Talk:Fel Wolf

Type of demon used to possess the wolves' corpses in FR
The eye of kilroggs are created apparitions, they are demonic ghosts/spirits or ghost-like demons given the "illusion" of life by a magic that uses life-energy/force as a power source. Ghosts/Spirits can possess corpses because they're incorporeal (Ex: Banshees, MU Gorefiend), so why wouldn't the eye of kilroggs have the ability to possess corpses? The Eye of Kilrogg spell is a variation of the summoning and necromantic used by warlocks.

If the eye of kilroggs are apparitions enchanted with life-energy then it stands to reason that warlocks can make a slight alteration to the eye of kilrogg spell and just enchant the bones with life-energy.

I don't know if there is any source that proves that the souls of imps, succubi, felhunters, or felguards were used to possess corpsesVisionOfPerfection (talk) 08:02, 7 May 2015 (UTC)VisionOfPerfection .
 * Eye of Kilrogg may be an apparition, but it has always been "a physical object which can be destroyed." --Aquamonkeyeg (talk) 15:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * 1) I don't know if that website is reliable, the descriptions of some of the abilities described in that website aren't the same as the descriptions of those aforementioned abilities described in the manual.
 * 2) Ghosts/spirits can be destroyed despite their incorporeality.
 * 3) Why wouldn't the eye of kilroggs be able to possess corpses? They're either ghost-like demons or demonic ghosts.
 * 4) And just being curious here, if the eye of kilroggs are ghost-like demons and are physical objects would it be possible for a warlock (who knows the eye of kilrogg spell) to make a slight alteration to the eye of kilrogg spell so that the ghost-like demon manifests as a skeleton?VisionOfPerfection (talk) 02:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC)VisionOfPerfection.
 * Ultimately, the issue at hand here is that adding speculation that the wolves are possessed by Eyes of Kilrogg is based on FURTHER speculation that Eyes of Kilrogg can even function in that manner. Speculation sections aren't carte blanche to put every wild theory people come up with into an article. If you have a citation that DIRECTLY suggests that either of those things are possible, fine, but otherwise it's based on absolutely nothing but your own conjecture based on your own interpretations of further conjecture. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 04:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your point:
 * Why would demonic ghosts or ghost-like demons being able to possess corpses be a "wild theory"? Do YOU have any source that suggests or states that ghost-like beings or ghosts can't possess corpses? I know for a fact that banshees (who are merely spirits/ghosts) can possess corpses because of their incorporeality, it's not much of a stretch that ghost-like beings or ghosts can possess corpses; my so-called "wild theory" isn't as wild as claiming ghost-like demons or demonic ghosts can't possess corpses and I've presented the fact that the necrophytes were summoning eye of kilroggs. I don't understand what's wrong with speculating that the eye of kilroggs possessed the wolves' corpses in FR and I don't understand what's wrong with speculating that imps were used to possess the wolves' corpses. Imps can become incorporeal, if they can't possess corpses when they become incorporeal then someone needs to explain why banshees can possess corpses because of their incorporeality. /les sigh, I dislike exceptions to the rule but whatever, I'll find out if Blizzard thinks ghost-like demons or demonic ghosts can possess corpses sooner or later.VisionOfPerfection (talk) 20:11, 8 May 2015 (UTC)VisionOfPerfection
 * Banshees do not possess creatures because they are incorporeal. They can possess creatures, AND they are incorporeal, but the correlation of these two qualities does not mean that one causes the other. THAT is the sort of wild speculation I'm talking about - you take a fact (in this case, banshees are incorporeal and can possess corpses), then come up with an extrapolation of questionable accuracy (banshees can possess corpses BECAUSE they are incorporeal), then carry this extrapolation into further speculation (that any incorporeal creature can possess a corpse), and then attempt to make direct logical claims based an extremely tenuous chain of logic (that corpses stated to be possessed by demonic spirits MUST be possessed by either imps or Eyes of Kilrogg), despite there being no direct evidence that these claims are even remotely accurate.
 * This is not how Wowpedia functions, and why adding a speculation section that the Fel Wolves are possessed by Imps or Eyes of Kilrogg is "wild theory." -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 01:00, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Banshees (banshees are just spirits) do possess creatures because they are incorporeal, you don't have any source that suggests/states that banshees don't have the ability to possess corpses because they're incorporeal. There are quite a few cases of non-banshees (that are also incorporeal) possessing corpses, so no, it's not wild speculation that incorporeal beings can possess corpses like you're claiming it to be. Are you suggesting/stating that beings with flesh can possess corpses? I have never claimed that the wolves' corpses in FR were possessed by either the imps or the eye of kilroggs (In fact, I've never stated the wolves' corpses in FR must have been possessed by either imps or the eye of kilroggs), I stated they MIGHT be, there's a difference. I'm not taking fact, then coming up with an extrapolation of questionable accuracy, then carry this extrapolation into further speculation, and then attempt to make direct logical claims based an extremely tenuous chain of logic despite there being no evidence that these claims are even remotely accurate.


 * On the Warlock page I stated that Warlocks are also known as Necromancers and either you or someone else edited it without providing any source that proves that all Warlocks don't use Necromancy and that Necromancy isn't integral to the Warlock arts. The definition of a Necromancer is a practitioner of Necromancy, do you care to argue this fact? Justin Parker stated Warlocks and Necromancers have overlapping abilities, ergo Warlocks practice Necromancy. Warlocks practice Necromancy = They are by definition, Necromancers. It seems like my "wild theory" that all warlocks are necromancers isn't wild at all, especially considered the fact that channeling souls is integral to the warlock class and necromancy extends to controlling souls against their will.


 * On the Flesh-shaping page I've pointed out the FACT that flesh-shaping is the art of shaping flesh with blood. I provided the fact that flesh can be shaped by felblood. Are you suggesting that shaping flesh with felblood isn't fleshshaping? Are you suggesting/stating that flesh-shaping being achievable through felblood is a "wild theory"?


 * I do not make "wild theories".VisionOfPerfection (talk) 01:42, 9 May 2015 (UTC)VisionOfPerfection