The Grimoire of the Shadowlands and writer's perspective

What we have seen of the Grimoire of the Shadowlands is mostly in-universe perspective.

It means it’s the thoughts of an existing character. It isn’t word of god, in other words, it doesn’t necessarily indicate that those are true facts.

If another character later on poses statements that contradict these, it isn’t a retcon. It isn’t inconsistency. It is merely another character’s thoughts being shown.

Even if the same character later on shows different thoughts, all theories and hypothesis evolve and change. It still won’t be a retcon, for none of that is being shown as factual information.

For instance:

“Everything we had learned from our travels indicated that Oribos was a place of boundless knowledge, where ages could be spent learning from the spirits who venture through its rings.”

  • indicated that, meaning it’s the writer’s impression.

“Ardenweald’s function supports our theories that the First Ones crafted the underlying framework for the cosmic forces of our universe: one that would facilitate an endless cycle of Death and Life, which they made central in their creation.”

  • our theories, meaning that everything in that paragraph is what the Brokers think, not necessarily what it is.

“The role that they designed for the Winter Queen within this cycle was a vital one, requiring a bond between the conflicting forces so intimate that it is logical to assume that the existence of a reciprocal being who serves as her counterpart can be found as well.”

  • it is logical to assume, once more, their thoughts.

There are many, many, many stances where the book clarifies clearly that what is written is what an existing character assumes, ipso facto those aren’t facts, those are fallible thoughts, theories and conjectures and thus the book serves as a window for us to peer into the minds of the Brokers regarding the Shadowlands and cosmology as a whole.

All of that can be contradicted by other characters’ thoughts.

All of that can still be shown to be not factual.

I’ve seen many parts of the community debating as if those remarks were undeniably factual, as if they were “Word of God”. They aren’t Word of God, far from that. And debating with other people as if everything in Grimoire of the Shadowlands was factual would only lead to frustrating discussions, with “inconsistency” and “retcon” being thrown left and right.

4 Likes

If the goal of the story is to enable inconsistencies, and justify ret-cons, how should they be addressed?


gl hf

This story is just this time written noticeably and clearly from the point of view of a race and it doesn’t read like chronicles which read more like hard facts.

4 Likes

Unreliable narrator is a whole story angle where stories get more depth by providing perspectives on the worlds’ characters’ thoughts.

It would be a case of inconsistency if, when a character says “oh, I think the lands of the east are barren” after having previously postulated a theory that said “I hypothesize the lands of the east are verdant-green”, the land factually changed from being verdant to barren just because they said that.

That character changing their mind (which is a normal thing) doesn’t make the story inconsistent nor changes the actual state of the lands of the east.

If no matter what, if even then you’re out to call inconsistency/retcon on that matter, then it’s purely bad faith on your part.

Can’t agree on the premise. “Unreliable narrator” is a tool that can allow the storyteller(s) to add more “depth” or tell a story where different sides can have some truth about their actions and have internal reasoning for that.

But as any tool, the outcome is not guaranteed, and the result might be trying to avoid resposibility for inconsistencies and lack of coordination between different developers in the team.

I would say inconsistency is when the players go through the Warcraft 3 campaign and see the siege of Silvermoon. And then a part of this story is replaced by “ackshually it was the betrayal that enabled those things to happen”, because we’re not told what happened, we see first hand exactly what happens, and then the story goes “nope, what you see with your own eyes and participate in is not how it went”.

We’ll see how it goes. Changing motivations and approach of the Light is clearly a ret-con. Changing the meaning from “one of true deities” to “we’ll decide eventually what is convenient” - also the case. But I think we need more info about the thing.

I think we’ll need to take a look on the case by case basis, which parts of the narrative will be changed to accomodate new ideas, to say what fits the “unreliable narrator” concept, and what is a clear attempt to rewrite in a manner “oh, you thought that was the case because you was were there and saw it? Actually, it’s not, because that’s what we decided [to do] to move the story where we want to, regardless of why people bought the game”.


gl hf

If the remark about the betrayal comes from the voice of an in-universe character, it isn’t inconsistency, but rather an individual voicing their own opinion. It doesn’t change the fact nor pose a retcon.

If people are allowed to change motivations and thoughts, why aren’t characters?

It seems to me that many people in the community want characters to always do one thing only, and always have the same thoughts and opinions.

Nothing changes in Grimoire of the Shadowlands. Everything in it is the writer’s perspectives, the writer’s thoughts.

Those are all in-universe theories and conjectures and taking those as if they were hard canon is a posture of bad faith.

3 Likes

No it does. We literally have currently “canon” story of Dar’Khan Drathir being the traitor and this led to the fall of Silvermoon. Where if you would take a look at the let’s plays of the original Warcraft 3, the story it tells and in which you participate, is different.

Addition of Dar’Khan Drathir and his role is not a theory, it’s a retelling of a story we could literally see, in a “what you saw is not what was there” manner.

It retroactively changes the motivations of why things were done, and alters the relation of older characters with the Light.

If we would have new characters representing a different take on things, and old ones with the former, there could be some arguing about it IMO. But as is - not really.

No, it just mean that the devs follow the “if a story is good, it does not matter much if things have to be tweaked to fit it in”. While the audience they work with represent “consistency is the top priority”.

Neither is right or wrong. Just that it’s necessary to know the target audience. If the devs do things the audience largely does not consider acceptable, all the troubles of the project (including financial and reputation) are to be blamed on the devs, unwilling to address a crucial request of the community.

The book is not out yet. As I said, we’ll have to wait to see if there will be changes in the narrative that would support the new book over what was known before.

It’s up for the devs to show them supporting or not supporting those in universe theories. Depending on quantity and scope, that can cause different effects on the story and on how the players see the story and the devs.


gl hf

1 Like

If you’re saying that an in-universe character showing an opinion that contradicts facts qualifies as retcon or inconsistency, then you’re saying that characters aren’t allowed to have diverging opinions.

That’s a posture of bad faith.

What? Where is in the change of how events unfolded, is the place for opinion?


gl hf

As I said, if that’s an in-universe character saying it was an act of betrayal that enabled such events to happen, then it is merely the case of that being the character’s opinion, be it accurate to historical facts or not.

In real life a lot of people have opinions that are inaccurate to historical facts.

Wanting characters to only say what’s factually accurate is unreasonable.

How is that related to what I said?
What I meant (might be my bad english, sorry)
is that you play warcraft 3, and see events unfolding in a certain way.

Then you play WoW, blood elf armour quest line, and literally go around seeing some of the events, that tell and show a different story.

And W3 reforged also shows now a different story than the original, and now the fall of Silvermoon is tied to the mentioned betrayer. (even though it was not the case before)


gl hf

I believe what you’re addressing isn’t the same subject of the thread.

But the chronicles ended up also just being a point of view (titan) and not a hard fact.

1 Like

I suppose there is confusion and Blizzard is guilty of causing it. They initially used the “encyclopedic concrete canon” aspect as a selling point. With their history of Retcons, I found the whole prospect rather dubious. Sure enough, they later “clarified” that it was from the perspective of the Titans. And that it may not be accurate.

Chronicles may have “read” as an encyclopedia of sorts, and less of an overt perspective piece.

3 Likes

The problems are:

  • A Role-Playing Game needs to have World Building, and World Building built on sand (refusing to concretely answer questions in-universe and only barely in interviews) is bad
  • This book was described by Danuser as “another Chronicle”, and he did say there would be “another take” of the (cosmology) chart
  • Pre-emptively stating this entire book is a single Broker’s perspective, and is barely answering anything relevant (e.g. what Zovaal did to warrant banishment), allows Blizzard to throw this entire book out if they so desire later, which is objectively bad worldbuilding.
7 Likes

The excerpts I saw read as if they’re built off of a whole bunch of "maybe"s instead of sounding concrete. I thought the appeal of these was to have solid worldbuilding, otherwise why would you buy an intentionally wishy-washy lore book?

3 Likes

I may be cynical, but I suspect the writers of doing that deliberately so they can change lore later and not get called out on it.

3 Likes

I see in-universe theories and rumors as also being great examples of worldbuilding. It’s great in D&D tables and tabletop RPG sessions in general to see, for instance, NPCs adding layers to existing mysteries with their own assumptions and thoughts. Even better when there are several disagreeing instances. The players (and their characters) have to dissect which one they pick, side with, and even form their own theories.

Even in historical terms, that’s how mythologies, folklores and cultures in general born and grow.

Sure, and I agree, but there are still “Hard Canon” bits. Sand castles are fun because they’re built over more firm sand and thus are stable. Houses of cards are fun because they are built over a table so you can keep going.

You don’t build a house of cards over a water bed while a toddler is doing the cha cha slide next to you.

At this point, nothing is safe in the canon.

1 Like

World of Warcraft has plenty of Word of God.

That take of yours is quite extreme, when a single book that has mostly in-character perspective and theories is released and criticized for having that kind of pov. On top of, also, being a minority amidst an ocean of factual Word of God information (especially from the game itself).

If a single book get so much flak for having in-character perspective, the impression that the people give is that they (those who are complaining) don’t want any book with that kind of narrative, at all.

And having no in-universe theories, conjectures, mysteries, assumptions made by characters that live and breathe in that universe, is quite a poor outlook for a fantasy universe.

So yeah, with a book focused towards in-universe character thoughts and hypotheses being absolute minority in terms of lore content, the rejection of that material showcases that the community basically doesn’t allow it.

Almost if it even wants a more “basic” fantasy universe where everything that’s said is true. Which is boring.