Page 13 of 32 FirstFirst ...
3
11
12
13
14
15
23
... LastLast
  1. #241
    Quote Originally Posted by digitalphreak View Post
    Just look at this list of notable warlocks from a wow wiki:
    Notable warlocks
    None of those are playable representatives. You're listing notable enemy NPCs. You could do this for *any* class.

    Evil Mages? We had plenty such as Kael'thas, Millhouse Manastorm, Medivh, Azshara just to name a few.

    Evil Druids? We got them too. Fandral Staghelm and the Druids of the Flame, Druids of the Fang, the Drust, the Troll Prophets etc etc.

    Aint no "heros" or "champions" in there bro, mostly trouble makers. And as far as being a player, well.. youre not a lore char and it is a game after all. Some things just make sense for gameplay/coding reasons.
    Necromancer would fit in that same category. If you're not a lore character then lore wouldn't affect a Necromancer Class whether necromancy is banned (or not) by the Alliance or Horde.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by TheRevenantHero View Post
    No it's fucking not. Every single person is called a champion. Blizzard has done that because it's easier to copy and paste something like that into every quest dialogue instead of coding things to recognize your class on each individual character. I'll say again, don't mix lazy developer decisions with actual lore.
    Then Necromancer would fit outside lore, as you're explaining right here. No problems whatsoever with Necromancy whether it is banned or not within the Alliance and Horde (and technically, it isn't completely banned).
    Last edited by Triceron; 2021-03-01 at 11:43 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Since Arthas used Frostmourne, which is a Runeblade, and Frostmourne's power eminates from those runes, that made him a Runemaster by default.

  2. #242
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    None of those are playable representatives. You're listing notable enemy NPCs. You could do this for *any* class.

    Evil Mages? We had plenty such as Kael'thas, Millhouse Manastorm, Medivh, Azshara just to name a few.

    Evil Druids? We got them too. Fandral Staghelm and the Druids of the Flame, Druids of the Fang, the Drust, the Troll Prophets etc etc.



    Necromancer would fit in that same category. If you're not a lore character then lore wouldn't affect a Necromancer Class whether necromancy is banned (or not) by the Alliance or Horde.

    - - - Updated - - -



    Then Necromancer would fit outside lore, as you're explaining right here. No problems whatsoever with Necromancy whether it is banned or not within the Alliance and Horde (and technically, it isn't completely banned).
    Yes it is completely banned. The Kirin Tor have outlawed it on pain of death. And a class fitting 100% outside of lore just shouldn't exist. With DKs and warlocks, they are tolerated as a necessary evil but DKs are constantly on thin ice. Warlocks have to only use fire and shadow magic to avoid execution. Necromancers have absolutely no abilities that aren't vile and evil. Their magic is all about the channeling of death magic and defiling bodies. DKs at least can avoid using necromancy by warping runic magic into a different type of power. Necromancers wouldn't have that luxury. Necromancers just wouldn't fit with the lore and if they were ever made into a class, it would show Blizzard doesn't give a damn about consistent story anymore in any shape or form.

  3. #243
    Quote Originally Posted by Aggressive View Post
    You will forgive me, and I am going to say this as best as I can without sounding rude. But literally what you said is just, well, flawed. If wow can except shitty DK's walking around with undead then they can except a necromancer. This is a game...................NOT church. DK's were using their undead as fodder. So, out of curiosity, why can't the necromancer class do the same.

    Also explain what you mean by Deathknights being in the game and people whining should certain things be taken away. Cause when I looked at the history of Necromancers for wow, they reach all the way back to Warcraft RPG. They are already in the game in some fashion just as DK's were before Blizzard chose them as a HERO class
    Necromancer is EVILLLLLL!!!!!

    So were DH but let’s just ignore that

  4. #244
    Quote Originally Posted by razorpax View Post
    Necromancer is EVILLLLLL!!!!!

    So were DH but let’s just ignore that
    What is inherently evil about demon hunters? They hunt demons. Necromancy does not have any redeeming qualities. Not one.

  5. #245
    Quote Originally Posted by TheRevenantHero View Post
    Yes it is completely banned. The Kirin Tor have outlawed it on pain of death. And a class fitting 100% outside of lore just shouldn't exist. With DKs and warlocks, they are tolerated as a necessary evil but DKs are constantly on thin ice. Warlocks have to only use fire and shadow magic to avoid execution.
    Show me lore of this where the Warlock allies are only skirting by the Alliance and Horde by 'playing within the rules'.

    As far as I'm aware, all Warlocks source Fel as their primary means of damage. Their fire and shadow? Sourced from Fel sources, and Green Fire questline even supports this tie-in beyond simply using 'Fire' magic to stay within bounds.

    I mean, your application of lore here doesn't even address the fact the Warlocks literally summon demons.


    Necromancers have absolutely no abilities that aren't vile and evil. Their magic is all about the channeling of death magic and defiling bodies. DKs at least can avoid using necromancy by warping runic magic into a different type of power.
    But they don't do that. They fully use Necromancy willingly and don't make any effort to avoid its use. What you're applying here is purely headcanon.

    Show me a source where a Death Knight willingly holds back use of Necromancy because they don't want to 'offend' the Alliance and Horde.

    Necromancers wouldn't have that luxury. Necromancers just wouldn't fit with the lore and if they were ever made into a class, it would show Blizzard doesn't give a damn about consistent story anymore in any shape or form.
    And that makes you think you're right? Because you think Blizzard would choose to give a damn instead of, you know, disregarding their own rules as they always do?

    I'm not sure I'm the one who needs to give you a reality check. The game's already doing it plenty with Covenants and literally giving every class an option to use Necromancy.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by digitalphreak View Post
    What is inherently evil about demon hunters? They hunt demons. Necromancy does not have any redeeming qualities. Not one.
    Why would it need redeeming qualities?

    Our classes aren't paragons of truth and justice. They are avatars of typical RPG fare.

    If all 'evil' classes need to be redeemed then Warlocks could be fully integrated into the lore and well accepted into society by all the good deeds they've done by using fel magic. But as you say, we don't need that lore because our characters exist outside of it.

    I mean look at how flimsy Priest lore is handled in how they're fully able to tap into Shadow, which has become an extension of Old God madness shenanigans and ties to the Void. It used to be 'Shadow is another side of Light' but since then it's become an evil/corrupting-associated type of magic.
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Since Arthas used Frostmourne, which is a Runeblade, and Frostmourne's power eminates from those runes, that made him a Runemaster by default.

  6. #246
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    Show me lore of this where the Warlock allies are only skirting by the Alliance and Horde by 'playing within the rules'.

    As far as I'm aware, all Warlocks source Fel as their primary means of damage. Their fire and shadow? Sourced from Fel sources, and Green Fire questline even supports this tie-in beyond simply using 'Fire' magic to stay within bounds.

    I mean, your application of lore here doesn't even address the fact the Warlocks literally summon demons.




    But they don't do that. They fully use Necromancy willingly and don't make any effort to avoid its use. What you're applying here is purely headcanon.

    Show me a source where a Death Knight willingly holds back use of Necromancy because they don't want to 'offend' the Alliance and Horde.



    And that makes you think you're right? Because you think Blizzard would choose to give a damn instead of, you know, disregarding their own rules as they always do?

    I'm not sure I'm the one who needs to give you a reality check. The game's already doing it plenty with Covenants and literally giving every class an option to use Necromancy.

    - - - Updated - - -



    Why would it need redeeming qualities?

    Our classes aren't paragons of truth and justice. They are avatars of typical RPG fare.

    If all 'evil' classes need to be redeemed then Warlocks could be fully integrated into the lore and well accepted into society by all the good deeds they've done by using fel magic. But as you say, we don't need that lore because our characters exist outside of it.

    I mean look at how flimsy Priest lore is handled in how they're fully able to tap into Shadow, which has become an extension of Old God madness shenanigans and ties to the Void. It used to be 'Shadow is another side of Light' but since then it's become an evil/corrupting-associated type of magic.
    Warlocks are not permitted to summon demons anywhere near the populace. This has been said more than once at Blizzcon Q&A panels. If you want to disregard that, that's on you but you're still wrong. As for their other magic, most warlocks don't even go near fel because of how exceptionally corrupting it is. It's basically magical radiation. So as a result, most of them stick to using fire and shadow magic instead of messing with fel. Only reckless and power hungry warlocks use the fel and they always succumb to evil as a result.

    And death knights do NOT fully use necromancy willingly. At least they don't in the lore. They don't even fully tap into death magic. They channel power through runes on their vampiric runeblades. Which is why they don't use mana. Necromancers, on the other hand, fully channel death magic. Which is why necromancy is banned by the Kirin Tor.

    Necromancers are a 100% evil class. There is no chance for any redemption. At least with DKs it can be said they were mostly involuntary and were controlled by the Lich King. Necromancers willing channel death magic and defile the dead. There is nothing even remotely redeeming about that. If necromancer became a class, it would mean that story literally doesn't matter anymore at all.

  7. #247
    Quote Originally Posted by digitalphreak View Post
    What is inherently evil about demon hunters? They hunt demons. Necromancy does not have any redeeming qualities. Not one.
    Name one demon hunter before legion that didn’t work with demons?? Pretty sure the original DH was working with the legion for a bit

    Oh and then there’s warlocks that literally use souls

  8. #248
    Quote Originally Posted by TheRevenantHero View Post
    Warlocks are not permitted to summon demons anywhere near the populace. This has been said more than once at Blizzcon Q&A panels. If you want to disregard that, that's on you but you're still wrong.
    How am I wrong when I haven't said anything about Warlocks summoning demons near the populace?

    If it makes more sense, I will say I will correct my previous statement of 'accepted into Alliance and Horde societies' into 'accepted into Alliance and Horde for the sake of supplementing the military forces in battle, while still staying secretive in society'. I mean, either way it makes zero difference since we're all regarding that all playable classes circumvent lore entirely by ways of 'Devs are lazy and treats them all as Champions'.

    I'm not making a case that Necromancers are walking amongst the townfolk and living in the open next to Farmer Joe. I'm making a case that the Alliance and Horde makes use of all classes equally when it comes to combat, where the primary focus of lore happens to be. They are accepted into the pantheon of playable classes, and that is reflected directly in the lore by how the characters regard you and your respective factions. This has been tied in with Order Halls as well, whether good or otherwise. Whether the Order halls are aligned with Good, Bad, Order or Chaos does not have any true impact on the lore at all - they are all equal contributors and accepted as allies in the effort to fight the enemies of the Alliance and Horde.

    And death knights do NOT fully use necromancy willingly. At least they don't in the lore. They don't even fully tap into death magic. They channel power through runes on their vampiric runeblades. Which is why they don't use mana. Necromancers, on the other hand, fully channel death magic. Which is why necromancy is banned by the Kirin Tor.
    You're talking about a technicality that doesn't absolve them of being able to use Necromancy to summon armies of ghouls and other undead creatures willingly. You're not talking about how this is relevant to how they act within the Alliance and Horde if you're referring to a technicality like this.

    Simply said, there is no example of a Death Knight with-holding the use of Necromancy for the sake of appeasing societal norms. There is no instance where the Alliance and Horde regard them as acceptable due to their use of Runic magic over pure Necromancy. What you're using here is conjecture.

    We should both recognize that none of these norms exist within the lore, and they shouldn't be used against a potential Necromancer class any more than they would against a Death Knight. There is no requisite for lore having to accomodate a Warlock, Death Knight or Necromancer being accepted amongst the townspeople.

    Necromancers are a 100% evil class. There is no chance for any redemption. At least with DKs it can be said they were mostly involuntary and were controlled by the Lich King. Necromancers willing channel death magic and defile the dead. There is nothing even remotely redeeming about that. If necromancer became a class, it would mean that story literally doesn't matter anymore at all.
    Why do you think classes need redemption?

    You can choose to play a Rogue who makes a living off thieving and killing. This doesn't even have to be limited to 'enemies of your faction', you can literally be a full-fledged assassin. There isn't any mandate that says all classes need to be redeemed; only that they choose to fight for either the Alliance or Horde for their own purposes, nefarious or otherwise.

    As I explained, the lore could be as simply as how the DH's choose to serve the Alliance and Horde under their own terms, their own will. Even the Demon Hunters are not fully redeemed, they simply choose to fight the same enemy as the Alliance and Horde and are otherwise fully embracing corrupting Fel magic with no limits behind it. That is pure evil magic as well.

    Classes do not need to be redeemed. I could see you making a case if we're talking about a Race that would need to be integrated fully into society, like Forsaken or Worgen have; but if we're talking about a Class then that's simply a playable archetype that you choose your character to be which otherwise is not impacted by has no real impact on lore.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2021-03-02 at 12:37 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Since Arthas used Frostmourne, which is a Runeblade, and Frostmourne's power eminates from those runes, that made him a Runemaster by default.

  9. #249
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    How am I wrong when I haven't said anything about Warlocks summoning demons near the populace?

    If it makes more sense, I will say I will correct my previous statement of 'accepted into Alliance and Horde societies' into 'accepted into Alliance and Horde for the sake of supplementing the military forces in battle, while still staying secretive in society'. I mean, either way it makes zero difference since we're all regarding that all playable classes circumvent lore entirely by ways of 'Devs are lazy and treats them all as Champions'.

    I'm not making a case that Necromancers are walking amongst the townfolk and living in the open next to Farmer Joe. I'm making a case that the Alliance and Horde makes use of all classes equally when it comes to combat, where the primary focus of lore happens to be. They are accepted into the pantheon of playable classes, and that is reflected directly in the lore by how the characters regard you and your respective factions. This has been tied in with Order Halls as well, whether good or otherwise.



    You're talking about a technicality that doesn't absolve them of being able to use Necromancy to summon armies of ghouls and other undead creatures willingly. You're not talking about how this is relevant to how they act within the Alliance and Horde if you're referring to a technicality like this.

    Simply said, there is no example of a Death Knight with-holding the use of Necromancy for the sake of appeasing societal norms. There is no instance where the Alliance and Horde regard them as acceptable due to their use of Runic magic over pure Necromancy. What you're using here is conjecture.

    We should both recognize that none of these norms exist within the lore, and they shouldn't be used against a potential Necromancer class any more than they would against a Death Knight.



    Why do you think classes need redemption?

    You can choose to play a Rogue who makes a living off thieving and killing. This doesn't even have to be limited to 'enemies of your faction', you can literally be a full-fledged assassin. There isn't any mandate that says all classes need to be redeemed; only that they choose to fight for either the Alliance or Horde for their own purposes, nefarious or otherwise.

    As I explained, the lore could be as simply as how the DH's choose to serve the Alliance and Horde under their own terms, their own will. Even the Demon Hunters are not fully redeemed, they simply choose to fight the same enemy as the Alliance and Horde and are otherwise fully embracing corrupting Fel magic with no limits behind it. That is pure evil magic as well.
    They are tolerated, not accepted. There is a HUGE difference. Accepting would mean the factions are totally fine with warlocks being around despite the insane magic they wield. They're not. They tolerate them because they're a walking weapon and they often can't disregard the raw power they're capable of. That doesn't mean warlocks are any semblance of welcome. Same goes for death knights. It's why they pretty much only hang out in Acherus.

    Canonically, a lone death knight cannot summon an army of ghouls. They summon them with the help of other death knights because of the limitations on their powers. they literally need to kill living things to feed and power their runeblades. Otherwise, their runeblades literally start eating them alive on an energy level. Which is what the "suffer well" comment means. Death knights are perpetually in pain but they're wishing their fellow death knights less pain when watching them go into battle.

    Every class has one character in the lore that can be considered "redeeming". We have a handful of demon hunter named NPCs that show not all demon hunters are evil. Same with death knights. Due to the history of necromancy, the fact that it's banned by Kirin Tor, and that there isn't a single necromancer NPC that ISN'T an eviul piece of shit, a necromancer class would just make no god damned sense.

    And you're wrong about demon hunters. There ARE limits. That's literally what their tattoos are for. They harness the fel magic within them so that it doesn't go out of control. You're just further showing you care more about rule of cool than you do about story.

  10. #250
    Quote Originally Posted by TheRevenantHero View Post
    They are tolerated, not accepted.
    Yes. We both agree.

    So what exactly are you arguing here? That Necromancers can't be tolerated?

    As I said, I'm not arguing they should be accepted at all. Just tolerated, just as Warlocks would be. That's enough to have them playable.

    Accepting would mean the factions are totally fine
    Then this is just semantics.

    I'm using accept as in 'gave them the green light to allow them to participate' where you're taking a more literal meaning of 'fully integrated into society'

    I think I'm damned clear that I'm talking about tolerance and simply allowing them to participate, not the free hugs variety of acceptance.

    Every class has one character in the lore that can be considered "redeeming"
    Which redeemed Warlock characters on Horde and Alliance would these be?

    And you're wrong about demon hunters. There ARE limits
    It's funny that you're totally open to adding evil characters so long as there is flimsy lore to tell you 'they have limits' but you can't fathom this sort of thing existing for Necromancers considering they're completely fictional and be written in with limitations just as easily.

    I mean gee, we could literally say Cult of the Damned is sworn to serve their 'Lich King' master, the Jailer, and once the Jailer is defeated that duty goes to Anduin who mandates that the Cult be sworn to his own will to serve for the sake of good. As a new master of Domination, Anduin has full control over what the Necromancers are allowed and what is considered forbidden to pursue, and they are bound to his will. They could even cement this idea through a starting quest where your first course of action is literally hunting down fellow Necromancers who choose not to abide by this mandate and use it recklessly; such as the Ogre Necromancer in Exiles Reach.

    Done. Limits. Easy. Cuz it's literally all fiction. Hell, this is even more 'limits' than Warlocks, who literally HAVE NO LIMITS and are still completely playable.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2021-03-02 at 12:54 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Since Arthas used Frostmourne, which is a Runeblade, and Frostmourne's power eminates from those runes, that made him a Runemaster by default.

  11. #251
    Quote Originally Posted by loras View Post
    A better concept for necromancer i've not seen yet, though its thematic, mechanical and practical overlap might still pose significant issues.

    Goid job nonetheless!
    Thank you so much!

    Quote Originally Posted by Danbala View Post
    omfg i want this very very very much... especially your version of the healer *drools* that definitely looks like something fun to play.
    Thank you! I really love every part of the Faithless spec. Each of my necromancer specs has a passive quasi-resource system to which they then use an "ultimate" ability once they've gained enough resources. Faithless builds Coagulation to use Blood Infusion, Chemical builds Toxic Exposure to use their Lethal Injection, and Undeath accumulates Corpse Piles to use their Death March.

    For Faithless, I've even fallen in love with the spell names, haha. Fuse Bone and Stitch Flesh are such fun sounding single target heals. I love the idea of using Spectral Light to heal when they use their Grim Reaper spell. Their mastery literally puts a ghost near an ally who heals when they take damage, and their Blood Lich spell is an awesome dps and healing throughput cooldown. And best of all, their AoE heal is turning their enemy into a fountain of blood

    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowferal View Post
    Anything that remotely reminds me of EQ needs to die in a fire.
    Thankfully, this class concept is entirely based on WoW lore concepts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Azerate View Post
    Necromancers already exist, they are called warlocks
    Necromancers don't deal with demons and fel magic. Nor do they turn undead, spray enemies with poison, and heal allies with blood magic.

    Quote Originally Posted by kenn9530 View Post
    Its how the magic is used that matters, there is no way at all to use necromancy magic that would fit in any civilized society and be acceptable.

    Magic is defined on how its used, necromancy is just plain defined as evil magic in WoW, something that works in the shadowlands doesnt mean it will work the same in the living world, they are two completely different dimensions.
    Quote Originally Posted by kenn9530 View Post
    No magic is evil its how its used and thats backed up by the lore, but there is no way to use necromancy that isnt in an evil way, it is also outlawed by the council of dalaran.

    Only reason deathknights are a class was because of the lich king being one of the most popular icons in WoW, deathknights barely use any necromancy magic as it is so they only get a pass because they are already in the game, another thing with deathknights is they didnt have a choice in the magic they use where necromancers do.
    Your responses are literally proving all our points. Its not necromancy that's evil. Much like many warlocks, its been mostly the practitioners who've been evil. Within the SL, our heroes use necromancy, they help necromancers, and they work for necromancers. Necromancy can be a force for good.

    Quote Originally Posted by willtron View Post
    Bascially the same shit I wanted in a tinker but in an edgelord skin. Love it.
    Thank you!

    Quote Originally Posted by Adamas102 View Post
    No. A necromancer is just someone who uses necromancy. We already have that in the Death Knight. A necromancer isn't defined by what they wear or what weapon they carry in their hands. You're just taking one particular concept that you happen to like and projecting it as the ONLY concept available.
    Find anyone with a "Necromancer" title in game and you're not going to find a Death Knight. You're going to find what I described orginally.

    Quote Originally Posted by Xjan View Post
    Very cool, deserves a lot of recognition for the effort.
    Much appreciated!

    Quote Originally Posted by digitalphreak View Post
    What is inherently evil about demon hunters? They hunt demons. Necromancy does not have any redeeming qualities. Not one.
    Death Knights are literally using necromancy for good all the time. It took the Shadowlands expansion for us to learn that necromancy and Necromancers can be a force for good too. We're literally working for necromancers, helping Necromancers, and using necromantic powers in SL if that's your chosen covenant. And now we possibly have an Alliance leader who has been touched by necromancy. The Horde already had an "in" for using necromancy and hiring necromancers. The Alliance now has an in too.
    Last edited by Amunrasonther; 2021-03-02 at 12:44 AM.

  12. #252
    The Insane Ielenia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    16,089
    Quote Originally Posted by TheRevenantHero View Post
    Yes it is completely banned. The Kirin Tor have outlawed it on pain of death.
    But the Kirin Tor rules only Dalaran. They have no jurisdiction outside their city. So they cannot go after the necromancers because they're not in Dalaran. Evidence of that is: they haven't gone against the necromancers at all, now have they?
    I did a Necromancer thing. Check it out! All feedback welcome!
    I also did a Bard thing! Questions, comments and ideas, all welcome!

  13. #253
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    Yes. We both agree.

    So what exactly are you arguing here? That Necromancers can't be tolerated?

    As I said, I'm not arguing they should be accepted at all. Just tolerated, just as Warlocks would be. That's enough to have them playable.



    Then this is just semantics.

    I'm using accept as in 'gave them the green light to allow them to participate' where you're taking a more literal meaning of 'fully integrated into society'

    I think I'm damned clear that I'm talking about tolerance and simply allowing them to participate, not the free hugs variety of acceptance.



    Which Warlock characters on Horde and Alliance would these be?
    I don't think necromancers would even be TOLERATED. they're actively defiling dead bodies with their magic. Death knights at least have frost abilities to give some semblance of "my magic isn't ALL bad". And once again, necromancers wouldn't work because of the ban on necromancy by the Kirin Tor. The death knights get away with it on a technicality because they're not tapping into death magic directly.

    Currently the only warlock named NPC really is Tehd Shoemaker. But honestly, from a lore perspective, warlocks really shouldn't be playable either. But they were one of the first classes so absolutely nothing can be done now. Going forward Blizzard either has to decide to just utterly disregard and burn story consistency or take themselves seriously again.

  14. #254
    Quote Originally Posted by TheRevenantHero View Post
    I don't think necromancers would even be TOLERATED. they're actively defiling dead bodies with their magic. Death knights at least have frost abilities to give some semblance of "my magic isn't ALL bad". And once again, necromancers wouldn't work because of the ban on necromancy by the Kirin Tor. The death knights get away with it on a technicality because they're not tapping into death magic directly.
    You're using conjecture.

    The alternative to Necromancy isn't what allows Death Knights to be tolerated. This is not lore.

    This is completely headcanon. You need to recognize that what you're saying isn't actually supported by lore. You're correlating gameplay options to tolerance in lore, and that's simply untrue.

    Again, I'm calling you out on your bullshit. There is zero lore that says they are tolerated because of a technicality that they're using Runic magic. You're outright using lies here. You may choose to interpret the lore this way, but this is not supported by the lore itself.

    But honestly, from a lore perspective, warlocks really shouldn't be playable either. But they were one of the first classes so absolutely nothing can be done now.
    Like I said, once the exception, now the rule. They would be the exception if it weren't for the fact that DK's and Demon Hunters are also playable. The lines aren't drawn at all. Our characters are not bound to having to be able to live freely in the Alliance and Horde societies.

    You're using absolutely arbitrary rules that Blizzard themselves do not follow. Having the Cult of the Damned fight for the Alliance and Horde because they serve a new master would be an absolutely viable way to allow them to be playable, because playable classes ARE NOT BOUND to being accepted into society.

    That you don't think or don't agree with Warlocks being playable doesn't mean they can't be. You are saying they shouldn't be, and that's fine if that is your opinion. However I think your argument seems to reach beyond simply opinion when you're literally trying to prove that it can't happen because *you don't think they would be tolerated*, and that's where I say you're outright wrong here because what you think regarding lore doesn't actually affect the Necromancer being playable or not.

    Blizzard doesn't add classes because of the lore. If they were truly such sticklers to lore, Death Knights would never be able to break free of the Lich King's control and be able to serve under the Alliance and Horde. Period. Same with Warlocks. It would be 100% zero tolerance under Thralls rule.

    Gameplay designers say otherwise, and they willingly chose Warlocks as a playable class over the Runemaster which they were developing as the 'non-standard spellcaster' class in Vanilla. We also know for a fact that Necromancer was a runner-up class to be playable, based on Wrath of the Lich King. We KNOW for a fact that lore does not decide what class is or is not playable. Classes aren't affected by lore, lore simply explains how they end up being playable.

    We could have a genocidal incident where every Night Elf in existence gets killed and permanently wiped out, and we would still have reason to play our own Night Elf characters because our characters exist outside of that lore. I mean look at how lore has even handled the latest Sand Troll customization options, or how they've done a fantastic job explaining how Void Elves are able to retain Blood Elf skin tone looks suddenly. Lore is not the end-all-be-all, it's just the convenient in-world explanation if the creators choose to explain it. Lore gives way to gameplay design, not the other way around. Gameplay is always the core matter, and everything else comes after.

    If lore were the rule, then Druids would still be Night Elf Male exclusive as Metzen originally intended them to be.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2021-03-02 at 06:17 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Since Arthas used Frostmourne, which is a Runeblade, and Frostmourne's power eminates from those runes, that made him a Runemaster by default.

  15. #255
    Quote Originally Posted by Amunrasonther View Post
    Your responses are literally proving all our points. Its not necromancy that's evil. Much like many warlocks, its been mostly the practitioners who've been evil. Within the SL, our heroes use necromancy, they help necromancers, and they work for necromancers. Necromancy can be a force for good.
    It is necromancy that is evil as thats the whole point in it, using corpses raising the dead are all evil uses of the magic and its nothing like warlocks who use demons. In the shadowlands the rules of the living dont apply so whats not accepted in one dimension would not matter in a realm of the dead.

    And since when does every player use necromancy in shadowlands, the covenant abilities are hardly necromancy as it is and there is 3 other covenants that have nothing to do with necromancy, a necromancer is never coming to WoW plain and simple, if it was coming wouldnt shadowlands be the ideal expansion to release it, i highly doubt any new class is coming and a necromancer is the least likely class to ever be implemented.

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    The council of Dalaran does not drive the Alliance or Horde's decisions to allow Death Knights and Warlocks amongst their ranks. Dalaran is its own system of government, with its own rules in place.

    What they outlaw is not beholden to the Alliance or Horde society. Warlocks and the use of Fel magic would just as much be banned by Dalaran.



    If by barely you mean completely themed around its use, then yes, Necromancers 'barely use any necromancy' too.
    No faction would go outright against dalaran and lose them as one of the most powerful allies one could have, fel magic is not outlawed by dalaran just necromancy.

    The whole point in a necromancer would be summoning undead minions and creating patchwork style minions, without that it wouldnt be a necromancer, thats the whole reason a necromancer makes no sense in WoW, desecrating the bodies of the dead is always evil.
    Last edited by kenn9530; 2021-03-02 at 01:39 AM.
    STAR-J4R9-YYK4 use this for 5000 credits in star citizen

  16. #256
    The Insane Ielenia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    16,089
    Quote Originally Posted by kenn9530 View Post
    It is necromancy that is evil as thats the whole point in it, using corpses raising the dead are all evil uses of the magic and its nothing like warlocks who use demons.
    You do know that warlocks also capture and consume the souls of the dead, right? They use it for summoning demons, creating healthstones and more. Why are warlocks "okay" but not necromancers? Sounds like an arbitrary exclusion, here.
    I did a Necromancer thing. Check it out! All feedback welcome!
    I also did a Bard thing! Questions, comments and ideas, all welcome!

  17. #257
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    Classes aren't affected by lore, lore simply explains how they end up being playable.
    Nothing is, really, and has been that way since TBC. Blood Elves being on the Horde is a massive stretch and was done for gameplay reasons. More recently, Blizzard added High Elf customization to both factions, which makes even less sense.

    Lore is inherently constricting, and will not be followed if it gets in the way of the health of the game.

  18. #258
    Quote Originally Posted by kenn9530 View Post
    It is necromancy that is evil as thats the whole point in it, using corpses raising the dead are all evil uses of the magic and its nothing like warlocks who use demons. In the shadowlands the rules of the living dont apply so whats not accepted in one dimension would not matter in a realm of the dead.

    And since when does every player use necromancy in shadowlands, the covenant abilities are hardly necromancy as it is and there is 3 other covenants that have nothing to do with necromancy, a necromancer is never coming to WoW plain and simple, if it was coming wouldnt shadowlands be the ideal expansion to release it, i highly doubt any new class is coming and a necromancer is the least likely class to ever be implemented.
    Fel magic literally requires the blood of demons, and pretty much ALL warlocks in game besides the players or those affiliated with the two factions are evil. Players who choose Necrolord covenant are using necromancy or are aligning themselves with a covenant of necromancers. Fleshcraft, Deathborne, Unholy Nova....these are all spells based on necromancy.

    Necromancers are our allies in SL. And you keep ignoring Anduin. It would be foolish to think he's not going to have some kind of changes out of all of this.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    You do know that warlocks also capture and consume the souls of the dead, right? They use it for summoning demons, creating healthstones and more. Why are warlocks "okay" but not necromancers? Sounds like an arbitrary exclusion, here.
    And this too of course!

  19. #259
    Pit Lord Bwonsamdi the Dead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Location
    De Other Side (Just kidding) Vancouver Island, BC
    Posts
    2,326
    Quote Originally Posted by Amunrasonther View Post

    Interesting to hear! I haven't played SL so this is news to me.
    Actually, he did this in Battle for Dazar'alor



    Another day, another Deal....

  20. #260
    So just to clarify...

    Summoning evil demons to do your bidding and using their foul magics to pervert and destroy life is not too evil to be a class
    Consuming demonic essences, blood and souls so that you can take their foul powers and transform yourself into one of them is not too evil to be a class
    Summoning the dead, using corpses, and tossing around plague and disease isn't too evil to be a class... provided you wear heavy armour?

Posting Permissions

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