Aversion to Monarchs

[Feanoro]

And yet there are people talking about how the other races have somehow subordinated themselves to the office and Varian is/was ruling them all. Talking about how un-Alliance it was, even though the original Alliance had a supreme commander too in Lothar. Wonder why they didn't just use that position again and save us all the nerdrage.

Because like I said, the point was to make things less effort for the writers.

Lothar was a supreme commander, but there was also no question of him having authority over the nations of the Alliance. They were free to withdraw their troops at any time, or to override his orders. Further, efforts were made to keep the member states distinct.

Varian was used as a cheap device to avoid having to write all the Alliance leaders, and they increasingly leaned on the character to become the face of the Alliance. In so doing, they reduced it to Humans and Pals. Less effort, less time writing the faction they don't like.

[Rozz]

The Horde has proven that its incapable of having a Warchief, because the orcish culture that maintained and propped up the entire concept has almost always led to disaster with the only exception being Voljin and Thrall. Also for some Horde races, centralized rule has also been tainted by the previous monarch. They still have absolutism in practice, but the words and title are stained. But it's nice that Talanji not only stays a monarch but reinforces the value of her station to her people.

NEs do have a similar elf trauma with monarchy, but like Thal and Theron, Tyrande is still the absolute ruler crown or not. It's probably better to say that more of them are ruled by Theocracies, while the humans/small humans maintain normal monarchies with some ties to the Church but aren't also the church.

[VinceVega]

I've noticed this popping up in a number of different games, the implication that having a single leader is a bad thing.

The Horde no longer has a warchief, but a council
Forsaken, despite having a 'living' monarch, now have a council.

Even in ff14, that little sultana wants to give up her reign in favour of a democracy.

The whole point of a medieval fantasy is to have a king. In LoTR, the whole premise is the Return of the King.

These 'democratic councils' feels like an injection of modernism that cheapens the whole raison d'etre of the genre itself.

It doesn't make sense at a certain point. Especially if you have a monarch of one race all the time despite there being many races in the... collectiv.

Also for the horde it was a natural progression. First Thrall left. Then Suarfang went crazy. Then voljin died and slyvannas again went crazy. Would you try that AGAIN?

For the Alliance... they have council on the paper but it is basically anduin or die. Well it was at least.

Why is the whole point of medieval fantasy to have a king? That does not make any sense whatsoever... also wow is not medieval. More... steampunk since TBC with a huge amount of stupid people who ignore guns in favour of swords for some reason. Or people not shooting mages on sight with a gun but charging in with an axe...

[Myradin]

There may be a number of councils, but how many of the are democratically elected?

The Alliance:

Humans - Placeholder ruler selected by previous monarch
Night Elves - Tyrande is effectively dictator. I suppose her position comes from the temple promoting her.
Dwarves - effectively council of dwarven monarchs that exists because they dont agree on who should rule ironfore
Draenei - Prophet is similar to Tyrande
Gnomes - Didn't they just transition from a democracy back into a monarchy
Worgen - Monarchy

High King - yeah its a democratically elected...by just a bunch of monarchs mostly. Thats hardly "modern". Its pretty much where the term high king comes from in the first place.

The Horde:
Orcs - Unclear who rules just orcs. They dont seem to have their own sub council though. Mag'har are led by alternate fem-trhal who i guess was chosen by her people
Undead - Is the council elected or just a bunch of influential people?
Jungle Trolls - generally been a religious leader
Tauren - seems to be a monarchy
Blood Elves - This is technically a placeholder ruler who keeps his advisors very close
Zandalari - Monarchy

Horde Council - Consists of the leaders of the factions, most of which are either monarchs or people who moved up the religious ranks of organizations

I don't see how either faction is particularly 'modern' or 'democratic'. A council of rulers determined by promotion or lineage is not a democracy.

[rayvio]

any society is eventually going to realise that having one person hold all the power is a bad thing. if it's a society where there is the possibility of change then it is going to change. so it makes sense that the societies in fictional settings do change
yes there should be societies in fiction who make bad choices. but there need to be good ones as well or you end up with a dystopia and that only works for certain kinds of story

[Shadowferal]

Councils nor committees can lead. And that's especially true in a war.

[Ersula]

any society is eventually going to realise that having one person hold all the power is a bad thing. if it's a society where there is the possibility of change then it is going to change. so it makes sense that the societies in fictional settings do change
yes there should be societies in fiction who make bad choices. but there need to be good ones as well or you end up with a dystopia and that only works for certain kinds of story

The argument is that fantasy should be about people living within these societal circumstances, even when they can't overthrow them. But I think you are illustrating the same reason the aversion to monarchs is prevalent is the same reason no one really wants to engage with a story about a slave who stays a slave though the entire story.

My main complaint with Warcraft itself is that they not specifically trying to make an anti-monarch story; they're emphatically trying to make an anti-war story. I'm anti-war, and I think most people are, so 1.) Why is WoW trying to make an anti-war statement when most people are already anti-war, and 2.) why can't they make a war story where both sides have good reason for their opposition. There's a lot of historical examples, even if they're not the "Big" wars.

[Dacia Ultan]

WoW isn't medieval? you're right...i'm sure Blizzard created the medieval concept on their own...and didn't base it off our own historical medieval period... OH you mean cause there's dragons it means there's no medieval aspects in the game? got it.... ya stupid thoughts typically get put into stupid messages. There are ZERO medieval concept within the world....of warcraft

That's not what I said, and you know it.

Of course you don't like LOTR, lemme guess......."It haz tew mahny whyte peeples!!!!"

Nice jump to conclusions, but I couldn't care less about the new show, either. The eurocentrism of the franchise is nowhere near the top of the list of reasons why I couldn't care less about that overrated, melodramatic work of pomposity.

Regardless, to say LOTR is irrelevant in a discussion about World of warcraft has to be some low IQ level shit.

And here, the insults in lieu of argument begin, because what else would we expect of you after the previous jump to conclusions?

I mean you do know wacraft stole the idea of orcs vs humans and the orc concept as a whole from LOTR right?

Thirdhand, by way of Warhammer by way of Dungeons & Dragons. Your point?

it's been universally agreed upon that the concept of orcs used in most table top games/card games and video games are directly linked and based off Tolkien's design. SOUNDS RELEVANT TO ME!!

WoW orcs are big, beefy shamanic high-fantasy Martians with tusks and green or mahogany skin. They have little in common with Tolkien's orcs aside from the name, and being a Proud Warrior Race with a "brutal-looking" aesthetic. Next contestant?

But mah purple hairz!!!!!!

Oh; we're stereotyping, are we? In that case: you probably pretend to drink whiskey and own a lot of prop swords, then. (My hair, meanwhile, remains off-black.)

This is honestly the bigger debate: What defines fantasy? Genre is more than just aesthetics. Some people like to define Fantasy as a type of story rather than a collection of motifs: For example, you've probably heard the argument Star Wars isn't sci-fi, it's fantasy; only without the aesthetics of medieval europe, instead using the aesthetics of the cold war. This angle asserts that Fantasy & Sci-fi are both stories about people living in extraordinary times, where Fantasy is based on historical parable, Sci-fi is speculative.

From this angle, WoW is neither. And a lot of fiction has embraced blending of these two genres & I think we just need to embrace that & forget these labels.

I'd argue that if there's explicit magic, it's fantasy. Also: fantasy versus s-f is not a cut-and-dried either/or; the Starfinder and Spelljammer tabletop game settings are both of the above (although Spelljammer is perhaps more space opera than s-f proper; either way, "space fantasy" is an extant concept).

[Eosia]

The Horde no longer has a warchief, but a council
Forsaken, despite having a 'living' monarch, now have a council.

Did you just join the game or something? The Horde have had to forcefully remove their warchief 50% of the time now. They were literally raid bosses.

The Forsaken stem a little bit from Sylvanas' betrayal, but as we saw with the quests in reclaiming Lordaeron, Calia isn't exactly everyone's favorite person because she abandoned her homeland and it was her brother who was responsible for their current state.

[Val the Moofia Boss]

I've noticed this popping up in a number of different games, the implication that having a single leader is a bad thing.

The Horde no longer has a warchief, but a council
Forsaken, despite having a 'living' monarch, now have a council.

Even in ff14, that little sultana wants to give up her reign in favour of a democracy.

The whole point of a medieval fantasy is to have a king. In LoTR, the whole premise is the Return of the King.

These 'democratic councils' feels like an injection of modernism that cheapens the whole raison d'etre of the genre itself.

WoW at least has a few kings, and at least not everybody within either faction is in agreement with each other. FF14 is where it's really bad. Every country the protagonists touch turns into a democratic republic and joins the Alphinaud's creepy globohomo alliance where everyone sits at the same table and nods their heads.

- - - Updated - - -

The world evolves? I mean in the real world doesn't have councils of several different races banding together for a common cause and really to keep everyone happy this is probably the better option.

This is a fantasy game. We don't play fantasy games because they're real life. We play them... because they are fantasy. Stop making everything "realistic".

- - - Updated - - -

The Alliance are a strange case, as the name implies many parties, without a single leader, yet the position of high king goes against its nature, as such it would be better to return it to an alliance.

The High King nonsense was probably due to the WoW devs being overwhelmingly Horde fans and not knowing how to deliver on the Alliance fantasy, so when they tried creating Alliance storylines the only idea they had was to write "Horde but blue". Hence why the Alliance's main figurehead was turned into a discount Orc who was screaming on the battlefield and being macho, and why humans were shouting "For the Alliance!" as if they were Horde brutes.

[Aleksej89]

Its a shame that most people in this thread spent more time thinking about WoW lore than the actual official writers blizzard hired for the game.

Lots of great stories could be told in the warcraft universe if the writers were even the tiny bit capable and interested.

[Val the Moofia Boss]

I agree that it seems to be a trend, but I don't think it adds modernity or anything to the game, since these councils happened sometimes in (real world) history

Councils are boring story material and I don't want them in my fantasy.

[Feanoro]

Councils are boring story material and I don't want them in my fantasy.

Remember, the head writer thought GoT S8 was great. Accordingly, he no doubt thinks dramatic council scenes with arch looks and cutting remarks to be the height of wit.

[loras]

I think people take the concept of high king a little too far. I always saw it as an equivalent to the supreme commander of the allied forces in WW2. He's not their political or state leader, but the one chosen by consensus to be their overall military commander.

I would like for that to be true, but a king is far more than just a commander.

- - - Updated - - -

WoW at least has a few kings, and at least not everybody within either faction is in agreement with each other. FF14 is where it's really bad. Every country the protagonists touch turns into a democratic republic and joins the Alphinaud's creepy globohomo alliance where everyone sits at the same table and nods their heads.

- - - Updated - - -



This is a fantasy game. We don't play fantasy games because they're real life. We play them... because they are fantasy. Stop making everything "realistic".

- - - Updated - - -



The High King nonsense was probably due to the WoW devs being overwhelmingly Horde fans and not knowing how to deliver on the Alliance fantasy, so when they tried creating Alliance storylines the only idea they had was to write "Horde but blue". Hence why the Alliance's main figurehead was turned into a discount Orc who was screaming on the battlefield and being macho, and why humans were shouting "For the Alliance!" as if they were Horde brutes.

Sad but plausible.

[Athorha]

Councils are boring story material and I don't want them in my fantasy.

Would you choose another to look over the tidings of your temple? I like four horsemen dk listening to the deathlord and possibly not bolvar.

[Moonrage]

The High King was explicitly stated by Metzen to be exactly that, the military commander.

In practice, it became the Blue Warchief and a crutch for writers who openly state they don't like writing Alliance.

Not exactly, when Tyrande, the Night Elves and Worgen retook Darkshore, there was exactly jack shit the High King could do about it.

Makes sense because why would an experienced military leader listen to some human who's 10 000 years her junior.

[cparle87]

Because like I said, the point was to make things less effort for the writers.

Lothar was a supreme commander, but there was also no question of him having authority over the nations of the Alliance. They were free to withdraw their troops at any time, or to override his orders. Further, efforts were made to keep the member states distinct.

Varian was used as a cheap device to avoid having to write all the Alliance leaders, and they increasingly leaned on the character to become the face of the Alliance. In so doing, they reduced it to Humans and Pals. Less effort, less time writing the faction they don't like.

I thought I'd seen the limit of "I don't like the story so I'm going to inaccuractely boil it down to the lowest common stereotype and try to pass that off as the real thing" but you just raised the bar.

- - - Updated - - -

I would like for that to be true, but a king is far more than just a commander.

What Varian did was no different than what Lothar did in WC2. Blizz's mistake here was simply the name of the title. Even though Blizz itself has compared it to the Warchief we've seen several times when the various Alliance races were free to not support or disagree with the High King, something the Warchief title takes much more seriously.

The High King of the Alliance is the commander of all Alliance forces.[1] Much like the Warchief of the Horde, it is a position that is trying to coordinate the actions of all the races in the Alliance.[2]

Note the word. Coordinate.

[Dhrizzle]

What Varian did was no different than what Lothar did in WC2. Blizz's mistake here was simply the name of the title. Even though Blizz itself has compared it to the Warchief we've seen several times when the various Alliance races were free to not support or disagree with the High King, something the Warchief title takes much more seriously.

The High King of the Alliance is the commander of all Alliance forces.[1] Much like the Warchief of the Horde, it is a position that is trying to coordinate the actions of all the races in the Alliance.[2]

Note the word. Coordinate.

It would have made much more sense to have Varian and Anduin be High Kings of the humans and Grand Marshall or something of the Alliance. What BfA showed was the position gave him operational command of the troops but no political power to order where the troops are deployed.

[Feanoro]

Not exactly, when Tyrande, the Night Elves and Worgen retook Darkshore, there was exactly jack shit the High King could do about it.

Makes sense because why would an experienced military leader listen to some human who's 10 000 years her junior.

It was very refreshing, because from Wrath until BfA everyone fawned on High King Dipshit I and II. The writers finally remembering that HK does not mean emperor was nice.

I thought I'd seen the limit of "I don't like the story so I'm going to inaccuractely boil it down to the lowest common stereotype and try to pass that off as the real thing" but you just raised the bar.

How cute, you're attempting to copy the patented Mehrunes infraction bait snark. Pretty low effort though.

I gave a summary of what happened over years, based on Blizzard statements. I'm not here to write you a term paper with all sources noted, pal. You might want to read your own signature and realize there's nothing wrong with people disliking something that you like.

[Cronovey]

i hope you dont mean Calia bcs she shouldnt even be on tha damn council let alone monarch...

I mean if we're trying to do away with the council idea...Calia is technically the only proper monarch for the people of Lordaeron, of which most of the Forsaken belong to. The king is dead, her brother who would have become king is also dead, and since Arthas had no heir that leaves Calia as the only remaining "living" member of the Menethil line right now, making the throne hers to claim if she so chose.

If we're trying to get rid of the councils and go back to monarchies like the OP wants, Calia is pretty much guaranteed to happen.