Conquerer kingdom in an ancient setting

True, but same for America for quite awhile.

Honestly Athenian democracy is incredibly interesting for a fantasy game. Imagine having to sway the assembly and feud with the leaders of the collectives and blocs that hold much of the votes. Imagine a fucking Cicero coming in to just shit all over the players and all they've done (Again, Rome. Shit was interesting, if different)

It's like asking "why are there always humans in the setting", or "why do all the NPCs speak english"

Is there a system out there that would allow the players to focus entirely on a social party that participated in that kind of gameplay almost exclusively?

All I can think of is Reign.

Rome was a glorified oligarchy with much of the outcomes determined by collusion among the senatorial elite. There's a reason the Gracchi got brutally fucking murdered.

>Implying we aren't also an oligarchy

Democracy, like all forms of collectivism, is a terrible idea.
Every democratic nation eventually falls because of it.

Back in the late 1700's and early 1800's when only white landowning males could vote, and voter turnout was like 2%, it was at least somewhat sustainable, because that was more of an oligarchy.
But now half the retards vote, and their vote counts just as much as the person who is incredibly informed.

I wish we were.
Obviously we aren't, or else Trump wouldn't have been elected.
Not that that's a bad thing.

>We aren't an oligarchy, because the main ruler of our country is a billionaire

I'm curious what you think an oligarchy is.
Because you're obviously mistaken.

>democracy
>collectivist

the word you're looking for is populist, and democracy grew out of individualistic, humanist enlightenment philosophy

>the word you're looking for is populist,
Populism is a kind of collectivism, but thanks for the constructive criticism.

>and democracy grew out of individualistic, humanist enlightenment philosophy
Yes, I'm very aware of the good intentions behind it.
If it hadn't been so corrupted from its original form, we'd have a pretty solid government.

First page of the wiki:
"Oligarchy (from Greek ὀλιγαρχία (oligarkhía); from ὀλίγος (olígos), meaning 'few', and ἄρχω (arkho), meaning 'to rule or to command')[1][2][3] is a form of power structure in which power rests with a small number of people. These people might be distinguished by nobility, wealth, family ties, education or corporate, religious or military control."

Now, doesn't that sound like a lot of modern countries?
Now, maybe not so muh the nobility or religious bit.
But by wealth (Not a lot of poor people, if any, in government), family ties (*my father intensifies*), education (The rich can afford to get better education/send their children to better schools), and corporate (This should be obvious), we are definitely an oligarchy.

So? Still democracy.

You're missing some very key critical thinking skills there, m8.
In fact, I think you missed the point of my very first post.

Not a modern democracy style, though.

.So what kind of non collectivism do you advocate? Some kind of test or bloodline qualifications where only the top 5% decide?

your just shitposting at this point arnt you

The whole thread went from 0 to /pol/ real fucking quick user, it's gonna all be shitposting real quick.

good point

It depends on the specifics, but the best historical governments were oligarchies, dictatorships, limited constitutional monarchies, and very limited democracies (early American government).
They all have their problems though.
There's likely no perfect solution.
What I do know however, is that people end up with the exact government that they deserve.

Nope. Just pointing out the non-sequitur in your argument.

>PC is a king, far from his kingdom
>Conquers a small city as part of ousting the BBEG
>Installs his brother, who is my ally as ruler
>Other PCs surprised, thinking I'd make the plucky leader of La Resistance the new king.

Bunch of plebs every one of them.

>medieval setting
>players immediately expect a noble character to be evil because he thinks commonfolk are inferior

then post an actual argument, that makes sense
because expecting me to know which of your posts is the first on a gotdamn user board, and expecting me to suddenly magically think your point was correct is just plain goofy

What is Switzerland

What is Athens

What is early Rome

What is Viking Age Scandinavia (To a point)

Wait, you think I've been arguing, or trying to make an argument?
That's news to me.

you an aussie, cause this is some next level shitposting
and you ant be a leaf because leaves are too stupid for this

Sweet insults brah
Really got me with dat fresh bantz

Oligarchies

None of these compare to the contemporary form of democracy.

no insut
just know youre secret
you godamn emu's bitch

Oh no, insut.
My bad man, no insut

good

>Some kind of test
Probably. Or at least set up some kind of non-elected vetting committee to ensure that corrupt dynasties can't try to seize power or allow moronic demagogues to get elected thanks to lies and ignorance. Like some kind of electoral college that operates before the general election and then lets the people choose their preferred candidate from the committees recommendations.

Also, greatly roll back the power of the executive (and to a lesser extent the judicial) in favor the legislative AND start transferring power back to the states from the federal.

Generally speaking however monarchies being overthrown for republics was extremely rare, Rome is the only real notable example up until the French Revolution, compare that to various other noble houses that were conquered or overthrown.

If the country was an oligarchy or at least more an oligarchy as opposed to a democracy with an ultra-rich upper class with an excessive influence on the popularly elected government, then Clinton would have won. Trump won because he was able to rally a fairly wide voting base of people that felt marginalized.

Where would the vetting committee come from? And you'd also have to reduce the judicial branch as well, they've got all the insane power now. Their opinion is law, and there really isn't shit the legislature or really even the executive branch can do about it.

>Where would the vetting committee come from?
Good question. Appointed by the legislature perhaps? Or maybe have tiers of citizenship, with some higher tier responsible for the "primaries" and the lower tier responsible for the "general election."

I mentioned that the judicial needs to have some reduction in power, but, in my opinion, it's the executive that's been grabbing power for the last six decades. The judicial hasn't really increase in scope since Marbury v Madison.

In theory, Congress could impeach a Justice, but it's never been done.

You reminded me of a great twist related to this kinda thing.
I read it in some forgettable webcomic, but I’ll see if I can greentext it up quick.

>Be group of friends of various races
>Goblin girl in group is revealed to be secretly a princess
>She has to go back home because her frail father died or something
>Roadtrip!
>Get to goblin kingdom, everyone welcomed by noble general
>Get taken to Vizier who’s been running kingdom for years while king was sick
>According to laws, goblin girl is now to be queen and take over
>Vizier springs plot to legally kill her and take possession of the kingdom
>whatatotalsurprise.jpg
>group kicks ass and, with the noble general, defeats the vizier
>Goblin girl decides that she wants to keeps traveling with friends
>She leaves the kingdom in the capable and trusted hands of… the vizier.
>She never wanted to rule and he’s not only experienced, but also one of the few goblins smart enough to do a good job.
>She just wasn’t gonna forfeit her birthright, or fortune, without a fight.
>Best end for everyone

My favorite part was when the general grumbles before the trap was sprung that the vizier already ran everything so the whole idea was stupidly pointless.

But that does probably mean he's evil.
Good is putting others before yourself, while evil is putting yourself before others, and it sounds like this guy but his needs above all the commonfolk so he's evil.
I mean he could be good if he thinks they're inferior but still doesn't treat them like dirt.

>Rome was a glorified oligarchy
>glorified oligarchy

yeah, that's what OP said, a democracy.

Sparta > Greece

I can imagine a hero honestly fighting for good, believing in good, and also believing that many others are lessers that are not important.

Fuck I meant Sparta > Athens

Whatever, Sparta is based as fuck

Ever hear of "the white man's burden" you dumbfuck? just because you assume you're superior by birthright or magic shoelaces or whatever doesn't mean you can't be empathetic or compassionate.

...

>I mean he could be good if he thinks they're inferior but still doesn't treat them like dirt.
You're obviously inferior to me because you lack basic reading comprehension, but I'm good so I'll spoonfeed you anyway!

My kind of thread.

What you should actually do in this situation, OP, is make it a teachable moment.

Let them start a democracy and then violently inject your historical biases into it until it explodes, treating it like the obvious, historically informed result.

This works on any political system they might implement, and everything else too.

See: Myfarog

It's perfectly consistent for a good noble character to see commonfolk as inferior but still put himself on the line for their sake, either because he thinks it's his duty, or because he just can't stand to see them suffering. Just like you go out of your way to help a starving puppy even though it never crosses your mind to see it as your equal.

I can see it now, half of the people that can vote, don't for various reasons.

And where does one find such fair, lawful and incorruptible people who would make up the vetting committee? Any power structure invites corruption, and you're not going to have humanity without it.

>wealthy businessman spends the first year giving soft bribes so he practically runs the system with the majority of the voting population under his payrole
>democracy votes to exile players
>then elect the merchant as god-king

Thanks for the democracy you cunts!

The only truly stable system involves an all powerful dictator who feels no love or connection to people and cannot die or be overthrown. Because it looks down on all people, there will be no corruption.

All men are equal under the gaze of Friend Computer, equal to zero.

Never had this happen in my games. Players always default to a brutal theocracy, even the militant fedora-tipper in the party. Especially that faggot.

To be fair, in a world of real gods with manifest will and quantifiable morality, there's no good reason to not have a theocracy.

The gods are just very powerful dudes, there is much outside their control.
No reason to necessarily conform to their morality.

>The gods are just very powerful dudes, there is much outside their control.

If they take part in the world significantly and often, there's every reason to conform to their morality or at least pretend to.

Initially, yes, but then voting was expanded to include all men. It all fell apart not long after.

If every civilization in the past came together and failed after some time, perhaps it's the way things naturally are.

Bernie plz go

Except they usually run the afterlife, so there's literally no reason not to curry their favor unless you're extremely shortsighted.

And besides, Good is good. Having a theocracy based around a Good god would be very pleasant for anyone who isn't Evil. Otherwise it wouldn't be Good. It's a no-lose situation.

He must have thighs of adamantium, holy shit that looks uncomfortable.

>>It's the most autistic, bureaucratic nightmare imaginable

So the Chinese after life?

If a god doesn't do well by his worshippers, demanding their prayers and souls for almost nothing in return, how is he different from a king who demands exorbitant taxes for no more than withholding his armies from their homes?

To demand a man's very soul and give him nothing worth even half as much is absolutely horrifying.

All things must fail, for no system or statute may stand against the whims of Time, which devours totally and without favoritism, prejudice, or bias.

To control Time would be to control everything.

Tyranny is the way world works. If you don't pay the king's taxes, he will send his men to ransack your home if he is merciful, or make an example of you if he's not.

If a god demands something from you, you give it or you find a different god so he can beat up the bad god, because you sure as hell aren't going to stand up to a god by yourself.

Well, then what's the point of living?

yeah, but he is taking advantage of them to farther his own interests, ie, to make money.

I would feel slightly more comfortable about this if I didn't feel as though he were mentally unstable.

Living doesn't require a point. It's a condition.

Well shit dude, what are you gonna do about it?

Ancaps have a few valid insights about the way the world works, their problem is just that they think you can get around it.

Power is the capacity to harm people who can't harm you back, and all politics is based around power.

Your right to property, wealth, and life only exists insofar as the people holding power use it to harm people who violate those rights.

If they decide you don't have it anymore, tough luck champ.

fragile human detected

If such a case were possible, then I'd agree. But a god that is full of shit is not Good and no reasonable person would worship him. They'd just move on to a god that actually does his job and gives them a proper afterlife. Therefore you're scenario doesn't make sense.

You might as well posit a scenario where all gods are demons and everyone's fucked no matter what. It's so divorced from the original context that it's a meaningless statement.

Wasn't the Indus Valley civilization a democracy? I remember that there was a not-greece culture that was a democrcy long ago.

>goblins
>forfeiting power
>forfeiting money
I call bullshit

user, Swiss democracy is still roughly the same as it was immediately after the founding.

You forgot Venice and Novgorod.

A lot of people have trouble separating their own feelings from their characters'. They don't really go 'all in' when committing to a character. I remember I was playing an RPG where we all made pirate characters, and we were all rogue nobles in an early modern setting, but my character was the only one who was religious and supported the concept of a hierarchical/monarchical society.

...

First, it was a mediocre webcomic.

Second:
>>goblins
>>forfeiting power
Delegating responsibility.
She's still the queen, she just gets to go be off "on sabbatical" while he wrangled idiots.

>>forfeiting money
Not a cent.
Hers is still hers. Plus I think she looted the treasure vault before leaving.

It wouldn't be hard to make up a less corrupt system than our current "corporations are people and therefore have the right to buy your entire government" shitfest.

Obviously you're always going to have to deal with corruption, but you could limit it by reinstating a meaningful state-federal divide as well as cunt-punching the courts and executive back into alignment so that we actually get some checks-and-balances in the three branches. Throw in some draconian limits on government-corporate personnel transfer, drastically redo campaign finance laws, etc.

The idea behind the "vetting committee" is just to ensure that we actually get qualified presidents instead of conmen like Obama and Trump.

Government by sociopathic vampires when?

I don't think he's that unstable, he just likes to talk shit. What's really distressing is that the Democrats/Left aren't taking his election as a wake-up call.

Oftentimes, players are not into history at all. Their frame of reference is only what they know, or two or three paragraphs of something they read in school years ago.

Does any elegan/tg/entleman have that greentext where the players derailed the OP's campaign to legalise gay marriage? I feel it would be appropriate for the thread.

>Obama
>Conman
>Not a mediocre Conservative Centrist leader who got cockblocked by insane radicals afraid of a black guy in the white house for 6+ years but still managed to make a couple of minor advances.

>le racism card
Kek. The only thing Obama advanced was the power of the executive branch.

>improved economy
>attempted to unfuck healthcare
>droned brown people

What's not to like?

>improved economy
He fixed a symptom, but the disease is still there.
>attempted to unfuck healthcare
Failure isn't an advance.
>droned brown people
Yeah, the great humanitarian. Really ended that war in the Middle East, didn't he?

>improved economy
No, he really really really didn't. The post-'08 "recovery" was anemic as fuck, and is just riding another bubble anyway.

>attempted to unfuck healthcare
By fucking it harder. Even if he had good intentions, you don't get a participation trophy for failing at national policy.

>droned brown people
Ok that's arguably good but the hypocrisy of him doing it staggering. Also inviting the people who's towns and families you just bombed into your country is probably not the smartest move.

The "disease" aka healthy capitalist society was there since like late 1960s. If you're going to cry about how the US government has worked for the past half a century but only point your finger at the black guy, lmao.

no, the disease is the blatant and rampant corruption in the American system.

>>attempted to unfuck healthcare
I, for one, 100% agree that Obama deserves an "An attempt was made" meme for his efforts and don't fault him for trying.