Just how BENEVOLENT are the rulers in your setting?

Just how BENEVOLENT are the rulers in your setting?

The rulers are all AI's, and are thus immune to being emotionally compromised, corrupted, or making selfish and irrational decisions. However, because the goal for human society of each AI is different, they come into conflict a lot.

on an overall statistic of averages, discounting the Black Emperor (who would drag it way way way way way way down) they stay just below the neutral lines.

The High Queen of the colonists is benevolent but fuck if she wouldn't rather be somewhere else. She manages things competently and keeps a bunch of dissimilar races (including drow) held together in a loose, yet cohesive colonial government and has made a lot of peace with the saner native tribes who are willing to talk peace. Shame all she can think about is how bad she'd rather be a murderhobo and taking dragonborn dick.

The 'Emperor' of the Native High elves is a xenophobic asshole who makes even the colonist high elves take a hard look at their own views and think twice. The Elven Emperor is so fucking haughty even after getting his whole empire's shit pushed by a bunch of other native tribes, he's thought of by outsiders as delusional. But he still is thought to wield ancient draconic super weapons, so no one wants to push him too much further than he has been. He does have super weapons including a Spelljammer warship. He has no fucking clue how to even begin to use any of them though.

Lets see, there's the ruler that's little more than a figurehead in a society that's idealized mutually beneficial political and economic relationships...the quarreling semi-tribal kingdoms where the strength of a leader and the grandeur of his deeds matters more to how well he's remembered than his kindness...the brooding remnants of the not!Rome dwarf empire that have become confederations of clans, with patriarchs working to ensure the survival of their fallen families...the frozen wastelands of the southern isles, where there's no true leader but only a well respected ancient being of the wilds...the scattered drow tribes and kingdoms, with leaders following strange rituals and valuing coin over any loyalty...oh, and the immortal fusion of a mortal king and a dying god that has become an undead demigod with two souls that has slowly transitioned over the centuries from being cruel to cautious to putting on a strong benevolent front, with his kingdom worshiping him as a living god as they have for thousands of years.

Kinda varies, I guess.

Humans are different kinds of practical guys. Except one who likes to chase every skirt and has a literal rape dungeon for special "guests".

Goblins have a really big ruler turnover. Up to 3 guys in year. So it's hard to say. But backstabbing and poisoning are the norm.

Dwarves really do have a notion of honour. Though a lot of the time this honour means that they are going to slice you up into tiny pieces starting with legs.

Elves are dicks, but they prefer to stick to themselves. Their kings are mostly pretty reasonable. Their overall nobility is not. High elves like their knight raids a lot.

The most benevolent ruler, in theory, is actually a drow matron who is locked in a game with Lolth. She wants her society to become more stable and less prone to self-destruction. Which means consolidating power and creating a lot of corpses in the process.

Was it autism?

Liu Bei did nothing wrong and was the rightful heir of the Han Dynasty!

"Every one of you lives at the whim of murderers."

Let's see.

>Zachariah Brown
Administrator of the American Union. Probably the best you'll get as far as jingoistic neopuritan autocrats go.

>Sae Kanzaki
Chairwoman of the island-sized arcology complex called Majestic 1somewhere off the coast of North Africa. Is technically an elected monarch but has been leading gradual democratization and reform efforts due to various things that happened in the past. Is secretly the avatar/part of an illegal Free (i.e networked & uncontrolled) AI due to various things the party did. Decent 'person' and just ruler despite her bad habit of speaking in third person plural.


>Eva Cherenkov
President of the Pan-slavic protectorate. Can't get over the fact it's basically just modern Russia in terms of borders and size but too stubborn to change the name. Not a great ruler but that's just Russia.

>Kevin McDougall
Prime Minister of the UK. Amicable chap as far as britons go, still gets flak for working together with the Theocratic fascists across the pond but alas he knows about the realities of power and his constituents mostly just love him for keeping the job market going.

Rather benevolent, all in all.

It's an era of rising democracy and rebellion, so rulers have to at least pay lipservice to the bourgeoisie. Two countries are going to absolute shit because their leaders were military commanders swept into office after successful campaigns. Another country is the near opposite, they're suffering because their leaders is a tyrannical despot who exiled a successful military commander who was growing too popular. One queen is, on paper, a figurehead. But through a combination of wealth, connections, and supernatural charisma, she's managed to turn a constitutional monarchy into an absolute monarchy, and she doesn't have very good intentions for her subjects at home or abroad.

Basically I've got a setting where the entire political history of the 1800s has been compressed down to a single decade.

>Elected monarch
No such thing.

Elected monarchy is absolutely a thing. Usually it's via some form of council of nobles or a group of powerful Houses selecting a monarch from a list of suitables. The people voting on their all-powerful monarch who will rule them like a god isn't a thing outside of how Americans think their Presidency works.

I can't even tell what is bait anymore.

Not him, but thoughts:
There are countries that elect leaders who then set themselves up as monarchs (Rome)
There are countries that are democracies that simply use royal nomenclature for democratic institutions (I know this happens in reality, can't remember any examples, but in fiction, this is how Naboo worked)
There are countries where the Monarch is chosen by elected or feudal electors from a group of eligible candidates (the scandies and scotts both practiced this, as does the Vatican now)
It wouldn't be a stretch to combine 2 and 3, a system where instead of a political party you vote for which dynasty should be in charge for either a term or for life.

Holy Roman Empire would like a word with you

I'm running a literal Sengoku Campaign.

Not very.

Liu Bei is a perfect cautionary tale of what happens when you fail to compromise to achieve your goals then sell out all at once at the end in desperation because you're a failure.

My inability to remember #2 is going to drive me insane, any history wanks have an idea? I feel like it was a post-war European country, but I don't know which war.

More please

I don't like edgy settings, so very.

My current one features a very good King. The players are trying to find him after he was kidnapped.

Eh... they tend to vary, though there are some outstanding ones.

The retired silver emperor of tianxia was benevolent, wise, and competent, but he has been constantly trying to dump his job for the last 50 years, even facing conspiracies to kill his successors so he would hold onto the throne for more time.

The Phoenix Shahanshah is pretty much an autistic lawfag and is rapidly making many of the nobles his enemies, though he is still popular with the peasantry and burghers for his just rule and the countrys rapid growth in wealth and prestige.

Meanwhile, his great grandfather spent much of his youth as a good leader but as he grew older, went more and more mad and steadily lost much power to his sons. In the end, he would legitimize all his bastards in a fit of insanity and without anyone to oppose it, the country went to hell.

So... kind of a mixed bag i guess.

Liu Bei is also and inspiring tale about how sometimes history ISN'T written by the victors.

As I'm playing Bronze Age in SPACE, the rulers are the sovereigns of city-stations and those varies from totalitarian dictatorships to panocratic societies. In general people are cautious and ready to militarize fast.

The ruler of my space station is a the oldest human alive and that old guy is over 200 years old. Beneath his benevolent patriach visage lies a evil hungry survivor.

There's a great picture for this, but what it boils down to is a political cartoon of "Bad Data In > MACHINE LEARNING MAGIC > Perfectly Accurate Results!". Perfectly accurate and rational 'thinking machines' are a farce invented by early sci fi authors as a plot device and perpetuated by the socially awkward and emotionally ignorant to validate and elevate their own inability to interface with other humans.

Emperor Severus has good intentions and he's a nice guy in person, but he constantly has to make tough decisions because his empire's in a shit state economically and militarily after a recent war, so he's not very popular.

Shah Sherakt is an arrogant prick who ignores his realm's problems and insists that there's nothing wrong despite his northern territories being occupied by a bunch of barbarian tribes. He spends all his money on elaborate festivals and games instead of rebuilding the army.

The great khan of the north is dead and each of the tribes he ruled is now jostling for power over one another and the territories they took from the above places. Some of them just want to see their clan thrive, others want to become the next great khan and enslave the world.

Prince Abelard is a pretty cool dude for the most part, but his wife was spirited away by elves and he's decided to burn down all the sacred trees in the kingdom as retribution. The people who worship these trees, and those who know better than to piss off the fae, are rightly angry, and elf attacks on humans have increased. If you're not a fairy or a filthy goblin he'll probably be friendly enough.

The council of the Free City of Lilia are a bunch of greedy arseholes who are in the pockets of the most prominent trade guilds. Their headman is also the president of the guild of chartered accountants, and he's skimming money off the city's budget and using some of it to bribe the rest. The PCs are currently trying to get the council overthrown and have the grandmaster of the neighboring knightly order installed as lord protector.

These are the only heads of state I've fleshed out so far.

You tell me, user.

So... extremely? Friend Computer is a lot of things, but it's not MALEVOLENT in the slightest.

>So... extremely?
Precisely. All Hail Friend Computer. Death to the commies and mutants!

that nigga spiked that fucking baby into the ground

depends on the ruler, some are okay some are dicks

the dicks however happen to have more power, and therefore are more prominent

there also used to be dark elf tiber septim but hes fucked off

That's a funny way of spelling Cao Cao you got there.

Not bad, though there's no one particular special and enduring. There's a God of Governance who may personally meddle with any Head of State doing a uniquely bad job, and just the threat of that keeps most rulers from going off the deep end.

Depends on the ruler and, depending on the ruler, how they're feeling.

It's fine, it made the baby smarter

This user is right, you know. The power necessary for the title of monarch means that any formal tool of democracy is no longer a viable option for governing. A monarch must have great power in order to call themselves a monarch; otherwise they are simply a prime minister, and at the whims of the peoples' representatives.

>Administrator of the American Union. Probably the best you'll get as far as jingoistic neopuritan autocrats go.
fuck BLUMF amirite guise?!?

Ever heard of a place called the Roman Empire?
The "Holy" "Roman" "Empire"?
The French Empire?
Poland?
I could probably dig up a dozen or so if I took the time.

>democracy is no longer a viable option
Agreed.

Yes, redefining terminology might indeed make it seem like you're right. In real life, though, there have been and currently are plenty of monarchs who have little to no power. Even when it comes to monarchs with actual power, rulership hasn't been hereditary in all cultures and at all times. I'd hestitate to call a system where nobles or other powerful people elect the king, but such elective monarchies absolutely have existed.

I dunno, I think this question is going to be just as subjective as people's views on ruler ship. I for one tend to be more pro-monarchist so I'll admit that my rulers tend to be more benevolent or at the very least lukewarm. Even the 'big bad evil emperors' of my settings tend to benefit their own people while remaining a legitimate threat to everyone else

The ultimate rulers of my setting are the Oblivious Powers (who are so far above us they don't even know we exist, or care) and the Eldritch Powers (who know we exist but give zero fucks and are assholes), so not very.

Best regent with a patrician fetish

Heaven sends forth innumerable gifts to nurture Man

Man has nothing good with which to recompense Heaven

Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill.