Official High Elf Discussion Megathread

[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.

[Traycor]

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.

I don't think it was misunderstand semantics. It was intentionally twisting semantics to create and argument where there wasn't one.

- - - Updated - - -

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!"

Fairly accurate.

What's sad about that is that the blood elf players never should have cared about the high elf request at all. It has no effect on them. It's just been blood elf players saying we wanted to "take" something from them. Nevermind that Alliance players wanted this *before* the Horde even got blood elves. Also before the blood elves had a real in-game model. The whole back and forth is just silly.

Alliance players wanted high elves, and in-lore the high elves are part of the Alliance. Easy peasy.

[elbleuet]

Don't forget the :

"High elves aren't part of the Alliance. The Silver Covenant is neutral"
"Alleria will never be Alliance"
"Void elves aren't High elves. Deal with it"
"Half-elves are more relevant than high elves"
"Okay you got fair skin and blue eyes, but still not High elves"

I think some will remain eternally in denial because they just can't accept that High elves fans were right from the beginning.

We got our High elves. We will get our blond, white, and silver hairs in the end. It's all that matters.

[Ielenia]

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.

So were the warlocks "already independent" prior to them joining the Alliance and the Horde.

And when we apply this to your precedent, we know Necromancers are not part of the Alliance and Horde by choice.

Neither were warlocks or death knights or even monks prior to those concepts become playable. You're implying that a representative of the future class being a willing part of the Alliance and the Horde as some sort of "mandatory requirement", but neither the warlocks or death knights had a representative of them being a "willing part of the Alliance and the Horde" before them being playable. And neither was the case of the monk class, too.

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

And this is completely irrelevant, and a moving of the goalposts. Being part of the Horde and/or Alliance or not is irrelevant.

And you are suggesting retconning the lore we know of Necromancers that are all aligned with enemy factions.

It's not a retcon, because the necromancers currently allied with the "enemy factions" would still be aligned with the "enemy factions". Death knights being made playable did not suddenly alter the lore to make all death knights be part of the Alliance or the Horde.

As for Dark Ranger, they are already associated with Hunters so what you propose is still retcon.

It's not a retcon because we have no lore stating as fact that they're 'one and the same'. And as far as being "associated", remember that paladins are also "associated" with priests.

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.

You do know the playable demon hunters are "part of an elite force"? Dark rangers being made playable won't make them any less of an "elite force" in the lore.

They were also *Hunter class trainers*, especially in the case of Nathanos Blightcaller when he still looked like a skeletal/player character forsaken.

The only hunter trainer that I found out to actually be a dark ranger was Nathanos Blightcaller. And didn't you just dismiss Sylvanas as a dark ranger example because she's "no longer part of the Horde"? Well, Nathanos Blightcaller is also "no longer part of the Horde" so why are you using him as an example?

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.

Dark rangers are adept at "manipulating opponents" and "sowing hatred and dissension" among their enemies. That doesn't sound like the description of the hunter class.

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

No, it does not make it "highly unlikely". In fact, we can't even say it's even unlikely. It's simply an unknown probability.

If I toss a coin up in the air, and then immediately slam my foot down on it as it lands on the ground. so no one you can see which side is up. Now, I claim that that the face being up is tails. But I have no evidence that the coin did land with tails face up. That does not make the coin landing with tails face up "highly unlikely", does it?

If it doesn't exist in lore then it is not valid, and this is what you made clear.

No, and no. An idea or suggestion not existing in the lore does not mean they are invalid. And your example does not fit the situation considering there is no lore that states that dark rangers cannot (as in, "not allowed to" or "are physically/mentally unable to") train new dark rangers.

[shoc]

So were the warlocks "already independent" prior to them joining the Alliance and the Horde.


Neither were warlocks or death knights or even monks prior to those concepts become playable. You're implying that a representative of the future class being a willing part of the Alliance and the Horde as some sort of "mandatory requirement", but neither the warlocks or death knights had a representative of them being a "willing part of the Alliance and the Horde" before them being playable. And neither was the case of the monk class, too.


And this is completely irrelevant, and a moving of the goalposts. Being part of the Horde and/or Alliance or not is irrelevant.


It's not a retcon, because the necromancers currently allied with the "enemy factions" would still be aligned with the "enemy factions". Death knights being made playable did not suddenly alter the lore to make all death knights be part of the Alliance or the Horde.


It's not a retcon because we have no lore stating as fact that they're 'one and the same'. And as far as being "associated", remember that paladins are also "associated" with priests.


You do know the playable demon hunters are "part of an elite force"? Dark rangers being made playable won't make them any less of an "elite force" in the lore.


The only hunter trainer that I found out to actually be a dark ranger was Nathanos Blightcaller. And didn't you just dismiss Sylvanas as a dark ranger example because she's "no longer part of the Horde"? Well, Nathanos Blightcaller is also "no longer part of the Horde" so why are you using him as an example?


Dark rangers are adept at "manipulating opponents" and "sowing hatred and dissension" among their enemies. That doesn't sound like the description of the hunter class.


No, it does not make it "highly unlikely". In fact, we can't even say it's even unlikely. It's simply an unknown probability.

If I toss a coin up in the air, and then immediately slam my foot down on it as it lands on the ground. so no one you can see which side is up. Now, I claim that that the face being up is tails. But I have no evidence that the coin did land with tails face up. That does not make the coin landing with tails face up "highly unlikely", does it?


No, and no. An idea or suggestion not existing in the lore does not mean they are invalid. And your example does not fit the situation considering there is no lore that states that dark rangers cannot (as in, "not allowed to" or "are physically/mentally unable to") train new dark rangers.

They should turn Sub Rogue into a ranged Spec called Dark Ranger and it will be perfect.

[Triceron]

So were the warlocks "already independent" prior to them joining the Alliance and the Horde.

Warlocks never*joined* the Alliance and Horde. Their lore is that they have always operated and existed within these factions well before WoW even started.

Orc Warlocks were said to be from the Burning Blade clan, and Thrall simply let them stay within the Horde under a watchful eye. Alliance's version was more hush-hush and acted as secret societies within Stormwind and the other major cities. One can infer from the lore that it was their choice to operate within these factions, considering there ARE other independent non-Alliance/Horde Warlocks and covens out in the world. Twilights Hammer is an example of one such organization.

We don't have that for the Necromancer. All of the ones we know of operate outside of the Alliance and Horde, and lore has changed since for how the Alliance and Horde consider the Warlocks over the course of many expansions. They have a connection and a purpose within the Alliance and Horde through all that time in the lore, whereas a Necromancer doesn't have that sort of connection to our factions. They aren't a group of exiles that need to be brought in like the DK's, they aren't a secret society working within the factions that have come to be more accepted over time like the Warlocks. They are completely independent outsiders, as far as lore treats them.

Which is why I would prefer any Necromancer discussion to be taken outside of lore, and into the realm of opinion. But strictly speaking of lore? If we abide to lore standards then the Necromancer is highly unlikely to join our factions because they are not shown to have any connection to them. All the ones we know of operate in enemy NPC factions.

Neither were warlocks or death knights or even monks prior to those concepts become playable. You're implying that a representative of the future class being a willing part of the Alliance and the Horde as some sort of "mandatory requirement", but neither the warlocks or death knights had a representative of them being a "willing part of the Alliance and the Horde" before them being playable. And neither was the case of the monk class, too.

Warlocks did not. Warlocks came with Vanilla, and were explained to have already been working within our ranks under secrecy. This was pretty clear in the lore when your class trainers are all hidden away from society, like in the basement of the Slaughtered Lamb.

We don't have Necromancers operating the same way in the lore. They don't have any base of operations within the Horde or Alliance.

And yes, Monks and DK's did have representatives, which is a step that we're missing with Necromancers. Where is this representative? If they don't exist, then the lore says the chances are still highly unlikely. They *could* exist, and that is possibility. If we're talking about chances though, without a representative known to us it's very unlikely to happen.

Again, this is the same logic you employed against Anduin and Taelia getting married, by employing observable evidence to define the probability as being highly unlikely. You said that there was no evidence that there was anything beyond their one meeting, so chances they would get married was highly unlikely. Same can be said of Necromancers joining; we have seen no evidence of a connection to our factions. And even if we had, there is no evidence it would grow beyond one meeting.

It's not a retcon, because the necromancers currently allied with the "enemy factions" would still be aligned with the "enemy factions". Death knights being made playable did not suddenly alter the lore to make all death knights be part of the Alliance or the Horde.

Yes, and we can say that about the Death Knights because they have lore to support that.

Where is the lore for the Necromancer to support this plausability? I mean, if you *really* want to use this argument to say DK being playable because they have a representative makes them plausible, then what is there to stop someone from saying we can have a Lion Tamer class because all they need is a Lion Tamer representative? Or a Darkmoon Juggler? Or a Sanitations Custodian? None of these are plausible without supporting evidence.

Saying 'all we need is a representative' is a claim that you need to support with evidence in the lore, if we abide by your standard of using Lore to validate any suggestion.

It's not a retcon because we have no lore stating as fact that they're 'one and the same'. And as far as being "associated", remember that paladins are also "associated" with priests.

And we have lore that defines a separation between Paladin and Priest. That does not exist between Dark Ranger and Hunter. Again, you aren't making an argument *using* lore, you're actually arguing *against* the lore by mentioning there is an associating Paladins and Priests without actually addressing the fact that they are made distinct in the lore. They have different organizations, whereas Dark Rangers and Hunters seemingly share the same one. Even Demon Hunters are of a completely different organization as Warlocks.

You do know the playable demon hunters are "part of an elite force"? Dark rangers being made playable won't make them any less of an "elite force" in the lore.

Yes, of Hunters, which are already an existing class. That is the lore. Just pointing out that Dark Rangers are 'elite' doesn't make them their own class.

The only hunter trainer that I found out to actually be a dark ranger was Nathanos Blightcaller. And didn't you just dismiss Sylvanas as a dark ranger example because she's "no longer part of the Horde"? Well, Nathanos Blightcaller is also "no longer part of the Horde" so why are you using him as an example?

Because it is still an example of standing lore that was not changed or retconned.

Nathanos doesn't need to continue being a Hunter trainer to show us how Dark Rangers are already connected to the Hunter class. It doesn't change this lore. The connection is still implied. Just like if Thrall and Vol'jin aren't Warchief any more, it doesn't mean Shamans can no longer be associated with the Warchief position. The connections are still implied.

No, it does not make it "highly unlikely". In fact, we can't even say it's even unlikely. It's simply an unknown probability.

And how are you coming to know this probability? You said lore is objective and lore validates the probability, but it seems like you are the one making things up as you go along.

If it's not in the lore, then the probability is low. This is how you described the situation to me previously. You said that suggestions should use lore to show plausability. So far, you have shown zero Necromancer and Dark Ranger lore showing they have intent to become playable classes, therefore they must be judged as being unlikely, based on your own claims of Lore being objective.

If I toss a coin up in the air, and then immediately slam my foot down on it as it lands on the ground. so no one you can see which side is up. Now, I claim that that the face being up is tails. But I have no evidence that the coin did land with tails face up. That does not make the coin landing with tails face up "highly unlikely", does it?

Which would be fine if Blizzard adds classes by flipping a coin. However, they don't.

So asserting that Blizzard operates creating playable classes in the same way as flipping a coin is a strawman argument. This isn't about blanket probability, this is about whether or not the lore supports your argument or not.

And I've clearly pointed out time and time again that you have provided zero evidence of lore to suggest that a Playable Necromancer would happen. Zero.

I mean if we blanketly applied probability to flipping a coin, then you could say Paladins and DK's merging into one class is

Your own words - Lore defines validity. But absence of lore does not define absence of validity.

No, and no. An idea or suggestion not existing in the lore does not mean they are invalid. And your example does not fit the situation considering there is no lore that states that dark rangers cannot (as in, "not allowed to" or "are physically/mentally unable to") train new dark rangers.

Both Necromancers and Dark Rangers are already defined in the lore.

We know Necromancers and Dark Rangers both exist, and we have lore surrounding their existence and organization. They are not *new* inventions. We know Necromancers are tied to enemy factions, and we know Dark Rangers are tied in lore to the Hunter class. That is not absence, that is evidence.

Any suggestion that they *could* be playable would be considered possibility, not plausability; ie 'Blizzard can do anything with their lore'. We don't have to discuss possibility. What I am asking of you is to prove plausability. Why they *should* be playable, using lore to support your argument, and without conflicting with existing lore to do so.

And what we're faced with is the fact that you have nothing in lore to suggest they should. This is why they are highly unlikely to happen.

[Ielenia]

Warlocks never*joined* the Alliance and Horde. Their lore is that they have always operated and existed within these factions well before WoW even started.

Considering the Horde did not exist before WoW, that's a tall order.

Orc Warlocks were said to be from the Burning Blade clan, and Thrall simply let them stay within the Horde under a watchful eye. Alliance's version was more hush-hush and acted as secret societies within Stormwind and the other major cities. One can infer from the lore that it was their choice to operate within these factions, considering there ARE other independent non-Alliance/Horde Warlocks and covens out in the world.

"Infer"? Sounds a lot like a guess, not fact.

Warlocks did not. Warlocks came with Vanilla

Warcraft did not start with WoW.

And yes, Monks and DK's did have representatives,

Then show me the death knight and the monk representatives within the Alliance and the Horde before Wrath and MoP, respectively, please.

And we have lore that defines a separation between Paladin and Priest. That does not exist between Dark Ranger and Hunter.

Yes, it does. And I've linked it to you:

Dark rangers are adept at "manipulating opponents" and "sowing hatred and dissension" among their enemies. That doesn't sound like the description of the hunter class.

Because it is still an example of standing lore that was not changed or retconned.

So you're employing double-standards. You literally dismissed Sylvanas as an example of "dark ranger" because she is no longer with the Horde:

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.

But now you're asserting that Nathanos is an example of how dark rangers are just hunters, despite the fact that he's no longer with the Horde. I'm sorry, dude, but if Sylvanas is invalid as an example, then so is Nathanos.

And how are you coming to know this probability?

... I literally just said that it's an unknown probability. Why are you asking "how do I know this probability"?

Which would be fine if Blizzard adds classes by flipping a coin. However, they don't.

So asserting that Blizzard operates creating playable classes in the same way as flipping a coin is a strawman argument.

You're basically admitting to making a strawman, then, considering that was never my argument with the example of the coin flip. It was never about Blizzard making classes with a coin flip, but me arguing how one possibility does not become more likely because the other doesn't have much supporting evidence.

This example showcases what you're doing: imagine a jar filled with gum balls. We don't know how many are in there. I say I think there is an even number of gum balls in that jar. You then ask me to prove that there is an even number of gum balls in that jar, and when I say I can't prove it, you assert that because I can't prove my guess, it means it's more likely that there an odd number of balls.

Your own words - Lore defines validity. But absence of lore does not define absence of validity.

Exactly. Which means that just because we don't have lore about a certain something, it doesn't mean this certain something is "highly unlikely" or even "unlikely", especially when we have similar precedents backing up this certain something.

Both Necromancers and Dark Rangers are already defined in the lore.

And dark rangers' definition differs wildly from the definition of hunters. I repeat:

Dark rangers are adept at "manipulating opponents" and "sowing hatred and dissension" among their enemies. That doesn't sound like the description of the hunter class.

We know Necromancers and Dark Rangers both exist, and we have lore surrounding their existence and organization. They are not *new* inventions. We know Necromancers are tied to enemy factions(1), and we know Dark Rangers are tied in lore to the Hunter class(2). That is not absence, that is evidence.

(1) And so were warlocks before being made playable.
(2) We do not.

[Triceron]

Considering the Horde did not exist before WoW, that's a tall order.

Er, what?

They existed since Warcraft 3.

I think this speaks volumes that you don't even know your lore. Gonna dismiss the rest of your case right here until you have lore to back up your statements. Everything else you replied with was not lore that I clearly asked you to provide.

Exactly. Which means that just because we don't have lore about a certain something, it doesn't mean this certain something is "highly unlikely" or even "unlikely", especially when we have similar precedents backing up this certain something.

Yet you say Anduin and Taelia getting married was highly unlikely even though Thrall and Aggra is an example of precedent of characters meeting and marrying.

Funny how you are able to use double standards.

We don't have lore explaining that they wouldn't pursue a relationship and later get married. So how did you conclude it would be highly unlikely? I'd really like to hear this explanation.

[Ielenia]

Er, what?

They existed since Warcraft 3.

And the Burning Blade clan was not accepted into the Horde until WoW. Which just so happens to be the exact same time that warlocks became a playable class. Which is the whole point, here.

Yet you say Anduin and Taelia getting married was highly unlikely even though Thrall and Aggra is an example of precedent of characters meeting and marrying.

Funny how you are able to use double standards.

It's about precedents. Considering we have an insurmountable amount of people meeting and NOT getting married, it is fair to say that it's highly unlikely that Anduin and Taelia end up married "just because they met, once".

Also, I'm sorry, but I'm not going to let this slide, considering how much you love harping on what you consider mistakes of mine:

And we have lore that defines a separation between Paladin and Priest. That does not exist between Dark Ranger and Hunter.

Yes, it does. And I've linked it to you:

Dark rangers are adept at "manipulating opponents" and "sowing hatred and dissension" among their enemies. That doesn't sound like the description of the hunter class.

Because it is still an example of standing lore that was not changed or retconned.

So you're employing double-standards. You literally dismissed Sylvanas as an example of "dark ranger" because she is no longer with the Horde:

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.

But now you're asserting that Nathanos is an example of how dark rangers are just hunters, despite the fact that he's no longer with the Horde. I'm sorry, dude, but if Sylvanas is invalid as an example, then so is Nathanos.

[Triceron]

And the Burning Blade clan was not accepted into the Horde until WoW. Which just so happens to be the exact same time that warlocks became a playable class. Which is the whole point, here.

Er no, Blademasters of WC3 are of the Burning Blade clan. They even have burning blade banners on their backs for gods sake. One of their quotes is even 'FOR THE BURNING BLADE!"

Again, reply when you actually do your proper research and have lore to back up an argument. This is just absurd though that you don't even know your pre-WoW lore.

It's about precedents. Considering we have an insurmountable amount of people meeting and NOT getting married, it is fair to say that it's highly unlikely that Anduin and Taelia end up married "just because they met, once".

Also, I'm sorry, but I'm not going to let this slide, considering how much you love harping on what you consider mistakes of mine:

Then shouldn't you have considered it is an _unknown probability_ instead of saying it was highly unlikely? If you don't know the chances of Anduin and Taelia getting married, then how are you ever reaching conclusions that ANYTHING is highly unlikely without considering the unknown?. You can't define the likelyhood of them getting married based on other people -not- getting married.

Consider this statement you made which is what you SHOULD HAVE said regarding the Anduin and Taelia marriage situation.

No, it does not make it "highly unlikely". In fact, we can't even say it's even unlikely. It's simply an unknown probability.

If I toss a coin up in the air, and then immediately slam my foot down on it as it lands on the ground. so no one you can see which side is up. Now, I claim that that the face being up is tails. But I have no evidence that the coin did land with tails face up. That does not make the coin landing with tails face up "highly unlikely", does it?

Whether you flip a coin a dozen times or a thousand times, the probability remains the same; the probability is not affected by previous averages or statistics. You should *know* that other people meeting and not getting married has *zero effect* on the probability of Anduin and Taelia getting married. Yet you decided to define it as being Highly Unlikely, despite knowing that you had no evidence to judge the likelyhood Anduin and Taelia would get married.

Explain yourself.

But now you're asserting that Nathanos is an example of how dark rangers are just hunters, despite the fact that he's no longer with the Horde. I'm sorry, dude, but if Sylvanas is invalid as an example, then so is Nathanos.

Nathanos left the Horde. He didn't change his class. It is relevant because is a Dark Ranger who trained Hunters. He has kept consistent as a Dark Ranger, and he employs the same general tactics as any Hunter would. Nothing in lore contests him as being anything more than a Dark Ranger.

As for Sylvanas herself, there are numerous factors we *need* to consider before we discuss her as a Dark Ranger.

A) Main characters are not bound to class restrictions. Characters like Anduin can use 2H swords, Thrall wore plate armor and became Aspect of the Earth, Jaina could 'summon' an arcane battleship and launch arcane fireballs. These are beyond class limitations, and we need to regard Sylvanas as a main character which has power beyond their class identity
B) Sylvanas has a unique origin not shared by any other Dark Ranger. She was the only known Dark Ranger who was a Banshee that regained her form. We have not seen any other Dark Ranger born this way. Her use of Banshee powers are unique to her, and shown this way in lore. While this doesn't make it exclusive to her for a potential class, we have to consider that every other Dark Ranger has not been shown to use *any* of these special Banshee abilities.
C) Sylvanas gained inexplicable powers during BFA. This includes the use of her Banshee powers, which she had never displayed before. Now in Shadowlands, it is being explained through her connection to the Jailer. So if we regard Sylvanas as a class representative, then the powers that are tied to the Jailer have to be defined and we have to figure out whether this would be something unique to Sylvanas, or something applied to all Dark Rangers. As far as the lore is concerned right now, they are unique to her, and explained through the Jailer connection. No other Dark Ranger has shown any exceptional feats like Sylvanas.
D) *ON TOP* of the top 3, she is no longer part of the Horde. This was not the *main* reason to dismiss her, but an addendum to an already lengthy number of reasons why she stands out beyond a class rep. She is no longer connected to the Dark Rangers, so they wouldn't be able to learn what she is capable of now.

Considering the context I asked you to provide was lore to suggest Dark Rangers would become playable, you chose a character that no longer has ties to the playable factions, who has disconnected ties to all other Dark Rangers, who has ascended to demi-god/god-like status, and who is not bound by class restrictions whatsoever.

All the while, every other Dark Ranger that we know of that remains with the Alliance and Horde are shown to be doing the exact same things as they had before, no longer have a direct connection to Sylvanas, and are already present in the Hunter class halls.

As long as I'm sticking to your definitions of what lore represents and how you regard opinions as less-than-lore, then no, Dark Rangers should not be modelled after Sylvanas because the Lore has already defined them as hunters and has also severed the Horde and Dark Ranger's connections to her character. Unlike the DK's or DH who also have severed connections with their masters, Sylvanas did not teach or grant power to the Dark Rangers under her command before she severed ties; making the Dark Rangers stuck in a sort of limbo situation with very little room for growth in the lore. If you can provide me with lore that says otherwise, I'd be completely open to hear you out; but I don't have much faith considering you think the Burning Blade joined the Horde in WoW.

[MyWholeLifeIsThunder]

Don't forget the :

"High elves aren't part of the Alliance. The Silver Covenant is neutral"
"Alleria will never be Alliance"
"Void elves aren't High elves. Deal with it"
"Half-elves are more relevant than high elves"
"Okay you got fair skin and blue eyes, but still not High elves"

I think some will remain eternally in denial because they just can't accept that High elves fans were right from the beginning.

We got our High elves. We will get our blond, white, and silver hairs in the end. It's all that matters.

Oh god, the "The SC Is neutral, so HE aren't part of the alliance" has always been the dumbest one, it's so dumb it actually bothers me.

I don't think it was misunderstand semantics. It was intentionally twisting semantics to create and argument where there wasn't one.

Oh for sure, but I do think there's a noticeable amount of people that actually believe that by not holding onto the name, they "lose", be it either the actual legacy of the High Elven empire or the continuity from it to the present as Blood Elves.

And I do agree that a lot of people knowingly obfuscate it, but I'm pointing out to those people that legitimately think the question "Who are the true High Elves" has to do with the name itself. It's the wrong question, mind you, but a lot of people ask it genuinely.

- - - Updated - - -

They should turn Sub Rogue into a ranged Spec called Dark Ranger and it will be perfect.

This might be a joke, but I do legit think that "Dark Ranger" might work better as a Rogue Ranged spec rather than a Hunter one.

[Ardenaso]

Er no, Blademasters of WC3 are of the Burning Blade clan. They even have burning blade banners on their backs for gods sake. One of their quotes is even 'FOR THE BURNING BLADE!"

I'm thinking the Blademaster in WC3 was representing the Burning Legion loyalists like the Blademaster Arthas and Uther fought; just as how the Blood Mage and Blood Elves are in the Human roster despite their entire plot in TFT is leaving the Alliance of Lordaeron

Unless they actually represent those in Thrall's Horde proper like Samuro

[Triceron]

I'm thinking the Blademaster in WC3 was representing the Burning Legion loyalists like the Blademaster Arthas and Uther fought; just as how the Blood Mage and Blood Elves are in the Human roster despite their entire plot in TFT is leaving the Alliance of Lordaeron

Unless they actually represent those in Thrall's Horde proper like Samuro

Their lore is stated to be working with the Horde in the Warcraft 3 Compendium.

"Under Thrall's command, the Blademasters have once again joined the Horde and serve as the young Warchief's personal honor guard."

[Ielenia]

Er no, Blademasters of WC3 are of the Burning Blade clan. They even have burning blade banners on their backs for gods sake. One of their quotes is even 'FOR THE BURNING BLADE!"

Again, reply when you actually do your proper research and have lore to back up an argument. This is just absurd though that you don't even know your pre-WoW lore.

I'm talking about the warlocks. The Burning Blade clan was in WC3, but their warlocks were not. Evidence of that is how there were no warlocks in the Orc campaign, and how Thrall was fighting to free their people from their slavers.

Explain yourself.

Apples and oranges. They're different situations. For the 'dark ranger' example, we have little evidence for both sides. For the 'Anduin and Taelia' example, we have an insurmountable amount of people meeting and NOT getting married, and a very, very, very, very small amount of people AND getting married. Saurfang and Zappyboi did not get married. Varian and Jaina did not get married. Thalyssra and Liadrin did not get married. Chen and Vol'jin did not get married. Valeera and Brol did not get married. Etc, etc, etc.

Also: there is still the fact we have a canonical description of the dark rangers that does not fit at all with the canonical description of the hunter.

Nathanos left the Horde. He didn't change his class.

And neither did Sylvanas, but that did not stop you from dismissing her as an example because she left the Horde.

A) Main characters are not bound to class restrictions.

That doesn't disqualify her as a possible example.

B) Sylvanas has a unique origin not shared by any other Dark Ranger.

How do you know that?

C) Sylvanas gained inexplicable powers during BFA. This includes the use of her Banshee powers, which she had never displayed before.

Sylvanas already displayed some banshee powers way back in Cataclysm, as she used Banshee Scream during her fight against Genn Graymane during the worgen starting zone. During the Battle for Gilneas City quest, Sylvanas lets out a scream that knocks everyone back and stuns them.

D) *ON TOP* of the top 3, she is no longer part of the Horde. This was not the *main* reason to dismiss her,

That was literally the only reason you gave for dismissing her.

- - - Updated - - -

Their lore is stated to be working with the Horde in the Warcraft 3 Compendium.

"Under Thrall's command, the Blademasters have once again joined the Horde and serve as the young Warchief's personal honor guard."

The blademasters. No mention about warlocks, or the clan as a whole.

[BaumanKing]

"High elves aren't part of the Alliance. The Silver Covenant is neutral"

But, how is that even possible? Vereesa herself calls Varian HER king.

[Triceron]

I'm talking about the warlocks. The Burning Blade clan was in WC3, but their warlocks were not. Evidence of that is how there were no warlocks in the Orc campaign, and how Thrall was fighting to free their people from their slavers.

The lore of the Warlocks of the Burning Blade was that they were already a part of the Horde working in relative secrecy, established well before WoW. That puts it in the timeline of Warcraft 3 when the entire clan would have been accepted into the Horde. There is no lore that says suggests they were *introduced* in WoW, lore specifically says they are part of the Burning Blade clan and they have been operating in a part of Orgrimmar.

If you want to claim that there is a possibility they joined after the Burning Blade clan already joined in WC3, then you would need to prove this with evidence, otherwise the lore is pretty damned clear that the Warlocks in both Alliance and Horde were already operating within these factions, and explains that we had not seen them before (as in WC3) BECAUSE they operate in secrecy.

Apples and oranges. They're different situations. For the 'dark ranger' example, we have little evidence for both sides. For the 'Anduin and Taelia' example, we have an insurmountable amount of people meeting and NOT getting married, and a very, very, very, very small amount of people AND getting married. Saurfang and Zappyboi did not get married. Varian and Jaina did not get married. Thalyssra and Liadrin did not get married. Chen and Vol'jin did not get married. Valeera and Brol did not get married. Etc, etc, etc.

This is an example of Ielenia *choosing* what lore he wants to statistically affect probability, and what lore he doesn't want statistics to affect probability. This is a double standard.

Consider for a second, Imagine if you were suggesting FOR Anduin and Taelia getting married. Imagine if I told you the chances they get married were highly unlikely because Saurfang and Zappyboi didn't get married. Would you consider this as evidence at all?

Now imagine I said Dark Rangers can't be playable because Bards aren't playable. Would you consider this evidence at all?


If you claim NPCs that have not gotten married as insurmountable evidence, then for consistency sake shouldn't I be able to claim all the NPC classes that have never been made into playable classes as insurmountable evidence making Dark Ranger highly unlikely?


- Just want to be clear to anyone else, I'm playing devil's advocate using Ielenia's argument against himself. I do not personally use 'statistics' to prove anything as being 'highly unlikely'.

[Ielenia]

The lore of the Warlocks of the Burning Blade was that they were already a part of the Horde working in relative secrecy, established well before WoW. That puts it in the timeline of Warcraft 3 when the entire clan would have been accepted into the Horde.

Warcraft 3 was also when Orgrimmar was established. Learn your lore.

Funny. All I can see is how only the blademasters of the Burning Blade clan became part of the Horde, initially, and then later, in World of Warcraft, the warlocks were added into the Horde, by pretending to be good.

This is an example of Ielenia *choosing* what lore he wants to statistically affect probability, and what lore he doesn't want statistics to affect probability. This is a double standard.

No, this is not. We have actually little evidence that both (dark rangers and hunters) are one and the same, and little evidence that both are not the same. We even have a canonical description of the dark rangers that wildly differs from the hunter's, of which you have not addressed yet.

If we claim NPCs that have not gotten married as insurmountable evidence, then for consistency sake we should claim all the NPC classes that have never been made into playable classes as insurmountable evidence.

Once again: apples and oranges. A lore event (the marriage) is not the same thing as a game mechanic (a class being playable). You're once again doing a bait-and-switch here, because you went from "lore to distinguish dark rangers and hunters" to "Blizzard creating a new playable class".

You are deliberately CHOOSING one argument to be affected by statistics, while the other you blatantly ignore because you don't even *consider* it a statistic.

I'm not "choosing" anything. I'm simply pointing out the differences between both cases.

Consider for a second, Imagine if you were suggesting FOR Anduin and Taelia getting married. Imagine if I told you the chances they get married were highly unlikely because Saurfang and Zappyboi didn't get married. Would you consider this as evidence at all? I think you would consider it as absurd as if I said Dark Rangers can't be playable because Bards aren't playable.

If I was making a case for Anduin and Taelia getting married, my only argument would be "because I want to see them together", considering there is no lore that guarantees two people marrying "because they met", and loads of evidence of people meeting but never getting married. In other words, yes, I would accept your claim that it's "highly unlikely" the two end up getting married.