All you have to do is make the racial leader either agree with the war mongering, or be too afraid to leave (either threats, pressure, or simply being too afraid to try and stand on their own).
1 Like
Sure, if you want to discard core thematics of a faction absolutely. But there are distinct differences between the Alliance and Horde. It appears your argument is that the authors can make up anything they want to which I then ask, why do you come here to discuss the lore?
In theory, the High King totally can.
No he can’t, the developers and BtS explicitly state he can’t
So you’re saying there’s some metaphysical restriction preventing the High King from using their army to force something?
The High King, per the developers is akin to the Supreme Allied Commander of NATO. They have operational and strategic control, but do not have administrative control of those forces. Furthermore they are dependent on what the states within the Alliance deign to give to the combined effort.
1 Like
Well, if “core thematics” means “the Alliance are good guys and the Horde are always evil” then they really need discarding.
2 Likes
It would be justice!
but that isn’t the case, the alliance does allow them to exist
i wish the alliance is the tyrannical force that all say that we are.
No, sylvanas wanted to enrage the alliance since the start and force the horde to a war of annihilation.
she wanted to “inflict that can never heal”.
I was referring to the Alliance being a coalition of independent states working together for common purpose as the core thematic. The idea that one faction leader can impose their will is anathema to the core thematics of the Alliance, hence one of the plethora of good reasons Varian had to die.
And this doesn’t change the fact that (in theory) the High King could demand or force things like the Warchief does. In theory, Curtis Scaparrotti (backed by Trump) could order Albania to do something. Then use United States forces if they don’t. Now OBVIOUSLY this would result in other consequences for the United States, but that doesn’t mean such a thing isn’t possible.
In this same way, if the High King had backing or indifference of other nations states, they could use force to ensure their requests. And really, this is how the Warchief works. Because they only way the Warchief actually gets what they want is through some manner of force.
No…they really can’t, this is EXPLICITLY demonstrated in the DARKSHORE prescenario where Maieve and Shandris tell Anduin they are going to go to Darkshore, and Genn tells Anduin he is going to support them.
And all that really means is they just need more racial leaders sticking with them than those who are rebelling. Which is just how it works for the Horde.
Theoretical is only important if people follow it. If a Horde racial leader doesn’t want to follow a warchief, he just decide “he has betrayed our oath”. Conversely, Alliance leaders have a “duty” to support the Alliance, until they don’t want to.
And this is, in fact, how these things have worked in real history. Especially if you frame the rebel leader for something and/or throw in false flag events scape goating, etc.
And, in the end, if the leader and the racial leaders really disagree on something, either they go along or the Alliance ends.
Yes, and Anduin could use Stormwind’s army to take them prisoner. Because he didn’t doesn’t mean he couldn’t.
We literally get to see the difference in game. Compare the results of the Darkshore council meeting with say…Garrosh’s actions.
Sure, if you…Again, want to discard core thematics of the Alliance sure.
And yet, you had a warmongering leader in Varian–even in the pre-High King days (WotLK)–and that worked beautifully to keep tensions high. It helped that he was rubbing up against the thin-skinned Garrosh as warchief, but I’m okay with both sides bearing some of the responsibility for conflict. In fact, I’d prefer it.
So no, I don’t believe it is impractical at all.
Varian did not start the cataclysm war though, You can have aggressive individuals, but they don’t dictate policy. In fact, I would argue that since Legion the devs have been working to get themselves out of the Human Empire trap they wrote themselves into with Varian when he was fauxWarchief.
Well supposedly “the Horde stands for freedom” and yet this is the second Warchief Hostage storyline. Plus people ask about mind control every other day.
That said, I was just clarifying the reality of it. I like internal conflict in the Alliance, but I’m not advocating for the necessity of all out civil war.
1 Like
Kept tension high and also created plot holes. Such as why Jaina, who wanted to stop Yogg-Saron, sent 0 soldiers to help Brann despite leading her own country. Same with every other leader, especially the dwarves who would be very interested in Ulduar.
What do you mean? I recall a bunch of mages with Brann in Ulduar.
Dalaran mages. Theramore was still intact.