Talk:Archbishop Benedictus

Trivia issue
Remove the trivia since it's completely nonsense: Benedictus existed far before the Pope got his title and his title. When World of Warcraft started Pope Benedict XVI was simply "Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger" N&#39;Nanz 23:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No dumby, Benedictus has been used by many Popes, not just Bendedict XVII which is why he the XVII. Don't say idiotic things and base every assumption on pure modern perspectives. Acjpb 07:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * My dear stupididiot, saying there were many popes in history named Benedict is totally different from saying that Benedictus took his name because the Pope actually names Benedict as it was told before... N&#39;Nanz 07:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No, it simply states that is where it probably is referenced from. You made a note that Archbishop Benedictus was named that way before Ratzinger was pope. I said, and note so did the older version, that Benedictus has been used by 16 popes, that does not mean we believe it was used in likeness of the current pope, it just states a possible conenction. And I as I have said before, it simply says that is where they probably got the idea from. Acjpb 07:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I myself am a devout Catholic and though it is quite ironic that Archbishop Benedictus's name resembles that of the current pope, Benedictus XVI, it is clear that this is merely ironic as it was not until WoW's second year that Pope Benedict was elected. But, I can see a clear distinction as to why Blizzard chose this name for the Archbishop.  Benedictus in latin simply means prayer or blessing which is the central philosophy to the light and therefore would be an excellent choice for a name for a pious man such as Archbishop Benedictus.  Perhaps Blizzard knew something that we didn't know before Pope Benedict's election (they are on the inside....cats out of the bag, Kaplin is a Cardinal)--Mellar (talk) 02:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow... do you think at Blizzard are all Far Seer!? N&#39;Nanz 07:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yer statments make no sense and can take on no true stable ablities, and must be ignored for future reference. Yer perespective is obviously one of foolishness of distaste towards eithier the Pope or maybe you are simply misguided by modern knowledge. Acjpb 07:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Strange they didn't call him Johann... There were 23 Pope named John in the past or Gregg, do you know existed 16 Pope named Gregory. Oh but that's for certain... The second name of Arthas will be Felix: Do you know there were two antipope with that name? N&#39;Nanz 07:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmmph...nice try, but you have failed. That has no real credibility due to simple foolish remarks. Just because it could be a possible reference to one NPC does not mean any future or existing NPC names are references. Acjpb 08:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

And latin name for Gregory is not Gregg, it is Gregorious. Acjpb 08:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * And please do not try to battle me over papal names and issues, I have read as I have possibly can on the issue. Acjpb 08:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * everybody who'll read will say: omg !!! N&#39;Nanz 08:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, because they will be appauled at yer foolish ignorance and close minded perspectives. Acjpb 08:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

(Sometimes) Ignorance is a bless... (May I sign Cypher?) N&#39;Nanz 08:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You even get yer quotes wrong. It is "Ignorance is bliss..." I would choose knowledge and wisdom rather than ignorance and close-mindedness. And that is a quote only stating that life is much more simpler if one were ignorant. I hope you will learn something soon. Acjpb 08:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * But are you telling "go to school" or "go to church"? N&#39;Nanz 08:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Neithier, but if one truly needs those to learn wisdom and righteous knowledge, than they should. Wisdom is not invoked by spirit, but simply by an understanding of past and present. It is hard to say if school or church would help you achieve wisdom. Acjpb 08:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

...mmm... I don't know. You have read a lot I have lived more, that's it. Bye bye, baby N&#39;Nanz 08:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * How do u honestly know you have lived more? Hmmm? My opinions are based from truth, not fact. What is fact but the opinions of the majority. You put in a good fight, but you come with little grammar, and almost no sensiblity. I hope you change yer ways soon, or one day, you will get lectued for foolishness. Acjpb 08:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well... You know. I'm italian, I come from Rome. My English can't be that good but maybe I know somethink about Popes & co... I know, I know... You ignored this... Just as I already told you have read about it, I have lived it. N&#39;Nanz 08:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, just because you live in the town of the popes, does not mean yer the only one who lives and breaths the pope's existence. Some people in India have lived the pope more than you. Yer enviorment does not change yer knowledge, and does not make it a special effect that can equal to knowledge. And I am sorry that I harassed yer english, if I would have known, I would have not commented. Acjpb 08:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

What on earth was this all about? These talk pages are for discussing the article, not oneupmanship! It is silly (and wrong) to suggest that the name has anything to do with the current pope, but it is fair to say that they may have been influenced by the numerous previous Benedicts. 15:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * As the older version of the article and I have said, It is probable and possible that the devolpers got the name from PREVIOUS popes and NOT the CURRENT pope. At the start of the argument N'Nanz tried to implie that whoever originaly wrote trivia was wrong to the fact that Benedictus got his name before the current pope. Acjpb 17:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a problem with the phrasing of the section - it can be read to imply the incorrect assumption. Shall see about fixing it! 17:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that N'Nanz is right, the current pope's name is Benedictus, there are 15 former popes who have adopted this name, but the sentecne saying that the name might change is nonsense, the Archbishop had is name way before the pope was elcted. 22:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

His idea of mercy for the forsaken
This is shown in the game you can't delete it for no given reason. Zarnks 08:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

O sorry, must have done it by accident. But I still say a reference saying that his name proabaly or possibly was a reference to the papal regal name of Benedictus should exist. Acjpb 08:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

A corrupting influence
Believing in exterminating millions of humans just because of a condition that they got. Zarnks 05:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It is no different to how Judges or Police send people for jail for doing something wrong. Just because their mind was twisted does not mean they are innocent. A high number of undead deserve death, as do all races. But everyone has at least little bit of prejudeuce. Acjpb 06:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * He's calling for the death of every forsaken that most definetly evil. Zarnks 06:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Is it? What about the dozens of people the undead have killed. He only wishes to free their souls. Acjpb 06:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If he wants to kill them all because of the mistakes of some. Why doesn't he just kill everybody. He can't blame every single Forsaken and call for their destruction because of some. There not a single race in Azeroth that hasn't had members that did wrong. Zarnks 06:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

It is not "millions" of humans. It is thousands of undead. Don't misrepresent the issue, Zarnks. It is not "evil" in his eyes and those of his fellows (evil - another word not to bandy around, please), because they are doing it to help them. That may be wrong, but it isn't maliciousness that motivates it. Imagine if zombies took over a major city, zombies that have no problem with converting you to a zombie, and many of whom wish to turn you into one - and zombies that disgust you and stand against most of your ideals. Would you stand by idly? 15:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe misguided is a better word. What he is encouraging is evil even if he is not evil himself. He is condemming millino to death,denying every single forsaken a chance at existance. He's encouraging the complete destruction of every single undead no matter whether they are good or bad. Zarnks 00:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Bishops
Who is the third bishop? I only know of two.Acjpb 06:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Either the one that represents Stratholme and/or Lordaeron, who would have had to flee south for survival. If not it is still probably one that isn't seen in game. However it is a quote from Alliance Player's Guide, and the quote is cited.Baggins 13:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, but don't revert the entire page ust because ONE word. I fixed some important improper grammar. Acjpb 00:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Another was found Bishop Lazaril. OMG it's a she!!! :) --N&#39;Nanz (talk) 22:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

"Facts Not Opinions"
On one of my edits on this page I had said "highly possible". Kirkburn "fixed" it because it was not a "fact" rather an "opinion". Well, in all philosophical perspectives, fact is the opinion of the majority. If were to be in a bus with 50 people in it, and we all saw a hobo walking down the street. 5/15 said he was stalking, and the other 10/15 said he was limping. Because the majority rules, he was limping. He could of really been stalking, but the fact is he was limping. Secondly, I could say, "Oranges are red." Now, that may not be correct, but it is still a fact, a wrong fact, but a fact nontheless. To continue, everyday, about 30 facts are proven and disproven and reproven. So, please, I am not asking you to put back "highly", but merely have a second thought on "facts" and their so called reliability. Thank You. Acjpb 16:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Ever heard of fallacy of appeal to popularity or perhaps maybe biased sample. Just because "majority" might believe something doesn't make it "true" or "fact". ...and lies and fallacies are not "facts" by definition.Baggins 17:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, doesn't it depend on what the other 35 people think?  18:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow, this is the first time someone has responded to one my topics. Well, as I have been told and have read, anything that can't be called an opinion can be called a fact, even though it is not true. There is a big line between fact and opinion. On my other stament, it's like gravity. Majority of Scientists say gravity exists, a bit of them say it doesn't. No matter how small the number, the number still exists. And it doesn't matter if they are wrong or right, whoever the majority is, rules. Acjpb 01:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * At one point, most people believed the sun revolved around the earth - though the evidence was that it was the opposite. Were the majority therefore stating facts?
 * To go back the original change: "Given that Archbishop Benedictus' position as head of the Church of Light is similar to that of a Pope, it is highly possible that the the Archbishop's name is influenced by the papal regal name of Benedictus." The problem there is that 'highly' is a word that argues a position if it has no citation, rather than merely stating it. 02:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Spelling needs correction
"Archbishop Benedictus (formerly Jarl, surname unknown) is the leader IF the Church of the Holy Light..."

Should be:

"Archbishop Benedictus (formerly Jarl, surname unknown) is the leader OF the Church of the Holy Light..." 12:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed. 21:51, July 21, 2010 (UTC)

Twilight Cultist?
In some of Varian's sound files in Cataclysm, he denounces Benedictus as a Twilight Cultist.

"Benedictus! You stand accused of conspiring against the Kingdom, as a member of this Twilight Council! I pray to the Light that these allegations are false."

No word (as yet) on whether the allegations are false, though. Alpha Sigma Sigma (talk) 02:54, July 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Datamined stuff is datamined. We don't talk about it until it's been seen in-game. -- k_d3 03:00, July 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry; didn't realize it was datamined. They were talking about it on the WoW Forums, and they aren't allowed to talk about datamined stuff on the WoW Forums, so I just assumed it wasn't datamined. Alpha Sigma Sigma (talk) 00:43, July 24, 2010 (UTC)

Is this still relevant? I mean, in early beta(or just datamined stuff? I didn't experience it firsthand), he was revealed a traitor, became the Black Bishop and in late beta, the Black Bishop was a 'random' named mob underneath the Cathedral and there is no reference to Benedictus at all. It's most likely the faction traitors Benedictus and Rommath were replaced with Major Samuelson and Sauranok, respectively. Bubba The Crazed (talk) 22:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Honestly, yup! For all we know what we saw/heard was testing. It will probably return later as an interesting questline later. As will also something with Rommath

So why in...
Patch 1.41 did Archbishop Benedictus stage a temporary coup against Bolvar? Anybody know why? Rimor Conscientia (talk) 07:16, July 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about? Patch 1.4.1, since patch 1.41 doesn't exists, told us nothing about a coup and the character article doesn't mention either. To be honest the only time I ever heard of Benedictus staging a temporary coup against Bolvar was in a Naruto/Warcraft crossover fanfic. --Sairez (talk) 07:33, July 25, 2010 (UTC)

http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/patchnotes/patch-05-04-19.html Go here and you'll see that im right Rimor Conscientia (talk) 07:56, July 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * Huh, that is interesting...who knows maybe Blizzard wanted to shake things up for a patch, since Bolvar did become leader in the next patch. --Sairez (talk) 08:04, July 25, 2010 (UTC)

Should we add to the article that the Archbishop had launched a coup against Bolvar?Rimor Conscientia (talk) 17:13, July 25, 2010 (UTC)

It was prolly just a flavor text. Bolver was at that time constantly bugged due to Onxyia Attu chain event (if you remeber she was Lady Prestor who stood next to Bolvar and there was a huge cutscene etc) and therefore was not a good PvP faction leader (since he wasn't attackable by the Horde for most of the time) Encaitar (talk) 19:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Leader of Stormwind?
So I know that since the game was released he's been a level ?? boss (at least until WotLK), and there were Horde raids on him, but does that really warrant changing the succession box to say he was leader of Stormwind? It makes it appear as though he took over briefly for Bolvar, but with nothing in either article suggesting that he was ever in a position of power beyond the church. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 20:59, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Gonna give this another week to see if anyone responds, then I'm removing it again because it makes no sense to list him as succeeding Bolvar when there's nothing in lore to suggest he ever did. Simply because he was considered a faction leader NPC. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 17:59, September 9, 2010 (UTC)

Well the wow Site said he did take over by force so I think we should mention that he launched a coup. Rimor Conscientia (talk) 19:16, September 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * "The WoW site" in this case refers to patch notes, which I think we can agree are completely separate from canon. It's written in such a way that's it's obvious that's it an attempt to BS an explanation for a completely arbitrary change in game mechanics that was soon undone.  It's fine to note that he was considered the in-game faction leader for a time, but the idea that he actually "staged a coup" in lore seems ridiculous.  Flyspeck (talk) 19:22, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

How are patch notes separate from Canon? Rimor Conscientia (talk) 19:38, September 10, 2010 (UTC)


 * Here are the patch notes: http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/patchnotes/patch-05-04-19.html . Though I'm not sure if they are to be taken seriously; what I'm sure is that it must have a mention in the article. Benitoperezgaldos (talk – contribs) 23:01, September 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * The patch notes are separate from canon because they don't refer to lore, they refer to game mechanics. While some parts of the notes typically try to describe new content in a more in-character fashion (primarily the bits about new dungeons, from what I remember), they are by their very nature separate from lore.  I want to make it clear that I don't think the fact that he was considered the in-game faction leader should not be mentioned at all.  Quite the contrary - I think it's rather important that this be mentioned.  However, the context in which the "coup" was mentioned and the fact that it was not referenced anywhere else, not even in game, makes it clear (to me, at least) that the change was simply one of gameplay mechanics, not lore.  - Flyspeck (talk) 03:45, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * As a minor side note, the 1.4.1 patch notes about Benedictus "taking over" as faction leader for a patch were not mirrored on this wiki, which likely contributed to the confusion. This has been rectified. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 03:22, September 14, 2010 (UTC)


 * I see things were removed again about Benedictus as leader.
 * Thought it was for a technical reason, a lore reason was given, and should be considered as real lore not as a joke
 * Archbishop Benedictus staged a temporary coup, and has taken the title of NPC leader of Stormwind City from Highlord Bolvar! Horde seeking to take out the leader of Stormwind should focus their efforts on Archbishop Benedictus for the duration. These changes will remain until the next content patch, when Highlord Bolvar reclaims his rightful throne
 * 19:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Mate it's a joke inside the patch discription... it's not the real lore. there are several things like this in patch notes... Also Benedictus is not a person who would stage a coup... Encaitar (talk) 19:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Right, because Benedictus is going to stage a coup with a planned end that no one is ever going to say anything about, ever. That's not lore, that's flavor text. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah and moreover the fact the he gave it next patch which was a month later and Bolvar spared his life:P Encaitar (talk) 19:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh btw similar text I found quickly "Highlord Demitrian is back! For those players unraveling the mysteries of Thunderaan, you may once more speak with the Highlord. "
 * And oh sry for this another edit but I just recalled why he was changed. Bolvar was bugged at all the time cause of Onyxia event - during Ally attu quest.Encaitar (talk) 19:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's why Blizz first intended Benedictus to be The Black Bishop; and why Milouse Manastorm was only a poor gnome in transdimensionnal prison ship before becoming The Forgemaster of the Twilight Hammer; and hy Arugal was a frustrated power-craving magus before becoming a good man obeing his king.
 * Everyone can do everything as soon as Blizz decides it.
 * 19:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * My point is that the ENTIRETY of the "lore" on his "coup" was a single line in the patch notes. A single line that even specified when Bolvar would be back, and which nobody in-game, at all, has ever said anything about, ever, or even vaguely alluded to. This is an example of trying to take things far too literally. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 19:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Just like Zeratul said, and also as I said he was bugged at all the time cause of Onyxia attu that's why he couldn't be targeted by the Horde raids, and the faction leader status was shifted to him. Heck I think at some point even Jaina Proudmoore had it:P And also why in the world would Bolvar be still in the keep had Benedictus staged the act, and he would still bear the title of Lord Regent (since he did) Encaitar (talk) 19:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree, Blizz often adds jokes in blue posts and patch notes when dealing with errors or bugs. This should be noted on his page, but not considered lore. 20:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The patch notes seem to be a joke. They should be noted verbatim, but I would not take it seriously.-- 22:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)