Saving the Horde's Narrative

Lore Story Forum
1

Who should be Warchief? Should the Horde experience another Civil War?

I think these are two important questions Blizzard needs to ask the Horde’s playerbase. How these situations are handled could save the future of the faction (and Blizzard’s sub numbers.)

And so I ask you, fair people of the forums, to aid me in this endeavor.

If given a choice, which would you choose? (And why?)

  1. There is no civil war and Sylvanas stays Warchief.
    (Status Quo.)

  2. There is a civil war and Sylvanas stops being Warchief.
    (I.e. The Horde splits into warring factions and Sylvanas dies in the conflict.)

  3. There is a civil war and Sylvanas stays Warchief.
    (I.e. The Horde splits into warring factions but Sylvanas’ side wins.)

  4. There is no civil war and Sylvanas stops being Warchief.
    (I.e. Sylvanas loses popular support among the Horde and she abdicates her authority or leaves the faction.)

Strawpoll removed cause despite the thread only having 10 views, one answer got over 10+ votes. So someone seemingly inflated it with proxy/vpn.

2 Likes
2

Several words that could help the narrative:

Ritssyn coup d’etat.
Gul’dan Resurrection.
Warchief Warlock Thrall.

Warlocks would basically fix everything, we are so handy.

4 Likes
3

is going to be hard for the horde to become heroic if they don’t have villains to beat.

so i suggest that if horde players really want to go back to being “good” then they need to do something about sylvanas and show the alliance some good faith.
sure, “the horde don’t need the alliance redemption” well that is true, but i really can’t think in another way. anduin is not a threat, sadly.
he wants to give the horde time to heal, he has no intention to exterminate them.

what about… azshara kicking the alliance and the horde comes to rescue? too cliche? why the horde would help the alliance while we are at war? and after the alliance killed rasthakan?
so we are in this ridiculously place where there is not good outcome thanks to blizzard starting with a damn genocide.
and repeating the same stories.

1 Like
4

I think the best way for the Horde to reclaim their Heroic identity is to collectively oppose Sylvanas. Not just the leaders, but the rank-and-file soldiers too. Sylvanas’ agenda has transgressed the moral and cultural values of virtually every Horde race (including Forsaken and Freewill.) Most Horde characters look cowardly, inept, ignorant, or hypocritical to keep obeying Sylvanas, and it’s time for the story to let them reclaim their identity by opposing her.

We could have a moment where Sylvanas wants the Horde to do something inhumane (like fire a mega-weapon into a city before civilians finish evacuating) and the Horde army doesn’t obey. (Would have been great for that moment to be Teldrassil, but oh well.)

Afterwords, Sylvanas can leave the faction to go pursue her own agenda. That will reinstate the Horde’s heroic identity while avoiding a repeat of MoP. Sylvanas can go off on her own adventure and better develop into the anti-hero many people want her to be. (She can even return to the Horde later.)

It could also tie in to player choice. If you side with Saurfang, you get to experience the Horde disobeying Sylvanas and rebuilding thereafter. If you side with Sylvanas, you get a unique questline that follows her events in exile.

3 Likes
5

Four. Sylvanas should finally move beyond the Horde, free to commit her evil acts without it reflecting on the rest of the faction. I don’t want another trite civil war. Whether she leaves on her own terms to pursue her own goals, or is forced to step down by the other leaders (either is fine, but I think the latter is important if the Horde wants to go a ways to redeem itself), it needs to happen without another civil war. I’ve put up and rolled with a lot of garbage concerning Blizzard’s vision for the Horde, but that would be a rehash too far for me.

10 Likes
6

The absolute best thing that could have happened is development for Sylvanas. There’s two things Horde players collectively do not want more than anything else. One, for our heroes to be killed or made into raid fodder. Two, to have another story/civil war where we need to purge ourselves of evil.

This is possible through actual proper character development of Sylvanas, development where she moves more towards the brotherhood values of the Horde. It doesn’t mean she stops being the evil, cruel banshee that she always was, but she becomes an evil, cruel banshee who cares about the Horde and it’s leaders, trusts them, has their trust, and would never betray or harm them. She becomes our evil, cruel banshee.

In this vein, she becomes the Token Evil Teammate; the person who will stoop to levels others won’t, or will do dirty acts so that others don’t need to sully their hands. She shouldn’t be Warchief, but being in the seat of Warchief should be what propels that development, granting her a perspective she didn’t previously have.

There’s a thousand different ways they could do this story, if they were willing.

26 Likes
7

Well that is kinda a problem.
because the horde attacks the civilians of boralus during their incursion.
they specifically target civilians.

6 Likes
8

It sure is.

The Horde has been primarily been depicted as thoughtless lackeys and yesmen to an evil Warchief, and it is time to address that.

But do you think Sylvanas alone should be the person that forces Sylvanas to step down?

Because that doesn’t redeem the Horde or make them look any better. They would just be yesmen up until the moment she voluntarily opts out of being their leader.

I believe the Horde itself needs to display that it still has moral fiber, still values it’s integrity over her amoral agenda, and will not mindlessly enable her until she “matures” into a more sensible character.

This is not who Sylvanas is. From the Vanilla Forsaken introduction to Edge of Night to Before the Storm - Sylvanas has never cared about the Horde.

You are asking for her to become an entirely different character.

I can’t even begin to imagine how she could somehow become a character that sincerely values the Horde as anything other than a tool for her own empowerment, outside of magic, shoehorned development and/or characterization pivots.

Sylvanas worked best as a shadowy, mysterious ally of convenience.

9

I really dont care as long as it is interesting and fun. I think I could find interest and fun in all 4 of your options if they are written well and the gameplay is there.

With this post, I want to address the thread title. (Maybe I fell for clickbait)

If I put myself into the…complaining…Horde folks minds… If I tried to assume my fantasy would save the Horde narrative, AND If I assumed it needed saving to begin with - 4 looks like the answer.

1 Like
10

Yes, presumably under the context of Vol’jin returning from the Shadowlands.

As they’ve always been. Warriors are literally bred to be yes-men.

Also, particularly, we should consider instead having things written in a more favorable context. Take Brennadam for example. It has the Horde military ruthlessly slaughtering civilians, for no reason. This is a reality of war, and happens all the time. It’s realistic. What can be done, however, to soften the blow is introduce other themes or quotes that clarify what’s going on.

For example, a captains log where he muses that he had intelligence that Brennadam was going to be heavily manned. Grunts, instead of mindlessly rampaging, are holding civilians by the throat demanding to know where their guard is because they came expecting a good fight, perhaps other Grunts in disbelief, forcing arms into the hands of the civilians to make them fight back. Bloodthirsty Headhunters muse over the corpses of civilians, commenting on how they came expecting worthy trophies. Brennadam, more or less, becomes an accident.

Civilians die in war. It’s a fact, and often, an actual necessity to hamstring a foe’s logistics. There is no Geneva convention or defined rules of war in Warcraft, so this is tactically sound, and we’ve seen both factions engage in the practice. What needs to be fixed instead is the context. Currently, the context is, “RAAAGH ORC SMASH PUNY HUMAN RAAAGGHHH.” The context should be changed to be more favorable. Then both sides can argue for their own side and dissonance can be curbed accordingly.

14 Likes
11

I think that’s a terrible idea.

I don’t like the idea of the Horde races “just following orders” no matter how much those orders transgress their moral or cultural beliefs. The Horde armies and civilians should not be faceless, generic redshirts that only reflect whoever is in power. They should represent their own societies.

Sylvanas has ruined the identity and spirit of basically every Horde race except Goblins, and visibly opposing her is the best way for them to demonstrate they won’t let it continue.

A failed attempt, as evident by any civil war, deserter, or traitor ever.

The Horde’s soldiers (and civilians) should not lack opinion. The narrative would be better if it explored societal views and values, and not just lead characters.

Then we should have Horde content that demonstrates those soldiers would be “disciplined” (i.e. executed, discharged from the military, or were sent on missions they weren’t expected to return from.)

Mindlessly murdering civilians is not the in line with the notion of morality most Horde characters possess.

Garrosh threw a guy off a cliff for killing civilians.

They weren’t. I agree it’d be nice if situations like Brennadam were presented with moral ambiguity, but they weren’t.

Teldrassil and Brennadam happened as is. The Horde was portrayed as brainless, hypocritical, cowardly, or evil. It happened. The Horde now needs a story that represents it as thoughtful, honorable, brave, and good.

3 Likes
12

Personally, I would choose option 4: There is no civil war and Sylvanas stops being Warchief. (I.e. Sylvanas loses popular support among the Horde and she abdicates her authority or leaves the faction.)

I would rather also that Sylvanas realizes what is happening with the horde losing support, and knowingly abdicates, hopefully to Voljin. From there, I would like her to still be tied to the forsaken, although she doesn’t have to be their leader.

3 Likes
13

That’s not good writing, because it won’t erase what happened. It’ll instead seem schizophrenic and inconsistent. The narrative needs to acknowledge what happened and move forward with it, not ignore it. Like I said, add context.

15 Likes
14

Without a retcon, you can’t change events that have already happened. “Adding context” isn’t going to fix events like Teldrassil. We saw the Horde transgress the moral and cultural values of most of its members. It’s time to see a story that demonstrates their better angels.

Having some pivotal moment where a Horde army could obey Sylvanas and do something inhumane or disobey her and do something heroic IS good writing, because it demonstrates that the Horde soldiers that mindlessly obey amoral villains are not the entirety of the Horde, and/or “moral” Horde soldiers begin to realize how thoroughly ill-fitting and problematic Sylvanas is as their leader.

Instead of the Horde just being some malleable and manipulated mass of races willing to drop their moral and cultural values at the drop of a hat - we see them as individuals possessing integrity and agency.

15

Remove Syvlanas as quickly and quietly as possible.

1 Like
16

It’s not good writing. In your opinion, it’s good thematics.

It is bad writing because it’s inconsistent, and consistency is really important to a story. Again, it needs to be acknowledged, not ignored. And also, your scenario doesn’t give room for Sylvanas to change as a character.

15 Likes
17

  1. Are you saying the Horde should be monolithic? It’s believable for the Horde to be multifaceted and be composed of disagreeing individuals AND individuals capable of changing their minds. It’s realistic if one group of Horde soldiers mindlessly slaughters civilians and another group decides to let them escape or take them captive. The Alliance has villainous or cruel individuals within it, which enrich a faction that’d otherwise be a conventional portrayal of Lawful Goodness. Right now the Horde is far too close to conventional portrayals of Evil. What we need right now is for Blizzard to communicate to us that the Horde is mostly composed of humane soldiers that understand unarmed, fleeing civilians are not deserving of mindless slaughter - and seeing Horde soldiers oppose orders to say, Kill Civilians, would help communicate that.

  2. I also agree events like Brennadam/Tedlrassil need to be acknowledged, and I’ve expressed how.

  3. My suggestion still gives room for Sylvanas to change as a character. She can still be opposed by the Horde AND grow as a character. I.e. She voluntarily leaves the faction or is booted out - spurring character growth. (She can even come back later.)

2 Likes
18

We do kinda have it acknowledged in a minor way via the conversations between Traveling Warrior and his son in Org.

Traveling Son says: I feel bad that the elves lost their tree.
Traveling Warrior says: Why?
Traveling Son says: You told me that we orcs once lost our home.
Traveling Warrior says: That was long ago.
Traveling Son says: Didn’t it make everyone sad?
Traveling Warrior says: We were… not ourselves. It is difficult to explain, boy.
Traveling Son says: Mother spoke of it sometimes. I… I think it made her cry.
Traveling Son says: I don’t think anyone should lose their home. Not if it makes them feel like that.
Traveling Warrior says: You have your mother’s heart.

In another dialogue:

Traveling Son says: Father?
Traveling Warrior says: What is it, boy?
Traveling Son says: Is this a bad war? I mean… worse than the others?
Traveling Warrior says: Wars never change. Only the warriors do.
Traveling Son says: Do you think this war is going to change the Horde?
Traveling Warrior says: We will see, boy. We will see.

And the third set:

Traveling Warrior says: Boy.
Traveling Son says: Yes, Father?
Traveling Warrior says: You are quiet. More so than usual.
Traveling Son says: I heard other children talking about the war. Did… the Horde do something bad?
Traveling Warrior says: War is a test of honor. Once lost, it is not easily reclaimed.
Traveling Warrior says: Remember that, boy.
Traveling Son says: I will, Father.

I’m kind of hoping this means the subject will be acknowledged in the main story instead of being a minor NPC thing, but maybe I’m too optimistic.

1 Like
19

How about some context that isn’t a pop culture reference.

2 Likes
20

They’re literally called Traveling Warrior and Traveling Son, unless you mean you’d like for a main story acknowledgement, which is what I was saying in the last paragraph. :\

Either way, the fact it’s straight up acknowledged here leaves some hope it will become relevant in the main story. Or maybe it won’t and Blizz doesn’t really care beyond this.