Official High Elf Discussion Megathread

[Ielenia]

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

The fact that void elves and blood elves share similar silhouettes is irrelevant, as explained multiple times already, because I'm not talking about one race copying another race's silhouette. I'm talking about a race's own visual identity being muddled in the form of having their already defined silhouette being radically changed by adding another one.

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

I'm not, as explained multiple times. You're trying to force this idea of "double standards" by trying to force something into my arguments that does not pertain to it.

can you stop playing dumb?

I'm not. You're making a statement of fact, that the game tells us that they are separate races. I'm asking you to back up your claim. Show me conclusive evidence that the game says that void elves and blood elves are separate races. But, I'll remind you: both being separate playable races in no way proves that they are separate races, considering humans and worgens are separate playable races, but still the exact same race in the lore.

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

And where is the evidence that the void is not "shaping and changing" the shadow priests? Alleria's words don't prove anything, either, considering shadow priests are also being "shaped and changed" by the void, considering the tentacles sprouting from their bodies.

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.

And so were the worgen. The worgen are permanently altered. Just like void elves. As far as we know, there is no cure for the worgen curse.

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

Again, I am not talking about two races sharing a silhouette. I'm talking about a race's own visual identity being muddled, by having their already established silhouette being completely changed into something vastly different.

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

And yet you've failed to provide any, despite me repeatedly asking for it.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

I never said it is. I would invoke the warlock and void lore because both are examples of forces previously used exclusively for evil and to cause harm on innocents, but now it's used in the service of Azeroth. Also, to say I'm "making stuff up" implies I'm making statements of facts that do not exist, which I'm not. I'm not saying "something like that exist". I'm saying "something like that could exist". There is a difference.

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?"

I only call out people by asking "how do they know" when they make statements of fact. If someone makes a suggestion, offers an idea, I don't do that.

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.

Here's the thing, though: you think you're "shutting down" suggestions... but you aren't. You're actually engaging with them. You're arguing against them. You're not dismissing them.

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.

I already did. The viability (i.e. chance) of something (i.e. the suggestion) depends on the lore. A suggestion that does not retcon existing lore (such as saying Flynn is from Gilneas) has a higher chance of happening than something that goes against established lore (saying Velen is a blood elf, for example).

- - - Updated - - -

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.

How do you know that? For all we know, the "void elf state" could be akin to the worgen curse. I.e., it's not hereditary, therefore it would not be a new race, because the baby of two void elves would be a normal, un-voided blood elf.

[Triceron]

I never said it is. I would invoke the warlock and void lore because both are examples of forces previously used exclusively for evil and to cause harm on innocents, but now it's used in the service of Azeroth. Also, to say I'm "making stuff up" implies I'm making statements of facts that do not exist, which I'm not. I'm not saying "something like that exist". I'm saying "something like that could exist". There is a difference.

Yes, you can say it could exist, and I can say it's highly unlikely. There is no lore to support your argument. Lore strictly lists out that there are no good breed of Necromancer army, etc etc. Like I said, if it doesn't exist in lore you can't use 'something like that could exist' to support your argument. You yourself have dismissed this time and time again whenever other people say 'Something like that could exist', you just run back behind lore and say 'There is no lore saying it will'.

Here's the thing, though: you think you're "shutting down" suggestions... but you aren't. You're actually engaging with them. You're arguing against them. You're not dismissing them.

I'm shutting down any suggestion you can think of. That is refuting anything you say. Is that a better word to make sense to you? Refute?

There is no suggestion you can use that I can't refute by using lore as my reason. Like I say, I can twist lore to shut down any of your arguments.

I already did. The viability (i.e. chance) of something (i.e. the suggestion) depends on the lore. A suggestion that does not retcon existing lore (such as saying Flynn is from Gilneas) has a higher chance of happening than something that goes against established lore (saying Velen is a blood elf, for example).

But that is still subjective. You said it was *not* a subjective take, but for you to decide that a retcon has less chance of happening is purely your speculation.

You are CLAIMING that one has higher chance than the other, and you can't prove it. There is nothing to suggest that retcons have any lower chance of happening in the lore.

[Yarathir]

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.

They give Void Elves fair skins and blue eyes at the same time they give Blood Elves blue eyes.
And you think that isn't their way of saying "Hey, now you can both be High Elves."?

[Ielenia]

Yes, you can say it could exist, and I can say it's highly unlikely. There is no lore to support your argument. Lore strictly lists out that there are no good breed of Necromancer army, etc etc. Like I said, if it doesn't exist in lore you can't use 'something like that could exist' to support your argument. You yourself have dismissed this time and time again whenever other people say 'Something like that could exist', you just run back behind lore and say 'There is no lore saying it will'.

How can you say "there is no lore to support my argument" when I mentioned two separate instances in the lore that support the argument by offering precedent? You see, that is a dismissal. You're dismissing the examples I'm giving, and declaring there is no examples.

I'm shutting down any suggestion you can think of. That is refuting anything you say. Is that a better word to make sense to you? Refute?

You're engaging with the argument, inviting me to respond to your arguments. Something that saying "I don't care", "it's not important" and "Blizzard can do it" do not.

But that is still subjective. You said it was *not* a subjective take, but for you to decide that a retcon has less chance of happening is purely your speculation.

Because the idea is to have a cohesive, comprehensive story that is easy to follow, and a story that gets constantly re-written and having already established elements of it being removed and/or changed is anything but cohesive or comprehensive. Or easy to follow.

[Syegfryed]

The fact that void elves and blood elves share similar silhouettes is irrelevant

it is because you say so?

as explained multiple times already, because I'm not talking about one race copying another race's silhouette. I'm talking about a race's own visual identity being muddled in the form of having their already defined silhouette being radically changed by adding another one.

again, that is double standards, you think it is fine if they muddle radically their visual identity as long their don't change the sIlHoUeTtE, regardless of how both do the same thing in the end.

This is a no point either because they can also give the undead elves options to default blood elves without changing any silhouette, so gain, pointless.

I'm not. You're making a statement of fact, that the game tells us that they are separate races. I'm asking you to back up your claim. Show me conclusive evidence that the game says that void elves and blood elves are separate races.

it was already showed many times, you just don't want accept then because you like the perfectionist fallacy

And where is the evidence that the void is not "shaping and changing" the shadow priests?

stop trying to ask people to proof negatives, that is just a low bar argument, this is just a tentative to escape from a tangent again, you are trying to say the void shape and change shadow priests, but since you can't proof that shit, because nothing is ever implied you say "where is the evidence of they NOT doing that", then you are going to pretend "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", and get away thinking you are real clever, but is just asinine

Again, I am not talking about two races sharing a silhouette. I'm talking about a race's own visual identity being muddled, by having their already established silhouette being completely changed into something vastly different.

Again, your argument is bullshit, visual identity was already muddled by a a race who already had a visual indentity established receiving different skin color who make then look like another race.

you think the sIlHoUeTtE is something groundbreaking that make things completely different and one fine and the other no is laughable and the show proof how you are using double standards, because the bullshit argument of sIlHoUeTtE is something you come up with, not blizzard or the devs, because if sIlHoUeTtE was any argument at all void elves would never be alliance.

And yet you've failed to provide any, despite me repeatedly asking for it.

it is already proved by Alleria own words, you just don't want to accept, that is a little problem you have

For all we know, the "void elf state" could be akin to the worgen curse. I.e., it's not hereditary, therefore it would not be a new race, because the baby of two void elves would be a normal, un-voided blood elf.

Could be AKA: "its just my baseless hypothesis since the worgen curse, a permanent druid shape, have nothing to do with the void, that i create for my mantra of void elves not being a different race"

void elves are a completely different race, until stated otherwise, like the devs stated with worgens, not the other way around neither are the schrodinger elf cause void elves can be completely sterile.

Let alone that you are confusing specie and race

[Triceron]

How can you say "there is no lore to support my argument" when I mentioned two separate instances in the lore that support the argument by offering precedent? You see, that is a dismissal. You're dismissing the examples I'm giving, and declaring there is no examples.

There is no lore to support your argument. Necromancers and Dark Rangers aren't DKs or Warlocks. What you call a precedent I say are unique instances of lore for those classes. Lore supports DK and Warlocks but there is no lore suggesting Necromancers and Dark Rangers will get that same treatment, therefore it is highly unlikely as a precedent.

I have engaged your argument and refuted any evidence you brought to the table. Please tell me how you can prove that Dark Rangers would be playable if I say all the examples you gave are highly unlikely. Please elaborate.

You're engaging with the argument, inviting me to respond to your arguments. Something that saying "I don't care", "it's not important" and "Blizzard can do it" do not.

Except your argument does exactly what I'm doing - dismissing.

If you say something is highly unlikely, how is it possible to continue discussion further? There is no way to prove a suggestion can be *more* likely if it doesn't already exist in the lore. I am engaging your conversation the EXACT same way you said you were engaging conversation by saying Taelia and Anduin's marriage is highly unlikely.

Do you not realize I am literally using your own argument against you? You have to realize the double standard at some point. If you say it's highly unlikely, you call it 'engaging the conversation'. If I say it's highly unlikely, you call it 'dismissing'.

Because the idea is to have a cohesive, comprehensive story that is easy to follow, and a story that gets constantly re-written and having already established elements of it being removed and/or changed is anything but cohesive or comprehensive. Or easy to follow.

Which means you can also shut down anyone's ideas who doesn't abide by your subjective standard of what is considered cohesive.

Should we have playable Dark Rangers? Well if you don't like them, we can just say 'Lore says they are Hunters' and be done with it. Dismiss it on the spot. That is the cohesive lore as it stands right now, and nothing you can say can change that.

Are you understanding my point now? That the lore can be twisted to shut down any suggestion or new idea? That all precedent can be dismissed as 'unlikely' and that there is no way to prove it to be likely?

[Varodoc]

They give Void Elves fair skins and blue eyes at the same time they give Blood Elves blue eyes.
And you think that isn't their way of saying "Hey, now you can both be High Elves."?

Huh... you know the Void elf leader is a Void elf with fair skin and blue eyes, right?



An... And... you know Void elves were always described as a flavour of HIGH ELVES, hm? Even BEFORE they got fair skin options.

[Ielenia]

There is no lore to support your argument because lore can never be used to suggest what could happen.

I literally gave an example of exactly that, and yet you dismissed it without even addressing the proper argument. I used currently established lore to offer a possibility of what could happen with the necromancer class, by reminding you of the precedent set by warlocks and death knights.

Except your argument does exactly what I'm doing - dismissing.

A dismissal is what you did with my examples. You didn't address them, you just dismissed them. To argue lore is not to dismiss the idea. Is to challenge the other side to explain their ideas.

If you say something is highly unlikely, how is it possible to continue discussion further?

By giving counter-examples of precedent events that are similar and back up the suggested idea, for example. Perhaps the person arguing for the unlikelihood of the idea forgot about said events.

- - - Updated - - -

it is because you say so?

It is because I'm not talking about two playable races looking similar. It is because I'm talking about how a playable race's own visual identity being muddled and altered by having its already established silhouette radically altered by giving the race a completely different model. It is because I'm talking about how the playable race looks in a vacuum. That's why pointing out how blood elves and void elves having similar silhouettes is immaterial. And I've explained this so many times, and you literally ignore it, that I have no other option than to conclude you're doing it on purpose.

again, that is double standards, you think it is fine if they muddle radically their visual identity as long their don't change the sIlHoUeTtE, regardless of how both do the same thing in the end.

It's not double-standards, because giving a race a different skin color does not make the race look like anything other than its own race. A blood elf player character did not stop looking like a blood elf because there is now a dark skin option for customization.

it was already showed many times, you just don't want accept then because you like the perfectionist fallacy

First, this is not "perfectionist fallacy". Perfectionist fallacy means that all alternatives should be dismissed in lieu of the "perfect alternative". Which is not what I'm doing. I'm not making statements of fact, and the only thing I'm dismissing is your attempts to assert your headcanons as fact.

Second, the only three pieces of evidence you provided that you think proves your case (separate playable race, transformed by the void, Alleria's words) were debunked already. All three of them by the same thing: the worgen.

• Separate playable race: Stormwind humans and worgen are separate playable races, yet we have conclusive evidence that the two are not separate races, since the child of two worgen is a human.
• Transformed by the void: worgen's body and mind were radically transformed by a magic, just like the void elves' body were radically transformed by magic, and yet they are not a separate race from the other humans.
• Alleria's words: her saying they were "transformed and shaped" by the void in no way proves as fact, or even evidences the idea they're a separate race. The worgen playable race were "transformed and shaped" by the worgen curse, yet, again, they are not a separate race.

This does not prove that void elves and blood elves are the same race, but it disproves your assertion that they are.

stop trying to ask people to proof negatives,

I will if certain people stop using those negatives as facts for their arguments.

Again, your argument is bullshit, visual identity was already muddled by a a race who already had a visual indentity established receiving different skin color who make then look like another race.

Irrelevant because that is not what I'm talking about, as explained multiple times.

Could be AKA: "its just my baseless hypothesis since the worgen curse, a permanent druid shape, have nothing to do with the void, that i create for my mantra of void elves not being a different race"

Except I never said that the worgen curse and the void have anything to do with each other. I simply pointed the situations (i.e. the effects they have on the boy and mind) as similar.

void elves are a completely different race,

Which you have failed so far to prove they are, despite how much you state they are.

until stated otherwise

That's not how it works. You make a statement of facts, you adopt the burden of proof to demonstrate that it is a fact. Saying "until you disprove my assertion" does not count as making it a fact. Especially since we have evidence the two might not be separate races

, like the devs stated with worgens, not the other way around neither are the schrodinger elf cause void elves can be completely sterile.

Being sterile or not has no bearing on the question if void elves are a separate race or not from the blood elves.

[Triceron]

I literally gave an example of exactly that, and yet you dismissed it without even addressing the proper argument. I used currently established lore to offer a possibility of what could happen with the necromancer class, by reminding you of the precedent set by warlocks and death knights.

You are correct

But what can you do when I say that is highly unlikely because lore does not support your claim that it is a precedent?

Anduin meeting Taelia itself is a precedent for them getting married in the future. You also said validity is not a subjective take, saying it is unlikely because it only happened once should be regarded as objective. Yet that is purely based on observation and interpretation.

Honestly speaking if we are talking about precedents then Thrall meeting Aggra and getting married would be a precedent for Anduin and Taelia. Does this make it more likely now? Or does it stay unlikely because it is not relevant to Anduin?

A dismissal is what you did with my examples. You didn't address them, you just dismissed them. To argue lore is not to dismiss the idea. Is to challenge the other side to explain their ideas.


By giving counter-examples of precedent events that are similar and back up the suggested idea, for example. Perhaps the person arguing for the unlikelihood of the idea forgot about said events.

Right, so why haven't you engaged on the Dark Ranger examples?

You seemed to stop instead of making counterpoints. I already addressed you by saying it is highly unlikely, what would be your counter argument?

I used lore to counter your precedent by clearly showing that Dark Rangers are tied to Hunters in the lore. Death Knights were never associated with another class and showed up in their class halls in the lore, while Dark Rangers do in Hunters class halls. I effectively made a rebuttal using lore. Your turn.

[Syegfryed]

It is because I'm not talking about two playable races looking similar. It is because I'm talking about how a playable race's own visual identity being muddled and altered by having its already established silhouette radically altered by giving the race a completely different model.

And again, it is a double standarts because your point is how much the visual identity was muddled, for you is fine for void elves becuase sIlHoUeTtE, and not for the others

It's not double-standards, because giving a race a different skin color does not make the race look like anything other than its own race.

giving then a different skin color does make the race look like another race, the race who is in the other faction, once void elves looked only like void elves, now they can look like void elves and blood elves

Again, silhoute is something you come up to sleep better at night, is not valid, is not something blizzard made said, and if it was a thing void elves would not exist and the elf silhoute would not be in the alliance.

A blood elf player character did not stop looking like a blood elf because there is now a dark skin option for customization.

because there was not another elf race with dark skin, again false equivalence, plus, if they do not give undead elves for forsaken they can give to blood elves, completely invalidating your silhouette argument

First, this is not "perfectionist fallacy". Perfectionist fallacy means that all alternatives should be dismissed in lieu of the "perfect alternative". Which is not what I'm doing. I'm not making statements of fact, and the only thing I'm dismissing is your attempts to assert your headcanons as fact.

you are disming the lore and what we have in prol of a perfect answer for something you brought up, you only want a verbatim answer provided in a blue post or similar, again, bullshit, what we already have is completely enough, Alleria own words is already enough, you like or not

Second, the only three pieces of evidence you provided that you think proves your case (separate playable race, transformed by the void, Alleria's words) were debunked already. All three of them by the same thing: the worgen.

you cannot debunk something bringing up something totally different, worgen are not void elves, their transformation is from different sources, in different ways, stop with this kink of false equivalence

• Alleria's words: her saying they were "transformed and shaped" by the void in no way proves as fact, or even evidences the idea they're a separate race. The worgen playable race were "transformed and shaped" by the worgen curse, yet, again, they are not a separate race.

"worgens are not a different race thus void elves are not either"

every day is a new fallacy from you, today is the undistributed middle

Except I never said that the worgen curse and the void have anything to do with each other. I simply pointed the situations (i.e. the effects they have on the boy and mind) as similar.

you are trying to put then in the same bag as the same, and you have nothing other than your own "hypothesis", if they have nothing to do with each other they are not the same, period. And until stated otherwise void elves are another race.

Which you have failed so far to prove they are, despite how much you state they are.

the proof is already in the game and in alleria words, your failed attempt to draw a paralel with another thing, totally unrelated does not disproof that

That's not how it works.

that is literally how it works in wow lore, again, this is not a schrodinger elf situation, where they may or may not be another race, they either are, or aren't, with what we have they are, until stated otherwise.

Being sterile or not has no bearing on the question if void elves are a separate race or not from the blood elves.

if they are sterile they cannot bear any child thus, you cannot use the "elf babies" as the only proof to say if they are another race or not, your perfectionist fallacy is showing.

[MyWholeLifeIsThunder]

Truth is, we still don't know if the new skin and eye colors for Void Elves are retroactively meant to have been possibilities for those first generation Void Elves, or if they are meant to signify later generations (Of course, if you ascribe to the theory that VE's need more generations to be a viable race instead of a one-off accident)

Either way, the fact that Void Elves can't have green eyes is interesting, whether it's because the new blue eyes are meant to be from High elves joining the VE's, or Blood Elves that got their eyes de-radiated by using Void energies. We did know the full transformation gave them glowing white/blue eyes, and although keeping green eyes on BE's is most likely an aesthetic choice to separate them, maybe it can be explained in-universe.

[Yarathir]

Huh... you know the Void elf leader is a Void elf with fair skin and blue eyes, right?



An... And... you know Void elves were always described as a flavour of HIGH ELVES, hm? Even BEFORE they got fair skin options.

She's a High Elf.

- - - Updated - - -

Truth is, we still don't know if the new skin and eye colors for Void Elves are retroactively meant to have been possibilities for those first generation Void Elves, or if they are meant to signify later generations (Of course, if you ascribe to the theory that VE's need more generations to be a viable race instead of a one-off accident)

Either way, the fact that Void Elves can't have green eyes is interesting, whether it's because the new blue eyes are meant to be from High elves joining the VE's, or Blood Elves that got their eyes de-radiated by using Void energies. We did know the full transformation gave them glowing white/blue eyes, and although keeping green eyes on BE's is most likely an aesthetic choice to separate them, maybe it can be explained in-universe.

I think they don't want them to have green or yellow eyes just so that Blood Elves have something that is still unique to them.

[MyWholeLifeIsThunder]

I think they don't want them to have green or yellow eyes just so that Blood Elves have something that is still unique to them.

Yeah, most certainly the correct answer; bust as most aesthetic/gameplay decisions, they do find a lore/in universe justification for them. Lore might not motivate the decisions themselves, but it is used to justify and explain such decisions post fact

[Skirdus]

She's a High Elf.

[MyWholeLifeIsThunder]

You know, while I agree that she is a Void Elf -most accurate way of describing her- a lot of the issue with the classification discourse is the nebulous differentiation of Void Elves as a race on itself within the universe -For example, contrasted and compared to say, Illidari Blood/Night Elves.

So when one person is speaking about the nuance of what race is within universe, understanding that an out of universe classification is a whole different deal, to link the Wowpedia Character bio is kinda... reductionist.

[Swnem]

You know, while I agree that she is a Void Elf -most accurate way of describing her- a lot of the issue with the classification discourse is the nebulous differentiation of Void Elves as a race on itself within the universe -For example, contrasted and compared to say, Illidari Blood/Night Elves.

So when one person is speaking about the nuance of what race is within universe, understanding that an out of universe classification is a whole different deal, to link the Wowpedia Character bio is kinda... reductionist.

Yet they are. From what we know in game she has the same powers that mirror the void elf racials and in lore she is a void elf.

I understand what you mean, such as a human being born caucasian, doesnt turn into another race when they get a tan, it doesn't make sense that a high elf changes race. But, this is Blizzards fantasy world, and they make the rules.

[Garfurion]

Yet they are. From what we know in game she has the same powers that mirror the void elf racials and in lore she is a void elf.

I understand what you mean, such as a human being born caucasian, doesnt turn into another race when they get a tan, it doesn't make sense that a high elf changes race. But, this is Blizzards fantasy world, and they make the rules.

According to Blizzards Game Director for WoW Ion Hazzikostas Alleria is a High Elf:

Giving that race directly to the Alliance would have blurred a lot of the lines between the two factions, but also there isn't a clear example of who or what High Elves are as a larger group which remains in Azeroth. There's a couple...we just met Alleria again...but they're not out there in the same way.

Source: https://www.wowhead.com/news=283929.19/the-discussion-surrounding-high-elves-as-an-allied-race

She's also one of the leaders of the Void Elves. There is not really a conflict here. Sylvanas was leader of the Forsaken and a banshee, she wasn't andead Human. Playable Kul Tiran humans are labelled Kul Tiran in game, but they are the same species as Stormwind Humans who are labelled as Humans.

Also, Wowpedia is a really nice source of information but not everything written there is canon lore. I think anyone can edit it and write their interpretation of events so it's always best to check the sources they reference yourself.

[Varodoc]

Do people not read Warcraft books here?

Shadows Rising literally calls Alleria a void elf.

STOP.
CALLING.
HER.
A HIGH.
ELF.
JUST BECAUSE.
HER SKIN IS PINK.

I don't know how else to say this, evidently people don't want to listen.

According to Blizzards Game Director for WoW Ion Hazzikostas Alleria is a High Elf:


Source: https://www.wowhead.com/news=283929.19/the-discussion-surrounding-high-elves-as-an-allied-race

You know he was referring to when we MET Alleria, right? Alleria was a High elf when we first meet her in Argus, but she becomes a Void elf after absorbing L'ura's essence at the Seat of the Triumvirate.

That's why wowpedia calls her a high elf (formerly) and now a void elf. And, by the way, there are multiple official sources for that, as shown in the pic. It's not headcanon.

[melzas]

Do people not read Warcraft books here?

Shadows Rising literally calls Alleria a void elf.

STOP.
CALLING.
HER.
A
HIGH.
ELF.
JUST BECAUSE.
HER SKIN IS PINK.

I don't know how else to say this, evidently people don't want to listen.



You know he was referring to when we MET Alleria, right? Alleria was a High elf when we first meet her in Argus, but she becomes a Void elf after absorbing L'ura's essence at the Seat of the Triumvirate.

That's why wowpedia calls her a high elf (formerly) and now a void elf. And, by the way, there are multiple official sources for that, as shown in the pic. It's not headcanon.

Yes but her process of becoming a void elf was different from the process of playable void elves, so she can't be used as an example of what the race should look like. Magister Umbric is a better reflection.

[Rootsbum]

A little off topic:
-I hope we see void elf shaman im the future to further diffrenciate the two groups of elves.
Its not impossible for a void elf to dabble with the ways of the twilight cultists, is it?
Pandaren shaman and goblin shaman allready have their own ways with the elementals, so it should not be a far stretch.