Sylvanas: the only honorable Horde leader

[Syegfryed]

@Syegfryed

Whether the loa lied or not doesn't matter from a legal view, since Vol'jin being lied to doesn't change him choosing Sylvanas as the Warchief. For the same reason that Blackhand getting his position from the Shadow Council behind the scenes didn't make him illegitimate.

Thats rly different points here, similar but different, the shadow council "was horde" , those entity is not

when there is no horde they need to chose one among then, they didn't trick someone to appoint him, they support him, more easy to manipulate, but intends to not make illegitimate

still, like i said before, why an illegitimate warchief have the power to put a legitimte warchief? evertyhing is ilegitimate

Once they found out Sylvanas was appointed by tentacle monsters, they'd still need to go for Mak'gora if they want to challenge her on this basis.

If the illegitimate warchief have followers and powers of course mak'gora is needed to validate him

If the illegitimate warchiefs rend and vol'jin fight, by example, the winner would be the true warchief.

IF Baine challenged her, and she wins, it would kill 2 rabbits for most of you guys, Baine die and she become legitimate , trough the horde law.

[Super Dickmann]

Thats rly different points here, similar but different, the shadow council "was horde" , those entity is not.

The Shadow Council were Legion proxies and Blackhand was positioned into the Warchief seat to suit their purposes without him or the Horde knowing the details. It's analogous to Vol'jin being conned. But Blackhand was still legitimate. The Horde did exist before him for a few months, it just didn't have a Warchief.

When Orgrim found out, he still challenged Blackhand to Mak'gora. Only after he was Warchief did he kill most of the Shadow Council. He acknowledged Blackhand was still the guy in charge and that he needed to be his legitimate successor before acting.

still, like i said before, why an illegitimate warchief have the power to put a legitimte warchief? evertyhing is ilegitimate

If the playable Horde isn't legitimate, as a case can be made, then no Warchief in it is a Horde Warchief, Mak'gora or not. Within its own confines though, yeah, whoever thinks she's illegitimate would have to fight her, no argument there. Baine getting shot by her is indeed a top tier solution, sadly, that pansy doesn't have the balls to call Mak'gora and Blizzard don't remember it was a thing any more than they remember the blood oath.

[Syegfryed]

The Shadow Council were Legion proxies

the horde back there was rly Legion, so? same alignment

and Blackhand was positioned into the Warchief seat to suit their purposes without him or the Horde knowing the details. It's analogous to Vol'jin being conned. But Blackhand was still legitimate. The Horde did exist before him for a few months, it just didn't have a Warchief.

Yes, but they didn't make a illegitimate warchief put one leader, there was no warchief, they chose him to be, more like a quorum(?) still different

When Orgrim found out, he still challenged Blackhand to Mak'gora. Only after he was Warchief did he kill most of the Shad
ow Council. He acknowledged Blackhand was still the guy in charge and that he needed to be his legitimate successor before acting.

Exactly the reason i said it must be a makgora to clean things up

If the playable Horde isn't legitimate, as a case can be made, then no Warchief in it is a Horde Warchief, Mak'gora or not

A makgora will make the Legitimate warchief cause its the only legal and legitimate way to take the leadership

[Alex86el]

what is this title?
if it's serious, i'd rather attend a flat earth conference.

[Super Dickmann]

the horde back there was rly Legion, so? same alignment

No one in the Horde knew that the Legion was a thing back then except the Shadow Council. I'm fairly sure it's mentioned that even Blackhand didn't know what's up since he was only inducted in the lower rings of the Council. The Horde believed that Blackhand was chosen autonomously by the warlords, which in the absence of a Warchief was the legit way to set one up. He was still legitimate because only the decision of the quorum matters, not their motivation there for. To compare

(Shadow Council/Legion ->) Warlords -> Blackhand - Blackhand is legitimate since that's what the warlords decided, regardless of what got them to that point, which was Legion trickery to appoint their unknowing agent.

(N'zoth/Whoever ->) Vol'jin -> Sylvanas - Sylvanas is legitimate (within the bounds of the player Horde), since that's what the previous Warchief decided, regardless of how he came to that conclusion.

The deciding factor is that the person/group who passes powers chooses someone. After that, that person is legitimate until his unseating by Mak'gora.

A makgora will make the Legitimate warchief cause its the only legal and legitimate way to take the leadership

Not if Vol'jin was illegitimate, and he'd be illegitimate because of treason that everyone in the current Horde is part of. So if we accept that, then no one in the Player Horde is able to be legitimate, since they too are traitors like he is and thus by default part of an illegitimate organisation.

[Kemsa]

Honor means nothing to a corpse.
Honor its a word that can be use for everything even using your own body as a fuel for the Horde warmachine.
Honor can be missunderstood as Loyalty
Honor can be missunderstood as Alstruism and looking for the prosperity of a people
Honor can become a reagent of destroying your opponent
Honor can become a raeagent for freedom of the tyranny
Honor cant save you for the Old Ones
Honor cant save you from the Legion
Honor will not save you from death but can lead to it

Battle for Honor its the first expansion that makes Horde players going "i actually dislike sylvannas" and other going "i love her so much its fits her character". So yeah... its feels like a clickbait.

[Syegfryed]

No one in the Horde knew that the Legion was a thing back then except the Shadow Council. I'm fairly sure it's mentioned that even Blackhand didn't know what's up since he was only inducted in the lower rings of the Council. The Horde believed that Blackhand was chosen autonomously by the warlords, which in the absence of a Warchief was the legit way to set one up. He was still legitimate because only the decision of the quorum matters, not their motivation there for. To compare

the shadow council would have the same eight as the chieftains, they suggest him, give him support and the others agreed, they didn't manipulate everyone to chose him ( who would make him illegitimate) their alignment in that that was not important, and could not be considered illegitimate because the horde was not even thing yet, he was chose by everyone and not just the shadow council fooling everyone, and since they are horde aligned still is less worse than something out of the horde center

(N'zoth/Whoever ->) Vol'jin -> Sylvanas - Sylvanas is legitimate (within the bounds of the player Horde), since that's what the previous Warchief decided, regardless of how he came to that conclusion.

Like i said again, even if cut the "other than the warchief chose the next leader" we still have the point of "an illegitimate warchief have the power or rights to put something who is not also an illegitimate warchief?"[/I]

If only the legitimate warchief can point a new one (like orgrin with thrall, and thrall with Garrosh), if Sylvanas is legit, so is vol'jin

If we are taking the blood oath to her as account, we should consider vol'jin legitimate as well, because everyone did to him too

The deciding factor is that the person/group who passes powers chooses someone. After that, that person is legitimate until his unseating by Mak'gora.

Still is different than one group choosing one, and people among the group supporting him, and the other literally fooling the warchief to make her a leader.

Not if Vol'jin was illegitimate, and he'd be illegitimate because of treason that everyone in the current Horde is part of. So if we accept that, then no one in the Player Horde is able to be legitimate, since they too are traitors like he is and thus by default part of an illegitimate organisation.

the makgora is the only thing to make something illegitimate legit, because its the horde "main law" and tradition, above alignment or what happens before it and totally impartial

[Aucald]

[MENTION=584195]On the issue of legitimacy in general, I'd say we have to use the existing rules and institutions of the organization being discussed, rather than simply majoritarianism (Vol'jin's ratification by other rebellion participants) or after-the-fact consequentialism (to address your irl monarchy parallels).

With regard to Garrosh invalidating himself, I'd argue that he, as Warchief, literally cannot do that. One might make a moral case against his actions, or claim they're in violation of the ideology of the previous Warchief, but that enters subjective territory and places us outside of the rigid, defined framework of the Horde as a political entity. Never mind the fact that by the time the declaration of a "True Horde" was made, an open rebellion already existed.

On the subject of Geya'rah and Sylvanas, as I mentioned, whether or not the schism has been healed is a matter of debate. I personally lean towards no, and consider the Iron Horde distinct from the Horde. But that puts us in a situation where the actual legitimate Horde is defunct, and the current playable Horde is either:
A.) An illegitimate offshoot
B.) A separate political entity.

It would be difficult to do that, in my opinion, as the Horde had no real rules or organization, confederation, or hierarchy - no constitution or articles to speak of, only the position of Warchief as ratified by a de facto governing council (in this case the Shadow Council) and the threat of coordinated violence against any clan who refused (or weren't permitted) confederation such as the Bladewind and Whiteclaw clans. Majoritarian and consequentialist practices are basically the bread and butter of the Old Horde, and for the most part continue on into both the regimes of every Warchief since - including Thrall and Garrosh.

I don't really hold with the idea of the inviolable and absolute monarch - even an autocrat can de-legitimize themselves, except perhaps in the eyes of their most stalwart followers or sycophants. Political entities change hands all the time, be it in the real world or in fictional analogues, after all. I think Garrosh's reaction to the insurrection itself serves to make his legitimacy murky at best - instead of bringing Vol'jin to heel he basically takes his ball and goes home (quite literally), sealing away Orgrimmar and sulking in the Underhold.

I would agree that the Iron Horde is certainly it's own entity separate from the Horde the player is a part of, the question being whether it holds the torch of legitimacy being as it is a product of Garrosh (even though Garrosh is not its Warchief), or whether or not the legitimate Horde was Vol'jin's by right of conquest. Personally I lean to the latter interpretation. Of the modern crop of Warchiefs it is Garrosh who was the outlier, the only thus far against which the Horde as a near whole rebelled against and subsequently ousted. It is that, more than anything, that underlines Garrosh's failure to maintain legitimacy in my eyes. Even Blackhand himself wasn't really ousted by his own - he was taken down in Mak'gora by Doomhammer specifically.

- - - Updated - - -

For me, a true mak'gora would at lest solve part of the problem, and put a legitimate warchief once again, who, by his strength following the customs archived the leadership.

My only issue would that be of Blackhand himself, who was more or less elected into the position of Warchief as opposed to gaining it by strength of arm - he didn't enter into Mak'gora or Mak'rogahn with any of the other clan chieftains, after all.

[Doffen]

Doesn't matter what a thread is about in lore sub-forum, Camp Taurajo will be mentioned.

BUT GUISE, Camp Taurajo. Never forget.

[Kythera]

On the point of legitimacy, does it really matter in any practical sense? France didn't stop being France after the revolution. From the perspective of the crown, that was certainly an illegitimate action, and the point was contested for some time after. But what does it matter now? To the victor (here, the new regime), go the spoils.

And with all this talk about the Blood Oath and mak'gora, here's my question: if Sylvanas altered the blood oath to suit her needs (perhaps requiring assent to be reanimated after death so you can continue serving the Horde with undying loyalty) or outlawed mak'gora, would it matter unless popular opinion within the Horde turned against her? Maybe in an arcane, formalistic sense. But even if illegitimate, what value is legitimacy if no one successfully contests it?

[Super Dickmann]

@Syegfryed

We're talking over each other here, so I'll post this at the start to get what we agree with out of the way.

If Vol'jin is legitimate, then Sylvanas is legitimate.

Regardless of whether Sylvanas is legitimate or not, the only valid way to challenge her or any Warchief is Mak'gora.

With that out of the way:

the makgora is the only thing to make something illegitimate legit, because its the horde "main law" and tradition, above alignment or what happens before it and totally impartial

If Vol'jin is illegitimate, then it doesn't matter, because the Playable Horde and the Horde that has continuity with WC1 are separate organisations. Vol'jin isn't just illegitimate because he's a usurper, but because he was expelled from the actual Horde. In that version, since he's part of a separate organisation, no matter what happens, no Warchief he appoints or in his faction can be the Warchief of the 'real' Horde, because that ended with Garrosh.

the shadow council would have the same eight as the chieftains, they suggest him, give him support and the others agreed, they didn't manipulate everyone to chose him ( who would make him illegitimate) their alignment in that that was not important, and could not be considered illegitimate because the horde was not even thing yet, he was chose by everyone and not just the shadow council fooling everyone, and since they are horde aligned still is less worse than something out of the horde center

The Shadow Council were a hidden organisation, just like they hid that the Horde were Legion puppets or what Mannoroth's blood really was. Gul'dan used trickery to get Blackhand appointed by lying to the shaman. Blackhand is even more analogous to Sylvanas because he thinks he knows what's going on, but doesn't, since not even he knew about the Burning Legion. The way Gul'dan got him appointed was by setting up that he was the only one who knew about fel magic and so the other clans had to follow him because of his power, tipping him into the leading position. The Horde was already a thing by this point, it just didn't have a Warchief, with the Warlords being general equivalents.

@Kythera

Sylvanas gassing and bringing people back is already aligned with the blood oath. The warrior is an 'instrument of the Warchief's desire" who "gives [his] flesh and blood freely to the Warchief". The warrior's remains as such are thus also property of the Warchief who can do whatever necromancy she deems fit on them. The problem with it isn't the blood oath, but an orcish/tauren culture that should be very far against it because of their ancestor worship. To go back to the example I usually use, even Gul'dan didn't dare put the souls of the Shadow Council into orcish corpses, because if the orcs saw him do that they'd string him up.

As for removing Mak'gora, it's not like she can. It has no formal basis, it's just customary law that's accepted by this point. If she refuses Mak'gora, she's showing herself to be weak, which the Warchief by default can't be, and at the same time she's denying succession. In other words, she discredits herself automatically by refusing Mak'gora or cheating in it. She can't go "You owe me loyalty on the basis of this orcish institution, but I won't actually follow the checks it has, because it's outdated lol". It'd be a very bad political move, even if it'd have no consequences legally speaking since Mak'gora and the Blood Oath are technically distinct.

[Vladier]

Considering that Mak'gora is an instrument by which the title of the Warchief of the Horde can be transfered (and any other position of power), wouldn't that mean that the Horde draws its legitimacy from the higher powers in the first place? One of its rules is that the weapons of the participants can be blessed by a shaman of one's choosing, clearly indicating that the Mak'gora is not so much about the inherent worthiness of the paticipants, so much as about how much the (elemental or ancestral, in case of the orcs from whom the custom passed from) spirits favour a competitor. There is no law in Mak'gora that the spirits have to be impartial (and no way to enforce that impartialness anyway), they can choose to grant one competitor a superbuff on their weapon, and the other one a mere token of a blessing, making the duel betweeen relatively equal participants very one-sided.

With that in mind, it would be the Horde that was in favour with the spirits that is legitimate, no matter if the transfer of power was through Mak'gora or through open rebellion, especially considering that Garrosh employed dark shamanism to bind and expell the spirits of the land, so any Mak'gora against him violated of the rules anyway, as a participant on one side would be unable to receive a blessing from their shaman, and Garrosh's own side employed the art forbidden to the shaman of the Horde, and so would not even be considered the shaman in the rules of Mak'gora.

[Syegfryed]

Regardless of whether Sylvanas is legitimate or not, the only valid way to challenge her or any Warchief is Mak'gora.

i would not say the only valid way, to remove her, since everything is a mess, don't matter what they do anymore, but the only Legit way to have new and legitimate warchief? then yes

In that version, since he's part of a separate organisation, no matter what happens, no Warchief he appoints or in his faction can be the Warchief of the 'real' Horde, because that ended with Garrosh.

Exactly, thats why we could only have a "legitimate warchief is by makgora or(imo) if Thrall himself appoint someone or take the leadership( not tking acount if would be bad or good this is another point.

The Shadow Council were a hidden organisation, just like they hid that the Horde were Legion puppets or what Mannoroth's blood really was.

their intends were hidden, i hink they show thenselves as a group of shamans isn't?

Gul'dan used trickery to get Blackhand appointed by lying to the shaman.

they didn't need to much, since blackhand was imense, strong, ttical and leader of one of the main clans,


The point is, there is no horde before, no laws to didactic what is legal, illegal, legitimate or not, still, shadow council was horde alignment, and the purpose of the horde was to work for the Legion

[Super Dickmann]

This is probably the most arcane argument I've had yet. It's good shit.

i would not say the only valid way, to remove her, since everything is a mess, don't matter what they do anymore, but the only Legit way to have new and legitimate warchief? then yes

She obviously can be overthrown in a rebellion, it's just the guy who does so would also be illegitimate. Within the Playable Horde, as separate from the WC1 to Garrosh-era Horde, the passing of power from Vol'jin to Sylvanas was legitimate.

Exactly, thats why we could only have a "legitimate warchief is by makgora or(imo) if Thrall himself appoint someone or take the leadership( not tking acount if would be bad or good this is another point.

Thrall has no link either, since he'd lost power by that point. There's no way to get continuity between Garrosh's Horde and the playable Horde, unless you engage in some gymnastics.

Bear me with here. Garrosh was Warchief of the True Horde, i.e the legitimate Horde, which was still in existence because Zaela was still on Azeroth leading forces who were part of it. As Warchief of the True Horde, Garrosh made the blood oath to his dad, subsuming the True Horde into the Iron Horde and making it a successor organisation to it with Garrosh as a Warlord of the Warsong. Then the Iron Horde becomes the Mag'har, the Mag'har swear to Sylvanas and in the process legitimacy is passed back to the Playable Horde.

they didn't need to much, since blackhand was imense, strong, ttical and leader of one of the main clans,

The thing is all of the clan leaders were venerated warriors who could have been Warchief. Grom, Kargath and Ner'zhul all get to do so at some point. What gave Blackhand the edge was the manipulations of the Shadow Council by giving the Blackrock warlock magic first and pretending Blackhand was the one who knew the secrets of fel. To get those secrets, they had to join up with him, so the vote was skewed in his favor. But there was already a Horde at that time.

No one except Gul'dan and the inner circle knew about the Legion. The Horde itself didn't know it was a Legion proxy or even that the Shadow Council existed, they assumed Blackhand was chosen 'properly'. Even Orgrim abided by this, hence why he challenged Blackhand rather than denying his authority.

[Wildberry]

It would be difficult to do that, in my opinion, as the Horde had no real rules or organization, confederation, or hierarchy - no constitution or articles to speak of, only the position of Warchief as ratified by a de facto governing council (in this case the Shadow Council) and the threat of coordinated violence against any clan who refused (or weren't permitted) confederation such as the Bladewind and Whiteclaw clans. Majoritarian and consequentialist practices are basically the bread and butter of the Old Horde, and for the most part continue on into both the regimes of every Warchief since - including Thrall and Garrosh.

I don't think it's that difficult. We do have the Blood Oath, beyond that we have precedent to work off from. Between those two things, I don't think there's too much of a case for majoritarianism and consequentialism.

Whatever legitimacy the Shadow Council may have had is largely irrelevant since it was abolished by Doomhammer. Beyond that, we've only seen a Warchief ratified once, and that was when there was a Horde, but no Warchief. Since the position of Warchief has existed, we've really only seen power change hands through Mak'gora, and direct appointment, at least legitimately.

Ner'zhul was roughly ratified through a power grab by Gorefiend, but we consider the Horde of Draenor an illegitimate offshoot, and confer legitimacy to Thrall since he was appointed by Doomhammer, for example. By the time the Horde of Draenor was founded, Ner'zhul certainly had a much larger backing than Doomhammer, who had been captured and hiding out in the mountains, that didn't make him legitimate.

I don't really hold with the idea of the inviolable and absolute monarch - even an autocrat can de-legitimize themselves, except perhaps in the eyes of their most stalwart followers or sycophants.

I don't really see how this case can be made, given the Blood Oath of the Horde.

You might argue that Garrosh is, say, morally illegitimate (Not a case I'd agree with, mind you), even practically illegitimate, but legal legitimacy is something else entirely.

Political entities change hands all the time, be it in the real world or in fictional analogues, after all.

Power absolutely changes hands, as do political entities, but even then we can qualify the successors as either legitimate or illegitimate.

I think Garrosh's reaction to the insurrection itself serves to make his legitimacy murky at best - instead of bringing Vol'jin to heel he basically takes his ball and goes home (quite literally), sealing away Orgrimmar and sulking in the Underhold.

To address this (and how it factors into your below point), I don't really think this is the case at all.

Treason is still treason, no matter how many people sign on, for starters. Beyond that (and not that it matters much, in light of the previous statement), who was Garrosh supposed to rally?

By the time Vol'jin's rebellion really kicked off, Garrosh was dealing with:
-Tauren supplying the revolution through the Barrens using caravans guarded by rebellion forces. These Tauren, mind you, were being led by a leader that was a noted critic of Garrosh and had leveraged his loyalty to try (unsuccessfully) to change policy, & had organized and participated in secret meetings in which subversive, treasonous statements were made.
-Goblins sabotaging weapon stockpiles and killing officers, on behalf of the rebellion. Led by someone who was only ever loyal to Garrosh because of profit (and had violated the chain of command by suggesting his orders override the Warchief's)

Was he really supposed to count of the Forsaken and Blood Elves to pull through? I don't think there's a case to be made that either Sylvanas or Lor'themar would have stayed on board at that point.

That's less "Taking your ball and going home" and more "realizing that your subordinates are treasonous, cannot be counted on, are already or likely to participate in the rebellion, and cutting your losses."

Here's the catch though. At that point, the revolution was only just starting. Lor'themar and Sylvanas hadn't openly defected the way Vol'jin had, even Baine was hiding, and we had no view on how Garrosh and his higher ups considered this. By 5.4, this changes heavily. The rebellion is open and Garrosh himself says that the other races aren't part of his Horde and that those who stand against 'his new Horde' will be impaled on the spires of Orgrimmar, implying a separate organisation, which follows on with how the NPCs in SoO talk.

So, we're largely in agreement on where things stand in 5.3, although there are a couple of points I'd raise on that front.

For starters, we do see Tauren at least supplying the rebellion in 5.3. Beyond that, I'd argue that the crackdown on "other races" began in 5.3, rather than 5.4. Garrosh stated it outright in 5.4, of course, but take a look at High Overseer Bloodmane's dialogue in Razor Hill:

High Overseer Bloodmane says: Troll! What are you still doing in my town!
Jabul, the druid trainer, transforms into a cat and activates prowl while walking away.
Un'Thuwa says: Trainin' de mages.
High Overseer Bloodmane says: Hellscream's Horde has no need for your voodoo tricks, troll. Now get out of my sight!

Even though "true Horde" is used, as opposed to "True Horde," we see pretty much every defining feature of the "True Horde" take root in 5.3. Aside from the interchangeable use of terms, Overseer Elaglo and Xorenth are going on about a "pure Horde" and "lesser races."

Beyond that, though, there's the simple matter of practicality. Why would Garrosh, as Warchief, create a new, distinct political organization (identical in structure to the one he's leading), just to kick out other races, which he already had the authority to do?

The only exception is Nazgrim who isn't all that reliable, because he's not part of Garrosh's inner circle and when he dies, he tells the PC, a traitor, that he hopes he'll lead the Horde to a new era of prosperity, implying he considers both views legitimate, even favouring the PC. He says directly he served Garrosh out of obligation, so it's really questionable how authoritative a source he is. He only equates the two to the Alliance, who he'd obviously show no doubt towards.

I wouldn't consider Nazgrim to be unreliable, honestly. Sure, he equates traitors with himself in terms of "acting on behalf of the Horde," but we recognize that he's expressing a personal opinion there. If he truly thought they were legitimate, he wouldn't have stood by Hellscream. The fact that he mentions a "duty to the Warchief," & considers himself to be acting on behalf of the Horde cements that in my view.

He might be sympathetic to the rebellion's aims, he might personally dislike Hellscream's vision for the Horde, but he still sees himself as acting on the Horde's behalf, rather than the "True Horde's" behalf. Given his rigid stance, I'd say that his exclusion from Garrosh's ideological inner circle only cements a continuous organization.

Beyond Nazgrim, we do see certain NPCs (ie, Kor'kron Blood Axe's) use "true Horde." On the other hand, Lieutenant Krugruk, a Dragonmaw, refers to himself as: "the blood of the Dragon and the fist of the Horde!"

By comparison, those who were actually aligned ideologically with Garrosh all use True Horde exclusively, from the Dark Shaman to Malkorok and Zaela.

Absolutely, although I think the fact that they're all in line with Garrosh ideologically would suffice as an explanation for their usage of the term.

Garrosh's title is <Warchief of the True Horde>

So, fortunately, this conversation has taken place when I still had SoO runs to do for the week. In the Underhold, Garrosh is tagged <Warchief>. I've checked Wowhead, and can't find a version of him tagged with <Warchief of the True Horde> at all. Is there something specifically that you're referring to, here? In-game, Garrosh seems to have consistently used <Warchief> as a tag (save for one <Warchief of the Horde> instance in Twilight Highlands, which is the exception to the tags used by Thrall, Garrosh, Vol'jin and Sylvanas).

Beyond tags, Garrosh does, in his use of "True Horde," use "true Horde" in one instance.


@Syegfryed

Dickmann's already went my planned route of Shadow Council parallels last night. Since I'm catching up on responses the morning after, I'll just give replies to specific statements in the conversation that followed:

To fall even more back, the illegitimate warchief even had the power to put a legitimate warchief in charge? i would sayk so, the blood oath would mean crap.

The point here is that the Horde led by Sylvanas and Vol'jin is an illegitimate offshoot of the Horde started on Draenor that has continuity all the way to Garrosh.

Within this illegitimate organization, Sylvanas is the legitimate Warchief of it. She cannot claim legitimacy to the Horde, but in terms of the Darkspear Rebellion Horde she is.

Considering that the "Darkspear Rebellion Horde" hasn't changed any institutions (much like other illegitimate Hordes), and that participants swore oaths of loyalty to Sylvanas, they're oathbound to her.

They're already traitors, betraying Sylvanas just makes them traitors on two counts.

Thats why im saying, with all the bullshit and confusion, the only legit and legal way to figure out a legitimate warchief after Garry is by mak'gora.

If the illegitimate warchiefs rend and vol'jin fight, by example, the winner would be the true warchief.

Think about it this way:

When Doomhammer was captured, and then in hiding after the Horde's defeat at Blackrock Spire, assume for a moment that, somehow, Rend Blackhand challenged Ner'zhul to mak'gora.

They're both leading illegitimate Hordes, the Dark Horde and the Horde of Draenor. The winner of that mak'gora is still illegitimate, they've now just merged two illegitimate organizations.

In this case, it's more akin to a Dark Horde member challenging Rend to Mak'gora. Whoever wins is still leading an illegitimate Horde.

[Aucald]

I don't think it's that difficult. We do have the Blood Oath, beyond that we have precedent to work off from. Between those two things, I don't think there's too much of a case for majoritarianism and consequentialism.

Whatever legitimacy the Shadow Council may have had is largely irrelevant since it was abolished by Doomhammer. Beyond that, we've only seen a Warchief ratified once, and that was when there was a Horde, but no Warchief. Since the position of Warchief has existed, we've really only seen power change hands through Mak'gora, and direct appointment, at least legitimately.

The issue here would be that Doomhammer seized power from the Shadow Council, but left its head member Gul'dan in place and more or less in power - Doomhammer had his Mak'gora with Blackhand, but Blackhand was simply a puppet. If you look at Makgora as one of the few means for transfer of power an argument could be made that Doomhammer never claimed it from the person truly in charge of the Old Horde: Gul'dan.

Ner'zhul was roughly ratified through a power grab by Gorefiend, but we consider the Horde of Draenor an illegitimate offshoot, and confer legitimacy to Thrall since he was appointed by Doomhammer, for example. By the time the Horde of Draenor was founded, Ner'zhul certainly had a much larger backing than Doomhammer, who had been captured and hiding out in the mountains, that didn't make him legitimate.

Ner'zhul was more or less a regent for Blackhand during the First War when the bulk of the Horde's military forces were on Azeroth - he wasn't a true Warchief, and thus never had a claim on the title (at least in my eyes). Ner'zhul remained the Elder Shaman of the Horde until he ultimately went his own ways after "Beyond the Dark Portal."

I don't really see how this case can be made, given the Blood Oath of the Horde.

I give the Blood Oath of the Horde a lot less emphasis than most, as I see it as more or less a loyalty pledge and not a binding article of law for the Horde. The Blood Oath has as much meaning as the current Warchief enforces - it has been refused and rebutted many times, after all, by many would-be Warchiefs and their underlings.

You might argue that Garrosh is, say, morally illegitimate (Not a case I'd agree with, mind you), even practically illegitimate, but legal legitimacy is something else entirely.

Power absolutely changes hands, as do political entities, but even then we can qualify the successors as either legitimate or illegitimate.

To address this (and how it factors into your below point), I don't really think this is the case at all.

Treason is still treason, no matter how many people sign on, for starters. Beyond that (and not that it matters much, in light of the previous statement), who was Garrosh supposed to rally?

By the time Vol'jin's rebellion really kicked off, Garrosh was dealing with:
-Tauren supplying the revolution through the Barrens using caravans guarded by rebellion forces. These Tauren, mind you, were being led by a leader that was a noted critic of Garrosh and had leveraged his loyalty to try (unsuccessfully) to change policy, & had organized and participated in secret meetings in which subversive, treasonous statements were made.
-Goblins sabotaging weapon stockpiles and killing officers, on behalf of the rebellion. Led by someone who was only ever loyal to Garrosh because of profit (and had violated the chain of command by suggesting his orders override the Warchief's)

Was he really supposed to count of the Forsaken and Blood Elves to pull through? I don't think there's a case to be made that either Sylvanas or Lor'themar would have stayed on board at that point.

That's less "Taking your ball and going home" and more "realizing that your subordinates are treasonous, cannot be counted on, are already or likely to participate in the rebellion, and cutting your losses."

I don't think the initial meetings that Baine took part in could be considered subversive, unless questioning one's leader is tantamount to subversion or disloyalty. Many in the Horde questioned Garrosh's strategy as concerned Theramore because he opted not to share it - which, in conjunction with other questionable practices like using Dark Shamanism in the war effort, led many in the Horde to doubt its above-board nature. By the time Vol'jin revealed himself the insurrection was indeed in full swing, and nothing could really be done, but Garrosh still had a quite substantial window in which he could've righted the vessel of the Horde if he had acted. Assassinating those you suspect of dissidence is also a pretty bad precedent, as was done in Razor Hill - all in all, Garrosh acted in a manner that guaranteed those who were doubtful of his ascension would have their doubts validated definitively.

By the time of SoO Garrosh had succeeded in turning the majority of his own people (the Orcs) against his regime. Even discounting the treason of Baine and Vol'jin (which, while I view it as understandable, I still call treason against the sitting Warchief) Garrosh went from massive approval among the Orcs following the Northrend campaign to almost none, and that in the span of just a few years.

[Toho]

You are all debating this like the Horde has a complete set of rules and regulations in real life and yall discussing some sort of legal boundry.

Sylvanas' Horde is legitimate because Horde players are there and Blizzard tells us so. Now can we go back to discussing how Horde needs to be wiped off the map for the cowardly genocidal maniacs that they are?

Kthanks.

[Super Dickmann]

So, fortunately, this conversation has taken place when I still had SoO runs to do for the week. In the Underhold, Garrosh is tagged <Warchief>. I've checked Wowhead, and can't find a version of him tagged with <Warchief of the True Horde> at all. Is there something specifically that you're referring to, here? In-game, Garrosh seems to have consistently used <Warchief> as a tag (save for one <Warchief of the Horde> instance in Twilight Highlands, which is the exception to the tags used by Thrall, Garrosh, Vol'jin and Sylvanas).

Beyond tags, Garrosh does, in his use of "True Horde," use "true Horde" in one instance.

Yeah, that one's on me. I was lazy and checked his main page which listed "Warchief of the True Horde" as one of his titles, then went straight from the encounter down to his quotes without checking twice. He is just <Warchief>.

For starters, we do see Tauren at least supplying the rebellion in 5.3. Beyond that, I'd argue that the crackdown on "other races" began in 5.3, rather than 5.4. Garrosh stated it outright in 5.4, of course, but take a look at High Overseer Bloodmane's dialogue in Razor Hill:

While Garrosh believed that orcs were superior, he did not oppose having others as client races, hence the goblins in the company. There's a difference between the head of state saying/doing something and what's basically a town governor doing it. As far in as 5.1 there were still warlocks and other races within the Kor'kron for example, so there's more reason to see the shift from 5.3 to 5.4, with the non-orc parts of the Horde in open rebellion, rather than back when it was trolls with covert tauren and Alliance support. It makes more sense to consider 5.4 as the point when Garrosh fully implements his policies and detaches the Horde from the races in rebellion.

I wouldn't consider Nazgrim to be unreliable, honestly. Sure, he equates traitors with himself in terms of "acting on behalf of the Horde," but we recognize that he's expressing a personal opinion there. If he truly thought they were legitimate, he wouldn't have stood by Hellscream. The fact that he mentions a "duty to the Warchief," & considers himself to be acting on behalf of the Horde cements that in my view.

He might be sympathetic to the rebellion's aims, he might personally dislike Hellscream's vision for the Horde, but he still sees himself as acting on the Horde's behalf, rather than the "True Horde's" behalf. Given his rigid stance, I'd say that his exclusion from Garrosh's ideological inner circle only cements a continuous organization.

Nazgrim makes a differentiation between the Horde and the Warchief and acknowledges the PC, after having killed him, as leading the Horde to continue, acknowledging it as legitimate and possessing an existence separate from the Warchief. If he makes this differentiation then him working for the Warchief does not necessarily mean he views himself as working for the Horde. If the two were interchangable in his mind he'd not be able to consider the PC as acting honorably after all.

Beyond Nazgrim, we do see certain NPCs (ie, Kor'kron Blood Axe's) use "true Horde." On the other hand, Lieutenant Krugruk, a Dragonmaw, refers to himself as: "the blood of the Dragon and the fist of the Horde!"

Beyond that, though, there's the simple matter of practicality. Why would Garrosh, as Warchief, create a new, distinct political organization (identical in structure to the one he's leading), just to kick out other races, which he already had the authority to do?

Yeah, these are the ones, plus the comment Garrosh makes about this being the Orcish Horde, i.e the WC1 Horde, that really puts the nail in the coffin of this argument. Garrosh has the hypothetical ability to create a distinct entity, but there's nothing that'd motivate him to do that, and there's still enough interchangable uses of the term to get across that he considers it the same thing. Even the name 'True Horde' implies legitimacy, with the other one being a false Horde, which wouldn't make sense if he made his own group while giving the Orcish Horde to the rebels. There's technically no decisive evidence that he didn't make a separate group, but the evidence is heavily lopsided in favour of it being the same thing.

Hence why I think the later argument is better if one wants to argue the current Horde is legitimate, reposting to get your take on it:

Garrosh was Warchief of the True Horde, i.e the legitimate Horde, which was still in existence because Zaela was still on Azeroth leading forces who were part of it. As Warchief of the True Horde, Garrosh made the blood oath to his dad, subsuming the True Horde into the Iron Horde and making it a successor organisation to it with Garrosh as a Warlord of the Warsong. Then the Iron Horde becomes the Mag'har, the Mag'har swear to Sylvanas and in the process legitimacy is passed back to the Playable Horde.

[Aucald]

You are all debating this like the Horde has a complete set of rules and regulations in real life and yall discussing some sort of legal boundry.

Sylvanas' Horde is legitimate because Horde players are there and Blizzard tells us so. Now can we go back to discussing how Horde needs to be wiped off the map for the cowardly genocidal maniacs that they are?

Kthanks.

You can't end an internal debate with an external rationale - resolving a narrative issue like the Horde's legitimacy through succession with "it is what is because the developers say so" is just a fallacious appeal to an external authority.

Wiping the Horde "off the map" would be genocide as well, which would make the Alliance (presumably who you're referring to) far worse than the Horde itself, in that regard. Answering genocide with a more massive scale of genocide doesn't set a great precedent.

[Nargrom]

Sylvanas, despite admitting that her own sense of honor is not as strong as it could be, is so far the only Horde leader to have shown any respect for the Blood Oath. Her Warchief commanded, and she obeyed. Other Horde leaders only obey the Warchief's command as long as it suits them. As soon as they are asked to do something they have qualms with (like hurting the Alliance in Baine's case), they either resort to plotting and scheming behind the Warchief's back or committing open treason.

In fact, Orgrim, Garrosh, and Cairne are the only other three Horde leaders who have done things the intended way and challenged the incumbent Warchief to Mak'gora instead of resorting to treachery. With all of them dead, Sylvanas remains the only Horde leader who respects the Blood Oath.

After the broken shore you stopped playing or something?