Forum:How is character neutrality determined?

There is an ongoing discussion on the Khadgar page as to what constitutes marking a character as "neutral" in their infoboxes on their individual pages. The discussion has highlighted some significant problems as to how the wiki determines neutrality or not. Characters like Thrall and Tirion, who've outright declared their neutrality, are obvious cases of neutrality, but it seems that many people want to mark characters like Khadgar and Malfurion down as neutral as well simply on account of the fact that they offer quests for Horde players and are marked as "friendly" at particular points in the game world. This is an extremely inconsistent way of framing neutrality, as if that were the criteria on which we decided neutrality, then indeed, many characters, including faction leaders such as Jaina and Vol'jin are neutral on account of the former receiving Horde leaders in her tower in The Shattering and the latter handing out all sorts of quests to Alliance characters in patch 4.1.

Simply put, the current method of deciding neutrality is both inconsistent and vague. In my opinion, only characters who have clearly stated that they are non-partisan and neutral with regards to the two factions should be marked as "neutral" on this wiki. Otherwise, we would have more characters marked as neutral than we would have characters marked Alliance or Horde, and simply being friendly to players of the opposite faction at some point within the timeline is not sufficient to determine a truly neutral character. --Fojar38 (talk) 21:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Will you stop already? It's becoming this huge discussion over something that's been discussed a thousand times. Im sorry but no. [[Image:inv_helmet_44.png|22px]]  (talk contribs) 21:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The method we use is neither inconsistent nor vague. It goes by their most recent affiliation in-game. Khadgar is neutral. Thrall is neutral. Malfurion is neutral. Vol'jin, even when he gives quests to both sides, is Horde. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 21:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Vol'jin's most recent affiliation in-game was as a questgiver for both sides in Patch 4.1. Going by your rule, we'd have to mark him down as neutral. Furthermore, reducing it to only being stuff "in-game" is wrong, as the lore comprises far more than just the game. Malfurion's allegience to the Alliance is made very clear in Wolfheart, for example, while Thrall's neutrality is made explicit in Twilight of the Aspects. It's absolutely inconsistent and simply restating your position doesn't change that. Fojar38 (talk) 21:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * But the lore indicates who is neutral and who is not, it is not us. You speak of Vol´jin... He did not joined to a neutral faction = he is still the Horde, while Thrall, Khadgar, Furion, Gazlowe and many others joined so they became neutral. They joined there coz of their need. Thrall is in the Ring, coz world needs him (not only the horde needs him, but everyone), Furion and Hamuul joined to the army of Hyjal, who is neutral, coz they need Hordy and Ally, thus it is neutral. They are neutral for they actions and ofc. for limited time. However... this will lead to never-ending discussion, so let´s compromise, or something? --Mordecay (talk) 22:51, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Khadgar did not join a neutral faction. He never joined the Sha'tar and is still flagged as "Sons of Lothar" right there in-game. Malfurion is a dual member of the Cenarion Circle and the Alliance on account of the fact that he is both a leader of the Night Elf government and the fact that he is still considered a faction leader by the Alliance as shown in Wolfheart, where he arranges and presides over a meeting of the Alliance. There's no way that he can be considered neutral and still be able to do those things.


 * In Hyjal, Hamuul and Malfurion were both acting in the name of the Cenarion Circle, so while they were doing so they were considered neutral. However, both Hamuul and Malfurion regularly participate as full members of their respective factions. Them acting on the behalf of the Cenarion Circle no more makes them neutral than acting on the behalf of neutral factions makes players or characters like Vol'jin, Jaina, or Velen neutral. To be blunt, there are only a handful of characters who are true neutral, and those are the "world characters" whom Blizzard typically make the protaganist of the expansion, most notably Tirion, Thrall, Rhonin, and others such as Alexstrasza or other eternals. Heck, with the current criteria we'd need to name BRANN neutral despite being a member of Ironforge's royal family. There needs to be a serious change in how WoWpedia views neutrality, because the current method is arbitrary and doesn't take the lore into account. Fojar38 (talk) 23:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * If they are part of a neutral faction, they are neutral. If they are more recently part of a Horde or Alliance faction they are Horde or Alliance. Khadgar is Shat'ar. Case closed. I don't even want to hear any more of this. [[Image:inv_helmet_44.png|22px]]  (talk contribs) 23:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * No, Khadgar is NOT Sha'tar. In-game, he is not flagged as part of the Sha'tar faction at all, nor does he claim any affiliation with the Sha'tar beyond speaking with A'dal. He's flagged as the opposite: Sons of Lothar, an Alliance faction. You can go and look for yourself in game. Your assessment of the lore is outright incorrect as far as Khadgar is concerned, and ignoring it won't change this fact. Fojar38 (talk) 23:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Neutral. [[Image:inv_helmet_44.png|22px]]  (talk contribs) 02:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * If you're unable to come up with sufficient lore justification for him being tagged as neutral then it should be changed, as should all characters who have their faction affiliation based not on the lore, but on who they give quests too. Fojar38 (talk) 02:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm just sick of arguing with you. It's plain as day that he's neutral. Get over it already. 02:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Then why do you keep refusing to provide any evidence that he's neutral beyond saying that "he just is?" You're consistently failing to back up your position and in this forum, which should be based on facts, that's not enough to warrant him being marked as neutral. Arguments like yours hurt the integrity of WoWpedia. Fojar38 (talk) 03:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not worth the time to argue over this. He's neutral in game. He's marked neutral. I don't hurt WoWpedia, you hurt it by wasteing time speaking about this. [[Image:inv_helmet_44.png|22px]]  (talk contribs) 03:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Again, check him in-game right now. He's not marked as Sha'tar, he's not marked as neutral. He's marked as the exact opposite. He's marked as Alliance. Him being marked as "friendly" to the Horde is exactly the same as having Jaina marked as "friendly" to the Horde at Thrall's funeral. Back up your argument or I'm going to go edit the page due to nobody providing any reason not to. Fojar38 (talk) 03:40, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * He is an advisor to A'dal. Stop being ignorant. [[Image:inv_helmet_44.png|22px]]  (talk contribs) 03:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * That's not true either. At best, A'dal is an advisor to Khadgar, and listening to advice from a Sha'tar doesn't mean that you're suddenly affiliated with the Sha'tar. In fact, Khadgar's dialogue indicates that he's still proud of his affiliation with the Alliance when he speaks of how he drove the Horde out of Azeroth. Again, you haven't actually provided any proof. All you've done is take your own assumptions and present them as fact. If you aren't going to back up your assertions and if nobody else explains why Khadgar is neutral in lore, then his page should be edited in accordance with the fact that he's affiliated with the Alliance. Fojar38 (talk) 03:55, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * For the last time. He's a member of the Alliance, yes. BUT HE IS NEUTRAL IN GAME. So he is marked neutral. Affiliations is for lore. The infobox faction is for game mechanics. See Aldor and Scryers. [[Image:inv_helmet_44.png|22px]]  (talk contribs) 04:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Not only is he not neutral in-game any more than Jaina or Vol'jin are neutral, but why does it matter how he's portrayed in game when compared to the sum total of his lore? Last I checked, we were talking about the lore, which comprises far more than the game itself. Heck, if we're going by in-game lore exclusively then Bolvar shouldn't be marked neutral either, since in-game he's always been Alliance. Again, going back to my original point, this method of determining neutrality is inconsistent at best. All the lore should be taken into account, not just what's shown in game, and even if we DO go just by what's shown in game, Khadgar is STILL Alliance because he's explicitly marked as such in game. Fojar38 (talk) 04:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Bolvar is different. He wont be appearing in games anymore. Not as an Alliance anyway. He's neutral because it doesn't make sense to potray him as otherwise. Prior to wrath yes after wrath no. [[Image:inv_helmet_44.png|22px]]   (talk contribs) 05:11, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * We don't have any way of knowing that because he hasn't acted in his Lich King role yet. For all we know he might still be completely partisan towards the Alliance. Fojar38 (talk) 06:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * That's an absurd idea. And actually we have seen him do such. In the Plaguelands. [[Image:inv_helmet_44.png|22px]]  (talk contribs) 06:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Regardless of your opinion on the matter, it's still a possibility. And we haven't seen him do anything in the plaguelands. None of the happenings there have been directly attributed to Bolvar in the lore, and Edge of Night suggests that he is still inactive as the Lich King. Fojar38 (talk) 06:39, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * He's controlling the Scourge. He is why the Scourge does what it does. [[Image:inv_helmet_44.png|22px]]  (talk contribs) 06:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * If he was in direct control of the Scourge then the Scourge wouldn't be hostile in the plaguelands, but it is. So he's not in control of the ones in the Plaguelands. Fojar38 (talk) 06:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * He has to be. The Scourge is less of a threat thanks to him. But that's all he's implied to do, pacify it. [[Image:inv_helmet_44.png|22px]]  (talk contribs) 06:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The Scourge in the plaguelands aren't pacified at all. That's why there's still a massive Argent Crusade campaign to retake the region. If they were all pacified then it would be a simple matter of killing them and taking control, but instead the Argents are fighting a war. Hence, Bolvar isn't controlling them. Fojar38 (talk) 07:03, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * They aren't really passive. But you'll notice they aren't organizing any particular raids and they dont have much leadership, they are just kinda there, being controlled by some remaining cultists. But they aren't acting under Arthas anymore, so who else? [[Image:inv_helmet_44.png|22px]]  (talk contribs) 07:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * You just said that they're being controlled by the remaining cultists. There's your anwer, meaning that Bolvar isn't in control of any of them, meaning we still don't know his alignment. Besides, even if he was in control of the Scourge and was pacifying them, it still wouldn't suddenly make him not an Alliance character. Fojar38 (talk) 07:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * He's an Alliance hero. He will always be. But Bolvar was implied to become Lich King, making him neutral. [[Image:inv_helmet_44.png|22px]]  (talk contribs) 07:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * But we won't know if he's actually neutral until he says or does something to make it obvious, and so far he's done neither. Fojar38 (talk) 08:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Obviously he's not going to use the Scourge to destroy to fight the Horde. [[Image:inv_helmet_44.png|22px]]  (talk contribs) 08:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't this just come down to, you know, common sense? Malfurion is touted as an Alliance leader. Officially. He doubles up as the head of the Cenarion Circle, but that doesn't change his stated affiliation. Same deal with, say, Khadgar and Liadrin: Khadgar is an Alliance hero. He evidently has few qualms about dealing with the Horde, but it doesn't change who he is; it doesn't change what his entire story thus far has stood for. He even bears the title of an Alliance organization. Liadrin is the leader of the Horde's primary paladin order. Officially. She did what every single one of the players did: donned a Shattered Sun tabard and, in her own words, "fought alongside A'dal." Like Khadgar, she bears the name of the organization she's supposed to be representing: this time, a Horde one. Hell, she's the undisputed leader of it. According to the new short story, she's still clued in to help organize a part of the Horde's military.


 * I'm really a bit sketchy about how neutrality is presented here. The articles are about 95% based in the lore, and Blizzard themselves are instructed to send players here with lore-related queries. Surely these characters' factions should be rooted in the lore too, and not just constantly jumping back and forth from whether the opposite faction can click on them during specific key events, such as Hyjal and the Sunwell? It seems ridiculous. Grissom (talk) 14:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
I was asked to weigh in my opinion on this topic, so here it is. A character's faction should be based on their main affiliation, when no affiliation is known, how they act in-game should represent their faction. As to how they react to players we have aggro for just these reasons. A person can be a full Alliance member, but for game mechanics be friendly to the Horde as well. This does not make them neutral, this just makes them not hostile to Horde players.

Khadgar was part of the Alliance and even has the title "Sons of Lothar" representing the past. When the Dark Portal closed behind them, while they lost connection with the great Alliance, they remained part of the Alliance. He meet up with A'dal in Shattrah City and discuss strategies together. Now while he is not physically flagged as Shat'ar nor as Honor Hold (the main faction used for some members of the Sons of Lothar), he's working with the naaru to save Outland. Working with a neutral group does not make one a neutral character. I would say Khadgar should be tagged as an Alliance member, just as The Blood Knight leader is tagged as Horde, cause she is basically doing the same thing, working with the naaru to save the Sunwell. 18:09, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * So the boss speaks. Okay then, let it be like this, however, I do not agree at all. In my opinion it should be based on character's current positions and actions and like this I have it on my website... nah, i won't waste my energy for this... that reminds me - we are not blizzard = thus it can be as people will affilare. After all, people will choose. --Mordecay (talk) 20:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Wasn't the point of affilations to show groups? And the faction tagging for player reactions? [[Image:inv_helmet_44.png|22px]]  (talk contribs) 20:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I assumed "reaction" was to show the Horde/Alliance faction... well, reaction. It's why Malfurion was rightly categorized as Alliance (as dictated by the lore), but with a "neutral" reaction to the Horde and a friendly one to the Alliance. It meshes nicely and makes his stance clear, both in-game and out.


 * Anyway, agreed on all counts with Coobra's outcome. Character faction should be defined by who they are, their primary affiliation, and -- most importantly -- what they stand for, rather than situational encounters in open-to-all hubs and sacred founts of power. Grissom (talk) 20:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I only went by in-game reactions because while Aldor seem to have rejoined the Alliance. They react friendly with Aldor members. In game. Same with Scryers. [[Image:inv_helmet_44.png|22px]]  (talk contribs) 20:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Just remember, this is simply my opinion, by no means is my word law. =P 01:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)