Warchief, is it problematic?

Lore Story Forum
1

As some of you may know, the title of Warchief has had a very volatile track record in the WCU starting off as the leader of the united Orcish clans in their bid to conquer Azeroth in its original incarnation.

Then when eventually Orgrim Doomhammer passed the mantle unto Thrall with his dying breath, he became a beacon of hope for the exiled and the unwanted, and reforged the once violent, conquest seeking Horde into a haven of freedom for those regarded as monsters by the intolerant and narrow minded.

Then, once again, when Thrall was forced to leave the mantle of leadership behind to Garrosh in a bid to save the world from the chaotic impact of Deathwings rampage. The Horde once again became a tool of conquest after Garrosh’s once noble desire to restore glory and pride to the Horde became twisted by his favoritism for Orcs and a wanton desire to crush the Alliance at any cost, a desire that eventually led to the alienation of many of his allies within the Horde. But many among them, led by Vol’jin, opposed this violent direction for the Horde who stood by to the ideals established by Thrall, and together the Horde rebels deposed the bloodthirsty Warchief resulting in Vol’jin being anointed the first non-Orc Warchief and marking the beginning of a new era for the Horde, that would not only return to the ideals of Thrall, but to be a force of unity that’d bring the races of the Horde together as to him, the Horde was his family. But alas it was not to be….

Vol’jin’s reign was fairly short lived and even less eventful when during a fateful encounter at the broken shore resulted in him being mortally wounded. As he sit upon the throne in Grommash hold, he elected Sylvanas Windrunner to be his successor with his dying breath due to the advice of a mysterious entity. It was that under the new Warchief that, again, the Horde was driven to war. Except this time, instead of opposing such wanton violence and destruction, the races of the Horde seemed to embrace it, as if they learned nothing from the lessons of Garrosh’s downfall. Eventually it was thanks to the sacrifice of Saurfang and the Alliance forces that led Sylvanas to being exposed and drove the corrupt Warchief from Orgrimmar. Which finally lead to the retiring of the Warchief title in favor of a council led by each of the Hordes leaders’ new and old.

Which has leads to my question; Is the Warchief position inherently problematic?

Yea, we’ve seen acts of depravity committed by the Horde brought forth by some of the Warchiefs I’ve named, but just as they’re capable of orchestrating great evil they’re also capable of great good, which we’ve also seen from a few Warchiefs here. Personally I believe with the right person in charge, the Warchief could be a powerful leader, a force of unity for the disparate factions of the Horde, an indomitable force to oppose those who’d do their people harm, and an ardent defender of Azeroth.

What do you guys think? Is the Warchief position inherently bad? Do you prefer the council or would you like to have a Warchief again?

4 Likes
2

No. A Warchief could be good, just as a council could be bad.

To jump to an IRL example - FDR is recognized as one of the greatest US Presidents. He won Election 4 times - a record, and unless the Constitution is Amended, it will be a record he keeps.

Yet, afterward, the American people amended the Constitution to prevent that from happening again.

Just as the United States Elected a person President , and acknowledges the greatness achieved- they immediately afterward prevent a President from serving more than 2 terms.

I do not think the position of “Warchief” is inherently corrupt. A council is prone to the same issues.

11 Likes
3

Thrall and Vol’jin show that the Warchief position is not inherently bad. Whether there’s a problem depends on who gets the position, as shown with Garrosh and Sylvanas. If anything, Thrall was more of a peacemaker.

While Vol’jin was more warlike than Thrall, he was more honorable and reasonable than his predecessor and successor.

20 Likes
4

The Warchief position in of itself wasn’t inherently bad. The problem is that the Horde had no real safeguards in regards to a Warchief going off the rails, which is how we ended with the Darkspear Rebellion and Saurfang’s revolution against Garrosh and Sylvanas.

Furthermore while apart of me does miss the Horde having a Warchief, I do feel more optimistic about Blizzard not making the Horde villains again since we do have a council in place over a central leader such as a Warchief in place.

8 Likes
5

The warchief position seemed to be as cursed as the Defense Against the Dark Arts professor position was. Having a warchief with autocratic power has led to many instances of villain-batting. Thrall may have been a benevolent dictator, but that was never guaranteed for any of his successors. The council is an oligarchy, but they will likely not approve of another Teldrassil.

They can have a central leader, or no central leader. The issue is with a single leader is how much power is given to them.

Edit: I meant “not approve.” I changed it.

2 Likes
6

Yes OP having a government defined by a single individual with unlimited power whose only legitimacy comes from the fact that they can physically beat everyone else into submission is inherently a problem.

6 Likes
7

I think this is the crux of the issue.

It is not the position of Warchief that is bad, but the acquisition of the title.

As it was, a Warchief appointed their successor, and challenges to such claims went along the rules of Makgora.

Perhaps there could be better ways to empower a Warchief.

7 Likes
8

While you have a very good point, I think Gornur strikes the heart of the matter. There needs to be built-in safeguards against a Warchief going off the rails, otherwise there’s a problem.

I think a workable solution would be like the Venthyr Crown in Shadowlands. It’s the new sigil of Revendreth and one person can wear it for a huge power boost… but only briefly, and the other Court leaders can withdraw their individual powers from the crown at any time.

2 Likes
9

I think having a Warchief for the Orcs, much like having a King for the Humans can work. It’s their culture and customs to do so.

But having a Warchief represent all of the Horde, could be problematic.

Garrosh was a great example of this, where their Orc culture didn’t fit in with the other races of the Horde, that lead them down a dark path.

Zol’jin and Sylvanas’ Warchief story arch were just bad writing, it’s hard to say what the outcome of having a none Orc Warchief could have lead too.

It also could have stirred up rival unrest within the Orcs, for example.

10

I think the issue with saying “The position of warchief isn’t bad, but there were simply no checks on their power,” is the fact that the title of warchief itself is defined by the power. You can call your country’s leader anything you want, but a warchief had always had supreme authority over the Horde.

So, yes, have a head of state, with checks and balances. What we’re talking about is why many countries have democracies. I don’t know where everyone is from, but hopefully somewhere free.

1 Like
11

Things aren’t supposed to work out. Whether it’s the Warchief, or the Noble Ogliarchs in Stormwind or the throne in Ironforge. This is a game about conflict so the situations will be written up in a manner that provides sources for new conflicts.

4 Likes
12

They only ever explore a single notion of the idea of Warchief. That of supreme ruler. A warchief might have ‘supreme’ power. But he/she can only ever exert that supreme power with the majority support of the ‘Clans’ (factions). Checks and balances are inherent in the nature or the position. These remain largely unexplored in the history of wow.

10 Likes
13

Its only problematic because Blizz continues to make it so. And a council can be just as bad. I will always believe the Horde needs a warchief over a council and it should have always been an Alliance thing unlike the blue warchief they got going.

The only reason I’m ok with the council is because it can give other Horde leaders more face time. And we all know Lor’themar is the one holding the fort in Ogrimmar.

19 Likes
14

A high king isn’t just a blue warchief. They only control the military forces given to them. I don’t want to defend the Alliance too much, but the king is no faction-wide dictator.

4 Likes
15

it may be gauche to quote oneself, but if Blizzard wants to the Horde to once more start a morally bankrupt and self-defeating war of aggression against the Alliance, they’ll just do this:

3 Likes
16

Unfortunately the title High King implies something completely different to the scenario you are trying to present. It implies the existence of underkings who have acknowledged the High King as Supreme Overlord. Everyone has bended the knee to his/her supreme authority.

9 Likes
17

The more fundamental problem with the Horde politically is less about the nature of its leadership and more that the faction lacks any coherent unifying ideal beyond “survive” and consequently seem like they’ll uncritically accept pretty much anyone into their ranks regardless of how well the interests of that group mesh with the interests of the rest of the Horde, which is how you end up with Tauren on the same faction as the Forsaken.

The Alliance can be infuriatingly stubborn, self-defeating, and impractical in terms of its obsession with always holding the uncontested moral high ground even if it means sacrificing its own interests, but at the very least it makes them far pickier about who they admit into the Alliance, and as such when a group is admitted to the Alliance they’re more likely to integrate well into the faction which helps it avoid the constant tail-wagging-the-dog problems that plague the Horde.

Which is why absent far more fundamental cultural changes in the Horde, particularly among the Orcs, Blood Elves, and Forsaken, I’m pessimistic about the ability of a council to fix the Horde. One of the reasons the Horde kept on ending up with autocrats was because the constantly diverging interests of its membership could only be papered over by force. This was true even at its very founding on Draenor.

I guess that what it comes down to is the Horde keeps on making the same mistake that it did with Gul’dan. Invite obvious bad dudes into the faction, keep bad dudes around under the illusion that they can be controlled and used to benefit the Horde, get burned by their Faustian bargains with the forces of darkness yet never learn from it.

For what it’s worth, BfA did a good job purging the Horde of its most prominent Gul’dans, such as Sylvanas, Nathanos, Gallywix, Zul, etc. There are still a bunch of mini-Gul’dans in the Horde that I’d like to see also get the boot (mostly in the Forsaken) but at the very least, there is no longer any major character in the Horde that is obvious bad news.

3 Likes
18

I can agree that the Alliance is more discriminating while the Horde is welcoming. You bring to mind the Nightborne.

The Alliance was being picky, as you say. Tyrande made it clear that she sought to defeat the Legion - and beyond that, “Elune’s wisdom” would decide.

How did “Elune’s wisdom” work out for Tyrande’s kaldorei at Teldrassil…

Meanwhile, the Horde was waiting for the Nightborne with open arms.

3 Likes
19

Expecting your associates to refrain from causing apocalypses or going on spontaneous genocidal rampages is discrimination I can get behind.

4 Likes
20

That was more the unfortunate consequence of Tyrande being the Allliance’s front face at Suramar.

Now that’s getting petty.

Again, probably more because Liadrin was being empathetic. Those arms might not have been so open if the front person for the Horde was an Orc or Troll.

1 Like