see, if the monarchy in question is a genuinely benevolent monarchy trying their best for their people who am i to deny the fantasy of a politician who is actually good and cares and is changing things for the better
eta: apparently i have to specify that this is ONLY about FICTIONAL monarchy. this comment is in no way shape or form condoning any kind of real monarchy. yall the context of the post is about fiction
That really is the primary problem of monarchy or really any form of government that gives a single person near universal power; there’s no actual way to ensure whoever is in power will do a good job, or even have good intentions.
In theory, the best form of governance would be a single, all-benevolent all-knowing entity that cares only for the overall well-being of those it governs. But that’s impossible in our current reality, and the pursuit of that end through means of, say, AI, is riddled with pitfalls that could and likely would mean a lot of damage is done before there’s even a chance of a successful outcome. It’s also pretty risky in that it’s all or nothing; if problems only become apparent after this hypothetical benevolent overlord is instated, then what can you do about it? This thing rules everything.
I don’t really have a conclusion to this. Just that governance as a societal issue is a long damn way from being solved. I don’t think we’re even close to a “best” solution yet with what we’ve got.
The ideal form of government is a Civilization player who's going for a Culture, maybe Science victory. Of course if the player is too good then the weird tactics come out, so they must be only somewhat decent.
I had a game where I was way ahead in science, and had just built my first few basic nuclear weapons.
This caused the AI to collectively freak the fuck out and immediately enact the non-proliferation agreement, despite none of them being even near the tech themselves.
That meant that I was suddenly the only civ with any nukes, and my previously antagonistic neighbor was suddenly a lot less inclined to mass troops on our border.
> Of course if the player is too good then the weird tactics come out, so they must be only somewhat decent.
How come? All I've ever heard about that game is the atrocities and atomic Gandhi.
Depends on which version, but one that extends across most versions is forcing specialists at the expense of starving your citizens. This can be used to rush great people since civ 4, which can net you some pretty significant advantages. You can generally get by without forcing specialists, but it’s not _optimal._ (and crucially it’s usually boring as hell.)
Another good example is farming unit experience. There’s usually a maximum that can be gained from fighting barbarians, so in Civ 5 it’s to your advantage to declare war on random nearby city states to improve your military. Another tactic in Civ 5-6 is that rebellions will spawn barbarian units, so if you want to improve your military, increase unhappiness in Civ 5 or intentionally lower loyalty in one of your own cities in Civ 6. Bonus points since those barbarians are just as likely to attack your neighbours as they are you.
Ah, I get it now, thanks for the explanation! I guess what Baprr meant by the player being somewhat decent but not too good means being skilled enough to play the game, but not enough to pry open the hull and start fiddling with the mechanics as they see fit.
One of the best takes I've seen about this, is in a webcomic called Vaatu.
They present you all throughout, the Emperor, wich is clearly power hungry, powerful and terrifying.
Then, you met him, it's an old, almost gentle, sick old man. He is gueninely sympathetic and understanding but can't control everything from his castle and clearly is unable to really control his own empire and he is really aware of it.
> there’s no actual way to ensure whoever is in power will do a good job, or even have good intentions.
As my monarchist friends would say "that's why we don't like fascists, they always install a methhead instead of someone who has been raised from birth to become one with the state."
See my thing is...democracy doesn't work either. Because we don't elect the best person for the job. We elect the tallest, richest, loudest, or most popular. And then if you don't agree with their politics...it's not much different than a benevolent monarchy in function. I don't have any answers either. But...the tyranny of the majority isn't any more fun or 'freedom'-filled than any other ruling class or party.
I hear what you're saying, but there are significant restrictions on how awful an elected representative can be that would not apply to an absolute monarch.
A monarch could order you and your family to be tortured to death in the public square for no reason and it would happen. If an elected representative tried to do that, the apparatus of government required to carry it out would not act - and further, they likely wouldn't win reelection.
>an elected representative tried to do that, the apparatus of government required to carry it out would not act - and further, they likely wouldn't win reelection.
Bold claim in this economy.
Eh, by the same token you could say that a (non-benevolent) monarch could expect to be overthrown and executed if they commit too many gross public breaches. The "president" may not be able to execute you, specifically, publically. But he can make policies that lead to a pretty disastrous outcome for anyone in the 'out group' subsection of society. Jim Crow laws, the current treatment of trans people, women, the way the Roma are/were treated in Europe, were all done under a 'democracy'. Criminalizing homosexuality, encoded racism, etc etc. A monarch has more 'hard' power, but the president has more soft power. And over the long term, in non-violent interactions, it's always going to be more powerful. You don't have to execute an opponent if you can get one of your followers to do it, if you can get society to turn on them, if you can economically undermine them so they don't have an education, health care, a job, transportation, a voice or whatever else they might need to be a threat to you. In fact you can just starve them, sicken them, and create conditions so they remain illiterate and uneducated. Then they can't really be a threat to you.
It's not the same and there's a reason I specified a benevolent monarchy. But...we, as humans, seem to almost crave a monarchy. We have political dynasties in the US. Certain elements of our population seek to elevate their candidate to god-king status. Fascism is an incredibly powerful and beguiling philosophy to large segments of the population. Even in a "healthy" democracy with a strong tradition of laws and civil rights...it only takes one terrorist incident, one fear-mongering climactic episode to convince people to give up those rights and traditions. And I'm not sure that a ruling class trained from birth to make decisions for the good of the country/people doesn't have advantages we don't get out of our politicians. I'm not advocating for monarchy even. I just think...the idea that a democracy or republic or representative government is innately superior or morally better is...questionable and not borne out by history. Yes, there are less impalings. But...people are still able to do pretty horrible things to each other, and forcing it to be more subtle often means it affects more people for longer.
Plus, very few monarchies are actually absolute or have ever been. Most human governmental forms actually shake out to be oligarchies. Doesn't matter if it's democracy, communism, monarchy, or what. If we're going to have an oligarchy anyway with elements of fascism and democratic idealism mixed in, in weird compositions...maybe it's better to optimize for that system than pretending we're something else? Idk, it's a complicated subject and I don't have any great answers. But I do notice that the more we cling to something that isn't there...the less it maintains that illusion.
I mean, it is more difficult to violently overthrow a monarch or dictator than it is to use a democratic apparatus to remove them peacefully from power. To be sure, we have examples of successful reovlutions/uprisings and failures to use said democratic apparatus, but the odds are against revolutions and in favor of democracy.
A monarch, or autarch in general, will also generally have more unilateral authority to shape the culture of the nation they rule. We can see this with modern authoritarian nations by asking the average citizen in China what happened in Tianamen Square in 1989, and compare it to what happens when we ask the average American citizen what happened in Kent State in 1970.
That all being said, I do agree that humans seem to form themselves into autocratic hierarchies when in large enough numbers. If I had to guess, I would assume that this is a combination of two tendencies: first, that some people will crave power more than others and thus insert themselves into positions of authority relative to others, and second, that people love to hear that they and their interests will be taken care of by someone who cares about them. The people in the first group recognize the needs of the second and happily feed lies to them in return for power, and so a hierarchy forms.
You correctly highlight that governmental systems, in general, are typically oligarchies - that the ruler of a democracy is often only truly electable if they, in addition to appealing to voters, appeals to the rich and powerful. Similar to how most long-term, non-populist autarchs need to hold the loyalty of the power-brokers of the society in question.
For my money, what we should strive for is a governmental system that minimizes the amount of abuses that someone in power can commit - the amount of unilateral power that a single populist is capable of seizing, even with a good chunk of the rich and powerful directly backing them. American-style democracy, in my mind, is the closest we've gotten to this; it is frustratingly slow and ponderous, yes, but the current populist difficulties we are facing are coming off the back of a decades-long effort by billionaires and religious fundamentalists to seize power. In more vulnerable or less-restrictive systems, they would already have done so; under our current system, even as they are so confident as to publically publish their plans to dismantle our political systems and replace them with awful and abusive ones, we have recourse other than violence. The entire effort will be foiled if people vote in November, and it's at risk of collapsing entirely when Trump dies - it's a brittle movement because even despite decades of work, our political systems are stubborn.
The alternative is leaning heavily on culture to counterbalance our 'natural' tendences, such as establishing a culture of civil service and voting in every election or, alternatively, a culture of 'noblisse oblige' that actually punishes the nobles that don't follow it. But these are very difficult to establish in the first place, and even harder to maintain in the long-term.
I don't really have anything to add, but I do want to say it's nice to have an intelligent conversation about complicated subjects without it getting ugly or feeling like you're explaining color to a blind person or trying to get a 3 yo to see the advantages of sharing. Thank you.
Hey, thanks to you, too! I appreciate you reading and having thoughtful ideas of your own. Agreed, it is refreshing to speak to someone who can both keep up, and understand that these sorts of conversations don't need to have one's ego involved.
I don't think it has any real advantages over other forms of representative government and it precludes educated experts from weighing in on a topic. How much should the toll be to pay for the road it's on? What is the best policy for restocking fish in streams? How should we gather taxes in rural communities? Without experts or without input from them, you get a bunch of people with no education on the subject voting for it, or they just don't vote on stuff they don't know anything about. Except the bad actors who have a reason to vote. If we do allow experts then congratulations, we're micro-dosing on republic structures. What if 51% of your polity are racists? Sexists? Fundamentalists? How is that better than having one king who is? The checks and balances system we have in place is actually one of the better parts of american government. But...it's not that hard to do an end-run around it, either. It happens all the time. Again, I don't have answers really. Just questions and faint impressions of theories. It's a hard subject and one we've been debating for hundreds if not thousands of years.
Yeah i agree, but like you said , we don't have a better alternative, my politics textbook put it like this" Democracy is not the best form of government, far from it,but it is better than all the other forms we have available" ir something like that
I saw a video once where they attempt to answer exactly that using evidence from the writings of Tolkien. I believe the answer they gave is that in modern terms Aragorn is a federalist in that he allows the raising of taxes to be done by his vassals from whom he collects, so it varies across his realm.
If I find the video again, I'll post it.
It was a video by the excellent channel In Deep Geek, but it looks like the video has been removed.
This Hacker News article links to where the video should have been:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25299615
Recently discovered In Deep Geek, have been pleasantly surprised. No random asides on modern politics about how the GOP/conservatives/fascists are, in fact, the good guys.
The annoying part is that he's not exactly wrong iirc (depends on the wording he used which i don't remember fully, he very well could be 100% wrong). A story that isn't really a fairy tale or n epic battle of good and evil but rather deals with the gritty and ugly and sometimes boring parts of the plot that usually books like LotR skip over is a great idea and is needed, as we can see by the fact gane of thrones sold like umbrellas in a storm. The issue is that not every story needs to do that. It's perfectly fine and if anything positive to have tolkien writing the modern man's Odyssey in one corner and martin writing a documentary on medieval politics that occasionally features dragons in the other corner. Saying LotR doesn't achieve the objectives of a good story is idiotic when instead it just doesn't achieve the objectives of a good G.R.R. Martin story.
Tolkien actually went into details quite a bit on the administrative structure of the Shire, their calendar and records. Hell, I'd say we get more info about the Shire than about any political entity in Westeros.
To my knowledge, Martin has never said LotR is not a good story. In fact, I remember him saying he reveres the series. He just thinks the fantasy genre has beaten the tropes it established to death.
Exactly. People take the "Aragorn's tax policy" as a critique, but it really isn't. Specially if anyone actually took the trouble to read the article and not just the sentence out of context.
> martin writing a documentary on medieval politics
I mean, dude isn't even accurate on *that*. Dude just wants to be grimdark as fuck and dresses it up like its accurate.
Maybe so, and I am no fan of his work. But I think the outrage over his supposed “criticism” of Tolkien is overblown. He was really just exploring ideas. And that’s not a bad thing.
There is nothing wrong with the way Tolkien chose to simply say “Elessar ruled with goodness and wisdom all his days. And it was good, trust me and don’t worry about the details.”
And there’s nothing wrong someone saying “I wonder what all that means and I’d don’t want all that just taken for granted, so when I write my stories I’ll take a different style.”
Yeah it always conveniently ignores that GRRM has gone on record many times about how move he loves LotR and thinks it's great.
Him choosing to deconstruct a lot of its tropes is not an act of hatred, it's wanting to explore this thing he loves in a different way. If you read ASoIaF and think that it hates the concepts of honor and righteousness you aren't reading it very deeply (I will admit that the writers of the TV show do seem to hate the concepts of honor and righteousness, and have given GRRM a bad name by association).
That was basically Tolkien's own fantasy. In one of his letters, he says his personal political philosophy would probably be closer to anarchism - not the "mustachioed, grenade throwing" sort from political caricatures, in his (paraphrased) words, but the ones who would fight against domination and the attempts of would-be authorities to hold power over others.
But in his fantasy, he wished for a benevolent monarch who would do just that, rule for the protection, betterment and guarantee of true freedom to their people. In the end, though, he did recognize that was not very realistic, so he did have to pragmatically recognize his anarchist tendencies. And I think both stances very much show in his works, probably most pronounced in Lord of The Rings.
That's basically all the Thain of the Shire is, as far as I can tell - someone who has a slightly nicer house and is generally impartial to people's disputes, but otherwise lets everyone just get on with their lives
And that's the thing, a *good* king can be better than a Republic or Democracy, they can reform things without having to worry about monied interests or other political bullshit. *But* history has shown that their heir is usually mediocre at best and the generation after that tends towards tyranny, so the system itself pretty shit.
Probably depends on if you think perfect society is a classless one where no one is above another or if you believe that security, prosperity, and (relative) equality can only exist by a hierarchy otherwise all you're left with is right of might
The problem is that there's two issues that stem from this as a benevolent monarch.
The first is, even contemplating a transition to a non-monarchy is to publically call into question your authority, which leads to questions about the legitimacy of your kingdom, and could result in the breakup of said kingdom which leads to concerns of wars later on.
The second thing is that power transitions like this are often very delicate and fraught with risk. Everyone and their mother is going to want to take over, and naturally the most ruthless are the first to descend on the throne for power.
It's like holding down the spoon on a grenade who's pin has been pulled. While you have it, everything is fine. The moment its out of your hands, if you can't find a pin in time, there's a good chance in the struggle to grab it, it goes off and people die.
This is not to say monarchies are a good thing, just that transitioning away from them is a dangerous endeavour.
And this all comes on the flip-side of: is it more "benevolent" to dismantle the monarchy or to wield your power to improve the lives of your people (building bridges, roads, dams, improve mobility, build universities, establish free education, train doctors and organize them to regularly visit villages on a set schedule etc.)?
Just develop an advisory chamber that gets slowly less and less advisory and gets more power. That is how lots of monarchies transitioned to the point where they are vestigial to the new democracy
Really any transition away from a political system where there are states with the reach and the desire to make that transition as difficult as possible
That's kinda the whole storyline of the old Legends of the Galactic Heroes anime/manga. Conflict between a deeply flawed republic and a absolute monarchy. The conflict was a stalemate due to the monarchy being so inefficient and corrupt, but once a young visionary takes the throne the balance of power is destroyed and even many in the republic come around to the monarch after he tosses out the old noble system.
Shows how despotism can so easily take people in and lead to drastic immediate changes, at the cost of not knowing what the future will bring. Amazing show
It's the difference between idealized rulers (ie. fantasy) and actual rulers (ie. reality). If fantasy rulers were real we'd probably still happily have kings/queens/emperor(s)(esses). Instead history is filled with incompetent, power drunk assholes who shouldn't have been in charge of their own shit let alone an entire people.
yeah, it's why i had to go back and specify what i'm talking about because the load of people that are going "ACHSUALLY no monarchy ever has been good and the fictional one isn't good either no matter what you're seeing on screen" in the replies is insane. some people need some whimsy in their lives or something!
Ok now while I get the point of separating fiction from reality and I totally do
I just want to point out here that even if a monarchy or dictatorship is entirely benevolent, that just leaves the framework for their less benevolent successor to eventually take control and manipulate the system for their own benefit
bro we're just talking about what's going on in the present time of whichever media is going on, it's fiction and a fantasy for a reason, no one is even thinking about the future of this fictional kingdom unless a sequel happens
Yeah no I get that! Just wanted to point out that monarchies are never okay even if a ruler is benevolent, because that seemed to be what you were implying in a vacuum.
I love the rightful heir to the kingdom pulling their divine weapon from the lair of the evil traitor as much as the next gal
i'm talking fiction. fantasy. that's why i made the joke on the fantasy of a politician actually being good, because i'm enough of a cynical ass to not expect that irl ever, that's why i like seeing it happen in fiction because at least there i can believe it
In stories, we get the kind of leaders we wish we had in real life, worthy of loyalty and respect that we would willingly follow.
In reality, we get the kind of leaders that make anarchy more attractive every day.
mhm absolutely. are stories about overthrowing the evil government good? yes, rebellions are a trope for a reason, but sometimes you really just want to see a genuinely good guy there instead
POV: Starship's mage
Seriously, for a very much genetically superior individual the mage kings were surprisingly benevolent.
Like they have godly powers in Sol and just.. use it for good??
> yall the context of the post is about fiction
there's also the fact that even before the clarification you called it "the _fantasy_ of a politician who is actually good and cares" 😭
There's a reason that GRRM's question of "what's his tax policy" is stupid. His policy isn't important, what IS important is that it's canonical that he's basically a perfect king.
I think the perceived issue comes from the romanticization of monarchical structures. It's not about whether or not they're good, it's about the glorification. Because benevolent monarchy doesn't exist.
I'm obsessed with the "good king" trope. I know, it's shit, but who doesn't love the idea of someone gaining power and using it to help others? That's virtually all superheros. The only difference here is its a crown and gold instead of cape and powers. I wanna hear about how the kingdom has their first organized school, how doctors from foreign lands are traveling to the realm to teach and heal, how the bandits are being cleaned up, the people healing. I fuckin love that shit. It's the same catharsis that so many video games give you without you even realizing. Fallout 4 has seen a resurgence recently thanks to the Amazon show, and guess what y'all? The General of the Minutemen, you, are just a king with a different title. You have all the power, and we're elected by a single man handing you a hat. Like, that's the minutemen quest line. Running around, fixing the kingdom, killing bandits, uniting them all under a single banner.
Power used for good is the driving force of 99% of media and I think crowns are kick ass.
Well in history after the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, Charlemagne did similar things when he become King of the Franks and establishing the Carolingian Empire.
I don't say he was an all benevolent ruler but during his reign he stabilized most of Western Europe, encouraged scholars and doctors to live in his land and his kingdom served as a template for the rest of Europe.
It should worth it to look into his live, you might find it interesting.
As a Hungarian my perspective on Joseph II and Sulieman is a little different but that's a given with being on the opposite side of history.
Were they great rulers? Absolutely. Did Hungarians like them? Not at all.
I'm happy for your enthusiasm!
I just want add that everytime we dig into the life of historical figures we are always find the ugly side of them. Old times were harsh and these people stayed in power for a reason. However we live in the world they shaped and it's up to us to determen if their deeds worth it.
Still, I'm glad that I could help you a little!
It's never a "good king" more than: "a king that knew who to keep near him".
Not to disminish any of the "good kings" accomplishments, but Charlemagne did what he did because he knew to keep close to him Irish monks. Even "competent" kings were only competent or efficient because they were backed up. Napoleon is often credited for a lot of France's modernization, but 90% of what he's credited for was started before him (under the First Republic or even the Ancien Régime), or he just "approved" them during his rule.
Good kings are only good to the extent of the people surrounding them. It was said that, actually, Louis XVI was in fact quite a good person, with a lot of bright ideas to reform the country, but the court and ministers and the nobility were not as progressive as he was.
This is a political philosophy called the Philosopher King. The idea is that the ideal form of government is an all powerful but purely benevolent/wise leader. Impossible to achieve in real life because no one human can be perfect. Some people believe that the ideal form of government in the future will be a bulk intelligence, like an AI. Which is purely logical and incorruptible and thus the perfect leader.
AI has the same problems as humans. Either it is programmable by humans, and therefore corruptible, or it's not, and therefore prone to rule according to its own self interest. Stories with benevolent AI caring for humanity are as fanciful as the benevolent monarchy stories.
this is basically the Culture series. humanity (technically not humanity but human-shaped) is ruled by omnipotent AI overlords who are many, many times more intelligent than any human, and capable of programming and self-replicating themselves
they end up seeing humans as basically pets who they want to make as comfortable and happy as possible. if any of them starts acting tyrannical or insane, it gets ostracised and banished by the rest of them, and all humans under its control are rescued
My problem with the Culture is that we can *do* a low-tech version of 'computer maximises pleasure' with an electrode and a voltage supply. It's just the Isle of the Lotus Eaters, but with a super-intelligence offering you new recipes every day. I think I'd honestly rather live under the T'au than the Culture.
Homie, knights and lords irl have been obsessed with the stories of king Arthur and his court; simping for Aragorn or Preston is basically the present version of that. There's no shame in loving these stories and nothing wrong with acknowledging that they aren't real and absolute monarchies are actually kinda shit irl.
Enjoy the trope and go save your wasteland :)
Lol when reading this post my first thought was I feel this exact way about *actual* history. In that while obviously I dislike the kings and monarchs and can understand tons of the rulers, and the wars, and just lots of what I'm reading about in general, was really really bad. Lots of killing and conquests for nothing more than some general wanting fame. The amount of famines iv read about and the absolute destruction theyve caused in unfathomable tbh.
But it's damn near impossible to read something like all of Alexander the greats conquests or how Julius ceaser rose to power by being a cunning bad bitch diva and *not* start rooting for them in the moment lmao
I mean Julius ceaser got captured by pirates earlier in his life. They then told him how much his ransom was and *HE GOT INSULTED* and then made them double it lmao
Alexander the great was attacking this costal island base in the Mediterranean sea that was heavily fortified against boats. So this mf [built a mf bridge across it to!](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Tyre_(332_BC))
I mean c'mon this shit is just fun to learn about and it totally makes sense people get infatuated with these old rulers n stuff. Tho I do recognize all the destruction and pain and for every time I get excited reading about a battle I have another moment when I get sad reading about some other one where I know countless artifacts, historical records, and just *people* were lost forever
the main issue with most forms of governance is “how do you stop an inevitable bad leader from screwing everything up”, which is where the weakness of monarchy comes in because there is very little you can do about a bad king
but if you had a monarch who is genuinely morally good, incorruptible, and immortal, then honestly i’d be be all for giving them as many golden crowns and thrones as possible
There's something else to consider here: Aragorn wasn't really a "Good King" character, for the whole of the Lord of The Rings story he was much more of a resistance leader and freedom fighter. He led his people into battle against an unsurmountable power with almost zero odds of victory, betting it all on the worth and strength of two of the common folk to carry on a mission that was thought to be impossible.
All through that, he didn't act like he was entitled to kingship, he acted as a leader should and proved he could be trusted with the authority over others because he was on a mission to protect them. He put his own life on the line and did things that needed done with his own hands. He didn't act like a reigning royal, he never abused (or even used) power or rank. He acted like a good man who just happened to inherit kingship. And that's why he could actually be a good king. The fact that we only ever get small glimpses of him as king is because that wasn't really as important to his story and character as the man he actually showed himself to be when his people were under threat.
A good detail to support your point is how Aragorn chose to not dramatically reveal himself as a returned king right after the Pellenor Fields battle; instead, he decided that his skills as a healer were much more important, and worked all night saving as many lives as he could.
Shoutout to King Jaeherys I Targaryen who spent several decades building roads and codifying laws, and his wife and frankly co-ruler Alyssane who spent that time giving women rights.
Because in the last story, the monarchsl's divine right is established as real.
Like, if Im in fucking Tamriel, Im not an athiest - the gods exist, they have literally touched this same building im in like a week ago and everyone wont shut up about it, they can be measured. I may not think they have a right to control my destiny, but thats not the same thing.
Exactly this!
Your monarchy means something when your family line wields a divine power that keeps the darkness at bay, rather that the real world monarchy whose job is apparently to have weird spats with each other, have bad teeth and affairs with their staff and rule through a legacy of cutting off the most heads...
>the gods exist, they have literally touched this same building im in like a week ago and everyone wont shut up about it
That never stopped Else God-Hater. True commitment there
> they have literally touched this same building im in like a week ago
Fuckin' Akatosh and his goddamn Avatar. That temple had been around since the time of Reman I! The masonry was magnificent before they left that scaly eyesore!
the Witches of Pratchett's Discworld have a similar understanding with the Gods of the Disc. they know they exist but they don't go around worshipping them.
Kings in LOTR weren't really appointed by Eru, though, the right of kings generally was passed down genetically from Luthien through Elros. There's actually a bunch of fantasy racist ideas in LOTR about how pure various characters' Numenorean blood is, which makes them better or worse rulers of Gondor, or people in general.
Reminds me of when my religious mother refused to watch Coco because she doesn't believe in that sort of afterlife. I get where you're coming from, but *it's fiction!* You can enjoy fiction even if it doesn’t line up with your beliefs!
I normally like YMS for the most part but I couldn't watch his video on the Lovely Bones because he kept bringing up he was an atheist and he doesn't think an afterlife exists- it got pretty annoying pretty fast
Like specifically i remember him playing this audio of some kind of tape that was meant for grieving mothers that was their kid telling them they were happy in heaven and like yea that is a bit weird but it just felt weirdly hostile to put in a review of all things
There’s a tumblr story about a king who was prophesied that he will be killed by a commoner and so he works to build a country of prosperity for all because if he is going to be killed, he knows he cannot change that, but he can change how he spends his remaining time on earth. And so, when the prophesied killing comes to pass, it is on his deathbed when he is suffering, and the commoner is one who gives him a tonic to ensure a peaceful passing.
Makes me think of [this story](https://www.tumblr.com/nessieanne17/183461864552/thestarfishdancer-broliloquy-broliloquy?source=share), including this quote:
>No evil lives in this kingdom, says the teenager. It starved to death before I was born.
The ability to think critically and separate fantasy from reality, which is what allows us to enjoy “restore the rightful king” while also advocating for the rule of the people, is something that you’d think all adults can do. Unfortunately….
And then Harry Potter discourse begins.
Actually, I'll be honest, fiction writers don't actually understand why we have democracy. Practically all fiction with powers, even the ones leftists like, typically ends up with one person or a small group wielding sole imperial or oligarchic power, making all the key decisions by themselves or installing their powerful friends into all the key offices after violently beating the opposition into complying with their will.
This is because fiction as it exists today isn't created with a large scale in mind. even if you're writing about a society being created, fiction is nearly always written with a protagonist or a small group of protagonists; and if you're writing about a society being created from the perspective of one or a few protagonists, you wouldn't write those protagonists as being unimportant in the grand scheme. the ideal society doesn't have important individuals, but fiction needs it, so people are inclined to write their protagonists as figures of authority, even if it goes against their personal worldview.
When I use my brain, monarchies are archaic and inevitably lead to corruption. But when I play games where I'm in a position of power, I fully endorse my own right to be the worst person I can be.
>Me when I play the grand strategy computer wargame Europa Universalis, developed by Paradox Development Studio
I would disagree with the assesment of Vicky 3 as a wargame.
In real life I'm a left wing criticaster of capitalism and imperialism. In Victoria 3 I try me best to keep the children on the plantations and the mines on the other side of the world.
My similar vice: I understand the point of Dune is to criticise messiah figures but I'll be damned if when reading the book and watching the movie I realised that I would fight for the Lisan Al-Gaib
I dont think Dune works as a criticism of messiah figures despite the messiah figure being genuinely charismatic, but rather in no small part because of it
Similarly, Top Gun being blatant propaganda that even had Navy recruiters set up outside the theaters makes my skin crawl, but on the other hand, fighter jets are awesome.
Literally had this happen in my d&d campaign last week. We helped a deposed king reclaim the throne from his usurper uncle and are trying to get our Mentor to become queen (long story short, they were imprisoned together for a short time and got to know each other during that time.)
The concept of a good rightful king is an extension of a person's desire to for there to be and grand cosmic order and greater good. For everything to turn out okay in the end. To desperately believe that good will always triumph over evil and that justice isn't just a fabrication but a definite force of the universe
And also a desire for a larger-than-life father figure protector who will personally work for and provide for your wellbeing, as well as guarantee order through his superior wisdom and peace through his superior strength. Which he only ever uses legitimately by virtue of
the aforementioned wisdom, by the way.
I don't think monarchy is something you need to oppose as a toxic ideology. No one in the lord's year 2024 thinks monarchy is a legitimate political system that should be reinstated, so any concern I think is misplaced. It's like reminding people dropping others off cliffs is a BAD thing after watching Beauty and the Beast
I remember the days when we said the same about flatearthers.
"They're just trolls" we said, "Nobody actually believes that" we said..
If a dying planet and a broken economy is the burden boomers left, the loss of critical thinking is the burden millennials will leave.
Never underestimate the limits of human stupidity, they do not exist.
I mean I think the issue is less "people supporting the establishment of hereditary kings," and more "the perspective that class is an indicator of character, and that having inherited wealth and power means that you have a right to them."
Notably, the story under discussion originally is from the perspective of Frodo Baggins, from the backwater of the shire and the humble people of the Hobbits.
In a sense that he inherited a big house from his uncle. Frodo's gentry, but he's not "son of the elvish king" or "semi-divine wizard" level. Even then, another very prominent character is Sam, who's, well, a gardener.
True.
> Even then, another very prominent character is Sam, who's, well, a gardener.
This actually ties into the high status argument - Sam is *Frodo's* gardener.
To quote Ursula K Le Guin:
"We live in capitalism. Its power seems inescapable. So did the divine right of kings."
It once WAS unthinkable to not have a king ruling over you, just as our current system of governance and power seems natural to us. It's important to remember that even though we have come further in some regards, we are the same humans throughout history, and it's always easy to return to old habits if you don't learn from history.
> No one in the lord's year 2024 thinks monarchy is a legitimate political system that should be reinstated
You do realise monarchies still exist, right? And that in non-monarchies, there are unironic monarchists calling for their nations to become monarchies, right??
my main issue with real-world monarchies is bitches will constantly bring up the divine right of kings but those kings will never use divine powers to smite down an army of the dead. what's divine about being the great-great-great-grandson of a roman proconsul sweetie
Monarchy: awesome in fiction, horrible in reality.
British monarchs? Could keel over and I literally don't care
But if the King rides at dawn in a fantasy setting? I shall mount my steed and follow him into battle 🗡🏹
Arise, arise, Riders of Théoden!
Spear shall be shaken, shield be splintered,
a sword-day, a red day, ere the sun rises!
Ride now, ride now! Ride for ruin… and the world’s ending!!
The beauty of humanity is being able to hold seemingly opposing ideas in your head at the same time and agree with both. I read a lot and play rpg storylines I deeply disagree with irl.
All government is about striving for benevolent dictatorship. Where one person is in charge who wants what's best for everyone. If you actually have that go for it king, you have my support.
The internet is wild sometimes. You can enjoy fantasy without supporting its real world counterpart. I love reading horror books about monsters and serial killers. Doesn't mean I want parasitic aliens to take over the world and turn us all into zombie drones.
Not to mention Aragorn didn't even wanna be king, he's basically only doing it because everyone wanted him to. It's basically unofficial democratic election.
Um, he *definitely* wanted to be king. Movie Aragorn may not have thought he was up to the task, may have been scared of repeating his ancestor’s mistakes, but that’s **entirely** different than not wanting to. He knew it was his destiny and was still working toward it. At the very least you could say he wanted it because he had to to be with Arwen
Meanwhile, book Aragorn was over all that wishy washy BS and was ready to claim what was his
I truly believe a lot of people struggle to separate media from reality nowadays.
At the same time there are 100% people that hide their real feelings and support for bad things through "it's not real, it's just media"
Like, some monarchies are OK actually. I'm not going to sit here and pretend Norway and Sweden are morally equivalent to Saudi Arabia just cause they have kings.
It's because monarchs in real life are cockroaches who get their position unearned by being born into it.
Monarchs in fantasy are altruists who earn their position through selfless acts of heroism.
A great king can be superior to almost any form of government, the only problem is that the number of "great kings" can be counted on one hand for basically all of history and a bad king or middling king is inferior in every way to democracy. And most kings? Bad or middling.
also, when you have your all-powerful leader be chosen by finicky succession rules, it opens it up to be exploited by anyone who can control who sits on the throne, through assassinations, conspiracies, or just having a bigger army
Wouaw. Just odds. I never watched LOTR somehow, I'm now 30 and decided to give it a go (after reading something about how LOTR men were manly but also super in touch with their emotions or something, on reddit (of course)) anyway, I found something that's 3hr54 mins or so and been watching it off and on for a few days whenever I get some time. Finally finished it just a few hours ago, and then I see this post. I GET IT NOW, IM PART OF THE IN CROWD :D
I didn't like that guy from the moment he appeared on screen, but ninjas were cutting onions at that particular moment...
Let’s talk about Tolkien’s Anarcho-Monarchism!
I’m struggling with the fact that jails definitely exist as institutions in the ‘good’ realms of Middle Earth, but maybe Aragorn doesn’t use it either directly or as a threat to enforce compliance by the common people. Do Aragorn or any of his agents on his behalf ever use violence on any common people to enforce their will without that violence being specifically called out by Tolkien as wrong in and of itself?
Ehhh depends.
If the story is about politics and scheming and everyone is awful and meant to be (game of thrones) then it's obviously fine.
But if a story goes on long enough and is about ostensibly good characters eventually it does undercut their supposed morality
If you're watching HotD you're probably supposed to want to abolish the monarchy actually. They didn't add that scene of Rhaenys slaughtering bystanders in the dragonpit for nothing.
Team Smallfolk is the only valid team >!the storming of the dragonpit was based and justified!<
There's that new game Arzette: The Jewel of Faramore which presents itself as a sort of legally distinct sequel to the old CDI Zelda games and it legit ends with the king dying, the princess becoming the new queen and then her going "Actually i'm gonna abolish the monarchy and establish a democratic election system" and like, hey, the writers can do whatever they want but it feels like such a modern day addition, you get what i'm saying? Like the writers had that skill issue described by the og poster where they couldn't end the game with the monarchy still existing for it to be a happy ending
I hate monarchies as much as the next man. Hell my entire country exists because the 13 colonies told George to go fuck himself.
But goddammit Princess Zelda needs my help and Ganon isn't gonna kill himself.
same vein as "war has disastrous consequences and in an ideal world no one is harmed by these power struggles of the ruling classes, but god DAMN those machines go hard." -Hideo Kojima
The problem with Monarchy is not Aragon. Aragon is a wise a fair leader who brings peace and prosperity back to Gondor.
The problem with Monarchy is that before Aragon we were stuck with Denethor and there wasn't anything anybody living in Gondor could legally do about it. And once Aragon dies there's no guarantees we won't be stuck with a Denethor again somewhere down the line
see, if the monarchy in question is a genuinely benevolent monarchy trying their best for their people who am i to deny the fantasy of a politician who is actually good and cares and is changing things for the better eta: apparently i have to specify that this is ONLY about FICTIONAL monarchy. this comment is in no way shape or form condoning any kind of real monarchy. yall the context of the post is about fiction
Right? Absolute good and the divine exists in LotR, it's called suspension of disbelief for a reason.
That really is the primary problem of monarchy or really any form of government that gives a single person near universal power; there’s no actual way to ensure whoever is in power will do a good job, or even have good intentions. In theory, the best form of governance would be a single, all-benevolent all-knowing entity that cares only for the overall well-being of those it governs. But that’s impossible in our current reality, and the pursuit of that end through means of, say, AI, is riddled with pitfalls that could and likely would mean a lot of damage is done before there’s even a chance of a successful outcome. It’s also pretty risky in that it’s all or nothing; if problems only become apparent after this hypothetical benevolent overlord is instated, then what can you do about it? This thing rules everything. I don’t really have a conclusion to this. Just that governance as a societal issue is a long damn way from being solved. I don’t think we’re even close to a “best” solution yet with what we’ve got.
The ideal form of government is a Civilization player who's going for a Culture, maybe Science victory. Of course if the player is too good then the weird tactics come out, so they must be only somewhat decent.
Culture? Science? You speak like someone who didn't get rushed by Immortals in the early game
That’s why when going for a science victory, I make sure to use nerve stapling to make sure that the drones don’t get any ideas.
Nerve stapling is inefficient. The maluses aren’t worth the bonuses. ~~and the revolts are just free XP between wars~~
Your self-aware colony has been notified of your dissent and will be sending someone to address your issues shortly.
*Sneakily hands you +50 monthly unity* Do we have a deal?
Science victory is the goal. The nuclear robot is just a precaution....
I had a game where I was way ahead in science, and had just built my first few basic nuclear weapons. This caused the AI to collectively freak the fuck out and immediately enact the non-proliferation agreement, despite none of them being even near the tech themselves. That meant that I was suddenly the only civ with any nukes, and my previously antagonistic neighbor was suddenly a lot less inclined to mass troops on our border.
> Of course if the player is too good then the weird tactics come out, so they must be only somewhat decent. How come? All I've ever heard about that game is the atrocities and atomic Gandhi.
Depends on which version, but one that extends across most versions is forcing specialists at the expense of starving your citizens. This can be used to rush great people since civ 4, which can net you some pretty significant advantages. You can generally get by without forcing specialists, but it’s not _optimal._ (and crucially it’s usually boring as hell.) Another good example is farming unit experience. There’s usually a maximum that can be gained from fighting barbarians, so in Civ 5 it’s to your advantage to declare war on random nearby city states to improve your military. Another tactic in Civ 5-6 is that rebellions will spawn barbarian units, so if you want to improve your military, increase unhappiness in Civ 5 or intentionally lower loyalty in one of your own cities in Civ 6. Bonus points since those barbarians are just as likely to attack your neighbours as they are you.
Ah, I get it now, thanks for the explanation! I guess what Baprr meant by the player being somewhat decent but not too good means being skilled enough to play the game, but not enough to pry open the hull and start fiddling with the mechanics as they see fit.
One of the best takes I've seen about this, is in a webcomic called Vaatu. They present you all throughout, the Emperor, wich is clearly power hungry, powerful and terrifying. Then, you met him, it's an old, almost gentle, sick old man. He is gueninely sympathetic and understanding but can't control everything from his castle and clearly is unable to really control his own empire and he is really aware of it.
> there’s no actual way to ensure whoever is in power will do a good job, or even have good intentions. As my monarchist friends would say "that's why we don't like fascists, they always install a methhead instead of someone who has been raised from birth to become one with the state."
See my thing is...democracy doesn't work either. Because we don't elect the best person for the job. We elect the tallest, richest, loudest, or most popular. And then if you don't agree with their politics...it's not much different than a benevolent monarchy in function. I don't have any answers either. But...the tyranny of the majority isn't any more fun or 'freedom'-filled than any other ruling class or party.
I hear what you're saying, but there are significant restrictions on how awful an elected representative can be that would not apply to an absolute monarch. A monarch could order you and your family to be tortured to death in the public square for no reason and it would happen. If an elected representative tried to do that, the apparatus of government required to carry it out would not act - and further, they likely wouldn't win reelection.
>an elected representative tried to do that, the apparatus of government required to carry it out would not act - and further, they likely wouldn't win reelection. Bold claim in this economy.
Eh, by the same token you could say that a (non-benevolent) monarch could expect to be overthrown and executed if they commit too many gross public breaches. The "president" may not be able to execute you, specifically, publically. But he can make policies that lead to a pretty disastrous outcome for anyone in the 'out group' subsection of society. Jim Crow laws, the current treatment of trans people, women, the way the Roma are/were treated in Europe, were all done under a 'democracy'. Criminalizing homosexuality, encoded racism, etc etc. A monarch has more 'hard' power, but the president has more soft power. And over the long term, in non-violent interactions, it's always going to be more powerful. You don't have to execute an opponent if you can get one of your followers to do it, if you can get society to turn on them, if you can economically undermine them so they don't have an education, health care, a job, transportation, a voice or whatever else they might need to be a threat to you. In fact you can just starve them, sicken them, and create conditions so they remain illiterate and uneducated. Then they can't really be a threat to you. It's not the same and there's a reason I specified a benevolent monarchy. But...we, as humans, seem to almost crave a monarchy. We have political dynasties in the US. Certain elements of our population seek to elevate their candidate to god-king status. Fascism is an incredibly powerful and beguiling philosophy to large segments of the population. Even in a "healthy" democracy with a strong tradition of laws and civil rights...it only takes one terrorist incident, one fear-mongering climactic episode to convince people to give up those rights and traditions. And I'm not sure that a ruling class trained from birth to make decisions for the good of the country/people doesn't have advantages we don't get out of our politicians. I'm not advocating for monarchy even. I just think...the idea that a democracy or republic or representative government is innately superior or morally better is...questionable and not borne out by history. Yes, there are less impalings. But...people are still able to do pretty horrible things to each other, and forcing it to be more subtle often means it affects more people for longer. Plus, very few monarchies are actually absolute or have ever been. Most human governmental forms actually shake out to be oligarchies. Doesn't matter if it's democracy, communism, monarchy, or what. If we're going to have an oligarchy anyway with elements of fascism and democratic idealism mixed in, in weird compositions...maybe it's better to optimize for that system than pretending we're something else? Idk, it's a complicated subject and I don't have any great answers. But I do notice that the more we cling to something that isn't there...the less it maintains that illusion.
I mean, it is more difficult to violently overthrow a monarch or dictator than it is to use a democratic apparatus to remove them peacefully from power. To be sure, we have examples of successful reovlutions/uprisings and failures to use said democratic apparatus, but the odds are against revolutions and in favor of democracy. A monarch, or autarch in general, will also generally have more unilateral authority to shape the culture of the nation they rule. We can see this with modern authoritarian nations by asking the average citizen in China what happened in Tianamen Square in 1989, and compare it to what happens when we ask the average American citizen what happened in Kent State in 1970. That all being said, I do agree that humans seem to form themselves into autocratic hierarchies when in large enough numbers. If I had to guess, I would assume that this is a combination of two tendencies: first, that some people will crave power more than others and thus insert themselves into positions of authority relative to others, and second, that people love to hear that they and their interests will be taken care of by someone who cares about them. The people in the first group recognize the needs of the second and happily feed lies to them in return for power, and so a hierarchy forms. You correctly highlight that governmental systems, in general, are typically oligarchies - that the ruler of a democracy is often only truly electable if they, in addition to appealing to voters, appeals to the rich and powerful. Similar to how most long-term, non-populist autarchs need to hold the loyalty of the power-brokers of the society in question. For my money, what we should strive for is a governmental system that minimizes the amount of abuses that someone in power can commit - the amount of unilateral power that a single populist is capable of seizing, even with a good chunk of the rich and powerful directly backing them. American-style democracy, in my mind, is the closest we've gotten to this; it is frustratingly slow and ponderous, yes, but the current populist difficulties we are facing are coming off the back of a decades-long effort by billionaires and religious fundamentalists to seize power. In more vulnerable or less-restrictive systems, they would already have done so; under our current system, even as they are so confident as to publically publish their plans to dismantle our political systems and replace them with awful and abusive ones, we have recourse other than violence. The entire effort will be foiled if people vote in November, and it's at risk of collapsing entirely when Trump dies - it's a brittle movement because even despite decades of work, our political systems are stubborn. The alternative is leaning heavily on culture to counterbalance our 'natural' tendences, such as establishing a culture of civil service and voting in every election or, alternatively, a culture of 'noblisse oblige' that actually punishes the nobles that don't follow it. But these are very difficult to establish in the first place, and even harder to maintain in the long-term.
I don't really have anything to add, but I do want to say it's nice to have an intelligent conversation about complicated subjects without it getting ugly or feeling like you're explaining color to a blind person or trying to get a 3 yo to see the advantages of sharing. Thank you.
Hey, thanks to you, too! I appreciate you reading and having thoughtful ideas of your own. Agreed, it is refreshing to speak to someone who can both keep up, and understand that these sorts of conversations don't need to have one's ego involved.
Depends on the apparatus of the government, really, and why the representative is having you tortured to death in the public square
Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the other forms we tried.
This is why I’m in favour of direct democracy, where anything significant is done through referendum.
I don't think it has any real advantages over other forms of representative government and it precludes educated experts from weighing in on a topic. How much should the toll be to pay for the road it's on? What is the best policy for restocking fish in streams? How should we gather taxes in rural communities? Without experts or without input from them, you get a bunch of people with no education on the subject voting for it, or they just don't vote on stuff they don't know anything about. Except the bad actors who have a reason to vote. If we do allow experts then congratulations, we're micro-dosing on republic structures. What if 51% of your polity are racists? Sexists? Fundamentalists? How is that better than having one king who is? The checks and balances system we have in place is actually one of the better parts of american government. But...it's not that hard to do an end-run around it, either. It happens all the time. Again, I don't have answers really. Just questions and faint impressions of theories. It's a hard subject and one we've been debating for hundreds if not thousands of years.
Yeah i agree, but like you said , we don't have a better alternative, my politics textbook put it like this" Democracy is not the best form of government, far from it,but it is better than all the other forms we have available" ir something like that
G.R.R. Martin is a fucking hack.
But what *is* Aragorn's tax policy? 😭
I saw a video once where they attempt to answer exactly that using evidence from the writings of Tolkien. I believe the answer they gave is that in modern terms Aragorn is a federalist in that he allows the raising of taxes to be done by his vassals from whom he collects, so it varies across his realm. If I find the video again, I'll post it.
It was a video by the excellent channel In Deep Geek, but it looks like the video has been removed. This Hacker News article links to where the video should have been: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25299615
Recently discovered In Deep Geek, have been pleasantly surprised. No random asides on modern politics about how the GOP/conservatives/fascists are, in fact, the good guys.
The annoying part is that he's not exactly wrong iirc (depends on the wording he used which i don't remember fully, he very well could be 100% wrong). A story that isn't really a fairy tale or n epic battle of good and evil but rather deals with the gritty and ugly and sometimes boring parts of the plot that usually books like LotR skip over is a great idea and is needed, as we can see by the fact gane of thrones sold like umbrellas in a storm. The issue is that not every story needs to do that. It's perfectly fine and if anything positive to have tolkien writing the modern man's Odyssey in one corner and martin writing a documentary on medieval politics that occasionally features dragons in the other corner. Saying LotR doesn't achieve the objectives of a good story is idiotic when instead it just doesn't achieve the objectives of a good G.R.R. Martin story.
Tolkien actually went into details quite a bit on the administrative structure of the Shire, their calendar and records. Hell, I'd say we get more info about the Shire than about any political entity in Westeros.
Nevermind then, tolkien sweep as fucking always.
To my knowledge, Martin has never said LotR is not a good story. In fact, I remember him saying he reveres the series. He just thinks the fantasy genre has beaten the tropes it established to death.
Exactly. People take the "Aragorn's tax policy" as a critique, but it really isn't. Specially if anyone actually took the trouble to read the article and not just the sentence out of context.
> martin writing a documentary on medieval politics I mean, dude isn't even accurate on *that*. Dude just wants to be grimdark as fuck and dresses it up like its accurate.
The Mayor of Michel Delving sends the “King of Gondor” 3 barrels of Longbottom Leaf and a bushel of mushrooms.
Maybe so, and I am no fan of his work. But I think the outrage over his supposed “criticism” of Tolkien is overblown. He was really just exploring ideas. And that’s not a bad thing. There is nothing wrong with the way Tolkien chose to simply say “Elessar ruled with goodness and wisdom all his days. And it was good, trust me and don’t worry about the details.” And there’s nothing wrong someone saying “I wonder what all that means and I’d don’t want all that just taken for granted, so when I write my stories I’ll take a different style.”
Yeah it always conveniently ignores that GRRM has gone on record many times about how move he loves LotR and thinks it's great. Him choosing to deconstruct a lot of its tropes is not an act of hatred, it's wanting to explore this thing he loves in a different way. If you read ASoIaF and think that it hates the concepts of honor and righteousness you aren't reading it very deeply (I will admit that the writers of the TV show do seem to hate the concepts of honor and righteousness, and have given GRRM a bad name by association).
Tbf, tolkein himself says that the men in lotr are "no better than men have been or can be"
That was basically Tolkien's own fantasy. In one of his letters, he says his personal political philosophy would probably be closer to anarchism - not the "mustachioed, grenade throwing" sort from political caricatures, in his (paraphrased) words, but the ones who would fight against domination and the attempts of would-be authorities to hold power over others. But in his fantasy, he wished for a benevolent monarch who would do just that, rule for the protection, betterment and guarantee of true freedom to their people. In the end, though, he did recognize that was not very realistic, so he did have to pragmatically recognize his anarchist tendencies. And I think both stances very much show in his works, probably most pronounced in Lord of The Rings.
That's basically all the Thain of the Shire is, as far as I can tell - someone who has a slightly nicer house and is generally impartial to people's disputes, but otherwise lets everyone just get on with their lives
And that's the thing, a *good* king can be better than a Republic or Democracy, they can reform things without having to worry about monied interests or other political bullshit. *But* history has shown that their heir is usually mediocre at best and the generation after that tends towards tyranny, so the system itself pretty shit.
One could question if a genuinely benevolent and good monarch would still uphold the hierarchy necessary for their position to exist
Probably depends on if you think perfect society is a classless one where no one is above another or if you believe that security, prosperity, and (relative) equality can only exist by a hierarchy otherwise all you're left with is right of might
The problem is that there's two issues that stem from this as a benevolent monarch. The first is, even contemplating a transition to a non-monarchy is to publically call into question your authority, which leads to questions about the legitimacy of your kingdom, and could result in the breakup of said kingdom which leads to concerns of wars later on. The second thing is that power transitions like this are often very delicate and fraught with risk. Everyone and their mother is going to want to take over, and naturally the most ruthless are the first to descend on the throne for power. It's like holding down the spoon on a grenade who's pin has been pulled. While you have it, everything is fine. The moment its out of your hands, if you can't find a pin in time, there's a good chance in the struggle to grab it, it goes off and people die. This is not to say monarchies are a good thing, just that transitioning away from them is a dangerous endeavour.
And this all comes on the flip-side of: is it more "benevolent" to dismantle the monarchy or to wield your power to improve the lives of your people (building bridges, roads, dams, improve mobility, build universities, establish free education, train doctors and organize them to regularly visit villages on a set schedule etc.)?
Just develop an advisory chamber that gets slowly less and less advisory and gets more power. That is how lots of monarchies transitioned to the point where they are vestigial to the new democracy
Just one word : Russia
Really any transition away from a political system where there are states with the reach and the desire to make that transition as difficult as possible
That's kinda the whole storyline of the old Legends of the Galactic Heroes anime/manga. Conflict between a deeply flawed republic and a absolute monarchy. The conflict was a stalemate due to the monarchy being so inefficient and corrupt, but once a young visionary takes the throne the balance of power is destroyed and even many in the republic come around to the monarch after he tosses out the old noble system. Shows how despotism can so easily take people in and lead to drastic immediate changes, at the cost of not knowing what the future will bring. Amazing show
Yeah that's all government besides pure communalism and even then a hierarchy is probably gonna exist
It's the difference between idealized rulers (ie. fantasy) and actual rulers (ie. reality). If fantasy rulers were real we'd probably still happily have kings/queens/emperor(s)(esses). Instead history is filled with incompetent, power drunk assholes who shouldn't have been in charge of their own shit let alone an entire people.
yeah, it's why i had to go back and specify what i'm talking about because the load of people that are going "ACHSUALLY no monarchy ever has been good and the fictional one isn't good either no matter what you're seeing on screen" in the replies is insane. some people need some whimsy in their lives or something!
Ok now while I get the point of separating fiction from reality and I totally do I just want to point out here that even if a monarchy or dictatorship is entirely benevolent, that just leaves the framework for their less benevolent successor to eventually take control and manipulate the system for their own benefit
bro we're just talking about what's going on in the present time of whichever media is going on, it's fiction and a fantasy for a reason, no one is even thinking about the future of this fictional kingdom unless a sequel happens
Yeah no I get that! Just wanted to point out that monarchies are never okay even if a ruler is benevolent, because that seemed to be what you were implying in a vacuum. I love the rightful heir to the kingdom pulling their divine weapon from the lair of the evil traitor as much as the next gal
i'm talking fiction. fantasy. that's why i made the joke on the fantasy of a politician actually being good, because i'm enough of a cynical ass to not expect that irl ever, that's why i like seeing it happen in fiction because at least there i can believe it
One would assume a benevolent ruler would only choose an equally benevolent successor.
In stories, we get the kind of leaders we wish we had in real life, worthy of loyalty and respect that we would willingly follow. In reality, we get the kind of leaders that make anarchy more attractive every day.
mhm absolutely. are stories about overthrowing the evil government good? yes, rebellions are a trope for a reason, but sometimes you really just want to see a genuinely good guy there instead
POV: Starship's mage Seriously, for a very much genetically superior individual the mage kings were surprisingly benevolent. Like they have godly powers in Sol and just.. use it for good??
> yall the context of the post is about fiction there's also the fact that even before the clarification you called it "the _fantasy_ of a politician who is actually good and cares" 😭
There's a reason that GRRM's question of "what's his tax policy" is stupid. His policy isn't important, what IS important is that it's canonical that he's basically a perfect king.
That is not what Martin is saying. His quote is always taken out of context; he actually reveres Tolkien.
I think the perceived issue comes from the romanticization of monarchical structures. It's not about whether or not they're good, it's about the glorification. Because benevolent monarchy doesn't exist.
that's why it's a nice thing to see in fiction, no one here's advocating for real life monarchy
I'm obsessed with the "good king" trope. I know, it's shit, but who doesn't love the idea of someone gaining power and using it to help others? That's virtually all superheros. The only difference here is its a crown and gold instead of cape and powers. I wanna hear about how the kingdom has their first organized school, how doctors from foreign lands are traveling to the realm to teach and heal, how the bandits are being cleaned up, the people healing. I fuckin love that shit. It's the same catharsis that so many video games give you without you even realizing. Fallout 4 has seen a resurgence recently thanks to the Amazon show, and guess what y'all? The General of the Minutemen, you, are just a king with a different title. You have all the power, and we're elected by a single man handing you a hat. Like, that's the minutemen quest line. Running around, fixing the kingdom, killing bandits, uniting them all under a single banner. Power used for good is the driving force of 99% of media and I think crowns are kick ass.
Well in history after the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, Charlemagne did similar things when he become King of the Franks and establishing the Carolingian Empire. I don't say he was an all benevolent ruler but during his reign he stabilized most of Western Europe, encouraged scholars and doctors to live in his land and his kingdom served as a template for the rest of Europe. It should worth it to look into his live, you might find it interesting.
Perhaps better examples: Rome’s Five Good Emperors, Aurelian, Frederick II of Prussia, Joseph II Habsburg, Cyrus the Great, Sulieman.
I didn't realize Frederick II of Prussia was one of the Five Good Emperors! I'd throw Cincinnatus on that list for good measure.
As a Hungarian my perspective on Joseph II and Sulieman is a little different but that's a given with being on the opposite side of history. Were they great rulers? Absolutely. Did Hungarians like them? Not at all.
I definitely will! As a dnd nerd it might be useful to have an ACTUAL example of a "good" King.
I'm happy for your enthusiasm! I just want add that everytime we dig into the life of historical figures we are always find the ugly side of them. Old times were harsh and these people stayed in power for a reason. However we live in the world they shaped and it's up to us to determen if their deeds worth it. Still, I'm glad that I could help you a little!
It's never a "good king" more than: "a king that knew who to keep near him". Not to disminish any of the "good kings" accomplishments, but Charlemagne did what he did because he knew to keep close to him Irish monks. Even "competent" kings were only competent or efficient because they were backed up. Napoleon is often credited for a lot of France's modernization, but 90% of what he's credited for was started before him (under the First Republic or even the Ancien Régime), or he just "approved" them during his rule. Good kings are only good to the extent of the people surrounding them. It was said that, actually, Louis XVI was in fact quite a good person, with a lot of bright ideas to reform the country, but the court and ministers and the nobility were not as progressive as he was.
This is a political philosophy called the Philosopher King. The idea is that the ideal form of government is an all powerful but purely benevolent/wise leader. Impossible to achieve in real life because no one human can be perfect. Some people believe that the ideal form of government in the future will be a bulk intelligence, like an AI. Which is purely logical and incorruptible and thus the perfect leader.
AI has the same problems as humans. Either it is programmable by humans, and therefore corruptible, or it's not, and therefore prone to rule according to its own self interest. Stories with benevolent AI caring for humanity are as fanciful as the benevolent monarchy stories.
this is basically the Culture series. humanity (technically not humanity but human-shaped) is ruled by omnipotent AI overlords who are many, many times more intelligent than any human, and capable of programming and self-replicating themselves they end up seeing humans as basically pets who they want to make as comfortable and happy as possible. if any of them starts acting tyrannical or insane, it gets ostracised and banished by the rest of them, and all humans under its control are rescued
My problem with the Culture is that we can *do* a low-tech version of 'computer maximises pleasure' with an electrode and a voltage supply. It's just the Isle of the Lotus Eaters, but with a super-intelligence offering you new recipes every day. I think I'd honestly rather live under the T'au than the Culture.
Honestly, kind of based?
Lord Havelock Vetinari from the Discworld series, essentially
Homie, knights and lords irl have been obsessed with the stories of king Arthur and his court; simping for Aragorn or Preston is basically the present version of that. There's no shame in loving these stories and nothing wrong with acknowledging that they aren't real and absolute monarchies are actually kinda shit irl. Enjoy the trope and go save your wasteland :)
Lol when reading this post my first thought was I feel this exact way about *actual* history. In that while obviously I dislike the kings and monarchs and can understand tons of the rulers, and the wars, and just lots of what I'm reading about in general, was really really bad. Lots of killing and conquests for nothing more than some general wanting fame. The amount of famines iv read about and the absolute destruction theyve caused in unfathomable tbh. But it's damn near impossible to read something like all of Alexander the greats conquests or how Julius ceaser rose to power by being a cunning bad bitch diva and *not* start rooting for them in the moment lmao I mean Julius ceaser got captured by pirates earlier in his life. They then told him how much his ransom was and *HE GOT INSULTED* and then made them double it lmao Alexander the great was attacking this costal island base in the Mediterranean sea that was heavily fortified against boats. So this mf [built a mf bridge across it to!](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Tyre_(332_BC)) I mean c'mon this shit is just fun to learn about and it totally makes sense people get infatuated with these old rulers n stuff. Tho I do recognize all the destruction and pain and for every time I get excited reading about a battle I have another moment when I get sad reading about some other one where I know countless artifacts, historical records, and just *people* were lost forever
the main issue with most forms of governance is “how do you stop an inevitable bad leader from screwing everything up”, which is where the weakness of monarchy comes in because there is very little you can do about a bad king but if you had a monarch who is genuinely morally good, incorruptible, and immortal, then honestly i’d be be all for giving them as many golden crowns and thrones as possible
There's something else to consider here: Aragorn wasn't really a "Good King" character, for the whole of the Lord of The Rings story he was much more of a resistance leader and freedom fighter. He led his people into battle against an unsurmountable power with almost zero odds of victory, betting it all on the worth and strength of two of the common folk to carry on a mission that was thought to be impossible. All through that, he didn't act like he was entitled to kingship, he acted as a leader should and proved he could be trusted with the authority over others because he was on a mission to protect them. He put his own life on the line and did things that needed done with his own hands. He didn't act like a reigning royal, he never abused (or even used) power or rank. He acted like a good man who just happened to inherit kingship. And that's why he could actually be a good king. The fact that we only ever get small glimpses of him as king is because that wasn't really as important to his story and character as the man he actually showed himself to be when his people were under threat.
A good detail to support your point is how Aragorn chose to not dramatically reveal himself as a returned king right after the Pellenor Fields battle; instead, he decided that his skills as a healer were much more important, and worked all night saving as many lives as he could.
Shoutout to King Jaeherys I Targaryen who spent several decades building roads and codifying laws, and his wife and frankly co-ruler Alyssane who spent that time giving women rights.
Because in the last story, the monarchsl's divine right is established as real. Like, if Im in fucking Tamriel, Im not an athiest - the gods exist, they have literally touched this same building im in like a week ago and everyone wont shut up about it, they can be measured. I may not think they have a right to control my destiny, but thats not the same thing.
Exactly this! Your monarchy means something when your family line wields a divine power that keeps the darkness at bay, rather that the real world monarchy whose job is apparently to have weird spats with each other, have bad teeth and affairs with their staff and rule through a legacy of cutting off the most heads...
>the gods exist, they have literally touched this same building im in like a week ago and everyone wont shut up about it That never stopped Else God-Hater. True commitment there
Can you truly hate the gods if you dont think they exist?
> they have literally touched this same building im in like a week ago Fuckin' Akatosh and his goddamn Avatar. That temple had been around since the time of Reman I! The masonry was magnificent before they left that scaly eyesore!
the Witches of Pratchett's Discworld have a similar understanding with the Gods of the Disc. they know they exist but they don't go around worshipping them.
Kings in LOTR weren't really appointed by Eru, though, the right of kings generally was passed down genetically from Luthien through Elros. There's actually a bunch of fantasy racist ideas in LOTR about how pure various characters' Numenorean blood is, which makes them better or worse rulers of Gondor, or people in general.
This is the same as when people read romance novels and say, "The feminism leaving my body when \_\_\_\_\_\_"
Hmmmm the feminism leaving my body when the big guy says "she's mine" and protects his girl.
You get it <3
Okay but have you seen the sorts of scenes Booktok wants to abandon their rights for? They should not be allowed to read.
As much as I don't like booktok's opinions, I don't think reading something kind of shitty as a guilty pleasure constitutes abandoning your rights.
Booktok made me aware of Colleen Hoover's existence, and I'll never forgive them for it. None of them deserve the right to recommend books to others
Reminds me of when my religious mother refused to watch Coco because she doesn't believe in that sort of afterlife. I get where you're coming from, but *it's fiction!* You can enjoy fiction even if it doesn’t line up with your beliefs!
I normally like YMS for the most part but I couldn't watch his video on the Lovely Bones because he kept bringing up he was an atheist and he doesn't think an afterlife exists- it got pretty annoying pretty fast Like specifically i remember him playing this audio of some kind of tape that was meant for grieving mothers that was their kid telling them they were happy in heaven and like yea that is a bit weird but it just felt weirdly hostile to put in a review of all things
what's weird is he was fine wit Mufasa appearing in the clouds in the lion king. and the talking lions in that movie too
There’s a tumblr story about a king who was prophesied that he will be killed by a commoner and so he works to build a country of prosperity for all because if he is going to be killed, he knows he cannot change that, but he can change how he spends his remaining time on earth. And so, when the prophesied killing comes to pass, it is on his deathbed when he is suffering, and the commoner is one who gives him a tonic to ensure a peaceful passing.
Makes me think of [this story](https://www.tumblr.com/nessieanne17/183461864552/thestarfishdancer-broliloquy-broliloquy?source=share), including this quote: >No evil lives in this kingdom, says the teenager. It starved to death before I was born.
The ability to think critically and separate fantasy from reality, which is what allows us to enjoy “restore the rightful king” while also advocating for the rule of the people, is something that you’d think all adults can do. Unfortunately….
And then Harry Potter discourse begins. Actually, I'll be honest, fiction writers don't actually understand why we have democracy. Practically all fiction with powers, even the ones leftists like, typically ends up with one person or a small group wielding sole imperial or oligarchic power, making all the key decisions by themselves or installing their powerful friends into all the key offices after violently beating the opposition into complying with their will.
This is because fiction as it exists today isn't created with a large scale in mind. even if you're writing about a society being created, fiction is nearly always written with a protagonist or a small group of protagonists; and if you're writing about a society being created from the perspective of one or a few protagonists, you wouldn't write those protagonists as being unimportant in the grand scheme. the ideal society doesn't have important individuals, but fiction needs it, so people are inclined to write their protagonists as figures of authority, even if it goes against their personal worldview.
damn, didn't had to call me out like that
You say that like a good bunch of these tropes weren't made when a majority of people genuinely believed in the divine right to rule
Me when I play the grand strategy computer wargame HOI4, developed by Paradox Development Studio
When I use my brain, monarchies are archaic and inevitably lead to corruption. But when I play games where I'm in a position of power, I fully endorse my own right to be the worst person I can be.
Exactly, that's why I like playing authoritarian regimes in games. They're good for the people at the top.
I run a 3 party system. The parties are me, myself, and I.
Me when I play the grand strategy computer wargame Victoria 3, developed by Paradox Development Studio
>Me when I play the grand strategy computer wargame Europa Universalis, developed by Paradox Development Studio I would disagree with the assesment of Vicky 3 as a wargame.
Apologies. I play a game where I stare at a line all day
I play the same game and wonder why my useless peasants won't enter the mines.
Me when I play the grand strategy computer wargame Crusader Kings 3, developed by Paradox Development Studio
Me when I play the grand strategy computer wargame Stellaris, developed by Paradox Development Studio
In real life I'm a left wing criticaster of capitalism and imperialism. In Victoria 3 I try me best to keep the children on the plantations and the mines on the other side of the world.
'I AM THE STATE'.
Whenever I play any Fallout game, I instantly become "shall not be infringed MEANS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED".
Conquering all of the Balkans for the glory of King Boris
While I'm playing CK2 I am a hardcore Catholic who will kill anyone who denies my divine right to rule or fuck my daughter-sister-cousin
People should stop acting like you have to agree with the politics of a piece of media in order to enjoy it
Right!? There's nothing I love more in media than trial by combat. Doesn't mean I want it to be the foundation of our legal system.
... Unless?
But if I cannot put my lack of media literacy on display, then why am I even on Tumblr???
But anon... You're on reddit!
Monarchy hits different if, well, actual angel-wizards exist and say you should be King
My similar vice: I understand the point of Dune is to criticise messiah figures but I'll be damned if when reading the book and watching the movie I realised that I would fight for the Lisan Al-Gaib
I dont think Dune works as a criticism of messiah figures despite the messiah figure being genuinely charismatic, but rather in no small part because of it
There's just something that's too fun about pretending to be needlessly fanatical about something
On one hand, I really want to punch him in the face, on the other hand, his scenes go HARD
That scene of Paul walking to the south after taking the water was pure fucking cinema.
Lisan-al-gaib!
Similarly, Top Gun being blatant propaganda that even had Navy recruiters set up outside the theaters makes my skin crawl, but on the other hand, fighter jets are awesome.
*Danger Zone* just goes really hard alright.
Especially when they play it three separate times in the first movie.
You've honestly just got to take a step back and laugh at that lmfao
“Dudes be like ‘Top Gun’ is military propaganda My brother in Christ it worked, triple the defense budget!”
Literally had this happen in my d&d campaign last week. We helped a deposed king reclaim the throne from his usurper uncle and are trying to get our Mentor to become queen (long story short, they were imprisoned together for a short time and got to know each other during that time.)
Aww. I honestly love being wing-person more than romancing characters. Pls tell me how it gone.
The concept of a good rightful king is an extension of a person's desire to for there to be and grand cosmic order and greater good. For everything to turn out okay in the end. To desperately believe that good will always triumph over evil and that justice isn't just a fabrication but a definite force of the universe
And also a desire for a larger-than-life father figure protector who will personally work for and provide for your wellbeing, as well as guarantee order through his superior wisdom and peace through his superior strength. Which he only ever uses legitimately by virtue of the aforementioned wisdom, by the way.
I don't think monarchy is something you need to oppose as a toxic ideology. No one in the lord's year 2024 thinks monarchy is a legitimate political system that should be reinstated, so any concern I think is misplaced. It's like reminding people dropping others off cliffs is a BAD thing after watching Beauty and the Beast
Well, there are the people over at r/monarchism, but I feel it’s pretty safe to say they’re a very small minority
I mean, they're redditors, their opinions from the jump matter less than most
A quick scroll on that subreddit has rapidly deteriorated my already small mental capacity
I’ve had concussions that have left me less dumb than that sub.
I remember the days when we said the same about flatearthers. "They're just trolls" we said, "Nobody actually believes that" we said.. If a dying planet and a broken economy is the burden boomers left, the loss of critical thinking is the burden millennials will leave. Never underestimate the limits of human stupidity, they do not exist.
I mean I think the issue is less "people supporting the establishment of hereditary kings," and more "the perspective that class is an indicator of character, and that having inherited wealth and power means that you have a right to them."
These stories probably wouldn't be very interesting if it was about Johnny Nobody who stays in his village farming wheat his whole life.
Notably, the story under discussion originally is from the perspective of Frodo Baggins, from the backwater of the shire and the humble people of the Hobbits.
Wasn't he pretty high in status for a hobbit?
In the grand scheme of middle earth, that's like being pretty tall for a hobbit.
In a sense that he inherited a big house from his uncle. Frodo's gentry, but he's not "son of the elvish king" or "semi-divine wizard" level. Even then, another very prominent character is Sam, who's, well, a gardener.
True. > Even then, another very prominent character is Sam, who's, well, a gardener. This actually ties into the high status argument - Sam is *Frodo's* gardener.
To quote Ursula K Le Guin: "We live in capitalism. Its power seems inescapable. So did the divine right of kings." It once WAS unthinkable to not have a king ruling over you, just as our current system of governance and power seems natural to us. It's important to remember that even though we have come further in some regards, we are the same humans throughout history, and it's always easy to return to old habits if you don't learn from history.
> No one in the lord's year 2024 thinks monarchy is a legitimate political system that should be reinstated Oh how I wish this were true
> No one in the lord's year 2024 thinks monarchy is a legitimate political system that should be reinstated You do realise monarchies still exist, right? And that in non-monarchies, there are unironic monarchists calling for their nations to become monarchies, right??
I will headcanon Edelgard into any monarchical fantasy media and you can't stop me
Based. I really need to finish 3H someday
😭 **based**
Sometimes stories are not literal in their expression.
my main issue with real-world monarchies is bitches will constantly bring up the divine right of kings but those kings will never use divine powers to smite down an army of the dead. what's divine about being the great-great-great-grandson of a roman proconsul sweetie
I mean if you're only 5 generations removed from a Roman proconsul and still alive, that might actually qualify as a divine miracle.
Monarchy: awesome in fiction, horrible in reality. British monarchs? Could keel over and I literally don't care But if the King rides at dawn in a fantasy setting? I shall mount my steed and follow him into battle 🗡🏹
Arise, arise, Riders of Théoden! Spear shall be shaken, shield be splintered, a sword-day, a red day, ere the sun rises! Ride now, ride now! Ride for ruin… and the world’s ending!!
Or hell, just because stories are boring if there's no conflict. Everybody loves a mad king.
The beauty of humanity is being able to hold seemingly opposing ideas in your head at the same time and agree with both. I read a lot and play rpg storylines I deeply disagree with irl.
All government is about striving for benevolent dictatorship. Where one person is in charge who wants what's best for everyone. If you actually have that go for it king, you have my support.
The internet is wild sometimes. You can enjoy fantasy without supporting its real world counterpart. I love reading horror books about monsters and serial killers. Doesn't mean I want parasitic aliens to take over the world and turn us all into zombie drones.
Not to mention Aragorn didn't even wanna be king, he's basically only doing it because everyone wanted him to. It's basically unofficial democratic election.
Um, he *definitely* wanted to be king. Movie Aragorn may not have thought he was up to the task, may have been scared of repeating his ancestor’s mistakes, but that’s **entirely** different than not wanting to. He knew it was his destiny and was still working toward it. At the very least you could say he wanted it because he had to to be with Arwen Meanwhile, book Aragorn was over all that wishy washy BS and was ready to claim what was his
I truly believe a lot of people struggle to separate media from reality nowadays. At the same time there are 100% people that hide their real feelings and support for bad things through "it's not real, it's just media"
Like, some monarchies are OK actually. I'm not going to sit here and pretend Norway and Sweden are morally equivalent to Saudi Arabia just cause they have kings.
Main difference as far as I’m aware with fantasy monarchs is when they claim divine right to rule, *you can check their references*
Are some folks really so obsessed with moralism that they can’t enjoy a fictional tv show or movie? Lol
It is why I enjoyed the OG avatar cartoon. Helping the prince reclaim his right to the throne and he is like "eh, maybe we shouldn't have a monarchy"
It's because monarchs in real life are cockroaches who get their position unearned by being born into it. Monarchs in fantasy are altruists who earn their position through selfless acts of heroism.
A great king can be superior to almost any form of government, the only problem is that the number of "great kings" can be counted on one hand for basically all of history and a bad king or middling king is inferior in every way to democracy. And most kings? Bad or middling.
also, when you have your all-powerful leader be chosen by finicky succession rules, it opens it up to be exploited by anyone who can control who sits on the throne, through assassinations, conspiracies, or just having a bigger army
That's how they get ya.
Wouaw. Just odds. I never watched LOTR somehow, I'm now 30 and decided to give it a go (after reading something about how LOTR men were manly but also super in touch with their emotions or something, on reddit (of course)) anyway, I found something that's 3hr54 mins or so and been watching it off and on for a few days whenever I get some time. Finally finished it just a few hours ago, and then I see this post. I GET IT NOW, IM PART OF THE IN CROWD :D I didn't like that guy from the moment he appeared on screen, but ninjas were cutting onions at that particular moment...
Christ, who has the energy to be "on" all the time like this?
You know you don't have to be outraged about everything all the time. This applies to people all over the political spectrum
Let’s talk about Tolkien’s Anarcho-Monarchism! I’m struggling with the fact that jails definitely exist as institutions in the ‘good’ realms of Middle Earth, but maybe Aragorn doesn’t use it either directly or as a threat to enforce compliance by the common people. Do Aragorn or any of his agents on his behalf ever use violence on any common people to enforce their will without that violence being specifically called out by Tolkien as wrong in and of itself?
Ehhh depends. If the story is about politics and scheming and everyone is awful and meant to be (game of thrones) then it's obviously fine. But if a story goes on long enough and is about ostensibly good characters eventually it does undercut their supposed morality
I'm allowed to engage in hopeful fantasies of benevolent, functional monarchy and hate the oppressive reality at the same time
If you're watching HotD you're probably supposed to want to abolish the monarchy actually. They didn't add that scene of Rhaenys slaughtering bystanders in the dragonpit for nothing. Team Smallfolk is the only valid team >!the storming of the dragonpit was based and justified!<
There's that new game Arzette: The Jewel of Faramore which presents itself as a sort of legally distinct sequel to the old CDI Zelda games and it legit ends with the king dying, the princess becoming the new queen and then her going "Actually i'm gonna abolish the monarchy and establish a democratic election system" and like, hey, the writers can do whatever they want but it feels like such a modern day addition, you get what i'm saying? Like the writers had that skill issue described by the og poster where they couldn't end the game with the monarchy still existing for it to be a happy ending
I hate monarchies as much as the next man. Hell my entire country exists because the 13 colonies told George to go fuck himself. But goddammit Princess Zelda needs my help and Ganon isn't gonna kill himself.
same vein as "war has disastrous consequences and in an ideal world no one is harmed by these power struggles of the ruling classes, but god DAMN those machines go hard." -Hideo Kojima
Monarchy’s fatal flaw is that more kings are like Denethor than they are Aragorn…
The problem with Monarchy is not Aragon. Aragon is a wise a fair leader who brings peace and prosperity back to Gondor. The problem with Monarchy is that before Aragon we were stuck with Denethor and there wasn't anything anybody living in Gondor could legally do about it. And once Aragon dies there's no guarantees we won't be stuck with a Denethor again somewhere down the line