Talk:Darkfallen

Vampire?
The quest text says he smells fresh meat, not fresh blood. Sounds more like flesh-eater than vampire to me. Xavius, the Satyr Lord (talk) 08:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the thing is, the model used for them is named, "Vampire Blood Prince". He also refers to himself as a blood lord. *shrug* WoWWiki-Suzaku (talk) 04:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The name "Vampire Blood prince" comes from MMO-Champion, not from Blizzard. Blood Lord is a before used title throughout the WoW universe for apparently specifically cruel or aggressive characters. See Mandokir.Ten (talk) 07:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The filename of the model in the WoW .mpq archives is "vampyrbloodprince". Also of note, several of the abilities used by Darkfallen in-game also have "vampyr" in the name, or vampiric themes. Perhaps most noticeably, all of the Darkfallen with unique voice acting have recognizeably Transylvanian accents, and the characters often make comments about eating flesh or drinking blood. Additionally, Prince Tenris Mirkblood drops a Vampiric Batling pet and players can obtain a Castlevania-themed trinket for defeating him. WoWWiki-Suzaku (talk) 10:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Kirtonos the Herald might be related as he's drinking blood and have that gargoyle-form ability. Although he's got an forsaken model, he might be an elf after all. TherasTaneel (talk) 08:55, November 3, 2009 (UTC)
 * Given that his transform spell reads "Transforms Kirtonos into the form of a vampire." I think its safe to say hes more of a vampire than gargoyle... but hes no darkfallen. 09:09, November 3, 2009 (UTC)

Leadership?
I wonder if there is a darkfallen for almost each Northrend zone. One rules over the Scourge forces in Borean Tundra, one in Howling Fjord, the third leads the undead invasion in Zul'Drak. Two more Darkfallen princes were present at the ritual to bring Arugal back as a ghost. The Scourge forces in the Dragonblight are known so I would put Prince Atherann as leader of the Scourge in the Storm Peaks and their obvious leader, Prince Theraldis, as a possible raid boss into Icecrown Citadel. Speculation only of course. --Afaslizo (talk) 08:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Personally, i've been giving some thought into their backstory. You know those Dreadlords that the Lich King had giving him the evil eye on behalf of the Burning Legion?  I think that after he broke loose and killed as many as he could, he used their left-over magicks to turn some of the undead nobles of Quel'Thalas into creatures that possessed the Dreadlords' vampiric powers (like the ones in WC3).  I actually formulated this idea before Blizzard actually made any mention of the Darkfallen (originally i just called them vampires), but in retrospect this theory could be applied to the Darkfallen,  Kinda spooky huh, me predicting the future?


 * Interestin' idea. --Joshmaul (talk) 02:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

IMO they seem to be stereotypical "vampires". i wonder if they can morph into gargoyles like Kirtonos the Herald. Noobi666 (talk) 13:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The whole "fallen Princes" thing reminds me of the ring wraiths in Lord of the Rings. Dunnsworth (talk) 05:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Mentions to them are already present in game: The Nine Bracelet Boogeymen--Truckman1 02:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Clean up
I know so little about lore, I'm not sure I'd want to attempt it. But I think since the majority of this article is speculative, all the speculation should be grouped into a section, and all the known facts in another area. Like Blood Lord - is that just made up? Why isn't there a page for that group. 10:02 AM, 15 Aug 2009 (EDT)

Recent changes
This page is really starting to get ugly... particularly the notable darkfallen section. 19:49, October 8, 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed.-- 22:34, October 8, 2009 (UTC)

What kinds of Undead are the Darkfallen?
It appears that there is a big confusion, regarding what kinds of elven undeads can be classified as darkfallen. I'll show you all my opinion regarding this subject. In my opinion, there are 3 kinds of elven undeads: The ghost ones, the 'undead' ones, and the Darkfallen. - The ghosts are basically the Banshees and anything similar. - The undeads are simply the dead high / blood elves raised after death. - The darkfallen are the oneswho were once blood elves (like blizzard said), but allied with the Lich kind in order to find a way feed the magic addiction (in this case, with souls, flesh and blood).

But why distinguish the regular undead elves from the darkfallen? - It appears that most of the Darkfallen drain blood (Blood Princes and the High Priest), something that the regular none of the undead elves (Dark rangers, Blood Elf Death Knights, Dar'Khan Drathir...) do. - Sylvannas Windrunner was classified by blizzard as "unique undead". If she was in fact a Darkfallen, it would be said so. - The term "darkfallen" only appeared in WotLK, in the World of Warcraft, WotLK website, and since every other race in the bestiary only appeared for the first time in WotLK, it's safe to say that Darkfallen also appeared for the first time in wotlk. So, with this inmind, I can say that Dar'Khan Drathir is not a Darkfallen, since he appeared in TBC).

It's still unclear if the Blood Elf Death Knights are darkfallen or not. In fact, people can stillargue that Dar'Khan Drathir is darkfallen based on his skin, and even say that Sylvannas and her Dark Rangers are arkfallen based on the fact that you could not distinguish darkfallen undead from regular undead, since in the end theyare all the same: blood / high elf (if there was DNA in WoW, they would be the same race hehehe) undeads. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by.


 * High elf, blood elf, its all basically the same, so I didn't judge by his skin, Dar'Khan Drathir was raised from the dead by the Lich King and works with the Scourge. Whos to say he's not a darkfallen, yes, when he was added into the game the term didn't exist for him but now it does... that doesn't mean hes not something just because he came out before a term was made. THAT is why hes placed in a possible darkfallen section. To my knowledge, you were the only one to add dark rangers, death knights, and Sylvannas to the list of possibles, so if my people you mean yourself... then yes you can argue they might be, but they're not. Dar'Khan Drathir might be though, course he also has been described as somewhat of a "lich" as well. 00:05, October 9, 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, you said that Dar'Khan Drathir "was raised from the dead by the Lich King and works with the Scourge" and that can qualify him as a Darkfallen, what I said (and that's why I deleted him as 'possible') is that, well, look at that: Sylvannas Windrunner was raised by Arthas (now the Lich King), probably all her Dark Rangers were raised by him too, and all the Blood Elf Death Knights, according to WoW gameplay were raised by the Lich King himself, and EVERYBODY worked for the Lich King at some point (everyone betrayed him, but changing the faction you belong never changed your race...). So, from here you can see that if Dar'Khan has everything to be a darkfallen, so does every other undead high / blood elf, and it's fine by me. But what happened, was that when I added the Dark Rangers, DKs, etc, they were removed, again, even tho they all (including Dar'Khan who remained there) share the same origin as living, were raised by the same person and by the same way, and were allied to the same faction.
 * To be fair, if people don't see the Dark Rangers and DKs as possible Darkfallen, Dar'Khan doesn't belong there either, by this logic Satyrmane 00:42, October 9,2009


 * /shrug, thats the thing about undead creatures with bliz... what to call them, give them a special name or just call them undead . Least on this example only way of knowing the difference is if they have Darkfallen in their name, or use the blood prince models... even the title San'layn (although used on most of them) doesn't necessary make them darkfallen either, since its a faction. Unless bliz comes out and directly points things out, its all a guessing game. 06:14, October 9, 2009 (UTC)

The San'layn/Darkfallen are Kael'thas' most powerful soldiers that Arthas took into his service after Illidans failed assault. [] Leviathon (talk) 04:09, October 21, 2009 (UTC)


 * Yep, so, in the end, neither Dar'Khan or the other UD BEs were actually Darkfallen. Just from 1 dialogue Lana'thel made everything clear :) (Satyrmane (talk) 00:39, October 23, 2009 (UTC))

Dead, Alive or Unknown?
What is the right thing to put in the Notable Darkfallen, regarding Tenris Mirkblood, Altherann and Theraldis?

- Prince Altherann and Theraldis were last seen alive, in Silverpine; there is no quest to kill them, and nothing else is said about them anywhere. And since undeads don't actually get old and die, IMHO both are alive somewhere. IMO, saying that they are "unknown" is like saying that Illidan or Kael were unknown in Classic WoW.

- Tenris Mirkblood, well, he was park of the Second Scourge Invasion, and probably the last Insavion, since in this expansion the scourge is the main enemy and is losing basically everything (including it's own leader in 3.3). So, Tenris Mirkblood will probably never return. There was a quest to loot / read some papers in his room, and to do so, Tenris should be killed. So, since he will never come back and there was a quest involving killing him, imho Tenris Mirkblood should be considered dead for good. Satyrmane 10:00, October 16,2009


 * Alas, the term "Dead" is used when we have a lore source to confirm it (quest text, manual of the game, etc...)
 * So the should remain as Killable for now.
 * 13:15, October 16, 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, there is the quest saying tho loot the papers in his room, and to do so, you have to kill him (well, you can exploit and use a pet to hold him, etc), and even tho it's not written in the quest to kill him, you "have to" kill him to do the quest. That's why I think it should be debatable if he's dead or unknown (well, he's not killable since you can't actually kill him)
 * (Satyrmane (talk) 13:35, October 16, 2009 (UTC))


 * Just to ask but, does a quest mention that we killed him? (something like for Malygos "a great one has fallen... blablabla")
 * 13:39, October 16, 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, the quest is Chamber of Secrets. It says that there is a new power in Karazhan, serving the Scourge. When you complete the quest, the NPC says "We can only hope that his mission was stopped early enough", which means he was killed. (Satyrmane (talk) 14:12, October 16, 2009 (UTC))
 * Even though he's technically not available in-game anymore, I still say it should be "killable" like every other Scourge Invasion boss. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 17:41, October 16, 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd say it should be dead as a quest asked to kill him and then he was removed from game. I don't think "killable" fits as the word means that you can go and kill him in World of Warcraft, something you can't do anymore and may cause confusion for readers. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 19:11, October 16, 2009 (UTC)
 * Which is why I choose Unknown for their status, and those other scourge invasion bosses should be changed as well. Have to think about it this way Dark T, after those pages are created... they're not often edited after certain events end... much like many articles. 20:23, October 16, 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree, there is no reason why Tenris should be put as "killable", since you can't even see him anymore. I think the goal is to see if Tenris should be put as Dead or Unknown. As I already stated, there was a quest that even tho didn't say to kill him, asked to bring something from this room, that could only be accomplished by killing him (or "exploiting"), and also, the NPC says that the Tenris mission was stopped, and since we only did 2 things there (kill him and loot the papers), in my point of view, he meant that the mission was stopped because he was killed, so, what do you guys think?
 * Also, what about the other 2 Blood Princes? They already appeared alive in game, and they were not killed, so, they are alive somewhere...(Satyrmane (talk) 22:26, October 16, 2009 (UTC))


 * Well, we don't truly know that, they could have upset their queen or the lich king later down the road and get destroyed... until we see them again its all speculation, but if you really want to put their last known status which was alive, go ahead. 04:19, October 17, 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right, we can't be sure if both princes are alive or dead until they appeard either alive or dead. And what about Tenris Mirkblood? There are evidences that show he's dead (Satyrmane (talk) 14:02, October 17, 2009 (UTC))

The Dark One rides forth again with his San'layn
There is a NPC that states "The Dark One rides forth again with his San'layn...", and since there is so little information regarding Darkfallen / San'layn, every little detail could be important. My question is, what does it REALLY means? I've seen at least 3 different interpretations here for this statement. I'll share here all the possible interpretations for this. First of all, it's very clear that the "Dark One" is the Lich King, second, lets see the interpretations:

- The darkfallen ride into battle with the Lich King (literal interpretation)

- The Lich king is conquering again, now with the help of the darkfallen (Darkfallen as a recent addition to the ranks)

- The Lich King once again conquers with the San'layn (meaning that there were previously other San'layn)

Here is what i think are the only 3 possible interpretations, the literal and other 2, that means that they play a big role in his new strike (even tho i don't know why it was used the word "again", sine the lich never stopped his activities), but with 2 interpretations, one that there was previously other San'layn, and other that he can strike again with the help of the atition of the San'layn to the ranks.

What do you people think?

I'll give here my personal opinion. IMHO, the literal interpretation is wrong. There was never seen a single Darkfallen riding into battle, or even at the side of the Lich King, actually, I've never seen the Lich King riding into battle (maybe the Wrathgate event counts?). Since the birth of the Darkfallen / San'layn is something recent (thanks to Lana'thel explanation), i think it's very hard to believe that there was already previous San'layn that once rode into battle with the Lich King, instead, I believe that the NPC meant that "The Dark One rides forth again, now with the help of the San'layn". Hmmm, maybe this again can mean the second attempt of the lich king to conquer, maybe the second scourge invasion?

But again, what do you guys think this NPC meant? (Satyrmane (talk) 01:52, October 25, 2009 (UTC))


 * I think "The Dark One rides forth again with his San'layn" can be taken two ways. "The Dark One rides forth again" means "The Lich King is attacking again" in both, but the whole thing can mean "The Lich King and his San'layn are both attacking again", or "The Lich King is attacking again, and this time he is attacking with his San'layn".-- 02:13, October 25, 2009 (UTC)


 * This is what i meant in the second and third possible interpretations. But which one do you think is the right one? My personal guess is that "The Lich King is attacking again, and this time he is attacking with his San'layn". (Satyrmane (talk) 02:45, October 25, 2009 (UTC))


 * Well, there is no way to know for sure (or cite it), but as Arthas: Rise of the Lich King and the beginning of WotLK both say the the Lich King was asleep since the end of Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne (even though he appeared in classic Naxxramas), I infer that he had no chance to attack somewhere the tuskarr would know about with the darkfallen. Also, unless they did something big before players got there, the darkfallen have not been shown to 'ride forth', they just stand in the background.-- 19:13, October 25, 2009 (UTC)

The Decree of the Scourge
When it talks about the Scourge taking from assimilated cultures and having no culture of its own, it does not mean the Darkfallen only use the culture of other races, as they were blood elves once. Yes, the Temple City of En'kilah was part of Azjol-Nerub, but their section of Icecrown Citadel looks like draped in red fabric, a look which was stolen by the Scourge as a whole from the blood elves.-- 19:05, October 25, 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I based my comments on a few things. There are basically 3 places where the darkfallen appear: Temple City, Naxxanar and Crimson Hall. The Spire of Blood in the temple city is a nerubian structure (even the model name is "something something nerubian"). The Naxxanar (like every other Necropolis) is a Nerubian structure (using nerubian technology to float I believe). The only place left is the Crimson Hall.


 * In the Crimson Hall, as far as I could see, everything was based on Scourge things, already seen (such as the candles). The only thing that distinguish and could mean something to their culture are the red windows and red courtains. When i wrote the article (I believe it was me who wrote that), the colors of their windows and courtains didn't mean that much, i mean, it wasn't something remarkable. As you said, there are things about the darkfallen that were taken from the blood elves, like the way they dress for example (and like you said, the fact that they like red).
 * Idk, I didn't think that was necessary to add, but if you do, feel free to add that :) Or maybe I can come up with some way to put it in there at some later time :) (Satyrmane (talk) 20:25, October 25, 2009 (UTC))


 * The Decree of the Scourge could be used on any Scourge race page (exept the vrykul, I guess) to say "Besides [such and such], they do not have much culture and use parts from other assimilated cultures".-- 21:03, October 25, 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, there are more group sin the Scourge that don't share the culture. The Vrykul as you said, the Quillboar of RFD and the Wolfcult. Idk, I think the shared cultured thing should remain in the article, since imho explains why there isn't much unique things about the darkfallen culture. Anyway, how should we put in the article the thing you said regarding the Crimson Hall (their courtains and red windows) ? (Satyrmane (talk) 03:03, October 26, 2009 (UTC))

Datamining
I was recently checking the mmo-champion datamine stuff, and found this http://db.mmo-champion.com/creatures/?title__imatches=San%27layn

All the San'layn added in 3.3 data. hile I was looking at that, I came to some conclusions:

- The race is in fact Darkfallen and San'layn their faction

- Tenris Mirkblood is not dead, and will be back

- Finally Theraldis and Valanar will appear (aside from the vision)

- Luthion the Vile and Vanthryn the Merciless will be back, as ?? bosses o.O

- Darkfallen can be, at least, archmage and blood knight, which means the Darkfallen race can be also Mage and Paladin

- Some darkfallen classified as Undead, while others as Humanoids (something that already happens in 3.2)

(Satyrmane (talk) 21:10, October 29, 2009 (UTC))


 * Told ya, you can't assume one is dead unless specifically told they are =P. Oh, and don't add any of this to the article, as its datamined. 21:19, October 29, 2009 (UTC)


 * I know i know, i wouldn't add :) But it's a lot of good information from the 3.3 data, i felt like sharing. But regarding Mirkblood, idk, my interpretation of the quest text (when you turn in) was that he was in fact killed. But anyway, he could have been rezzed like the other 3 Blood Princes :) Or he could just come again from the dead, like Nefarian will (I believe the Scepter Quest asked you to kill him), or (what is most likely), that he didn't die at all :) (Satyrmane (talk) 21:51, October 29, 2009 (UTC))


 * Oh, i got what's going on. If you pay attention, all units listed on the link are marked as (??), and ALL the San'layn in gameare listed here. My conclusion? MMO-Champ listed ALL the darkfallen in game, not just the ones added in 3.3. For instance, all the Blood Princes (including Mirkblood), and the 2 Darkfallen units that livei n Borean Tundra Temple City. So, yeah, no Mirkblood, Luthion the Vile and Vanthryn the Merciless back / (Satyrmane (talk) 22:10, October 29, 2009 (UTC))

Undead?
I was looking at the darkfallen datamined bellow and the ones already in game (looking at wowhead), and found out something: Of all darkfallen (including the ones in Crimson Hall), only 4 are classified as Undead, the rest is Humanoid.

The 4 undeads are:

- Mirkblood: The first darkfallen to ever appear in game, even when the term darkfallen didn't exist)

- Prince Keleseth; Prince Atherann; Prince Theraldis: The 3 Blood Princes involved in raising Arugal

So, I came up with a theory that could explain why this is happening:

The Forsaken, even tho they are obviously Undead, they are classified as Humanoids, only because of the gameplay. I believe it's VERY RARE to see an undead classified as humanoid. A large group of undeads classified as humanoids, imho means that the group is not undead at all. Mirkblood could have been classified as undead, because at that time (TBC's scourge invasion) there was no lore regarding the Darkfallen and the San'layn, so, it could have been a "mistake" made by Blizzard. Remember what Lana'thel said? That Arthas shattered the forces blablabla, yeah, but she never said that Arthas killed them. Imo it probably means that arthas shattered the forces, and imprisoned the most powerful blood elves and made them Darkfallen.

Look at the other "independant" groups amongst the Scourge: Vrykul, Cult of the Damned, Death's Head Quillboar, Wolfcult. They are all Humanoids too (except some Wolfcult that may be also Beats)

Also, it could explain the vampiric habits. Remember that the Blood Elves have the magic addiction? Well, Arthas may have turned that into another kind of addiction (blood, souls, etc), or they (blood elves) may have found this "new source of powers" by themselves. This also explains why other Elven undeads (such as Sylvannas for example) never shown any sign of magic addiction (explanation: because when undead, you lose this addiction, but the Darkfallen are in fact alive, so that's why they still have this).

So, what do you think? Any thoughts? Are they really undead? (Satyrmane (talk) 22:44, October 29, 2009 (UTC))


 * Good theory. 22:48, October 29, 2009 (UTC)
 * It's rare, but not ENTIRELY unheard of for things to be classified as humanoid when they obviously aren't. Look at Priestess Delrissa. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 23:12, October 29, 2009 (UTC)


 * Most demons in starter zones are humanoid to make fights more simple.-- 23:15, October 29, 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but what I meant what that there is a huge difference between 1 demon here, one undead there classified in the wrong way, than an entire group of a race. If you look that way, you shouldn't ask "why they should be Humanoid" instead, you must ask "why they should be undead?". There is no place saying that darkfallen are undead, NO place. I believe it was acceptable at that time to say that they were undead before, because well, the first darkfallen to appear was undead, and all the mobs "look like" undead, and it was just accepted that, noone disagreed. But...


 * - Now that all Darkfallen are known and many more will come in 3.3, it can beseen that they ALL are classified as humanoid


 * - The model of the regular darkfallen, that may look "undeadish", is also used by the few blood elves of the  group, led by Illidan, in Shadowmoon Valley, and they are all Humanoids


 * As Sandwichman said, most demons in starter zones are classified as humanoids to make fights simple, it's just a gameplay issue (like i said before), and it's not the case of darkfallen to be classified as humanoids for gameplay reasons, since they appear in lvl 70 - 80 zones, and even the place where they "live" (Temple city) is surrounded by undead creatures (so it's not a matter of making the game easier o.O)


 * So, if you (everybody who is reading this) have an open mind, ask yourself again "why they should be classified as undead?". Of course there are some random units classified in the wrong way (like Priestess Delrissa), and there is also darkfallen classified in the wrong way (such as Mirkblood). Again, there is no place saying that darkfallen are undeads, and the HUGE majority is classified as humanoid (Satyrmane (talk) 23:31, October 29, 2009 (UTC))


 * I think it's said in the official site that they are the blood elves from Kael'thas that were killed during Illidan's invasion to Northrend and were raised as undead. Thus descarding this theory. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 01:22, October 30, 2009 (UTC)
 * My mistake, it said that they are "undead blood elves". Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 01:40, October 30, 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, true. Dammit, it would have explained a lot about the darkfallen. But anyway, it also says "The blood-princes Valanar, Keleseth, and Taldaram were raised into undeath by the Lich King to avenge themselves...", if they were raised into undeath, it means that they were alive before! I'm jk, but all this Humanoid stuff makes me think (Satyrmane (talk) 02:14, October 30, 2009 (UTC))


 * I've thought of something else. Undeads, by it's nature, can't use/hold Holy powers (with the exception of Sir Zeliek, who is as I said, an exception, because his faith was VERY strong as living), Forsaken priests can only use holy power because of gameplay, according to the lore, forsaken priests can only use shadow powers. Yet, according to the datamined stuff of 3.3, there are Darkfallen Blood Knights (Paladins) (Satyrmane (talk) 03:08, October 30, 2009 (UTC))


 * I was wrong (Satyrmane (talk) 14:21, October 31, 2009 (UTC))

Alignment
I still say that the alignment in the article (lawful evil) is just fan interpretation. The citation provided was: "...the Lich King chose Lana'thel to serve him in undeath as queen of the San'layn..." from (http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/info/underdev/3p3/queldelar.xml). But I don't see anywhere that says even the alignment nor the words lawful nor evil. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 18:08, November 1, 2009 (UTC)
 * If its not stated, its not cited. 22:08, November 1, 2009 (UTC)
 * There are 3 types of "Evil" according to Wowwiki: Chaotic, Lawful and Neutral.
 * Chaotic Evil: "the chaotic evil character will do whatever they can to attain their goals. They are bound by no laws, no master and no compassion." - Darkfallen have masters (Blood Princes, Lana'thel) and at least Lana'thel has shwn compassion, during the Quel'delar event, where she didn't kill the guards.
 * Neutral evil: "A neutral evil character serves only their own needs/ends." - Darkfallen serve the Scourge
 * Since we all agree that the Darkfallen are in fact evil, and they share almost nothing in common to Chaotic and Neutral, this leaves only Lawful left.
 * Lawful Evil: "Power comes through order" - Just like the Cult of the Damned (that's also Lawful Evil), the Darkfallen / San'layn have demonstrated to have "order". The low rank units in Naxxanar / Temple City answer to the Blood Prince. Also, they have Lieutenants, which demonstrate chain of command. Anyway, they also have Lana'thel, the highest in the chain of command, who everyone, including Blood Princes, obey
 * That's why I believe Darkfallen should be classified as "Lawful Evil". It's not stated anywhere, but also many races / organizations have no explict classifications (Satyrmane (talk) 05:34, November 9, 2009 (UTC))
 * Well, that would be speculation as it's just deductions and opinons, and I think we are not allowed to put spec in an infobox. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 06:11, November 9, 2009 (UTC)
 * Most Scourge are classified as "Always evil", The Cult of the Damned aren't exactly the Scourge, but those that worship them which is why they are probably classified as "Lawful evil". Since the Darkfallen serve the Scourge in death and not through worship, I could easily say the Darkfallen are also "Always evil". 06:48, November 9, 2009 (UTC)
 * What? Of course the Cult is the Scourge... The Scourge, in my point of view an army made by different groups, The Cult of the Damned (casters), the Frostbrood (Frosts), The Death's Head (Quillboars), Rot Hide (Gnolls), the Ebon Blade (even tho they betrayed the scourge) and the San'layn (darkfallen). If you pay attention, most of the Scourge activities across the "world" have are led by one of those groups. Of course there are groups of independant ghouls, skeletons, zombies, etc. But also there are groups with it's own "leadership" that answer to the Lich King. The Cult of the Damned is part of the Scourge, actually, the Cult had the task to spread the plague during the Third war and increase the Scourge's numbers. Anyway, yeah, Darkfallen may not be Lawful evil (even tho i disagree), but saying that the Cult is not the Scourge is like saying, for example, that the SS was not part of the Nazi regime (Satyrmane (talk) 15:11, November 9, 2009 (UTC))
 * Another example, is the Horde (and alliance). There are 5 factions in the Horde, each faction has it's own leader and the members of each faction answer primarily to their leaders. But, they are all part of the horde, and they all answer to the leader of the Horde (Thrall) and must obey his rules (for example, Orcsh guards in Undercity after the UC raid). The Scourge is the same thing, they all obey to the Lich King, even tho each group has it's own methods. Also, the Cult not only whorships the undead / scourge, but they take part in it's goals. Such as the plague of Western plaguelands, the defense of Stratholme, the Scourge Invasion, etc... If it looks like the Cult of the Damned is an independant faction, because they have their own bases of operations and a leader (Kel'thuzad), so do the Darkfallen. They have at least 1 base (Naxxanar) and all the members of the Darfallen answer to the Blood-queen. (Satyrmane (talk) 21:15, November 9, 2009 (UTC))

Language
What language do the Darkfallen speak?

They obviously spoke Thalassian when alive, and like almost all intelligent beigns of Azeroth, Common (acutally, according to the RPG, even all undeads speak Common). But, do they still speak Thalassian now as undeads? They don't speak Gutterspeak for sure, because it's a language adopted only by the Forsaken (see moreat the Gutterpeak page of wowwiki), but what about Thalassian?

Other than Common, there are only 3/4 words spoken in another language: "San'layn" and "Aranal, lidel" (spoken by Kelseth), and to be fair, it looks like Thalassian.

So, what do you guys think? (Satyrmane (talk) 03:10, November 10, 2009 (UTC))
 * Pretty sure they still speak Thalassian and common, unless there's any evidence to the contrary. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 04:01, November 10, 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I mean, I've never seen any information regarding the fact that a person forgets his native tongue upon undeath, even tho the Forsaken speak Gutterspeak, but this happens in order to form a cultural identity, because the Forsaken (even tho it doesn't appear in game), are made of Undead Humans, High Elves, and maybe even a few Trolls! I believe the Darkfallen still know Thalassian.
 * On a side note, I was thinking what "San'layn" could possibly mean... If this is in fact Thalassian, it' likely 2 words, 1 word is a substantive and another an adverb or adjective (for example, "quel'dorei"= High elf; "Felo'melorn"= Flamestrike), so I was thinking... what 2 words mean something to the darkfallen? Yeah... "Darkfallen". It explains why sometimes the San'layn are not refered as a group ("Do not fail me, San'layn. Return to Icecrown with this fool's head or do not bother to return."), and even when it is referred as a group ("...in undeath as queen of the San'layn, a group responsible..."), well, for example there are mobs tagged as  in game for example. (Satyrmane (talk) 02:26, November 12, 2009 (UTC))

Lord Kazak
Lord Kazak Does anybody have ever seen him? --N&#39;Nanz (talk) 19:43, January 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * The welcomer... hmm, possibly a rare spawn into the Crimson Hall... 21:15, January 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * Or a mini-boss, each wing seems to have one or two small bosses/events
 * 21:20, January 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * Right, because having almost the same name as Lord Kazzak isn't confusing at all. Way to go, Blizzard. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 21:50, January 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * Who said Hakkar?
 * 21:53, January 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * It does make me wonder why Lord Kazak's ID number is so low for being a Wotlk npc... 9991? 21:54, January 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * Nice catch!
 * Tomorrow will bring the answer (or at least half an answer)
 * 22:01, January 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * So this is not an ICC mini-boss.
 * 08:34, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

Judging by it's lack of appearance, low id number i'd say it's developer leftovers. Somebody somewhere was changing around models, making npcs, mobs, or a test subject, then didn't need it anymore and forgot to discard it or delete it's entry from some database. Wowhead tends to be a lot more thourough in it's scanning than other databases. I just recently went through wowhead looking for all dragonkin npcs and very often had to figure out a few times when an npc didn't exist in game. They also include things like mounts and other untargetable units/non units and occasionaly repeats itself. 17:11, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

Image
Only the playable races have their crest as image, all other have a specimen (I looked all of them)

13:48, January 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that races have specimen in their infobox, while organizations have flags or crests. As this is a race, it should have an specimen. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 15:23, January 26, 2010 (UTC)

Darkfallen Advisor
Given the name, I say we should have him in Darkfallen, but not in San'lyan, because he has not the title unlike all the mobs.

08:15, January 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * Given that it's a lich I'm leaning much more toward it being an advisor to the darkfallen rather than an advisor who is a darkfallen. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 08:35, January 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but about the San'lyan? he has not the title unlike all the mobs included in the article
 * 08:37, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * I meant that I don't think we should put him in darkfallen, either. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 08:47, January 28, 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it should be removed from here as Dark T Zeratul said that they are advisors to the darkfallen and not darkfallen themselves. But I think they should be added to San'layn because its an organization and it doesn't necessarily have to have just darkfallens, it could include other races. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 21:39, January 28, 2010 (UTC)

San'layn and Darkfallen pages
When Coobra deleted the Notable Darkfallen box, something came to my mind. In theory, the San'layn and Darkfallen pages are supposed to be exactly the same, since every san'layn is a darkfallen, and vice-versa, also, even tho WotLK is "over" (last raid dungeon is finished), there is no much info regarding the Darkfallen race or San'layn group to make an unique page with the darkfallen culture, looks etc, and another with the Darkfallen activities and stuff. Even tho is strongly disagree with deleting the notable darkfallen box, because there is the same box in the san'layn page (even tho the san'layn box is a ripoff and came after the darkfallen one), I have another suggestion: Why not merge the darkfallen page with the san'layn one. Maybe the San'layn one can redirect to the darkfallen one, or the opposite. This would be good to avoid 2 pages with the same stuff. (Satyrmane (talk) 23:07, February 3, 2010 (UTC))
 * So basically what i can see is that it's much better to delete the box of the darkfallen page, which is way more polished and complete than the San'layn one, than delete the San'layn box, which let me say again, is a copy of the darkfallen box, that came way sooner. Idk, imho it's just stupid to even have the San'layn page anyway, what is the difference between the san'layn and darkfallen pages? 2 flag images... But anyway, it looks like it's better to act childish and lock the page because somebody clicked the button undo, than think a little bit before ruining a good page... (Satyrmane (talk) 23:25, February 3, 2010 (UTC))


 * The page is locked cause all you do is break the WP:3RR and never let discussions take place, you might say something on the talk page, but a second later instead of waiting for a response you're back to changing how the page looks and exactly how you want it. Go update the other box on the San'layn page, no one is stopping you from doing that. Having the exact same tables on both pages is very redundant and only serves to be confusing to the readers, the section has a link where to go to see the notable members, it's not like it was completely removed and all links to it deleted. Would you rather I unlock the page and block you for breaking policy? 23:32, February 3, 2010 (UTC)


 * And just so you know, the tables were exactly the same when I deleted the one here. I can't be held responsible for changes done afterwards. 00:14, February 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * To be fair, you didn't come here to discuss removing (or moving if you like) the bos either. Also, you say I break the rule WW:3RR right, well, the rule is clear when it says "A contributor must not perform more than three reversions, in whole or in part, on a single WoWWiki article within a 24 hour period". Of course the rule says "This does not imply that reverting three times or fewer is acceptable", but of course the undo is needed, and also enforced, when it comes to "fixing simple vandalism", why vandalism? "vandalism is... removing any wanted content from the web site"; you removed an important part of the page because a half finished page has the same box, which btw is a copy of the darkfallen box (which btw, I was the one who started and edited most of the times). It's a shame that a fine page gets handicaped because of a half finished page. (Satyrmane (talk) 00:50, February 4, 2010 (UTC))


 * No I didn't, cause redundancy doesn't need to be discussed. Now, if you want to have the pages merged, start a WP:VOTE. Personally I have to agree that all darkfallen are San'layn, but both pages are used cause one is creature and other is organization. EDIT: Though.. I still really haven't seen anything (other than an outdated Wrath page) calling them darkfallen... the new weekly Blood Quickening even says San'layn... 03:10, February 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, imho, the San'layn box redudant, not the Darkfallen. The box in the Darkfallen page is an important part of the Darkfallen page, on the other hand, the San'layn one belongs to an unfinished page. As you can see, the San'layn page is just a scrap of the Darkfallen page. Every information that is tossed at the San'layn page (and lets say, there is not much informatio there), is explained at the Darkfallen one. Even the box is / was more organized at the Darkfallen page, since the characters were placed in order of strenght/position. Also, it can be said that the San'layn box is wrong, sicne not every mob in there actually has the San'layn tag. Anyway, I just wanted to make you understand that the Darkfallen box doesn't have to go, it's the San'layn one that is redundant.
 * Well, Darkfallen is still used, you can see the names of the mobs in the Crimson hall, and spells such as "Pact of the Darkfallen". I have the opinion that San'layn is translated to Darkfallen, so this means that the San'layn tag refers to the racial group, but in quest texts, npcs talk and such, the word "San'layn" can still have the interpretation of a faction or a race. There is nothing official regarding this, except players interpretations. It's redundant to have a second page (San'layn) saying exactly the same things as the Darkfallen one. If the policy is to delete redundant information, why not delete the San'layn page, or if people prefer, merge it. (Satyrmane (talk) 04:14, February 4, 2010 (UTC))


 * Table restored, how it appears here, will effect how it appears there. Have fun with it. 08:33, February 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I put the ond box back, since it's listed based on the hierarchy and level/power. Also, edited a lot of things and put a San'layn section. Tomorrow I'll probably edit the San'layn page, so it can look good and have solid (even tho little) information of the faction. (Satyrmane (talk) 02:14, February 5, 2010 (UTC))

Secondary Languages
It's known that the humanoid doesn't unlearn the languages upon undeath. So I ask, what secondary languages do they speak? According to Wowwikki, the High elves speak Darnassian, Dwarven, Goblin, Kalimdoran, Orcish; and the Blood elves speak those languages plus Kalimag, Eredun (Demonic alliances) and Nazja (naga alliance). The secondary languages are most of the times learned in order to communicate with allies, and sometimes enemies.

It's obvious that the Darkfallen (who were the blood elves slain during northrend campaign), were allies with the Nagas, so imho, they know Nazja as secondary language.

Regarding Kalimag, i don't know why even the Blood elves speak that, so i can't say anything

Eredun, well, imho, the blood elves learned that after their alliance with the Burning legion. I'm not sure with the blood elves had personal contact with the demons because of illidan's alliance. what do you guys think?

What about Darnassian, Dwarven, Goblin, Kalimdoran, Orcish? Do you think they know that?

And I was thinking, the Darkfallen had personal contact with the Vrykul, maybe they know their language (speculation). (Satyrmane (talk) 02:26, February 5, 2010 (UTC))


 * I think all of that would be speculation and should be left out of the article; though it's interesting. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 04:45, February 5, 2010 (UTC)

Merge
Aren't Darkfallen and san'layn basically just synonyms of one another? Why not merge the two instead of having two pages about essentially the same thing? (Yes, I did see the discussion above.) -- 10:54, 9 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I suppose, as I doubt that this will be clarified. Though the nuance of the terms should be preserved, if any. Darkfallen is the race, san'layn is an order synonymous with the race, and vampyr is the model name but the race in datamined Legion info... but I doubt there is much consistency in that respect.-- 20:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC)


 * No merge and keep the race and organization separated, me thinks. But what is it about the datamined Legion info about them? --Mordecay (talk) 21:55, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * One shows up in the new Violet Hold. The Dungeon Journal calls it a vampyr, which is a very low-priority fix.-- 22:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Updating this discussion. Now the Broken/Krokul from Argus call themselves the Darkfallen. I have searched for the sources of all the names in the article and I don't find any that determines the name of the race as Darkfallen. They're always called the San'layn (may be the same in thalassian) or just undead high/blood elves. Maybe the update to the Dungeon Journal calling them the same as the model, vampyr, was intended for this reason. Whitrix. 18:50, 30 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I believe the Void Elf joke just confirmed the race is called the san'layn. 18:05, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


 * San'layn is the name of race (or sub-race of the undead). Not only the Void Elf joke makes it clear, but also the WoW TCG solves the mystery: Lana'thel and the blood princes card contains "Scourge Ally - San'layn Blood Queen / Blood Prince". For comparison purposes, let's look King Ymiron: "Scourge Ally - Vrykul Death Knight". So yeah, San'layn is a race.


 * TCG isn't canon. --Aquamonkeyeg (talk) 02:00, 14 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The way I understand it, Blizzard originally intended to call them "Darkfallen", as indicated by the WOTLK bestiary, and eventually settled on "San'layn" instead. Saying that San'layn is the Thalassian word for Darkfallen is a good headcanon to explain the situation. I say, go with the merge, as long as we also keep track of the time they are still called "Darkfallen" in canon. Xporc (talk) 14:39, 14 December 2017 (UTC)


 * TCG isn't canon, but it clearly shows the blizzard's intentions. I can also show you the dialogue from Lord Malgath, who says "The San'layn are cold and arrogant creatures", so, it's a race, not a faction.

Seeing as there's absolutely no info about these guys in Chronicle 3, I vote for the current Darkfallen article to be moved to "San'layn" instead after making sure that the already-existing page is well merged. Xporc (talk) 13:22, 23 March 2018 (UTC)