This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Warlock article.

Blood Elf Succubus?

The article makes it look like Blood Elf Warlocks don't get the Succubus pet, is that true? And why? Do we have links to blue posts on this subject? I was going to reroll Blood Elf Warlock but I am not sure now. More info on this would be nice if it's true. If not then their might be a problem with how the article is setup. --Buraisu 15:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I imagine all you're seeing is that Blood Elves don't have their own specific version of the Succubus quest, and they just need to complete the Orc or Undead version of the quest. Haven't done it myself tho. But the odds of BE warlocks not having a key ability is infinitesimal compared to the odds of wowwiki being incomplete. :-) 17:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
The article also doesn't mention that blood elves should do the orc or undead Voidwalker quest instead of their own. Its a LOT easier. And for the record, yes, BE warlocks do either the orc or undead succy quest. I did the orc one.--Darth603 04:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Damage over time spells

I originally had changed the statement on warlocks having the most powerful DoT spells to the most formidable thinking that SW:P had higher dps however upon theorycraft it turns out it was correct originally. Just some evidence in case somebody makes this change again in the future
Shadow Word Pain (Rank 10) dps = 1236/18 = 68.67dps
Curse of Doom (Rank 2) dps = 4200/60 = 70.0dps
Curse of Agony (Rank 7) dps = 1356/24 = 56.5dps

spell details taken from


according to Curse of Doom it gets +200% bonus from +spelldamage equip while Curse of Agony only receives 120%; so CoD does a lot more DPS than CoA -watchout 10:22, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
The comment above is precisely wrong: it forgets that CoA takes only 24 seconds to do its work, and therefore gains 300% of spell damage per minute if reapplied. In other words, with enough spell damage CoA will exceed CoD DPS because it scales better -pdenhaan 19:01, 10 September 2007 (BST)


I have no idea if I'm allowed to type here but I have a question. I have a level 19 twink Warlock (Kcpearl). I have all my equipment and enchantrs except one. I've been wondering if I should get +25 agility to my stave or +22 int? Under agility it says it increases ranged attack power and crit chance to all weapons. I DoT Fear Wand. My wand has a higher dps than my spells. I was wondering if Agility would help me our not? I know int increases spell crit chance but I only use DoTs. I'm not sure and about this issue and I was informed to come here and ask.

This is really a basic question about Warlocks, but when I look at the article I see no information on what stats are important for the Warlock. -- LarsPensjo 05:36, 25 August 2006 (EDT)
Firstly, please sign your posts. Makes it easier. Second, stats are incredibly dependant on what kind of warlock you intend to be. There are ones that survive, ones that never run out of mana, ones that will crit you for 8billion damage (ok, so 10k is the highest ive ever seen), ones who can dot-n-run. The warlock is a jack of many trades. I, personally, am a dps lock with high spell damage, but fairly low life and mana. When i run low on mana, i life tap, and drain mana. due to my high spell damage, i can fully heal myself with drain life and syphon, while my dots do massive damage. I can also crit for a good 1700 with shadowbolt due to SM/Ruin.
Basically, the formula i follow is:
  • Demonology: Int and Stam above damage and crit. these will keep you and your pet alive. Demonologists usually tend to have more life and mana than others due to embrace and more int gear than damage gear.
  • Affliction: High damage +. lots of affliction locks like to focus as much on their dot damage, then crit, then life, then mana. This is what i do. My dots are killer, and i survive fairly well. However, if my drains are interrupted and my dots dispelled, im a gonner.
  • Destruction: Destro locks are a very different blend. they either go for huge fire damage for conflag and searing pain and soul fire, huge magic damage to switch off from shadowbolt to conflag, or huge crit to make their soul fires and shadowbolts make everyone cry. Destro is a very specific tree, and without the right gear and play style, you are like a weak mage.
So overall, the warlock doesnt need 1 stat, str is useless, spirit is almost useless (as we can life tap, healthstone, battery our poor pets, and have armor that helps us restore life). i personally have never seen a wand-using warlock above dots or casts, but at lv 19 that might make sense. However, i would suggest at that level to try to get a 30 spell enchant to your staff, and a 20 shadow damage to gloves if you can afford it, and simply put on coa, corruption, fear, and wand. with that much damage, your dots would be very frightening (and try to get some spellpower goggles XL. they are deadly as hell at that level, albeit slightly difficult to obtain). Hope i helped!--Haddon 21:08, 26 August 2006 (EDT)
I added a section about the Warlock attributes. LarsPensjo 00:21, 31 August 2006 (EDT)

The ranking of attributes is getting a little long, and I'm not sure that I agree completely with some of the recent changes from the BC Patches. Right now the list is:

  1.  Stamina
  2. +Spell Damage (especially valuable as it now boosts both DoTs and nukes as well as Life Tap)
  3. Intellect
  4. Spell crit
  5. Spell hit
  6. Health regeneration (+X Health per Y seconds)
  7. Mana regeneration (+X Mana per Y seconds)
  8. Spirit
  9. Agility 

Argumentatively, wouldn't Spell hit be more useful than Spell crit? Unless you are a Heavy Destrucion you may not be relying on high-crits. Also, does Int really come before either of those? And if we're making a BIG list... where does Resilience fall into this list? Or is that more of an every class needs it kind of stat? -GSeven 23:55, 15 February 2007 (CDT)

I agree, the ranking attributes list is subjective. Personally, I prefer +spell damage over stamina and spell hit over spell crit.--Curtis E Bare 13:14, 20 February 2007 (EST)

I also have to agree with the issue of what's on this list. I think we should use a seperate list for each basic spec, and remove spirit and agility all together. The reason for that being that those stats are no more helpful for warlocks than they are for any other cloth class. Health regen should probably be removed too, as there are all of mebbe 4 items in game with +hp/5s that a warlock can use, and at least one of those things (resurgence rod) is not worth it in end game. There can be a nice comment about these stats near the end of the section. I'll put together a suggestion and post it in a day or two. -- DuTempete 11:09, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Agility and Spirit are still on the list, and don't ask me why. Now that we've got 2.3, agility and spirit are things of the past for warlocks. Heck, new warlocks may even get enough +spell damage to be able to seriously drain tank at before outland.

I've heard some debate about spell haste replacing spell damage in the near future, but I highly doubt that, at least for affliction warlocks. Most of us only use one castbar spell when not raiding (UA), and spell haste doesn't seem to mix well with channelled spells and dots. So I dare say its not likely to happen.--Darth603 04:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that Agility doesn't affect damage from Wands; even though it's "White" damage, the damage caused by the wand is actually a SPELL type (Shadow, Fire, Nature, etc.). For your question on whether to get Agility or Intellect, I'd say go for the Int. Felindre

[Curse of Weakness]

Several macros make clever use of [Curse of Weakness]. But is anyone really using this curse? I think it has general been regarded as a waste of mana, better spent for doing some addition damage instead. If that is the case, then these macros should not be recommended. -- LarsPensjo 01:10, 16 August 2006 (EDT)

I have to agree with you on that. I've never found it to be particuarly useful. At it's maxumum level it only reduces damage by 31 and the more you need damage reduction the more that 31 becomes a drop in the bucket of the damage dealt by that monster. Better to use CoA or a CoS/CoE to increase the damage you or your party do to it and just kill it quicker. The sooner it's dead the less damage it can deal. --Evil Iggy 00:58, 29 August 2006 (EDT)

I'll thrown in my 2c. [Curse of Weakness] shines when you either have no other curses available (yay low level alts!) or... There's an extremely fast attacker. I've been willing to extend this to rogues and any other agility classes, but the vibe from the (old) forums seems to be that on hunter pet's, CoW may be appropriate. It's a debuff whose return is directly proportional to the number of attacks that the monster produces, not the strength.--Hobinheim 11:50, 31 August 2006 (EDT)

It seems like its viability is a matter of opinion, so it should probably stay up at least for players who do use Curse of Weakness, even if there aren't many. User:Montag/sig 17:45, 27 October 2006 (EDT)
I use [Curse of Weakness] when I am unmounted and running past monsters or running away from monsters. Because if you know your not going to kill it and it's just going to hit and follow you, might as well take less damage. Also, I gotta agree on fast hiting enemies. Sword Speced Rogues normaly have a lot of haste. When you see a rogue duel-wielding  [Warglaive of Azzinoth] THE ROGUE HAS A LOT OF HASTE! +200% anyone? (Most likely the person has 2-4 different items adding haste with the legendary plus [Slice and Dice] and [Blade Flurry]). Hope fear doesn't fail you. --Buraisu 15:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I personally think Curse of Weakness is a waste of Mana after you start getting other Curses. If Curse of Shadow and Curse of the Elements are already on the mob (or, after Patch 2.4.3 comes out, Curse of Elements on its own), and there isn't a need for Curse of Tongues or Curse of Recklessness, every other Warlock should be throwing on Curse of Agony. Felindre

Size of article and redundance

I get the feeling that this article is too big, including information already available at special pages. Because of that, I have removed some of the reduncancy and moved some information. More remains to do. -- LarsPensjo 06:38, 25 August 2006 (EDT)

Warlock-related pages

There are a couple articles relating to warlocks called Warlock PvE guide, Warlock PvP guide, Warlock mana efficiency, and Warlock: Working with Other Classes. I think some of these articles could be more tightly integrated with the main article. A couple are very intricate, and should probably remain their own articles, but I'd like to at least see a small section devoted to the topic with a Main article [[here]] tag at the top of the section.

What do you guys think? User:Montag/sig 15:56, 27 October 2006 (EDT)

After seeing that most of those articles are part of a larger set and should probably remain unchanged, I simply added the relevant ones at the bottom of this article in the See Also section. User:Montag/sig 17:41, 27 October 2006 (EDT)

Separte Lore from Game

I think the intro and history should be moved to the warlock lore section. This page should have descriptions of what a warlock is and its role in a party/raid in-game.--Grid 18:45, 25 November 2006 (EST)

Agreed. --Hobinheim 19:12, 25 November 2006 (EST)

Apparenly Fel Magic is not outlawed in Ironforge, there is a Warlock Trainer in IF, in the Forlorn Caverns

according to warlock questlines it is and this warlock trainer in IF is actually not doing much and trying not to draw attention to himself, thats why you go to Stormwind for all the class quests. Also in Stormwind Warlocks are not all too welcome thats why the slaughtered lamb has its "secret" cellars -watchout 21:43, 4 January 2007 (EST)

Warlock Quests

Was just wondering if it would be smart to have links to all the Warlock quests on this page.--Yelmurc 11:22, 4 January 2007 (EST)

see Warlock quests -watchout 13:04, 4 January 2007 (EST)

I see that they are all there was just wondering why their was not a link on the Warlock Class Page. I'm not saying we add the whole guide to a page but maybe a link thats easy to find.--Yelmurc 17:45, 4 January 2007 (EST)

there is a link in the class-overview-box-thingy in the upper right - warlock line, quests. Though I have to admit if you dont know where to search, youll likely not find it -watchout 21:39, 4 January 2007 (EST)

Maybe we should make it easier to find. --Yelmurc 19:34, 5 January 2007 (EST)

Unarmed Combat

I re-added the ability to use Unarmed combat. I guess I just don't understand why one would remove it in the first place.

>> GSeven talk  | contr | web 10:34, 16 February 2007 (EST)

Simplification updates

I fancied adding a bit more chat to this page, hope you guys like it, and you feel that it remains true to the Neutral point of view. --Zamael 04:53, 20 February 2007 (EST)

Although actually now I take a second look at it, it looks awful. How come the Mage page is so short?

Project: Warlock Articles

I've started a project to organize and polish the warlock articles. If you'd like to participate, I'm in the process of setting up a game plan at User:DuTempete/Warlock project. Let's make this a class-wide effort to make WoW Wiki the best source of Warlock information we can! User:DuTempete/Signature 22:09, 28 March 2007 (EDT)


It's not unknown that some players believe that warlocks are over-powered. Perhaps we should include this in the article?


--Kjærleik 07:14, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

I don't think this is the place for that. This article is for factual Warlock information, and advice/opinion on how best to play the class. What you're talking about, if it even has a place in this wiki, would best be put into a separate article.n DuTempete talk|contr 19:42, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Agreed, the troll-speak terms nerf/buff/overpowered/balanced/underpowered should not appear in any article, and referencing any in-game mechanic, class or ability to them is going to quickly turn an article into flames. I don't think that kind of discussion belongs on the wiki whatsoever because it's not constructive discussion. It's just puerile. --Mekkapiano 12:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

What's the point of a Destrolock?!

Ok I've put serious thought into this and I just can't think of an answer. Why would anyone, anyone at all, seriously want to spec as a destrolock? (Destruction warlock) I mean most talents of a destrolock have an equivalent in a mages fire talents, even some destro spells have mage equivalents which the mage equivalent is often superior to a destrolock's spell. So could someone please help me to understand the value of speccing into destruction, when you could just be a mage.Feldaldor 00:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The point is speed. Destro spec'd warlocks excel in pvp, because they can take down someone far faster that those of other specs. Speccing somewhat into Destro used to be good for raiding, but I think that has been overshadowed by post-BC affliction and demonology talents. I rarely see any Destro spec'd warlocks who PvE much, anymore. --DuTempete talk|contr 07:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I have to say that I raid as a destro/demo sac specced lock, and am ALWAYS on top of the damage meters when I sacrifice and imp for fire damage. Obviously focused on direct damage instead of dots, cast rotation is CoE, immolate, incineratex5?, repeat. This is on top of better-geared locks that are shadow (usually take 2nd place), rogues in 3rd place, and mages in fourth. We currently raid TK and The Eye. Just some food for thought. mchoekst 31 August 2007
True that. Affliction warlocks have a very bad time in PVP, especially if they took the points for accellerated AOE fear and put it into something more useful in PVE- where you rarely use fear because the mobs usually come back with two or three friends. If I ever go back to my warlock, I'll probably respec her as destro and teach those stunlock rogues a thing or two. But yeah, the reason for destro is to get a build with decent burst damage, because that's what kills in PVP.
That having been said, I have seen a few full to semi-Destro warlocks raiding. Most of them gear like fire mages.--Darth603 04:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I could just as easily ask why one would be a fire specced mage. It's a matter of taste. Even if they played exactly the same in combat some might prefer summoning/imp-buff/dots/pets better than food/water/portals. Although that's not the case and warlocks are capable of more DPS (in my experience) than fire mages when geared equally especially when they sac the imp. The better hybrid PvE/P builds are light in other trees heavier Destro. Personally I run 7/7/47. --Darkbeat

Warlock face off thought/situation.

Alright, this is another thing I've thought about. Three warlocks, one specced into Affliction, one Specced into Demonology, and the third Specced into Destruction.All three are at equal levels, and same race. Each one fights each of the other two, one on one. Each of the warlocks may only use their spec of spells (Aka Aff lock may only use affliction spells), with the exceptions of Shadowbolt,Fel armor, and fear. Who would beat who in one on one, and why?Feldaldor 00:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

That entirely depends on who gets off the first fear, I think. If the destruction lock manages to avoid getting feared, I would imagine the others would be toast. If the destruction lock is feared and taken down, it'd be a toss up between the other two; whomever is better at pvping. But all in all, the spec is only as good as the player. --DuTempete talk|contr 07:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
It might just be me but it sounds like you're a destro fan :DFeldaldor 04:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Felguard CHARGE! Warlock RUN! Demonology wins... lol Fast summon, run, resummon, run, resummon, run etc. Now if you couldn't run... then it depends on who gets the first fear off. Remebering Banish is a Demonology move and the others can't use it. --Buraisu 15:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Huh? Banish is a warlock spell. It doesn't matter what spec you are; you can use both ranks of it. I'd like to know who's feeding you such BS, so I can smack them around a bit! --DuTempete talk|contr
03:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Um Tempete let me remind you the rules of my hypothetical situation... the spec warlocks may only use spells of THEIR spec. Banish is a demonology spell, so if my hypoithetical situation were to actually happen only the demonology warlock would have the ability to use banish. Kenneth Koubek 06:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Warlocks were Shaman?!

Citation, plskthx! --DuTempete talk|contr 07:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

RotH, you silly goose. The whole books half about that and half about the draenei being slaughtered. --Sky (t · c · w) 07:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Kinda surprised me too, I've never really seen a connection. I'm sure Sky knows what he is talking about more then me, and I am not about to go out and buy some books I will doubtfully read.   Zurr  TC 07:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I think Sky is full of --it. Tongueout.gif --DuTempete talk|contr 08:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
No citation required. That was fruits of the war on Draenor when the Orcs were unwittingly led against the Draenei by Archimonde, disguised as the Orc ancestors at first. Shamans were the only orcs gifted with 'magical' abilities, and Archimonde showed them how to summon forth demons and utilise dark magics. If you still demand citation, go pick up 'Rise of the Horde' by Christie Golden or ask if your local library can get it if you're a skin-flint. Amazing book and full of lore. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Celess (talk · contr).

Need to get rid of the blog links

Like someone else said, this isn't a link repository. Linking to blogs is totally pointless unless it's the personal blog of one of the game designers or something. That kind of stuff borders on advertising. --Mekkapiano 00:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The one you removed is a weekly column, not a blog, Mekka. I will go through the links and make sure they're not trolls if you like, though. Tongueout.gif--DuTempete talk|contr 01:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
All of those external links look fine to me. They're links to someone else's intellectual property, and by linking to their sites, rather than participating in the wiki, they're saying they'd rather not submit that property to communal critique and change, which is perfectly acceptable. They're not degrading the wiki by putting their links here, rather, they're improving it by keeping our wiki open to the rest of the WoW community in general, and increasing the amount of information and advice that is at the fingertips of the folks who come here. --DuTempete talk|contr 01:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, guess I overreacted to that one. It's more of a general thing that's happening to the wiki overall. People are dumping links to pretty random blog entries or pretty redundant external pages that just rehash the same info. Some is blatantly just people linking to their personal site (but those all get spotted and reverted). It's akin to the "sticky growth" you see on forums - everyone thinks their little piece of info is important but eventually all the signal gets lost in the noise. I shouldn't have reverted that particular link, to be honest. --Mekkapiano 16:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that stuff is going to happen. We just need to be vigilant about it, especially in such a community as ours, where people are freely able to put up whatever they want. --DuTempete talk|contr 21:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

more namedropping

Many players have played the the Warlock Class and some are simply legends in the game of World of Warcraft. Prior to The Burning Crusade (Blizzard's first expansion) legends like Kralnor, Drakedog, and Killakast were working hard to prove that the warlock class should not be over looked in any aspect of the game, as they truly displayed their attributes adequately in World of Warcraft. There was a time in World of Warcraft where warlocks were simply confused with Mages 90% of the time by the average player. Consistently being asked for water or portals to other cities. The Warlock population was at and all time low (10% on most servers) so very little was known about this unique class, but there was a lot to be told.

Warlocks are truly harder to master then any other class, but when used properly can be considered the class of choice for most occasions. In a player versus player environment a warlock must learn to control a fight against your opponent. Time is on your side being a damage over time (D.O.T.) class, learn to use time to your advantage and you will see all the benefits time has to offer. The fear ability is a great tool for achieving this goal. Keeping your distance from melee classes will be tough, so use your spells wisely and you will be successful.

Warlocks are Good at both: Player vs. Player (Fighting with or amongst other players, Battlegrounds, Arenas etc.) Plaver vs. Environment (Raid, Dungeons, Solo Farming)

Players that have proven to be fun to watch through the years:

Drakedog Realm: Azshara Guild: EE Play Platform:(PVP) Featured in the armory

Killakast Realm: Drenden Guild: Identified as Trouble Play Platform: (PVE) Featured in the armory

Kralnor Realm:/ Ner'zhul Guild: We Punt Gnomes Play Platform: (General) Featured in the armory (Kralnor is also featured on the fourms!)

--/ Mikejordin (talk · contr)

"Warlocks were once mages..."

Per this problem report, Special:ProblemReports/9789, the intro has been changed from mages to arcanists. However, this may still not be ideal and the intro could perhaps do with a rewrite for clarity? Kirkburn  talk  contr 21:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thats like saying Catholics were once Christians. And some warlocks started as warlocks. Would changing it to "Many Warlocks were once magess or, in case of the orcs, shamans, who, in pursuit of ever-greater sources of power,..." rectify both problems? The whole mages and warlocks thing comes from many sources such as the RPG corebook, The Last Guardian, and in many cases its not one citable phrase but rather an ongoing theme throughout the books. Warthok Talk Contribs 05:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
The arcanist to warlock progression is something from the WoW corebook. While I know that the idea that many of the alliance warlocks originates from the Kirin Tor. Kirin Tor frowns on demonic and necromantic magic. I couldn't find specific quotes on the issue... LIke you said its seems to be a theme but not necessarily said in exact phrases.Baggins (talk) 08:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


Removed this from Coming in WotLK. We already have that In game. Chaos of Warcraft (talk) 18:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

We do? I thought so too, but Blizzard said it was new at WWI and people had a big reaction from it. :S -- Zeal (T/C)  18:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Maby youre thinking of Demonic Circle? Chaos of Warcraft (talk) 18:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Nope, definitely said that. Exact words were "Warlocks will be able to summon players outside instances" with a cheer from crowd and then went onto explain why this is, players being late or needing to go buy things etc. :S -- Zeal (T/C)  19:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I thought that went into the game (also) in like, 2.3 or 2.4. /me goes to check the notes. --Sky (t · c · w) 19:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Thought so. Patch 2.4.0#Warlocks. --Sky (t · c · w) 19:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

This requires some explanation. To the WoWWiki-mobile! Chaos of Warcraft (talk) 19:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

3.0 changes

This article seems out of date as of patch 3.0; i.e. warlocks having massive dps and utility in the End Game Expectations section. I'd update this myself but i'm not really sure what warlocks are expected to do as of 3.0, or if they're even brought to raids anymore. Vreivai (talk) 04:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

There are also some new warlock talents that do not have articles yet, such Haunt. Vreivai (talk) 05:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Some changes that need to be made: GENERAL - Spirit is now useful for locks as Fel Armor now increases spellpower by 30% of your spirit. DEMON CHANGES - Felhunter no longer has paranoia buff, instead it has the spirit/intellect buff. Voidwalker's consume shadows no longer increases the demon's AP for 10 mins but increases party/raids stealth detection. (Only while channeling? Unclear.)

- Stealth detection is only active when demon channels it. Bloodchills

DEMONOLOGY - Metamorphosis, Demonic Pact, Soul Link doesn't increase spellpower anymore, Master Demonologist gives completely different buffs AFFLICTION - Haunt DESTRUCTION - Chaos Bolt Just a few things I can think of off the top of my head. I've been a Demonology lock my whole WoW career, so when I get time I'll write some stuff up about the demon tree changes, but someone else will have to do the Destro/Aff ones. Xtoq (talk) 00:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Destruction warlocks have just gotten a huge ram in the behind with 3.0, particularly the Shadowbolt spamming kind like I was despite the improvements. In the beginning, I found I was getting about the same DPS as pre-patch with my gear/spec/playing style. Then began hearing vast improvemets in DPS by other builds. It wouldn't be that bad if they got improvements to match the DPS, but they improved well pass that marker. For a semi comparison, I have a basically fully boomkin spec druid (I have points in resto for mana to keep me pumping for longer so any points I scavenge from there will only increase my DPS since most of the time will be spent in short, non-boss fights) which can pump 1000DPS with 1000 +spl pwr. My fully Destro spec will do about 1000DPS with 1300 +spl pwr, when relying on Shadowbolt and it's procs. Clothy hit-with-crit gear has been hard to come by in my travels making it even harder for the destro lock to DPS. I've had Affliction (in longer DoT friendly fights) and Demon locks (sizeble chunk is by the Felguard) match my output with less spell power (I suppose gear quality difference is implied). Given the only talents I could only put points into was crowd control with Pyroclasm, aggro pulling Searing Pain, pet with the Imp Firebolt, or the fire spec, it's definitely broken unless crit is suppose to save it. I've switched to firelock and managed to squeeze 300-500DPS out of the same gear (though a chunk would be by the little Imp cannon which I always have out for Empowered Imp), play style (replaced SB with Incinerate), and spell rotation. If Sartharion was immune to fire, I'd be screwed. A'lar and a few other old worlds still are, though which was why I never went firelock before, even though I considered it... I can do a bit of the updating as well given this is my main. I just have to work out the style and whether this page should be retained and renamed to Warlock 2.0 and the "current" page be straight "Warlock" or "Warlock 3.0"Rei-gouki (talk) 15:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Alliance Warlock are Former Mages. was that retconned?

was that retconned?--Knighthonor (talk) 04:23, July 7, 2010 (UTC)

Next Warlock Minion

This is more for fun than anything else. So, what do you want to see as the next warlock demon? I'm crossing my fingers for satyr. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WoW Fan Story Writer (talk · contr). 12:20, September 11, 2010

Please read the header at the top of the page. If you wish make a speculation topic, please use the WP:FORUM. And sign your posts. Thank you, Snake.gifSssssssssssssssssssssssss Coobra sig3.gifFor Pony! (Sssss/Slithered) 20:02, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

Old subjects

Can we do something about the old information about soul shards usage prior to 4.01. It would save a little more space if we put it in some page about old abilities.Skyzod324 (talk) 03:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Gender Neutral

The term seems gender neutral in the warcraft universe. Should I make a note? Inv helmet 44.pngIconSmall Vincent.gif The Artist Formerly Known As, MoneygruberTheGoblinMind your manners (talk contribs) 00:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Soul Shards

I removed the entire section regarding soul shards because it was out of date. I chose to delete it rather than update it since it is no longer an integral part of the warlock class in general, and making special note of it in the "Overview" section and not mentioning the secondary resources of the other two specs would be inconsistent. The exact same information is currently available in the soul shard page, where the history of its changes can be preserved. Leaderavia (talk) 01:12, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


Why is he listed among Warlocks? Thought he was a Mage —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elveonora (talk · contr).


To state Warlocks aren't Necromancers is to state that Warlocks can't summon souls with soul shards and instill those souls into corpses. To state Warlocks aren't Necromancers is to state that Warlocks can't drain souls and contain them within soul shards. Stop editing canon ---(VisionOfPerfection (talk))

Since warlocks don't summon demons by instilling souls into corpses, your point is moot. We're also not "editing canon," nor are we "removing sourced information," as the quote you keep trying to edit it absolutely does not in any way, shape, or form say that warlocks and necromancers are the same thing, merely that Gul'dan and his necrolytes were also necromancers. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 01:06, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I can't take you seriously because you have just ignored what I presented in the post you replied to. Gul'dan and the other warlocks were called Necromancers because they summoned souls and instilled them into humans bodies, reanimating corpses. And look at what we have here? Warlocks can summon demons into corpses and reanimate the dead.
You're implying that Warlocks don't use Soul Shards. All Warlocks use Soul Shards in the lore. And what do Soul Shards contain? Souls. All Warlocks can attach that soul to a corpse and reanimate it.
In order to reanimate a corpse a soul must be attached to that corpse. To state Warlocks aren't all Necromancers is to state all Warlocks don't use Soul Shards and can't utilize the soul inside that Soul Shard as he/she sees fit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by VisionOfPerfection (talk · contr).
So if I understand you right, you're claiming that because Gul'dan - one of if not THE most powerful warlock in lore - created the first death knights through necromancy - a feat that, I should remind you, has NEVER been duplicated (the Scourge's death knights were created through completely different means) - that means that all warlocks are capable of doing so and thus necromancers and warlocks are the same thing? -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 01:19, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Where did I state all Warlocks are capable of creating Death Knights? You're posting nonsense. To reanimate a corpse (to raise the dead), a soul must be attached to a corpse. Did you even read ToD? Gul'dan had help creating the Death Knights from LESSER Warlocks. And by the way, you don't need to create Death Knights to be a Necromancer.
Again, you're implying Warlocks don't use soul shards. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by VisionOfPerfection (talk · contr).
Okay. Before this discussion goes any further, I'm going to give you a warning that you are treading on thin ice regarding our policies for Edit Wars. No less than three people have reverted your changes. Take the hint: THIS IS NOT A CLEAR, OBVIOUS, CUT AND DRIED ISSUE. I am going to revert it one more time; do not to edit it back into the Warlock page without proper discussion and consensus. Doing otherwise WILL result in a temporary ban. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 01:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
And you're involving yourself in this edit war on top of ignoring every piece of factual evidence given to you and you're not discrediting any of the points I'm making.
Where is your source stating all Warlocks can't use soul shards? Do you know why we had an Edit War? It's because you're incapable of accepting when you're wrong, so we can't have a proper discussion and come to a consensus
A Necromancer raises the dead by attaching a soul to a corpse -> All Warlocks use soul shards -> Warlock summons soul from their soul shard and attaches it to a corpse -> All Warlocks can raise the dead -> All Warlocks are Necromancers.......simple concept —The preceding unsigned comment was added by VisionOfPerfection (talk · contr).
Warlock + Haunt on a dead corpse instead of a living person = you understaaaaand *in slow voice* ........ I have won this discussion may I edit it now without getting banned? Lololol —The preceding unsigned comment was added by VisionOfPerfection (talk · contr).
Just because they both use shadow magic doesn't mean they are one in the same. Warlocks manipulate death and trap souls, but what changes them from a necromancer is the fact they don't raise they dead. OneVeryFancyElf (talk) 02:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Just like the other person discussing this matter before you, you're ignoring facts. If you're not going to discuss this matter maturely then don't post. I suggest you do your research before making idiotic statements. Are you incapable of answering simple questions? It seems apparent that you can't answer simple questions.
In order to raise the dead a soul must be attached to a corpse. Warlocks traps souls -> Warlock transfers souls they trap to a corpse -> raise dead. I don't know what's so difficult to understand? What do you not understand?
You're pretending like our class' abilities are irrelevant to our class' lore. Soulstone is a lore ability and an in-game ability and its purpose is to raise the dead, both in-game and in lore. You have lost this argument, L2 research b4 posting. You're blatantly ignoring facts and spewing nonsense, you should be threatened with temp. ban. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by VisionOfPerfection (talk · contr).
I feel others have made good enough points to dismiss this idea that they are actually one in the same. I ask that you please try to be more respectful to your fellow editor and avoid making this a hostile place. If your post isn't being allowed up, it's likely for a good reason. I think the most important point is that Warlocks, the class in the game, are never called necromancers. A necromancer can also be a warlock sure, like someone as powerful as Gul'dan. But the only class to actually raise the dead to their command are Death Knights, who Blizzard stated have concepts from a necromancer class in them. Manipulating souls and death ≠ raising the dead. OneVeryFancyElf (talk) 00:42, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Again, you're pretending like our class' in-game abilities are irrelevant to our class' lore. Soulstone is a lore ability, it's very purpose is to raise the dead, both in-game and in the lore and it's considered dark magic, the only reason why the people we resurrect don't appear as undead in-game is because it would affect other people's personal preference of how their character looks like.
  • It's not complex to understand, to reanimate a corpse a soul must be attached to a corpse. Warlocks manipulate souls ex: draining souls, using soul shards, using Soulstones to raise the dead, using souls to corrupt people, etc. therefore Warlocks can attach souls to corpses. And you do realize that Gul'dan's Necromancers were described as lesser Warlocks in the novel Tides of Darkness right? Lesser Warlocks can reanimate the dead, but of course you knew that right?
  • Gul'dan's Necrolyte, Rakmar, agreed that summoning souls into corpses would reanimate the corpses. All Warlocks can summon demons via SOUL Shards .............Warlocks can summon the souls of demons into corpses, reanimating corpses. I suppose you're going to argue the fact that Warlocks can summon demons now too ROFL.
  • Warlocks and Necromancers have overlapping abilities, therefore Warlocks dabble in Necromancy, and are therefore Necromancers, even if a novice in the art of Necromancy.
  • To state that manipulating souls =/= raising the dead is completely asinine and therefore irrelevant. To reanimate a corpse a soul must be attached to a corpse. Gul'dan's Necrolyte, Rakmar, agreed that summoning souls and attaching them to corpses would reanimate the corpses. Warlocks use Soul Shards and can manipulate souls, therefore they can reanimate the dead.
  • You may now do me the pleasure of stop posting your fan-fic.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by VisionOfPerfection (talk · contr).
Vision, Tides of Darkness does not constitute a source to say ALL warlocks are necromancers. We know Gul'dan's lesser warlocks were also necromancers, for they were referred as that. But that does not apply to every single warlock, because even when they have overlapping abilities, they are not the same per se. That's what people tries to tell you. Egrem's edit is the most impartial, as it articulates ToD and the recent tweets.Unholy Cemotucu (talk contribs) 23:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Actually, Tides of Darkness does constitute a source to state all Warlocks are Necromancers. The reason why Gul'dan's lesser Warlocks were referred to as Necromancers is because they were able to reanimate the dead, and how did they reanimate the dead? Gul'dan's Warlock were able to reanimate the dead by summoning souls into corpses. Are you telling me Warlocks can't drain souls and use those souls as they see fit? All Warlocks use Soul Shards and can attach souls to corpses if they want. "Warlocks can drain enemy souls and use them to empower their own spells, making them swifter or more deadly."
  • No one has brought up valid points as to why all Warlocks aren't Necromancers, and I'm still waiting for those points as to why all Warlocks aren't Necromancers.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by VisionOfPerfection (talk · contr).
I am providing the points: 1) We have a confirmation that Warlocks and Necromancers "follow different disciplines, although there is SOME overlap in abilities." 2)Tides of Darkness doesn't equate ALL warlocks to necromancers; we only see that use when referring to Gul'dan's disciples and the high warlock hismelf. Considering what we know, it isn't hard to see that those individuals were both necromancers and warlocks.
You point to a lot of ingame abilities. That's cool. But Blizzard already said both magical disciplines have some overlap (which means partial coincidence). Not FULL coincidence.Unholy Cemotucu (talk contribs) 23:59, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • First of all, you're clearly incapable of seeing the flaw in Justin Parker's statement. If Warlocks and Necromancers have overlapping abilities then that means Warlocks dabble in Necromancy, which means they are Necromancers.
  • Secondly, you're still not telling me what makes a Necromancer a Necromancer. The only way to quell this discussion is if you present facts, so tell me, what makes a Necromancer a Necromancer? Is it their ability to reanimate the dead that makes them a Necromancer? Haven't we already established Warlocks can reanimate the dead?
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by VisionOfPerfection (talk · contr).
We don't know, not even you. But Blizzard has told us that "Warlock=/=Necromancer" automatically, even when they have SOME shared abilities (I capitalized the "some" because Jupa said that, not "all").Unholy Cemotucu (talk contribs) 00:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Wrong, I know what makes a Necromancer a Necromancer, and you don't, so allow me to teach you what a Necromancer does. Necromancers study Necromancy, and if Warlocks and Necromancers have overlapping abilities then this means Warlocks study Necromancy, hence the flaw in Justin Parker's statement. It's unfortunate that my world is filled with people who lick up every word a Blizzard employee states instead of challenging them, using logic to prove them wrong. Using your brain is hard AMIRIGHT? "Masters of this tainted field of magic can conjure festering diseases (A Warlock ability), harness the shadows into bolts of incendiary energy (Shadow Bolt: Also a Warlock ability), and chill the living with the power of death.(Death Coil: Again, also a Warlock ability)" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by VisionOfPerfection (talk · contr).
What you cited is a list of things a necromancers "CAN" do. And yeah, they are similar to Warlock abilities, but according to Blizzard (which are the creators of this setting) there are still things/abilities that are not the same between both magic users. That's why they are different.
It is tiring to tell you they are not the same because they don't share ALL their abilities. What other prove you need?
And please, do not be insulting. I'm using my brain, and all I see is you pointing to shared abilities that only reinforce Jupa's tweet: that they share SOME (SOME) abilities.Unholy Cemotucu (talk contribs) 00:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Wrong, Necromancer abilities aren't similar to Warlock abilities, they're the same thing. What abilities are not the same between both magic users? Who is preventing a Warlock from doing the same thing a Necromancer does? They both wield necromantic magic and can do whatever they want with their magic, so answer those question, and then get back to me. It's tiring telling you the same thing over and over again, which is that Warlocks are Necromancers and Justin Parker's statement is flawed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by VisionOfPerfection (talk · contr).
You continue ignoring Blizzard's word that not all abilities of both magis users overlap. I can't think of any right now, but Jupa was clear. You're the one ignoring the creators of the game. Not me.Unholy Cemotucu (talk contribs) 00:43, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • It's not Blizzard's word I'm ignoring, I'm just ignoring the word of just one Blizzard employee who made a ridiculous statement that is acceptably ignorable because he didn't do his research and because he didn't gather fellow Lore Historians to come up with a consensus. Justin Parker was not clear, he didn't mention the fact that Warlocks can raise the dead, create Shadow Bolts, use Death Coil, and conjure diseases, which are abilities which indicate mastery of the art of Necromancy according to an official source. (talk) 01:02, 24 August 2014 (UTC)VisionOfPerfection
Justin Parker IS one of the Lore Historians. Ergo, by ignoring his word, you are ignoring Blizzard. Wowpedia is not in the habit of picking and choosing which Blizzard employees we do and don't listen to. Blizzard said warlocks and necromancers are different but share some abilities. That means warlocks are not necromancers. Period. I don't understand why this is so difficult for you to grasp. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 01:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Justin Parker is just one person, he doesn't represent the entire Blizzard company and the unique individuals who make up that company, he doesn't speak/post on behalf of every other Lore Historian who might present a different answer and he didn't gather/include fellow Lore Historians to provide insight or to establish a ruling collectively. And Lore Historians aren't always right, and to state that they are always right is to confirm that you're just trolling. Justin Parker's statement is flawed. Period.
  • If a Necromancer is a person who studies and wield Necromantic magics then Warlocks are Necromancers because they do study and wield Necromantic magics according to Justin Parker's statement.
  • If Warlocks have overlapping abilities with Necromancers and can raise the dead, create Shadow Bolts, conjure diseases, and use Death Coil then Warlocks have studied Necromancy, ergo, Warlocks are Necromancers genius, hence Justin Parker's statement is flawed as I have stated repeatedly. I don't understand why this is so difficult for you to grasp. If Warlocks study and use Necromancy then they are Necromancers.
  • I find it troublesome that people are incapable of asking themselves simple questions and answering them with simple answers.
  • Is a Necromancer someone who studies and use Necromancy? Yes
  • Do Warlocks have overlapping abilities with Necromancers such as raising the dead, using Death Coil, creating Shadow Bolts, and conjuring diseases? Yes
  • Do Warlocks study and use Necromancy? Yes
  • Are Warlocks Necromancers? Yes VisionOfPerfection (talk) 01:31, 24 August 2014 (UTC)VisionOfPerfection

As per WoWpedia policy, resolving conflicts like this between different sources of lore should be relegated to speculation sections where all sources are represented. It's not up to us to pick and choose which is in error. --Aquamonkeyeg (talk) 01:55, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

He is referring to the spells or activities, not the class. (Also remember to sign your comments with ~~~~) — SurafbrovWowpedia's wiki representative T / C 02:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Necromancer isn't a class, it's a term applied to a person performing Necromancy. Necromancy is a school of magic, Necromantic magic is not some separate type of magic independent of Fel magic, Shadow magic, or Arcane magic. Warlocks use necromantic magic and raise the dead if they want to. When Gul'dan was called a Necromancer Aaron was referring to his activity and not class. A Warlock doesn't have to use Necromancy, but they can, and they do when it suits themVisionOfPerfection (talk) 02:32, 24 August 2014 (UTC)VisionOfPerfection
You didn't quite understand what I said. Let me rephrase it. Aaron said he was referring to the activities, not the class. *Hint* Warlocks nor the Necromancers. — SurafbrovWowpedia's wiki representative T / C 02:43, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
And according to the Necromancers article, it is referred as a class. — SurafbrovWowpedia's wiki representative T / C 02:46, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Learn how to read attentively. Aaron was asked why Warlocks were referred to as Necromancers. He stated that he was referring to the Warlocks' activities, not the class "Necromancer"VisionOfPerfection (talk) 02:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)VisionOfPerfection
Even if the activities that the Warlocks use would make them know Necromancy, there has to be something else other than spells. — SurafbrovWowpedia's wiki representative T / C 02:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Having just spells that reference to Necromancy seems not enough that would actually make the Warlocks know Necromancy. Find and cite the sources. Aquamonkeyeg also mentioned this policy that you should go by what it says, because this is a lore conflict from World of Warcraft and the Tides of Darkness novel. — SurafbrovWowpedia's wiki representative T / C 03:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • First of all, your sentences are incoherent and doesn't make sense.
  • Secondly, I'm not speculating and I have cited official sources, so I'm not disregarding WoWpedia's policy. Necromancy is a school of magic that isn't independent from Fel, Arcane, or Void magic, therefore Necromancer isn't a class independent of the Shadow Priest, Warlock, or Mage class.
  • Justin Parker stated Warlocks and Necromancers share overlapping abilities but pursue different disciplines, implying they are two separate classes, however, all Warlocks study and use Necromancy when they want, and are therefore "Necromancers". Aaron Roseburg stated that the Warlocks (including Gul'dan) being referred to as Necromancers is about their activities and not their class, meaning that Warlocks can be referred to as Necromancers because of their activities.VisionOfPerfection (talk) 03:16, 24 August 2014 (UTC)VisionOfPerfection
First of all, why judge?; Second of all, "implying they are two separate classes" You've just said Necromancer isn't a class. Funny AMIRIGHT?
Like I've just said, just go by what the policy says as this is a lore conflict and wait for someone with some proof or if you find actual proof that could also simply state "WARLOCKS ARE NECROMANCERS" to reconcile this conflicting lore. — SurafbrovWowpedia's wiki representative T / C 03:28, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Clearly you're incapable of reading. I stated Necromancer isn't a class independent from the Warlock, Mage, or Shadow Priest class, and that is true. Justin Parker is the one implying Warlock and Necromancer are two separate classes, not me. Necromancer is not a "class" separate from Warlock, Mage, or Shadow Priest, it's been officially established that Necromancy is a school of magic, Aaron stated that the Warlocks being referred to as Necromancers had to do with the Warlocks' activities.
You don't read attentively, you spew garbage, and your sentences are incoherent = You get judged
I'm trying to help the WoW community out by defining what has been established clearly. I'm posting for the benefit of others, but people like you do everything you can to troll and bring non-sense into the discussion, and that is intolerable. VisionOfPerfection (talk) 03:46, 24 August 2014 (UTC)VisionOfPerfection
I ask that you please try to be more respectful to fellow editors. Plus being hostile isn't really a good idea to win a discussion.
Warlocks use Fel magic, which is Fel-fire and shadow in one, also includes conjuration (to summon demons, etc.) It's magic that exists in demons blood and when mortal's practice this they almost always become corrupted of its rush and euphoric feeling when casting it. They often engage combat by summoning demons to fight in melee while themselfs stand in a distance and casts fel-fire spells and curses on their enemy.
Necromancers are almost always arcanists, they use the arcane to bend and manipulate the forces of life and death. So they can raise dead people from the grave and make them undead. And the ability to control them with mind control. Although the regular necromancer doesn't seem to be so powerful that they can control a whole army at once, the most powerful ones such as Kel'thuzad has enough experience and power to do so. Of course they also use other shadow spells such as offensive spells like shadow bolts and curses, to disorientate their opponent while their undead minions do the melee damage.
I would say that they both are demonrelated magic school's, but differ quiet alot when you see mortal users. Warlocks use Fel-magic (fel-fire, shadow magic and conjuring). Necromancers use Necromancy (raise dead, shadow magic). Necromancers raise the dead, not Warlocks. Warlocks summon demons, not Necromancers. Gul'dan is out of this because he was a powerful Warlock. — SurafbrovWowpedia's wiki representative T / C 04:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
The Warlock and Necromancer are different classes but they are the ones most similar. — SurafbrovWowpedia's wiki representative T / C 04:17, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
A Warlock is a man who practices witchcraft; a sorcerer. Whilst a Necromancer is a person who practices necromancy; a wizard or magician. According to real-world definitions. — SurafbrovWowpedia's wiki representative T / C 04:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Fel magic is not Fel-fire and Shadow wrapped in one, what official source are you drawing your information from? Fel magic and Void magic are two separate types of magic. Demons of the Burning Legion contain Fel magic in their blood but they aren't the source of Fel magic. And the art of summoning is Arcane or Fel, not just Fel.
Secondly, Necromancy can be attained through Fel, Arcane, or Void magic, not just Arcane. Where is your source stating Warlocks can't raise the dead? I have many official sources stating Warlocks can raise the dead and Warlocks do use Necromancy according to Justin Parker, so you're just spewing garbage, I can't tolerate people's garbage much longer.....seriously, do everyone a favor and stop posting. Gul'dan being a powerful warlock is irrelevant to the fact that his lesser Warlocks were referred to as Necromancers because of their activities, and Warlocks do use Necromancy according to Justin Parker, so you're just straight up wrong. VisionOfPerfection (talk) 04:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC)VisionOfPerfection
I don't like the disrespect you're showing. And like I have said before, the Warlock and Necromancer are different classes but they are the ones most similar. — SurafbrovWowpedia's wiki representative T / C 04:53, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Originally, the Necromancer class was going to be added into the game, but Blizzard wanted all the classes to be unique. From Warlocks and Necromancers, they've chose Warlocks. The classes are yet very similar and use almost about the same spells, but they're defined as different subjects because each of them can't do many stuff that the other one can. — SurafbrovWowpedia's wiki representative T / C 04:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Ultimate Visual Guide, page 21: "Warlocks: are magical practitioners that seek to understand darker, fel-based magics, including destructive spells. Whilst, Necromancy: the study and use of magic to raise and control the dead." Warlocks can't control the dead, but if they can raise it, where is the proof? — SurafbrovWowpedia's wiki representative T / C 05:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • And why should I care about what you've said when what you've said is garbage? I'll keep on posting this until you get it in your brain. Necromancy is a school of magic, therefore it's not a class independent of the Mage, Warlock, or Shadow Priest class. Warlocks were referred to as Necromancers because of their activities, Warlocks were raising the dead, hence they were called necromancers, therefore Warlocks can raise the dead.
  • The Ultimate Visual Guide isn't specific, it's very broad and doesn't go in-depth, Warlocks also wield Void magic, not just Fel magic. Warlocks can raise the dead because Warlocks use Soulstones to raise the dead and were also shown raising the dead in the novel Tides of Darkness and were also shown raising the dead in the quest H [10-40] Stop the Flow. Now tell me, where is your official source stating Warlocks can't raise the dead? Oh, that's right, you have no source, none what-so-ever. VisionOfPerfection (talk) 05:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC)VisionOfPerfection
To address the specific points you raised at Talk:Kel'Thuzad#As Warlock?:
"In order to reanimate the dead a soul must be attached to a corpse." Though not strictly true (a good portion of mindless undead are nothing more than magically animated corpses), Gul'dan and his necrolytes were both warlocks and necromancers. This has been established, and is not in question.
"All Warlocks use Soul Shards and can drain souls and manipulate those souls as he/she sees fit." This is where the first flaw in your argument comes in. There is nothing to suggest all warlocks can do whatever they wish with the souls they trap in their soul shards. In fact, the page you link only states that they use them to empower their spells - a far cry from "instilling souls into corpses" as you have so constantly claimed. Yes, Gul'dan and his necrolytes did it. No, that does not mean that all warlocks can do it.
"You don't have to be a master in Necromancy or Fel magic in order to be called a Necromancer or a Warlock." No, but by the same token just because you can know a single necromatic or fel spell does not mean you are a necromancer or warlock.
"A Necromancer is someone who studies and uses Necromancy. Since Warlocks have overlapping abilities with Necromancers, they study and use Necromancy." This is the other flaw in your argument. Namely, that their overlapping abilities do not include necromancy. It's primarily in terms of things like the manipulation of shadow magic, but also in that they can do some similar things. However, just because they do similar things does not mean they do them in the same way. Both mages and shamans can summon elementals to do their bidding, but that does not mean that mages and shamans are the same thing.
Yes, some warlocks are also necromancers, and vice-versa. But that is absolutely not grounds to say that all warlocks are also necromancers, or that all necromancers are also warlocks. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 09:23, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not giving my own interpretation of the lore, I'm giving the lore as it is. The Lore Historians can't retcon established information just because they haven't checked every available source for information.
I apologize for dragging the discussion in the Warlock talk page into this but it is relevant when discussing Kel'Thuzad's class(es) and I'm not wrong regarding this subject because I'm not ignorant, I'm only using facts established to support my statements, facts which have not been retcon'ed Warlocks can use the souls in their soul shard as they wish, where is your source stating they can't? Warlock traps soul of demon into soul shard -> Warlock summons the demon's soul.
I'm not arguing against anyone, I'm presenting facts.
  • It's a fact that Necromancers study and use Necromancy.
  • It's a fact that a novice/journeyman in the art of Necromancy is still a Necromancer
  • Lore Historians didn't retcon the fact that some Necromantic spells involve draining or sacrificing life energies and manifests as a sickly Green. If Blizzard states Necromantic magic is Arcane and can be created by sacrificing life energies and manifests as a sickly Green then Blizzard is stating that Arcane can be Green if it involves sacrificing life, sounds pretty Fel to me. The book about Necromancy states masters of this tainted field can create create Shadow Bolts with Arcane magic. Warlocks use Void magic to create Shadow Bolts, ergo Necromancy isn't just a school of the Arcane, and this fact cannot be retcon'ed away by Lore Historians who didn't bother to do extensive research before coming up with a ruling.
  • Aaron Roseburg himself stated that when he called the Warlocks "necromancers" he was referring to their activities and not their class, meaning that Warlocks can be referred to as "necromancers" because of their activities, not because the Warlocks also belong to the "Necromancer class". It has been established that Fel magic, Arcane magic, and Void magic can reanimate corpses, and if Fel is canonically not Necromantic and can't raise the dead then I suggest you edit the Felblood and Felmyst page
  • Necromancer isn't a separate class, so stop treating it as such. I keep on posting the same thing over and over again, but you most definitely are ignoring my points. Necromancy is a "school of the magic". To state that Necromancer is a separate class from the Mage, Shadow Priest, or Warlock class is to state that Jaina is a Conjurer and not a Mage because she uses Conjuration, which is a school of magic like Necromancy. VisionOfPerfection (talk) 15:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)VisionOfPerfection
If Necromancer is not a character class as you say, I don't see the point of putting it in the infobox then.Unholy Cemotucu (talk contribs) 15:49, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Necromancy is a school of magic according to Blizzard, just like Abjuration. Where is your source stating Necromancer is some class independent of the Mage, Warlock, or Shadow Priest class. Before WoTLK, Necromancer was going to be introduced as a class but the idea was scrapped, during WoTLK we were given official information stating Necromancer isn't some class independent of the Mage, Shadow Priest, or Warlock class. Necromancer isn't some class independent of the Mage, Shadow Priest, or Warlock class, it's a sub-class. To state Kel'Thuzad was a former Mage because he uses Necromancy (a school of magic) and is now a "Necromancer" is ridiculous, we might as well create another page for the "Abjurer class" and list Kael'thas as an Abjurer in his character class because Kael'thas was a master in Abjuration VisionOfPerfection (talk) 17:52, 25 August 2014 (UTC)VisionOfPerfection

Just to hopefully put this issue to rest: "I'd trust the troll historian here. It's a hot issue right now, but I know they are canonically two seperate schools of magic." [1] -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 18:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

They are canonically two separate schools of magic? Where in canon proves that Necromancy is Arcane other than a book stating Necromancy is Arcane?
Loreology is implying that Val'kyrs, Scourge Necromancers, Ner'zhul (in Warlords of Draenor), and Death Knights don't use Necromancy, because as I recall they all use Void magic to raise the dead, not Arcane. The Plague was Fel and if you think that the Plague was not Necromancy then you really need to re-evaluate how you think. Brutallus' Felblood raised the dead and Tyrus Blackhorn's Felblood seeped into berries and when they were crushed into a potion it was capable of raising the dead.
The Lore Historians aren't explaining how Fel and "Necromancy" are different. Fel and Arcane can achieve same spells/effects ex: (Fel portal) and (Arcane portal), they are just fueled by different energies. If Necromancy can be achieved through Arcane then it can be achieved through Fel. Period. There are already examples of Fel reanimating corpses, so yeah, I'm right.
  • And you seem to be forgetting the FACT that Necromantic spells like Death Coil and Unholy Armor involves sacrificing/draining life energy and is canonically Green in color, which perfectly fits the description of Fel. Fel canonically involves sacrificing life/draining life energy and is canonically Green. If Fel canonically does exactly what Necromantic magic do and is canonically the same color as Necromantic spells like Death Coil and Unholy Armor then please explain why Fel isn't Necromantic.VisionOfPerfection (talk) 18:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC)VisionOfPerfection
Because two different Blizzard employees, both historians, have said they are different things. As far as Wowpedia's concerned, that effectively puts an end to this discussion. Accept it, or don't, but unless you have a direct source that explicitly says that fel magic and necromancy are the same thing, or that warlocks and necromancers are the same thing, Wowpedia is not going to state that they are. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 18:49, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Ah, but I do have sources stating Fel magic is Necromantic.
Death Coil is a Necromantic spell that sacrifices/drains life energy[1] and manifests as a sickly Green = Lore Historians stating Necromantic spells do the SAME EXACT THING FEL DOES and looks exactly the same as Fel = Fel is Necromantic —The preceding unsigned comment was added by VisionOfPerfection (talk · contr).
Look, this discussion has long-since passed the point of relevance to Wowpedia. We report the lore as it has been given. We do not interpret the lore and present our interpretations as fact - and much as you deny it, since it has been stated otherwise by Blizzard your claim that necromancy and fel are one and the same is just that: your interpretation. Such a discussion is really better suited elsewhere, such as Scrolls of Lore or the official Story Forums. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 19:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Stop implying that Necromantic ("Arcane") magic is fueled/created by sacrificing/draining life energy and manifests as a sickly Green, because you're implying Arcane can be Fel or that Fel is Demonic Arcane, so just stop, like right now, just stop, Blizzard stated Fel and Arcane are not the same. Go edit the Arcane page and state that Necromantic ("Arcane") magic is fueled/created by sacrificing/draining life energies and then tell me I'm adding my own interpretation and establishing it as fact. I have only presented facts by Blizzard, I'm not adding my own interpretation and establishing it as fact. Blizzard is stating Fel is Necromantic. Blizzard is stating that Necromantic ("Arcane") magic is fueled/created by sacrificing/draining life despite stating that Fel and Arcane are separate, you're arguing against Blizzard if you're arguing with me, because Blizzard is stating Fel is Necromantic.
VisionOfPerfection (talk) 19:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)VisionOfPerfection
...Okay, that is precisely the opposite of what I just told you to do. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 19:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • That is what Blizzard is doing. Blizzard stated Fel is fueled/created by sacrificing/draining life energy. Blizzard stated Necromancy is Arcane. Blizzard also stated Death Coil is a Necromantic spell that is fueled/created by sacrificing/draining life energy, ergo Blizzard is implying Arcane can be Fel or that Fel is Demonic Arcane, despite stating they are different schools of magic.VisionOfPerfection (talk) 19:50, 25 August 2014 (UTC)VisionOfPerfection
Actually, as per the WII Manual, Death Coil is a dark spell energy spell (which means Void) that drain life and then consumes it. IOW, it could be understood as a void-spell that results in the creation of fel energy. We know that the Kirin Tor book says that Arcane can harness shadows, so... it can be necromantic (arcane) without excluding its darky aspect.Unholy Cemotucu (talk contribs) 19:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
It is a fallacious argument. Fel is powered by consuming life energy. That does not, and should not imply that every spell that consumes life energy is fel magic. You are passing off your own interpretations of parts of Blizzard's lore as fact, and dismissing everything that does not agree with your theory as being wrong or contradictory. You speak of "challenging" Blizzard, and claim that their historians - the people who are paid money by Blizzard to ensure the accuracy of the lore - are wrong. That's not a discussion, that's loudly beating everyone over the head with your point and ignoring everything to the contrary, and it's getting incredibly tiresome. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 20:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • @Cemo Actually, Fel is also called dark magic and is Green in color. Arcane and Void magic aren't Green. The ability Death Coil manifests as a Green ball of energy being released from the caster's hand before it drains life from its intended target, meaning that Arcane or Void magic didn't result in the creation of Fel energy. If Death Coil is a Void spell and Arcane can harness the shadows to use Death Coil then the spell Death Coil isn't Arcane, it's Void, the caster is just using Arcane energies to gather/bend the Void energies, for example, Mages use Arcane energies to bend elemental fire to shoot fire at the target, the energy being used against the target is fire not Arcane.
  • @ DarkT I'm not ignoring everything to the contrary, I'm basing my statements on only what has been established by Blizzard, and I have stated this many times, and the fact that you don't acknowledge this confirms you're blatantly ignoring this. Of course Arcane, Void, Fire, Frost, etc. spells can consume life energy/kill people, however, canonically Arcane and Shadow magic aren't Green.
  • Some Necromantic spells involve sacrificing life energy and manifests as Green. Fel magic involve sacrificing life energy AND manifest as Green.

  • Blizzard has stated Necromancy is Arcane, and that is a fact.
  • Necromantic (Arcane) magical spells such as Death Coil and Unholy Armor are fueled/created by draining/sacrificing life AND are Green, and that is a fact.
  • Is Blizzard implying Arcane magic can be Green and be fueled/created by draining/sacrificing life? Yes
  • Now, tell me, where did I add my own interpretation of the lore in ^that^ post? If you tell me where I added my own interpretation of the lore in ^that^ post I will stop posting and apologize VisionOfPerfection (talk) 20:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)VisionOfPerfection
I personally don't think Arcane is sacrificial magic, but if you think it is, feel free to edit the Arcane page. Fel is canonically sacrificial magic, Fel is created and fueled by sacrificing life energy (life-force) = but instead of sacrificing the life energy of your demon and transferring it to you, you sacrifice your life energy and transfer it into a corpse.VisionOfPerfection (talk) 23:52, 25 August 2014 (UTC)VisionOfPerfection

I've found that the W2 Manual explains why the warlocks that worked with Gul'dan were also called necromancers. Page 59 of the Horde section says that Gul'dan "began training young Warlocks in the arcane mysteries of life and death." So for a warlock to be an actual necromancer, he needs to be trained to become one. The reference also sources Necromancy being an arcane school (which manipulated the dark to raise the dead, as made clear in the WoW Magazine) since W2.Unholy Cemotucu (talk contribs) 22:18, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Parts of the W2 manual was retcon'ed, which includes the piece of information you've presented. Gul'dan's Warlocks weren't trained by Kil'jaeden in the art of Necromancy. There was no mention of the Orc Warlocks learning how to raise the dead and no mention of Necromancers in Rise of the Horde, and Kil'jaeden eventually deserted the Orc Warlocks in the very same novel. Tides of Darkness takes place after Rise of the Horde, and the majority of the Shadow Council was wiped out and only Gul'dan, Cho'gall, and the lesser Warlocks remained and it was in Tides of Darkness when the Orc Warlocks began experimenting with raising the dead.
As explained in the W2 manual, Gul'dan, a Warlock, opened the school of Necromancy in order to expand the Warlocks' magical resources. All Warlocks pursue power, unless you want to argue that fact, and so they experiment with different types of magic in order to expand their magical resources, their power. Necromancer comes along with the Warlock class.
The reference also sources Necromancy being an Arcane school, it "manipulates" the dark. Arcane magic is not dark magic. Arcane magic is known to bend/manipulate other energies such elemental energies, time energies, Fel energies. If Arcane magic bends Fire, is Arcane magic fire? If Arcane bends the dark, the shadow (Void), to raise the dead and create bolts of energy, is Arcane Void?

Arcane is not Necromantic magic, and Fel is not Demonic Arcane. Arcane is canonically Violet or White in color. Fel is canonically Green. Necromantic spells such as Unholy Armor, Death Coil, and Outbreak are canonically Green AND involve sacrificing/destroying/draining life-force (life energy). Fel magic is created by sacrificing/destroying/draining life-force (life energy). Arcane is not sacrificial magic, Fel is.
In the novel Arthas:Rise of the Lich King, we discover that victims of the Plague of Undeath limned with the sickly Green glow characteristic of something tainted with demonic energy, not the Violet or White glow characteristics of something tainted with Arcane energy.
Arcane is not Necromantic magic just because a few incompetent Blizzard employees don't use their common sense and don't base their statements off of facts already presented.
If Arcane can be canonically Green if life is destroyed what separates it from Fel?
Nothing suggest the manual was retconned. We know the Necrolytes are canonical, as the dark magic they worked with to raise the death was the catalyst to Natalie Seline's research that lead to the founding of the Cult of the Forgotten Shadow. That those necromancers' training wasn't presented in RotH doesn't mean it didn't happen (remember there is a timelapse between Shattrath's siege and the opening of the Dark Portal).
Is a known fact arcane can bend other energies. Since the Kirin Tor book says Necromancers (which are an special type of mage) can harness the shadows, I don't see how having a proof that Necrolytes used arcane to bend the Void is equal to Arcane=Void (something I've never stated).
Even if a Fireball is catalogued for game-mechanics as a "fire-spell", we known that the mage still uses arcane magic to made said fire manifest (as per The Last Guardian) or to bend present fire to the wielder's use (as per Tides of War). That's why Necromancy can be an school of Arcane Magic, and why the energy bend for at least some of its abilities is Void. There is no contradiction.Unholy Cemotucu (talk contribs) 17:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
This isn't a debate. That part of the manual was retcon'ed. You seem to be forgetting that the majority of the Shadow Council was wiped out and only Gul'dan, Cho'gall, and Warlock NEOPHYTES remained.
a person who is new to a subject, skill, or belief.
synonyms: beginner, learner, novice, newcomer; More
a new convert to a religion.
a novice in a religious order, or a newly ordained priest.
synonyms: novice, novitiate; More
In Tides of Darkness, which takes place after Rise of the Horde, Gul'dan states that raising the dead was something NEW that the Warlocks were trying.
Natalie Seline started to delve into the workings of the Orc Necrolytes AFTER the First War, which is when Tides of Darkness takes place.
Necromancy is not a school of the Arcane. Necromantic magic is not Arcane, and to state that it is Arcane is to state that Void and Fel are Arcane. You stated that Necromantic magic can be a School of the Arcane because Arcane can bend Necromantic magics. Arcane is not Fire magic. Arcane is not Fel magic. Arcane magic is not Frost magic. Arcane magic is not Void magic. Just because Arcane magic manipulates Necromantic magic does not mean Necromantic magic is Arcane. To imply or to state that Necromancy is a School of the Arcane is to imply or to state that Necromancy is Arcane and doesn't need to bend other energies. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by VisionOfPerfection (talk · contr).
Just because Arcane can bend/manipulate Fel energy does not mean Fel is a School of the Arcane. You're implying that Fel can be a School of the Arcane just because Arcane can bend Fel energy.VisionOfPerfection (talk) 22:12, 7 September 2014 (UTC)VisionOfPerfection
W2 Manual says Necrolytes were young warlocks, which doesn't conflict with ToD. As you stated, the remaining warlocks were neophytes.
Necromancy is a School of the Arcane, as presented by the since W2, through W3, RPGs (which were decanonized, but still) and then WoW. Like it or not, that is the lore, regardless of the energy manipulated by arcane. Just as "Fireball" or "Summoning a Water Elemental" are spells that use arcane magic to manipulate other elements, and don't stop having an arcane component.
You're the one repeating that Arcane is not the same as the Void/Fel/Fire/etc. I do not see the need, as I've never stated that.
Natalie Seline started to investigate the Necrolytes after the First War, yes. But the Magazine acknowledges they existed back in Draenor: "After the First War, Natalie Seline, a bishop from Lordaeron, began to delve into workings of the orc necrolytes who had poured through the Dark Portal and desecrated their hallowed dead." So they effectively existed and the only account of their creation is the W2 Manual, which hasn't been retconned by any source as Rise of the Horde doesn't show the full picture of events after Shattrath.
And remember: do not delete sourced information, unless there is consensus to do so, or to move it. You haven't presented a solid argument to retcon the manual, so I will rewrite the section to acknowledge all the sources.Unholy Cemotucu (talk contribs) 11:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Your whole argument is dismiss-able due to harboring ignorance.
First of all, the type of magic Warlocks wielded in Warcraft was never stated to be Fel. The Warcraft 1, 2, and 3 manual and game does not make any mention of Fel magic. The Warcraft 1 and 2 manual stated that Warlocks learned Arcane magic from Kil'jaeden, not Fel magic.
Secondly, the description of abilities shown in Warcraft 2 states that the Warlocks' spells and Death Knights' Necromantic spells comes from the same source, the Underworld or "Hell". No where does it state that Necromantic magic isn't the same as Warlock magic. You're fabricating garbage.
The Necromantic abilities in Warcraft 2 are created/fueled by sacrificing/draining life, and no where does it state that Arcane magic is involved. You keep on circulating around the fact that Fel magic is created/fueled by sacrificing/draining life and Arcane magic isn't.
Necromantic magic will never be Arcane because it manipulates other energies, that's retarded, and that's what you've stated and implied multiple times.
You're unknowingly implying that Arcane is inherently Necromantic magic because it can bend other energies.
Arcane magic doesn't become something more when it bends other energies, Arcane magic might take on the characteristics of the energy it bends, but Arcane magic isn't inherently Necromantic, so if Arcane BECOMES Necromantic when it bends the Void, taking on the Void's characteristics, then Void is Necromantic.
No where in canon does it state that Necromancy is Arcane because it manipulates Void or Fel.
The book in Dalaran does not retcon the fact that Fel and Void can be used to raise the dead. It does not mention the fact that people can harness the shadows without Arcane, it does not mention the fact that people can chill the living with the power of death without Arcane, and it does not mention the fact that people can conjure diseases without Arcane.
Necromancy isn't Arcane because it bends Void, and to imply/state so is to imply/state that Arcane is inherently Necromantic.
You've stated that Necromancer is a sub-class of the Mage class and not the Warlock class but you seem to be forgetting that Warlocks can also wield Arcane magic without being a Mage.
You have been implying that Gul'dan and his lesser Warlocks were also Mages.
Micky and Loreology are canon, and to them, Gul'dan was not a Necromancer, yet you keep on stating that he was, despite what canon tells you.
The problem here is that a few Necromantic spells are created by sacrificing/draining life and manifests as a sickly Green but according to the Lore Historians
Arcane is canonically Violet or White and Fel is not Arcane.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by VisionOfPerfection (talk · contr).

It should be noted that the WC2 Manual says that the undead raised by the orcs was done with arcane magic. "These unfortunate warriors gave their lives in battle only to be brought back into soulless servitude by arcane Orc magiks to fight for the Horde." --Aquamonkeyeg (talk) 19:51, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

It should be noted that the term demonic magic and fel magic did not exist in Warcraft 1 and 2 and Warlock magic was Arcane in Warcraft.
It should also be noted that in the W2 manual it states that the gems fixated within the DK's truncheons were infused with the necromantic energies of Gul'dan's slain Necrolytes and as we all know, those gems were infused fel magic.

W1 and W2 manual states the Temples of the Damned were used by Necrolytes and was where the DK's practiced their Necromancy. W3 manual states the Temple of the Damned was used to channel demonic energies.

I hate disappointing people, but our abilities in-game are relevant to our lore. The Historians may retcon lore back and forth just because they don't use common sense and check their sources, but it serves no purpose. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by VisionOfPerfection (talk · contr).
The historians work for Blizzard, therefore what they say is what we go by. If you're going to be so arrogant as to assume you are more correct than they are, then kindly do it elsewhere as that argument isn't going to carry any weight here. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 00:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Pointless argument. "Ain't nobody got time for dat!"SurafbrovWowpedia's wiki representative T / C 00:14, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not making an argument, I'm posting cold hard facts, which you seem to enjoy ignoring, however, your argument doesn't carry weight here. Micky and Loreology have both stated that Gul'dan wasn't a Necromancer, you're so keen on supporting the Lore Historians all the time, but if I were to remove Gul'dan being a Necromancer you would complain and ban me like you have done before for removing Gul'dan being a Necromancer. The Lore Historians have created many inconsistencies and retcons because they don't check every source available to them, and so they fail at their job and that's a fact. If WoWpedia goes by what the Historians say then why are you so arrogant to assume you're more correct than they are? Gul'dan wasn't a Necromancer according to them, yet you keep on insisting that he is, you keep on insisting that he is because you keep on reverting my changes to Gul'dan's page. #getwrecked
Edit: Also, Justin Parker is a Lore Historian, he stated Warlocks don't raise undead. Perhaps I should remove Gul'dan raising undead DK's from his page because WoWpedia goes by what Lore Historians say amiright? Or would I get banned again for supporting what the Lore Historian says?
I shouldn't have to apologize for being rude because you're not using common sense, you're not aware of the fact that I'm trying to help the community, not hinder it, I support the Historians when they are right and make sense, but when they make a statement that does not make sense and isn't consistent with the lore that has been established, I will question it and fight them. However, I would like to think that you don't enjoy being insulted, so I apologize for being rude, but you need to be aware that the Historians' job is not to retcon lore that has been established and that they are unreliable. Anyone can buy the novels and comics and find information themselves . VisionOfPerfection (talk) 04:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC)VisionOfPerfection

Separate page for

Would it be alright if I created a separate page for warlock lore? Perhaps place the information here?VisionOfPerfection (talk) 15:22, 23 September 2015 (UTC)VisionOfPerfection