[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/tg/ - Traditional Games

[Advertise on 4chan]


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: charlesvi.jpg (40 KB, 350x455)
40 KB
40 KB JPG
Why isn't the king in your setting an autist manchild?
>>
Because unlike OP I don't make blatant self-inserts.
Also I don't have a setting.
>>
>>82995219
He is, but the kingdom keeps on going regardless.
>>
He is old. He is tired. He is busy.
>>
>>82995219
Because he's an old sick man who's probably going to die soon and trigger years of infighting and civil war. Unless of course the party goes on a quest to find the magical elixir of awesomeness to save him
>>
He is autistic, and his burning need for efficiency and clean math brought the kingdom out of financial ruin after his grandfather's terrible reign.
>>
>>82995219
That's a bold and incorrect assumption.
>>
>>82995219
Because I like to take my settings beyond reality.
>>
Because he is a hero who used his notoriety from slaying a monster to unite the remnants of a fallen empire into a new kingdom.
>>
>>82998702
t. An apologist for authoritarian inbreeding.
>>
>>82995219
My setting is actually in a civil war much like the hundred years war. The ruling monarch (I suppose French equivalent for these purposes) is sort of like an old Edward I of England, an old, successful emperor who insists on personally leading his army to subjugate the rebels despite his old age. The external ruler with a popular claim (English equivalent for this case) is more like Henry V, a young, aggressive ruler who has been leading campaigns to reverse the losses suffered during the reigns of his predecessors.
>>
>>82998702
>Monarchies are good because Europe used to be monarchies
This is the dumbest statement I have read all week.
>>
>>82998702
Some kings were autistic manchildren. That's a fact. Look at Frederick William I of Prussia and his Potsdam Giants. Giving people realistic flaws, especially a king, makes for an interesting story and a lot of opportunities for conflict. A setting where everybody is a generic white knight is a boring setting. That's not demonizing European history at all and I can't fathom why you'd think that.
>>
>>82995219
Because the queen is an autistic womanchild.
>>
>>82999813
>I can't fathom why you'd think that.
Persecution complex
>>
File: monarchism real.jpg (114 KB, 941x1024)
114 KB
114 KB JPG
>>82998702
Holy Based!
>>
File: charles-spain.jpg (37 KB, 700x372)
37 KB
37 KB JPG
>>82998702
t. inbred Habsburg
>>
>>82995219
He comes off as such, but due to the magical items that he himself had collected through adventuring when he was younger, he's one of the more fearsome characters in the realm.
>>
>>82999615
Your campaign sounds super interesting
>>
>>82998702
Based, monarchy is awesome
>>
>>82995219
Because he has to deal with other people all the time so is rather well socialized and has some notion of the nuance of rule.
>>
>>83000028
>Sorry anon we're conscripting you into the war of royal succession, you're going to be sent to the other side of the continent so my second cousin can become king of a country you've never heard about
>This is great yass king!
>>
>>83000133
How is that different from being drafted to fight in Vietnam, or forced to fight in a World War via peer pressure
>>
>>83000028
Sory servant but I need a 10% of anything you produce. Also the best horse or pig or chichen you have.
>>
>>82995219
No, he's a wise old hero who's about to be assassinated, setting up a succession crisis between his brother, his son and his daughter
>>
>>82998702
hows Prince Edward doing? You know the Queen is about to die?
>>
>>83000176
It isnt. and they would be mostly volunteers or people of decent willingness. Because it was expected of you. Peer pressure asure implies some deep held reservation rather than you being raised to think it was just how things were. You kinda want decently high moral. Not everyone had 20th century cynacism. Even Montaigne was a good bit more cheery.

Medieval armies were usually a few thosand max. Even in states that had populations in the millions.
>>
>>83000176
The Vietnam war was about fighting communism. World War 2 was about fighting fascism. World War 1 and basically every previous European war for hundreds of years previously was about squabbling over territories because some asshole in an arranged marriage with his cousin decided he was an Emperor and he was willing to wager a few thousand proles to make it happen
>>
>>83000028
>Muh taxes
Ah yes because monarchies weren't known for regularly bankrupting themselves in wars

>State worship and absolute obedience
>You don't worship the same religion as the king? We're going to confiscate your lands and exile you. You publicly complained about the king ordering your banishment for religion? Nevermind we're going to execute you for lese-majeste.
>>
>Emperor is a decadent manchild who rarely leaves the harem
>his grandnephew and commander of the "Local Legion" is a vain, autistic manchild but actually (almost) just as brilliant as he thinks he is
>his rival is a seething manchild who never got over daddy and grandaddy being paraded through the Eternal City
Your problem is that you have mistakenly collated "autistic manchild" with "impotent halfwit." Many of history's greatest rulers were emotionally stunted autists.
>>
>>83000176
The only major republics to fight in WW1 were France which was invaded and the US which fought for a year, the rest were monarchies, Germany, Russia, Britain, Italy, Austria, the Ottomans. Besides that you only have two wars, which took place over half a century ago, the bigger of the two being a consequence of the first world war caused by monarchies.

WW1 was also pretty much entirely caused by absolute monarchies, the inability of Serbia, Germany, Austria, and Russia to come to a diplomatic solution to the crisis with France and Britain being roped in due to diplomatic relationships and geopolitical necessity (France couldn't allow Germany to become more powerful by invading and defeating Russia). Also the only major republic involved for most of the war, France was one of only three belligerents to gain territories that could be seen as part of their core homeland alongside Serbia and Italy, the Russians, Germans, Austrians, Turks, and British died for no gain to their people.
>>
>>83000339
>Charles XII
>One of history's greatest rulers
Literally destroyed the Swedish empire, if you want an example of an autistic manchild who was a great ruler post Peter the Great who was obsessed with boats to the point where he decorated his half of the palace with boat shit, tried to spend his entire diplomatic tour of Europe working on building boats, and exclusively waged wars to get ports to build more boats (war against the Ottomans and later Northern war).
>>
>>83000447
He wasn't great at anything other than winning battles, but he's the very image of "autistic manchild ruler" and the first that came to mind.
>>
>>82998702
Reminder that Europe only ever was able to achieve its prominency because Genghis Khan and his subsequent lineage pillaged the Arabs, Slavs and Chinese back into the stone age before dying out from alcoholism.
>>
>>82999980
>All other forms of government are bad because they have flaws they try to overcome
>Monarchy is shit and terrible on purpose, therefore it's superior because it doesn't actually try to be good government
The brains on europoor.
>>
Monarchy's biggest weakness is its inherent tie to religion. All religion is dying. If monarchy could ever work in the future it would need to sever that connection.
>>
>>82998702
Acquire pharmaceuticals.
>>
>>82998702
Fucking BASED.
>>
>>83000339
>Your problem is that you have mistakenly collated "autistic manchild" with "impotent halfwit
In fairness, there's a lot of overlap.
t. Autist
>>
>>82995219
Because instead of being a typical stereotype, he actually is a good king who understands his kingdom is his responsibility.
>>
>>82995219
I was actually considering having a tragic child emperor somewhere. Like an empire with a deified royalty, except the poor kid is an orphan and only got religious zealots and opportunistic sycophants to raise him, leaving him to genuinely believe in his own regime propaganda. So you got a kid that can be a good boy trying to do good but also have weird obsessions and wild whims and caprices he never learned to repress when things don't go the way he want.
>>
File: 1641395016540.png (87 KB, 390x352)
87 KB
87 KB PNG
>>82998702
>It's another "/tg/ unironically defends the monarchy" thread
you guys will never not be the laughingstock of the political sphere
>>
>>82995219
None of the monarchies are centralized and absolute enough for woefully incompetent monarchs to last long enough to be meaningful. Should it happen, I can imagine a simple dynastic change with a more well liked nobleman would work, after a nice war for it
>>
>>83002429
Monarchy is literally better than every other system and you need to learn your place, fag.
>>
>>83003696
What's a single advantage of monarchism over dictatorship?
>>
>>83002429
I bet you have all the most popular right news-approved opinions.
>>
>>82995239
>America continues existing despite being run by a literal retard for 4 years followed by a man with literal dementia.
The nation is more than it's leader.
>>
>>83003751
>implying the President leads anything
Kek
>>
>>82998702
Based, but I agree with >>82999813
>>
>>83000028
This a mob of democrats will more boldly trample your rights than an absolute monarch would dream to tread.
>>
>>82995219
Because the players need a competent and reasonable authority figure that they can trust. Now his BROTHER on the other hand, he's a total nutjob.
>>
>>83003751
>A king has as many power restrictions as the US president
Even kings of feudal England under the Magna Carta had far fewer restrictions of power than the US president.
>>
>>83003713
The monarch has a divine right to rule and is trained to do so all of their lives. Contrast with dictatorships, which have no legitimacy and are based on fear/coercion and democracies which are just a huge farce that enable compromised morons to enter government when voting is not severely limited to landowners only.
>>
>>83003817
>You're making me get a vaccine if I continue to work in the medical field? This is tyranny.
vs
>You're protestant in my Catholic kingdom? That's against the law and your children will have to go to schools to be brought up catholic or we are going to force you to pick up everything you own.
>>
>>83001302
>it would need to sever that connection.
Impossible. A monarch is by definition divinely ordained. Otherwise he's just a dictator like Cromwell and no one will support the son and heir, because why on earth should we let the son and heir rule after the great man dies?

See North Korea. The Kims turned themselves into literal divine demigods to hold onto monarchical power.

No monarchy can exist with true power without people believing that they are divinely deserving of that power. Britain and Europe's other constitutional monarchies are all without any real power, so people tolerate keeping them around as a tradition. They wouldn't tolerate them if they had real power.
>>
>>82995219
he's to busy cheating his queen with the party male bard
>>
>>82995219
I had the local lord (a real person historically who acted that way as the son of a bastard child of the king got some shitty island earldom in Scotland) be an autist manchild. Historically, he got executed for treason because he was such a piece of shit. He was relatively nice to the party because they helped him secure a lucrative trade deal in the Hollow Earth and investment from Denmark.
>>
>>83003885
>The monarch has a divine right to rule
It's so divine that the religious and royal authorities can never agree on anything and will regularly engage in outright warfare.

>is trained to do so all of their lives
What does that entail and is it actually beneficial? Plenty of monarchs were abysmal at diplomacy, economics, and warfare, and many kings lacked charisma.

>Contrast with dictatorships, which have no legitimacy
They have the same legitimacy of any government, social acceptance. A government has legitimacy if and only if it faces little meaningful internal resistance. Louis XVI was illegitimate by virtue of his inability to control his people, Saddam was legitimate by his ability to quash domestic resistance against him. This extends to elected governments as well, a democratically elected (or "elected") head of state is legitimate if and only if he has little meaningful internal resistance.

>are based on fear/coercion
And monarchies which regularly had punishments for criticizing the government weren't?

>democracies which are just a huge farce that enable compromised morons to enter government when voting is not severely limited to landowners only.
They're compromised why? Because you say they are, as though monarchs have no vested interest outside of their realm? Reminder that the War of Spanish Succession had zero benefit for the French people nor did it have any potential to benefit the French people, it didn't expand their national territory, secure peace, or remove foreign threats, it was simply a king attempting to benefit his dynasty, which he actually holds loyalty to over the nation.
>>
>>83003860
American Presidents rule nearly unopposed by Executive Action. The Legislative branch has zero power and the Supreme Court only sometimes enforces technical and arbitrarily drawn internal lines of authority, never anything international. They declare unofficial wars entirely on their own initiative and have command of the most powerful military in history.
>>
>>83003920
And that's a good thing.
Religious conformity is one of the greatest strengths a nation can have.
>>
>>82995219
Because he's a deadly warrior and brutally effective general who essentially butchered his way to the throne and is more than nasty enough to ensure that nobody left alive dares challenge him.
>>
File: Fuck Monarchists.jpg (58 KB, 563x406)
58 KB
58 KB JPG
What the fuck is with all these monarchists in this thread? Get shot like the fuckin' Romanovs.
>>
>>83004032
>Reminder that the War of Spanish Succession had zero benefit for the French people nor did it have any potential to benefit the French people, it didn't expand their national territory, secure peace, or remove foreign threats, it was simply a king attempting to benefit his dynasty, which he actually holds loyalty to over the nation.
That does benefit the French people though. Having Spain as a French ally in all subsequent wars instead of the enemy it previously was IS a benefit.
>>
>>83004117
Ah yes. Communist Russia. Much better now.
>>
>>83003929
>A monarch is by definition divinely ordained
What determines that? When a dynastic line dies out the most common resort historically speaking has been for the upper aristocracy to elect a new monarch. If a monarch can simply be selected and him and his descendants hold divine right than the whole concept is flawed and based entirely around social acceptance.

Not that it matters divine right is literally a meme by this point spouted so that way monarchists can pretend that they are fundamentally different from hereditary dictatorships.
>>
>>83004079
So is being collectively immune to diseases.

>>83004133
>Internal dynastic struggles never take place
The house of Burgundy which were major enemies of Valois France before the extinction of the Burgundian line were mutual descendants of the Capets down the male line. Likewise Bourbon Spain did nothing to assist fellow Bourbon Sicily against rebellion and invasion.
>>
>>83004144
>What determines that?
God, you soulless heathen. And that doesn’t even require religion.
>>
>>83000190
What's the tax rate where you live bud, and what are the chances you can avoid some without an agency kicking down your door? Are you able to mow council lawns to pay some of your tax?
>>
>>83004144
>What determines that?
Popular belief reinforced by clerical rubberstamping?
>When a dynastic line dies out the most common resort historically speaking has been for the upper aristocracy to elect a new monarch.
Rare for an entire dynasty to completely die out. Usually they just go for the closest cadet branch that isn't totally unfit. Usually theirs a spare lying around somewhere.

>If a monarch can simply be selected and him and his descendants hold divine right than the whole concept is flawed and based entirely around social acceptance.
Several elective monarchies did exist such as Poland and HRE, but usually those turn into inherited monarchies as its more stable for exactly the reason that you're talking about. Electing just any Noble seems less divinely ordained. BIG however is the fact that we are talking about choosing from nobility. Nobility are divinely chosen just as monarchs are to a lesser degree.
>>
>>83004143
You mean the second largest military and economic power between 1945 and 1991?
>>
>>83004184
>So is being collectively immune to diseases.
Lmao. Maybe smallpox and polio. Not Kung Flu.

>The house of Burgundy which were major enemies of Valois France before the extinction of the Burgundian line were mutual descendants of the Capets down the male line
I know. But we were talking about the War of Spanish Succession. Monarchs being the from the same family just means they are likely to work together instead of fight. It's not a guarantee. I can list a hundred dynastic struggles too anon. But Spain fought WITH France more often than it did AGAINST France after they were both Bourbon compared to before. Am I right?
>>
>>83004265
Enjoy getting machine gunned by your own men outside Stalingrad for trying to retreat from a German tank attack after you ran out of ammo and food.

Oh and those guys are now out of ammo and food too and get machine gunned by the next line of Soviets when they try and retreat and so on.
>>
>>83004190
So what determines that? What indicates that a ruler has divine right?

>>83004242
>re for an entire dynasty to completely die out. Usually they just go for the closest cadet branch that isn't totally unfit. Usually theirs a spare lying around somewhere.
Except not really. At best they tend to select a member of a different dynasty who married into the original dynasty.

>Several elective monarchies did exist such as Poland and HRE, but usually those turn into inherited monarchies as its more stable for exactly the reason that you're talking about.
Out of the examples you mentioned that was only true for one and it only took place as the centralized power of the monarchy declined to nearly nothing.

>Nobility are divinely chosen just as monarchs are to a lesser degree.
Except for the fact that you can promote any fuckboi to being a noble which has been common throughout human history as proved useful or generally enjoyable. Beyond this is the obvious fact that men had to be granted noble status at some point. It isn't as though Adam designated some of his grandchildren as nobles but not others. Some barbarian chieftain granted his favoured retainers lands and titles, the favoured retainers simply being competent people or people he liked the company of or trusted. Ultimately noble rank was decided by a man, not by god.
>>
File: 2523452345.png (142 KB, 314x614)
142 KB
142 KB PNG
>>83004298
>Am I right?
No. Four years after a Bourbon was placed on the Spanish throne.
>>
>>83004360
>muh starving asiatic hordes
>>
>>83004482
It's literally what happened. But hey, at least you can fantasize about killing the Tsar and his adolescent daughters and then making Stalin an absolute totalitarian ruler. Very worth it because we finally overthrew tyranny.
>>
>>82995219
Because autists didn't exist until modern times. It's a modern disease responsible for most misfortunes in recent years, and thus didn't exist in the middle ages.
>>
>>83004435
Cherry picking faggot. Spain allied with France in:
War of Polish Succession
War of Austrian Succession
7 years War
War of American Revolution
because of the Bourbon alliance. Compared to before, France and Spain were mortal enemies. You are a faggot.
>>
>>83004849
Friendly relations could have been maintained with Spain without over a decade of wars that crippled France in the long run. It is due to the wars of Louis XIV that France began to decline from dominant military power in Europe to a monarchy that could only be propped up by the threat of foreign intervention. Even the tyrannies of the French monarchy would have been ignored by the majority of the population if not for the horrible mismanagement of French monarchs.
>>
>>82995219
Beceause his son, the prince, is.
>>
File: night beer.png (49 KB, 184x184)
49 KB
49 KB PNG
>>82995219
There was one, but his uncle usurped him because he would neglect his duties to the realm and spend all his time cataloguing the various fungi in the Kingswood.
>>
>>83004849
Only reason Spain and France had hostilities to begin with was due to struggles over dynastic claims dating to the Italian wars and the War of Burgundian Succession before that. Valois claims to Burgundy, Milan, and Naples resulted in wars with Austria and due to being a unified crown. If the Valois dynasty didn't try to expand their dynastic holdings they never would have come into regular conflict with Spain in the first place.

Since we're on the topic of the Hapsburgs lets see how a unified crown with Austria aided the Spanish people. First off it drew them into the Italian Wars, which while good for the Hapsburgs did nothing but kill Spaniards, also drew them into the 30 years war which was a disaster for the Hapsburgs and Spain both. But lets see where the Austrians helped or might have helped the Spanish.

>80 Years War
Nice

>4th Ottoman-Venitian War
Nope

>War of the Portuguese Succession
No. Not that Spanish victory helped the Spanish people anyway, it simply expanded Hapsburg power. Weird that the Austrian Hapsburgs didn't help expand Hapsburg power, it's almost like putting power into a single individual results in foreign and domestic policy with no long term cohesion.

>Anglo-Spanish War 1585–1604
No

>Another Anglo-Spanish War 1625-1630
Nuh-uh

>Franco-Spanish War 1635-1659
Nope

>Anglo-Spanish War 1654–60
No

For that Spain received aid in two major wars that benefitted them (or at least victory would have), the War of Reunions and the Nine Years War.
>>
File: Osterich Ski.gif (993 KB, 314x240)
993 KB
993 KB GIF
>>82995219
Because he's too young and the kingdom is currently embroiled in a civil war to see who will be his regent.
>>
>>83000277
>The Vietnam war was about fighting communism
No it wasn't.
>>
>>83003860
Depends on the system, most constitutional monarchs have negligible power
>>
File: Spoiler Image (163 KB, 1024x885)
163 KB
163 KB JPG
>>83005513
ye it was about fighting ur mum kek
>>
>>82998702
I hate historic settings.
>>
>>83005471
Why is everyone talking as if wars back then were like total wars? Most of the time it didn't make a huge difference in the lives of commoners. Other than shit like the Eighty/Thirty years war most people didn't give a shit, these stupid squabbles between nobles were just a fact of life
>>
>>82995219
Because he’s an ordained avatar of the state religion and warrior priest without parallel.
>>
Because the king is a decrepit and senile old man entirely out of touch with reality.
>>
>>82998702
This. Non euro’s seethe because their nations were all defeated and became diaspora of diaspora, or were ruled by foreigners.
GOD SAVE THE QUEEN.
>>
>>82995219
He's dead, revolutionaries hunt the royal family in the streets and a foreign power is about to turn the kingdom into a rump state.
>>
>>83005745
Britain hasn't had a British person on the throne since the 1700s, just Germans larping as them.
>>
>>83006072
I mean, before it was Krauts it was frogs.
>>
>>83006072
anon, before the Germans it was the French, and before them it was another Germanic people (the Saxons).
Even before the Saxons invaded, Britain wasn't ruled by Britons. For centuries before that it was ruled by the Romans.
>>
>>83005661
Way to move the goalposts. Armies were forced to raid from the surrounding countrysides until the relatively modern styles of supply lines. Any peasant who lived close to the location of fighting would definitely have an opinion about the war, because their entire livelihood was just eaten and burned. And if you lived away from the fighting, you would still be starved out by massive tax hikes. Why is it that every monarchist talks about how great history is, but doesn't know anything at all about it?
>>
>>82995219
because i hate this cliche and find competent younglings more compelling. 14-year-olds used to captain ships well into colonial times btw.
>>
>>82995219
Because the king gets elected by the nobility and that tends to do some work in filtering out the most autistic of manchildren
>>
>>83005471
You are a goal shifting cherry picking faggot. You were wrong. The Bourbon dynasty taking Spain was a benefit to the French and resulted in Spanish alliances for France. Stop being a faggot.
>>
>>82995219
he was made king at 12 and literally given a crown that lets him manifest basically whatever he wants. Unluckily he is an uncreative idiot.
>>
File: Gwyncalon Banner.png (251 KB, 897x1071)
251 KB
251 KB PNG
>>82995219
Calon Gwyn hasn't had a King for the past 20+ years, since the last King died without a definitive heir, and the Kingdom's Feudal Lords and pretenders to the Throne could not agree on who should succeed.
Meanwhile the feudal lords become more and more independent and start warring among eachother.
>>
>>83000133
You get plundering percentages under a monarch
>>
File: This Kills the Commie.jpg (105 KB, 1080x824)
105 KB
105 KB JPG
>>83004117
Tsar Nicholas and his family are in Paradise and commies can't stand it
>>
>>82998702
I'm an unironic monarchist and I think kings deserve to be well-rounded characters.

Yes, he will have flaws, but the pressure to fulfill his role while overcoming those flaws is the stuff of a truly heroic cycle.

Where's David without his fall from grace and then subsequent repentance? Where's Arthur without being a scrawny boy who learns to conquer through justice and friendship? Where's Aelfred without his days of despondency in the marshes before overcoming his self-doubts and then overcoming the Heathen Army?

I could go on, but the joy of Monarchy is that it's human-scaled. The state is a man. Not a scrap of paper to be twisted by faceless billionaires, not a utopic "science of history" doomed to self-digest, and not a vague "will of the people" to be read by unscrupulous oracles aimed at pitting the masses against each other.
>>
>>83002429
>the laughingstock of the political sphere
Hmm... which countries are doing terribly right now and which ones are doing great? Could there be any commonality between them? Any patterns?
>>
>>83008760
Sounds like Scotland right before Robert the Bruce
>>
>>82999813
Italian here, every member of the Savoia family makes me loath monarchy with the force of 1000 suns.
Just think of everything wrong in nobility and monarchy combined in a single bloodline.
>>
File: Amila.jpg (39 KB, 959x539)
39 KB
39 KB JPG
He was the chosen one from an adventure the party never got to see. the player characters are forced to try to exist in the world that's had its grand moment.
>>
>>83003929
>Otherwise he's just a dictator like Cromwell and no one will support the son and heir
If that's your point, you didn't strengthen your point by mentioning "just a dictator" who was succeeded by his son.
>>
>>83009731
In a way, just there's no England to waltz in.
>>
File: Kingtot.png (86 KB, 247x244)
86 KB
86 KB PNG
>>82995219
what are you talking about the king of the kingdom the party is currently in is literally based on meme howard
>>
>>82995219
In Greyhawk, the kingdoms that haven't been cataclysmed are still too young for that sort of thing to have set in - and those nations ruled by kings are bordered by such a variety of theocracies, tribal nations and straight up capitalistic free states as to be kept on their toes.

There is a very old isolated elven kingdom, Celene, but it has a queen with more of a mommy-goddess complex and also a very rigid court of family members with various agendas that isolation has made perhaps even more ludicrous than childish, like there's probably some cousin that had been lobbying hard for decades to get the pattern changed on the silverware.

The closest thing off the top of my head is Ivid, who is not a king but rather an emperor except the empire has been horribly corrupt for like a hundred+ years and in undeniable decline. Most of the fresh kingdoms were regions in that empire that somewhat recently broke off just due to systemic collapse back in the seat. Ivid wasn't really a manchild though, more of a Putinesque thug who murdered his manchildren siblings to gain the throne and has since become a lesser type of undead to be able to keep it (immune to poison, no desire for women, no natural lifespan etc)
>>
>>82998702
This is the dumbest post I have ever read.
>>
>>82995219
>manchild
He was 17 when deciding to have that duel. So technically speaking, he was literally a child, not a manchild.
>inb4 adult by the times of the era
He was under fucking regency council until he was 20.
>>
>>83013691
*the mores of the era
>>
>>83002429
Based
>>83003713
Barely anything except for archaic rituals and rule being determined by which "special" ancestry someone has.
>>
File: 1633412533995.jpg (117 KB, 431x600)
117 KB
117 KB JPG
>>82998702
unbelievably based
>>
>>82998702
Charles VI was literally mad, retard.
>>
>>83005513
You're right, technically it was about Empire building in Southeast Asia, but defeating communism was the pretext
>>
>>82995219
The kingdom to the west has one. He's in his mid-20s.
All the real rulling is done by a cabal/gentleman's club called the Lionhearts. They mostly haven't killed and replaced him because the old guard has a lot of fond memories of the previous king, and it would be bad form to kill his son. This is subject to change if the PCs get involved.
>>
>>83000028
I'm unironically becoming a monarchist. Mostly because you have someone to ping the finger at.
In the modern age there are hundreds of politicians, lobbyists, companies and CEOs all pulling strings and pointing at each other, passing the blame.
>>
>>83003860
Yes and no. Like feudal kings, presidents power is dependent on thier power base.
>>
>>83003885
>Things that only exist in my perfect world fantasy and have zero application to real life: The Post
He asked about advantages, not your wish fulfillment.
>>
>>83016358
>Cringe
The web of allegiances and corruption in a democracy is too complex for any real blame, so I want a king to point the finger to.

>Based
The web of allegiances and corruption in a democracy is too complex for any real blame, so I want more direct democracy so the electorate can be involved rather than having to appoint easily bribable representatives.

>UNFATHOMABLY based and EXCEEDINGLY redpilled
Both at the same time
>>
>>83005540
Is anyone arguing for monarchism arguing for a constitutional monarchy? As though constitutional monarchies are the fundamental game changer that makes republics work better?
>>
>>83008807
You get plundering in pre-modern warfare regardless of government. Romans and other republican states still looted captured cities, many plebian Roman legionaries during eras of expansion retired with greater wealth than most equites. This doesn't even include the fact that soldiers in republics could gain political status beyond what their station was capable of in the civilian world.
>>
>>83017860
Most of monarchists are larping Americans that have no fucking idea how monarchy is even supposed to work and are thinking about some weird-ass mix of American South fundamentalism (of the Calvin flavour) and meme-tier 17th century absolutism, without any regard how the real deal worked.
They essentially want a modern, militaristic dictatorship where the Big Daddy is also wearing a crown and made ruler by the God Almighty himself. Yet when you ask them about Papa Doc-era Haiti, they have no idea what the fuck you are talking about.
>>
>>83017860
>As though constitutional monarchies are the fundamental game changer that makes republics work better?
That's been an idea that's been around since Aristotle, so why does this surprise you?
>>
>>82999813
>Frederick William I of Prussia
>autistic manchild
That guy is considered one of the best german leaders ever and was the single biggest reason why prussia turned from a corrupt state of farmers into a military power that eventually beat napoleon and unified the rhine alliance into the new german empire. He utterly despised frivolous spending and the effete behaviour of aristocrats, annihilated state corruption, removed the nobility from power, increased religious tolerance, filled the state coffers and built up a military presence that caused the greatest powers in europe to respect a state that previously couldn't even secure its own borders. Even his "obsession" with the potsdam giants was born from the simple need to have an elite force that could handle the long rifles issued to them.

The guy was the complete antithesis of the royal fop.
He established compulsary education for the common man, the very reason any of us can read and write!

If you want a prussian example of being a royal fuckup and autistic manchild: Emperor Wilhelm II wanted to play soldier so much he started WWI and the first moment it didn't go as planned he just gave up (72 hours in), flipped the table and left his officers to fix his mess while he tried his hand at anthropology.
>>
>>83018353
>Confusing Frederick Wilhelm I and Frederick Wilhelm II
I sure hope you're not a monarchist otherwise you're stupidity would even more retarded, like a staunch republican confusing George Washington and George Bush.
>>
>>83018248
Constitutional monarchism over republicanism or constitutional monarchism over despotic monarchism? Because the two ideas are essentially opposites and arguing for constitutional monarchy is very different than arguing that a republic transition to a constitutional monarchy.
>>
>>83012121
Richard Cromwell was in charge for about a year before the Rump Parliament replaced him and later the Interregnum was ended by the Restoration.

Not exactly 'succeeding' daddy's dictatorship.
>>
>>83019123
>Constitutional monarchism over republicanism or constitutional monarchism over despotic monarchism?
Over both. Aristotle believed that governance could be exercised by one, the few or the many and that both could be done right or wrong, but that the ideal form of governance mixed all three. Polybios based his theories on Aristotle and Montesquieu based his ideas on Polybios, and "Publius" (of the Federalist Papers) based "his" ideas on Montesquieu. It's no coincidence that we now traditionally see kingship (or a strong presidency) associated with the executive power, parliament with the legislative and judges with the judiciary. They're effectively the monarchial, democratic and oligarchic/aristocratic elements of governance.
>>
>>83019420
>They're effectively the monarchial, democratic and oligarchic/aristocratic elements of governance.
Only if you're a retard who views the world in terms of absolutes so any non-absolute democracy must have elements of monarchism instead of being a separate form of government. Representative democracy isn't monarchism lite.

You're also ignoring that in Greek culture monarchism was far from the only recognizable form of autocratic government with tyrants with rules of varying levels of heredity predating monarchies and existing up till the decline of the Hellenistic era most notably in Syracuse. It would be like someone 400 years from now reading about a treatise written in the modern era about authoritarian governments and assuming that the only form of authoritarianism we would be able to relate to would be monarchy having grown up in the aftermath of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union as well as the economic power of the PRC.
>>
>>82995219
He is.
The DM can't seem to RP any other kind of NPC.
>>
>>83003696
die in the dirt like the slave you desire to be, you deserve your fate
>>83003730
i do
>>83009350
i see only failing """democracies""" that are finally paying the toll for their ruthless worship of profit, i see no king thriving, there are none left alive
>>
>>83019506
Lmao
>>
>>83019500
>Only if you're a retard who views the world in terms of absolutes
Glad to see you acknowledge the architects of modern America and France as retards. This is fundamental political theory and yet more proof of the idea that all philosophy is commentary to Plato and Aristotle.



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.