[Discussion]

[Gordug Bonechewer]

As copy pasted from http://eu.battle.net/wow/en/forum/topic/3686221284

---------

Controversial opinion incoming!

I often see RP Guilds on the Horde side (and very occasionally Alliance side, I'm looking at you, Dwarves) using the term 'Clan' to define their group, in much the same way many Blood Elven Guilds use 'House' to identify an extended family of sorts (this might not be an exact analogy, but the point is they're both used as a 'societal unit' - to put it in a fancy way).

Now, four things puzzle me here and I'm struggling to find answers:

1. Are there not a finite number of Clans? Note the capital 'C', I mean actual, proper, established, historical Clans. Are these not interwoven with the Lore to such a degree that to simply add a 'new one' or an 'old one renewed' is somewhat... 'Off'?

2. Were the Orcish Clans (to be a bit more specific for a moment) not disestablished under Thrall during the events of 'Lord of the Clans'? As far as I can tell, the only ones still with any kind of autonomy (and this is mostly ceremonial) are the Frostwolves and the Warsong? Does this pose a problem for so-called 'Clans' which are casually established as new Guilds?

3. Finally (and I think this is a question not often discussed); aren't Orcish Clans (and - to a degree - other Clans represented in game) far, far larger and more significant than your average Guild can ever hope to be? The Clans once occupied vast lands, whole countries, one might say, on Draenor and most must of contained well over 100 members. Can a Guild really claim to represent such a massive part of one society?

4. Lastly, as far as I can tell, you cannot freely join or leave a Clan (I'm, again, speaking mainly for Orcs here, but this does - I think - apply to Dwarves as well). You are born into it, in the same way you are born into a nation. It is your identity for life. It does puzzle me, then, that the term 'Clan' is so often used to describe some vague-militant-organisation of the Horde, which includes people who also profess to be from OTHER Clans AND those who are not Orcs at all?

When the above 5 problems are combined, it seems to me that claiming to establish a 'Clan' is no less ridiculous than a Human claiming to found some northern Kingdom which was lost during the Third War and was conveniently 'not mentioned' by Lore. If a Human was to suggest he was King of Alterac and was reestablishing the Kingdom, despite the fact it has been dissolved, despite the fact it's a huge society in Lore, we'd be rightly sceptical. If that Human was to establish himself as 'King of Northtown', a Human land lost in the Third War, now rebuilt for the service of the Alliance, with a dozen people who were previously not of that Kingdom (and had never heard of it, including a few Draenei), we'd just laugh.

It is, to my mind, a concept which has been accepted amongst most Roleplayers because of the frequency with which it is found. But, in my view, once the issue is scrutinised a little further, it all starts to look a little odd.

Am I getting this completely wrong? Has the term 'Clan' been bastardised so as to lose all it's original meaning to the Orcs? Or am I really not seeing this properly?

by Zecra of Argent Dawn

----

Thought that this is an interesting discussion and definitely to the Red Blade as you are technically somewhat related to the tag of 'clan' and 'tribe'.

[Drevan]

The Red Blade's in it's current iteration have always been a Tribe to avoid this very issue. As I understand it, in human society, a Tribe is a society formed on the basis of Kinship whereas a Clan is  something that is born into and generally exists though descent and lineage - Ergo, all the members have some form of common ancestor, our ancestral group.

A Clan is really a family in a much more literal sense, almost like a Surname.

A Tribe is very much a "family" of individuals, bought together through common goals, beliefs and social agenda/behaviors.

Although it's easy to see how, overtime, a Tribe can become a clan?

[Kozgugore]

Sakareth voiced it perfectly. We have always very consciously used the term "tribe" to show that orcs from any other clan can join us and still retain that status among their own clan without any necessary repercussions. It's a banner to unite underneath, much like the Horde.

Still, to answer a few questions voiced in the topic itself though, I don't believe clans need to be subjected to very strict rules in the WoW lore. I don't see why people wouldn't be allowed to make up their own clans. The lore itself describes some smaller clans as it is, ones that don't necessarily need to be all that big in order to call themselves "clans". There were plenty out there, all across Draenor, so adding another one to the list shouldn't be seen as a major offence.

As for Thrall forbidding clans, he's reportedly abolished them, sure, but that doesn't mean they're not in existence any more. In 18th century France, the local counties were abolished in a certain sense too, but that doesn't mean they all of a sudden disappeared. Local habits remained and it would take a long time before they all felt unified in a single sense of nationalism. Orcs will always want some place to have a sense of belonging to. Something as traditional and close to the heart like clans are the perfect way to do just that. Forbidding oneself to join a clan would go against a very embedded orcish desire.

[Gordug Bonechewer]

I think what the poster raises, especially in the term 'Clan' is the fact that we've all seen throughout Blizzard lore that a Clan is quiet a large assimilation of Orc's, more specifically a relatively large sized and more than capable war-band.

The first official 'Horde' in the first war consisted of united Chieftains, but each clan offered a variety of warriors and quiet a large amount too. I do agree certainly to a point that it's definitely difficult to live up to Blizzard lore, I mean, considering the Warsong Clan alone tackled Cenarius has to say something about their numbers. When the Orcish nation destroyed Draenor, we know that they had to have some sort of numerical superiority.

I believe the poster does have a point, integrating your own clan to a realms role-play story shouldn't be as easy as perceived.

First of all, how would one define a clan? A group of Orc's living in one area with the same history/culture (possible same family) and same interests at large, who co-operate and have a common leader. Is this a fair definition of a Clan? Then surely, you'd need a large role-player base to firmly set yourself in. I know the whole quality over quantity argument, but it's fair to say that quantity is a quality too.

Secondly, this discussion borders on server lore, the Red Blade for example, are definitely part of the server lore, but they are a part of the server lore in a much better way in my view. The Red Blade have claimed no territories, have not expanded on their reputation through using NPC's, but the guild itself has achieved it's goals through the people in the guild, I'm finding it difficult to explain myself, I feel that every character is part of the server lore, every guild is part of the server lore, and it's rather their very presence and their personal deeds that don't affect Blizzard lore in any way make them exceptional. To me, the Red Blade fairly falls upon this category, so the point I'm trying to make is, a Clan, is something that has to be integrated quiet well, as in, through Blizzard lore you can check on wowpedia how many clans participated in x event and y event, but by creating an official Clan you do partially integrate yourself into Blizzard lore, rather than server lore.

A bit muddled but it's early morning, to me it mdae sense, I'l see if I can clarify in the morning. Continuing on.

Sakareth, I'm inclined to agree with you on your definition of a tribe, however, not all clans are specifically through family, as seen in for example the Bonechewer clan, the leadership was done through strength, so while the root of the clan may have begun from a group of family members I think it definitely extended to anybody wishing to join, with obvious testing done after.

The red blade does really look a lot like a clan but I think to the bastard nit pickers who roam the internet it would become an issue should you name yourself a clan.

Kozgugore, I think what the poster raises their concern over (again my interpretation) is that as previously mentioned by myself how 'known' most clans are. You can literally read up on every single Horde clan that existed, there is a page and there are in-game NPC's representing it, the problem with players creating their own is the fact that Clans didn't just come and go, it wasn't supposed that appeared on the spur of the moment, as we all know every Orcish clan has deep history in Warcraft lore, they are renowned for something, so there is value in saying that the 'large known ones' are truly the key ones.

Furthermore, in relation to dwarves, I think it's rather interesting that <The Three Hammers> support folk to create their own Clans, but to me it feels like it's done on the spur of the moment, one small OOC post and you're done. I suppose that both for Orcish and dwarven desires, clan making ought to have a lot more depth than it currently might have. A deep and well put together history, records, you know, the sort of stuff that fits your Clan as snugly inside Blizzard lore as possible, without breaching or  breaking it.

I'd like to take <The Blackblood Clan> as written by Varekk/Grunnak as a very good example of that, reading it now again I feel it was done very well and in no way overstepped any definite lore boundaries.

In relation to the post above me, I feel that noble houses are much the same, a Kingdom, especially Stormwind with a steady monarchy didn't have people springing up as nobles one day, and then disappearing the next day. The two most prominent player based nobles on Defias Brotherhood are probably Braiden and Tarvik/Genevieve, who pulled it off very realistically and well, and while all three people are more than competent and capable to represent the nobility, it does feel like it's tampering with Blizzard lore. You're official vassals of the King, while WoW is based on various periods of history, it's fair to say that the nobility might have a similar structure to that of the feudal lord (with obvious differences in the government --> magistrate system, disregarding the entire Stormwind Council as it's player lore).

I don't know much about elves, but I'd feel that if the focus of the game was to role-play these heads of houses, or lords or Thanes or what-not, then we wouldn't be that exceptional hero who does all the fighting. I feel that when you undertake something like noble role-play, thane role-play, Chieftain role-play, you're very limited by Blizzard as to what you can really do. A noble in reality, is possible to rise to the status of King if he is smart enough, consider the Holy Roman Empire during their medieval phase, the barons and dukes fought over claims of the crown for roughly 400 years, it jumped between the Northern Saxon dukes, southern Swabian Lombardian dukes and sometimes even the Burgundians got involved, (this is all of course excluding religion, as religion in the Warcraft universe is very different). Undertaking the rank of Thane, or Lord, or Chieftain is blocking yourself the ultimate goal, of rising to be the supreme ruler of everybody else, and thus is a flaw in itself. As a person with a very imperial outlook in any game I play I am personally always focused on rising above others, so on and so forth. Think games like Medieval Total War and Victoria II.

/morning rant over

[Kozgugore]

You seem to automatically assume that "clan" seems to imply a -big- gathering of orcs. This does not need to be so. The lore has in the past made mention of a few much smaller clans already. Moreover, if you do want to RP being a part of a self-made clan that, ICly, is bigger than its OOC memberbase, that's perfectly acceptable if you just claim the majority of the rest of the clan is out doing whatever. I've seen countless of IC organisations in-game that claim to be bigger than they are beyond their OOC memberbase just because it would be logical.

As for what is or isn't server lore, it can be made into an endless discussion if we were to go simply by the fact of what we can or shouldn't allow in server or WoW lore - not just clans. That's a different discussion entirely in my eyes, but as for server lore, it's inevitable to have some integrated guilds and organisations on every separate server. None of them will look the same, and I think that's a positive thing. It's always nice to see how some servers can be different in certain details, but they never have to be polar opposites, as Blizzard's own lore will always be the same and always direct the course of actions on every server. The rest, like who claims what kill or attack and what organisations or (self-made) clans and such that are involved, are all simply a means to the same end (that end being Blizzard's official lore).

You, or the poster, whatever may be the case, seem to automatically assume that a clan needs to be mentioned in Blizzard lore in order to be recognized. There have been made plenty of mentions of anonymous clans in Blizzard lore however. In the novel Rise of the Horde, a few clans were mentioned that were not known prior to that book, and that was only because they were -briefly- mentioned. One can only imagine how many more clans have been thrown into the fire, as the book itself actually states that countless of clans gather to be integrated into the Horde.

If your concern is merely the fact that the guild concept -might- be abandoned shortly after it's been created, I think that's simply a matter of planning well enough in advance. Regardless of whether it's a long-lasting house or clan or whatever else, they all do exactly the same: integrate itself into the WoW lore by adding a new component to its history. Whether that is allowed or a good thing or not is entirely up to every player to decide and can be discussed into oblivion, regardless of whether it exists for just a week or two or even years. The thing to me is that people should be allowed some freedom into the WoW lore in this respect, as it would be very bland if players would not be allowed some sense of free rein within the WoW/server lore and were only allowed to stick with "official" lore-related organisations. How far they push their IC position or importance is up to them, but I feel the server has done a great job in always kind of restricting its own playerbase in making sure it never got pushed too far in terms of IC power. Nobles can be made kings, sure, but they'll need the support of other nobles for that. And people in WoW are so segregated that they won't just allow that to happen neither ICly or OOCly.

[Drevan]

At the end of the day, Blizzard's definition of Clan and indeed the creation of much of their lore was essentially created for and around a set of Real-Time Strategy games. In wake of WoW, some players have taken creative freedom upon themselves to flesh out the World of Warcraft, and you know what, I don't think there's much wrong with that, assuming what is created it plausible. I think the server would be a pretty sterile place if all RP was bound within the strict territories of Blizzards existing Lore, with no notion to create anything with any pre-wow history.

Besides, Blizzard have broken the lore many many times, for the betterment of gameplay. Can't we, as players paying for the enjoyment of our experience, bend it just a little bit the betterment of ours?

The lore is a work of fiction. I honestly concede that we can add to it, within plausible and believable guidelines. I'm a firm believer that everyone in the this guild knows what we can and can't do.

Ofcourse, there are those that will break that notion and claim to have trained Thrall from a baby, but then there are players called "Epicmage" - So which are worse?  

[Gordug Bonechewer]

You seem to automatically assume that "clan" seems to imply a -big- gathering of orcs. This does not need to be so. The lore has in the past made mention of a few much smaller clans already. Moreover, if you do want to RP being a part of a self-made clan that, ICly, is bigger than its OOC memberbase, that's perfectly acceptable if you just claim the majority of the rest of the clan is out doing whatever. I've seen countless of IC organisations in-game that claim to be bigger than they are beyond their OOC memberbase just because it would be logical.

As for what is or isn't server lore, it can be made into an endless discussion if we were to go simply by the fact of what we can or shouldn't allow in server or WoW lore - not just clans. That's a different discussion entirely in my eyes, but as for server lore, it's inevitable to have some integrated guilds and organisations on every separate server. None of them will look the same, and I think that's a positive thing. It's always nice to see how some servers can be different in certain details, but they never have to be polar opposites, as Blizzard's own lore will always be the same and always direct the course of actions on every server. The rest, like who claims what kill or attack and what organisations or (self-made) clans and such that are involved, are all simply a means to the same end (that end being Blizzard's official lore).

You, or the poster, whatever may be the case, seem to automatically assume that a clan needs to be mentioned in Blizzard lore in order to be recognized. There have been made plenty of mentions of anonymous clans in Blizzard lore however. In the novel Rise of the Horde, a few clans were mentioned that were not known prior to that book, and that was only because they were -briefly- mentioned. One can only imagine how many more clans have been thrown into the fire, as the book itself actually states that countless of clans gather to be integrated into the Horde.

If your concern is merely the fact that the guild concept -might- be abandoned shortly after it's been created, I think that's simply a matter of planning well enough in advance. Regardless of whether it's a long-lasting house or clan or whatever else, they all do exactly the same: integrate itself into the WoW lore by adding a new component to its history. Whether that is allowed or a good thing or not is entirely up to every player to decide and can be discussed into oblivion, regardless of whether it exists for just a week or two or even years. The thing to me is that people should be allowed some freedom into the WoW lore in this respect, as it would be very bland if players would not be allowed some sense of free rein within the WoW/server lore and were only allowed to stick with "official" lore-related organisations. How far they push their IC position or importance is up to them, but I feel the server has done a great job in always kind of restricting its own playerbase in making sure it never got pushed too far in terms of IC power. Nobles can be made kings, sure, but they'll need the support of other nobles for that. And people in WoW are so segregated that they won't just allow that to happen neither ICly or OOCly.

I've forgotten about this thread but now I have returned to wreak your mind, the first point that I've put in bold. Could you please give me a few examples in Blizzard lore of this?

Secondly, oh yes I'm well aware what several organizations have a much larger in character hold than their actual player base, but in relevance to that discussion, those that do mostly tend to be a branch of a much bigger organization, i.e an actual NPC established one, so they have a reason to say this. Would it be fair if I claimed to have a hundred personal bodyguards but nobody actually role-played as such? Why would it be fair? I don't feel that it would be a fair decision on other people who want to interact with me in a conflictual way.

You're right, server lore is a different discussion, but I feel as if you've slightly drifted off the point in the second part of the paragraph, especially in relation to various realms being unique in their own way. Server lore is very much open to interpretation, but the definition I have so far went with is - Lore that does not interfere with Blizzard lore, to raise basic examples, the Stormwind council, the Dwarven senate, the Darnassincouncil, these all interfere with Blizzard lore and wouldn't be an ideal example of server lore. I like to think that the best example of server lore is the characters we create, the ideas we breath into our special ten charaters (or less) that we have. Not claiming huge titles that directly cross Blizzard lore just because your friends agreed with you when you made it. Most importantly however, I feel that 'server lore' should never be treated as something that can A) Conflict with Blizzard lore or B) Be placed above Blizzard lore.

A) Conflict with Blizzard lore - When one creates a character or organization that contradicts what's very clearly written down in Blizzard lore.

B) Lore written by people that is treated as the holy gospel and the actual real lore disregarded.

That's a rather vague description of my personal interpretation on server lore, I feel that it is relevant to the discussion especially to the Clan concept.

I have again put in bold a part which I'd like you to provide evidence for. Ah yes, the book, but you see it does mention those clans, and those clans can probably be wound on wowwiki or wowpedia.

The next point I put in bold, spot on and I'm in complete agreement, but as previously stated it would be to my personal observation that the integration of these guilds or organizations is done in a way in which it does not over-rule or conflict with actual given lore.

How much freedom in your opinion would you offer to people? Would you for example role-play the right hand man/orc of Garrosh Hellscream? For what reasons would you or would you not? Do you think it would over-step some boundaries? Again, why and why not?

I can't really agree with the last part that much as it conflicts with the points I've laid out  three paragraphs before this. I think that once you undertake the capability of role-playing a noble within a set and laid down organization such as Stormwind, that there is an obvious limitation of how far your 'power' can go. As a noble in Stormwind how can you have your power curbed? In what way can other people oppose you if in the majority of role-play, might makes right. We interpret how guards of a city would act from our personal opinion and mostly we interpret this in a way so it would benefit ourselves.

In my view I think it is very, very, very iffy to role-play a position in which you have protection or direct association to a Blizzard created organization. For example, creating a guild for the Forsaken army and calling yourself master general chief of it, or rolling a noble character in whichever nobility you choose and ascribing land to yourself within the confines of the Warcraft universe. I think that if people stopped rolling these sort of positions within society, we'd have more average joes, but that's just my 2c.

Finally, with the last part put into bold, I can't agree more, but I would argue that it's a good thing since history of Defias Brotherhood has shown me that most things that are frowned upon have been created from a group of people who nod their head in agreement to each others ideas, even if they are completely out of proportion.

At the end of the day, Blizzard's definition of Clan and indeed the creation of much of their lore was essentially created for and around a set of Real-Time Strategy games. In wake of WoW, some players have taken creative freedom upon themselves to flesh out the World of Warcraft, and you know what, I don't think there's much wrong with that, assuming what is created it plausible.

I agree with this to the end, however, how do you determine what is plausible, and what is not?

Besides, Blizzard have broken the lore many many times, for the betterment of gameplay. Can't we, as players paying for the enjoyment of our experience, bend it just a little bit the betterment of ours?

Shortly put no. I've seen and heard this brought up many times, it doesn't matter how 'bad' you perceive the lore to be, maybe another person perceives it to be good, what do you do then? It's a personal opinion, and when you alter or go against Blizzard lore you are effectively stepping on other peoples toes automatically who also role-play a similar or same concept. When Kingdom of Arathor existed, they effectively monopolized Arathorian role-play, was this fair? Hell no, but I'm sure we've all learned from our mistakes.

In Stormwind people say "Oh you can avoid the Stormwind council it's your choice to role-play with them" but that's just a polite way of saying you'l be cut off from the bulk of the community who go along with it. There is lore that you can't just grab because your friends bob their head in agreement with you or you think it's badly written lore, it's Blizzard lore, and afaik none of us are Blizzard employees who have the right to change lore. Do we rewrite history because we think it's boring? We don't.

The lore is a work of fiction. I honestly concede that we can add to it, within plausible and believable guidelines. I'm a firm believer that everyone in the this guild knows what we can and can't do.

Ah but you see that's the dangerous game of what is common sense and what isn't, there is no firmly laid down guideline that saids if you do this, you'l affect other people and you might put yourself into a tough situation where you might need to retcon or let go of the concept you were role-playing.

Ofcourse, there are those that will break that notion and claim to have trained Thrall from a baby, but then there are players called "Epicmage" - So which are worse?

I don't really get what you're going with here, but if the person called Epicmage role-play a humble mage who doesn't have three titles and the surname of a heavily popular Blizzard lore character, I'd prefer him!