I had forgotten about that. Forgive my haste earlier. I, like many others, blanked out a large portion of BfA from my mind 
They did, but it wasn’t because they shared a domain. It’s probably better to use Akunda and Shango as an example, as they’re both related to storms but on the different sides of what they can do and represent as storms.
Nah, you’re good. The Loa sparsely get brought up and fleshed out in the span of wow’s lifetime, often tied to things you can easily miss, so it’s one of those topics that pretty much requires searching and reading up on out of game.
5 Likes
Yeah, that’s definitely a better example. I was just thinking of the first one that popped into my mind.
I mean, I see where you’re coming from. Gonk should be there, as should a lot of other Loa. But Gonk has never held the moniker ‘of Change’ (Unless I missed that somewhere) and has also never represented gender expression or identity. I don’t think this is retconning or getting rid of him in any capacity.
5 Likes
Gonk is the only wild god stated to take any form. Change was his thing.
Gonk is a master at shapeshifting. He doesn’t alter or change his surroundings.
1 Like
Q’onzu not being a Troll Loa doesn’t mean he’s a NE Loa… we’ve never seen/heard/interacted with him. Not once he’s assisted NE in battles. If that thing were a NE Loe we would have seen at least a Shrine but we havnt.
If indeed it’s meant to be a NE Loa then Blizzard screwed up.
Hoping someone in story dev team flips the finger to Shadowlands so called ‘LoRe’ and reincarnates those two as powerful mortals.
That could lead to some great gameplay & story content ahead 
Yeah, there’s a quote somewhere in-game where a Darkspear throws shade on the bird loa ‘Leaving that kind of thing to the Amani’ – However in Northrend you see a Darkspear troll commune with the Amani loa for guidance which includes the eagle loa – So it may be relative to the individual than the whole flock (Pun intended).
Personally I’d like the other troll tribes that joined up with the Horde one way or another to be recognised & more solidified in canon through the playable race, such as the Revantusk tribe – Like with tabards & maybe new reputation(s) for them, that have bonus mounts, pets and cosmetics to collect.
Personally I’d love that for all Loa & Wild Gods. Especially if you got a cosmetic buff for being a revered ‘follower’ (or friend, ally, adherent, student of etc) – Having such for Night Elves and Trolls would be wicked neat, however I wouldn’t protest if they decided to extend it to other races too. 
I do think it’s pretty lame that those two got axed as badly as they did. Like I said earlier somewhere, I feel like Vol’jin’s re-inclusion into the lore was a bumbling mess and a ridiculous sacrifice of a Loa we’d just gotten for all of one patch of bfa. The best thing his storyline did was show the difference between Loa and Wild Gods, but we uh. Could have used, idk, bwonsamdi or Zanza for showing that instead, or at least not killed off the Loa of Kings.
It’s also why I say sometimes it more of a blessing in disguise that none of the existing Loa show up, because we never know if blizzard is about to kill them off. and kill them off for “good” good. Dambala was one questline for the Night Fae covenant, and more prized as a missable pet tame.
4 Likes
Thing I hated the most was how they removed the eternalism, immortality and most of all - Spirituality from the Loa, Wild Gods and moreorless afterlife in general.
They just made it all a synthetic, 3D printed BS robo-dinner plate of nihilistic & entropic anima system … That’s just so … Lame.
Stuff I loved from the Loa & Wild Gods was when:
- They were immortal (Duh)
- They could be reborn so long as nature endured, or the avatar of the creatures they take form did.
- They were rumoured to have their own individual safe-havens in the Emerald Dream, which would be open to their followers upon death.
- Others had their own afterlife altogether for themselves & their followers (Quetz’lun for example created her own personal hell for those that tried to screw her & take her power for their own)
It left limitless possibilities and made the fantasy world more — Fantastic, and infinite with awe — Shadowlands just pissed all that potential, awe and intrigue away against the burning world tree and grinned like there was nothing wrong with putting it to waste. 
… So yeah 
Here’s hoping they reveal there’s more to ‘Death’ and in turn – Life, than the Shadowlands lead us to believe.
8 Likes
They/them/their is also singular in english when the gender is indeterminant, even sometimes when the gender is determined it is grammatically correct.
Example:
“Who’s that person over there?”
“I don’t know who they are.”
8 Likes
That only applies IF you have no idea what really that person is, like owner of a wallet, but when you meet the person and you can tell it’s a dude, then there you ought to change it. But Loas always had defined genders. Rezan was a male, Shadra female. I see no reason why it should be applied to owl. Owls also happen to have females and males among them. So I’m not buying that.
All this bitter back biting about Trolls and Night Elves has me considering something:
… A Loa of Change who is very old, with mysterious origins…
I wonder if this Loa will be revealed to have a hand in changing Trolls into Night Elves in the first place.
If they had a hand in that… that would certainly upset the apple cart.
3 Likes
Of all the arguments people have, the argument about the use of “they” is usually the most comical.
“They” is perfectly appropriate for use in the singular. It is grammatically correct. People try to act like it’s not basically because they don’t know and they are being transphobic - it’s like a double whammy of ignorance.
9 Likes
“They” is also used for nonbinary or genderfluid people who choose to identify as such.
7 Likes
The question itself relies on why a writer would choose whatever it would be, because of the inclusion or the exemption doesn’t mean that they’ve ignored or decided to exempt / retcon an entire character, whoever that may be, but instead they wish to focus on the addition of a new character or inclusion of a continuing one. Because of time and effort, it also means that they cannot include everything nor understand everything, especially with the lore of World of Warcraft.
For this they wish to include a Loa that is aesthetically similar to the Owlkin and have decided on an Owl Loa who is both capriciously and averse. It’s interesting. Gonk wouldn’t be a better pick and doesn’t need to be there.
They/them are the standard nonbinary pronouns. This isn’t something radical.
4 Likes
Owlbeasts are Native American folklore. They are evil beings, not unlike the Skinwalkers of the Navajo.
‘In the tradition of the Seminole located in present-day Florida, there are the Stikini, which are essentially owl beasts that can shift between animal and human form. It is believed their shapeshifting abilities come from vomiting out their own souls, blood, and internal organs, which they hang up high in the treetops so they can not be reached by any man or animal.’
If anything they are not bastardizing irl mythology, but brigding gaps between North American myth and NE celtic and germanic motifs.
That’s not a topic to bring up lightly or casually, but also wasn’t what I was talking about.
The term Loa gets treated by the dryads as a jab when you ask them about Q’onzu and the fact that Q’onzu wants to go by the title Loa of Change. That’s what I take issue with. Loa derives from a real world religion, having it be treated as a “mortal thing” by dryads, and thus giving the implication of it being “lesser” is lame writing that constantly gets aimed at trolls as is.
7 Likes
Or, and hear me out. It’s exactly what it looks like in game. Just a jab at Q’onzu because he’s a self absorbed wild god/loa who doesn’t care for anything or anyone but himself
Just something to think about. And I say that because 98% of the stuff blizz writes isn’t that deep
2 Likes
Tbh, I wouldn’t be making this connection if it wasn’t a recurring issue with troll related stuff. So it’s not something I’ll take dismissive attitudes on, good natured or not.
3 Likes