Official High Elf Discussion Megathread

[Varodoc]

I thought those were the amethyst ones but if you zoom in, it's got the little filligree around the lobe like the BE "leaves" option, along with a necklace and arm bracings.

I do hope it's a precursor tho, maybe VEs only get silver to match their aesthetic and BEs keep gold jewelry as exclusives?

That explains the earrings but then what about the tabard? Those promotional pics are done with in-game toons, No? In-game Horde characters cannot wear Alliance-exclusive tabards.

Now that Blood Elves received Void Elf purple eyes, I see no reason why Void Elves shouldn't get green. Don't forget that blue was originally a Void Elf color (minus DKs) and Blood Elves got that too. At this point, Blood Elves have almost taken more from Void Elves than the other way around, especially since tanned and dark skin tones went to both at the same time, so really all Void Elves received in the trade was the light skin tones.

Which is why they will get additional options in the future. It is clear that allied races are FAR from being overhauled like core ones.

Because, at the end of the day, fair skin tones for Void elves are just that... skin tones. Core races got A LOT MORE than just skin tones.

[FossilFree]

That explains the earrings but then what about the tabard? Those promotional pics are done with in-game toons, No? In-game Horde characters cannot wear Alliance-exclusive tabards.



Which is why they will get additional options in the future. It is clear that allied races are FAR from being overhauled like core ones.

Because, at the end of the day, fair skin tones for Void elves are just that... skin tones. Core races got A LOT MORE than just skin tones.

It would make sense to give each Thalassian elf a set of shared neutral options, and then a "cosmic power" set of options on top. Void Elves already have the void options, so maybe Blood Elves could get even more lightforged options, undead options, or a deeper dive into the fel.

[Varodoc]

It would make sense to give each Thalassian elf a set of shared neutral options, and then a "cosmic power" set of options on top. Void Elves already have the void options, so maybe Blood Elves could get even more lightforged options, undead options, or a deeper dive into the fel.

Honestly I would welcome Undead options for Blood elves, because then Undead Paladins would finally be playable.

Which means that the few arguments left against Void Elf Paladins (how they do not make sense "thematically") would be thrown out of the window.

So YES! Bring on the Undead BElves!

[FossilFree]

Honestly I would welcome Undead options for Blood elves, because then Undead Paladins would finally be playable.

Which means that the few arguments left against Void Elf Paladins (how they do not make sense "thematically") would be thrown out of the window.

So YES! Bring on the Undead BElves!

Agreed. Plus, I don't see any reason why Void Elf paladins would be a bad idea. You'd think being able to resist void influence and not succumb to the whispers would be something a follower of the light would really benefit from.

[Varodoc]

Agreed. Plus, I don't see any reason why Void Elf paladins would be a bad idea. You'd think being able to resist void influence and not succumb to the whispers would be something a follower of the light would really benefit from.

The funny thing is that there are already Void paladins in the game. It is not even a mere concept, it is reality. There are several corrupted paladins serving the Twilight Hammer Cult, the crazy organization that worships the Old Gods and the end of the world.

[FossilFree]

The funny thing is that there are already Void paladins in the game. It is not even a mere concept, it is reality. There are several corrupted paladins serving the Twilight Hammer Cult, the crazy organization that worships the Old Gods and the end of the world.

That's true. The precedent is already there.

[MyWholeLifeIsThunder]

They need to follow up on the story thread with Alleria and the Sunwell having a dark entity within. Maybe some Void Elf meddling causes the Sunwell to explode, and Blood Elves are forced to start using fel again. Then they could really double-down on the fel theme.

Eh, I'd find that unnecessary TBH. I think an important part of allowing Fel is that it doesn't pose the same threat to the Sunwell as Void did, so it's about what's complementary to a society/culture, not forcing BE on X path because Y thing happened.

My point is about delving on the contrast between Light and Fel within the same society, so forcing BE's to use fel defeats that purpose.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

Yeah, that's a blood elf with the Storm's wake tabard; Hairstyle and Color are BE, eye, BE, jewelry on ears and arms, BE -silver option- Nothing would imply she's a VE, just the odd context of a BE using an alliance tabard. So either this BE got to be alliance, or they simply made a mistake in the outfit for the pics.

- - - Updated - - -

She is a Void elf. The tabard is Alliance exclusive and the earrings are those little amethyst earrings that Void elves have.

This shouldn't surprise anyone. Blood elf hairstyles and hair colours should be shared, as well as the green eyes.

There are Silvermoon scholars in Telogrus Rift too, not just Quel'dorei ones. NEVER forget that.

Dude you are exhausting, you are so pro VE you outright lie or delude yourself. Those are all BE options, those are the wing earrings, Bangles? Eye color? Hairstyle and color? they are all BE options.

For sure it's weird that this BE is wearing an alliance tabard, but when you contradict facts simply because you want them to be different, you loose all credibility.

[FossilFree]

Eh, I'd find that unnecessary TBH. I think an important part of allowing Fel is that it doesn't pose the same threat to the Sunwell as Void did, so it's about what's complementary to a society/culture, not forcing BE on X path because Y thing happened.

My point is about delving on the contrast between Light and Fel within the same society, so forcing BE's to use fel defeats that purpose.

Well, I don't think they should lose the options because the story advanced. I just think Blood Elves were more interesting before the Sunwell Plateau raid. I also really want to see what happens with all of these story threads they set up for Alleria that have gone nowhere. Like the threat to the Sunwell and the story with Locus Walker.

Plus, playable felblood elves would be just plain badass.

[Garfurion]

Agreed. Plus, I don't see any reason why Void Elf paladins would be a bad idea.

Blizzard doesn't seem to agree:

Interviewer: Are there other examples like that, where there are classes that just don’t make any sense at all with the selections available at launch?

Alex Afrasiabi: Paladin for Void Elves, because that’s weird.

source

It's probably related to Turalyon being hurt when he passes through a void portal, and Alleria and Turalyon not being able to physically touch each other without hurting each other.

You'd think being able to resist void influence and not succumb to the whispers would be something a follower of the light would really benefit from.

You don't need to be a Void Elf to resist whispers. I think shadow priests of any race hear Old God whispers.

[FossilFree]

Blizzard doesn't seem to agree:

Interviewer: Are there other examples like that, where there are classes that just don’t make any sense at all with the selections available at launch?

Alex Afrasiabi: Paladin for Void Elves, because that’s weird.

source

It's probably related to Turalyon being hurt when he passes through a void portal, and Alleria and Turalyon not being able to physically touch each other without hurting each other.



You don't need to be a Void Elf to resist whispers. I think shadow priests of any race hear Old God whispers.

It's not about "needing" to be a Void Elf to resist, but rather that they are essentially inoculated to the void in a way that other followers of the light would lack. Look how easily the paladin Arthas descended into darkness. I doubt a Void Elf paladin would have fallen so easily.

[MyWholeLifeIsThunder]

Well, I don't think they should lose the options because the story advanced. I just think Blood Elves were more interesting before the Sunwell Plateau raid. I also really want to see what happens with all of these story threads they set up for Alleria that have gone nowhere. Like the threat to the Sunwell and the story with Locus Walker.

Plus, playable felblood elves would be just plain badass.

Yeah, but none of those things requite the Sunwell to explode. That's what I am saying, Blood Elves can be more without the need of a traumatic event/loss.

Hell yeah felblood elves would be badass, but we don't need to lose the Sunwell for that, we just need the Illidari re-integrate with Quel'thalas and rehabilitate any Felblood Elves still out there. I would be totally on board with Blood Elves pushing for unification of all those lead astray by Kael'thas, while understanding they can't allow Void studies because the threat they posses to the Sunwell.

In the same manner, I want to see Void Elves and the Locus Walker story to expand -it needs it- but it neither needs the Sunwell to be told. I am so more interested in seeing Void Elves reinventing themselves without the Sunwell.

[Ielenia]

Neither of those are suggestions to the game. Those are just explanations of existing lore. I don't see this pertaining to the topic we're discussing, since what you're talking about is still just the lore as it stands, not introducing any particularly new element to discuss.

What I'm talking about is about adding new stuff to the lore without retconning already established lore (by invoking the "Blizzard can do it" argument).

Why would any suggestion be considered invalid? Because it doesn't happen? It's a suggestion.

Because it goes against established lore. Asking for Garrosh to be deposed does not go against established lore, because a warchief can be deposed, considering that twice it almost happened with Garrosh challenging Thrall for mak'gora, then later Cairne challenging Garrosh for the same. Banshees retaking their old bodies, though, has only happened once, despite the abundance of banshees around Azeroth. That suddenly all banshees have the ability to take dead bodies as their own would be a retcon. I'll repeat what I said earlier: the question has never been about "can Blizzard do it?" It has always been "should Blizzard do it?" And retcons is something that shouldn't happen, because it cheapens the lore. More than it already is, according to some.

Yes, and that difference is what you make of it. There is no global standard for what you are talking about. You intentionally bring up an example of something you deem worthy of discussion and something you deem not worthy of discussion, but ultimately you chose the material based on your own biases. That's your opinion, and you need to recognize what that means when discussing in a public forum. Expression of opinions is not limited by any of your criteria, because the only one being affected by it is you. You are defining the rules as you go along considering there are no rules to what should or should not be suggested or discussed.

I can agree with you that your latter example is utterly ridiculous, but I wouldn't go so far as say it's a completely invalid suggestion. It's still just one person's opinion, and you don't have to fight every opinion you disagree with and prove how invalid it is. That's just being anal retentive. (that being said, I have no qualms about being anal retentive myself :P)

Are you arguing that saying something fits within the lore or does not fit within the lore is subjective? Because I don't think it is. A claim, an idea, either fits in the lore or it does not. Invoking the "Blizzard can retcon the lore" is a clear indication that the idea presented does not fit the current established lore.

There is no such thing as a strong argument for why a suggestion should be valid. All suggestions are valid because they are ultimately opinions..

Yes, there are such things for "strong arguments". Giving a good basis within the lore, and detailing why this or that can happen and how this and that do not affect the chance of your idea happening is a strong argument. Saying "because I want to" or "because Blizzard can do it" is not a strong argument.

When you're presenting an idea here, you're presenting it to us, not Blizzard. It's us who you have to convince about your side of things, not Blizzard.

"Blizzard can do it" is a matter of fact, and is what makes any suggestion absolutely viable.

That is precisely why "Blizzard can do it" is a non-answer, because not only it does not answer questions of "why would this happen?" and "how should this happen?", but it also makes even the most outlandish and illogical suggestions "just as viable" as reasonable ones. I'll repeat: it doesn't matter what Blizzard can do, because they can do anything they want. The questions is: what should they do?

[FossilFree]

Yeah, but none of those things requite the Sunwell to explode. That's what I am saying, Blood Elves can be more without the need of a traumatic event/loss.

Hell yeah felblood elves would be badass, but we don't need to lose the Sunwell for that, we just need the Illidari re-integrate with Quel'thalas and rehabilitate any Felblood Elves still out there. I would be totally on board with Blood Elves pushing for unification of all those lead astray by Kael'thas, while understanding they can't allow Void studies because the threat they posses to the Sunwell.

In the same manner, I want to see Void Elves and the Locus Walker story to expand -it needs it- but it neither needs the Sunwell to be told. I am so more interested in seeing Void Elves reinventing themselves without the Sunwell.

Fair enough. I'm not really married to the idea of it exploding, I was just brainstorming how to bring back the fel, so to speak.

[Triceron]

Because it goes against established lore. Asking for Garrosh to be deposed does not go against established lore, because a warchief can be deposed, considering that twice it almost happened with Garrosh challenging Thrall for mak'gora, then later Cairne challenging Garrosh for the same. Banshees retaking their old bodies, though, has only happened once, despite the abundance of banshees around Azeroth. That suddenly all banshees have the ability to take dead bodies as their own would be a retcon. I'll repeat what I said earlier: the question has never been about "can Blizzard do it?" It has always been "should Blizzard do it?" And retcons is something that shouldn't happen, because it cheapens the lore. More than it already is, according to some.

So I see your example, but I don't understand your logic here. Lore simply states what is possible and what isn't possible within its internal logic. It doesn't matter if 'we only seen this happen once'. 'Should (suddenly) all banshees have the ability' is subjective.

Consider that the idea of Demon Hunters with Horns and Wings outside of the Demon Form was unique to Illidan. He is the only case where we ever seen it happen, and it required the Skull of Gul'dan to empower him into that form. So would you have considered that a precedence for all Demon Hunters to have access to Horns and Wings? Or would you have considered that cheapening the lore because it was unique to Illidan? Whatever your answer may be, you could make an argument for-and-against this using lore; either saying Illidan created the precedent or Illidan was unique and should be kept unique. All the while, Blizzard doesn't give two fucks about it.

Are you arguing that saying something fits within the lore or does not fit within the lore is subjective? Because I don't think it is. A claim, an idea, either fits in the lore or it does not. Invoking the "Blizzard can retcon the lore" is a clear indication that the idea presented does not fit the current established lore.

You need to clarify what claim is being made if someone is making a suggestion. Suggestions and claims are two different things, so what exactly are you talking about? I don't think anyone here has made claims that X is going to happen. Everyone is expressing opinions on what they think should happen. There is a big difference.

Yes, there are such things for "strong arguments". Giving a good basis within the lore, and detailing why this or that can happen and how this and that do not affect the chance of your idea happening is a strong argument. Saying "because I want to" or "because Blizzard can do it" is not a strong argument.

But you have to regard that your definition of 'Strong' is absolutely subjective. That is my point.

If you don't deem an argument as strong, it is not a universally accepted fact. It is your opinion that it is weak.

When you're presenting an idea here, you're presenting it to us, not Blizzard. It's us who you have to convince about your side of things, not Blizzard.

No one needs to be convinced of any opinion. Suggestions don't need to convince you of anything.

If I said I think my town needs to grow more oranges, I don't have to convince you of my opinion. You are FREE to express your own opinion on the matter. That you think that you need to be convinced is purely your own self-imposed rule.

If I said Blizzard should retcon Sylvanas out of the game and I express it as my suggestion, my opinion, then I don't need to convince you anything. It is an opinion, even if it involves retcons.

That is precisely why "Blizzard can do it" is a non-answer, because not only it does not answer questions of "why would this happen?" and "how should this happen?", but it also makes even the most outlandish and illogical suggestions "just as viable" as reasonable ones. I'll repeat: it doesn't matter what Blizzard can do, because they can do anything they want. The questions is: what should they do?

Why does it need to be explained?

The core issue I see here is you have a personal compulsion to need these things to be answered. This is your personal problem, not a problem with someone making a suggestion. If it doesn't make sense in your internal logic, then that's for you to deal with. It's not the problem of a person expressing an opinion of what they want to see.

If I said Demon Hunters should have Horn and Wings options if we get playable Demon Hunters, then I am expressing an opinion, making a suggestion. I don't need to explain HOW they get the Horns and Wings options. If I want to see Horns and Wings on DH, then it's just something I want to see for my own reasons. If there is no lore to explain such a customization option that is not my problem

Using this example, I will explain why it's meaningless to use lore to support what SHOULD be done. It's all a matter of perspective.

A: - I am pro-Horns/Wings, I see lore having Illidan set a precedent for all Demon Hunters, and thus it's an acceptable suggestion
B: - I am anti-Horns/Wings, I see Illidan as a unique case, and thus no regular Demon Hunter should have access to Horns/Wings because there is no lore to support them having them.

They are both subjective interpretations of the same lore. Are Horns and Wings exclusive to Illidan in the lore? It all depends on what you personally think it should be. If you don't like it, you will use it as an argument against the suggestion. If you like it, then you will allow the lore to support it. This is why I say it's very very meaningless to use lore to support any argument.

Lore can absolutely be twisted to support any position, depending on how you feel and what you are willing to accept as legitimate lore. All the while, anything you disagree with? You can invoke 'Blizzard can retcon' and dismiss any argument you wish, because you can't give Demon Hunters Horn and Wings options without addressing the existing lore to clarify the ambiguity. Or you could do what Blizzard does, and simply not explain it and don't give two fucks about the lore.

There is only ONE way to regard lore, and that is in retrospect. If talking about any suggestions or future propositions, then you can't regard lore as an immutable factual record. It doesn't work like that at all. All you can do is manipulate lore to suit your argument.

This is why the banshee taking their bodies example is absolutely pointless to discuss. Whether they can take their bodies back or not is basically up to how you feel about it happening. Should it happen? Should it not happen? Purely subjective. We are able to make an argument both for and against it using existing lore. End of the day, it will not be relevant to whether we should or should not get Undead Elves. In my own opinion, using lore as a supporting argument is no different than using a thinly veiled excuse to dismiss something you don't agree with.

[MyWholeLifeIsThunder]

Fair enough. I'm not really married to the idea of it exploding, I was just brainstorming how to bring back the fel, so to speak.

I get that. Personally I just think it would be far more interesting if a Light/Fel dichotomy arose naturally rather than BE's being forced by happenstance -it's just too much of a recurring theme at this point, I guess I just want them to have more agency on their fate, so to speak-

That's why I like the idea of Kayn Sunfury -canonized as having left the illidari- returns to Quel'thalas, spearheading both a movement to make Blood Elves the prime demon hunter group -this including the Blood Knights, so this would be a shared goal for all Blood Elves- and reuniting all the elves led astray by Kael, rehabilitating them.

Blood Elf society could be so much more interested if a dichotomy and contrast between Light and Fel was explored.

[Syegfryed]

Wildhammer Dwarves didn't change their racials either, yet they aren't Bronzebeard dwarves. This argument is absolutely meaningless.

they are full dwarves with no difference whatsoever, nothing happened to the wildhammer like it did with Darkiron or other subraces.

Just like Demon Hunter blood elves... who are still blood elves and can randomly transform themselves into demons.

they chose to, again, different things

High and blood elves are playable on both sides. That's not that hard to admit

blood elves and void elves are playable, only one of then is the same race with just a name change

You just don't want it to happen. But in the end, it will.
And we just need to play a High elf following Alleria's teaching to reach the High elf fantasy.

you can play like you want, do your RP and play pretend, but don't tell me is "lore"

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

this is more like they stop using a racial/technique, different from a body racial, i could see void elves not having the racial of portals, like the mana drain, this is more or less a techinique, and could be redesigned, but not the voidform. is something their bodies do, like orcs hardiness

- - - Updated - - -

You claiming my "point shifted once again" tells me you have never cared to read or even understand my actual point:

you are flip flopping about those 3 things regardless of we saying it doesn't mater how you spin it, already happened and can happen again

Visual identity was already muddled not once but twice with elves.

. My point is, and I'll repeat: it's how the playable race looks by itself, and not how it looks in comparison to the others.

And again, this is a completely irrelevant point, since void elves, can look like two different playable races by itself, void elves and blood elves, you thinking just because they do not have more than one model is completely pointless

And blood elves and void elves have the same silhouette because both are thalassian elves.

now this is irrelevant

Irrelevant, because from the start I made it clear what I was talking about. If I'm talking about four-seat vehicles (i.e. cars), I don't have to talk about two-seat vehicles (i.e. motorbikes), or eight-seat vehicles (i.e. vans), just because they're all vehicles.

no, no no, if you are talking vehicles you better talk about all of then, unless you are obviously, using double standards

No, they did not. The void elf's silhouette is still a thalassian elf silhouette. Void elves cannot look like anything other than a thalassian elf.

they can look like 2 different races/playable races, period. your thallasian elf shenanigan is just a way of arbitrary handwave the situation, you are trying to make "thallasian elf" as the groundbreaking point, but it is not

Void elves can look like void elves and blood elves, period, so forsaken can look like humans and elves, because they would still be Forsaken.

Transforming into a void form by empowering yourself with the void is different than transforming into a void form by empowering yourself with the void. Is that it?

your premise start false, priests are conduits of the void, then they empower themselves, void elf voidpowers come from inside their bodies as part of their own bioogy/mutated bodies, but nice try

[Varodoc]

Blizzard doesn't seem to agree:

Interviewer: Are there other examples like that, where there are classes that just don’t make any sense at all with the selections available at launch?

Alex Afrasiabi: Paladin for Void Elves, because that’s weird.

source

It's probably related to Turalyon being hurt when he passes through a void portal, and Alleria and Turalyon not being able to physically touch each other without hurting each other.



You don't need to be a Void Elf to resist whispers. I think shadow priests of any race hear Old God whispers.

Blizzard also said that blood elves are our high elves, then introduced Void elves, which are also high elves.

Don't parrot what Blizzard says because it's not set in stone. They'll need enticing features for the Void expansion.

You don't need to be a Void Elf to resist whispers. I think shadow priests of any race hear Old God whispers.

Alleria and the Ren'dorei are the first mortals to successfully defy the whispers. Shadow priests don't. Their entire gameplay mechanic revolves around "Insanity", one of their talents is even called "Surrender to Madness". When a Shadow priest goes Voidform, they are getting overwhelmed by the Void (that's why tentacles are sprawling all over their body).

I will say much more, I'll say that the Shadow Priest toon is non-canon. Canonically, I doubt there are any Shadow Priests amongst the "mighty adventurers who save Azeroth regularly". Shadow Priests exist for a purely gameplay reason -> Every class has at least one DPS spec, Priest should be no different. Blizzard just came up with the "Evil Priest" concept to fit their quota.

[Ielenia]

You need to clarify what claim is being made if someone is making a suggestion. Suggestions and claims are two different things, so what exactly are you talking about? I don't think anyone here has made claims that X is going to happen. Everyone is expressing opinions on what they think should happen. There is a big difference.

Okay. My bad on the use of the word "claim". But the overall point stands: saying "Blizzard can do it" is a cop-out answer.

No one needs to be convinced of any opinion. Suggestions don't need to convince you of anything.

But to have people accept your suggestion as possible, you have to convince them that it is probable, or at least possible. Why do you think people pile on all those "expansion leaks" that happen every two years and call those "leaks" fake because of this, this and that? And the "leaker" saying "Blizzard can do it" does not make their leaks any less implausible.

Why does it need to be explained?

Because people would want to know more about your position and judge for themselves if your idea is valid or invalid. I mean, if I posit the idea of a "draconecrotechmancer" class, a class that brings dragons back from the dead by using technology, people would ask questions like "what would be the lore behind it" and "what races could be that class" and "what would be its gameplay", me saying "Blizzard can figure those out" is a cop-out answer, because they'd be asking me those questions, not Blizzard.

The core issue I see here is you have a personal compulsion to need these things to be answered. This is your personal problem, not a problem with someone making a suggestion. If it doesn't make sense in your internal logic, then that's for you to deal with. It's not the problem of a person expressing an opinion of what they want to see.

If I said Demon Hunters should have Horn and Wings options if we get playable Demon Hunters, then I am expressing an opinion, making a suggestion. I don't need to explain HOW they get the Horns and Wings options. If I want to see Horns and Wings on DH, then it's just something I want to see for my own reasons. If there is no lore to explain such a customization option that is not my problem

Using this example, I will explain why it's meaningless to use lore to support what SHOULD be done. It's all a matter of perspective.

A: - I am pro-Horns/Wings, I see lore having Illidan set a precedent for all Demon Hunters, and thus it's an acceptable suggestion
B: - I am anti-Horns/Wings, I see Illidan as a unique case, and thus no regular Demon Hunter should have access to Horns/Wings because there is no lore to support them having them.

They are both subjective interpretations of the same lore. Are Horns and Wings exclusive to Illidan in the lore? It all depends on what you personally think it should be. If you don't like it, you will use it as an argument against the suggestion. If you like it, then you will allow the lore to support it. This is why I say it's very very meaningless to use lore to support any argument.

Lore can absolutely be twisted to support any position, depending on how you feel and what you are willing to accept as legitimate lore. All the while, anything you disagree with? You can invoke 'Blizzard can retcon' and dismiss any argument you wish, because you can't give Demon Hunters Horn and Wings options without addressing the existing lore to clarify the ambiguity. Or you could do what Blizzard does, and simply not explain it and don't give two fucks about the lore.

There is only ONE way to regard lore, and that is in retrospect. If talking about any suggestions or future propositions, then you can't regard lore as an immutable factual record. It doesn't work like that at all. All you can do is manipulate lore to suit your argument.

This is why the banshee taking their bodies example is absolutely pointless to discuss. Whether they can take their bodies back or not is basically up to how you feel about it happening. Should it happen? Should it not happen? Purely subjective. We are able to make an argument both for and against it using existing lore. End of the day, it will not be relevant to whether we should or should not get Undead Elves. In my own opinion, using lore as a supporting argument is no different than using a thinly veiled excuse to dismiss something you don't agree with.

Then what is the point of discussing ideas, if every single thing can be indisputably supported AND indisputably dismissed at the same time, regardless of lore and precedent, by invoking the almighty Exodia Blizzard card? "Murlocs should be playable!" "Why?" "Blizzard" "I disagree!" "Why?" "Blizzard".

- - - Updated - - -

they are full dwarves with no difference whatsoever, nothing happened to the wildhammer like it did with Darkiron or other subraces.

I just wanted to point out that racials seem to be as much cultural-based as they are biology-based. And classes not changing a race's racials is because racials and class passives are two different things, mechanically speaking. One are bonuses that come with the race you pick, the other are bonuses that come with the class you pick. They're independent of each other.

you are flip flopping about those 3 things regardless of we saying it doesn't mater how you spin it, already happened and can happen again

What "three things", considering I've only talked about silhouettes in my arguments, and the only time I mentioned other things, like skin color, was to remind you that I was not talking about what you were claiming I was talking about.

Visual identity was already muddled not once but twice with elves.

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.

And again, this is a completely irrelevant point, since void elves, can look like two different playable races by itself, void elves and blood elves,

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.

now this is irrelevant

You are calling "irrelevant" the fact that void elves have a similar silhouette as blood elves is because they have the same parent race: thalassian elves. That's what you're calling irrelevant?

no, no no, if you are talking vehicles you better talk about all of then, unless you are obviously, using double standards

Are you openly admitting to arguing in bad faith here? Also, you love using that term, "double standards", but so far you failed to properly apply it.

they can look like 2 different races/playable races, period.

No, they can't. A void elf's silhouette can never deviate from a thalassian elf silhouette (class and toy effects aside).

your premise start false, priests are conduits of the void, then they empower themselves, void elf voidpowers come from inside their bodies as part of their own bioogy/mutated bodies, but nice try

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.

[Triceron]

But to have people accept your suggestion as possible, you have to convince them that it is probable, or at least possible. Why do you think people pile on all those "expansion leaks" that happen every two years and call those "leaks" fake because of this, this and that? And the "leaker" saying "Blizzard can do it" does not make their leaks any less implausible.

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?

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.

Because people would want to know more about your position and judge for themselves if your idea is valid or invalid. I mean, if I posit the idea of a "draconecrotechmancer" class, a class that brings dragons back from the dead by using technology, people would ask questions like "what would be the lore behind it" and "what races could be that class" and "what would be its gameplay", me saying "Blizzard can figure those out" is a cop-out answer, because they'd be asking me those questions, not Blizzard.

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.

If you can't fathom *How* I could be President, is that my fault? Is that my problem? No. You can always ask me, but it's not my responsibility to give you any answer that suits you, because ultimately it's an expression of my opinion. It has nothing to do with satisfying you or anyone else.

Someone *choosing* to elaborate their position or convince others of the opinion is doing so at their own will, not as a responsibility to others. It's because I *want* to persuade you to understand my argument that I elaborate my opinion, not because it's required of me.

If you want to dismiss a Draconecrotechmancer on the basis of that person poorly communicating their opinion, then you are free to do so, but it doesn't *invalidate* that person for making the suggestion or expressing the opinion just because they communicate poorly. That is the context of my explanation here. It's still framed as an opinion.

Then what is the point of discussing ideas, if every single thing can be indisputably supported AND indisputably dismissed at the same time, regardless of lore and precedent, by invoking the almighty Exodia Blizzard card? "Murlocs should be playable!" "Why?" "Blizzard" "I disagree!" "Why?" "Blizzard".

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.

If you start using lore to dispute it, then indirectly you are invoking Blizzard's written word and making a claim that lore has more power over anyone's subjective opinion. No one would need to invoke 'Blizzard can retcon' if we simply stopped using lore to legitimize any possibility. This is why dismissing happens, because a claim is being presented; that Blizzard lore has power to override suggestions/opinions. Discussion (of playable Murlocs) should regard everything said as an expression of opinion. The whole point of saying "Blizzard can make it happen" is to counter the claim that Blizzard('s lore) can effectively dismiss any suggestion in the first place.

And like I explained above; lore can be manipulated to support any argument because it can be interpreted subjectively. All in all, it's pointless given that the lore is used to explain what happens, not used to decide what should or should not happen. If you don't like Murlocs being discussed, then express it as an opinion. There is absolutely no reason to bring lore into the discussion unless it is to support a particular argument, but never to dismiss it.

Opinions can not be dismissed. Any use of lore to substantiate an opinion CAN be dismissed, because it is reaching beyond the realm of opinion and being applied as a form of 'universal truth' (but it is not truth at all, it is purely fiction). If someone suggested a Purple Dragonflight, you can't use lore to dismiss this notion. Lore is not a truth, and claiming it to be is simply a fallacy because lore does not define what should or should not be. Even if lore specifically states Red Dragons are simply incompatible with Blue Dragons period, it is not actually preventing Purple Dragons from existing, because the fiction can always be updated, changed, or be explained with some other means of creating Purple Dragons. Lore can not define whether something should or should not exist, lore can not be used to deny something from existing. It is merely one person's opinion whether it should or should not exist.

[Sagenod]

If they just give the Void Elves the option to have their hairstyles without void tendrils this problem will be solved once and for all. After that, forget about legitimacy from a gameplay perspective, be satisfied with aesthetic options and use your head-canon.

"If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck... It's duck."