The new horde's warchief will be ...

[Sand Person]

Sheldon Cooper.

Bazinga!

lol awesome bbt reference

[Trassk]

lol awesome bbt reference

[Arbs]

Rexxar will be next Warchief !!

[Deleted]

I wouldn't want the people on MMOC in charge of any real world government if all they want is to continue perpetual war.

Well it depends, in the privileged sphere of the developed world the necessity of war is waning. This has a lot ot do with globalisation and capitalism- and the economic rotts system it quickly grows across borders. War within the developed world is more expensive of a proposition than ever before.

But that's the real world, now. Not much more than a half-century ago and earlier, stable, secure, and prosperous nations (and before nations, kingdoms, empires, tribes, etc) were in an almost perpetual state of war, gunboat diplomacy, and intimidation. War was an important part of the national portfolio, and couldn't be neglected.

Garrosh takes a mature story and turns it into a Alice in Wonderland one. Garrosh IS the Queen of Hearts in Alice in Wonderland, nothing more, nothing less. Even Blizzard admitted that all what Garrosh wants is "kill, kill, kill".

Not really, though. Garrosh is the son of perhaps the most legendary Orc warrior in the social consciousness. He used to have quite a low self esteem, but Thrall taught him to harden up and become a leader. Garrosh may have gone a little too far in that regard, but he's not some stamped out of plastic 'baddie', he is a character with insecurities, a backstory, and motivations. He doesn't 'kill, kill, kill' just for the sake of it, but because he has a lot to live up to, and feels sincerely that the Orcs of Azeroth need to embrace their ancestral Mag'har warrior culture- to assert themselves upon the world (lest they be discarded by it).

So if you like what Garrosh does to the story, then i'm sorry, but you really suck at rating stories.

Or we have a difference in opinion.

Garrosh devalues a story that previous to him, was a piece of art, Garrosh takes a "Mozart song" into a "Spice Girls" one.

If you say so. Thrilling argument thus far...

Garrosh doesnt provide dramatic tension, Garrosh provides the "bad character" in a children's tale. Thrall provides the drama tension, with him knowing how bad War is, but also being forced to incur into it, knowing that the thing he should have done was ask for forgiveness for the killing of druids in Ashenvale when it happened, yet he tells Varian and Jaina that he cant, because he knows he really cant.

Garrosh provides loads of tension, within the horde, and externally. He's a goldmine of tension through conflict. Aggressively expanding the Horde's holdings, increasing the scale of the Alliance Horde conflict (which was the right thing to do, as evidently the Horde has the upper hand), nuking Theramore (which had it coming, sorry Jaina), alienating his key allies within the Horde. There's so much.

Thrall is interesting, but something of a hypocrite. A lot like Jaina, actually. He loves to think and talk about peace, but actually Thrall is very pro-war. Let's not forget that all the way through WotLK Thrall passively tolerated Garrosh's violence and warmongering. Then in Cata he rewarded WotLK Garrosh by making him warchief. He could see the kind of leader Garrosh was, and chose him precisely for that reason; he thinks the Horde needs an aggressive leadership. He says as much when Vol'jin complains to him in the new Cata troll starting experience.

THAT is drama tension, THAT is complexity in a story, Garrosh is just the Queen of Hearts saying "Off with his head" so that the little kids know how the bad character is.

I think you're getting too stuck on the fact that you don't like the character- without perhaps realising that he isn't written to ingratiate himself to the audience/readers. Garrosh is an antagonist- it's a legitimate and important type of character that serves to obstruct the proper flow of narrative, to drum up conflict, make obstacles, and generally be adversarial to the protagonists (in WoW the protagonist-role isn't so clear. Somethings it's sympathetically portrayed major Lore NPCs, yet also at the same time the nameless heroes played by the player).

I saw Les Miserables the other day; loved it. Take Javert. He is a persistently merciless and dogged agent of the law, hunting the protagonist for decades (and ruining his life over and over) with no good reason other than his exacting dedication to the law, fair or not, and probably a kind inner desire to punish the immorality he fears within himself. But a simple take on the character is that he is an unreasonable and persistent jerk. Is he a bad character? No. Does he improve the story by being in it, despite the fact that without him your beloved protagonist (Jean Valjean) could live in happiness and peace? Yes, he does.

Just like watching the story of an ex-con in 19th century France live a good redeemed life isn't nearly as compelling as watching him struggling to escape his past- Warcraft similarly would be less interesting if the faction leaders were all peaceable, reasonable, and wise leaders who worked together sensibly to live in harmony. We need characters like Garrosh to cause dissonance between the Horde and the Alliance. Jaina does it too- her purge of Dalaran is a classic example of less than fair, but certainly justified, action that widens the gap between the two factions.

Also, having a stupid or brutish character in a story doesn't then make the story itself stupid. Just like filling a story with nuanced intellectuals doesn't make a story intelligent.

Also, quoting the game title to try to justify stupidity does not says good things about you.

Sorry to hear you think so, but it is a legitimate point. If you disagree, perhaps you should explain why, rather than casting aspersions about what my arguments 'say' about me.

Warcraft in all of it's iterations has focussed on the geopolitical rivalries and contests between major (shifting) military factions on Azeroth. The Horde-Alliance conflict is central to the 'Warcraft' brand; it is what distinguishes and defines it from all the other derivative fantasy games.

After all that, though, I will agree with you insofar as I was less than pleased that Blizz went down the whole 'corruption' path again to execute Garrosh's face-heel-turn. He didn't need to be under the influence of dark magic- his characterisation alone was more than enough to put him out of the good graces of his allies, and under the vengeance of the Alliance. That would have been way more compelling, too, the question if Garrosh was a tyrant, or a good leader. If it was right to kill him, if he had gone too far, or if there could have been some other way. Dipping him in evil sauce was very lazy and childish storytelling on Blizzard's part- but they do that all the time (Garrosh, Kael'thas, Arthas, maybe Sylvanas soon, loads of minor NPCs). It'd be nice for a character to die not because an ancient evil infected them and drove them mad, but because their motives ran counter to those that killed them.

[eLiTe_J_]

The original warchief is coming back.

[Deleted]

He may have lost, but he returns with a vengeance! BASIC CAMPFIRE WARCHIEF 2013 F*CK BITCHES GET MONEY <3

[Venziir]

The original warchief is coming back.

Original? Ner'zhul was not the original warchief, he was the third. And one can argue that he was barely even Warchief, as Doomhammer was still alive at the time and still held the mantle. Ner'zhul was more of a commander than an actual Warchief, he didn't even command the entire Horde.

[GennGreymane]

It will be me obviously.

Someone needs to teach those barbarians some real manners.

[Verdugo]

It will be me obviously.

Someone needs to teach those barbarians some real manners.

Like sulk behind wall.

[Solzan Nemesis]

Original? Ner'zhul was not the original warchief, he was the third. And one can argue that he was barely even Warchief, as Doomhammer was still alive at the time and still held the mantle. Ner'zhul was more of a commander than an actual Warchief, he didn't even command the entire Horde.

Before the Horde. He was a pseudo-warchief. As he was the greatness shaman the orcs had.

[Alanar]

Definitely, Gamon !
This guy has been killed tons of times but he's still here.
He's defintely the man for the job, he'll always revive and be the horde's warchief for ever...
I only hope that he's not a tyrant.

If they made him warchief they will destroy Ogrimmars last joke/vanilla thing.. i imagined him more as some whiny guy sitting in the corner just being random.. if they would reveal hes plans or anything it wouldnt be this funny thing anymore.

LEAVE GAMON ALONE!

[Venziir]

Before the Horde. He was a pseudo-warchief. As he was the greatness shaman the orcs had.

No. Before the Horde he was the Elder shaman, he had no military might or power, nor was he a commander or a Leader. He was simply the most respected shaman, nothing more.

[Crym]

I'm really hoping for Vol'jin.

[Notos]

I don't think Horde needs a warchief, I want them to just have a council of the racial leaders. It's pretty obvious from how Garrosh turned out that maybe having one person in charge isn't all that great of an idea.

[Sky High]

i wouldn't be surprised if its Vol'jin for a while but he lets the position go to an Orc down the road. I've said before the Orcs would really only accept a fellow ORc to be their supreme leader but a troll that helped save them from Garry's tyranny/corruption will be able to assume power for a while, but i can't imagine for long. trufaully id rather have it be him over Thrall, either ship him off to make babehs or kill him already.

---------- Post added 2013-04-01 at 11:22 AM ----------

Like sulk behind wall.

or how to smell of wet dog. or sniff butts. or how much nipples is too many?

[Venziir]

I don't think Horde needs a warchief, I want them to just have a council of the racial leaders. It's pretty obvious from how Garrosh turned out that maybe having one person in charge isn't all that great of an idea.

Yes, I'd prefer a Council as well, with equal members and a non-political warchief to act as the militairy leader akin to the title of High King.

[Sky High]

Yes, I'd prefer a Council as well, with equal members and a non-political warchief to act as the militairy leader akin to the title of High King.

the Orc's should have a "chieftain" but not the WARRRGcheif since even among the orcs there are several faction, clans that need to be lorded over. even though at this point the orcs really don't identify by which clan they belong too.

[Venziir]

have the orc have a "chieftain" but not the WARRRGcheif

Well before the construction of the Horde, the title of warchief was just a glorified chieftain and not a political figure, just a general really, they could go back to that honestly.

[Deleted]

Vol'Jin would be imo the best. I've recently gotten into his lore, and he's a pure badass. Anyone that thinks he's a dramaqueen or whatsoever, go do your homework.
Also imagine what OG would look like if a tranquil troll became the warchief. Yes. Yes.

[kingriku]

IDK about Warchief but Orc leader will be Nazgrim, it's time for another promotion.