The Horde is a failed state, and I like it that way.

[Deleted]

I differ slightly from many here in that I don't mind too much about Garrosh's decent into tyranny; perhaps only holding reservations with the starkness of the turn and the feeling that it comes as a departure from the character we knew. Notwithstanding that, I like his leadership style, and feel it is very 'horde'.

I love the feel of the Horde as an iron-fisted, totalitarian regime, as captured beautifully by this song, the Kor'kron presence, and Hellscream's leadership style. I wish it could stay this way. As a minion of the Horde war machine, I am more afraid of the taskmasters behind me, than of the alliance defending their homes ahead- I don't lack conviction, mind you; whatever my race, joining in the Horde is the best chance my reviled, disgraced, vulnerable, scattered, or downtrodden people has. We have to fight for a place in a world that doesn't want us, if that comes at the expense of the alliance, let them burn.

My main hope is, after toppling Hellscream, the Horde might develop a bit of a dysfunctional coup culture; diverse and treacherous factions united by necessity and mutual benefit, but constantly scheming and jostling amongst one another for greater influence and control. The Warchief could change every xpac, or even more frequently, and contrast nicely with the stability and unity of the alliance- where faction leaders collaborate equitably in a council format.

All in all, were mostly there:

• Silvermoon is ruled by a military junta, headed by the former head of the military turned 'Regent Lord'.
• Undercity is ruled by a ruthless and autocratic 'dark lady' who is wavering in her foundational commitment to free will, and transitioning from a fiercely defensive regime into one that embodies a threat to all neighbours.
• Orgrimmar is military mega-barracks under martial law.
• Bilgewater Harbour is the plutocratic factory of the Horde, and a giant gun, no less.
• The Echo Islands seem to form an exception, but not really- a minority ethnic group raising arms against the state is a hallmark of a failed state.
• Only Thunder Bluff stands as a peaceable and sane counter-example, but even then their leader was slain in a power grab against the Warcheif interfered with by a separatist traitor. The tauren are a people who, facing extinction, sold their soul to a Horde that turned out not to be exactly as advertised. Now they're entangled, and despite much horde-skepticism, are unlikely to actually disentangle themselves and leave (if indeed they would be permitted to do so).

We just need these corrupt and dysfunctional cultures of governance to 'trickle up' into the Horde executive. As a final caveat, I'm not saying I want the horde to be disney evil, or to abandon it's nobler and more hopeful elements; I want a horde that struggle with the fruits of authoritarianism and factional infighting, borne of it's unchecked, military dominated, executive branch. Contrasting that with high hope and good intentions is actually preferable- gotta love the conflict between moral characters and institutional resistance thereto.


TL;DRThe Horde being a dysfunctional junta, even in spite of it's high minded re-founding principles, suits it well- and should persist even if Garrosh is removed as Warchief. The problems under his rule are systemic, not solely drawn up to his flaws.

[Deleted]

Both the Horde and Alliance are dysfunctional and make no political sense and, as per your words, are failed "states". I like WoW as much as the next guy but if it wasn't for it they could probably have done a much better job with the story going forward with the RTS.

I'd say the current factions would probably band up as they did but they'd slowly break apart and break apart real fast after the Lich King died. Night Elves and Tauren would deffo be the first to go and become neutral towards everyone else and maybe friendly towards each other.

Dwarves and Gnomes would probably start minding their own lands and stick to a friendly trade allegiance with the human kingdom(s) and occasional military cooperation.

Draenei had no reason to stick with the Alliance any longer and would make more sense if they went neutral and decided to help all the factions against the inevitable Legion invasion.

Worgen would either stick with Stormwind and try to retake Gilneas or haul-ass to Darnassus.

The Forsaken would probably end up at war with both Alliance and Horde factions for taking lands from the first and for employing the Val'kyr to bring back dead people (hello, Lich Queen? lol).

Bilgewater Cartel would probably stick with the Horde due to their proximity but try to negotiate business deals with Alliance factions. Or just relocate and become full-fledged neutral (i.e. Stemwheedle Cartel).

Trolls would probably remain loyal to the Orcs, though.

[Deleted]

Both the Horde and Alliance are dysfunctional and make no political sense and, as per your words, are failed "states". I like WoW as much as the next guy but if it wasn't for it they could probably have done a much better job with the story going forward with the RTS.

Agree, the Warcraft setting is ripe for WC4. But really the problem is how the game design preference for balance and a status quo (unnecessarily) bleeds into the story. That and the tying of lore developments to content releases.

I'd say the current factions would probably band up as they did but they'd slowly break apart and break apart real fast after the Lich King died. Night Elves and Tauren would deffo be the first to go and become neutral towards everyone else and maybe friendly towards each other.

I actually think this would deploy well in-game. Have the Nelves and Tauren pull out of their respective alliances due to a disillusionment and lack of perceived benefit. Both become neutral factions, with rep grindable by Horde and Alliance toons. No new Tauren and Nelf toons can be rolled, but existing ones are 'grandfathered' in as loyalists (effectively becoming presitige races). Alternately you could make rolling them conditional on getting exalted with their faction (but not make them eligible for both factions).

Dwarves and Gnomes would probably start minding their own lands and stick to a friendly trade allegiance with the human kingdom(s) and occasional military cooperation.

Draenei had no reason to stick with the Alliance any longer and would make more sense if they went neutral and decided to help all the factions against the inevitable Legion invasion.

Worgen would either stick with Stormwind and try to retake Gilneas or haul-ass to Darnassus.

The Forsaken would probably end up at war with both Alliance and Horde factions for taking lands from the first and for employing the Val'kyr to bring back dead people (hello, Lich Queen? lol).

Bilgewater Cartel would probably stick with the Horde due to their proximity but try to negotiate business deals with Alliance factions. Or just relocate and become full-fledged neutral (i.e. Stemwheedle Cartel).

Trolls would probably remain loyal to the Orcs, though.

That's a pretty good assessment, and one I'd agree with. I'd chuck in that Belves would likely remain Horde, or be absorbed into the new Forsaken villain state. The former possibility being based on the latter likelihood.

[Haytham]

That's a pretty good assessment, and one I'd agree with. I'd chuck in that Belves would likely remain Horde, or be absorbed into the new Forsaken villain state. The former possibility being based on the latter likelihood.

The blood elves accepted the forsaken's help in the ghostlands. But times have changed.

BE dont want to kill anyone mindless like the forsaken do and their crazy leader. If anything the BE just want to be left alone.I really doubt they will get a villain stamp on them like the forsaken might get.

[Deleted]

I am some guy on an internet forum and I approve of this message. The Horde's absolute failure to function as a cohesive unit without Thrall holding their hand should be shown in-game. If a Horde battered by war and split between various factions and allegiances, that's forced to work with its enemy to overthrow its own leader is an equal to the Alliance in the next expansion, something has gone wrong.

Laying every single problem of the post-Wrath Horde at Garrosh's feet ignores everything else they've done during that period and especially before his turn to the tyrannical xenophobe he was in MoP. It functioning perfectly in the aftermath of a disastrous war renders the whole conflict essentially meaningless, especially if the issue of the Forsaken remains unaddressed.

[Deleted]

The blood elves accepted the forsaken's help in the ghostlands. But times have changed.

BE dont want to kill anyone mindless like the forsaken do and their crazy leader. If anything the BE just want to be left alone.I really doubt they will get a villain stamp on them like the forsaken might get.

It comes down to whether or not they'll have the luxury of a choice. While certainly they accepted the Forsaken 'help' in the Ghostlands, what do you think would have happened if they declined? The Forsaken regime is a massive and powerful one, and it sits cosily on the southern border of the shattered and vulnerable Blood Elf realm. The alliance had already sent spies, and the military junta headed by the former Ranger-General turned 'Regent-Lord' was struggling simply to deal with the scourge remnants and wretched (let alone external threats).

My meaning was that if Undercity were to make a heel face turn, Silvermoon might make that transition with them, whether they want to or not.

[Deleted]

That's a pretty good assessment, and one I'd agree with. I'd chuck in that Belves would likely remain Horde, or be absorbed into the new Forsaken villain state. The former possibility being based on the latter likelihood.

Thanks.

I keep forgetting the Blood Elves. Can't we just have them all killed off? I kid, I kid (kind of).

I'd say they'd stick with the now independent Forsaken (as allies?) and would

a) denounce them when they saw enough of the Val'kyr-made abominations
or
b) the Forsaken would betray them
or
c) they never find out about the Val'kyr (or won't care)

Since they have no real foreseeable reason to go to war against any faction ('cept for the Legion or the Forsaken betrayal scenario) they would probably remain at peace for a while and build up or might join the Forsaken in their push for Gilneas/Alterac/Arathi.

This last bit could also drive the Dwarves to remain in the Alliance (or rejoin it) and work with the Humans for a massive offense in the northern EK.

We can't also forget about Jaina and the Kirin Tor. Not sure about what their fate could be but if the last scenario I mentioned were to happen I can imagine them participating in the offensive. Could probably lead to some interesting plot lines regarding Jaina and whatshisface Elf that leads the Sunreavers. At least I'd question him as to why he'd side with the Bitch Queen and her making a new mini-scourge.

[Deleted]

Sorry OP you totally missing the lore - come back after playing WC3 and reading the books...
"The tauren are a people who, facing extinction, sold their soul to a Horde that turned out not to be exactly as advertised." is utter bullshit cause without the Tauren there wouldnt even be any horde....

[Deleted]

Reason why I like Garrosh's rule is because it feels more mature, more manly and just the way RL Hordes were in our history, full of conquerors and people who take what they want. The Horde with Thrall was nice, I give you that, but it didn't deserve the title "Horde", I'd call it a "movement", or something along those lines.

- - - Updated - - -

Sorry OP you totally missing the lore - come back after playing WC3 and reading the books...
"The tauren are a people who, facing extinction, sold their soul to a Horde that turned out not to be exactly as advertised." is utter bullshit cause without the Tauren there wouldnt even be any horde....

Yeah, because the Original Horde was created by the Tauren, right? The name Horde is taken from the Original Horde, you should play a bit and look at how Thrall refers to it.

[Itisamuh]

Agreed, I love the Horde as it's been recently (before the rebellion, under Garrosh.) I don't like it when they're just a reskinned Alliance. They should be a little more brutish, and have a much darker vibe. It's no fun when they're exactly the same, makes me wonder why they're even at war in the first place.

[Deleted]

Sorry OP you totally missing the lore - come back after playing WC3 and reading the books...
"The tauren are a people who, facing extinction, sold their soul to a Horde that turned out not to be exactly as advertised." is utter bullshit cause without the Tauren there wouldnt even be any horde....

And without the Horde (i.e. Orcs and a few Trolls) there would probably be no Tauren.

Still, I agree the Tauren didn't join out of mere necessity. Cairne did like Thrall and his leadership and he decided to stick with him. Tauren do have plenty of reason for wanting out now, though.

- - - Updated - - -

Agreed, I love the Horde as it's been recently (before the rebellion, under Garrosh.) I don't like it when they're just a reskinned Alliance. They should be a little more brutish, and have a much darker vibe. It's no fun when they're exactly the same, makes me wonder why they're even at war in the first place.

Well, the war doesn't make much sense, either (for the Horde). Orcs were forced/fooled/corrupted/persuaded into invading Azerothe for the Legion, why would they want to keep fighting a war they ere mere tools in? A war that destroyed so many of them and even their home planet? All they want now is a new place to call home. The Alliance, being the 'offended' party (their planet did get invaded and their people massacred), will probably want to keep pushing for war for revenge and/or taking lands that belong to the Horde, which, like I said, are the invaders.

[Sierra85]

The tauren will not abandon a sinking ship because of a few pluggable holes.

[Deleted]

I am some guy on an internet forum and I approve of this message. The Horde's absolute failure to function as a cohesive unit without Thrall holding their hand should be shown in-game. If a Horde battered by war and split between various factions and allegiances, that's forced to work with its enemy to overthrow its own leader is an equal to the Alliance in the next expansion, something has gone wrong.

Laying every single problem of the post-Wrath Horde at Garrosh's feet ignores everything else they've done during that period and especially before his turn to the tyrannical xenophobe he was in MoP. It functioning perfectly in the aftermath of a disastrous war renders the whole conflict essentially meaningless, especially if the issue of the Forsaken remains unaddressed.

As an avid Horde fan, I couldn't agree more. It would be idiotic for the Alliance to assist this uprising in the Horde, invade Orgrimmar, and then just leave without securing some form of lasting leverage, control, or strategic advantage. The obvious (and outrageous) choice would be permanent military bases and a remnant 'peacekeeping' force.

As to the 'Forsaken problem', it's a tricky one. Any post-siege of Orgrimmar regime is going to need the geopolitical 'weight' they provide to stave off the Alliance from shutting down the Horde proper. Indeed it's likely the forsaken will be the ones to rescue the Horde from the Alliance once Garrosh is dealt with.

However, each day that passes, the Forsaken get stronger and stronger- and the day that they no longer need the Horde, the day that they become a bigger risk than an ally, draws closer and closer. If you were to consider conflict with the Forsaken more or less inevitable, then the later you leave betraying them, the less likely you are to defeat them. I'm pretty sure everyone knows this, and that basically the Forsaken have Azeroth snookered. The Alliance can't take them out with the Horde backing them, the Horde can't take them out without making themselves vulnerable to the Alliance thereafter, and it's just a matter of time until the Forsaken can take on the Alliance and the Horde. It's like a mexican standoff; and indeed quite similar to the famous one at the end of 'the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly'.

[Faroth]

The Horde's absolute failure to function as a cohesive unit without Thrall holding their hand should be shown in-game. If a Horde battered by war and split between various factions and allegiances, that's forced to work with its enemy to overthrow its own leader is an equal to the Alliance in the next expansion, something has gone wrong.

Sadly, I completely expect this to be the case. The Horde will be on equal footing as the Alliance and we will desperately need one another to face the Legion. The Alliance will have no further evidence of being in a better position than the Horde, but the Horde's efforts to rejuvenate themselves and regain their strength and honor will be the focus of the story. Yes, somehow they will be working towards regaining their position while at the same time being on equal footing with the Alliance. That's just what I've come to expect.

Laying every single problem of the post-Wrath Horde at Garrosh's feet ignores everything else they've done during that period and especially before his turn to the tyrannical xenophobe he was in MoP. It functioning perfectly in the aftermath of a disastrous war renders the whole conflict essentially meaningless, especially if the issue of the Forsaken remains unaddressed.

Totally agree. There's too many good stories for the Horde internally, without the Alliance as a foil, if they don't just hand wave everything as being Garrosh's fault.

[ItachiZaku]

The game could splinter off into 4-5 factions, and i'd be ok with it. My Tauren brothers and sisters as part of the Cenarian Something or other would be ok.

[Deleted]

Sorry OP you totally missing the lore - come back after playing WC3 and reading the books...
"The tauren are a people who, facing extinction, sold their soul to a Horde that turned out not to be exactly as advertised." is utter bullshit cause without the Tauren there wouldnt even be any horde....

Replay WCIII; the Tauren were pushed to the brink of starvation by the Centaur, which Thrall and the Orcs helped them overcome.

[Deleted]

TL;DRThe Horde being a dysfunctional junta, even in spite of it's high minded re-founding principles, suits it well- and should persist even if Garrosh is removed as Warchief. The problems under his rule are systemic, not solely drawn up to his flaws.

I agree. The Thrall storyline of Warcraft III unveiled another potential side to the Horde, but the regression into tyranny helped to complicate the "redemption" storyline. If the Horde remains dysfunctional (as you pointed out - all of its leaderships were even before Garrosh) then it would help keep it distinct from the Alliance whose members have more well-ordered societies. It's a richer theme than the old good vs evil of Warcraft II as well - the Horde and Alliance have both been shown to be quite capable of that.

[Codah]

THIS IS ALSO ON REDDIT but I totally agree.

[Deleted]

For me, a good solution to the aftermath of the Siege of Orgrimmar would be a Treaty of Versailles-esque situation. Territorial concessions of contested lands, strict limits to the military the Horde is allowed, the like. It would remain its own autonomous entity, but there would be actual consequences for their actions over Cataclysm and Mists. While I personally prefer the Horde as a militaristic, quasi-totalitarian state (though minus the racism, around what it was in Cataclysm), if they are intent to move forward in another direction, the fact that this entire war happened should be reflected in some fashion.

These conditions can of course be reversed once the Legion/Naga/Old Gods pop out, in fitting with Blizzard's idea of forcing cooperation where distrust should spread instead, but it would at least acknowledge that the Horde went through this. Alternatively, let's just take the following into account.

The orcs are a decimated and divided race. The vast majority of their military fell with Garrosh, be it out of genuine conviction or respect for their oaths, with very few orcish revolutionaries involved at all. This, need I remind you, is the center of the Horde's military.

The trolls are able guerilla fighters. Sole issue being, even excluding those that died during the Revolution, fell victim to the whole Echo Isles debacle, they are not numerous and they are not a standing military force, per se. They can't be a foundation for any new force whoever the new Warchief is might assemble.

The tauren were never numerous, but they're at least low on casualties, save for the fact that they had to bar entry into their own homeland for fear of being overrun. Assuming peace follows the Siege, that will be a non-factor, but their numbers still mean that they alone have no great influence over the proceedings.

The Blood Elves are in the same camp, though they're the closest the Horde has to a regimented military. I assume constructs play a part as well, but there's a bit too much of a gulf between them and the other races in terms of tactics.

The Bilgewater Goblins have no standing army, and the majority of the war machines they've produced are used by the True Horde. They'll never be too low on manpower, but their allegiance is slippery either way.

What does that leave us? No, not the Huojin, go away. The Forsaken. They have taken no casualties, they haven't been involved in the war on Pandaria, and all of the losses they suffered following the Shattering were at best minor setbacks. If they're used as a deterrent towards an Alliance occupation and hold the knife over the necks of the Horde races at least for a patch or two after the Siege is done with, I'd be quite happy.

[Deleted]

I agree. The Thrall storyline of Warcraft III unveiled another potential side to the Horde, but the regression into tyranny helped complicate this redemption storyline. If the Horde remains dysfunctional (as you pointed out - all of its leaderships were even before Garrosh) then it would help keep it distinct from the Alliance whose members have more well-ordered societies. It's a richer theme than the old good vs evil of Warcraft II as well - the Horde and Alliance have been shown to be both quite capable of that.

Beautifully put.
And just as this complication in between the Horde's ultimate goal is very applicable to many 'young states' throughout history- so too is the inflexibility and intolerance of established powers to the emergent 'young guard' applicable to the Alliance. It's easy to be noble and civilised when you hold all the assets.

THIS IS ALSO ON REDDIT but I totally agree.

Lol yeah, when I get an itch to talk lore, I need to scratch it pretty vigorously.

- - - Updated - - -

For me, a good solution to the aftermath of the Siege of Orgrimmar would be a Treaty of Versailles-esque situation...

Ahh, the treaty that gave birth to WWII, I like it. Bring on Weimar Orgrimmar, and everything it entails.