Discussion: What Makes a Compelling Character

Community Manager
I see a lot of people say that they want a character that's written without gender in mind, but even when this is done, gender defines the character, at least it does in your mind. Thus, there are expectations of that character based on that. i.e. As I mentioned before, Jaina going after vengeance to some makes her "crazy".

I also see a lot of vague mention of "relate able" or "realistic" or "rational". What makes a character fit this, and how do you think this translates into the game (within the restrictions that it entails.)?

(I'm just pushing the conversation a bit further here. Thanks to everyone who's participated so far. Very well thought out posts.)
Reply Quote
90 Troll Hunter
12970
The closest we have to that now, really, is Admiral Taylor and General Nazgrim. Those guys are great. I'd like to see more people like that, introduced in racial starting areas. Characters to kind of ground the player more in where they "came from."

You mean like Zuni, from the Troll starting zone, just without the dying?
Reply Quote
03/29/2013 02:30 PMPosted by Nethaera
Thus, there are expectations of that character based on that. i.e. As I mentioned before, Jaina going after vengeance to some makes her "crazy".


A lot of people don't actually realize what happened to her.

The impact of not reading the books, and not witnessing the destruction of Theramore in its entirety was very detrimental to the story.

Instead of a scenario, if it had played out as an actual event or at least a cinematic, where the Alliance sees the deaths of all those that died at Theramore, it would have been more impact. Instead, the little cinematic that plays at the beginning of Theramore scenario appears to be an empty ghost town.

One of the BIGGEST issues that I have with character development coming from Blizzard, is that they are relying on 3rd party mediums to achieve it. The ammount of cognitive dissonance this causes with the player base, who remember X and then its now Y, they scratch their heads and go, "When did that happen". When someone explains it, it cheapens the experience. By having it reflect in game instead of behind the scenes, it would just have a sense of impact on a much more grandiose scale.

For people to actually attach themselves to characters, they first have to witness what it is that they have been through.
Edited by Seebach on 3/29/2013 2:55 PM PDT
Reply Quote
90 Human Mage
13550
A good example of a compelling character (in my opinion) would be pre cataclysm Varian Wrynn, before he got beat over the head with his demi-god champion status (which as far as I can tell, isn't being excercised).

At this time, Varian Wrynn was shown to be a very passionate leader as he marched the Alliance into Northrend to battle the Lich King. After Bolvar's death at the Wrathgate, Varian Wrynn could no longer tolerate the horde's prescence, and staged an assault on the Undercity, the once great kingdom of Lordaeron, his second home, in hopes of reclaiming it in the name of the alliance and for its rightful owners, the still living citizens of Lordaeron residing within Stormwind and pocketed throughout the region. His retribution was justified and swift when he dove into the Undercity, taking out Putress - A forsaken apothecary responsible for Bolvar's death. From there, he realized that Thrall - leader of the horde - was also in the city walls, and decided it was time to take action. A lot of blood would have been shed, and Thrall and Varian may have well maimed each other to a point of crippling status, but Jaina stopped the fight, and whisked everyone away.
I completely agree with this. To me, compelling characters show passion, dedication, and aren't perfect. I really like the new Jaina and Sky Admiral Rogers. They are relatable in that they openly display hatred towards the opposing faction (which is what I believe most people would do during a war), passion towards their cause (Sky Admiral Roger's speech during the first few MOP quests), and have conflicts. They aren't perfect but that's what makes them relatable. We have emotions and sometimes they can get the better of us. Perfect beings just aren't relatable. I miss the old Varian. I think the leader of the Alliance should be displaying anger and hatred towards the Horde. The Ulduar cinematic showed his passion, anger, and that like most people, he could get reckless when provoked. The new Varian would never act that way now. Sadly, I find Sky Admiral Rogers and Jaina far more inspiring, relatable, and compelling than our faction leader.
Reply Quote
55 Draenei Death Knight
470
I see a lot of people say that they want a character that's written without gender in mind, but even when this is done, gender defines the character, at least it does in your mind. Thus, there are expectations of that character based on that. i.e. As I mentioned before, Jaina going after vengeance to some makes her "crazy".

I also see a lot of vague mention of "relate able" or "realistic" or "rational". What makes a character fit this, and how do you think this translates into the game (within the restrictions that it entails.)?

(I'm just pushing the conversation a bit further here. Thanks to everyone who's participated so far. Very well thought out posts.)


Whats a compelling character to me.

By Crappytank.

For me what makes a compelling character is growth but in a completely non cop out way. To have the character overco.e adversity through their own strength and not via a magical bullet.

An example of this is Lord of the ring. The seige of gandor. You feel their struggle their strengthas they try to do eeverything possible to be back the orcs. The rohan came eith the tie turning. Then it fell flat when aragon push the I win button with his ghost army. An army that no mortal blades could hurt.

The wow example of this is Varian was given abilities off screen we did not see hin gain any of his ability and was told he was awesome. Then you guys went and gave him special connection to a wolf god of all things. While it seems you are trying to humble him he just come off as simply being there.

DONE RIGHT

Bolvar from the get go we were told he was a highlord. Then onxyia quest chain happened and you saw the highlord in action. Clearly this man had skill. Then in tbc ending you had another one of his personalities show on how loyal he was by simply stepping asife foe varian return. You then let us form a deep personal connection with him in the dragonblight. He remember what you did for him with onxyia, he tells you as much and you help him defeat a powerful foe. Then...you had us help him at wrath gate and let us watch him fall...

These are character growth that you guys have done successfully. You did the same thibg with arthas, everything he did was under his own strengths nothing was given. He fought and clawed his way to ice crown and malganis. Frost mourne was just another weapon not his I win button.

This is what makes a compelling story in my eyes. Character hardship rewarded. Character lights being felt as it get snuffed out.

This is why people are having a tough time swallowing garrosh. He was shown to be honorable and if it couldn't have been accomplished by his own hands he wanted no part of it. That's why the krom kar scene was so powerful. Even with wolfheart he tames the beast to unleashed on the alliance and was there...he did not toss his people away frivolously. In Mop he lost his depth and is tryin to go for the I win button.

Magics is good and all and a good example of magic done right was the sunwell rebirth or killing mayalgos. The bad way is simply saying its magic and not showing.

But yes character growth for me makes it ccompelling. Characters that come out of the box uber powerful with no development? Not so much.


That my example. Detailed too.
Reply Quote
90 Undead Priest
20560
I see a lot of people say that they want a character that's written without gender in mind, but even when this is done, gender defines the character, at least it does in your mind. Thus, there are expectations of that character based on that. i.e. As I mentioned before, Jaina going after vengeance to some makes her "crazy".

I also see a lot of vague mention of "relate able" or "realistic" or "rational". What makes a character fit this, and how do you think this translates into the game (within the restrictions that it entails.)?

(I'm just pushing the conversation a bit further here. Thanks to everyone who's participated so far. Very well thought out posts.)


Just want to say this isn't something I think most necessarily agree with. I think gender should always be kept in mind when writing a character. It is, ultimately, less realistic in terms of character for gender to be discounted, and I think the view point that gender shouldn't matter is one that is half about advocacy rather than fully about story.

I actually very much like the direction Jaina has been taken. It doesn't seem to me like Jaina has gone crazy, it seems to be like she's finally begun to approach the world in a more rational way. Despite the criticism she's gotten from some, there are others who are quite happy with how her story has been going lately.

The one thing I'd have liked to see more of from her, in game, was more regret over what happened to her father and the choices she made then to assist Thrall. But I guess that's in the book. I just always like hearing the voice actors.

On that note: Everyone loves voice acting. And the voice acting has gotten better lately. The emotion that an actor can put into a line can make it stronger than the text alone would indicate, and improve the character in that way. The efforts to assemble a larger voice cast really have paid off and show this expansion.
Reply Quote
90 Pandaren Monk
12910
I see a lot of people say that they want a character that's written without gender in mind, but even when this is done, gender defines the character, at least it does in your mind. Thus, there are expectations of that character based on that. i.e. As I mentioned before, Jaina going after vengeance to some makes her "crazy".


I agree that character gender brings its own expectations to writing but I feel that these expectations are part of the reason Blizzard has a lot of flat, one-dimensional female characters. When you start with "gender defines character", then you start asking questions like "how do females act differently from males". Obviously, males and females are different, but their reactions to situations aren't based on gender, they're based on personality. There isn't the "female" or "male" way to react to this or that situation, there's the "Jaina" or "Sylvanas" or "Varian" way to react to a situation. Being female is part of Jaina, not the other way around.

As far as Jaina's character changing from a diplomat to a vengeance-seeker, it just didn't work, and that may be just my subjective opinion. It was too sudden, perhaps - you had her at one point bending over backwards to make peace and then going on a murderous rampage - in the same questline. It was also quite the extreme reaction from a character that doesn't generally have extreme reactions. I think it would have been more believable for her to have a more pointed response - perhaps getting upset at a particular Sunreaver leader, rather just painting the entire faction with such a broad brush.

A lot of people don't actually realize what happened to her.

The impact of not reading the books, and not witnessing the destruction of Theramore in its entirety was very detrimental to the story.

Instead of a scenario, if it had played out as an actual event or at least a cinematic, where the Alliance sees the deaths of all those that died at Theramore, it would have been more impact. Instead, the little cinematic that plays at the beginning of Theramore scenario appears to be an empty ghost town.

One of the BIGGEST issues that I have with character development coming from Blizzard, is that they are relying on 3rd party mediums to achieve it. The ammount of cognitive dissonance this causes with the player base, who remember X and then its now Y, they scratch their heads and go, "When did that happen". When someone explains it, it cheapens the experience. By having it reflect in game instead of behind the scenes, it would just have a sense of impact on a much more grandiose scale.

For people to actually attach themselves to characters, they first have to witness what it is that they have been through.


This. Its frustrating to feel like I have to buy a bunch of books I don't really want to buy to actually enjoy the story in World of Warcraft.
Edited by Ramayana on 3/29/2013 2:53 PM PDT
Reply Quote
03/29/2013 02:39 PMPosted by Seebach
Thus, there are expectations of that character based on that. i.e. As I mentioned before, Jaina going after vengeance to some makes her "crazy".


A lot of people don't actually realize what happened to her.

The impact of not reading the books, and not witnessing the destruction of Theramore in its entirety was very detrimental to the story.

Instead of a scenario, if it had played out as an actual event or at least a cinematic, where the Alliance sees the deaths of all those that died at Theramore, it would have been more impact. Instead, the little cinematic that plays at the beginning of Theramore scenario appears to be an empty ghost town.

One of the BIGGEST issues that I have with character development coming from Blizzard, is that they are relying on 3rd party mediums to achieve it. The ammount of cognitive dissonance this causes with the player base, who remember X and then its now Y, they scratch their heads and go, "When did that happen". When someone explains it, it cheapens the experience. By having it reflect in game instead of behind the scenes, it would just have a sense of impact on a much more grandiose scale.

For people to actually attach themselves to characters, they first have to witness what it is that they have been through.


Agreed with this.

Books should be a side thing for those who want to delve deeper into Lore, but Scenarios or whatever else in game should still allow those emotional connections for us as players to see why Jaina would feel this way.
Reply Quote
03/29/2013 02:39 PMPosted by Seebach
Thus, there are expectations of that character based on that. i.e. As I mentioned before, Jaina going after vengeance to some makes her "crazy".


A lot of people don't actually realize what happened to her.

The impact of not reading the books, and not witnessing the destruction of Theramore in its entirety was very detrimental to the story.

Instead of a scenario, if it had played out as an actual event or at least a cinematic, where the Alliance sees the deaths of all those that died at Theramore, it would have been more impact. Instead, the little cinematic that plays at the beginning of Theramore scenario appears to be an empty ghost town.

One of the BIGGEST issues that I have with character development coming from Blizzard, is that they are relying on 3rd party mediums to achieve it. The ammount of cognitive dissonance this causes with the player base, who remember X and then its now Y, they scratch their heads and go, "When did that happen". When someone explains it, it cheapens the experience. By having it reflect in game instead of behind the scenes, it would just have a sense of impact on a much more grandiose scale.

For people to actually attach themselves to characters, they first have to witness what it is that they have been through.


Seebach nailed it on the head.
Reply Quote
90 Human Mage
13550
I see a lot of people say that they want a character that's written without gender in mind, but even when this is done, gender defines the character, at least it does in your mind. Thus, there are expectations of that character based on that. i.e. As I mentioned before, Jaina going after vengeance to some makes her "crazy".

I also see a lot of vague mention of "relate able" or "realistic" or "rational". What makes a character fit this, and how do you think this translates into the game (within the restrictions that it entails.)?
I think relatable characters would react the way most people would. I would be PISSED if someone or some faction did something like what Garrosh did to Theramore to my city. I'd probably have a similar initial reaction to Jaina, then realize that it would be taking it a bit far and I'd figure out a better "revenge." Her initial neutrality before the Purge of Dalaran isn't relatable. The first thing I'd have done would be side with the Alliance; not tell Anduin I'm staying out of it. Relatable characters don't forgive the enemy every single time, nor do they always do the right thing. Sometimes they have inner conflicts and make less moral choices for their cause. Who's more compelling, interesting and relatable? Pissed off Jaina who fights or the Jaina that remained neutral after the events of Theramore?
Edited by Houdinii on 3/29/2013 2:54 PM PDT
Reply Quote
When you start with "gender defines character", then you start asking questions like "how do females act differently from males". Obviously, males and females are different, but their reactions to situations aren't based on gender, they're based on personality. There isn't the "female" or "male" way to react to this or that situation, there's the "Jaina" or "Sylvanas" or "Varian" way to react to a situation. Being female is part of Jaina, not the other way around.

As far as Jaina's character changing from a diplomat to a vengeance-seeker, it just didn't work, and that may be just my subjective opinion. It was too sudden, perhaps - you had her at one point bending over backwards to make peace and then going on a murderous rampage - in the same questline. It was also quite the extreme reaction from a character that doesn't generally have extreme reactions. I think it would have been more believable for her to have a more pointed response - perhaps getting upset at a particular Sunreaver leader, rather just painting the entire faction with such a broad brush.


Well put, i actually had something relatively similar typed out and i clicked the bloody delete key :/, my only point of contention is She was really mad they mana-nuked her city, realized she didn't really want to be just like Garrosh and drown Orgrimmar, but then went neutral again, by that point she should have realized neutrality wasn't an option.

Which was a big break from consistency for her character, at that time she should have recognized how misguided her pursuing peace with Garrosh was, how different he was from Thrall, later you have the betrayals and she fully hardens but it showed an odd flip floppiness with her overall decision-making/character.
Edited by Letivus on 3/29/2013 2:55 PM PDT
Reply Quote
03/29/2013 02:30 PMPosted by Nethaera
I also see a lot of vague mention of "relate able" or "realistic" or "rational". What makes a character fit this, and how do you think this translates into the game (within the restrictions that it entails.)?


It's going to be different for everyone. For me, compelling characters have to be on some sort of emotional level that I can relate with.

When I first was introduced to Garrosh Hellscream as a warchief, and he booted someone off a cliff for honorless kills, I looked at him and went, "Oh !@#$, this guys going places. He's actually going to reign in his men when it wasn't a warranted skirmish." On the exact flipside, I saw his skirmishes into Ashenvale and when I read Wolfheart, I thought, "OH %^-*!! Not only is he going to continue the warsong battle for lumber, but he'll do whatever it takes to accomplish it."

So by these 2 examples, I can glean that Garrosh will fight the Alliance down to the last man or woman for what the Horde needs to survive (and not even bat an eyelash), and that he is willing to bust his own mens skulls for shaming their leader and the horde.

I loved to hate Garrosh. He was worthy of both emotions.

This new Garrosh, and I'm quoting another person from this thread, "Was written by too many writers". He became damaged goods, and no longer fit his own theme. He was now just being beligerent to be beligerent, and it wasn't because he's possessed or anything, that's just how he was written. This coupled with the information by various interviews with Metzen, it became clear very quickly that Garrosh was never meant to be.

I don't even hate Garrosh anymore. I nothing Garrosh, no feelings for him one way or the other. He could have been this great figurehead for the horde, and the writers just mucked it up. When he finally dies, I will pour one out for him one last time, because he coulda been THE contender.

A lot of this feeling of nothing for Garrosh stems from Metzen spoiling the story WAAAY ahead of time. I could tolerate knowing that Illidan or Arthas or Deathwing were the "Final Bosses" of their expansions (I know Illidan wasn't actually the last boss, semantics), but because of how I had seen Garrosh, I couldn't believe it. The other half stems from character hari kari.

(I'm just pushing the conversation a bit further here. Thanks to everyone who's participated so far. Very well thought out posts.)


You honestly don't know how appreciative the story forums are for this kindness you have extended.
Edited by Seebach on 3/29/2013 3:17 PM PDT
Reply Quote
90 Draenei Paladin
12080
I can't think of a way to describe a compelling character without trying to imagine said character myself.

I, personally, would love to see a drunk female blood elf (or at least one who is know to hang out at the tavern all the time). Why? I would just love to see said belf female to be way different! Loud, obnoxious, embarrassing to be around, etc. Over the top! Something you wouldn't see your average belf female do!

I would also love to see halflings. It could just be a personal favorite of mine, but I ALWAYS love pairings with different races and meeting those mixed-blooded kids. Especially pairings that are between Horde and Alliance characters.

I also find characters that you interact with a lot in quests are incredibly memorable. Reoccurring characters that have your back or interact with my character directly is always a plus. I love those characters where they can make me laugh or can be sarcastic towards me. It feels more "personal". Like I am there, and I am helping my comrades. Could be why I was so disheartened when Master Xii (I think that's correct) in the Pandaran starting area went away; hit me in the feels.

That being said, I feel a real compelling character is one who has problems. What kind of problems? Any problems! Because every person has problems, and that's relate able. I guess that could explain why even the "damsel-in-distress" can be a compelling character.

I apologize for my long explanation! XD
Reply Quote
90 Human Hunter
11285
http://wow.joystiq.com/2012/06/24/know-your-lore-what-exactly-is-up-with-women-in-warcraft-lore/

This article right here really hits on some of the problems of Warcraft characters -- particularly females. It just seems like oftentimes, female characters are written first and foremost to complement another character (usually a man), with the rest of their characterization coming after. They might be a love interest, a mother, or even a rival or nemesis. Now this isn't always the case -- I love me some Thisalee Crow, for example. I just think the article makes a lot of good points about storytelling in general.

Something else? I really really really hope Garrosh doesn't end up going "SURPRISE! I was corrupted by the Sha/the Old Gods/some other evil corrupting force the whole time!" That has been done to death. I know Sha corruption would fit in with the whole theme of the expansion, but we already have a TON of characters falling victim to it, and it would be really nice to see a character who's just made a ton of bad decisions and has to own up to them or get put down.

One more thing I'd like to see, and I mentioned this in a previous thread... I would really love to see some openly LGBT characters. Probably not going to happen, but just throwing it out there.
Reply Quote
90 Dwarf Shaman
14470
I don't think compelling characters are relatable. This is a fantasy game and I want a hero that embodies the vision of a particular ethos. Give me a dwarf leader that encompasses dwarven mythology. I pray Moira takes a backseat and Bran realizes he needs to stop being such a nerd. He has all the potential in the world to be a compelling race leader, but instead is used to drive story in instances.
Reply Quote
90 Troll Mage
12905
03/29/2013 02:30 PMPosted by Nethaera
I see a lot of people say that they want a character that's written without gender in mind, but even when this is done, gender defines the character, at least it does in your mind. Thus, there are expectations of that character based on that. i.e. As I mentioned before, Jaina going after vengeance to some makes her "crazy".
But there's a world of difference between gender defining how a character is received and how it is written.

Unless you are trying to talk about how gender roles in society affect how people grow up and look at each other you should largely, if not entirely, ignore gender in creating a character. This is a fantasy world.

If x or y decides Jaina is crazy cause in their eyes "lol women are so emotional, she should be diplomatic" you can demonstrate that this is a gender prejudice at play.

The problem with thinking of gender as a characteristic of your subject in writing is that you immediately insert other characteristics in there without realizing it because male is (unless you're just exceptionally good at bucking societal pressure) the default and therefore doesn't take up a slot in your "attributes" you're assigning the character. I'm not talking about a conscious effort to do so, but of the traps that we inevitably fall into because of the environment we are in. It requires checks to prevent yourself from falling into these habits.
Reply Quote
90 Draenei Monk
7755
03/29/2013 02:30 PMPosted by Nethaera
I see a lot of people say that they want a character that's written without gender in mind, but even when this is done, gender defines the character, at least it does in your mind. Thus, there are expectations of that character based on that. i.e. As I mentioned before, Jaina going after vengeance to some makes her "crazy".

Not necessarily. A bounty hunter chases down a group of pirates that have stolen biological weapons. There are guns, explosions, death, intrigue, and most importantly depth. That bounty hunter's name? SAMUS ARAN.

Sure, sometimes a female character will react differently in a situation than a male character (or vice-versa). But unless we as an audience are capable of seeing that person's motivations for responding that way, and thereby relating with the character, we'll just end up chalking it up as "super macho guy does super macho stuff" or "it must be her time of the month". Because we don't know why. Because of bad character development.

Women and men won't always react in the same way. But in the end, we're all human (or orc, or draenei, or candle). And we all have reasons for the things we do.

----

I think with the phasing and scenario technology that WoW has now, it is a very good time to introduce us to a new cast of characters. In the past, if you happened to skip a certain questline that detailed a character's backstory (or skipped the quest text or whatever), but then that character showed up later on, you'd have no idea who he was and why he exists. So you instantly feel disconnected from this character, and most people won't go back and do an old quest line from a previous expansion just to understand this character. But with this new tech, we can be introduced to new characters and quest alongside them and feel like we're right there in their story.

I think scenarios would be a good thing to implement for lower-levels as well. Not often, but every once in a while; to explain why WPL is now mostly Scourge-free even though we're fighting the Scourge in Northrend, or to get us better-acquainted with the faction leaders and/or spark hatred for the opposite-faction. Scenarios are a great method for storytelling, and I'm glad that Blizzard is using the tech this way; but there is so much more that can be done lore-wise to get us all personally acquainted with the characters.
Reply Quote
90 Human Hunter
11285
I don't think compelling characters are relatable. This is a fantasy game and I want a hero that embodies the vision of a particular ethos. Give me a dwarf leader that encompasses dwarven mythology. I pray Moira takes a backseat and Bran realizes he needs to stop being such a nerd. He has all the potential in the world to be a compelling race leader, but instead is used to drive story in instances.

If I might ask, what would be wrong with Moira, if she were ever to decide that she wanted to go out and adventure herself? I actually kinda like Bran's deal -- that he's royalty but he's decided to go out and be an explorer and archaeologist.
Reply Quote
90 Troll Warlock
16225
I see a lot of people say that they want a character that's written without gender in mind, but even when this is done, gender defines the character, at least it does in your mind. Thus, there are expectations of that character based on that. i.e. As I mentioned before, Jaina going after vengeance to some makes her "crazy".

I also see a lot of vague mention of "relate able" or "realistic" or "rational". What makes a character fit this, and how do you think this translates into the game (within the restrictions that it entails.)?

(I'm just pushing the conversation a bit further here. Thanks to everyone who's participated so far. Very well thought out posts.)


I can answer the question for myself, at least:
Realistic characters make the audience think "I know someone like that".
--Garrosh's personality was realistic during Cataclysm. It isn't now.
--Sylvanas Windrunner isn't realistic and never was. Too poorly defined.
Relatable characters make the audience think "I could see myself doing that". This is more subjective, and harder to achieve -- but it's a sign of good writing when people relate to your character(s).
--Lorthemar's attempts to temper Garrosh are relatable. (In fact, Lorthermar in MOP is one of the most compelling characters you've created)
--Thrall's attempt at a normal life with his lover are relatable.
--Anduin's "Golden Child" impression isn't relatable.
Rational means either of two things:
Internally consistent characters are understandable without leaps of logic, abstruse hidden motives, or sophomoric plot twists ("secretly corrupted" is the mother of these, I am sorry to say). For the most part, characters these days behave rationally. BC was rife with unrealistic behavior, sometimes to hilarious extremes (*).
Externally consistent characters could reasonably exist without changing their behavior and personality. I see this a major fault in World of Warcraft writing, and even MOP has many examples of characters whose behavior is simply too stupid for them to still be alive. Garrosh becoming Sha of Paint Chips...Lorewalker Cho in VOM (**)...Vol'jin hiding out in the same town the freaking Orc general just spent the past month recuperating, can't imagine Garrosh looking there, nope nope nope (***). Given that this is sometimes the hardest thing for writers to do, external consistency should really be looked at when writing for characters.

(*) Example: Vashj. Her motives appeared to be "I will drain ALL THE WATER from this DYING WORLD, thus killing my entire race, because ... I will drain ALL THE WATER from this DYING WORLD! ...step 3, profit."
(**) Consider him in Vault of Mysteries. He's such a frustrating idiot that, by boss five, you want to toss him down Elegon's pit before he gets even stupider. Then, you don't...and he does. "Hey look, a Mogu machine! This should be destroyed," he says. "Let's turn it on!" Meanwhile, the rational person thinks "...seriously? How did you survive this long, peabrain? Why not go outside and drop the entire mountainside on this freaking door? We can pick through the rocks for purples, make an evening of it. OH GOD IT HAD A TRACTOR BEAM YOU STUPID PANDA OH SH--"
(***) Notably, this might be OK; lack of short term memory supports his role as Sha of Paint Chips. But then, this begs the question of "so how has Garrosh not led the Horde to a complete rout when he's so abjectly stupid."
Edited by Thugra on 3/29/2013 3:38 PM PDT
Reply Quote
03/29/2013 03:00 PMPosted by Aulus
I don't think compelling characters are relatable.


Relateable doesn't mean they have to encompass what YOUR life is. Relateability can stem from even a minute concept the character in question might have.

03/29/2013 03:00 PMPosted by Aulus
I pray Moira takes a backseat and Bran realizes he needs to stop being such a nerd.


W-What?

You have no idea how much !@#$%^- I'm holding back right now with this statement, but I am nonetheless trying.

Moira is by association a part of Dwarven Lore, and not just any lore - DARK IRON LORE - something that needs to be explored. We need to see how the Dark Irons plan to work with the Alliance and hope that eventually that even the Wildhammers and the Bronzebeards will legitimately recognize her and her people as stalwart members of the Alliance. They are still by my understanding largely outside of the friendship circle.
Reply Quote

Please report any Code of Conduct violations, including:

Threats of violence. We take these seriously and will alert the proper authorities.

Posts containing personal information about other players. This includes physical addresses, e-mail addresses, phone numbers, and inappropriate photos and/or videos.

Harassing or discriminatory language. This will not be tolerated.

Forums Code of Conduct

Report Post # written by

Reason
Explain (256 characters max)
Submit Cancel

Reported!

[Close]