You can repeat it as often as you like, Zerde. It will still be a weird hill to die on, that nuances of language used by every storyteller since ages past suddenly is not applicable.
I get it, it’s to ensure the Alliance, and especially the humans in it, don’t look bad. Because killing a diplomat from some undead nation sitting in the former beating heart of the Alliance is… bad now, or something.
But nevertheless, it’s weird.
I’m not passing off my impressions as facts I’m answering people’s questions about the book as honestly as possible.
I can stop if you want. Get your answers from someone else if you don’t like me. As far as I know the only other people here interested in Sylvanas and Nathanos ship stuff is Cursewords and Mawthorne and they both appreciate my oddball humor.
Kat’s just being a bit of a troll, Ren. Don’t let it get you.
then why say that the forsaken ambassadors where rejected multiple times lol, just saying that sylvanas didnt kill them would 100% point to the alliance killing them but you had to lie lol
And it shouldn’t IMO. Whatever the book says, it probably would be safer to claim “From the forsaken perspective, Varian rejected the forsaken multiple times.”
But I think its a bit much to accuse Renautus-arathor of misrepresenting the lore for a few obviously satirical commentaries, and one over-simplification. It’s not like they doctored some quotes. If you dont like their take, you are welcome to read the book.
I for one will wait a month or two to give them a chance to completely ret con it like they did BtS.
How is them disappearing equals to varian rejecting them multiple times, they didnt send more than one group did they?
I didn’t lie that’s how I understood the scene. She sent out 4 emmessaries and they never came back. She assumes they were killed this comes up multiple times. She thanks Lorthemar and Carine for not killing her emmisarries. How was I lying?
FOUR emmisaries and NONE returned. She assumes the Alliance killed them but she doesn’t know what happened to them. Sorry if that was not clear.
My point is there are dozen other things that could have happened and the book(at least from what was mentioned) does not confirm or deny if it truly was the Alliance who did it. And even if the Alliance did it, there are so many other factors that might make it so the Alliance was not actually guilty of anything in particular.
Maybe more to the point, Sylvanas has used this rejection(and Horde fans) as justfication for all the awful things they done to the Alliance.
Shaw knew what happened to Garithos and expressed that it was better than what he deserved. Which doesn’t do Ainhin any favors.
Exploring EK gave me the feeling he was meant to have heard about it fairly recently
I don’t know why you think that Shaw’s informal opinion on the matter is some kind of checkmate
Other than that fact thats not what you said at first, you said they where killed by the alliance, which is a lie Sylvanas doesnt know and assumes, which you left out, thereforth there is no new lore another than golden made it clear that sylvanas didnt kill them.
Garithos could have been lying through his racist teeth. Are we really gonna could’ve would’ve should’ve now?
They were not Scarlet by this time.
You know I wasn’t talking about Shaw when I said Queen takes King checkmate, right?
No one cares about Garithos. What I think people would care about if is they learned the Forsaken betrayed him and took the city then that would lead people to believe one should not trust the forsaken, at all.
If people knew that Garithos died, then they probably know he worked with Sylvanas and was betrayed.
It’s often hard to parse what you’re talking about given your presence in some kind of alternate universe where the only differences are the major plot beats of WoW lore
They were likely killed by the Alliance. Who else would have killed them?
I’m not looking for reasons to think the Alliance didn’t kill them.
Check your own biases Kat.
The Alliance likely killed them.
The only established bias this book canon is fighting against is yours. Undead racism is real.
Honestly, at this point in the story, why not. Apperently Sylvanas considered Liam some sort of martyr for dying for his dad. Beugh, that still disgust me.
How? It was a verbal deal from one warlord to another, and he’d already screwed himself out of the EK’s most reliable scouts and magical support, so it’s dubious he was even keeping tabs that well.
You keep repeating this as if I’m not acknowledging that you have taken this stance. I have acknowledged it as your stance.
I am pointing out it is a weird stance. That it requires a complete rejection of nuanced storytelling, or nuanced language entirely.
“X went to Y. They never returned.”
This is language we hear in books, in movies, in TV, comics, verbal storytelling, all forms of media all the time and until today, we all knew exactly what it implies. Not ambiguity; that X died at Y.
But today it means X might’ve fell down some stairs, or maybe they met a nice person to settle down with, or maybe they fell in a hole in reality, because it doesn’t explicitly say.
Who else but the Alliance could have killed them in the monster-ridden wastelands between where the Forsaken were and where the Alliance was
The book, along with Exploring EK, is very deliberately is making this ambiguous. Stop treating it like it isn’t.