Shadow Healing

[Harmonic]

But, again, it's not existent in actual lore. At this point, if it's implemented, it's fanon. It'd be -us- creating our -own- lore again, and if we were to head that way it'd start to undo the stuff that last restart was supposed to fix. I mean, saying you're for it without providing an instance where it states that it's actually possible to heal undead with shadow in lore -aside- from the decannonized RP books doesn't do much other than making it seem like a voting process rather than a conversation of whether it's possible or not.

Edit: Also, nothing is being changed. Grak's stating that some people have made a mistake in saying that's how you heal undead, so it's more of a correction than a change. A change suggests that's how it was supposed to be.

[Grakor456]

This entire subject gives me a headache.

There's a reason I sigh aloud whenever someone comes up to me with a "are characters allowed to do this?" question, especially when it involves murky lore. People end up taking some things very seriously, even if you think that they won't. In the overall grand scheme of things, does it really matter if priests are able to heal undead with shadow, if they can do so with light? Obviously opinions will differ, but in the overall grand scheme, this would seem like a relatively minor issue to me.

Yet, as I said, people take things very seriously, even the little things. Just the mere notion of priests being able to use both light and shadow has enraged someone enough to call the entire notion "plain-powerplaying-roleplay-stupid."

All of this, just over the idea of being able to play a character as it is presented to us by the game we're playing.

Contrary to what some might think, I don't actually enjoy telling someone that they can't play a specific concept or character. I do, at times, in order to fit the goals of the server, and that's to create a fun, fair, and lore-accurate place for everyone to roleplay in. Warcraft is not a game that takes itself too seriously, and so I've learned to err more on the side of leniency with these things than I was in the past. Yet, in something as simple as this, the more lenient (and more in-line with what lore we've been given) decision is denounced. It's true what they say: Sometimes you just can't win.

So, guys, this is where we're at, currently.

Here is my personal message to this thread in general: I'm not telling you that you can't play your pure holy priest that would never touch a shadow spell in his/her life. I'm not telling you that you're wrong for doing so, though I am perhaps a bit disappointed that this became the norm. My suggestion, however, is to keep an open mind and accept what is given to us in terms of lore. If you have proof to back up your claims and can cite a canon lore source, then that's great! Post it, we all want to see it. However, if you don't have that, taking a firm stance and saying that "my way is the correct way, and all other ways are wrong" is just being needlessly confrontational and isn't being constructive. That goes for both sides of the discussion.

Now, this is my personal take on the subjects that have been discussed: we've been given lore examples of characters that can use both holy and shadow, and the server policy has been (for some time) that any race/class/spec combination possible in-game is possible for RP, and we don't restrict priests on what spells they can cast from their spellbook regardless of spec. This is unlikely to change unless we get some really solid lore saying otherwise. (As an aside, I'd like to know how this belief originated, as the idea of being locked into one half or the other wasn't true in the d20 either.)

As for the healing bit, I've already established that I don't mind Shadowmend as a variant ability, so let's get that out of the way. Now, do I believe that priest shadow magic should be able to heal undead (in specific) by default? No. We've seen no real evidence that's possible aside from the d20, and that system of healing was proven false by the revelation that holy magic heals undead still (the system in place in the d20 was most likely put in to make it conform with 3rd edition Dungeons and Dragons, the system it was based on. Positive energy healing living/harming undead and negative energy doing the opposite was true in that system, whereas we don't get those particular concepts mentioned in Warcraft canon.) Now, we are told that necromantic arcane magic can heal undead, and that makes sense. After all, necromancy has a focus on undeath and creating undead creatures, so it only makes sense that it'd also have means of healing the creatures it creates. Priestly shadow, on the other hand, has a focus on manipulating the mind and being a destructive force, which doesn't mesh well with the idea of healing undead.

That said, do I feel so strongly on this that I'd break the flow of an RP to argue about it? Not really, it's a minor point in the grand scheme of things.

Let's try to be able to step outside of our own personal biases about the lore and be able to see things from the other perspective.

[Harmonic]

You convey things so much better than I can. Sometimes I think I come off as too "THIS IS HOW IT IS, BLACK AND WHITE" when I don't intend to be.

I really, really enjoy things that make it so there's -less- argument over who can do what. That's what I was mostly trying to get at, and you said it great.

[Rigley]

(As an aside, I'd like to know how this belief originated, as the idea of being locked into one half or the other wasn't true in the d20 either.)

It's actually fairly easy to see why this sort of thing came up, personally; after all, take a look at Warcraft 3, for instance.

Pretty much the references to the Light all came from the same factions;

Spoiler:

Pretty much mostly guys who looked like this. Priests and paladins held quotes related to the Light, whereas on the other hand the shadow was more commonly referenced by the diametrically opposed Scourge units;

Spoiler:

...Pretty much -wholly opposite- units, actually, aye-- Priest vs Necromancer, Paladin to Death Knights and the Lich. In my experience a good few people's backing of WoW lore comes from exclusively WoW (a big mix of lore yes and no's, depending on what you're referring to) and then Warcraft 3. So effectively you end up with people who relate the Shadow to scourge, undeath, evil and etc. and then the other side which will relate the Light towards paladin-types and all of that.

Which is honestly close enough, until you have these sorts of debates.

Effectively the idea is that duality wouldn't be possible because the Light is good and the Shadow is evil, when in reality its more of how those abilities are used which dictates their course more than anything else. Shadow (as far as I know) is not inherently corrupting like Necromancy, nor Warlockery-- their bias to me has always come from the summoning of undead and demons respectively, not the other assorted spells (though ICly a warlock is certainly identified by demon-based spells). There isn't really any tangible unspeakable evil which relates to the shadow other than it being used as a preferred offensive for priests of an evil alignment-- which makes sense, since shadow is much more geared towards inflicting pain than the Light.

That being said, being 'specialized' to one or the other seems like it would be more practical, at least in the way of the shadow priest-- shadowform isn't something all priests can do after all, so I expect that priests primarily working with the Light would prefer to use that offensively, as it would be more natural and likely more honed.

I'm rambling.


All of that being said, I still do believe that shadow healing is warranted. NPCs use abilities which mend with the shadow, and while we do not indeed have access to all abilities that NPCs do we have allowed classes in the past which draw from NPC abilities over player ones-- whole new branches of mage specializations for instance, or the use of magic to justify unclear powers such as shadowstep.

Though really I'd be fine to settle for it being something used as a variant ability, as has already been suggested. I still think it should be something of a given for Forsaken, but the ability in and of itself doesn't seem like something that should require a lengthy story behind its acquisition. In the end I think its preferable to nothing; it is, after all, just a formality in specifying that the priest delved further into the field in order to learn this.

...

Ramble ramble ramble.

[Piroska]

Ramble ramble ramble.

Rigley ramble? Nowai!

[Clovis]

So.....wait.

I can roll my shadow nelf priest who isn't evil? <3

[Grakor456]

So.....wait.

I can roll my shadow nelf priest who isn't evil? <3

I'd love to see that, actually.

[Kaghuros]

Heh, I've been levelling a NElf shadow priest trying to decide if I wanted to play it. Maybe we'll meet up IC some time.

[Sol]

I wanted to roll one too. I thought it was an original idea. FFFFFFFFFFF xD

[Clovis]

I wanted to roll one too. I thought it was an original idea. FFFFFFFFFFF xD

Heh, I've been levelling a NElf shadow priest trying to decide if I wanted to play it. Maybe we'll meet up IC some time.

WE CAN MAKE THIS WORK, GUYS.

Skype: Clovisthepaladin

I've yet to rehash Ishura's backstory, so it's totally possible to make this work. We can be like, backstory bros.

....I'm done derailing the thread now!

[flammos200]

I wanted to roll one too. I thought it was an original idea. FFFFFFFFFFF xD

Herp. Admittedly, you'd likely have to explain the hows and whys, but it's quite a doable concept, s'long as you remember it's a Night Elf, and not a tall, purple Human with pointy ears.

As an aside, last I checked, Shadow did corrupt, draining one's emotions, no? Or was that fanon?

[Aphetoros]

http://wiki.conquestofthehorde.com/Therai
http://wiki.conquestofthehorde.com/Sagi

(it's fanon.)

[Rigley]

(it's fanon.)

Predde much.

[Ural]

As an aside, last I checked, Shadow did corrupt, draining one's emotions, no? Or was that fanon?

So Aminar's guide is a little outdated then? It's what I've based such draining effects on.

[Aphetoros]

Well, you see most of these guides are fanon-inspired/the user's own take on effects. They are not wrong, just not official lore. I like them, and so I roleplay the effects that way. Since most people accept those facts, they are facts for CotH at the very least. I enjoy them!