Talk:Doomguard

Untitled
''The Doomguard is a pet available to the Warlock at level 60 after completing a series of quests. (Not sure about the quests being needed. --- Fandyllic)''

Not true. OwlBoy 14:22, 3 Mar 2005 (EST)

Now partly True. OwlBoy 17:39, 2 Jun 2005 (EDT)

Lore vs lock pet (split)
First, this is a wonderfully put together article, and I thank everyone who has contributed. However, I'm thinking that perhaps this page, and the other lock pet pages ought to be split up into a lore article, and a lock pet article. My reasoning is that there is so much lore information on these pages that it's hard to find the little bit of information on warlock pets. I think there is plenty of information on both areas that it would be easier to find what the user is looking for if there were two articles. -- 17:59, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
 * Yep. I almost missed the lock pet info here when I was looking for it awhile back. 02:20, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
 * I moved the info to Doomguard (Warlock pet); unsurprisingly, there is a large amount of duplicate info. If someone would like to clean that up, be my guest. I'll get around to the other pets some other time of the week.--Sky (t · c · w) 02:49, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

classification issues
I'm a little confused by the classification used on this page. Are the Doomguard a race, or is it just a title? And since it's mentioned on this page, are Ered'ruin a race or a species?

Normally, I would have considered the Doomguard a race, but the fiend article refers to the word as a title. Fiends and Doomguard are clearly not the same race as they have reliable distinguishing characteristics. I would guess that it's possible for the word to refer to both a race, and a title. If that's the case, should the fiend mob listed here be taken off?

Also, I think if we're going to get this detailed, perhaps we should think more about what would be the biological classification. Is ered'ruin a species, or a genus? Then you've got winged demons, void demons, lizard-like demons, etc, which would perhaps be the family. Demons would be the Order.

Someone may want to look at Wikipedia for help deciding what's what. -- DuTempete  talk  |  contr  17:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There is some problems here caused by the way blizzard uses the terms. In game we have only one reference to "Ered'ruin" from the holograms. It says its a "species". Now the term doomguard used to be used for only one specific type of creatures, seen since Warcraft III. However the term shows up being used at least once for Overmaster Grindgarr, who is called "a Doomguard." But he is one of thefiends or terrorfiends in World of Warcraft as well. So it appears to be more of a "rank" than actual species name in the Burning Legion's hierarchy.Baggins 07:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Racial Leader
Should Lord Kazzak be classified as Leader of the Doomguards? As his page states that he is infact, The King of Doomguards...User:Shiniki/Shiniki

Tarshesite = Ered'ruin?
I don't know if this is enough evidence but it seems to be like the case of the Nathrezim aka Dreadlord. The Exodar says that Doomguard are a species of Ered'ruin. MoM says that Doomguards are Tarshesite. Hence, Ered'ruin is aka Tarshesite. Rolandius ( talk  -  contr ) 11:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually in TBC, its
 * Doomguard
 * Species: Ered'ruin.


 * It doesn't state that "doomguard are a species of ered'ruin" rather it states that ered'ruin is the species of the doomguard shown in the hologram.Baggins (talk) 11:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That is what it means. Doomguard are of what? The species called Ered'ruin. Rolandius [[Image:Paladin.gif|25px]] ( talk -  contr ) 11:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You said that doomguard are a species of ered'ruin, that implies something different. But rather the hologram says that the doomguard are of the species "ered'ruin". The two wordings mean something entirely different.Baggins (talk) 11:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay fourth time...the doomguard belong to something...the something is called the ered'ruin. Rolandius [[Image:Paladin.gif|25px]] ( talk -  contr ) 11:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Doomguard is actually the race name in earlier material, and later in the Monster Guide, not the "tarshesite". There is no evidence that tarshesite is the "race name". Pretty sure that the tarshesite reference is an inclusion and reference to a DnD race.Baggins (talk) 11:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

"The dominant demonic races in the Burning Legion - after the eredar, of course - are the pit lords, doomguards, and eminences that served under Archimonde and the dreadlords..." Baggins (talk) 11:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well they still put tarshesite so we have to go with that. Read your talk page as I commented an example(s) there. Rolandius [[Image:Paladin.gif|25px]] ( talk -  contr ) 11:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * All it may mean is that there are Tarshesite doomguards, ered'ruin doomguards, fiend doomguards. It doesn't mean that doomguards in earlier part of the book are "tarshesite race" however. Earlier in the book its pretty clear that doomguards are the race.Baggins (talk) 11:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess you won't read your talk page so I will say it here. If there are "Tarshesite doomguards, ered'ruin doomguards, fiend doomguards" then that would mean everything we know about the Dragonspawn is wrong... Rolandius [[Image:Paladin.gif|25px]] ( talk -  contr ) 11:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Wyrmkin, etc, are each seperate races, but all are categorized as dragonspawn. Earlier in the book it specifies that they are races and that flametongus are advanced members of the wyrmkin race. But this likely makes you confused.Baggins (talk) 11:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay I guess you just don't understand. Oh well, do whatever you want as long as it isn't "slightly changed" from the sources like in the past. Rolandius [[Image:Paladin.gif|25px]] ( talk -  contr ) 12:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Your obviously the one that doesn't understand. The different "dragonspawn" are different species/races classified under dragonspawn. Nathrezim is not a different race of dreadlord (it is not one race being classified under another). They are terms for the same race. But good luck at interpreting tarsheshite...Baggins (talk) 12:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You have to read more and write less. I just said above that Nathrezim and dreadlord are the same race and also that those three are different species/races classified under dragonspawn. So you just repeated what I said...cool. Rolandius [[Image:Paladin.gif|25px]] ( talk -  contr ) 12:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * My point was that being inside parantheses doesn't mean that the parentheses mean the same thing. The context behind each parenthesies is different. The parathaneses around dragonspawn meant something entirely different than the ones around nathrezim. This allows for the one around tarshesite to be different as well. In this case referring to a DnD creature for whatever reason.Baggins (talk) 12:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * So just this one race has a parentheses which has nothing to do with Warcraft yet the others do... Rolandius [[Image:Paladin.gif|25px]] ( talk -  contr ) 12:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * "Pretty sure that the tarshesite reference is an inclusion and reference to a DnD race." I looked everywhere and cannot find a D&D reference for tarshesite. Also, there there is a box on the doomguard page saying that in a d20 setting to treat them as devils and give them baatezu traits. It looks to me to be a Warcraft invented term, so that gives another reason(s) for it to be mentioned in the article besides just a one line note. Rolandius [[Image:Paladin.gif|25px]] ( talk -  contr ) 13:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Merge into Ered'ruin
A merge into Ered'ruin would be similar to Nathrezim and Sayaad being on a single page. Also the doomlord and daemon pages should also be merged into Ered'ruin. Those that used the doomlord unique model in Legion used the updated standard doomguard model meaning they are the same creature and not some subtype of creature. The daemon do appear as doomguard in TBC Karazhan and it would only be speculation that this use of the model is a case of model reusage, with a simple note that this is something they were named as in the First and Second War. Mrforesttroll (talk) 16:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I think that "daemon" should stay as its own thing because it talks about the prototypical version of the "demon" in Warcraft. As for the rest, the linchpin is figuring out what a Terrorguard is. Copeland said those are "not too far away in terms of rank/role" from the doomguards, but if doomguard is a cross-species rank, then the pages need to say split.--Sandwichman2448 (talk) 05:20, 6 December 2020 (UTC)