Does anyone else find it sad Garrosh is going to die?

[Deleted]

He is not going to die since we have 2 timelines Garrosh (WoD) will live anyways.

[MinTDH]

Am I the only one hoping Garrosh attempts to redeem himself, but dies in the process?

[Cosmic Janitor]

Yeah totally. I still mourn the loss of >>Insert your favorite dictator here, for only $9.99<<. Losing such great personalities always hurts.

In case you didn't get it, he should have been gutted at the spot. The audacity that they deprived us of the chance to actually kill him again (like with every endboss so far) and go even further by just capturing him, so that he can serve as the hook for this ridiculous alternate history bs scenario which is WoD. Yeah I'm totally sad. They didn't even bother to give him the standard comic book treatment of all evil stems from loss and disapointment and just made him racis and evil right off the bat. It's even more sad to me that they made him the warrior avatar in heartstone, because now I will always be reminded of the epitome of bad character development.

[Zulkhan]

Was it worth the necro?

For some people doing dumb things is a lifestyle.

EDIT; ... Really ThunderlordTempset... Did you HONESTLY need to create an account just to necro a 10 month old thread to throw a punch at Trassk? Really!?

Best thing is that he even deleted the "raising dead thread to life" comment. The epitome of uselessness.

- - - Updated - - -

Am I the only one hoping Garrosh attempts to redeem himself, but dies in the process?

I hope so. I mean, I hope you're the only one.

Garrosh turning in Grom 2.0 is hardly interesting.

[Herecius]

He and his father will be back in the next expansion.

World of Warcraft: Return Of The Hellscreams

Ya'll are missing the best part about this necro'd thread right here.

[Zulkhan]

Ya'll are missing the best part about this necro'd thread right here.

It's still a valid thread for people that live in alternate universes, those in which Garrosh actually died. /sarcasm

[Deleted]

I still don't understand Blizzard's logic with building him up to be a semi respectable leader in Cata, only to see him go down such a dark path.

The logic is that Blizzard often takes into account the whims and wishes of the playerbase when making story decisions. People weren't buying their attempts to make him a respectable leader so they made him a villain instead.

As to the main thread title I am kind of disappointed. My personal speculation was that he would somehow survive the Siege and become a Monk during his imprisonment by the Shado-pan. He'd take a break for a few expansion and we'd see him later redeemed somewhat.

[Zulkhan]

The logic is that Blizzard often takes into account the whims and wishes of the playerbase when making story decisions. People weren't buying their attempts to make him a respectable leader so they made him a villain instead.

It's a hollow point. All the stuff regarding Garrosh, the Twilight Highlands and the Dragonmaw were all strongly pointing out to "MoP Garrosh". His speech on the beginning of the event is quite indicative of which were Garrosh's true goals and what he really wanted for his people.

And all of this happened after the events in Stonetalon. While is indeed likely that, at some point, Garrosh had to be taken to "hero" or "villain" direction, that decision was blatantly taken in Wrath. In TBC Garrosh had the potential to be "used" in whatever way they wanted. In Wrath a lot has been done to make his character walk upon a "problematic" path, one destinied to end bad.

[Triggered Fridgekin]

Garrosh died a long time ago when they introduced him to whoever writes character development.

[Ehrenpanzer]

Kinda sad, Garrosh is a good character and a true warchief that showed what a true horde.Horde was ment to dominate and Garrosh tried to make that not like Thrall in a peacefull way .Not saying that Thrall is bad or anything, he is awesome aswell but just saying that Garrosh almost or maybe uphold good honor.

Uh....so..what you are saying is the "true horde" are a bunch of nazis..and thats the ideals you like to play as?

[Zulkhan]

Kinda sad, Garrosh is a good character and a true warchief that showed what a true horde.Horde was ment to dominate and Garrosh tried to make that not like Thrall in a peacefull way .Not saying that Thrall is bad or anything, he is awesome aswell but just saying that Garrosh almost or maybe uphold good honor.

How can you even think to aim to something like global dominion and utter victory and submission of the "blue side" while upholding "honor" all the time? It's impossible, and Doomhammer know this well. He lowered himself to a lot of compromises to obtain the power necessary for crush the Alliance of Lordaeron, even exploiting the help of a begging Gul'dan, yes, the Betrayer of the Orcs, because the powers at his disposal were the only thing able to counter the High Elf/Human wizards.

He also enslaved Alexstrasza and most of his Dragonflight for bolster his forces (an act of aggression against Dragons which make what Garrosh did against the Blue Dragonflight seems little more than a joke) let alone he had to lead all the time a legion of murderous blood-cursed warriors.

Only when Gul'dan betrayed his race once again Doomhammer took a very bold decision: give up a certain victory for chasing down the betrayer. In that moment Doomhammer, effectively, valued honor above victory.

But Garrosh is not Doomhammer. He has never been.

[Traveler Voltin]

its not sad. its a good thing he is dying. he almost ruined the horde for selfish reasons.

and if i ever find his grave, i am going to piss on it just to spite the garrosh lovers.

[MrUrthor]

One less Orc.

[Voidstrider]

It's a shame we weren't the ones to kill him. The Horde needs a smart leader.

[Deleted]

It's a hollow point. All the stuff regarding Garrosh, the Twilight Highlands and the Dragonmaw were all strongly pointing out to "MoP Garrosh". His speech on the beginning of the event is quite indicative of which were Garrosh's true goals and what he really wanted for his people.

And all of this happened after the events in Stonetalon. While is indeed likely that, at some point, Garrosh had to be taken to "hero" or "villain" direction, that decision was blatantly taken in Wrath. In TBC Garrosh had the potential to be "used" in whatever way they wanted. In Wrath a lot has been done to make his character walk upon a "problematic" path, one destinied to end bad.

They had too much of Garrosh being honourable in Cata (the stonetalon event, callling out Sylvanas) for me to believe he was planned to go down that route at the time. I expect they were trying to strike a balance but ended up making him still seem like a douchebag so in Mists they went full out.

[Zulkhan]

They had too much of Garrosh being honourable in Cata (the stonetalon event, callling out Sylvanas) for me to believe he was planned to go down that route at the time.

The Stonetalon event didn't show Garrosh's honour, just shown that he wasn't an utter monster after all. He's not the type of character that goes to kill for the sake of killing, he wasn't and still isn't, having all his own interpretation of what an "honourable" and "glorious" battle is. Garrosh belives in a very twisted, messed up version of "honour", one that constantly adapt to the situation. Garrosh proved many times that victory is far more important than anything else for him.

About Sylvanas, I don't really see where this "honour" is. He just kept an eye on a potential enemy, since he didn't trust her, nor the whole of the Forsaken. The reason for which the blight was almost banned is because of the events occured on the Wrathgate, not really for questions of "honourable combat".

In Edge of Night he planned to use the Forsaken soldiers as easily-expandable meat-shields, because of their unnatural resilience, so that his awesome orcish soldiers would have been all rested and full of energies for the final, and FAR safer, assault. I don't know where is the "honour" in this and which kind of relevant meaning has bitching about the plague behind the excuse of the "honorable combat" when you're ready to treat your own troops in such a way.

Ofcourse, if we're talking about the practical, tactical angle of the matter, exploiting the Forsaken in that way was pretty smart. But so it was the whole plan for obliterate Theramore and isolate the Night Elves from the rest of the Alliance. But that's just prove my point repeadetly: Garrosh values victory above all else, and every mean justify that end.

I expect they were trying to strike a balance but ended up making him still seem like a douchebag so in Mists they went full out.

There has never been any slight of balance, the stuff putting Garrosh in a very suspicious/ambigous light heavily beat the rest. If anything, suddenly turning Garrosh in a somehow positive character, after all the stuff transpired between game, novels and short-stories, would have been incredbly far-fetched.

[Raiju]

The Stonetalon event didn't show Garrosh's honour, just shown that he wasn't an utter monster after all. He's not the type of character that goes to kill for the sake of killing, he wasn't and still isn't, having all his own interpretation of what an "honourable" and "glorious" battle is. Garrosh belives in a very twisted, messed up version of "honour", one that constantly adapt to the situation. Garrosh proved many times that victory is far more important than anything else for him.

"one that constantly adapt to the situation" is synonymous with "inconsistent" or "bad writing".

In Edge of Night he planned to use the Forsaken soldiers as easily-expandable meat-shields, because of their unnatural resilience, so that his awesome orcish soldiers would have been all rested and full of energies for the final, and FAR safer, assault. I don't know where is the "honour" in this and which kind of relevant meaning has bitching about the plague behind the excuse of the "honorable combat" when you're ready to treat your own troops in such a way.

You mean the alliance use the worgen? Using specialized elite forces as the vanguard of an attack is not evil or anything like that, it's strategic. I don't see why only garrosh is getting flak for it when almost every experienced military leader in warcraft (and outside) has done it

There has never been any slight of balance, the stuff putting Garrosh in a very suspicious/ambigous light heavily beat the rest. If anything, suddenly turning Garrosh in a somehow positive character, after all the stuff transpired between game, novels and short-stories, would have been incredbly far-fetched.

Except noone said he had to be a 'somehow positive character' (in your eyes), they just had to have him maintain orcish honor and actually lead the horde as a whole. There is nothing wrong with weighing people in the horde based on their combat prowess, when you create an orc at the beginning of the game this is what the cinematic told you being an orc was about. Under Thralls horde no less.

I really wish I had that comment they made about pushing garrosh's death an expansion early bookmarked, to prove it wasn't all planned to begin with easily and stop people trying to defend this nonsense.

OT: I'm not sad he died. Better to get rid of him than to bounce him back and forth different personas trying to appease the fanbase. Characters shouldn't be meta, they should just be their written character.

[Siphix]

I don't want him to die

[deadman1]

He and his father will be back in the next expansion.

World of Warcraft: Return Of The Hellscreams

Someone give this guy a cookie.

Predictions.

[Spraxle]

Not in the slightest. The problem with to many mediums is that people do not die. This goes for TV, books, movies, and games. If everyone sticks around till they're so old they die of old age it really takes away the feeling that the world is dangerous or impactful. Comic books (mostly DC and Marvel) suffer from this since they don't want to upset the fans. But really if someone can be shot in the face 10 times and come back in a few issues doesn't it diminish the story? Like what was the point. That's how I feel about Garrosh. His death is a continuation of the story and gives meaning to what came before.