What have we seen with Uther and what have Blizzard said about Kingsmourne that allows you to draw the above conclusion?
Uther with his soul split was able only to recall the moment of his death and the rage he felt towards Arthas, even when he sided back with the Kyrian he knew there was a lot of him that was lost and only after we get back his soul crystal he can start to heal and become his old self.
I can’t find right now the official source but it’s been said that when a mourneblade strikes with anger (not even specified if the wielder’s or the victim’s) the victim’s soul gets split, one part going in the blade (and turned into the crystals we see in the Maw).
2 Likes
No. When he arrives in Bastion he very much seems aware of more than the moment of his death. Here’s part of the conversation he has with Devos:
Uther: I serve the Light. And my work is not done. There is an evil that must be s–
Devos: There is no evil here. The darkness was sealed within the Maw long ago.
Uther: You’re wrong. He destroyed my home, murdered my people and my king. He must be punished.
So there’s no implied amnesia because your soul is split. You’re very much still you.
And you arrive in the afterlife with the mind that you had in your mortal life, and Uther’s mind is of course one of upset. His justice is faltering in his desire for vengeance. As he says when he throws Arthas into The Maw:
Devos: Remember what he did and take your vengeance.
Uther: Not vengeance. Justice.
And later in the Kyrian campaign he of course realizes that he was wrong and was led astray.
Yeah but again, that has nothing to do with his prior personality or actions in life or afterlife.
What the story is implying is that restoring the soul is a traumatic process that forces the person to experience tainted memories of their past and come to terms with them. A sort of cleansing of the soul, if you will.
Yeah and we’ve seen that. But it still doesn’t imply that the person is a fundamentally different person after their soul has been split. They’re still themselves. Their soul is simply wounded.
Sorry, I don’t really agree with your assessment here, and you’re drawing some conclusions that I do not.
Oh c’mon Uther himself says so (Not that he doesn’t remember anything else but that that moment was the only thing he could focus on) and his persona is totally different as he would have never be so easily manipulated by Devos and overall he behaved more as a zealot which he never was.
And yes it’s also being heavily implied (unless some evidence to the contrary appear) that having your soul split means that part of you as a person is missing.
2 Likes
I don’t agree at all.
Wen Uther arrives in Bastion he feels an urgent need for justice through retribution, because his last memory is that of Arthas killing him – after he has just killed the other Paladins, murdered the king, and burned down Lordaeron.
Devos ends up offering him vengeance under the guise of justice. Arthas is already defeated. It is not justice to punish – that is vengeance.
Uther lies to himself and throws Arthas into The Maw anyway, claiming it is Justice.
So far nothing has to do with the fact that his soul is split and wounded, except for the fact that he cannot find peace in the afterlife, because the pain of the wound is a constant reminder of what happened to him in life.
Anyway, after the Foresworn campaign Uther comes to realize that he was led astray and that his actions were immoral. He gave into his emotions for an unjust cause.
And then he goes with the Paragon of Wisdom to contemplate his situation.
Again, this is just Uther being Uther. It still has nothing to do with his soul and everything to do with the emotional rollercoaster of seeing his pupil Arthas murder the King, burn down Lordaeron, and proceed to kill Uther himself. So when he arrives in the afterlife he is not able to immediately find peace. Instead he gives into his anger and desire for vengeance.
The lesson here is not that Uther’s soul is split and therefore he did bad things. The lesson is that Uther is emotionally hurt and therefore he acted out of anger. That even the noblest of Paladins is not infallible. He is Human.
And when we later go to retrieve the part of Uther’s soul that is missing, it does not restore anything to him that changes who he is. He was Uther before and he is still Uther afterward. He simply gets spiritually healed.
The process of restoring a wounded soul is seemingly a traumatizing experience that forces the individual to relive twisted memories of their past and come to terms with them to find peace in their soul. That is the path to healing.
That’s it.
So that’s what Sylvanas is going through now. In the cinematic, after The Jailer gives her back the remaining part of her soul, we see her hand go to her heart before she staggers, falls over, and goes unconscious.
So she is likely going through the same process of spiritual healing. She has to come to terms with her past in order to heal her soul and find inner peace.
A recreation of the Purge of Stratholme starring redeemed Arthas and Bad Uther: https://youtu.be/7gCo8fajC7o
Arthas was innocent all along.
(Apologies, this post adds nothing of value to the thread)
3 Likes
i hope they don’t change her personality with giving a piece of her soul back.
Blizzard has to stay consistent, the mechanism of death is wrong and has to change no matter the cost.
Of course they don’t change her personality. It would defeat the whole point of the story they’re trying to tell.
I’m not sure why the community has gotten itself all wrapped up in that idea.
The proposed way is already impossible, as “blue-eyed” Sylvanas is not the one, that shoot into Jailers face. It`s just another person with same appearance.
But actions of banshee-qween could be explained in that way retrospectively.
What do you mean?
What happened to Sylvanas (and maybe will happen to Arthas) is not redemption. It`s substitution. They just add a new part of personality to the character. Part so essential that it, in fact, substitutes one character with another.
You just cannot accuse this “new” Sylvanas for Teldrassil and other things (I, personally think, that she did nothing wrong) as now it`s not the Sylvanas that burnt Teldrassil - her “good” part was imprisoned in Torgast (and likely tortured) all the time and may not bear any resposibility for what “dark” part has done.
Part of me wants for Blizzard to push really hard on the change of character and have Sylvanas behave like Dabura in paradise when he becomes so massively “good” that it hurts even watching him.
1 Like
Recently someone brought up another canon-accurate possibility as alternative to the “it was all a dream”:
gl hf
General disagreement on the concept aside, there is another thing to consider. It does not require answers, but just is something to think about.
Since Warcraft is not a fresh IP, and has the “pre-installed” audience, what to do, if the story, however much creators like it or want to sell, but the audience is not interested in buying it?
gl hf
2 Likes
I still consider it an artistic product at its core and so the artists should ideally have total freedom to express their art as they please.
That is kind of what I am paying them for. That they make WoW. Not that random people on the internet directs their hand.
Ideally speaking, of course.
That’s not related to the problem mentioned though.
Sure, feel free to support that you think is right.
gl hf
2 Likes
It is. In my opinion the solution to the so-called problem is that Blizzard should simply forge ahead with the story they want to tell. I don’t think the audience has any right to dictate the narrative of the story told, regardless of whether it is a popular story or not.
That may not be Blizzard’s chosen approach, I wouldn’t know. If they need a solution to be more popular and appeal to the lowest denominator, then they can always introduce a boob slider. But I’m not personally going to advocate for a trend in gaming that just aims to please the masses for the heck of it – and certainly not when it comes to story either.
I wonder how much freedom these artists actually have. It’s been a trend lately that experienced game developers are leaving their big budget game companies to chase their dreams on the indie scene. We have veterans like Drew Karpyshyn from BioWare coming out and explicitly stating that the company felt more “corporate” as they became more successful. https://www.pcgamer.com/mass-effect-writer-drew-karpyshyn-says-he-left-bioware-because-it-became-too-corporate/
I don’t think Activision-Blizzard cares about the art. Perhaps individual developers do, but the main purpose of World of Warcraft is to generate money.
1 Like
Sure. I’m not blue-eyed to the fact that Blizzard aren’t sitting in an isolated bunker whilst they’re making World of Warcraft, oblivious to input from the outside.
I’m just saying that – in my personal opinion – I would ideally prefer if they were sitting in an isolated bunker and made World of Warcraft without any input from the outside.
I’m not here to argue on behalf of “the player audience” or “corporate companies”. I’m simply saying how I ideally want Blizzard to work based on my own preferences.
If people don’t like the story, then as far as I’m concerned, tough luck. Too bad. The show goes on. I don’t see that as a problem Blizzard needs to address. They might – and likely do. But I don’t.
Okay, ideally speaking… whose artistic vision would we be talking about? I can understand how people can have a vision, but a corporation? Are we really supposed to buy that a corporation can be an artist? Because I really, really don’t. Sure, corporations can create the art of people, but if the people change, the art changes. And Blizzard regularly switches out the people, even the ones at the very top. Blizzard doesn’t have an artistic vision. Metzen, Afrasiabi, Danuser and Golden might have one, but we’re really not talking about the same visions there.
So what are you saying? We shouldn’t try to change the product, or see the changing nature of the story as a problem, as long as someone, no matter who, had free artistic input in it at some point? Or as long as the collective owns the legal rights to mess with it?
1 Like
Yes, that’s what I’ve said quite a few times now. I feel like I have elaborated plenty on that point, so I’ll refer back to my prior posts for further explanation.
You’ve also said it was an artistic product. Clearly I find your thinking to be very, very alien, so yeah, I might ask you to repeat it one time or five, since it just won’t compute for me.
1 Like