Thrall is not Mary Sue, because he can doubt his own actions or get angry? While saving the planet at every possible occasion like Jesus, with a (willing or mandatory, but always) universal help and support from his allies and enemies alike? sorry, I would like to see some of his "wrong" decisions or feelings to have some effects, rather than "I always deal with my inner self and at the end I manage to save the world nevertheless, oh btw, I am so humble that I can even put my warchief mantle aside and busy myself with higher duties such as killing a mad aspect while doing my wife in my free time"
Thrall's not a mary sue because he has people who dislike him and what he did / does and yet aren't portrayed as villians.
Thrall's not a mary sue because he's got recurring conflicts more than a tortured past and a villian ahead.
Thrall's not a mary sue because he's had to struggle - legitimately struggle - to achieve his goals.
You might want to actually read the books and the like. They'd enlighten you.
I would side with Garrosh no questions asked.
Well if you're opposed to actually learning about how characters you criticize aren't what you believe them to be, then sure.
But if you don't mind to be proven wrong they're certainly a useful tool in that regard, at least in your case.
Ultimately though you're entitled to your opinions on whether you like or dislike a character, but to attempt to try and say something that is quantitatively untrue... that's not very good.
I mean, what's the point of having a game called WARcraft with warchief like Thrall who does nothing but whine like an old hag?
Orcs were brutal and warlike race once, but WarCraft 3 kind of ruined that.
Sure you may say this is good and that is evil, but the truth is there are never good/bad sides. It's all one big gray area and not just in stories, in our own history as well.
If I have to read the books to understand the story of the game, that is a failure of Blizzard and makes the entire point unworthy of discussion.
Until those flaws have a noticeable IN-GAME effect, Thrall is definitely a Mary Sue, with one token flaw (his choice of Garrosh).
That's not how mary suedom works.
That's simply an example of bad transition from canon lore to the MMORPG medium.
Still, as I've pointed out there are examples of Thrall's flaws, moreso than just his choice of Garrosh, which is significant enough to prove the guy's obviously not a mary sue.
A mary sue wouldn't have made a decision that has negative effects for two entire expansions, a decision which, I might remind you, is a significant basis for this current expansion's main plotline. If that's not a noticeable in-game effect then I'm a goddamn duck.
Last edited by The Madgod; 2013-05-18 at 06:26 PM.
Always hated garrosh post 4.0 and always will, before cataclysm he was alright but i really hate the design change he got at the time, i much prefered the wrath and earlier model.
I didn't liked him even before Cataclysm ;p. No Hate at that point , but after the Events of the Shattering it got more like it.
I must admit though that i'm fan of the Thrall Era / Pacifist Wise Shaman Thing .. :3
Last edited by Xe4ro; 2013-05-18 at 06:21 PM.
Druid since Feb. 06
Another poll thread that shows how much players want to see garrosh gone....
Can you please stop making these?
It is kinda bloody obvious after the first 4 polls that only a tiny amount of the playerbase actually gives a damn about garrosh...
Stonetalon Mountains Garrosh I would follow to death. Stonetalon Mountains Garrosh is the Garrosh that Thrall saw when he appointed him to Warchief.
"My fellow Horde... the blood haze has lifted. The demon's fire has burnt out in my veins... I have... freed... myself!"
:l
Garrosh. Is. Not. GROM.
And that stonetalon shit is litereally the ONLY THING anyone has in defense of Garrosh.
Ok, let me give another example. In comparison to another bad guy, anyone who ever saw the hunchback of notre dame (disneys) will know the villian in that movie, Judge Claude Frollo. He too was a character who was about racism, violence, greed, lust, and every vice you can think of.
Now Frollo had one scene of him about to kill quasimodo as a baby, but he's drawn back, not because he had a moment of humanity in him, but because he feared for his own soul if he killed a child, how god would look upon him for doing it.
And the character never changed from this experience, he instead carried on his plan of wiping out a group of people, attempted murder, he had already killed an innocent woman beforehand, arson, and in the end, he learned nothing and only gave into his lust, greed and malice.
Garrosh is the same sort of character, but just replace the concept of god with instead Garrosh trying to emulate his father, trying to 'make daddy proud'. Nothing Garrosh has ever done has truly been for the horde, it has always been his attempt to try and validate his existence, try and win his dead fathers approval, and thus making any twisted, nefarious act he committed validated on his personal level, nevermind the damage and death it caused to anyone else.
#boycottchina
My conclusion? People need to stop looking to "good and evil" theme.
Garrosh is a proud douchebag with daddy issue. That doesn't make him evil, makes him a proud douchebag with daddy issue.
Could he been a better orc? Yes, but Magatha Grimtotem killed the one advisor that could set him right. Since then, the constant pushing back from Alliance led Garrosh more and more to tyranny.