Quantcast

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Why did Thrall make it so one Warchief chooses the next?

FrodoFraginsFrodoFragins Member EpicPosts: 4,848

I'll be honest and say that I'm not sure what the lore is on how Thrall decided on a replacement policy. But it seems like it would be more in character for him to set up a system where existing faction leaders elect a replacement.  Thrall strikes me as the type that would take the George Washington stance of not wanting a monarchy or dictatorship.

I'm curious if his decision on this policy was ever explained because it makes me wonder if they just chose it to allow for leaders like Garrosh and Sylvanas.



Comments

  • SBFordSBFord Former Associate EditorMember LegendaryPosts: 33,126
    edited August 2018

    I'll be honest and say that I'm not sure what the lore is on how Thrall decided on a replacement policy. But it seems like it would be more in character for him to set up a system where existing faction leaders elect a replacement.  Thrall strikes me as the type that would take the George Washington stance of not wanting a monarchy or dictatorship.

    I'm curious if his decision on this policy was ever explained because it makes me wonder if they just chose it to allow for leaders like Garrosh and Sylvanas.

    Well, it's not all that different than a hereditary line of succession such as the new Wrynn dynasty on the Alliance side. With Anduin, not only did he succeed his father as King of Stormwind, but also as the High King of the Alliance.

    At least with Horde warchiefs, there is always the possibility of mak'gora with anyone able to challenge the warchief to a battle to the death or submission and the winner taking / keeping the position. 


    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 


  • FrodoFraginsFrodoFragins Member EpicPosts: 4,848
    SBFord said:

    I'll be honest and say that I'm not sure what the lore is on how Thrall decided on a replacement policy. But it seems like it would be more in character for him to set up a system where existing faction leaders elect a replacement.  Thrall strikes me as the type that would take the George Washington stance of not wanting a monarchy or dictatorship.

    I'm curious if his decision on this policy was ever explained because it makes me wonder if they just chose it to allow for leaders like Garrosh and Sylvanas.

    Well, it's not all that different than a hereditary line of succession such as the new Wrynn dynasty on the Alliance side. With Anduin, not only did he succeed his father as King of Stormwind, but also as the High King of the Alliance.

    At least with Horde warchiefs, there is always the possibility of mak'gora with anyone able to challenge the warchief to a battle to the death or submission and the winner taking / keeping the position. 
    Well I'm not a fan of the alliance's rule of succession either, as it puts humans above all others.

    But so far they haven't done to the alliance what they've done to the Horde with Garrosh and Sylvanas.  And so that's where my focus is.
  • SBFordSBFord Former Associate EditorMember LegendaryPosts: 33,126
    SBFord said:

    I'll be honest and say that I'm not sure what the lore is on how Thrall decided on a replacement policy. But it seems like it would be more in character for him to set up a system where existing faction leaders elect a replacement.  Thrall strikes me as the type that would take the George Washington stance of not wanting a monarchy or dictatorship.

    I'm curious if his decision on this policy was ever explained because it makes me wonder if they just chose it to allow for leaders like Garrosh and Sylvanas.

    Well, it's not all that different than a hereditary line of succession such as the new Wrynn dynasty on the Alliance side. With Anduin, not only did he succeed his father as King of Stormwind, but also as the High King of the Alliance.

    At least with Horde warchiefs, there is always the possibility of mak'gora with anyone able to challenge the warchief to a battle to the death or submission and the winner taking / keeping the position. 
    Well I'm not a fan of the alliance's rule of succession either, as it puts humans above all others.

    But so far they haven't done to the alliance what they've done to the Horde with Garrosh and Sylvanas.  And so that's where my focus is.
    At this point, they'll NEVER have that type of inner-factional conflict on the Alliance side. They're too vested in Lawful Good Overdrive.


    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 


  • FrodoFraginsFrodoFragins Member EpicPosts: 4,848
    If I were the gnomes, I'd be pretty pissed that the alliance hasn't helped retake Gnomeregon for them to retake as a capital
  • TheScavengerTheScavenger Member EpicPosts: 3,321
    Thrall didn't, the writers did

    My Skyrim, Fallout 4, Starbound and WoW + other game mods at MODDB: 

    https://www.moddb.com/mods/skyrim-anime-overhaul



  • keyboardshinobikeyboardshinobi Member UncommonPosts: 25
    SBFord said:
    SBFord said:

    I'll be honest and say that I'm not sure what the lore is on how Thrall decided on a replacement policy. But it seems like it would be more in character for him to set up a system where existing faction leaders elect a replacement.  Thrall strikes me as the type that would take the George Washington stance of not wanting a monarchy or dictatorship.

    I'm curious if his decision on this policy was ever explained because it makes me wonder if they just chose it to allow for leaders like Garrosh and Sylvanas.

    Well, it's not all that different than a hereditary line of succession such as the new Wrynn dynasty on the Alliance side. With Anduin, not only did he succeed his father as King of Stormwind, but also as the High King of the Alliance.

    At least with Horde warchiefs, there is always the possibility of mak'gora with anyone able to challenge the warchief to a battle to the death or submission and the winner taking / keeping the position. 
    Well I'm not a fan of the alliance's rule of succession either, as it puts humans above all others.

    But so far they haven't done to the alliance what they've done to the Horde with Garrosh and Sylvanas.  And so that's where my focus is.
    At this point, they'll NEVER have that type of inner-factional conflict on the Alliance side. They're too vested in Lawful Good Overdrive.
    I agree, the alliance is boring at this point. No iternal conflict even with as bat shit insane as Genn and Jaina, and now i am pretty sure Tyrande is. None of them ever seem to over step in their anger and its starting to make a big ass yawn of a republic.
Sign In or Register to comment.