Official High Elf Discussion Megathread

[Triceron]

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.

[Traycor]

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

Just gaslighting. High Elves have always been Alliance.

[Ielenia]

Why would you call it retcon if it didn't contradict previous lore?

That's not what "retcon" means. Retcon does not mean "removing/replacing old lore". Retcon means "retroactive continuity" and it doesn't necessarily have to contradict existing lore. For example: if Blizzard were to add the protoss world into the Warcraft universe, and state that this world has been there since the beginning, that is a retcon, because the protoss have been retroactively added into the Warcraft lore, but no existing lore has been removed or altered.

You already judged it as highly unlikely without evidence, without any claim to refute.

I literally did, and you even quoted it. I pointed out how they have only met once and there was no 'spark' of chemistry between the two.

You are right, it's not my reasoning. It's *your* reasoning. I'm using your own argument against you.

And you're still misapplying it. Because a class being playable is not a lore thing. Unless you could show me the lore in which Anduin, or Varian, or Bolvar, or Lady Katrana Prestor ever signing something, or proclaiming "now the players can choose monk as their class!" or something to that effect. Which you can't, because that's not how it works. A class being playable is not a lore thing. It's a game mechanic thing. Which is why pointing at NPCs that resemble currently not playable class concepts does not work.

[Triceron]

That's not what "retcon" means.

"Retroactive continuity, or retcon for short,[1][2] is a literary device in which established diegetic 'facts' in the plot of a fictional work are adjusted, ignored, or contradicted by a subsequently published work which breaks continuity with the former" - Wikipedia

The Burning Blade clan was already part of the Horde. That we weren't aware there were Warlocks working secretly in Orgimmar (which was only just established in Rexxars campaign) is not adding something to old continuity, its simply adding continuity that we are actively exploring in WoW.

Teldrassil at the beginning of WoW is not a retcon even though it happened before the start of WoW. Night Elves joining the Alliance is not a retcon, its new lore that is established in a time period before WoW.

Having Protoss be a part of WoW history would be a retcon because it alters the continuity. It would not be a retcon if they simply introduced Protoss as a new race we never seen before in modern time, without affecting history. It'd be hella weird, but not any more of a retcon than learning about the Maldraxxians or the Venthyr for the first time.

I literally did, and you even quoted it. I pointed out how they have only met once and there was no 'spark' of chemistry between the two.

There are no claims, no facts involved, only opinion. What you present here is your own interpretation, your own opinion, and you did not address or engage the topic, you simply tried to refute it instead of reaching any talking point.

You just said it was highly unlikely because of a claim you were dismissing; yet no claims were made. On top of that your basis for judging it highly unlikey is ultimately subjective. 'I didn't get a marriage vibe' is not factual proof. Someone who were autistic might not pick up on any 'spark' of chemistry at all, and that wouldn't be evidence that it's highly unlikely.

And you're still misapplying it. Because a class being playable is not a lore thing. Unless you could show me the lore in which Anduin, or Varian, or Bolvar, or Lady Katrana Prestor ever signing something, or proclaiming "now the players can choose monk as their class!" or something to that effect. Which you can't, because that's not how it works. A class being playable is not a lore thing. It's a game mechanic thing. Which is why pointing at NPCs that resemble currently not playable class concepts does not work.

Sure it is. Its lore of them formally joining the Alliance and Horde, its them partaking in the class politics and being addressed as formal champions of the factions.

Are you saying DKs becoming playable was not a lore thing? That there was no reason for them to be playable?

I could say that if we had a Pandaria expansion, there's a good chance we could see playable Monks/Brewmasters. That's lore supporting plausability right there. It has nothing to do with game mechanics. The Monks/Brewmasters already exist in lore as specific archetype of characters. Or I could say if we got an expansion where we fight the Burning Legion again, there's a good chance we could get Demon Hunters. Again, these are all things that exist in the lore, and providing lore themes to support the conditions surrounding its plausability. It's just as relevant considering the lore is establishing a direct connection between these classes and our own factions, not exclusively to game mechanics.

I mean if you're talking about something that's complete absent of lore like the Auction Hall or the UI, then yeah. But classes in WoW are motivated just as much by adherence to lore as it is influenced by gameplay exploration; otherwise they wouldn't have to give us lore-centric classes like a "Death Knight' and 'Demon Hunter' and simply call them "Zombie Lord" and "Shadowdancer" with all the same mechanics and none of the flavour. That would be purely be a discussion of game mechanics.

We're not talking about Zombie Lords and Shadowdancers, we're talking about Death Knights and Demon Hunters. We're not talking about Dark Wizards, we're talking about Warlocks and Necromancers. To discuss what we 'get' in lore is to establish a formal and official lore connection between these (independent) classes and our own factions.

[MyWholeLifeIsThunder]

I did want for the new eye color to have come with the event tho

[Ielenia]

"Retroactive continuity, or retcon for short,[1][2] is a literary device in which established diegetic 'facts' in the plot of a fictional work are adjusted, ignored, or contradicted by a subsequently published work which breaks continuity with the former" - Wikipedia

Continue reading that link. Especially this section, please.

There are no claims, no facts involved, only opinion. What you present here is your own interpretation, your own opinion, and you did not address or engage the topic, you simply tried to refute it instead of reaching any talking point.

You just said it was highly unlikely because of a claim you were dismissing; yet no claims were made.

I literally pointed out that they have only met once (lore) and that there was no 'spark' between them (also lore).

Sure it is. Its lore of them formally joining the Alliance and Horde, its them partaking in the class politics and being addressed as formal champions of the factions.

Are you saying DKs becoming playable was not a lore thing? That there was no reason for them to be playable?

Death knights becoming playable was most definitely NOT a lore thing. Because, again, "classes becoming playable" is not a lore thing. And for that matter, neither is "races becoming playable". The death knights joining the ranks of the Alliance and the Horde could have very well happened without them becoming a playable class.

We're not talking about Zombie Lords and Shadowdancers, we're talking about Death Knights and Demon Hunters. We're not talking about Dark Wizards, we're talking about Warlocks and Necromancers. To discuss what we 'get' in lore is to establish a formal and official lore connection between these (independent) classes and our own factions.

Do we really need to, come to think of it? The Knights of the Ebon Blade and the Illidari never joined the Alliance or the Horde, officially or otherwise. We only have individuals helping the factions.

[Triceron]

Death knights becoming playable was most definitely NOT a lore thing. Because, again, "classes becoming playable" is not a lore thing. And for that matter, neither is "races becoming playable". The death knights joining the ranks of the Alliance and the Horde could have very well happened without them becoming a playable class.

In effect it IS the same question if we are regarding lore. You're just focused on the gameplay mechanics aspect of the question.

A lore-centric alternative question could very well be 'Could Death Knights join the Alliance and Horde within the lore as appointed champions'. What you're doing here is dodging the question and applying it to gameplay mechanics. It's obvious you simply can't answer the question.

And I've said before that with some supporting lore (like a themed expansion), the chances could be very good for them. So should we pre-emptively regard Death Knights joining the Alliance and Horde as champions would be 'highly unlikely' on the basis that we didn't know for sure that we were getting a Northrend/Lich King expansion to make them relevant?

You pre-emptively regarded Taelia and Anduin getting married as highly unlikely without considering future lore that can write a relationship between the two, especially considering he invited her to Stormwind to talk personally. That is a possible avenue which your argument does not consider; you simply made a blanket statement that if Saurfang and Zappyboi didn't get married then this is mountains of evidence against Taelia and Anduin getting married.

This is why I say it's a double standard. You considered the possibilities for playable Dark Rangers and Necromancers, using all sorts of examples of precedent, yet when I simply opened up the possibilities of Anduin and Taelia getting married, you could not fathom any possible future outcomes other than it being highly unlikely solely based on judging a single-meeting, and you had the audacity to consider this 'objective validation'. You don't know for sure if this is their only meeting to be able to judge it as 'highly unlikely', because the chances of them meeting again are extremely high given that Anduin *invited her personally* to talk again in the future.

Continue reading that link. Especially this section, please.

This is getting increasingly tangential, so let's roll back.

Warlocks would not be a good precedent for Necromancers joining the Alliance and Horde on the basis that the Warlocks did not need representatives or due cause to be in either faction; they were already seeded there to begin with (as a retcon, if you prefer) while the Necromancer does not have that benefit this late into the game. The Warlocks didn't *decide* to join, they simply came with their respected clans/factions when they were all accepted under Thrall's rule while the Alliance ones were already operating in secret within Stormwind for god-knows-how-long.

Do we really need to, come to think of it? The Knights of the Ebon Blade and the Illidari never joined the Alliance or the Horde, officially or otherwise. We only have individuals helping the factions.

I believe a more apt explanation is that the Ebon Blade and Illidari are considered Class Orders; like the Silver Hand, Cenarion Circle etc. Being part of the Order does not conflict with allying with a given major Faction.

Now the Demon Hunter you may be right about, I didn't make a DH and I don't know personally if they swear allegiance to the respective factions. Death Knight however swears allegiance to their respective factions. They may serve the Lich King overall, but their allegiance is still to the respective factions regardless. We even see what happened to Koltira when he disobeyed Sylvanas.

[Alanar]

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.



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.



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.

Just one thing, Sylvanas had alot of banshees before. Most were gone eventually. I think its save to assume other banshees did the same as Sylvanas and just regained their body. How can we even explain that much dark rangers out of nowhere. I mean Banshees iconic thing is to posses bodies and control them.

Could also just be the Val kyr at the end of wrath.. but How do we explain the dark rangers then. She didnt had Val kyr to ress them before the fall of Arthas. We know I believe her name was clea, she said she was ressed by sylvanas, but not explaining how. Could also just blizz didnt bother explaining that ingame.

Sorry for quoting the full thing, I cant for some reason I blame this damn phone and its small keys.

[Ielenia]

In effect it IS the same question if we are regarding lore. You're just focused on the gameplay mechanics aspect of the question.

A lore-centric alternative question could very well be 'Could Death Knights join the Alliance and Horde within the lore as appointed champions'. What you're doing here is dodging the question and applying it to gameplay mechanics. It's obvious you simply can't answer the question.

For someone who really likes to get hanged up on the specific wordings of my posts, you sure do engage a lot in the same mistake you accuse me, a lot. If you write "classes becoming playable", I'll tackle your question as if you are talking about "classes being playable", i.e., a game mechanic.

You pre-emptively regarded Taelia and Anduin getting married as highly unlikely without considering future lore that can write a relationship between the two.

Yes, I disregarded "future lore possibilities" because I'm considering the lore we have right now. And even if we consider "future lore possibilities", I'd argue that it's still highly unlikely because we'd then have to consider ALL future lore possibilities, like the possibility that Taelia ends up being a double-agent and killing Anduin. Or Taelia falling in love with Genn. Or Taelia dying. Or Anduin dying. Or both dying. Or the two simply hating each others' guts. Etc, etc.

This is why I say it's a double standard. You considered the possibilities for playable Dark Rangers and Necromancers, using all sorts of examples of precedent, yet when I simply opened up the possibilities of Anduin and Taelia getting married, you could not fathom any possible future outcomes other than it being highly unlikely solely based on judging a single-meeting, and you had the audacity to consider this 'objective validation'.

I don't think I ever said the word "objective" in our conversation so I would appreciate you not trying to force it into my proverbial mouth. I consider Anduin and Taelia getting married unlikely for the exact same reason I consider dark rangers being the same hunters or not as an unknown probability: precedent. We have an insurmountable amount of characters meeting and NOT getting married.

You don't know for sure if this is their only meeting to be able to judge it as 'highly unlikely', because the chances of them meeting again are extremely high given that Anduin *invited her personally* to talk again in the future.

Re-read my arguments. I have never stated that I know "for sure" that this is their only meeting. I've stated that it's as far as we know:

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.

Anduin literally only met Talia once, and briefly at that, as far as I know.

This is getting increasingly tangential, so let's roll back.

Warlocks would not be a good precedent for Necromancers joining the Alliance and Horde on the basis that the Warlocks did not need representatives or due cause to be in either faction; they were already seeded there to begin with (as a retcon, if you prefer) while the Necromancer does not have that benefit this late into the game. The Warlocks didn't *decide* to join, they simply came with their respected clans/factions when they were all accepted under Thrall's rule while the Alliance ones were already operating in secret within Stormwind for god-knows-how-long.

Then here's my question: if warlocks "did not need representatives"... why should necromancers? Why should any class? "Needs a representative within the factions" is an arbitrary requirement that does not apply to the current classes we have, expansion or otherwise, so why should it apply to fan class concepts? Of the three expansion classes added, only one has a representative within the factions, which is the monk.

I believe a more apt explanation is that the Ebon Blade and Illidari are considered Class Orders; like the Silver Hand, Cenarion Circle etc. Being part of the Order does not conflict with allying with a given major Faction.

Now the Demon Hunter you may be right about, I didn't make a DH and I don't know personally if they swear allegiance to the respective factions. Death Knight however swears allegiance to their respective factions. They may serve the Lich King overall, but their allegiance is still to the respective factions regardless. We even see what happened to Koltira when he disobeyed Sylvanas.

They don't. The demon hunters just show up in Orgrimmar/Alliance and say "hey, faction leader! You got demons around you!" and a fight ensues. The demon hunters never make any pledge to the factions. As for the death knights, again: it's the individuals that swear the allegiance, not the organization. And it's arguable that they hold their allegiance toward the Ebon Blade above their allegiance to their original factions.

Also, have you read the full Wiki article you mentioned, like I asked?

[Triceron]

Yes, I disregarded "future lore possibilities" because I'm considering the lore we have right now. And even if we consider "future lore possibilities", I'd argue that it's still highly unlikely because we'd then have to consider ALL future lore possibilities, like the possibility that Taelia ends up being a double-agent and killing Anduin. Or Taelia falling in love with Genn. Or Taelia dying. Or Anduin dying. Or both dying. Or the two simply hating each others' guts. Etc, etc.

None of that has anything to do with the chances they would get married. You see the problem here, no?

If I asked what are the chances the Anduin and Taelia will be married, I am not expecting you to answer with highly unlikely because its possible a meteor can destroy the world before it happens.

We also have to consider that previous statistics do not affect probability of future lore in the way you expect it to. What were the chances that Vol'jin would become Warchief? Well, consider that in the lore, all the previous warchiefs we'd seen were Orcs. Based on how you regard lore, you could use this as lore-based evidence to define the probability of any non-Orc becoming Warchief to be highly unlikely. The lore contained no precedent for any non-Orc to become Warchief, even if we all recognize that it was possible.

Yet the chances for any Non-Orc characters becoming Warchief are not lowered by the presence of this fact. The situation in which a new Warchief was needed and where there were few viable Orcish leaders available supported the idea for the rise of any non-Orc leader into that position. The reality is, it was a very good chance that Vol'jin (or any of the other non-Orc leaders) would have become Warchief if we actually followed the subtext involved with the Siege of Orgrimmar arc.

I don't think I ever said the word "objective" in our conversation so I would appreciate you not trying to force it into my proverbial mouth. I consider Anduin and Taelia getting married unlikely for the exact same reason I consider dark rangers being the same hunters or not as an unknown probability: precedent. We have an insurmountable amount of characters meeting and NOT getting married.

You said using lore to validate probability is not subjective when I presented to you that people should be expressing subjective opinions instead. If it is not subjective then it is objective, what else would it be?

Me: 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.

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

Also You: I already did. The viability (i.e. chance) of something (i.e. the suggestion) depends on the lore


You have not explained why you haven't considered characters getting married as a precedent, and your answer seems to be based on statistics (more chances that it never happened) yet statistics have nothing to do with precedents.

I illustrated this Devil's Advocate example saying Necromancer would be highly unlikely to join/ally with our factions because of all the NPC classes that did not join/ally with our factions. If we consider the Bards, the Runemasters, the Twilights Hammer Cultists, all as classes that do not serve or ally directly with us, then this would be precedent for any class to be highly unlikely to join. And this is a dismissive argument at best, because it leaves nothing to discuss considering you are using and adhering to a twisted standard of lore which you are deeming as 'non-subjective' and 'having power over opinions'.

We are using an absence of evidence argument by regarding all the lore examples of *something not happening* as conclusive evidence that it would be highly unlikely. Just because you present a high volume of characters not getting married does not diminish the chances for two people in the lore to get married because it is not a precedent, it is an absence of evidence argument against the chance people do get married. Same as saying Necromancer is highly unlikely because of all the classes that didn't make the cut to the Alliance/Horde roster.

Then here's my question: if warlocks "did not need representatives"... why should necromancers? Why should any class? "Needs a representative within the factions" is an arbitrary requirement that does not apply to the current classes we have, expansion or otherwise, so why should it apply to fan class concepts? Of the three expansion classes added, only one has a representative within the factions, which is the monk.

I didn't say they needed a representative specifically, I stated we need to have some sort of proof of intent that Necromancers would join (or ally) with the Alliance and Horde. You had used the example of DK's being a precedent, but DK's had a clear representative who was described to be openly willing to work with the Alliance and Horde; something the Necromancers do not share. I was addressing the specific case of using DK's as a precedent.

With Warlocks, they don't need a representative because they are already seeded into the factions. Necromancers aren't. So how can you explain them already being a part of the Alliance and Horde without some sort of retcon shenanigans? I don't think we could. And this still boils down to presenting a case that there is intent that Necromancers would join.

Just like if we were to discuss the possibility the Murlocs would join the Alliance/Horde, a big part of discussing the plausability is discussing the intent on behalf of the Murlocs wanting to join, and the factions willing to accept them.

[LomBotom]

where is this asian elf image

[Triceron]

Just one thing, Sylvanas had alot of banshees before. Most were gone eventually. I think its save to assume other banshees did the same as Sylvanas and just regained their body. How can we even explain that much dark rangers out of nowhere. I mean Banshees iconic thing is to posses bodies and control them.

Could also just be the Val kyr at the end of wrath.. but How do we explain the dark rangers then. She didnt had Val kyr to ress them before the fall of Arthas. We know I believe her name was clea, she said she was ressed by sylvanas, but not explaining how. Could also just blizz didnt bother explaining that ingame.

Sorry for quoting the full thing, I cant for some reason I blame this damn phone and its small keys.

Lore-wise it's similar to Demon Hunters, where there are those that Illidan trained prior to TBC, and those he trained after. As for the amount of either, it's as nebulous as how there are so many High Elves in the world to sustain a Blood Elf splinter faction, a high representation of Silver Covenant as well as the new splinter group of Void Elves when their numbers should be well diminished after the outcome of Warcraft 3. It seems to be just a case of Blizzard fudging the numbers because they can.

[Ielenia]

None of that has anything to do with the chances they would get married. You see the problem here, no?

Yes, it does. Because two people cannot get married if one or both of them are dead, therefore that would affect the chances they would get married. If you're going to count the future possibilities as part of your calculations for probabilities, then you shouldn't consider just the possibilities that fit your desired outcome (i.e. they actually getting married) while discounting all the other possibilities that go against your desired outcome.

If I asked what are the chances the Anduin and Taelia will be married, I am not expecting you to answer with highly unlikely because its possible a meteor can destroy the world before it happens.

Thank goodness that was never my argument, or even anything close to it. When I say it's "highly unlikely", I'm considering as many future possibilities as I can.

We also have to consider that previous statistics do not affect probability of future lore in the way you expect it to. What were the chances that Vol'jin would become Warchief? Well, consider that in the lore, all the previous warchiefs we'd seen were Orcs. Based on how you regard lore, you could use this as lore-based evidence to define the probability of any non-Orc becoming Warchief to be highly unlikely. The lore contained no precedent for any non-Orc to become Warchief, even if we all recognize that it was possible.

Yet the chances for any Non-Orc characters becoming Warchief are not lowered by the presence of this fact. The situation in which a new Warchief was needed and where there were few viable Orcish leaders available supported the idea for the rise of any non-Orc leader into that position. The reality is, it was a very good chance that Vol'jin (or any of the other non-Orc leaders) would have become Warchief if we actually followed the subtext involved with the Siege of Orgrimmar arc.

So what? Saying something is "highly unlikely" or even just "unlikely" to happen does not mean it's impossible for it to happen. I mean, I imagine you'd agree that it's highly unlikely I roll a d20 five times in a row and get a natural 20 in all five rolls. But it can happen.

You said using lore to validate probability is not subjective when I presented to you that people should be expressing subjective opinions instead. If it is not subjective then it is objective, what else would it be?

Because subjective opinions can still be shown to be wrong. For example, someone has the opinion that Thrall is actually a disguised dwarf, and has been since is imprisonment years and years ago back in Durnholde Keep. But lore show that this is not the case considering we see Thrall's soul during Cataclysm.

I didn't say they needed a representative specifically, I stated we need to have some sort of proof of intent that Necromancers would join (or ally) with the Alliance and Horde. You had used the example of DK's being a precedent, but DK's had a clear representative who was described to be openly willing to work with the Alliance and Horde; something the Necromancers do not share. I was addressing the specific case of using DK's as a precedent.

Who?

[Triceron]

So what? Saying something is "highly unlikely" or even just "unlikely" to happen does not mean it's impossible for it to happen. I mean, I imagine you'd agree that it's highly unlikely I roll a d20 five times in a row and get a natural 20 in all five rolls. But it can happen.

But the criteria is not rolling d20 five times and getting nat20, that is not a discussion of fiction. Surely you recognize the difference, right? That fiction is not limited to realistic probabilities?

If I ask what are the chances Deadpool can roll 5 Nat20's in a row, then that probability isn't based on reality, its based in whatever the author wishes Deadpool to do in that situation.

When addressing fiction, one must acknowledge that the body of work is a creative process that is not bound by the limitations of reality. Fiction is a body of work dictated by a creative director (Author, writing team, editors, etc). So the conditions of Anduin and Taelias marriage should involve discussions surrounding the _intent of the author/creator_ more than it should be regarding previous fiction as a precedent for future outcomes.

There are elements of the lore which you have not considered that would support the idea of Anduin getting married.
- He is the current King of Stormwind. The need for Stormwind to continue the Wrynn lineage makes the plausability of Anduin getting married very high
- Anduin is currently unwed and is at the prime age to begin pursuing a relationship, or marriage through political means
- Taelia has been seeded into the story as a potential love interest. This should be obvious, but arguable if you happen to miss the subtext

These are all examples of how the story is framed, and the intents of the creator considering they are inserting female characters that are age appropriate, and have a unexplored connection to Anduin. Taelia could have easily been introduced as Bolvar's son, but she is not. Anduin could have simply told her of her father instead of inviting her to Stormwind to talk later, be he did not. This is all subtext to formulate a relationship within the story. These are the type of things that we could be and (IMO) should be discussing instead of using blanket statistics that 99% of the people in Azeroth aren't married to each other to consider this as being highly unlikely to happen.

If you are saying there is a possibility that Anduin can die, then sure that is a possibility, but it doesn't address the topic at hand of whether they would get married or not. It's an absence of evidence argument because you are suggesting counter-evidence that doesn't exist. If you want to propose it as a potentiality, then discuss the prospects of it in regards to the intents of the creator and the direction the story is being taken.

Because subjective opinions can still be shown to be wrong. For example, someone has the opinion that Thrall is actually a disguised dwarf, and has been since is imprisonment years and years ago back in Durnholde Keep. But lore show that this is not the case considering we see Thrall's soul during Cataclysm.

But like you said above, what is wrong with someone having the opinion? You say its okay to define something as highly unlikely because its still possible, but you can't allow someone to have the opinion that Thrall is a Dwarf because you can't accept it a highly unlikely opinion?

Doesn't matter if we saw his soul in cataclysm, since there is no lore saying disguises can't be represented in soul form. He is wearing clothes in his soul form yes? So did his clothes die with him? If so then couldn't a disguise be considered the same way? Hell we even have lore now saying Souls take up the form of whatever they want in Shadowlands (the expansion), and that some souls do not always represent their former bodies.

That is lore now.

From a strict lore sense, there's no way for any of us to prove any character is truly *themselves* considering the body of fiction is not coherent to itself. Varian Wrynn's own story line involves his body/soul being split into two entities, Logosh and Varian. We've had characters who were given sentience through magical means, such as Anveena, the living persona of the Sunwell. In a world of magic, we're told anything can happen. If it is someone's opinion that Thrall is a Dwarf in disguise all this time, then that opinion isn't being refuted by lore, considering lore tells us it *could* be true, and that we simply weren't aware that souls could represent other life forms or that Dwarves can be such good masters of disguise.

The lore *doesn't* show us that the opinion is wrong.

Who?

Thassarian and Koltira. To an extent, our own Player character.

[Ielenia]

But the criteria is not rolling d20 five times and getting nat20, that is not a discussion of fiction. Surely you recognize the difference, right? That fiction is not limited to realistic probabilities?

A fiction that seems to base itself in realistic probabilities, mind you. If you're going to talk about probabilities in fiction without adhering to "realistic probabilities", we have, at the same time, a 100% chance of the two getting married, and a 0% chance of the two get married.

If you are saying there is a possibility that Anduin can die, then sure that is a possibility, but it doesn't address the topic at hand of whether they would get married or not. It's an absence of evidence argument because you are suggesting counter-evidence that doesn't exist. If you want to propose it as a potentiality, then discuss the prospects of it in regards to the intents of the creator and the direction the story is being taken.

Except we're talking about a future event. Not a current event. If you're going to dismiss my arguments about other possibilities by using "absence of evidence", keep in mind that it also dismisses your "Anduin and Taelia will marry" idea with the same claim: absence of evidence.

But like you said above, what is wrong with someone having the opinion? You say its okay to define something as highly unlikely because its still possible, but you can't allow someone to have the opinion that Thrall is a Dwarf because you can't accept it a highly unlikely opinion?

I never said that it's wrong to have an opinion, or that someone can't have an opinion, so I don't know why you're saying I did.

Doesn't matter if we saw his soul in cataclysm, since there is no lore saying disguises can't be represented in soul form. He is wearing clothes in his soul form yes? So did his clothes die with him? If so then couldn't a disguise be considered the same way? Hell we even have lore now saying Souls take up the form of whatever they want in Shadowlands (the expansion), and that some souls do not always represent their former bodies.

When we kill ghouls and zombies, their souls look like they used to be, not as ghouls and zombies (quest in Dustwallow Marsh). As for the Shadowlands lore, I'm assuming that this "assume the shape they want" is only after they ascend for the Kyrian, as I'm not too knowledgeable about that.

Your player character.

So you're saying that our death knight player character... existed before the playable death knight class was introduced to the game? Because that's the only way I can see this being relevant to this topic. If not, then we're talking about "after the fact" which is meaningless. A necromancer or dark ranger or whatever other class would still be the "champion of the <faction>" regardless if their organizations took a side or not.

[Triceron]

A fiction that seems to base itself in realistic probabilities, mind you. If you're going to talk about probabilities in fiction without adhering to "realistic probabilities", we have, at the same time, a 100% chance of the two getting married, and a 0% chance of the two get married.

If you are engaged in discussion, why are you ignoring the story elements I listed above?

And no, a suggestion does not have to prove itself because it is opinion.

You are asserting that you are using lore as factual evidence of a low probability. That is part of an absence of evidence argument because it implies asuggestion lacks contrary evidence to any existing lore, which makes the suggestion highly unlikely.

Schrodingers cat is the best assessment so far. This is how fiction *should* be treated, and any discussion of probability should be purely discussed on a subjective basis, not by a lore standard

[Alanar]

Lore-wise it's similar to Demon Hunters, where there are those that Illidan trained prior to TBC, and those he trained after. As for the amount of either, it's as nebulous as how there are so many High Elves in the world to sustain a Blood Elf splinter faction, a high representation of Silver Covenant as well as the new splinter group of Void Elves when their numbers should be well diminished after the outcome of Warcraft 3. It seems to be just a case of Blizzard fudging the numbers because they can.

I mean you can check wowpedia and I noticed the dark rangers were in fact suddenly there. She disnt had the power to ress at that point yet. Nothing else is known how she gained to much rangers. So its interesting.

[Triceron]

I mean you can check wowpedia and I noticed the dark rangers were in fact suddenly there. She disnt had the power to ress at that point yet. Nothing else is known how she gained to much rangers. So its interesting.

Some of them are freshly named Dark Rangers that are just shown serving under Sylvanas. Some are actually names of Dark Rangers from Warcraft 3, namely the random names you get when you play multiplayer.

Dark Ranger Anya, Clea and Cyndia are likely to be Anya Eversong, Clea Deathstrider and Cyndia Hawkspear. Though not blatantly explained, we can assume that these were Dark Rangers that got raised during the time of WC3, around the same time or shortly after Sylvanas. I would simply assume that most of the Dark Rangers she has with her are from that time period.

[Alanar]

Some of them are freshly named Dark Rangers that are just shown serving under Sylvanas. Some are actually names of Dark Rangers from Warcraft 3, namely the random names you get when you play multiplayer.

Dark Ranger Anya, Clea and Cyndia are likely to be Anya Eversong, Clea Deathstrider and Cyndia Hawkspear. Though not blatantly explained, we can assume that these were Dark Rangers that got raised during the time of WC3, around the same time or shortly after Sylvanas. I would simply assume that most of the Dark Rangers she has with her are from that time period.

Yes, some are named and the "seekers" in the undercity who could catch stealth targets were replaced by dark rangers in wrath and yes these and couple of others are named and idd named afther the random dark ranger names from warcraft 3.

I am talking about dark ranger in general, showing up randomly and started to become the representives for the forsaken, the problem was that many more dark rangers started to appear without explanation. Saying they were just ressed during the scourge attack on silvermoon is a possibility, but weird because we would have seen them in vanilla or bc already. I repeat they suddenly appeared.

Sylvanas wasnt capeable to ress more only until cata and even then was shown to onky ress human bodies and ress them as playable forsaken models. So idk man my theory that more banshees started to regain the bodies in wrath seems more likely imo. Wotlk was a interesting time for the forsaken and we saw more and more changes in their ranks. I think they could easily explain it by saying Sylvanas found alot of corpes in Northrend. Cata changed their whole look in general.

It has been a mystery for some time how she gained all those rangers. Its just guessing realy. One thing that was mentioned was that it forshadowed the hunter class for forsaken. Sylvanas was always that special snowflake looking nothing like the playable forsaken. Maybe it was just to make her appearance as an elf in the forsaken more common with others like her arround.

[Ielenia]

If you are engaged in discussion, why are you ignoring the story elements I listed above?

Because you discredited your own story elements when you asserted that fiction "does not have to follow realistic probabilities".

Also: "Taelia has been seeded as a potential love interest." Where did you get that? Because she's a woman and Anduin is a man?

And no, a suggestion does not have to prove itself because it is opinion.

It has to if it wants to be considered valid. A suggestion that Thrall is actually a zergling in disguise is a suggestion, but not one worthy of consideration when we're discussing WoW lore and possible future events.

You are asserting that you are using lore as factual evidence of a low probability. That is part of an absence of evidence argument because it implies asuggestion lacks contrary evidence to any existing lore, which makes the suggestion highly unlikely.

That's not an absence of evidence fallacy. Pointing at the insurmountable amount of times event A happened (meeting but not marrying) and pointing at the very small amount of event B happened (meeting and marrying) is not "absence of evidence" fallacy. It would be if I simply pointed out at event B and nothing else, you'd have a point.

Schrodingers cat is the best assessment so far. This is how fiction *should* be treated, and any discussion of probability should be purely discussed on a subjective basis, not by a lore standard

Only if have no evidence or idea where the lore will go, otherwise there is zero point in discussing because the lore then would have equal chance to go in any direction, regardless of how plausible or implausible they are.