he was imprissoned for 10.000 years, on his quest of power, so he traded his freedom for power before 
and? Naaru were never meant to be a âpowerfullâ fighting-force, they are created for guiding races, not for fighting or ruling over races.
in my eyes, naaru are more like glascanonsâŚbut xeâra isn´t the first and only naaru that got quite easily destroyed.
a big offensive potential exist, but they can´t deal with incomming damage.
Iâve been pondering if it might be that the Path of the Light is indeed singular, but the beings of the Light are not totally in agreement of their interpretation of it. Aâdal and Xeâra may of both felt they were following The Path, but are members of different schools of thought.
His imprisonment was something he brought on himself by making a new demon-bait Well of Eternity and killing the people who tried to stop him. Hardly a âtradeâ
If naaru werenât created for fighting and ruling, that undermines the viability of them being used as leaders in a holy war like the Magâhar recruitment scenario, donât you think?
Xeâra was more easily destroyed than most Naaru. Donât you think a Prime Naaru would be stronger and tougher than most Naaru? Remember when Illidanâs eye-beams only did scratch damage to that Pit Lord in the cinematic⌠despite Illidanâs powers being tailored specifically against demons?
I think youâre making excuses for bad writing? And thatâs one of the reasons the lore has become the current mess it has; giving Blizzard too many chances in the past let them get away with increasingly shoddy lore.
in my eyes, the light is fractionated, and in each of these fractions there is, so to speak, the âoneâ true path.
I would find at least more interesting than really a collective understanding of all the same path.
they are not used as a leader in the wars of the light, the light have a higher hierachy, the keeper, and i suppose they will be the fighting/rulingclass of the light.
I am wondering about the Naaru.
Xera doesnât mention Adal. But Adal seems to be working counter to her, or at least not according to Xeraâs wishes.
I know Xera likely was conceived a decade or more after Adal. But I wonder what their relationship is like? Maybe Adal is her son, and he didnât think Illidan would be a savior, so he ran away with some of his buddies to help the Draenei and Blood Elves?
I hope if there is a Tyranny of the Light expansion, that we have a couple Naaru who side with us (hopefully Adal. I always liked that son of a gun).
I donât disagree that people take this approach. I disagree with the notion that they should and that thereâs no other way.
You seem like a reasonable guy, and I would like to discuss these story concepts further, how about it? Not Xeâra, because I sometimes go on about her too much (though when people keep making claims about her I disagree with or are clearly false, do you expect me to keep silent then lol?)
I would like it if in reflection to the many Void Lords there was a singular Light-being who is aloof and possibly asleep. In this setup, the Prime Naaru are in disagreement as to how to interpret their slumbering creatorâs wishes, leading to distinct ideological factions. Camp Xeâra is militant, whereas camp Aâdal is notâI am of the opinion Aâdal is likely a Prime Naaru as well, even if they have not said so explicitly.
So weâd be getting some keepers of the Light above the Naaru retconned into the lore. Bad idea. Remember what happened when they used that approach with adding the Jailer to the lore?
That would be an interesting approach, but given what weâve seen so far, I donât trust Blizzard to go that route or pull it off well. Xeâra was a military leader who spent millennia fighting a demonic army that wants to destroy the universe; Iâd be surprised if she wasnât militant.
The allready did this, we don´t know what the keepers are, but they stand above the naaru´s. They are part of the nazrethim book. âThe naaru and their keepersâ
Xeâra never fight the legion on her own, she had an entiry army and was more like a buff- guiding-power, then a tool of destruction on her own.
Thatâs my point. They tried to retcon the Jailer into WoWâs lore, and it was a disaster. If they try to retcon âthe Naaruâs keepersâ into the lore - the same thing they did to shoehorn the Jailer into the story, theyâll be repeating their past mistake.
Given what weâve seen of Aâdal, the Naaru are capable of power. We never got to see how powerful Xeâra was in Legion because she was wasted as a plot device to prop up Illidan.
It was noted if Aâdal wished to, the power he contained could level mountains; Taking him as an example of a Prime Naaru I donât think it is beyond the pale to say Xeâra could inflict serious damage if she wanted to.
Naaru, however, donât fight on the front lines usually, it seems like. They act as the strategists and generals, commanding Lightspawn and other beings of the Light into battle.
And yet apparently, to take Xeâra as an example, they can still be one-shotted by a demon hunter who got knocked on his butt by a no-name Pit Lord and couldnât beat Kilâjaeden without help⌠despite him being a demon-killing specialist. Do you see the inconsistency?
The only mitigating factors with Xeâra is she was just put back together, as having your core removed is likely a bit draining one would guess⌠and she was one track focused on converting Illidan to the point of not having any thought of needing to defend herself.
Nobody expects an eye laser to the face.
IDK. The Jailerâs an example of bad retcons, sure, but the void lords arenât. The basic premise of a death pantheon isnât. Having dieties beholden to forces other than order is a reasonable change.
Itâs the implementation of those things that makes it bad. Could having a hypothetical pantheon of âLight Lordsâ turn out terrible? Absolutely. But it could also be just great if competent writers get installed by Microsoft.
Do you have any evidence for the first theory? Not sure about the second, maybe, maybe not, though youâd think sheâd throw up some defense when he used his eye-beams? He one-shotted her, but it wasnât an immediate kill, she had time to defend or retaliate (not that the writers would let her, I think they were too busy fanboying/fangirling - to put it politely - over Illidan).
You know, determining what should and what shouldnât base their morality on is a more complex idea than most give credit too. Because, really, what do people normally base their morality on?
Frankly, a lot of people base it on a combination of convenience and our favorite people. When I was taking ethics in school, my professor talked about this at length.
If you go through the Drive Threw, and you get more change than you are owed, but donât notice until you get home. Chances are, no one here is going to drive back to return the extra amount. The excuses given can vary but usually come down to the same thing.
âIt is their own faultâ
âThe drive back is not worth such a small amountâ
âA business their size wont notice it missing anywayâ
Essentially it all comes down to âItâs to much troubleâ and few people take it as a moral responsibility to return something that does not belong to them. Even though that would be the moral thing for them to do.
Another example is something I am sure we all heard in school at a D.A.R.E. assembly. Peer pressure. Your friends doing something does grease the wheels for you to engage in that same behavior, or at least turn a blind eye to it. Teachers see it all the time. When someoneâs child is doing something they really shouldnât be and get in trouble with the law or the school, often times a parent will defend their childâs actions.
Now all the above examples are wrong. They are the product of bias and a lack of integrity rather than a product of maliciousness. The truth is, most forms of injustice come in that form. It is a lot easier to moralize someone else, which means most people are out here holding everyone else to a higher standard than they hold themselves.
For every Murderer there is a mother saying âMy child would never do such a thing.â
If you ever watched To Catch a Predator, they always say âWe were just chattingâ or âThey talked to meâ or âThey invited me overâ
So while I agree, morality shouldnât be based on character popularity. It has always been the selfish and superficial that has determined human morality since the dawn of time.
Thereâs some good points here. While I donât agree with everything you said (such as the last sentence), I agree with most of it @Akiyass, so thatâs an upvote from me.
The point of this thread, before myself and others temporarily derailed into discussing a certain Naaru, was to point out that when right and wrong in a story is based on which characters are popular and which arenât, it makes the lore a mess and cheapens the conflict in the story.
No evidence really, but I would imagine it is a draining experience given its⌠removing your core. Xeâra appeared to do so as a measure of last resort, so it likely had costs.
Your theory has merit, Kai. My uncertainty is because we havenât seen evidence of that in-game.