Oh they're definitely cliché. But to be fair, Warcraft has
always been a pretty cliché fantasy universe. Orcs, Elves, Dwarves etc. But cliché doesn't necessarily mean bad
Of course, Blizzard didn't reinvent everything. In the books, I'd say clichés are more in the writing style, in some choices authors made. Like this romance thing between Rhonin and Vereesa: I don't really mind them having a romance (it can even be a nice addition to the lore, like Tyrande and Malfurion), it's just the way R. A. Knaak did it: if I remember right, first they hate each other, always arguing, and finally they end up together. This is so typical!
I find it interesting that you got that impression from LotC. I thought it did a pretty good job of showing that not all Humans were assholes, with characters like Taretha, Sergeant, Tammis etc. Even some of the Orcs were depicted as equally cruel, as seen when Thrall calls them out on slaughtering innocent Humans, and when the Warsongs wants him to kill a Human child. It painted the two races in a very morally grey light, which I like. Besides, I don't think it's a stretch that most Humans will harbor immense animosity towards Orcs, when you consider what they put them through.
You must be right on this one. I'll read the book again some day! And I'll play again
OutsiderXE's LoC campaign, which is absolutly fabulous (just like his DoD and TLG campaigns, too)! I must have been left with that impression because of Blackmoore, who is so cruel and despicable he made me forget about the rest! Maybe there was a bit too much exaggeration about that character? (although I liked the fact that Blackmoore was pictured as an alcoholic dude, something that helped him find courage in battle, and that explains maybe his behaviour. This is probably the only thing that gives him a little bit of humanity

)
The two moons thing is just a fantasy thing, to make it stand out from our world. Just because the previous games didn't mention it doesn't mean that it contradicts anything

Sometimes the games introduce lore, sometimes the books do.
Admittedly, if the games don't mention it, it doesn't contradict anything, but it's a liberty the author takes for some reason, allowing himself to "reshape" the world to his will, and I wasn't very comfortable with it when I read it, even though it's just a detail. Besides, the games themselves sort of retconned this, since Elune was introduced as the goddess of the moon and there are priestesses of the moon, not the moons

And in WoW, only one moon shines in the sky. So what was the point of making that up? I understand the author wanted it to be a fantasy thing, but it wasn't necessary. I know I'm being picky again, but that's the kind of thing that makes me have a general bad feeling about the books.
Edit: I just found out that there
is in fact two moons.

Blizzard introduced the second moon in-game in Mists of Pandaria (I stopped WoW during Cataclysm!)
All these things are not necessarily bad per se, it's just me who is quite difficult!
Actually, I think you put your finger right on the very thing that bothers me: the fact that sometimes the games introduce lore, sometimes the books do. It's hard to explain why, but I'm uncomfortable with that idea.

One of the reason is that I feel that the books and the games don't look alike, don't share the same atmosphere (to my opinion), therefore I don't like when a book impose too much on the universe. Another reason would be for practical reasons: first time I played Warcraft 3 (ages ago!), I hadn't read LoC, so I didn't understand everything about Thrall and Orcs, and I could hardly see the link between Warcraft 2 and Warcraft 3. It took me a while before I put things together and understod everything (and later I finally read the book!). It was my fault of course, I should have read the books before, but I didn't know they existed by then - young I was, and it was a time where the internet wasn't developed as it is now!
The same happened to me when I first played the expansion Cataclysm in WoW: almost nothing in the game explained why Magni Bronzebeard was petrified, why Southshore and Taurajo were destroyed, etc. You had to read the books/comics. As I said, lore had stopped being my first concern at that time, but still, I thought it was a shame for players.
I like the shaman thing. It makes them different from regular mages and warlocks. Also I don't think you should let gameplay dictate the lore, but this is just my opinion.
Gameplay should not dictate the lore indeed: this is what made WoW so bad lore-wise. Lore was twisted so much to fit gameplay, in the end you wonder if you're still in the same universe. I just found this shaman thing a bit weird, a bit exaggerated perhaps. Again it's just a general feeling I get, so... It's a matter of personal taste, I guess.
I had never considered reading the books in English (sadly, in France, books are always translated), but if I can lay hands on an English version, I might try it out (couldn't hurt to get some practice in English, too!)
You never touch the other Elves like that!
Well done, I think none expected her showing up like this

Will she have her face painted?