Category talk:Shadow Knight

Does this class actually exist in WoW? A quick lore search found no reference. It sounds like a D&D-rippoff. Auburn(SWC) 11:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's my guess...

--Admin Richeron [ T | C ] 11:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I've tagged three class-categories for "is this loreful?" suspicion - Shadowknight, SpellSword and Shadowmancer. Basically, I think the wiki should support good RP practice by not having pages for classes that don't have proven existence in WoW. Unless someone can produce eveidence from souces I don't have access to, I'd suggest reclassifying the chars to lore-classes and removing the D&D-categories.

Auburn(SWC) 11:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed... mind you, Shadowmancer NPCs do exist in wow, but basically are Warlocks. http://www.wowwiki.com/Dark_Conclave_Shadowmancer

-Admin Richeron [ T | C ] 11:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I noticed that and I think the note there was that IC you can call yourself whatever, but since class is OOC, and since "shadowmancer" npc's are effectively warlocks oar shadow priests, unless there's actual WarCraft lore supporting a class, the char sheers should also have that tag, not a made up vanity class.

Auburn(SWC) 15:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Personally I think with Shadow Knight its fair to be left. The idea was originally just a TDE project anyway, corrupting Paladins and turning them into Shadow worshippers basicly. Thats perfectly acceptable Lorewise and as other people took up the idea I suppose it deserves some form of page really. Plus...I made these pages years ago so hey :P

Entriia 20:46 11 July 2009

IExcept it's not marked as a TDE project. And -other people- have begun to use and -alter- the page.

--Admin Richeron [ T | C ] 21:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Now that I look at it ... all three seem to be TDE-stuff. :P Like I said, IC people can call each other whatever they like but OOC if it's a made-up class then it's a made-up class and shouldn't have a class page. It confuses the natives. :P

On the other hand, a mini-write-up of TDE's evil dealings might be nice, and a good way to collect the stuff in those pages. Auburn(SWC) 01:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah but theres nothing wrong with creating plausible 'classes' within the boundries of lore. We change our own server lore, what's wrong with a few flavour classes here and there? And they are all under a seperate section of classes.

Entriia 2:44 12 July 2009

Class is OOC, a game mechanic, and those are controlled by Blizzard. That's really the long and short of it. If it's "like a paladin but evil", then it's a paladin or possibly a Death Knight. If it's "like a mage but uses shadow" then it's a warlock. Also, we disagree on whether a shadow-wielding paladin or a sword-fighting mage is within lore - I think they aren't, unless there's precedent from Blizzard, and if there is I can't find it.

Auburn(SWC) 17:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

A Paladin can forsake the Light and turn to it's opposite, aka The Shadows, thus becoming something else. Regardless of if it has a name within Wow or not, doesent really matter. Oh and just to be pedantic, a mage using shadow wouldent be a Warlock, no Fel involved :P Y'see we are STEAMWHEEDLE CARTEL Wiki, not WoW-Wiki. This isent a site of pure Blizzard lore now is it? It's about the server and what goes on within it.

Entriia 23:04, 12 July 2009

I recognise that paladin quote from D&D, I haven't seen it in Warcraft. And if we're gonna be pedantic, you should shoot "mage using shadow" down as a stupid slip because mages can't use shadow at all, it's divine magic and not arcane. Can we just quit arguing your opinion against mine and skip to where you show me the lore TDE based it's stuff on? All I'm asking for is a reference. "This goes on on the server" isn't good enough, Goldshire goes on on the server too, but none of us wants people thinking that means it's Wiki-worthy. If it's going to be entered into server lore, it needs to fit with Blizzard's lore first - I'm assuming we agree that where player lore and Blizz lore conflict, Blizz is correct.

Auburn(SWC) 01:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I was operating under the assumption we both knew this was all perfectly viable lore-wise and you just had a problem with RP 'classes'. What lore is there to show? Paladin falls/is corrupted from the Light to become a follower of a Shadow-based religion, he then wields Shadow as aposed to Light. Simmilarly a mage who takes an interest in the Shadow and applies themselves to a Shadow-aligned doctrine can channel Shadow, though he's using it in a more intelectual/scholarly way than a priest. Oh and as to Spellsword, I only made that beacuse Lash herself was one and as to lore to back it up, I can't see any problem with a noble-born mage taking an interest in using a magic in conjuction with close-combat related magic. Feeel free to object on any of those points though.

Entriia 3:13, 13 July 2009

I have no problem with RP classes, class is OOC so IC you can call yourself anything. OOC and "true" classes, though, should be solidly based in lore, which I don't think the three I've tagged are. As I've said - I'm asking for Blizzard-produced material that shows this is possible in WoW, not how it's explained in D&D which Lash cheerfully admitted to using as a source. Basically, these three points:


 * Warcraft lore suggests Shadow is a matter of religion and can't be used by means of arcane magic (arcane in the sense of academic vs. divine, there's a longish article on WoWwiki about this, warlocks seem to get shadow stuff because they get their power from demons, who presumably worship something that grants them shadow power). Is there somethign I've missed that describes mages usuing shadow? The shadowmancer NPC's Rich mentioned don't count for the reason mentioned - it's a vanity name, not a class description.


 * Is there lore suggesting any religion but Light has paladin-equivalents? The evil paladins ingame still use Light unless they are Death Knights. Correct me if I've missed something, this is entirely possible because I haven't read everything. Player-created classes like Lashela's shadow-worshiping paladins don't IMO constitute an OOC class, just a subgroup in an IC sect.


 * There's no reason a mage couldn't use a sword, but there are plenty of lore precedents suggesting that studying magic simply takes so much time that a mage will never be good with another weapon - at least good enough to consider it a real option to pure magic. Is there any lore battle where a mage uses melee as well? I can't remember one. I recall saying that when Lash mentioned her "class", I recall her answering this was a D&D class and she'll use it in WoW because she likes it, and I remember deciding to not care because well, I avoided TDE anyway and Lash never seemed to make a big deal out of it.

Seriously, I'm not having a go at you or TDE here, they were an insular group who had their own private stuff which is exactly how you should go about stretching lore. I have no problem with how TDE played among themselves. I do have a problem with the class pages, because they're implying that since TDE said so, D&D lore is applicable in WoW and people at large should accept it. Before you say that's not a problem, you try interviewing a Frost Elf. :(

Auburn(SWC) 07:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Auburn. If people want to Rp this, then fine, they can, but it doesn't necesarily make it valid to put it on par with Lore. This is giving new roleplayers incentive to take up these alternate classes, which is precisely the kind of thing that will ultimately be an unhealthy influnece on them. I ask you, Entriia, to take these three classes and make a special article for them (all three in one). I then intend to delete these category pages from existence.

--Admin Richeron [ T | C ] 14:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I wasen't trying yo say you were having a go or anything, I was just trying to defend something I did like two years ago :P These pages don't really matter anymore and your right on most of those points to a certain degree so fair enough Rich, remove the pages. BUT non of this stuff contradicts Lore, hence why i thought we may as well keep them, they offer an opportunity for shadowy-types.

Entriia 1:16 14 July 2009

Defence ain't needed, it's not your fault people are now taking them as something besides the TDE-projects they were originally intended (though not marked) as. We just want to eliminate the confusion.

Related, I found this: Warmage. It cites Rhonin as one, and since he's the Kirin Tor bigwig and a colossally OP lore-Sue who is described as a "skilled with a sword", I'm inclined to take his abilities as the height of what a really really good melee mage could do. According to his wiki, that means he fights with spells, sometimes parries stuff, and then falls back on fire-arrows when he runs out of magic. The implication is his attacks are pure magic, since that's what's most effective. Being more talented than he is at melee-magery and managing a more 50/50 split sounds like beating the head of the Kirin Tor at his own game, which is very naughty indeed. Auburn(SWC) 10:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Three categories were deleted. Information stored in TDE Classes.

--Admin Richeron [ T | C ] 13:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)