This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
The Garrosh Thread
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
taurenmoo812
Oh please.. they used Cairne as a scapegoat to drive the plot in a way that people would breath some sympathy for Garrosh. Have him kill a much loved hero like cairne out of a duel he didn't start, and then drive it so people forgive him for it.
They did nothing with cairne for years, and in the end, that was the only use they had for him, to extend Garrosh's plot the more.
I mean it took them needing Christie Golden to make people like Garrosh now? Even though she's the best warcraft story writer by far, it isn't enough to push me over into garroshism.
Post by
Rankkor
Oh please.. they used Cairne as a scapegoat to drive the plot in a way that people would breath some sympathy for Garrosh. Have him kill a much loved hero like cairne out of a duel he didn't start, and then drive it so people forgive him for it.
They did nothing with cairne for years, and in the end, that was the only use they had for him, to extend Garrosh's plot the more.
dude, I'm not saying I aprove of what happened, I'm saying that looking at this strictly from an in-game PoV we can't hold garrosh responsible for what happened, after all it was cairne who challenged him, not the other way arround, plus it was the meddling of the grimtotems wich caused his demise, as if it wasn't for the poison Cairne would had kicked garrosh all the way back to nagrand as a pile of neatly cut meat.
I mean it took them needing Christie Golden to make people like Garrosh now? Even though she's the best warcraft story writer by far, it isn't enough to push me over into garroshism.
again, completely missing the point, this isn't made so you "like" garrosh, I for one do NOT like him, but I don't hold him responsible for cairne's death, that was simply out of his hands to controll.
like I said, you can hate someone without being biased against him or her.
I don't like garrosh, in many aspects I hate him, but I'm not driven by bias to go to the extreme of saying "if it comes from garrosh, then it's a stinking piece of dung"
let me put a small real-life example
Venezuelan dictator back in the 50's, complete monster, he executed people by the thousands to enforce his regime, his name was Marcos Perez Jimenez, a real monster, and one of the worst and most reviled characters of Venezuelan history.
the dude is a scumbag, clear and clear, no sugar-coating it, he was on hittler's level of atrocity against humanity.
does that means 100% OF ALL HIS ACTIONS in power were monstrous? nope. he did some good, he built some of the best hospitals in the nation, it was his funding that led to the invention of the diamond-tip scalpel used by so many surgeons these days, he also started one of the first free healtcare programs in the nation.
does it mean that because he did 5% good we have to forgive him the other 95% bad? no way at all, do we have to like him for his few nice actions? hell no.
should we deny that his good actions ever existed due to the bad? nope.
he's a monster, yet we acknoledge that SOME of his actions were good.
a biased person would say that Jimenez was a true bastard to the core, and that everything he did was evil, including the free medicine, the schools, the hospitals, all of it, who cares if that actually helped the nation? if he did it then it's evil.
a non-biased person, would judge his bad actions as bad, and his good actions as good.
I'm not biased against garrosh, thus while I hate and disaprove of A LOT of his actions, I don't dismiss everything related to him as 100% evilness.
Cairne died because he was poisoned, even if he handt challenged garrosh he would had still died, even if he wasn't poisoned he still issued the challenge and thus he placed his own life at risk.
don't fret over it so much, u're not meant to love garrosh over this info, simply don't judge him for the stuff he didn't do. Judge him by the crap he HAS done (and lord knows he's done a lot of crap)
Post by
taurenmoo812
To elaborate that slightly, and since we're using real world examples rank, one could also say despite the monsterous things hitler did in the world war, that he kept his troops well presented and made sure they didn't go hungry means he had 5% a good quality to him? So because of that 5% I should not be bias towards someone like that inspite of all the hidious things he did?
Ok, I'm being told I'm bias, because I hate everything Garrosh represents. But unlike people who started disliking garrosh, people are now coming over to liking him because of a couple of overly simple catch phrases and them yet doing another personaility overhaul on him like every other part of the story he's been in.
I'm never gonna buy it Rank, sorry, I'll never see Garrosh as anything more then the thing that ruined what I thought so well about the reformed horde. I'm even going as far to get some peace of mind over this, to just not giving a crap about the horde after cataclysm comes out.
Just to clarify something, I was adiment in my dislike for Varian since wotlk, and my view on him never changed, despite people saying 'oh he turned over a new leaf, he even was nice to Saurfang', that same character went onto cataclysm to now showing what he's really like, and I can say I was right not to fall into that trap.
Post by
Adamsm
Just to clarify something, I was adiment in my dislike for Varian since wotlk, and my view on him never changed, despite people saying 'oh he turned over a new leaf, he even was nice to Saurfang', that same character went onto cataclysm to now showing what he's really like, and I can say I was right not to fall into that trap.Hm, you haven't read the Shattering, and the wowwiki article on Varian hasn't changed....so what, oh mighty seer of the future, do you know that the rest of us don't? Unless your talking about the fact that he's fighting a war against the Horde(which, according to you, is started by Garrosh); but as far as I've heard, he's not slaughtering innocent Horde children, and he's not raping, looting or pillaging.....
Oh wait; your
referring
to your
wild mass guessing
about things you don't know the full information about; but hey, you can make up whatever you want to about it, as long as you don't have to prove anything.
Post by
taurenmoo812
Just to clarify something, I was adiment in my dislike for Varian since wotlk, and my view on him never changed, despite people saying 'oh he turned over a new leaf, he even was nice to Saurfang', that same character went onto cataclysm to now showing what he's really like, and I can say I was right not to fall into that trap.Hm, you haven't read the Shattering, and the wowwiki article on Varian hasn't changed....so what, oh mighty seer of the future, do you know that the rest of us don't? Unless your talking about the fact that he's fighting a war against the Horde(which, according to you, is started by Garrosh); but as far as I've heard, he's not slaughtering innocent Horde children, and he's not raping, looting or pillaging.....
Oh wait; your
referring
to your
wild mass guessing
about things you don't know the full information about; but hey, you can make up whatever you want to about it, as long as you don't have to prove anything.
And neither can you. I actully put forward a case of what I fear happening, off the bases of how much I hate what is happening now. you just go along with whatever it is and don't need to care, cause he doesn't effect any part of the story you care about. I can sure as hell beat you would have enough to say if the story went the other way, and certain characters you liked were changed or left forgotten.
And Varian not only started the war, he's now showing signs of his split personality syndrome.
Post by
Rankkor
To elaborate that slightly, and since we're using real world examples rank, one could also say despite the monsterous things hitler did in the world war, that he kept his troops well presented and made sure they didn't go hungry means he had 5% a good quality to him? So because of that 5% I should not be bias towards someone like that inspite of all the hidious things he did?
dude, that's a bad example, hittler was never nice to his troops, most nazi troops had to pillage and salvage what they conquered just to not starve, they were spread thin, and had HUGE demands with as little resources as posible.
Im talking about someone doing something that is actually good.
in particular I wanna highlight this part.
So because of that 5% I should not be bias towards someone like that inspite of all the hidious things he did?
yep, pretty much.
if a dude saves a schooll bus full of children, and is thus considered a hero, but then goes and 1 month later rapes 40 girls is no doubt a complete monster.
however, does that means his heroic action earlier never happened? of course not, don't be silly, he did saved the kids, and that is something that should be remembered even if his latter actions were despicable.
being biased means "I hate X guy, and I hate him because he's done so many horrible things, this means that whenever something bad happens, if X was within 10yards then it's his fault, if X does something nice, then it's not nice, because i was X who did it, of course if someone else does the same, then that someone is a hero, but if X did it, then it's not a nice thing, because everything X touches is evilness in the flesh"
Being not biased means "I hate X guy, and I have good reasons to hate him because he's done a lot of horrible suff, however, if something bad happens near him, and he had absolutely nothing to do with it, as much as I hate him, I wont blame him for it, and in case he does something nice I'm willing to admit that he did something nice, of course that doesn't mean I will auto-forget all the crap he did in the first place, and if in the end all the good outweights all the bad, I am willing to forgive, but NEVER forget"
Saurfang has done stuff in the past that would make Garrosh look like mother therese, but he also later did enough good to redeem himself, a biased person against saurfang would ignore all the good he's one and focus exclusively on his bad days, whereas a non-biased person would admit that saurfang is simply not the same man he was before.
Garrosh by no means of imagination has changed enough for me to forgive what he's done ,but if he changes enough I am willing to forgive, however just like with saurfang I will not forget.
this rule goes for Varian too, I hate that bastard, but I admit he did something nice for saurfang, does it means I'm a varian fan? of course not, don't be silly, but if varian does honest-to-god changes, and does more nice things, my opinion of him can shift for the best.
I'm a 100% sure that if it was Thrall who executed Krom'gar you would had loved that, and would be jumping on happyness, if it was Saurfang who exected Krom'gar, you would be equally happy, hell, if it was lorthe'mar theron who executed Krom'gar you would celebrate too, but since it was Garrosh who did it, then that's not a nice action, nor is it something to celebrate, nor is it something to be happy about.
I'm never gonna buy it Rank, sorry, I'll never see Garrosh as anything more then the thing that ruined what I thought so well about the reformed horde. I'm even going as far to get some peace of mind over this, to just not giving a crap about the horde after cataclysm comes out.
so, you think that doomhammer represents everything that is wrong with the orc society just because he led the second war against the alliance, and probably has killed more humans than most orcs combined? Dude the main theme of the horde is REDEMPTION, this is the main cornerstone of the horde "overcome your demons and conquer them, be better by it and strive to live with honor"
to choose that somoene doens't deserve redemption is to simply spit in everything thrall believes, isn't that kind of mentality that led to Thrall to invite the blood elves to the horde even when they were driking fel energy and eating demons for breakfast? and yet how did that turned out? redemption, the race has attonned for it's crimes, and now seeks to purge themselves of their fel taint via the light.
But unlike people who started disliking garrosh, people are now coming over to liking him because of a couple of overly simple catch phrases and them yet doing another personaility overhaul on him like every other part of the story he's been in.
wrong and wrong, people are slightly starting to like him because he's actually showing improvement, let's get something clear, the garrosh from WOTLK would had decorated Krom'gar with a thousand medals for what he did in stonetalon, heck in Warsong hold garrosh openly says it's ok to kill children.
however, he spend the better part of a year next to saurfang, and it was under saurfang's tutelage that Garrosh learned what "HONOR" truly means, thus he no longer considers that killing non-combatants is the way of the horde.
and so, we have a Horde General, who does something despicable, and rather than decorate him and promote him, garrosh executes him, and disbands his army.
that doesn't mean he's perfect, his screw up in the twilight highlands shows how much of an idiot he is, but some of his actions ARE honorable, and while as a whole I still don't like garrosh as a character, much less as a warchief, I still think he has hope.
this goes for Varian too, he's a bigoted Asshat, but his brief moment of simpaty to an orc shows there's still hope for reason within that chin-head of his, of course, untill he actually does something to back that up, he's still a no-no for me. But just as Garrosh had saurfang to show him what honor truly means, varian has anduin to show him what mercy and honor mean as well.
Character development isn't suposed to happen over 1 night, if it did it would be stupid and unrealistic.
if said development happens over the course of the expantion, it's more believable.
Post by
Adamsm
Oh don't try to pull out "Well he doesn't play Horde, so he doesn't care about it" card; I like the Horde lore just as much as I enjoy the Alliance. Yes, I do play Alliance...but not for the reason that you apparently play Horde: Pretty much all of my real life friends play on Lothar, Alliance side, as does my guild. So sorry, but no, try to pull that card out all you want, it doesn't work.
And I will admit, to your ridiculous threads there, I did say I would wait for the official information on it...as that's all we can do. But whatever; hell, Metzen himself could say that Varian didn't start the War(as it hasn't been announced who has thrown the first shot, if it was Garrosh or Varian), and you'd call him a liar to his face because he gives you a truth you don't like; same thing your doing here to both Rank and Skree. Me, I don't care if you call me a liar as I don't care what you think of me, but hey, again, whatever, keep on doing what your doing, flailing and railing against everyone and everything.
Post by
Rankkor
erm, actually adams, Varian did started the war.
remember he attacked the warchief ya know? Thrall didn't accepted that war, and thus limited himself to act on the premise of "if they attack us, we will defend ourselves" but garrosh the first thing he did upon getting the title of warchief was "he wants a war? HE WILL HAVE A WAR!"
it was Varian who shot the first stone by attacking thrall, and Garrosh who seconded that by accepting the war declaration.
as to who mobilized the forces first, that is the part we don't know.
who entered who's territory first? did the alliance hit taurajo first? did the horde hit Silverwing hold first? did the alliance attacked stonard first? did the horde ravaged southshore first?
these are the questions that don't have an answer, but the ones that do are : Varian was the one who declared war, and Garrosh was the one who accepted that declaration.
Edit: also to add why it was varian was the one who trew the first stone, The alliance sent assassins to capture the warchief, before the cataclysm.
Kezan wasn't destroyed due to the cataclysm, it was destroyed because a goblin kicked a bomb in mount Kajaro, however the lost isles do get destroyed by the cataclysm, and by then it was the alliance who had Thrall in chains and ready to parade him on stormwind like a animal.
you could argue that following that line, it was the horde who trew the first stone by attacking gilneas, but that's not valid due to 2 reasons.
A: the forsaken attack on gilneas started exactly at the start of the cataclysm (just as you spot the forsaken troops, duskhaven sinks due to the cataclysmic waves, however the goblins saw the alliance attacking thrall's ship LONG LONG LONG before the cataclysm shook the volcano on the lost isles)
and
B: Gilneas wasn't a part of the alliance, they join after they are rescued by the night elves, but by the time the forsakens attacked, it was an independant peninsula who had long separated itself from the alliance, and even refused the refugees on the greymane wall to enter.
Post by
Adamsm
Right right. I stand corrected....doesn't mean anything else I put there is any less right though, in regards to the poster it was aimed at.
Post by
Gnub
To elaborate that slightly, and since we're using real world examples rank, one could also say despite the monsterous things hitler did in the world war, that he kept his troops well presented and made sure they didn't go hungry means he had 5% a good quality to him? So because of that 5% I should not be bias towards someone like that inspite of all the hidious things he did?
I'm tempted to pull out Godwin's Law here, but the thought of what would happen to the forums if this thread was locked... yikes.
Let's discuss civilized, without far-fetched analogies, okay?
Post by
FarseerLolotea
Since this is the appropriate thread: Garrosh's much-vaunted "character development" in
The Shattering
is one of the reasons that I'm becoming disillusioned with Blizzard's storytelling as a whole.
I mean, "brilliant tactician,"
hell
. I doubt that even Christie Golden can convince me of that.
Post by
306612
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Skreeran
Right right. I stand corrected....doesn't mean anything else I put there is any less right though, in regards to the poster it was aimed at.Eh, Varian would say that the War started with the Wrathgate.
And there was a treaty signed following the Lich King's demise, so we don't know who started the war yet.
The Shattering Spoilers Below
.
.
.
However, if you'll grant me a little speculation, I foresee the Alliance striking the first "real" blow, in retaliation for the actions of the Twilight's Hammer in the guise of the Horde. Namely, their slaughter of the Sentinels early in the book, and their later massacre of a Cenarion Circle gathering. The first action was believed by both the Horde and Alliance to be a Horde action, and the second wasn't addressed by the Alliance, but Cairne believed it to have been at Garrosh's bidding, and challenged him to the Mak'gora because of it.
.
.
.
/End Spoilers
Post by
229054
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Rankkor
To elaborate that slightly, and since we're using real world examples rank, one could also say despite the monsterous things hitler did in the world war, that he kept his troops well presented and made sure they didn't go hungry means he had 5% a good quality to him? So because of that 5% I should not be bias towards someone like that inspite of all the hidious things he did?
I'm tempted to pull out Godwin's Law here, but the thought of what would happen to the forums if this thread was locked... yikes.
Let's discuss civilized, without far-fetched analogies, okay?
hell, that was a HORRIBLE example, mainly because in all his time in power, hitler did NOTHING that could be considered even slightly noble, or honorable.
I pulled up a real-life example that is better along the lines of the point I was trying to make, wich is:
"You can hate, but don't be biased with that hate"
as far as killing Krom'gar goes, that was a noble action, that dude was a monster, and he deserved to be executed, if it was Thrall or saurfang, or anyone else who had executed krom'gar, most of the haters of garrosh would be thrilled, but since it was garrosh who executed him, then the haters say that it wasn't a noble action, and "it doesn't count"
I don't like garrosh, but at least I'm not biased enough to deny the (very very small) good actions he does.
Since this is the appropriate thread: Garrosh's much-vaunted "character development" in
The Shattering
is one of the reasons that I'm becoming disillusioned with Blizzard's storytelling as a whole.
I mean, "brilliant tactician,"
hell
. I doubt that even Christie Golden can convince me of that.
o_O he's been described as a brilliant tactician?
what the hell? in all his military career I've yet to see a single brilliant strategy by that boy, his idea of a strategy in borean tundra is an embarrasment for anyone who has even the slightest faintest idea of military warfare, the tactics of his "homies" in the broken front are even worst.
and his bravado in the twilight highlands costed the entire fleet.
Brilliant Tactician my foot.
Thrall was a brillinant strategist, so was Grom, so was Saurfang, but Garrosh cound't win a simple chess match, much less an actuall battle by military prowess.
Post by
GVHB
Kezan wasn't destroyed due to the cataclysm, it was destroyed because a goblin kicked a bomb in mount Kajaro, however the lost isles do get destroyed by the cataclysm, and by then it was the alliance who had Thrall in chains and ready to parade him on stormwind like a animal.
Actually Rankkorr, Deathwing was the one who made Mount Kajaro blow up. He shows up when you kick the footbomb and it hits him. Then he causes the Volcano to erupt. See
this video
.
Post by
Rankkor
Kezan wasn't destroyed due to the cataclysm, it was destroyed because a goblin kicked a bomb in mount Kajaro, however the lost isles do get destroyed by the cataclysm, and by then it was the alliance who had Thrall in chains and ready to parade him on stormwind like a animal.
Actually Rankkorr, Deathwing was the one who made Mount Kajaro blow up. He shows up when you kick the footbomb and it hits him. Then he causes the Volcano to erupt. See
this video
.
o_O well that's new, because last time I saw a full video walktrough of kezan (both by Totalbiscuit and from Jessie Cox) you just kick the bomb, and suddenly there's an earthquake.
Post by
GVHB
Yeah, it got changed. So, the eruption of Mount Kajaro happens during the Cataclysm, not before.
Post by
Rankkor
Yeah, it got changed. So, the eruption of Mount Kajaro happens during the Cataclysm, not before.
I stand corrected :P gonna edit my previous post.
Side-topic: well at least my goblin has a lot of guilt removed from his shoulders xD I mean in the previous setting, my goblin would have to live with the guilt of being the one who blew up kezan, and ended the lives of so many other goblins in there.
Post by
Skreeran
Yeah, it got changed. So, the eruption of Mount Kajaro happens during the Cataclysm, not before.
I stand corrected :P gonna edit my previous post.
Side-topic: well at least my goblin has a lot of guilt removed from his shoulders xD I mean in the previous setting, my goblin would have to live with the guilt of being the one who blew up kezan, and ended the lives of so many other goblins in there.Goblins don't have guilt, silly.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.