People still died during Saurfang’s rebellion. There was still fighting in and around Razor’s Hill, through the canyon to Org, and even them in the plain in front of the city itself.
It wasn’t a months long campaign like Vol’jin fought but there were plenty more casualties then the big guy himself.
I didn’t say it was the same as a full on civil war.
But you are saying that both exist within the rules or “expectations” of the Horde. Which is nonsense. A civil war is what you get when the rules and expectations have failed to produce an outcome all sides can agree on.
What I said is challenging the leader is within the rules. I never mentioned anything about civil war. The other person mentioned rebellion.
No, you said that violent rebellions “aren’t really that” if they were within the rules. But violent rebellion was never within “the rules”, even for the Horde. Something like Mak’gora would the closest but that’s a highly ritualized form of combat that, despite how its most famous in canon examples have went, isn’t even supposed to result in anyone dying. Pretty far cry from a violent rebellion or revolution.
I put violent rebellions in parentheses, which is sarcasm. I was not literally talking about a rebellion. The other person mentioned that.
What are you smoking? Both times the Horde rebelled and overthrew the Warchief it was VERY clearly a rebellion against the government, which set the rules. The Horde doesn’t have a ‘legal rebellion clause.’
That is you refusing to see what is clearly there.
That is one of the things Horde players call for, which is a call for change made by Horde players. There were also a TON of Horde players calling for a council during the faction war expacs (Cata/MoP/BfA).
And there have been the other side, Horde players calling for a more violent, aggressive Horde. The kind of players whose biggest complaint about the faction wars were the Horde didn’t get to wipe out the Alliance. And those are most often the ones that are behind:
It is more often than not Horde players saying that is a bad thing to ask for.
Oh, really:
Guessing you are dodging around the words “civil war.” But clearly the violent rebellions were the civil war. And they were clearly not “perfectly within the rules.”
You said that literally replying to the comment about the rebellions.
Bottom line:
Both Warchiefs were overthrown with the use of violent rebellions. So, both Warchief’s removals were NOT “perfectly within the rules.”
I want the Horde to be the evil faction instead of “Red Alliance”, then they would actually be interesting to play. Either that or just merge them since they are basically the same at this point.
I’m speaking of Mak’gora. You are the one speaking of rebellion.
You are a case in point.
I think there was like 3-4 Mak’goras vs one violent rebellion. Most of the warchiefs being replaced were decided by mak’gora
You could technically count saurfang in that, even though he lost and died. He still succeeded in disposing Sylvanas without a long siege on ogrimmar
I see you are trying to redirect because you realize you said something demonstratively false. I said they were removed via the rebellion, you claimed they were removed ‘within the rules.’ Now you want to make is seem like you suddenly weren’t talking about the very obvious rebellion.
So, let’s break this down simply.
There was NO Mok’gora involved in removing Garrosh. Period, end of story. He was only removed via the violent rebellion, civil war.
Before Sylvanas was even challenged to the Mak’gora there was a violent rebellion that started. The Mak’gora would not have even happened without the rebellion. And Sylvanas was not removed by the Mak’gora, she won the fight. By the rules she was still the leader. She fled because she realized that the very public rebels standing in ranks prepared to attack had now gotten enough sympathy that they would be joined by at least a large portion of the city as well. She realized she no longer had any chance of winning the fight. She fled from the rebellion (which again had already been violent), not the Mak’gora. So, she was also NOT removed ‘within the rules.’
Both Warchiefs were removed via rebellion/civil war, not something ‘within the rules.’
Are you intentionally being this dense and disingenuous? Seriously, an example was even directly made of Horde players asking for change, by a Horde player, which you agreed with. If you still think ‘only Alliance players want changes in the Horde’ that is you ignoring evidence and refusing to see facts.
The only change in Warchief as part of a Mak’gora was before Thrall’s Horde.
Garrosh was removed by rebellion only.
Sylvanas won the Mak’gora, her fleeing was not because of the Mak’gora rules. It was due to growth of rebel sympathy in the city.
Okay? I literally said there was one violent rebellion. Nor did I say garrosh was removed via anything but a rebellion
I also mentioned that saurfangs mak’gora saved a long protracted siege on ogrimmar that would have cost a massive amount of lives on both sides. Either way, sylvanas fled and essentially abandoned the position
So his plan was a success anyway you look at it
I was talking about Mak’gora the whole time that’s why I said challenging leaders. I said nothing about leading a rebellion. And Thrall challenged Garrosh to Mak’gora. The most famously misunderstood Mak’gora of them all.
What lead to them is irrelevant. You think the Horde of all factions cares about the rules of rebellion? It’s not listed that you can’t have one and isn’t a part of the discussion I am having. Maybe I could put it in bigger text next time so you can read it better.
Alliance player argues with me about Alliance players always telling Horde players who we should have as leader, while arguing about our leadership, LMFAO!
There’s some things I don’t quite agree on with Meringue either but honestly it seems a bit weird to want to brush off their critiques on the basis of them posting under an alliance character.
I don’t really like it either precisely because it’s so uncomfortable to think about, but a lot of what’s outlined about the horde does seem like it fits a fascistic model? But like, so do the night elves. What let the game get away with it early on was not trying to be too government-ly political (at least to my recollection); Thrall’s horde had an authoritarian model that “worked”, Stormwind’s troubles were the result of a dragon, Arthas didn’t marry a cousin, etc.
But then Blizzard burnt their one horde mulligan on Garrosh before going out of their way to try to wrap up BFA with a political reform, breaking the “it’s just fantasy” leeway for the faction and its fans by searing its moral into the plot. And now everyone’s just stuck with that.
I get why people would want to recoil from that, especially with how unfair it can feel that the same standards don’t seem to be held elsewhere, but that’s the WoW’s fault, not any individual player for pointing out the game’s steps in going there.
Because it’s usually an Alliance player telling us that the Horde is better with a council. What have they done?
Fascism doesn’t even apply to this game because it’s a real life movement that doesn’t even exist on Azeroth. There is no far-right totalitarian movement there. There are leaders that are not elected though. And the whole conversation is useless anyway because the council isn’t elected either.
Writers did make two mistakes that they haven’t tried to nor probably can undo.
Recoil from idiots being Warchiefs. Not the Warchief role itself.
That’s the problem with BFA’s ending and why repeating MoP was doomed to failure. Garrosh could’ve been begrudgingly written off as a fluke. Doing it with Sylvanas established a pattern, and because the writers refused to retcon or write out the stupid tree burning and most of the plot thereafter, they went for another scapegoat. Hence the “moral” of “warchief is bad because it had war in the name”.
Because it’s fiction and not real life, all they have to do is not do that again. I hope that because there has been so much backlash that has been pretty consistent ever since BFA that they’ve gotten the message to not do it again.
Honestly, pretty much just because I like the races and the capitals more.
Alliance has like 1 or 2 good capital cities and their races feel very redundant, with their most interesting one being Draenei. If I could play a Horde race (like Goblin, Troll, etc.) on the Alliance, or even as just a neutral “Adventurer”, I probably would.
Lore-wise, I honestly don’t care if they don’t do many Horde stories after BfA if it means the faction isn’t hit with the villain bat for the 3rd time.
Also, since Horde will be able to do the content, I don’t really view stories about Anduin and Co. as being “Alliance Stories” - they’re just “The Story”. If we were locked out of it, that’d be one thing - but I haven’t heard of that being the case.
My point was there were two.
Both Garrosh and Sylvanas were deposed by a violent rebellion.
Yes it did. But the point I was making is that there had already been fighting by that point. And it Sylvanas was not deposed by rules. She fled the rebellion.
Yes. No debate there.
Then you were just straight up wrong. You were talking about Warchiefs being overthrown. Garrosh and Sylvanas were not overthrown by a Mak’gora.
That was LONG after Garrosh was already removed from the position.
I don’t think you understand the Mak’gora. It is not a rule to replace a person’s position. The Horde’s militant the strongest should lead mentality allows it to be used to move up ranks, but it can be used for lots of different things. Including just a fight to the death. Which is what Thrall did. At that point Garrosh had no position of authority for Thrall to challenge for.
And, importantly it does NOT have to be accepted. Note the conversation Saurfang and Sylvanas had:
Sylvanas: Why should I accept your challenge?
Saufang: You want to make me suffer.
Both Saurfang and Sylvanas recognized she was not obligated to accept. Saurfang had to give her a reason.
That means, the Mak’gora is not actually a way to remove a Warchief unless they choose to fight.
First off, no it isn’t. Context matters.
So, let’s take this in context step by step.
I said:
The Alliance is not bound to the High King like the Horde is to the Warchief.
To which you replied the Horde aren’t bound because they have been overthrown a few times.
Okay, so when were the Horde Warchiefs overthrown? Well, in the rebellions. They weren’t overthrown in Mak’gora challenges.
So, I then pointed out (correctly) that the Warchiefs were actually overthrown by violent rebellions. To which you replied:
So, at this point one of two things has happened.
So, I then pointed out that BOTH times it was a rebellion that removed the Warchief, which is not “perfectly within the rules.” That answers both.
I am going to be very generous here and chock this up to your bias and prejudice getting the better of you rather that you intentionally making just an inanely stupid strawman misdirect.
First off: Me being an primarily Alliance player does not mean Horde players do not ask for changes. You literally had a Horde player use an an example of changes requested by Horde players.
Second off: I am explaining where you are objectively wrong about what has happened. Apparently you do not know the lore very well. We have not been discussing what should happen.
Third: Everyone can have ideas on what should and/or could happen. Me being an primary Alliance player does not mean I can’t also discuss things from the Horde perspective. It is a total game, some of us do not limit our story interests to just one faction. And I want those who primarily play Horde to have good stories just like I want the stories for the Alliance players to be good.
Again, I am stretching the benefit of the doubt to say that you were not being childish and intentionally disingenuous because of your weird Alliance hating stance. I guess we will see if that is true by whether or not you double down on false and strawman type statements.
Agree. And both Dwarves and Humans use hereditary monarchies, which don’t exactly have a good track record in history. It is likely only more accepted because we are more used to it in medieval and similar fantasy.
I think the issue with the Warchief roll is not actually the role itself. Again, because it is a fantasy we can say a good person is in charge, like Thrall’s Horde. I think the issue at this point is character motivations. When looking at characters like Lor’themar and Baine, after everything they went through twice, would it make sense for them to be okay with a Warchief ever again? I feel like it would take a TON of work to get there in a way that would make sense. If we could go back in time and erase all of Cata/MoP/BfA, then sure in the fantasy setting it would be fine to have the same Warchief structure Thrall lead with a good person in charge. But, the faction war expacs kind of ruined it. I don’t know if a council is the best solution, that is a subjective judgement call. But I think a council is the easiest solution, which is why I think Blizzard did it.
I remain of the mindset that the faction war was always a bad idea and should never have been done.
Well, if you had been reading you will see that I have repeatedly stated that whether or not the council is better is a personal judgement.
Fascism is a type of government. It isn’t a political movement. Some political movement push for Fascism, but it is typically as a way to get something they want. Fascism is the tool, not the goal.
Not that long. Very next expansion. And Garrosh was defeated at the end of MoP.
Mak’gora (also written as mak’gora [1] or Mak’Gora [2][3]), meaning “duel of honor”,[4] is an orcish custom whereby someone may challenge another person to individual combat. The ritualistic duel[5] has been often used to obtain a position of leadership, such as a fight for the position of group leader,[6] clan chieftain,[7] or Warchief of the Horde, but not necessarily. Mak’gora is practiced by ogre clans as well.[8]
And again to specify, what I said was
Mak’gora is used for that. It’s even in it’s definition. That I apparently don’t know because you think you are the smartest person here.
Without the Mak’gora they wouldn’t have been overthrown. Sylvanas fled after her Mak’gora. Garrosh can’t come back from his.
It means you should have no impact on what is done Horde side because it affects faction fantasy for us.
And can you tell me where here it even says that rebellion is against the rules?
Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/ FASH-iz-əm) is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement,[1][2][3] characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.[2][3] Opposed to anarchism, democracy, pluralism, egalitarianism, liberalism, socialism, and Marxism,[4][5] fascism is placed on the far-right wing within the traditional left–right spectrum.[6][5][7]