Forsaken Paladins, do they make sense?

[Aucald]

This is mental gymnastics, the power of death has existed outside of shadowlands since warcraft 3, we know for a fact that the lich king powers come from there and every undead and necromancer in azeroth can trace its roots to the lich king. The necromancy that people in Azeroth practice is the same as the shadowlands, why do you think that the scourge have liches and abominations, the same as maldraxus.

The context of the Sin´dane quote is that it is a part of a conversation with Calia and Calia being a light undead is a recent development in lore, every undead that came before her all the way back until warcraft 3 was raised by the same magic they practice in shadowlands.

No, it's neither mental gymnastics and you're factually wrong about the "power of Death" itself as a form or wavelength of magical energy. Death, both as a concept and as a primordial essence, didn't exist until the release of Chronicle Vol. 1 - which came out in 2016, not 2002. Necromancers also predate the existence of the Lich King, as the orcs had Necrolytes, who are themselves Necromancers, who could raise the dead as undead before Ner'zhul ever became the Lich King. Similarly, Gul'dan created the first generation of Death Knights before the Lich King existed as well. Scourge Necromancers do practice the same form of Necromancy as the Maldraxxi do, though; for all that matters to the discussion.

The context of Sin'dane's quote goes to show that Necromancy is not solely powered by the energies of Death and that no matter what energy gives rise to the undead, the principles of Necromancy remain the same. This is both literally and figuratively the meaning of her quote, impossible to either deny or ignore.

- - - Updated - - -

Srsly, isn't forsaken paladins death knights?

No. Death Knights wield the power of Frost, Blood, and Unholy via runic magic. Paladins are directly infused by the Light and wield their power in the form of luminous and Holy-aspected magic. If a member of the Forsaken was made a Paladin, they'd be using very different abilities from a Death Knight (which Forsaken can already be).

[SilverLion]

No, it's neither mental gymnastics and you're factually wrong about the "power of Death" itself as a form or wavelength of magical energy. Death, both as a concept and as a primordial essence, didn't exist until the release of Chronicle Vol. 1 - which came out in 2016, not 2002. Necromancers also predate the existence of the Lich King, as the orcs had Necrolytes, who are themselves Necromancers, who could raise the dead as undead before Ner'zhul ever became the Lich King. Similarly, Gul'dan created the first generation of Death Knights before the Lich King existed as well. Scourge Necromancers do practice the same form of Necromancy as the Maldraxxi do, though; for all that matters to the discussion.

The context of Sin'dane's quote goes to show that Necromancy is not solely powered by the energies of Death and that no matter what energy gives rise to the undead, the principles of Necromancy remain the same. This is both literally and figuratively the meaning of her quote, impossible to either deny or ignore.

- - - Updated - - -



No. Death Knights wield the power of Frost, Blood, and Unholy via runic magic. Paladins are directly infused by the Light and wield their power in the form of luminous and Holy-aspected magic. If a member of the Forsaken was made a Paladin, they'd be using very different abilities from a Death Knight (which Forsaken can already be).

Is the issue that the traditional form of shadow Magic based necromancy doesn't play well with Light magic? Because while that's true they've softened up on that so much its kind of irrelevant. Like, realistically there's no reason Calia doesn't use Light based magic just fine because her should isn't bound through an opposite force. The way it was in the past was that Shadow Magic made for a bad bonding agent, which made undead, forsaken included, half insane usually. But we've no indication the Light has any such side effects.

[Shadowferal]

Srsly, isn't forsaken paladins death knights?

That would make the most sense. But the way the narrative changes as to make lore into so much bullshit "unholy knights" would likely be a sensible compromise.

[Aucald]

Is the issue that the traditional form of shadow Magic based necromancy doesn't play well with Light magic? Because while that's true they've softened up on that so much its kind of irrelevant. Like, realistically there's no reason Calia doesn't use Light based magic just fine because her should isn't bound through an opposite force. The way it was in the past was that Shadow Magic made for a bad bonding agent, which made undead, forsaken included, half insane usually. But we've no indication the Light has any such side effects.

Lore-wise, the use of Light-based magic is excruciating to the Forsaken specifically - not only does it make them more aware of their rotting, desiccated bodies but according to the CDev interviews:

When undead channel the Light, it feels (to them) as if their entire bodies are being consumed in righteous fire. Forsaken healed by the Light (whether the healer is Forsaken or not) are effectively cauterized by the effect: sure, the wound is healed, but the healing effect is cripplingly painful. Thus, Forsaken priests are beings of unwavering willpower; Forsaken (and death knight) tanks suffer nobly when they have priest and paladin healers in the group; and Sir Zeliek REALLY hates himself. (Source)

Calia does make use of Light-based magic without any evident pain or discomfort as well, which is showcased in the Forsaken heritage quests when she uses a shield of Light to protect herself and the PC from the Blight in the Tirisfal Glades to collect a pure sample of it. Calia can presumably use the Light without issue because her undeath is a product of it, so there's no Shadow or Void magic in her makeup that would provoke a dissonant energetic reaction that would be perceived as pain.

It's been a long-standing point of lore that the reason for the Forsaken and their reaction to wielding or being subjected to the Light is a product of the Shadow magic used to cause their undeath - either directly from Scourge Necromancy, or from the Plague of Undeath (itself a mix of Shadow, Nature, and Fel magic).

[SilverLion]

Lore-wise, the use of Light-based magic is excruciating to the Forsaken specifically - not only does it make them more aware of their rotting, desiccated bodies but according to the CDev interviews:

When undead channel the Light, it feels (to them) as if their entire bodies are being consumed in righteous fire. Forsaken healed by the Light (whether the healer is Forsaken or not) are effectively cauterized by the effect: sure, the wound is healed, but the healing effect is cripplingly painful. Thus, Forsaken priests are beings of unwavering willpower; Forsaken (and death knight) tanks suffer nobly when they have priest and paladin healers in the group; and Sir Zeliek REALLY hates himself. (Source)

Calia does make use of Light-based magic without any evident pain or discomfort as well, which is showcased in the Forsaken heritage quests when she uses a shield of Light to protect herself and the PC from the Blight in the Tirisfal Glades to collect a pure sample of it. Calia can presumably use the Light without issue because her undeath is a product of it, so there's no Shadow or Void magic in her makeup that would provoke a dissonant energetic reaction that would be perceived as pain.

It's been a long-standing point of lore that the reason for the Forsaken and their reaction to wielding or being subjected to the Light is a product of the Shadow magic used to cause their undeath - either directly from Scourge Necromancy, or from the Plague of Undeath (itself a mix of Shadow, Nature, and Fel magic).

That's pretty much what I thought yeah. So basically you can completely solve this issue by releasing a funky "Light glow" skin texture for Forsaken alongside the Paladin class and you've got your lore justification. It's far less complicated than people are making it. Sure it's clunky, but so are playable Man'ari so no reason to overtime it imo.

Despite what some people claim, I'll never buy Blizzard lore as so sacred it can't be rule-of-cooled.

[Aucald]

That's pretty much what I thought yeah. So basically you can completely solve this issue by releasing a funky "Light glow" skin texture for Forsaken alongside the Paladin class and you've got your lore justification. It's far less complicated than people are making it. Sure it's clunky, but so are playable Man'ari so no reason to overtime it imo.

Despite what some people claim, I'll never buy Blizzard lore as so sacred it can't be rule-of-cooled.

I mean that's pretty much what I said a few pages back, yeah. You can just have a questline where any given Forsaken gets their Shadow bits extracted and replaced with the Light, becoming a being similar to Calia and able to be a Paladin without issue. Doesn't require any significant retcons to the existing lore, and easily something that could happen with a mix of the Rule of Cool and A Wizard Did It tropes.

[SilverLion]

I mean that's pretty much what I said a few pages back, yeah. You can just have a questline where any given Forsaken gets their Shadow bits extracted and replaced with the Light, becoming a being similar to Calia and able to be a Paladin without issue. Doesn't require any significant retcons to the existing lore, and easily something that could happen with a mix of the Rule of Cool and A Wizard Did It tropes.

Yeah thats what I figured. I was genuinely confused for a bit why you (or anyone) had to clarify such an obvious stance. There's not really an argument to be made against Forsaken Paladins, or anything else at this point. Personally i'd love more race/class specific lore but Legion absolutely killed the fuck out of that. I don't see it coming back so might as well just enjoy the ride.

[Piamonte]

didn't exist until the release of Chronicle Vol. 1 - which came out in 2016, not 2002.

So what im supposed to understand from this??, that new lore doesnt retcon old lore? that Chronicles doesnt have more weight as a lore source than an old dev statement from 2012 or anything that came before?. How can you even treat the Sin´dane quote as relevant if that is the case??.

Necromancers also predate the existence of the Lich King, as the orcs had Necrolytes

As i already said before, old lore says that arcane + all evil magics are one and the same, thats why guldan can use void magic, summon demons and raise the undead at the same time. What we must understand nowadays (according to the new lore) is that each magic is a separate force and thus Guldan simply was a skilled spellcaster and could use different types of magic.

Does it even say anywhere that Guldan and the first generation death knights used void magic to raise the undead? (or fel for that matter).

Scourge Necromancers do practice the same form of Necromancy as the Maldraxxi do, though; for all that matters to the discussion.

It matters, Maldraxus is a realm of death, they use death magic, if scourge necromancers practice the same form of necromancy then they also use death magic as well. This alone proves that the dev statement is outdated, because that statement refers to the undead of W3.

The context of Sin'dane's quote goes to show that

The context of the quote is the conversation with Calia, Calia is a light undead, she is trying to understand her condition because she was raised using the light, that is when Sindane says that necromancy can be powered by other sources of magic, she is refering uniquelly to her, she is not speaking about the necromancy used in Maldraxus or the one that the denizens of Azeroth use, because those are both powered by death magic.

[Aucald]

So what im supposed to understand from this??, that new lore doesnt retcon old lore? that Chronicles doesnt have more weight as a lore source than an old dev statement from 2012 or anything that came before?. How can you even treat the Sin´dane quote as relevant if that is the case??.

Not automatically, no. New lore is just that - new lore, as in new information, that either provides extended detail or further info on related subjects. If there's a conflict, then the new lore supersedes the old lore, but since there isn't a conflict here, why would it retcon anything? Sin'dane's quote is relevant because it establishes that there's no retcon at play.

As i already said before, old lore says that arcane + all evil magics are one and the same, thats why guldan can use void magic, summon demons and raise the undead at the same time. What we must understand nowadays (according to the new lore) is that each magic is a separate force and thus Guldan simply was a skilled spellcaster and could use different types of magic.

No, old lore doesn't actually say that, and even before Chronicle there were differing and overlapping schools of magic, the same as currently in actuality.

Does it even say anywhere that Guldan and the first generation death knights used void magic to raise the undead? (or fel for that matter).

We don't really know what kind of magic Gul'dan or the original Death Knights used, no. Based on the descriptions of their spells from the original material, it seems a mix of sources were used: Shadow, Fel, Decay, and so on. Most of these abilities are more colorfully described as the "dark essence of Hell," "dark energy," and so on. You can make your own conclusions as to what this entails.

It matters, Maldraxus is a realm of death, they use death magic, if scourge necromancers practice the same form of necromancy then they also use death magic as well. This alone proves that the dev statement is outdated, because that statement refers to the undead of W3.

Again, you ignore what Sin'dane said - Necromancy isn't about the energy being used, it's about the *process* of using said energy, any energy, to animate undead flesh. Scourge Necromancers use the science of Necromancy that was pioneered in Maldraxxus, but that doesn't mean they use the explicit power of Death. We don't even know if they even can wield that power, to be honest. Sin'dane's quote shows that there's no need to retcon existing lore because the existing explanations work just fine.

The context of the quote is the conversation with Calia, Calia is a light undead, she is trying to understand her condition because she was raised using the light, that is when Sindane says that necromancy can be powered by other sources of magic, she is refering uniquelly to her, she is not speaking about the necromancy used in Maldraxus or the one that the denizens of Azeroth use, because those are both powered by death magic.

It addresses Calia's immediate question, but Sin'dane's explanation is more encompassing than just her concern about being resurrected by the Light. You are trying to ignore the full context of the quote in some scramble to prove yourself right when the quote itself goes against what you've maintained this entire time. If Sin'dane was only talking about Calia's plight, she wouldn't have said "Death or Light or any other magic, necromancy is necromancy." When she refers to Death magic, she also explicitly says it's the kind used in Maldraxxus - nowhere else, implicitly or explicitly.

Again, this topic is beside the point and I'm tired of repeating myself unnecessarily. I consider the matter closed - you can reply if you want, but I'm unlikely to contribute further to this pointless aside.

[Piamonte]

No, old lore doesn't actually say that

This is the Archimonde monologue before he destroys dalaran:

"Let this scar signify the first blow against the mortal world. From this seal shall arise the doom of men, who, in their arrogance, sought to wield our fire as their own. Blindly they built their kingdoms upon stolen knowledge and conceit. Now they shall be consumed by very flame they thought to control".

and even before Chronicle there were differing and overlapping schools of magic

There were different SCHOOLS, but they all had the same SOURCE (as per the same link you provided a while ago: "The Schools of Arcane Magic - Necromancy"), which is arcane magic, the only type of magic there was back then apart from nature and the light.

Most of these abilities are more colorfully described as the "dark essence of Hell," "dark energy," and so on. You can make your own conclusions as to what this entails.

You can make your own conclusions too, this is another proof of what im saying, back then all magic were one and the same, all magic came from the "hell" meaning, the twisting nether, which was the source of what we now understand as arcane and fel magic and it was also probably the source of void magic, which explains why warlocks summon voidwalkers since wow classic. Everything add up.

Scourge Necromancers use the science of Necromancy that was pioneered in Maldraxxus, but that doesn't mean they use the explicit power of Death.

So lets me see if i understand correctly:

-Shadowlands is the plane of death where they use death magic.
-the helm of domination and frostmourne were both created and empowered in the shadowlands.
-The lich king used said magic to empower his death knights and taught his necromancers to use that very same power.
-The results of the use of that power are monsters such as liches and abominations, the same we can find in the shadowlands....

BUT SOMEHOW THE LICH KING AND ALL THE NECROMANCERS THAT CAME AFTER USE VOID MAGIC TO POWER THEIR SPELLS AND NOT DEATH MAGIC???!!!! HOW IN THE WORLD DOES THAT MAKE SENSE???!!!!!.

nowhere else, implicitly or explicitly.

So the lich king magic doesnt come from the shadowlands?? The uther cinematic where Devos realizes that the magic of the jailer have been used outside shadowlands just didnt happen?.

I consider the matter closed

How humble and not at all arrogant or hypocritical.

[Ersula]

Besides Light Undead in Harrowfall & Drakthyr learning how to be any other class in less than a year in TWW, I think we've put the entire topic to bed.