Do you think Thrall should die in 5.3/5.4 to give the horde a high level incentive to fight against garrosh?
I think Thrall should not die, but return to the horde lead at the end of the expansion.
Do you think Thrall should die in 5.3/5.4 to give the horde a high level incentive to fight against garrosh?
I think Thrall should not die, but return to the horde lead at the end of the expansion.
I think the Mary Sue that is Thrall needs to die. I didn't like him in WC3, I didn't like him before Cata, I hated him for being a super hero in Cata... He needs to go.
Option 3: He should not die, but live his life normal with his family, away from war and political conflict.
I'd suggest death but not just to rally the orcs, but because it's better for the overall story not to be so focused on one guy, plus it lets the Orcs grow and show they don't need him to babysit them forever to keep them from turning evil.
Twas brillig
As much as it could be awesome to see what would happen if he died, I'd rather have him around, I like Thrall.
He should not die but should not be warchief again!
Voted no, but not for the reason stated. In my opinion Thrall is a type of character that shouldn't die, he's to likeable for that. I don't mind him beeing involved in 5.3 and 5.4 seeing as he is responsible for Garrosh, but after that I want to see him retire and let Vol'jin, Baine, Saurfang and the rest of the horde leaders sort their stuff out for themselves.
it would have to be a well written kill off and not just "oh thrall took an arrow to the knee" kind of moment.
some heroic sacrifice like grom did would be nice but overall its not really required
I'm torn on this issue. I like Thrall, but it would be impressive story-telling on Blizzard's part and very tragic. Thrall wished to know his parents and now his son will never know his father. Ugh... difficult.
I hate, hate, HATE people who abuse the term "mary sue". You either don't like the character or don't like the way that everybody ELSE liked the chracter and hipster retribute is a testiment of your opinion and that's fine. But he is not a Mary Sue. By definition, a Mary Sue is an original character inserted into a fan fiction for an existing universe that has powers and exhibits feats that do not mesh well with the nature of that universe and typically they romance a lead, known character of that universe. Thrall IS the main character of the Warcraft Universe and you're essentially saying that Captain Kirk is a Mary Sue or that Harry Potter is a Mary Sue. It's a fanboy (or anti-fanboy) bandwagon put down that weakens your argument and opinion.
Thrall represents the struggles we all face within that world. He's portrayed as an empathic, balanced character within the universe. When Thrall became the Champion of the Aspects in Cataclysm it wasn't Thrall becoming a God; he represented the mortal races and their ascension to guardians of Azeroth. Utlimately, all Thrall has ever been is a single character trying to survive and trying to do his best. Killing him off now would be a cheap move to either sate people who don't appreciate good story telling or a weak attempt to incite anger towards Garrosh.
Personally, I want to see him humbled and ass-kicked in Orgrimmar for sure. Downplay some of that god aura people have stuck him with and deflate some of their irrational bandwagon hatred. I then want Nazgrim, the every-man Orc, to finally be forced to ask himself what is right and where his loyalties lay. I want him to free Thrall and be executed by Garrosh for doing so. This will do much more to outrage even many Garrosh loyalists because Nazgrim, even more than Thrall, is the War Hero of the Orcs. Maybe not the top dog but certainly a recurring key player.
Last edited by LilSaihah; 2013-03-28 at 12:46 AM.
If you are particularly bold, you could use a Shiny Ditto. Do keep in mind though, this will infuriate your opponents due to Ditto's beauty. Please do not use Shiny Ditto. You have been warned.
I said this about Anduin when we thought he would die: Killing characters for the sake of killing characters is never impressive story telling. Killing a main character is very, very rarely the best move as a writer. There are always better characters to kill to make a point or to stir emotions of the audience or to simply advance the story. Take it from Whedon:
When it comes to killing your good guy, people either expect you to kill them off or they don't and whatever you do is wrong because it's always going to be cliché regardless of what I decide. Sometimes its the right move to send your hero off in a blaze of glory but only if it means something to the story and to the characters development and not just to end it. So yeah, people complain that I always go for the secondary characters or the minor good guys but that's because there are where the audience aren't neccesarily looking and that's where you can do the most damage and change things up.
He should die then be ress'd as undead so we can raid and kill him again.
He should die, massive OMG turn in WoW...
I guess I'm the only one in the world (of Warcraft) that says "Thrall for Warchief!".
Metzen will only allow it if Thrall can carry a cross to the peak of Alterac Mountains before he dies.
...and like many things in Warcraft, they'll resurrect him some time in the future so this plays right in to his hands.