1. #22461
    Quote Originally Posted by Sagenod View Post
    Then you missed the sentiment of my original reply. I could care less whether they add more hairstyles or not, I was simply stating how the aforementioned alterations to customization would settle this issue once and for all for everyone besides those who will never be happy until there is a literal playable race called "High Elf" in the game. I hope that never happens, four elf races if enough!
    Well there's obviously not going to be a High elf allied race, that much is clear. It's been clear since 2017, really. In fact, I was never fighting for the High elf cause, I was fighting to have fair skin options for Void elves, as Alleria Windrunner is a Void elf who retains her fair skin form.
    Some will tell you that the Light is the only path. The only weapon that can stop the enemies of Azeroth. But we see alternatives. Many roads, many possibilities, that are open to us. There will be those who doubt you. Who question your resolve, your ability to harness powers that have caused the downfall of weaker wills. Together, we will prove them wrong.

  2. #22462
    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?
    My avatar is Gunny/Gaisun from the early SNES game, Paladin's Quest, if you're curious.

  3. #22463
    Quote Originally Posted by Mungho View Post
    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?
    I don't think they would actually give Silvermoon to the Void Elves. But in a hypothetical scenario where they did? Maybe rogue Man'ari free from Sargeras decide to take over the Exodar, like they tried in Legion. This time they succeed, and they parlay with the Horde for membership. The Exodar could get a fel and red makeover or something to suit them too.

  4. #22464
    They are never going to update Quel'Thalas. It's just not going to happen. There's a reason why they didn't do it in Cataclysm. They're never going to do it. Quel'Thalas as a zone is fundamentally broken, they would have to recreate it from scratch to fill all the gaps in the places you're not supposed to fly in.

    BfA would've been the perfect moment for a Warfront in Silvermoon, and nothing happened, despite many rumours surrounding it.

    The most we are going to get is one instanced scenario, dungeon, or raid taking place there, so that they do not have to update the real world.

    The Ren'dorei should turn Telogrus Rift into a worthy city of the Void, and a haven for anyone seeking to study the arts of the shadow. If you visit the Rift in-game, the Ren'dorei have already laid the groundwork for a new settlement. Tents, beds, innkeeper, shopkeepers, a blacksmith, pile of resources... every settlement starts from scratch, after all, but we're getting there.
    Some will tell you that the Light is the only path. The only weapon that can stop the enemies of Azeroth. But we see alternatives. Many roads, many possibilities, that are open to us. There will be those who doubt you. Who question your resolve, your ability to harness powers that have caused the downfall of weaker wills. Together, we will prove them wrong.

  5. #22465
    Quote Originally Posted by Valandale View Post
    So uhh, is this


    a void elf with green eyes, void elf earrings (on closer inspection they are the blood elf leaves earrings but not sure if the gem is blue or green), a storm's wake tabard with light hair then?
    Not to mention a different hairstyle. and silver jewelry. It could also be someone messing up with the promo image and this is supposed to be a blood elf. I'm leaning towards a mistake with the tabard.
    I always defended that blood elves should have blue eyes because ever since TBC there were npcs blood elves with blue eyes.

    I am not a hypocrite and I recognize that there are NPCs in Telogrus the silvermoon scholar that have that hair color and that eye color, therefore if they are added to the game I will accept it.

  6. #22466
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhlor View Post
    I always defended that blood elves should have blue eyes because ever since TBC there were npcs blood elves with blue eyes.
    There are no Blood Elves with blue eyes in the game. If they have blue eyes, they are High Elves.

  7. #22467
    Titan Syegfryed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Darkshore, Killing Living and Dead elves
    Posts
    11,858
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    Irrelevant because, as I pointed out multiple times, and multiple times you willingly ignored, I am not talking about two or more races sharing similar silhouettes, and that has nothing to do with my arguments about muddling a playable race's own individual visual identity. Again: I'm talking about how a race looks by itself, and now how it looks in comparison to others.
    again, you are always saying what i counts and what doesn't count, this is just double standards as it finest and we should stop here since you already made that clear over and over again.

    Once again: I am not talking about skin colors, I am talking about silhouettes. And as I pointed out, it's a fact that a void elf cannot look like anything other than a thalassian elf. Because that's what they are: thalassian elves. You'd have a point if void elves could look like humans, or night elves, or goblins, or orcs, etc. But they don't.
    "they look like thallasian elves" is again, your completely and arbitrary way of putting things, you think just because of that it make any difference here is laughable, they still can look like 2 different races with 2 different racial/visual identities, regardless if they are "thalasian elf", same argumment is aplied to human and elves who are undead, they are both "forsaken", or humans with nathanos look, they are still undead humans.
    No, they can't. A void elf's silhouette can never deviate from a thalassian elf silhouette (class and toy effects aside).
    they can look like a void elf and a blod elf, two different races/playable rfaces, period, you can't argue about that just because "ThALaSSiAn eLf"

    Two statements of fact. Not a single ounce of evidence to back them up. In other words: you, once again, state your headcanons as fact.
    ah yes, ingame description of skills is no evidence neither is vallid for you, i almost forgot how you like nitpicking and to ignore things if they do not reach your perfect parameters.

  8. #22468
    Quote Originally Posted by dauntless View Post
    There are no Blood Elves with blue eyes in the game. If they have blue eyes, they are High Elves.
    agree
    high elves in the horde like
    https://wow.gamepedia.com/Lanesh_the_Steelweaver

  9. #22469
    The Insane Ielenia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    16,039
    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    again, you are always saying what i counts and what doesn't count, this is just double standards as it finest and we should stop here since you already made that clear over and over again.
    My point has been concise and specific. You're trying to dismiss my point (how a playable race looks by itself) by addressing a completely different point that I never made (how a playable race looks in comparison to others).

    "they look like thallasian elves" is again, your completely and arbitrary way of putting things, you think just because of that it make any difference here is laughable, they still can look like 2 different races with 2 different racial/visual identities, regardless if they are "thalasian elf", same argumment is aplied to human and elves who are undead, they are both "forsaken", or humans with nathanos look, they are still undead humans.
    "Forsaken" is not a race. Undeath is not a race.

    they can look like a void elf and a blod elf, two different races/playable rfaces, period, you can't argue about that just because "ThALaSSiAn eLf"
    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.

    ah yes, ingame description of skills is no evidence neither is vallid for you,
    And it shouldn't be valid to anyone, considering we're talking about a tooltip that describes how an ability works mechanically for gameplay.
    I did a Necromancer thing. Check it out! All feedback welcome!
    I also did a Bard thing! Questions, comments and ideas, all welcome!

  10. #22470
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhlor View Post
    agree
    high elves in the horde like
    They either forgot about his eyes, or he is simply still a High Elf.

  11. #22471
    The Insane Ielenia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    16,039
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    You have to be more clear on why a suggestion isn't possible. Is it because the person did not explain their opinion clearly enough, OR is it because you simply don't agree with it and feel the need for you to be convinced in order to accept it as being legitimate?
    The answer is obvious: if they fit with what the lore of the game shows and does not show to us. The suggestion that humans can naturally grow wings does not fit with what the lore has shown us, for example.

    Leaks are not a suggestion and not an opinion. A leak is a claim, so you would be correct that these can be dismissed if not proven. I think there is a big difference when asking proof for a leak and expecting someone's suggestion needs to be explained. We have to be very clear on this. Suggestions and opinions do not need to be subjected to 'plausability', they are ultimately opinions. Same can be said about Speculation, that is also a form of opinion. 'I want to be President' is not something that needs to be proven.
    Suggestions are subjected to 'plausability' if they are to be considered by others. if I make the suggestion that dwarves should leave the Alliance and join the Horde, most people likely will either ask me "why" or just move on without any consideration. But if I make the suggestion that Earthen should become an allied race, people would be more willing to stop by my thread and give my suggestion a chance.

    But that's on the people asking the questions, not on the person suggesting the idea. Like I said, if it the context is expressing a suggestion to have this class, then it's an opinion that someone wants to see this. It's not a claim that Blizzard needs to do this. It's not a mandate that lore needs to fit in the current narrative. It's an expression of interest. If you consider it a cop-out to express an opinion, then that's your problem.
    I never said that. I said it's a cop-out answer to say "Blizzard can do it" when asked about the viability of their suggestion.

    Discussing is different from dismissing. Discussing involves various opinions on a topic reaching a common point. If Murlocs should be playable, then we can absolutely discuss opinions. If you like it great, if you don't then we can agree to disagree, so on and so forth. Discuss its values, discuss its potential, etc. The framework of discussion (of suggestions for WoW) is the mutual expression of opinions.
    But isn't saying "Blizzard can do it" technically a dismissal of any and all questions and/or criticism regarding the suggestion presented? Saying "Blizzard can do it" basically stifles discussion because there's nowhere to go from there. Replying with "Blizzard can do it" has the exact same weight and value as a response as saying "I don't care" or "it doesn't matter".
    I did a Necromancer thing. Check it out! All feedback welcome!
    I also did a Bard thing! Questions, comments and ideas, all welcome!

  12. #22472
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    The answer is obvious: if they fit with what the lore of the game shows and does not show to us. The suggestion that humans can naturally grow wings does not fit with what the lore has shown us, for example.
    But that is opinion, not lore. Humans can turn into werewolves does not fit the lore of Warcraft 3 has shown us, for example. It does not mean that the lore can not be updated or changed to accomodate werewolves. We had to have werewolves outside of Gilneas and show that the curse is transmissable to be able to have werewolves. But imagine suggesting this when we only had Warcraft 3. If someone suggests Werewolves should be playable, then that is a suggestion. It does not have to fit lore. It doesn't have to fit your standards.

    If you think it does not fit lore, that is really your own problem. If you say it shouldn't happen because of lore and you USE lore to support your argument, then you are invoking Blizzard to say it CAN'T happen. You might not think this is what you are doing, but it is. Lore is not opinion.

    Suggestions are subjected to 'plausability' if they are to be considered by others. if I make the suggestion that dwarves should leave the Alliance and join the Horde, most people likely will either ask me "why" or just move on without any consideration. But if I make the suggestion that Earthen should become an allied race, people would be more willing to stop by my thread and give my suggestion a chance.
    That's your opinion that one has more worth than the other. You have to understand that what you are saying here involves applying your opinion as some factual truth. That you think more people will do X instead of Y is just your opinion of what you think people on this forum will do. That has nothing to do with anything. You don't have to prove any of your suggestions if you are expressing them as opinion.

    I think you take too much concern in what other people think. If a suggestion is better than another that is only because of confirmation bias, not because the suggestion itself is 'less plausible'.

    I never said that. I said it's a cop-out answer to say "Blizzard can do it" when asked about the viability of their suggestion.
    It is a response to someone using Lore as any means to dismiss an opinion or suggestion.

    You are asking for validity, you are saying a suggestion has to fit lore. So actually, you are the one making a claim, not the person making the suggestion. You are claiming that someone's opinion needs to adhere to Lore, you are regarding that Blizzard Lore has more power than anyone's opinion. That is you invoking Blizzard, whether you know it or not.

    Beyond this, asking someone to validate their suggestion is a pretty big dick move. That's like saying 'I don't believe your opinion, you need to PROVE it to me'. Very rude thing to assume in my opinion.

    If someone says 'But Blizzard can do it!', then it's because some asshole was giving them reasons why it CAN'T be done. Why else would anyone need to explain why something CAN be done if discussion is supposed to be about what *SHOULD* or *SHOULDN'T* be done. If you are hearing people use 'Blizzard can do it!' response to you, it's probably because your reply to them implies it CAN'T be done.

    Any time you are using lore to say Humans should not have wings, you are also saying Humans CAN'T have wings. Lore does not support what SHOULD or SHOULDN'T be done, Lore only states what HAS been done. So if you say anything about Lore to dismiss an argument, you are also saying it CAN'T be done. You are invoking BLIZZARD LORE to deny someone else's argument. You are making a claim that the lore has more power over anyone's suggestion that Humans should ever have wings. You are not expressing this as opinion, you are being the guy who is saying 'You can't do it' EVEN if you only wanted to say 'you shouldn't.

    This is why I keep telling you to stop bringing lore into discussion. It will confuse your own arguments from 'Should' or 'Shouldn't' into 'Can' or 'Can't', and if you are getting 'Blizzard can do it', now you know why.

    But isn't saying "Blizzard can do it" technically a dismissal of any and all questions and/or criticism regarding the suggestion presented? Saying "Blizzard can do it" basically stifles discussion because there's nowhere to go from there. Replying with "Blizzard can do it" has the exact same weight and value as a response as saying "I don't care" or "it doesn't matter".
    Because using lore in an argument is also a means of dismissal. Lore should never be brought up when talking about things that aren't already in the game. Is playable murloc in the game? No? Then leave lore out of it. Do Human have wings? No? Then leave lore out of it. Just discuss opinion, what you think should or should not happen. No reason to use lore to make an argument against anything, ZERO.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2020-11-05 at 11:51 PM.

  13. #22473
    The Insane Ielenia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    16,039
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    But that is opinion, not lore. Humans can turn into werewolves does not fit the lore of Warcraft 3 has shown us, for example.
    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?

    It's a cop out answer to use Lore as any means to dismiss an opinion or suggestion.
    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.

    Because using lore in an argument is also a means of dismissal.
    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.

    Lore should never be brought up when talking about things that aren't already in the game. Is playable murloc in the game? No? Then leave lore out of it. Do Human have wings? No? Then leave lore out of it. Just discuss opinion, what you think should or should not happen. No reason to use lore to make an argument against anything, ZERO.
    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.
    I did a Necromancer thing. Check it out! All feedback welcome!
    I also did a Bard thing! Questions, comments and ideas, all welcome!

  14. #22474
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    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'.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2020-11-06 at 12:54 AM.

  15. #22475
    Quote Originally Posted by dauntless View Post
    They either forgot about his eyes, or he is simply still a High Elf.
    yeah! horde high elf

  16. #22476
    Quote Originally Posted by Mungho View Post
    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.

  17. #22477
    Titan Syegfryed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Darkshore, Killing Living and Dead elves
    Posts
    11,858
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    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 - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Traycor View Post
    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?

  18. #22478
    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    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.

  19. #22479
    The Insane Ielenia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    16,039
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    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 - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    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.
    I did a Necromancer thing. Check it out! All feedback welcome!
    I also did a Bard thing! Questions, comments and ideas, all welcome!

  20. #22480
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    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

Posting Permissions

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