Too many "Evil" and "Good" classes. Time for something more neutral?

[Deleted]

Good or Evil is an artificial concept and is entirely subjective to the beholder.

The naaru are the pinnacle of "good" in the warcraft universe, yet could still be evil to us if they consider us too "chaotic" or "corrupted" or just a detriment to their plans for the universe.
Even Sargeras thinks what he is doing is good since he wants to make sure the universe doesn't fall to the void.
We don't even know what the void lords their motives are, but we can be certain that they don't do things cause "LoL evil"

In the end, the magic you use isn't based on what it is or what you do with it. Because from someones point of view you are evil, but from your own you will always be good.

[MechaCThun]

I've made the argument that the next playable class should be lighter in tone and theme. The hero classes have been darker in tone (first Death Knight, now Demon Hunter) with only the Monk class being a mitigating factor in this formula.

But Monks are not hero classes.

So I don't know. Personally I don't want another playable class that is "dark" in nature, so I am not a fan of the people wanting Necromancers or Dark Rangers as classes.

[huth]

I said if they are coming, you really need to learn to learn to pay attention before posting. Or learn that "if" doesn't mean "when". Maybe that's the problem with you.

Necromancer is also on the horizon apart from the 3 I mentioned earlier. DKs are actually the ideas of runemaster, necromancer and the original dk mixed together.

Unholy will be redesigned to be an anti-paladin DoTs afflictions and so on

No, you didn't. You acted like it was a sure thing.

[Sevyvia]

Can we finally stop calling DKs evil?

Scourge death knights are evil,ebon blade death knights aren't.They were built as evil killing machines against their will but turned themselves against that.The whole point of the ebon blade is that they're not evil anymore,even the Forsaken do more fucked up shit nowadays

Well, that's the path they were on. And then the Death Knight order hall campaign happened, so now we can go back to calling them evil.

[WhiteEagle888]

No, you didn't. You acted like it was a sure thing.

The fact that you can't interpret English sentences proves your lack of knowledge in matters at hand. Inform yourself first before posting what little you can - I can't stress this enough. On the horizon means its "likely to happen", its not "sure to happen". you should really get a good English dictionary and read it cover to cover first.

[Jastall]

Can we finally stop calling DKs evil?

Scourge death knights are evil,ebon blade death knights aren't.They were built as evil killing machines against their will but turned themselves against that.The whole point of the ebon blade is that they're not evil anymore,even the Forsaken do more fucked up shit nowadays

The shit they pull during their Order Hall campaign is very ruthless at the very best, and needly cruel in some places. They're not Evil with a big E but they're definitely skirting with the limits of morality at times.

On topic, it's part of why I like Warriors. There's a lot of room to shape a character, they can be honorable stick in he muds or bloodthirsty berserkers or everything in between. Whereas a Paladin who's not a goody two shoes or a Warlock who's not a power hungry ass just feel a bit wrong.

But I disagree about Mages and Monks. These two classes are fairly neutral, Mages especially.

[Elestia]

So yea, just looking at the inherent nature of the classes themselves, not some 'oh they're all neutral because of self preservation blah blah' I think it's pretty safe to categorize classes into some kind of base morality. It's really silly to say 'oh yea, that criminal over there is such a paragon of justice because he fights to live another day.' That makes literally zero sense. With the Legion xpac, is there a blanket morality (as there has been for several expansions)? Absolutely. Does it absolve classes of their nature and of wrongdoing? No. If you're an assassination rogue, you kill people, but moreover that you specialize in doing so. It's all there in the name.

There's the same blanket morality in say 'everyone is bad since everyone kills'. The game makes no mistake in telling you that in order to survive that you must fight... there's nothing ambiguous about it.

Just looking at the WoW chronicle it's fairly obvious where certain classes align. Truely, rogues are very ambiguous in motive, but even with good motive the flavor of what they do and how they do it is extremely nefarious. If they murder for purpose or just to watch the world burn they're still operating within an evil tier. The specs themselves mirror this. Assassination would imply a professional killer that works for a purpose operating within the dimensions of society - a lawful evil. Outlaws are truly a regular evil - for hire sellswords with no moral basis or value of life other than personal self enrichment. Subtlety give themselves over to shadowy forces and draw upon the shadowlands to mask themselves - a chaotic evil. Rogues certainly have a spectrum. DKs as a group are certainly more lawful evil, with exceptions. They revel in misery and torment, but are also the most unified fighting forces where almost anyone able to even be a DK would have been some warrior or paladin elite in the first place. This would be counterpoint to DH which is almost entirely chaotic evil.


Paladin - Can span the good spectrum, mainly lawful good however
Priest - Disc definitely in the middle, holy would be lawful good
Monk - Good - Enough. They're good enough. Okay?
Mage, Druid - Chaotic Good, utilize chaotic / wild magics to cultivate, research, enchant etc

Warrior - Any Neutral... protection more lawful, fury more chaotic, arms more centered
Hunter - Any Neutral... Marksmanship more lawful, beast mastery more chaotic, survival somewhere in between
Shaman - The exception. Definitely chaotic neutral as a whole. The elements are entirely chaotic, but can be chaotic good with restoration/water, or chaotic evil with fel fire or dark shamanism where spirit is drained and forced.

DK - Lawful Evil...
DH - Chaotic Evil for a purpose(?) While all of Illidan's schemes should have worked, they've all been pretty insane.
Warlock - Chaotic Evil entirely just due to the nature of the magics used pretty obvious.
Shadow Priest - at best chaotic neutral, at worst chaotic evil... it's hard to know where their sanity is. I don't think we could say they're chaotic good... But maybe?
Rogue - general evil, can span the spectrum.

[TheCount]

Mages can go a bit wild with power, see the Highborne. That led them to do some pretty bad things.
Monks strive for the balance, good and evil must be in harmony
Warriors train and live for war. That could be seen as both good or evil. Defending ones homeland and family or invading another homeland to crush your foes.

[Dug]

Maybe lore characters can be classified as such but as player characters and our selected classes we are about as neutral as it gets. Well neutral is probably the wrong description but we've done some pretty heinous shit and good things.

[FuxieDK]

death knights were anti-paladins.

Technically speaking, it's the other way around; Paladins are Anti-Death Knights, as Paladins were crated solely to counter Death Knights.

[WhiteEagle888]

Technically speaking, it's the other way around; Paladins are Anti-Death Knights, as Paladins were crated solely to counter Death Knights.

When defined classically, evil is the antithesis of good. This is the definition I used.

[Requimortem]

TL;DR

In other words you're judging us based on the color of our magic. That's class-ist.

[Typhoria]

According to wowwiki referencing the Manual of Monsters, Illidan is considered to be Chaotic Neutral. So I would assume that all Illidari DH would be along the same alignment.

[FuxieDK]

When defined classically, evil is the antithesis of good. This is the definition I used.

Maybe so.. But paladins were still created to counter Death Knights, thus they are Anti-Death Knights, not the other way around.

[WhiteEagle888]

Maybe so.. But paladins were still created to counter Death Knights, thus they are Anti-Death Knights, not the other way around.

It depends on your view. As I told you already I view them in the classical sense. Is something wrong with your understanding capabilities?

[FuxieDK]

It depends on your view. As I told you already I view them in the classical sense. Is something wrong with your understanding capabilities?

Apparently, it's your understanding capabilities that seems impaired, as you don't understand that you cannot use an example, to prove your point, when said example proves the opposite of your argument..

That said, I have nothing more on the subject..

[WhiteEagle888]

Apparently, it's your understanding capabilities that seems impaired, as you don't understand that you cannot use an example, to prove your point, when said example proves the opposite of your argument..

That said, I have nothing more on the subject..

How or why they were created in WoW is irrelevant to this discussion.
Paladin as a fantasy class came to be before death knight as a fantasy class. Death Knights were created to be the anti-paladin - the evil paladin - it was invented to counter everything the paladin stands for.
Don't mix WoW lore into this because it simply doesn't matter to the whole how an individual setting handled this fantasy trope.
Understand now?

[FuxieDK]

How or why they were created in WoW is irrelevant to this discussion.
Paladin as a fantasy class came to be before death knight as a fantasy class. Death Knights were created to be the anti-paladin - the evil paladin - it was invented to counter everything the paladin stands for.
Don't mix WoW lore into this because it simply doesn't matter to the whole how an individual setting handled this fantasy trope.
Understand now?

There are no rules or laws, stating paladins are good.

(A)D&D, dating back to the 70s, have rules for both good and evil paladins.
Rose of the Prophet book series (from the 80s), paladins are evil.

Understand now?

[WhiteEagle888]

There are no rules or laws, stating paladins are good.

(A)D&D, dating back to the 70s, have rules for both good and evil paladins.
Rose of the Prophet book series (from the 80s), paladins are evil.

Understand now?

you said you have nothing more on the subject and in that much you were right, yuo really don't.

although the idea for evil paladins came to be precisely as an antithesis to good paladins in the 70s
Yes paladins are first and foremost defined as being good and more often than not truly are good. The evil paladins are an antithesis to good paladins.
Unless you can wrap your head around this fact, you have nothing more to say.

[Deleted]

So your personal gage of what is good vs. what is evil is not exactly well aligned with corresponding gage of the blizdevs.
Yeah, they totally should just drop what they happen to be doing and quickly align their scale, which has over last 13 years proven to be good enough for millions of people, with yours.
Yeah.

- - - Updated - - -

you said you have nothing more on the subject and in that much you were right, yuo really don't.

"starting paladins are good" - what were you even trying to write here? You can start an evil paladin or a good paladin it doesn't matter, although the idea for evil paladins came to be precisely as an antithesis to good paladins in the 70s
Yes paladins are first and foremost defined as being good and more often than not truly are good. The evil paladins are an antithesis to good paladins.
Unless you can wrap your head around this fact, you have nothing more to say.

Nice reading skills mate.
Paladins are lawful. If you are a 1930s German, then I guess it means to you that they're good. Not necessarily to anyone else.
Still getting a returning smirk at that R you pulled out of your lower orifice to give a wrong answer to a point that hasn't been made.