Aversion to Monarchs

[b1gh3x]

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.

[Mysterymask]

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.

[loras]

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.

Well, in case of the Horde there is a very strong imperative not to invest too much power into a single person, given how many fuckups they've had. That goes doubly so for the corruption-prone races like Blood Elves, orcs and undead.

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.
And even an alliance can have kings; elected monarchy for the gnomes, hereditary monarchy for the dwarves, gilneas and stormwind, theocracy for the elves and draenei, aristacratic republicanism for the kul tirans and communism for the void elves (j/k, dunno what they'd qualify as).

So basically what i'm saying: The story just happens to call for it, strongly in case of the horde (though even they have a true empress among their leaders / allies), but the setting still incorporates many forms of leadership, many of which are monarchical or close to it.

[Sorrowseer]

You are right OP, its also a case of the developers views put into it, shifting believeing a single ruler is not what is best for these kingdoms/empires etc, but, they view it from modern times, even if they think they are not, it seeps in slowly or sometimes blatantly, councils and such suck in times without modern conveniences and lets be honest even then it still sucks, bureaucracy and all that, nothing can really be done about it, having a king and a kingdom and a noble class and living a fantasy life is what many may want but its not going to be given, they shove in the tired make belive cliches that have been in stories for decades now.

[Maljinwo]

How dare them, the monarch is a fine leader and mighty gentleman

[Icelin]

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.

I am not seeing the issue here tbh. Would you rather have the demoralization narrative going instead? Imagery of female characters decapitating male characters? Or smashing their crowns? Or in some cases male character completely disappearing into nothingness to be never seen again?

I've actually been supportive of democracy and councils. Incredibly supportive of it. As every life has relevancy and shouldn't be submitted to an abusive narrative. As for your take on it, I guess having a couple queens rule certain areas and kings for other ones isn't necessarily a bad thing. It would keep things interesting.

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.

I agree. I feel it is the better option but you know what. I don't feel like this company is fond of a supportive narrative. (Or investors.. not really sure who) We got a trailer with teamwork, even tho I can admit.. it came across as a bit underwhelming with no real big loom threat. It was still nice cinematic. (looking back on it I wish we got a small part of all the aspects in visage/human/elf forms. I mean like all of them Alexstrasza, Kalec, Wraithon,Nozdormu, Ysera. ) Still it wasn't SLs level of imagery. We finally get imagery with everyone getting along. Everyone is ready to have relevancy again and progressed forth ready to have fun. Then what happens? Expansion is cut short. Just because it doesn't fit an abusive narrative. Or does anyone else want to explain to me why SLs got more development time than Dragonflight? When the reception on SLs trailer was so incredibly negative, worse than Dragonflight. Please explain it to me. Teamwork is bad, mmk? In some backwards society.

[Snufflupagus]

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.

That absolutely is not the point of medieval fantasy. Even medieval societies were sceptical about the value of monarchs.

[Biomega]

That absolutely is not the point of medieval fantasy. Even medieval societies were sceptical about the value of monarchs.

Well, it's complicated.

There was an Italian dude who had some interesting thoughts on the topic.

But sure, people weren't idiots even back then who thought that there's nothing wrong at all with having some random dude in total control of everything. It's just that this was how things were, and a sort of base-level acceptance creeps in when your entire reality is designed around that idea (doesn't help if there's a religion supporting that structure either).

In the case of European medieval societies at least there was also the fact that they had a past to look back to had already had democracy (or at least some kind of democracy), and had a history of being skeptical about monarchs. It becomes more complicated when you look beyond Europe - e.g. China is a very interesting case in that respect, with strong emphasis on hierarchy and veneration of authority going back millennia. But even there it's very complicated.

Fictional settings usually don't pay adequate respect to the complexities of real-world histories. They make broad generalizations in the interest of not distracting from the narrative; which is fine. But it also creates some misconceptions in people's heads, like how pop culture can establish historical biases that persist for a long time. And then suddenly you have people thinking that everyone thought the world was flat until Galileo and so on, which is just completely wrong.

[Lolites]

Forsaken, despite having a 'living' monarch, now have a council.

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

[Woggmer]

Both sides of the argument have pros and cons.

If something goes wrong with a monarchy or a King, Queen, High Priest, and so on.. then the damage is entirely on them, the individual.

But a council can be just as fragile if something went wrong or if someone turns traitor. The Council of Three Hammers is proof of this, and the only reason the council does exist right now is because of Moira's child isn't old enough to inherit the throne of Blackrock Mountain. If something were to happen to break and divide the council then it could result in the Dwarven Clans to go back to war against each other.

One other possible case may be that some of the council members won't see eye to eye on certain matters. They could become stubborn or push it so far as to enlist assassins. Considering that some in the Desolate Council probably want Calia Menethil dead despite her trying to help the Forsaken.

As much as it might seem like it makes them stronger as a unit, it makes them even more weak and fragile once they come to a disagreement or something bad happens. It's a double edged sword.

[Grazrug]

The OP is right. The council BS is not needed. It needs to go away full stop.

[Lord Pebbleton]

Whenever the horde has a single leader, he/she becomes a bloodthirsty monster, the rest of the faction follows their lead, and then they shift around before the crash, blame the leader, dethrone the leader, and pretend they were never implied.

I don't know about the other games you mentioned, but in WoW's case, as an alliance player, having a council on the horde will most likely stop making me feel like I'm being made fun of

[LordVargK]

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.

You do realize, that the Horde having a council stems from the fact, that it having a single leader was a really, REALLY bad idea twice? Also the Horde is not medieval fantasy. Or did the middle ages have Orcs, trolls and Tauren?

Your argument would be valid, if we were talking about the (Human)-Alliance, which actually has the medieval fantasy theme. But the Horde is just a faction, that lost two world wars and now came to realize, that maybe their warchief system was a little outdated.

[Auburst]

Ofc it's an injection. True Horde member remembers!

[Grazrug]

You do realize, that the Horde having a council stems from the fact, that it having a single leader was a really, REALLY bad idea twice? Also the Horde is not medieval fantasy. Or did the middle ages have Orcs, trolls and Tauren?

Your argument would be valid, if we were talking about the (Human)-Alliance, which actually has the medieval fantasy theme. But the Horde is just a faction, that lost two world wars and now came to realize, that maybe their warchief system was a little outdated.

Alliance has a high king and they are doing just fine. The system is not the problem. The problem is incompetent writers.

- - - Updated - - -

Whenever the horde has a single leader, he/she becomes a bloodthirsty monster, the rest of the faction follows their lead, and then they shift around before the crash, blame the leader, dethrone the leader, and pretend they were never implied.

I don't know about the other games you mentioned, but in WoW's case, as an alliance player, having a council on the horde will most likely stop making me feel like I'm being made fun of

Sylvanas was the best warchief we ever had. Teldrassil was a massive blow against Alliance players morale.

[Varodoc]

It's not that having a single leader is bad. It's that having a dictator is bad.

The King of Stormwind is not a dictator. They do not have complete control over the country, and have to keep a balance with the House of Nobles. Hence, the position remains.

The Warchief is a dictator. They have complete control over the country and anyone who dares defy them is persecuted as a traitor. Hence, the position was abolished.

The Banshee Queen was a dictator. She had complete control over the Forsaken, shaped them into a toxic cult of personality around herself, and persecuted anyone who defied her. Hence, she left behind a hated legacy, and no one misses her or will ever miss her.

[Grazrug]

It's not that having a single leader is bad. It's that having a dictator is bad.

The King of Stormwind is not a dictator. They do not have complete control over the country, and have to keep a balance with the House of Nobles. Hence, the position remains.

The Warchief is a dictator. They have complete control over the country and anyone who dares defy them is persecuted as a traitor. Hence, the position was abolished.

The Banshee Queen was a dictator. She had complete control over the Forsaken, shaped them into a toxic cult of personality around herself, and persecuted anyone who defied her. Hence, she left behind a hated legacy, and no one misses her or will ever miss her.

Everyone misses her. The "muh honor" people in the Horde are a minority.

[Shrouded]

I'm fine with monarchs! What I'm not fine with are monarchs who don't do a lot of monarching and instead act as adventurers/champions/heroes instead of the player characters. If we could put the kings and queens back on their thrones and not swoop in to take care of every pivotal story moment, that'd be great.

[DatToffer]

It all depends on what it brings to the story.

The single leader trope has been pretty used in Warcraft. Both factions had the benevolent one and the belligerent one (two of both in the case of the Horde).

The Alliance worked as a council until Varian and the High-King thing. I think it's time they come back to it, because it really works better.

For the Horde it's a novelty, so it's interesting to watch.

The problem with the single leader trope is that it mostly makes stories about the leader being the center of attention trying to fix his organization, earn his place or getting antagonized, mistreating the others. The good thing is that it makes it easy to write, since you basically have one voice that matters and the rest are supportive characters.

The good thing with multiple leaders is that it allows frictions, variety of opinions and makes the setting feel richer. If done well, it allows all members to be fully fleshed characters. Now the problem is that it's a very easy trope to show "social progress" in an organization, with the very consensual message of "every voice matters". Most likely a council will be useless since it's more easy to just have them shut up than trying to work a more complex decision making process.

Everyone misses her. The "muh honor" people in the Horde are a minority.

I really don't think so.

I'm fine with monarchs! What I'm not fine with are monarchs who don't do a lot of monarching and instead act as adventurers/champions/heroes instead of the player characters. If we could put the kings and queens back on their thrones and not swoop in to take care of every pivotal story moment, that'd be great.

That's funny, because I remember we wanted the exact opposite in vanilla. We wanted our leaders to lead us to battle and act like the heroes they (for some of them) were in Warcraft 3.

[Skirdus]

Horde and Forsaken both got councils because they had the same leader who turned out to be working for literal satan.

It's not an issue with monarchies, it's an issue with allowing literal gods of death to put a psychopath in charge and then doing whatever that psychopath says without question. There's a reason that Varian got to rule the Alliance for 5 xpacs up until his death, and that Anduin got to do the same until he was kidnapped and enslaved by the Jailer