What is the plural for blaze

What's wrong with "blazes"? Of course if you make a new name for a fictional monster, you get to decide what the plural is for the word you just invented.

But if you look in any dictionary, the plural of "blaze" (i.e. lots of fire) is "blazes".

Asking for a set rule that works for all English words is folly. The English language is notorious for not conforming to rules.

Blazes was my assumption also, and you are right that some English rules change, as well as the point that the creator of the word has the right to decide the method to pluralize the word which is why I mentioned it in the post. The reason I ask for a rule is for the possibility that there might be one (or even a general rule of thumb), that went unnoticed in my research. If anyone else has any opinion or disagreement I'd be glad to hear it as I want to remain open-minded to any possible strong argument to the contrary.
**One point of note, the argument for using the homonym blaze (the fire) is unacceptable. Some words are pluralized differently dependant upon their usage.

Sure... but this is a made up usage. You aren't going to find rule (outside of the people who made up the word).

I like the idea that is is like "fish"; one blaze, two blaze... but then again, I didn't make it up.

The problem with fish is the construction of the word. Blaze very specifically has one vowel in the last syllable. Secondly, the ending is e so the last syllable is in the 'long sound' construct. Fish doesn't comply with some of the rules the same way the made-up word 'blaze' does. The key is basically to follow the English pattern for how we develop words according to precedent.
So a more acceptable example is rake. When the whole family are going to pick up leaves in the yard one person brings out all the rakes. Rake is not a personal name, single vowel in the last syllable, e ending which makes a long sound for the last syllable, etc.

I think you are too stuck on the idea that English follows rules.

What about one moose, two moose?

I sometimes resort to common experssions when examples are common. i.e.:
'What the blazes' are you talking about?

Moose does not follow the construct of blaze. Moose has two vowels in the last syllable. I can see that your responses haven't been acknowledging English precedents and established rule-sets. It seems you think that just because there are a few exceptions that therefore everything is a gray area. So if you don't mind, I'd like to hear what other people think about this as well.

Yes, that is one example that I thought of but was unsure if it would be related to this. I agree with you that this gives more support to the s ending.

According to your rule, it is "blazes". What else could it be then?

If you are so set on this rule, then what is the question? According to your rules is there even another option?

I also like "one blaze, two bleeze" but I doubt that you will accept it. Maybe "one blaze, two blazen"?

Or maybe "Blaze" is already a plural like ".... two data" or ".... two agenda".

Correct, there are acceptable other forms, for example; octopus is octopi, or goose is geese. But since the creator of this word in Minecraft hasn't officially said there is one, we cannot assume what the word would be.
The original question is whether the plural for the word blaze would be 'blaze' or 'blazes'. I wanted to know according to normal and typical English construction, what would be the more appropriate. I suggest the latter.

I don't care.