Thrall should be exiled after SoO

[Florena]

While I don't think Thrall should become Warchief again, saying he should be exiled is just silly. While the Alliance SHOULD demand something and get something out of this other than killing Garrosh and handing Orgrimmar back to the Horde, it would just be silly to have them demand Thrall's exile, especially considering what he's done in Cata. Saving the world outweighs putting a bad orc in charge of the Horde.

More realistic demands could include having Forsaken pull out of Gilneas, horde forces pulling out of Ashenvale and staying out, handing over Thelon Songweaver etc. I could even see the Alliance demand Sylvannas' head on a platter though they'd never get it. But I see no reason for them to demand thrall be exiled.

[Justignoreme]

Thrall is trying to atone for putting Garrosh in charge (See Echo Isles) and I'm sure he will play a part in SoO. Exiling him, or even blaming him is a little over the top. There was no way of knowing that Garrosh would do what he did.

He's accepting responsibility for it entirely, even when it's not his fault. Something people seem to miss. Sadly the writers are going to piss away any positive development within the Alliance and pull outrageous terms like the Treaty of Versailles, to keep the "war going" and appease the nitwits. Rather than dissolve the factions and have things become truly a free world to move within as adventurers should, even if say, guards in SW and guards in Orgrimmar would be hostile towards each other (should they ever be in vicinity).

[Aquamonkey]

More realistic demands could include having Forsaken pull out of Gilneas, horde forces pulling out of Ashenvale and staying out, handing over Thelon Songweaver etc. I could even see the Alliance demand Sylvannas' head on a platter though they'd never get it. But I see no reason for them to demand thrall be exiled.

Pulling the Forsaken out of Gilneas would be fine. The Forsaken didn't want to go there anyway. Pulling Horde forces out of Ashenvale would mean starvation and the collapse of Orgrimmar.

[Justignoreme]

More realistic demands could include having Forsaken pull out of Gilneas, horde forces pulling out of Ashenvale and staying out, handing over Thelon Songweaver etc. I could even see the Alliance demand Sylvannas' head on a platter though they'd never get it. But I see no reason for them to demand thrall be exiled.

Can't speak for EK but, with respect to Ashenvale, if the Alliance isn't taking Ashenvale fully (including fortifications) and Azshara as territory to spring into Orgrimmar then a huge chunk of the story will not make crap for sense. Seeing as how it's a Night Elf story though I won't expect anything to be done about it

---------- Post added 2013-02-23 at 01:47 AM ----------

Pulling the Forsaken out of Gilneas would be fine. The Forsaken didn't want to go there anyway. Pulling Horde forces out of Ashenvale would mean starvation and the collapse of Orgrimmar.

Not necessarily. Ashenvale was never Horde land to begin with.

[Lighto73]

He's accepting responsibility for it entirely, even when it's not his fault. Something people seem to miss. Sadly the writers are going to piss away any positive development within the Alliance and pull outrageous terms like the Treaty of Versailles, to keep the "war going" and appease the nitwits. Rather than dissolve the factions and have things become truly a free world to move within as adventurers should, even if say, guards in SW and guards in Orgrimmar would be hostile towards each other (should they ever be in vicinity).

If the rumors are true, and we are going to see a Burning Legion expansion, then I can see their being at least an unsteady peace (Back to Pre-Wrathgate levels). There will still be skirmishes, but not like Cata and MoP have seen.

If they go with another expansion, South Seas or something, then I could see them extending the war into that and waiting for a Legion expansion to mostly end the war.

[Justignoreme]

If the rumors are true, and we are going to see a Burning Legion expansion, then I can see their being at least an unsteady peace (Back to Pre-Wrathgate levels). There will still be skirmishes, but not like Cata and MoP have seen.

If they go with another expansion, South Seas or something, then I could see them extending the war into that and waiting for a Legion expansion to mostly end the war.

Ya, I think there needs to be a "road to unity" expansion before taking on any big bad again.

[TheDangerZone]

Hells Noooope. Garrosh had unbridled potential to be a great leader, that's why Thrall chose him as his successor. Garrosh was admired by the people and even now, many are still utmost loyal to him. That Garrosh turned out to be a twat is not Thrall's fault.

[Deleted]

Hells Noooope. Garrosh had unbridled potential to be a great leader, that's why Thrall chose him as his successor. Garrosh was admired by the people and even now, many are still utmost loyal to him. That Garrosh turned out to be a twat is not Thrall's fault.

Of course it's not. It's Garrosh's stupid pride that's turned things to the point where they are.

[Justignoreme]

Of course it's not. It's Garrosh's stupid pride that's turned things to the point where they are.

Not merely pride. Hatred and his supremacist attitude.

[Florena]

Not merely pride. Hatred and his supremacist attitude.

Pride I think is the root of Garrosh's problems. Not just pride in himself, but in the orcs. He believes the orcs deserve better, ARE better. He could have made a good leader of orcs, but he fails as a leader of the Horde because at the end of the day, he only truly values the orcs. The other races of the hordes are there as tools in his point of view. There's an exchange between him and Thrall in the Shattering that highlights this, where he states he believes the orcs are the 'core' of the Horde.

Garrosh had the potential to be a good warchief. But he's failed, and his failures are of his own making not Thralls. Sure, Thrall bears some indirect responsibility for putting him in the position, but Garrosh's sins are his own, and Thrall doesn't need to be executed or exiled to make up for this.

[huth]

What, exactly, would exiling Thrall accomplish at this point? Yes, he made some stupid choices. But he already knows that and the results of these choices are bad enough punishment for the most part.

Exiling him would neither help fix the situation in any way nor would it be "just" punishment. Same goes for execution. There's nothing to be gained from Thrall dying except for forces which work against both Horde and Alliance.

[kage]

Where IS Thrall? I'm kind of out of touch with lore that's not immediately happening within the game these days.

I think once you get involved with the Isles liberation it ends with him mulling over the best solution on dealing with Garrosh's idea of 'leadership'.

[Redmage]

yeah, his self insert marty stu is never gonna have anything bad happen to him.

Shows what you know about mary sues / mary stues. They usually die at the end of their story, much to the woe of their many survivors who grieve and praise their awesomeness.

Seriously people need to stop throwing around this term, it doesn't mean what they think it does.

[TheDangerZone]

Shows what you know about mary sues / mary stues. They usually die at the end of their story, much to the woe of their many survivors who grieve and praise their awesomeness.

Seriously people need to stop throwing around this term, it doesn't mean what they think it does.

Dude, the term has evolved. Deal with it.

[slackjawsix]

exiling him for someone elses mistakes? and was it really a bad choice at the time? saurfang was hurting from his sons loss, no orc would take another race as leader at the time, so who else could lead that would be able to take command in an instant during the time of the cataclysm? i mean there are a few but Garrosh looked best at the time

[Loaf Lord]

Dude, the term has evolved. Deal with it.

To any character in the story they don't like? It sure has.

[GennGreymane]

i know the alliance should impose some demands on the horde for helping against garrosh in GoO

but i know they wont let the alliance do it, the writers would never give the alliance a back bone

[Deleted]

This is funny, because Blizzard was FORCED to create siege of orgrimmar for alliance kids, so they can stop crying. And now they want demands, like they won't be there just for the help with garrosh.

[TheDangerZone]

To any character in the story they don't like? It sure has.

Now that is just resentful. Just look it up on TV tropes.

[Eats Compost]

You know Muradin saw what Arthas was becoming, and now he's leader of the dwarves. Why then is he not exiled? Oh, doesn't he feel guilt for not doing anything to stop Arthas? Well that must make it alright then.

As soon as Muradin realized that Frostmourne was a cursed blade, he tried to stop Arthas. You've got to look at this from the perspective of meta-knowledge. No-one knew what Frostmourne was, and no-one even had a decent idea of what the Lich King was at that stage. As soon as Muradin actually did find that Frostmourne was a cursed weapon - as well as seeing Arthas' change in attitude - he tried to ward Arthas away from finding Frostmourne and Mal'ganis. What did you expect him to do in the context of the situation, exactly? I don't think that Muradin is at fault in any specific action he did or didn't take.