Was Sylvanas a good warchief?

[Triceron]

Except it hasn't?

The old Horde and the new Horde are not the same thing. They share a name, but that's it.

Except I even clearly drew a parallel between Blackhand and Doomhammer, which was the same Old Horde that had its ways changed to suit that of the Warchief.

Blackhand and Doomhammer have very clear different versions of the Horde, with different established methods. Blackhand was cruel and forceful, Doomhammer much more cunning and tactful. Both sought conquest and destruction, but with very different reasons and methods behind their use, with Doomhammer open to having allies and fostering diplomacy whereas Blackhand was simply a tool of Gul'dan and sought nothing but carnage and destruction.

They were the same Horde, and they functioned differently under each Warchief.

The Horde that Thrall built is a completely new one, independent and unrelated from the first.

What makes Garrosh's Horde the same as Thrall's Horde? What makes Sylvanas' Horde the same as Thrall's Horde?

You're trying to establish that the current Horde can only be the same one that Thrall established and never evolve beyond that, yet where are you drawing this from?

Thrall's established Horde is not his to control after he relenquished power. Does this not make sense to you?

The Horde is the will of the Warchief. That the player fought on the side that deposed two Warchiefs that were deemed evil was a case of the writers fucking with their own lore; a Greedo Shot First retcon of events that shouldn't have happened in the first place. As a point to not fucking with the canon, a Faction civil war story that is meant to split the faction should never have been told if they aren't able to carry through actually splitting the factions. As I said, the Forsaken story works in WC3 because the RTS campaign story is self-contained and they are able to canonically split the Forsaken away as their own independent force. This would never work for BFA because the Sylvanas Loyalists are still gameplay-bound to being Horde players, no matter how you cut it. And really, incoherrent story writing in portraying how much power and influence a Warchief is allowed to have over the Horde undermines the purpose of the position completely, and it's why we don't have any Warchief now. The writers fucking wrote themselves into a corner where no one they put in that position would really matter, since the Horde (namely anything the Horde Player represents) is shown to continue functioning without one multiple times.

[Feanoro]

The old Horde and the new Horde are not the same thing. They share a name, but that's it. The Horde that Thrall built is a completely new one, independent and unrelated from the first.

Except that:
- Doomhammer named Thrall Warchief, establishing direct continuity

- Thrall kept the structure of the old Horde, with the warchief position and everyone else is a tool of the warchief's will

- Thrall kept the customs of the old Horde, including Mak'gora and the warchief as absolute dictator

- Thrall went out of his way to honor the old Horde, naming multiple sites and entities after the "heroes" of the old Horde

You can correctly argue Blizz stated the two Hordes are different, but they sure as hell did not show that.

[adcesamo]

Except that:

You can correctly argue Blizz stated the two Hordes are different, but they sure as hell did not show that.

It is not the first time that blizz say one thing and show other completely different (morally gray. Faction not having soldiers or fleets, etc). Should we go by what blizz says or by what blizz shows?

Maybe that is why it is so hard to discuss lore in this forum, the writers thenselfs aren't sure of what they're doing...

[Varodoc]

It is not the first time that blizz say one thing and show other completely different (morally gray. Faction not having soldiers or fleets, etc). Should we go by what blizz says or by what blizz shows?

Maybe that is why it is so hard to discuss lore in this forum, the writers thenselfs aren't sure of what they're doing...

But Blizzard does show, via Saurfang's story, that the Horde can call itself "New" all it wants, in the end many in it still follow Blackhand's bloody legacy of bloodshed and genocide.

Thrall failed in reforming the Horde and the fact that both Garrosh and Sylvanas started out as popular Warchiefs despite being complete genocidal lunatics is proof of it.

Thrall failed (as per his own admission) and the Alliance suffered because of it twice, but at the same time it's not too late. The abolishment of the Warchief title and creation of the Horde Council is a good first step towards enlightenment for the Horde, where they no longer have to be bloody conquerors who only pillage and destroy.

[Aucald]

Blackhand had full control of the Horde.

Blackhand didn't, though; he was a puppet of the true controllers of the Horde: the Shadow Council headed by Gul'dan. The Shadow Council was then destroyed by Doomhammer, who usurped Blackhand while Gul'dan was incapacitated after Medivh's death, and as such became the first true controller of the Horde as Warchief.

[RoKPaNda]

I'd say she's probably about on par with Thrall and ahead of Vol'jin. So fairly mediocre.

[Triceron]

Blackhand didn't, though; he was a puppet of the true controllers of the Horde: the Shadow Council headed by Gul'dan. The Shadow Council was then destroyed by Doomhammer, who usurped Blackhand while Gul'dan was incapacitated after Medivh's death, and as such became the first true controller of the Horde as Warchief.

Even as a puppet, the Horde was absolutely subservient to him as ultimate leader who has final say.

Gul'dan may have puppeted him, but otherwise would have not had the position or rank to unite the clans, otherwise he could have just done it himself without needing any Warchief puppet in the first place. The rank indicates a position of power and leadership that the other clans are willing to unite under, and the will of the Warchief is what molds the Horde. The Horde is effectively following Blackhand, whether they are aware of Gul'dan's manipulation or not.

If Blackhand had no real power and Warchief was purely ceremonial, then there would be no real big deal if Doomhammer or any other Warchief took over since they wouldn't really have any power either.

[Mehrunes]

That's a lot of words to simply say "yes, I believe what a warchief is, what it implies, and what their duties are, change at the drop of a hat whenever the warchief wants and/or whenever it's convenient"

And, in your mind, exactly who in the Horde has a higher authority than the Warchief? Otherwise the idea that it's not up to the Warchief to change how things work in the Horde makes little sense. Given how the Horde was a militaristic autocracy with ridiculous levels of absolute rule to the point where everyone else is a tool of the Warchief makes little sense.

The blood oath is about the duties of the new member of the Horde to the Horde, not the Warchief to the new member.

The Blood Oath establishes the power structure of the Horde and is its most fundamental part of its legal system that we know of. And when the relationship between the Warchief and their subjects that it establishes is that the subjects are outright tools of the Warchief, I have no idea where you're getting the duties of a Warchief from, because that is a ludicrously slanted power balance between the Warchief and the rest of the Horde that doesn't exactly leave a much room for any checks and balances on the Warchief's power. And yet so far the most you got is stating that what you said are the Warchief's duties, followed by "aren't they" rhetorical question. Which isn't anything.

Had there really been any particular duties for a Warchief to abide by, basic legalistic principles would dictate that violating them would free from the Blood Oath, because they'd be two inherently interconnected sides of the Horde's social contract. Yet the traditionalists like Nazgrim still followed Garrosh despite not necessarily agreeing with him. And I can't recall anyone accusing Garrosh of breaking any supposed Warchiefly duties. Not at the very start of his reign when he ignored the avisors appointed by Thrall whom you consider to be some sole legal authority of the Horde, not when the internal tensions escalated and not when they erupted in a rebellion.

Speaking of which, surely if there any Warchiefly duties to be found there would have been a system in place to enforce them in case of the Warchief violating them. Yet both Vol'jin and Sourfang rebelled instead of going to some Horde high court. And Baine himself argued in front of the whole of Azeroth that Garrosh had all the right in the world to gut Vol'jin like a rat in a damp Saurok cave in the middle of nowhere.

The problem here, is that we have a lore definition of what being a warchief entails, and you here are doing the exact same thing you criticized Siegfried earlier: headcanon.

In your own words, "you're implying more than what is stated." Nowhere is stated in the lore than what a warchief is, does, and has to do changes from warchief to warchief.

What lore definition? Because you haven't provided any. You linked a part of an article from a website independent from Blizzard that anyone can edit. Where the only directly sourced part was the fact that the Warchief's rule is, in fact, absolute. Which openly contradicts your claims that the Horde can't change from Warchief to Warchief, because "complete dominion over Horde" and "complete dominion of the Horde, as long as it doesn't contradict some completely unspecified rules made by a guy who chose to abandon his position a few years back" are two different statements.

Except it hasn't?

The old Horde and the new Horde are not the same thing. They share a name, but that's it. The Horde that Thrall built is a completely new one, independent and unrelated from the first.

They are so independent and unrelated that Thrall only gained the mantle of the Warchief because Orgrim passed it down to him on his deathbed. It also shares its legal structure, culture and commemorates the rulers of the Old Horde left and right.

Blackhand didn't, though; he was a puppet of the true controllers of the Horde: the Shadow Council headed by Gul'dan. The Shadow Council was then destroyed by Doomhammer, who usurped Blackhand while Gul'dan was incapacitated after Medivh's death, and as such became the first true controller of the Horde as Warchief.

The whole point of a figurehead is to maintain appearances that they are the ones in control and wield all the power, while the puppet masters hide in the shadows, unknown to the population at large. The Shadow Council was a secret organization to the point that even Orgrim, a rather high ranking commander, learned about its very existence, let alone its influence within the Horde, by himself, possibly only after the Horde already invaded Azeroth. Aside from the Shadow Council agents (and with Garona's example showing that the Council was capable of magically controlling people from afar), as far as the Horde's general public was concerned Blackhand was its undisputed leader. Kinda why Orgrim challenged him and not Gul'dan for the leadership position.

[Aucald]

The whole point of a figurehead is to maintain appearances that they are the ones in control and wield all the power, while the puppet masters hide in the shadows, unknown to the population at large. The Shadow Council was a secret organization to the point that even Orgrim, a rather high ranking commander, learned about its very existence, let alone its influence within the Horde, by himself, possibly only after the Horde already invaded Azeroth. Aside from the Shadow Council agents (and with Garona's example showing that the Council was capable of magically controlling people from afar), as far as the Horde's general public was concerned Blackhand was its undisputed leader. Kinda why Orgrim challenged him and not Gul'dan for the leadership position.

None of that is really in dispute based on what I said, nor does it change what I said either. Blackhand was a puppet, a figurehead, put in place so that the rank and file of the Horde (like Orgrim prior to his usurping of Blackhand) wouldn't know that the Shadow Council was actually in control of the Horde.

[Triceron]

None of that is really in dispute based on what I said, nor does it change what I said either. Blackhand was a puppet, a figurehead, put in place so that the rank and file of the Horde (like Orgrim prior to his usurping of Blackhand) wouldn't know that the Shadow Council was actually in control of the Horde.

Being a puppet and being a warchief isn't mutually exclusive, nor is it a conflict of interest. We're talking about the position being that of absolute rule and power.

No difference if we are talking about an emperor who is an old grizzled war veteran or a mere child, the position applies absolute rule and the 'dynasty' that follows is defined by the one in charge.

[Aucald]

Being a puppet and being a warchief isn't mutually exclusive, nor is it a conflict of interest. We're talking about the position being that of absolute rule and power.

No difference if we are talking about an emperor who is an old grizzled war veteran or a mere child, the position applies absolute rule and the 'dynasty' that follows is defined by the one in charge.

Being a puppet and Warchief isn't mutually exclusive, nor a conflict of interest - but being a puppet *is* mutually exclusive with having "absolute rule and power," because if someone had those things then they manifestly wouldn't be a puppet. Under Blackhand, the Shadow Council actually enjoyed absolute rule and power and Blackhand was just their mouthpiece. Orgrim was a different kind of Warchief altogether because he usurped Blackhand and also decimated the Shadow Council, solidifying power under himself, although in the end he was forced into a kind of power-sharing detente with Gul'dan due to his dependence on Gul'dan's aid to successfully fight the Second War.

[Leodric]

Sylvanas was as good of a warchief as Garosh was. Both killed civilians as well as children and made the Horde lose yet again against the Alliance. Only decent warchief was Thrall.

[Triceron]

Being a puppet and Warchief isn't mutually exclusive, nor a conflict of interest - but being a puppet *is* mutually exclusive with having "absolute rule and power," because if someone had those things then they manifestly wouldn't be a puppet. Under Blackhand, the Shadow Council actually enjoyed absolute rule and power and Blackhand was just their mouthpiece. Orgrim was a different kind of Warchief altogether because he usurped Blackhand and also decimated the Shadow Council, solidifying power under himself, although in the end he was forced into a kind of power-sharing detente with Gul'dan due to his dependence on Gul'dan's aid to successfully fight the Second War.

The thing is he does have absolute rule.

Him being a puppet was because he CHOSE to. Blackhand was not tricked or cheated out of power, it was a symbiotic relationship where Gul'dan manipulated the Horde enough to elevate Blackhand into that position and maintain it, while Blackhand was single-mindedly interested in the position of power and none of the politics. This allowed Gul'dan free reign on anything he wished, while he did not have any direct power over the Horde whatsoever without the Warchief, as shown by WC2. If Doomhammer had exiled Gul'dan, he wouldn't have had any real sway over the Horde and (in RTS lore) he was absolutely overlooked as any sort of Chieftain or Tribal leader. He was a very influential advisor of sorts who was able to grant power to the Horde, but without any actual political power outside of manipulating Blackhand.

It's like the President having final say on certain things which can tangibly quantify their importance and power, while the individual could be a puppet of their own party and merely follow whatever the party wishes. Not mutually exclusive. We are talking about the importance of the position of a President, not the quality of character of the President in question.

[Aucald]

The thing is he does have absolute rule.

Him being a puppet was because he CHOSE to. Blackhand was not tricked or cheated out of power, it was a symbiotic relationship where Gul'dan manipulated the Horde enough to elevate Blackhand into that position and maintain it, while Blackhand was single-mindedly interested in the position of power and none of the politics.

It's like the President having final say on certain things which can tangibly quantify their importance and power, while the individual could be a puppet of their own party and merely follow whatever the party wishes. Not mutually exclusive. We are talking about the importance of the position, not the quality of character of these individuals.

It doesn't matter whether he chose or was forced, he still didn't enjoy absolute rule - the Shadow Council ruled, and he was part of the Council, but not even its nominal leader (that would be Gul'dan again). Blackhand was useful to the Council because he was well-liked among all the clans and because he wasn't really interested in politics, which further removed him from the real power of the Horde at that time.

The US President also doesn't enjoy absolute rule, because having a final say on only certain things is far from absolute. An absolute ruler is a tyrant or autocrat, answerable to no one, at the very top of the leadership hierarchy. Having limitations or being answerable to other parties or individuals is mutually incompatible and fundamentally the opposite of absolute rule.

[Malania]

Because even if she didn't care, she captured more territory & won more battles as warchief than anyone else. So I guess if everyone thinks she did a bad job should petition them to rename the job title to "Peacechief"

That's an interesting reading of how effective a leader is. You also need to take into account however that under her leadership she incited rebellion of the races under her control, lost the Forsaken (her own race) to the Lich Kings sister, who for all intents and purposes is still an Alliance supporter and due to mismanagement had the the position of Warchief dismantled permanently to be a council due to ineptitude of the last 3 leaders.

And given she lost her own city in this battles. At best it could be considered a territory trade which wouldn't make her a Warchief, just a Mehchief.

[Triceron]

It doesn't matter whether he chose or was forced, he still didn't enjoy absolute rule - the Shadow Council ruled, and he was part of the Council, but not even its nominal leader (that would be Gul'dan again). Blackhand was useful to the Council because he was well-liked among all the clans and because he wasn't really interested in politics, which further removed him from the real power of the Horde at that time.

The US President also doesn't enjoy absolute rule, because having a final say on only certain things is far from absolute. An absolute ruler is a tyrant or autocrat, answerable to no one, at the very top of the leadership hierarchy. Having limitations or being answerable to other parties or individuals is mutually incompatible and fundamentally the opposite of absolute rule.

Well put it this way, if I said Pharoah was an absolute ruler and they still listened to their advisors, would you no longer regard it as an absolute ruler position?

That's pretty much the route we're going with this discussion. Since the Pharoah chooses to abide the council of his advisors, even to the point of being manipulated, then the position of Pharoah is not an absolute ruler and his power is being shared.

And that's not true. The position and definition of Pharoah does not change to reflect the poor quality of character of the individual. They are an absolute ruler, hands down. That a council is manipulating politics is simply that, and not an actual regard by anyone that the system itself has changed to share the Pharoah's power with anyone else. The exception does not become the rule. A new Pharoah can be put into place who does not heed the council whatsoever, and maintain absolute rule because the definition of Pharoah has never included 'has to share power to their advisors in all forms of politics'. Nothing about the position itself changes.


To counterpoint this I would say similar example with Mak'gora being regarded as an honored tradition that is considered law. The lore has never actually shown this system working at all, and it's prone to manipulation through magic or deception. We've never seen a Mak'gora play out successfully in Warcraft, ever.

We can criticize the poor portrayal of Mak'gora in the lore, but the fact it is an honored tradition that is considered law can not be disregarded just because it doesn't work. The canon still regards it as a law, even after Saurfang's death through blatant rule-breaking. Being a law and being ineffective aren't mutually exclusive things. That the law is shown and proven to be ineffective does not mean it is no longer a law. From a Doylist perspective, they should absolutely get rid of the rule if they only intend to break it every time. From a Watsonian perspective, the Horde still regards Mak'gora as a formal challenge for power and there has been no known change to this system, even after the formation of the Horde Council.

[Mehrunes]

None of that is really in dispute based on what I said, nor does it change what I said either. Blackhand was a puppet, a figurehead, put in place so that the rank and file of the Horde (like Orgrim prior to his usurping of Blackhand) wouldn't know that the Shadow Council was actually in control of the Horde.

Except it most certainly changes what you said, because the Horde did think he had such power and that's why the followed him rather than Gul'dan as Warchief, with all the bells and "tool of the Warchief's will" whistles that it entailed. And it's not like Gul'dan even was much on the "absolute control over the Horde" politics train. He was focusing on his secret agenda of serving the Legion and that's what he needed the guise of shadows for. His only known political involvement was in the exile of the Frostwolves. In other occasions, like when the Bleeding Hollow took a wasteful detour into the Gurrubashi territory it's Blackhand who spotted and reacted to it, with no known input from any Shadow Council member.

[Aucald]

Well put it this way, if I said Pharoah was an absolute ruler and they still listened to their advisors, would you no longer regardbit as an absolute ruler position?

That's pretty much the route we're going with this discussion. Since the Pharoah chooses to abide the council of his advisors, even to the point of being manipulated, then the position of Pharoah is not an absolute ruler and his power is being shared.

And that's not true. The position and definition of Pharoah does not change to reflect the poor quality of character of the individual. They are an absolute ruler, hands down. That a council is manipulating politics is simply that, and not an actual regard by anyone that the system itself has changed to share the Pharoah's power with anyone else. The exception does not become the rule.

To counterpoint this I would say similar example with Mak'gora being regarded as an honored tradition that is considered law. The lore has never actually shown this system working at all, and it's prone to manipulation through magic or deception. We've never seen a Mak'gora play out successfully in Warcraft, ever.

We can criticize the poor portrayal of Mak'gora in the lore, but the fact it is an honored tradition that is considered law can not be disregarded just because it doesn't work. The canon still regards it as a law, even after Saurfang's death through blatant rule-breaking. Being a law and being ineffective aren't mutually exclusive things. That the law is shown and proven to be ineffective does not mean it is no longer a law.

An absolute ruler can listen to their advisers and heed counsel, sure; the "absolute" part comes into play when they make a final decision that can neither be gainsaid nor abrogated by any other party. One could even argue they would remain absolute even if manipulated - like being given bad intel or information. But if they were dependent on a third party as to either the source of their power or at the mercy of that third party, then they're not absolute, and not really even a ruler - the other party is fundamentally ruling through them. That distinction is what separates Blackhand and Gul'dan in the above, basically. Blackhand was dependent on, and a puppet to, a third party in the form of the Shadow Council. Orgrim, and the Warchiefs that followed him like Thrall, were not for the most part.

I'm unsure where you're going with the Mak'gora example, though; it's not really germane to the discussion of Blackhand specifically or Warchiefs in general. Mak'gora is stupid and ineffective because it promotes an idea that "might makes right," when it's well known both historically and realistically that might neither guarantees one is correct, nor does it imply that the mighty will be effective leaders. We've never really seen a Mak'gora play out successfully because the kind of individuals that would declare Mak'gora in the hopes of usurping a leader are generally the exact wrong type of person who should be allowed to lead - but that is neither here nor there i.e. Blackhand. Also, laws shown to be ineffective often stop being laws over time - the law is neither sacrosanct nor inviolable, it changes pretty much constantly.

[Magnagarde]

Was Arthas a great prince?

There you have it.

[Aucald]

Except it most certainly changes what you said, because the Horde did think he had such power and that's why the followed him rather than Gul'dan as Warchief, with all the bells and "tool of the Warchief's will" whistles that it entailed. And it's not like Gul'dan even was much on the "absolute control over the Horde" politics train. He was focusing on his secret agenda of serving the Legion and that's what he needed the guise of shadows for. His only known political involvement was in the exile of the Frostwolves. In other occasions, like when the Bleeding Hollow took a wasteful detour into the Gurrubashi territory it's Blackhand who spotted and reacted to it, with no known input from any Shadow Council member.

What the rank and file of the Horde thought matters little because the perception of power is not actually power, and "following him" actually meant following Gul'dan and the Council because that is where Blackhand got his marching orders from. What you're describing is a distinction without a difference. Gul'dan set the tone and agenda for the Horde, from getting them to drink the Blood of Mannoroth (an act that basically changed their entire culture), to focusing on the construction of the Dark Portal, and so on. He delegated the task of leading the military to Blackhand, sure; but since the conflict with the Alliance was itself only a means to an end for him that doesn't really mean much.