone is willing to keep a conversation going with me. I can keep going as long as people keep responding. But Iām not here particularly to win anything.
3 Likes
I think that depends on who I am talking to. When people are making arguments from gross perspectives, are manipulative, or somehow bad people for reasons outside the forumsā¦ Yeah, I cut deep, and I do so unapologetically. I think there are plenty of examples of me being very reasonable here on the forums as well. Which canāt be said for others here.
Thing is, I like druids and Malfurionā¦ I just donāt believe they were ever serving a Governing role based on the Lore we have. And when you try to gaslight me into agreeing with youā¦ Yeah, I am going to get aggressive. This isnāt the first time you have tried. I have noted it as a pattern of your behavior.
I donāt have any particular interest in what you believe lore to be. I am just here to post what I see lore to be. And, as stated, nothing in Chronicle, the novels, or the Ultimate Visual Guide state that the Druids did not lead during the time Warcraft III and the in-game books said they did.
The only reference is from the Warcraft Encyclopedia, which Blizzard has long since stopped supporting on their website.
Well I am not interested in your headcanon, and I have made that quite clear and you keep coming at me.
This isnāt true, as I have explained to you, but as you already mentioned, you are not here for discourse, you are here to force your headcannon onto others.
I have said the same to you.
You also donāt actually make all the citations you claim you do. You just claim you made the citations, but, as pointed out, people can search back up and see that you havenāt.
I am not here to convince you of anything. I am here to share my findings with others. Whether or not that includes you, I will still post what I find, as that is the point of these forums.
1 Like
I have thoughā¦ In relation to you specifically, we have talked about multiple novels and in-game scenarios.
No, you are here to annoy me, because you wouldnāt have shared anything if I wasnāt here challenging your BS.
And it is BSā¦ the Warcraft 3 Manual was essentially replaced by the Warcraft Encyclopedia. So your entire argument is spreading false informationā¦ and the Night Elf community has enough purple humans and wannabe Drizzit RPers.
Which you certainly like to bring up, but never in relation to my point, which people can also look back up to see for themselves:
That you have made citations for other topics throughout the thread has no relevance to my point, which is still that there are no references beside the Warcraft Encyclopedia that says the Druids did not lead for a time.
And the Warcraft Encyclopedia was wiped from the Warcraft website, but the Warcraft III manual still lives on in WoW itself through the in-game books.
Essentially, one can disregard the Warcraft Encyclopedia, considering Blizzard left it for dead long ago, and perhaps we should as well, as you yourself have admitted that things added after Warcraft III have been worse.
1 Like
Youāre one to talk lol
Which is not true, primarily because that an inexplicit claim of which the burden of proof falls on you. Your only evidence is a source book that has been overwritten for years.
Devs have said in-game books are not reliable sources of lore, because they exist with in-game bias.
No, they canātā¦ but you will because it doesnāt fit your narrative. To bad, you are wrong, objectively.
The Warcraft Encyclopedia has been abandoned for more years, while the Warcraft III manual is still available from Blizzard on their website.
The Warcraft III manual was not written as an in-game document. That the in-game books are word for word the same as the manual, which was written to be definitive lore, we can infer that the in-game books are likely factual in their perspective as well.
In your own words:
And a vast among of itās content is dated and false, including some character origins and map design. Itās not a valid sourcebook.
No we cannotā¦ the Warcraft 3 manual is ripe with dated and retconned lore. Just because they used it in-game for some in-universe books, which have been established to be inherently flawed lore resources, we can infer that its very much not factual. It was likely added as a nod to Warcraft 3 fans and nothing beyond that.
You are delusional and enslaved to your own bias if you really think the Warcraft 3 Manual is a more reliable source than the Warcraft Encyclopedia. To believe that, there canāt be any such thing as actual canonā¦ Which is mostly why the community adopts the new lore trumps old lore ruleā¦
If that isnāt enough for you, the Warcraft Encyclopedia is still considered canon by Blizzard Warcraft Historian Sean Copeland.
Sean Copeland also took down his twitter, however from what I can tell his tweet about the Warcraft Encyclopedia was from 2013 or earlier. We do not know what his current stance on it is now, considering the latest weāve heard from Copeland on Warcraft was about Chronicle:
- āOne of the goals we had while creating these books was to craft a truly cohesive and compelling guidebook that covers the history of the Warcraft universe, from its origins to now,ā explains historian supervisor Sean Copeland.
āAs a story thatās been evolving for decades, thereās been a noticeable change or two in the narrative. Identifying those sources of potential misunderstanding was imperative for the project as it went along, especially in our efforts to provide lore guidance for the stakeholders. That guidance enabled them to make informed rulings that impacted the entire universe.ā
Of course, now we also have the Titan-perspective angle for Chronicle, but that also matches what Copeland says in another part of the above interview:
- āMy team believes that continuity exists to enhance a story, not to tie the hands of creators,ā says Copeland.
Which also matches that it isnāt his job to make any calls, but to try to keep up with whatever Blizzard changes their mind to:
āSean Copelandās job is to keep track of what Blizzard decides is canonā
And the last thing we have in relation to the Warcraft Encyclopedia is that Blizzard considers it canonā¦ New lore trumps Old loreā¦ Which makes the Encyclopedia a 2013 verifiable source vs the very flaws 2002 Warcraft 3 Manualā¦ and the elements of it that appear in 2004 in WoW, as a game element that is verifiably flawed and unreliable.
So, the official canon lore is the Druids had nothing to do with Kaldorei Governing, passing laws or enforcing laws. Period.
And Chronicle makes the Warcraft Encyclopedia old lore as well. Iād say we should ask Sean Copeland, but he took his twitter down.
Amusingly, though, as far as retcons go, you and I have swapped places:
Obviously whoever wrote the Warcraft Encyclopedia forgot that the Druids lead. An oversight that could have been on Sean Copelandās part as well, but as I said, difficult to ask him now.
But now that Iām home, I had the time to look something up. Tyrande doesnāt say she could command Broll in Stormrage. She actually says she is making a request that he could turn down:
- āBe not so formal with me here, Broll. We have known each other for some time.ā
The druid nodded, but said nothing.
āPlease,ā the high priestess started, gesturing at a grass mat with intricate moon patterns fashioned into it. āBe seated.ā
Broll shook his head. āI prefer to stand, thank you ā¦ no disrespect meant.ā
She nodded. āVery well. I shall keep this short, anyway ā¦ and I say right now that you have every right to turn my request down.ā
1 Like
Not sure what that has to do with anything.
Lol okay, you are delusional. This conversation is over.
Also, the Stormrage discussion with Broll was quoted earlier in this thread. She did heavily imply that she could command him, if she wanted too.
But whatever, I am through with putting up with you. You are more than willing to wash away the evidence for Nelf Matriarchy for the sake of your own druid fan fiction. That is not a personality that yields good discussion.
Nearly 600 posts of people trying to rail against Akiyassā delusional California brain. You people need a hobby.
I feel like, when we are actually on topic, most people agree with me regarding Kaldorei Matriarchy.
Sorry to burst your counter-culture.