Are Horde players satisfied with their racial leaders and their (lack) of evolution?

[Syegfryed]

Sylvanas actually resembles Doomhammer in many ways, more than Thrall or Garrosh.

her... no, rly, not even close

- - - Updated - - -

Nooooooooo!!!!!! A goblin warchief is unacceptable!!! I will quit the horde and turn into a small dick gnomish garden elf. And that's going to be really awful as well...

after a undead elf, there is no problem with a goblin

but it a no no the same

[Wildberry]

Sylvanas actually resembles Doomhammer in many ways, more than Thrall or Garrosh.

What? Sylvanas-Doomhammer? No. Not at all. Leave the second best Warchief out of this.

Yes. I play the game for the gameplay, not for the politics.

Oh look, the brightest poster on MMO-Champion has found his way to the lore forum and is now making comments like this.

[Ash123]

What? Sylvanas-Doomhammer? No. Not at all. Leave the second best Warchief out of this.

her... no, rly, not even close

I will explain why Sylvanas is very similar to Doomhammer.

Yes, Sylvanas has boobs and Doomhammer has not. But the point lies in the way they think and the way they lead, not appearance.

1) Both of them are capable fighters who actually understand sometimes it is more effective to plot in shadow first.

2) Both of them are not against "unethical" warfare so long these tactics can win the war.

3) Both of them have good sense in strategies and tactics. They know when to retreat and when to make last stands.

4) Both of them know that you need allies to win the war, and both tend to treat allies like arrows in the quiver.

5) Both of them make use of subjects that are not famous for loyalty. Both of them actually get something useful from these subjects but are ultimately betrayed.

6) Both of them can hold grudge for quite a while.

7) Both of them love wars but both of them are not mindless warmongers like Garrosh.

8) Both of them are fond of burning down forests/big tree.

9) Both of them fight a war to ensure the survival of their own people at the expense of other races.

10) Both of them are quite charismatic and are capable of inspiring soldiers in battle.

Though I would admit that Doomhammer is batter at PR than Sylvanas. This guy knew to find the best time to challenge Blackhand: when Shadow council can not act. He made a move that is essentially assassination to look like an honorable act.

Sylvanas and Doomhammer actually behave more like a real world leader. Thrall and Garrosh are more like typical fantasy guys (the former has the fantastic idea to settle his people in bad land so they could repent, and we all know who is Garrosh).

[Wildberry]

I will explain why Sylvanas is very similar to Doomhammer.

These are either not true, true on only a surface level or so general as to be meaningless.

1) Both of them are capable fighters who actually understand sometimes it is more effective to plot in shadow first.

This can be stretched to encompass quite a few characters; however, that's really an inconsequential part of this so I'll ignore it. What's actually really wrong with this is the implication that both Doomhammer and Sylvanas were in the shadows plotting their ascension, and subsequent actions. That's patently false and there's no similarities to be drawn here.

Doomhammer had no other choice than to sit on the information Durotan had given him. It was less a matter of plotting and more a matter of waiting for the Shadow Council to become vulnerable. Conversely, there is no "plot in the shadows first" with Sylvanas. If she had it her way, she would still be plotting in the shadows. "Before the Storm" clearly states this.

2) Both of them are not against "unethical" warfare so long these tactics can win the war.

Doomhammer banned Fel Magic on pain of death, leaving the Horde with no real way to counter the sorcery of Humans. Yes, he used the Demon Soul, and allowed Death Knights within his ranks, but this parallel doesn't really work. Additionally, this could be applied to Garrosh.

3) Both of them have good sense in strategies and tactics. They know when to retreat and when to make last stands.

Most leaders in Warcraft have a good sense of strategies and tactics. This is broad nonsense designed to pad a list. And again, this could be applied to Garrosh considering we have multiple sources confirming his strategic and tactical genius.

4) Both of them know that you need allies to win the war, and both tend to treat allies like arrows in the quiver.

Pretty much everyone on Azeroth knows you need allies to win a war. Even Garrosh realized this, which is why he sought an alliance with the Dragonmaw, amnestied the remnants of the Blackrock Clan, courted the Blackfuse Company, allowed the Mantid in his ranks, and tempered Grommash's anger during their meeting with Mar'gok during the Iron Horde's siege of Highmaul.

With regard to "arrows in the quiver." Again, no. First, you haven't demonstrated Doomhammer to have an approach remotely resembling this, secondly, not even Sylvanas is this way:

"I was once like you, Garrosh," she answered, her voice quiet and steady, loud enough only for the warchief to hear. "Those who served me were tools. Arrows in my quiver."
...
But they were no longer arrows in her quiver, not anymore. They were a bulwark against the infinite. They were to be used wisely

--"Edge of Night" (p7)

So if Doomhammer truly takes this approach, it only makes him like Garrosh, not Sylvanas.

5) Both of them make use of subjects that are not famous for loyalty. Both of them actually get something useful from these subjects but are ultimately betrayed.

So chains of events that aren't reliant upon the traits of the characters in question are largely irrelevant, but whatever. Again, that's not the biggest offender here. Pretty much every Horde Warchief has made use of subjects that are not famous for loyalty:
-Blackhand: Gul'dan
-Doomhammer: Gul'dan
-Thrall: Forsaken, Orc Warlocks
-Garrosh: Literally everyone that's not an Orc.
-Vol'jin: Forsaken
-Sylvanas: Varimathras.

6) Both of them can hold grudge for quite a while.

So can:
-Garrosh
-Varian
-Gul'dan
-Jaina Proudmoore
-Genn Greymane
etc.

7) Both of them love wars but both of them are not mindless warmongers like Garrosh.

[Citation Needed]. "Tides of Darkness" showed Doomhammer as being somewhat war-weary.

8) Both of them are fond of burning down forests/big tree.

Yes, if you're attacking a forest, or a giant tree, fire is probably a good option. Nothing specifically says they're fond of that. Just that they used the tactic. Does that make Ragnaros like Doomhammer?

9) Both of them fight a war to ensure the survival of their own people at the expense of other races.

Again, so does pretty much everyone in Azeroth. Plus, the circumstances surrounding the upcoming war, based off from what we know, seem to be quite a bit different than those Doomhammer was facing upon taking the mantle of Warchief. If anything, Garrosh's War is closer to the Second War, and even then it's a huge stretch.

10) Both of them are quite charismatic and are capable of inspiring soldiers in battle.

So is:
-Garrosh
-Varian
-Turalyon
-Lothar
-Grom
etc.

Though I would admit that Doomhammer is batter at PR than Sylvanas. This guy knew to find the best time to challenge Blackhand: when Shadow council can not act. He made a move that is essentially assassination to look like an honorable act.

If you're referring to his killing of Blackhand, that was done in Mak'gora making it inherently honorable.

Sylvanas and Doomhammer actually behave more like a real world leader. Thrall and Garrosh are more like typical fantasy guys (the former has the fantastic idea to settle his people in bad land so they could repent, and we all know who is Garrosh).

Sylvanas is nowhere close to a "real world leader." With regard to Garrosh, let's see: Ethnocentrist who mixes reactionary attitudes with a sense of futurism. Embraces huge industrialization projects rapidly moving his people forward and turning them into a major technological and military power. Driven by a need to recapture former glories, succeed where his predecessors failed, and ultimately expand the borders of his empire/nation so that his people can actually sustain themselves.

I mean, there's a handful of world leaders that share at least some aspects of that, but there should be one blatantly obvious one. People make the parallels all the time.

[Maljinwo]

Am I seeing a Sylvanas vs Garrosh leadership styles?

Oh boy
/grabs popcorn

[Syegfryed]

I will explain why Sylvanas is very similar to Doomhammer.

yours comparisons are totally empty and without sense, like Wildberry explained, you are take things like "Doomhammer use clothes just like sylvanas," doomhammer breath, like sylvanas" come on

They are to much different in mind, jut because they did some things similar, don't make then equal, cause a lot of characters in the universe did that in some point

[Mauschen]

I hope we kill Sylvanas.

Her character is a backstabbing, manipulative, untrustworthy, conniving, self-serving snake.

Why anyone thinks that is Warchief material is beyond me.

At least when Garrosh yelled "for the horde", you knew his heart and mind was in it for the horde.

Sylvanas screeching "for the horde" just seems more like "throw your bodies at the enemy and die for me".

[Zulkhan]

Hmm.. Sylvanas not wanting the role doesn't necessarily mean there wasn't any deception involved. It clears Sylvanas, but it if there is old god fuckery involved it could be interpreted as us willingly giving Sylvie the throne when it reality we were manipulated into doing so. We thought it was our will, but it was actual the will of N'zoth or whomever.

Maybe I'm just too pessimistic.

Problem is that Varimathras proved he didn't know for sure himself. He just thrown malicious guesses on the wall hoping at least one would have stuck.

[Ash123]

These are either not true, true on only a surface level or so general as to be meaningless.

Since you take this matter rather seriously, I will also respond seriously.

Yes, I do think among the three warchiefs I would like to discuss, Thrall, Garrosh, and Sylvanas, Sylvanas resembles Doomhammer (during the second war to be specific) more than others.

First, the key issue, how do they approach war/peace as the leader of horde.

In this regard, Thrall is the obvious outlier. His wish is to abandon the style of old horde and try to maintain an overall peaceful relationship with the races that settle around the horde. However, Garrosh, Sylvanas and Doomhammer all, to various degree, hold the view that you need to conquer/dominate the other races and gain the necessary resources to ensure the survival of horde.

Now, although Garrosh, Sylvanas and Doomhammer all would like to start a war to expand horde territory, Sylvanas and Dooomhammer's conquest are driven by a more pragmatical need, the need to survival, to not to be wiped out by opponents, for which they need lands/bodies/resources. But on contrary, Garrosh's innermost driving is to prove the supremacy of himself, or the so-called "true horde" as he invented. Sylvanas and Doomhammer both are not interested in proving anything to anyone.

So for this key issue, which could determine the future direction of horde, if you use Doomhammer as the reference point, then I believe that the order of other three warchiefs are (from the most similar to the least similar): Sylvanas, Garrosh and Thrall.


Second, how do they conduct war, how do their moral compasses differ?

For this, I maintain the view that, Doomhammer, Garrosh and Sylvanas are on the similar level, while Trall are the obvious "good guy."

Garrosh and Sylvanas both willing to use weapon of mass destruction. Doomhammer never had the chance to get one so we could not really make much assumptions. But consider the fact that burning down a whole forest has the similar effect, I think it is safe to say that he may not be against that.

Doomhammer enslaved red dragon, Garrosh enslaved some races I could not remember the name (by keeping their kids as hostage). I do not think Sylvanas has enslaved any other races yet but she probably will (if she was not stopped by Graymane).

Doomhammer approved the use of death knight, this is not so different from Sylvanas of raising enemy corpses in battle field and taking advantage of that.

The only thing you might argue is Doomhammer may have some principles (like not use fel, which, to be honest, is more likely to limit Gul'dan's option to turn against him. You need to remember that his army is full of warriors powered by fel). We do not know if Sylvanas has any principle at this point.

But if we only judge based what they have done so far, they are more or less at similar level.


Third, the style of political leadership, how much do they rely on secrete plot.

I differ with your opinion on this matter. The first step to power is very similar for Sylvanas (rebel against Arthas to become Banshee Queen) and Doomhammer. Both had no options but waited until their arch-enemy were most vulnerable. Yes, they did use very different methods for the final strike but the methods they employed to reach this point were very similar in essence. And both of them were dubbed as backstabbers by their opponents for good reasons.

Doomhammer did not plot much after he became warchief, but as we have seen in the new book, the ability of plotting is also seriously limited when Sylvanas became warchief.

Garrosh made extensive use of secrete plot, mostly to suppress the people who did not agree with him. But Sylvanas and Doomhammer's plots focused more on external enemy.


Fourth, as strategists:

Trall, Sylvanas and Doomhammer all have a good sense of strategists, in the sense that they are good at evaluating the strength of their own army vs the strength of their opponents and make plan accordingly. Garrosh, empowered by his Orc supremacy, did not really consider the question "is our enemy capable of wiping us out". For this reason, Sylvanas and Doomhammer were more than willing to do something to make their allies/subjects happy but Garrosh had the habit of making enemy among his own ranks.

Garrosh is a decent tactician, for this I would acknowledge.


So in a summary, Sylvanas, Garrosh and Doomhammer differ from Thrall in the sense that the former three are much more willing to engage in a war while Thrall would do his best to ensure peace. In term of conducting the war, all the threes warlike warchiefs are willing to conduct deeds that are morally questionable. However, while Sylvanas and Doomhammer are capable of judging the situation on a pragmatic basis, Garrosh's judgement is often clouded by his sense "Orcs is the best".

[Zulkhan]

Not my intent to join the debate but I would like to clarify that Sylvanas and Doomhammer are at least similar when it comes to naked pragmatism, where Garrosh and Thrall, ironically, are both strikingly idealistic characters, their ideologies are just very opposed from one another (even Blizzard said something about Thrall and Garrosh being the bright and dark side of the same "For the Horde!" mentality). On the other hand, characters like Vol'jin or even Tirion tend to walk on the middle ground, effectively being idealistic pragmatists.

[Ash123]

Not my intent to join the debate but I would like to clarify that Sylvanas and Doomhammer are at least similar when it comes to naked pragmatism, where Garrosh and Thrall, ironically, are both strikingly idealistic characters, their ideologies are just very opposed from one another (even Blizzard said something about Thrall and Garrosh being the bright and dark side of the same "For the Horde!" mentality). On the other hand, characters like Vol'jin or even Tirion tend to walk on the middle ground, effectively being idealistic pragmatists.

Yes, this is what I really want to emphasize. And it is what I mean when I say Sylvanas and Doomhammer are more like leader in real world than Thrall or Garrosh.

[Zulkhan]

Yes, this is what I really want to emphasize. And it is what I mean when I say Sylvanas and Doomhammer are more like leader in real world than Thrall or Garrosh.

I think the "idealistic pragmatist" figure is the closer to a real world leader, where an ideology is strongly supported yet it has to be bent to circumstances and the overall reality.

Full pragmatists can be extremely efficient leaders but may struggle to get a strong following that's not strictly dependent on certain circumstances; full idealists barely get the chance to rule anything to begin with and when they occasionally get it they're forced to either give up the charge or to adapt.

Sticking to WoW, Thrall is a good enough example of an idealist struggling to adapt and eventually giving up the charge, Garrosh on the other hand was an idealist who shown no intention to do either and got forcibly dethroned as a result.

[Ash123]

I think the "idealistic pragmatist" figure is the closer to a real world leader, where an ideology is strongly supported yet it has to be bent to circumstances and the overall reality.

Full pragmatists can be extremely efficient leaders but may struggle to get a strong following that's not strictly dependent on certain circumstances; full idealists barely get the chance to rule anything to begin with and when they occasionally get it they're forced to either give up the charge or to adapt.

Sticking to WoW, Thrall is a good enough example of an idealist struggling to adapt and eventually giving up the charge, Garrosh on the other hand was an idealist who shown no intention to do either and got forcibly dethroned as a result.

I think it depends on the eras of history. And there is also the difference between a leader who is essentially pragmatist but understand the importance of maintaining an idealist image, and a leader who is an idealist in the core but understand the needs to be bent to circumstances.

Doomhammer might be the idealist guy who understand the importance of pragmatism. And Sylvanas might tend to be more pragmatist.

But it can be hard to judge Sylvanas at this moment. As queen of forsaken, she has a strong sense of creating a unified purpose for herself and her people, which means that she is not merely an opportunist. We still need to wait to see how she would handle her current job and how much she could adopt to the more traditional horde idea.

[Shizari]

I honestly feel like every Horde leader receives this letter upon appearing for the first time:

Dear Chief Replacement:

I wanted to send you this friendly little letter to inform you of your imminent demise. If you're curious about the frequency of which I've sent these letters, it is merely to instill as much fear as I can. As if basting a turkey. Which I will then proceed to have sex with.

THAT'S RIGHT. I'M GOING TO FUCK THE FEAR TURKEY.

Follow me on Twitter @WarcraftDevs.

Sincerely, Hazzikostaz."

But no, for real, there have been so many "prominent" ones that get cycled out compared to the Alliance that I can't imagine that the Horde is too impressed with them. But both sides suffer a critical lack of development for certain leaders. I believe Mekkatorque was mentioned earlier.

[Magnagarde]

Sylvanas got the best story, but would be my last pick if I had to pick a warchief from the current Horde leaders. Well, she'd beat Gallywix at least. The rest is stuck in a stalemate, got replaced or is about to be reintroduced.

I'd prefer Saurfang as warchief, but one can only hope.

[Candy Cough]

Saurfang, vol'jin, sylvanas and rastakhan in the next expansion as prominent characters? I'm good.

doesen't really mean shit though, rememers athissa and Dargul the underking from Legion? You probably don't, they were listed as prominent characters aswell. All dargul did was swing his hammer a few times before he was killed in a Dungeon, and Athissa was solo killed by the player at the end of the zone.

[Zulkhan]

doesen't really mean shit though, rememers athissa and Dargul the underking from Legion? You probably don't, they were listed as prominent characters aswell. All dargul did was swing his hammer a few times before he was killed in a Dungeon, and Athissa was solo killed by the player at the end of the zone.

You knew Dargul and Athissa weren't going to be relevant players anyway, the names didn't carry much importance. Sylvanas, Genn and Anduin were and while they haven't been incredibly relevant the whole expansion, their individual stories progressed more and carried more weight than a couple of random dungeon bosses did.

[Maljinwo]

What I'm most afraid of is Rastakhan dying, which would be such a huge waste. The second Blizzard introduced his daughter, Talanji, it raised a lot of death flags... My hope is that they kill her off, and use that as a way to progress HIS character, rather than the other way around.

I really hope Rastakhan stays alive. We don't need to lose any more trolls

[Ramz]

I really hope Rastakhan stays alive. We don't need to lose any more trolls

And I hope they will change his title to fit trolls. like God emperor.

[Zulkhan]

What I'm most afraid of is Rastakhan dying, which would be such a huge waste. The second Blizzard introduced his daughter, Talanji, it raised a lot of death flags... My hope is that they kill her off, and use that as a way to progress HIS character, rather than the other way around.

Heh, I would hate though if Blizzard will once again kill the offspring to focus on the old farts alone (Saurfang and Genn say hi) so I would honestly prefer if none of them die. Trolls do not have many characters at the moment, let's not kill any of them for once goddamn.