Talk:Edala

I hope you don't get too mad with me but a few things to point out. SI:7 is a Intelligence division, not a tactical military branch. And she was given a Knighthood for being in prison and disobeying orders that put countless people at risk? And a small extra note about fooling a Stormwind General. They are extremly few, so they know who they take orders from, a Alliance military person however, can't give orders in Internal Stormwind affairs. - Ovex.

To be honest, I suppose it was a bit of Godmodding, in a way. With SI:7, I was getting a bit confused with a guild I used to be in who had the ranks of military but were working for Stormwind Intelligence. As for tricking the General, I'm trying to remember if and how it happened In-game, but I think it was something like this: I found a dead General's badge, used badge to stop the renegade General (comically by putting my finger over the name), and stopped him from "culling" some people in order to stop the Scourge, This was during the Scourge Infection, (yes, it was so fun I'm using it for a large part of my story) so they could have been a bit disorientated in regards to who their orders were coming from, but maybe I should change that to something lower like a Major. Oh and the knighthood was supposedly for help in saving the people, especially the fact that a draenei risked her life to save humans. And to be honest comes from a little idea I have for a Death Knight. But thanks for informing me, I didn't want to seem too Lore destroying. - Arutimishia 14:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I would like to add that there might not even be any Draenei, Night Elf or maybe even Gnome/Dwarf who serves as a high ranking person for Stormwind's military(Diffrence between Stormwind and Alliance, importent to remember). Afterall, the human's greatest strength and flaw is their pride for nationality and kind. And then my last standing question is rather about the Knighthood, personally I never pictured the Warcraft Knights as the equivalent to our worlds old knights, instead of influencial landlords and nobility, they are a more elite form of soldiers merely, the iron fist of Human soldiers? So it might be more of a honorable low class nobility she got or a token, rather then becoming a iron soldier? I might be wrong however, but I never saw my own Knight(Dergo) as the Noble kind, more like just a talented soldier who survived. Hopefully someone else can add a source about ranks and titles in Warcraft? - Mallaliak 18:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

That is an interesting point to ponder. What I was originally going for, but didn't want to say out loud, was that her position was merely a token position, given only to her after the Exodar landed to strenghten the ties, a bit like an exchange system with no actual concern to the exchange subject, and they purposefully send her out to Lordaeron and the Plaguelands to try and make it so that she would die, but they would not be responsible. That, coupled with all her titles being taken away when she dies, and a few other facts, encourage her to join the Scourge, when she is resurrected by the Lich King (or whoever does the actual resurrecting during the Death Knight quest). And for the titles, I think what SI:7 use isn't said, and the Stormwind army has the old PVP ranks, or at least some of them do. Arutimishia 20:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

A bit off-topic, but following Mallaliak's thingy about the Knights in wow not being landowners. I'm not entierly sure they were that in RL either. However, I do suspect that the title Lord is sometimes used in wow as a military title, rather than always as a landowner. --Admin Richeron [ T | C ] 00:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I would recommend changing from Stormwind General Badge to Alliance General Badge. Even if it's a minor thing, it has great deepth, they execute people for smaller crimes then impersonating a General in Stormwind. And the fact there might only be 1-5 High ranking non humans in Stormwind Army, and they are all High Elves or Dwarves probally. Do note I say Stormwind Army, and not Alliance, it's a importent diffrence since they are not the same, and the Alliance can not decide what should be done in internal affairs in regard to one kingdom/country, of course they can still make their oppinion heard, but it doesn't need to be considered. --Mallaliak 09:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I suppose that would be best to in change it to Alliance General. To be honest, it was something I made up one day so I wasn't too sure about the lore aspect. In regards to the RL Knights subject Richeron brings up; I think that RL knights were just people devoted to a lord and would fight for him when needed, which back then was near-constant, but weren't land owners themselves, so if wow is sort of based on that then we could guess a knight would be just a solider truly devoted to stormwind, with some sort of life threatening act to prove it. Somehow I knew something in lore would block it if I changed it from "Honorary Stormwind Knighthood"....Arutimishia 14:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

On RL knights - I did my pro seminar paper and a few others on chivalric romances, and no, they weren't originally landowners. The short version: back in the 12th century, France and the rest of Western Europe were enjoying a long period of peace, young noblemen didn't die in silly wars, and landed gentry found themselves with an excess of sons and not enough land for them all to inherit. The practice became for the eldest son to inherit, and younger sons to be sent off as glorified soldiers to serve other nobles - basically, they became knights, noblemen with no actual property of their own. The theory was that a knight could still distinguish himself through service, marry the daughter of some bloke with no sons, and earn lands of his own that way - which meant the landless son had less incentive to kill off his luckier elder brother(s) to improve his lot in life. According to some scholars, the whole of chivalric tradition was at least partially an elaborate social mechanism to discourage fratricide.

Assuming SW's practice follows the historical system, you must be noble to be a knight. You would not have lands or riches, you would not have to change your name, certainly not your last name (unless you weren't actually given a title, just adopted by a family and given the right to use theirs, which is actually a lot more believable than getting a title of your own in Edala's case).

Also worth noting: Knight is about as worthless as noble titles get. No land means no power. The actual big deal is that since you have to be a member of a noble family be a knight, it changes your legal status -- you're no longer a commoner, which means that nobles can no longer summarily whip or execute you if you tick them off, they're obligated to pursue their grudges through trial by law. Auburn(SWC) 09:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, that is interesting, to say the least. I suppose that making a system where family power struggles such as fratricide would be discouraged, would most certainly make sense. I had thought that, in the long run, a knighthood would be one of the lesser titles available. One of the ideas I had was a sort of "mass production title" given after the Infestation, as a sort of useless "Thank You" note of the middle ages. Also, as for the name change, I had originally mistaken a knighthood with a lordship, and thought of the name change because of several people who had changed their name when lorded, e.g Sir James Craig -> Lord Craigavon (not the best example, I know, but close enough). Also the name Raikov was actually IC supposed to be a portmanteau of the first syllable of her name "Rai" from Raidenovitch, with a supposed Draenei honorific "kov", which was supposed to make her seem a little more noble and to give the impression of something foreign (admittedly both surnames are taken from Metal Gear Solid. I wasn't Role playing much at the time so I just made up the lore on the spot, but the name sort of stuck with me). Arutimishia 19:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Historically speaking there was no such thing as a medieval "mass production title", titles meant you had legal rights and no noble in their right mind wanted their peasants having those. Even in the Roman Republic, I think a full carreer of military service only got you citizenship and a farm in the provinces. Titles as a trivial, pat-on-the-head "nice music there, sir Elton" -type thing are a fairly modern concept.

Of course, this is WoW, not history, I just chimed in because Rich was wondering about RL examples. :)

The namechange - I think Craigavon's an example of the modern tradition. I was thinking more of the earlier practice of calling nobility either their given name (given + family), or (title +) the area they controlled. Auburn(SWC) 13:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

When I was thinking about the historic implications, the idea had seemed a bit surreal, indeed the whole "mass production titles" was supposed to be a bit satirical. I mean when it was once a thing one worked hard and fought in combat for, now you can get a knighthood for nearly anything. (On a side note, a penguin had gotten one recently, and he was the sixth or seventh penguin to get a Knighthood.)

Also, with Craigavon, I have only just realised that the actual title was referring to the area Craigavon, I had thought it was just a corruption of his last name. (I never had any reason to question the name)

Also, back on the subject of WoW and history, it's not exactly historical, (But I have to admit I never played WC 1 so maybe that was a bit more "accurate", or as close as possible). I mean not only concepts such as gnomish engineering or even magic, that I could somehow believe, but also with the ideas of the King of zombies, a demon obsessing over a tree, flying undead castles, undead villains hiding their identity with a pair of goggles and the Tempest Keep being merely a "Set back", I don't think a little confusion over titles will make me lose any sleep, at least. :) Arutimishia 18:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)