Genghis Khan

>He brought order and peace.
It's easy to bring order and peace when you can kill everyone who disagrees with you indiscriminately in the biggest slaughter in human history. This isn't even on the same level as being a Hitler apologist in an alternate universe where the Nazis won, it's far worse.

>It wad said that under his reign, a virgin carrying a bag of gold could walk from one side of his empire to the other unmolested.
Which, of course, was entirely accurate, much like how Alexander was actually called the son of Zeus by a Libyan oracle.

Yeah, but Temujin was busy acting exactly appropriate for his time- in the same way that Hernando Cortez isn't the greatest terrorist in history.

What's your opinion on the crusades? Is your only issue with Ghengis that he wasn't white and Christian?

>What's your opinion on the crusades?
You mean that series of 9 conflicts that were a massive mixed bag? Name me one thing Saint Louis did (morally) wrong.
>Inb4 muh disputation

So what about Charlemagne? The Roman Empire? The Crusades? The Spartans? All were great conquerers, yet viewed in a far more favorable light (except perhaps the left-wing view of the Crusades).

Really, the only thing he did wrong is he wasn't European, so instead of viewing his empire as an institution of law and peace, we view it as the barbarian horde from the east.

youtube.com/watch?v=1rmo3fKeveo

>"Oceanic Ruler"
Way to ruin the beauty of it. He was called "ocean" as in, a boundless thing. He's the Boundless Ruler.

The word Gengis is Turkic, picked up by the Mongols from their neighbors & horde bros, now Kyrgyz/Kazakh.

The actual Mongolian version is "Dalay Khan" - it was more popular as a title among his successors

neutral evil for he was doing everything he could, even if it was morally wrong, to achieve his objectives.

Ghengis Khan was history's greatest Chad, almost 2% of humanity is descended from him, and he conquered the world's largest empire. Guy was a total badass.

>muh gold-carrying virgins

Yes, they were all evil too. Also, the Crusades were not a great conqueror, they were a series of military campaigns that had wildly varying degrees of success.

>posting the most safe and accessible throat singing possible

Whatever alignment he is, he's just a little bit.

The Spartans are a gigantic fucking meme. Basically Romans without all the good parts.

The Crusades were, once again, a mixed bag. The 4th Crusade was shit, Saint Louis did nothing wrong.

Charlemagne and the Roman Empire didn't actively go around slaughtering as much as possible (though I do think Caesar gets too much credit for trying to "save" a republic that was never in harms way and burning Gallic villages just to make a point), and they actually brought safety where once was chaos. The mongols conquered established empires with internal order and law, and then bragged about said internal order and law. That's the pinnacle of WE WUZ-ism.

And before you complain about "muh white, muh European" there are many Asian examples that aren't Genghis Khan that actually fucking fit the bill of good governance and rulership. Cyrus the Great comes to mind, a criminally underrated man who did everything Alexander did and actually managed to make it last.

Feel free to contact Steve Jackson Games, they'll add it to the book's errata on their website.

I'd say he's easily evil. No roleplaying system allows for a Good character to commit genocide without being evil.
I'd say no system allows for a neutral character to commit genocide unless the population was some overtly evil nation, but that's a stretch and no human city he destroyed had been overtly evil enough to pass.

I know it's a long tradition here at Veeky Forums but we've been surpassed in good historical conversation by /hist/. The level of discourse here about history is retarded and based upon memes.
If you want to post about Genghis Khan do yourself a favour and brush up on him on a /hist/ thread, a reddit thread, some wiki shit, whatever. I miss the days we could have conversations about history in a games context, instead of the conversation getting fiery because people are talking about things they literally don't know shit about so they have to rely upon emotive force.

>Yeah, but Temujin was busy acting exactly appropriate for his time
>exactly appropriate for his time
He was considered shockingly violent and cruel in his time. He upped the ante.

>the Roman Empire didn't actively go around slaughtering as much as possible

Of course they did. What Caesar did in Gaul was not an anomaly. The Romans gladly butchered and enslaved the barbarians when they took the provinces, and regularly butchered and enslaved them as governors, because the governors paid for the privilege of becoming one, and was free to essentially pillage the province to recoup the initial payment and pay for his personal army and standing in Rome. Why do you think every province rebelled all the time, with each rebellion of course being another justification to pillage and enslave?

Even aside from the provinces, within Rome itself there were centuries of bloodshed between factions and various strongmen until Augustus finally ended it by killing every other contender.

CE to the victims of his conquests, that's for sure. The man killed and fucked more than pretty much anybody else that I can think of.

>almost 2% of humanity is descended from him
That's actually trivial, you could say the same of every man of his time that still have descendants today. It's a simple consequence of how reproduction works.