#but god forbid we are forced to use those exact same tools to get a humans attention so we can get a job and not starve

[thedisablednaturalist]

Unfortunately all chatgpt is good for is interview/job application stuff which I think says a lot about the hiring process as a whole

[gibbering-miasma]

I think I know how Warcraft’s casters work

It started with a simple question.  Why can mages summon water elementals?  It’s a simple question that resulted in me noticing other elements of overlap among the Warcraft casters.  Not only can mages summon elementals, but fire mages and destruction warlocks can appear to be the same class at a first look. (Especially if the person doing the looking isn’t very experienced, we all know you, yes you, can easily tell the difference.  The point is that two classes that seem to predominantly use fire magic are very similar.)  eventually it got to the point where my initial question changed from “why can one class do this thing while another class can’t?” tonly to change again to

 “What really is the difference between the casters of Warcraft?”

I want to be transparent here, I have not read Chronicle yet.  I have the books (thanks again for that, you know who you are) but I wanted to get this theory properly formed first so i don’t spoil my biases.  That leads me to another thing, this is just the theory of a guy who’s spent most of his life on this game who’s noticed a few odd dots and decided to connect them to see what picture they make.  Blizzard can disprove this at any time with a word, because in the end, they’re the creators, and I’m just a fan.  One last thing, I’m certain that there are some examples or details that i’ll get wrong (not playing the most recent expansions will tend to leave a sample size less than optimal) so if there’s an error that I’ve made, call me out on it.  This may be a fan theory, but I want it to make sense.

To answer my previous question (what really makes the difference between Warcraft casters for those of you in the back), I think the primary difference is philosophy, not the type of magic that each class uses.  What I mean by this is the general worldview, character traits, and relationship with magic that each class has.  Obviously there are going to be outliers, mortals tend to mess with the systems like that, but this should be a good place to begin our analysis. When analyzing the casters, we see four main philosophies develop.  I’d argue that those four are the philosophies of the Druid, Mage, Warlock and Shaman.  I’ll include the other classes that I believe to best line up with those philosophies.  I’ll focus on the primary casters of those philosophies, though I’ll use a few examples from the other classes that are philosophically adjacent. 

And just so we’re all on the same page here, I’m assuming that magic is inherently sentient, and the overall type of magic used has no effect on your class.  With all that out of the way, let’s begin.

Druid/Priest/Paladin- Philosophy of Faith.

The druid is the only class that willingly enters a state of unconsciousness and allows their magic to work through them, causing metamorphosis in the process.  The primary tenets of the druidic philosophy are Faith and Dedication.  The druid venerates the Wild much in the same way that a priest or paladin venerates the Light.  What all of this means is that the druid views themselves as inferior to the Wild (or whatever source of magic you prefer).  Power is attained not through study or ambition, but by submission and faith, resulting in power being granted as a boon.  But it’s not all fluffy cats and boomkins for the druid, their submission and faith means that they are not necessarily in control.  We clearly see this to be the case with the druids of the pack (and the same case can be made for the druids of the flame, but I’m unsure on whether ragnaros forced the flame druids to do his bidding or if they were just crazy like that). Spouting character traits with no examples won’t do us any good, so let’s rectify that by taking a look at Tyrande Whisperwind, a great example of the philosophy of faith.  Yes, Tyrande is a priest, not a druid, but remember that the important thing about the classes is their philosophy, not the type of magic that they use.  As a priest, Tyrande answers to the will of Elune, and will prioritize the will of the White Lady over anything else (consider the quote “Only the goddess may forbid me anything” from warcraft 3).  Not only that, but Tyrande also becomes the vessel for a portion of Elune’s power during the Horde’s invasion, showing similarity to the powers that druids receive and use from their Wild Gods.  The similarity between druids and priests could be a reason why those two classes are the major casters in Night elf society following the War of the Ancients.  And before you start denying my claim that priests and druids are basically the same, let me ask you this:  If Elune wanted Tyrande to willingly enter an unconscious state in order to become a more capable vessel of Her power, would Tyrande do it?  I say that she would, because putting aside your own desires, fears and reservations in order to serve your higher power is the definition of dedication, it is the definition of faith, and it is exactly what makes a druid what they are.

Shaman- Philosophy of Synergy

The shaman’s relationship with their magic is exactly that, a relationship.  I get the suspicion that I may have lost a few of you there so I’ll explain.  The druid fully submits in order to gain power, whereas classes like the warlock will just take as they see fit.  The shaman exists between those two extremes, they work alongside the elements and it is through that cooperation that they grow their abilities.  Of course, the shaman also experiences their own fair share of magical difficulties.  They are still drawing their power from sentient beings that may not always want to comply with the shaman’s wishes.  This leaves the shaman with a difficult situation, especially if their magic rebels during a time where the shaman doesn’t have the means to deal with any of that nonsense.  The shaman must cooperate with their magic unless they fall to dark shamanism and force their magic to submit, which is the exact domain of the Warlock.

Warlock/Warrior- Philosophy of Dominion

The warlock does not ask for power, nor does it work alongside their demons for mutual benefit (I mean really, do you think that your minions are there by choice?).  I alluded to the warlock’s modus operandi earlier, and now I get to delve deeper.  The warlock takes power as they see fit, often draining it straight from their enemies.  The warlock will then add that magic into their own reserves, bending the magic to their will and growing in power.  A warlock’s magic can be said to be a part of them in a more literal manner than any of the other four casters.  This habit of taking power from others is actually quite common in the Warcraft universe, (look at all the Blood elves for instance) but i’ll highlight the 3 biggest examples of the warlock philosophy.  Ragnaros the firelord, Garrosh Hellscream and Illidan Stormrage all are well known for having a desire for more power, while also having the ambition and skill to go out and get that power for themselves without having to plead to some other entity for assistance.  Ragnaros consumed prince Thunderan, Garrosh merged with the heart of Y'Shaarj, and Illidan consumed the Skull of Gul’dan, and all three established control over their new power, and not the other way around.  Just as a shaman who forces the elements to work for them isn’t much of a shaman, a warlock who is controlled by their power isn't much of a warlock.   

Mage/Hunter/Rogue/Monk- Philosophy of Discipline

The other casters all have very distinct relationships with their magic.  Warlocks must be constantly in control, druids are always trying to appease, and shamans just want everyone to calm down and talk about their feelings.  And then we have the mage, who doesn’t have much of a relationship at all.  To the mage, magic is a tool, one that should be respected, but a tool nonetheless.  Khadgar used the skull of Gul’dan to close the Dark Portal with no negative side effects.  Whereas Illidan barely has his hands on the thing for a minute before he’s undergoing radical transformations and sprouting new appendages.  When trying to name this section, I had initially selected Mastery as a good means of describing the Mage’s philosophy.  Mastery had made sense to me, the mage is the master of their magic, they display control and authority over their power in a way that is distinct from the warlock, and their utilitarian view towards magic separates them from shamans or druids.  So why the change?  Why does Discipline describe the mage better than Mastery?  Because in a world where dragons rearrange continents, the dead walk, and where tyrants exist around every corner, the mortals of Azeroth need someone to keep a clear head when the demons are dead and their power is being divided among the victors.  The mage is the embodiment of mortal authority in relation to magic, they lock questionable powers away so that those who would misuse that power could do no harm to innocents.  The mage is a Guardian, the kind of person who has no interest in being warped into some sort of magical pawn to a higher power.  They put their trust in their skill with their power, not the overall amount of power that they can wield like how a warlock would.

The Hero Classes

If you’ve been keeping track, you may notice that I haven't included two classes, those being the hero classes.  The reason I haven’t included them yet is because of the fundamental difference between them and the other classes.  A number of people have wondered what exactly makes a hero class, and while I don’t claim to know the exact truth, I think I have an additional pearl to add.  Hero classes are a state of being, whereas the base classes are more like a career.  If you want to understand a hero class, you have to understand what they are, not who they are.  Furthermore, I believe that both the Death Knight and Demon Hunter are adjacent philosophically to two of the other philosophies previously mentioned.  This doesn’t mean that Death Knights are automatically really, really edgy druids, just that they’re an offshoot.

Death Knight-Philosophy of Tyranny

Offshoot of the philosophy of Faith

What, did you think I was kidding about DKs being druids?  Lets step back and ask the fundamental question: what are Death Knights?  Simply put, DKs are dark magic inhabiting and controlling a mortal vessel.  Yes, that does sound like something a warlock would do, but remember that it’s magic controlling a mortal, much like what we see with Druids.  Plus, saying Death Knights are related to Druids has more panache, so i’m going with that one.  To the DK, power is their birthright, and they will take and abuse and consume as they see fit.  Nothing is sacred from their will, not the blood in your veins, nor the flesh on your back, nor the final, cold breath you give before you’re raised as an undead servant.  The DK does not necessarily take to grow their power, they take to fulfill their desires-which is usually to kill a lot of people.

Demon Hunter- Philosophy of Unity

Offshoot of the philosophy of Synergy

Once again, what are DHs?  While DKs are magic possessing and dominating a vessel, the DH is more than that.  They are a combination of mortal soul and demon.  The DH is the product of a perfect union between two distinct soulstuffs.  Now here’s the important thing, I’m trying to distinguish between the Illidari, and the Demon Hunters themselves, which can be hard when you remember that pretty much every Demon Hunter is Illidari.  The reason this separation is so important is that the Illidari with their whole “fight fire with fire, we shall take the demons' own magic and use it against them as our own” is a very warlock-ish thing to do.  But I’ll maintain that the DHs identity points towards being more closely adjacent to the philosophy of Synergy than Dominion.

 So why can mages summon water elementals?  Because mages have power, just like anybody else.  And power itself doesn’t have much significance, what matters is how you use it.  

This has been a somewhat deep dive into the philosophy of Warcraftian magic, with the end goal of gaining a deeper understanding of the various classes, and the characters within the Warcraft universe. 

Thanks for coming to my TED Talk.

[violet-bookmark]

Princess of Dorsa, by Elizabeth Andrews, Ch. 3 & 4

Tasia could have had him put to death with a few words if she'd wanted to, and surely he knew it. He had to be wondering if she still would. But she didn't plan on doing that. Just as she'd learned that it was useful to have some allies at the Sunfall Gate, she might eventually find a use for a city guardsman who owed her a favour, too.

Since when being sexually assaulted by someone means that they owe you a favour? That would imply that the sexual assault itself was a "favour", a good thing. It is not as if she gave him some bread from her basket, he commited a crime against her. The fact that she equates that to "owing her a favour" is disgusting and makes light of the whole situation. He acted like somebody that had done it before, and I have no problem imagining a character like him doing it again, seeing as he got away with doing it to the princess herself.

That "Servant of the Empire before servant of my desire" thing surely lasted long. Where is your duty to the female population of the Empire, Tasia? For being a "servant of the Empire" you surely don't think about your people's safety at all.

They reach the Emperor's office and we get a description of the Emperor. He does not ressemble Tasia at all and it makes me call their blood line into question. Tasia looks like her incredibly beautiful, conveniently dead mother and nothing like her father, who is of course tall, fierce-looking and intimidating. I have the feeling I have read this exact lines a thousand times before. "My mum was the beauty and my father was the beast, and I look like my mum" is really, really trite. The father could be handsome as well (and to have a charismatic personality, or some personality that wasn't of the "cold-hearted ogre" variety), the mother could be the fierce and intimidating one or maybe they both could be normal looking. But god forbid that we have a princess that is anything but gorgeous and hot in a dainty way, and whose mother is alive.

In this scene Cole of Easthook gets introduced. He's a guard and one of her father's advisors, and will probably be important. He is always described as sneaky and cat-like so I guess he is up to no good.

The wannabe rapist guard and Tasia explain the situation to the Emperor. Tasia omits the fact that she was visiting a man at night, which her father says out loud for her instead. Real classy. I am sure that mocking her for this in front of several guards, one of them a city guard, won't damage her reputation at all, especially in this medieval (?) and mysoginistic society. It also makes his character look like a petty asshole, but I digress.

"I don't need your false promises," said the Emperor. "But tonight is the end of your foolishness, even if I have to lock you in your quarters each night and hang any guard who lets you out."

Dude, I am pretty sure you used the word "again" when you talked about how Tasia was visiting Markas. The book mentions at various points that everyone who lives in the palace and their mother know that Tasia has several male lovers that she visits frequently and has been doing so for months, if not years. Hell, several characters mention it explicitly on their dialogue. You have known for a long time and you haven't done jack, so excuse me if I think this is bullshit. You have not even bothered enough to change the guard's shifts, which would be a way better solution that killing capable men at your service.

After they arrange for a questioning of the assassin, every guard except Cole leaves and the Emperor starts to berate Tasia again for not being a proper princess and almost leaving him without a blood heir. Tasia reminds him that he has another daughter, to which the Emperor replies:

"Adela is a twelve year old who prefers ponies and pageantries to politics."

1) She is a child, you leave her alone. 2) pageantries ARE related to politics, unless you're thinking about beauty pageants, which it is what the author seems to be referring to. I am not an english native, but 5 minutes of research have shown me that pageantries used to mean ceremonies, some of which had political meaning (inauguration ceremonies and the like). Also, ponies and pageantries seem like very... Modern definitions of a little girl's "feminine" interests. This author seems to have taken Disney films as an accurate portrayal of medieval femininity, as the protagonist's mother was always singing with birds in the morning while they followed her across the garden. It is very cheesy.

Her father proceeds to throw verbal abuse at Tasia and to call her stupid with very long sentences. After that he proceeds to call his dead 13 year-old dead son "weak" and incapable, which makes me agree with Tasia: he doesn't care about his children at all.

"You think you know so much," the Emperor said. "But your actions reveal that you are hardly more than a child. A foolish child, at that, who nearly got herself killed tonight. For nothing."

Well, that's true.

"If two city guardsmen know that the Princess was found leaving the Ambassador's Quarter before dawn, it won't be long before word spreads and people begin to talk. I cannot wait any longer, Tasia. It's time you accept a husband."

You sure helped, saying out loud that your daughter was visiting a man at night in front of several guards. Also, this is a moot point, since we know that she won't have to be forced to take a husband for plot reasons. It creates no tension whatsoever and it doesn't tell us anything about the characters that we didn't know. The Emperor and Cole talk about getting a bodyguard for Tasia, which they should have a long time ago. Tasia says that it would be improper for a man to be with her at every hour (just give her a woman guard). After some back and forth, there is a scene between Tasia and her father that is supposed to be heartwarming, and it kind of is but I'm not entirely convinced, mostly because there are limits to how big of an asshole you can be to someone while still caring for them. Her father tells her that he felt the same at her age, that he didn't like to be the heir, but Tasia reminds him that their situations are different since she will never be able to rule in her own right; she will always have to depend on her husband's approval, and the Emperor reminds her that some women have been named Empresses in the past. That bit was pretty nice until:

Tasia scoffed. "One Empress who was named her father's heir. in the thousand-year history of the house of Dorsa."

This and other dialogue imply that the Empire has been standing for those thousand years. This is possible, but makes me curious about how did they resist for so long when they seem to have been in the verge of destruction for a while.

Father and daughter say goodnight to each other and we go to chapter 4.

I wish we got more descriptions of the scenery, because the author gives us no clue about how everything looks. The descriptions are scarce and bland; they don't leave any particular impression on me.

Mylla is introduced; she's a noble of a minor house and Tasia's handmaid. She's younger than her and quite loyal, as she waits for her and has been worrying about her wellbeing all night. They are lovers, and even though Tasia knows that she should not tell her certain things, she can't have secrets with her. They make out and have some sweet moments, like this one:

Tasia closed her eyes, letting the darkness become complete, disappearing for a sweet moment into a world where there was no Empire, no Markas, no assassin, no Cole, no Father, no Mack or Dawkin or Grizzle. Disappearing into the world which contained only her - her and Mylla.

The world where she wanted to live forever.

Awww. I still don't like Tasia but this was cute.

Mylla also berates Tasia; she doesn't like that she chose to stay the night with Markas instead of with her and asks her why she did it, and then we get this:

Because you would choose Markas over me, if given the chance, Tasia thought bitterly.

Well, I'm not shipping this. It does make Tasia more interesting, however. So far I took everything she did at face value, and didn't think that she could have hidden intentions when she was sleeping with Markas, apart from being obviously attracted to him. The fact that she slept with him to keep him focused on her and not Mylla gives her actions more nuance and show us that she can be good at manipulating situations (even when it is sad to have to manipulate a situation like that).

Tasia worries that maybe, the only reason that Mylla sleeps with her is because she's the princess, instead of because she is attracted to her. Tasia seems to be in love with Mylla, but to be honest, I don't get the feeling that the other girl is that special from the way she talks about her. With Markas, you understood how she felt without Tasia having to state it directly: she found him boring but still slept with him because she liked his abs, and that was all there was to it. Mylla just feels like an extra who the princess happens to be in love with. I don't like to be told about things, I want the characters to make me feel things. I want to feel how Tasia is pinning after this woman, how her heart beats when she hears her laugh, how she has to bottle up her bitterness every time they talk about their male lovers. While her infatuation with Mylla is a useful tool to explore her bisexuality and attraction to women, Mylla herself is just another minor character at the moment, and gets treated as such. She does not even feel like a character as much as she feels like a set of stereotypes - the vapid, gossipy handmaid who only worries about her love life.

Mylla has a present for the princess: a leather strap-on. She puts it on the princess and they have sex. If it sounds abrupt, it is because it is. The sex scene is very quick and not particularly well or badly written. It's okay. Kind of glorified the strap-on a lot, which was unrelatable to me, but at least the author didn't try to make some weird point about their sex being "more real" that way, or about some weird penis envy. Some "lesbian" books (especially the ones written by non-lesbians) do this and it is weird. Mylla teases Tasia because she had good strap game, and suggest that it is thanks to all the “practice” she’s had on the receiving end.

"Tasia laid on her back, said nothing. Like her, Mylla had already enjoyed her share of male lovers. If anything, Mylla's promiscuity was exactly why Tasia had so many men herself. It seemed so easy for Mylla to be callous, casual about what transpired between them alone in Tasia's bedchamber. It seemed so easy for Mylla to make Tasia one of many. So Tasia would be callous, too. She would make Mylla one of many, too. If it was only a game to the handmaid, then it would be nothing more than a game to the Princess."

This is a very toxic and sad mentality, and I feel bad for Tasia. I hope she moves past this and finds a healthier romance in this book. Then she starts to think about how Mylla will leave her one day, once she finds a wealthy suitor, and how it will be the end of their romance (if Mylla ever loved her to begin with). She has an angsty moment of remembering how horrible her night has been before she and Mylla had sex, but it is so quick and written in such a distant way that fails to make the reader feel anything. I suppose that the author wanted us to feel bad for Tasia, but I don’t know because her descriptions of the night sound very emotionless. She is like “x and y happened, and I feel bad because of it” but again, if she didn’t tell me that she feels bad about it, I would have no idea.

"Whatever you wish, my Princess," she said.

What I wish... Tasia thought. I wish for an Empire in which I could make you my wife, in which our daughters could be our heirs, in which belonging to a royal house wasn't their prison sentence. What I wish is..."

Weird how you’re so forward thinking and yet you don’t mind the fact that wannabe rapist is still part of the guard, that same guard that supposedly has to protect your people.