Sylvanas ordered Wrathgate to happen?

Story Forum
Prev 1 7 8 9
What is the point of this question when our back and forth has already clearly been about more than the Wrath Gate?

Since you apparently you have to steadily bring up more and more issues you have with Sylvanas to try to convince me I should 'just admit I find it cool'.

But for the topic at hand, no I personally do not think her having had a hand in the Wrath Gate would be entirely out of character for her.

That's your opinion. I disagree. Hence the discussion.

The question was raised 8 years ago by a Horde Warchief actually :)

So you sympathise with Garrosh? Is that really the star you want to hitch your wagon to?

Again - Sylvanas's plan was to off herself as soon as Arthas was dead, so to her the risk would have been worth it. And considering that we literally saw the Horde's reprisal if Putress was given the blame - considering Putress did everything to pull the blame on him. The risk was calculated, and Sylvanas likely found it worth taking.

Except the Horde didn't go after Putress, the Alliance did. The horde went after Varimathras. So why would Varimathras play along with Sylvanas when his true loyalty lay with the Burning Legion? It doesn't make sense.

Sylvanas may have been fine with killing herself but I refuse to believe that she would have been fine with all of the Forsaken being wiped on anything less than a sure kill on Arthas, which Putress's sloppy attack at the Wrath Gate was not.

In terms of Blight being thrown directly at Arthas, the goal was likely to ensure Arthas had no form of escaping the Blight, so the whole field had to be coated.

... You know he just walks back through the gate right? There would be no point in covering the entire field so long as the Wrath Gate is at his back. Which it was. Which he used to escape.

The problem was that Arthas proved to be just powerful enough to escape before he died.

Well when you are powerful enough to escape by just walking a few feet then, yes, Arthas was clearly too much for Putress.
11/13/2018 11:03 AMPosted by Mustakraken
So you sympathise with Garrosh?
Most of the playerbase does nowadays.
11/13/2018 11:06 AMPosted by Grandblade
11/13/2018 11:03 AMPosted by Mustakraken
So you sympathise with Garrosh?
Most of the playerbase does nowadays.

Source?
11/13/2018 11:08 AMPosted by Mustakraken
11/13/2018 11:06 AMPosted by Grandblade
... Most of the playerbase does nowadays.

Source?


Everyone
11/13/2018 11:09 AMPosted by Akiyass
11/13/2018 11:08 AMPosted by Mustakraken
...
Source?


Everyone

Do you have a link to everyone?
11/13/2018 11:08 AMPosted by Mustakraken
11/13/2018 11:06 AMPosted by Grandblade
... Most of the playerbase does nowadays.

Source?
Don't play dumb, it's unbecoming.
11/13/2018 11:17 AMPosted by Mustakraken
11/13/2018 11:09 AMPosted by Akiyass
...

Everyone

Do you have a link to everyone?


Yeah
11/13/2018 11:17 AMPosted by Grandblade
11/13/2018 11:08 AMPosted by Mustakraken
...
Source?
Don't play dumb, it's unbecoming.

If you have legitimate data to back up your claim i'm all ears. Just saying 'most of the fanbase' thinks this or that rings rather hollow as a statement by itself.

We can't even agree on what is wrong with BFA.
11/13/2018 11:20 AMPosted by Akiyass
11/13/2018 11:17 AMPosted by Mustakraken
...
Do you have a link to everyone?


Yeah

Super, link away.
11/09/2018 12:08 PMPosted by Hahahahahaha
You need to embrace post-Chronicles/BFA writing. The Horde were always evil, the Alliance were always pure and perfect in every way. If there was ever a time when the Alliance was bad like say...Proudmoore, it's actively being whitewashed and re-framed to make the Horde evil monsters there too.

I'm more excited than ever to see them wreck WC3 with their new garbage writers! They put Golden in charge of going nuts with retconning it so the lore "matches" modern WOW lore.
If you have legitimate data to back up your claim i'm all ears.
You say this as if most people in the Story forum care about evidence for their "facts."
11/13/2018 02:17 PMPosted by Cannibal
If you have legitimate data to back up your claim i'm all ears.
You say this as if most people in the Story forum care about evidence for their "facts."
"Feelings don't care about your facts." - Shen Bapiro
We’ll see what they reveal as Sylvanas’ goal but it wouldn’t surprise me if they pull an Illidan “retcon” again if her plans involve turning the whole world into undeath.

With Illidan, they made him the good guy by giving him some master plan that explained away all his previous actions like working with Kil’jaedan.

Same thing I could see happening here. They could word a story that she tried to make Wrathgate the moment she turned against all the living but failed.
I guess Sylvanas is being retconned to death?
11/13/2018 11:03 AMPosted by Mustakraken
So you sympathise with Garrosh? Is that really the star you want to hitch your wagon to?


I sympathize with the fact the fans of his never got any sort of choice and I sympathize with his potential being squandered. He was also a far better villain in my opinion. But my sympathy was not the point. The point of bringing up Garrosh is that a character in game has raised the question of "What difference is there between Sylvanas and the Lich King?", not just players. They deliberately made a character say this, voice acted and all, 8 years ago, during Cataclysm. Any Horde player who does those quests is clearly, imo, meant to ponder the question since their own Warchief raises it.
The "Interview" this thread is referencing is actually a propaganda piece.
https://www.eurogamer.net/amp/2018-11-08-world-of-warcraft-and-the-masterplan-for-sylvanas

For example, no one actually says "Sylvanas seems to be going off the rails..". There was no twist at the burning of Teldrassil as there ought to have been. The hype revolving around 'whodunnit' was much ado over nothing. It should be remembered for poor writing which is why articles like this are commissioned- to put ideas in your head that fell flat as they fleshed out. Going forward these articles are what will be referenced, not how players actually felt at the time.

Afrasiabi is effectively retconning Sylvanas' plot point at the Wrathgate. This is likely due to how poorly the BFA story was hacked together. Somewhere in post-production ideas got scrapped due to time or money so now we have what we have, and retconning Wrathgate is something added to mitigate the recent story that fell short.
11/13/2018 04:18 PMPosted by Savanovic
The point of bringing up Garrosh is that a character in game has raised the question of "What difference is there between Sylvanas and the Lich King?", not just players. They deliberately made a character say this, voice acted and all, 8 years ago, during Cataclysm. Any Horde player who does those quests is clearly, imo, meant to ponder the question since their own Warchief raises it.

Right before he calls her a !@#$%. You aren't meant to like Garrosh for that accusation, if that wasn't clear.
11/13/2018 07:21 PMPosted by Mustakraken
You aren't meant to like Garrosh for that accusation, if that wasn't clear.
I'd say nine times out of ten, the people completing that quest are leveling Forsaken who revere their Dark Lady. You even have a personal chat with her later in the questline. Nearly all the quests in Silverpine and into Gilneas are built for a Forsaken playthrough, similar to how Eversong is built for blood elves. Durotar / Barrens / Azshara is different since that's a culmination of four other Horde races (and it's built with that in mind).

Garrosh's intent and usage during the quest was very clearly not designed for any other Horde race. It's for the Forsaken, so this example is obviously going to be from the perspective of a pro-Sylvanas, anti-Garrosh point of view. We leave the quest believing he's a far-flung authority figure imposing his alien sense of morals on actions we've grown to consider necessary for winning the war; in this case, raising the dead. We are undead, after all. The whole "it goes against nature" line, and Cromush actively calling it an abberation[sic] (they meant to spell aberration), is meant to draw feelings of offense from the player.

Now imagine we quested from Garrosh's side as an orc. We listen to him groan about the war not going great and his suspicions of Sylvanas. He's clearly annoyed at his having to micro-manage a conflict she doesn't seem to be handling well, and he actively believes she's lying to him. Then, we show up and discover she's committing what the Warchief considers acts against nature. The whole "Undeath is a curse" crap she talks about constantly apparently doesn't matter anymore because she's happy spreading that curse. Garrosh makes the clear and obvious connection to the Lich King, she leaves a snide remark about serving the Horde, seemingly belittling and dismissing the situation, and he calls her a !@#$%. Perspective shifts a little bit.

Suddenly it seems like Garrosh's words were true, she can't be trusted and we even had to leave behind a Warlord to ensure she doesn't keep abusing her powers. She spent the last three expansions declaring the difference between she and the Lich King was that her people had free will, and yet we just watched her raise some fresh human corpses, and suddenly those troops are just gung-ho gonna serve Sylvanas?

My long winded point in this; you're right, you're not supposed to like Garrosh from that quest, but because that quest was designed with a Forsaken character's point of view at the forefront. Therefore, it's a poor example for anyone's argument, since its basis is inherently biased.
11/13/2018 08:05 PMPosted by Cannibal
My long winded point in this; you're right, you're not supposed to like Garrosh from that quest, but because that quest was designed with a Forsaken character's point of view at the forefront.

Yes! This guy gets it!

Therefore, it's a poor example for anyone's argument, since its basis is inherently biased.

Which was my point there.
11/13/2018 08:05 PMPosted by Cannibal
Therefore, it's a poor example for anyone's argument, since its basis is inherently biased.


My argument is that it's not just the players making the comparison to the Lich King nor is it a recent development. I don't see how pointing out that the writers themselves have done it via giving the Warchief of the Horde a line of voice acted dialogue explicitly raising the question as far back as Cataclysm is a "poor example" just because of the different ways a player character can feel about it.

Regardless of her being like Arthas or not she has been shown to be a very cynical calculating character going all the way back to Warcraft 3. "Retconning" it to make Sylvanas have had a hand in the Wrathgate is not as outrageous as people are acting.

11/13/2018 07:21 PMPosted by Mustakraken
Right before he calls her a !@#$%.


Right after she smugly says "I serve the Horde" as being the only thing that makes her different than the Lich King.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum