What would a warlike conquerer who wants to brutally take over the world, yet is meritocratic and tolerant of all cultures, religions, and races be? Good? Neutral? Evil? What class would such a man want to take to accomplish his goal?
I'm basically just asking what alignment and stats Genghis Khan is.
Other urls found in this thread:
jigjids.files.wordpress.com
twitter.com
Lawful Evil.
Genghis Khan was 'tolerant' in the sense he saw every non-nomad culture as equally inferior and barely human, he didn't care what these petty pseudo-humans get up to so long as it didn't interfere with Mongolia's dominance. This kind of 'tolerance' extended to his heirs, and shouldn't be thought of the way we think of modern 'tolerance'.
Chaotic Neutral human (or half orc if you feel like it) Ranger/ Cavalier horse animal companion with bow as a weapon
It's worth remembering he publicly raped a queen after slaughtering her people because she had insulted Mongols as smelly barbarians.
False.
The event comes directly from the Mongols' own history. The Mongols often used rape as a method of punishment and control of conquered people.
>no source
It's called 'the secret history of the Mongols' and I suggest you read it.
I have and you're literally making shit up.
Probably someone like Marcus Aurelius desu senpai. Rome was pretty good about equality, religion and culture back in the day, and their slaves were pretty well taken care of. i would say LN Cleric. A little less Deus Vult and more Barritus.
If the history is a secret then how do you know about it?
That guy looks so badass, shame you cant have both a mount and a familiar in most formats without multiclassing
Correct me if im wrong but i think that if you go for the "Magic Initiate" feat in 5e and play a dedicated beastmaster ranger you can get a hawk and a horse as animal friends, and be pretty swag with a bow
Marcus Aurelius and Genghis Khan are not even close to similar...
And I don't know what dubious sources you've been reading, but it's difficult to justify describing Rome as "good about equality" in general. Slaves had various legal protections later in the empire, but they were often more logistical in nature rather than actual human rights. Aurelius did work to change this for the better, however.
But even outside of slavery, Rome was rife with inequality across the board. Class structures were fairly rigidly protected for the duration of the empire. And when I say "inequality," I need to make clear that I'm not talking about the modern SJW "wah that man is richer than I am" flavor of inequality. I'm talking about certain classes and types of people being restricted from legal rights, protections, and privileges that are afforded to others. This inequality was widespread and significant.
>Brutally conquers others
Evil
>Meritocratic and Tolerant
Neutral.
The next question is did this conquerer spread a uniform system of law? If so, then lawful ala PERSIAN, if no, then remain at neutral, ala ASSYRIANS
So lawful evil or Neutral evil, depending on how they rule.
page 168 (search 175) for the insult, then 179 (search 186) for when he rapes her after defeating her people
Weird how you think presumable forced marriage and subsequent rape is the same as public rape.
Not that user but devil's advocate, public consummation was pretty common among royals. So, forced marriage followed by public consumption = public rape
Its interesting that you quibble over minor details and not the substance of the fact the Mongols raped by rote and used it as a deliberate weapon against subjugated people, including the high nobility.
The fact that the khan's own words are reported points to witnesses of the event.
>minor details
This started because you claimed Genghis Khan publicly raped a defeated queen. All you can prove is that he married her.
The Mongols did rape, but they didn't do so in public, especially not nobility. There's no record of this at all. They had fairly strict rules of modesty.
It literally doesn't say anything about him raping her, only that he took her for his wife.
>They had fairly strict rules of modesty.
Including 'thou shall not rape in public, rape is an intimate affair, keep it to your tent'?
Ye and thou shalt not rape in public,.keep that on the DL yo. Verily for none of us want to hear yon thots crying.
it wasn't uncommon for conquerors to more or less leave conquered states to continue following their own cultural ways, there wasn't a practical reason to micromanage a vast and diverse empire on such a level, it was strictly more beneficial to just leave them be in that regard
Yeah pretty much. Women were very much the property of their man, and secondarily of their clan. They didn't want others seeing them undressed.
Also, they did think rape was a serious crime. It was just limited to their own women - your clanswoman gets called a slut or raped and you have the right to raid the fuck out of the assholes who did that. It's just the "right of the conqueror" to take as well as distribute the booty (pun intended). That said, women who were in high positions like Queens or clanswomen of the ruling clan, were extremely powerful - pretty much dominating internal clan politics and finances while the Orda was mobilized for war. They also hunted and were literate. But the foreign women were in general, not given much at all.
>Yeah pretty much
user, I have no reason to believe you until you cite your sources. Especially since the rape in question is against defeated foreigners abd outsiders.
All you said was 'false', implying the entire statement was false, not any one particular article of the statement, and you were on the whole wrong.
> married her
Sure being cute when you've been proven wrong. Genghis Khan was a flagrant and eager rapist.
Persian history records a Mongol force taking over a town and dragging all unmarried women into a public square, where they were raped in view of the men. Any men that tried to intervene were killed.
The Mongols had one rule for their own people,and another entirely for everyone else because they just flat out didn't recognize 'everyone else' as truly human. We are specifically talking about the 'everyone else' in this context.
Genghis Khan was Lawful Evil. He was a piece of shit that at least manufactured a pretext before invading most places, and did provide a structure for the society he helped build, but it was a cruel and vicious society that made its fortune through war and pillage, at best having a lax hand in administering conquered regions compared to former overlords.
Mongols it should be pointed out have zero sense of humour about themselves. They do not tolerate jokes at their own expense, but freely ridicule their inferiors. They literally can't handle the banter.
What is the value of tolerance if it doesn't stop you from brutally taking over the world and killing millions of people? "Tolerance" in and of itself is basically a meme anyway, it's just establishing a list of things you aren't willing to kill people over, but the definition is by its nature exclusive: You tolerate some things because you DON'T tolerate other things.
And think about this: Tolerance implies that what you're tolerating is abhorrent to you, but not sufficiently abhorrent that you're willing to do something about it. So really, tolerance is just an admission of moral cowardice. You're willing to let people continue being wrong because they're not wrong enough to personally inconvenience you, but if they don't pay their taxes, you'll come and cut all their heads off.
Basically being a religiously tolerant empire that still murders millions of people is actually worse than just being a genocidal jihadist empire, because it implies that you know that killing people for stupid shit is wrong, but you're doing it anyway. You're killing people for their STUFF, not their souls.
>Sjw
I don't think you are using the word correctly here. Mostly because you do not seem to know macroeconomics.
Rome did not give two shits about equality. This was a big part of its demise.
And the slave part is a meme. Thus wrong. If the slave wad in private ownership his or her life belonged to the pater familias. Said one could kill any member of his household if he wished to do so.
Slave protection was thus only available for those owned by the state.
Lawful neutral. You played by their rules and were off fine. You did not and they would fuck you up. Together with your city, so the next ten or so would play nice.
>persian records
The conquered shittalking the conquerers? Unthinkable! Oh wait, it's the norm.
The truth is always in between.
Lawful Neutral, obviously. You do what needs to be done, but you respect the people, their customs and their gods.
>The truth is always in between.
No it isn't. That's just flat out wrong-headed. Sometimes the worst version of events is the true story.
>thousands die so you can show of how big your dick is
>murder anyone who resists
yeah nah, any unprovoked conqueror is lawful evil at best
Your mom is always in between
Until they get bored or took offence at something a single member of the community did and took it out on the entire civilisation. Mongols were big on collective punishment. And any civilization that instituted the punishment of the wheel (executing all men of a city taller than a Mongolian wagon wheel) can't be called 'neutral'.
The Mongols didn't respect all cultures and religions. Within the Yuan court they banned Jewish and Muslim practices like halal/kosher and banned circumcision. They also occasionally instituted religious progroms depending who was in or out of favour.
chaotic evil.
making pyramids of heads is kind of irredeemable
By the Aligment system definition of Good and Evil going out to conqueror people to have their shit is Evil.
You enjoying those Extra History episode OP?
>assyrians
>anything other than chaotic evil
What about going out to conquer people to liberate them from worse conquerors?
>The Mongols didn't respect all cultures and religions.
The Mongols didn't. Cyrus the Great, King of Kings, did.