Talk:Gul'dan

Gul'dan's spirit
Seems like he's in Shadowmoon Valley. --Adys 10:20, 1 December 2006 (EST)


 * Or rather, a shade of him.--Ragestorm 13:08, 1 December 2006 (EST)


 * yeah, it's his spirit.... --Nexxius 15:53, 1 December 2006 (EST)


 * How did he end up there while he was killed in Azeroth?(Duke Ragereaver 16:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC))


 * It's not a ghost in the traditional sense. He doesnt talk to the players, doesn't do anything except reinact the events. Most likely isn't intelligent and doesn't know about the events that happened to his real self. Its more like one of the visions in karazhan.Warthok 16:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not a spirit or ghost, it's an echo of an event from the past.--Odolwa 18:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Shaman
He's connection to shamanism is mentioned in Warcraft II manual. If anyone is wondering...Baggins 20:22, 9 December 2006 (EST)


 * He was Ner'zhul's shamanic student. That the Spirits probably abandoned him is a moot point.--Ragestorm 20:47, 9 December 2006 (EST)


 * Shared classes, entail some shared abilities, not complete loss of all abilities from class types. Sure he lost ability to summon, but he had access to other uniquely shamanistic abilities. This is the reason for the (RPG) notice however, to point out that he is given multi-class status in that source.Baggins 21:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Again you can abandon the term "shamanism" but once one knows the knowledge they never truly give it up. He just lost access to certain schools of shamanism but had access to the abilities that could still be used by evil. He's litearlly one of the first "dark shamans", something you can see all over the place in game.Baggins 21:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * A term used in RPGs is "ex- ", meaning that the character has levels and abilities of a certain class, but cannot gain levels in that class (usually because of prohibited alignment). I'd venture that that's what we're seeing here. -- Ragestorm (talk &middot; contr) 21:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * He's not "ex-class" actually. He's just "class shaman. Level something or other. IN anycase the info is chronologically after Rise of hte Horde era, set during the warcraft II era when he uses the term "shaman" to describe himself in his own terms, much like his journal in the Warcraft II manual.Baggins 21:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * He couldn't be a regular Shaman. The element spirits won't let them kill innocent people as told by Drek'thar.Zarnks 21:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * We are not talking about what class someone is 'morally' here, we are talking in terms of gameplay and RPG mechanics. 21:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Most enemy shamans ingame are dark shamans. That is shamans that worship evil or corrupted elemental spirits rather then good ones. [User:Zarnks|Zarnks]] 21:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Infoboxes are not for explanations, Zarnks. Don't abuse them as such, or to prove a point. 21:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The rpg doesn't have a "regular shaman" all shaman variations fall under the same class, and its possible to have shamans with cultures that range from evil to good, lawful to chaotic.... Read the shaman lore page, and lore up on dark iron shamanism for example. Not all shamans are called "dark shamans" some are simply known as shamans.Baggins 21:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * A shaman who follows an evil or corrupted elemental spirit is a dark  shaman. A shaman who follows benovelent elemental spirits like the Horde's shamans is a regular shaman. A dark iron dwarf dark shaman likely foes Ragnaros or a corrupted fire elemental. Zarnks 22:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * For instance you can be an evil shaman if you follow evil elementals but you won't evil shamans who worship the spirits in Alterac valley who are benovelnt and won't answer the call of a shaman if it means hurting innocents.Zarnks 22:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Nah in the RPG Shaman are shaman (they range across all morality), anything else is said to be a title, or one of the prestidge classes like "battle shaman", or "far seer". A shaman in the Dark Iron dwarves is simply a shaman, although they bent towards evil, and fire. There are more elementals out there than just "elemental spirits" to call upon. According to the rpg shamans can also be call powers from the elemental plane.Baggins 22:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well Rise of The Horde and Lord of the Clans makes it clear that a regular shaman loses his powers if he goes toward evil. Zarnks 22:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No it makes it clear that they lose access to the elemental spirits, but according to lore there are other ways to access shamanistic powers by other powerful elemental forces, and divine sources. Its interesting to note that according to Day of the Dragon, Zuluhed secretely practiced old shamanistic rituals, that hadn't been seen since the Horde was first formed. But he was obviously tapping into other sources of power through those rituals. Also I'd like to point it out not all shamans believe in elemental spirits.Baggins 22:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * By losing access to the elemental spirits and going into evil sources you are basically becoming a dark shaman. Zarnks 22:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It isn't proven that Shamans lose their power by turning evil, they just lose their power by betraying the natural order. Drek'thar (and even Ner'zhul) never really became evil, but lost their powers when they embraced the powers of the Legion, which are anti-life.
 * The Spirits are actually the only source of Shamanism- Dark Shamans are as much their agents as true ones, whether they believe or not.- Ragestorm (talk &middot; contr) 22:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Dark shaman is a title, not a class, in the rpg and novels a shaman is a shaman, The dark iron dwarf shamans are just called shamans, Gul'dan is just called a shaman (along with his other mult-classed status), Zuluhed is just called a shaman, etc, etc. There is no official "dark shaman" class as of yet, only the title. Which doen't appear to cover all shamans in the game anyways. There are some other evil shamans in game that are simply called "shamans", in centaur, IIRCBaggins 22:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The elemental spirits Drek'thar though wouldn't let him kill innocents and refused to answer his call for years after he almost killed innocents with thier powers.

Zarnks 22:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * "The Spirits are actually the only source of Shamanism"
 * Actually not according to lore presented in the RPG. When I get around to it I'll update the shaman article with more of the cultures belief systems and how shamanistic abilities are accessed. But for now you might enjoy reading the bit on different racial beliefs in, shaman lore that are mentioned in a few of the races in the race sections.Baggins 22:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * In response to Zarnks: yes, because it went against the order of nature- the spirits don't care if their powers are used to kill, death is just another part of life. However, using the powers of the elements to kill those who are undeserving, or ending life before its time, or using it to further the cause of the Legion, are things that the Spirits will not tolerate. -- Ragestorm (talk &middot; contr) 22:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Case in point they orc shamans were going out on hunts specifically to kill Ogres all the time. That was a worthy foe. The spirits didn't mind. Even if the ogres themselves might have been a down-trodden and enslaved race(its actually said that early ogres at some distant point in the past may have been as smart as orcs, and via torture, hunts and other means they became as stupid as they were later on). Some might view the action of the early orcs as "evil", but it wasn't enough to lose the spirits, as there was a sense of personal honor behind what they did, and the spirits found them worthy.Baggins 22:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC


 * So you can't be an evil shaman who follows the elemental spirits and kills innocent. Most malovlent shamans are likely dark shamans.
 * The stuff on ogres is speculation and may or not be true. Zarnks 22:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * What matters is that the ogres believe that is their own history, they believe they were persecuted, experimented on, hunted, etc(some of it occured before the Horde, and some of it afterwords), even RotH talks about the hunting, and experimentations to a point, and some of the other novels discuss the other details.
 * I wouldn't say "most" evil shamans are dark shamans. We don't even know the numbers of shaman centaurs, or dark iron dwarves have and they are only "shamans", not dark shamans. So far the only dark shamans we've seen are members of certain fel horde factions in Outland. We simply do not have any numbers to accurately qualify anything of that kind of detail.Baggins 22:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * My POINT is that evil beings can easily follow the path of the shaman, provided their actions are in accord with the balance of the natural world. Allying yourself with the enemies of life, demanding that someone you love be returned to life, etc. are against the balance. Good and evil doesn't really have anything to do with it. -- Ragestorm (talk &middot; contr) 22:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * In the RPG speak, what Ragestorm is calling "Balance" is what would be called "lawful evil", and possibly even "neutral evil", as opposed to "chaotic evil." Baggins 22:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * An evil shaman who doesn't kill unarmed innocents and respects the natural elements but robs and kills Argent dawn warriors could still worship the elemental spirits then? But a centaur who kills innocents discrimnately and ruins natue couldn't be regular shaman right. Zarnks 22:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It's that 'fun' word, "evil", again. :) 22:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Its unclear, centaurs tend to be towards chaotic, but often they are somewhere between chaotic evil and chaotic neutral. But even chaos can be natural part of nature, storms, volcanoes, etc are all chaotic events but part of natural world. A chaotic evil doesn't necessarily kill indiscrimently, infact he might kill to balance nature, or the belief that he has to destroy order to create a or better order. On the other hand he might just kill everything with no plan or reason, just for the enjoyment of killing.


 * When discussing order and chaos generally the idea is to find balance in the middle. Its possible for order to go too far.


 * It is part of the natural order for rabbits to multiply, but if that happens it could unbalance things and cause death and chaos to other creatures. So it is often relevent to kill the innocent rabbits to bring things back to a balance. But killing all the rabbits could cause another adverse effect, weeds may flourish and kill food sources, or the food sources of predators be deplenished causing them to die out or attack livestock and people in order to survive. There is a kind of circle to all  this. Not all things are black and white, there are shades of grey to evil or even good which might be perceived as evil, depending on an individual's POV.Baggins 23:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The Spirits, I am quite certain, are True Neturals. -- Ragestorm (talk &middot; contr) 23:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * There are some organizations with no real shades of grey that defy the natural order like the scourge and Burning legion. There are some organizations with shades of grey like the Defias.


 * This is speculation on my part but what if the clan that enslaved the ogres was the Dark Scar Clan. Zarnks 01:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * What does that have to do with the price of fish? Orcs (and shamans) from many clans still hunted ogres. 02:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * And humans and dwarves continue to hunt trolls and kobolds. It was because the orcs were at war with the Gronn who the ogres hated as well. Zarnks 02:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * What do dwarves and humans have to do with anything? What are we actually discussing now? 02:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm as confused as you... We weren't discussing human and dwarven shamans as far as I know? But it reminds me of Highlord Demitrian, who was taught shamanism by the Twilight's Hammer. I wonders if the orc shaman that enslaves the human in the upcoming Warcraft Comic teaches the human in the ways of shamanism away (I also wonder about the fact the orc practices slavery as well).


 * BTW, there are elements in the scourge that show some form of shades of grey. There was a real honor system going on between Kel'thuzud and his master Arthas in TFC. Essentially lawful evil style characterization. Anub'erak also seemed to have a code of honor towards Arthas as well, and Arthas seemed to show respect to those who respected him. A code of honor and personal moral conduct can actually be a form of shade of grey. Although like all grey areas, one side might see them as good and one side see them as evil. Evil characters don't always necessarily think of themselves as evil, and even evil characters with personal moral beliefs and code of honor has the same beliefs or ethical standards as someone else.Baggins 06:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I said no real shades of grey not none at all. Maybe theres a case of an acolyte who works for the scourge so they'll spare his family.


 * We don't know enough about the comic yet to decide. The orc could be twilight hammer shaman and the human a former necromancer. The human is said to fight both the Alliance and Horde..

Zarnks 06:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * There are actually some stories that hint that some acolytes/necromancers became acolytes because they were poor or starving peasants, treated as the lowest member of society with little respect (or they perceived it that way). So they joined up with the cult because they finally found a group of people who respected them for who they were, and even allow them to go beyond their station. They finally felt like they belonged somewhere, and were needed, not just pushed around. Also a fairly shade of grey reason for joining.Baggins 07:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Powers and abilities
I haven't found anywhere where Maiev comments on the power of Gul'dan. I've read the relevant TFT mission texts and nothing. The orc Drak'thul, while speaking with Maiev, calls Gul'dan a great warlock and that was all. There ought to be some basis this section. --Raze 13:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I was looking for that section that used to be on the article about his powers to quote for the Malfurion talk, but I guess it was deleted. It used to say that by the way Maiev talked about his powers that he was on par with Malfurion and the Lich King. Was that false information? Jclipps 18:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I could give his powers and abilities from the RPG, but won't... Too many and not exactly lore related.Baggins 18:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I was the one who put that section in, and said that Gul'dan's power was on the same tier as that of Malfurion and the Lich King. While I am not sure about Maiev's quote, for the sake of argument let's say that Maiev never did say that, to delete that section was a rash decision, considering the many other points in that argument, which I will ennumerate here.  (I am going on lore only, gameplay mechanics are non-canon.)


 * Why Gul'dan is more powerful than Illidan:
 * The Horde Player Guide states that Gul'dan was the most powerful non-Eredar warlock of all time. (Note that demons can be warlocks.)
 * Anyone who uses demon magic is a warlock.
 * Thus, Gul'dan is more powerful than all non-Eredar who use demon magic, including the non-Eredar Lords of the Burning Legion, even Mannoroth and Tichondrius, who are far more powerful than the vast majority of Eredar.
 * Therefore, Gul'dan is far more powerful than the vast majority of Eredar.
 * Illidan uses demon magic, has always used demon magic, works with and for demons, and is now in fact a demon, he is an "...arcane spellcaster(s) devoted to trafficking with demons and other dark or vile beings."
 * Therefore Illidan is a non-Eredar warlock.
 * Gul'dan was the most powerful non-Eredar warlock of all time.
 * Therefore Gul'dan was more powerful than Illidan is.

Why Gul'dan and the Lich King's powers are comparable:
 * The Lich King is more powerful than Illidan is, but still not as strong as Kil'jaeden.
 * Therefore, Gul'dan's powers are comparable to those of the Lich King.

Why Gul'an and Azshara's powers are comparable:
 * According to the War of the Ancients Trilogy, the only members of the Burning Legion who could defeat Azshara were Archimonde, Kil'jaeden, and Sargeras.
 * Gul'dan's superiority over any non-Eredar warlock means that he was stronger than Illidan, who is stronger than all but a handful of Eredar.
 * That fact and the fact that he was Kil'jaeden's apprentice (and Kil'jaeden is better than Archimonde by a lot, so he might have taught Gul'dan a few tricks) mean Gul'dan was roughly equivalent in power to Archimonde give or take (he could be weaker or stronger.)
 * Lckyluke372 5:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Citations are a must. That is you must give page references, otherwise people will accuse you of making things up.
 * Illidan is not a warlock. He is a demon hunter/fighter/warrior/mage/sorcerer/rogue, that is something entirely different. Not all classes that use fel magic are "warlocks".
 * Tichondrius is not a warlock, he is a wizard/necromancer
 * There is no evidence that Mannoroth is a warlock. Infact Shadows & Light does not support the idea.
 * Aszhara is not a warlock, she is a wizard/sorcerer/mage.
 * The HPG quote was, "most powerful mortal warlock", not "non-eredar", which has a completely different context considering that Eredar and most demons are "immortal". Not to mention the fact brann gives the warning on the same page that his knowledge on the matter is "sketchy" and only made up of myths and legends on the subject.


 * You have a few flaws in your logic.Baggins 11:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * "combination of a warlock and a warrior."
 * Not according to the RPG lore articles on Demon Hunters, or any other articles that I know of. Sure they appear to have similarities but perceived similarities does not make them the same thing. The rpg is pretty clear that not all who sue "demon magic" are warlocks. Some are "necromancers" some are "mages". Arcane magic has ties to demon magic. Again you are following your own opinion on the issue, and its not supported by lore in the RPG. There are alot of classes in the RPG that use fel magic, but are not "warlocks". The RPG seperates them very specifically.Baggins 12:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Its interesting to point out that apparently in the RPG, it looks like they made Illidan slightly more powerful than Guldan. While they both share around the same number of class levels, about 35 each, Illidan has the higher challenge rating, 37 over Gul'dan's 35, and most of his levels are in spell/physical damage classes with higher levels than Gul'dan's (they share many of the same classes, except Warlock). Whereas Gul'dan also has weaker semi or non-combat healing classes, however at fairly low levels.Baggins 12:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Baggins, is it possible for you to argue your case without being so condescending? The guy was just trying to voice his opinion and explain why he did the things he did, and here you are insulting him.  He's not personaly attacking you or making accusations against you, even though you're probably right, that doesn't give you permission to be rude.  Also he happens to be my best friend and had a High Warlord who was also top 100 in pvp on Mannoroth before most people were playing the game so don't talk down to him like he's some kind of idiot.  Monkeyman11


 * Condescending? All I did was break things down into bullet points like the initial poster, I followed the same pattern. Perhaps he was condecending to begin with and I missed it? I was also stating wowwiki policy that opinions should not be the basis for an article, only facts. Also you accuse me to insulting him? Give one example of an insult in my posts?Baggins 19:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * ehy guys "Make love, not War". However if Gul'dan was so powerful how roaming demons were able to kill him in the tomb of Sargeras? --N&#39;Nanz 19:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Heh heh, good point. He's not overly powerful in rpg that's for sure. He's not an Eternal. In Shadows and Light the Eternals like Aszhara, Kil'Jaeden, and Archimonde are way more powerful than Gul'dan. I probably should remove the reference to him being as powerful as Azhshara.Baggins 19:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think anybody was being condescending, it's just so easy to misread someone's tone in text. --Raze 14:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Or maybe its just that his BAMFitude was so great that no one has the means to reliably measure it, and the reflected glow from said BAMFitude increased the power of the demons around him. Lckyluke372 18:42, October 12 2007


 * Man. For being the most powerful mortal warlock in history, Gul'dan went out like a punk.--Austin P 14:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Fanart
Moving fanart to talk page.Baggins 10:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Aspects of Gul'dan?
I've seen someone cast what looked like some kind of channel spell on the spirit of Gul'dan in Shadowmoon Valley, and it spawns five "aspects of Gul'dan": The Remnants of Corruption, Greed, Hate, Malice and Pride. Is this for some kind of quest? It's not related to the Cipher of Damnation, to my knowledge (I just completed that chain last night)... --Joshmaul 09:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It is for the Ancient and powerful evil chain that starts with the arakkoa walking along the western most N/S road in SMV. It tells of a failed and desperate assult that the arakkoa made against Gul'dan.-- 18:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Gul'dan then founded the Stormreaver Clan in The Second War?
At the end of the The Second War section it says:

Gul'dan then founded the Stormreaver Clan as a way to reconsolidate some of his former power and in order to protect himself from any action Orgrim might take against him.

But in the  The Horde and the Shadow Council section and the Stormreaver Clan article:

The Stormreaver Clan was a small but powerful clan which originated in the time prior to the Horde's arrival on Azeroth.

Do you agree with the deletion of the information At the end of the The Second War section. Zakolj 18:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * If I understand it correctly, the Stormreaver Clan was founded by Gul'dan after the orcs passed into Azeroth, and only consisted of Warlocks. According to Tides of Darkness.--Odolwa 20:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * However, Rise of the Horde was written AFTER Tides of Darkness, and it was approved by Blizzard (obviously, or else Gold would be sued for copyright infringement) which means they approve of the changes she made. ~Don't say Retnoob, say Peregrine 19:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Not according to their dates of publishing. 20:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Really? I had always thought Rise of the Horde was written around the time of War3. ~Don't say Retnoob, say Peregrine 20:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You may be thinking of Lord of the Clans. 23:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, that could be it. My apologies then, I guess Blizzard aren't as retarded as I thought. :D ~Don't say Retnoob, say Peregrine 01:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Its something with a lot, and I mean a lot, of contridiction. The Last Guardian, for instance, states that both the stormreaver and black tooth grin clans existed during the early days of the first war, when most other sources state that they were created after Ogrim assumed power.Tweak the Whacked 10:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Blizzard probably does it just to laugh at us as we try to figure out what the hell is going on. ~My rage bar is blue and I start the fight pissed - Peregrine 18:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Fan Art

 * You should do better. Use Stormreaver Shadow-Kilt instead of that pants, Cowl of Gul'dan on his head and on his left hand Stormreaver Warblades (as the WCIII model). Ah... and his allegiance to the horde never whas never that hard. Maybe it's better a chest


 * This is what I think. --N&#39;Nanz 15:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It's based on his Warcraft III appearance... Look at his model from that game. Xavius, the Satyr Lord 19:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Portrait
Why does he have eyebrows? Lckyluke372 (talk) 04:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Eh, why wouldn't he? It's natural, you know. Xavius, the Satyr Lord (talk) 16:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Featured article
Is this a featured article? If not should it be? I see nothing wrong with it but I might be missing something. BobNamataki (talk) 13:22, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

Gul'dan, Horde character?
This is a vote for the purpose of determining Guld'ans official affiliation in Warcraft lore. Is he a Horde character, or a neutral character, as he was in the end only loyal to himself?

If you believe that he is a Horde character, vote yes. Otherwise, vote no.

Votes

 * Horde :


 * Neutral :

Comments
He's currently set to neutral. And he had best stay that way until this vote is over. The vote process may take days, weeks, months, or even (Elune forbid) years.... In the mean time arguments per side may be placed here, remembering to of course sign your comments using 4 tildes. 07:33, June 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * If I remember well, the last time we had this discussion, we all agreed to conclude on:
 * "The last known affiliation of a character will be the one to figure as the infobox's icon."
 * Problem is, where has this months-long topic gone?
 * 13:07, June 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * I just want to point out that if we're putting characters who are Horde or Alliance members as neutral if their true or deeper loyalty is to themselves or something else, Tyrande should be removed from Alliance characters on the grounds that she is loyal to Elune before anything else. Ditto for Sylvanas (revenge), Velen (the Light), Alonsus Faol (the Light) or Magatha Grimtotem (the tauren). There are too many characters who are using the Horde or the Alliance as a means to an end or who are members secondary to other loyalties. -- Ragestorm  (talk &middot; contr) 15:20, June 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think there are just too many characters who align themselves with a faction for their own self-serving ends to call them all neutral. Gul'dans betrayal does not change that he fought for the Horde and indeed helped create it. Though he was self-serving and ultimately treacherous, he is still a character whose major narrative associations fall in line with those of the Horde. Dcb2124 (talk) 13:45, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * That is different here. Those characters have their other loyalities, yes, but Gul'dan never really cared about the Horde and used it only to fuel his desires. After Doomhammer became warchief he abandoned the Horde.
 * Basically, what Adreioplst said. At the time of his death Gul'dan had betrayed and left the Horde. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 16:54, June 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, he didn't really betray the Horde once Doomhammer became Warchief, it happened towards the end of the Second War.
 * I agree that, on the basis of his total betrayal of the Horde at the time of his death, he should probably be considered a neutral character, but his precise loyalties (prior to the Second War, at least) don't really matter (that's where we get into the divided loyalties question). I just have a problem with saying that the character most responsible for the Horde isn't a Horde character.
 * To carry on the loyalty discussion, Aedelas Blackmoore was also loyal to himself above the Alliance, and could be argued to be a neutral character based on that (of course, Blackmoore was typically inebriated and didn't betray the Alliance at the 11th hour).-- Ragestorm (talk &middot; contr) 18:13, June 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ragestorm, just didn't know how to put it, thanks for the eloquence! :D [[Image:Pokeball.jpg]] Max Krist (talk contribs) 07:38, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * I also agree with Rage--it does not seem at all right that such a major founder of the Horde should have the Horde alignment stripped from him in this article. The Arthas Menethil and Aedelas Blackmoore articles currently lists both of them as Alliance--rightfully so, in my opinion. Similarly and consistently, I think the Gul'dan and Ner'zhul articles should list them as Horde (I'm dragging Ner'zhul in because a similar edit war seems to have occurred there, although there's no vote on that one currently).
 * Frankly, if the rule is "last known allegiance," I'm not sure that's a good rule at all, especially in cases like these--it's too rigid and places more emphasis on "more recent" than anything else. (That may be relevant for still-living characters, but for a deceased character like Gul'dan it makes more sense to use the alignment that he spent most of his life being, and not base his entire alignment off of some particular action he took shortly before his death. Or based on the fact that he was self-serving.) If last-known allegiance is indeed the basis then I would like for that to be at least reviewed, and preferably changed outright in some fashion to something more appropriately flexible.
 * Also, I kind of suspect a lot of this is being motivated by people who don't WANT Gul'dan to be considered a Horde character. I know there are a lot of New Horde fans who don't like a lot of aspects of the Old Horde, and Gul'dan practically embodies the aggressive and relentless nature of that era of the Horde. It would certainly explain the plethora of votes supporting such a flimsy premise for labeling him Neutral. I mean, seriously? He's self-serving so that means he can't possibly be Horde? He turned on the Horde at the last minute and therefore was never Horde in the first place? That just seems utterly preposterous to me. Laith Arkham (talk) 08:50, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * I find those accusations rather insulting to the intelligence of those that voted neutral. Those editors have thousands and thousands of accumalated edits and none that i can remember with a neutrality issue. How many do you have? I was going to stay out of this but that was the straw that broke the camels back. They are not saying he was never Horde, their justification is that in the end he wasn't (something i disagree with but i'm abstaining). I wouldn't be so free and loose with that superior attitude you have going on. 10:12, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * You open up by making a numbers comparison between who's made how many edits, and you think I'M the one with a "superior attitude"? Give me a break -- might want to walk your own talk there. I was simply pointing out a possible bias they might have. If they really don't have such a bias, then I'm sure my little old accusations won't be a problem for them; they certainly don't need you to run in and white-knight yourself on their behalf. Laith Arkham (talk) 07:25, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * You''ll have to forgive me I'm sure you can understand how someone might misconstrue phrases such as "flimsy premise" as looking down upon others. 08:07, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

