Garrosh in Twilight Highlands (Spoilers)

Story Forum
Prev 1 5 6 7 Next
Garrosh is making huge mistakes which should be costing the horde dearly but for some luck (which is occurring purely through the courtesy of authorial fiat). As others point out with the RTS tactical analogies, sending your aircover away while in hostile territory is something you just do not do. Yes the alliance ships were a target of opportunity, but it's not one you take when you're unsure of everything else around you. He got tunnel visioned and the horde assault was screwed.

Now I'm halfway through The Shattering at present and getting the impression the book's been written partly to give some depth to Garrosh and explain how he manages to squeeze through situations despite making rash calls - ie., what we're not seeing ingame where he's just a hotheaded goon.

From the way his 'successes' keeps happening like they do you've got to be thinking that the writers' intention is that eventually the luck will run out and he's going to be left facing the music - questions from genuine generals and the lamentations of the widows and families.

You could well imagine one of the older orcs (or Vol'jin, who'll be waiting for such a moment... :) ) sidling up to him at some point and saying "Your generals now doubt your commands and the populace takes fear at your calls for battle - this is where you earn the title 'Warchief' - not in the winning of battles, but in turning hearts and minds after a defeat."

We've had self-righteous good guys despair and turn bad (Arthas); defenders of the land broken and turned to evil, only to then break free (Sylvanas); ancient villains set free to help only take on more power (Illidan). Now with Garrosh it looks like they're trying to write up a rash noob and make him grow into a leader - and, as with any fantasy work since Gilgamesh that won't happen without a major stumble.

Jhagrin, since you brought up how Garrosh is a good commander, I would remind you that in his fight against Cairne, Cairne himself comments that Garrosh is a better warrior than he, but he's not focused. He lets his anger make his decisions for him, he's not a smart fighter, he's just passionate. That's why Cairne was beating him, because Cairne was out-thinking him. The Garrosh that sends his air defense off on an attack is the same Garrosh that can't make intelligent decisions in battle.

And you keep saying it was a good decision with a bad outcome? There's no such thing. The qualifier of a decision IS the outcome. As has been pointed out, this was an avoidable catastrophe. A bad outcome that could have been avoided is not derived from a good decision. Your logic is absurd.

As far as the Starcraft analogies, enough of that. Garrosh is Warchief. His duty is to command. Part of commanding is anticipating things that might go wrong. Had he kept his defensive air units there with him and the dragons never attacked, it still would have been a better decision because of the context of the situation. He's flying into a heavily fortified area of operations for Deathwing himself, and it didn't occur to him that the Alliance should not be his primary enemy here? A good commander would have said, "Hmmmm, Alliance ships, and they look open to attack. If I attack them, though, I leave myself open to attack, and there's much more than just the Alliance to worry about in this area... is it worth the risk?" There should have been a lot more going through Garrosh's head than, "FOR THE HORDE!" There wasn't.

He got caught up in a blood haze, made a rash decision for his own barbarity, and it backfired. He lost to the Alliance, and his arrogance and lack of ability to stop and weigh possible outcomes lost him the transports.
A good commander would have said, "Hmmmm, Alliance ships, and they look open to attack. If I attack them, though, I leave myself open to attack, and there's much more than just the Alliance to worry about in this area... is it worth the risk?"


A good commander also would have said "Hmm, Alliance ships, and they look open to attack. Where are the stealthed wingéd bears that shoot lasers out their eyes hiding?"
Derp
Derp
Derp
I think Garrosh made the right choice in ordering his goblin fighters to attack those Alliance ships.

Seriously though, what were those goblin fighters going to do against those drakes?

Nothing. They'd get roflstomped faster than the zeppelins did.

Garrosh made the right decision based on the information he had at the time. He saw easy targets and went to go pick them off. Sure, WE knew they were going to get roflstomped by drakes, but in character, he couldn't have known that somebody had sold him out. (I think it was that quest dude next to him, but I dunno.)

Seriously, if you were a general, and you saw a whole bunch of enemy ships undefended, you go kill them. Some times it's a trap, like it was for Garrosh, but most of the time you're going to get free kills and nothings going to happen to you.

It was just bad luck for Garrosh that Deathwing and his drakes decided to attack right then. :(


The fighter escorts were designed for air-to-air fights. So no, they would not have gotten "roflstomped". By ordering his only defensive units to attack a separate fleet that was not the goal of the military objective was idiotic and reckless, and his troops paid the price.

Garrosh was launching an offensive deep into enemy territory. Even though it was planned to be a surprise attack, he should have expected some resistance. Instead, he went into a rage once he saw the Alliance ships and began ranting and raving about, "Alliance KILL! Rawr!" And his ship got shot down in the process and he almost died. And his fleet suffered huge casualties, both on the ground, in the air, in the twilight highlands, and the fighters he sent to attack the Alliance fleet were destroyed, with only a handful of survivors returning.
And you keep saying it was a good decision with a bad outcome? There's no such thing. The qualifier of a decision IS the outcome. As has been pointed out, this was an avoidable catastrophe. A bad outcome that could have been avoided is not derived from a good decision. Your logic is absurd.


This is not exactlly true. In the Marines we have a saying, "Good initiative, bad judgement.". It esentially means, "Could have worked out but didn't. Learn from it."

If it had worked out great, the responses to it would have been a cheerfull "That Garrosh is one CRAZY SOB! I don't know how he does it but his reckless tactics are pure brilliance!" Many times in a dynamic, changing environment, like war, there is no right or wrong. Only, worked or didn't.

Now, in this case, I would agree. It was unnecesary and not a decisision I would have made, but diffrent leaders have diffrent styles. Some are more aggressive, some not so much. All have their advantages/disadvantages in any given situation. Lore wise, Cairne acknowleges Garrosh's tactical brilliance in Northrend. Sometimes, things just don't work out.


This is not exactlly true. In the Marines we have a saying, "Good initiative, bad judgement.". It esentially means, "Could have worked out but didn't. Learn from it."

If it had worked out great, the responses to it would have been a cheerfull "That Garrosh is one CRAZY SOB! I don't know how he does it but his reckless tactics are pure brilliance!" Many times in a dynamic, changing environment, like war, there is no right or wrong. Only, worked or didn't.

Now, in this case, I would agree. It was unnecesary and not a decisision I would have made, but diffrent leaders have diffrent styles. Some are more aggressive, some not so much. All have their advantages/disadvantages in any given situation. Lore wise, Cairne acknowleges Garrosh's tactical brilliance in Northrend. Sometimes, things just don't work out.


I agree with almost6 everything you said, but I would argue there's a difference between aggressive, and outright reckless. With Garrosh, it's to the point of detriment because he doesn't weigh in pros and cons, just rages out and attacks for no other reason than because it's Alliance. That's not a good display of leadership. I don't think this situation is a very good example of, "Good initiative, bad judgment." The goal of the operation was to take the Twilight Highlands quickly and with minimum casualties, not attack the Alliance.
Now, in this case, I would agree. It was unnecesary and not a decisision I would have made, but diffrent leaders have diffrent styles. Some are more aggressive, some not so much. All have their advantages/disadvantages in any given situation. Lore wise, Cairne acknowleges Garrosh's tactical brilliance in Northrend. Sometimes, things just don't work out.


I lol'd.

Is this in the Shattering?
Now, in this case, I would agree. It was unnecesary and not a decisision I would have made, but diffrent leaders have diffrent styles. Some are more aggressive, some not so much. All have their advantages/disadvantages in any given situation. Lore wise, Cairne acknowleges Garrosh's tactical brilliance in Northrend. Sometimes, things just don't work out.


I lol'd.

Is this in the Shattering?


I don't remember what the particular TV trope is called when writers tell you a character is amazing at X, but all evidence seen points to the contrary, yet we are continually told that the character is still awesome at X. This fits Garrosh perfectly.
I don't remember what the particular TV trope is called when writers tell you a character is amazing at X, but all evidence seen points to the contrary, yet we are continually told that the character is still awesome at X. This fits Garrosh perfectly.


It kind of fits Sylvanas as well.
I don't remember what the particular TV trope is called when writers tell you a character is amazing at X, but all evidence seen points to the contrary, yet we are continually told that the character is still awesome at X. This fits Garrosh perfectly.


The only plausible way this works in the story is that Saurfang, in an attempt to keep Garrosh's character alive, has allowed him to take credit for his handiwork.

Garrosh is literally a tactical buffoon.

And the story is stronger for him being as such.
A good commander also would have said "Hmm, Alliance ships, and they look open to attack. Where are the stealthed wingéd bears that shoot lasers out their eyes hiding?"


I.... uh.... I don't exactly understand what it is you're getting at.

This is not exactlly true. In the Marines we have a saying, "Good initiative, bad judgement.". It esentially means, "Could have worked out but didn't. Learn from it."

If it had worked out great, the responses to it would have been a cheerfull "That Garrosh is one CRAZY SOB! I don't know how he does it but his reckless tactics are pure brilliance!" Many times in a dynamic, changing environment, like war, there is no right or wrong. Only, worked or didn't.

Now, in this case, I would agree. It was unnecesary and not a decisision I would have made, but diffrent leaders have diffrent styles. Some are more aggressive, some not so much. All have their advantages/disadvantages in any given situation. Lore wise, Cairne acknowleges Garrosh's tactical brilliance in Northrend. Sometimes, things just don't work out.


That saying is not applicable here. Garrosh is in enemy (Black Dragon) territory, knowing there are dangers, then essentially decides to leave himself open in order to attack a third party while aware that there are other threat lurking about. Once again, a bad outcome that could have been avoided is not derived from a good decision. And, I would argue, what you are referring to would be those decisions necessary in war or battle. In thos circumstances, there is often not a good decision available, but some necessary decisions can't be helped. One can often look back on necessary decisions and apply your "Good initiative, bad judgement" phrase. Choosing to willfully ignore other threats that you are aware of is not a case of this.

And lore wise, Cairne says that Garrosh is impetuous. Garrosh gets caught up in his own glory and the thrill of battle and forgets the larger picture. Marshalling his men and fighting in a battle is not the same as commanding the entirety of the Horde forces. A good leader and a passionate fighter Garrosh may be, but a learned commander he is not.
I agree with almost6 everything you said, but I would argue there's a difference between aggressive, and outright reckless. With Garrosh, it's to the point of detriment because he doesn't weigh in pros and cons, just rages out and attacks for no other reason than because it's Alliance. That's not a good display of leadership. I don't think this situation is a very good example of, "Good initiative, bad judgment." The goal of the operation was to take the Twilight Highlands quickly and with minimum casualties, not attack the Alliance.


Given these goals, i'd have to agree with you.

I don't remember what the particular TV trope is called when writers tell you a character is amazing at X, but all evidence seen points to the contrary, yet we are continually told that the character is still awesome at X. This fits Garrosh perfectly.


This fit General Grievous as well. So, I personally, have to consider the "lore" abilities as the rule and consider situations like these as exceptions. Until it just gets completlly rediculous of course. But even then, there's leeway. (General Grievous)
This fit General Grievous as well. So, I personally, have to consider the "lore" abilities as the rule and consider situations like these as exceptions. Until it just gets completlly rediculous of course. But even then, there's leeway. (General Grievous)


That then is outright denying reality.

The real lore here is that people aren't bringing Garrosh to task for his obvious and frequent mistakes.

He's not a good tactician, he's not a good military leader yet, no matter how many NPCs say it.
That saying is not applicable here. Garrosh is in enemy (Black Dragon) territory, knowing there are dangers, then essentially decides to leave himself open in order to attack a third party while aware that there are other threat lurking about. Once again, a bad outcome that could have been avoided is not derived from a good decision. And, I would argue, what you are referring to would be those decisions necessary in war or battle. In thos circumstances, there is often not a good decision available, but some necessary decisions can't be helped. One can often look back on necessary decisions and apply your "Good initiative, bad judgement" phrase. Choosing to willfully ignore other threats that you are aware of is not a case of this.

And lore wise, Cairne says that Garrosh is impetuous. Garrosh gets caught up in his own glory and the thrill of battle and forgets the larger picture. Marshalling his men and fighting in a battle is not the same as commanding the entirety of the Horde forces. A good leader and a passionate fighter Garrosh may be, but a learned commander he is not.


It's a Marine Corps saying. There are always dangers. I'm not referring to decisions that are necesary when no good option is available. (See: example of dialogue had things worked out for Garrosh). I think the issue is "What sort of spin are we applying?" Did he willfully ignore other threats or did he take a calculated risk to reduce future enemy opposition?

Agreed. Garrosh is not a learned commander. He is more of an OJT commander.
This fit General Grievous as well. So, I personally, have to consider the "lore" abilities as the rule and consider situations like these as exceptions. Until it just gets completlly rediculous of course. But even then, there's leeway. (General Grievous)


That then is outright denying reality.

The real lore here is that people aren't bringing Garrosh to task for his obvious and frequent mistakes.

He's not a good tactician, he's not a good military leader yet, no matter how many NPCs say it.


Eh ..... maybe.

The lore we're given is that he's a brilliant tactician but we're also given situations where his tactics might suck. We, as readers of a story someone else creates, have to find some way to reconcile both these "facts". We can lean towrd either one end or the other but we can't ignore either side.
Eh ..... maybe.

The lore we're given is that he's a brilliant tactician but we're also given situations where his tactics might suck. We, as readers of a story someone else creates, have to find some way to reconcile both these "facts". We can lean towrd either one end or the other but we can't ignore either side.


Except it's hard to ignore major examples of him being an idiot only for us to take someone word on him being a genius. I mean, anyone can say, "He's a brilliant tactician" and All I would have to do is say, "Twilight Highlands" or any other example of him being stupid. How would someone else respond? "Bu.. bu.. but we're told he's brilliant!" just doesn't hold much weight with me.
Eh ..... maybe.



The lore we're given is that he's a brilliant tactician but we're also given situations where his tactics might suck. We, as readers of a story someone else creates, have to find some way to reconcile both these "facts". We can lean towrd either one end or the other but we can't ignore either side.


Where are we given lore that says "Garrosh is brilliant, deal with it"?

Because Cairne allegedly mentions it once?
Eh ..... maybe.



The lore we're given is that he's a brilliant tactician but we're also given situations where his tactics might suck. We, as readers of a story someone else creates, have to find some way to reconcile both these "facts". We can lean towrd either one end or the other but we can't ignore either side.


Where are we given lore that says "Garrosh is brilliant, deal with it"?

Because Cairne allegedly mentions it once?


Relax, it's a game about fictional characters. Garrash's prowess is refered to a few times throughout the quests. I've acknowledged your side as well as mine.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum