Talk:Fel

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fel article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. If you're new to the wiki, please take a look at our Talk page guidelines.	Be polite Assume good faith Be welcoming
If you wish to discuss the subject itself, please use Talk:Fel/Analysis. Non-editorial comments made here should be moved to the Analysis page.

Appearances

Added a small section about appearances, mostly observation, if someone knows where to cite the info be my guest. I don't happen to have many of the books with me. Rannulf 07:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Point of this is an article about Fel magic. Fel corruption should have its own article if it doesn't already. Not all users of fel magic necessarily mutate into demonic creatures.Baggins (talk) 07:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Didn't see that, sorry for the mix up. --Rannulf 16:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

As Death magic

Discussion moved to Talk:Fel/Analysis.

There is no way that this has anything to do with editing the article anymore, so I am going to have to end this. Feel free to continue this at Talk:Fel/Analysis.--SWM2448 05:24, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't the whole debate be moved? That way, the talk page would be clean of non-related topics, and "Analysis" would serve a purpose. I can do that, if you want. Cemotucu (talk contribs) 15:22, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it should. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 16:24, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

It's a human warlock

I've contacted Mr. Kerem Beyit on DeviantArt and he says it's an art piece depicting a human warlock. Do I need to prove it with a screenshot?--Adûnâi (talk) 22:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, I've waited for a reply for 10 days (since February 18), and I don't know if I can take screenshots. There is literary nothing that supports the idea that creature is a blood elf.--Adûnâi (talk) 02:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Presumably, it's the green eyes and distinctly pointed ears. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 03:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I figure the pointed ears are a resultfo the warlock mimicking Illidan's metamorphosis (like Kanrethad). But anyway... race is not relevant here, only that a mortal is turning into a demon. Cemotucu (talk contribs) 17:44, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

If you really want, I'd say put a note on the picture's page where it's more relevant. --Aquamonkeyeg (talk) 17:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Fel Magic

I think that it would be wiser if the page was split between "fel" and "fel magic". Because the last revision has modified the content of certain Sean Copeland's tweets (he explicitly said fel was created from the sacrifice of something else) and I don't think we should do that.

Either that, or maybe we should use the first paragraph for the energy and another section of the article for the magical discipline per se. Cemotucu (talk contribs) 14:53, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Since it's kinda been lost with all the revisions. Here's a copy of what Loreology tweeted:

"Are Demons the source of Fel magic?"
They contain fel magic, but they aren't "the" source. The nature of this magic is created from destroying something else. Think "Burn life to create" kind of thing.

--Aquamonkeyeg (talk) 01:38, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Not all demons contain felblood

Some demons, such as the skeletal Fel Wolves and Hakkar, don't contain felblood.VisionOfPerfection (talk) 03:11, 8 June 2015 (UTC)VisionOfPerfection

That's true. But it seems something that the reader should be able to understand from the text: that all the demons that have blood, carry felblood. Ergo, bloodless demons don't carry felblood. Though you can add a note to explain that. Cemotucu (talk contribs) 03:25, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Word=]VisionOfPerfection (talk) 03:56, 8 June 2015 (UTC)VisionOfPerfection

The analogy

Converting life force to create Fel is the same as destroying life force to create Fel.

That analogy works more-so for Fel than it does for Arcane AND the change I made didn't contradict what Loreology stated.

Steam is what is created when water is heated and Fel is created by "burning life". Perhaps Fel isn't literally created by burning life force?

Is Mana ("Water") burned/heated to create Arcane ("Steam")? If not, why is that analogy used for Arcane and not Fel, and most importantly why are you reverting the change?

Perhaps Life force is a solid that is transformed/converted/destroyed into something viscous?VisionOfPerfection (talk) 16:59, 28 June 2015 (UTC)VisionOfPerfection

Because when you heat water to create steam, the water isn't destroyed - it merely transitions from a liquid to a gas. Were you to cool down the steam, it would condense back into water. When a log is burning, however, it isn't undergoing a state transition to fire - it's being consumed and destroyed to keep the fire going. If you put out the fire, the log doesn't reconstitute itself. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 17:35, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

In addition to DarkTZeratul's comment (which was the main logic I followed to undid the edit),I wanted to point that Kosak's analogy said arcane was like "steam pressure", not that arcane was steam; the former is a physical force, the later is one of water's states of matter. Cemotucu (talk contribs) 18:06, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

1) I know that steam isn't steam pressure, which is why I removed pressure from steam pressure.

2) Life force isn't wood and Fel energy isn't the fire that burns the wood, Fel energy is created by "burning""converting""transforming""destroying" life force (the wood). I know that fire burns wood to keep itself going and that Fel magic burns life energy to keep itself going but Fel energy isn't created by burning life force with Fel energy, Fel energy must have always existed =O

What is created when something is burned? What is created when wood is burned? What is created when life is burned?

[Charred Remains]?

OR

Smoke that smells like rotting corpses (or smells like burned life) and is comprised of sulfur (which is the greenish-yellow material of which hellfire was believed to consist of)?VisionOfPerfection (talk) 18:44, 28 June 2015 (UTC)VisionOfPerfection

Also, steam "is not the same thing" as water (they are "different parts" of the same whole kind of thing imo).

Steam's state is different from water's state, so yes, water is technically destroyed when it is converted into steam. Steam doesn't just "reconstitute" itself into water without another factor and that factor is a part of the steam, but that factor isn't the steam itself, if that makes sense.VisionOfPerfection (talk) 19:09, 28 June 2015 (UTC)VisionOfPerfection

You don't get to use "imo" when discussing physics. It's not a subjective opinion, it's an objective fact. Steam and water aren't different parts of the same whole, they're literally the same thing in a different state. Water is not destroyed to create steam, just as solid lead is not destroyed to create molten lead. And the sentence that ends with "if that makes sense"? That definitely does not make sense. The only factors involved in changing states between a liquid and a gas are temperature and pressure. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 20:34, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Water is destroyed to create steam. When I state destroyed I mean converted or transformed. Water is "converted""destroyed" into steam when it is heated.

Water and steam are the same thing in a different state? Then they are literally different parts of the same whole, as I've stated. Steam is not the same as water, and you are incapable of refuting that fact. Is steam a liquid? If steam isn't a liquid then steam is not the same as water. Period.

My last sentence does make sense. There is more than one factor that goes into a gas changing into a liquid state. Steam cannot change into water if there isn't another factor (steam doesn't just reconstitute itself into water without another fact) and that factor is a part of the steam.

Anyways......what is Fel energy if it is created by burning life? Is it the charred remains created by burning life or smoke?VisionOfPerfection (talk) 21:09, 28 June 2015 (UTC)VisionOfPerfection

"Steam is not the same as water, and you are incapable of refuting that fact." You remember when I told you that your problem is that you can't accept the possibility that you could be wrong? This is what I'm talking about. First line of wikipedia's steam article reads, "Steam is water in the gas phase." I would also encourage you to check out the article on states of matter, because you seem to be woefully ignorant of how it actually works (for one thing, changing something into something else is not the same as destroying something to create something else, no matter how much you insist otherwise).

Regarding your last line, the answer is neither. Fel energy is the fire. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 21:16, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Water is not destroyed in creating steam. It's still water. The H2O molecules are still H2O. When you burn something, you are tearing the molecules apart and creating different compounds. Completely different processes. --Aquamonkeyeg (talk) 21:21, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I didn't disregard physics, you're the one suggesting that steam is liquid (after all you did state steam is the same as water), you're also suggesting that wood is the fire that fuels it. Fel energy is not the same thing as the fire that is used to burn life.

Water is destroyed/converted to create steam. You're still suggesting that steam is liquid. As I have stated, water and steam are different parts of the same whole.

Fel energy is not fire. Fel energy is created by burning life. You set life on fire = You create Fel energy. Fel energy is the result of setting life on fire, so it's either smoke or the charred remains of life.VisionOfPerfection (talk) 21:29, 28 June 2015 (UTC)VisionOfPerfection

Stop reading what you want to see, and read what I'm writing. Steam is not a liquid. Steam is the gaseous form of water. Water is the name of both the H2O molecule and its liquid state. Liquid water is not destroyed when it turns into steam. It is still H2O. Its molecular structure has not been altered in any way; the only thing that has changed are its properties. It is converted, IT IS NOT DESTROYED. Those two words mean entirely different things, and arguing otherwise is like saying that molten lead is destroyed to create solid lead, which is just absurd on the face of it.

I am also not saying that wood is fire; I am saying that fire exists by burning wood. Similarly, fel energy exists by burning (or consuming) life. The smoke and the charred remains are the waste products of the reaction that creates energy in the form of fire. The best analogy in this case would be the Blasted Lands and Hellfire Peninsula. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 21:58, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

You have stated that steam is the same thing as water and now you're stating that steam is not a liquid......

I told you already, by destroyed I mean converted. When you convert water into steam you are "changing""destroying""transforming" water's liquid form and to state otherwise is to suggest that liquid is steam (you've stated yourself that steam is not a liquid). I believe we agree on the same thing, we just don't know it. I believe that water is a form of whatever steam represents and vice-versa. Water is a form of steam, whatever steam is.

Fel energy is created by burning life, but Fel energy is not the "fire" that is used to burn life to create Fel energy. You stated that Fel energy is fire, which I took as Fel energy is the fire that is used to burn life to create Fel energy. If you've meant that Fel is the fire created when wood reaches its ignition point, then sure, Fel is fire.

Fel energy is not literally created when wood reaches its ignition point, it's created by burning life (which is different from wood). Fel is not life, Fel is not whatever burns life, it's something else. So what's the result of life burned? Ash, Smoke, Charred Remains that weren't turned into ash?VisionOfPerfection (talk) 22:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)VisionOfPerfection

Vision... Conversion and destruction are too entirely different things. As per Oxford Dictinary, the former is "the process of changing or causing something to change from one form to another", the latter is "the action or process of causing so much damage to something that it no longer exists or cannot be repaired". They are in no way synonyms, so please, stop using them as such.

And steam is indeed water, just like ice is water. Both are different states of the same substance, which is typically liquid in Earth's enviroments. Please, make some research and you will find that it is a scientific fact.

As for the "burning log analogy" mentioned earlier in this discussion:

- The log would be life (which is said to be consumed and sacrificed to create fel energy);

- Fire would be fel magic (as fire/combustion/burning is "a process in which substances combine chemically with oxygen from the air and typically give out bright light, heat, and smoke");

- Light and heat would be fel energy (as it was created from the destruction of the log)

- Smoke and ashes would be the remains of the fuel that powered the process.  Cemotucu (talk contribs) 22:40, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Converting and destroying are not different things. When you are destroying something you are breaking something down, transforming something into more than one part. When you "destroy" a log, the log is no longer a log (you put an end to the log's existence) it is changed/transformed/converted into ash, smoke, etc. And fyi, more than one analogy can be used:

"The log" would be "life".

"Fire" would be what burns "life"

""Fel energy" would be the ash/smoke created by life burned.VisionOfPerfection (talk) 22:50, 28 June 2015 (UTC)VisionOfPerfection

So if I take a vat of molten lead, and let it cool so that the lead solidifies, have I destroyed the molten lead? -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 23:02, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

In a sense, yes. You have put an end to the molten lead's "existence" as molten lead by changing it into a solidified form.VisionOfPerfection (talk) 23:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC)VisionOfPerfection

"Fire would be what burns life. Fel energy would be the ash/smoke created by life burned." This makes no sense. Ash and smoke are the useless unreacted byproducts of incomplete combustion. Fel energy is the usable energy released, i.e. the heat and light. --Aquamonkeyeg (talk) 05:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I completely agree. Besides, is it even allowed to use analogies when sourcing? Even if fel and arcane were similar as per Kosak's statement (and they aren't, as per the majority of people participating in this debate), the tweet was specifically about one thing and not the other. At best, if it had some ground, the whole thing should be put under speculation made by fans. Cemotucu (talk contribs) 14:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

@Aquamonkey, It does make sense when it comes to describing the feel/texture of the energy. Also, Druids can manipulate ash/powder as shown in canon. Fire has heat, the quality of being hot. What you're suggesting is that fel energy is heat all the while suggesting heat is used to burn life to create heat.

@Cemotucu, my analogy works perfectly fine, you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.VisionOfPerfection (talk) 15:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)VisionOfPerfection

Says the person stubbornly insisting that conversion and destruction are the same thing, and that steam is not water. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 16:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

1) Conversion is the same thing as destruction, which is why my change shouldn't have been reverted in the first place. When you are converting liquid water into a gaseous state you are "putting an end" to the liquid water's state. When you are converting life force you are changing the life force into something different. YOU are stubbornly insisting that conversion and destruction are not the same.

2) Steam is not liquid water, steam is a form of liquid water. Stop suggesting that steam is a liquid, you stated yourself that steam isn't liquid so why are you the one stubbornly reverting my changes?VisionOfPerfection (talk) 16:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)VisionOfPerfection

The lengths you are going to justify your absurd claim that conversion and destruction are the same thing, just to avoid admitting that you were wrong, are truly staggering. By any and every accurate definition of either word, they are different things, and you don't get to claim otherwise just to further your inane theories.

Destroy: "to reduce (an object) to useless fragments, a useless form, or remains, as by rending, burning, or dissolving; injure beyond repair or renewal; demolish; ruin; annihilate."

Convert: "to change (something) into a different form or properties; transmute; transform."

They. Are. Not. Synonyms. I guarantee you will never find any source, anywhere, that suggests otherwise - though I welcome you to try, if only to prove to yourself that you cannot win this one. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 17:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

The heat generated by combustion perpetuates the reaction. This is how fire works. Fires have distinct smells depending on what unreacted byproducts are created from the reaction. Perfect combustion would just create odorless CO2 and H20. Druids manipulating the near-dead fel-tainted remains is more against your point. Those deadish remains are not fel, it's the left-overs from the reaction that created the usable fel energy. And the "some measure of life" within the deadish branch is just stuff that hadn't been burned yet.

The analogies used are completely incompatible. Phase transitions maintains the essence of the material. It's still H2O. Burning completely destroys the material, breaking it apart at the fundamental level and creating something different. --Aquamonkeyeg (talk) 17:10, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

The length you are going to justify YOUR absurd claim that conversion and destruction aren't the same thing is truly staggering. You've suggested and stated that steam (a form of water, which is liquid) is the same as water (a liquid). Liquid water is not steam, the molecule of liquid water is the same molecule of steam, ergo they (liquid water and steam) are different parts of the same whole, as I've stated.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/destroy

Destroy: to put an end to; extinguish.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/convert?s=t

Convert: to change (something) into a different form

I've converted (I've changed/transformed) molten lead into a solidified form, ergo I have put an end to (I have destroyed) the molten lead's existence as molten lead. Simple. To. Understand

@Aquamonkey. Druids reviving fel-tainted remains is not more against my point. Those fel tainted are being revived by druidic magic, not fel magic. Ash can be manipulated per canon, ergo it's not a useless remain like you think it is whether you like it or not. Something can be built/created with ash.VisionOfPerfection (talk) 17:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)VisionOfPerfection

The unreacted and partially reacted byproducts can be used, but that doesn't mean it is the primary usable energy of heat and light. Fel energy is not a physical material of ash, it's the usable energy. Fel magic manipulating the leftovers doesn't mean anything about the nature of the magic itself. --Aquamonkeyeg (talk) 17:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the byproducts can be used (thanks for admitting that), but how do we know if fel energy is the "ash" created when life is burned and not whatever else is created when life is burned? (I used ash in my analogy, but heat, fire, or whatever else that can be created can be used in an analogy as well). Basically what my point is is that fel energy is whatever is created when life is destroyed. I'm fine with what's up now, but I thought substituting "destroying" with converting would be alright because when you are converting liquid water into steam, you are putting an end to liquid water's existence (I know the molecule is the same).VisionOfPerfection (talk) 17:46, 29 June 2015 (UTC)VisionOfPerfection

But you're not "putting an end to liquid water's existence," you are merely changing it into a gas. It still exists, in exactly the same form, just with different properties - and if the environment changes, it will revert to a liquid once more. In absolutely no sense of the word has it been destroyed, any more than a crowd of people can be considered destroyed when they disperse. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 18:10, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

But you are putting an end to liquid water's existence. You're not changing the liquid water's molecule, you're changing liquid water's state. I understand that the molecule is the same but do you understand that you are changing liquid water's state? Clearly not.

You are destroying (putting an end to) liquid water's state when you are converting (changing/transforming) liquid water's state.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/end

End: the point at which something no longer continues to happen or exist

When liquid water is converted into steam, does the liquid water still exist or is it now steam? If the liquid water is now steam then yes, liquid water was destroyed. The liquid water's existence as liquid water has ended and is now steam.

It does make sense, you're just being too hard headed.VisionOfPerfection (talk) 18:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC)VisionOfPerfection

Point

What exactly was the point of reverting my change? O_OVisionOfPerfection (talk) 00:48, 27 October 2015 (UTC)VisionOfPerfection

Because Wowpedia is not your personal platform to justify your grand theory of how magic works. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 16:39, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Your reason why you reverted my change is hollow. I cited sources and I made the change to clean the page up, not to use WoWpedia as a platform to justify any "grand theory" of how magic works. And you shouldn't claim that I'm using WoWpedia as a platform to justify any theory, period. YOU'RE the one who claimed fel is fire despite fel being stated by Loreology to be created by burning life. I genuinely believe that you don't understand that if fel is created by burning life then fel is not the same as fire. You're telling me WoWpedia isn't a personal platform to justify theories? So why did you state fel is fire without presenting a canon source to back you up? Seems like fel being fire is a theory to me, but hey, you're an admin and thus supreme. I guess it's okay for you to post theories on WoWpedia even though it's not okay for others to do so.VisionOfPerfection (talk) 19:16, 1 November 2015 (UTC)VisionOfPerfection

Not only does it seem like you're practicing hypocrisy, it seems like you do not like me and are reverting my changes for the heck of it. What you need to understand is that you're ultimately responsible for my attitude. If liars, hypocrites, and people who make self-defeating statements didn't suggest/state warlocks aren't necromancers I wouldn't be so adamant about proving people wrong. In fact, I wouldn't be as rude and insulting as I am now.VisionOfPerfection (talk) 19:33, 1 November 2015 (UTC)VisionOfPerfection