This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
11.0.2
PTR
11.0.5
Beta
Unique Questchain in Hallowfall for Dark Magic Wielders
The War Within
Posted
2024/06/18 at 2:40 PM
by
Portergauge
A small side quest in Hallowfall involving earning the trust of a wary Arathi soldier has a unique variant for player characters such as void elves, undead, demon hunters, shadow priests, death knights, and warlocks, in which he not only comments on your dark nature, but offers an additional quest to prove your worth.
The Arathi of Hallowfall
The inhabitants of Hallowfall have a deep-seated distaste for the powers of the void. They not only hail from a distant Empire ruled by a prophetic holy Emperor, but their mission at his command involves seeking power to fight in what they call 'Renilash', the coming clash between the forces of Light and Darkness. In their quest for this power, they were caught in a massive storm, and teleported below ground in a flash of Light, finding themselves in a massive cavern that they were now stranded inside. There, they not only fend off dark forces such as the Nerubians and Kobyss, but weather against the onslaught of dark magic that results from their guiding star, the massive holy crystal of Beledar, turning dark on an unpredictable schedule.
Beledar, cast in both light and darkness.
A Creature of Darkness
In the Arathi outpost of Dunelle's Kindness, you can find a couple named Lerrenai and Derill Fayn. While Lerrenai seems rather tolerant towards the player, Derill acts rather distinctly distrustful, demanding that you prove your worth and complete a simple task of pest control for him. For most players, this will simply be shown as a matter of suspicion amidst their stressful circumstances, but for players of a race or class that wields dark magic, he has an extra word of distrust for your shadowy nature.
Derill's suspicion towards regular players.
Derill's adverse reaction towards players such as void elves.
For other players, the questline ends after this simple task, but for those he distrusts for their magic, Derill's ill gaze towards you has not quite dissipated, and he demands another task to prove your worth.
Proving Your Mettle
In order to test your resistance to the forces of the void, Derill asks that you aid their town in combatting the shadows that have been wreaking havoc on the local area. He does this with the clear expectation that you will not prove up to the challenge, and despite his prejudice, the player aids him in fighting this threat.
When you arrive before the shadowy monster, Derill arrives alongside you, expressing his surprise at your arrival. Once you defeat it, he equally expresses his shock at you standing by his side against the threat, which causes him to reevaluate the tenets on which he was raised.
Derill Fayn says:
I did not believe you would show up! I'm glad we fight shoulder to shoulder, stranger.
Derill Fayn says:
You stood by me... side by side, against that monster.
I have been following the Church of the Sacred Flame since the moment I was born. Doctrine is hard to set aside.
But I see now that you are here to help. And as long as you use your powers for us, I will reach out a hand of friendship-- regardless of where that power came from.
I will tell the others that you can be trusted. Thank you for your help.
Once the quest is complete, his wife Lerrenai from earlier shows up to ensure he is safe, and to give him a few words of advice.
Lerrenai Fayn says:
So this is where you went, old man?
Derill Fayn says:
<Player> helped me clear the evil that was gathered here. Maybe...
Lerrenai Fayn says:
It's a new world for you and me, Derill. Come on, let's go back home.
Derill Fayn says:
... yeah. Home.
Hope for the Arathi
While this questline is minor and relatively short, its contents offer an intriguing look into the people of Hallowfall. The Empire that they hail from clearly espouses rather extreme doctrines, both on the matters of Light and Darkness as well as their opinions on foreign races. Even separated from their home for over a decade, the conditioning of their homeland still holds strong in the Arathi.
Quests like this, however, show that while many of them might still hold their prejudices, they are not above learning to overcome them. Experiencing Azeroth's myriad peoples beyond the propaganda they have been taught in their home seems to offer one way of opening themselves up to the world. Such methods may not prove as effective on all of the Arathi we meet in Hallowfall, as we can see in one of the zone's dungeons, the Priory of the Sacred Flame. The zealous fervor for which the Arathi of the Priory worship their Emperor leads them not only to defend against outsiders such as the player with hostile intent, but delve into acts such as raising their fallen into a state of light-infused undeath.
Be they willing to accept outsiders through experience, or stand firm in their zealous beliefs, the small contingent of Arathi in Hallowfall likely mirror many of the opinions back in their homeland. We don't know when or if we'll ever visit this mysterious Empire beyond the Storming Sea, but our time getting to know and trust the people of Hallowfall will likely play a role in stories to come as we prepare for our own clash against the forces of the Void.
The Priory of the Sacred Flame, Hallowfall's leveling dungeon.
Unique Player Interactions
While interactions based on your race and class aren't unique to
The War Within
, there has certainly been a visible uptick in their presence. Mages have unique interactions with a fellow spellcaster in the same zone, and Demon Hunters and Warlocks have a special quest to track down a demon that can be found in Dornogal.
Quests like these are much appreciated by the community, not only for their potential for unique rewards such as this special sword
Blade of Hatred
from another unique questline in Dornogal, but also for their value in emphasizing the player's choices. Small quests like this make players who would typically feel out of place in such a Light-centric storyline like Hallowfall feel more actively acknowledged for their unique role, and as we move further into a grandiose conflict such as what
Midnight
promises, we hope that more unique quests like this will be seen in the future.
Get Wowhead
Premium
$2
A Month
Enjoy an ad-free experience, unlock premium features, & support the site!
Show 47 Comments
Hide 47 Comments
Sign In to Post a Comment
1
2
3
Comment by
DraethDarkstar
on 2024-06-18T22:12:24-05:00
how many disabled characters are they gonna add lol, this guys missing an eye like that one armed chick
I hope every new character they add is disabled until people like you go the !@#$ away.
You'll never realize it, but you're just as toxic as the people you try to belittle.
Paradox of tolerance is Philosophy 101. Try a little harder please.
I'm disabled and I have absolutely no time for bigots or the people like you who defend them.
It’s actually an essay by Karl Popper. The very next sentence after the meme you read online ends (convenient), he says the most insidious intolerance is the dehumanization of those who don’t go along with the diktat of capital-t “tolerance.”
The essay advocates openly for making it a capital crime for liberals to use claims of “tolerance” for tyrannically dehumanizing Christians (and other peoples “inconvenient” to the total state) as an excuse for later exterminating them just as the nsdap and ussr did. Popper insists that if this dehumanization rhetoric posing as tolerance is not violently quelled with the price of death even for rhetoric, then the us will turn into the next of the many liberal 20th century mass murdering dictatorships within a few years. It would really Help if you actually read it instead of went off of some reddit memes you thought you could use “for the cause” against the Kulaks, and instead accidentally asked to be guilty of treason.
In other words, not only are you advocating for the exact same position Popper wrote the essay to specifically reject, Popper wrote the essay to advocate that you must be executed for treason at best for attempting this trick.
In other words, careful what you wish for, “comrade.” Popper not only is vehemently disagreeing with you in that essay, he wants to see you hung for it.
I don’t know why you would even want to quote Popper anyways, he HATES you and you would have hated him.
your curses are returned.
I'm incredibly impressed, almost every word you just said was horse^&*!.
First, Popper was neither the first nor the last, and certainly not the only, to discuss the paradox of tolerance.
Second, Popper's discussion on the paradox of tolerance is not only not the subject of an essay, it's not from an essay
at all
. He discusses it in notes 3-5 to chapter 7 of
The Open Society and Its Enemies
, which itself is a refutation of Plato's belief in the benevolent despotism of the philosopher-king.
For your convenience:
The so-called paradox of freedom is the argument that freedom in the sense of absence of any restraining control must lead to very great restraint, since it makes the bully free to enslave the meek. This idea is, in a slightly different fonn, and with a very different tendency, clearly expressed by Plato.
Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most imwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself out-side the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.
Another of the less well-known paradoxes is the paradox of democracy, or more precisely, of majority-rule; i.e. the possibility that the majority may decide that a tyrant should rule. That Plato’s criticism of democracy can be interpreted in the way sketched here, and that the principle of majority-rule may lead to self-contradictions, was first suggested, as far as I know, by Leonard Nelson (cp. note 25 (2) to this chapter). I do not think, however, that Nelson, who, in spite of his passionate humanitarianism and his ardent fight for freedom, adopted much of Plato’s political theory, and especially Plato’s principle of leadership, was aware of the fact that analogous arguments can be raised against all the different particular forms of the dieory of sovereignty.
All these paradoxes can easily be avoided if we frame our political demands in the way suggested in section n of this chapter, or perhaps in some such manner as this. We demand a government that rules according to the principles of equalitarianism and protectionism; that tolerates all who are prepared to reciprocate, i.e. who are tolerant; that is controlled by, and accountable to, the public. And we may add that some form of majority vote, together with institutions for keeping the public well informed, is the best, Aough not infallible, means of controlling such a government. (No infallible means exist.)
-
https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.59272/2015.59272.The-Open-Society-And-Its-Enemies_djvu.txt
I don't know what the hell you were supposedly reading, but it wasn't that.
Comment by
Concerned
on 2024-06-18T23:00:51-05:00
how many disabled characters are they gonna add lol, this guys missing an eye like that one armed chick
I hope every new character they add is disabled until people like you go the !@#$ away.
You'll never realize it, but you're just as toxic as the people you try to belittle.
Paradox of tolerance is Philosophy 101. Try a little harder please.
I'm disabled and I have absolutely no time for bigots or the people like you who defend them.
It’s actually an essay by Karl Popper. The very next sentence after the meme you read online ends (convenient), he says the most insidious intolerance is the dehumanization of those who don’t go along with the diktat of capital-t “tolerance.”
The essay advocates openly for making it a capital crime for liberals to use claims of “tolerance” for tyrannically dehumanizing Christians (and other peoples “inconvenient” to the total state) as an excuse for later exterminating them just as the nsdap and ussr did. Popper insists that if this dehumanization rhetoric posing as tolerance is not violently quelled with the price of death even for rhetoric, then the us will turn into the next of the many liberal 20th century mass murdering dictatorships within a few years. It would really Help if you actually read it instead of went off of some reddit memes you thought you could use “for the cause” against the Kulaks, and instead accidentally asked to be guilty of treason.
In other words, not only are you advocating for the exact same position Popper wrote the essay to specifically reject, Popper wrote the essay to advocate that you must be executed for treason at best for attempting this trick.
In other words, careful what you wish for, “comrade.” Popper not only is vehemently disagreeing with you in that essay, he wants to see you hung for it.
I don’t know why you would even want to quote Popper anyways, he HATES you and you would have hated him.
your curses are returned.
I'm incredibly impressed, almost every word you just said was horse^&*!.
First, Popper was neither the first nor the last, and certainly not the only, to discuss the paradox of tolerance.
Second, Popper's discussion on the paradox of tolerance is not only not the subject of an essay, it's not from an essay
at all
. He discusses it in notes 3-5 to chapter 7 of
The Open Society and Its Enemies
, which itself is a refutation of Plato's belief in the benevolent despotism of the philosopher-king.
For your convenience:
The so-called paradox of freedom is the argument that freedom in the sense of absence of any restraining control must lead to very great restraint, since it makes the bully free to enslave the meek. This idea is, in a slightly different fonn, and with a very different tendency, clearly expressed by Plato.
Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most imwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself out-side the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.
Another of the less well-known paradoxes is the paradox of democracy, or more precisely, of majority-rule; i.e. the possibility that the majority may decide that a tyrant should rule. That Plato’s criticism of democracy can be interpreted in the way sketched here, and that the principle of majority-rule may lead to self-contradictions, was first suggested, as far as I know, by Leonard Nelson (cp. note 25 (2) to this chapter). I do not think, however, that Nelson, who, in spite of his passionate humanitarianism and his ardent fight for freedom, adopted much of Plato’s political theory, and especially Plato’s principle of leadership, was aware of the fact that analogous arguments can be raised against all the different particular forms of the dieory of sovereignty.
All these paradoxes can easily be avoided if we frame our political demands in the way suggested in section n of this chapter, or perhaps in some such manner as this. We demand a government that rules according to the principles of equalitarianism and protectionism; that tolerates all who are prepared to reciprocate, i.e. who are tolerant; that is controlled by, and accountable to, the public. And we may add that some form of majority vote, together with institutions for keeping the public well informed, is the best, Aough not infallible, means of controlling such a government. (No infallible means exist.)
I don't know what the hell you were supposedly reading, but it wasn't that.
No, it’s that. you are just unfortunately practicing the same reality twisting you think you can use to condemn your enemies.
Plato is correct, you cannot “refute” Reality.
Similarly you cannot deny Reality as it suits you. The apotheosis of that being you quoting a man literally condemning you and those like you as guilty of a capital crime, and then saying “well really he means the Kulaks I want gone for the sake of my party’s ascendancy!”
Also, you could at least read the essay you are claiming is a means of dehumanizing regime opponents in belief it somehow gives you “power” through their tyranny.
Once more:
it’s talking about you.
. It goes into more detail in parts you aren’t quoting here, but when says there that it is criminal to be “intolerant” he’s talking about you.
Popper isn’t using “tolerance” and “intolerance” to mean “that ever those in power politics want” and “Kulaks to be exterminated” in the sense you do. your entire “argument” here subsists on him meaning the words in the way a 21st century leninist would. No, he is using it in the literal sense of a person who uses state power to coerce compliance, he means YOU who are using this rhetoric to mark entire swaths of people are subhuman “oppressors” (another friendly flag) to mark them for state execution.
Popper was an incredibly evil man, which is why you probably feel some affinity to him, but he was a deeply anti-communist evil man.
Again, you would hate Popper if you ever actually read him instead of tried to just use him for your purposes, he HATES you!
PS. It’s an essay, essays are not just what you saw in school. To quote
Comment by
Renevant99
on 2024-06-18T23:52:42-05:00
When you arrive before the shadowy monster, Derill arrives alongside you, expressing his surprise at your arrival. Once you defeat it, he equally expresses his shock at you standing by his side against the threat, which causes him to reevaluate the
tenants
on which he was raised.
C'mon
PorterGauge
, you're writing for a fairly well known website and don't know the difference between tenant and tenet?
tenet
/ˈtenət/
noun
plural noun: tenets
a principle or belief, especially one of the main principles of a religion or philosophy.
"the tenets of a democratic society"
tenant
/ˈtenənt/
noun
plural noun: tenants
a person who occupies land or property rented from a landlord.
"council-house tenants"
Comment by
keratheen
on 2024-06-19T09:56:09-05:00
not for shadow priests? wtf?
somebody cant read WTF?
Comment by
emu1981
on 2024-06-19T11:40:16-05:00
not for shadow priests? wtf?
? You realize how difficult it would be to set that up? If it's easy then you do it. Shadow Priest is just a spec. What the priest changes from holy to shadow and the quest appears? Everything listed is a whole class or race with dark origins and powers. Stop and use your brain for a min.
Why would it be hard to add shadow priest to the prerequisites for the quest? For what it is worth, the article does say that shadow priests are included in the list of players who will get the extra quest.
Comment by
hobbidaggy
on 2024-06-19T19:56:35-05:00
not for shadow priests? wtf?
? You realize how difficult it would be to set that up? If it's easy then you do it. Shadow Priest is just a spec. What the priest changes from holy to shadow and the quest appears? Everything listed is a whole class or race with dark origins and powers. Stop and use your brain for a min.
I’m a coder/developer for IGA systems for multiple different clients. I can 100% confirm it would be possible but just a pain in the ass to manage it most likely. You would need a lot of conditional flags to make sure that it only appears for the shadow spec and then if they drop the spec to not appear but to remain in the quest log if it is already accepted etc
THIS would be a great test in the Beta…switching specs and testing out each section of the quest line swapping continually between Shadow, Disc and Holy.
Comment by
Flanell
on 2024-06-20T16:14:22-05:00
Why not rogues?
1
2
3
Post a Comment
You are not logged in. Please
log in
or
register an account
to add your comment.
Previous Post
Next Post