If they got rid of all their own swords, do you think they’d run a lesser risk of being run through with a sword, or a greater risk?
Warlocks are a thing. There’s no going back. If you don’t know how to combat them, someone else will definately use them to defeat you. And they will drain your soul.
Yes, from War Crimes.
Dude what? Why?
War Crimes isn’t the only Golden Book where Alliance warlocks are brought up. Here’s Tides of War;
It was always uneasy when those who worked with demons were pressed into service for the good of the Alliance, but they had certain spells—and certain creatures in thrall—whose efficacy was undeniable.
So, the Alliance both tolerates warlocks using fel as well as their enslaved demons. This was written from Varian’s PoV, btw. Wrynn strangely seemed to be okay pressing warlocks into service in times of war.
After Broken Shore, warlock players are told that she doesn’t trust us.
Hilariously, there was a bug and every Horde player saw this comment, leading to widespread confusion and many Horde players thinking the new Warchief didn’t trust any of the Horde players. It was funny and kinda sad. We did some damage control on the Story Forum.
Actually, speaking of unique Warlock-faction leader lines, Velen has one unique line towards warlock players during the Battle of the Exodar. When you, Ritssyn and Cladyus show up to help Velen, he comments that “Well this is awkward.” Honestly highlight of the battle for me.
Though, I believe he also says that regardless of class if you take too long to attack Rakeesh, but he says it straight away for warlocks. Don’t quote me on that, I’ve only seen it on my warlock when Ritssyn showed up.
Thrall at best tolerated warlocks. Garrosh at worst murdered the trainers. We never learned what Vol’jin thought of them. Sylvanas apparently hates them.
It’s weird how the Alliance seems more tolerant.
From what I understand, before Gnomeregan fell, it actually allowed the training of warlocks and they didn’t have to hide themselves away like the Stormwind warlocks did.
I suppose to the gnomes, fel is just another magic source. But it’s interesting that there was an Alliance city pre-Third War that allowed the practice of warlockism. This, to me, shows that warlocks have existed in the Alliance for quite some time.
That’s…something, alright. Thanks.
What a strange thing to add.
This will entirely depend on your moral system. I’m fine as long as they are stealing the souls of select individuals. I also don’t see any magic as inherently evil.
Look, they’re already violently opposed to us on these ridiculous “moral grounds”. Making ourselves seem weaker won’t protect us from getting ousted. We need to take the protection angle. “That’s a nice shiny soul you’ve got there. It would be a shame if anything were to happen to ir. Y’know, along with the souls of everyone else you’ve ever loved.”
Sylvanas didn’t hate us. She just didn’t trust us as far as she could spit. Which was understandable considering Azeroth was facing a Legion invasion at the time.
To quote one of my favorite childhood games, Stars War: Jedi Academy, “Remember, abilities are not inherently good or evil, it’s how you use them.”
Yeah, but Luke later went back on that opinion. At the time, in the EU, it was assumed that the balance was between Light/Dark.
When it became apparent that the balance was actually the Light Side and the Dark was the imbalance, the EU authors had Luke backtrack on allowing dark side abilities to be used, with Luke realising he was wrong.
I mean, it’s really just nitpicking in a way. But The whole balance thing is confusing for many people. George Lucas says he means one thing, then says another, and the new Disney Canon thrown into the mix, it’s all confused over.
I spent an entire expansion with a staff of pure arcane power that demanded I drain the magic out of everything and destroy all my enemies.
So… I’m fine with warlocks. Seems like we all got baggage.
Aluneth: They seek to control us, to check our power. Do not allow it.
All magic represents danger, even arcane magic can addict and corrupt. The problem with Fel is not just playing around with souls but the fact it has a considerably higher chance to corrupt the user than Arcane have.
But I think people are more tolerant cause, specially now with Legion where Warlocks and Demon Hunters played a huge part on the war against demons, people are realizing that Fel can be controlled by a will strong enough to do it.
But even with this, I think most people would be wary with warlocks around, specially those whose people suffered heavily from it like orcs, humans, night elves and draenei.
Eh, I stand by the quote in general as a good principle that its not the powers that makes someone good or evil, even if the source of it has been contradicted in future entries.
Though from the sounds of it, it’s just the Star Wars EU being the Star Wars EU and course correcting, because I’d bet a pretty pile of gold coins that it wasn’t perceived as wrong by the writers back during the timestamp on that quote. Kinda a shame though, I’m personally on board with the idea that even (select) Sith can use their powers for some good (though given the general nature of the Sith, that’d be understandably rare).
Sith can do good if they so desired. While the Darkside was naturally corrupting, if you weren’t able to do good, then no Sith could ever find redemption. It’s just the Darkside itself is a corrupting force. It’s like trying to strike a diet balance of healthy and unhealthy food. I mean yeah you can do that, but unhealthy food is still bad for you even if you also eat healthy food.
But yes, early on, there were many misunderstandings about Star Wars. At the time of Academy, episodes 1,2,4,5,6 were out, just episode 3 was missing.
A common continuity error that was done before Attack of the Clones came out was the idea that the clones were the enemy in the Clone Wars.
Another is the idea that there is a balance between the Light and Dark. Lucas said the Darkside was the corruption and the Light the balance way back in 2001, before Episode II or III came out, but this mistake kept being repeated. The movies clearly didn’t make it clear that was Lucas’ intention.
I think it’s important to note that morality may be relative, but for your sense of morality to survive you have to be willing to fight for it and argue against the morality of others. It’s logical for a person with a sense of morality to consider those that have a vastly different set of morals as being immoral and a threat to their sense of morality. To do otherwise would just make them amoral. If you are amoral then you won’t critique the morality of others. You would logically critique them for having a sense of morality, but the aspect of their morality itself is irrelevant to the amoral person unless it’s being used to hinder their actions.
TLDR: Saying morality is relative isn’t an argument against the value of a set of morals or morality in itself, it’s just a factual statement that is irrelevant to someone with a sense of morality. It’s like saying that the months of the year are a social construct. That’s a fact, but it doesn’t devalue the existence of said construct.
From a narrative perspective, giving individuals and societies a different sets of morals can lead to a very interesting dynamic as well as a means to explore the philosophies and behaviors that can be borne from those differences. This is doubly if you extend the exploration to real life stances on morals that are heavily contested, but there are morals in real life that are pretty universally accepted. Not murdering, not stealing, don’t be a racist (even if there are disagreements on what is racism), don’t commit genocide. Exploring those notions as anything other than something that should be rejected is going to be unpleasing to most of the player base and might even attract individuals and groups that are toxic to the rest of the community.
Now, Felmancy like Necromancy do not fall under the scope of any real world definitions of morality because neither is even possible in the real world. Some religious fanatics might believe them to be real and possible, and might even heavily frown on both if they were real, but they aren’t, so exploring both forms of magic and the moral implications of them within the narrative is just interesting and fun.
No it’s completely subjective, your morality doesn’t apply to me because I don’t agree with or follow your code. As far as I’m concerned either you’re with me or you’re fuel for my spells. The stakes are too high. I could care less about sylvanas and this artificial war. I have old gods and the resurgent shadow council to thwart. So… are you going to quibble about how I do my magic? Or are you going to die like the rest when the real enemy emerges? When it’s all over I’ll disappear back into the shadows where I belong. But the dead are just there for the deathknights to raise as minions.
Yeah, I had no idea of this at all. Very interesting. It always come off to me that the Dark Side was passion and the Light Side side tranquility.
Warlocks are pillars of the Dark Irons, forsaken and Nightborne.
The dark Irons use warlock’s chaos magic to torture the elements into obeying them. Their Dark shaman would not be able to exist without Warlocks.
The Nightborne and Forsaken will never again allow themselves to be pawns of the Legion and will learn how to assure this never happens again.
This is always the impression I had as well.
The problem is that Jedi, as they are typically presented, rarely come off as “balanced.” They seem… repressed, uptight, overly reserved. I don’t look at that and think “Yes, this is a person who has achieved balance” so much as “This person is too far to one side and needs to be balanced out.”