WoW is set in a fictional fantasy universe and real life definitions don’t apply.
Humans don’t turn them selves into dogs in RL.
People don’t go around hurling fireballs at each other in RL.
There are no Dragons in RL.
Get the picture ?
2 Likes
You have a weird habit of missing the point. This is about naming conventions, you can’t shoot fireballs out of your hands IRL either, but if your fireballs are represented in game by a white arrow that freezes your target on impact, then maybe you have to reconsider how you call that spell.
When I said real life definitions then that includes all naming conventions, the examples I gave where to illustrate the point that this is a fictional fantasy world, so you can’t apply real world conventions, definitions, names or whatever, all of that is defined by the creators of the world, not any RL rules.
Not if the page has proper sources…
If the page is filled with “Citation needed” then you should be skeptical, but one can always check the sources used to write the article when they are present.
That may apply if you’re making up your own names, but Blizzard isn’t Tolkien so they didn’t. In this case the creators chose RL, mythology and already established RPG conventions.
edit:
Yes, there aren’t, yet they still follow certain conventions.
I think you’ll find that the names of the worlds and the places in them, not to mention the NPC’s are all made up by Blizzard, as are some of the class names (Demon Hunter, Death Knight).
As for established RPG conventions, what are they ? Where’s the rule book that says RPG’s must conform to anything.
OP has queried why there are female Monks when they don’t exist in RL, several posters have already disproved this anyway.
It’s Blizzards own made up fictional world, they can call stuff whatever they want without having to be restricted by any RL conventions, and that includes having female Monks.
Yes in the vast majority of cases (where they don’t make stuff up) they conform to a certain naming convention, where RL (including culture) definitions DO apply.
And while there is no official rule book for naming things in video games, you can’t deny that most RPGs rely on a common trove of inspiration. Without ever having played WoW or anything game in the warcraft universe, everyone knows that the hunter class uses bow and arrows, the priest class has access to healing magic and the warrior focuses on hand to hand combat.
We’re not talking about naming conventions, the subject is whether a particular type of class has to be a particular gender (in this case a Monk). If Blizzard so wished (or any other game maker) then they are perfectly entitled to have a female King, or a male Amazon warrior.
That’s the issue of the topic yes, however your reply took a general approach and this is what i’m arguing with, else i don’t know how you think “there are no dragons in RL” could possibly be a counterargument to the monk gender issue.
If you’re looking for an argument then I have nothing else to say except, yes, my reply took a general approach but then you seem to pick fault by suggesting I took a specific approach. Maybe read that particular post again and try to understand what it says rather than take one comment out of context and trying to start an argument over it.
I didn’t say they were smoke and mirrors, I said they have a place. They are useful for what they are as a collection of pieces of information but you have to keep in mind that the information isn’t always correct so as a search engine Wikipedia is a brilliant resource even academically but you can’t cite it in an essay and that’s where the “resentment” stems from.
Ha Ha yes omfg because you are going to go to an actual library and pull out some reference numbers for us to check up on, eh?
Wikipedia is, these days, a better source then 99% of the BS on the internet. You should use it and learn something.
2 Likes
Did you honestly think i was being serious?
I’m amazed that many people took my reply serious. I couldn’t care less about the topic lol
And wikipedia really isn’t that reliable 99% lol Why do you think schools ask people to use another source for research other than wikipedia? Don’t be a spoon lol
Not if they identify as men, then they can be monks.
I identify as a firetruck monk.
2 Likes
Call it monkess then. Or monke. Or or ladyonk.
Shemonk. Missonk.
You’ll figure it out.
Yes there are. Komodo dragons.
2 Likes
That’s just boomer talk.
Wikipedia is a very reliable knowledge base that allows you to seek out the sources yourself to fact-check them. Wikipedia articles always cite their sources, and the service has a great number of mods and admins that try their best to keep the quality of every article as high and factually accurate as possible.
1 Like
Dude I just said I wasn’t serious? And calling me a boomer is laughable
You said you weren’t serious, and then you end the very same comment with this?
I called you a boomer because that’s exactly what it is; boomer talk.
“Use a different source than wikipedia” is a line of thinking, and a flawed one, created and nurtured by the boomer generation.
Whether you actually are a boomer or not is irrelevant, you’re still using flawed boomer logic every time you espouse the idea that wikipedia is untrustworthy because that’s what your school told you to do.
1 Like