Page 19 of 41 FirstFirst ...
9
17
18
19
20
21
29
... LastLast
  1. #361
    It's not gonna happen because China.

  2. #362
    Quote Originally Posted by kenn9530 View Post
    Considering every single warlock was once a mage that proves it comes easy to them,
    Conjecture, at best.

    This is like saying that every General in the military was once a Colonel, so becoming a General must be easy for Colonels. That's nonsense.

    Where's your source that every Warlock was once a mage? Or that it comes easy for every mage?

    there is no redeeming factor in a necromancer
    Projection, head canon and personal opinion.

    The same was said about Death Knights prior to Wrath of the Lich King yet we have them as playable. So even if this were true, it doesn't keep them from being a playable class

    most problems in azeroth come from necromancers.
    Unequivocally False. The Burning Legion isn't necromancers, Old Gods aren't necromancers, the Scarelt Crusade aren't necromancers, the Defias Brotherhood aren't necromancers, Ogres aren't all necromancers, the Black Dragonflight weren't necromancers, Garrosh wasn't a necromancer, The Iron Horde weren't necromancers....

    Look I get that in your opinion they won't make good player characters, that's fine. Stop trying to pass that opinion off as fact, especially when the lore doesn't really support your opinion, and understand that the lore can change just like it did when they made Death Knights be creating a faction of them that with ideals aligned somewhat with the Horde and Alliance. The same exact thing could happen with Necromancers.

  3. #363
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    So when my DK's Ghoul mauls someone to death, or when it's Blood Plague or Death and Decay ticks them to death that's my sword and not my necromancy at work?



    More semantics... Wonderful.

    Howabout we just call the DK what it is; a Necromancer. It's entire ability set is based on necromancy.



    Healing with holy magic isn't the sole purpose of the Paladin class. For that matter, healing with holy magic isn't the sole purpose of the Priest class either.

    The sole purpose for a Necromancer class is to use necromancy. DKs already do that.



    Mages uses frost, fire, and arcane magic. Shaman use elemental magic. There is no hinderance because they are fundamentally different classes. The difference being pushed for a necromancer and a DK is no different than an elemental shaman and an enhancement shaman.



    Yeah, the problem is none of that is out of place in the DK class. In fact, all of that could easily go into any DK spec and no one would bat an eyelash. In fact, DKs have had Golems, Oozes and Pest swarms in the past.
    Yeah, imagine if WoW had two classes that basically had the same theme, one being a priest, and other other one being some sort of holy warrior guy who uses the same spells but also uses a melee weapon. Crazy, I know.

  4. #364
    The Unstoppable Force Ielenia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    21,877
    Quote Originally Posted by kenn9530 View Post
    Its up to the user to choose to eat a corpse, they could use it on beasts but that racial barely gets used as it is sinces its pretty useless, so its not the class its the user that makes the choice since they dont have to eat corpses.
    Again, you're making a distinction that does not exist. And even that argument of yours falls apart when we have death knight players that keep desecrating the corpses of the dead, and death knight NPCs doing the same. By their "own free will that they regained" according to you.

    Destroying an enemy soul is also no problem, its not destroying it and using it for necromancer purposes thats an issue,
    Really? So you're fine with warlocks using the souls of dead people to summon demons? But to animate the dead that's somehow a "no-no"? This a huge double-standard, not to mention you're actually fine with destroying a person's essence for good. As long as it's not to animate a corpse.

    as a deathknight you dont need to use your necromatic powers as its the player that chooses to do so.
    "Player agency" is not something that exists in the lore.
    "Torturing someone is not an evil thing to do if it is done for good reasons" by Varodoc
    "You sit in OG/SW waiting on a Mythic+ queue" by Altmer <- Oh, the pearls in this forum...
    "They sort of did this Dragonriding, which ushered in the Dracthyr race." by Teriz <- the BS some people reach for their narratives...

  5. #365
    Quote Originally Posted by TheRevenantHero View Post
    There are plenty of Forsaken that DIDN'T agree with Sylvanas and rebelled against her. Necromancers literally have absolutely no redeeming qualities and every necromancer in lore has been some shade of evil.
    That's because Necromancers have traditionally been enemy NPCs.

    You could say the same thing about Warlocks and Death Knights.

  6. #366
    The Unstoppable Force Ielenia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    21,877
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Howabout we just call the DK what it is; a Necromancer. It's entire ability set is based on necromancy.
    I'll call the death knight for what it truly is: a death knight. It's funny how you erroneously accuse others of using "semantic nonsense" but here you are engaging in what you call "semantic nonsense".
    "Torturing someone is not an evil thing to do if it is done for good reasons" by Varodoc
    "You sit in OG/SW waiting on a Mythic+ queue" by Altmer <- Oh, the pearls in this forum...
    "They sort of did this Dragonriding, which ushered in the Dracthyr race." by Teriz <- the BS some people reach for their narratives...

  7. #367
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    So when my DK's Ghoul mauls someone to death, or when it's Blood Plague or Death and Decay ticks them to death that's my sword and not my necromancy at work?



    More semantics... Wonderful.

    Howabout we just call the DK what it is; a Necromancer. It's entire ability set is based on necromancy.



    Healing with holy magic isn't the sole purpose of the Paladin class. For that matter, healing with holy magic isn't the sole purpose of the Priest class either.

    The sole purpose for a Necromancer class is to use necromancy. DKs already do that.



    Mages uses frost, fire, and arcane magic. Shaman use elemental magic. There is no hinderance because they are fundamentally different classes. The difference being pushed for a necromancer and a DK is no different than an elemental shaman and an enhancement shaman.



    Yeah, the problem is none of that is out of place in the DK class. In fact, all of that could easily go into any DK spec and no one would bat an eyelash. In fact, DKs have had Golems, Oozes and Pest swarms in the past.
    The sole purpose of paladins and priests is to use the Light, just in different ways. A necromancer would use death magic in WAY different ways than a DK does. I'd ask why you refuse to see that but I know it's because you are allergic to admitting when you're wrong.

  8. #368
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    So when my DK's Ghoul mauls someone to death, or when it's Blood Plague or Death and Decay ticks them to death that's my sword and not my necromancy at work?
    You said 'Necromancy is all they can do'. I corrected you in that they are Martial combatants who use Necromancy, and Swordplay is the heart of the Death Knight archetype.

    Necromancy is not the 'all they can do'.

  9. #369
    Herald of the Titans TigTone's Avatar
    3+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    Westfall
    Posts
    2,747
    Quote Originally Posted by TheRevenantHero View Post
    The sole purpose of paladins and priests is to use the Light, just in different ways. A necromancer would use death magic in WAY different ways than a DK does. I'd ask why you refuse to see that but I know it's because you are allergic to admitting when you're wrong.
    You can say the necromancer could use all the abilities of the Shadowlands Covenants and the Maw.

    And Teriz would still say “no no no no I will not accept a necromancer range classes and because Teriz is not mentally (imagination/creativity) capable of processing the existence of a range death theme class along side a melee death theme class.

  10. #370
    Merely a Setback Teriz's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Soul of Azeroth
    Posts
    29,818
    Quote Originally Posted by TheRevenantHero View Post
    The tinker abilities from WC3 aren't canon and don't exist in WoW. If they did, we would have seen at least ONE NPC using them. We haven't and the game has been around for 16 years. Those abilities simply don't exist. It doesn't fucking matter if the HotS abilities aren't in game or whatever because it's not a warcraft game. You are literally arguing semantics while trying to claim you're not using semantics. It'd be funny if it wasn't the base of every single point you try to make.
    That entire post is laden with hilarious contradictions.

    "WC3 abilities don't exist in WoW, but if they do exist it doesn't matter because no NPC is using them!"

    So what's the requirement here? An NPC using them or them existing?

    "WC3 abilities aren't canon because they don't exist in WoW. HotS abilities exist in WoW but they don't count because they didn't come from a Warcraft game!"

    So if an ability is canon because it exists in WoW, wouldn't the Tinker's HotS abilities be canon since they DO appear in WoW?

    Where am I arguing semantics? I said quite plainly that the Hunter or Engineering can't be considered substitutions for the Tinker because they don't contain its abilities. That gobbledygook you typed above on the other hand is semantic nonsense at its finest.

  11. #371
    The Unstoppable Force Ielenia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    21,877
    Quote Originally Posted by TheRevenantHero View Post
    There are plenty of Forsaken that DIDN'T agree with Sylvanas and rebelled against her. Necromancers literally have absolutely no redeeming qualities and every necromancer in lore has been some shade of evil.
    Before WoW launched, warlcoks "had absolutely no redeeming qualities and every warlock in lore has been some shade of evil." Likewise, before the Wrath of the Lich King expansion, death knights "had absolutely no redeeming qualities and every death knight in lore has been some shade of evil."

    And yet both are playable.
    "Torturing someone is not an evil thing to do if it is done for good reasons" by Varodoc
    "You sit in OG/SW waiting on a Mythic+ queue" by Altmer <- Oh, the pearls in this forum...
    "They sort of did this Dragonriding, which ushered in the Dracthyr race." by Teriz <- the BS some people reach for their narratives...

  12. #372
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    That's because Necromancers have traditionally been enemy NPCs.

    You could say the same thing about Warlocks and Death Knights.
    But we were eventually shown that not all of them were evil. Death knights didn't have a presence in WoW for the most part until Wrath. Sure there was some in Naxx but there really wasn't that many of them. We've had necromancers in the game since launch and all of them have been evil. Not even one has shown they were any shade of good aligned. Blizzard has made it clear that necromancers are irredeemably evil.

  13. #373
    Merely a Setback Teriz's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Soul of Azeroth
    Posts
    29,818
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    You said 'Necromancy is all they can do'. I corrected you in that they are Martial combatants who use Necromancy, and Swordplay is the heart of the Death Knight archetype.

    Necromancy is not the 'all they can do'.
    Okay, so when a DK hacks someone with Marrowind and turns the blood and bone emerging from that strike into a swirling shield of bone and gore, how is that not necromancy? When a DK slashes a target with their sword and causes disease filled sacs of pus to form on their victim's bodies, how is that not necromancy?

  14. #374
    Quote Originally Posted by kenn9530 View Post
    Its up to the user to choose to eat a corpse, they could use it on beasts but that racial barely gets used as it is sinces its pretty useless, so its not the class its the user that makes the choice since they dont have to eat corpses.
    You can raise skeletons out of beast corpses too. A Necromancer's minion is a reanimated creature created from flesh and bone. The Necrolords of Maldraxxus even specialize in Fleshcraft, meaning there is no specific type of flesh that needs to be used, any can be crafted and shaped into form.

    You could have a Necromancer who chooses only to raise undead minions out of the corpses of Beasts. That would satisfy your requisite of a 'non-evil' variety of Necromancer.

    Destroying an enemy soul is also no problem
    Even if that soul is of a good person?

    An enemy is simply one who opposes you. A Forsaken Necromancer could see an Alliance civilian as an enemy. You have no problems with reaping the souls of the enemy, correct?

    It wouldnt even be worth implementing a necromancer class because the whole point in it is having lots of undead minions and in WoW you would be lucky to have more than one active so its not really a necromancer it would be a warlock with different skill visuals, new classes are not needed in WoW.
    So you're just making an argument that WoW doesn't need more classes, not that Necromancers can't be playable. If your argument is shifting to mechanics and visuals, then this is no longer about morality, correct?

  15. #375
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    That entire post is laden with hilarious contradictions.

    "WC3 abilities don't exist in WoW, but if they do exist it doesn't matter because no NPC is using them!"

    So what's the requirement here? An NPC using them or them existing?

    "WC3 abilities aren't canon because they don't exist in WoW. HotS abilities exist in WoW but they don't count because they didn't come from a Warcraft game!"

    So if an ability is canon because it exists in WoW, wouldn't the Tinker's HotS abilities be canon since they DO appear in WoW?

    Where am I arguing semantics? I said quite plainly that the Hunter or Engineering can't be considered substitutions for the Tinker because they don't contain its abilities. That gobbledygook you typed above on the other hand is semantic nonsense at its finest.
    Way to twist my words because you're utterly incapable of admitting you're wrong. I said the TINKER abilities from WC3 don't exist. Tinker npcs have been in WoW since vanilla yet the claw pack and pocket factory have NEVER appeared. This pretty much spells out that those abilities simply don't fucking exist in canon anymore.

    What tinker ability from HotS appearing in game as a spell? Because I looked it up and the only abilities that exist in game are engineering items. So by your own logic, engineers are tinkers and therefore we don't need an entire class since they already have representation in game.

  16. #376
    A dks' weapon makes for one hellish wand.

  17. #377
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    Before WoW launched, warlcoks "had absolutely no redeeming qualities and every warlock in lore has been some shade of evil." Likewise, before the Wrath of the Lich King expansion, death knights "had absolutely no redeeming qualities and every death knight in lore has been some shade of evil."

    And yet both are playable.
    What I'm saying is when they were given a bigger presence in WoW, things were changed to that there are some who are against evil when it comes to warlocks and death knights. Meanwhile, necromancers have been in the game since launch and have never had a single NPC that wasn't super evil.

  18. #378
    Quote Originally Posted by Maw View Post
    death knights, while being members of the alliance/horde, actively practice necromancy. The act of necromancy is not mutually exclusive with wanting to destroy half the world. That’s like saying warlocks cant be playable because gul’dan wanted to conquer the world lol
    No but they didn't run to Northrend asking arthas to turn them.
    I think every single necromancer in wow did it of his own volition

  19. #379
    Quote Originally Posted by VinceVega View Post
    No but they didn't run to Northrend asking arthas to turn them.
    I think every single necromancer in wow did it of his own volition
    I've made this point already but it's always disregarded since it lights the entire necromancer concept on fire.

  20. #380
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Okay, so when a DK hacks someone with Marrowind and turns the blood and bone emerging from that strike into a swirling shield of bone and gore, how is that not necromancy? When a DK slashes a target with their sword and causes disease filled sacs of pus to form on their victim's bodies, how is that not necromancy?
    Runic Power, as the entire theme of the DK is built around.

    Everything about the DK comes back to the Runeblades they use and master. They master the use of this weapon, they are martial combatants, and the magic within these blades simply augment their own ability to deal damage in combat.

    Necromancy is simply the type of magic they channel through Runic Power. Death Knights do not innately have spellcasting capability, everything is sourced back to the use of Runes.

    Again, this all plays into the Anti-Paladin archetype which is what the DK is at its core. Blizzard themselves built the entire WC3 Hero with this name and archetype in mind, it's really no surprise that the WoW DK follows through on this archetype. All of the summoning themes are simply carry-overs from the Necromancer concepts that were left unused, and added to the DK to flavour them further. It's no different than Warlocks having Metamorphosis when it was convenient to have. It doesn't redefine Warlocks into 'Demon Hunters' simply because of the themes and abilities they use; they are still archetyped as Fel Sorcerers/Summoners.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2021-03-03 at 06:06 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •