Talk:Rumored Races/Archive9

From WoWWiki

Contents 1 Harpies are a NO 2 Nathrezim idea 3 Technical difficulty? 4 Useless 5 Tuskarr 6 Lost ones 7 Separate races by sections idea 8 Removing broken draenei 9 No more modifications to Pandaren until Dark Factions 10 Kobolds 11 So I Heard We Like Murlocs? 12 Naga 13 No editing the Naga and Pandaren just yet... 14 Azj'Aqir 15 Faceless ones 16 Nerubian Point 17 'Funny' quotes 18 Playable factions 19 Cenarians are the Fail 20 "What is love? Baby don't hurt me. Don't hurt me... no more" 21 WarCraft Algebra: Blood Elf-in-Horde Theorem (Regarding Ogres) 22 Non-Algebraic Stuff involving Ogres

Harpies are a NO

• Harpies are clearly impossible to make as a race. They are all females. It is hinted that they kidnap, molest, and devour male travelers they manage to capture. Also, they're winged, which causes several technical difficulties. Another compoundment is that they are hated and hunted by night elves and tauren. Please get rid of Harpies. Who decided to try and put harpies in anyway? Garm 17:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The RPG says otherwise.--SWM2448 18:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• 1. It is only rumored that they do that to men.
• 2. They can hold weapons in their clawed legs, currently they attack us by hitting his with their feet talons.
• 3. Centaur are also hated by the Tauren, but there's plenty of argument for them getting into the Horde. Hordesupporter 23:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes, a mob is just a mob. ----  Varghedin  talk / contribs 23:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Note also that Harpies for either faction would require the creation of a new flying race for the other faction. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 23:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

For balance purposes, if harpies become playable, then the race for the other faction will also have a natrual flight ability. (Although both harpies and the other race won't be able to fly freely until level 70) Hordesupporter 00:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Garm on this one actually. Harpies will NEVER become a playable race on WoW. If you knew the meaning and mythological history of a harpy, you'd know harpies are all females with the bodies of birds. A male version wouldn't be called a harpy at all.--Feldaldor

but it's hinted male harpies exist in warcraft. Hordesupporter 19:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, could you please tell us where you've found those hints, Hordesupporter?--K ) (talk) 12:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes horde please explain where these hints come from? And how these hints justify a "male harpy" still being a harpy ^^Feldaldor 00:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

World of Warcraft: Monster Guide actually. BTW this is Warcraft mythological creatures don't always follow exactly how they are in Earth mythology.Baggins 00:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

That is true,whoever heard of trolls having mohawks and being lithe voodo praticioners before Warcraft. Zarnks 00:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

That actually is less significant than it seems, that only is to make them seem more human and give them a form of magic that is unique to them. That doesn't change what a troll IS though, an actual harpy is what it is and so far WC3 has sticked to that hen it comes to harpies. And btw in truth it HASn'T followed exactly what harpies are. If it WoW did then harpies would be with actual bodies of birds and the heads being the only human part.Feldaldor 09:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I haven't seen significant evidence of harpies' culture and architecture. What would the capital city look like? All I've seen is an uncivilized bunch of nests. As for the flight argument, they wouldn't have to fly, just hover above the ground like their mob counterparts. However, that would make it harder to fit through doors... (I know this comment is going to get endless paragraphs of criticism, but I'm ready for it.) --Morlu 23:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

No Criticism from here actually, I agree, the architecture rarely strays from a general model, however if they DID add more models I suspect their cities to be on trees, and nestled either on, or near, cliffs and mountains. As dor flying, actually that would be les of an issue with doors than thought I think.... if they coulds simply make them hever a little lower to the ground, they'd save themselfs from bumping their heads, although those wings will still be an issue....Feldaldor 23:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

For a capital they could have somthing similar to G'Hanir the Mother tree. Also the could walk on the ground they do have legs. A possiable racial trait could be a short glide and when falling the can take less damage when they hit or smthing. And for men.... Well hey there could be secluded harpy men or have a dwarf situation an dlook like the women -Agamemmnon 22:09 September 9

Nathrezim idea

Can we add [http: //burningcrusade73.fasthoster.de/burningcrusade/nathrezim/nathrezim.html this link] to the list of race ideas? I remember it being here before, but now it's gone. --Zenosaga 20:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

You could, but I'd like to ask an admin first. Garm 20:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

It is fan made.--SWM2448 20:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Also note that it says Burning Crusade. It would mean it is really old. Besides, I laughed my ass of at the females shown. Definitely a fake. --Kulsprutejojjo 21:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Even if it is fake the ideas there are valid racial traits (i dont the Sheeps Clothing thing would work but one of the Dreinei quests sees you change into a tree(ganted you cant move without de-activating it but it could be done)) for the Nathrezim. It must be fake, however, since it says that the Nathrezim were turned by Kil'jaeden and in the lore it says they might responsible for turning Sargaras in the first place.

Whether or not this was meant as a 'get the Nathrezim as a playable race' paragraph or not i have looked at the points for and against this and this is my conclusion...

They can't fly (since they walked in W3).perhaps like the druids gain the ability in Outland

They never actually kill any of their race since everyone respawns anyway

As for them being evil, there are some that belive that the races of azeroth (whole world) would be able to beat the Burning Legion if they worked together and have joined the Horde in Undercity (doesnt the description of the Forsaken say 'the Forsaken have entered into an alliance of convenience') so maybe the Nathrezim are the same

Their arcitecture could be similar to the scourges with the green flames black material

The females of most races didnt exist until recently (point made by someone else)

As for them always looking demonic, it could be that sargaras decided not to change the way they looked (eradar changed what skin colour and size) when he filled them with fel-energies

To sum up of all the races with red points the Nathrezim have the least problems when it comes to making them, the only real problem is the question of who they would join i say horde since Varimathras has joined the Undead but the 'fake' link above does point out that the orcs have failed the Burning Legion twice, (respect/Hatred) --Deathknightapoc 10:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

were doo you get all these fake links?????Airiph 00:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me just clarify things:

This link is meant to be an IDEA. The article has links to speculations of what new races would be like. These are referred to as IDEAs, and are meant to be speculation. So obviously it's a fake, but it is still a plausible IDEA.

The site says that Kil'jaden ENSLAVED them, not that he turned them. They were evil before. They corrupted Sargeras, Sargeras recruited Kil'jaden, and then Kil'jaden enslaved them.

The site portrays them as allied to the ALLIANCE. Why else would they have a HUMAN form? --Zenosaga 14:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Technical difficulty?

Please, please, please. I plead with you. I'm trying to understand this. If someone can explain it, fair enough! But if nobody can come up with a really good, solid explanation, then please stop saying "- technical difficulty" for any race. I think my biggest problem in understanding why anything is considered a technical difficulty is that so many different things are so called, and the problems aren't even of a similar nature.

Four legs? "Unsubstantial beings of pure energy" (ethereals)? "Malformed ... and can barely be called humanoid" (faceless one)?

Winged Nathrezim? Draenei have tails. Ever notice?

How are mo'arg "completely humanoid" and several other race ideas aren't?

What are the technical difficulties of the naga? Sure the females have four arms, but they still carry only one staff or one bow. Sure, they have a tail to serve as their mover, and kinda don't have feet, but conveniently forgetting this (think hoofed creatures like tauren and draenei and to some extent trolls who realistically can't wear boots), it's manageable and hardly technical. If it came to it, they could even just not try to render it at all on the model. I don't recall ever seeing a draenei with a headpiece on (though admittedly I could simply be mistaken, or forgetful).

Same deal with the four- and six-legged humanoids. In fact, it bears consideration (pun unintended, but convenient) that druids in nonhumanoid form have no gear rendered at all (except weapons for moonkin). That also brings up another point. If one druid can wear all this gear in each form (which changes drastically no matter what form they take), and they're always getting the bonuses from the gear, I'll venture to say that someone might have put druids on the list of classes that would have too many "technical difficulties".

I'm not saying any of these are not difficulties at all, just that not all of them are of the same nature. Rather than debunking each "technical difficulty", I would plead with whoever has called these things technical difficulties to define how (in what way, to what degree) they come to be classified so, and why they have all been classified as being of the technical nature. For instance: Are they technical because it would be awkward to design? Because it doesn't make sense? Because people would be wondering "wtf how come I have wings but can't fly?" - "How come I have four arms and can carry only one weapon?"

I had this discussion with someone some while back with no satisfactory conclusion. So, can anyone explain this for me? Schmidt 03:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

It's really just the fact many animations are easier with a two-armed two-legged character. In that sense, "technical complications" is really a more accurate statement. In fact, really, multiple arms/multiple legs and such really just means "more time making the models. Hordesupporter 06:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

If this is truly the main difficulty (or whatever) related to these issues, why not call it like it is? -- "Models don't have all the normal animations" or whatever. The fact is, the draenei didn't have any of the animations they have now before they added them. Shoot, for that matter, no race had the animations they have now until they were made. So if that's the criteria for calling an issue a technical difficulty, maybe we'll never see a new race or new mob or new content ever again. GG Schmidt 07:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the technical difficulty stuff should be expanded and made much more precise, but it certainly exists for certain races - one example that came up originally was "how do shoes work on a naga?". It's a difficulty, because it will take a fair bit of work on Blizzard's to create a satisfactory solution. Kirkburn talk contr 07:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

But hooved draenei and cows wear shoes? And draenei and tauren have the tail that no one else has... Both varieties of elves have ears that poke through gear. Gnomes and tauren wear the same gear though they're obviously not the same size. These are hardly technical difficulties, and though my understanding of programming is rather limited, I doubt any of these are difficulties that can't be overcome with any more effort than it took to add the animations and whatever else to the draenei, blood elves, and every other race, playable or not. Schmidt 08:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but they do wear the upper portion of shoes. Kirkburn talk contr 08:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Then they lose the bonus of the bottoms of the shoes. Still, gnomes and tauren and trolls all have the same piece of armor that they're putting on--shoe, chest piece, or otherwise? Really, process it for a second. It doesn't make sense that naga might wear boots, but that wouldn't be the first thing that didn't make sense about the races in this game. Seriously now. Schmidt 08:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I know, I know ... I'm just talking in terms of game mechanics. By all means remove the more controversial ones! Kirkburn talk contr 09:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

For Naga, centaurs, drakonids, and other more than 2 leg races, something like "mounts will be difficult to do", for naga For boots and leggings, something like "Graphics for boots and leggings will be hard with tails", or something similar.Minionman 19:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Excuce me, but since when did naga get to have more than 2 legs, really? Any race that has more than 2 legs are definitely impossible as playable, as they can't mount. Naga, however, have no legs, but instead a tail. And their lower body is not too deformed to not fit upon a mount, so the mount issue will not apply to the naga. Besides, I believe you're confusing drakonids with dragonspawns. Drakonids have two legs, while dragonspawns has four. I believe that any race with more than 2 legs are the ones who has mount issues, and would be impossible to add if not Blizzard adds a new "plains running" ability like the one tauren used to have. At least that makes more sense than having a four-legged creature looking like it's mating the mount when it is mounted. So nagas can use mounts without too much problems, four-legged races can't. --Kulsprutejojjo 14:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It depends on the apperance of their legs, a nerubian's legs, for example, could curl around their mount, things like dragonspawn and centaur would have much more difficulty with mounts. Hordesupporter 19:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Mounts are an interesting aspect of WoW, but just because a race can't enjoy that apect of the game doesn't mean they shouldn't be playable. --Morlu 23:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

True, they had it like that in the beta for the tauren, if I'm not mistaken. The tauren had Plains Running instead of mounts. But since they removed it later, I seriously doubt they would re-implement it again. But then again, it is a difference between tauren and four-legged races. Tauren at least have a way to use mounts, that four-legged creatures lack. --Kulsprutejojjo 15:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Likewise, I think that four-legged races could also have a unique way of riding. How about having wide mounts that they could stand on top of? Basilisks, beetles, thunder lizards, etc. (I'm just giving examples of the general shape; I doubt these creatures could be domesticated) could be suitable for such a purpose. Perhaps that idea sounds absurd, but Blizzard staff are very creative, as we've seen; whatever goes on is up to them and not us. --Morlu 21:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's always possible to have them sitting, kneeling or standing on a howdah attached to a suitable large beast/magical contraption. Nevertheless, I think it is the travel mounts that create the largest problems... --V - Talk / Spam

Ever hear the saying "Size doesn't matter"? It's a really good saying for tall races such as tauren, ogres, and Drakonid. Garm 23:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, look... I think that Naga's problem with mounts could be easily solved... And the one with boots... First, mounts... A naga mount could be for example a giant turtle so they can curle up on the turtle's shell... And about the boots... Boots equipped by a naga could be presented by a cloth/leather/mail ring around it's tail...

Useless

Looks like there will be no new races in "WotLK"

So i suggest that all races that are related to Northrend (Faceless One, Nerubian, Tuskkar...) should be erased from the list

-16thDay

That is neither here nor there. The new zones in BC were in Outland, yet the new races started in areas of Azeroth. It's ludicrously easy for playable Tuskarr to start on a brand new, as-yet-undiscovered archipelago off the Borean Tundra (a la Azuremyst). Faceless ones and Nerubians shouldn't be on the list anyway, but some psychotic users insist they're viable. Tuskarr aren't playable at the moment, and aren't likely to be, but this has nothing to do with the fact that there are no new playables. Addendum: you don't SUGGEST something and then go and do it, you wait for feedback, and if you're supported, THEN you act.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 19:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

/me notes that no-one suspected blood elves would be a playable race; they even serve Kael'thas! I think it would be easy to include the faceless ones and especially the nerubians. --Sky (t · c · w) 19:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
And Rage, no, the idea is to be bold!. What he did was inside normal, even if he could have phrased his justification better. --Sky (t · c · w) 19:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes maybe Tuskkar may still be a new races, and Faceless ones are also humanoid, so you never know, but as you can see in the WotLK trailer, there is a gigantic Magnataur killing that sorceress, so Magnataurs will obviously not be a new race, neither Nerubian.

In the trailer Its a Wendigo not a Magnataur Zakolj 22:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

PS - sorry for erasing the races from the list - 16thDay

In the trailer, I think it is an undead beast like Gluth, it has an exposed spine and stiches.--SWM2448 23:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

And what about Nerubians? How are they ever going to swim, wear armor, or ride mounts (THEY HAVE SIX LEGS!!!)??? Nerubians will never be a playabel race. -16thDay

No race who has more than 2 legs should be playable IMO, mainly because it would look like their mating their mounts rather than mounting them. Therefore, it is impossible to have races like nerubians, centaurs and makrura etc., since they would just look stupid on mounts, and I don't believe they would get a "plains running" ability, mostly because WoW had one before, but got removed. And about that there will be no new races in WotLK, true, there will be none in this expansion, but this is not just about possible candidates for this expansion, it's candidates for ALL future expansions. Cuz why would it have harpies and pandaren when they are not even closely related to Northrend? And just because WotLK is the latest, doesn't mean it's the last! --Kulsprutejojjo 11:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

My own take on this is that mobs can never become a playable race but we never know since Blizzard loves teasing and last minute changes etc. However, I would advice that you guys don't think about it too much since mostly all is just painless speculation unless Blizzard officially confirms/denounces it. This topic was set to discuss the possibility of certain races becoming playable; basically a fun and random way of predicting with the information Blizzard provides us with. Thus, there's no real need to remove anything. Personally, I love a healthy debate but we should really just have fun. Haha ok random lame nuetral comment XP --Brashxon 13:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

"And Rage, no, the idea is to be bold! What he did was inside normal..."

Actually incorrect, the policy for this page is;

"This page should only be edited after changes are discussed through peer review here. Please discuss ideas on the talk page if you feel there should be changes to the main article, so the page does not become a battle field for clashing ideas."

This policy was instituted on this page for the fact that, this page has intigated edit wars in the past...-Baggins 16:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah... and for the love of god... WHO THINKS THAT HARPIES WILL BE A NEW RACE... DO YOU PEOPLE REALY THINK THAT BLIZZARD WILL ADD A FLYING RACE TO BE PLAYABLE??????? -16thDay

No... Unless they decide to add "plucked" harpies or something like that. And that would make no sense at all, right? I mean, it's just insane! Like naga with legs! --Kulsprutejojjo 10:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Why would blizzard create "plucked" harpies anyway????? There are no signs of plucked harpies in the game, why would they appear all of a sudden????? There are traces that Quillboars have relanshionship with harpies, now that might be a new race, not harpies. Its like Naga apearing with legs all of a sudden, like you say Kulsprutejojjo. Who agrees with me that Harpies should be erased from the list??? -16thDay 20 August 2007

Hey, if you think that Harpies and Nerubians may be playable races, the why aren't Trogg, Kobold, Treant and Earthen in the list????? I bet they have more chances in beeing playable races than Harpy and Nerubian - 16thDay

I haven't seen too many earthen around, and they are too similar to dwarves, doubtful to be added in. kobolds and troggs are non-sapient creatures. And treant's became a 41-point talent for resto-druids. There are still lots of Harpies running around, and revealed in Warcraft 3 there were living Nerubians still roaming around tunnels in Northrend.   Zurr  T ∙ C 20:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Naa I think narubians have possiblitlys...legs will curl around mounts,models similer too the sons of storm,leg armour will apear on all legs.-Airiph 20:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

When it comes to Nerubians, they can wear clothes, ride mounts, blah blah blah, the clothes will just have graphical changes. Feet will be on the tip of their legs, pants will be on the direct legs, chest will cover most of the remaining Nerubians body (the thorax shall remain uncovered), shoulders and head should be kinda obvious. Hordesupporter 05:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey, if you realy think that nerubians might be a new race, then fine, but harpies??????????????

-The are hunted by Night Elves and Hated by Tauren, how will they enter a faction???

-THEY FLY!!!

-THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS PLUCKED HARPIES!!!

No offense, but how can you even think that harpies might be a new race??? -16thDay

Cool it, no one said they were going to, they are in the list because it is a future possibility that might actually happen when the games goes far enough since they are humanoid. There are people who aren't going to be happy with the standard 10 races that are already there. And please learn to properly sign your comments, use ~~~~.   Zurr  T ∙ C 12:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

o.O holy cow 16thbday you're even more zealous than me! Anyway, I think there's nothing wrong with thinking of a flying race, and actually it's more like hovering. However I have my own reasons fer doubting harpies becoming a race... and.... nerubians... :\ a nerubian curling his legs around a mount would be kinda unusual... but i suppose it's possible. Sigh but dun listen to me I'm a hopeless dreamer who hangs onto the hope that WoW will do a complete revision and make a new faction.Kenneth Koubek 23:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I said it before and I'll say it again- Blizzard are as likely to make Harpies playable as they are the Naga and Nerubians, i.e. not bloody likely. The reasons why are summarised below:

- Look at the lore they're setting up in advance of WOTLK. The Naga are intent on some bonkers global warming plot, the spiders are scum and always have been- the enemy of your enemy is not your friend. It's clear Blizzard wants to make them utterly unrepetented.

- Two legs good! No legs/six legs bad! Armour simply wouldn't work, you'd have to have unique clothing or just have them holding lower body stuff in their inventory, which would be lame in the extreme, not to mention how difficult mounts would be. It's not impossible as other people have pointed out, it would just take a ridiculous amount of effort on the part of the programmers that introducing another biped would not entail.

- Both Naga and Nerubians are, not to put too fine a point on it, ugly as sin. Let's have a look at the other basically ugly playable race. Not the most popular, are they? There's a reason there's a discrepancy between Alliance and Horde: People are shallow. They don't want slithery fish or arachnid nightmares, they want to play cuddly Tauren or fit Blood Elves. Blizzard's job is to cater to the majority.

- No new races are becoming playable in WOTLK. Given the mass popularity of the game I reckon Blizzard have one more expansion up their sleeve before they leave WoW to concentrate on SC2. I think this means they'll introduce new races in the next expansion, which means races connected to Northrend aren't going to get a look in. Sorry Nerubians/Magnataur et al.

Thus it's time, I think, to leave spiders and snakes behind and look further afield for clues as to the next playable additions. Coming Second 01:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I still believe naga have a chance to be playable. They don't have too many legs, and the tail thingy shoud be no problem. Mostly because Blizzard could make a way for them to mount without them looking like they're mating the mounts. So I still would not rest my case on the naga. The Nerubians and stuff like that, however, are impossible because of the mount issue. Naga can be worked around still. And they are not the damn ugly race. Those of you who say that only seem to think of the males. I think of the females instead, and I like them. Of all the technical issue races, naga is by far the most possible race to be added, because less than 2 legs is easier to resolve than more than 2 legs, and natural swimming ability will not bring any technical difficulities on old Azeroth, unlike natural flying ability, like the harpies. Besides, they have females that are easily distinguishable from the males, unlike the Nerubians, whom I believe look pretty much the same, regardless of gender, or the harpies, which are a female-only race from what we know so far. Therefore, naga is the most probable of the "technical difficulity" races. Besides, the females are hot. --Kulsprutejojjo 21:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, CS you're being close minded, you can't say armor "Just won't work" without back up, EXPLAIN how you think armor won't work, because I think the opposite.I agree that Nerubians are unlikely, however if Blizzard is truely imaginative they may think outside the box and add null leg and 4 leg races. And just because they didn't add new races in WoTLK means not that they won't do so in another expansion. You're basing your arguments on pure assumption and interpretation. You assume that people don't like somewhat unattractive races, if that was true I wouldbn't want naga either would I? And uhhh I'm fairly certain I see alot of trolls, and I dun think naga are ugly either, they're feral looking but not ugly, especially not he females who have a fairly human face. And harpies have alot more issues than naga do I think. They are less likely to be added than naga, or even nerubian, but Kulsprute brought up a good point I had totally forgotten that nerubians look generally the same regardless of gender. So sorry CS nice argument but I won't be so easilly swayed :D! Naga ferever!Kenneth Koubek 22:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Harpies are a fool's dream, Naga and Nerubains, they have potential. Hordesupporter 22:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

"Both Naga and Nerubians are, not to put too fine a point on it, ugly as sin. Let's have a look at the other basically ugly playable race. Not the most popular, are they? There's a reason there's a discrepancy between Alliance and Horde: People are shallow. They don't want slithery fish or arachnid nightmares, they want to play cuddly Tauren or fit Blood Elves. Blizzard's job is to cater to the majority."

I disagree especially on the naga part. Naga females look more like mermaids then snakes and are considered to be fair. Nerubians,though not pretty are visualy appealing to some people. Naga already can wear armor, including shoes and robes. Zarnks 00:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Lol thank god somebody accepts that harpies are impossible! And ya thank you someone agrees with me that naga aren't ugly. But as for Nerubians... I'm sticking with Kulsprute's point that because nerubians have little to no differences in appearance regardless of gender, makes nerubians all the more unlikely.Kenneth Koubek 02:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, femlae nerubains haven't been seen at all as far as I know, there is concept art of female nerubains. Hordesupporter 20:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Look, I'm not against the Naga; if they became playable I'd be the first to create one, even if they were for the Alliance (I don't say that lightly). It just strikes me that Blizzard are intentionally making them into a "bad guy" faction, like the Scourge, who act as generic bad guys in each expansion. The lore clearly states they hate both the Horde and the Alliance unreservedly. Perhaps if they did make a third playable faction...but who would they ally with? I don't think there are five other races who'd even consider allying with them. Also, Naga are too obvious; they don't have the "Draenei factor". I reiterate that on the technical side making them playable is not impossible, it would just be very difficult. Would the programmers spend time faffing about working out how to get them to wear shoes? On their ears, perhaps?

Nerubians...just no. It's not going to happen. Coming Second 21:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Not not on their ears CS, either shoes could be like tail armor like near the tip, spinal decoration, or tail tip armor. And Sattrs are one possibility (if they make a humanoid faction of satyrs) the lost ones could be a tiny possibility, like somehowhow they were granted some more, sinister, sentiency. Then there's ethereals... lol hey i know that's far fetched but it is possible. Murlocs maybe or maybe WoW will add mur'guls into the game. There's may be some unknown form of sinister life under the sea. heck if i really wanted to be nuts i could consider faceless ones, but i won't go that crazy. There are always possibilities, and difficulties are all a case of perception especially in the case of Naga.Kenneth Koubek 22:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Tuskarr

+ The Tuskarr of Kaskala have struck a pact with the Horde forces of Warsong Hold due to their similar outlook. I'm gonna say thats a light green point. Anyone disagree? Zarnks 02:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems fair to me. Kirkburn talk contr 02:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and until we know exactly what is the nature of their pact please everyone don't touch this line.--K ) (talk) 09:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

But then we have the issue of that there will be no new races for WotLK. And Tuskarr is clearly very related to it, rather than any other continent. If we go by that, the chances of them getting in is very low, since they would rather have a Great Sea related race to a Great Sea related expansion, and since the Tuskarr is most related to Northrend, it seems very unlikely to me that they will be added to an expansion after Northrend. Although, they are a cool race to be able to play. But as i said, the northrend expansion will have no new races playable, and the Tuskarr doesn't fit in any other expansion. I'm sorry. --Kulsprutejojjo 10:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

No new races in WotLK is a fact, that should lower the color to "green" or "white" but not bright green. No new races in WotLK, should be a definitely red of some form in the intro section for that race.Baggins 10:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

"Unlikely to appear even as a non-playable race in any expansion after Wrath of the Lich King."

Problem already dealt with. ;) --V - Talk / Spam

K, then just need to lower the color on the "for the horde" section too, to reflect that rule.Baggins 10:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree - the points are separate. The fact they're Horde friendly is a big boost - but the unlikliness of them becoming a new race is a separate red point. Kirkburn talk contr 10:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. These two points are clearly unrelated in any way. Just because they are friends with the horde doesn't mean it has a lower chance to join the horde just because of the "no races in WotLK" issue. It means it has a lower chance of being added, not that it would be added to the horde IF it would be added. Two completely different things. So I agree with you, Kirkburn. --Kulsprutejojjo 12:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it makes things easier if we consider each point independently. :) --V - Talk / Spam

I'd like to add the point that it's always possible that the tuskarr don't need to be added as a race in an expansion that doesn't relate that takes place somewhere not related to them. This goes for almost any other race to.Kenneth Koubek 03:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Lost ones

Shouldn't they be added. They look completly different the draenei have a different archeitecture and have different classes. They can be druids,warlocks and rogues. Unlike the broken they actually have a unique non copied model. The only problem is that Blizzard seems to be trying to erase them from history. Zarnks 00:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Erase them from history? No. I do not want to fight with you but their look was just retconned. they still have a part.--SWM2448 00:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Well they retconned poor Akam and his followers into the much lamer broken and retconned the lost ones in the swamp of Sorrow into broken. Because of their dumb mistakes, there are no friendly lost ones ingame. Why did they create broken anyway,why not use lost ones? Zarnks 00:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm I'm pretty sure there is at least one friendly lost one in game, in one of the Draenei towns IIRC, maybe even in Shattrath.Baggins 00:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Lost ones are the red headed step child of Warcraft. They used to be a proud and capable race,now they have been replaced by lazy tauren reskins and were retconned into all being mad. Zarnks 00:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Not sure but lost one in Blasted Lands is still around IIRC. Don't remember if it got a graphic change or not. The lost ones in Swamp of Sorrows probably would have been friendlier if it wasn't that some Blood Elf was experimenting on them :p.Baggins 00:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

No the draenei in the harborage were lost ones until Blizzard retconned them into the lamer broken. Basically all friendly lost ones were retconned into broken and the lost ones being retconned into being inherently evil and mad. Zarnks 00:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about the Broken in the Harborage, I'm talking about elswhere in the game, and a couple of NPC in Outland. Kum'isha_the_Collector in Blasted Lands for example.Baggins 00:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

He's the only one I can think of but the broken are a completly pointless addition. Zarnks 01:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Continually repeating the fact you dislike the Broken isn't going to change anything. Trying to describe the lost ones as a "proud and capable race" is just completely absurd. You play Horde, you've visited the Swamps - how the hell you can make that claim based on pre-TBC lore, I just don't know. Unless you're describing the Broken ones with that, in which case you need to re-read what you type sometimes ...

"Lost ones are the red headed step child of Warcraft. They used to be a proud and capable race,now they have been replaced by lazy tauren reskins and were retconned into all being mad." <-- who, wha, huh? Kirkburn talk contr 01:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

"the lost ones as a "proud and capable race" is just completely absurd. You play Horde, you've visited the Swamps" I visited the swamps,where they were nobely fighting their crazed brether and trying to live in a alien world. Akama and his followers were also noble in WC3. Of course Blizzard retconned them into broken for no apparent reason..... Zarnks 01:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thus splitting off the mad ones (the Lost Ones) from the not mad ones (the Broken). In WC3 they were just referred to as "draenei", it's only later that we found out that there were several types. You actually preferred the lost one model? Kirkburn talk contr 02:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Why change them. Lost ones used to be a bunch of a proud assasins with the crazy ones a minority. Why invent Broken at all. Why didn't they just use lost ones for the role of the broken. I find it pretty ridiclous that they are erasing the lost ones from the lore.

"thus splitting off the mad ones (the Lost Ones) from the not mad ones (the Broken)." Most broken are mad too. Honestly the broken are the stupidist creation by Blizzard in my opinion. Are we supposed to believe that the lost ones who assisted Illidan didn't exist,that the draenei at the harborage where broken all along? Whats next saying Grom was a small blue orc, the entire time?

"You actually preferred the lost one model?"

The model was unique,creative,had its own skeleton instead of copying the tauren,and made them intimadating. Are you saying you prefer the tauren rip off model? Zarnks 02:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The creatures in WC3 were referred to as "draenei". They weren't lost ones or broken. The model was reused in WoW for those who were on Azeroth. When they expanded the lore, they changed the model. I don't see a retcon, I see clarification and expansion. The lost ones aren't being erased from the lore, and if you think they are, seriously ... wtf?

Regarding the model, I don't think people see a Broken and think "ooh, a tauren".

To clarify - the draenei in WC3 were draenei. The lost ones in the Swamps were lost ones, with an explanation that they were once draenei. Then TBC came along as told us that the the draenei we saw in WC3 were Broken (and never lost ones), and got a model change to show that they were less corrupted, and also showed us what an original draenei looked like. Correct? Kirkburn talk contr 02:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

"The creatures in WC3 were referred to as "draenei".

Thats what lost ones were reffered to at that time. Broken and eredar draenei hadn't been retconned into existance. The lost one ghost in blasted lands calls himself a draenei. Lost ones are still draenei.

"When they expanded the lore, they changed the model. I don't see a retcon, I see clarification and expansion. The lost ones aren't being erased from the lore, and if you think they are, seriously ... wtf?"

no they completly retconned their appearance. There are model limitations like Grom's model in Warcraft but saying he was really a blue midget orc the whole time is an appearance retcon. All important lost ones are being retconned into broken for no apparent reason.

"Regarding the model, I don't think people see a Broken and think "ooh, a tauren""

Tauren players can,their head is positioned the same way,they have the same animations. Its blatantly obvious fighting the murkbloods or donning the broken disguise.

"To clarify - the draenei in WC3 were draenei. The lost ones in the Swamps were lost ones, with an explanation that they were once draenei. Then TBC came along as told us that the the draenei we saw in WC3 were Broken (and never lost ones), and got a model change to show that they were less corrupted, and also showed us what an original draenei looked like. Correct?" They are draenei just mutants. Many things about the draenei were retconned. They were originally described as primitive in Blizzard's own story page,now they build robots, and farmers in WC1 who put up a poor fight due to their pacifist nature. The new Draenei are share little in common with the draenei in older sources. Zarnks 02:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

You introduced the idea of Grom changing model, and now you're using it to prove a point? One is very confused ...

Of course Lost Ones can call themselves draenei - that's what they were/are. The only retcon is that Blizz are making the completely mad draenei lost ones, and the less mad ones Broken. The "draenei" from WC3 still have the same lore, but they just had the "wrong" model. So basically this comes down to your attachment to the Lost One model.

They build robots? Farmers in WC1? Kirkburn talk contr 02:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Grom wasn't green and tall,he just had the wrong model. Thats what Akama was originally intended to look like,Broken didn't even exist at that point. Now Blizzard says Akama wasn't brownskinned with two clawed toes,he was a blue tentacle guy the entire time. A complete appearance retcon. Your just defending the broken.

"They build robots? Farmers in WC1?" Garona called them a race of farmer in the manual of Warcraft 1,said they couldn't fight and were defeated within a few days. Now they can build robots like Mechano-Lord_Capacitus and fancy hologram machines. Their archeitecture is completly different. Why didn't they just keep the new draenei a different race,call them eredar,and not destroy the old draenei. Zarnks 02:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

There's little point arguing about this, as we're getting nowhere. Yes, you dislike the changes and expansion to the draenei lore. But no, it has no relevance to the article. Kirkburn talk contr 02:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Regardless they should be added to the pages and it should be mentioned that Blizzard seems to getting rid of all their important npcs. Zarnks 02:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Zarnks.... completely... what Blizz did was and is ridiculous. Saying Grom and akama had the wrong models is RIDICULOUS the wc3's came before WoW, they are the original and thus the way they look in WC3 is how they are supposed to look. What WoW did with Dreinei was nutz with a z. the Eredar and Dreinei were completely separate races until WoW, and Blizz decided it needed to pretty the dreinei up so that they could add them to the alliance in conjuction with the BE's being added to the Horde. Honestly in wc3 was there even a single tentacle on the dreinei's faces? Kirk yer definition of a lost one and broken is incorrect. The lost ones are dreinei who have been even more mutated than the broken, thus explaining their spindly appearance. Blizzard folded in on itself with how they handled the proceedings of the game and the lore. Kirk just because Zarnk is unhappy with how the lore turned out doesn't mean his arguments are invalid, you have no right to say that this argument is going no where simply because you won't accept Zarnk's points.Kenneth Koubek 03:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

This may turn out to be an insult, but is that a parody of actual response? This page is for discussion of the article. What someone likes or dislikes about what Blizz did isn't relevant. The draenei in WC3 were not lost ones, they were "draenei". The model changed, and the lore was expanded. I haven't said they can't be included ... Kirkburn talk contr 03:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

By current definition they are lost ones. Their biology was retconned completly. Zarnks 03:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Whose current definition? So far, all I'm seeing is that their model was updated. Kirkburn talk contr 03:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Grom's model has been updated into a blue midget orc. WC3 Draenei models have been updated from a bunch of brown green,grey skinned,medium sized humanoids with clawed toes and hands, and two sets of teeth into a blueskinned tentacled,toothless,large,humanoid.

Thats a not a model update but a complete appearance retcon. Are we gonna add lost ones to the page or what? Zarnks 03:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Personally I would have chosen not to because they seem horribly unlikely, especially with the more civilised Broken in the picture. But their appearance on the page won't hurt if it keeps you happy, and certainly won't make their appearance any more likely. Nevertheless, you should realise that being stubborn and heavily opinionated doesn't often win you friends. --V - Talk / Spam

This isn't about making friends. This is a discussion. Being heated and opinionated is, though discouraged, not taboo. And Kirk that was no parody you, yer only saying that because you're being very close minded about others' input. What i dislike isn't all I put. I'm saying what blizz did was ludicrous and should make the choicing of how the current lore plays into the discussion less impactful. Also, Kirk by definition of blizzard's approved brady games' guide, the lost ones have been completely and utterly mutated, similar to what happened to the satyrs, naga, and mur'guls. They're technically the dreinei but biologically are utterly different due to corruption.Kenneth Koubek 23:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Lets stop this discussion before it gets out of had. Zarnks 23:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Separate races by sections idea

I think we shude separate races by sections a MORE LIKELY section for races who have two legs and LESS LIKELY for races like naga, Centaur, Harpy, Nerubian and others. And may be a section on the races that are simmeler to the existing races like other troll races, high elves, half-ogre, broken and others. What do you think peaple? Zakolj 05:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Certainly not. When we did that before it created an enormous edit war as people made up their own opinions on what was 'likely' and 'unlikely'. Personally, I would consider centaur more likely by far than Faceless Ones. --V - Talk / Spam

Heres my view on the top ten most likely. From most to least likey on the list.

• Ogres(highly popular and been around since the beggining. Can fit into any expansion. Strong Horde ties)

• Goblins(see ogre)

• Naga(popular and can dress up,lore is against it. I don't see any technical difficulties as they could wrap their tails around their mount)

• Pandaren(popular but a major race?)

• Furblog(ties to the Alliance,but both genders look the same)

• half-Ogre(unique but a half race as a major race?)

• Drakonid(people like Dragons)

• nerubians(highly popular but would require a lot of creativety to be a playable race)

• Gnolls(seemingly lacking in popularity).

• murloc(funny but a major race,I don't think so)

Zarnks, we asked for your opinion on the matter, not a list of your favourite races. --V - Talk / Spam

As per Vorbis, completely no. We never got anywhere with it last time we tried. In fact, when I switched to something similar to the design we currently have, most of them just said "unlikely" for liklihood. Kirkburn talk contr 08:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a list of my favorite races but the races I think are most likely to be playable. Zarnks 17:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The point of the list seems to be that some non two legged races are more likely to to other reason that some two legged ones. This would likely apply to other tries to split the article.Minionman 02:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Sigh I agree likelyness is a matter of opinion, except in certain cases, such as nathreziem which are so amazingly unlikely and some others. Zarnks... that list seems very opinionated... :\ Kenneth Koubek 20:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Er... why name them likely and unlikely again? Why not just "Bipeds" and "Others"? XD --Sky (t · c · w) 20:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

not funny -_- some of us here take some offense when people dump on race ideas with unusual numbers of legs. Please keep your posts at leaste semi serious.Kenneth Koubek 02:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Calm down, it's just a speculation page about a game - and race ideas shouldn't offend. I suppose grouping together those with technical difficulties would be a viable idea, but I'd rather keep it as it is. --V - Talk / Spam

My biggest pet peeve is when people tell me to calm down when I'm calm. Technical difficulties are a sketchy/debated concept, especially with no legs like the naga. What sky just said wasn't a race idea it was an obvious joke on the idea of odd legged race ideas.Kenneth Koubek 21:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

So I suppose humor is entirely unneccesary in your book? --V - Talk / Spam

Sigh now yer changing your argument first you were telling me that race ideas shouldn't offend now yer bringing up humor, the occassion didn't seem to call for a joke, or a wise crack, there is a time for anything and the time he made the joke gave the impression to me he was just being rude.Kenneth Koubek 03:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Removing broken draenei

May I have permission to remove broken draenei from the list? They're so similar to existing draenei that Blizzard will probably never choose them for a playable race. If they are kept on the list, then we might as well add half-elves, Dark Iron dwarves, and other such unlikelihoods. --Morlu 00:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Then you will have to remove Draenei Lost Ones as well.-Airiph 00:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The two variant draenei are on the list because of the extreme differences in appearance. Nevertheless, I agree wholly: people would go berserk if they got more of the same again (more elves was toeing the line...), especially considering that the draenei are an attempt at a wholly unique playable race in the Warcraft universe. I'd also like to see magnatuar and Faceless Ones gone - they were unlikely to begin with; after Wrath of the Lich King they don't have a hope in hell. --V - Talk / Spam

Then can we add Amani forest trolls because they have a unique model to other trolls in the game? ...or maybe dire trolls? Note the sarcasm...Baggins 09:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for being so obtuse Baggins, but I don't get the gist of what you're saying. : / --V - Talk / Spam

I was just pointing out that forest trolls in Quel'thalas use a seperate model than the player trolls, designed to look like the Warcraft II Berzerkers, and dire trolls have a unique model too seperate than player trolls... Following the logic that has gotten lost ones and broken into article, those could be added too, :p... Oh ya, why not playable wretched too?Baggins 09:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh I see. So I suppose we have enough support to remove them then? --V - Talk / Spam

I think so. But maybe we should see what others think too.Baggins 09:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Lost ones also have some differences in class possibilities (Rogues would be added, Paladins would probably be removed.) and are a large group of draenei that have changed to have greatly different shape, body structure, etc. Forest trolls, appearence-wise, are simply more muscled trolls that hunch more. The draenei have more of a difference in types than the trolls do. Minionman 03:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Broken would not be a playable race. They are just a cheap reskin of tauren. Zarnks 04:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

That's not the point Zarnks. Both models and animations can be updated. Nevertheless, I still feel they're not unique enough. --V - Talk / Spam

Thats because they have the same culture as Draenei. Zarnks 22:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Not really important, but I'm pretty sure that bone golems and lost ones use the same model and animations with different skins. Common practice for Blizzard really.Baggins 20:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Do we agree that there is a general consensus to take broken draenei off of the list? With so many more original races, selecting broken would be a financial waste for Blizzard. --Morlu 20:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. There are also some others that I have my eye on... --V - Talk / Spam

But why have you put the broken draenei away, when they have still greater chance to became a race than the Lost Ones? Unless Blizzard makes some story about some lost one, who escaped their brainlesness and became a normal part of the Horde. Yes, I presume, that if the Lost Ones would join some faction, it would be the Horde, because they would have the same faith as orcs and forsaken undead - to "clean" themselves of dark magic and insane bloodthirst. But I still think, the Broken should be there, just because of Akama´s treason. Naze 17:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Au contrare! I propose we also remove Lost Ones, Faceless Ones, kobolds, makrura and magnataur from the list. They're ones I'd say "no" to with no hesitation. --V - Talk / Spam

Aye!And Harpies!- Airiph/T/C/B 20:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Lost Ones, kobolds, and harpies are not settled upon as seen in other discussions, but Faceless Ones and magnataur should be removed for sure. --Morlu 23:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

No more modifications to Pandaren until Dark Factions

I do not want to see anymore changes to Pandaren until Dark Factions is released. I will update the article with any new information or changes to Pandaren philosophy in "modern times", at that time. Their policies towards the Alligned racess may have changed since we last heard about them (pre-WoW), and we'll know for sure with Dark Factions. Though it should be noted that that Dark Factions is the "Independent Player's Guide", and they will still have reasons for why they want to remain Independent. In anycase if I see changes or removal of information, and war editing, I will lock the topic again. You have all been warned.

For those wondering, no dark factions doesn't mean Pandaren's are evil, its just a name get over it Zarnks... ;)Baggins 01:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, mate. I just want to balance it. No harm done, right? Garm 01:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference between trying to speculate and inventing ideas in order to try to balance things, and quoting what Blizzard has said on the issue. One is pure speculation, one is internal cultural/historical background, as Blizzard wants us know it.

1. If Blizzard says one thing, then opposite is likely not true, making the fan ideas pure speculation and hypotheticals, bordering on fanfic.

2. For races where Blizzard hasn't said much at all, almost anything can go as far as discussions.

3. The page is awefully bloated already, it should contain only the bare mininum information taken from what Blizzard has said, not on what fans want. If you want to discuss what the fans want, there is a whole page devoted to that in pandaren ideas.

Beyond that as new information is released the section will be updated to relate that information.--Baggins 02:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Wait... didn't you just modify Pandaren a couple of seconds ago? Garm 01:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Fixing some grammatical issues sure, asking for a citation for one of the additions (which I assume someon must have added this week), and neutralizing some colors that were question marks than positives or negatives. House keeping stuff really, administrative prerogativeBaggins 01:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Anycase I notice you removed a portion, I noticed it was an expanded version of stating many of the same points of something already said elsewhere the article, that should have been, "dark red", so I moved the other comment into the place of the point you removed, and upgraded it.

I agree with your reasoning for removal of the earlier statement, we don't need all of that material since its already discussed a bit in the question mark portion above (I might merge some of the stuff you removed into that question mark section later on, however for improved context.Baggins 01:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Kobolds

Should we add kobolds on there? Garm 16:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Why? --Raze 16:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

There are some intelligent kobolds out there who ally with races in league with the Horde. The page even shows they possess sapience. Garm 16:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

There are some races we don't add simply because the case for them is so awfully weak. To be frank, when it comes to considering potential "cool" races for implementation into the game, inconsequential cowards like the kobolds are likely right down at the bottom of Blizzard's 'possible races' list. --V - Talk / Spam

You forget that "cowards" can be used as comic relief among other uses. Why do you think Scooby Doo was so cool in the 70s and 80s (or whenever it was made)? Garm 18:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Quick important note - the points on the page should almost always be based on things that can be cited. Saying "a night elf could have brought one up" is a wild guess and has no place here. In addition, please link to citations/articles whenever possible. Kirkburn talk contr 18:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I"ve updated Kobold article with more information.Baggins 18:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is a paraphrase from Manual of Monsters, slightly reworded for intent and not to sound like a game rule/suggestion;

"Friendly kobolds are possibly raised by night elves or some other race. Though ruled by fear, heroic kobolds emerge from time to time."^{MoM 58}--Baggins 19:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

So I Heard We Like Murlocs?

Anyone want to give backstory on Murlocs? And, no "a small race would be a balance addition to the Horde" crap. That is wrong, and you know it. Garm 14:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Most people just think it would be a cool race to play, different from all the humanoids that we can currently play.   Zurr  T ∙ C 14:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Well that's good. And since they're Mudkip-like, more people will play the game. (The question is rarely asked, normally only in Barrens chat or STV chat, the Alliance version of Barrens chat) I've also added some lore from the main Murloc page to support them joining the Alliance. Garm 15:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Arrgh... why is noone else editing/updating? And the Murlocs would be for the Alliance because one tribe has managed to frequently trade with the Alliance in Northrend. Also, Tuskarr and Murlocs would contradict each other, as Murlocs are fish-like. Garm 16:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Blood elves eat tauren, or at least their jokes imply that..--SWM2448 18:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Jokes aren't to be taken seriously, mi amigo. Garm 18:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The Darkspear Trolls are mortal foes of every single Murloc Tribe. NO way for the Horde, as long as it has not broken off to join the T.L.F. and founded a separate faction.--K ) (talk) 17:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

That's kinda where I was going for. Murlocs being in the Alliance. Garm 17:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Garm - what's this about some obscure Pokemon (I had to look it up...) which has only a minor similarity to murlocs (being both fishy)? I haven't heard anything said about their popularity, or why they should be popular enough outside of Pokemon to herald a battalion of new players (especially considering we have two teddy-bear lookalikes on there)...

Kirochi - the murlocs seem to be absolutely everyone's foe, so the Darkspear's grudge should not be any greater than any other sapient race's grudge. The Darkspear have been through some pretty rough times, and a host of mortal foes, as it seems that a characteristic of trolls is to hate anybody outside their tribe (or the Horde, in the Darkspear's case). --V - Talk / Spam

My twisted mind has been afflicted with Barrens chat, if you wonder about Mudkip-like qualities that Murlocs have. They both have fins, possibly scales, along with both having similar attack plans (if you went to Bulbapedia, analyzed the movepool of a Mudkip, and compared it to Murlocs, you might catch me drift). Garm 18:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Come on now, if they relied on Barrens chat for sales advice then Blizzard would already have implemented Chuck Norris and tauren beefburgers. I don't think Pokemon qualities constitutes a strong argument for murlocs reeling in a whole new load of customers. --V - Talk / Spam

• cough* High Overlord Saurfang and World of Burgercraft *cough* Garm 19:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, one of which was a joke; the other of which is frequently joked about. Mocking up a fake takeaway page and implementing an entire race are two different things, especially when one of them is not supposed to be taken seriously. --V - Talk / Spam

About the White Sharks: we don't know WHO they deal with. Right, they leave not far from Valgarde, but let's not speculate too much.--K ) (talk) 19:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Naga

I still believe the naga section of the article is not quite correct. I mean, who removed the horde mindset point? It is true, dammit! they are a hordish race in personality and outlook! And they have changed much physically, like the forsaken. So why was that point removed when it should have stayed the way it was? At least their personality fits well with the Blood Elves. After all, both have highborne origins. I see more reason to have it in the article than not. And don't come with the "alliance must have as many positive and negative points as horde" explanation, because I don't buy that. some races have a much larger chance to add horde t