Cairne, the sad and betrayed Tauren

[Thimagryn]

The difference is Thrall was the first Warchief to rule in a time of relative peace. The title is simply what it means - Warchief. It's a military title, similar to that of General or High Commander. The Horde to apply it to their system of government, they're fine with living out their lives in a society built under one leader, where peace is only fleeting and they are always prepared for battle.

[Aquamonkey]

The difference is Thrall was the first Warchief to rule in a time of relative peace. The title is simply what it means - Warchief. It's a military title, similar to that of General or High Commander. The Horde to apply it to their system of government, they're fine with living out their lives in a society built under one leader, where peace is only fleeting and they are always prepared for battle.

Blackhand was warchief during a time of relative peace between the fall of Shattrath and the opening of the Dark Portal. However, he was still just a puppet for Gul'dan.

[Thage]

But he seemed to be quite objective before in the novel. What changed ?

He also notes, both internally and to Garrosh, how very badly he wants to beat the shit out of Garrosh and pull the tauren out of the Horde, but won't because that would dishonor Cairne's memory, and leave his people without allies while they recover from a bloody coup full of senseless assassinations in the middle of the night. I wouldn't say he's being objective there--he wants to break Garrosh's jaw and he lets Garrosh know that he wants to, but he sticks with the Horde because that's what his people need.

Flash forward to the revolution getting underway, we've got a war full of Baine's people being used as frontline fodder and Dezco going through hell and back, and nearly getting assassinated by pissed-off ninjas, because Garrosh abused the Horde and the good will of the Pandaria natives for weapons to use against the Alliance. I'd say he and the tauren had had enough. Hell, he had enough of it as early as Tides of War, but held back because Vol'jin couldn't back him due to the trolls' proximity to Orgrimmar. Now, with the Horde adventurers helping the Darkspear keep the southern half of Durotar in Rebellion hands, and the rebels and the Alliance working together (for varying levels of working together) against the Kor'kron supply camps and commanders, Baine can commit his forces fully to the rebellion and not have to worry overmuch about Horde retaliation. The only Horde that would retaliate are Kor'kron, and they're stretched thin between Pandaria, the Barrens, and securing north Durotar in anticipation of the coalition's siege.

[Thimagryn]

Blackhand was warchief during a time of relative peace between the fall of Shattrath and the opening of the Dark Portal. However, he was still just a puppet for Gul'dan.

If by relative peace you mean many bands of small tribes fighting each other after having no more draenei to slaughter, sure :P

The Horde had never really established a large society outside of war. Even the brownskins were grouped in relatively small tribes, while every other orc faction was banded under a Chieftain and rallied together for war. We don't really see their life outside that sort of society, until Thrall came into power and founded Orgrimmar.

[BananaHandsB]

Just because Baine feels Garrosh betrayed Cairne and says that, doesn't mean its the rock solid truth of the situation. He's just a character, not the narrator or blizzard stating lore facts, and he's flawed, as is everyone. Anger often leads to irrationality, and as such, in anger, people often blame those they are angry at for things that may not actually be their fault. It's good writing. You're takin this quote like its gospel, but it's just a line from a character. That character doesn't have to share your opinion. In fact, it'd be bad writing if he did. He's angry, and that'd be a likely reaction.

Don't take what characters say as facts. The story is there, we know what happened, just because one character says something does not dictate what actually may have taken place and what you believe is the actual case. Good characters are written to seem real, and part of that is being flawed and having emotions that often stem illogical feelings and opinions, which may differ from your own, the omnipotent reader.

Just realize you are disagreeing with Baine, not with Blizzard, and that's fine, but don't get upset about it, he's just a fictional character with a flawed opinion. I don't know why that would turn you off of wow lore. Do you expect every character to be "correct" and have agreeing opinions with you, all the time? That just doesn't make sense.

[Thimagryn]

Just to be clear, everything Baine says is completely fine, except for the one part where he says 'betrayed my father', which could have easily been swapped with 'killed my father'. It's the fact that he calls out something so specific that makes it sound so wrong.

There's been nothing in recent events that lead us to believe that he's acting irrationally. We're being SHOWN that he's a careful leader who is protecting his people. He even waited until now to commit to the rebellion, after most of his people were safely escorted out of Orgrimmar. This is the same character I'm supposed to believe is giving into irrationality? And this is considered good writing?

If this really comes down to opinion, I'm still not convinced. I still see this as a factual error on Blizzard's part, because it's not obvious why Baine goes back on his words.

[Thage]

Thim, looking at it from Baine's perspective, in-universe, Garrosh did betray Cairne by poisoning Gorehowl. It's not true objectively, it's not rational thinking, but keep in mind that Baine even told Garrosh straight up to his face how badly he wanted to break his jaw when Garrosh met Baine to discuss the tauren and their place in the Horde. Since then, Garrosh has been nothing but antagonistic to his people and dismissive of his advice even though Thrall told him to listen to the other leaders (y'know, since most of them have been doing this whole leadership thing for a while) to get fresh perspective on things. To this day, I think Baine constantly wonders how much of what happened was Garrosh being knowingly complicit in Gorehowl's poisoning and him covering his ass, and how much was Garrosh being used as much as Garrosh used Gorehowl.

[Aquamonkey]

Thim, looking at it from Baine's perspective, in-universe, Garrosh did betray Cairne by poisoning Gorehowl. It's not true objectively, it's not rational thinking, but keep in mind that Baine even told Garrosh straight up to his face how badly he wanted to break his jaw when Garrosh met Baine to discuss the tauren and their place in the Horde. Since then, Garrosh has been nothing but antagonistic to his people and dismissive of his advice even though Thrall told him to listen to the other leaders (y'know, since most of them have been doing this whole leadership thing for a while) to get fresh perspective on things. To this day, I think Baine constantly wonders how much of what happened was Garrosh being knowingly complicit in Gorehowl's poisoning and him covering his ass, and how much was Garrosh being used as much as Garrosh used Gorehowl.

"We have evidence that Magatha poisoned the blade. None that Garrosh consented." --Baine in The Shattering

"I will expect the same challenge from the son as the father, then," he said.
"You will not have it."
Garrosh frowned, not understanding. Baine continued. "Do not think that I would not enjoy fighting you, Garrosh Hellscream. Whatever was on the blade, yours was the hand that cut down my father. But tauren are not so petty. The true killer was Magatha, not you. My father issued the mak'gora, and the argument between you and he is settled, even if, due to Magatha's treachery, the fight was no fair one.
--The Shattering

[Thage]

"We have evidence that Magatha poisoned the blade. None that Garrosh consented." --Baine in Tides of War

Now mirror that against how he's been all through the Pandaren campaign. I'd start thinking maybe he was more complicit than he let on. I know, as the omniscient reader, he isn't, that Magatha blindsided him and it severely pissed him off when she did, because he would never know if he could have won on his own merits (and for all his many failings, Garrosh really is about winning on his own merits, be they martial or strategic), but Baine in-universe doesn't have the advantage of having spent time nestled inside Garrosh's noggin. What he does have, however, is a campaign where Garrosh becomes more and more openly unhinged and racist, fights dirtier, and abuses the trust of basically everyone who isn't an orc and several who are.

[Thimagryn]

Isn't that the problem?

With Cataclysm, we can see a clear Garrosh Hellscream that is trying to do things honourably, even if it isn't the right things to do. His dealings with Sylvanas, with Overlord Krom'gar, with Magatha are all indicative of his honor.

As soon as Mists of Pandaria was announced, there was an immediate love-hate to the announcement, and fears that it was going to be all about pandas for the next 2 years. A few days after the announcement, Metzen came out and revealed the plans for Siege of Orgrimmar, with Garrosh being the end boss. It's as soon as this was announced that it seemed as though they wrote the entire campaign to unhinge Garrosh's character and create something fitting of a true villain. I won't get too deep into his change, but it's pretty clear that he is a much different character than what we knew of him in Cataclysm.

Trying to undo everything that transpired during Cataclysm is a mis-step, because it's looking less like a character progression and more like a retcon. Take in point that you're now proposing that Garrosh may have been a willing part of Magatha's plans. Are we truly supposed to believe that everything he had done previously is suspect to foulplay because of the way he's currently acting?

What I believe is that Blizzard tried to make Garrosh out to be an honourable Warchief that people could get behind, but when that didn't pan out and the fans still hated him, they decided 'Why not just kill him off and replace him' and begin a smear campaign throughout MoP to make him thoroughly hated. This is the only way I can see how he's digressed so far going from the honourable guy who won't see his enemies or allies dishonored, to setting off the bomb that destroys a city and the people defending it. I see Baine saying that Garrosh betrayed his father is just another way of putting Garrosh in a bad light, but at the cost of muddling established lore.

[Zulkhan]

The difference is Thrall was the first Warchief to rule in a time of relative peace. The title is simply what it means - Warchief. It's a military title, similar to that of General or High Commander. The Horde to apply it to their system of government, they're fine with living out their lives in a society built under one leader, where peace is only fleeting and they are always prepared for battle.

No, not only times of war prove the faith that your people have in you. Some orcs were unhappy by the passive stand of Thrall about the whole matter of Durotar, Ashenvale, the relationship with the humans and so on, still he never recoursed to subtle tyranny for "keep in check" the discontent. Different leaders are different.

---------- Post added 2013-06-24 at 03:58 PM ----------

Isn't that the problem?

With Cataclysm, we can see a clear Garrosh Hellscream that is trying to do things honourably, even if it isn't the right things to do. His dealings with Sylvanas, with Overlord Krom'gar, with Magatha are all indicative of his honor.

Except the fact that Garrosh's conception of honor has always been hollow and shallow, he never learned what true honor meant, and he will die without know it. Stop beliving that Blizzard give all this importance to "popular discontent", they, for 90% of the time, do all the things they like to do, especially about lore.

[Arrashi]

No, not only times of war prove the faith that your people have in you. Some orcs were unhappy by the passive stand of Thrall about the whole matter of Durotar, Ashenvale, the relationship with the humans and so on, still he never recoursed to subtle tyranny for "keep in check" the discontent. Different leaders are different.

---------- Post added 2013-06-24 at 03:58 PM ----------



Except the fact that Garrosh's conception of honor has always been hollow and shallow, he never learned what true honor meant, and he will die without know it. Stop beliving that Blizzard give all this importance to "popular discontent", they, for 90% of the time, do all the things they like to do, especially about lore.

Why would anyone with common sense handicap themselves in battle by some imaginary codex called honor ? At the end all that matters is that it isnt you who lies in pool of your own blood. Honor is overrated.

[Zulkhan]

Why would anyone with common sense handicap themselves in battle by some imaginary codex called honor ? At the end all that matters is that it isnt you who lies in pool of your own blood. Honor is overrated.

You're absolutely free to belive it that way. But people don't discuss about the fact that be honorable is right by a moral standpoint or an useless self-imposition that will just bury you in a tomb faster, people discuss about the fact that Garrosh was "truly honorable" all the way. No he wasn't, end of the story. What it's right or wrong doesn't matter for me.

[Maximus Testiculos]

It is because everything that has ever happened in the horde is just garrosh's fault!

[Trassk]

Why would anyone with common sense handicap themselves in battle by some imaginary codex called honor ? At the end all that matters is that it isnt you who lies in pool of your own blood. Honor is overrated.

...
You really understand nothing about fantasy genres.

[Deleted]

Remember the characters dont know all we do. What is true and false often doesnt matter - its what a character thinks that matters. Especially with loss, people (and I assume Taurens) are not always logical. I think its fair enough for Baine to think that even though he may not be 100% correct.

[Arrashi]

...
You really understand nothing about fantasy genres.

Since when fantasy mean lawfull good ?

[Doombringer]

I'll say this: the story would be infinitely more intriguing if we did not see exactly what Magatha and Garrosh did, from the varying points of view. It should have been left ambiguous. Was Garrosh complicit? "We're not sure."

But WE know that he wasn't, because the author told us so. Many NPCs know it as well, because they investigated... but we're not taking their word for it, because we already know the truth. This would have been so much more interesting if we had only speculation to go on. That includes Baine. In that case, by now, he very well could be suspecting Garrosh was a willing participant in the assassination of his father.

---------- Post added 2013-06-24 at 05:42 PM ----------

...
You really understand nothing about fantasy genres.

It isn't a genre rule to have honorable combat. It all depends on the setting. "Win by any means necessary" is a rule in some fantasy worlds.

[Trassk]

[/COLOR]

It isn't a genre rule to have honorable combat. It all depends on the setting. "Win by any means necessary" is a rule in some fantasy worlds.

yes I agree with you.. but this is warcraft we're talking about here, not game of thrones. Honor is a real concept in warcrafts universe, the same as holy magic is.

[Thage]

yes I agree with you.. but this is warcraft we're talking about here, not game of thrones. Honor is a real concept in warcrafts universe, the same as holy magic is.

Ehh. I would argue instead that honor is still a highly-valued virtue on Azeroth, especially among the Alliance and Horde, who have nations with entire cultures centered on the concept in various ways (draenei, Gilneans, Stormwinders, dwarves, orcs, trolls, and tauren). It's why the Forsaken were the alliance-of-convenience outsiders with the Horde in Vanilla, and why the blood elves continued that trend: they favor vengeance and survival over honor, and it makes them very dangerous enemies because when they fight dirty, they codify and redefine the term. It's why seeing the Gilneans broken and ravaged until they're teaming up with known rebels and terrorists, and even with feral worgen after their transformation, can be so striking for players who key into that underlying code of etiquette and honor that flows through Gilnean society.

I wouldn't say it is the same as holy magic. It's a virtue to be upheld--a source of strength in the metaphorical sense, rather than the literal like holy magic.