Official High Elf Discussion Megathread

[Triceron]

Lore sets up precedents, yes. But also the fact that a suggestion does not have precedents in the lore, it makes this idea unlikely to happen.

Yes,, and that is an opinion that it is unlikely. The possibility is still your subjective judgement, your personal interpretation of how it fits into lore. As long as that is clear there are no problems. If you treat it as a statement of fact then you will forever get a response like 'Blizzard can do it'. You need to be clear that you are expressing an opinion if you deem something unlikely.

I'll repeat: dismissal is not the same as rebuttal. To dismiss is to ignore, is to say "I don't care", "it's not important". To offer a rebuttal is to offer a counter-argument. And discussing lore is a counter-argument.

A rebuttal can still dismiss an argument if you use lore as a counter argument.

Example, someone says they want to see Murlocs playable in the game. A rebuttal can be that Murloc society in the lore would not allow them to join the Alliance and Horde. So yes this is a rebuttal, but it effectively dismisses the original opinion. You don't seem to understand that a rebuttal can also dismiss an argument, whether you intended to or not. You didn't address what the person -wants- to see, you would be going straight to telling rhem no it can't happen AND it shouldn't happen, because of your interpretation of lore.

It absolutely can, especially if someone posits their idea, their suggestion, as probable. Not just possible, but probable.

Not really, because even probability is subjective. I explained it above, something being likely or unlikely is purely opinion. An educated guess is still a guess. You are jot using facts to make your conclusion, you are using your observation.

Calling the difference between dismissal and rebuttal "semantics" is like saying that the difference between offering someone a bottle, and breaking a bottle on their head is "semantics".

No, because a rebuttal is not _offering a gift_ to someone. You are arguing _against_ their point, which is the same vein of dismissibg it outright.

The difference is like breaking a bottle over someones head to injure them, and breaking a bottle over their head to kill them. You somehow think that one can't lead to the other. If you are using lore to shut down an argument then your rebuttal is dismissing the argument outright.

Well, yes. Our opinions are below the canon lore of the game, because we're not the ones writing the lore.

Nope. Opinions are opinions and they are not bound to lore. That you think lore trumps it is your own problem, your own standard, your own ignorance.

And that is why you lose arguments. You are effectively trolling people by subjecting peoples opinions to abide by lore.

I really hope you realize what you are doing.

No. Especially since I already admitted that Blizzard can do what they want. Like I said, repeatedly: it's never a question of "can Blizzard do it?". It's a question of "should Blizzard do it?" I never claimed "Blizzard deems it impossible". This is a fallacy because you're injecting words into my arguments that I never made.

It doesn't matter what you admit if you are using an argument that is designed to dismiss people's opinions.

You said so yourself, you regard lore is *above* people's opinions. Therefore if you use lore to counters someone's opinion, you are *dismissing* their opinion outright. I don't think you have made that connection.

You can SAY that you think Blizzard can do whatever they want, but you yourself say the lore is above opinions and you are invoking Blizzard lore to counter people's opinions AND assert that they AREN'T ALLOWED to have opinions that go against the lore. You are literally using lore arguments to *tell people their opinion is wrong*

That is an absurd delusion. That is not a discussion of opinions, it's oppressing people's opinions and dismissing them with undue cause.

[Ielenia]

Yes,, and that is an opinion that it is unlikely. The possibility is still your subjective judgement, your personal interpretation of how it fits into lore. As long as that is clear there are no problems. If you treat it as a statement of fact then you will forever get a response like 'Blizzard can do it'. You need to be clear that you are expressing an opinion if you deem something unlikely.

Except I don't treat suggestions and ideas as fact. I never do. But any idea or suggestion presented in a public forum, is fair game for examination, especially if that has no precedent in the lore, or worse, goes against established lore.

A rebuttal can still dismiss an argument if you use lore as a counter argument.

No, a rebuttal does not "dismiss" an argument, it counters it. To dismiss means to say "it's not important", "it's not worthy of discussion". To argue against it means to actually engage with it, which is the total opposite of dismissing it.

No, because a rebuttal is not _offering a gift_ to someone. You are arguing _against_ their point, which is the same vein of dismissibg it outright.

The difference is like breaking a bottle over someones head to injure them, and breaking a bottle over their head to kill them. You somehow think that one can't lead to the other. If you are using lore to shut down an argument then your rebuttal is dismissing the argument outright.

I used that example to illustrate the massive difference between "dismissal" and "rebuttal" and to show that their differences are not semantics.

Nope. Opinions are opinions and they are not bound to lore. That you think lore trumps it is your own problem, your own standard, your own ignorance.

The viability of one's suggestion happening in the lore is bound by it. This isn't a subjective take. That is a fact.

[Triceron]

Except I don't treat suggestions and ideas as fact. I never do. But any idea or suggestion presented in a public forum, is fair game for examination, especially if that has no precedent in the lore, or worse, goes against established lore.

Lore can be twisted to suit any argument.

For example, suggest to me a new class that can be playable. I will for sure 100% be able to dismiss any suggestion you make using lore. The reason is I can twist any lore interpretation to *shut down* a precedent by calling it a unique case; just like the Illidan Horns example I made a few pages earlier.

Do you want a Necromancer? Well you can't have one because there is no example of an NPC Necromancer that is good; and if there is then I will say they are a unique NPC, not an army of good Necromancers.

Do you want Dark Ranger? Well you can't have it because there is no one to train new Dark Rangers now. If you say there are Dark Rangers that characters that can join Alliance and Horde, then I will argue that they are NPCs that are not playable. If you suggest they can train our characters? I will say you are retconning lore, because there is no lore saying they will train us.

If you suggest *any* class in the game, I am able to counter your suggestion by saying you have zero evidence that they can become playable in the lore.

No, a rebuttal does not "dismiss" an argument, it counters it. To dismiss means to say "it's not important", "it's not worthy of discussion". To argue against it means to actually engage with it, which is the total opposite of dismissing it.

So let's have an example.

"I think there's a high chance Taelia will marry Anduin."

Give me a rebuttal without dismissing my suggestion.

The viability of one's suggestion happening in the lore is bound by it. This isn't a subjective take. That is a fact.

So tell me, what is the viability of Anduin marrying Taelia? You say that the viability is a fact, then tell me what the factual viability is that Anduin will marry Taelia, without using any of your observation or opinion.

Then explain how you came to that conclusion, without using any subjective interpretation of events. If you say it is not subjective then your answer must be objective, right?

[Ardenaso]

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

Lanesh Steelweaver and some Sunreavers has them; also, any Thalassian who wants to join the Horde is automatically a Blood Elf by proxy (given that they have no history with the 7th Legion nor the Silver Covenant, that is)

- - - Updated - - -

That just sounds like playing a Blood Elf with blue eyes.

The hair I agree with. The real high elf fantasy is a high elf that hangs out in Alliance controlled areas. Silvermoon is irrelevant. Now, I understand why a player would want their character to be able to visit Silvermoon, it makes sense from a character perspective. However, this is a game with factions and rules. The best you can get is RPing in an area near Silvermoon. If you MUST feel like you're in the city, this could be done in an instance like Magister's Terrace. It's easily cleared out solo, making it RP ready as a Silvermoon stand-in.

I agree that giving Silvermoon to the Alliance is really stupid; I prefer for the Alliance High Elves' story to move forward, they better leave their claims for Quel'thalas and settle somewhere else instead like Eldre'thals. Vereesa and Alleria should do a Dathremar 2.0

[Alanar]

Racials are pretty weak argument, since they can easily change as we've already seen. Remember blood elves having racial skill to suck mana from creatures to restore their mana? Yes, it was reworked after their story progressed and Sunwell sustained their addiction. I'm not saying it will happen, I'm just saying it is one of the possibilities.

The trend we see now is for void elves to get more non-corrupted visuals and devs already told us they intend to do more of this in the future. If that happens, it may be followed by a new lore.

This is going abit far.. void elves are not going to be cleansed..

Few options added sure..but they are mutated not realy an easy feat to cleanse them. Besideslets keep th void in void elves. They should get more void options not less imo.

[Syegfryed]

If you mean made up by the official Warcraft RPG in conjunction with Blizzard, then yes. It was cannon for years.

RPG isn't canon, and by blizzard blood elves are high elves, so again.

- - - Updated - - -

I have already explained my reasoning multiple times. You are the only one still misrepresenting my arguments, which at this point I have no other option but to consider this a willful, intentional occurrence.

Insisting on a lie does not make it any less of a lie.

They have the exact same body shape and silhouette

.

look how you literally dodged trying to went by a tangent, this is pointless, they are still different races with different thematic with different visual identities.

Either way, having your skin turned purple, your head sprout tentacles and hear whispers of the void does not necessarily mean you have transformed into a different race,

lmao, yes, but in this case it does, and the game says so, you liking or not

considering that a race who had their bodies reshaped into an anthro wolf, with fur all over their bodies, and an animalistic fury they have to contend with every day to control did not made those humans into a different race. I'm talking about the worgen, if that wasn't clear enough.

one is a druidic curse, now you are going to tell me druids are another playable race too, again, pointless, undead is undead regardless of their "silhouette"

you are trying by all means make a parrarel making worgens the same as void elves but they still are different

You are the one using skin color as an argument.

im using race as argument, they are two different races period

Why does skin color work, but not hair color or eye color?

????? because is not just skin color? you are trying spin things

I don't know , they look very much alike. They have the exact same silhouette.

"YoU KNoW bECaUsE sIlHoUeTtE", again, silhouette is something you made up and are trying to make relevant and the main argument here, when its not, its just what you think, what you came up to excuse your double standards, you talk like blizzard itself made a point about sIlHoUeTtE when it never happened.

at this moment, there is two different races, who share model, silhouette, appearance and visual identity, in two different factions, there is not a damn problem if forsakens have that as well with a race of their own faction when it completely make sense in their lore because forsaken are not made just about humans.

, you are making a statement of fact when, again, you have zero conclusive evidence to back up your claim.

ah yes i have nothing, lets forget how the hearthstone was something "mechanically gameplay" but also appear in the lore, witch other exemples like skills and spells, but sure, nothin from the game is canon if you like

[dauntless]

Lanesh Steelweaver and some Sunreavers has them; also, any Thalassian who wants to join the Horde is automatically a Blood Elf by proxy (given that they have no history with the 7th Legion nor the Silver Covenant, that is)

I assume because they didn't join up with Kael'thas, after Dalaran was destroyed, so they never got the green eyes from whatever fel energy they were exposed to.

They might consider themselves Blood Elves, but they'd be Blood Elves in name only. The look is part of the Blood Elf identity.

[elbleuet]

DH change didn't change their racials yet, and this is about a class x race thing, is another subject, blood elves dh are argubly in a state of transition to become full demons


all of then are still corrupted, they just show less, they still pop up void beyond their own control. Seems like people rly don't want to admit void elves are void elves.

Blood elves DH are still mutated elves. And they're still considered as blood elves and Horde.

As of now, void elves can be mutated purple elves, normal elves (see blood & high elves in Telogrus Rift) or high elves with super void powers.

[Ielenia]

look how you literally dodged trying to went by a tangent, this is pointless, they are still different races with different thematic with different visual identities.

I did not go in any tangent. In fact, my argument has been the same since the beginning: silhouettes, and how giving the blood elf model to the forsaken playable race muddles its already defined visual identity.

lmao, yes, but in this case it does, and the game says so, you liking or not

Where does it say it? At no point the game ever makes it clear that void elves are a different, separate race. I've asked you, multiple times, to show where the game "says so", and repeatedly you've failed to demonstrate it.

one is a druidic curse, now you are going to tell me druids are another playable race too, again, pointless, undead is undead regardless of their "silhouette"

you are trying by all means make a parrarel making worgens the same as void elves but they still are different

I am making a parallel because they are very much alike. Both have been transformed against their will through a magical process that normally completely transforms their minds and bodies. It doesn't matter that one is druidic in nature while the other is not.

im using race as argument, they are two different races period

????? because is not just skin color? you are trying spin things

It doesn't change the fact that you used skin color as part of your argument that both are different races.

"YoU KNoW bECaUsE sIlHoUeTtE", again, silhouette is something you made up and are trying to make relevant and the main argument here, when its not, its just what you think, what you came up to excuse your double standards, you talk like blizzard itself made a point about sIlHoUeTtE when it never happened.

No, silhouette is an actual thing, here, especially when you said dark rangers don't look like blood elves.

at this moment, there is two different races, who share model, silhouette, appearance and visual identity, in two different factions,

Repeating headcanon as if it was fact does not make it any less of a headcanon. We have no conclusive evidence whatsoever that void elves are an actual separate race than the rest of the thalassian elves. And I'll repeat: being a separate playable race is not evidence that they're an actual separate race. Look at the worgen: separate playable race, but still the same race as humans.

ah yes i have nothing, lets forget how the hearthstone was something "mechanically gameplay" but also appear in the lore, witch other exemples like skills and spells, but sure, nothin from the game is canon if you like

Um... dude, you're getting your wires crossed, there. I never said that the priest's void form or the void elf's entropic embrace abilities don't exist in the lore so I have no idea why you went on that weird tangent of "also appear in the lore". I simply pointed out that tooltip descriptions of game mechanics are not necessary lore descriptions.

- - - Updated - - -

Do you want a Necromancer? Well you can't have one because there is no example of an NPC Necromancer that is good; and if there is then I will say they are a unique NPC, not an army of good Necromancers.

To which I would counter by saying that we had no example of NPC death knight that was good before that character concept became playable, and cite the events that led to them becoming "good" and point out something similar could happen. Or point at the warlock lore and the void lore and point out that there is a new "breed" of necromancers that want to put that magic to good use.

Do you want Dark Ranger? Well you can't have it because there is no one to train new Dark Rangers now. If you say there are Dark Rangers that characters that can join Alliance and Horde, then I will argue that they are NPCs that are not playable. If you suggest they can train our characters? I will say you are retconning lore, because there is no lore saying they will train us.

And I would point out that many dark rangers have defected from Sylvanas' side and rejoined the Horde, so there are dark rangers around to train new dark rangers. As for the "retconning", I'd point out that it's not a retcon because a retcon means removing/altering existing lore, and no existing lore say that the dark rangers would never teach anyone.

You see what I did there? I counter-argued your lore points using lore. And that is the point I'm making. Making a lore argument against a suggestion invites the other to make a counter-argument, and the discussion progresses. It's not a dismissal.

So let's have an example.

"I think there's a high chance Taelia will marry Anduin."

Give me a rebuttal without dismissing my suggestion.

I would say it's highly unlikely as we only saw the two interact I think once, and there were no "they'll get married!" vibes from that encounter.

So tell me, what is the viability of Anduin marrying Taelia? You say that the viability is a fact, then tell me what the factual viability is that Anduin will marry Taelia, without using any of your observation or opinion.

Then explain how you came to that conclusion, without using any subjective interpretation of events. If you say it is not subjective then your answer must be objective, right?

You misunderstand me. I never said that. I said that the chance of something happening or not depends on the lore. I never said "happening as a fact" or "not happening as a fact" because of the lore.

[Triceron]

To which I would counter by saying that we had no example of NPC death knight that was good before that character concept became playable, and cite the events that led to them becoming "good" and point out something similar could happen. Or point at the warlock lore and the void lore and point out that there is a new "breed" of necromancers that want to put that magic to good use.

But the Necromancer isn't the Warlock or Void lore. If we use lore there is no new 'breed' of Necromancers that would join the Alliance/Horde. And what you consider a precedence with DK, I would counter saying lore doesn't have that for Necromancer, and call you out for trying to make something up. We don't have lore to suggest Necromancers have this.

Does this argument sound familiar? Because it's something you do all the time. Call people out for 'making something up' when all we are doing is opening up a precedence using lore. Do you know what your reply was against suggesting precedence? "HOW DO YOU KNOW?"

And I would point out that many dark rangers have defected from Sylvanas' side and rejoined the Horde, so there are dark rangers around to train new dark rangers. As for the "retconning", I'd point out that it's not a retcon because a retcon means removing/altering existing lore, and no existing lore say that the dark rangers would never teach anyone.

And here is my rebuttal.

HOW DO YOU KNOW?

Lore doesn't state that they will train any new class. Hell, lore of Legion already lumped them in with the Hunter class hall, and Nathanos in the lore was a Dark Ranger who trained Hunters. By all means the lore is already supporting the idea that Dark Rangers are Hunter Trainers. From there, I can claim that the current Dark Rangers training a new generation is something that you are making up that isn't in the lore right now; and assert that it is highly unlikely since we already have existing lore showing that they are Hunter trainers.

See how easy it is? You can suggest more if you want, and I can say it's highly unlikely it will happen and shut those suggestions down too.

This is an example of dismissing an argument THROUGH a rebuttal that calls it out as being highly unlikely. It's inserting dominance through the lore. I've framed the discussion specifically so that you are no longer arguing against me, you are arguing against the lore. Anything you consider a precedent, I can counter by addressing your lack of observable facts that support your argument and calling it out as 'Highly unlikely', or throw out a 'HOW DO YOU KNOW?'.

Try again if you like. I don't think you can get past this. Anything you throw at me, I can just say that is not real lore.

And it will get to the point where the simplest course of action is to break the absurdity that the lore dominates any opinion (typically by invoking 'Blizzard can do it!'). But as long as we stick to the lore as the standard? You will never get any suggestion through, because it's not supported by lore.

I would say it's highly unlikely as we only saw the two interact I think once, and there were no "they'll get married!" vibes from that encounter.

So I think what you don't understand is by saying it is highly unlikely, you aren't really giving any room for discussion. You are simply making a blanket statement about probability based on your observation. It isn't actually 'unlikely' any more than you can say 'Well I think it's highly unlikely this seed will grow into an entire tree if you just stick it in this hole with dirt'. That's a big problem when we're talking about story moving forward, because tagging possibilities of fiction by using observation of lore as a standard severely limits what possibilities may occur.

And frankly, anything that hasn't happened can be considered 'unlikely'. What are the chances we will have a Void Lord expansion? Pretty high I would say. But you know what? Until it actually comes, you can make an argument it would be highly unlikely, and you wouldn't be wrong. The reason is because the story doesn't actually state we will face them. It hints it. And if we simply use observation, then well there is no guarantee they will see them any more than we would see Elune in full form. We can absolutely say it is highly unlikely, because the lore has not given any observable facts regarding Void Lords in as physical enemies we can fight. They are as ominous as Elune.

If the argument is that it is highly unlikely Taelia will marry Anduin because they only met once, then I don't consider that a matter of engaging conversation. You've left the other person no where to go with this matter because you are keen on using observation as a means to calculate probability, and frankly there is no way the other person can bring observable evidence to the table to make any convincing counter-argument. Does this make sense?

Even if you are not dismissing the argument, you are building walls around the discussion that effectively does the same thing as dismissing. The argument you present is impossible to counter using observable lore as a standard. The only possibility is opening up to precedence; but 'They can meet again and build a relationship' can just as easily shut down by saying 'We don't know that', 'that is highly unlikely' or 'HOW DO YOU KNOW?'. The lore would not support an argument that Taelia and Anduin would *get* married, lore only supports what has already happened.

This is illustrating why I am saying using lore in an argument of future events is absolutely pointless. I think if you reflect on what I am saying above, you will see that you have used these types of arguments in the past, possibly without regarding that you are leading the conversation into a dead-end by asserting Lore as the dominant standard over opinion. If you (Ielenia) say Lore is above opinions, then no suggestion would be possible because suggestions can not be supported by lore. Consider that your method of argument involves refuting any suggestion that can not be supported by lore. Since no suggestions or plausabilities can be supported by observable facts within the lore, they can all be refuted using Lore as the definitive standard.

You misunderstand me. I never said that. I said that the chance of something happening or not depends on the lore. I never said "happening as a fact" or "not happening as a fact" because of the lore.

Then please elaborate, because I don't understand what you mean by "the viability of one's suggestion happening in the lore is bound by it. This isn't a subjective take."

All plausability of a suggestion, even concerning lore, should be subjective. I don't understand the context of your statement saying that it isn't a subjective take.

[vilememory]

Is anyone even able to keep up with the numerous arguments that go on in this thread? I'm trying to see how they connect to High Elves but the lines for me are getting really thin.

[Traycor]

Is anyone even able to keep up with the numerous arguments that go on in this thread? I'm trying to see how they connect to High Elves but the lines for me are getting really thin.

Some people are posting in this thread because it's popular. They start separate threads for those other topics but they quickly die out. Hence, they come here.

As for high elves, I'm ready for Blizz to add some human hair styles for the high elves, and human hair colors.

[scubi666stacy]

I assume because they didn't join up with Kael'thas, after Dalaran was destroyed, so they never got the green eyes from whatever fel energy they were exposed to.

They might consider themselves Blood Elves, but they'd be Blood Elves in name only. The look is part of the Blood Elf identity.

Does not matter anymore since the Sunwell was restored. Its just politics now - and oh, the saturation with Void particles. Technically, Void Elves are not High Elves anymore, while Blood Elves still are.

[Triceron]

Does not matter anymore since the Sunwell was restored. Its just politics now - and oh, the saturation with Void particles. Technically, Void Elves are not High Elves anymore, while Blood Elves still are.

Lore is really odd there. You're absolutely right about that, but it's still weird when fully realized that the Blood Elves now have a closer connection to original High Elves since the Sunwell was restored than the Void Elves which were literally High Elves.

[Syegfryed]

Blood elves DH are still mutated elves. And they're still considered as blood elves and Horde.

As of now, void elves can be mutated purple elves, normal elves (see blood & high elves in Telogrus Rift) or high elves with super void powers.

again, you are comparing elves to potatoes, there is no "normal elves with void powers" among the void elves, a void elf is not n normal elf using void magic, "void elf" state is a mutated state, regardless of how their skin look like

[Yarathir]

again, you are comparing elves to potatoes, there is no "normal elves with void powers", void elf" state is a mutated state, regardless of how their skin look like

what are shadow priests?

[Syegfryed]

I did not go in any tangent. In fact, my argument has been the same since the beginning: silhouettes, and how giving the blood elf model to the forsaken playable race muddles its already defined visual identity.

and your argument is completely bullshit because they already gave the blood elf model to the alliance, they already gave the blood elf visual thematic to the void elves


you know, things that literally muddled their already defined visual identity, and you are trying to say they can't do again

again, you are using double standards, no matter how you try to spin this.

Where does it say it? At no point the game ever makes it clear that void elves are a different, separate race

can you stop playing dumb?

Creation screen description
Seeking to harness the corruptive magic of the Void, these outcast elves endured an unexpected transformation. They are determined to master their newfound powers and resist the whispers eager to lure them into madness.

Opening cutscene
Alleria Windrunner: The Void. A force of infinite hunger. Its whispers have broken the will of dragons... and lured even the titans' own children into madness. Sages and scholars fear the Void. But we understand a truth they do not. That the Void is a power to be harnessed... to be bent by a will strong enough to command it. The Void has shaped us... changed us. But you will become its master. Wield the shadows as a weapon to save our world... and defend the Alliance!

you want more than literally alleria saying the void shaped and transformed then?

imba: tHiS iS nOt EnOuGh PrOoF!!!111 nOt FoR mE!11"

I am making a parallel because they are very much alike. Both have been transformed against their will through a magical process that normally completely transforms their minds and bodies. It doesn't matter that one is druidic in nature while the other is not.

completely does, because one is a permanent druidic shape, their human bodies are the same, void elves got completely changed permanently, much more like the lightforged.

No, silhouette is an actual thing

that you made up, trying to pass as blizzard pillar of argument, cause you know, if it was, void elves would not be a thing, since you gave the silhoute of a race to another faction

Repeating headcanon as if it was fact does not make it any less of a headcanon. We have no conclusive evidence whatsoever that void elves are an actual separate race than the rest of the thalassian elves.

We does, you don't want to accept what we have is entirely your own problem

[Varodoc]

what are shadow priests?

Shadow priests are not mutated at a cellular level by the Void. Void elves literally have a different DNA from the Blood elves because they are stuck in a midway state between mortal and ethereal. Shadow priests are just blood elves meddling with the Void.

[Yarathir]

Shadow priests are not mutated at a cellular level by the Void. Void elves literally have a different DNA from the Blood elves because they are stuck in a midway state between mortal and ethereal. Shadow priests are just blood elves meddling with the Void.

Yes. The OG Void Elves that were altered by a one-time chance event.

Now how about the ones with normal skin colors foreshadowed by the High Elf Wayfarers?

[Varodoc]

Yes. The OG Void Elves that were altered by a one-time chance event.

Now how about the ones with normal skin colors foreshadowed by the High Elf Wayfarers?

Tweet Blizzard. They are the only one who can answer you.

We have NO official confirmation of what those fair-skin options are supposed to represent. It could just be a Void elf of the first generation (Umbric's) who has learned how to revert back to High elf form like Alleria.