Official High Elf Discussion Megathread

[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.

[Yarathir]

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.

I'm late to this whole thing (since I don't actually care much for High Elves) but seems like it's been a tug of war between Blood Elf fans and High Elf fans for a long while and every time the former invariably loses ground, they jump to a new goalpost. "Yes, you may have gotten blue eyes and pale skins, but.. NO BLONDE HAIR!"

And when they get blonde hair, it'll be "Yeah but you turn blue in combat. Not a true High Elf!"

[Vaedan]

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.

TBH I would be just fine if only thing we get is black, white and light blue hair colors and separate tentacle customization with additional options like braids in pláče of tentacles.

I'm late to this whole thing (since I don't actually care much for High Elves) but seems like it's been a tug of war between Blood Elf fans and High Elf fans for a long while and every time the former invariably loses ground, they jump to a new goalpost. "Yes, you may have gotten blue eyes and pale skins, but.. NO BLONDE HAIR!"

And when they get blonde hair, it'll be "Yeah but you turn blue in combat. Not a true High Elf!"

Don't forget the argument "But we rule Silvermoon and whole of Quel'thalas, so we are high elves, not you fakes meddling with humans in Stormwind."

[Ardenaso]

Don't forget the argument "But we rule Silvermoon and whole of Quel'thalas, so we are high elves, not you fakes meddling with humans in Stormwind."

I prefer it this way; I'd like it better if the Alliance High Elves would just ditch their claim to Quel'thalas and do a Dath'remar towards Eldre'thalas

- - - Updated - - -

also, I wish there were some flavor text of some comments from Theramore High Elves about their Blood Elf kin joining the Horde; considering they actually had some interactions and familiarity with the Horde in WC3 at least

[Varodoc]

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.

The skin colour of a fictional race in a MMORPG is also a silly thing to have a fit over, yet look at the number of the page we're in now.

[Vaedan]

I prefer it this way; I'd like it better if the Alliance High Elves would just ditch their claim to Quel'thalas and do a Dath'remar towards Eldre'thalas

- - - Updated - - -

also, I wish there were some flavor text of some comments from Theramore High Elves about their Blood Elf kin joining the Horde; considering they actually had some interactions and familiarity with the Horde in WC3 at least

I actually don't mind that either. Alliance high elves were defined by their exile for quite long time now, so I'd prefer them building their own place to live. It would be interesting to see if they can develop relations with night elves eventually. Night elves are way more tolerant towards spellcasters lately and high elf rangers and kaldorei sentinels most likely share a similar worldviews. High elves were usually strongly anti-horde, which is the direction night elves are taking.

[Kyriani]

The skin colour of a fictional race in a MMORPG is also a silly thing to have a fit over, yet look at the number of the page we're in now.

I'm pretty sure the High Elf debate was about more than just skin color (I'm not sure skin color was an issue at all until Void Elves if I'm not mistaken)... but I'm not interested in arguing. There were as many reasons people wanted High Elves as there were people asking for them. I'm not about to tell anyone their reason for asking for a frequently represented Alliance supporting race to be playable, is invalid because it hinges on aesthetics.

But I also want to point out that there is a rather significant difference between someone asking for an option and someone asking that someone else not get an option. That's really all I have to say on the matter.

[Yarathir]

Don't forget the argument "But we rule Silvermoon and whole of Quel'thalas, so we are high elves, not you fakes meddling with humans in Stormwind."

Even though they voluntarily left that name behind for themselves.

[Ielenia]

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

Again, I've gave three examples of precedence within the lore.

My argument is not flawed because I am using the argument you presented - Lore defines validity. The lore is not wrong.

Lore defines validity. But absence of lore does not define absence of validity. For example: a suggestion saying that humans in Warcraft evolved from orcs is made invalid by existing lore, that states that orcs are not only not native to Azeroth, but only recently (historically speaking) came to Azeroth, and the fact we have lore showing that humans came from vrykul. But a suggestion that says the protoss from Starcraft currently exist in a planet somewhere in the Warcraft universe is not made invalid just because we haven't seen any evidence that the protoss even exist in Warcraft.

I asked you to define them as separate from Hunters.

And I gave you evidence that they could be, namely in the form of Sylvanas. But it doesn't change the fact you also asked me to explain why there were dark rangers in the hunter order hall, then did a bait-and-switch on me after I gave you a possible reason.

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 then we have the precedent of all three expansions classes that became playable despite "lack of lore".

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?

That's not how it works. You cannot outright dismiss a suggestion simply because a suggestion is not a fact. What you're doing is asking me which way we should go, left or right, after we reach a split in the road, and then dismiss my suggestion because I can't prove as a fact that my choice would take us to our destination and state, as fact, that the opposite direction would take us to our destination. A suggestion is not countered by lack of lore supporting it. It's countered by actual lore against it.

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

Changing the lore is not a problem. Retconning it by outright removing existing lore or replacing it with different lore, is. Adding lore is not a retcon, therefore it's not a problem.

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

I never did that. I never claimed the "mountains of evidence" as a "conclusive evidence" that tinkers and engineers are, in fact, one and the same. I'll even quote myself:

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.

Notice the word: suggest. That it is me saying it's a likely possibility, not a 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.

We don't have the "same evidence" for dark rangers and hunters. We have a small bit of evidence, namely being just "forsaken hunters" and "they show up in the hunter order hall". And so what if there is no lore that "proves" dark rangers aren't hunters? That's an "absence of evidence" fallacy. By that same token we can say we don't have any lore that "proves" that dark rangers are hunters. That's the nature of the fallacy you're engaging in. We have circumstantial evidence that suggests they are, and we have circumstantial evidence that suggests they're not.

If you haven't found it then it's not lore.

If we haven't found any conclusive evidence that they're not the same, then it's not lore that they are not the same. I agree. However, if we haven't found any conclusive evidence that they're not the same does not mean that the claim that the two are the same is necessarily true, i.e., a fact.

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

No, you can't. If you dismiss it as "non-factual" and "without validity", you adopt the burden of proof to prove that it's a fact the suggestion is invalid. In other words: in this example, you'd have to find conclusive evidence that both concepts (dark ranger & hunter) are one and the same. And there is none of that.

[Varodoc]

I'm pretty sure the High Elf debate was about more than just skin color (I'm not sure skin color was an issue at all until Void Elves if I'm not mistaken)... but I'm not interested in arguing. There were as many reasons people wanted High Elves as there were people asking for them. I'm not about to tell anyone their reason for asking for a frequently represented Alliance supporting race to be playable, is invalid because it hinges on aesthetics.

But I also want to point out that there is a rather significant difference between someone asking for an option and someone asking that someone else not get an option. That's really all I have to say on the matter.

Right, it was about the skin colour and the eye colour.

Only the WoW community have people who will be fervently opposed to more skin and eye colours for players.

[Kyriani]

Right, it was about the skin colour and the eye colour.

Only the WoW community have people who will be fervently opposed to more skin and eye colours for players.

Well I'm certainly not opposed to more options for everyone in every category. I think more options is always the right choice!

[Varodoc]

Well I'm certainly not opposed to more options for everyone in every category. I think more options is always the right choice!

Evidently, judging from this thread, there are people who genuinely get bothered irl that players are allowed to have more customization options to tell their character's story in WoW. So sad.

[Triceron]

Again, I've gave three examples of precedence within the lore.

Which doesn't make it more likely for the Necromancer considering those are examples of other classes with specific lore. DK's, for example, join because they gained their independence. Necromancers in lore are already independent and choose not to join the Alliance and Horde.

Lore defines validity. But absence of lore does not define absence of validity. For example: a suggestion saying that humans in Warcraft evolved from orcs is made invalid by existing lore, that states that orcs are not only not native to Azeroth, but only recently (historically speaking) came to Azeroth, and the fact we have lore showing that humans came from vrykul. But a suggestion that says the protoss from Starcraft currently exist in a planet somewhere in the Warcraft universe is not made invalid just because we haven't seen any evidence that the protoss even exist in Warcraft.

And when we apply this to your precedent, we know Necromancers are not part of the Alliance and Horde by choice. That is what we can observe from the lore. It goes against the precedent because the lore is showing us that there is no group of Necromancers who show any intent in joining our factions. Every faction of Necromancer is aligned with an enemy faction in the lore.

If you want to validate your precedent then (based on Ielenia's standard of lore) you need to show some evidence that there is intent, otherwise 'Protoss existing in Warcraft' is also considered highly unlikely, as validated by lore. Again, these are arguments made based on your terms. These are the same arguments you used against 'Humans with wings' or 'Playable Murlocs'.

Think again what your stance is. If you are trying to make a suggestion that Necromancers should be playable, then you need to be able to explain questions like 'how does this fit into the lore' and elaborate your position. Pointing at another class and saying it is precedent is not Necromancer lore. Would Orcish Worgen be validly plausible in lore because Worgen curse worked on Humans and Night Elves? No, it wouldn't. Of course it is *possible* that Blizzard could seed in Orcish Worgen curse since it already works on Humans and Night Elves, but there is no argument to suggest this would be plausible or that it would happen. The precedent that Humans and Night Elves can be affected by the Worgen curse does not validate it happening to Orcs or any other race for that matter. If we stick to lore as the standard above all opinions, then there is no intent from Blizzard in spreading the Worgen curse to other races, nothing to suggest they *should* make it happen.

And I gave you evidence that they could be, namely in the form of Sylvanas. But it doesn't change the fact you also asked me to explain why there were dark rangers in the hunter order hall, then did a bait-and-switch on me after I gave you a possible reason.

Sylvanas isn't even part of the Horde any more.

Also I did not ask you to explain. I offered you an explanation through a rhetorical question. You decided to answer a rhetorical question, and frankly in a matter that didn't even answer it.

Changing the lore is not a problem. Retconning it by outright removing existing lore or replacing it with different lore, is. Adding lore is not a retcon, therefore it's not a problem.

And you are suggesting retconning the lore we know of Necromancers that are all aligned with enemy factions. Or you are suggesting these factions to change their allegiance.

As for Dark Ranger, they are already associated with Hunters so what you propose is still retcon. Treat them like Sylvanas? That's a retcon their role in the Forsaken as an elite force of Hunters. That is how the lore has defined Dark Rangers.

We don't have the "same evidence" for dark rangers and hunters. We have a small bit of evidence, namely being just "forsaken hunters" and "they show up in the hunter order hall". And so what if there is no lore that "proves" dark rangers aren't hunters? That's an "absence of evidence" fallacy. By that same token we can say we don't have any lore that "proves" that dark rangers are hunters. That's the nature of the fallacy you're engaging in. We have circumstantial evidence that suggests they are, and we have circumstantial evidence that suggests they're not.

They were also *Hunter class trainers*, especially in the case of Nathanos Blightcaller when he still looked like a skeletal/player character forsaken. There is no circumstantial evidence that suggest they're not Hunters, Dark Rangers haven't been shown to be any different from Hunters in the lore so far. Dark Ranger, as far as the lore goes, has been treated like an alternate title for certain Forsaken Hunters, the same way Vindicator is used for Draenei Paladins. Vindicators are no less Paladins in the lore, no circumstantial evidence showing they are different.

From there we can say that based on lore, they are one and the same. Same as how Shadow magic is now tied to the Void, as one and the same. If there are differences then they must be pointed out, otherwise the lore has made no clear distinction and is connecting the two as closely as Tinkers and Engineers.

Frankly, any sensible answer to this all comes from taking the discussion away from lore; like taking into consideration that they can be their own class. My point is as long as I'm taking a stance that this discussion needs to stick to lore, you will never be able to use a compelling argument to suggest Dark Rangers are their own class. The lore has decided to make them a type of Hunter.

If we haven't found any conclusive evidence that they're not the same, then it's not lore that they are not the same. I agree. However, if we haven't found any conclusive evidence that they're not the same does not mean that the claim that the two are the same is necessarily true, i.e., a fact.

But it makes it highly unlikely. I'm asking you to provide any evidence contrary to it being highly unlikely.

I am making the case that if I can use lore to refute your arguments and call them out as highly unlikely, what can you do to prove this otherwise? All you are doing is presenting possibility, but I have seen zero effort on your part to show plausability. You just keep pointing at lore that isn't directly connected to Dark Rangers and Necromancers.

If there is no lore to support that they would or should be playable, then you haven't made a case against this being highly unlikely.

No, you can't. If you dismiss it as "non-factual" and "without validity", you adopt the burden of proof to prove that it's a fact the suggestion is invalid. In other words: in this example, you'd have to find conclusive evidence that both concepts (dark ranger & hunter) are one and the same. And there is none of that.

If it doesn't exist in lore then it is not valid, and this is what you made clear. Humans with wings is something we considered highly unlikely because the lore does not support the idea of it, and you suggested that the lore was clear on 'what Blizzard should do' and you said that this is an objective state of validation.

The lore doesn't need to conclusively prove anything, it is already a static record. You have been clear about this. If the lore says Tauren can't be Warlocks, then do you consider the plausability of Tauren Warlocks to be likely or unlikely? Based on your standards, you would say it is highly unlikely period.

[MyWholeLifeIsThunder]

Even though they voluntarily left that name behind for themselves.

A lot of the more groan-worthy discussions come from the "How DARE you still use the name we willingly stopped used, it's OURS" and the "But We do still have the original name ergo, we are the original ones"

So it's a lot about people don't understanding semantics.