Talk:Gul'dan

Gul'dan's spirit
Seems like he's in Shadowmoon Valley. --Adys 10:20, 1 December 2006 (EST)


 * Or rather, a shade of him.--Ragestorm 13:08, 1 December 2006 (EST)


 * yeah, it's his spirit.... --Nexxius 15:53, 1 December 2006 (EST)


 * How did he end up there while he was killed in Azeroth?(Duke Ragereaver 16:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC))


 * It's not a ghost in the traditional sense. He doesnt talk to the players, doesn't do anything except reinact the events. Most likely isn't intelligent and doesn't know about the events that happened to his real self. Its more like one of the visions in karazhan.Warthok 16:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not a spirit or ghost, it's an echo of an event from the past.--Odolwa 18:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Shaman
He's connection to shamanism is mentioned in Warcraft II manual. If anyone is wondering...Baggins 20:22, 9 December 2006 (EST)


 * He was Ner'zhul's shamanic student. That the Spirits probably abandoned him is a moot point.--Ragestorm 20:47, 9 December 2006 (EST)


 * Shared classes, entail some shared abilities, not complete loss of all abilities from class types. Sure he lost ability to summon, but he had access to other uniquely shamanistic abilities. This is the reason for the (RPG) notice however, to point out that he is given multi-class status in that source.Baggins 21:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Again you can abandon the term "shamanism" but once one knows the knowledge they never truly give it up. He just lost access to certain schools of shamanism but had access to the abilities that could still be used by evil. He's litearlly one of the first "dark shamans", something you can see all over the place in game.Baggins 21:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * A term used in RPGs is "ex- ", meaning that the character has levels and abilities of a certain class, but cannot gain levels in that class (usually because of prohibited alignment). I'd venture that that's what we're seeing here. -- Ragestorm (talk &middot; contr) 21:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * He's not "ex-class" actually. He's just "class shaman. Level something or other. IN anycase the info is chronologically after Rise of hte Horde era, set during the warcraft II era when he uses the term "shaman" to describe himself in his own terms, much like his journal in the Warcraft II manual.Baggins 21:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * He couldn't be a regular Shaman. The element spirits won't let them kill innocent people as told by Drek'thar.Zarnks 21:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * We are not talking about what class someone is 'morally' here, we are talking in terms of gameplay and RPG mechanics. 21:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Most enemy shamans ingame are dark shamans. That is shamans that worship evil or corrupted elemental spirits rather then good ones. [User:Zarnks|Zarnks]] 21:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Infoboxes are not for explanations, Zarnks. Don't abuse them as such, or to prove a point. 21:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The rpg doesn't have a "regular shaman" all shaman variations fall under the same class, and its possible to have shamans with cultures that range from evil to good, lawful to chaotic.... Read the shaman lore page, and lore up on dark iron shamanism for example. Not all shamans are called "dark shamans" some are simply known as shamans.Baggins 21:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * A shaman who follows an evil or corrupted elemental spirit is a dark  shaman. A shaman who follows benovelent elemental spirits like the Horde's shamans is a regular shaman. A dark iron dwarf dark shaman likely foes Ragnaros or a corrupted fire elemental. Zarnks 22:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * For instance you can be an evil shaman if you follow evil elementals but you won't evil shamans who worship the spirits in Alterac valley who are benovelnt and won't answer the call of a shaman if it means hurting innocents.Zarnks 22:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Nah in the RPG Shaman are shaman (they range across all morality), anything else is said to be a title, or one of the prestidge classes like "battle shaman", or "far seer". A shaman in the Dark Iron dwarves is simply a shaman, although they bent towards evil, and fire. There are more elementals out there than just "elemental spirits" to call upon. According to the rpg shamans can also be call powers from the elemental plane.Baggins 22:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well Rise of The Horde and Lord of the Clans makes it clear that a regular shaman loses his powers if he goes toward evil. Zarnks 22:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No it makes it clear that they lose access to the elemental spirits, but according to lore there are other ways to access shamanistic powers by other powerful elemental forces, and divine sources. Its interesting to note that according to Day of the Dragon, Zuluhed secretely practiced old shamanistic rituals, that hadn't been seen since the Horde was first formed. But he was obviously tapping into other sources of power through those rituals. Also I'd like to point it out not all shamans believe in elemental spirits.Baggins 22:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * By losing access to the elemental spirits and going into evil sources you are basically becoming a dark shaman. Zarnks 22:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It isn't proven that Shamans lose their power by turning evil, they just lose their power by betraying the natural order. Drek'thar (and even Ner'zhul) never really became evil, but lost their powers when they embraced the powers of the Legion, which are anti-life.
 * The Spirits are actually the only source of Shamanism- Dark Shamans are as much their agents as true ones, whether they believe or not.- Ragestorm (talk &middot; contr) 22:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Dark shaman is a title, not a class, in the rpg and novels a shaman is a shaman, The dark iron dwarf shamans are just called shamans, Gul'dan is just called a shaman (along with his other mult-classed status), Zuluhed is just called a shaman, etc, etc. There is no official "dark shaman" class as of yet, only the title. Which doen't appear to cover all shamans in the game anyways. There are some other evil shamans in game that are simply called "shamans", in centaur, IIRCBaggins 22:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The elemental spirits Drek'thar though wouldn't let him kill innocents and refused to answer his call for years after he almost killed innocents with thier powers.

Zarnks 22:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * "The Spirits are actually the only source of Shamanism"
 * Actually not according to lore presented in the RPG. When I get around to it I'll update the shaman article with more of the cultures belief systems and how shamanistic abilities are accessed. But for now you might enjoy reading the bit on different racial beliefs in, shaman lore that are mentioned in a few of the races in the race sections.Baggins 22:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * In response to Zarnks: yes, because it went against the order of nature- the spirits don't care if their powers are used to kill, death is just another part of life. However, using the powers of the elements to kill those who are undeserving, or ending life before its time, or using it to further the cause of the Legion, are things that the Spirits will not tolerate. -- Ragestorm (talk &middot; contr) 22:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Case in point they orc shamans were going out on hunts specifically to kill Ogres all the time. That was a worthy foe. The spirits didn't mind. Even if the ogres themselves might have been a down-trodden and enslaved race(its actually said that early ogres at some distant point in the past may have been as smart as orcs, and via torture, hunts and other means they became as stupid as they were later on). Some might view the action of the early orcs as "evil", but it wasn't enough to lose the spirits, as there was a sense of personal honor behind what they did, and the spirits found them worthy.Baggins 22:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC


 * So you can't be an evil shaman who follows the elemental spirits and kills innocent. Most malovlent shamans are likely dark shamans.
 * The stuff on ogres is speculation and may or not be true. Zarnks 22:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * What matters is that the ogres believe that is their own history, they believe they were persecuted, experimented on, hunted, etc(some of it occured before the Horde, and some of it afterwords), even RotH talks about the hunting, and experimentations to a point, and some of the other novels discuss the other details.
 * I wouldn't say "most" evil shamans are dark shamans. We don't even know the numbers of shaman centaurs, or dark iron dwarves have and they are only "shamans", not dark shamans. So far the only dark shamans we've seen are members of certain fel horde factions in Outland. We simply do not have any numbers to accurately qualify anything of that kind of detail.Baggins 22:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * My POINT is that evil beings can easily follow the path of the shaman, provided their actions are in accord with the balance of the natural world. Allying yourself with the enemies of life, demanding that someone you love be returned to life, etc. are against the balance. Good and evil doesn't really have anything to do with it. -- Ragestorm (talk &middot; contr) 22:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * In the RPG speak, what Ragestorm is calling "Balance" is what would be called "lawful evil", and possibly even "neutral evil", as opposed to "chaotic evil." Baggins 22:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * An evil shaman who doesn't kill unarmed innocents and respects the natural elements but robs and kills Argent dawn warriors could still worship the elemental spirits then? But a centaur who kills innocents discrimnately and ruins natue couldn't be regular shaman right. Zarnks 22:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It's that 'fun' word, "evil", again. :) 22:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Its unclear, centaurs tend to be towards chaotic, but often they are somewhere between chaotic evil and chaotic neutral. But even chaos can be natural part of nature, storms, volcanoes, etc are all chaotic events but part of natural world. A chaotic evil doesn't necessarily kill indiscrimently, infact he might kill to balance nature, or the belief that he has to destroy order to create a or better order. On the other hand he might just kill everything with no plan or reason, just for the enjoyment of killing.


 * When discussing order and chaos generally the idea is to find balance in the middle. Its possible for order to go too far.


 * It is part of the natural order for rabbits to multiply, but if that happens it could unbalance things and cause death and chaos to other creatures. So it is often relevent to kill the innocent rabbits to bring things back to a balance. But killing all the rabbits could cause another adverse effect, weeds may flourish and kill food sources, or the food sources of predators be deplenished causing them to die out or attack livestock and people in order to survive. There is a kind of circle to all  this. Not all things are black and white, there are shades of grey to evil or even good which might be perceived as evil, depending on an individual's POV.Baggins 23:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The Spirits, I am quite certain, are True Neturals. -- Ragestorm (talk &middot; contr) 23:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * There are some organizations with no real shades of grey that defy the natural order like the scourge and Burning legion. There are some organizations with shades of grey like the Defias.


 * This is speculation on my part but what if the clan that enslaved the ogres was the Dark Scar Clan. Zarnks 01:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * What does that have to do with the price of fish? Orcs (and shamans) from many clans still hunted ogres. 02:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * And humans and dwarves continue to hunt trolls and kobolds. It was because the orcs were at war with the Gronn who the ogres hated as well. Zarnks 02:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * What do dwarves and humans have to do with anything? What are we actually discussing now? 02:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm as confused as you... We weren't discussing human and dwarven shamans as far as I know? But it reminds me of Highlord Demitrian, who was taught shamanism by the Twilight's Hammer. I wonders if the orc shaman that enslaves the human in the upcoming Warcraft Comic teaches the human in the ways of shamanism away (I also wonder about the fact the orc practices slavery as well).


 * BTW, there are elements in the scourge that show some form of shades of grey. There was a real honor system going on between Kel'thuzud and his master Arthas in TFC. Essentially lawful evil style characterization. Anub'erak also seemed to have a code of honor towards Arthas as well, and Arthas seemed to show respect to those who respected him. A code of honor and personal moral conduct can actually be a form of shade of grey. Although like all grey areas, one side might see them as good and one side see them as evil. Evil characters don't always necessarily think of themselves as evil, and even evil characters with personal moral beliefs and code of honor has the same beliefs or ethical standards as someone else.Baggins 06:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I said no real shades of grey not none at all. Maybe theres a case of an acolyte who works for the scourge so they'll spare his family.


 * We don't know enough about the comic yet to decide. The orc could be twilight hammer shaman and the human a former necromancer. The human is said to fight both the Alliance and Horde..

Zarnks 06:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * There are actually some stories that hint that some acolytes/necromancers became acolytes because they were poor or starving peasants, treated as the lowest member of society with little respect (or they perceived it that way). So they joined up with the cult because they finally found a group of people who respected them for who they were, and even allow them to go beyond their station. They finally felt like they belonged somewhere, and were needed, not just pushed around. Also a fairly shade of grey reason for joining.Baggins 07:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Powers and abilities
I haven't found anywhere where Maiev comments on the power of Gul'dan. I've read the relevant TFT mission texts and nothing. The orc Drak'thul, while speaking with Maiev, calls Gul'dan a great warlock and that was all. There ought to be some basis this section. --Raze 13:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I was looking for that section that used to be on the article about his powers to quote for the Malfurion talk, but I guess it was deleted. It used to say that by the way Maiev talked about his powers that he was on par with Malfurion and the Lich King. Was that false information? Jclipps 18:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I could give his powers and abilities from the RPG, but won't... Too many and not exactly lore related.Baggins 18:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I was the one who put that section in, and said that Gul'dan's power was on the same tier as that of Malfurion and the Lich King. While I am not sure about Maiev's quote, for the sake of argument let's say that Maiev never did say that, to delete that section was a rash decision, considering the many other points in that argument, which I will ennumerate here.  (I am going on lore only, gameplay mechanics are non-canon.)


 * Why Gul'dan is more powerful than Illidan:
 * The Horde Player Guide states that Gul'dan was the most powerful non-Eredar warlock of all time. (Note that demons can be warlocks.)
 * Anyone who uses demon magic is a warlock.
 * Thus, Gul'dan is more powerful than all non-Eredar who use demon magic, including the non-Eredar Lords of the Burning Legion, even Mannoroth and Tichondrius, who are far more powerful than the vast majority of Eredar.
 * Therefore, Gul'dan is far more powerful than the vast majority of Eredar.
 * Illidan uses demon magic, has always used demon magic, works with and for demons, and is now in fact a demon, he is an "...arcane spellcaster(s) devoted to trafficking with demons and other dark or vile beings."
 * Therefore Illidan is a non-Eredar warlock.
 * Gul'dan was the most powerful non-Eredar warlock of all time.
 * Therefore Gul'dan was more powerful than Illidan is.

Why Gul'dan and the Lich King's powers are comparable:
 * The Lich King is more powerful than Illidan is, but still not as strong as Kil'jaeden.
 * Therefore, Gul'dan's powers are comparable to those of the Lich King.

Why Gul'an and Azshara's powers are comparable:
 * According to the War of the Ancients Trilogy, the only members of the Burning Legion who could defeat Azshara were Archimonde, Kil'jaeden, and Sargeras.
 * Gul'dan's superiority over any non-Eredar warlock means that he was stronger than Illidan, who is stronger than all but a handful of Eredar.
 * That fact and the fact that he was Kil'jaeden's apprentice (and Kil'jaeden is better than Archimonde by a lot, so he might have taught Gul'dan a few tricks) mean Gul'dan was roughly equivalent in power to Archimonde give or take (he could be weaker or stronger.)
 * Lckyluke372 5:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Citations are a must. That is you must give page references, otherwise people will accuse you of making things up.
 * Illidan is not a warlock. He is a demon hunter/fighter/warrior/mage/sorcerer/rogue, that is something entirely different. Not all classes that use fel magic are "warlocks".
 * Tichondrius is not a warlock, he is a wizard/necromancer

). 07:33, June 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * If I remember well, the last time we had this discussion, we all agreed to conclude on:
 * "The last known affiliation of a character will be the one to figure as the infobox's icon."
 * Problem is, where has this months-long topic gone?
 * 13:07, June 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * I just want to point out that if we're putting characters who are Horde or Alliance members as neutral if their true or deeper loyalty is to themselves or something else, Tyrande should be removed from Alliance characters on the grounds that she is loyal to Elune before anything else. Ditto for Sylvanas (revenge), Velen (the Light), Alonsus Faol (the Light) or Magatha Grimtotem (the tauren). There are too many characters who are using the Horde or the Alliance as a means to an end or who are members secondary to other loyalties. -- Ragestorm  (talk &middot; contr) 15:20, June 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think there are just too many characters who align themselves with a faction for their own self-serving ends to call them all neutral. Gul'dans betrayal does not change that he fought for the Horde and indeed helped create it. Though he was self-serving and ultimately treacherous, he is still a character whose major narrative associations fall in line with those of the Horde. Dcb2124 (talk) 13:45, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * That is different here. Those characters have their other loyalities, yes, but Gul'dan never really cared about the Horde and used it only to fuel his desires. After Doomhammer became warchief he abandoned the Horde.
 * Basically, what Adreioplst said. At the time of his death Gul'dan had betrayed and left the Horde. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 16:54, June 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, he didn't really betray the Horde once Doomhammer became Warchief, it happened towards the end of the Second War.
 * I agree that, on the basis of his total betrayal of the Horde at the time of his death, he should probably be considered a neutral character, but his precise loyalties (prior to the Second War, at least) don't really matter (that's where we get into the divided loyalties question). I just have a problem with saying that the character most responsible for the Horde isn't a Horde character.
 * To carry on the loyalty discussion, Aedelas Blackmoore was also loyal to himself above the Alliance, and could be argued to be a neutral character based on that (of course, Blackmoore was typically inebriated and didn't betray the Alliance at the 11th hour).-- Ragestorm (talk &middot; contr) 18:13, June 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ragestorm, just didn't know how to put it, thanks for the eloquence! :D [[Image:Pokeball.jpg]] Max Krist (talk contribs) 07:38, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * I also agree with Rage--it does not seem at all right that such a major founder of the Horde should have the Horde alignment stripped from him in this article. The Arthas Menethil and Aedelas Blackmoore articles currently lists both of them as Alliance--rightfully so, in my opinion. Similarly and consistently, I think the Gul'dan and Ner'zhul articles should list them as Horde (I'm dragging Ner'zhul in because a similar edit war seems to have occurred there, although there's no vote on that one currently).
 * Frankly, if the rule is "last known allegiance," I'm not sure that's a good rule at all, especially in cases like these--it's too rigid and places more emphasis on "more recent" than anything else. (That may be relevant for still-living characters, but for a deceased character like Gul'dan it makes more sense to use the alignment that he spent most of his life being, and not base his entire alignment off of some particular action he took shortly before his death. Or based on the fact that he was self-serving.) If last-known allegiance is indeed the basis then I would like for that to be at least reviewed, and preferably changed outright in some fashion to something more appropriately flexible.
 * Also, I kind of suspect a lot of this is being motivated by people who don't WANT Gul'dan to be considered a Horde character. I know there are a lot of New Horde fans who don't like a lot of aspects of the Old Horde, and Gul'dan practically embodies the aggressive and relentless nature of that era of the Horde. It would certainly explain the plethora of votes supporting such a flimsy premise for labeling him Neutral. I mean, seriously? He's self-serving so that means he can't possibly be Horde? He turned on the Horde at the last minute and therefore was never Horde in the first place? That just seems utterly preposterous to me. LordaeronArkham (talk) 08:50, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * I find those accusations rather insulting to the intelligence of those that voted neutral. Those editors have thousands and thousands of accumalated edits and none that i can remember with a neutrality issue. How many do you have? I was going to stay out of this but that was the straw that broke the camels back. They are not saying he was never Horde, their justification is that in the end he wasn't (something i disagree with but i'm abstaining). I wouldn't be so free and loose with that superior attitude you have going on. 10:12, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * You open up by making a numbers comparison between who's made how many edits, and you think I'M the one with a "superior attitude"? Give me a break -- might want to walk your own talk there. I was simply pointing out a possible bias they might have. If they really don't have such a bias, then I'm sure my little old accusations won't be a problem for them; they certainly don't need you to run in and white-knight yourself on their behalf. LordaeronArkham (talk) 07:25, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * You''ll have to forgive me I'm sure you can understand how someone might misconstrue phrases such as "flimsy premise" as looking down upon others. 08:07, July 1, 2010 (UTC)



Possible slayers of Gul'dan
The speculation part that speaks of Beyond the Dark Portal that the deathknights and orcs meet might have been a naga, but two pages later Fenris thought that they had atleast serverd one part of a leg. So far no naga has had any legs that I know. Keilden (talk) 19:26, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. I'm a french guy and in the french-translated version, there is a mention of "legs" but also "long claws feet". So the "naga theory" doesn't stand any more. User talk:Klakmuf 15:43, 19 March 2013

Necromancer
Someone keeps removing "necromancer" from the character class section, seemingly based on a tweet in which Micky Neilson was asked whether Gul'dan was a warlock or necromancer and replied by saying "warlock" (https://twitter.com/mickyneilson/status/500113057343741954). While that was certainly Gul'dan's primary profession, many characters have multiple classes and the Tides of Darkness novel referred to Gul'dan as both a warlock and a necromancer. When someone asked why Gul'dan called himself a necromancer in that novel, Micky Neilson said, "Might have to hit up @Loreology for that one." Loreology only said, "The last ruling I have on this is that fel magic and necromancy are two different schools of magic. All I got, boss." Since that doesn't preclude Gul'dan from dabbling in both schools (he certainly wouldn't be the only character to do so), and they didn't say they were retconning the novel, I think his classes should be left as they are. Egrem (talk) 05:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The oldest of the surviving orc necromancers after Gul'dan himself, Rakmar Sharpfang was the necrolytes' unofficial leader and often thrust into the role of conveying their accomplishments - or failures - to the high warlock.
 * "This is not the end for you. On the contrary. You shall succeed at your task, with my help. You will fight again for the Horde. And Doomhammer will have his undead warriors." [Gul'dan] laughed. "That is the good thing about necromancers - we never let anything go to waste."


 * * It's being removed not just because Micky stated Gul'dan was not a Necromancer or because Loreology stated Fel magic and Necromancy are two different schools of magic, part of the reason why it's being removed is because Justin Parker stated Warlocks and Necromancers have overlapping abilities but have different disciplines, which means that despite the fact that Warlocks can reanimate the dead, they are not Necromancers. Which to me doesn't make any sense at all, but ya know.......Blizzard.


 * If you are a Warlock then you are a Necromancer by default. Gul'dan stated that the Necrolytes will summon the souls of fallen Warlocks and instill them into human bodies and Rakmar agreed that that will reanimate them. Warlocks can drain and summon the souls of others and contain the souls via Soul Shard and Warlocks can attach souls to bodies, so I can't comprehend why Warlocks aren't Necromancers.


 * Micky Neilson didn't say "Gul'dan was not a necromancer". He just said Gul'dan was a warlock.  When someone pointed out that Gul'dan was also said to be a necromancer, Mr. Neilson deferred to Loreology (who commented on the schools of magic, but not on Gul'dan in particular).  That warlocks aren't automatically necromancers is immaterial, because we're not talking about warlocks in general.  Gul'dan was specifically referred to as both a warlock and a necromancer, which suggests he mastered both disciplines.  Unless Blizzard says the Tides of Darkness novel is no longer canon, you shouldn't be removing facts that cite and quote official sources. Egrem (talk) 22:10, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The question Micky answered was if Gul'dan was a Warlock or a Necromancer and he stated Warlock, therefore he was not a Necromancer. There is a distinction between the two, that's why they are listed as two separate classes, and Justin Parker stated, they have overlapping abilities, but they have different disciplines. And being referred to as a Warlock or a Necromancer doesn't denote mastery of that class, you can be a novice and still be called a Warlock or a Necromancer. Tides of Darkness referred to all Warlocks as Necromancers and vice-versa, indicating they are actually the same class, but of Blizzard tries to separate the two classes. New lore supersedes old. Gul'dan was not a Necromancer.


 * If I go on the Warlock page right now and call them Necromancers and cite and quote Tides of Darkness I will expect that it won't be edited.


 * I understand that, as Egrem said, both Gul'dan and HIS warlocks were also necromancers (and that is why the terms are used interchangeably). Like you can say Med'an was a paladin, a shaman and a mage. I don't see how Tides of Darkness can be used to say that all warlocks are necromancers; it can be used to say that the warlocks of the Shadow Council were also necromancers. Cemotucu (talk contribs) 22:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Tides of Darkness can be used to say all Warlocks are Necromancers because even lesser Warlocks can raise the dead. Warlocks can summon demons and the souls they have captured in a soul shard and therefore they can summon those souls into bodies, doing what the lesser Warlocks did to reanimate the dead
 * Just because someone can raise the dead does not make that person a necromancer, any more than being able to use fel magic makes someone a warlock or summoning a water elemental makes someone a mage.
 * Also, please sign your posts (by typing ~ ) -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 23:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Faulty logic is faulty. Just because Gul'dan can raise the dead does not make him a Necromancer, any more than his use of Fel magic makes him a Warlock. What makes Gul'dan and his lesser Warlocks Necromancers?
 * Well we can start with the part where he called himself one and go from there. It's certainly more logical than your seemingly insane jump from "Gul'dan was a warlock and necromancer who could raise undead" to "all warlock are also necromancers." -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 23:43, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Necromancy isn't a separate type of magic independent of Fel, Arcane, or Void magic. Necromancy is called a School of the Arcane but it can be attained through Fel and Void magic....but anyways...my point is that Necromancy is more akin to a sub-class (sub-group) of the Warlock class. All Warlocks can summon demons if I'm not mistaken, with or without soul shards, and attach the souls of their demons to corpses, therefore raising the dead, ergo all Warlocks are Necromancers because they can raise the dead. That's what Necromancers do, they raise the dead, but you stated that just because someone can raise the dead does not make that person a Necromancer.


 * This just in:
 * https://twitter.com/gryphonrose/status/508827463661920258

Gul'dan as a Mage
In my personal opinion a necromancer is a practioner of necromancy, the magic type the practitioner of necromancy is using doesn't matter (the end result does). If WoWpedia's definition of a necromancer is a mage and Gul'dan is listed as a necromancer then he was a mage.VisionOfPerfection (talk) 06:32, 7 May 2015 (UTC)VisionOfPerfection
 * Gul'dan has never been shown to use arcane magic; everything he does is fel-based. Ergo, he is not a mage. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 06:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Why did you ignore what I've just stated? =[
 * WoWpedia's definition of a Necromancer is a mage who studies the necromancy school of arcane magic involving the dead.
 * Gul'dan is classified as a Necromancer = He was a magi who studied the necromancy school of arcane magic involving the dead.
 * I've explained this multiple times.VisionOfPerfection (talk) 07:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)VisionOfPerfection
 * A Necromancer by definition is a practitioner of necromancy. If someone uses fel magic or void magic for necromancy then by definition that person is a Necromancer. WoWpedia is implying that Necromancer is a term specifically used for spellcasters who use arcane magic for necromancy, and that is wrong.VisionOfPerfection (talk) 07:17, 7 May 2015 (UTC)VisionOfPerfection
 * The second sentence of the necromancy article says that not all necromancers are mages. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 07:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The second sentence of the necromancy article states that necrolytes were referred to as necromancers, but WoWpedia's very definition of a necromancer is a mage who studies the necromancy school of arcane magic involving the dead.
 * The second sentences also calls necrolytes of the first war warlocks trained in the arcane mystery of necromancy, which means that those warlocks were also mages.
 * The Necromancer page also contains a speculation section which suggests warlocks who use fel-based necromancy aren't Necromancers.VisionOfPerfection (talk) 08:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)VisionOfPerfection.
 * I don't enjoy calling people out, but are you aware that Cemotucu is implying that fel-based necromancy isn't necromancy and warlocks who use fel-based necromancy aren't necromancers?...that's like crazy man.VisionOfPerfection (talk) 08:14, 7 May 2015 (UTC)VisionOfPerfection
 * And so you began insulting people, again... Cemotucu (talk contribs) 08:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not insulting, I'm merely pointing out that you're implying warlocks who use fel magic for necromancy aren't necromancers.VisionOfPerfection (talk) 08:19, 7 May 2015 (UTC)VisionOfPerfection
 * You called me "crazy". An on the matter of necromancy and fel magic, remember that "necromancy" is the term used to refer to a particular discipline of the arcane arts (that is what the sources say). Non-arcane disciplines can achieve similar results (e.g. the Light raising armies of dead spirits, fel-magic creating an skeletal dragon, etc), they are not "strict" cases of necromancy, as that is a simply the name of a category of a certain art. They are simply examples of alternative ways of raising the dead, and I won't deny that. Cemotucu (talk contribs) 08:30, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I haven't called you crazy in months, I just got off my ban.


 * In Warcraft 2 Necromancy was referred to as arcane mysteries during a time when Necromancy was a school opened by a Warlock, not a Mage. You've yet the refute the fact that Warlocks manipulate the force of "life and death".


 * In Warcraft 2 Necromancy was referred to as arcane mysteries during a time when Warlock magic was arcane and demons were referred to as dark spirits of the dead. I'm not stating that a Necromancer can't be a spellcaster who uses arcane magic for Necromancy, but can you state that a Necromancer can be a spellcaster who uses demonic/fel magic or Void magic for Necromancy?


 * The W3 manual does not differentiate warlock magic and necromantic magic either. Fel magic is a magic and Necromancy is an art, you've yet to refute that fact.


 * Kel'Thuzad learned necromancy from the entity who was created by the demon warlock who trained Gul'dan and Kel'Thuzad's excuse for practicing necromancy was that the orc warlocks wielded great power. Kel'Thuzad manipulated the demonic plague of undeath. Kel'Thuzad was just as much warlock as he was mage dude.


 * There is a reason why warlocks and death knights were referred to as necromancers, it's because they are. If you practice necromancy, regardless of what magic you use, you are by definition a necromancer


 * Until there is any evidence that suggests a Warlock can control souls/ghosts/spirits against their will without being a Necromancer I am going to classify warlocks such as Grogal, Valthalak, Skulloc, Morganth as Necromancers.VisionOfPerfection (talk) 09:02, 7 May 2015 (UTC)VisionOfPerfection

There's a differentiation in what defines classes, even if some of them have overlapping abilities. Malfurion is a druid, but he could communicate with the elements and call them to action. That doesn't make him a shaman because that's not the focus of his discipline. Warlocks can perform necromancy, but Blizzard has decided they have a separate focus in their discipline. Or if you have warlocks that shift their focus to specialize in the necromantic arts, you get WC1 necrolytes. Warlocks also seek out powerful sources of arcane to harness, but their discipline is focused on something different than mages. Mages can summon demons, but their discipline is focused on something different than warlocks. --Aquamonkeyeg (talk) 15:49, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I know that there is a differentiation in what defines classes but you're forgetting two crucial facts: Necromancer is a subclass and necromancy is integral to the warlock arts.


 * Why are you stating that Blizzard has decided warlocks have a separate focus in their discipline? All warlocks focus on (train for) necromancy; Necromancy extends to inflicting diseases/curses and manipulating souls against their will and that is what warlocks do. Whether warlocks are using non-demonic life-energy or demonic life-energy, they are still using life-energy to inflict curses/disease and cause decay (which necromancy extends to). Justin Parker's statement is flawed and you know it is, warlocks cannot have overlapping abilities with necromancers without being at least novices in the art of necromancy. You cannot perform necromancy without being a necromancer because a necromancer by definition is a practitioner of necromancy. Warlocks have overlapping abilities with necromancers = Warlocks practice necromancy = Warlocks are necromancers = Simple to understand.


 * Voidwalkers and Voidlords are presumably void-corrupted souls and presumably the "Void" is the result of the Light's death. Voidwalkers and Voidlords are "dead" things, they are the absence of life, yet they consume life-forces/energies such as souls and are "alive" in a sense. Warlocks bind voidwalkers and voidlords to their will and necromancy extends to binding souls to your will.


 * What makes an undead "undead" anyways? Those transformed into demons by fel energy had their bodies destroyed and you would presume the souls of fel-corrupted demons are imperfectly attached to their bodies because:


 * 1) Fel magic can be powered by sacrificing a part of your own soul.


 * 2) Fel magic has a negative impact on the user's soul.


 * 3) Demons are "evil".VisionOfPerfection (talk) 18:13, 7 May 2015 (UTC)VisionOfPerfection


 * The warlocks' very first spell is a necromantic spell for pete's sake. Warlocks have quite a few spells which manifest as a skull. Is it so hard/difficult to create an apparition of a skull or a skeleton with demonic magic (which is powered by life-energy/force)? Is it so hard/difficult to create an apparition of a skull or a skeleton with shadow/void magic and imbue it with life-energy? I don't believe so.VisionOfPerfection (talk) 18:53, 7 May 2015 (UTC)VisionOfPerfection
 * You started this discussion by claiming Gul'dan is a mage. Please stay on topic rather than dragging everyone into yet another interminable argument about how you think warlocks and necromancers are the same thing. It doesn't belong here, and we've already gone down that road more than enough times. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 19:37, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that Gul'dan wasn't a mage, I just wanted to point out that wowpedia's definition of a necromancer is a mage and that gul'dan is classified as a necromancer. Please do not edit my change to the necromancer page.VisionOfPerfection (talk) 21:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC)VisionOfPerfection
 * Please do not point out logical inconsistencies by vandalizing pages, then. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 21:46, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I have just changed the Necromancer page so that I don't have to point out logical inconsistencies anymore, I hope that you will not revert it.VisionOfPerfection (talk) 22:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)VisionOfPerfection

Fel Orc
How come isn't he one? He drank Mannoroth's blood didn't he?Elveonora (talk) 12:47, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe he didn't drink it in the main timeline, only in the alternate. -- 12:48, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Same question applies regardless.Elveonora (talk) 20:51, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * He's no more a fel orc than the entire orcish Horde would have been in the main timeline. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 22:14, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Gul'dan skeleton
Where is his skeleton in the Tomb ? I found it nowhere.Klakmuf 22:06, 27 June 2017
 * here --Mordecay (talk) 20:12, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Apostate%27s_Reach Wowpedia link to the zone. -- MyMindWontQuiet 20:29, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Hearthstone & HotS
Those characters are based in this Gul'dan, the alternate one, or the two? --Ryon21 (talk) 10:34, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the default assumption is the MU version unless there's anything specifying otherwise, but frankly with regards to Gul'dan are the two version really different enough in the ways that count for Hearthstone and HotS for the question to even matter? Despite having slightly different histories they're still basically the same character. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 18:21, 10 June 2019 (UTC)