Official High Elf Discussion Megathread

[Triceron]

And humans still cannot naturally turn into werewolves in the lore, even today. However, we know, since at least Warcraft 3, that magical blessings and maladies exist that can transform someone into something else. See? How I argued in favor the possibility that "did not exist in the lore" back in Warcraft 3, using lore that existed already in Warcraft 3?

A) You can use lore to argue *in favour* of any possibility. Lore is historic record, so of course it can be used to open up precedent.
B) You can not use lore to say Humans can't be Werewolves, even if Humans *still* can not naturally turn into werewolves in lore. If someone's suggestion is 'I want to play werewolves' then that is already satisfied, and you are arguing over nothing.
C) "Humans can turn into werewolves" does not address ALL humans, just like if I say Elves can become Demon Hunters it does not mean ALL ELVES can naturally become Demon Hunters in the lore. It was a question of possibility.
D) Lore will never be able to dismiss possibility. Lore can not explain what *can't* happen. It's only a record of things that happened.

That's not what a "cop-out answer" is. A cop-out answer is an attempt to dodge having to answer the question. Using lore as an argument is actually engaging with the question, with the idea, especially when it treats about lore.

Nope. Opinion is opinion, and if you use lore you are invoking a greater power to dismiss an argument.

If you want to engage on any discussion then you should be doing so purely with opinion. You can use lore to support opinion, but it HAS to be framed as opinion. Lore should NOT be used as an argument to disprove or invalidate any opinion.

Can you use lore to prove that Murlocs will never be playable? No. Can you use it to support an argument that they shouldn't be playable? Yes, but only if you frame it as *informing an opinion* and not treating it as a fact. If you say 'But the lore says Murlocs shouldn't be playable' then that would be invoking lore as an argument, reaching beyond an opinion. You are using lore to prove/disprove something, rather than presenting an opinion. You are no longer making an opinion that they shouldn't, you are also using the lore to say they *can't*. Lore doesn't have an opinion, Lore is not an opinion. It is a static record.

I think you have been doing a lot of the latter without actually knowing you are doing it. You think you are talking opinion, but the words and arguments you use suggest otherwise, then you get all confused why everyone misunderstands your arguments.

To be very honest, this explains a lot of why you used certain arguments to say Forsaken should not be Elves. You ended up bringing in lore (Mostly Humans) and instead of supporting your opinion, you don't realize that by mentioning lore you were making a statement against any playable Undead Elves.

There is a difference between dismissal and rebuttal. A dismissal is saying something that stifles the discussion, regarding it as "not important", such as "I don't care", "it doesn't matter" and "Blizzard can do it". A rebuttal is using evidence, such as lore, to counter the notion that the suggested idea is probable or even possible.

Semantics.

If a rebuttal involves using lore to address a particular opinion-based argument, then that is making a claim that lore is greater than opinion. Either way, it is a dismissal of argument. There is no happy medium where you can use lore to counter an suggestion without out-right dismissing it; lore can't deny possibilities so if you are bringing up lore you're doing nothing but making an excuse.

On the contrary. Lore should absolutely be brought up when discussing ideas for the story, especially when we're talking about things that "do not exist in the lore". It doesn't matter if the idea suggested does not currently exist. We discuss lore to see if the idea fits within what we already have.

If you want to discuss the story, then yes. But suggestions on what should be in the game is not a discussion of story, it's an expression of opinion on what someone wants. That is very different than discussing 'things that should happen in the story'.

You need to respect the context of a conversation. If someone is expressing their opinion that they want playable Forsaken Elves customization for Forsaken, then that is an opinion. You are free to disagree and argue if you like, but as soon as you use Lore as an argument, you are claiming that Blizzard deems it impossible. And that of course is wrong because the truth is 'Blizzard can do it'.

[Rhlor]

They either forgot about his eyes, or he is simply still a High Elf.

yeah! horde high elf

[Traycor]

A long, drawn out thread on the official forums had the op saying that only fair skin and hair, paladins, and access to Silvermoon for Void Elves will be acceptable to him to live out his high-elf fantasy. Taking away or giving access to a racial capital to the other faction just seems unfair to me. Do you think Blizz would actually do it? What Alliance capital would the Horde have as trade?

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

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

[Syegfryed]

My point has been concise and specific.

yes, you are using double standarts concise and specific

"Forsaken" is not a race. Undeath is not a race.

"thallasian" isn't a race either, is their damn language, void elves and blood elves are not "the same race"

If you're going to use "skin color" as an argument, then "hair color" and "eye color" are just as valid, and by that reasoning, no, void elves cannot look like blood elves because void elves do not have blond hair, green eyes, blood elf jewelry and blood elf hairstyles. You just refuted your own argument.

no, you are simple wrong, trying to nitpick the specific things void elves don't have access trying to say they cannot look like then, when they literally can and people already posted ton of images of then looking the same.

And even with that you are still going to be wrong since undead elves don't look like normal elves, because you know, they are dead.

And it shouldn't be valid to anyone, considering we're talking about a tooltip that describes how an ability works mechanically for gameplay.

now you have to proof that the mechanic for gameplay isn't lore either, oh wait, you are going bring some random example that show one thing is just gameplay and think that aplies to everything else, how predictable

- - - Updated - - -

The real high elf fantasy is a high elf that hangs out in Alliance controlled areas.

you mean the fantasy you guys made up right?

[Traycor]

you mean the fantasy you guys made up right?

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

Unfortunately, Blizz retcons everything constantly. Even the new lore books from the last couple years are already being retconned. Retcons, however, don't mean that players just dreamed them up. That's some 1984 level "change your thinking to our revised history" right there.

[Ielenia]

A) You can use lore to argue *in favour* of any possibility. Lore is historic record, so of course it can be used to open up precedent.
B) You can not use lore to say Humans can't be Werewolves, even if Humans *still* can not naturally turn into werewolves in lore. If someone's suggestion is 'I want to play werewolves' then that is already satisfied, and you are arguing over nothing.
C) "Humans can turn into werewolves" does not address ALL humans, just like if I say Elves can become Demon Hunters it does not mean ALL ELVES can naturally become Demon Hunters in the lore. It was a question of possibility.
D) Lore will never be able to dismiss possibility. Lore can not explain what *can't* happen. It's only a record of things that happened.

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

Nope. Opinion is opinion, and if you use lore you are invoking a greater power to dismiss an argument.

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

If you want to engage on any discussion then you should be doing so purely with opinion. You can use lore to support opinion, but it HAS to be framed as opinion. Lore should NOT be used as an argument to disprove or invalidate any opinion.

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

Semantics.

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

If a rebuttal involves using lore to address a particular opinion-based argument, then that is making a claim that lore is greater than opinion.

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

Either way, it is a dismissal of argument.

It's not. Engaging and discussing the argument is not "dismissing" it.

If you want to discuss the story, then yes. But suggestions on what should be in the game is not a discussion of story, it's an expression of opinion on what someone wants. That is very different than discussing 'things that should happen in the story'.

It's an expression of what someone wants in the story, hence why discussing story is pertinent.

You need to respect the context of a conversation. If someone is expressing their opinion that they want playable Forsaken Elves customization for Forsaken, then that is an opinion. You are free to disagree and argue if you like, but as soon as you use Lore as an argument, you are claiming that Blizzard deems it impossible. And that of course is wrong because the truth is 'Blizzard can do it'.

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

- - - Updated - - -

yes, you are using double standarts concise and specific

Insisting on a lie does not make it any less of a lie. I have already explained my reasoning multiple times. You are the only one still misrepresenting my arguments, which at this point I have no other option but to consider this a willful, intentional occurrence.

"thallasian" isn't a race either, is their damn language, void elves and blood elves are not "the same race"

They have the exact same body shape and silhouette. Unless you're going to argue that a difference in eye color is enough to make high elves and blood elves a different race? Either way, having your skin turned purple, your head sprout tentacles and hear whispers of the void does not necessarily mean you have transformed into a different race, considering that a race who had their bodies reshaped into an anthro wolf, with fur all over their bodies, and an animalistic fury they have to contend with every day to control did not made those humans into a different race. I'm talking about the worgen, if that wasn't clear enough.

no, you are simple wrong, trying to nitpick the specific things void elves don't have access trying to say they cannot look like then, when they literally can and people already posted ton of images of then looking the same.

You are the one using skin color as an argument. Why does skin color work, but not hair color or eye color? Sounds like "rules for thee but not for me", better known as "double standards". Y'know, what you have repeatedly but unsuccessfully accusing me for several pages, now?

And even with that you are still going to be wrong since undead elves don't look like normal elves, because you know, they are dead.

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

now you have to proof that the mechanic for gameplay isn't lore either, oh wait, you are going bring some random example that show one thing is just gameplay and think that aplies to everything else, how predictable

Here's the thing: if you're going to say "this is how I say it is, because of this reason", then the next step is to apply your reason to other similar examples and see if it holds up. If your reason doesn't hold up, then it's not a real rule. Not to mention that, again, you are making a statement of fact when, again, you have zero conclusive evidence to back up your claim.

[Rhlor]

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


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


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


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


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


It's not. Engaging and discussing the argument is not "dismissing" it.


It's an expression of what someone wants in the story, hence why discussing story is pertinent.


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

- - - Updated - - -


Insisting on a lie does not make it any less of a lie. I have already explained my reasoning multiple times. You are the only one still misrepresenting my arguments, which at this point I have no other option but to consider this a willful, intentional occurrence.


They have the exact same body shape and silhouette. Unless you're going to argue that a difference in eye color is enough to make high elves and blood elves a different race? Either way, having your skin turned purple, your head sprout tentacles and hear whispers of the void does not necessarily mean you have transformed into a different race, considering that a race who had their bodies reshaped into an anthro wolf, with fur all over their bodies, and an animalistic fury they have to contend with every day to control did not made those humans into a different race. I'm talking about the worgen, if that wasn't clear enough.


You are the one using skin color as an argument. Why does skin color work, but not hair color or eye color? Sounds like "rules for thee but not for me", better known as "double standards". Y'know, what you have repeatedly but unsuccessfully accusing me for several pages, now?


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



Here's the thing: if you're going to say "this is how I say it is, because of this reason", then the next step is to apply your reason to other similar examples and see if it holds up. If your reason doesn't hold up, then it's not a real rule. Not to mention that, again, you are making a statement of fact when, again, you have zero conclusive evidence to back up your claim.

https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...ion-Megathread

[Triceron]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I really hope you realize what you are doing.

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

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

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

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

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

[Ielenia]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Triceron]

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

Lore can be twisted to suit any argument.

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

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

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

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

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

So let's have an example.

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

Give me a rebuttal without dismissing my suggestion.

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

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

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

[Ardenaso]

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

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

- - - Updated - - -

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

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

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

[Alanar]

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

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

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

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

[Syegfryed]

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

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

- - - Updated - - -

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

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

They have the exact same body shape and silhouette

.

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

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

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

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

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

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

You are the one using skin color as an argument.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[dauntless]

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

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

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

[elbleuet]

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


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

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

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

[Ielenia]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- - - Updated - - -

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

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

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

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

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

So let's have an example.

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

Give me a rebuttal without dismissing my suggestion.

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

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

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

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

[Triceron]

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

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

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

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

And here is my rebuttal.

HOW DO YOU KNOW?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[vilememory]

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

[Traycor]

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

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

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

[scubi666stacy]

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

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

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