Talk:Orgrim Doomhammer

From Warcraft Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Orgrim Doomhammer article.


Ok, he's said to be the good guy, but don't forget he was leading an army of demonic Orcs and he wished to kill every human on Azeroth. The Alliance got a narrow escape and Doomhammer didn't become the liberator until his army was destroyed and he had to live in fear and exile.--K ) (talk) 08:17, 27 October 2006 (EDT)

Fair enough. Admittedly, for all his hatred of Gul'dan, he was just as brainwashed as the rest of them. --Ragestorm 11:40, 27 October 2006 (EDT)
If I'm correct, he did NOT drink the blood of Mannoroth. I bet he only kept on the launch on Lordaeron to gain the orcs ultimate loyalty in his quest to free them from demonic corruption. --Kulsprutejojjo 19:33, 2 December 2006 (EST)
That's unsubstantiated. As far as we know, they all drank the blood. Even Draka fed Thrall on a mixture of milk and blood. In fact, Orgrim is more likely to have partaken; if he hadn't the Shadow Council would have stepped in, with or without Gul'dan. That they didn't suggests they didn't see him as a threat, which they would have done had he not been part of the blood.
Anyway, even if he didn't drink it directly, the Thunderlords (his clan) did, so he would have been corrupted by proxy. --Ragestorm 23:17, 2 December 2006 (EST)

I'm in the middle of reading Rise of the Horde right now. I'll have write-ups of Durotan and Doomhammer's newly revealed history, as well as other characters.

Policy is to wait for the novels to circulate before revealing anything more than cursory spoilers. Basically, you can list Orgrim's father, and that he was friends with Durotan since they were ten, but no major plot revelations (in particular, I want to wait before revealing the information about Karabour).--Ragestorm, Head Bookkeeper 23:49, 22 December 2006 (EST)

Rgr. What's a good time window?--Grid 01:01, 23 December 2006 (EST)

I usually wait a month or so- by February at the latest, second week of January at the earliest. --Ragestorm, Head Bookkeeper 01:19, 23 December 2006 (EST)
Yup, they retconned it so that Doomhammer didn't drink the blood. Frankly I'd consider him to have been a better person if he had been under the influence of the blood when he was Warchief; instead, we now know that he never drank it, that he shared Durotan's reservations about everything, but that after staging his coup against Blackhand he didn't try to stop the war. Even though he wasn't a puppet of the Legion, even though he knew better, he didn't try to stop it. I really don't understand that.--Illidan Rocks 21:36, 26 February 2007 (EST)

Woo, I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels that way. That's one of my main problems with Lord of the Clans, is that it seems like they made Orgrim too noble, since whether he overthrew Blackhand for his own personal greed or whether he did it to save his people, he still continued the war. It bugs me that no writer has really tried to come up with a good reason for him to do that.

If there ever is a final confrontation regarding the main bad guys in the Warcraft universe, I'd like to see Ner'Zul or Kil'Jaeden taunt Thrall, saying that for all their talk of honor and their people, not many of the orcs seem to feel bad for what they did in the first and second wars. I know that both races have valid reasons for hating each other, and that's how it should be. But I'd still like to see more people say "Hey, screw you guys, you started the war". --Austin P 07:25, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, besides the fact that we'll hopefully never see a final confrontation between ALL the good guys and ALL the bad guys. (Though a Kil'jaeden-Ner'zhul confrontation would be fun.) I personally feel that well... it was war. The orcs started it, sure (well actually Medivh started it)... but it's not like the humans were going to great lengths to put an end to it either. Plus, why should Orgrim stop the war? The humans aren't his people, and the orcs need the land. He's an honorable man, not a compassionate one. As such, though, I'd like to think they put a stop to paving their roads with the bones of their enemies so to speak (among other atrocities). --Aldrius 03:04, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

The humans did go to great lengths to stop it. That's why they were fighting. Do you really think that the Horde would've listened to any ambassadors that the humans sent in? In Tides of Darkness, they said that that's what Lothar went to Black Rock Spiral to do, to neogotiate an end to the war. The orcs didn't need the land either. They could've gone back to Draenor. The only reason the clans agreed to cross over in the first place was because they had started fighting among themselves. Slaughtering a whole race just to sate your people's bloodlust is not "honorable" to any degree.

Now take Thrall. Thrall did everything he could to avoid bloodshed. He wanted his people freed, but unlike Orgrim he didn't continue the war. Thrall was also willing to trade with the humans, provided they set aside land for them and left them alone. Not likely to happen, but at least he was willing to try. Orgrim was never shown to do any of those things. He did nothing to free his people from the demons curse. He did nothing to bring back their shamanestic heritage. The only difference between him and Blackhand is that he didn't give Gul'dan free reign, but Gul'dan still played him like a fool. --Austin P 07:19, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Orgrim's motives are better explained in the novel of tides of darkness. He's still war minded, but he wishes to conquer the human lands so that he may forge a new kingdom for his own people, so that they may settle down and start making families again. He was willing to enter into negotiation with Alterac, and though he didn't respect prestor, he intended on upholding his end of the bargin. Even if he wanted to, he couldn't exactly stop the orcish war machine. If he had commanded they lay down arms and head back through the portal, they would have turned on him, strung his head up as a trophy.Tweak the Whacked 02:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what the writer intended, but Orgrim struck me as mildly insane. He goes on about restoring the honor of his people, but doesn't even attempt to justify or explain away destroying a whole civilization. Upholding a bargin doesn't even begin to make up for that. RoTH says that resources were withering in Draenor, so it's true going back wasn't a viable option. But given how much the horde respected him, I very much doubt that they would've killed him just for trying to steer them to a route of peace, and moving away from the influence of demons would've been a very good motivator, given how the orcs were.--Austin P (talk) 17:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Off-topic, but I'd just like to say welcome back Austin P! :) Warchiefthrall (talk) 19:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!--Austin P (talk) 13:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

In the dialogue between Garrosh Hellscream and Saurfang in Warsong Hold Saurfang seems to imply the the blood haze given by drinking demon blood made the orcs unable to regreat violent actions, as saurfang says he regrets killing draenei children after the curse was lifted, but afterword he seems horrified by his actions.

so maybe this means the orcs were not bothered by any actions they did during the wars and that is why doomhammer did not ever show regret for killing elves or humans because he died before the curse was lifted.

when thrall complains about grom hellscream killing humans during the third war grom dosent seem to see any problem with killing alliance troops so maybe it doesnt bother orcs to kill other races much like most people wouldnt think twice about smashing a bug. <Blackhand the destroyer (talk) 00:52, January 14, 2010 (UTC)>


Could it be that Orgrim's name was Orgimmar? like Grom's full name was Grommash. -Rovdyr 11:52, 4 March 2007 (EST)

Sign your posts properly, please (with four tildes, ~ ~ ~ ~)." -mar" appears to be orcish for something like "city of", as implied by Thrallmar.Ragestorm (talk · contr)
Hordemar in the spire.--SWM2448 22:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Could it possibly be related to Thorgrim, the dwarf of legend and a Warhammer predecessor? Gamerunknown (talk) 17:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Battle with lothar

I'm gonna say the battle was fair. The theory of Orgim cheating was said by Brann not a reliable narrator. The whole Lothar killed by a bunch of ogres does not exist,it is on the standing as Gul'dan becoming death knight. Retconned lore.

Though Lothar was an impressive Warrior,Ogrim had three advantages over him.

  • Lothar was aging,Orgim was in his physical prime.
  • Orc often have more strength then humans.
  • Though an impressive weapon, Ashkandi was likely less powerful then Doomhammer.

Zarnks 09:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It was rigged. It was supposed to be a one-on-one meeting with just a bodyguard or two, but Orgrim showed up with a fairly large ambush, in a gambit, thinking that the humans wuld retreat without their leader. I agree with you on your second point, but must point out that we have no way of knowing exactly how powerful either the Doomhammer or Ashkandi were. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 14:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I wa under the impression that Orgim having help was retconned? The reason I think Doomhammer was better Ashkandi is because,the Ashkandi is obtainable but the doomhammer isn't and has a longer history. Anyway I think if Lothar was a bit younger and they both wielded the same weapon,he would have a pretty good chance of winning. Zarnks 21:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Sources are somewhat sketchy as to the specifics; some corroborate the way it played out in WC2 (negociation ambush), while some suggest it was in the heat of battle. I don't think that Brann can be considered an "unreliable narrator," as he's demonstrated fair thinking through most of his works. It could, however, be flavor lore. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 22:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

His narrative in Alterac valley is completly unreliable. And why does he keep referring to the frostwolves as trolls? Zarnks 02:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Where's that? He looks fairly unbiased through most of the HPG in my eyes.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 03:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
On a different note, I can't wait for the book version of Warcraft II. :D --Sky (t · c · w) 03:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
September is gong to be the heart attack season: Tides of Darkness, book 2 of Dark Templar and book 3 of the Sin War. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 03:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Well the book will finally answer our questions on the fight. Zarnks 17:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, Brann dismisses the idea because he felt Lothar was too skilled to be beaten one-on-one. However, he doesn't give a reason as to why Doomhammer couldn't have been more skilled than Lothar, and I don't know of any indication that Brann ever witnessed Orgrim fight. --Austin P 17:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Doomhammer called Lothar in for a parlay and murdered him instead, Lothar was not ready for a duel with Doomhammer and brought very little forces. Doomhammer is a dishonorable coward. --Drakos Vek 13:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

You've not read the new lore, have you? --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 18:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
If you are referring to the “Lord of the Clans” lore, I have read it. Although I am still under the impression that he was dishonorable, you know with all the backstabbing and murdering in parlays, sure he was killed trying to ‘save’ the orcs, or so it seemed, I believe Doomhammer was a dishonorable coward throughout the first two Warcrafts and what he did in LotC did little to redeem his pass actions. You gotta admit though, the footman “cowardly” stabbing Doomhammer in the back kinda sounds like poetic justice. Although I do not like the sounds of getting in a lore debate with Ragestorm, I will get creamed. Or are you reffering tto another part of lore? I believe I know most of it. --Drakos Vek 08:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Golden's lore (in LotC and RotH) sets Doomhammer up as being anything but a coward. Now, I wouldn't call him an oppurtunist exactly, but that's how he operates. Whenever he sees the oppurtunity to help the orcs, he does so, regardless of how honourable it seems. Don't forget that Doomhammer backstabbing Blackhand is probably one of the best things that could have happened to the orcs. HPG also reveals that he severely punished those of his commanders who mistreated peons. Lore in the first two games cannot be taken at face value anymore, and must be looked at through the lens of the fuller, more recent lore. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 12:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I am finding myself swayed by your arguments, but I still hold my ground that Doomhammer was dishonorable and maybe a little bit of a coward. He was not the best leader either, he did let Gul’dan live, and we all know how that backfired, also the declaration of war on Lordaeron was not entirely smart either (although I do admit he may of won if Gul’dan had not run off with the rest of his army). If I am correct, current lore states that he never drank the blood and appeared to be as bloodthirsty as the rest when he had command of the Horde. >insert orc roar noise<. Also the title is incorrect, Lothar needs a capital letter at the beginning of his name, sorry about that but I have a tendency to correct what I see.--Drakos Vek 13:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure on that. I think that if Ogrim had taken a drink from the chalice that contained the blood of mannaroth, he would have been more like Grom Hellscream, as in he would have became a maddened, demon ravaged fighter. As he didn't he managed to keep hold of the last vesteges of his soul. Remember Orcs are really born warriors, so even without drinking the blood, they were still tough fighters.

On the issue over the death of Lothar, there seems to be a divide in the lore itself. In the Warcraft 3: Reign of Chaos game manuel it says that Lothar and his forces surrounded Blackrock Spire. Then it says that Doomhammer, sensing defeat, makes a last ditch charge against the Humans. The forces clash and Lothar and Doomhammer have a one on one duel with each other while others fight around them. The duel leaves both warriors drained, but Doomhammer manages to get the best of Lothar and kills him. There is no suggestion of foul play, although that is still a possibility. Anyway, no doubt all these questions will be answered when the Tides of Darkness novel comes out. I really hope it gives us answeres about all of this, so we can end the arguement lol :) Warchiefthrall 10:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

In Tides of Darkness the book it is revealed that Doomhammer did not ambush lothar. Instead he took an elite group of ogres and made a beeline toward Lothar. Lothar was winning until Orgrim punched him in the gut, he then brought the hammer down which Lothar blocked, the force shattered Lothar's sword and the Doomhammer hit Lothar square on the helmet and cracked his skull. Zarnks 06:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Well that certainly doesn't sound like a one on one "duel of honor" as some records claimed, and "ambush" is interpretive.Baggins 06:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Well the fight was one on one. The ogres took out Alliance troops. In the end Orgim's youth.orcish vitality and Doomhammer won him the battle. Zarnks 06:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

So essentially what you have is a group of horde and a group of alliance fighting in the same battle. That's not definition of "one on one", that sounds more like 5 against 5 (if it was a group of 5 horde vs. 5 alliance as an example), although I can't tell what the numbers were for each group from your description. Its always been known that lothar was with a group when the battle happened. They never said that lothar "fought alone" (although some sources tried to make it sound like Orgrim and Lothar agreed to an honoralbe one and one duel, while each of their forces stood back and watched). Of course the honorable duel never happened.Baggins 06:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Lothar's knights and Orgim's ogres did not interfere in the duel instead focusing on each other. The honorable duel did happen. Zarnks 06:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

If it was during a battle, its not a "duel" by any definition. Sorry, it really sounds like your stretching. We are going to wait until I confirm or deny your claims. I'll pick up the book tomorrow.Baggins 06:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Admitedly my info is secondhand. They didn't agree to the duel but it was a one on one fight. Zarnks 06:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

You can settle it by posting the relevant passages. --Raze 06:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Again if it was paladins/Lothar vs ogres/Ogrim. That's not exactly one vs. one by definition, even if no one physically assisted Lothar in anyway. Battles are very different than one vs one duels. But I think you can understand how this lead to event being interpreted in different ways, as Brann pointed out. Both could be true from a certain point of view.Baggins 06:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Lothar was more skilled but I get the impression Orgrim was stronger due to being an orc and younger. It seems to imply Doomhammer is stronger then Ahskandi as it apparently smashed it. Zarnks 06:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

And the book calls the sword Ashkandi? If so Houston we might have a problem...Baggins 07:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

No it doesn't but his sword was easily broken by the Doomhammer. Zarnks 08:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Then he probably smashed, Quel'Zaram, and its already known that the Doomhammer is a powerful weapon.-Baggins 08:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Orgrim and Lothar were fighting each other's forces before they noticed each other, so yeah, it wasn't really a one on one duel.

His sword isn't named, but it's said to have gold runes on it. Do either of the swords have those? --Austin P 01:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Whoa this discussion is still going? I clearly remember this as a retcon. In the Alliance campaign of WarCraft II it is pretty clear what happens -- your missions starts with Lothar and a couple knights getting betrayed and ambushed at the foot of Blackrock Spire, and from there the actual battle proper starts when the enraged Alliance encampment decides to mount an assault. In order to retcon Orgrim Doomhammer in a more sympathetic light it was changed so it was death by honorable single combat during the actual Battle of Blackrock Spire. The parlay never occured.

Many people here were assuming Orgrim was not skilled. That's not the case. He was simply a superior fighter in every way. Lothar may have been big for a human but Orgrim was also big for an orc, which would mean he had a good foot over Lothar, about 200 more pounds and was faster and younger to boot. On top of this being descended from the legendary Doomhammer line would have meant he had top-rate martial training, and the eponymous weapon as well. Lothar was simply outclassed, and beaten honorably. --- Zexx 16:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Who thought Orgrim wasn't skilled? That's rediculous. Oh, btw, the parlay might not have exactly happened, but his death was still enough to "incite a righteous anger in the Alliance forces"[1] leading to the Doomhammer’s army's defeat during the battle."Baggins 16:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Well it didn't need to be an ambush or a dishonorable duel to "incite a righteous anger in the Alliance forces". It could have just been the fact that lothar had been killed. Warchiefthrall 19:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Been a while since anyone talked about this, and the Tides of Darkness novel isn't out until chrismas here in Britain, as well as the fact that I'm a sucker for spoiler, so I'm just wondering, in the book does it tell you how Lothar died? Was it a fair fight etc? Spoil me away! :)
regards Warchiefthrall 19:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh really? I picked it up in Forbidden Planet a few weeks ago :) Yes, it deals with it, and it was indeed a fair fight. User:Kirkburn/Sig3 20:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Really? I'm sure I checked on a site while back saying it wasn't to be released in Britain until December 15th? Oh well, must have a look in Forbidden Planet soon. Thanks for the info Kirk xD

reagrds Warchiefthrall 21:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

"The Backstabber?"

Where does it say that Doomhammer got such a negative nickname? Never seen it before. --Odolwa 15:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Warcraft Tides of Darkness manual. --Austin P 00:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Still, in current context, "the BackStabber" doesn't seem right. --Invin Dranoel 11:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Especially since in the Tides of Darkness manual, it's revealed that Orgrim directly challenged Blackhand, instead of assassinating him. Still, there were factions who felt he betrayed him, most notably the Black Tooth Grin clan. --Austin P 16:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Still, he did betray him. Orgrim was Blackhand's right-hand orc, beginning with the slaughter of the draenei, and ending at the end of Warcraft 1. --Sky (t · c · w) 19:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I just realized that the previous posts all begin a sentence with "still". Heh. --Austin P 22:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not a crime to challenge your cheiftain. That's a natural thing in the orcish culture. He's no betrayer.--Odolwa 18:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The point is other clans viewed him as a betrayer. Nicknames usually come out of interpretations made by individuals for good or bad. It doesn't mean that nicknames are accurate, just that that's how people view them.Baggins 18:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I meant to say Tides of Darkness novel in my second post. Sorry about that.--Austin P 22:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

In Tides of Darkness novel, Orgrim even feels guilty for "betraying his warchief's trust by turning on him, killing him and taking his place as leader", pg 60. It seems its obvious even he would understand why other orcs would call him a backstabber. So there definitely precedence to him being considered a backstabber within the lore.Baggins 22:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is how Horde Player's Guide explains the nickname;

Victory cost the orcs much; while Gul’dan remained comatose, Orgrim Doomhammer gained the title of Backstabber by slaying Blackhand and taking the mantle of Warchief of the Horde. While Orgrim was

unusually loyal for an orc, he had uncovered the existence of the Shadow Council, and the truth about their manipulations of Blackhand.[2] --Baggins 21:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

"Warchief" Orgrim Doomhammer

I don't think this is a suitable title for the info box. I mean, c'mon he hasn't been Warchief for a while now has he? :) Warchiefthrall 21:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

So, um....anyone agree lol :D Warchiefthrall 19:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 20:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Fan Art


Removing fan art.--SWM2448 18:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

That's not really fanart. It was just colored by a fan. --Austin P 16:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It is counted as the same.--SWM2448 17:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
We used to have the original somewhere... User:Kirkburn/Sig3 01:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Probably shouldn't necro an old conversation just to say this, but: Try telling any professional comic colorist that adding color to a black and white image isn't "art" :P - Jerodast (talk) 00:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Orgrim Doomhammer and Warcraft: Orcs & Humans

Kind of a stupid question here, but I felt like asking anyway... You are Orgrim Doomhammer in the game Warcraft: Orcs & Humans, aren't you? I played through the Orcish campaign some time ago and while your character is never named, the chief of the time -- Rend Blackhand -- is. Therefore, logic would denote that you are playing the role of Doomhammer yourself. Correct? ~ Doc Lithius [U|T|C] 14:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Not Rend. Their last name is the name of their father, Blackhand.

While very possible that the player did play as Orgrim, I don't believe Blizzard has ever confirmed it. And the orc shown at the end of the Orc campaign does not match any of Doomhammer's designs. --Austin P 16:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Death blow

I know that the strike was described as cowardly in the novel, but I took it out because it's still a biased viewpoint from only a few characters. Characters praise and attack certain actions all the time, but I don't usually see personal in-universe viewpoints included in articles. When I do, it's specifically stated and cited that it's thought by certain characters or factions. Since its inclusion adds little, if anything to the artile, I would like a specific justification for keeping it in.--Austin P 23:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


Ok who thinks we should use Metzen's updated 2004 artwork of Orgrim, or use the older Warcraft 2 artwork from 1995 as the infobox artwork?

Personally I think the 2004 artwork makes him look less evil.Baggins 05:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

And I think he deserves the 95 artwork, because then it makes him look like he deserves his title, the Betrayer the Backstabber. --Sky (talk | con | wh) 05:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
You mean "The Backstabber" don't you?Baggins 00:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Sure... damn Illidan must've been on my mind. --Sky (talk | con | wh) 00:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
...or Sargeras?Baggins 00:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Eh. I think of Illidan when I think betrayer. >.> --Sky (talk | con | wh) 00:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah Sky's right. Why's he called the betrayer anyway?  IconSmall HighElf Male.gif Mr.X8 Talk Contribs 01:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Night elves are under the impression that he betrayed them during the War of the Ancients. The trilogy shows that that's not exactly the case, although his reckless disregard may warrent him the title.--Austin P 14:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh and which one is the 04, and which is the '95?  IconSmall HighElf Male.gif Mr.X8 Talk Contribs 16:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The one with the big hammer is Metzen, 2004, the one with the smaller hammer with little blades coming out of it is the 1995 version. Personally I think we should use the most up to date as the headline artwork.Baggins 17:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The '04 version reminds of the trolls in Ernest saves Halloween so I have to say the '95 version.  IconSmall HighElf Male.gif Mr.X8 Talk Contribs 17:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think that the '04 one looks ridiculous.Swiftstar 20:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)Swiftstar

I think the 04 is better. Zakolj 21:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I prefer the 04 version myself Warchiefthrall 19:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok so far it seems to be 3 to 2 for the 04 image as the infobox image.Baggins 08:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Count me in for 95 Warthok Talk Contribs 09:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Forget it, I put up 2006 version. It beats the crap out of both Metzen images, and shows Orgrim kicking Shadow Council butt.Baggins 21:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Good find there Baggins. Cool image, and alot better than the other two. Warchiefthrall 22:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


In the article it says that, as the Warchief of the Horde, he was preceded by Blackhand, succeeded by Ner'zhul who was then replaced by Doomhammer, and then succeeded by Thrall. Is this correct? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gourra (talk · contr).

The Ner'zhul thing is more technical than official, but yes, this is correct.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 16:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Chieftan of his own clan

In Lord of the Clans it describes a meeting between Durotan and Orgrim Doomhammer, and it says that Doomhammer feared that his clan would be exiled if Gul'dan knew of the meeting. But as far as I know, the first time he became chieftan of a clan was also when he became cheiftan of the horde, and by that time, Gul'dan was in a coma and Doomhammer had killed all the warlocks, Gul'dan was controlled by Doomhammer. So why would Doomhammer fear being exiled, and it seems like in the book that Doomhammer was not in command of the horde at this point, so what clan was he in command of? --Xell Khaar 05:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Lord of the clans is odd in that it discribes Orgrim becoming warchief before Gul'dan went into his coma, which is when Orgrim overthrew Blackhand and the Shadow Council, occording to most other sources. Lord of the clans also puts the horde in the hillsbrad foothills or the arathi highlands at sometime during the first war, which wouldbe impossible as they'd have to go through kaz'modan just to get there.Tweak the Whacked 05:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

As much as I like the the author's books. She can be a little off on the details at times, sadly.Baggins (talk) 19:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


Why wouldn't that image be Doomhammer? You play as him and when you win the campaign they show you that cutscene while telling you the epilogue.  Rolandius Paladin.gif (talk - contr) 16:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Where does it confirm that you play as Orgrim? Warchiefthrall (talk) 16:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess it was decided by admins and users a long time before I was ever here. I am not sure where they talked about it, but they decided the player in the Orc campaign was Orgrim Doomhammer. The sentences then reads "Blackhand has assigned you to an outpost in the Swamps of Sorrow."  Rolandius Paladin.gif (talk - contr) 16:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Since it's never been confirmed by Blizzard, I don't think we should say that you play as Orgrim during Orcs and Humans. Warchiefthrall (talk) 16:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok well I guess you have to talk to Sky or Baggins. I found a mention of it by them on Talk:Warcraft: Orcs & Humans. I am not sure what or where they talked about it, but I am guessing they decided it was him because on the Orcs & Humans missions page it says that you are Orgrim and no one objected for a year.  Rolandius Paladin.gif (talk - contr) 17:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Most of the player's actions in the WC1 orc campaign were later attributed to Orgrim, but it has never been officially stated that Orgrim is the player. Similarly, the player's actions in the ToD human campaign are later attributed to Turalyon, but he has never been stated to be the player either. So, while a logical and probably true assumption, nothing has been explicitly stated.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 17:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I never even heard of the Turalyon thing. All I know is that when I started editing the page a month ago someone had decided, Sky and Baggins I think talked about it somewhere, that the player was Orgrim, and also on the retcon pages there is references all over about Orgrim. So it looked you guys decided it was Orgrim on the Orc campaign a year ago since no one has objected to his name on the page for over a year. I am pretty much finished with the whole Warcraft: Orcs & Humans page already so I leave it to the reader to decide.  Rolandius Paladin.gif (talk - contr) 04:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Point of note, its quite obvious from the end of the game text for the Horde that you are not playing Orgrim Doomhammer but someone under Ogrim Doomhammer. Any old discussion has no merit, as its obvious that at the time we missed that detail.

"Your success has led Orgrim Doomhammer - War Chief of the Orcish Hordes - to elevate you to the station of Warlord, thus giving you power and the command of your own clan."

Case closed. Edit: Oh your talking about Warcraft I, not warcraft II? I got confused by Ragestorm's reference to Turalyon, who is from the Second War era rather than the First War. Sorry, I'm not sure we know for sure who was character you play in Warcraft I. Some theories include Lothar for parts of Human campaign, but not all of it (one mission has you saving Lothar), or someone else.

The orc campaign might be partially Orgrim, but could be others as well. The story was never very specific.Baggins (talk) 08:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes Warcraft I. I thought you guys said it was implied that it was Orgrim. He does undermine Blackhand in the missions eventually. Also, someone put "Blackhand has assigned you to an outpost in the Swamps of Sorrow."  Rolandius Paladin.gif (talk - contr) 10:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Look, many actions of the player (undermining Blackhand, like you said) are said in later sources to be the work of Orgrim Doomhammer. However, lore-wise, the PCs from the first two and a half games don't exist. Their actions were spread like jelly over the work of several different characters. (Read Tides of Darkness and Beyond the Dark Portal as a for instance) Because Orgrim does a lot of the things the PC did, the assumption and the implication is that he is meant to be the PC. However, nobody from Blizzard has come out and said, "Orgrim Doomhammer is the character you guys played in Orcs & Humans." Hence, though possibly a true assumption, it is unconfirmed.
Rolandius, someone may have written the quote you mentioned before our policies were in place, then it was missed as pages were brought up to mark. We didn't emerge full-grown from the binary, we still have a lot of articles and passages that conform to outdated stages of the wiki's development.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 13:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't think Blizzard will be saying much about Warcraft: Orcs & Humans anytime soon since it is no longer being sold. Even Warcraft II and its expansion are not compatibly with many systems any longer, although it is still being sold. I am sure Sherlock Holmes would have something to say about this. (Deductive reasoning and all that.)  Rolandius Paladin.gif (talk - contr) 15:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
You have a somewhat flawed argument: Tides of Darkness and Beyond the Dark Portal are novelizations of Warcraft II and the expansion. I think that's Blizzard "saying something." Look, Blizzard isn't going to say anything about PCs from the early games because they've retconned the entire thing. It wasn't one general or chieftain doing all that, it was several people. Doomhammer, not the player, deposed Blackhand, Khadgar and Garona killed Medivh and not the player, it was Turalyon and not the player who narrowly saved Quel'Thalas and took up Lothar's standard, and it was the hero NPCs who performed the player actions in WC2x. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 16:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I said Warcraft II and its expansion are not compatibly with many systems any longer. I didn't say they weren't adding on to the lore, that was with Warcraft I. I am saying soon it may be forgotten like Warcraft I, which isn't compatible with many systems any longer, isn't sold, and isn't talked about much any longer.  Rolandius Paladin.gif (talk - contr) 01:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah and I'm saying that the fact that Wacraft I isn't being sold anymore has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not Blizzard will say anything about the events of the First War. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 14:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Okay I guess they could say something about the First War in the future, but in the meantime they haven't.  Rolandius Paladin.gif (talk - contr) 01:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Cultural references?

Do we really need this section? It doesn't seem relevant.Skreeran 18:03, October 24, 2009 (UTC)


The {{npcbox}} calls him a rogue as well as a warrior. To me this is patently absurd. I haven't read the novels, but from everything I know about the game and from reading the biography here, that's nuts. He was 110% warrior, the Horde's equal counterpart to Lothar's legendary martial prowess. The RPG section mentions some baloney about "striking first using Blackhand's fangs", but a surprise attack is a classic military move and does not a rogue make (the RPG is non-canon anyway). As to "the backstabber" title, that's a political statement, not a combat one.

So yeah that class is gone.

By the way, I'm a rogue. I love rogues. I also think Doomhammer is a pretty awesome character, who is simply not a rogue. </neutrality credentials> - Jerodast (talk) 00:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

By the way, if there's a citation for it, fine, no problem, even if my image of him is completely not-that. The issue is that his biography is quite extensive here yet there's no hint at all to justify what's in the box. It's confusing. - Jerodast (talk) 00:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
I'd have to agree with you... I'm quite confuse why he's listed with the rogue class too sense you brought it up. ;P If there is anything that can be cited about this of how he was a rogue then sure it'll be added back w/ the cite link. But nethertheless, its best to have it removed until further notice and prevent more confusion. — SurafbrovWarcraft Wiki administrator T / C 01:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
It was removed, and by a vandal and not an RPG-purger. The citation is Shadows & Light, page 37, which lists his class as "20th-level fighter/7th-level rogue". The fluff to back it up is that he became a rogue after he escaped the Undercity and became a hermit.--SWM2448 01:49, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Great to have someone like you around here, (should've check the history) anyways, I'll clean this up and do what needs to be done for this. — SurafbrovWarcraft Wiki administrator T / C 01:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Heh, I did check the history for when the "Rogue" notation was first added, but I didn't see a citation in the vicinity. I probably should've read the whole page of that revision...
But in any case, like I said, the RPG is explicitly non-canonical. This is ESPECIALLY true when it comes to class, because multi-classing in the RPG is moderately common whereas it's impossible in WoW. In most of the lore, multi-classing is more like "I used to be a shaman, but then I pissed off the elements so now I'm a warlock", not "I am a mage AND a priest, because being both is awesome!" Should this really be valid evidence to add to the npcbox?
- Jerodast (talk) 17:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


Quick question. Was Orgrim the first Warchief of the New Horde and then Thrall succeed him as the second Warchief? --Ryon21 (talk) 23:17, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

LotC: “I need your help, Thrall. In two things. You must carry on what we have begun. I led the Horde once. It is not my destiny to do so again.” He grimaced, shuddered, and continued. “Yours is the title of Warchief, Thrall, son of D-Durotan. You will wear my armor, and carry my hammer.”
UVG: "He named Thrall his success as Warchief." and it affiliates him with (Old) Horde and not the (new) Horde.
"First Warchief of the New Horde" hasn't been used anywhere. --Mordecay (talk) 23:50, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
So between the ending of the Second War and the Horde Thrall founded on Kalimdor, it's like a transition between the Old Horde and Thrall's new Horde then? --Ryon21 (talk) 01:04, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Basically, yeah. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 01:33, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
At the time, there wasn't really an "old horde" and a "new horde", it was just the "horde". Plus before Doomhammer's death it was really only the Frostwolves and the Warsongs still being free. Xporc (talk) 11:03, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Infobox picture

It's annoying, there's basically no good and canon picture focused on Orgrim ... And I failed to find a bigger version of File:Orgrim Doomhammer TCG.jpg. Managed to track down the artist and some of his WoW art, but no Doomhammer :( Xporc (talk) 12:09, 18 October 2018 (UTC)