1. #22221
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    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.

  2. #22222
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2020-11-10 at 02:35 AM.

  3. #22223
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    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:
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    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:
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    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:
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    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.

  4. #22224
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2020-11-10 at 04:24 AM.

  5. #22225
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    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:
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    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:
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    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:
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    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.

  6. #22226
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2020-11-10 at 06:28 AM.

  7. #22227
    Quote Originally Posted by elbleuet View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Traycor View Post
    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 - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by shoc View Post
    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.

  8. #22228
    The Lightbringer Ardenaso's Avatar
    3+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Location
    Philippines
    Posts
    3,076
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    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
    The Alliance gets the Horde's most popular race. The Horde should get the Alliance's most popular race in return. Alteraci Humans for the Horde!

    I make Warcraft 3 Reforged HD custom models and I'm also an HD model reviewer.

  9. #22229
    Quote Originally Posted by Ardenaso View Post
    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."

  10. #22230
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    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 - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Ielenia; 2020-11-10 at 02:24 PM.

  11. #22231
    Quote Originally Posted by elbleuet View Post
    "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.

  12. #22232
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    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'.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2020-11-10 at 04:54 PM.

  13. #22233
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    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.

  14. #22234
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    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.
    Yes, you can only see that because you choose to interpret the lore of the Burning Blade as a bunch of independent classes that can join the Horde at different times, instead of the more sensible interpretation of an entire clan swearing allegiance to Thrall's Horde. That's why it's funny, because you're choosing to find nuance to explain your own mistake.

    Lore states when the Burning Blade clan joins, and Warlocks are associated with the clan. There is no specific lore that says they joined later; the lore clearly states that they already have operations within Orgrimmar *before the start of WoW*. You said earlier that it didn't happen UNTIL WoW, which is blatantly false. The lore SAYS they are already there and that Thrall already knows of their existence and is already keeping a watchful eye on them. Learn your lore.


    Here are your exact words.

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

    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.

    I'm not taking anything out of context. These are the literal replies you gave me. Now you are claiming a lore retcon even though the lore specifically states that the Warlocks are already operating in Ragefire BEFORE WoW even starts.


    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.
    Necromancers and Dark Rangers would be highly unlikely to happen.

    You kept saying where I got that from and argued that no, it is an unknown probability to happen. But if I use your own argument that all the NPCs we've known that never joined as a playable class, all the Runemasters and Timeweavers and Bards etc, then you are making a case that I can use this insurmountable evidence to consider the Dark Ranger and Necromancer as highly unlikely.

    From there you would have to provide evidence to substantiate the claim that they would; just like someone would have to provide evidence of Anduin and Taelia's relationship in order to say they would get married. Right?

    Once again: apples and oranges. A lore event (the marriage) is not the same thing as a game mechanic (a class being playable)..
    Lore makes no differentiation to the two.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2020-11-10 at 05:45 PM.

  15. #22235
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    Lore states when the Burning Blade clan joins, and Warlocks are associated with the clan. There is no specific lore that says they joined later; the lore clearly states that they already have operations within Orgrimmar *before the start of WoW*.
    Where does it say that? Because I've looked through all the Warcraft 3 information I could find, and saw nothing about warlocks being part of Orgrimmar.

    Necromancers and Dark Rangers would be highly unlikely to happen.
    Why? The only reason you've given so far is that because "there is no lore of them being the Alliance and the Horde", but that is not exactly a point against them.

    You kept saying where I got that from and argued that no, it is an unknown probability to happen. But if I use your own argument that all the NPCs we've known that never joined as a playable class, all the Runemasters and Timeweavers and Bards etc, then you are making a case that I can use this insurmountable evidence to consider the Dark Ranger and Necromancer as highly unlikely.
    That is not the same thing. You cannot compare a lore event to a game mechanic and treat both as the same.

    Lore makes no differentiation to the two.
    ... Are you saying there is no difference between lore and game mechanics/features? Is that it?

  16. #22236
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    Where does it say that? Because I've looked through all the Warcraft 3 information I could find, and saw nothing about warlocks being part of Orgrimmar.
    If you say something happens *UNTIL WoW* then you are saying they joined when WoW started. Just like if you said 'Until I broke my leg' it doesn't mean BEFORE the moment you broke your leg. The lore for the Burning Blade Warlocks in the Coven of Shadows is established before WoW starts.

    "Ragefire Chasm consists of a network of volcanic caverns that lie below the orcs' new capital city of Orgrimmar. Recently, rumors have spread that a cult loyal to the demonic Shadow Council has taken up residence within the Chasm's fiery depths. This cult, known as the Burning Blade, threatens the very sovereignty of Durotar. Many believe that the orc Warchief, Thrall, is aware of the Blade's existence and has chosen not to destroy it in the hopes that its members might lead him straight to the Shadow Council. Either way, the dark powers emanating from Ragefire Chasm could undo all that the orcs have fought to attain." - World Dungeons lore on old WoW site

    The novel 'Cycle of Hatred' establishes that the Burning Blade Cult is legion-aligned and working under/is a part of the Shadow Council. The Burning Blade Cult Warlocks in Ragefire are Shadow Council agents that have infiltrated the Horde-aligned clan's Warlocks already operating in the Cleft of Shadow, which we had quests that tasked us to investigate. The lore of the entire dungeon and the area established that Horde-aligned Warlocks were already operating in the Cleft of Shadow, and that you are to address the *new threat of Shadow Council agents* that Thrall is already aware of and wants you to deal with.

    This would have established the Warlocks during the 'Post Third War' period. It covers the time period after Warcraft 3 up to WoW. It's when the Scarlet Crusade would have been established, when Night Elves join the Alliance etc. Just like if we talk about Teldrassil/Darnassus, you can say 'we didn't have this city until WoW' but that doesn't mean this place only existed when WoW did. We have lore that establishes this happened in the time after WC3 and prior to the start of WoW. Keep in mind we are talking about lore for when Warlocks in the Horde would have been established, not when we as players were first made aware of Warlocks existing in the Horde.

    The way you are using 'Until WoW' is based on *when players became aware* of playable Warlocks or Night Elves being part of the Alliance, but these connections would have been made in the lore *before* WoW even started.

    Why? The only reason you've given so far is that because "there is no lore of them being the Alliance and the Horde", but that is not exactly a point against them.
    As per your argument, it is highly unlikely because there is no lore for them being in the Alliance and Horde. Otherwise, based on your own use of observation, we can see the thousands of NPC classes that did not join the Alliance and Horde, whether they were (former) enemies or allies. That is what would make it highly unlikely. Same reasoning that you apply to Anduin and Taelia's marriage.

    That is not the same thing. You cannot compare a lore event to a game mechanic and treat both as the same.
    But asking you for a lore reason for Necromancers to join the Alliance and Horde is not a game mechanic. I have been asking you to provide lore evidence to suggest that they would join, and you have not provided. You are simply saying it's a game mechanic and Blizzard can do whatever they want; which means you are talking about possibility and not plausability. I didn't say Necromancers can't be playable, I have clearly said they are highly unlikely based on the lore-standard that you have used to make all your arguments.

    ... Are you saying there is no difference between lore and game mechanics/features? Is that it?
    I mean I'm not talking about gameplay mechanics, period. You are the one who decided to shift the topic to game mechanics when I specifically asked you to provide lore to suggest Necromancers would be playable.

    Besides, if we WERE talking about gameplay mechanics, then there are no gameplay mechanics in the game to suggest that the Necromancer class is likely; I could use the same argument and point at all the NPCs with unique abilities that never got their own class as insurmountable evidence that it would be just as highly unlikely.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2020-11-10 at 07:59 PM.

  17. #22237
    So, are the new purple eyes available on the pre-patch?

  18. #22238
    The Lightbringer Ardenaso's Avatar
    3+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Location
    Philippines
    Posts
    3,076
    Quote Originally Posted by BaumanKing View Post
    But, how is that even possible? Vereesa herself calls Varian HER king.
    ikr 10 characters
    The Alliance gets the Horde's most popular race. The Horde should get the Alliance's most popular race in return. Alteraci Humans for the Horde!

    I make Warcraft 3 Reforged HD custom models and I'm also an HD model reviewer.

  19. #22239
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    The way you are using 'Until WoW' is based on *when players became aware* of playable Warlocks or Night Elves being part of the Alliance, but these connections would have been made in the lore *before* WoW even started.
    No. I said "until WoW" because that's when all that started. The warlocks of the Burning Blade clan did not exist in Orgrimmar until WoW was created and the lore for them was created and retroactively added them to Orgrimmar.

    As per your argument, it is highly unlikely because there is no lore for them being in the Alliance and Horde.
    No. That was never my argument. Again, absence of lore does not define absence of validity. And as for your "Anduin and Taelia" example, I said it is unlikely not because "there is no lore", but because of the mountain of evidence against the claim that "they meet, therefore they marry" by pointing at all the other characters that have met, but have not married.

    Same reasoning that you apply to Anduin and Taelia's marriage.
    Except that's not your reasoning. You said those classes are "highly unlikely" because of lack of lore, and not because "we have so many representatives of other classes that aren't playable classes".

    But asking you for a lore reason for Necromancers to join the Alliance and Horde is not a game mechanic.
    When you talk about playable class you are talking about game mechanics/features considering "playable class" is not something that exists in the lore.

  20. #22240
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    No. I said "until WoW" because that's when all that started. The warlocks of the Burning Blade clan did not exist in Orgrimmar until WoW was created and the lore for them was created and retroactively added them to Orgrimmar.
    Why would you call it retcon if it didn't contradict previous lore?

    We know Burning Blade clan joined the Horde. We know Warlocks were established in the Cleft of Shadow. We have quests that send us there to investigate them.

    There is no retcon if nothing was changed. Only new lore was provided to explain what we weren't openly aware of.

    If we want to talk about Retcons, maybe I should bring back that you said the Horde didn't even exist until WoW?

    No. That was never my argument. Again, absence of lore does not define absence of validity. And as for your "Anduin and Taelia" example, I said it is unlikely not because "there is no lore", but because of the mountain of evidence against the claim that "they meet, therefore they marry" by pointing at all the other characters that have met, but have not married.
    There was no claim being made except your own, which you refuted on your own terms.

    This was the original question: "I think there is a high chance Taelia will marry Anduin". I offered you no other claims.

    Your response was:

    "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."

    You already judged it as highly unlikely without evidence, without any claim to refute. I then explained that you left the other person nothing left to discuss here because you already judged it and here you are saying it's because you were using mountains of evidence to refute a claim; even though you said it was highly unlikely before any claim was even made.

    Heck, even the Aggra and Thrall example was not a claim. It was presenting a possibility, a precedent that could reoccur in the future to counter the idea that them getting married was highly unlikely. You had not explained how you reached that conclusion in the first place through evidence; you just made a blanket statement that it wasn't likely because they only met once, without asking for the person to elaborate their opinion (ask why they think the chance is high) or address the fact that there isn't much evidence on the table to draw a conclusion. There was no reason to assume that the 'high chance they will get married' was solely based on their single encounter.

    And I am showing you now how Ielenia reacts to people expressing opinions. He does so by asserting they are claims, and refuting them with 'mountains of evidence' that amount to baseless statistics that have nothing to do with one person's opinion.

    Except that's not your reasoning. You said those classes are "highly unlikely" because of lack of lore, and not because "we have so many representatives of other classes that aren't playable classes".
    You are right, it's not my reasoning. It's *your* reasoning. I'm using your own argument against you. Do you still not understand why I'm using this 'Highly unlikely' response? It's because it's the same words that YOU used to form a rebuttal, despite there being nothing to prove would be likely OR highly unlikely. And the reasoning is absolutely a lack of lore; considering your reasoning to dismiss Anduin and Taelia getting married was based on them only having a single meeting. That is essentially a 'lack of lore showing an intention to get married'. When applied to classes, then this can be translated as 'lack of lore to become a playable class'.

    I've told you from the start that I'm employing a devil's advocate argument using your own logic against you, and that you are finding massive holes in it is because your arguments are based on fallacious logic; that absence of lore can deem something to be *highly unlikely*

    Your Anduin and Taelia assessment was not based on existing lore, it is based on an *absence* of lore. You simply abstracted that concept into 'they won't likely get married because they only met once and there were no marriage vibes', which boils down to a lack of explanation and a lack of intent.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2020-11-11 at 01:40 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •