There are no paradoxes unless you roleplay. Player characters, meaning each individual's personal character, are a part of the canon unless they roleplay. There is nothing in the canon that speaks against this. If they didn't want player characters to be part of the canon, it wouldn't be "nameless adventurers" doing things. You'd instead see more occasions such as where they retconned it to have Varian be the one to slayed Onyxia.
By that logic, I can say that there's an enclave of blonde, bearded, orcish shaman who like to frolic with bunnies and eat spinach off of the backs of boars painted pink, because nothing in the canon that speaks against it. And the fact that there are nameless adventurers doing things MEANS Blizzard knows that specific player characters are not part of the lore. We are a mob, a sea of empty faces. That's how it has been, that's how it will always be.
And you can't have a named character do EVERYTHING in the story. The world's too big for that. It's MUCH more realistic to have the sea of empty faces.
Originally Posted by LostAlgorithm
I'm sorry, I thought we were having a discussion. If you wanted someone who only agrees with you maybe you should have stuck to talking to yourself in the mirror.
Quite frankly, I'm insulted. I have done nothing but attempt to show you what needs to happen for this character to be realistic, and this is what I get? You ignoring what I have to say and trying to have a debate when there isn't any potential for one, and then insulting my purpose?
Originally Posted by LostAlgorithm
I think I've remained very civil despite our disagreements, nowhere did I say your opinion doesn't matter. I very much value your opinion, I simply have different ones and enjoy challenging them. I apologize if it has been taken as anything more than wanting a discussion.
I simply feel that player characters are placed on that pedestal by Blizzard's storyline design choices. There is no paradox unless you try to include all of the other player characters, which is unnecessary. I'm not trying to break lore, I just feel you're too stuck on convention. I don't mean any insult by that, simply that we have differing opinions on a number of fairly ambiguous parts of the lore. I also don't mean to seem like I'm ignoring your opinions or criticisms, I just see very little value in not trying to challenge them. If everyone agreed all the time the world would be a very boring place.
It's not a discussion if you keep your ears closed. You come in and ask for help with this matter, and we tell you what's up in terms of the facts. You ignore those facts and try and minimize the issues we bring up with your idea, when that cannot be done within lore, which is NOT vague or ambiguous. It is quite clear. We are not stuck on convention. We appreciate bending the lore a bit, as long as one knows that they are doing so, but your ideas do not bend lore, they contradict it. You want your character to walk a fine line between light and dark while ignoring the vast amount of cultural issues even beginning to walk that line would create, as well as the very clear dangers that the shadow presents, and you wonder why we are against it? It's not realistic. Your "counter arguments" do not help you prove your point, they only show your lack of knowledge on the culture you are trying for your character to be a part of.
And once again, what is the point of you coming in to ask how to make this work if you aren't willing to be 100% accurate with the lore? You break lore if you place your character on a pedestal. If Blizzard doesn't explicitly state something, then it is theory, at best. Nothing more. Saying "It's canon unless Blizzard says it isn't" is not a valid position. Your character is not canon. Don't pretend he or she is. You are simply deluding yourself, and we cannot help you.
This "discussion" has run its course.
Last edited by The Mister Madgod; 2012-10-28 at 11:26 PM.