Official High Elf Discussion Megathread

[Syegfryed]

Sooooooo a blood elf demonhunter is actually a mutated blood elf with horns and wings. Last time I checked, that's still a blood elf. So you're utterly wrong on that.

DH change didn't change their racials yet, and this is about a class x race thing, is another subject, blood elves dh are argubly in a state of transition to become full demons

Wether you like it or not, there's a new generation of uncorrupted void elves coming. That's why High elves or to an extend blood elves are now playable on the Alliance.

all of then are still corrupted, they just show less, they still pop up void beyond their own control. Seems like people rly don't want to admit void elves are void elves.

[Vaedan]

Sooooooo a blood elf demonhunter is actually a mutated blood elf with horns and wings. Last time I checked, that's still a blood elf. So you're utterly wrong on that.

Wether you like it or not, there's a new generation of uncorrupted void elves coming. That's why High elves or to an extend blood elves are now playable on the Alliance.

Devs already said they want to give more options to high elf fantasy to both sides. They admited blood elves were the closest, except eye color - and they expand it. With blue eye and hair colors on blood elves, I'd say their high elf features are basically complete. Now it comes to void elves, which got eye and skin colors. I think it's only a matter of time before we see more high elf option on void elves. Lorewise, high elves are with the Alliance for years and it's only good we'll have that option playable.

While blood elves also got that option unlocked, it clearly shows thalassian group are still the same race, differentiated by ideology and politics. Magical alterations does not really seem to matter that much, since blood elves are getting clearly cleansed of their fel taint, so who knows if some void elves could cleanse themselves too?

[Syegfryed]

I'll remind you there is a difference between "playable race" and "actual race

i rly don't care about your arbitary and personal view to separate those things.

No. No, they did not, at all. Tell me, what additional existing player model has been given to the void elves after their implementation?

and now this is your point shifting once again "additional model" , your point was about visual identity being muddled, this can be done with or without models

Can void elves look like anything other than thalassian elves? No? Then your example of void elves is immaterial, since I'm talking about the race's own visual identity. How the playable race looks by itself, and not how it looks in comparison to the others.

they are looking like another race, muddling their own visual identity, again, your point is completely invalid, now you want to arbitrary decide that this does not count because they do not get another "model" despite their visual identity being changed

you try and try, bu you just show again and again you are using double standarts.

You call my argument a "dumb comparison", and yet can't see the fault in your own comparison. The playable void elves' silhouette always looked like thalassian elves. Since their inception. Since going live. The void elves' silhouette never looked like anything other than a thalassian elf. It never looked like a tauren, or orc, or human, or gnome. It always looked like a thalassian elf silhouette.

First of all, void elf "silhouette", was exclusive to the horde, per blood elves, now 2 races of different factions have the same silhouette, then, they change their visual identity to look the same as the horde race, and you are telling me is off limits if a race, who already had undead elves since their creation, cannot have the undead elves playable, because they didn't had before, again, laughable

Whereas giving the blood elf silhouette to the forsaken playable race would completely alter the already established visual identity of the playable race.

you are wrong by thinking visual identity is only about model and not about the skin color too, again, double standards

you are also wrong by thinking just because something is the way it is, it cannot change, void elf visual identiy was already establishedas mutated elves by the void, and they change that

More headcanons stated as fact. How do you know the two abilities "come from different ways"?

jesus, is the same way always with you isn't, one is a ability in their bodies, is a damn racial, the other is magic manipulation from a class, they are different they do different things and act different, stop trying so hard to nittpick your way into this.

- - - Updated - - -

since blood elves are getting clearly cleansed of their fel taint, so who knows if some void elves could cleanse themselves too?

you are comparing a little reaction to their eyes, by being nearby fel energies to a mutation that permanent changed their bodies, reflecting in their racials, there is no cleaning from that, unless you lightforge yourself like the Natherzin.

[elbleuet]

DH change didn't change their racials yet, and this is about a class x race thing, is another subject, blood elves dh are argubly in a state of transition to become full demons

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

all of then are still corrupted, they just show less, they still pop up void beyond their own control. Seems like people rly don't want to admit void elves are void elves.

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


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

you are comparing a little reaction to their eyes, by being nearby fel energies to a mutation that permanent changed their bodies, reflecting in their racials, there is no cleaning from that, unless you lightforge yourself like the Natherzin.

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.

[Vaedan]

you are comparing a little reaction to their eyes, by being nearby fel energies to a mutation that permanent changed their bodies, reflecting in their racials, there is no cleaning from that, unless you lightforge yourself like the Natherzin.

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.

The trend we see now is for void elves to get more non-corrupted visuals and devs already told us they intend to do more of this in the future. If that happens, it may be followed by a new lore.

[Ielenia]

If it's unexplained then it doesn't need to be explained. I mean, Undead Elves don't even need to be tied to the Banshee at all in Lordaeron. Like I said, there's zero explanation about Sand Trolls within the Darkspear Tribe yet here we are. Blizzard doesn't really give a shit about it, and honestly neither should we if they are forsaking such lore.

There's a difference between mundane claims and extraordinary claims. A Sandfury troll joining the Darkspears is a mundane claim because we know Sandfury trolls exist, and that switching allegiances can happen, as we've seen not only both happening individually, but also repeatedly throughout the course of Warcraft, whereas a banshee retaking their dead bodies is something we've only seen once, despite the rather abundance of banshees around.

But you're right in the sense that undead blood elves could come from a different source. I imagine the Ghostlands is full of those dead elves. I merely use the banshee example because people point at how Sylvanas is a "different type of undead", etc.

- - - Updated - - -

i rly don't care about your arbitary and personal view to separate those things.

It's neither "arbitrary" nor "personal". It's factual. There is a real difference between "playable race" and "actual race", and it won't go away no matter how much you try to ignore it. I'll remind you: humans and worgen are separate playable races, while in reality they are the exact same race.

and now this is your point shifting once again "additional model" , your point was about visual identity being muddled, this can be done with or without models

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

That's not the issue. The issue is that this completely changes the character's silhouette and model. It has nothing to do with "amount of work required" and more like messing with the visual identity of the player race. That's like saying we should give player customization to the human race to make them as short and as bulky as the dwarves. Or make orcs be able to be taller and much lankier like trolls.

Sand trolls do not alter the visual identity of the trolls. They still possess the same exact silhouette. In other words: a troll is still a troll

So you make a question talking about "human models to the forsaken" to which I respond to with an answer about the human model to the fosaken, and you dishonestly respond to my argument with a "blood elf model to the forsaken" argument. Really? And no, because it muddles the visual identity of the playable race. Forsaken have a defined silhouette.

It's not double-standards. You failing to understand my argument does not make my argument fallacious. This has nothing to do with using another race's skin color, and everything to do with having more than one silhouette for the race. It doesn't matter that the nightborne look like night elves. It doesn't matter that void elves look like blood elves. Because I'm not talking about two separate races sharing a silhouette. I'm talking about a race's OWN INDIVIDUAL VISUAL IDENTITY in the form of their own silhoettes. Each race has their own silhouette.

The problem comes with muddling the visual identity of the playable race, as being a "straight back, pale, red-eyed blood elf" is a complete departure of the race's already established silhouette.

Whereas giving a carbon copy of the blood elf's silhouette to the forsaken would completely break the playable race's visual identiy because it'll no longer look like a forsaken, instead it'll look like a blood elf. Permanently.

Your idea then falls into the third item in the list you quoted. The forsaken playable race has a fixed identity, of a hunched human zombie. Being anything other than that messes with the playable race's visual identity.

Whereas giving the blood elf silhouette to the forsaken playable race would completely alter the already established visual identity of the playable race.

they are looking like another race, muddling their own visual identity, again, your point is completely invalid,

Irrelevant, because I'm not talking about two races sharing similar silhouettes. That was never my point, no matter how many times you try to insist it was. 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.

First of all, void elf "silhouette", was exclusive to the horde,

Irrelevant, because I'm not talking about two races sharing similar silhouettes. That was never my point, no matter how many times you try to insist it was. 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 blood elves and void elves have the same silhouette because both are thalassian elves.

you are wrong by thinking visual identity is only about model and not about the skin color too, again, double standards

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.

you are also wrong by thinking just because something is the way it is, it cannot change, void elf visual identiy was already establishedas mutated elves by the void, and they change that

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.

jesus, is the same way always with you isn't, one is a ability in their bodies, is a damn racial, the other is magic manipulation from a class,

And those are game mechanic features which means they're not necessarily lore-based.

they are different they do different things and act different, stop trying so hard to nittpick your way into this.

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?

[Triceron]

There's a difference between mundane claims and extraordinary claims. A Sandfury troll joining the Darkspears is a mundane claim because we know Sandfury trolls exist, and that switching allegiances can happen, as we've seen not only both happening individually, but also repeatedly throughout the course of Warcraft, whereas a banshee retaking their dead bodies is something we've only seen once, despite the rather abundance of banshees around.

But you're right in the sense that undead blood elves could come from a different source. I imagine the Ghostlands is full of those dead elves. I merely use the banshee example because people point at how Sylvanas is a "different type of undead", etc.

It's not a claim, it's bringing up a potential open thread that can be used to explain a certain outcome.

And besides, mundane and outrageous is absolutely subjective. For example, I consider Blood Elves joining the Horde to be extraordinary. In retrospect, should we really consider Garithos to be the primary reason to distrust the Alliance when the Horde literally slaughtered the Elves wholesale, and the Blood Elves bearing more emnity against the entire Alliance just because of one racist commander while absolving all hatred of the Horde that slaughtered their people because this new leader seems to be an okay dude? At the end of the day it doesn't matter because Blizzard fully explained how and why it happened, stemming all the way back to Garithos' treatment towards the Elves and adding to it with Kael'thas' own betrayal of his people.

As extraordinary as I would consider this, Blizzard has made it completely mundane to the point where you can't even disassociate Blood Elves from the Horde any more. They go together like peanut butter and jelly.

If Blizzard does go the full mile and explain that all Dark Rangers went through the same Banshee-body-retrieval process then they'll do it in a way that makes you never think twice about it having been considered extraordinary in the first place. That's how they've approached all the lore, retcons and all. Look at the whole 'Demons only truly die in Twisting Nether' lore they inserted. There was HUGE blowback against that, but today it's well accepted as just another tidbit of lore.

[Ielenia]

It's not a claim, it's bringing up a potential open thread that can be used to explain a certain outcome.

It's all claims about possibilities, yes. I pretty much agree with the rest, other than what you wrote by the end. As I always said, using what Blizzard could do is not exactly a strong argument since we're not Blizzard, and if we want to claim something as a possibility we need to work with what's currently present in the lore and in the game for us, and not what could be "if Blizzard decides to retcon this or that".

[Triceron]

It's all claims about possibilities, yes. I pretty much agree with the rest, other than what you wrote by the end. As I always said, using what Blizzard could do is not exactly a strong argument since we're not Blizzard, and if we want to claim something as a possibility we need to work with what's currently present in the lore and in the game for us, and not what could be "if Blizzard decides to retcon this or that".

I beg to differ.

If we use what is already in lore then you could not possibly fathom something like Blood Elves joining the Horde or Draenei being revealed as blue-skin space goats that were pregenitors to the demonic variant of Eredar. I don't think possibility is restricted to the confines of existing lore whatsoever. Realistically speaking, you would never be able to reach these conclusions given that the lore limits what you should be thinking, because it's intentionally ill-explained and designed to with-hold information from the player.

Look at all the lore we're getting today with the Jailor and Nathrezim regarding the Lich King. That is not something that could be thought of if we simply stick to lore to reach any conclusion. The lore simply said the Lich King is Arthas and his will alone; now we are being open to the possibility that the Jailor is the one who influenced Arthas. The lore painted a picture where Arthas was absolutely irredeemable, but Shadowlands now paints a different picture showing how it may be possible that even Uther made a mistake by throwing Arthas into the Maw without proper judgement. It's stuff like this that you would only be able to come up with if you aren't tied down to thinking about lore. You have to be free of existing lore bias to ask those questions like 'What if Arthas was being manipulated all this time?' or 'What if he was redeemable?' despite what the existing lore tells you. And let's be clear, existing lore was absolutely clear who was in control; it was Arthas alone and the devs made no mistake in making sure everyone knew he was in control of his own actions in the lore.

The fact that Blizzard retcons shit is more reason to think out of the box.

[Ielenia]

I beg to differ.

If we use what is already in lore then you could not possibly fathom something like Blood Elves joining the Horde or Draenei being revealed as blue-skin space goats that were pregenitors to the demonic variant of Eredar. I don't think possibility is restricted to the confines of existing lore whatsoever. Realistically speaking, you would never be able to reach these conclusions given that the lore limits what you should be thinking, because it's intentionally ill-explained and designed to with-hold information from the player.

While I agree that we couldn't imagine the draenei as they are currently realized, since they are actually a retcon, or the blood elves joining the Horde, it doesn't change what I said: if we are to offer alternate possibilities, we have to adhere as to what the lore currently is. Any argument that depends on Blizzard retconing existing lore to match their ideas is a weak argument. It has as much value as me saying that Blizzard could one day retcon Titans from being massive, planet-sized beings into being just average human-sized so they could become a playable race. Or suddenly completely retcon the lore to remove gnomes and forsaken from being a playable race and making blood elves Alliance, and night elves Horde.

Look at all the lore we're getting today with the Jailor and Nathrezim regarding the Lich King. That is not something that could be thought of if we simply stick to lore to reach any conclusion. The lore simply said the Lich King is Arthas and his will alone; now we are being open to the possibility that the Jailor is the one who influenced Arthas. The lore painted a picture where Arthas was absolutely irredeemable, but Shadowlands now paints a different picture showing how it may be possible that even Uther made a mistake by throwing Arthas into the Maw without proper judgement. It's stuff like this that you would only be able to come up with if you aren't tied down to thinking about lore. You have to be free of existing lore bias to ask those questions like 'What if Arthas was being manipulated all this time?' or 'What if he was redeemable?' despite what the existing lore tells you. And let's be clear, existing lore was absolutely clear who was in control; it was Arthas alone and the devs made no mistake in making sure everyone knew he was in control of his own actions in the lore.

And all this is happening because it's Blizzard and it's their lore and they're allowed to retcon and/or add/remove things from it as they see fit. If anyone in this forum came up with such an idea, we'd all be piling up to point out the inconsistencies with the lore and how it would require retcons to make that idea work, etc.

Also, I disagree that the lore said that the Lich King's will was Arthas' and his own alone. I had this feeling that Arthas was not in full control of himself ever since I first killed him way back in Wrath, and he uttered the lines "father, is it... over?" before finally dying, as well as how... loving King Terenas was toward his dying son. Yes, he's Arthas' father, but if the Lich King was Arthas' will, that means Arthas was indeed evil, and I have a hard time believing a father would still act like that when your son is a vicious mass killer who desecrates the rest of the dead.

The fact that Blizzard retcons shit is more reason to think out of the box.

Again, I disagree, because we're not Blizzard. There is a difference between "thinking out of the box" and "tearing down the box and making it into a paper airplane".

[Traycor]

The trend we see now is for void elves to get more non-corrupted visuals and devs already told us they intend to do more of this in the future. If that happens, it may be followed by a new lore.

Very astute point based on blood elf historical evidence.

[Triceron]

While I agree that we couldn't imagine the draenei as they are currently realized, since they are actually a retcon, or the blood elves joining the Horde, it doesn't change what I said: if we are to offer alternate possibilities, we have to adhere as to what the lore currently is. Any argument that depends on Blizzard retconing existing lore to match their ideas is a weak argument.

When it comes to any type of suggestion for the game, there is no such thing as a strong argument based on lore. You can't use lore as the limit because that's not how it works. Either you like it or you don't like it, there is no such thing as strong argument or weak argument.

If I said Tauren should branch out towards adopting the power of Shadowlands-brand Undeath that befits modern lore that branches beyond their conservative culture which prevents them exploring extreme 'dark' powers, then that's simply an argument one can make. Whether it is weak or strong is up to you individually to decide. We could brand this as tapping into the power of the Ancestors and brand this subculture/power similarly to the Revenant class in GW2, which taps into the spiritual power of long-dead heroes. Yet if you look at Tauren lore right now, there's nothing to say they would ever embrace such powers of undeath willingly, only that they have a passing connection to the Spirits and Ancestors through the Spirit Walker unit; an otherwise Shaman-specific bit of lore. There is no weak or strong argument here if we're talking about ideas that are out of the box, there's only individual subjectivity defining whether you would be willing to accept it or not. You would be using your subjective judgement to consider this as a strong or weak argument.

I mean what if I were to suggest a Dragonsworn class that is lead by Wrathion. There is no lore to suggest this would ever happen, no lore that would support such a case. So should we simply not ever talk about it because there is no precedent for a Dragonsworn class lead by Wrathion? Or that we can't talk about Dragonsworn at all because none formally exist in Warcraft lore?

And all this is happening because it's Blizzard and it's their lore and they're allowed to retcon and/or add/remove things from it as they see fit. If anyone in this forum came up with such an idea, we'd all be piling up to point out the inconsistencies with the lore and how it would require retcons to make that idea work, etc.

That sounds like a problem specific to you, not to Blizzard. We're talking in a discussion forum, so obviously Blizzard doesn't have to do anything about anything.

Again, I disagree, because we're not Blizzard. There is a difference between "thinking out of the box" and "tearing down the box and making it into a paper airplane".

Why? We're not Blizzard so we CAN make these suggestions, CAN come up with ideas and discuss it all. Otherwise, what is the point of coming to forums to discuss? You might as well stay in the Lore subforum and avoid every suggestion thread.

I don't understand the reason you are putting the lore on a pedestal and defending it as though it's something precious that no one else should alter with their ideas.

[Valandale]

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.

[FossilFree]

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.

Hmm, maybe a preview of upcoming customization options?

[Ielenia]

When it comes to any type of suggestion for the game, there is no such thing as a strong argument based on lore. You can't use lore as the limit because that's not how it works. Either you like it or you don't like it, there is no such thing as strong argument or weak argument.

If I said Tauren should branch out towards adopting the power of Shadowlands-brand Undeath that befits modern lore that branches beyond their conservative culture which prevents them exploring extreme 'dark' powers, then that's simply an argument one can make. Whether it is weak or strong is up to you individually to decide. We could brand this as tapping into the power of the Ancestors and brand this subculture/power similarly to the Revenant class in GW2, which taps into the spiritual power of long-dead heroes. Yet if you look at Tauren lore right now, there's nothing to say they would ever embrace such powers of undeath willingly, only that they have a passing connection to the Spirits and Ancestors through the Spirit Walker unit; an otherwise Shaman-specific bit of lore. There is no weak or strong argument here if we're talking about ideas that are out of the box, there's only individual subjectivity defining whether you would be willing to accept it or not. You would be using your subjective judgement to consider this as a strong or weak argument.

I mean what if I were to suggest a Dragonsworn class that is lead by Wrathion. There is no lore to suggest this would ever happen, no lore that would support such a case. So should we simply not ever talk about it because there is no precedent for a Dragonsworn class lead by Wrathion? Or that we can't talk about Dragonsworn at all because none formally exist in Warcraft lore?

The claims themselves (tauren using Shadowlands powers; dragonsworn class led by Wrathion) are not what are weak or strong. It's the reasoning offered behind such claims that can be weak or strong.

For example, saying that Baine Bloodhoof's soul is trapped within his son's body because we don't see him in the Shadowlands is a weak argument. While saying that Tirion is likely to be redeemed from his actions in the Shadowlands because the guy is a follower of the Light, with a strong sense of justice, and is likely being tricked by someone else is a strong argument to make.

That sounds like a problem specific to you, not to Blizzard. We're talking in a discussion forum, so obviously Blizzard doesn't have to do anything about anything.

That's not the point. The point I'm trying to make here is that we cannot assume Blizzard will retcon stuff so our ideas make sense, regardless of the fact that Blizzard has retconned stuff in the past. I mean, if I said that, after Shadowlands, Blizzard is going to retcon Sylvanas out of the Warcraft franchise and completely reboot and remake the history of the forsaken race... would you call it a valid suggestion?

Why? We're not Blizzard so we CAN make these suggestions, CAN come up with ideas and discuss it all. Otherwise, what is the point of coming to forums to discuss? You might as well stay in the Lore subforum and avoid every suggestion thread.

There is a difference between discussing ideas that are possible within the present lore (whether or not Garrosh's actions were his own or influenced by the Sha of Pride, for example) and ideas that are impossible within the present lore (like saying the Varian that died at the Broken Shore was just a random soldier polymorphed to look like Varian because the real Varian was too much of a chicken to fight the Legion, and is currently hiding somewhere in the Swamp of Sorrows).

I don't understand the reason you are putting the lore on a pedestal and defending it as though it's something precious that no one else should alter with their ideas.

I'm not, though. I'm just saying that "Blizzard can do it" is not a strong argument to make. You should back your arguments with what the lore presents or does not present to us, instead of saying "Blizzard can retcon the lore so anything goes."

[Vaedan]

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.

Hairstyle, haircolor and eye color imply it is a blood elf, but Storm's Wake tabard is indeed confusing.

[Varodoc]

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.

[Triceron]

The claims themselves (tauren using Shadowlands powers; dragonsworn class led by Wrathion) are not what are weak or strong. It's the reasoning offered behind such claims that can be weak or strong.

For example, saying that Baine Bloodhoof's soul is trapped within his son's body because we don't see him in the Shadowlands is a weak argument. While saying that Tirion is likely to be redeemed from his actions in the Shadowlands because the guy is a follower of the Light, with a strong sense of justice, and is likely being tricked by someone else is a strong argument to make.

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.

That's not the point. The point I'm trying to make here is that we cannot assume Blizzard will retcon stuff so our ideas make sense, regardless of the fact that Blizzard has retconned stuff in the past. I mean, if I said that, after Shadowlands, Blizzard is going to retcon Sylvanas out of the Warcraft franchise and completely reboot and remake the history of the forsaken race... would you call it a valid suggestion?

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

If I didn't like Garrosh's character and I vocally suggest that they get rid of him as Warchief, then that's a suggestion that can be made and would not be invalidated by Blizzard having him actively be a Warchief. And Blizzard decidingly does get rid of Garrosh, then that's not validation of a previous suggestion either, it's just what Blizzard decided to do.

A suggestion is an opinion. Judging the validity of an opinion, is also an opinion. You can't invalidate an opinion by using facts (or using your own opinion), because it is an opinion. If someone thinks rain isn't wet, then even if it's factually untrue, it is still their freakin opinion. They can be factually wrong, but their opinion can't be invalid if the context is they're just expressing what they think.

When it comes to discussing lore, there are no real discerning facts to begin with. Lore doesn't really exist. It's like talking about who is more powerful, Goku or Superman; there is no internal consistency to these characters because it doesn't formally exist. They aren't based on facts. The story in Warcraft is not factual, it is complete fiction, and so it becomes a very wavy subject to make any decree on which opinions regarding lore are considered valid and which would be invalid. You can't really regard lore as factual truth, only express your preferences through opinion.

How do you kill a Vampire? Stake through the heart, Garlic, holy water? No. You kill it any way you want because Vampires don't exist.

There is a difference between discussing ideas that are possible within the present lore (whether or not Garrosh's actions were his own or influenced by the Sha of Pride, for example) and ideas that are impossible within the present lore (like saying the Varian that died at the Broken Shore was just a random soldier polymorphed to look like Varian because the real Varian was too much of a chicken to fight the Legion, and is currently hiding somewhere in the Swamp of Sorrows).

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)

I'm not, though. I'm just saying that "Blizzard can do it" is not a strong argument to make. You should back your arguments with what the lore presents or does not present to us, instead of saying "Blizzard can retcon the lore so anything goes."

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.. "Blizzard can do it" is a matter of fact, and is what makes any suggestion absolutely viable. Because Blizzard has shown to break their own rules. Why would you limit people to the rules is Blizzard is actively changing and breaking them at will? You understand how ridiculous that is, right?

[Valandale]

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

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?

[FossilFree]

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.

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.