Wikia

WoWWiki

Arthas and Ner'zhul

101,554pages on
this wiki

Forum page

Forums: Index WoWWiki general Arthas and Ner'zhul

There is absolutely ZERO reason at all to assume Arthas was somehow the dominant entity of the Lich King. I mean if we were going to assume anyone was dominant (which blizzard has stated that neither is dominant) then you would think Ner'zhul would be the dominant form. It is not right at all to basically state false information on the lore. Blizzard has never stated that "Arthas is the dominant entity of the Lich King". If they have by all means link me something from them that states this and that will completely convince me. I'm going to list you my sources that emphatically back my claim up and see if this can convince you. And these sources were formed well after the release of the book.

-Q. Will Ner'zhul appear at any point in 3.3 or the near future?
A. Well, he is a chunk of the Lich King now. But if you mean will he appear as an orc, we're not ready to tell his story just yet. We have a lot of stories left to tell, but his is a good one.

^ this is from the wow developers chat on twitter well AFTER that book got released. Ner'zhul is not dead nor is he consumed, he is still alive.

-CM Crygil also stated, "He didn't actually erase the persona of Ner'zhul. In point of fact, these two beings merged to make up what was collectively known as "The Lich King", on the official World of Warcraft forums.

-In a quest in howling fjord the lich king specifically states, "I was once a shaman".

These sources alone should completely change your mind about Arthas being "dominant" or somehow being the one entity.

Now these sources completely counteract the ending of the book simply because they came out after the book. We both know how the end of the book ends, with Arthas killing his human form and then he kills off Ner'zhul and he disappears. Sure you can say it could be something metaphoric in a sense. And yes the books are typically canon. And I'm sure you've heard the above arguments before but then just say Arthas is dominant because the books are canon and he kills ner'zhul and his human form.

Here's the part that I think I can convince you with. Notice how I said that they are "typically canon". I'm going to quote Chris Metzen himself and bold the part I want to emphasize, ""...yeah, the novels are pretty much considered canon, ahm, the funny thing is that some things are? less canon, you know, but we shoot for canon... that's a strange statement... we shoot for canon... but yeah, typically the characters in novels are canon."-Chris Metzen the Vice President of Creative Development.

I definitely think the ending scene of the book would easily qualify for "less canon". Simply because the In game lore along with the developers themselves have stated they are both the lich king 50/50 and that neither is dominant. Nothing in the in game lore has you believe that Arthas is somehow the dominant personality. Sure some NPC's call him Arthas but thats because you see his body and lots of them used to have personal ties with him. In game lore has you believe they are both the Lich King and that neither is dominant, from NPC's calling him arthas to the Lich King himself stating, "I was once a shaman". Basically what I'm saying is when in game lore conflicts with something the book says (in which case this definitely does) then the game takes the front seat in the canon argument.

Edit: I also forgot to mention this part. Don't forget what Ner'zhul has done. He basically set archimonde up to die in which the legions invasion was completely obliterated, he wiped out most of the High elves, a good half of the human population, and most importantly.....he deceived the deceiver himself (Kil'jaedan). It makes no sense that Arthas would somehow become the dominant form over one of the most cunning villains in warcraft history. One of Ner'zhuls strong points when he came to Azeroth as the Lich King was being able to mentally overpower his foes and corrupt them (nerubians for example). Just take that into account.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Straider0 (talk · contr).

I want to correct one of those examples and then provide you with two reasons why even if those reasons are true it wouldn't change the outcome of what is going on the page (though maybe some of the wording could be tweaked around). Firstly where Crygil states "He didn't actually erase the persona..." if you click on the citation and go to the actual message on the forums you will see it is a response to someone stating that upon their merger (the event that occured at the end of 'The Frozen Throne') Arthas erased Nerzhul. Crygil corrects him to state they had simply mergered. Even though the conversation took place after the publishing of RotLK they were discussing a specific period of time in the past. It is irrelevant to events that may or may not have happened later. Crygil did not state that that is how they would stay forever and ever, in fact he even used the word 'was' ("to make up what was collectively known as "The Lich King"").
Now the whole premise for changing this article is based on the theory that somehow the ending of RotLK doesn't count, and has basicly been overwritten by these later statements. First of all, that is a subjective matter. The interpretation of the events is a subjective manner, mostly because they are symbolic. You seem to think they contradict but personaly I have no issue fitting all these pieces together as they are. And they are offical sources so our first reaction is to accept them, not dismiss them for subjective reasons. The second and most important reason here is just that: that they are official and canonical. It is true Metzen did in fact make those remarks, however he did NOT specify which novels and which parts and for us to try and decide which novels and which parts would be a HUGE mistake. Wowwiki has a NPoV policy for this reason, we keep personal judgements out of the articles. We are not going to come together and try and decide by comitee what is canon and what isn't. Wowwiki doesn't strive to "get it right" because very inoften is there actualy a right answer, Wowwiki strives to inform and be as transparent as possible. So until someone with official powers specificly states "the ending the Rise of the Lich King is not canonical" i don't see any need to change the article.
I'd like to add that the article was once far more one-sided and i would even say lopsided but compromises were agreed upon and myself and another couple editors actualy pulled it more in the direction you seem to be arguing for.Warthok Talk Contribs 07:10, August 17, 2010 (UTC)
Please explain to me what this is saying.
-Q. Will Ner'zhul appear at any point in 3.3 or the near future?
A. Well, he is a chunk of the Lich King now. But if you mean will he appear as an orc, we're not ready to tell his story just yet. We have a lot of stories left to tell, but his is a good one.
bolded for emphasis
Please tell me how this does not contradict the ending of the book? And please show me where blizzard has stated that Arthas is the dominant personality? Because stating that he is the dominant personality is a personal opinion just as I could say that Ner'zhul is the dominant form. Its a personal opinion. Theres clearly no evidence that states that Arthas is the dominant personality.
Oh and about what crygil said about "was" collectively known as the Lich King.
Has the definition of the Lich King changed because he said "was"? yeah he was talking about the merger, but then you have the developers say that he IS a chunk of the lich king. And yes this was also stated after the book. You couple these things along with in game events and you get absolutely no reason what so ever to assume Arthas is somehow "dominant". The game developers say he is part of the Lich King. The game developers never say neither is dominant. The book effectively states that Arthas stabs ner'zhul in his dream and claims being the Lich King himself. Arthas:" No. We are not one. There is only me. I am the lich king." Ner'zhul disappears. I mean its pretty logical to think that he effectively killed him no? That's exactly how most interpreted it until we had blizzard stating the complete opposite. All official sources from blizzard state that they are both merged 50/50. Please show me some sources stating that Arthas is the dominant entity from blizzard, and by all means I will give in!
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Straider0 (talk · contr).
The ending of the book took place in a mindscape. Nerzhul being stabbed could easily be symbolic of something else other than death. Like I said, I understand all the sources perfectly well and I see no definitive contradictions. This however is pointless. See my second reason about not placing judgement on what is canonical and what isn't. Were not going to dismiss RotLK, period. Notice none of the pages say Nerzhul is dead or gone. The pages WERE edited to make that clear. Chunk of the Lich King is right in the article bold and clear, we don't know however what being a "chunk" of the Lich King encompasses.
As for "dominant", Like I said at the begining of my first post it could use some rewording. I think the compormise was made so it could be kept simple (the list and succesion boxes however are meant to be kept as simple as possible) but its true it might be inaccurate for that reason. Possibly the articles should be restructed for this reason but not at the cost of dismissing the events of RotLK or the fact that Nerzhul's persona has been unheard from in quite sometime, Arthas' persona was the driving force behind most recent events.Warthok Talk Contribs 08:36, August 17, 2010 (UTC)
Discussing the "canonship" of the books is not at all a good idea and neither WoWwiki's goal. One single person decide what is truth and what is lies, and alas The Bourbon Cowboy is not editing on WoWwiki.
Like Warthok (and I on your talk page) said, NPOV has to be respected. Your personnal opinions are already contained (but nuanced) in the article:
  • Ner'zhul AND Arthas were the Lich King all the time
  • As we cannot be sure that Arthas "killed" Ner'Zhul, the community agreed on the terms "Arthas is the dominant part of the entity" (which is not at all "Arthas is the Lich King alone")
No other statements engaging WoWwiki on any side will be added (and tolerated) in the concerned articles.
IconSmall Hamuul Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (talk/contribz) 08:41, August 17, 2010 (UTC)
Yes after thinking it over i'm only further convinced the position taken previously was the correct one. I don't see any other way of structuring the article without dismissing or undermining canonical sources. That being said maybe the word predominant instead of dominant would be a reasonable compromise?Warthok Talk Contribs 08:48, August 17, 2010 (UTC)
@Warthok
I'll start off with your statement,"or the fact that Nerzhul's persona has been unheard from in quite sometime, Arthas' persona was the driving force behind most recent events."
"I was once a shaman" ~ The Lich King in Wrath of The Lich King.
Who are we to say that Arthas persona is the driving force? That's your personal opinion. There's absolutely no evidence of the sort besides NPC's calling him Arthas (it is his body afterall) and most of them have had personal ties with him.
Everything that the Lich King has done in wrath of the lich king has been quite evil no? I think we all agree to that yes?
"Arthas and Ner'zhul have become a perfect fusion of one being - Arthas' personality and body with Ner'zhul's wisdom, experience, power and EVIL." -Chris Metzen, Blizzard VP of creative development
They have BOTH been the driving force behind the events in Wrath of the Lich King. They are both fused as the Lich king after all. We have seen The Lich King with arthas' personality and body (with the way he acts) along with the power and evil that Ner'zhul brings to the table. Once again, you stating that arthas has been the driving force is without a doubt your personal opinion, and you specifically told me not let my personal opinions interfere with the articles, just sayin'. Blizzard let us know solely through that alliance quest that Ner'zhul is in there by stating, "I was once a shaman". I have yet to see you give me any evidence stated from blizzard saying that Arthas is the dominant entity. I wish that we could get a clear cut answer from Chris Metzen himself so we can end this debacle. Oh and speaking of keeping it simple on the succession box, it's more simple and technically an accurate statement (we shoot for accuracy no?) to say that they are conjoined spirits because they technically are. More sources point to that than the one and only source stating differently (the book). We go with the majority decision no?
@Loremaster A'noob
"As we cannot be sure that Arthas "killed" Ner'Zhul". We are actually quite sure with sources stating that he did not kill/erase/consume Ner'zhul. So yes we are quite sure about that.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Straider0 (talk · contr).
Was once a shaman is accurate however implies nothing other than Ner'zhul is or was in there at some point. And Metzen's comment was made long long before RotLK and WotLK. The questlines, interactions, and narration, including that from a third person omniscent view continue to refer back to Arthas. Repeatdly. I know of the shaman quest, but that is the sole exception and even then is very undefinitive. Believe me the editors are quite well versed in warcraft lore and knowing all this still came to the current compromise.
P.S. I think you misread Anoobs comment. He is saying we can't assume Ner'zhul was killed not that we can.Warthok Talk Contribs 09:39, August 17, 2010 (UTC)
I will leave here the debate, just ending to say that
"Arthas and Ner'zhul have become a perfect fusion of one being - Arthas' personality and body with Ner'zhul's wisdom, experience, power and EVIL." -Chris Metzen, Blizzard VP of creative development
Is quote made eons before Arthas: Rise of the Lich King.
And please consider moving to the forums, this is getting heavy.
IconSmall Hamuul Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (talk/contribz) 10:05, August 17, 2010 (UTC)
First off, what I meant to say to anoob is that we are sure that he didn't kill him. And we are quite sure, I'm just clearing that argument up entirely.
Now on to your statement.
"Was once a shaman is accurate however implies nothing other than Nerzhul is or was in there at some point"
This is a personal opinion, that is how YOU interpret the quote of , "I was once a shaman". Ner'zhul was indeed a shaman before he became The Lich King. Logical reasoning leads you to believe that it was Ner'zhul speaking. Just as it would be a logical reason to assume it is Arthas if he stated, 'I was once a paladin'. And yes it absolutely refers back to Arthas because it is his body and personality, as stated by Chris metzen himself. You can't just dismiss what he says about The Lich king being Arthas body and personality, and Ner'zhuls experience, power, wisdom, and EVIL. Yeah it was said before, but there has been no reason at all to dismiss it because it is canonical and straight from the man himself. He has never went back on that statement nor have any of the other blizzard employees. And that explains why we call him arthas, as i said, most of the npcs in game that do call him arthas, (a lot of them simply refer the lich king as the lich king btw) is because they had personal ties with him. It is just easier to refer to him as arthas because thats who you see, you know? An example would be like if i were to somehow become corrupted and evil by another evil entity(Ner'zhul), the people who know me in real life would still refer to me as my real name because they see my body. Corny example but i think it cuts straight to the point i'm referring to.
Also since we are discussing quests and what not, wasn't there a scene in HoR where Uther (its either uther/tirion/terenas, not quite sure) states that the last bit of arthas left in the Lich King is holding back the scourge from overrunning azeroth? I know in the book (as we all know) he "kills" his human side then proceeds to "kill" ner'zhul. And yet he still has some of his humanity holding back the scourge in the Lich King taking place in the actual game.
Also, about your statement, "That being said maybe the word predominant instead of dominant would be a reasonable compromise?"
You mean Arthas being Predominant? Predominant and dominant are basically the same definition. I think the simplest (because you stated you try to keep it simple instead of confusing)idea would be to state the technical truth. They are both the Lich King. We have evidence from the book saying he's been "killed" in a dream then we have evidence from multiple blizzard sources saying they both make up the Lich King and that neither are dominant, they are one in the same. We also have evidence of Metzen saying some things in books are less canon, so that lets you know that not everything you read is the most up to date canon but he doesn't list any actual events from the book, but one can assume since he said that, that some things aren't canon.
It basically comes down to your opinion, my opinion, and everyones opinion on who is in control. We interpret things in our own way, you can interpret the ending of the book in your own way, I interpret it in my own way, others interpret it in their own way. But facts are facts, ultimately the game has the last say (don't forget, the game is just as much canon, if not more so as the books). And the fact is Arthas and Ner'zhul make up the Lich King. Simple and straight to the point, the latest canonical sources state this, therefore on the Lich king/Arthas/Ner'zhul page it should be stated that Arthas and Ner'zhul make up the Lich King. Not Arthas dominant, Not Ner'zhul dominant, thats all a matter of personal opinion and interpretation (which is basically opinion). Simple and straight to the point, no confusion, and accurate.
@anoob, Chris Metzen never took that statement back, who are we to do something like that? Also by forums do you mean the WoW forums or does wow wiki have their own? Currently not subscribed to wow so I cant post and if you have forums here I would love to go to them.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Straider0 (talk · contr).
Forum:Index
IconSmall Hamuul Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (talk/contribz) 10:31, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Also, the actual world of warcraft website itself has its own story titled "Rise of The Lich King" that was implemented on the website with Wrath of The Lich King.

"The Lich King waits now, scheming to lure adventurers down the same dark path that Arthas tread. Frostmourne hungers for the souls of both the brave and the foolish, and somewhere Ner'zhul's voice still echoes within the helm of the Lich King."

"Now, we are one."

Yes thats basically the ending of TFT, but they have it up for Wrath once again on the official WoW wrath site. (Straider0 (talk) 10:36, August 17, 2010 (UTC))

I'm not repeating myself after this, I think I've said all I can. So one last time: While you might have some valid point in there, all those about the books vs the games and their canonicity will be given absolutely no consideration on wowwiki nor will wowwiki ever ignore, or show prefrence to any official source over another. So stop trying to go down that road because it will lead nowhere. Furthermore a few of your points keep refering back to statements made either in the past or about the past, simply because it is not recanted does not make it true forever and ever. Again the matter is simple, the page currently make sense of all official sources and statements the best it can (Yes it does in fact take into consideration Nerzhul's continued existance). It fits. You want us to change that because you interpret a unsurmountable contradiction. I'd have to say no.Warthok Talk Contribs 10:53, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but if you think that stating Arthas is the dominant figure fits it best with no credible evidence and multiple sources stating the opposite then there is just no changing your mind. You come at me saying I'm getting personal and yet you are the one stating your own personal opinions (saying arthas is the driving force because of in game quests and such) and you are obviously injecting that into the pages. And about statements from the past, I'm sure you thought Arthas and ner'zhul made up 50/50 of the Lich king right? Then the book came out and you thought of it completely different right? Same thing goes for his statement, don't just assume its changed when he hasn't stated that at all. Assume it has changed when he actually recants it, which he has not.

I'll state the facts one more time because you seem to want to ignore them. You've got the book stating Arthas "kills" ner'zhul. Then you've got multiple sources stating that isn't true. I'm sorry but those sources aren't MY personal opinion, they are facts. Your response to the book is that "oh you can interpret it anyway you want". Basically saying everyone has their own opinion on it. You have one source saying he kills him in a dream in which YOU interpret it as "oh he just dominant". Then you have TWO sources saying that this is not true at all and that they are both the Lich King and they never say "Arthas is dominant". Two to one. And yet you go with the one source over the other two? Doesn't make any sense at all. And that one source is all a big opinion anyways since it is "open to interpretation" as you say. So its really two direct sources to one opinionated source. I agree that all canon sources should be included on the page, I never said I was against that. Every argument I've thrown at you asking to prove Arthas is dominant, you've done nothing but give your own personal opinion. And not only that I've refuted your opinion with actual in game and out of game facts that you seem to have ignored in my previous post. Everything I've said you have basically stated, "Oh but you can interpret this way and that way" aka giving your opinion on it. Stating that Arthas is dominant on those official WoWwiki pages is an opinion, not a fact. And you yourself stated we don't go by opinions, we go by canonical facts from the direct canonical source. I suggest you put the facts on the page (Arthas and Ner'zhul Making up the Lich King) instead of putting your opinion of "Arthas being dominant".(Straider0 (talk) 11:27, August 17, 2010 (UTC))

Ignoring Arthas: Rise of the Lich King is bad, even with the apparent contradictions. I tried to figure something like this out in a more organized manner on Forum:The Lich King's head.--SWM2448 19:03, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

I'm not against ignoring it, but do you see my gripe here? Saying he is dominant makes zero sense with the contradictions. They say to not use opinions here and yet saying arthas is dominant is an opinion. I say you can easily throw those excerps from the book onto the article and state that there may be a power struggle for control. The whole ending is just an entire interpretation that you take away from it, an OPINION. The sources I have aren't opinions at all. What they have basically done out of the 3 sources is taken one source over the other two. Which is makes no sense at all.

They say they want to make it as simple as possible on the succession page...and the simple thing to do would put that they are conjoined instead of putting their OPINION that he is dominant. Because that what it is, a biased opinion and not a fact. They accuse me of using my own personal opinion when I state the obvious facts that they both make up the Lich King and that neither are dominant. No blizzard employee/developer/Chris Metzen has EVER stated that, ever. Yet they throw that he is dominant anyway and when I ask them for proof from blizzard that he is dominant they dont give me any sources, they give me their personal opinion in which I debunk with in game facts as you can see in the previous posts. Then they say, "I'm done here, you are just giving your opinion" , when it is them who are giving their own opinion (warthok and a'noob). If you want to see how biased the Ner'zhul article is, look at the succession page, LOOK at the sources they use to come up with it. The books and ONLY the books. No mention of any of the sources I have put forth. I wonder why that is? As I said, they are using one source over the other TWO. (Straider0 (talk) 04:32, August 18, 2010 (UTC))

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki