Tell me Veeky Forums what political Ideology do you or your player adhere to when forming your own kingdom or Empire? And why is the reason for doing so?
For me personally, it's Anarchy. The reason for doing so? I want to be Emperor in a Anarchist society.
Please stop being dumb.
Liberal Monarch in a conservative Parliament. The reason? I wanted to be Emperor Maximilian of Mexico.
Feudalism. Because that's how real life works.
The "I'm the King so do what I say or else" based on the authority of "I know what's best for you all so shut up and listen" Political Ideology
By definition you can't have an organised anarchist state with a leader.
I haven't the faintest grasp of politics and my players are all over the fucking place. Pic related is probably our best bet.
Sounds about right
I like a varied world with conflicting ideologies and nation-types.
I am the state.
Oh yes you can. It's called "might makes right". All anarchist situations inevitably devolve into it.
Just loom at Veeky Forums. /pol/shittery is mighty, so they're in the right and Veeky Forums is in the wrong.
Then it's not anarchy anymore.
An empire where the imperial family is well protected and trained to be competent from small on not even knowing that they are members of the imperial family until they complete a certain trial.
The adult members of the royal family are mandatory to join the royal spy-ops clan who are meant to protect both imperial rule while receiving benefits under the table so they don't feel the need to rebel.
Publicly the Emperor is the only true noble who rules alongside a democratically elected parliament that has an advisory role (all individuals deemed as harmful are purged after sufficient evidence was found to condemn them to death, they get no trial).
A bureaucracy runs the day to day operation of the empire and gets culled every 20 years or so when they try to overly expand their authority or become too corrupt/too much of a tax burden.
Free market and low taxes are encouraged.
Calitalsm GO!
Banking is controlled by the royal family and no-one else.
Public services are limited to:
>Roads/Waterways etc. Public structures that can't be run by private enterprises.
>Court of law.
>Military that doubles as police.
>Public schools that teach trades, crafts and the basics necessary for a higher learning (all in one).
Cont.
>A state pantheon under the direct control of the royal family that promotes civil values and duties.
>Monotheistic and other religions that don't abide the laws are purged (no sandnigger monotheism ever allowed to spread).
>Included are :
- Godking - Ruler of all, God of freedom, domination, justice, law, masculinity and war (Gave mandate to his bloodline which is conveniently the royal family).
- The mother goddess - Mother of all, wife of the Godking, goddess of fertility, beauty, femininity and female virtue.
- The son-gods who all represent different virtues and excellence in various fields ranging from medicine, farming, philosophy, alchemy etc.
>The priesthood of the pantheon have a duty to uphold their virtue according to the rule of law and teach through practice. I.e. the priests of the Godking are to become devout and competent militia men or instructors, the priestess of the mothergodess has to pursue beauty, virtue and being a good mother etc.
>Anarchist society
Oxymoron
You can have an anarchist society. Just not a very large one.
Past guess what, anarchy is illogical and thus can't ever exist.
They are just as bad as the communist scum with their : "But that wasn't real communism!"
Go back to /pol/ or /leftypol/ if you aren't going to contribute to "fantasy setting government".
>Tell me Veeky Forums what political Ideology do you or your player adhere to when forming your own kingdom or Empire?
That’s not how empires are formed or how they work except in shitty anime. Empires are formed “because we can” and work because of a mixture of economic, military, and cultural conquest.
Rome and Han Dynasty China didn’t write up “charters” with their political reason for expanding; they just expanded, and fuck all ya’ll if you didn’t like it. Once upon a time before the advent of nationalism countries needed absolutely no incentive or prodding to go to war beyond “he has things that I want and I think I can take them” or “he’s contesting things that I think I deserve”. Rulership was not about the people, but about the PERSON, he or she who was in power and whatever they could or could not get away with taking and doing.
There wasn’t even anything seen as being wrong with this; of COURSE they were going to wage wars and do what they wanted the way they wanted to and not need any reason other then “I want to do this”, they were in fact in charge and they had zero legal responsibility to the people of their nation.
GLORY TO THE REPUBLIC
STATE-ENFORCED SECULARISM
FEUDALISM : ABOLISHED
GUILLOTINE : ALL DAY EVERY DAY
(this but unironically)
>It's another /pol/ thread with thin veneer of Veeky Forums subject over it.
Report, hide, ignore.
WORLD OF STRENGTH
So the Strong survive and the weak perish?
What's the Tax policy of this so called Empire
...
So you're what now?
Not yet, chancellor.
But anarchist society and communism is a fantasy government :^)
An absolute monarch. I want to cuckold peasants and the lesser Noble while I fuck their wives.
The strong die, the weak die, the middling ones die. Everyone dies.
Quite the ubermensch
Since most of my atories are Middle-Times, the protagonist's would be "As long the King does his job and is not an asshole, everything is fine." Of course, the issues were because the King was ineficient and/or a dick.
In one where humans are barbarians dominated by elves who where not!Rome, their ideology was a mix of HFY and "FOR THE TRIBE!"
Did human barbarian succeed?
Humanity fuck yeah is a mental sickness that needs to be treated.
Current state:
>There was a truce between the races, which was supposed to signed with a marriage of the main elven princes. (The truce was that the humans were allowed to show there for once)
>The PCs were sent instead to clean an abandoned elven fort near their tribe because their King wanted it as his new stronghold. The place was plagued with Wraiths and zombies, so the local shaman (in reality, a old dude obsessed with crows who ate too many shrooms) was sent to aid them.
>They win, but they got mindfucked in the process, visions of the end of the world. The shaman claimed that the elven gods got pissed at their children for something that happened right now.
>Guess wot? The escort of the elf princess got attacked and she got kidnapped in the territory of the PCs tribe, so the elf prince instead of investigate put the blame on them. In reality, she really hated her responsabilities and escaped with her secret lover. The Gods got angry at both of them.
>The PCs had to defend themselves of the hordes of mercenaries who got paid by the elf prince, until a undead germanic ripoff of Talion of Gondor killed the elf representant and forced the rest to resolve the matter in a duel under the eyes of the Gods.
>The PCs only accepted to fight because Crow shaman had a vision about not!Talion. The PCs win (they fought other mercenaries because they were still too weak to deal with elf champions) and the tribe is declared innocent.
>Days later, the tribe discovers that the Elven Empire entered in civil war. The King is hellbent in use it to unite all the human tribes, while the PCs and the shaman are trying to find out how the end of the world will happen and how to avoid it.
What happen to the Princess
She dead
Hidden with her lover in a villa, safe of the desperate elves and bloodthirsthy humans letting loose millenia of gruging.
Eventually the PCs will kidnap them to bring them to the Elf Capital before she gets killed by Not!Talion and his army of brainwashed barbarians and hopefully avoid the end of the world.
No matter if they win or not, eventually the Gods decide to send orc!Atilla to finish what not!Talion failed to do. The succes define if the elves are willing to help the unified humans tribes.
Nice
From Polybios to Rousseau, Republican authors have always recognized that virtue is the factor that drives a republic. Because it is impossible to force others to do good while still calling them free, they must be internally driven to do good. Robespierre was right to recognize the folly and moral emptiness of atheism, but he replaced it with the slightly lesser folly of the Cult of the Supreme Being. Perhaps his option was somewhat comprehensible, as the Catholic Church had already irreconcilably turned itself against the revolution, but if I were in his shoes I'd opt for a juring anti-papacy (which in the worst case could entirely split from the Vatican in a sort of pseudo-Catholic structure à la Anglicanism).
I see the value in the altar, but I see no value in the throne. This greatly puts me at odds with established Christian doctrine. I detest Protestantism for its schismatism and (in many cases) disdain for tradition and doctrine, I detest Vatican II for being a corruption of the Church yet Old Catholocism is in bed with the Ancien Regime. The great tragedy of our time is that Vatican I refuses to reconcile with Republicanism.
Is that supposed to be Seija?
Is that why you are being contradictory in your post?
...
Yes
Tribal leader in a feudalism society
And what of the heir to the kingdom
Absolutist monarchy. Reason? Liberalism is for faggots
Starving.
It's treason, then.
...
Good. He deserves nothing less.
Most anarchists recognize that true anarchism existed. Like the mahknovtchina in Ukraine, the catalonia during spanish civil war and some others that i forgot.
No such thing as Ukraine
How about doing it Far East style and instead realise you can EDUCATE people into being virtuous, rather than inventing new religion for them to follow? You know, how modern, functional democracies work - by making sure all citizens are well-educated individuals who participate in different levels of community activities and understand their civic duties and liberties, rather than just having them. Just check the shit going in Central Europe, where after having 3 generations grown under communism, they literally see zero value in having elections, as everyone just assumes "it doesn't matter" and willingly ignore being stripped from their laws or the violation of local constitutions. Who cares, right?
>No such thing as geographical region
user... I can get the gist of people ignoring it as nationality or as a political entity, but it won't make the whole place just vanish from existence. It's pretty hard to ignore those plains or coastline.
Anarcho-communist pseudo-statocracy, I guess? I'm pretty lucky that despite my character being political, he's not the kind of person who'd actually end up as the leader of anything more concrete than a mercenary band or a terrorist group.
A recreation of the 1934 Austrian constitution under Engelbert Dollfuß.
Did you get annex?
For me, it's the McChicken
It was the only way it could have ended. It's alright though, because the dream lives on.
In what form?
How is he being dumb?
Classical Liberalism with access to a free market.
My last game actually deal heavily with politics and war. We started out with a campaign where we were trying to put the rightful prince on the throne of the nation we were all from. After several dead party members, a generation, and a change in ideology, we end with a lowborn war hero becoming the president of a new republic.
>Kingdom
>Empire¨
>"anarchy"
Get fucked son
>No human rights until you are 18 years old.
I still get a sense of vertigo when I remember that part.
What the fuck happen?
What's Wrong
It could happen
That's rather nihilistic
emperor + anarchy
literally cant, its like dry water, any society that accepts an emperor as an authoritarian figure is not anarchy,
anarchy definition: a state of disorder due to absence or non-recognition of authority or other controlling systems.
rule by the strongest or whatever emperor you can think of wont be anarchy.
the best you can get is a mad dude wandering around saying he's emperor and everyone pays fuck all notice to and doesnt recognise, an an emporer no one recognises isnt an emperor
The NAP doesn't apply to commies.
Omnia mors aequat.
Benevolent Dictatorship to the best of my abilities
Truth be told Bakunin wrote that society might even allow the "rulers" to exist as some form of entertainment - they would have no real power at all, but would have titles and stuff.
He would be the "emperor", a guy in a funny hat whose sole duty would be to communicate with other guys in silly hats.
One of my players is currently planning a kemalist revolution. It's also a noble particularist revolt. It's complicated.
That's the thing, in a good number of democratic countries, people look down upon critical thinking skills and philosophical discourse, even when that's the only way to have a truly free and non-stratified society. As we slip back into the errors of our past, I lament the lack of focus placed on virtuous education, on how to present yourself and act as an unobjectively good person.
That's just basic enlightened despotism.
Children are eliminated and memories of them are erase if they show signs of genetic defects that drive them to kill or mutate and irradiated everything around them. Along these two groups those showing insufficient psych power, metal fortitude, or overly conflicting personalities are purged as well.
Isn't Absolutism
I'm just laughing at all the people who supported tyranny because they thought they'd get to pick the tyrant.
This but literally
I take little confort at laughing at others while we all fall in the pit.
Technocratic Illuminated Singularitarianism.
It's all I have now.
Chekism.
The closest thing we have going right now is the tiger-man wizard wants to overthrow the Lord-Mayor of Magnimar for instigating a political purge of rival merchant families using a Plague as an excuse to confiscate their property and quarantine them in the slums under the fuck-huge bridge. The party was blamed as scape goats by the Mayor for being plague-carriers and kidnapping the Grand Cleric of the city.
The other players are more interested in finding a lost Dwarven Sky Citadel and getting filthy rich all while Orogs from another dimension organize the orc tribes in the Churlwood to get their shit together and murder everyone Not Green.
Machiavellism because I know feudal overlords are assholes who have to be kept in check at every step.
Don't fantasy settings with moder infest political ideology. It doesn't make sense to include liberalism/communism/fascism/whatever when there's isn't even factories, radio communications, or even nation-states.
We have each other, if that counts for something.
>kingdom
>empire
No thanks I'm not a cuck. Libertarian socialism or bust
What about the roads
Enlightened despotism is a flavour of absolutism.
Where we're going we don't need roads, or infrastructure in general.
Nice choice
>realise you can EDUCATE people into being virtuous
If that were the case, by now everyone would be virtuous and we'd have reached the point where we don't even need the state. That sounds a lot like socialism to me: re-educate the people in preparation for the stateless, communist utopia. The idea of the mallable man is the greatest folly of modernism. Man's desire towards vice cannot be tamed, at best it can be caged.
There's no such thing as a free lunch. There is such a thing as a free helicopter ride though.
>Man's desire towards vice cannot be tamed, at best it can be caged.
I wonder who is behind this post...
>What is the entire history of western philosophy all the way up to the early modern era?
The idea of the mallable man and the "open the schools, close the prisons" attitude is incredibly recent. It's also incredibly false but at least it sounds nice. If you look at the authors of our political systems (the ones that actually function, not socialism) you see that same attitude. From Locke to Rousseau to the Founding Fathers. The reason they loved liberalism wasn't because they believed man was good enough to be left alone, but because they thought man was too dangerous to rule over other men.
I make all of them Oliver Cromwell. He can be an ideal hero, villain, or anti hero.
> It's also incredibly false but at least it sounds nice
That's why country who focus on rehabilitation and education have less recidive rate than the one with harsh punishment and no rehabilitation.
>Black and white
Just because rehabilitation proves useful in some cases doesn't mean human nature is something you can fundamentally overthrow at will. The very existence of life imprisonment is a testament to that. If man were truly maleable, there'd be no life sentences.