WoW is not allowed to have strong females

(Locked)

91 Night Elf Druid
9065
12/09/2012 09:51 AMPosted by Mordstreich
See, I disagree with the idea that taking risks makes you reckless, or that standing for your people makes you overzealous, but again, you haven't really noted anything.


You say this, and then condemn Tyrande's actions and motivations in A Little Patience. Which one is it?


It's not a black white statement.

There is no reason for Tyrande wanting to rush in. There is no urgency, and in fact, several reasons why she SHOULD be tempered.

But again, the whining was and always should have been the main problem.
100 Human Warrior
16460
12/09/2012 10:05 AMPosted by Ferlion
There is no reason for Tyrande wanting to rush in. There is no urgency,


There was, Blizzard just did not do a good job communicating that to players.
100 Night Elf Druid
13495
12/09/2012 10:07 AMPosted by Mordstreich
There was, Blizzard just did not do a good job communicating that to players.


I still say, add in one or two Sentinel NPCs who mention "We just got them cornered, why wait and let them to set up defenses?". Poof. It gives some background without requiring a voice actor or changing anything else in the scenario.
91 Night Elf Druid
9065
There was, Blizzard just did not do a good job communicating that to players.


I still say, add in one or two Sentinel NPCs who mention "We just got them cornered, why wait and let them to set up defenses?". Poof. It gives some background without requiring a voice actor or changing anything else in the scenario.


The Horde had hostages..

It's not a good reason.


There was, Blizzard just did not do a good job communicating that to players.


There isn't, Blizzard didn't say so, and it's player speculation that there is.

But I'm not going over this argument again.. I disagree with the assessment that there was, others disagree with me, so no reason to retread.
Edited by Ferlion on 12/9/2012 10:36 AM PST
100 Human Warrior
16460
12/09/2012 10:35 AMPosted by Ferlion
There isn't, Blizzard didn't say so, and it's player speculation that there is.


No, Kosak directly said that the Sentinels had the Orcs on the run and she wanted to kill them before they had a chance to regroup, casualties be damned. He said this. This is not player speculation, he said this. He said this. This was the intent, it just wasn't communicated well enough.

Or maybe it was purposefully done this way because Kosak is a jerk to Night elves, either way this is what he said, so we have to take him on his word.

So it makes it a bit odd when Tyrande is defended against claims of being reckless or overzealous, and then in the same breath is condemned for being reckless or overzealous in wanting to charge in and kill the Orcs.
Edited by Mordstreich on 12/9/2012 11:02 AM PST
91 Night Elf Druid
9065
Unless I missed that interview, no, he didn't.

The idea was more: "The enemy is right there, they're cornered, let's go in and get them, casualties be damned."


The exact quote.

So, I repeat, there is no reason other than Tyrande being bloodthirsty for her to rush in, killing more of her people, killing the hostages, other than her being blood thirsty.

They said it wasn't her intent to come off as whining.

They also said they intentionally made Tyrande look bad so Varian could look good. That's sort of the definition of foil.

So, lets hope next time is better. That's all there is to it.
Edited by Ferlion on 12/9/2012 11:20 AM PST
90 Undead Hunter
1860
12/09/2012 11:17 AMPosted by Ferlion
They also said they intentionally made Tyrande look bad so Varian could look good. That's sort of the definition of foil.


Which Blizzard does (without hesitation) in situation like this. It either "never gets old" or Blizzard just think it is generally "okay" to make women dumb so men can look intelligent.

I mean really, both Tyrande and Varian are racial leaders, why would a 10,000 year old women "act like that" when a men no older than 50 "know to act like this"?
90 Human Mage
13505
It's...a trend that even if you're 10 thousand years old you may...be vulnerable to emotions which isn't a bad thing. Now I'm not harping on Tyrande by no means. I still like her, reckless sure but her worship of Elune tells me she has a good heart.

I digress though, with all the "CHARACTERS CAN'T BE FLAWLESS111" I have to ask...what would be better for Tyrande? To not be reckless.....or what?

I'm not debating her past actions so...if we could avoid another Tyrande debate.
100 Night Elf Rogue
10800
I digress though, with all the "CHARACTERS CAN'T BE FLAWLESS111" I have to ask...what would be better for Tyrande? To not be reckless.....or what?


No one has asked for anyone to be flawless and you know it. Trying to make hyperbole out of our arguments doesn't make yours stronger.

This isn't about Tyrande being "reckless" (which I guess is code now for taking any sort of risk), it's about it being WAAAY too overt, and used only to make another character look better.

We've only been saying this for three weeks. I'm all for opposing arguments, but can you quote a time where someone made the argument that you claim that one of us made?

If not, stop acting like we're making it.
100 Night Elf Rogue
10800
See, I disagree with the idea that taking risks makes you reckless, or that standing for your people makes you overzealous, but again, you haven't really noted anything.


You say this, and then condemn Tyrande's actions and motivations in A Little Patience. Which one is it?


I know, I should have said this earlier.

Yes, I condemn it, but that doesn't mean I ignore it. That's why I care about it. It's canon now, and we must consider it in evaluating the character.

Did this wreck the character? No, it's just the last nail.

As for the use of words like reckless and overzealous, I tend to avoid such labels because they're nothing more than shorthand for "I disagree, but am not willing to explain my disagreement with anything other than connotation." To quote Barry Goldwater, they are "unthinking and stupid labels".

Tyrande's motivations here were explained after the fact, she whines, and she's shown as being wrong for the specific purpose of showing Varian as right. Then, with the after the fact explanation, we learn that she doesn't really care about casualties... until the end of the scenario, where she does. - The interview is really just dancing. They admitted that she was a foil and there's not much more to it.


Last edit here: I'm still waiting on an answer. I know that someone has an answer. There can't be all of these apologists with no answer!

Why does Tyrande deserve to be a faction leader? What does she bring to the table? Again, please provide facts and examples.
Edited by Kyalin on 12/10/2012 12:13 AM PST
91 Night Elf Druid
9065
She brings more raw power than any other faction leader so far, Thrall and Malfurion included barring extenuating circumstances such as the Emerald Dream and Azeroth blending into one one reality, and Thrall temporarily channeling the powers of the Aspects.

And she cares about her people.She;s just not really been shown leading them since WoW came out.
Edited by Ferlion on 12/10/2012 12:16 AM PST
100 Blood Elf Mage
15790
She brings more raw power than any other faction leader so far, Thrall and Malfurion included barring extenuating circumstances such as the Emerald Dream and Azeroth blending into one one reality, and Thrall temporarily channeling the powers of the Aspects.

And she cares about her people.She;s just not really been shown leading them since WoW came out.


The hell is "raw power".
90 Pandaren Hunter
14145
This has already been said before, but I think it's worth repeating: WoW does have strong female characters, but strong major characters? Not a lot. I can think of lots and lots of strong major male characters, but only about a handful of strong major females.

Sylvanas, Jaina, Alexstrasza, Ysera, are all good examples I would say. I think picking at their moral compass is splitting hairs too much. Honestly, Blizzard's characterization is pretty mediocre, and my standards have lowered for them, so any character that has more depth than "good guy" or "bad guy" is a plus in my book.

I don't mention Tyrande or Aggra because those two spend most of their time in-game licking the boots of an already established male character.

Don't get me wrong, I feel a lot more favorable towards expanded universe-Tyrande because she actually did things. She played a pretty huge role in the Well of Eternity series but none of this gets reflected in-game. Most of her in-game time seems like she exists to be subservient to Malfurion.

This also may be a wholly separate argument, but the way she was handled in the Well of Eternity instance was also irritating. She is vitally important in the players' survival, while what is Malfurion doing? Bubble-hearthing? What should happen? This should be awesome. But then she gets promptly shut down by Malfurion, even though she has a valid comment. And the audience is supposed to agree with him, because he is the wise, good, voice of reason brother.

As for Aggra, well, unfortunately, it seems like her sole purpose is to make Thrall's babies.
Edited by Taunta on 12/10/2012 3:57 AM PST
90 Undead Hunter
1860
12/10/2012 03:45 AMPosted by Taunta
I don't mention Tyrande or Aggra because those two spend most of their time in-game licking the boots of an already established male character.


Harsh, but very accurate.
99 Undead Warlock
9465
Morals=/=Strong Character.

Sylvanas is a strong character, regardless of how much of a selfish, evil witch she is.

It seems what the OP wants is a Good-Aligment Strong Character.
90 Human Mage
13505
No one has asked for anyone to be flawless and you know it. Trying to make hyperbole out of our arguments doesn't make yours stronger.

This isn't about Tyrande being "reckless" (which I guess is code now for taking any sort of risk), it's about it being WAAAY too overt, and used only to make another character look better.

We've only been saying this for three weeks. I'm all for opposing arguments, but can you quote a time where someone made the argument that you claim that one of us made?

If not, stop acting like we're making it.


As per usual I wasn't talking about Night Elf fans and ranting about flawless characters, I was talking about others and you completely misread what I said. I'm not using hyperbole at all. I called Tyrande reckless because that is what she seems to be and I wasn't try to debate Tyrande as I said in my post but AGAIN you seem adament to discuss Tyrande and her past actions.

You picked one of my statements and twisted it.
Edited by Valius on 12/10/2012 11:26 AM PST
100 Night Elf Rogue
10800
No one has asked for anyone to be flawless and you know it. Trying to make hyperbole out of our arguments doesn't make yours stronger.

This isn't about Tyrande being "reckless" (which I guess is code now for taking any sort of risk), it's about it being WAAAY too overt, and used only to make another character look better.

We've only been saying this for three weeks. I'm all for opposing arguments, but can you quote a time where someone made the argument that you claim that one of us made?

If not, stop acting like we're making it.


As per usual I wasn't talking about Night Elf fans and ranting about flawless characters, I was talking about others and you completely misread what I said. I'm not using hyperbole at all. I called Tyrande reckless because that is what she seems to be and I wasn't try to debate Tyrande as I said in my post but AGAIN you seem adament to discuss Tyrande and her past actions.

You picked one of my statements and twisted it.


Or you're dancing around the issue, which seems likely given how specific your original post was.

If I did indeed misread it though, I would appreciate some clarification. I'm having difficulty in seeing what else you could have meant when you said this:

I digress though, with all the "CHARACTERS CAN'T BE FLAWLESS111" I have to ask...what would be better for Tyrande? To not be reckless.....or what?
90 Human Warrior
13525
Or you're dancing around the issue, which seems likely given how specific your original post was.

If I did indeed misread it though, I would appreciate some clarification. I'm having difficulty in seeing what else you could have meant when you said this:


I was saying two different things.

I see one group saying "THERE'S NO FLAWED CHARACTER QQ" And there's you and those about Tyrande being reckless or not. My issue is...what do you want? I'm not dancing around the issue, I'm just saying if you want Tyrande to be reckless(Fine) or whatever attribute that makes her flawed. Just asking what would be better for her.

Some are or at least from what I see people don't want Tyrande to be...whatever she was in Little Patience

And if that's a flaw...fine... but... don't complain about that she's like that and want to make her perfect though I suspect that isn't what you want.

Just indicating there is confusion on my end on what people want. If that confused you again I apologize.
85 Tauren Shaman
6230
The issue with Tyrande in particular is that in the scenario she's used as a foil to show how awesome Varian is, and demonstrates no good qualities.
This topic is locked.

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)

Reported!

[Close]