Its highly doubtful that Garrosh will become leader of the Horde. If so it would be rather poor writing. In particular, there is a string of quests that show Garrosh to be a headstrong leader with little grasp of strategy (or diplomacy), and that without Saurfang's help (and that of the string of heroes coming off the zepplin) the Horde expedition in Borean could have been wiped out. Factor in the Nagrand quests, and you have the problem of the Horde getting a new leader that none of the players respect with the associated question of why the other Horde races (and for that matter orcs like Saurfang) hang around.

And Varian has decided the death god can take us all? Erm what do Brann and (just as importantly) Magni think of that?

Personally I think Rhonin should have ported the two of them to Ulduar. 'You think Yogg-saron isn't a problem? OK, go deal with it'.

Overall, I can't say I like the way the conflict is playing out. Increasingly its becoming the case that while the Horde and Alliance leaders squabble, other organisations (Argent Crusade, Knights of the Ebon Blade, Kirin Tor) have to lead in dealing with challenges that could destroy us all.

And what about the Frostborn? You'd think that the natives in the region would actually be invited to discuss what's going down on their doorstep. And seeing how their king is the brother of Brann and the brother of an Alliance king, he's pretty important.

I'd make a guess that Saurfang would proceed to kill Garrosh if he became leader.

They could kill Jaina and Thrall off to set up more conflict between the Alliance and Horde. However, they're constrained by the gameplay need to have only two factions until the end of WoW.

Just about every non-orc Horde race is just there because of Thrall. Without him, the Horde would disintegrate. While he's the leader of the Horde, there is nothing that would make the rest of the Horde races follow the next leader of the orcs if something happens to Thrall.

For the Alliance, they have no leader and would not follow Varian if he does something stupid. Even the humans don't have a single leader. In Warcraft 2, there were 7 different human kingdoms that were in alliance (Lordaeron, Dalaran, Stromgarde, Gilneas, Alterac, Kul Tiras, Stormwind refugees) and they all had separate rulers. Warcraft 3 and WoW have reduced these but I doubt that the other kingdoms are now all under the sway of Stormwind. Staghlem might follow Varian since he's just as rash but I don't think Velen, Malfurion nor Tyrande would.

If they're going to kill off Jaina and Thrall or have Jaina withdraw from the Alliance, they would need strong leaders to emerge from both the Alliance and Horde to unite each faction. For Alliance, Malfurion is about the only one who could do it. The other faction leaders don't seem to have either the power or personality for it. For the Horde, I don't think there's anybody besides Thrall who could unite them. Killing either could be a good setup for the next RTS, but they're just constrained by the need for two factions at this point.

I'd be inclined to believe this, especially considering that one of Yogg-Saron's visions is of Garona and King Llane, another key moment of Horde-Alliance animosity.

If I remember correctly Varian and Arthas were friends in childhood and they both shared some beliefs. Like the orc question. This is in the new Arthas book. Theres a spoiler page some pages back.

Now, I personally believe this is beyond Varian and more Byzantine than the quite straight-forward thoughts of general WoW plot design. With that said...

Varian could easily be feigning the whole hotheaded thing. Publicly venting he wants to kill them all, but allowing himself to be restrained. Allowing Jaina to constantly excuse the Horde so he doesn't have to lose thousands/millions in outright war. Then, if the Horde ever take a warlike action (a la RAS in Wrathgate) he can storm off, kick ass and blame Jaina for being blind to the truth.

He's basically got a readymade scapegoat (Jaina) any time he needs to assign blame, earns brownie points with any peace party by grudgingly accepting status quo, and earns brownie points with the war party by publicly spouting vengeful rhetoric. I bet his approval rating is in the 90% bracket. He can whip out "abused by the Horde", "raising a motherless son", "kidnapped", "best friend killed", and so on, at any time.

We're talking politically unassailable. I mean, no one could touch him, unless Van Cleef sailed into the harbor and started taking potshots at the keep.

Hell, if he played things right he could goad the Horde into the meatgrinder. Get their hotheads to rush into any military situation, then step in and defeat the weakened enemy. Why kill Horde if you can get them to do your dirty work and get themselves killed doing it. If the factions truly are well balanced (Mutually Assured Destruction?) then letting the other faction weaken itself is all to your benefit.

Again, I doubt this is/was in anyone's mind when crafting the plot. But most politicians would kill for positioning like this.

I still don't like the idea of the Alliance leader being such an arrogant, moody jerk - like Varian. I understand it might be good for dramatic storytelling, but shouldn't players be encouraged to have a sense of faction pride and proud of their leadership? World of Warcraft could use more good conflicts, but id rather have this done whilst keeping a more admirable faction leader. Bolvar, Jaina etc. Preferably the token conflict-inducing jerks (like Varian, Garrosh, Staghelm) are the side-guys. Or at least give us the option to defect from Varians leadership and side with others such as Jaina or the Kirin'tor.

I like the idea of the Alliance/horde going to War for 3.2 and 3.3 - and losing almost everything in the conflict, including the death's of Thrall/Varian/Garrosh. They then struggle to face the Lich King with whats left, and ultimately reform the factions under new leaderhip just in time for the next expansion (Commander Malfurion Stormrage, perhaps?).

Could someone more articulate than me, give a good explanation of why Blizzard is consciously creating a 'lets make this guy a real jerk' character for the leader of the Alliance? We know it can create some interesting conflicts, but won't players soon get tired of the hes bad-because-hes-bad persona and long for something less cliche? I liked the recent trailor and its tension, but would grow tired of seeing that. Hopefully the leaders wipe each other out in an upcoming conflict.

There's been plenty of examples in this thread of people basically saying "I'm glad the Alliance finally has someone willing to kick butt like Varian" - he is an admirable character to some people.

I think that depends on the details. If (for example) Thrall were slain by Arthas and made into a Death Knight lieutenant for the scourge, if he was still around and active but obviously warped into evil unwillingly and beyond his control, I could see the Horde remaining together in a fragile sense as long as there was some hope of his eventual recovery/redemption. And heck, I could almost see the same happening if Thrall were the subject of the "Missing Diplomat" sort of storyline that Varian went through until 3.0.

Well, it's a set of conflicting requirements:

1. Have a leader the factions are proud of.
2. Have increasing tension or a state of war between Alliance and Horde.

We value cool-headedness and diplomacy in our leaders. I submit that if a leader is considered admirable by the playerbase, it will lead to peace between Alliance and Horde because those are the qualities we admire. Look at Thrall for proof of this.

So, given that Blizzard wants increasing tension/war, it necessarily follows that we need flawed leadership to bring about that state.