Lilian Voss replacing Sylvanas

90 Undead Rogue
6895
Cdev are the ones making the distintion, not us.

They specifically say “the dark magic is a buffer preventing the soul from perfectly attaching to its body.”
Reply Quote
25 Blood Elf Paladin
0
Cdev are the ones making the distintion, not us.

They specifically say “the dark magic is a buffer preventing the soul from perfectly attaching to its body.”


And as a result, the soul is changed.

We aren't talking about "soul + dark magic" any more than when we talk about a person in real life we're talking about "brain + liver + heart + lungs + stomach + kidneys etc."

The whole is more than the sum of its parts, and the whole of an undead is something fundamentally different from a human.
Reply Quote
13 Orc Monk
3110
I remember seeing a man on an old re-run of The Graham Kennedy Show who was preaching that "Everyone sees an entirely different sun, because it always looks the same" or something of that effect, and he claimed every expert he'd questioned had been too scared to refute it so he must be right. I think of it everytime Vyrin posts his dribble about souls.
Reply Quote
100 Blood Elf Warlock
10635
10/09/2012 12:25 AMPosted by Vyrin
And as a result, the soul is changed.


never said or hinted at. pure fan fiction by one guy who is wrong by the basic definitions of the words used.
Reply Quote
91 Undead Warlock
7410
Please refrain from derailing the Thread. If you wish to talk about souls of the Forsaken, please create a new thread if one does not already exist. This thread was created to discuss the possiblity of Lillian Voss replacing Sylvanas.
Reply Quote
13 Orc Monk
3110
10/09/2012 01:27 AMPosted by Ximothy
Please refrain from derailing the Thread. If you wish to talk about souls of the Forsaken, please create a new thread if one does not already exist. This thread was created to discuss the possiblity of Lillian Voss replacing Sylvanas.


Basically, she's not interesting. And I doubt she's anymore qualified for leadership than Rexxar.
Reply Quote
91 Undead Warlock
7410
10/09/2012 01:47 AMPosted by Kroxxigar
Basically, she's not interesting. And I doubt she's anymore qualified for leadership than Rexxar.


Hey, at least Rexxar isn't neutral.
Reply Quote
13 Orc Monk
3110
10/09/2012 01:53 AMPosted by Ximothy
Basically, she's not interesting. And I doubt she's anymore qualified for leadership than Rexxar.


Hey, at least Rexxar isn't neutral.


Nothing wrong with Rexxar in my opinion. He's just not leadership material.
Reply Quote
90 Human Death Knight
13505
Lilian isn't Forsaken. She was raised by them, but she never joins and other than getting some help from the player character does not associate with them at all.

Given the way she talks in Scholomance (I'll never stop hunting your kind, necromancer! I will not let you curse another soul with this nightmare!) I can't imagine she's any more fond of the Forsaken than she is the Scourge. Especially since they're, you know, the ones who made her what she is.
Reply Quote
10/09/2012 12:25 AMPosted by Vyrin
And as a result, the soul is changed.


Oh not this again *rolls eyes*
Reply Quote
25 Blood Elf Paladin
0
10/09/2012 11:10 AMPosted by Vignarus
And as a result, the soul is changed.


Oh not this again *rolls eyes*


Yeah, I imagine that some people don't like being reminded that they're playing ravenous monstrosities, alien to Azeroth whose only purpose is to consume and consume until nothing is left instead of woobie humans with skin conditions.
Reply Quote
10/09/2012 11:47 AMPosted by Vyrin
woobie humans with skin conditions.
You keep repeating this.

No one is saying that's what the Forsaken are. People are saying that the Forsaken are Undead humans and that while affected and clearly altered by undeath they do retain certain things and traits from their days among the living. Some more than others and to varying degrees depending upon individual.

That is not the same as the "Lolskindisease" line you keep dragging out. That line just makes you sound like a willfully ignorant !@#$%^-.
Reply Quote
25 Blood Elf Paladin
0
10/09/2012 11:53 AMPosted by Dusksworn
No one is saying that's what the Forsaken are.


That's exactly what people claim the Forsaken are. Not everyone shares your moderate views of the subject.

Any time someone trots out "The Forsaken are humans who are just undead and therefore are the true people of Lordaeron" they're reducing the Forsaken to humans with bad rashes, and for some reason even lore buffs are tolerant of this ludicrous viewpoint.
Edited by Vyrin on 10/9/2012 11:56 AM PDT
Reply Quote
94 Gnome Warrior
10050
10/08/2012 05:32 PMPosted by Vyrin
So, you need to "lead an army" or "rebel" or basically be super active in order to qualify as an Alliance character?
As a meaningful character that is pivotal to the Alliance's raison d'etre, yes.

So in Cataclysm there were no Alliance characters on account of their unprecedented inactivity? I'd LOVE to hear you explain why Jaina wasn't an Alliance character in Cataclysm.
Jaina was busy running things in Theramore. You know, leading and all. Though what has been done to her reeks of cheesy writing and bad lore decisions.

Everyone knows the Alliance was placed in the back burner during Cataclysm. Why are you trying to use it as a talking point when it is common knowledge?

"We should let more of the Alliance's identity and characters slip away because it's already happened?"
More like "Calia is the least of the lore and character problems the Alliance currently has, and your efforts should be focusing on those characters with more weight like Turalyon, Arator and such". Calia is a pebble. Turalyon is a boulder. Guess which matters more to the Alliance's identity.

Then instead of sitting here looking for an established Alliance character to give the Forsaken, how about you brainstorm some potential Forsaken characters?
I doubt the players, the forsaken, and the other faction leaders would take "random undead farmer Mel Darkbringer suddenly wanting to overthrow Sylvannas" seriously.

Alliance yes......Established character? Ummm NO.


Established as Alliance, yes. She's a member of the Menethil dynasty which automatically makes her an Alliance character.
Considering the Menethil Dynasty no longer exists, and the fact that she'd have to be undead by now to be brought in, no she's not much to the Alliance.
Reply Quote
85 Human Death Knight
11435
Doesn't Lilian Voss die in the Scholomance 5-man? After her encounter she tells the adventurers to leave so that she could die alone.
Reply Quote
100 Human Paladin
17700
10/09/2012 03:03 PMPosted by Agrina
Considering the Menethil Dynasty no longer exists, and the fact that she'd have to be undead by now to be brought in, no she's not much to the Alliance.


That's not a "fact". Calia could have fled the kingdom alive. It's not likely, but it's possible.

10/09/2012 04:58 PMPosted by Genious
Doesn't Lilian Voss die in the Scholomance 5-man? After her encounter she tells the adventurers to leave so that she could die alone.


She does say that... but we don't actually see her die, which leaves her fate ambiguous.
Reply Quote
99 Undead Priest
3095
woobie humans with skin conditions.
You keep repeating this.

No one is saying that's what the Forsaken are. People are saying that the Forsaken are Undead humans and that while affected and clearly altered by undeath they do retain certain things and traits from their days among the living. Some more than others and to varying degrees depending upon individual.

That is not the same as the "Lolskindisease" line you keep dragging out. That line just makes you sound like a willfully ignorant !@#$%^-.


I think it's more astonishing that he's been able to keep up this amount of anger towards the idea of the Forsaken usurping Lordaeron. I mean, this has been going on a couple of years, right?

@Vyrin
Seriously, Vyrin, that doesn't sound fun. Loraderon, and the rest of WoW, don't really matter. I mean, if you're really enjoying yelling at people on the forums for not having enough proper appreciation regarding Lordaeron's iconic value in the Alliance, then fine, but you seem pretty angry and miserable about it. It's not worth your time.
Edited by Felya on 10/9/2012 5:47 PM PDT
Reply Quote
25 Blood Elf Paladin
0
10/09/2012 03:03 PMPosted by Agrina
As a meaningful character that is pivotal to the Alliance's raison d'etre, yes.


Calia has meaning simply by virtue of her station as Alliance royalty. Are you going to argue that Galen Trollbane was never an Alliance character?

Jaina was busy running things in Theramore. You know, leading and all. Though what has been done to her reeks of cheesy writing and bad lore decisions.

Everyone knows the Alliance was placed in the back burner during Cataclysm. Why are you trying to use it as a talking point when it is common knowledge?


Oh, okay, so we're allowed to use actions that we assume happened off-screen as precedent to say that a character is established? But we aren't allowed to do it with Calia? Why?

10/09/2012 03:03 PMPosted by Agrina
More like "Calia is the least of the lore and character problems the Alliance currently has, and your efforts should be focusing on those characters with more weight like Turalyon, Arator and such". Calia is a pebble. Turalyon is a boulder. Guess which matters more to the Alliance's identity.


Turalyon is already semi-confirmed for neutrality, which let's face it, was inevitable. And Calia is not a "pebble." Have you not been paying attention to these forums for the past three years? She's brought up constantly, usually by Forsaken fanboys who want to use her to solidify their "legitimacy."

10/09/2012 03:03 PMPosted by Agrina
I doubt the players, the forsaken, and the other faction leaders would take "random undead farmer Mel Darkbringer suddenly wanting to overthrow Sylvannas" seriously.


Then perhaps some effort should be made to establish such a character. It can be established alongside a new Forsaken identity that isn't reliant on leeching off the Alliance as much as possible.

10/09/2012 03:03 PMPosted by Agrina
Considering the Menethil Dynasty no longer exists, and the fact that she'd have to be undead by now to be brought in, no she's not much to the Alliance.


Absolutely false. She does not have to be undead to be brought back; you honestly don't think that she had bodyguards who had a contingency plan to get her out of the city in the event of emergency?

Seriously, Vyrin, that doesn't sound fun. Loraderon, and the rest of WoW, don't really matter. I mean, if you're really enjoying yelling at people on the forums for not having enough proper appreciation regarding Lordaeron's iconic value in the Alliance, then fine, but you seem pretty angry and miserable about it. It's not worth your time.


It's not just Lordaeron's iconic value, it's Lordaeron's iconic history as well, both good and bad. Depriving the Alliance of Lordaeron's legacy, history, storyline, and continuity would deal irreperable damage to the Alliance as a faction and to its historical identity. Both victory in the Second War and defeat in the Third War are critical to the Alliance's history but people seem to want to deprive the Alliance of any right to claim such events as part of their history and would rather give it to the Forsaken, a faction of zombies who don't resemble Lordaeron in any way, shape, or form.

Honestly, it's just as much the Forsaken having no established identity of their own as it is Lordaeron's iconic status in the Alliance.

And no, it can't be "both" of their histories, because that would mean that the Alliance is forced to share its most iconic moments, histories, triumphs, and tragedies, with the Horde, diluting what's already a paper-thin faction by virtue of it's plot-induced amnesia towards most of the Eastern Kingdoms even further.

The worst part is, it's at the point where Blizzard is basically writing the Alliance in such a way that it looks like they don't even want to acknowledge that the Third War happened. They're treating the Eastern Kingdoms as they are now as though that's the status quo of Azeroth. They're writing Varian as though he'd be fine with allowing the northern kingdoms to remain plagued wastelands infested by soul-corrupted monstrosities as though that's the way it's always been. They cut a MASSIVE gaping hole in the Alliance's historical continuum and in Lordaeron's legacy by depriving the Alliance of Lordaeron and then prohibiting anyone in the Alliance from talking about it unless they're within five feet of an undead player. It's psychotic, wrong, and quite frankly the worst thing that's happened to this franchise, Me'dan and World Shaman included.

This combined with how the Forsaken are the most consistently cruel, monstrous, sadistic, and outright evil faction in the game and nobody EVER acknowledges this, and yeah, I have a bit of an axe to grind here. And I haven't even gotten half my thoughts on the mess that Blizzard created and cultivated in this little rant here, the severing of Lordaeron has caused so much damage that I don't think they're ever going to repair, which is fine because they haven't even tried.
Reply Quote
90 Night Elf Hunter
5420
10/09/2012 06:01 PMPosted by Vyrin
Calia has meaning simply by virtue of her station as Alliance royalty. Are you going to argue that Galen Trollbane was never an Alliance character?


She has little meaning, you mean. Her only claims to fame are her family name and her almost marriage to Daval Prestor aka human Deathwing.

10/09/2012 06:01 PMPosted by Vyrin
Oh, okay, so we're allowed to use actions that we assume happened off-screen as precedent to say that a character is established? But we aren't allowed to do it with Calia? Why?


Because she never did anything of note? She's a two bit character with little to no personality. She's also been missing for years in game now.

10/09/2012 06:01 PMPosted by Vyrin
Turalyon is already semi-confirmed for neutrality, which let's face it, was inevitable. And Calia is not a "pebble." Have you not been paying attention to these forums for the past three years? She's brought up constantly, usually by Forsaken fanboys who want to use her to solidify their "legitimacy."


Gods I hope Turalyon isn't made neutral. As for Calia? You are right, she isn't a pebble. She's a grain of sand compared to Turalyon's large boulder. She's gotten little to no story, she wasn't important to anything and was a minor character at best.
Reply Quote
25 Blood Elf Paladin
0
She has little meaning, you mean. Her only claims to fame are her family name and her almost marriage to Daval Prestor aka human Deathwing.


Don't discount the family name. As of World of Warcraft all we knew about Varian was his last name, was he not an Alliance character?

Because she never did anything of note? She's a two bit character with little to no personality. She's also been missing for years in game now.


Again, that doesn't suddenly make her not an established Alliance character.

As for Calia? You are right, she isn't a pebble. She's a grain of sand compared to Turalyon's large boulder. She's gotten little to no story, she wasn't important to anything and was a minor character at best.


Last remaining heir to the throne of Lordaeron is not a minor character trait.
Reply Quote

Please report any Code of Conduct violations, including:

Threats of violence. We take these seriously and will alert the proper authorities.

Posts containing personal information about other players. This includes physical addresses, e-mail addresses, phone numbers, and inappropriate photos and/or videos.

Harassing or discriminatory language. This will not be tolerated.

Forums Code of Conduct

Report Post # written by

Reason
Explain (256 characters max)
Submit Cancel

Reported!

[Close]