Possibly a warcrime too but I think all the concerned parties would probably be dead.
You have absolutely no self awareness, do you? You don’t realize just how insufferably obnoxious and snobbish your post is. Like you are some sort of “Lore Royalty” and get to decide who is and isn’t right.
You don’t run anything here buddy aside from your mouth.
Here’s a reality check for you, it doesn’t matter if you approve or disapprove of this decision. Blizzard is going to put gameplay first and make warlocks canon for all playable races. They will come up with whatever lore explanation for why it’s happened and that will be the end of that.
2 Likes
And i mean, its not as if I brought anything other that was already stated in the game:
- Warlock practices involve spells that aren’t necessarily related to Fel. And I sourced it with a canon novel.
- Warlock practices corrupt, even if its user isn’t tapping Fel directly. Again, I sourced it with a canon novel.
- Warlock spells are but a perversion of other powers. This, I didn’t source directly but could if anyone asked, by referencing not one but two different quotes from different novels. Specially regarding the usage of Fire, and Shamans.
Baalsamael pointed at the Black Harvest bits that showcased the fact that several Warlocks took their power from certain realms (Firelands, Old Gods, etc.). And I acknowledge that’s true. It certainly is.
But the thing is, and I refer again to the 3 predicaments I mentioned above, that this does not mean that they are using the unadulterated source.
I’ve quoted some examples of this, but we have plenty more both ingame and in novels.
If the source were the same and the spells were indeed the same, the narrative impact would’ve been mirrored. But it wasn’t
We didn’t have Shadowmoon Valley corrupted by Ner’zhuls casters.
We didn’t have Gorgrond turned into Hellfire Peninsula because of Blackhand’s Dark Shaman.
So again, I’ll refer to the examples quoted: There is an obvious differentiation between the spells a Warlock casts, and those of the rest of classes. Even if the power source is the same.
And it’s THAT difference, the one the Mag’har should need to avoid in order to have playable and narrative coherent, “Warlocks”.
As I quoted above, Fel isn’t the only source of corruption a Warlock is apparently exposed to.
There is an explicit example of a young shaman called Ghun, that was gradually corrupting himself even when he was casting Affliction spells. See my post above.
And again, sorry to insist, but a Corrupted Mag’har is an oxymoron.
I’d say probably no.
Those Draenei that got roasted in the novel bit I quoted, didn’t turn Man’ari halfway through the process.
EDIT:
I’m sorry to jump in here, but the first person that started going down that line wasn’t Carhagen.
Even if I don’t really mind (this is a frigging videogame for god’s sake), it was Baalsamael who directed this bit towards me:
Sorry but even if I don’t take special offence in comments as those, going on said tone with someone simply because they do not agree with you seem far more approximate to the sort of description you are giving.
And yet, I’d ask to keep things friendly.
1 Like
There you go. Fixed it.
So…they start using a variant of the Warlock spells that avoids its corruption.
That was the exact alternative I gave in my other post:
I’m just going to remind people like gerwin and carhagen, who insist lore is lore and is set in stone, that the lore is malleable, it will change when the new combinations come out and you guys are fighting over lore that blizz themselves barely care about or can keep straight
I don’t understand your parable of the draenei who gives up being lightforged. Why do you consider the fact ex ante? The fact is ex post, by definition.
Every lightforged draenei is a draenei who has performed the ritual. This scenario of yours is merely hypothetical, and should not be part of the discussion. I understand you use it for rhetorical reasons. But the empirical fact is that we will have a draenei that has performed the ritual of becoming lightforged and will subsequently become a warlock.
This means and is quite visible that there are no warlocks who performed the lightforged ritual, but that there is someone who was not a warlock and later after performing the lightforged ritual became a warlock.
So I ask you what rhetorical exercise are you practicing here?
If a class that channels magic has greater power to impact the environment, what’s the point of having a class that are forged?
Why does a warlock have greater corrupting power than a demon hunter? If the first uses fel through contracts with demons and the second is literally a demon?
Why does the lore contradict itself since Maiev and the wardens were exposed for a long time to demon hunters, working closely with them and they were not affected by the fel?
The whole narrative of demon hunters is that they are by definition the most powerful class when it comes to fel utilization. They are forged in fel and have the souls of demons within them.
Why do warlocks corrupt more than demon hunters? Since the logic is that if you are a being that emanates fel, since demon hunters literally have auras of immolation coming from the fel.
Demon hunters can have their inner demons take over at any time, and in the process they can go berserk and kill everyone in front of them. And yet they are less corrupting than warlocks?
The lore gives ample indications of contradiction. And using these novels from 15 years ago is not enough to build a logical narrative that accounts for recent events. I challenge anyone here to prove that warlocks are more corrupting to the environment than demon hunters. And the truth is, they are not.
And if that goes for demon hunters, why not for warlocks? And why should modern-day warlocks be considered individuals who operate with the same level of disregard for others as warlocks of the old Horde who were literally slaves to the legion?
The magic practiced by warlocks of the old Horde was primitive, they were novices in the use of fel. Contact with fel today in orc culture is more than 40 years old. Things are totally different.
And since you want to discuss fel, then discuss all classes that use fel. And talking about fel without mentioning demon hunters is something that makes no sense. Because it’s the same as talking about the light citing only priests and leaving paladins out of the equation.
I never said Lore was set in stone.
I know that lore may change at any time, and I’m the first one to acknowledge the fact that Blizzard’s writing still is flimsy at best.
But that doesn’t mean I cannot point at the obvious lines that are currently in place, or debate by taking into consideration what its current version is.
The route of “everything can change at some point” is some strange way to argue about any story.
Of course everything can change. But in order to debate things, we firstly must take them as they are.
Orcs could sprout wings and turn purple at any given moment Blizzard wills it. That doesn’t mean we are to factor it as an inmediate possibility when discussing their future lore development.
As I mentioned earlier, and here I can only speak for myself, I’ve tried to keep it as civic as possible.
I tried explaining, sourcing and clarifying on the takes I have, as well as my proposals for them.
I’m not invested enough in the story of a videogame to fight anyone over it.
But given this is a debate forum, I’ll still give my point of view regarding any subject I’m interested in.
Again I repeat, just because I disagree with you, it doesn’t mean I’m trying to attack anyone.
PS: For the record here, and even if i loath doing this, I’m not the one going at it with some nasty viciousness that hurls personal insults at those that have a different opinion than mine.
1 Like
It was a way to explain the factions based around ideological aspects instead of racial ones.
And how a particular mindset, event, or cultural trait, may define their members.
In the LF Draenei scenario I mentioned, I was subtracting the defining trait that is the core of their faction. And I was asking you if you consider that if by doing so, the individual involved would still be considered part of them or not.
I asked that because the same applies to the Mag’har.
Only in their case, the “core” trait is the fact that they are Uncorrupted.
If you transform the “Uncorrupted” into the “Corrupted”, it can no longer be considered “Mag’har”.
If you want another example, this time ex post, ask yourself this:
If Alleria found a way to revert the Void Corruption that affected some of the Blood Elves that were working with Umbric and turn them back to normal, would they still be considered part of the Void Elf faction?
If you want to debate or counter said argument, I’d say that the appropriate thing would be to bring an equally canon source that rebuked it.
I’m sorry, but the story is faulty as is, without having to take as canon, any given interpretation any player has.
And my point there wasn’t really that strange or far fetched.
We have proof of other casters using said sources of power without corrupting anything, and we also have examples of Warlocks using a similar source of power, but causing corruption instead. So the conclusion is that there are additional elements regarding the warlock way of employing said magic, that causes corruption.
And this conclusion isn’t something I’ve come up with.
As lore has repeatedly stated (and I don’t need to go to a novel from 15 years ago to prove it if necessary ), its the cornerstone that marks the difference between Shaman and Warlock with the calling of the fire element for example.
Do you think the blood elves would take them back? After they’ve fought them? After they put the entire society at risk of contamination by void entities? What guarantees that they wouldn’t do it again?
I very much doubt they could be anything other than void elfs regardless of not being forged in void anymore. Because in this specific case that you use as an example, their affiliation as a void elf would be something imposed by the blood elves themselves.
And do you have any canon sources that say warlocks are more corrupting than demon hunters?
I’ve already issued the challenge, and I hope someone tells me otherwise. The point here is that your argument is not canonical for the simple reason that no race would tolerate warlocks if they had the degree of corruption that old Horde warlocks did.
And this is self evident. The warlocks of today are not the warlocks of the old Horde. In the same way we can infer that even demon hunters being much more powerful than warlocks have developed a way of not corrupting those around them.
The point that I am raising here and that you have to understand is that if this applies to warlocks, it must, by extension, apply to the class that occupies a higher hierarchy than warlocks in the use of fel.
And my question is very simple, why does this apply to a mere caster and not just apply to a class that is a demon lord? There can only be one explanation, both warlocks and demon hunters have developed ways to make the use of fel less harmful to the ecosystem.
And this is not interpretation. That’s the lore. And that points to the fact that the lore is either contradictory, or that it has advanced and that seems to be the case and you’re using a reference that isn’t valid.
For if it is valid, all warlocks and demon hunters would be killed by both factions, as no one would tolerate them. Just like the blood elves didn’t tolerate the void elves.
There are countless ways to perform rituals, there are careful ways and there are completely inconsequential ways. In the case of void elfs we saw an example of the inconsequential use of void. In the case of the demon hunter we saw a case of the responsible use of fel.
The only thing that separates warlocks from demon hunters in this case is the fact that despite being a recent class they have much more lore that works on these aspects than warlocks. But the truth is that we can use demon hunter lore to explain warlock lore by extension, while warlock lore does not expand.
That’s really beyond the point I was making.
I was simply asking if, once that happened, would you still consider them “Void Elves” or not.
There is obviously an infinite amount of possibilities to be had once the hypothetical event happens. Ceasing to be a Void elf doesn’t mean all your other traits go away. And the story could move from that point in any given direction.
But I was talking specifically about said Void trait.
This is the official definition for Void Elves (Official World of Warcraft page):
Void elves (or ren’dorei, “children of the Void” in Thalassian) are a race of Void-infused elves affiliated with the Alliance.
And I was asking you, to consider the consequences of removing the Void-infusing bit.
Would said individual still be considered a Ren’dorei or not?
Must say that I don’t fully understand the point you are trying to make with DH.
Sorry, but english isn’t my first language, so I’d appreciate if you could clarify better what you are trying to explain. 
Just to answer some of the bits I think I understood:
- I think that Warlock indeed corrupt more than DH, if only because their narrative is built around the fact that they suck the energy of the world around them, will tapping into a corrupted form of other otherworldly powers to do such. Demon Hunters take said energies into them, and trap them within their own bodies with Runes they carve on their skin. Casters are rare amongst their kind, and the spells that would impact their surroundings are very limited, so I’d say their impact on the rest would be less than that of a Warlock.
- I think that if the Warlock practices were as spread as they were back with the Old Horde, yes, factions would instantly start prosecuting them. Because as seen with MU Draenor, when you have an entire species leeching from the home planet, the planet ends up dying. Warlocks are accepted nowadays because they aren’t as widespread as they were with the Old Horde.
- Even if the individual warlock performed the ritual or spell in a careful way, so as to not affect anyone else, that would still leave a mark in said individual. It would still taint him, however subtly might that be. Of this, we’ve had examples in novels (as the one I quoted), and far more recent examples like Shinfel that got an entire arm corrupted by the usage of Affliction spells (her own and Cho’galls), or Zelifrax/Zelfrax, a gnome that went insane after tapping into the Twisting Nether to subdue a Pitlord if I remember correctly (his second attempt got him killed).
Again, please correct me if I’m wrong or if I missed something.
Your post is unnecessary and rude.
If all you’re going to do is swing in and try to start fights, then I have no interest in engaging with you. Goodbye.
Funny thing is I never said it was set in stone either.
I’ve argued for more class/race combinations plenty of times. I would also love if Blizzard went and created ‘Prestige Classes’ as a form of alternate progression and created lore for classes like the Lightslayer, Primal, Blademaster etc.
But it’s one thing to be malleable and bend the lore a little just to allow something new. It’s another thing to take the lore, torch it in a furnace, throw the ashes in a dark hole and then piss on the remains, which is what I feel Blizzard is doing here.
2 Likes
Wouldn’t go as far as that 
But certainly, with this new approach they are having, they are consistently straining against the established lines they created themselves for the narrative and racial fantasy of some of their factions.
Does this mean that I consider said principles to be immutable or set in stone? Not at all.
But in order to adjust them, the change must be gradual, and with care.
With these new combos, Blizzard seems to be putting the cart before the horses for the sake of appealing players on a gameplay level.
And yeah, throwing these into the mix and expecting players to “figure it out” makes for some sloppy narrative approach.
As a writer you are basically admitting that you are to lazy to actually do the job you are paid to do, and that players care more about the story than you.
2 Likes
I mean they might as well make the evoker class be open for all races as well at this point, I mean it would make no sense and would completely destroy any reason to play a dracthyr but hey who cares right if we get more options.
1 Like
I honestly expect this to happen at some point.
As soon as the departments involving in animation and other gameplay aspects, come up with the casting poses for the rest of races.
And I’ll repeat, that I wouldn’t mind it if the writers actually bothered giving it plausible reasons.
But if these combinations are of any indicative, they couldn’t be bothered to do such.
There is a different discussion to be had, regarding how the fantasy of certain classes and races are at odds.
Not a fan of the “Everything is possible”, and the “But these would be the outliers”. Because in the long run, I think that these would gradually erode the standardised themes of both race and class, as the “outliers” turn towards being the norm.
1 Like
I mean unless they became warlocks because of Yrel …
Y’know to spite her & all. 
1 Like
Becoming warlocks to spite Yrel is like burning down your house to stop birds nesting in the roof.
1 Like
No its not… Its like voting for political candidate A because you really don’t like political candidate B. And the USA has seen this happen twice now.
Voting for a political candidate doesn’t corrupt your body and turn you into the very thing you were extremely proud to fight against though…
I think that’s the point Thadeus was making.
Corrupting themselves and becoming the very thing they fought against, just to spite Yrel would be like torching your own home to spite birds in the roof (or because you saw a spider and wanted to nope it, which oddly enough that has happened, people have accidently burned down their homes are trying to use a flamethrower to kill a spider).
1 Like