Killing villains...

Story Forum
Just a thought I'd like to discuss.

First of all, I'm a Cata baby as of playing WoW, but I've been following the story of Warcraft since my father picked up a box of Tides of Darkness and gave it to me for Christmas.

Don't you find a bit dull that we kill the big baddies? Wouldn't be more interesting a villain that we defeat, but gets away claiming how he or she will defeat us next time? We don't have to do that all the time, but feeling that it's an enemy that we have to keep in line.

Like Kil'jaeden. We don't kill him, just sending his red a** down to the Twisting Nether. I think we need more of that.

Please discuss.
08/31/2012 04:59 PMPosted by Kaeldanon
Wouldn't be more interesting a villain that we defeat, but gets away claiming how he or she will defeat us next time?


No.

Because it happens. All the time.

Hell, I think most of Cata is pretty much made of bosses like this.
Wrath was 99% Arthas claiming he'll totally get us next time.

Even Cata had some of that, with Deathwing showing up at the end of TwiHigh.
Um, every boss in Vanilla we defeated we didn't really defeat. Ragnaros retreated to Firelands, Kel'thuzad of course did not die, Nefarian came back, and C'Thun was merely delayed.
In the Trial of the Crusader dungeon, there's one boss you don't kill. After you beat him, he says "I yield! I submit! Excellent work. May I run away now?"
09/01/2012 11:03 AMPosted by Cassima
In the Trial of the Crusader dungeon, there's one boss you don't kill. After you beat him, he says "I yield! I submit! Excellent work. May I run away now?"


Trial of the Champion you mean. Crusader was the raid.

And that was Eadric the Pure, the type of Paladin that gives us all a bad name.
09/01/2012 11:29 AMPosted by Nashiri
In the Trial of the Crusader dungeon, there's one boss you don't kill. After you beat him, he says "I yield! I submit! Excellent work. May I run away now?"


Trial of the Champion you mean. Crusader was the raid.

And that was Eadric the Pure, the type of Paladin that gives us all a bad name.


Why? He was powerful.
09/01/2012 11:37 AMPosted by Noitora


Trial of the Champion you mean. Crusader was the raid.

And that was Eadric the Pure, the type of Paladin that gives us all a bad name.


Why? He was powerful.


09/01/2012 11:37 AMPosted by Noitora


Trial of the Champion you mean. Crusader was the raid.

And that was Eadric the Pure, the type of Paladin that gives us all a bad name.


Why? He was powerful.


The "May I run away now?" remark and then doing precisely that is an old Paladin stereotype that pisses me off.
Eadric the Pure is the Uncle Tom of Paladins
09/01/2012 11:45 AMPosted by Nashiri
The "May I run away now?" remark and then doing precisely that is an old Paladin stereotype that pisses me off.


But it's true.
I'd personally prefer more villains like what we're getting with MoP--like Garrosh.

I love stories like Game of Thrones and Final Fantasy Tactics.

Illidan was such a fantastic villain because of how much he actually wanted to be a good person. If Blizzard hadn't handled him so poorly in TBC, players might have equated him to Arthas in terms of importance.

Arthas was great, too, but we suffered with his Dr.Claw impersonation too much. It would have been nice if in at least one of his scenes he just said "You know what? I want to see what you're made of", and attacked you, beating you within an inch of your life, and then just walked off and said "You're not ready".
Eadric the Pure is the best Paladin ever. He's like my buddy.

I also sort of feel like that "May I run away now?" is his way of gently poking fun at the whole idea of the coliseum. He probably thinks it's sort of dumb, but is coddling Tirion and contenting himself with joking around about it.
Just a thought I'd like to discuss.

First of all, I'm a Cata baby as of playing WoW, but I've been following the story of Warcraft since my father picked up a box of Tides of Darkness and gave it to me for Christmas.

Don't you find a bit dull that we kill the big baddies? Wouldn't be more interesting a villain that we defeat, but gets away claiming how he or she will defeat us next time? We don't have to do that all the time, but feeling that it's an enemy that we have to keep in line.

Like Kil'jaeden. We don't kill him, just sending his red a** down to the Twisting Nether. I think we need more of that.

Please discuss.


We had that, his name was Kael'thas. There's a reason for that "X was merely a setback!" joke you'll see every now and then. Mal'Ganis would also fit the bill.

In all honesty, general rule of thumb I follow is that unless we actually take their head, or there's other evidence of true death (like Edge of Night for Arthas), there's always a chance for a villain to resurface. Doubly so when dealing with a villain who belongs to an organization with necromantic abilities.
Killing villains can be fine, but the bigger name characters who should add more to the story instead of being the new end goal to kill should do something else.

Illidan: oh hey, the guy leading all those Legion villains we've been fighting isn't Legion, it's Illidan! He's not tragic anymore, just a crazy jerk. Let's figure out how to get to him. Welp, this is it, let's take him down. There he does, let's loot him. Wanna do it again?

Arthas popping in to tell us he's gonna beat us wasn't fully necessary, but he was used to his fullest. He was built into a villain over time, and him being anything but wasn't ever on the table.
Deathwing did his damage (almost entirely offscreen) and we beat him on the eve of his final triumph. Same buildup as Arthas.
Just a thought I'd like to discuss.

First of all, I'm a Cata baby as of playing WoW, but I've been following the story of Warcraft since my father picked up a box of Tides of Darkness and gave it to me for Christmas.

Don't you find a bit dull that we kill the big baddies? Wouldn't be more interesting a villain that we defeat, but gets away claiming how he or she will defeat us next time? We don't have to do that all the time, but feeling that it's an enemy that we have to keep in line.

Like Kil'jaeden. We don't kill him, just sending his red a** down to the Twisting Nether. I think we need more of that.

Please discuss.


We had that, his name was Kael'thas. There's a reason for that "X was merely a setback!" joke you'll see every now and then. Mal'Ganis would also fit the bill.

In all honesty, general rule of thumb I follow is that unless we actually take their head, or there's other evidence of true death (like Edge of Night for Arthas), there's always a chance for a villain to resurface. Doubly so when dealing with a villain who belongs to an organization with necromantic abilities.


Dreadlords get an out, since we know they can't be killed permanently (in a way we know of, maybe killing them on their home plane/planet?). After all, we took Balnazzar's head. In fact, I'd say based on history taking heads might just indicate a character who WILL survive. So I won't be surprised when Abbendis and Ingvar come back.
Just a thought I'd like to discuss.

First of all, I'm a Cata baby as of playing WoW, but I've been following the story of Warcraft since my father picked up a box of Tides of Darkness and gave it to me for Christmas.

Don't you find a bit dull that we kill the big baddies? Wouldn't be more interesting a villain that we defeat, but gets away claiming how he or she will defeat us next time? We don't have to do that all the time, but feeling that it's an enemy that we have to keep in line.

Like Kil'jaeden. We don't kill him, just sending his red a** down to the Twisting Nether. I think we need more of that.

Please discuss.


Little did you know, that the secret end boss after Heroic Garrosh is Kael'thas with Kel'Thuzad riding a risen Death Wing who is carrying them all to the sunwell to open a portal for Archimonde and Kiljaeden.

Ontopic:
I don't really want a Dr. Clawesque villian. I mean, they did that with Arthas, but atleast he had an ego to go along with his reason of "I was really just making you all stronger so I could kill you and raise you! Bwahahah!!" - other than this, villians like this are better suited on saturday morning cartoon shows...
I'd honestly prefer the opposite of the OP - Villains we can put down with 100% certainty. Death has no permanence and therefor no meaning.

Vanilla? All the Bosses there came back - or simply had their death's ignored.
BC? You have Kael'thas and Vashj. Kil'jaeden will be back, and they're been talking about bringing Illidan back.
Wrath? Yogg'll be back, Kel'thuzad may be back, and we only killed Arthas to replace him with another Lich King that'll inevitably turn into the Tal'Rasha of WarCraft.
Cataclysm: All these bosses WERE dead, but bought back after the fact, and the Black Dragons won't go away completely until someone steps on that damn silly hatted whelpling Wrathion.

All I have to say is that Garrosh had damn well better get VAPORIZED by the end of this, because I don't want to be sitting here three expansions from now with "World of WarCraft: Return of Hellscream" staring me in the face.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum