The RPG says that quillboar women do ritualistic suicide after they can't bear children. Since in RL elderly women can't bear children by natural means, if that law applies to WoW, shouldn't she have killed. Or possibly, does this law only pertain to non leader quillies? Mr.X8 Talk Contribs 03:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Maybe she uses healing magic to maintain her fertility? Seankreynolds 17:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Anything from the tabletop RPG books (such as the entire culture section on the quilboar page) is unofficial unless it's been confirmed in-game. As such, it should be taken with a grain of salt.
Farseer Lolotea ● contrib 13:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- Uh, since when? I'm pretty sure that all RPG material is treated as official unless something in-game contradicts it. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 18:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- And even then most times the RPG are a better source than whats seen in-game. User:Coobra/Sig3 21:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Ahem, Warcraft_RPG#Official_source_of_lore, the compiled quotes on the issue. Besides the rpg doesn't state that ritual suicide is always carried out. It just says quilboar in general have ritual suicide instead of dieing of old age if they become feeble. It also says "almost always" for the child bearing suicide issue, almost always, means "not always". Thus exceptions are allowed. Plus its mentioned the possibility for masculine females that are considered males in the society (& marry other females). They aren't forced to commit suicide for not having children.Baggins (talk) 21:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- Quilboar spellcasters all seem to be female (they use the same model as Charlga). None of them appear to have their heads, faces, or quills covered, and at least some of them appear to be armed.
All of these details directly contradict the tabletop RPG (which states that female quilboar, unless declared "legally" male, are required to wear veils and forbidden from touching weapons, and that most shaman are male).
Farseer Lolotea ● contrib 02:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
All that means is quilboar seen in the game might be the ones considered "males" by their society, ;) <said sarcasticly>...or its a gameplay contrivence (the game isn't really known for individualizing models and there is alot of reusing and place-holding). Actually the game doesn't really go into much detail about quilboar at all. That being said, yes not everything in the games, books, novels, rpg, comics, manga, etc are always consistent. Even the games aren't always consistent with themselves...and yes it is possible for any source to retcon another source. Though back to your original claim, the discussion at this link is related.
Many people seems to think the RPG book are a part of warcraft lore, but those book were written by author that had almost nothing to do with bliz, sure they based their books on warcraft but it still just their point of view on warcraft, it has nothing to do with the lore we see in the game. If its not in W1, W2, W3, WoW or the game manual its just not in warcraft lore. The books like «lord of the clan» can be considered like a small part of warcraft lore since even if its not bliz who written those they had the last word on the publication and they gived to the author the basic scenario. But stop telling us part of the RPG books when you want to argue with someone, thats useless because the warcraft RPG books are not a part of warcraft lore.-Giantorc, Joe/Jane Fan
Any piece of literature authorized and licensed by Blizzard Entertainment is in-fact, official. The book series written by Richard A. Knaak in particular is an excellent example of real 'Azerothian' history and lore available outside of our game software. We work closely with authors that help us expand our game universe, and the information should be considered official. I'm very sorry but your assumptions are not correct.-Eyonix, Blizzard employeeOne final note in the RPG not all females are forced to cover themselves or forced to child bearing only. It mentions that females can prove themselves to gain respect in their society and better positions. Baggins (talk) 02:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC) Baggins said all that was really needed to be said but i wanted to add on regardless. Contradictions exists often between sources, sometimes more strongly than others, but in the case of a contradiction why assume the MMO is correct and the RPG incorrect? In many cases the rpg can be far more reliable due to the limitations the MMO has yet it lacks. But which source is ultimetly correct? (assuming both aren't) We don't know, we don't judge, we don't assume. We try and remain neutral and present all official sanctioned lore, which the rpg section on quilboard culture falls under. 03:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)