Official High Elf Discussion Megathread

[Varodoc]

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.

Only the source of power was different, the modus operandi was the same. Both Alleria and Umbric were injected with a massive amount of Void energy, which triggered some kind of genetic mutation which turned them into a different subrace of elves.

Very clearly she can be used as an example of what Umbric and co. look like, since now ALL void elves can retain their fair skin if they want to.

Some people kept using the argument "Well Umbric and co. were transformed by someone else, so they are different from Alleria", but that was always pure headcanon. Just because Umbric and co. were transformed by Void ethereals doesn't mean they couldn't revert to their High elf appearance like Alleria. Even Locus-Walker directly compared the transformation of Umbric and co. to Alleria's:

Fascinating.

I sensed that change was destined to find Alleria Windrunner, but I did not anticipate that her kin would undergo a similar transformation.

The implications are many. These events have given me much to ponder.

He then claims that the "implications are many", further implying that Umbric and co. can potentially wield the same power or have the same mastery over the Void that Alleria has.

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.

I would love Void elf Shamans. I'm not a fan of the class, but the fantasy of a twisted elementalist who perverts the elements to serve their whims is appealing.

As well, Telogrus Rift is very similar to the twisted area around the Bastion of Twilight, when you think about it (levitating rocks, unnatural mountain formations, residues of Void energy emanating from the ground...):



That's one aesthetic link the writers could use to explain some kind of connection between the Void elves and the twisted shamans of the Twilight's Hammer.

[Ielenia]

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

No. That is not my point, at all, no matter how much you try to mispresent what I write. I'll explain it once again, and and after this, if you still insist on misrepresenting me, the conversation will be over:
• I am not talking about two playable races sharing similar silhouettes.
• I am not talking about two playable races who share similar silhouettes later gaining similar skin color options.
• I am not talking about how a playable race looks in comparison to others.

• I am talking about how a playable race looks like on its own.
• I am talking about visual identities where silhouettes are concerned. Not skin color.
• I am talking about how a playable race's visual identity is muddled when its silhouette is suddenly drastically changed.

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

Which they already could before since the two have very similar silhouettes, which I remind you, this isn't about skin colors, it's about silhouettes.

Again, silhoute is something you come up to sleep better at night, is not valid,

Because you say so? But it's not something I made up. Just read any article regarding silhouettes and character designs. Here, I'll give you two: one and two.

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

It wouldn't invalidate my argument. It'd actually make it stronger, really, considering undead blood elves look exactly alike blood elves, only with paler skin and red eyes.

you are disming the lore and what we have

We have absolutely no lore that states as a fact that the void elves are an actual new race. "Being transformed" is not conclusive evidence that they're a new race. See: worgen. Being a separate playable race is not conclusive evidence that they're a new race. See: 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

It's about precedence.

"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 that was never my argument. That is just you making a strawman of my position. I never said that void elves are not a separate race because the worgen aren't. I said that you cannot that the void elves are a separate race as fact because we have another example in the same situation as the void elves, but they're confirmed to not be a separate race, whereas the void elves have no confirmation either way.

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.

First, yes, it is my hypothesis. The difference here is that I'm honest enough to admit it as such, while you continue to posit your own hypothesis, your own headcanon, as fact.
Second, no, the two have a lot in common, like I demonstrated: both were transformed against their will through magic, both struggle on a daily basis for their sanity, both had their bodies changed.

the proof is already in the game and in alleria words,

It's not, and I've demonstrated already. Being "changed" does not necessarily make them into a new race. See: worgen.

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.

That is not how it works in real life, and it's not how it works in any literary fiction. I'll repeat what I wrote:

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

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.

Except I never said that. I said showing a void elf child would be strong evidence that void elves are an actual new race, but I never said it's the ONLY evidence, considering I've more than once mentioned developer interviews or statements on the matter.

- - - Updated - - -

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

I would reply that you're dead wrong here considering they are a precedent within the lore, because they are the exact same situation: a power that has previously been used for nothing but evil and to cause harm on the innocents now being to protect Azeroth and its people.

Anduin meeting Taelia itself is a precedent for them getting married in the future.

And there you are wrong again. Two people meeting is not a precedent for them getting married. That's not what "precedent" means. A precedent is not "the first step" within a process (which you could argue two people meeting are). A precedent is the same action or event having happened in the past, and so it can be used for an argument that it could happen again.

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?

Except the situations aren't anywhere similar enough for Thrall and Aggra's story to be used as a precedent. Thrall did not "meet and got married" with Aggra. The two had a journey together, considering Aggra was Thrall's shaman guide after he left the leadership of the Horde. Anduin literally only met Talia once, and briefly at that, as far as I know.

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.

The dark rangers showing up in the hunter's order hall isn't much surprising, considering the concepts are similar enough for them to be there, considering they did not have their own order hall since they're not currently a playable race. By that same token, I'd say that demon hunters would be showing up in the warlock's order hall if they were not introduced as a playable class during the Legion expansion, since their concepts are similar enough to warrant such a presence.

[Kyriani]

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.

I disagree. The process that Umbric and his squad underwent was different, yes, but the High Elf Wayfarer NPC's, Silvermoon Scholar NPC's, and new customization options, could all be seen as indications that newer generations of playable Void Elves are not being created by an accident... which makes a lot of sense when you think about it, or at least it makes a lot of sense to me.

When I ask myself, "Having Alleria and Locus Walker right there to teach them how to master the void, why would anyone bother trying to recreate a dangerous accident that was never intended to create Void Elves, when a safer and more proven method is available?", the only answer that makes sense to me is that... they wouldn't. The Dark Naaru element often gets brought up to try and shutdown that line of logic, but there's a few reasons why that argument fails.

Racial leaders are special - It's the same argument that some people used when Void Elves were first introduced, to explain why Alleria can look as she does and player Void Elves could not. This argument can cut both ways though. Alleria is far more powerful than any player Void Elf will ever be (as most racial leaders are). This could be because of the powerful void entities she's consumed, but we have very little information regarding what is or is not required to follow Alleria's path to power. In the quest A Vessel Made Ready, Locus Walker says:

After some consideration, I have decided to allow Alleria another opportunity to pursue her destiny.

I suppose you want to know what that means, mortal.

<Locus Walker laughs.>

Meet us deep in the Shadowguard camp ahead- my brethren are preparing a summons that will provide adequate energy for Windrunner to begin again.

Witness what happens when you harness the Void's power.

This implies that only "adequate energy" is required to follow Alleria's path, not specific types of void entities. "Adequate energy" could likely come from a variety of sources, with Nhal'athoth and L'ura just being conveniently accessible. Telogrus itself is steeped in Void Energy as indicated by the Void Elf unlock scenario text, and the void storms that still linger in the zone after Void Elves are unlocked. This seems to indicate that it may be an ideal place to harvest void energy, whether from the void storms themselves or by summoning powerful void creatures to draw "adequate energy" from. There's nothing in the lore or the game text that indicates that a Dark Naaru, or any specific type of void-infused entity, is required to harness the void as Alleria did.

And since players are typically never as powerful as their racial leaders, and can't do many of the things their racial leader can do, it's kind of unfair to expect that they follow the exact same path to their own power as their racial leader did, or at least they are at a point in their process that is further behind their racial leader. Consider Alleria a master and player Void Elves as novices. It wouldn't be logical to expect the novices to have consumed a Dark Naaru before beginning their career with the void. Alleria certainly had void powers long before her Argus story arc.

Umbric is not the racial leader of the Void Elves. At best he's Alleria's second in command. He needed Alleria as much as rest of his squad did to master the whispers and maintain his sanity. He also uses the same assets that players do making him just barely a step up from a generic NPC and only because he has a name and unique dialogue. Actual racial leaders tend to have unique art assets these days so they stand out from the player rabble.

Finally, none of us knows what process the new generations of player Void Elves are undergoing to gain their mastery of the Void. Assuming they are being transformed in the same manner as Umbric and company is as much headcannon as assuming that they are following Alleria's path to power. And until Blizzard gives us concrete information on how these new Void Elves are coming to be, any and all paths remain possible... which is kind of fitting for Void Elves when you think about it.

[Syegfryed]

• I am talking about how a playable race looks like on its own.
• I am talking about visual identities where silhouettes are concerned. Not skin color.
• I am talking about how a playable race's visual identity is muddled when its silhouette is suddenly drastically changed.

it baffles me how you try to spin things and yet, you completely show yourself doing double standarts

Void elf looking like high/blood elf does exactly that, the only difference is "skin color" and not "silhoute", again, silhouete means fucking anything, if it did void elves would not be a thing

Which they already could before since the two have very similar silhouettes, which I remind you, this isn't about skin colors, it's about silhouettes.

yes, this is you using dobule standarts thinkin skin color is fine and silhouette is off limits

Because you say so? But it's not something I made up. Just read any article regarding silhouettes and character designs. Here, I'll give you two: one and two.

holy shit, those have fucking nothing do to with blizzard, what a joke

It wouldn't invalidate my argument. It'd actually make it stronger, really, considering undead blood elves look exactly alike blood elves, only with paler skin and red eyes.

so are you ok with blood elves getting undead elves or are you goign to dobule standarts that too?

It's about precedence.

undistributed middle fallacy

First, yes, it is my hypothesis. The difference here is that I'm honest enough to admit it as such,

but you are disohest enough to use your hypothesis to disprove things, because hOw Do YoU kNoW wHaT i MaD uP rIgHt NoW iS nOt TrUe

It's not, and I've demonstrated already. Being "changed" does not necessarily make them into a new race. See: worgen.

see worgen the ones who have nothing to do with then and are a completly different case? they are another race by the game, by alleria and everything else, even Devs saying they are another flavor of elves, you not wanting to admit that is your perfecionist fallacy searching fo verbatim, simple as that

That is not how it works in real life, and it's not how it works in any literary fiction.

that is how it works yeah, already heard of innocent until proved guilty? that is just like this, worgens were/are a different race, until the devs said about the childs, witht the info we have, void elves are another race, until they state they aren't.

I disagree. The process that Umbric and his squad underwent was different, yes, but the High Elf Wayfarer NPC's, Silvermoon Scholar NPC's, and new customization options, could all be seen as indications that newer generations of playable Void Elves are not being created by an accident... which makes a lot of sense when you think about it, or at least it makes a lot of sense to me.

if they do not eat a dark naaru, then we cannot say they will be the same as her, so again, the argument to give blood elf hair color to high elf ~~because alleria~~ hold no ground, especially when there is tons of examples of leader having customizations not possible for players.

come to think off, this was the main point of discisson before the shitsorm of the dude above

[Kyriani]

if they do not eat a dark naaru, then we cannot say they will be the same as her, so again, the argument to give blood elf hair color to high elf ~~because alleria~~ hold no ground, especially when there is tons of examples of leader having customizations not possible for players.

come to think off, this was the main point of discisson before the shitsorm of the dude above

I'll repeat this since you seem to have skipped over this part of my post:

The Dark Naaru element often gets brought up to try and shutdown that line of logic, but there's a few reasons why that argument fails.

Racial leaders are special - It's the same argument that some people used when Void Elves were first introduced, to explain why Alleria can look as she does and player Void Elves could not. This argument can cut both ways though. Alleria is far more powerful than any player Void Elf will ever be (as most racial leaders are). This could be because of the powerful void entities she's consumed, but we have very little information regarding what is or is not required to follow Alleria's path to power. In the quest A Vessel Made Ready, Locus Walker says:

After some consideration, I have decided to allow Alleria another opportunity to pursue her destiny.

I suppose you want to know what that means, mortal.

<Locus Walker laughs.>

Meet us deep in the Shadowguard camp ahead- my brethren are preparing a summons that will provide adequate energy for Windrunner to begin again.

Witness what happens when you harness the Void's power.

This implies that only "adequate energy" is required to follow Alleria's path, not specific types of void entities. "Adequate energy" could likely come from a variety of sources, with Nhal'athoth and L'ura just being conveniently accessible. Telogrus itself is steeped in Void Energy as indicated by the Void Elf unlock scenario text, and the void storms that still linger in the zone after Void Elves are unlocked. This seems to indicate that it may be an ideal place to harvest void energy, whether from the void storms themselves or by summoning powerful void creatures to draw "adequate energy" from. There's nothing in the lore or the game text that indicates that a Dark Naaru, or any specific type of void-infused entity, is required to harness the void as Alleria did.

And since players are typically never as powerful as their racial leaders, and can't do many of the things their racial leader can do, it's kind of unfair to expect that they follow the exact same path to their own power as their racial leader did, or at least they are at a point in their process that is further behind their racial leader. Consider Alleria a master and player Void Elves as novices. It wouldn't be logical to expect the novices to have consumed a Dark Naaru before beginning their career with the void. Alleria certainly had void powers long before her Argus story arc.

I'm sorry but your Dark Naaru argument falls flat on its face. Since a Dark Naaru is not required to gain void powers like Alleria, you're going to have to find a different argument. According to Locus Walker, "adequate energy" is what's required, and "adequate energy" could come from a variety of sources.

[Ielenia]

it baffles me how you try to spin things and yet, you completely show yourself doing double standarts

Spin? My point has been the exact same since the moment this conversation began. Since the beginning I've spoken about the visual identity of a race being muddled by radically altering its already established silhouette by making them look like a completely different race.

Void elf looking like high/blood elf does exactly that, the only difference is "skin color" and not "silhoute", again, silhouete means fucking anything, if it did void elves would not be a thing

Which is, again, irrelevant, since I'm talking about the silhouette, not skin color.

yes, this is you using dobule standarts thinkin skin color is fine and silhouette is off limits

Skin color does not make you look like a different race. Painting a human green won't suddenly make him look like an orc. Painting a troll purple won't suddenly make him look like a night elf. Void elves and blood elves have not been confirmed to be a separate race.

holy shit, those have fucking nothing do to with blizzard, what a joke

It's still basic character design 101. It's what artists learn in courses regarding character design.

so are you ok with blood elves getting undead elves or are you goign to dobule standarts that too?

Blood elves getting undead elf customization option is a different can of worms, but since their silhouette does not change, for the purposes of this argument I'm making, yeah, they'd be fine.

undistributed middle fallacy

So now you're going to just start tossing random fallacy names, left and right, and hope something sticks? Because I don't see how that one applies, here, considering I'm not making statements of fact, and the "undistributed middle fallacy" only applies when one makes assertions of facts.

but you are disohest enough to use your hypothesis to disprove things, because hOw Do YoU kNoW wHaT i MaD uP rIgHt NoW iS nOt TrUe

I'm not using hypothesis to disprove things. I'm using the worgen's situation to counter your assertions. And it is a fact that worgen are the same race as humans.

see worgen the ones who have nothing to do with then and are a completly different case? they are another race by the game, by alleria and everything else, even Devs saying they are another flavor of elves, you not wanting to admit that is your perfecionist fallacy searching fo verbatim, simple as that

Void elves have not been shown by the game at they are a separate race from the rest of the high/blood elves, considering worgen have gone through the same situation-- i.e. have forcefully gone through a magic-based transformation that heavily twisted their bodies and minds-- but are not considered to be a separate race from humans. Alleria also has never stated that the void elves are a separate race, for the same reasons listed above: being transformed does not necessarily make one into a new race.

However... "even Devs saying they are another flavor of elves". Aren't you one of those who said "blood elves are high elves"? After all, blood elves are "another flavor of elves", right? Then, by that logic, void elves are not a separate race, right?

that is how it works yeah, already heard of innocent until proved guilty?

Yeah. And you're making guilty verdicts without any evidence. A "guilty verdict", in this case, is the positive assertion, i.e. statement of fact. In other words: what you are doing, by stating as a fact that void elves are a separate race from blood elves.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

Magister Umbric and his group went through a trap set by the corrupt ethereals to be turned into creatures of the void, and the transformation process was haphazardly stopped before its conclusion.

The idea that the new void elves are going through a process much alike Alleria's is supported by three facts: one, that it's a much safer, controlled process; two, we have the presence of Locus-Walker, Alleria's teacher, in Telogrus Rift; and three, new void elves may maintain their original skin color.

[Garfurion]

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.

L'ura was introduced in patch 7.3.0 in August 2017
Ion Hazzikostas refered to he as a High Elf in April 2018 when he was talking about race. He could have mentioned Vereesa instead. He also stated in the rest of his answer why they added Void Elves and not High Elves as an Allied Race so he was well aware of the Alleria's Void connections.

I also don't recall any statement by Blizzard that absorbing L'ura's essence transformed Alleria into a Void elf. There are other possibilities such as just learning Void Form from Locus'walker which is much more likely as we'll be seeing plenty of non-purple playable Void Elves in the future.

Furthermore, on June 1st 2020 Steve Danuser replied to question on Twitter whether Alleria is High Elf, Void Elf or both by replying::

Characters in Azeroth don't think in terms of customization options or gameplay choices.

Alleria is a child of Quel'Thalas and a solider of the Alliance. She returned after 1000 years to find most of her surviving kin switched political affiliation. Didn't change who she is.

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.

I'm not saying it's headcanon but Wowpedia is not written by Blizzard, and as I wrote earlier Alleria is one of leaders of the Void Elven faction so it's not weird to refer to her as a void elf without meaning it's her race or species (if they really are a separate species).

- - - Updated - - -

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.

In alternate Draenor there was a quest Disrupt the Rituals where the Warsong Clan is using the Void to control elementals so it's already part of the lore.

The question is who would teach it to the Void Elves and how other Shaman would respond to it (although nobody stopped Garrosh from using Dark Shaman).

[Varodoc]

L'ura was introduced in patch 7.3.0 in August 2017
Ion Hazzikostas refered to he as a High Elf in April 2018 when he was talking about race. He could have mentioned Vereesa instead. He also stated in the rest of his answer why they added Void Elves and not High Elves as an Allied Race so he was well aware of the Alleria's Void connections.

I also don't recall any statement by Blizzard that absorbing L'ura's essence transformed Alleria into a Void elf. There are other possibilities such as just learning Void Form from Locus'walker which is much more likely as we'll be seeing plenty of non-purple playable Void Elves in the future.

Furthermore, on June 1st 2020 Steve Danuser replied to question on Twitter whether Alleria is High Elf, Void Elf or both by replying::

Characters in Azeroth don't think in terms of customization options or gameplay choices.

Alleria is a child of Quel'Thalas and a solider of the Alliance. She returned after 1000 years to find most of her surviving kin switched political affiliation. Didn't change who she is.

I'm not saying it's headcanon but Wowpedia is not written by Blizzard, and as I wrote earlier Alleria is one of leaders of the Void Elven faction so it's not weird to refer to her as a void elf without meaning it's her race or species (if they really are a separate species).

- - - Updated - - -



In alternate Draenor there was a quest Disrupt the Rituals where the Warsong Clan is using the Void to control elementals so it's already part of the lore.

The question is who would teach it to the Void Elves and how other Shaman would respond to it (although nobody stopped Garrosh from using Dark Shaman).

1) Again, he is talking about when we MEET Alleria. In 2020, we still meet Alleria for the first time when she's a high elf.

2) Once again, it doesn't matter, since Shadows Rising, a much more recent and official source, describes her as a Void elf.

3) You do realize Alleria's Void form FIRST appeared RIGHT AFTER she got blasted with an enormous amount of Void energy from L'ura? And you think that's not what transformed her? Just lol. People on MMO-Champion ALWAYS have to make obvious things so complicated, this thread is proof of that.

4) "Didn't change who she is", i.e. she remains a staunch Alliance supporter, despite her country joining the Horde, and still considers herself a Thalassian elf. That has nothing to do with her biological race.

Danuser literally agreed with me lmao. He basically said "Just because Alleria is biologically different from the Blood elves doesn't mean she no longer considers Quel'Thalas her home."

[Ielenia]

Furthermore, on June 1st 2020 Steve Danuser replied to question on Twitter whether Alleria is High Elf, Void Elf or both by replying::

Characters in Azeroth don't think in terms of customization options or gameplay choices.

Alleria is a child of Quel'Thalas and a solider of the Alliance. She returned after 1000 years to find most of her surviving kin switched political affiliation. Didn't change who she is.

I just wanted to point out that there is a difference between saying "who she is" and "what she is". "Who" refers to her personality. "What" refers to her body.

[Triceron]

I would reply that you're dead wrong here considering they are a precedent within the lore, because they are the exact same situation: a power that has previously been used for nothing but evil and to cause harm on the innocents now being to protect Azeroth and its people.

But there is nothing in lore to support this specifically for Necromancer, and Dark Rangers are Hunters in the lore.

The claim you are making is highly unlikely because there is no proof this applies to Necromancers, all uou are saying is its possible, not plausible.

And there you are wrong again. Two people meeting is not a precedent for them getting married. That's not what "precedent" means. A precedent is not "the first step" within a process (which you could argue two people meeting are). A precedent is the same action or event having happened in the past, and so it can be used for an argument that it could happen again.

Except the situations aren't anywhere similar enough for Thrall and Aggra's story to be used as a precedent. Thrall did not "meet and got married" with Aggra. The two had a journey together, considering Aggra was Thrall's shaman guide after he left the leadership of the Horde. Anduin literally only met Talia once, and briefly at that, as far as I know.

But the suggestion of marriage implies they will have a journey together in order to get to the point where they can get married. That was the whole point of comparing to Thrall and Aggra. You didn't engage, you dismissed the argument outright on the basis of the precedent 'not being the same' even though that was the whole point of comparing situations lol

The dark rangers showing up in the hunter's order hall isn't much surprising, considering the concepts are similar enough for them to be there, considering they did not have their own order hall since they're not currently a playable race. By that same token, I'd say that demon hunters would be showing up in the warlock's order hall if they were not introduced as a playable class during the Legion expansion, since their concepts are similar enough to warrant such a presence.

But they didn't. Your example here would be a retcon of events. demon Hunters didn't show up in the Warlock class hall. That is not lore at all. This is your opinion that DH would show up in Warlock class hall, and lore has shown otherwise. Can you name any other playable class that appears in someone elses class hall? Nope.

You can't prove that Dark Ranger is not a Hunter class in the lore. If you say lore is above opinion then your opinion is untrue in this case, objectionably untrue.

[MyWholeLifeIsThunder]

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.

You literally are saying my point; classifications and definitions only serve a real purpose from an out of universe perspective; from an in universe understanding of how elves are affected by different cosmic energies, the whole pretension there's a clear categorization just doesn't work, so it really comes to self identification if anything. For example, Void Elves consider themselves distinct from Blood Elves, while Illidari don't.

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

I mean if you are not even engaging in the nuance of the conversation that's fine, but to get all in a tizzy because people are having a conversation about said nuance and you just don't want people to have it.

You are no one to police what conversations other people have, and sound no different to those people that used to scream "BLOOD ELVES ARE HIGH ELVES"

[Ielenia]

But there is nothing in lore to support this specifically for Necromancer, and Dark Rangers are Hunters in the lore.

The claim you are making is highly unlikely because there is no proof this applies to Necromancers, all uou are saying is its possible, not plausible.

That's what precedents are for. It is plausible precisely because of precedents. We have not one, not two, but three examples of precedents: the warlocks, the death knights, and the void. And the death knights dabble in necromancy as well, openly, making even more plausible the idea of necromancers now fighting for the good of Azeroth.

But the suggestion of marriage implies they will have a journey together in order to get to the point where they can get married. That was the whole point of comparing to Thrall and Aggra. You didn't engage, you dismissed the argument outright on the basis of the precedent 'not being the same' even though that was the whole point of comparing situations lol

You're doing it backwards. You're skipping so many steps between "meeting" and "marriage", namely the entire journey. Again, that is not how precedents work. Precedents work with specific situations, not broad events, like "they meet, therefore they marry". Your attempt at precedence here is akin to a lawyer in court saying "the defendant entered a gun shop. Therefore he shot the victim." There's a few steps being omitted between point A and point B, there.

But they didn't. Your example here would be a retcon of events. demon Hunters didn't show up in the Warlock class hall. That is not lore at all. This is your opinion that DH would show up in Warlock class hall, and lore has shown otherwise. Can you name any other playable class that appears in someone elses class hall? Nope.

I fail to see the relevance of saying that, considering I never stated that is canon lore. I'm not talking lore. I'm talking about Blizzard's decisions to put them there. It could be argued as being "seeding" for a future class. Or perhaps they're nothing more than forsaken hunters. Who knows.

You can't prove that Dark Ranger is not a Hunter class in the lore.

Here's the thing, though: I don't have to. Because "class" is just a gameplay term used to define a set of active and passive skills for the player character. Maybe all the dark rangers are just hunters "in the lore", but that doesn't mean they cannot be separate playable classes for the game. It happens with the playable races, so why not with the playable classes?

[Yarathir]

I hope people don't start overdosing on the copium when Void Elves inevitably get blonde hair and some more normal hairstyles in 9.1 or 9.2.

[MyWholeLifeIsThunder]

I hope people don't start overdosing on the copium when Void Elves inevitably get blonde hair and some more normal hairstyles in 9.1 or 9.2.

I mean someone probably will

[Triceron]

That's what precedents are for. It is plausible precisely because of precedents. We have not one, not two, but three examples of precedents: the warlocks, the death knights, and the void. And the death knights dabble in necromancy as well, openly, making even more plausible the idea of necromancers now fighting for the good of Azeroth.

Except there is no lore to suggest that. For you to reach that conclusion you need to prove why this is the case for Necromancers, otherwise you are just applying this to any random evil class and saying 'well we have DK and Warlock so for sure it applies' without considering the specific lore behind these classes, and how it doesn't for the Necromancers. Lore doesn't exactly support your argument here.

You're doing it backwards. You're skipping so many steps between "meeting" and "marriage", namely the entire journey. Again, that is not how precedents work. Precedents work with specific situations, not broad events, like "they meet, therefore they marry". Your attempt at precedence here is akin to a lawyer in court saying "the defendant entered a gun shop. Therefore he shot the victim." There's a few steps being omitted between point A and point B, there.

Which is no different than you skipping those steps between Necromancers and DK's/Warlocks. There are no example of good Necromancers interested in joining the Horde and Alliance, the way we have DK's and Warlocks. You've skipped the same amount of steps there too, which is why I point out it is highly unlikely. Where is there any example of a good Necromancer in the lore to suggest they *would* happen? Not *can* they happen, because that is a question of possibility, but *if*. You didn't address plausability at all.

Instead of engaging the discussion, you are refuting it. Instead of reaching a common ground and saying 'Well if Anduin and Taelia go out more often, then maybe they can be more like Thrall and Aggra' you countered with 'No their situations are not the same and it is highly unlikely because they only meet once'. That is why I point out you are not engaging discussion, you're refuting and dismissing.

I fail to see the relevance of saying that, considering I never stated that is canon lore. I'm not talking lore. I'm talking about Blizzard's decisions to put them there. It could be argued as being "seeding" for a future class. Or perhaps they're nothing more than forsaken hunters. Who knows.

And here's my 'gotcha' moment. You just invoked 'Blizzard can do it'.

I specifically was talking lore. I asked you to prove your statement with lore. Saying that they could be *seeding* the class by putting it in the Hunters class hall is not proof that it would be a new class. Blizzard isn't hinting at a new class if they put this class in the Hunters hall, the logic doesn't even make sense when no other class appears in any other classes class hall.

Saying Blizzard might be seeding it is effectively the same as 'Blizzard can do it'.

Here's the thing, though: I don't have to. Because "class" is just a gameplay term used to define a set of active and passive skills for the player character. Maybe all the dark rangers are just hunters "in the lore", but that doesn't mean they cannot be separate playable classes for the game. It happens with the playable races, so why not with the playable classes?

Again I am asking for proof of a claim that Dark Rangers would be playable as their own class. If you can't prove they are different from a Hunter and the lore already has ties between the classes, then what are the chances that what you say here will happen?

Very Highly unlikely, based on the lore.

BTW, just an FYI, I'm using the same argument against you that you usually use by tying Engineer and Tinker together as the same thing in lore. Your reason that 'there is no lore to prove they are different' is impossible to disprove if we stick to lore (which is absurd that any discussion should), and I wanted to let you know I am using that same argument here. I just want you to be aware of what type of arguments you have made in the past, and show you why it's absolutely frustrating trying to discuss with a person who sticks to lore.

You can't disprove any of the lore that Dark Ranger is connected directly to the Hunter class. No proof of lore exists that separates them as their own class. And if you say that Lore > fan opinion, then I hope you see the fallacy of your own logic.

[Kyriani]

I hope people don't start overdosing on the copium when Void Elves inevitably get blonde hair and some more normal hairstyles in 9.1 or 9.2.

Seems like such a silly thing to have a conniption fit over... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

At least it doesn't seem like there's much opposition to black hair for Void Elves, and that's the color I really want.

[Ielenia]

Except there is no lore to suggest that. For you to reach that conclusion you need to prove why this is the case for Necromancers, otherwise you are just applying this to any random evil class and saying 'well we have DK and Warlock so for sure it applies' without considering the specific lore behind these classes, and how it doesn't for the Necromancers. Lore doesn't exactly support your argument here.

That is exactly what precedents are: they are models. Models that inform us of what could happen to similar events or situations pertaining to the models. In this case, we have the warlocks, the death knights and the void. Three examples of forces originally used for nothing but evil and to harm the innocent. Just like the necromancers' present situation. That the three examples were then made to become tools of justice, each of them form a separate precedence for future "evil forces" being turned "good", or at least "non-evil".

Which is no different than you skipping those steps between Necromancers and DK's/Warlocks.

I'm not skipping any steps. I'm simply saying "this situation happened before. Three times. It could be made to happen again."

There are no example of good Necromancers interested in joining the Horde and Alliance, the way we have DK's and Warlocks.

We do? Then do point me at the warlocks that were interested in fighting for the good of Azeroth... before the class was made playable. I.e. before WoW. Show me the death knights that were interested in fighting for the good of Azeroth... before the class was made playable, in Wrath. You'll find none.

And here's my 'gotcha' moment. You just invoked 'Blizzard can do it'.

And you missed. I did not invoke "Blizzard can do it", because all I did was state a fact (Blizzard put the dark rangers in the hunter order hall) and tried to come up with possible reasons as to why they're there. (possible class "seed"; purely forsaken hunters).

I specifically was talking lore. I asked you to prove your statement with lore. Saying that they could be *seeding* the class by putting it in the Hunters class hall is not proof that it would be a new class. Blizzard isn't hinting at a new class if they put this class in the Hunters hall, the logic doesn't even make sense when no other class appears in any other classes class hall.

And I never said it's proof that it would be a new class, so once again you're putting words in my mouth, metaphorically speaking.

Again I am asking for proof of a claim that Dark Rangers would be playable as their own class. If you can't prove they are different from a Hunter and the lore already has ties between the classes, then what are the chances that what you say here will happen?

You're going at this the wrong way. You're asking a loaded question. We cannot prove (i.e. make a statement of fact) that dark rangers are different from a hunter, nor can we prove that they are not different. Because one of them (the dark ranger) is a rather nebulous, undefined term within the lore. We can offer evidence that suggest they're different, like pointing at Sylvanas, or we can offer evidence that they're likely the same, like pointing at forsaken hunters.

BTW, just an FYI, I'm using the same argument against you that you usually use by tying Engineer and Tinker together as the same thing in lore. Your reason that 'there is no lore to prove they are different' is impossible to disprove if we stick to lore (which is absurd that any discussion should),

That is not my complete argument. My argument is that there is no lore to prove as fact that they are different (as the proponents of the class insist they are) while we still have mountains of evidence that suggest that the two terms are simply synonymous with one-another.

[Triceron]

That is exactly what precedents are: they are models. Models that inform us of what could happen to similar events or situations pertaining to the models. In this case, we have the warlocks, the death knights and the void. Three examples of forces originally used for nothing but evil and to harm the innocent. Just like the necromancers' present situation. That the three examples were then made to become tools of justice, each of them form a separate precedence for future "evil forces" being turned "good", or at least "non-evil".

Except you haven't made any connection between the Necromancer and this 'model' using lore. I am specifically asking you where in the lore do Necromancers have this connection you are presenting. Death Knights specifically broke control of the Lich King's dominance, and we are shown that they did not *want* to become evil in the first place. That doesn't apply to Necromancers.

Necromancers in the lore so far are aligned to evil because they have chosen to be. Cult of the Damned, followers of G'huun, etc. None of them have shown themselves to want to become good in the lore.

I'm not skipping any steps. I'm simply saying "this situation happened before. Three times. It could be made to happen again."

Which is highly unlikely. I already addressed this and you offered nothing to make your case any more likely. I keep asking you, where is the lore explanation for Necromancers to become good? You're only saying it's possible, but not bringing anything to the table that is supported by lore that they actually *would* become good.

We do? Then do point me at the warlocks that were interested in fighting for the good of Azeroth... before the class was made playable. I.e. before WoW. Show me the death knights that were interested in fighting for the good of Azeroth... before the class was made playable, in Wrath. You'll find none.

We don't. Exactly my point. Lore says Warlocks are good because we have them in the Alliance and Horde. You can't prove this for Necromancer, so anything you say in regards to them is not supported by lore. Using your own words, Lore > your opinion. You can not prove that Necromancers would become playable using lore, and I'm specifically asking you to prove that they are plausible; which you can not.

My whole point is if we stick to lore, it can never prove plausibility. When you bring up evidence of other classes that have gone through this similar jump, I can simply point to the fact that the Necromancer has not gone through any of this to indicate that they *would* choose to do the same. You haven't shown any evidence of them willing to do this.

And you missed. I did not invoke "Blizzard can do it", because all I did was state a fact (Blizzard put the dark rangers in the hunter order hall) and tried to come up with possible reasons as to why they're there. (possible class "seed"; purely forsaken hunters).

'Possible class seed' is the same as 'Blizzard can do it'.

"Blizzard can possibly create the Dark Ranger because they seeded them in the Hunters Class hall" = "Blizzard can do it". You didn't actually abide to any lore to come to this conclusion, you simply asserted that they Blizzard could make this happen, without actually providing evidence that they would do so.

And I never said it's proof that it would be a new class, so once again you're putting words in my mouth, metaphorically speaking.

I am asking for proof so if what you are telling me is not proof, then it is your opinion. If you are using opinion, then the lore overrides anything that you are saying here.

I have asked you for to prove that there is intent that Necromancers would want join the Alliance and Horde within the lore. I am asking for you to prove that Dark Rangers are different from Hunters. If there is no proof, then I call it out as highly unlikely to happen.

You're going at this the wrong way. You're asking a loaded question. We cannot prove (i.e. make a statement of fact) that dark rangers are different from a hunter, nor can we prove that they are not different. Because one of them (the dark ranger) is a rather nebulous, undefined term within the lore. We can offer evidence that suggest they're different, like pointing at Sylvanas, or we can offer evidence that they're likely the same, like pointing at forsaken hunters.

Which is my point.

I have said time and time again, if we bring Lore into the discussion to subject any suggestion to its standard, then we are subjecting all suggestions (and opinion) to a rhetorical, loaded question.

'if it hasn't already happened in the lore for Necromancers, why should it happen in the future?'

Keep in mind that everything that I am asking of you, I am abiding by standards that you have defined for discussion. I am engaging every one of your points and giving proper rebuttals by using lore to refute your claims. I am making sure that all of your replies abide by the lore, and do not stray beyond the lore since you regard Lore as the standard to define validity. I am making an effort to show you how you can't even beat your own standards when applied to you. I can easily refute any claim you make about Dark Rangers being plausibly playable by using lore to counter every bit of evidence you try to bring to the table. The lore has shown us a direct connection between Dark Rangers and Hunters, therefore it is not likely going to be a seed to become a new class. That you say it's possible as a seed is not actually being supported by the lore.

I am showing you how easy it is for me to exploit the lore to make an argument that you will never beat. I am showing you why this is a fallacious way to discuss any topic regarding opinion, because I am refuting any opinion you have on the matter on the basis that it is not being supported by lore.

That is not my complete argument. My argument is that there is no lore to prove as fact that they are different (as the proponents of the class insist they are) while we still have mountains of evidence that suggest that the two terms are simply synonymous with one-another.

Just as we have mountains of evidence to prove Dark Rangers and Hunters are synonymous.

Lore proves this as a fact. What you suggest could happen is not proven whatsoever, and is purely a result of your opinion that they *could* split off as their own playable class, not that the lore indicates this in any form. Your precedent contradicts the lore, and if the lore is to be taken as fact then we could say that your precedent is factually wrong.

If you can not prove there is a difference between Dark Ranger and a Hunter in the lore, then there is no case you can make that Dark Rangers becoming playable would ever be plausible in the lore. You just can't. At the end of the day, it will always be considered 'highly unlikely' because, through your own terms, the lore defines them as being the same as Hunters. The lore has validated their chances of being their own class as being zero, considering there is no lore to support the idea that they are any different from Hunters. The only way it wouldn't be zero is if we have evidence of a Dark Ranger class that is not a Hunter, and such thing does not exist in the lore as it is right now.

[Ielenia]

Except you haven't made any connection between the Necromancer and this 'model' using lore. I am specifically asking you where in the lore do Necromancers have this connection you are presenting. Death Knights specifically broke control of the Lich King's dominance, and we are shown that they did not *want* to become evil in the first place. That doesn't apply to Necromancers.

Necromancers in the lore so far are aligned to evil because they have chosen to be. Cult of the Damned, followers of G'huun, etc. None of them have shown themselves to want to become good in the lore.

Warlocks chose to become evil "in the first place", prior to them becoming playable. There was no good warlock character before WoW. They have the Shadow Council.

Which is highly unlikely.

But why is it "highly unlikely", though? We have already seen it happen three times, already. On top of that, the recent lore development highly suggest that there is no force that is 'inherently evil' or 'inherently good' with Legion and BfA as they've shown that the Light is not this 'beacon of goodness' it was portrayed to be until now.

We don't. Exactly my point. Lore says Warlocks are good because we have them in the Alliance and Horde.

And your point is flawed because we have warlock heroes in the Alliance and the Horde because it's a playable class. But before the class was made playable, i.e., before WoW, there was no good warlock character. To the point that none of the playable factions had a "warlock" unit. Not even the Forsaken. You're pointing at examples today but that point fails because those examples already HAVE their classes implemented.

'Possible class seed' is the same as 'Blizzard can do it'.

"Blizzard can possibly create the Dark Ranger because they seeded them in the Hunters Class hall" = "Blizzard can do it".

You're engaging in bait-and-switch, here. You did not ask me why or how would Blizzard make dark rangers playable. You asked me to give you a possible reason as to why there would be dark rangers in the hunter order hall. That is why my answer does not qualify as "Blizzard can do it".

I am asking for proof so if what you are telling me is not proof, then it is your opinion. If you are using opinion, then the lore overrides anything that you are saying here.

And I'm telling you that asking for proof is irrelevant since I never made any statement of fact about dark rangers becoming playable.

I have asked you for to prove that there is intent that Necromancers would want join the Alliance and Horde within the lore.

I never claimed there is intent.

I am asking for you to prove that Dark Rangers are different from Hunters.

And I'm telling you that you're literally asking me to "prove" something I never claimed as fact in the first place.

'if it hasn't already happened in the lore for Necromancers, why should it happen in the future?'

Wrong question. Because it is easily countered by: "why shouldn't it happen in the future?" Your question basically says "this twenty-sided die has never landed on a 1, in any of the thirty times I've thrown it. If it hasn't landed on a 1 yet, why should it land on 1 if I continue to throw it?"

Just as we have mountains of evidence to prove Dark Rangers and Hunters are synonymous.

Two things. One: I never said there isn't evidence of that. In fact, I already admitted to that possibility. And two: no, it is not "proved" that dark rangers and hunters are synonymous. To "prove" means to assert as fact. And we have no conclusive evidence whatsoever to state such as fact. In other words, by making that assertion, you are stating your opinion as fact.

Lore proves this as a fact.

No. No, it does not. You're engaging in a "absence of evidence" fallacy, stating your conclusion (dark rangers are just hunters) as true (i.e. fact) because we have found no conclusive evidence that says otherwise.

[Triceron]

But why is it "highly unlikely", though? We have already seen it happen three times, already. On top of that, the recent lore development highly suggest that there is no force that is 'inherently evil' or 'inherently good' with Legion and BfA as they've shown that the Light is not this 'beacon of goodness' it was portrayed to be until now.

It is highly unlikely because no lore supports such a notion.

How can it be likely if we have no evidence to support that this would ever happen? How likely is a meteor going to drop onto your house just because it is possible to do so? If there's no evidence to suggest it happening, the chances are highly unlikely. It is absolutely possible, but if you are going to argue plausability then you need something to suggest it would actually be likely. Just because it's happened before doesn't mean it will happen specifically to your house, just like this happening to other classes doesn't mean it will happen specifically to Necromancers. There is no lore to suggest it.

And your point is flawed because we have warlock heroes in the Alliance and the Horde because it's a playable class. But before the class was made playable, i.e., before WoW, there was no good warlock character. To the point that none of the playable factions had a "warlock" unit. Not even the Forsaken. You're pointing at examples today but that point fails because those examples already HAVE their classes implemented.

My argument is not flawed because I am using the argument you presented - Lore defines validity. The lore is not wrong. Warlocks are not Necromancers, therefore your argument does not apply to Necromancers. I asked you for proof of the Necromancer, not of Warlocks. That the Warlock was implemented is their own matter.

I mean I could say that because Blizzard made Demon Hunters exclusive to two races, so will the Tinker. That is not evidence of plausability, it is only evidence of possibility. This explanation doesn't the creation of a Tinker class that is exclusive to 2 races. A Warlock and a DK do not motivate a Necromancer class to become playable, especially by means of lore. There is no lore that suggests they would be chosen at all.

You're engaging in bait-and-switch, here. You did not ask me why or how would Blizzard make dark rangers playable. You asked me to give you a possible reason as to why there would be dark rangers in the hunter order hall. That is why my answer does not qualify as "Blizzard can do it".

I asked you to define them as separate from Hunters. You were unable to and you simply answered what you felt like. I didn't ask you to give me a reason why Dark Rangers were in the Hunters hall, I made the assertion that the fact they are there is the lore showing that they have a connection to Hunters. There is also no lore to suggest they are different, therefore we have lore validating them having a very direct connection with each other in the lore, to the point where they are the same.

You said they were there as a possible seed to a new class, but where is the evidence for this? No other class that appeared in a class hall ever veered off into their own playable form. There is no proof here.

And I'm telling you that asking for proof is irrelevant since I never made any statement of fact about dark rangers becoming playable.

I never claimed there is intent.

Then we remain at the same point of argument - that Dark Rangers and Necromancers becoming playable is highly unlikely due to their lack of lore.

And I'm telling you that you're literally asking me to "prove" something I never claimed as fact in the first place.

Exactly, if you can't claim it as fact then you have no evidence that it would happen, and I can dismiss the suggestion outright. Lore > opinions, this is the standard which you are abiding by right?

Wrong question. Because it is easily countered by: "why shouldn't it happen in the future?" Your question basically says "this twenty-sided die has never landed on a 1, in any of the thirty times I've thrown it. If it hasn't landed on a 1 yet, why should it land on 1 if I continue to throw it?"

It shouldn't happen because it would change the lore.

And based on the standard you defined, the lore shouldn't be changed by any fan's opinion. You have made this very clear how Lore should have power over anyone's opinion. Why shouldn't it happen? Because the lore doesn't state that there is any intent, therefore there is no reason to assume it. This has been an argument that you have made many times when I brought up the exact same question of why things *shouldn't* happen. You stated that the lore shouldn't be changed by fan ideas.

Does 'Humans naturally having wings' and 'Murlocs as a playable race' ring a bell to you? These are the same reasons you presented against these suggestions. It shouldn't happen because it is changing existing lore to fit a new narrative, and you have made it clear that lore should not change for those reasons.

If lore says Dark Rangers are connected to the Hunter class, then by all means your own argument suggest to *change* the lore we already have connecting the two. That is the implication. You can't come up with any arguments to support Dark Rangers any more than you could for playable Murlocs. The evidence is against you, and when it comes to what Blizzard *should* do, the lore suggest doing nothing about both.

Two things. One: I never said there isn't evidence of that. In fact, I already admitted to that possibility. And two: no, it is not "proved" that dark rangers and hunters are synonymous. To "prove" means to assert as fact. And we have no conclusive evidence whatsoever to state such as fact. In other words, by making that assertion, you are stating your opinion as fact.

Then how you can apply this to Tinkers and Engineers when it's not conclusive either? You claimed the 'mountains of evidence' as fact.

We have the same evidence here for Dark Rangers and Hunter connection. I am talking about that evidence. And to make it very clear, I am saying there is no evidence to the contrary to prove they aren't Hunters. Lore does not validate Dark Rangers as their own class. They have not shown to do anything exclusive that a Hunter couldn't also do in the lore.

No. No, it does not. You're engaging in a "absence of evidence" fallacy, stating your conclusion (dark rangers are just hunters) as true (i.e. fact) because we have found no conclusive evidence that says otherwise.

If you haven't found it then it's not lore. If it's not lore then it can be dismissed as being non-factual and without validity.

I literally told you before the fallacy of using lore in an argument, but you said these yourself - Lore validates plausability and is not subjective. Therefore if we are discussing possibilities by using lore, we ARE using an absence of evidence argument.

So what do you think of lore now? Do you still agree that it should be used to validate the plausibilities of suggestions? Because you are now realizing that to use lore to validate a suggestion is to employ an 'absence of evidence' against it, by calling it as being unlikely because evidence simply does not exist to support its own plausability.