|This is an archive of User talk:Ragestorm.
I'd like to report to you some false lore. In the Garona article, you can read this:
"Eventually, they found Medivh, who unleashed all the powers bestowed upon him by the Order of Tirisfal and the demon lord Sargeras. Garona, now boiling with anger at Medivh's betrayal and perhaps hoping to die rather than live out the vision she had seen, attacked the magus head on, only to be struck down by a powerful spell. Medivh expressed disappointment in Garona, telling her that he had hoped she of all people would understand what he was going through and not oppose him. Feeling little remorse for the half-orc, he then cast a second spell, filling her mind with the doubts and divisions that he himself had carried. She fell to the floor, incapacitated. Moments later, after much, much conflict, Medivh was finally slain by Khadgar.
But Garona was nowhere to be found.  Assassination of Llane
In the months that followed, Garona became a trusted confidant to King Llane, but because of Medivh's spellwork, she was unable to form a true allegiance. She reported to him the inner workings of the Horde and how he could use it to his advantage. After her 'release' by orc forces during a raid on Northshire Abbey, the furious Gul'dan instructed her to assassinate Llane. Realizing that her vision had become a reality, she reluctantly carried out this task, and with a deep sadness, murdered Llane, cutting his heart out and delivering it to Gul'dan. Shortly afterwards, while he was inside Medivh's mind, Gul'dan slipped into a coma when Medivh was killed by Lothar and his knights. "
If Garona was present at the battle where Khadgar banished Sargeras, and Lothar cut off Medivhs head, how could Gul'dan slip into a coma, "months later" when Medivh was killed. Wasn't he already dead? // GreenEye
- Something is very confused there - they seem to both be speaking of the same death occurence however. I haven't read enough to give a definite view, though -- Kirkburn 10:56, 8 August 2006 (EDT)
- I recall discussing the matter somewhere. Either Gul'dan had already awakened from the coma and ordered her to action (which in turn calls into question her batrayal to Doomhammer), or it was not Gul'dan, but the Shadow Council. This scenario is the one I find more likely, as it allows Garona time to betray the Council to Doomhammer and fits in with the creation of the Death Knights after the fall of Azeroth. --Ragestorm 15:57, 8 August 2006 (EDT)
I saw that you edited my headline for Gul'dan's biography from Biography of the Destroyer, with the comment: Sargeras was the destroyer, not Gul'dan.
Well, Gul'dan was the destroyer of dreams, sometimes referred to as the Destroyer. And if we're going to talk title duplications, what was Blackhand's title again? :) // GreenEye
- Point me to where he was actually referred to as the Destroyer in lore. Since that title is typically used in reference to Sargeras, it could get confusing to those users who are a little... "blinded" lore-wise. I usually call Blackhand "the Puppet" ;-P. And with regards to headers, it's just pointless- I fail to see how "Biography of the Destroyer" makes that article better than a simple "Biography."--Ragestorm 08:55, 1 August 2006 (EDT)
It'd just be cooler :P Blackhand was a puppet yes, but he was called Blackhand The Destroyer. Just goes to show how much of the old lore Blizzard has forgotten :P // GreenEye
- See, it's little things like that that sometimes hold us back. Anyway, it doesn't really matter in any case. And it's all well and good invoking Hakkar (Soulflayer or Houndmaster?), but the established convention should be to reserve such titles for those who are most associated with it, namely Sargeras. We know nothing about the history of Gul'dan's titles anyway. --Ragestorm 09:22, 1 August 2006 (EDT)
I just thought it was a little bland is all :P I've always known Sargeras as The Dark Titan. I agree with you that we know nothing of the history of Gul'dan's titles, I mean, Destroyer of Dreams? What the heck lol? // GreenEye
- I've felt it had something to do with the Conjurers, who were the Dwellers in Dream. And the "Biography" heading is allowed to be bland- that's why we invent section titles like "Call of the Deciever" or "Bequest of the Wind."--Ragestorm 08:07, 2 August 2006 (EDT)
Cool :) // GreenEye
I have started a new page and seing as how you are leader of the bookkeeper community, I want you to look over it at least weekly. Thank you. Charred But Alive 10:32, 19 June 2006 (EDT)
- I wouldn't say that was the best way of putting your request :P It seems like a nice idea, but I would suggest it would be better to have the info on individual creatures' pages. -- Kirkburn 10:40, 19 June 2006 (EDT)
- I'm happy to watch it, but I think Kirkburn has a point (on both counts- I'll not be ordered how to conduct my bookkeeping by any but the Admins themselves). That's the way we've handled Naga and Titans thus far- I would certainly support an attempt to include a mythological basis section on more of the lore pages. After all, there isn't much difference between a Tauren and a Minotaur ;-P. Still the page could have merits. --Ragestorm 10:45, 19 June 2006 (EDT)
I'm baaaaaaaaaaaaaack! Charred But Alive 17:32, 15 August 2006 (EDT)
Actually I find contradictions of similar sorts exist in every source, not just the RPG. The novels occasionally have contradictions, the games occasionally have contradictions, even WOW has its own contradictions (two storylines for the exact same quest item with two seperate outcomes(examples usually being Horde version vs. Alliance version, though some examples have two versions on the same side as well)).
I personally try to avoid any topic that has alternate history, or extreme contradictory information, and only mention details that are either backed up in more than one place, or mentioned in more than one place. Example the Legend of "Cenarious Bastard children" is actually from warcraft 3 manual originally, where it states it is but only one legend in the world and may not actually be the correct one, and its unknown if there is any truth in it at all(Metzen left himself a way out to change the detail in the future as we see he has).
However, since it is a legend within the universe it diserves mentioning, for like on earth we have varying Creation stories from differing cultures. Metzen actually refers to his idea of cultures having varying legends of how the same things originated in a few of his interviews(I think there was one on the WOW DVD, IIRC), while only one can be true, he states something to the effect that the old tales still get passed around by people in the universe. There are examples in the MMO where we see differing legends which cover roughly the same topics come out slightly different dependening on which culture is talking about it(Creation of Night Elves for example, trolls would have you believe they were ancestors of the Night Elves, where as certain quest lines hint that Elune was their "mother", and that night elves are cousins of Dryads, and Keepers).
Metzen's personal viewpoint as mentioned in one of the DVD's is that not any one source tells the complete story of the warcraft universe, and he says something to the affect that he is in charge of creating the lore through various media types, including games, manuals, novels, comics, and rpg, and it is through those disparate sources that the complete story can be told.
Howevever I agree sources including the RPG can contain contradictions. A lot of details in the World of Warcraft main RPG sourcebook second edition have to be avoided as that book has some of the worst editing ever and gets details completly mixed up or in some cases completely wrong. While spelling mistakes occur in any source even including WOW, I try to follow the spelling that most sources agree upon.
Believe me I try to be extremely careful what information I put down, and try to avoid any thing that falls into the realm of "alternate stories", and that means quite a few quest lines in World of Warcraft itself. I'm hoping someone starts some topics relating to Wow's alternate stories in the future some time though as it is an interesting topic unto itself. Also since WOW is in ever changing flux, many stories(I.E. quests, characters) "dissapear" from lore due to gameplay issues, or other reasons (much of the Alterac Valley storylines are completely gone for example).
I also try to point out where things originate from spinoff material rather than the game as well to avoid confusion, so people don't try looking for that stuff in the game, and wondering where it is(you'll notice I put Source heading in pretty much every RPG/Novel/Comic/Manual information topic i've edited, so people know where to look for that information)-Baggins 20:43, 11 April 2006 (EDT)
Turn all warcraft 3 units into Broken Units
Check out this discussion and tell me what you think? Should we really blatently go back and rewrite warcraft 3 unit names without more info from Blizzard itself?http://www.wowwiki.com/User_talk:Baggins#Broken
Then we are to return everything to Broken right?, and fix all the changes DarkTichondrius made? I'll go work on it later. As for the whole policy writer thing, assistant is fine. I'll take everything up with you whenever we come across a sticky issue.Baggins
I guess do what you think best- I haven't inspected all his changes yet- chances are they'll be fine... I tell you, this thing has me exhausted (imagine how Pardo and Metzen must feel). Which reminds me, where are you working from? .--Ragestorm 20:12, 10 May 2006 (EDT)
- He litearlly moved all refrences to warcraft 3 Draenei to seperate topics renaming them "broken "unit"" etc. Except we don't really know at what point Akama became broken or if that faction refers to all outland draenei that still remain there. Plus it was a creep description it didn't just refer to Akama's draenei. There were burning legion draenei that used the classifications, that Akama and his group were at war with in Warcraft III. That's why I think its really dangerous to try to just alter technical details like unit names. Refrence to Broken within draenei topics is one thing however, imo.
- Yes I feel sorry for Metzen sometimes. He tries his best to please the fans really he does hehBaggins 20:25, 10 May 2006 (EDT)
Well, those creeps definetly remain Draenei. <sigh> Well, I think we're handling our first actual crisis pretty well. When I asked where you were working from, I meant, "what time zone?"--Ragestorm 20:32, 10 May 2006 (EDT)
Pacific timezone and I'm out for the summer. Takign a break right now truly I am heh.
Ya we definitely need to put the stop on DarkTichondrius... he's making it difficult...Baggins 20:33, 10 May 2006 (EDT)
Broken and Draenei
I'll stop if other people think the new canon statements are ambiguous. I feel the new statements describe the Broken to be racially separate from the Draenei, but I also feel the new statements are poorly edited. In the new statements, they mention "genetics". I don't think there are genetics in the Warcraft Universe. Blizzard shall surely clarify all its revisions in time. -- User:TopDread 20:43, 10 May 2006 (EDT)
You're right. Sorry if I got on your case about- I've had a VERY long day. Thank god it's over in ten minutes... --Ragestorm 20:48, 10 May 2006 (EDT)
Creation of the Universe
I'm curious is there a topic that discusses all the universe creation myths? If not, what would be a good title for it? I've been thinking about putting up all the legends depicting the creation of the universe that have been mentioned so far(warcraft 3 manual literally mentioned 2-3 competing myths), and wondering where would be a good place to put it.Baggins 20:05, 11 May 2006 (EDT)
Sound like a good idea- A new page or even a new category might be a good idea- how many creation myths are known- if it's more than, say, five, then it should have at least its own page. If it's less, then maybe just post on the relevant race pages. --Ragestorm 20:09, 11 May 2006 (EDT)
Let's see, from Warcraft 3, there is the;
1. Big Bang Theory
2. The God theory(single all powerful being created the universe)
3. Titans come by and plant life on worlds already created by one of above methods theory.
From other hints in game, and rpg;
4. Titans created the planets(including azeroth), and added life to them.
5. Elune created Azeroth.
6. Old Gods somehow involved with creation of Azeroth(maybe universe if they are similar to cthulu cosmic powers).
Some of these legends only have a single refrence, some are described in greater detail.
I don't know if I'm missing anyBaggins 21:27, 11 May 2006 (EDT)
- Created the topic, Creation Myth, and started adding some legends to it. Hope you enjoyBaggins 12:03, 12 May 2006 (EDT)
A couple of thoughts, I like the topic it does split up some of the Eredar information so the original Draenei, and Eredar topics aren't so crowded...
However, Demonic Eredar are still called just "Eredar", so wouldn't be more accurate to move the topic to the title, "Eredar (Demonic)"?
Just a thought but also if we are told that the various Draenei Subspecies were also mutationed through demonic energies starting with the 8 year war with the orcs, the destruction of their world, and later the Broken's exposure to Illiden's demonic magic, so technically the are also Demonic Eredar, especially if any of them are survivors of the original Draenei that left Argus, LOL...Baggins 18:24, 13 May 2006 (EDT)
Glad you got to me first, I was about to leave a strongly-worded note on your talk page, until I saw who made the page. the title "Eredar (Demonic)" makes much, much more sense than "Demonic Eredar"- for one thing, it doesn't scan very well in sentences. I think a page distinction is fine, but "Demonic Eredar" is just horrible. And in light of your points on Broken and Lost Ones, perhaps "Eredar (Legion)" would be better? either way, "Eredar (demonic)" or "Eredar (Legion)" is better than it is now. I don't know if you watch BattleStar Galactica, but that's how they differentiate ("Sharon Valerii (Galactica copy)" and "Sharon Valerii (Caprica copy)") --Ragestorm 18:31, 13 May 2006 (EDT)
- Ya, that was one thing I noticed that wording of every single sentence saying "Demonic Eredar" just hurts the eyes... I removed it from a few of the topics he altered, there are still some areas where the Grammar just screams. Now I like the "Eredar (Legion)" idea, but it might work better to put "Eredar (Burning Legion)? Since I think the rpg brings up more than one kind of legion(have to look into that to be sure though).Baggins 18:39, 13 May 2006 (EDT)
- Fair enough- I think that's the best solution; just hope everyone remembers to link to the right Eredar page (they'll soon get the hang of it.) --Ragestorm 18:45, 13 May 2006 (EDT)
Wow, Tich is a such a nitpicker... I'm pretty sure the term biology has been mentioned in official lore and Blizzard really doesn't think twice about it... Hell the terms "sub-species", "evolution", "mutation", which have basis in scientific realm, are used by blizzard :p...Baggins 21:51, 13 May 2006 (EDT)
???? what's he done now? on which page? --Ragestorm 11:34, 14 May 2006 (EDT)
changed biology to physical features b/c biology does not exist in high fiction like WoW and is not mentioned anywhere else. Biology belongs in SciFi)-Tich
He changed your term "biology" to "Physical Apperance" check eredar (burning legion) page, and stated that the concept of biology doesn't belong in high fantasy, and only in Science Fiction. However the time of science has become a reality to the Steampunkish(its not high fantasy, its steampunk) world warcraft according to many sources. So terms like biology, sub-species, evolution, and mutation often get used by authors. Oh I did find one example of the term biology used in one of the published short stories, I'll get you the quote later-Baggins 11:42, 14 May 2006 (EDT)
You might want to look into his work in the last few hours, he's again tried to hijack several topics (example goblinoids) with his own viewpoints on canon(where he considers the RPG entirely "non-canon"). His viewpoints that "Goblinoid" means a a single race(when infact its a descriptor similer to the term "humanoid", a humonoid is not a "race". ...or simply because his opinion that a story doesn't fit into warcraft unverse as he sees it, therefore it isn't canon in his viewpoint, but he spreads the info as if his viewpoint is the truth.
I've tried to leave all discussions on if something is canon or not to discussions only, never do I bring it up in the topics themselves, but rather put up the given template warnings so people can decide for themselves. Simply because debate of canon is based on many preconceived notions and personal opinions. Only time I post a discussion of canoncity of something is when we official quotes from blizzard's officials stating the level of credibility of some item.Baggins 11:42, 14 May 2006 (EDT)
I have one immediate question: what in the name of the Naaru does he mean by "High Fantasty?" WarCraft is an absolutely amazing fantasy world- but by the Nether, it certainly isn't "High Fantasty"- High Fantasy is LOTR and Arthurian Legend. --Ragestorm 13:33, 14 May 2006 (EDT)
I have absolutely no idea... Its far from high fantasy... But you might check out what further weirding stuff he did with the gobliniod page... If you took his logic we could list every single race as humanoid, even though they haven't been mentioned in the rpg or WoW as humoid...
Oh as a side note Lemonbaby's racial tree is nice but it doesn't explain that Broken likely originated out of the Broken style draenei as is implied in Broken history, tich removed my tree from "racial tree specualtion" article, it should be there as one other alternative.....Baggins 13:41, 14 May 2006 (EDT)
I can't even recall what all these racial trees look like- they're getting to be a bit of a distraction. As for Tich, he has the continuity of his namesake. I've added a section to Eredar entitled "sociology"- should get him frothing at the mouth. if this continues, there are a few people I would want to discuss the issue with- he may be like lightning with the edits, but I am not without my methods... --Ragestorm 13:54, 14 May 2006 (EDT)
- Back to that goblinoid thread... His way of interpreting every single race as goblinoid even dragons, and demons I think was intended to fallacy of exaggeration, or a hasty generalization, to make the concept seem so rediculous it should be deleted...
- I get the deep impression he attacks certain pages simply because you or I recently edited them... Its beginning to seem like some kind of vandalism.Baggins 14:46, 14 May 2006 (EDT)
woah... that's borders on a major accusation- I haven't actually noticed him making any sort of chagnes on pages I definetly created... though you've got a point about pages I've recently edited... Still I think it's only in the last few days, since this Draenei business started... Which reminds me, I've written something I'd like you to take a look at, is your e-mail set up? --Ragestorm 15:48, 14 May 2006 (EDT)
If you go to my userpage, there should be a link to "E-mail this User" on the sidebar- if the link is there, it'll send what you write to my Yahoo. --Ragestorm 16:03, 14 May 2006 (EDT)
Response to User Baggins
Since I am contributing content to the Goblinoid article under good faith it is not vandalism. The definition of a Goblinoid relies on physical similarity. I have explained all additions to the Goblinoid list. The Warcraft RPG list of goblinoids was by no means exhaustive, so I felt compelled to add to it. The Warcraft RPG list did not anticipate or forgot major races with goblin-like physical characteristics.
I also do not appreciate personal attacks. My user name is not "Tich" as in little tikes; my user name is Dark Tichondrias. This may or may not have been an intentional condescending nick name, but since I have stated my stance on the name it will from now on be considered a personal attack. Also, the desire of User: Ragestorm to get User: Dark Tichondrias "should get him frothing at the mouth." is incivil conduct. -- User:TopDread 17:26, 14 May 2006 (EDT)
I offer a formal apology for my comments- it was uncivil of me. As for the use of the shortented term, my useage was intended as for speed of type, I meant no disrespect. I have not oberved the extent of your action with regards to the goblinoid issue, as that is out of my direct expertise. In future, I will discuss any of my issues with your edits directly with you, as opposed to other users. --Ragestorm 18:53, 14 May 2006 (EDT)
I've got a bad, bad, bad case of writer's block with the Illidan entry. Can you help?
Hi Ragestorm, as you may have noticed from the "Illidan in the War of the Ancients" section of that entry not being moved or being completed, I've been stuck for some time. This is partly because I'm not sure what to write. In that timeline he used the Well's water for the spell that was supposed to sabotage the portal and poured it over himself. I'm forced to admit that I don't understand some important things here, such as how exactly Illidan was affected by pouring the water on himself and how exactly he inadvertently helped the Old Gods. Any chance you could explain it to me or give me your thoughts, possibly collaborate to get the thing finished? Thanks. --Illidan Rocks 21:22, 15 May 2006 (EDT)
I've been too swamped with the whole Draenei thing to even think about our dear Betrayer recently... The significance of the well's water, I think, was that the water isn't water at all- it's literally liquid magic. As I'm obviously not a mage (but hey, I can dream, can't I? ;-P) I can't say what the exact effect was, but it seemed to have increased his magical powers significantly- I'll reread the relevant passage and get back to you. As for the Old Gods, I'd also have to double check... I think that Illidan provided a relevant distraction for Furion, Krasus and the Aspects to get to the well with the Demon Soul- which was how the Old Gods would have gained entry to the world again. Like I said, i'll reread and get back to you.--Ragestorm 05:56, 16 May 2006 (EDT)
Thanx for your visiting my page
I have signed my post as instructed(probably...), and if I join the bookkeepers, I would like to specialize in Human History (Alterac, Arathor, Turalyon, and especially the Scarlet Crusade) and the Burning Legion. Maybe these two are too-well known, but they are the fields I find most interesting. I can find any other field enjoyable, although I would prefer these catagories over others, if possible.
My contributions to Wowwiki are scarce; I editted Highlord Mograine's page about a week ago, although someone called the story BS and changed it back to its normal state...^^ I play in Korean Servers, and am very used to Koreans and the language. If anything new comes up on that side, I can post it on Wowwiki as I have done with Highlord Mograine, and vice versa, which means I can provide both sides with the most updated data. --Didigo10
Ok.. I'm going to take more practice. See you soon, then.
Ok.. I'm going to take more practice. See you soon, then. --N'Nanz 08:12, 17 June 2006 (EDT)
I'll just hang around more editing till I think I get the hang of this...
I'll contact then.
I'll look in from time to time. --Ragestorm 08:24, 20 June 2006 (EDT)
Unfortunately you wouldn't want to get the RPG just for refrences to languages... Because unfortunately any information on languages is sparse, more get refrences, than any explanation...
They are more useful for lore though, on history, and cultureBaggins 22:08, 21 July 2006 (EDT)