So I heard a lot of people say that Sylvanas started her master plan to destroy all cosmic forces the moment she died after WotLK when she met the Jailer for the first time and decided to work with him.
But what if that’s not true and she actually didn’t get the idea until the end of Legion when she picked up Gallywix’s staff filled with Azerite (As I believe it’s said that holding Azerite gives people some kind of bright idas)
Is that possible?
It’s probable that’s when the writers got the idea that Sylvanas had been working this plan since end of Wrath.
It’s no point discussing this at all since there are too many retcons which basically invalidate any claim that this story has been in the works since Wrath.
I think it’s fair to say that Blizzard had a roadmap for Sylvanas long before Legion or Battle for Azeroth.
If you watch this Q&A from 2013 (WoD announcement) where they comment on her, you can almost see in retrospect how their words are just dripping with innuendo:
They knew already then. And it’s the same in other interviews and Q&As from years past whenever it turns to Sylvanas. They always answered in a way where you can tell they’re keeping a secret.
And it makes sense, because WoW is driven by having characters that instigate plans that put things in motion that allows for a story to be built in a way that takes players on a journey to a new place. And Sylvannas, like Garrosh and Gul’dan, is very much a character that can instigate a plan that you can shape entire expansions around.
I don’t think Blizzard has the entire story written in detail decades before it gets rolled out in-game, but the broader picture and the involved characters is probably something they’ve settled on years before it is revealed to us in-game.
First of all thank you so much for linking the vid at the timestamp relevant to this discussion, much appreciated.
Then: ofc the writers think of next stories to tell while working on expacs. And I’m more than ready to admit that I’m pretty sure they wanted to do something Evil with Sylvanas ever since she threw herself of the citadel, and maybe even before that.
However, there have simply been too many retcons (like helm of domination and Frostmourne origins) to be able to believe this SL story is exactly what the writers have been building up to for so many expacs.
So while we can say, with a reasonable amount of certainty, that it was unavoidable Sylvanas was going to end up a raid boss, there is no way to speculate on the hows and whats. Because details from yesterday will be retconned (or changed if you like that word better) to fit the direction the writers want to go today. And tomorrow might tell a different story altogether.
Finally, they have assured us Sylvanas did not burn the world tree. And then she did. I don’t trust one word out of any one mouth of any one Blizzivision employee.
Sure. We know that Blizzard sometimes changes things on the fly because of inspirational reasons. I mean, I remember Metzen saying that Tirion was intended to be the new Lich King, but when he saw how players reacted so emotionally to Bolvar’s defeat at the Wrathgate they decided to change it so Bolvar became the Lich King.
Likewise with Sire Denathrius, Steve Danuser said they also chose to keep him around once they saw how awesome a job the voice actor did with him. And I think the same was true for Bwonsamdi. Cool character, so lets figure out how we can do more with him.
And then there are the cases where things don’t go according to plan and the story changes subsequently. Warlords of Draenor in its entirety is probably a good example of that.
And so on.
There are sort of two definitions for retcons, and I think Blizzard uses the approach where they add new story to old story to make it fit a new development they want (like Illidan not dying at the Black Temple), which is better than the other kind where something objective gets overwritten by something else that’s also meant to be objective (like the origin of the Eredar and Draenei being changed from War III to TBC).
I think it’s all cool. With Warcraft story existing in the mediums it does, some elasticity in the manner by which the narrative flows is entirely reasonable I think. I can’t really imagine how it could ever be otherwise.
And it’s likely the same with Sylvanas. Some loose ideas changing back and forth and then materializing into what we have today with a few odd ends here and there.
I think it is the prerogative of Blizzard to change their minds. Or deceive and tell lies even. It’s their story and theirs to reveal and tell. 
What you are describing here is factually how Blizzard have been handling the wow story. It’s a matter of opinion how one reacts to it. Looks like you are ok with it. I know a lot of people despise the changes made to Draenei backstory, for me I have no bond with the Draenei and so I really don’t care, but maybe I would if I was more into them and their story. And/or started wow/warcraft way before Legion.
However I have mained Forsaken since starting playing wow so obviously Forsaken lore and Sylvanas story is very close to my heart. While plenty of alliance despise Sylvanas, and some by extent the Horde entirely, for burning down Teldrassil.
It’s all a matter of perspective.
However, in your op you want to discuss Sylvanas’ motivations and my point is that it’s not possible to accurately discuss precisely because of how Blizzard handles story. You have elaborately proven my point. We can speculate all we want but the chance (risk) is there that once you do get to a satisfying conclusion, the writers just might add/change to the story to invalidate all that. And that is my problem with how the writers are handling the story.
We can agree to disagree there. But I hate lying and deceiving in general from everyone 
Nah, that’s not necessarily better. It’s just that taking away established lore is almost always a bad idea that takes away from the story (though there are cases where the stuff that is taken away is so bad, that it might be the lesser evil to do it), while retroactively introducing storylines into past content that weren’t set up or planned when they were written, is just most often a bad idea, that cheapens the story it retcons. But quality-wise both kinds of retcon can be equally bad, and I couldn’t really say which was worse on average, I’m personally more annoyed by the kind you find less severe. It’s one thing to declare the past to be a mistake and move on in another direction, but I find it much more offensive to tell me that the story I liked was always part of a story I hate, if it really wasn’t.
Sure. To each his own.
For me a story like Illidan’s where we kill him because he’s a bad guy and later learn that he wasn’t really dead and that he probably wasn’t totally bad either, that’s cool story development to me. It’s fitting for Illidan, to me.
I like it because Blizzard can explain the twist so it makes sense. Yeah he’s a Demon and it’s possible to contain his body and fetch his soul from the twisting nether. And yeah, maybe he was saving the world a bit up there in Black Temple before we rushed in.
I like that. It works for me. I quite welcome it in fact. And I think Blizzard sees it as a cool story development as well.
And it’s not very unique anyway. Superman has died? OMG!! Oh, now he’s back again! What a twist! Oh no, Gandalf sacrificed himself! Oh wait, there he is again, with new clothes! Blah blah blah, insert story that explains how it happened and proceed to start and collect your emotional rollercoaster, yay!
The quality of course, like with all story in Warcraft (and elsewhere), is a bit all over the place.
When we learn that Muradin didn’t actually die after Arthas picked up Frostmourne, and that he was merely knocked unconscious, that’s a twist that diluted the impact of the original story. I don’t like that one.
With Sylvanas I quite like her story as a whole so far. I don’t feel there’s anything that sticks out as a sore thumb – at least not to me.
The other kind of ret-con, where it’s some objective information that gets contradicted by other objective information, that’s probably the kind of ret-con that Blizzard tries to avoid the most themselves, because it’s just confusing.
If the Warcraft III manual says one thing about Draenei and Eredar, then it’s an issue if TBC intro says another.
And Metzen apologized for that and Blizzard tends to hang their head in shame when someone catches them in it (Red Shirt Guy!).
Overall I’m fine with it. I don’t think Warcraft story and lore holds up to extreme scrutiny the way Lord of the Rings or Game of Thrones perhaps does. So you either accept that and enjoy it in a bit more relaxed manner or you become a sour lemon. 
This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.