Talk:Lightbound

How is Argus PTR "Yrelka" renamed to Commander and left unused a "hint" that AU Yrel would be back in BfA? Also, it is mentioned on the Yrel page, where it should be given the names. It doesn't need to be here as it gives exactly nothing to the Lightbound. --Mordecay (talk) 13:59, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Dunno, it just seems relevant to me ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Xporc (talk) 14:31, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Lightforged draenei make no sense ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ especially because they don't exist in ALTERNATE UNIVERSE DRAENOR ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ — SurafbrovWarcraft Wiki administrator T / C 03:11, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ It seems they do. --Mordecay (talk) 10:03, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Nope. Wait for release. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ — SurafbrovWarcraft Wiki administrator T / C 18:36, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

There is no need to keep this argument going with the information we have. I believe the current page is a good compromise. Xporc (talk) 18:45, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Yes, it seems. I had already said I would wait. --Mordecay (talk) 19:01, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Nope. — SurafbrovWarcraft Wiki administrator T / C 20:00, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Basing an article off datamined info

Dark beat me to it, but we're going to lock the article from editing for a month or until the scenario is playable. We don't need to be expending effort fighting over an early pass at a scenario. --k_d³ 21:00, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. — SurafbrovWarcraft Wiki administrator T / C 21:37, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Lightbound Anduin comic con figure

https://twitter.com/ChristieGolden/status/1020737550233743360 - Probably nothing but I though I should mention it. Mrforesttroll (talk) 11:42, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

She clarified that it had absolutely nothing to do with the Lightbound or Lightforged, and was just a cool sounding "holy/light-y" name. Don't think it'd make much sense to mention it here since they are thus completely unrelated and would at best create confusion or mislead than anything. -- MyMindWontQuiet 13:14, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Given the names, I wouldn't mind having a mention of it in the note section, but the wording would have to make it clear that there is no "hinting" and relation between the two. --Mordecay (talk) 13:39, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Edit war

To stop this edit war, let's put here what everyone thinks and we'll see were it leads. --Ryon21 (talk) 18:17, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Is Lightbound the real name of the group?

As I seen today alot back and forth edits ovet this I would like to each side to set her why they think this way or other way and make it a discussion. (Yuvalal (talk) 17:35, 24 May 2020 (UTC))

I do not think that is the real name of the group, it's just the name used because we're not given any other (and also because the writing relating to this scenario seems biased, but that's a topic for another thread). The name is first clarified by Overlord Geya'rah in the quest "Bonds Forged through Battle" of the Mag'har recruitment scenario. In it she says, quote; "Some orcs even sided with the draenei against their own kin... even the warchief's own son was lost! We call these traitors Lightbound." Also, given Geya'rah's tone and the Mag'har being on the opposing side, it's likely the name Lightbound is a pejorative term. (Snaptap (talk) 04:10, 25 May 2020 (EST))

It could be , but for now it is the only name we have pluse the title of Yrel is "High Exarch of the Lightbound". Again all can be form point of view just as the chronicles are from Titans point of view. we could say void lords are not the real name of void lords but it is what was given to us to use for now untill prove otherwise. (Yuvalal (talk) 19:20, 24 May 2020 (UTC))

1) "We call these traitors Lightbound" does not mean that the word is exclusive to the orcs. If a human told an alien something like "we call these green-skinned people 'orcs' ", it wouldn't mean that only humans call them orcs. Orcs also call themselves orcs.

2) Yrel's own title, which is used outside of the context of the orcs, meaning it's not an orc calling her that, is "Exarch of the Lightbound".

The term "Lightbound" is therefore not exclusive to the Mag'har orcs. -- — MyMindWontQuiet 20:11, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

To play devil's advocate for a moment: where is Yrel called "Exarch of the Lightbound"? As far as I can tell, her NPC name during the questline is High Exarch Yrel while her title is <Voice of the Naaru>. -- DeludedTroll (talk • contribs) 23:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

After checking quests, items, and wowhead, I only found a wowhead article which is their summary, and they call her High Exarch of the Lightbound. However, in canon sources, "(High) Exarch of the Lightbound" hasn't been used, but only "High Exarch" is. It seems to me that it was just a logical assumption to put it together, but I'm not sure if it should have been done. -- Mordecay (talk) 23:13, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I swear I saw it somewhere, in a screenshot or a video. I'll try to see what I can find. --Ryon21 (talk) 23:15, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I take it back. No idea if I saw this in the end, but it seems even the datamines already had the "Voice of the Naaru" as her title. So the "High Exarch of the Lighbound" might've never existed. --Ryon21 (talk) 23:24, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

And a pro about the name is the  [Sermon of the High Exarch], which seems to refer that the Lightbound, as a faction, are the Au Army of the Light. --Ryon21 (talk) 23:43, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

While it is very likely they are the Au Army of the Light, this does not prove that Lightbound is their actual name. In light of all this information and Yrel never canonically using the "High Exarch of the Lightbound" title, I suggest the point of speculation about the faction's name get re-added to the main page, what say you all? (Snaptap (talk) 13:03, 25 May 2020 (EST))

So where are we now? All interaction with the Lightbound are seen from the Horde-player perspective right? Even if we do not see any of them call themselves "Lightbound", do we have anything to contradict that name? PeterWind (talk) 11:49, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion, I think the question and speculation of whether or not their actual name is Lightbound should be re-added to the main page. The Sermon of the High Exarch has Yrel refer to her group as the Army of the Light, which looks like proof that they do not call themselves Lightbound. On that point, can we re-add that point of speculation about the group's name, as there's definitely been some speculating about it. (Snaptap (talk) 13:24, 26 May 2020 (EST))

I won't personally remove it if it's re-added Xporc (talk) 07:29, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Openly discussing the motivation of the Lightbound

As there has been debate about whether to point out in the text that the Lightbound have legitimate grievances with the Mag'har, which unfortunately led to a minor edit war, I ask here that the following text be added under the main page category "Speculation", as this subject has been discussed in the fanbase. The grievances have also been acknowledged by the users here, with the debate seeming to be about whether or not this should be stated in the page text. What I want to submit is as follows under the sub-heading "Fanaticism, Retribution or both?";

"While the Lightbound are devoted to spreading order and the Light willingly or otherwise, they also have legitimate grievances with the Mag'har. This has led some fans to speculate whether the Lightbound are motivated instead - or also - by seeking justice or revenge for the suffering many of its members endured in the past from the Mag'har, especially the Iron Horde. This is most prominent with the draenei, including Yrel herself being a former Iron Horde slave whose older sister Samaara was killed by Ner'zhul for his plans to help the Iron Horde , while the Stonemaul clan were merely seeking revenge for their subjugation by the Mag'har. In addition, there are large gaps in information about the events on Draenor between the end of the Iron Horde and the Mag'har recruitment scenario, as there's a time skip of several decades and most of the information comes from Geya'rah, who only recounts the events in broad strokes. The credibility of Geya'rah's recount is called into question by her omission of certain events (notably, Geya'rah makes no mention of the Iron Horde or its actions) and the fact that it's all but stated the Mag'har are on the losing side of the conflict."

I would like to hear each side state why this should or should not be added, or any amendments if it should be added. It is my view that this should be added because the scenario leaves out lots of information on what, in-game, is decades worth of events, the situation is not as cut-and-dry as "Mag'har good, Lightbound/Light bad" given their histories and actions and other pages on Wowpedia talk about the various perspectives on other controversial characters (such as Sylvanas, Inquisitor Whitemane and Xe'ra) and groups (such as D.E.H.T.A and the Scarlet Crusade). Thoughts? (Snaptap (talk) 04:23, 25 May 2020 (EST))

The thing is (and correct me if I'm wrong) they don't mention anything about the Iron Horde whatsoever. And I also mean Yrel and company by this. There's no "We are attacking you orcs for what you did to us in the past!". It's more as if the conflict has to do with the Light, converting everyone in Draenor, and the planet's deteriorating state. No more, no less. Also a side note, at least 20 or more years have to have past since Geya'rah is a grown up orc who wasn't yet born in WoD, and Grom is an old man. What I mean is that the Lightbound are being the aggressors in this case, and I don't see they do it for vengeance. Especially after having coexisted with the orcs peacefully after the fall of the Legion. Hell, even Yrel and Grom seem to treat each other with respect in the last quest. I'll be honest and say that I don't think the Lightbound are bad per se, but instead the naaru are brainwashing them too. I think it is clear that Blizzard wanted us to see a negative side of the Light with this story. In the future we'll see how it goes (if they ever decide to bring the Lightbound back), but at this moment I don't see any legitimated grievance referenced anywhere. Another side note, Geya'rah is the daughter of Durotan, who never sided with the Iron Horde and also suffered under them. So not only the draenei suffered under the IH. --Ryon21 (talk) 19:40, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

The fact that they don't mention the Iron Horde proves my point, as does the fact that at least 20 years passed in universe between the end of the Iron Horde and this scenario; you think no Draenei sought reparations during that time? For this to be a conflict about the Light and Draenor's deteriorating state, we have to deliberately ignore the past history with the Iron Horde and let Blizzard sweep it under the rug (something I strongly suspect they're trying to do, which your words only reinforces to me). I think this is poor writing and attempting to push an agenda. I think for this "Light's bad side" angle to work, we have to pretend the previous lore doesn't exist because the devs want us to think or feel certain things. This is not Blizzard's first time retconning the lore to support or vilify something of their choice (eg; Illidan's backstory) or changing the story due to fan complains (eg; the arcs for Jaina, Sylvanas, Xe'ra, Tyrande, Varian, Rommath...). Correct me if I'm wrong, the only evidence for peaceful co-existence between the Mag'har and Draenei after dealing with the Burning Legion remnants is the account from Geya'rah. While Geya'rah has a reason to hate the Lightbound, I consider the credibility of her account of events questionable since she doesn't mention the Iron Horde (something she should know about since Grom is there and she interacted with Durotan before his death - Durotan having fought against Grommash) and seems to have a genocidal hatred of the Draenei clouding her perspective (Geya'rah quotes from when she's on Azeroth: "There are draenei on this world? <Geya'rah narrows her eyes.> Not for long." and "The Alliance embraces the draenei and their Lightforged kin. That alone is reason to crush their cities to dust.") (Snaptap (talk) 12:41, 25 May 2020 (EST))

something being poor writing isn't a reason for us to come up with our own explanations, imo. if blizz wants to push an agenda, it's not our place to push back. we're just here to chronicle official information as best we can.

of course, sometimes that information contradicts itself and we have to try and reconcile it, but in this case, it sounds like the only official account we have is that the orcs and the draenei lived peacefully for a time. maybe we could phrase some things as "Geya'rah said [...]," but unless/until we get a contradicting account, speculating that it's all an elaborate lie seems... a bit much. i think it's more reasonable to assume that blizz just forgot to mention those things, or decided they wanted to tell a different story and didn't consider previous events important for that. WoD's story was already pretty bad about forgetting previous events (e.g. whitewashing grom into a good guy), but it is what it is. —Eithris (talk) 03:30, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I misspoke if I gave the impression I was accusing Blizzard of an elaborate lie. The worst case scenario I think could have happened is Blizzard wanted to tell a particular story that disregarded or contradicted previous relevant lore and hoped fans wouldn't notice (I'm not saying that's what happened, I'm saying that's my most aggressive theory). I don't know what happened at the meta level, it could've been forgetfulness or deliberate omission. On a personal note, I agree with you completely about whitewashing Grom being a bad part of the story, and think this Lightbound business is part of that whitewashing (and an attempt to blacken the Light and the Draenei, which I also consider bad - at the very least poorly written - parts of the story); in that scenario, despite the wrongness on the Lightbound's part, I was rooting for Yrel in the final confrontation between her and Grom and would consider her killing him justice (there's no canon evidence of Grom suffering any punishment or showed any remorse or atonement for the Iron Horde). Back to the relevant topic, is there anything I've written that could be added somewhere on the main page? We even have quotes from the Lightbound Draenei and Orc NPCs saying things such as "You've doomed this world" and "We've come to save you from your savagery"; quite different from the Burning Legion's "I'll enjoy your suffering/you will die/we are mighty/you can't stop us" type unit quotes and nicer than the Twilight Cults "Your mind will break/All will serve/'X' cannot save you" type quotes. (Snaptap (talk) 16:55, 25 May 2020 (EST))

The very fact that there are different opinions about this right here is evidence enough that this is subjective and should be left to the reader's interpretation. Again, it is not our job to interpret things.

Grommash says the Light doomed the planet. Yrel says the orcs doomed the planet. That's all we know, and all we should be stating. People can choose to believe which of them is the "bad guy".

And, as a general rule, when an entire section on a page has little to nothing to do with the subject itself, like how 90% of this section talks about others things than the Lightbound, then it should likely not be there at all. -- — MyMindWontQuiet 10:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

The thing that you're missing is that it's not the Wiki's job to clarify who's the good guy or who's the bad guy. This is up to the reader's interpretation of the facts that we are presenting. This is why this section is not welcome. It's defending them, and trying to justify their actions, which we don't do. You won't find a whole section saying "The Scarlets do have a point though" on the Scarlet Crusade page.

It reads like a personal opinion on the scenario, and 90% of it is not even about the Lightbound but about other events in the lore where the situation wasn't black and white. Even though I personally agree with the content. -- — MyMindWontQuiet 20:11, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

While you have a good point, even the Scarlet Crusade page concedes there are those among the Alliance who agree with their goal if not their methods (as seen here https://wow.gamepedia.com/Scarlet_Crusade#Relations). Also, the Wiki does point out some bad guys when it's obivous that they are, (such as the Burning Legion). The problem is Blizzard has deliberately given a vauge and incomplete account of the event and appears to also be side-stepping relevant lore to push a particular story angle. I was not trying to justify when they force the Light on the unwilling, I was saying there is more to the story and the Lightbound are not cut-and-dry one dimensional villains since there is more to them and the story, the Mag'har are not all innocent victims (chief among them alt-Grommash) and there are parts of the it the writers seem to be trying to sidestep. (Snaptap (talk) 12:54, 25 May 2020 (EST))

TBH the Scarlet Crusade relation part is unsourced, subjective and we generally refrain from doing those anymore. Xporc (talk) 08:16, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

As Xporc says, this section is also controversial and should probably be removed or reworded.

But pointing out that others agree with the Scarlet Crusade is not a problem in itself, since this is just recounting a fact.

Writing a piece defending the faction though, that's personal and should be left to the readers. -- — MyMindWontQuiet 10:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

True. There's a diference between noting when in-universe persons or groups agree with another faction, and then adding ones own arguments, reasonable as they may be. PeterWind (talk) 11:49, 25 May 2020 (UTC)