Possibilities and Variants

[Loxmardin]

It's because we'd rather not make exceptions about one race/class combination that will be released with a batch of others when Cataclysm comes.

Hence, we'd rather say 'no' to all of them instead of saying 'yes' to a select few as it stands. It's not a matter of whether some of them already exist or not.

[Brutalskars]

So us as players technically, 'the more heroic' of our common kin, cannot seem to have the common intellect to take on classes we could take on ICly with no issues whatsoever to lore. But it is alright if a few thousand+ exist in the common, non-heroic crowd of NPCs that are not even named...

I fail to see the sense in that argument. I mean I think I understand that you guys don't want to make exceptions just because cata will do all the work for you. But whatever right? It isn't like we need to follow lore, we just need to follow what Blizzard spoon feeds us.

[Aphetoros]

An addendum-- I only pick the class based around the character I'm playing. It really isn't, 'I wanna RP a rogue' It's more, I wanna RP this and this, and a rogue is the best OOC class to represent it.

[Binkleheimer]

Actually, as far as I know, the whole dwarves gaining their new classes is all attributed to the Council of the Clans or some such.
Or, in other words, the Dorf Shammies are Wildhammer.
And the mage/warlock dorfs are Dark Iron or so.
(Then again, they do have a Mystic Ward and inside the city is also a dorf warlock/mage guy in the forlorn caverns or some such. He sends you out to find some manuscript of doom. Besides, in the beta, dorfs could become mages. Then they decided to go for the class balance thing.)

So, it's less lore stopping it and more... false balance issues?

[Brutalskars]

There are NPCs for most of all the class combos, but since we cannot play them ourselves. We are not allowed to RP that. I fail to see the logic myself.

[Rigley]

The attitude really isn't necessary.

And I think this is about the time I stop posting in this thing.

[Grakor456]

So us as players technically, 'the more heroic' of our common kin, cannot seem to have the common intellect to take on classes we could take on ICly with no issues whatsoever to lore. But it is alright if a few thousand+ exist in the common, non-heroic crowd of NPCs that are not even named...

I fail to see the sense in that argument. I mean I think I understand that you guys don't want to make exceptions just because cata will do all the work for you. But whatever right? It isn't like we need to follow lore, we just need to follow what Blizzard spoon feeds us.

You're coming across as hostile, Brutal. I think you should calm down a bit.

Delta linked to an idiom that I think expresses the reason why I don't allow human hunters: you give an inch, they'll take a mile. The thing is with lore, is that using it you can justify practically every race/class combination. I've heard people comment about humans being able to be shaman because of certain NPCs. I've heard people say that blood elven druids are viable by the lore. Does that mean that I should allow human shaman and blood elven druids?

You might say yes, or you might not. I don't pretend to know your exact stance on the issue, but I personally believe that we shouldn't.

I'd also point out that the "few thousand+" of human archer NPCs are also NPCs and don't display the level of ranged combat skill that PC hunters display.

[hiddengecko]

I do, of course, play the devil's advocate here, but the 'give-an-inch-take-a-mile" idiom is a common logical fallacy. Now, I don't necessarily disagree with the decision, given the possible difficulties of coding in 'unlocked' classes, but I am afraid I must disagree with the reasoning behind it.

As to the specific example, disallowing humans from being archers who posess a stricly non-magical affinity with animals seems...rather quaint. After all, human trackers and hunters (in the literal sense of 'one who hunts') are what the class is based on.

I could name numerous humans, current-day even, who posess a loyal animal companion and a ranged weapon (even if it's a bolt-action hunting rifle and a labrador.)

If this will disallow people from owning the aforementioned possessions, even without any of the implied nature magic and supernatural abilities the Hunter class seems to posess, I do have to say that I disagree rather strongly with this position, even if it doesn't affect me.

[Aphetoros]

I assume you mean humans with hunting dogs, Gecko?

[Rigley]

I do, of course, play the devil's advocate here, but the 'give-an-inch-take-a-mile" idiom is a common logical fallacy. Now, I don't necessarily disagree with the decision, given the possible difficulties of coding in 'unlocked' classes, but I am afraid I must disagree with the reasoning behind it.

As to the specific example, disallowing humans from being archers who posess a stricly non-magical affinity with animals seems...rather quaint. After all, human trackers and hunters (in the literal sense of 'one who hunts') are what the class is based on.

I could name numerous humans, current-day even, who posess a loyal animal companion and a ranged weapon (even if it's a bolt-action hunting rifle and a labrador.)

If this will disallow people from owning the aforementioned possessions, even without any of the implied nature magic and supernatural abilities the Hunter class seems to posess, I do have to say that I disagree rather strongly with this position, even if it doesn't affect me.

...I'm not certain I've ever seen a non-hunter character using a pet as a hunter pet would be.

Unless I'm wrong, I don't really see why we're even arguing for something that will affect absolutely no one. That being said I would guess you might be able to have a pet, but to train it in combat as a hunter would might be out of your expertise.

[Grakor456]

I do, of course, play the devil's advocate here, but the 'give-an-inch-take-a-mile" idiom is a common logical fallacy. Now, I don't necessarily disagree with the decision, given the possible difficulties of coding in 'unlocked' classes, but I am afraid I must disagree with the reasoning behind it.

As to the specific example, disallowing humans from being archers who posess a stricly non-magical affinity with animals seems...rather quaint. After all, human trackers and hunters (in the literal sense of 'one who hunts') are what the class is based on.

I could name numerous humans, current-day even, who posess a loyal animal companion and a ranged weapon (even if it's a bolt-action hunting rifle and a labrador.)

If this will disallow people from owning the aforementioned possessions, even without any of the implied nature magic and supernatural abilities the Hunter class seems to posess, I do have to say that I disagree rather strongly with this position, even if it doesn't affect me.

The link you provided also points out that not all slippery slope arguments are false, or indeed fallacies. It depends on how it's applied.

I'd also point out the logical fallacy of your own: what real world humans can or cannot do is largely immaterial to what humans in WoW can do. Just because I can do something IRL, it does not follow that I could, or should, be able to do it within the context of our game. The circumstances and the setting are entirely different.

[Aphetoros]

Isn't a character's expertise what a player wants it to be?

[Rigley]

Isn't a character's expertise what a player wants it to be?

Within reason of their class.

Rigley cannot become a aquatechnomancer.

[hiddengecko]

The link you provided also points out that not all slippery slope arguments are false, or indeed fallacies. It depends on how it's applied.

I'd also point out the logical fallacy of your own: what real world humans can or cannot do is largely immaterial to what humans in WoW can do. Just because I can do something IRL, it does not follow that I could, or should, be able to do it within the context of our game. The circumstances and the setting are entirely different.

Simply because a logical fallacy's conclusion is sometimes true does not mean the mode of thinking is any less than a fallacy.

As for your second paragraph, barring certain technological and scientific advances--I should think that yes, it most certainly does. One can train an attack dog or an attack wolf (or canine or what have you) regardless of their cultural and racial background--barring perhaps those which might simply repulse animals for obvious reasons, such as Forsaken.

Race in WoW is physical, spiritual, and cultural 'presets,' if you will. Certain presets I could see being logically infeasible--Human Shamans, for instance, because the Elements might well not trust a Human mediator (and for good reason!) Hunter, however, is a 'physical' class with no particular requirements beyond one being able to interact with animals and use ranged weaponry.

No spritiual attributes bar this, as there is no magic required, and certainly no physical--culturally, there are humans with pets ingame. Even a warhorse is an 'attack animal.' Now, if we have humans taming moonsabers, I'm going to roll my eyes--but that is what the approval system is for, is it not?

[Grakor456]

Simply because a logical fallacy's conclusion is sometimes true does not mean the mode of thinking is any less than a fallacy.

As for your second paragraph, barring certain technological and scientific advances--I should think that yes, it most certainly does. One can train an attack dog or an attack wolf (or canine or what have you) regardless of their cultural and racial background--barring perhaps those which might simply repulse animals for obvious reasons, such as Forsaken.

Race in WoW is physical, spiritual, and cultural 'presets,' if you will. Certain presets I could see being logically infeasible--Human Shamans, for instance, because the Elements might well not trust a Human mediator (and for good reason!) Hunter, however, is a 'physical' class with no particular requirements beyond one being able to interact with animals and use ranged weaponry.

No spritiual attributes bar this, as there is no magic required, and certainly no physical--culturally, there are humans with pets ingame. Even a warhorse is an 'attack animal.' Now, if we have humans taming moonsabers, I'm going to roll my eyes--but that is what the approval system is for, is it not?

Who is to say that culture is in fact not the limitation here? Yes, there are humans with pets, but that does not mean that they are hunters. Yes, there are humans with bows and guns, but that does not make them hunters either. We do not see in WoW any significant number of hunter-esque humans, until Cataclysm. It's therefore clear that the hunters arts are not widely positively regarded by humans, for the same reason tauren and draenei cannot be rogues, despite that being a purely physical class. Again, until Cataclysm.

Also, comparing a warhorse to an attack dog is a bit strange. And, as a point of irony, Forsaken are able to be Hunters in Cata as well.

And no, this is not what the approval system is for. See my posts earlier in the thread.

Now, for someone who denounces "give an inch and they'll take a mile" as a logical fallacy, are you not doing the exact thing here? Have we not given an inch, and you are now attempting to take a mile?