That is probably because blizzard isnt a racist company.
1 Like
The Roman Emperors were often adopted children not biological
Same goes for other empires
They’ve literally admitted to all this before lmao
16 post alt? C’mon now
1 Like
I 100% agree, I’m kind of just yelling for argument’s sake at this point. This game doesn’t deserve to be in the same category as something like Tell Me Why.
1 Like
1 Like
Tokens are when a character is introduced in the story as the trans character
If Pelagos said “HELLO NEW SOUL I AM PELAGOS AND I AM TRANS” and then proceed to have no relevance to the entire story
This is not tokenization. What we got is not that, and thus is not a token
2 Likes
If Andiun does not have a biological offspring to continue the Wrynn line that hurts the medieval theme story that Stormwind and the human factions have.
This is one of the things that the story should embrace rather than move away from.
1 Like
I dont think you know what the word Token or Tokenization means my friend.
So far you have no proof of anything and are literally throwing out accusations like a lunatic.
2 Likes
We dont know if an adoption would be accepted. Or if the nobles would require a biological hier of noble birth.
My assumption from gens talk and anduin feeling guilty for flirting with a commoner means he is required to sire a biological child with a women of noble birth or high social status (like teallia for example).
But its not really specifically said if adoptions an option or not. Has there been real world kings that where adopted? Since its a fantasy fuedal based society?
I do.
You don’t though.
Stay mad 
That’s not the definition I’ve heard. To be a token they just need to be the minimum possible effort to be inclusive. Whether that takes the form of your example or Pelagos.
2 Likes
.>Emoji
.>mad
ok bruh.
The draenei spaceships and the oil-spewing goblins also hurt the medieval theme but we still have lots of those. Try again.
Also lgbtq people existed in medieval times, again, this is 101 stuff, why am I explaining this to you all who I assume are old enough to type.
2 Likes
Nope. That is not what a token is.
Because when you’re including diversity you have two options
- Make a rounded character that happens to be x
Or - Make a character whose defining characteristic is being x
The latter is tokenization. The former is not. Pelagos is the former.
1 Like
Who the hell is teaching you people critical theory?
1 Like
Look at it this way: they could remove the dialogue option where Pelagos discusses his past life and what does that make him as far as the player knows? A man who was always a man, you have no reason to assume otherwise. It may not be tokenistic by your definition but it is to me.
I can almost guarantee removing that dialogue is exactly what they do in more conservative localizations.
1 Like
“It is only tokenism if it fits this very specific criteria.”
Idk, just sounds like soft transphobia to me. Making a mostly useless character and burying his transness behind pointed action… Market progressivism with a wall of damage control in place. It’s worse than tokenism tbh.
2 Likes
Not even surprised that Baal is a transphobe.
2 Likes
It is not tokenization by any definition. Is it lukewarm or lazy, sure maybe. But it is not a token.
“My definition is the only definition that matters”
Fair enough.
2 Likes