doomhammer (spoilers)

[KrazyK923]

a victory is still a victory

This is what you don't understand. Ends don't always justify the means.

[Florena]

A good deed here or there? Are you kidding me? Mind taking your blue goggles of and rereading the book?

"A hero (masculine) or heroine (feminine) (Ancient Greek: ἥρως, hḗrōs) refers to characters who, in the face of danger and adversity or from a position of weakness, display courage and the will for self-sacrifice—that is, heroism—for some greater good of all humanity. This definition originally referred to martial courage or excellence but extended to more general moral excellence."

Seems to fit Doomhammer pretty well, actually.

But again please keep thinking Hero is synonymous with "White Knight".

- - - Updated - - -



Where did he say Thrall started wars?

Actually it proves no orc is a hero, as they don't tend to stick up for the greater of all humanity. So only human characters can be heroes. =P

In all seriousness it depends on your interpretation of what a hero is and your point of view. To the orcs he was a hero, leading them to victory and coming close to seizing a new land for them, to the Alliance he's a villain that would have butchered their entire races without any provocation.

[Haven]

A good deed here or there? Are you kidding me? Mind taking your blue goggles of and rereading the book?

"A hero (masculine) or heroine (feminine) (Ancient Greek: ἥρως, hḗrōs) refers to characters who, in the face of danger and adversity or from a position of weakness, display courage and the will for self-sacrifice—that is, heroism—for some greater good of all humanity. This definition originally referred to martial courage or excellence but extended to more general moral excellence."

Seems to fit Doomhammer pretty well, actually.

But again please keep thinking Hero is synonymous with "White Knight".

Especially considering that Doomhammer gave his life liberating orcs from internment camps... he kind of fits the textbook definition of hero.

[Florena]

It has to be against overwhelming odds I believe. Rogers didn't do anything that extraordinary. A good commander, yes, but not a hero.

Yeah all I remember her doing is commanding the Skyfire and ordering for swimming orcs to be shot down, she was never in any personal danger in MoP.

[Tragedia]

Especially considering that Doomhammer gave his life liberating orcs from internment camps... he kind of fits the textbook definition of hero.

Well considering that was Doomhammer after he lost the war. He had by that time 'seen' the errors of his ways and this helped clean his image. But AU Doomhammer is just like the Doomhammer we saw Pre-W3, another warmonger hellbent on conquest.

[Dreknar20]

she was never in any personal danger in MoP.

well she is commander, an officer, its in her job description to lead her forces, not to engage in combat right beside them

[Florena]

well she is commander, an officer, its in her job description to lead her forces, not to engage in combat right beside them

Doesn't change the fact she didn't really do anything extraordinary during her brief screen time that makes her stand out.

[Wildberry]

The person he quoted, which he implied in his response that Thrall was more of a warmonger than Blackhand and Doomhammer.

he said: "Led the Horde through more Wars." Doomhammer wasn't exactly a warmonger by the way.

And now to dissect the typical rambling from KrazyK, as angry and profanity laced as ever!

Perhaps you're the one who needs to actually take off your biased glasses. This has nothing to do with an Alliance or Horde faction. For fucks sake, Doomhammer wasn't and isn't even part of the current Horde. You're trying to force bias into an issue where I'm not even talking about one. I never even gave my opinion about whether or not I liked the dude.

Let me pull out my incoherent rambling to English dictionary...

"I'm not really biased, I never mentioned anything about the Horde or Alliance. Since I never mentioned it you should ignore the obvious Alliance bias that drips out of most of my posts!"

Ah. Glad that's cleared up.

I honestly have no idea what the fuck you're talking about with repeatedly bringing up White Knight as if I ever said that anywhere.

What are implications? You seem to fall flat on your face with those. You're so attached to the literal definition of words and phrases that you ignore things like implications and seem to lack the ability to read between the lines of what's being said.

Seriously. Doomhammer didn't heroically stand against Blackhand in the face of some great adversity. He took advantage of him after he lost the support of Gul'dan, somebody who was actually keeping everything together.

He took advantage of Blackhand... after Blackhand lost the support of Gul'dan? I'm not sure that killing someone equates to "taking advantage of" them.

Blackhand was a sitting duck when Doomhammer assassinated him. There wasn't even a mak'gora. He struck at Blackhand's forces in a surprise attack.

That's not an assassination. Mak'goras aren't the only form of honorable combat.

And then he proceeds to attack Azeroth once again, leading

Well I guess you didn't read Tides of Darkness very well then, his motives were explained fairly clearly in there.

- - - Updated - - -

This is what you don't understand. Ends don't always justify the means.

That's a viewpoint, not a fact. Who is Machiavelli?

[KrazyK923]

That's not an assassination. Mak'goras aren't the only form of honorable combat.

Want to point out to me where they say it was honorable combat? Because it was a sneak attack.

"I'm not really biased, I never mentioned anything about the Horde or Alliance. Since I never mentioned it you should ignore the obvious Alliance bias that drips out of most of my posts!"

So basically, you're arguing against nothing I've actually said, but what you think I said. Got it.

He took advantage of Blackhand... after Blackhand lost the support of Gul'dan? I'm not sure that killing someone equates to "taking advantage of" them.

Well I guess you didn't read Tides of Darkness very well then, his motives were explained fairly clearly in there.

You really don't understand the lore, do you? Blackhand was lost without Gul'dan. Thats kind of what happens to a puppet when the puppetmaster is taken out of the picture.

What are implications? You seem to fall flat on your face with those. You're so attached to the literal definition of words and phrases that you ignore things like implications and seem to lack the ability to read between the lines of what's being said.

Because you've seem to established that when I say "hero" I mean White Knight. You ran with this premise despite me not only NOT saying that, but not even implying it.

I'll just continue on as I usually do, keep you ignored and disregard anything you have to say. Once again, dude, I'm not your type.

[Tragedia]

he said: "Led the Horde through more Wars." Doomhammer wasn't exactly a warmonger by the way.

a sovereign or political leader or activist who encourages or advocates aggression or warfare toward other nations or groups.

Trying to conquer the Eastern Kingdoms is not aggressive at all.

[Dreknar20]

did you already say it or were going to say it?

well i have said that line, or very similar, many times on other threads

So ummm......on to copyright laws, you are now in debt of 5500 gold or 2 Hellscream BOAs.

[Wildberry]

Trying to conquer the Eastern Kingdoms is not aggressive at all.

It was a justified war from an Orcish perspective. It's pretty damned hard to be a warmonger when war is the only option you have.

[Dreknar20]

The person he quoted, which he implied in his response that Thrall was more of a warmonger than Blackhand and Doomhammer.

and being a warmonger is bad?
War is the solution to 98% of all problems in the Warcraft (how bout that) universe

[Traveler Voltin]

well i have said that line, or very similar, many times on other threads

So ummm......on to copyright laws, you are now in debt of 5500 gold or 2 Hellscream BOAs.

i dont have 5500g or hellsceam boas. so your out of luck. lol.

[Tragedia]

It was a justified war from an Orcish perspective. It's pretty damned hard to be a warmonger when war is the only option you have.

At least we can agree that Orc's have always been an aggressive race which is no surprise why they are the bad guys in WoD(from an Azerothian perspective).

- - - Updated - - -

and being a warmonger is bad?
War is the solution to 98% of all problems in the Warcraft (how bout that) universe

Being an aggressor is a bad thing. But in times of defense I can accept that(which was Thrall's case)

[Wildberry]

Want to point out to me where they say it was honorable combat? Because it was a sneak attack.

Doomhammer grinned. That, at least, was ended now. He had not been pleased at being forced to kill Blackhand. He had been the warchief's Second and sworn to fight beside him, not against him. But tradition allowed a warrior to challenge his chieftan for supremacy and Doomhammer had finally been forced to take that route.

Tides of Darkness p 34.

Yeah, I think you need to reread that book.

So basically, you're arguing against nothing I've actually said, but what you think I said. Got it.

No I'm arguing against the implications that are obviously in your post. If you can't grasp that I truly feel sorry for you.

You really don't understand the lore, do you? Blackhand was lost without Gul'dan. Thats kind of what happens to a puppet when the puppetmaster is taken out of the picture.

I don't understand the lore? I'm the one refuting your viewpoints with the lore. Killing a puppet isn't "taking advantage" of someone.

Because you've seem to established that when I say "hero" I mean White Knight. You ran with this premise despite me not only NOT saying that, but not even implying it.

Again, ask yourself, "What are the implications of my post?". Despite being given evidence to the contrary you are still trying to argue that Doomhammer wasn't a hero, despite fitting the definition. From what you've implied about heroes it seems damned close to the "White Knight" archetype.

I'll just continue on as I usually do, keep you ignored and disregard anything you have to say. Once again, dude, I'm not your type.

Don't flatter yourself, I like people who can understand that there's more to communication than what is literally said, you're lacking in that department.

I would be sad to be on your ignore list, but there were plenty of witnessess to see your points get refuted, even if you don't yourself.

- - - Updated - - -

At least we can agree that Orc's have always been an aggressive race which is no surprise why they are the bad guys in WoD(from an Azerothian perspective).

Well Azerothian's are no strangers to necessary wars. So no, it's still a surprise, and it's a bad one at that.

[Dreknar20]

Being an aggressor is a bad thing.

So only keeping what you have is cool, but trying to gain stuff is bad? Why?

BTW, you remember how Thrall founded Durotar? By waging war and kicking out the inhabitants that were living there.

[KrazyK923]

You're kind of missing the word "honorable" there. But I guess, for somebody who so adamantly accuses others of what they do, I shouldn't be surprised. Of course, we could also talk about how nothing in what you posted goes against what I said.

Do you want to know why I generally shy away from arguing what somebody implies? Because doing so is taking a liberty with what somebody actually said, whether or not they really mean what you believe they do.

I would be sad to be on your ignore list, but there were plenty of witnessess to see your points get refuted, even if you don't yourself.

Yes, there's a word for this. Its delusion.

[Wildberry]

You're kind of missing the word "honorable" there. But I guess, for somebody who so adamantly accuses others of what they do, I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

So the text says "Tradition allows...", but lacks the word "honorable" it's not honorable? Give me a break dude. You've been proven wrong and you're still trying to wiggle your way out of it. I'd suggest stopping, I'm embarrassed for you. It's okay to be wrong every once in a while, and I'm not even trying to be snide by saying that, it happens to the best of us. You've clearly been refuted, it's over.

[KrazyK923]

No, I really haven't been. You're twisting the words, or actually what word isn't there, into supporting your side. That isn't a refutation.

Tradition has zero bearing on what is honorable or not.