Talk:Ner'zhul (alternate universe)

From Wowpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Ner'zhul's class

Discussion time! Let's get this settled. Ner'zhul is, of course, a shaman. We all know that. But now he is more than that. He uses the powers of the Void and practices necromancy as well. But what class is he then? The quest [Secrets of Soulbinding] (you can find it on wowhead) describes Ner'zhul and his followers as warlocks.

Now, when we think of warlocks in Warcraft, we think of dark wizards who summons demons and all manner of unpleasant stuff. That's how it's always been in Warcraft. And now Ner'zhul uses void magic. Therefore he quite fits with the warlocks class, excluding all the demon and fire stuff.

The question is Ner'zhul as a shaman. Again, we know he is a shaman. It's all over the lore. But as it is, because of all the void stuff he has going on, we haven't seen or heard of him using proper shamanic powers once. Not once (at least not to my knowledge). With all these void powers Ner'zhul also begins to summon spirits and skeletons, effectively making him a necromancer. This is half a question and half discussion: can he be described las a necromancer because of it or is it part of him being a warlock? Any evidence? Thoughts?

Ner'zhul: shaman and warlock, possibly a necromancer or maybe some kind of dark shaman? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dajax02 (talk · contr).

Blues have stated that warlocks have overlapping abilities with necromancers.[1] Just because Ner'zhul does some necromancy as a warlock, that doesn't necessarily make him a necromancer. --Aquamonkeyeg (talk) 16:05, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
And he's definitely not a dark shaman. Dark shamanism has always been defined as commanding the elements against their will, and whether you use the Void or some other method to do that is irrelevant; shadow priests and affliction locks use the Void, that doesn't make them dark shaman. Ner'zhul has nothing to do with elementals at all, which means he doesn't even hit the most basic of all checkpoints to be a dark shaman. ReignTG (talk) 16:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Ner'zhul should be identified as being a former Shaman, we aren't shown him invoking the elements anymore unless Void energy is a type of elemental energy and Void creatures such as Voidwalkers can be considered elementals. He definitely wasn't connected to his ancestors and the "elements" elements while being Warlock and all.
@Aqua, you need to stop bringing up that silly troll Historian, he doesn't make any sense what-so-ever.
Ner'zhul wasn't a Necromancer/Necrolyte because he's a Warlock but his Necromancers/Necrolytes were Necromancers/Necrolytes despite Ner'zhul being more proficient at the art than them and has been practicing the art just as long as them? That does not make any sense.
Justin Parker stated Warlocks and Necromancers have overlapping abilities and is conflicting with Sean Copeland's belief that Gul'dan was limited to just Fel magic.
Sean Copeland believes Gul'dan was limited to Fel Magic OR that Gul'dan created DK's with Fel magic and not Necromantic magic and therefore would still fall under Warlock and not Necromancer, which would mean he thinks Necromancy is an art that can't be achieved through Fel, which means what? Oh wait, it means Sean Dopeland believes Gul'dan was limited to Fel Magic and there is no OR.
Why should anyone take them seriously regarding this matter? Their job is to be a Lore Historian, not a Lore Retcon'er and they have unknowingly retcon'ed lore because they've ignored the manuals, the TCG cards, and the ToD and BtDP novels. Justin Parker and Sean Copeland don't believe Warlocks raise undead at all, and that is all there is to it.
Oh, look at me, I'm Sean Copeland, Gul'dan raising undead Death Knights with Fel Magic is not Necromancy even though Necromancy is an art achievable through different energies, it doesn't matter if it doesn't make sense, you're my pup who likes licking my boots cause I'm legit official and I'm always right hoi hoi hoi hoi..
Raising spirits/undead is a part of the Warlock class, period. Warlocks may not always summon/raise undead skeletons/zombies, but doesn't Necromancy extend to summoning/raising spirits/souls and forcefully binding them to your will? Warlocks do that, whether they are summoning/raising the soul of a demon and binding it to your will or summoning/raising the soul of a human and binding it to your will.
Warlocks who were summoning demons to inhabit the bones/bodies of the dead were called Necrophytes. Wouldn't those bones/bodies raised by the demonic souls inhabiting them be considered demons and not undead or both? Why are those Warlocks called Necrophytes if they are just infusing bodies/bones with demonic souls? That would fall under Demonology and not Necromancy.
When a demon dies and you take their soul and summon it back to its body, resurrecting it, you are doing the same thing the Necrophytes are doing, you are performing Demonology and Necromancy, they are the same thing depending on how you summon demons.
So...if Ner'zhul was binding souls (Soulbinding) like the Necrophytes and Necrolytes were and was more proficient at it why wouldn't he be a Necromancer/Necrolyte?
I personally never understood how Lore Historians determine a character's class. Copeland stated Warlock is too limiting for Annihilan and Dreadlords are demons so calling them Necromancers seems to pigeonhole their abilities. He is dumber than a stump, Man'ari Eredar Warlocks are demons too, but calling them Warlocks seem to pidgeonhole their abilities hur hur hur hur. The first Warlocks were demons, and they also wield Arcane and Shadow magic, not just Fel, and Gul'dan and his Warlocks were taught Fel, Arcane, and Shadow, so why does Copeland believe Warlocks don't wield Arcane and why does he think Warlock is too limiting for demons? I don't even....I don't even know what is going inside his mind, forgetting that Warlocks learn from demons and the powers they wield, which includes Arcane.
Demons can be Warlocks, Warlock is not limited/limiting, and Mannoroth was more Warlock than let's say:
http://www.wowcards.info/card/crown/en/153/Splashtooth
I think we should be given a little bit of liberty when it comes to labeling a character's class, but hey, that's just my humble opinion. Ner'zhul was more Necromancer than his Necrolytes/Necromancers and should therefore be considered a Necromancer..VisionOfPerfection (talk) 18:45, 15 November 2014 (UTC)VisionOfPerfection
That's what's called overlap. They are going by current rulings. Historians didn't come about to review the material until 2006. --Aquamonkeyeg (talk) 19:12, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
What are these current rulings? The lore already exists, the lore is already there, there doesn't need to be any retcons regarding this matter, it serves no purpose. They can state Warlocks don't raise/summon spirits/undead and that Gul'dan wasn't a Necromancer all they want, still doesn't change jack shit, the first known mortal Necrolytes/Necromancers were the Orc Warlocks who were taught by Gul'dan and he created DK's and was as much Necrolyte/Necromancer as his Necrolytes/Necromancers. If they don't want Warlocks also being Necromancers or being able to raise/summon spirits/undead then they would have to rewrite hella lore, and retcon'ing/re-writing what's already established is not their job.
It's bad enough knowing that the Historians probably haven't played Warcraft when it was relevant but then they have to spit on my face by ignoring pieces of canon work that came from the very company they work for. Warlocks summoning/raising spirits/undead is a part of my class' lore and I want Historians to acknowledge this, because it's true, and even if Warlocks aren't Necromancers for whatever pathetic non-sensical reasons they might give, soul manipulation (draining souls, summoning souls, binding souls) is a part of their training as a Warlock and that can't be retcon'ed.VisionOfPerfection (talk) 19:55, 15 November 2014 (UTC)VisionOfPerfection

Don't start this.--SWM2448 21:07, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

It ended :PVisionOfPerfection (talk) 21:23, 15 November 2014 (UTC)VisionOfPerfection

Ner'zhul's Iron Horde loyalty

I added the line because we should all know by now that Ner'zhul always craved power he didn't have. It's in Rise of the Horde is it not? That's what I was referring to. Meganerd18 (talk) 06:39, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Just because that was the case for his main universe counterpart doesn't automatically mean it's the case for AU Ner'zhul. -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 07:31, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Moreover, Ner'zhul "leaving" the Iron Horde was likely in the beta, no?--Mordecay (talk) 10:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Class

I think it's safe to say that Ner'zul is neither a warlock nor a necromancer but a voidmancer, while there are indeed examples of people addressing him as warlock we've never seen or heard him exercising the fel in ANY way, we can safely assume that Yrel and other in game characters called him warlock because they simply didn't know any better. Also to raise the dead as skeletons and such you dont need 'death' magic, void/shadow would suffice same as necrolytes in wc1. Also in the upcoming expansion mag'har orcs get priests =/ voidmancers like we saw in shadowmoon valley. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Darkpenguin1991 (talk · contr).

Often mobs and important characters won't exactly fit in the same mold as the players when it come their class. Many troll hexxers are using a mix of warlock and priest spells, for example. Best we can do is keep track of what he's been canonically told to be (warlock and necromancer), and then maybe to add more in a speculation section. Xporc (talk) 10:38, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Yeah we usually stick to official/canonical statements regarding these things. I'd also argue that there's nothing weird with calling him a necromancer since you can literally see him raising dead people and skeletons. -- MyMindWontQuiet 13:16, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Necrolytes raised the dead as well-skeletons only, with void magic- im pretty sure that the difference between a necromancer and a necrolyte is the power of the resurrection, necrolytes only raised skeletons while necromancers can reanimate pretty much everything as it is. (Dont know where is the reply button so I write in edit) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Darkpenguin1991 (talk · contr).
Necrolytes are necromancers. -- MyMindWontQuiet 19:20, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Wrong, necromancers use necromatic magic from the domain of death and necrolytes use shadow/void magic from the domain of well..shadow. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Darkpenguin1991 (talk · contr).
- ""Gul'dan formed a group of orcs called necrolytes. They dedicated themselves to learning the dark art of necromancy." - Chronicle Volume 2
- "I opened a new school of magical discipline that became known as Necromancy. We began training young Warlocks in the arcane mysteries of life and death. Again, with tutelage from the Daemon Kil'jaeden, these Necrolytes delved into the dark arts, eventually gaining power enough to animate and control the bodies of the newly dead." - WC2
- "Into these jewels were infused the raw, necromantic magiks of the freshly slain Necrolytes." - WC2
So nah, necrolytes are necromancers. -- MyMindWontQuiet 11:41, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Oh strange I have chro.2 as well and I didnt notice it, thx for pointing that out. However the wc2 is most likely outdated and retconned since this line doesnt fit into our current lore: We began training young Warlocks in the arcane mysteries of life and death. Life and death are not in the domain of the arcane according to the https://d1u5p3l4wpay3k.cloudfront.net/wowpedia/7/72/WoW_Chronicle_Magic.jpg?version=fa284a07747b627f60d6f6bf02556de7 unless there is something I dont quite understand. Then again Gul'dan might not have known that and we can call it flavor lore? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Darkpenguin1991 (talk · contr).
It's not "Arcane" as in the type of magic in Warcraft, but the English word "arcane", which means obscure, esoteric. -- MyMindWontQuiet 12:11, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Oh didn't knew that either, thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Darkpenguin1991 (talk · contr).