Garrosh in Cataclysm

So beta is upon us.  The NDA has been lifted, and those of us who have been playing are finally able to speak.  Of course, this is a game lore discussion site, so it helps if a number of us have had a chance to check out the content.

Suffice to say, spoilers abound.  I’ll do my best to not blatantly dive into any big reveals, but we’re making no promises.

Throughout Cataclysm’s testing phase, Garrosh has been a character of contention (when is he not?).  Is he an asset to the Horde?  A liability?  We’re used to this argument.  But there’s a new debate that’s come along with Cataclysm.  The question is simple, “Is Garrosh consistent?”  For some players, he now seems erratic.  They’re wrong.  When seen from the correct point of view (Garrosh’s), he’s as consistent as ever.Let’s back up.  Where does this argument come from?

Garrosh, yet again, has evolved with this new expansion.  Namely, he’s now Warchief of the Horde.  Thrall is absent, but his presence still felt.

Every race, except for the Orcs and Tauren, have been thrown out of Orgrimmar proper.  Trolls, Forsaken, Blood Elves?  Untrustworthy.  Goblins?  Slaves.

Spoilers re: Garrosh?  I’ll say this much:  Implications of treachery against Thrall and of course… Cairne.

As players outside Blizzard began experiencing Cataclysm, the first discussions were black and white.  Do we or do we not like what Garrosh is doing?

But then something strange happened, within the game we found Garrosh’s line.  A line even he himself would not cross.  While playing through the Stonetalon Mountains, we met an officer of the Horde whom even Garrosh believed had gone too far, and for the first time we as players realized that Saurfang had actually made a dent in Garrosh’s world view during their time in Northrend.

After this, the Garrosh debate was turned on its head.  What was this?  Garrosh’s line just seemed so out of place.

“Inconsistent” was the word.  Was Garrosh inconsistent?

So here we are.  And as you know, we believe he’s not, and you will too once you understand the underlying truth that is Garrosh.

That truth?

Garrosh is not evil.  He is ruthless.  And his ultimate loyalty is to the concept of the Horde itself instead of any one particular individual.

No matter how outlandish, or inconsistent Garrosh’s actions may seem, they all make sense when one understands that through the eyes of Garrosh everything he does is based on one simple question, “Will this strengthen the Horde?”

We may disagree with Garrosh’s answers, but that is still nonetheless the question he is asking himself with every decision he makes.

According to Garrosh, the Horde would be stronger streamlined down to the Tauren and Orcs.  According to Garrosh, the Horde may even be better without Thrall.  And… according to Garrosh, the moment the Horde steps over the line, it’ll find itself on collision course with becoming the Horde of old, the one that failed and was enslaved.

That is where the line comes from.  It is not random nor inconsistent.  To cross that line would weaken the Horde, therefore Garrosh will not do it.

So…Where will it all lead?  Who knows.  Blizzard is a lot less predictable these days, often throwing story elements in from completely left field.

Could Garrosh still ultimately become a villain?

Certainly.  Consider this… Emotions reverse.

It goes back to the beginnings of storytelling (not to mention human nature).  The more an individual loves something, the more they’ll hate it if they’re opinion is ever reversed.

Garrosh lives for the Horde, and would die for it if he needed to.

Eventually Thrall will return.

The question is, will Garrosh ultimately come to feel betrayed by the Horde?  If so, will his emotions be reversed?  Were that to happen, Garrosh could arguably hate the Horde even more so than King Wrynn.  At that point, you have your Villain.

We’ll just have to wait and see.

{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }

1 Dangablad August - 2010 at 10:28 am

It’s about time the Horde got some “civil war” talk after all this crazy night elf/dwarf speak.

Leave a Comment