Talk: Blood elf

Template:Analysis

September 2006: As per the recent race names vote at Wowpedia talk:Writing policy#Race name case, the correct race name spelling is "blood elf" and not "Blood Elf"

---

Archives

• Talk:Blood elf/Archive1

Spelling

I'm going to edit the article to maintain consistency with the official websites. Blood Elf will become blood elf, as it should all over the wiki (and as I have already done with draenei). You may berate me after this line :) -- Kirkburn 14:57, 14 August 2006 (EDT)

Oh, and I'll add a big red sign saying 'don't you dare turn me back!' liek I did with the draenei. We should also really be doing this to all references to class type (rogues, shamans, etc), as they are also incorrectly capitalised. And high elves. Well, it's a lot of work to be done. Join me in the edit war! -- Kirkburn 15:01, 14 August 2006 (EDT)

On the same topic, the page should be moved to Blood elf, but I shan't do that yet. -- Kirkburn 16:20, 14 August 2006 (EDT)

As is most likely obvious, I have just completed the move :) Next up, ngiht elves. Thanks to those making sure the race names stay correct! -- Kirkburn 10:46, 21 August 2006 (EDT)

I've put up a vote to make lower-case race names the standard policy. WoWWiki_talk:Policy/Writing#Race_name_case--Aeleas 14:15, 21 August 2006 (EDT)

Opening paragraph

Is there any reason why the opening paragraph of this article is all in italics with lines around it? I think just a standard intro is cleaner.--Aeleas 20:35, 22 August 2006 (EDT)

Meh. I think basically ALL BC topics have something like that. And after a second look, ALL races have that. Or the ones I bothered to check. It's just a small blurb anyways. Pzychotix 21:16, 22 August 2006 (EDT)

I'd say italic intros are fairly common around the wiki. But the horizontal separator lines are not, and, in my opinion, they look quite bleh.   --Mikk 05:23, 23 August 2006 (EDT)

Playable Race Section

Do not add more Blood Elf Warrior, "comments" to this page they are flooding it, Blood Elves dont have Warriors it should be mentioned once or twice thats all thats needed. Explanations like that in "Lore and Gameplay Reasoning Behind the Elimination of Blood Elf Warriors" and the classes note should be enough to explain to people why they do not have Warriors if more comments about this are added I will delete them on site. Thank you for your time and understanding. Solare

"Blood elves are the physically weakest out of all the races of the Horde. The orcs, trolls and tauren are far superior to them in size, weight, strength and speed, each in different but always superior degrees for the respective races. So logically for blood elves, who are also the world's greatest arcanists and a culture where all blood elves from all walks of life are proficient in magic, their melee soldiers would supplant their abilities with their far superior affinity and grasp of magic than the other Horde races."

Like I keep adding, Paladins wield huge, heavy swords, maces, and shields, and wear plate armor. This doesn't explain why Blood Elves do not get Warriors (with all due respect, is ONLY because of balancing). -AzraelOpacus

Paladins are not warriors, however. They have the power of the Light to aid them, for example. In any case - the point of the section is to explain why don't don't have warriors over any of the other choices. Warriors make least sense for BE to have as an option, not that they don't deserve or have them at all. So what if paladins make as little sense as warriors to you - whether or not they got paladins was never an issue, as they are a big part of the new lore. Blizzard had to make a choice between warriors and hunters, and hunters make more sense. It's all relative ...

In response to Solare, while I support your view, please do not become too protective of the section of the article :) -- Kirkburn (talk) 10:30, 7 September 2006 (EDT)

I agree with Azrael on this one; the paragraph's current wording implies that blood elves couldn't be warriors, or that they would make inferior ones, but that's not the case. It's simply not a playable race/class combination. The paragraph which follows also indicates that they don't have a strong warrior tradition, yet high elven swordsmen were a very common unit in War3.--Aeleas 14:02, 7 September 2006 (EDT)

Think of it this way: There ARE blood elven warriors, but you just can't play them because a) Their numbers may be too few and b) Blizz felt like it. =p --Kakwakas 15:11, 7 September 2006 (EDT)

Exactly, which makes the paragraphs attempting lore-based explanation regarding the lack of BE warriors not only speculative, but incorrect.--Aeleas 16:17, 7 September 2006 (EDT)

Having reviewed the section, it does not (and does not mean to) suggest that blood elven warriors do not exist. They do. However, there are likely more blood elven hunters, and they are more appropriate for where Blizzard wishes to take WoW. Blood elven warriors are probably quite good, but blood elves as a race are not predisposed to it, so fewer would gravitate towards such a life. To compare this to real life, look at who wins long-distance running - people from certain areas of the globe are better prepared for running due to their genes - this doesn't suggest there are no amazing european runners, for example, but that there are fewer.

Aeleas, in WC3 warriors/grunts are the main soldiers of the forces and it would be to disruptive to the gameplay to alter that, whether or not it is accurate. I would also be interested what sections you feel are incorrect?

Just to make this clear - the lore reasoning is suggesting why warriors are less appropriate, it is not saying at any point that warriors do not exist or are useless. In conclusion, I see no problem with the section, but have added a note to make it clear that it is not suggesting BE warriors are non-existant. -- Kirkburn (talk) 16:18, 7 September 2006 (EDT)

I find the entire thrust of the second and third paragraphs of the section to be misleading and unfounded. There is no evidence that BE are not predisposed to being warriors, that they would be weaker than an undead warrior, or as I said above that there wasn't a strong warrior-like tradition. The fact that high eleven swordsmen may have been demanded by gameplay mechanics in War3 doesn't invalidate the fact that they were included.

I haven't seen any lore-based explanation for why BE warriors aren't playable from Blizzard, so I don't see any reason for us to invent one, or even assume there is one.--Aeleas 16:28, 7 September 2006 (EDT)

Okay, I see where you're coming from. I still don't think it is really inaccurate - we know the high elves are weakened, and the blood elves get their power (to bring them above the high elves) from magic. Warriors in WoW do not use magic to any great extent, which should suggest that they would not get as much of this strength. Regarding the idea of them being proficient as rangers - this is pretty evident from everything we know, and I'm not sure why you disagree with it :/

To your second point, I have altered the title to better explain the section ("Suggested..."). And though we may not have heard an exact reason from Blizzard, they have told us that they felt hunters were more appropriate - the section aims to suggest why they would have felt this. -- Kirkburn (talk) 18:32, 7 September 2006 (EDT)

I didn't object to the fourth paragraph which explains their skill at being rangers. I'm content with the section as it is; while it does stray into speculation, the title now reflects this as per WW:LORE. Still, to my mind everything after the second sentence could be covered by the sentence "The Hunter class is the best match for continuing the tradition of high elven rangers and archers, which been have portrayed in the past as more central to the race than melee fighters." Getting into their alleged weakness (a warrior could be strong with demonic energy, just as he was presumably strong with the energy of the Sunwell in the past), discussions of the ruggedness of the terrain, orc warlocks in Orgrimmar etc. doesn't, for me, add anything beyond that initial statement.--Aeleas 18:58, 7 September 2006 (EDT)

To be perfectly honest, I don't think that most of the fourth paragraph belongs either. Unless anyone can come up with a convincing reason why that paragraph (the most speculative part or the section) soon, I shall remove much of it. -- Kirkburn (talk) 19:15, 7 September 2006 (EDT)

At the very least, that paragraph has some major wording issues. From the very start, it sounds speculative and apologetic. It needs to be better worded/editted. Pzychotix 00:33, 8 September 2006 (EDT)

I've never read anywhere that the Holy Light gives a bunch of supposed (since there were High Elven Knights in WC3) weaklings enough strength to wield Ashkandi. The paragraph is just a bunch of bull made up to justify Blizzard's decision lore-wise, when there was none to begin with! -AzraelOpacus

Woah, it was a suggestion, as is the section itself (as is noted in the title, if you would kindly take a look). And no, there were reasons for the choice, because it was made wasn't it? They felt hunters were more appropriate, and the section is attempting to suggest why. In addition, you completely ignored my explanation earlier of why it doesn't prevent any classes existing for any races. For god's sake, listen, please!

Since the fourth paragraph is rattlign nerves and causing less-than-critical thought, I'll see what I can do about it now. -- Kirkburn (talk) 16:12, 8 September 2006 (EDT)

Everyone is thinking it, I'm just saying it: It is obvious that Blood Elves would get every non-nature caster class. They would get Warlocks, Mages, and Priests because they're magic users. It was also necessary to give them Pallies, because the decision was made to give each faction the other faction's class. At this point, you have 2 open spots for Blood Elves. They won't be shamans or druids because they have no appreciation for nature. That leaves Rogues, Hunters, and Warriors. If you don't give them rogues then you've imbalanced the horde because they already have the only class that can't be a rogue. That leaves Warriors, and Hunters. The weight against warriors was overwhelming... horde has no shortage of warriors already, and giving elves the archery class probably appealed to Blizzard's marketing team... Piroko 13:48, 11 September 2006 (EDT)

Horde Relationships

I am wary of the "Relationships with the Other Horde Races" part of the article. Where did this information come from? I don't want to change it back myself just incase but it looks like something made up. Also I think someone needs to take time to touch up the layout of the page, it is getting messy. --Pigzig 08:50, 8 September 2006 (EDT)

From various sources and inferred information. There are many lore books that probably dictate this relationship, and obviously some speculated information too, but for the most part, it's decent enough. Pzychotix 05:35, 8 September 2006 (EDT)

I disagree, this isn't anything on blizzards site or books and unless proven needs the boot. Just look at it, obviously fan written. --Pigzig 17:48, 11 September 2006 (EDT)

Even if it's not all official information, the info I believe is based mostly off the assumptions of the core race at hand. Out of all the relationship paragraphs, only the Orc one could be seen as "made up". The Tauren and Troll relationships aren't even Blood Elf specific; they're statements about those races that really wouldn't matter if it were random aliens. Finally, the Blood Elf - Forsaken relationships only stated the facts of the matters that occurred between the two factions. That certainly wouldn't be "made up". Pzychotix 23:04, 13 September 2006 (EDT)

I would agree that it is written in a rather authoritative tone without having any sort of source to back it up. If it is speculative or conjecture, it should be labelled as such, and preferably moved to another article, as per WW:LORE.--Aeleas 02:02, 14 September 2006 (EDT)

Azeroth blood elves vs Outland (Kael) blood elves

I was reading the article concerning the high elves and came accross the "Splintering" paragraph. It refers to how the Kael's blood elves are most likely a different "faction" of the "playable" blood elves, since all Horde (and Alliance) players, including blood elves, will obviously be able to raid Tempest Keep and (most likely) kill Kael. The current blood elf article simply states that they are trying to reunite with Kael. Now, it's pretty obvious that at some point their motivations will change, and since WoW is a very linear MMORPG, I doubt there will be an awesome plot twist to illustrate this change. I thus can only guess that, right from the start, it will be clear in the game that the Azeroth (playable) blood elves are different from the ones residing in Outland. All this to say that I think we should add at least a small note to the article, to clarify that, over the course of the game, the Azerothian blood elves will move against Illidan and Kael. Reading the article now makes people believe that they are all loyal to Kael, which is obviously not the case. Just a thought. --DarthMuffin 23:03, 15 September 2006 (EDT)