We have moved to Warcraft Wiki. Click here for information and the new URL.



Inappropriate question[]

Hi, I was wondering where's the best place to farm money. I heard Wintersprings but wasnt sure. Daniel Flory 22:47, 26 August 2006 (EDT)

You have to be kidding me. This isn't really the place to discuss farming gold. I mean... this is the LORE page. Not the "100 ways to make gold" page. Pzychotix 06:33, 27 August 2006 (EDT)


Does the {{classnav}} template belong here? It doesn't appear to have any lore links. --Gengar orange 22x22 Fandyllic (talk · contr) 7:49 PM PST 2 Dec 2007

Because "Lore" was removed from the template. --Sky (talk | con | wh) 03:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Removed it now :) Kirkburn  talk  contr 03:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Language Clean Up[]

Just edited some of the language on the page: there was a fragmentary sentence and some improper usage of semi colons. Also added Mr. Metzen's first name to make things a little more formal.Sarukun (talk) 21:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


The TCG is presumably included in the list of "things which are canon" through the CDev reference. While I assume it is canon in general, I'm wondering about the fine print, especially with regard to characters which don't appear outside the TCG. It's probably also significant regarding the flavor text from those cards.

My expectation is that it generally won't contradict canon. However, is it automatically assumed that everything within the TCG is 100% canon? For example, if a spell exists in the TCG, it that considered to definitely exist in the "real" Azeroth, or is it arguably simply artistic licence? Same with characters, relationships, events, etc. Clearly the actions taken by TCG players are not themselves considered to have taken place in the canon universe. But how far does that licence stretch?

A related question is card art. If TCG art shows a character with a specific visual detail (e.g. eye colour, height, number of shape of wings, or something else less easily changed) is that absolute 'gospel' that that is the character's appearance? -- Taohinton (talk) 16:30, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Another related point: the statement "Everything released by Blizzard except mods and the table-top RPG is considered canon." is obviously somewhat invalidated at this point, due to Heroes of the Storm, and likely also Hearthstone. At the least, the section could do with some careful rewording. -- Taohinton (talk) 16:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
HotS is in premise non-canonical, but the background info on the characters are taken to be canon. Hearthstone is canonical as flavor lore. It exists within the Warcraft universe, but lorewise is a game made up by innkeepers that might not represent characters/history accurately. As for the TCG, it's generally been taken to be canon since nothing has excluded it from being such. It would be nice to get confirmation, though. --Aquamonkeyeg (talk) 17:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Ups, I think I added the TCG stub, but forgot about it completely. Anyho, there was a talk about it on Twitter (Loreology (we are screwed if it was him) or Neilson) so some sources should be there. Try comparing the appearances of Parvink in the game and TCG; they should be accurate, me thinks. Probably, TCG are canon until there is a retcon. And yep, I understand the HotS and HS canonicities the same way, but still, no official confirmation. Oh, and those Harth Stonebrew stories, I believe those are also non-canon as there was one about Magni IIRC.--Mordecay (talk) 18:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Okay found it in my notes: It is from before august 2014. It says that historians checked the artworks (not all tho), but rarely looked at the texts. So apparently not all was Blizzard-checked. I had it sorted under Loreology, JuPa & Metzen group so one of them said it. Then Loreology once translated a draenei phrase from the card; and confirmed that Aegwynn in her TCG art is wielding Atiesh.--Mordecay (talk) 18:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


From Muffinus regarding Hearthstone:[1]

Q: sorry to drag you into this but how canonical should we take Hearthstone as lore? I mean it's not all canon in WoW right?
A: HS is a game played in WoW's inns, thus HS's things exist, but may not be "real" per se. Like you buying a Transformers toy.
Q: a flavor text stating she's a peerless archer. Does this retcon Sylvanas being the best archer in her family?
A: Wouldnt read too deeply into it

--Aquamonkeyeg (talk) 18:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Aha! Okay. (Though I don't like him clarifying canonicities) still better than nothing, right? --Mordecay (talk) 18:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the blog entry about Magni. It was certainly foreshadowing the introduction of new alternate hero Magni. But the entry left the identity of the mysterious patron unknown. And as I understand it, the HS heroes are avatars in the game, not the actual people playing. --Aquamonkeyeg (talk) 19:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, FWIW, flavor text in Hearthstone was probably never meant to be taken seriously, unless we want to consider it canon that Antonidas was once the Grand Magus of Jelly Donuts. I'm wondering about things like Skycap'n Kragg or Druid of the Saber, though; are they new additions to Warcraft lore, or things made up in-universe for the cardgame played in inns? Also, [2]. -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 21:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Though if you think about it, Hearthstone can't really be considered canon under certain stuff, here's one of the reason that follow; Garrosh Hellscream was killed in Warlords of Draenor but he is still playable in Hearthstone from what I've seen, even though Magni Bronzebeard is an alternate. — SurafbrovWowpedia administrator T / C 21:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, as Aquamonkeykeg said, the heroes are more like avatars than the actual people playing. You can see this on the HS game boards in WoW. E.g., Generic Guard #1 is playing as Jaina the Mage versus Generic Guard #2 playing as Malfurion the Druid. It's not actually Jaina and Malfurion sitting face-to-face in an inn playing a card game. -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 21:27, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
What's being arrived at here is largely correct; the main game of Hearthstone is canon, but is fully intended to be a "game within a game". Things that happen within matches themselves, as well as the basic rules and behaviours of cards, are not intended to be taken literally; as is clearly shown by their appearance as cards, etc.
However, the question for Hearthstone is how to handle the surrounding lore in which it is set. I don't believe Hearthstone in the wider "serious" lore has yet broken canon. What it has done is introduce a reasonable and ever growing amount of lore which is not yet confirmed as canon, and which has not yet been seen in other games.
This new lore ranges from things like developing the character of King Mukla (he likes to give bananas as gifts on his birthday), to the existence of the strangely magical inn and its innkeeper, to the invention of the Grand Tournament, a more joyous and playful continuation of the Argent Tournament, on the old tournament grounds. As noted above, new characters like Sky'capn Kragg and new types such as Druid of the Saber also represent innovation which may or may not be considered canon. We also have details such as murlocs riding frogs as mounts, and the ethereals' energy camels (which I believe are new?).
So far, none of this has been confirmed or denied, except for the introduction of Hearthstone tables, cards, etc, (along with designer Ben Brode) into WoW. -- Taohinton (talk) 00:21, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Clarification for those not too familiar with the game: the Grand Tournament card set itself a piece of the game of Hearthstone, but is based upon a "real" event taking place within the Hearthstone version of the Warcraft universe, featuring real adventurers. Again, the line between what is intended to be "real" lore and what is a card-based depiction of it is very unclear. As players we are essentially looking at the Hearthstone universe and the Grand Tournament through a pack of cards, darkly. -- Taohinton (talk) 00:31, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Update, most of a year later: Since this discussion, Hearthstone has grown substantially, and has now introduced substantial amounts of new lore, which are not intended to be canon - or at least, are not expected to be made or considered canon by the main WoW lore team. The League of Explorers tells a fantastical tale which as of yet is purely for entertainment purposes, while Whispers of the Old Gods makes the biggest leaps yet - discussions of which have led to lead designer Ben Brode stating "Whispers of the Old Gods (if not all of Hearthstone) is definitely a "What If?" take on Warcraft lore."
The continuing expansion of Hearthstone lore has also led to its expansion onto Wowpedia, something which I feel should be handled fairly carefully. I've opened a discussion about this here. -- Taohinton (talk) 06:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Hearthstone characters and lore on Wowpedia[]

A more specific question: since Hearthstone is indeed regularly adding new lore (even leaving aside, which we probably should, "flavor lore" such as flavor text and the details of the game of Hearthstone itself), including wholly new characters, how should we handle adding this information to Wowpedia?

I ask because pages for some of the new characters have been created, and I can see this model being viable. However, do we include such characters in "notable" NPC lists, etc? It should also be noted that all such characters/types except the innkeeper so far feature exclusively as Hearthstone cards, which means we have no certainty they're not intended to be purely inventions of the game-makers themselves.

Perhaps more important is the same question with regard to general lore. According to Hearthstone, after the defeat of the Lich King the Argent Tournament ended, but was replaced by the Grand Tournament. Obviously none of this has happened within the frozen-in-time World of Warcraft world, but should we add this information to those pages? Should Harth Stonebrew's testimony of seeing murlocs "all geared up in plate, clankin’ about like wee fishy-smellin’ mechs" be taken as a meaningful insight into the behaviour of certain unusual murloc tribes?

I suppose one possibility is to start separate "In Hearthstone" sections like with the RPG. Otherwise we could integrate the info but tag it, or just leave it out. Either way it's likely to keep coming. -- Taohinton (talk) 15:58, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

[3] What is IP? --Mordecay (talk) 12:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Intellectual Property. Hearthstone and WoW are both part of the Warcraft IP. -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 12:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

With the amount of Hearthstone lore content on the wiki growing, I've opened a more visible discussion about this here. -- Taohinton (talk) 06:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Adventurers and bosses[]

It occurs to me that there appears to be contradiction in some cases between the Warcraft canon and the actual World of Warcraft experience. An obvious example is someone like Gamon, who players may fail to save in SoO, but who is then still magically alive in Warlords. I believe (?) there are also some examples of boss encounters where things are meant to have gone slightly differently from how they actually play out in WoW, in terms of whether the boss actually died, who killed them, etc? At the least there's probably divergence over (adventurers and heroes of) which faction did what in several cases, given the way the game works.

This might sound obvious, but if so something mentioning this should be added to the page. The fact that players can watch a certain version of events play out before their eyes, but have it turn out that is not actually canon, is pretty significant. -- Taohinton (talk) 05:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

TCG artwork[]

As far as I can tell, Afrasiabi & Feasel were speaking about the game and descriptions, but not the artwork. --Mordecay (talk) 10:19, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Not true because he laters clarifies "if you're talking about the description on the card" which means that, originally, he wasn't talking about "the description on the cards". And then he's asked again about the "flavour text below the Mechanics" and he says no again, so previously he wasn't talking talking about this either.
It's definitely possible that they gain inspiration from the TCG that makes it into canon lore, like they do with the RPG, but as far as the lore and the players are concerned, TCG & RPG are not canon.
There's also an issue with the authenticity of the source. This is literally a guy on the forums claiming he's friend with a GM and with only proof of it, a screenshot. There's nothing remotely official in this, I could claim the same thing and forge a screenshot too.
I personally believe this, but objectively that screenshot cannot be used as a source. Let's see if we can tweet them. -- MyMindWontQuiet (talk) 10:30, 2 April 2017 (UTC)