Official High Elf Discussion Megathread

[Ielenia]

You need to clarify what claim is being made if someone is making a suggestion. Suggestions and claims are two different things, so what exactly are you talking about? I don't think anyone here has made claims that X is going to happen. Everyone is expressing opinions on what they think should happen. There is a big difference.

Okay. My bad on the use of the word "claim". But the overall point stands: saying "Blizzard can do it" is a cop-out answer.

No one needs to be convinced of any opinion. Suggestions don't need to convince you of anything.

But to have people accept your suggestion as possible, you have to convince them that it is probable, or at least possible. Why do you think people pile on all those "expansion leaks" that happen every two years and call those "leaks" fake because of this, this and that? And the "leaker" saying "Blizzard can do it" does not make their leaks any less implausible.

Why does it need to be explained?

Because people would want to know more about your position and judge for themselves if your idea is valid or invalid. I mean, if I posit the idea of a "draconecrotechmancer" class, a class that brings dragons back from the dead by using technology, people would ask questions like "what would be the lore behind it" and "what races could be that class" and "what would be its gameplay", me saying "Blizzard can figure those out" is a cop-out answer, because they'd be asking me those questions, not Blizzard.

The core issue I see here is you have a personal compulsion to need these things to be answered. This is your personal problem, not a problem with someone making a suggestion. If it doesn't make sense in your internal logic, then that's for you to deal with. It's not the problem of a person expressing an opinion of what they want to see.

If I said Demon Hunters should have Horn and Wings options if we get playable Demon Hunters, then I am expressing an opinion, making a suggestion. I don't need to explain HOW they get the Horns and Wings options. If I want to see Horns and Wings on DH, then it's just something I want to see for my own reasons. If there is no lore to explain such a customization option that is not my problem

Using this example, I will explain why it's meaningless to use lore to support what SHOULD be done. It's all a matter of perspective.

A: - I am pro-Horns/Wings, I see lore having Illidan set a precedent for all Demon Hunters, and thus it's an acceptable suggestion
B: - I am anti-Horns/Wings, I see Illidan as a unique case, and thus no regular Demon Hunter should have access to Horns/Wings because there is no lore to support them having them.

They are both subjective interpretations of the same lore. Are Horns and Wings exclusive to Illidan in the lore? It all depends on what you personally think it should be. If you don't like it, you will use it as an argument against the suggestion. If you like it, then you will allow the lore to support it. This is why I say it's very very meaningless to use lore to support any argument.

Lore can absolutely be twisted to support any position, depending on how you feel and what you are willing to accept as legitimate lore. All the while, anything you disagree with? You can invoke 'Blizzard can retcon' and dismiss any argument you wish, because you can't give Demon Hunters Horn and Wings options without addressing the existing lore to clarify the ambiguity. Or you could do what Blizzard does, and simply not explain it and don't give two fucks about the lore.

There is only ONE way to regard lore, and that is in retrospect. If talking about any suggestions or future propositions, then you can't regard lore as an immutable factual record. It doesn't work like that at all. All you can do is manipulate lore to suit your argument.

This is why the banshee taking their bodies example is absolutely pointless to discuss. Whether they can take their bodies back or not is basically up to how you feel about it happening. Should it happen? Should it not happen? Purely subjective. We are able to make an argument both for and against it using existing lore. End of the day, it will not be relevant to whether we should or should not get Undead Elves. In my own opinion, using lore as a supporting argument is no different than using a thinly veiled excuse to dismiss something you don't agree with.

Then what is the point of discussing ideas, if every single thing can be indisputably supported AND indisputably dismissed at the same time, regardless of lore and precedent, by invoking the almighty Exodia Blizzard card? "Murlocs should be playable!" "Why?" "Blizzard" "I disagree!" "Why?" "Blizzard".

- - - Updated - - -

they are full dwarves with no difference whatsoever, nothing happened to the wildhammer like it did with Darkiron or other subraces.

I just wanted to point out that racials seem to be as much cultural-based as they are biology-based. And classes not changing a race's racials is because racials and class passives are two different things, mechanically speaking. One are bonuses that come with the race you pick, the other are bonuses that come with the class you pick. They're independent of each other.

you are flip flopping about those 3 things regardless of we saying it doesn't mater how you spin it, already happened and can happen again

What "three things", considering I've only talked about silhouettes in my arguments, and the only time I mentioned other things, like skin color, was to remind you that I was not talking about what you were claiming I was talking about.

Visual identity was already muddled not once but twice with elves.

Irrelevant because, as I pointed out multiple times, and multiple times you willingly ignored, I am not talking about two or more races sharing similar silhouettes, and that has nothing to do with my arguments about muddling a playable race's own individual visual identity. Again: I'm talking about how a race looks by itself, and now how it looks in comparison to others.

And again, this is a completely irrelevant point, since void elves, can look like two different playable races by itself, void elves and blood elves,

Once again: I am not talking about skin colors, I am talking about silhouettes. And as I pointed out, it's a fact that a void elf cannot look like anything other than a thalassian elf. Because that's what they are: thalassian elves. You'd have a point if void elves could look like humans, or night elves, or goblins, or orcs, etc. But they don't.

now this is irrelevant

You are calling "irrelevant" the fact that void elves have a similar silhouette as blood elves is because they have the same parent race: thalassian elves. That's what you're calling irrelevant?

no, no no, if you are talking vehicles you better talk about all of then, unless you are obviously, using double standards

Are you openly admitting to arguing in bad faith here? Also, you love using that term, "double standards", but so far you failed to properly apply it.

they can look like 2 different races/playable races, period.

No, they can't. A void elf's silhouette can never deviate from a thalassian elf silhouette (class and toy effects aside).

your premise start false, priests are conduits of the void, then they empower themselves, void elf voidpowers come from inside their bodies as part of their own bioogy/mutated bodies, but nice try

Two statements of fact. Not a single ounce of evidence to back them up. In other words: you, once again, state your headcanons as fact.

[Triceron]

But to have people accept your suggestion as possible, you have to convince them that it is probable, or at least possible. Why do you think people pile on all those "expansion leaks" that happen every two years and call those "leaks" fake because of this, this and that? And the "leaker" saying "Blizzard can do it" does not make their leaks any less implausible.

You have to be more clear on why a suggestion isn't possible. Is it because the person did not explain their opinion clearly enough, OR is it because you simply don't agree with it and feel the need for you to be convinced in order to accept it as being legitimate?

Leaks are not a suggestion and not an opinion. A leak is a claim, so you would be correct that these can be dismissed if not proven. I think there is a big difference when asking proof for a leak and expecting someone's suggestion needs to be explained. We have to be very clear on this. Suggestions and opinions do not need to be subjected to 'plausability', they are ultimately opinions. Same can be said about Speculation, that is also a form of opinion. 'I want to be President' is not something that needs to be proven.

Because people would want to know more about your position and judge for themselves if your idea is valid or invalid. I mean, if I posit the idea of a "draconecrotechmancer" class, a class that brings dragons back from the dead by using technology, people would ask questions like "what would be the lore behind it" and "what races could be that class" and "what would be its gameplay", me saying "Blizzard can figure those out" is a cop-out answer, because they'd be asking me those questions, not Blizzard.

But that's on the people asking the questions, not on the person suggesting the idea. Like I said, if it the context is expressing a suggestion to have this class, then it's an opinion that someone wants to see this. It's not a claim that Blizzard needs to do this. It's not a mandate that lore needs to fit in the current narrative. It's an expression of interest. If you consider it a cop-out to express an opinion, then that's your problem.

If you can't fathom *How* I could be President, is that my fault? Is that my problem? No. You can always ask me, but it's not my responsibility to give you any answer that suits you, because ultimately it's an expression of my opinion. It has nothing to do with satisfying you or anyone else.

Someone *choosing* to elaborate their position or convince others of the opinion is doing so at their own will, not as a responsibility to others. It's because I *want* to persuade you to understand my argument that I elaborate my opinion, not because it's required of me.

If you want to dismiss a Draconecrotechmancer on the basis of that person poorly communicating their opinion, then you are free to do so, but it doesn't *invalidate* that person for making the suggestion or expressing the opinion just because they communicate poorly. That is the context of my explanation here. It's still framed as an opinion.

Then what is the point of discussing ideas, if every single thing can be indisputably supported AND indisputably dismissed at the same time, regardless of lore and precedent, by invoking the almighty Exodia Blizzard card? "Murlocs should be playable!" "Why?" "Blizzard" "I disagree!" "Why?" "Blizzard".

Discussing is different from dismissing. Discussing involves various opinions on a topic reaching a common point. If Murlocs should be playable, then we can absolutely discuss opinions. If you like it great, if you don't then we can agree to disagree, so on and so forth. Discuss its values, discuss its potential, etc. The framework of discussion (of suggestions for WoW) is the mutual expression of opinions.

If you start using lore to dispute it, then indirectly you are invoking Blizzard's written word and making a claim that lore has more power over anyone's subjective opinion. No one would need to invoke 'Blizzard can retcon' if we simply stopped using lore to legitimize any possibility. This is why dismissing happens, because a claim is being presented; that Blizzard lore has power to override suggestions/opinions. Discussion (of playable Murlocs) should regard everything said as an expression of opinion. The whole point of saying "Blizzard can make it happen" is to counter the claim that Blizzard('s lore) can effectively dismiss any suggestion in the first place.

And like I explained above; lore can be manipulated to support any argument because it can be interpreted subjectively. All in all, it's pointless given that the lore is used to explain what happens, not used to decide what should or should not happen. If you don't like Murlocs being discussed, then express it as an opinion. There is absolutely no reason to bring lore into the discussion unless it is to support a particular argument, but never to dismiss it.

Opinions can not be dismissed. Any use of lore to substantiate an opinion CAN be dismissed, because it is reaching beyond the realm of opinion and being applied as a form of 'universal truth' (but it is not truth at all, it is purely fiction). If someone suggested a Purple Dragonflight, you can't use lore to dismiss this notion. Lore is not a truth, and claiming it to be is simply a fallacy because lore does not define what should or should not be. Even if lore specifically states Red Dragons are simply incompatible with Blue Dragons period, it is not actually preventing Purple Dragons from existing, because the fiction can always be updated, changed, or be explained with some other means of creating Purple Dragons. Lore can not define whether something should or should not exist, lore can not be used to deny something from existing. It is merely one person's opinion whether it should or should not exist.

[Sagenod]

If they just give the Void Elves the option to have their hairstyles without void tendrils this problem will be solved once and for all. After that, forget about legitimacy from a gameplay perspective, be satisfied with aesthetic options and use your head-canon.

"If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck... It's duck."

[Varodoc]

If they just give the Void Elves the option to have their hairstyles without void tendrils this problem will be solved once and for all. After that, forget about legitimacy from a gameplay perspective, be satisfied with aesthetic options and use your head-canon.

"If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck... It's duck."

No, it won't be enough, as core races received way more hairstyle options than what they originally had. Void elves, and ALL allied races, deserve the same kind of love, attention, and dedication from Blizzard that core races got.

[Sagenod]

No, it won't be enough, as core races received way more hairstyle options than what they originally had. Void elves, and ALL allied races, deserve the same kind of love, attention, and dedication from Blizzard that core races got.

With you as the resident Void Elf fanboy I can understand your perspective. I never said they should take away from the Void aspects of their customization options, just to add options to fulfill the High Elf fantasy. It would be enough for most players, including me and you are in the minority of people that, quite frankly, will probably never be satisfied.

[Varodoc]

With you as the resident Void Elf fanboy I can understand your perspective. I never said they should take away from the Void aspects of their customization options, just to add options to fulfill the High Elf fantasy. It would be enough for most players, including me and you are in the minority of people that, quite frankly, will probably never be satisfied.

Huh... what? If you have read my posts in this thread, I have said many times that Blizzard should add an option to toggle the tentacle hair, so I'm actually agreeing with you in that regard.

What I'm telling you is that core races actually got NEW hair styles. What you suggested is not new hair-styles. It's the same hairstyles without tentacles.

And why should I not be satisfied? I have been asking for fair skin options for 3 years, and they finally delivered. If anything, I am very happy and am pushing for more, as is my right. Is it that much to ask that allied races receive the same treatment that core races got?

[Sagenod]

Huh... what? If you have read my posts in this thread, I have said many times that Blizzard should add an option to toggle the tentacle hair, so I'm actually agreeing with you in that regard.

What I'm telling you is that core races actually got NEW hair styles. What you suggested is not new hair-styles. It's the same hairstyles without tentacles.

And why should I not be satisfied? I have been asking for fair skin options for 3 years, and they finally delivered. If anything, I am very happy and am pushing for more, as is my right. Is it that much to ask that allied races receive the same treatment that core races got?

Then you missed the sentiment of my original reply. I could care less whether they add more hairstyles or not, I was simply stating how the aforementioned alterations to customization would settle this issue once and for all for everyone besides those who will never be happy until there is a literal playable race called "High Elf" in the game. I hope that never happens, four elf races if enough!

[Varodoc]

Then you missed the sentiment of my original reply. I could care less whether they add more hairstyles or not, I was simply stating how the aforementioned alterations to customization would settle this issue once and for all for everyone besides those who will never be happy until there is a literal playable race called "High Elf" in the game. I hope that never happens, four elf races if enough!

Well there's obviously not going to be a High elf allied race, that much is clear. It's been clear since 2017, really. In fact, I was never fighting for the High elf cause, I was fighting to have fair skin options for Void elves, as Alleria Windrunner is a Void elf who retains her fair skin form.

[Mungho]

A long, drawn out thread on the official forums had the op saying that only fair skin and hair, paladins, and access to Silvermoon for Void Elves will be acceptable to him to live out his high-elf fantasy. Taking away or giving access to a racial capital to the other faction just seems unfair to me. Do you think Blizz would actually do it? What Alliance capital would the Horde have as trade?

[FossilFree]

A long, drawn out thread on the official forums had the op saying that only fair skin and hair, paladins, and access to Silvermoon for Void Elves will be acceptable to him to live out his high-elf fantasy. Taking away or giving access to a racial capital to the other faction just seems unfair to me. Do you think Blizz would actually do it? What Alliance capital would the Horde have as trade?

I don't think they would actually give Silvermoon to the Void Elves. But in a hypothetical scenario where they did? Maybe rogue Man'ari free from Sargeras decide to take over the Exodar, like they tried in Legion. This time they succeed, and they parlay with the Horde for membership. The Exodar could get a fel and red makeover or something to suit them too.

[Varodoc]

They are never going to update Quel'Thalas. It's just not going to happen. There's a reason why they didn't do it in Cataclysm. They're never going to do it. Quel'Thalas as a zone is fundamentally broken, they would have to recreate it from scratch to fill all the gaps in the places you're not supposed to fly in.

BfA would've been the perfect moment for a Warfront in Silvermoon, and nothing happened, despite many rumours surrounding it.

The most we are going to get is one instanced scenario, dungeon, or raid taking place there, so that they do not have to update the real world.

The Ren'dorei should turn Telogrus Rift into a worthy city of the Void, and a haven for anyone seeking to study the arts of the shadow. If you visit the Rift in-game, the Ren'dorei have already laid the groundwork for a new settlement. Tents, beds, innkeeper, shopkeepers, a blacksmith, pile of resources... every settlement starts from scratch, after all, but we're getting there.

[Rhlor]

So uhh, is this


a void elf with green eyes, void elf earrings (on closer inspection they are the blood elf leaves earrings but not sure if the gem is blue or green), a storm's wake tabard with light hair then?
Not to mention a different hairstyle. and silver jewelry. It could also be someone messing up with the promo image and this is supposed to be a blood elf. I'm leaning towards a mistake with the tabard.

I always defended that blood elves should have blue eyes because ever since TBC there were npcs blood elves with blue eyes.

I am not a hypocrite and I recognize that there are NPCs in Telogrus the silvermoon scholar that have that hair color and that eye color, therefore if they are added to the game I will accept it.

[dauntless]

I always defended that blood elves should have blue eyes because ever since TBC there were npcs blood elves with blue eyes.

There are no Blood Elves with blue eyes in the game. If they have blue eyes, they are High Elves.

[Syegfryed]

Irrelevant because, as I pointed out multiple times, and multiple times you willingly ignored, I am not talking about two or more races sharing similar silhouettes, and that has nothing to do with my arguments about muddling a playable race's own individual visual identity. Again: I'm talking about how a race looks by itself, and now how it looks in comparison to others.

again, you are always saying what i counts and what doesn't count, this is just double standards as it finest and we should stop here since you already made that clear over and over again.

Once again: I am not talking about skin colors, I am talking about silhouettes. And as I pointed out, it's a fact that a void elf cannot look like anything other than a thalassian elf. Because that's what they are: thalassian elves. You'd have a point if void elves could look like humans, or night elves, or goblins, or orcs, etc. But they don't.

"they look like thallasian elves" is again, your completely and arbitrary way of putting things, you think just because of that it make any difference here is laughable, they still can look like 2 different races with 2 different racial/visual identities, regardless if they are "thalasian elf", same argumment is aplied to human and elves who are undead, they are both "forsaken", or humans with nathanos look, they are still undead humans.

No, they can't. A void elf's silhouette can never deviate from a thalassian elf silhouette (class and toy effects aside).

they can look like a void elf and a blod elf, two different races/playable rfaces, period, you can't argue about that just because "ThALaSSiAn eLf"

Two statements of fact. Not a single ounce of evidence to back them up. In other words: you, once again, state your headcanons as fact.

ah yes, ingame description of skills is no evidence neither is vallid for you, i almost forgot how you like nitpicking and to ignore things if they do not reach your perfect parameters.

[Rhlor]

There are no Blood Elves with blue eyes in the game. If they have blue eyes, they are High Elves.

agree
high elves in the horde like
https://wow.gamepedia.com/Lanesh_the_Steelweaver

[Ielenia]

again, you are always saying what i counts and what doesn't count, this is just double standards as it finest and we should stop here since you already made that clear over and over again.

My point has been concise and specific. You're trying to dismiss my point (how a playable race looks by itself) by addressing a completely different point that I never made (how a playable race looks in comparison to others).

"they look like thallasian elves" is again, your completely and arbitrary way of putting things, you think just because of that it make any difference here is laughable, they still can look like 2 different races with 2 different racial/visual identities, regardless if they are "thalasian elf", same argumment is aplied to human and elves who are undead, they are both "forsaken", or humans with nathanos look, they are still undead humans.

"Forsaken" is not a race. Undeath is not a race.

they can look like a void elf and a blod elf, two different races/playable rfaces, period, you can't argue about that just because "ThALaSSiAn eLf"

If you're going to use "skin color" as an argument, then "hair color" and "eye color" are just as valid, and by that reasoning, no, void elves cannot look like blood elves because void elves do not have blond hair, green eyes, blood elf jewelry and blood elf hairstyles. You just refuted your own argument.

ah yes, ingame description of skills is no evidence neither is vallid for you,

And it shouldn't be valid to anyone, considering we're talking about a tooltip that describes how an ability works mechanically for gameplay.

[dauntless]

agree
high elves in the horde like

They either forgot about his eyes, or he is simply still a High Elf.

[Ielenia]

You have to be more clear on why a suggestion isn't possible. Is it because the person did not explain their opinion clearly enough, OR is it because you simply don't agree with it and feel the need for you to be convinced in order to accept it as being legitimate?

The answer is obvious: if they fit with what the lore of the game shows and does not show to us. The suggestion that humans can naturally grow wings does not fit with what the lore has shown us, for example.

Leaks are not a suggestion and not an opinion. A leak is a claim, so you would be correct that these can be dismissed if not proven. I think there is a big difference when asking proof for a leak and expecting someone's suggestion needs to be explained. We have to be very clear on this. Suggestions and opinions do not need to be subjected to 'plausability', they are ultimately opinions. Same can be said about Speculation, that is also a form of opinion. 'I want to be President' is not something that needs to be proven.

Suggestions are subjected to 'plausability' if they are to be considered by others. if I make the suggestion that dwarves should leave the Alliance and join the Horde, most people likely will either ask me "why" or just move on without any consideration. But if I make the suggestion that Earthen should become an allied race, people would be more willing to stop by my thread and give my suggestion a chance.

But that's on the people asking the questions, not on the person suggesting the idea. Like I said, if it the context is expressing a suggestion to have this class, then it's an opinion that someone wants to see this. It's not a claim that Blizzard needs to do this. It's not a mandate that lore needs to fit in the current narrative. It's an expression of interest. If you consider it a cop-out to express an opinion, then that's your problem.

I never said that. I said it's a cop-out answer to say "Blizzard can do it" when asked about the viability of their suggestion.

Discussing is different from dismissing. Discussing involves various opinions on a topic reaching a common point. If Murlocs should be playable, then we can absolutely discuss opinions. If you like it great, if you don't then we can agree to disagree, so on and so forth. Discuss its values, discuss its potential, etc. The framework of discussion (of suggestions for WoW) is the mutual expression of opinions.

But isn't saying "Blizzard can do it" technically a dismissal of any and all questions and/or criticism regarding the suggestion presented? Saying "Blizzard can do it" basically stifles discussion because there's nowhere to go from there. Replying with "Blizzard can do it" has the exact same weight and value as a response as saying "I don't care" or "it doesn't matter".

[Triceron]

The answer is obvious: if they fit with what the lore of the game shows and does not show to us. The suggestion that humans can naturally grow wings does not fit with what the lore has shown us, for example.

But that is opinion, not lore. Humans can turn into werewolves does not fit the lore of Warcraft 3 has shown us, for example. It does not mean that the lore can not be updated or changed to accomodate werewolves. We had to have werewolves outside of Gilneas and show that the curse is transmissable to be able to have werewolves. But imagine suggesting this when we only had Warcraft 3. If someone suggests Werewolves should be playable, then that is a suggestion. It does not have to fit lore. It doesn't have to fit your standards.

If you think it does not fit lore, that is really your own problem. If you say it shouldn't happen because of lore and you USE lore to support your argument, then you are invoking Blizzard to say it CAN'T happen. You might not think this is what you are doing, but it is. Lore is not opinion.

Suggestions are subjected to 'plausability' if they are to be considered by others. if I make the suggestion that dwarves should leave the Alliance and join the Horde, most people likely will either ask me "why" or just move on without any consideration. But if I make the suggestion that Earthen should become an allied race, people would be more willing to stop by my thread and give my suggestion a chance.

That's your opinion that one has more worth than the other. You have to understand that what you are saying here involves applying your opinion as some factual truth. That you think more people will do X instead of Y is just your opinion of what you think people on this forum will do. That has nothing to do with anything. You don't have to prove any of your suggestions if you are expressing them as opinion.

I think you take too much concern in what other people think. If a suggestion is better than another that is only because of confirmation bias, not because the suggestion itself is 'less plausible'.

I never said that. I said it's a cop-out answer to say "Blizzard can do it" when asked about the viability of their suggestion.

It is a response to someone using Lore as any means to dismiss an opinion or suggestion.

You are asking for validity, you are saying a suggestion has to fit lore. So actually, you are the one making a claim, not the person making the suggestion. You are claiming that someone's opinion needs to adhere to Lore, you are regarding that Blizzard Lore has more power than anyone's opinion. That is you invoking Blizzard, whether you know it or not.

Beyond this, asking someone to validate their suggestion is a pretty big dick move. That's like saying 'I don't believe your opinion, you need to PROVE it to me'. Very rude thing to assume in my opinion.

If someone says 'But Blizzard can do it!', then it's because some asshole was giving them reasons why it CAN'T be done. Why else would anyone need to explain why something CAN be done if discussion is supposed to be about what *SHOULD* or *SHOULDN'T* be done. If you are hearing people use 'Blizzard can do it!' response to you, it's probably because your reply to them implies it CAN'T be done.

Any time you are using lore to say Humans should not have wings, you are also saying Humans CAN'T have wings. Lore does not support what SHOULD or SHOULDN'T be done, Lore only states what HAS been done. So if you say anything about Lore to dismiss an argument, you are also saying it CAN'T be done. You are invoking BLIZZARD LORE to deny someone else's argument. You are making a claim that the lore has more power over anyone's suggestion that Humans should ever have wings. You are not expressing this as opinion, you are being the guy who is saying 'You can't do it' EVEN if you only wanted to say 'you shouldn't.

This is why I keep telling you to stop bringing lore into discussion. It will confuse your own arguments from 'Should' or 'Shouldn't' into 'Can' or 'Can't', and if you are getting 'Blizzard can do it', now you know why.

But isn't saying "Blizzard can do it" technically a dismissal of any and all questions and/or criticism regarding the suggestion presented? Saying "Blizzard can do it" basically stifles discussion because there's nowhere to go from there. Replying with "Blizzard can do it" has the exact same weight and value as a response as saying "I don't care" or "it doesn't matter".

Because using lore in an argument is also a means of dismissal. Lore should never be brought up when talking about things that aren't already in the game. Is playable murloc in the game? No? Then leave lore out of it. Do Human have wings? No? Then leave lore out of it. Just discuss opinion, what you think should or should not happen. No reason to use lore to make an argument against anything, ZERO.

[Ielenia]

But that is opinion, not lore. Humans can turn into werewolves does not fit the lore of Warcraft 3 has shown us, for example.

And humans still cannot naturally turn into werewolves in the lore, even today. However, we know, since at least Warcraft 3, that magical blessings and maladies exist that can transform someone into something else. See? How I argued in favor the possibility that "did not exist in the lore" back in Warcraft 3, using lore that existed already in Warcraft 3?

It's a cop out answer to use Lore as any means to dismiss an opinion or suggestion.

That's not what a "cop-out answer" is. A cop-out answer is an attempt to dodge having to answer the question. Using lore as an argument is actually engaging with the question, with the idea, especially when it treats about lore.

Because using lore in an argument is also a means of dismissal.

There is a difference between dismissal and rebuttal. A dismissal is saying something that stifles the discussion, regarding it as "not important", such as "I don't care", "it doesn't matter" and "Blizzard can do it". A rebuttal is using evidence, such as lore, to counter the notion that the suggested idea is probable or even possible.

Lore should never be brought up when talking about things that aren't already in the game. Is playable murloc in the game? No? Then leave lore out of it. Do Human have wings? No? Then leave lore out of it. Just discuss opinion, what you think should or should not happen. No reason to use lore to make an argument against anything, ZERO.

On the contrary. Lore should absolutely be brought up when discussing ideas for the story, especially when we're talking about things that "do not exist in the lore". It doesn't matter if the idea suggested does not currently exist. We discuss lore to see if the idea fits within what we already have.