Why do games never get benevolent rulers correct?

because muh social anarchism muhfuggah get with the times old man

Lol, nothing but correct moves there.

Witcher has competent rulers from time to time. If you want to play as one stop whining that no one has made it for you. If it anal-pains you that much then make it yourself.

You would prefer everyone copied and pasted one character rather than copying and pasting an archetype? Retard.

Because benevolent rulers are an oxymoron and myth.

Griffith would kill you and replace you with a demon if you're not useful, and then rape your waifu just to spite you.

...

...

Also, OP, it seems to me the reason why king's aren't written flatteringly in modern media, videogames included, is that today's world doesn't really look at monarchy, and authoritarianism in general, in a positive light.

A la >>>Holla Forums here,

Though I realize that its more than just politics, and being king is a power fantasy, for most just being a hero is fufilling enough, or that it isn't as fun to be a king because you typically take a back seat in managing affairs. Often games make your player character king, but only in the epilogue.

Dynasty Warriors. Liu Bei is a shining example of benevolence and is the obvious choice over the kingdoms of Wu and Wei

Nigger shut the fuck up no one cares about politics in this video game thread

Not to mention he was the one who inspired said friend to look for something worthy.

wew lad, you can't stop anons from discussing what they will, this ain't a safe space. And you can't de-politicize monarchy. Fucking deal with it.

Because there are very few Historical example to draw from. I can think of a couple right now, but even under them there are still people at that time who are butthurt about losing their freedom to settle problems in their own way. Also, have some Mokou.

...

Do not suffer the griffithfag to make threads, for they are noxious beasts.

Listen here nigger, the inevitable collapse of order into chaos by well meaning, or inept rulers is more compelling than authoritarian power fantasies.

Nobody said anything about Anarchism, stop putting words in my mouth the way your mother puts niggers dicks in hers.

...

Don't get me wrong, I'm not presenting my own viewpoints, but OP wants to know why his thing isn't mainstream and I suggested a reason why, a reason another user was so kind as to demonstrate for himself.

What about the Total War games? Being benevolent bites you in the ass plenty(since you can't ransom or execute captured soldiers, and occupying a city the benevolent way will probably get you a riot in some cases) but I'd imagine it would be very satisfying to do.

Whatever. It doesn't make for good video game discussion but it's your thread.

Thinly veiled Berserk thread, enjoy your idols and boats.

Nice mom jokes. I wouldn't expect that from a hypersensitive libertarian baby.

True

This is why its a bad idea to use a griffith OP.

Next time use this, And be labelled a micro$oft shill, or something like it.

I haven't even followed the manga, are there that many boats?

Honestly I wish I could kill lords in Warband. Harlaus would be my first.

It's not how many boats, it's the amount of chapters dedicated to being on the god damned boat.

thread theme

Griffith did EVERYTHING wrong.

Crew's been off the boat for a couple of dozen chapters by now.

Ok, but was that like entire chapters in a boat? not even a ship I mean, just like a barely big enough boat? cuz that sounds boring.

this is tantamount to saying the jews did nothing wrong on Holla Forums, and if the holy see is what i think it is possibly the same thing.

years user, years on a boat during a hiatus

They've been on the boat for 9 years while the author jerked off to [email protected]/* */, but finally got off last year.

they got off this year, then went on another hiatus until the summer

...

That sucks, and to think the author could die without finishing the job, or maybe he goes for a faggy ending like Naruto where the villain is redeemed by the power of friendship.

Nah, i guess the ending will be that Guts is 100% mad, Casca is never fully healed and the Falconia is assaulted by fucking demons on daily basis. Also series is preparing for its timeskip tbh. Notice how the gang is told that 'time flows differently in these parts' shit upon setting foot on Elf island. Be fucking prepared to see Falconia in ruins and Griffith sitting among his demon army all Pyrrhus like. Remember that huge hole during the rescue of Griffith arc? Yeah, Bonezone is Griffith. It's like poetry, it rhymes

But there are realms where benevolent dictators exist even now. Just look at kernel development.
Obviously, benevolent dictators are the path to greatness.

...

Emperor Peony IX of Malkuth in Tales of the Abyss is a surprisingly good leader, and unlike King Ingobert of Kimlasca, he isn't exactly wanting to send his country into full blown war simply because war between them both is prophesied. So he sends out one of his top men, Colonel Jade Curtiss, to try get in contact with their world's equivalent of the pope to try to figure out a way to avoid a "but thou must" tier war in which his people will invariably get massacred (since that is what the Score foretells will happen). Also helps that in general he's very reasonable and willing to listen to issues the party presents him with, and is overall pretty entertaining, as while Jade enjoys unsettling the party every so often, he's the only one that can actually unsettle Jade (a sidequest involving finding his pet Rappigs highlights this).

You don't exactly serve under him though (the party is comprised of one third from Kimlasca, one third from Malkuth, and one third from Daath), but he is pretty decent about aiding the party in exchange for aiding him in turn.

That game had the stupidest plot of anything ever. "we need to drop the continents!"

Monarchy is obsolete, mate. Perhaps that sort of governance was okay back when divine right was one of the only ways to peacefully transfer power within a regime, but you'd have to be some sort of cuck to want it back.

boy I sure am surprised by this natural progression of concepts

Hes amassing goys to sacrificce them to his god.
and about MnB, boyar Vlan is a top tier lord, i dare you to prove the countrary.

...

What do you propose then? "Democracy"? What a joke. I'd rather be ruled by a sovereign of my own kin than the petty globalist aristocrats and merchants who rule us now.

Sauce on the webm?

Irya is also one of the Nord Vassals by default I think. A viking who converted to Islam and wants people to call him a girl.

That's nice, user, go reinstate the monarchy and maybe you can be the dude who fucks everyone else in the ass.

Nah man, thats magical shenanigans.

At least Berserk isn't Hiatus X Hiatus

hiatus-hiatus.rhcloud.com/

Get on with the times, berserk has been releasing monthly for a while now.

Unsurprising.

What are your arguments behind this statement?

The sentence right after that. It's as outdated as flintlock pistols and polio. But again, please, feel free to go join you and your fellow monarchists in a communal serfdom in some backwater country where nobody will bother you.

I don't even think this is called circular logic at this point, although I'm no expert. All I can tell is that its a stupid argument.

Did the whole "divine right" part just fly over your head?

Divine right was only for a very select few countries. If you really only hate monarchy because "religion is part of it" then you just don't even know what you're talking about.

Either way please stop replying, you already told us you have no argument other than "its outdated because its outdated".

What part of current year you don't understand?

Oh yeah I forgot.

ITS THE [CURRENT YEAR]

So tell me, what are you going to do when your wonderful, perfect king has a terrible, selfish shithead of a son? How do you handle that situation?

Furthermore I must add that democracy became obsolete after civilization moved away from city states, it's not viable on a scale where it's not direct. Monarchy never had a limit to its scope and would still be the standard way of government in the west if not for the scheming jews causing the downfall of our kings.

The sovereign isn't fighting against his people, he is fighting for them. Now tell me how the aristocrats currently "fucking" you "in the ass" are preferable.

That depends on the sovereign. Everything depends on the sovereign, it's the key weakness and strength of monarchy.

That's not an argument. That's a hypothesis. I asked for arguments. I could just as well state a hypothesis about current politicans. Or rather the politicians that have existed for the past 100 years now. Which is longer than a monarch would reign in any case.

Anyway you already showed you have no arguments other than "its outdated so its outdated" so please stop replying.

If it gets bad, the people or aristocracy deposes him and installs a new one.

What happens if your wonderful, perfect electorate keeps making fucking retarded decisions and only acts with a time horizon a few years at most?

Please don't respond seriously to his strawmen.

Yeah, it's pretty funny.

This isn't some hypothetical situation but the unavoidable outcome of any representative democracy, they have to keep fueling whatever gets them into office no matter if it goes against the interests of the people. Be it to start a war, import a whole new voting block to replace the population who don't support your party or what have you, they will keep making decisions not for the long term good of the nation but their own short term profit.

Yeah, just do that every time you have a king you don't like. Fucking brilliant. I'm not advocating democracy, so I don't have to defend it to you. Monarchy is shit and the only people who willing want it are people who don't want any control over their own lives.

Maybe it's all part of his plan to get hate fucked by Guts.

Even in the case of a weak king it isn't as if he has to do everything alone, no single man can run a nation entirely by himself after all but a single man with a strong will and good ability can make it great. With that said there are many forms of monarchy that avoids this problem.

People have no less control over their lives in a monarchy than under any other system.

Your ideology makes your destiny as a cuck certain.

I feel like I'm having a deja vu.

Fuck you mate, my employees fucking love me

You're more embarrassing than he is.

I always felt bad about rebelling against my brother in Fable 3, I just wanted to be his rotten but cute little sister and help him with stuff and maybe tease him.

Monarchy is a correct political system that has it's own flaws and merits, just as any other political system including democracy. Yang completely understood this fact and never claimed that democracy is perfect nor that dictatorship is evil, and you're gay for posting him with a "monarchy is obsolete" post.

Fable III was shit, but OP wanted a game where you could be a benevolent king and he got it.

You can also become king in M&B but you'll probably get there through ruthless military conquest. Don't know if you can still then be considered benevolent.

I think Fable 3 was pretty interesting actually, I liked that keeping your word that you gave on your way to the throne didn't come without a price and that your brother had a good reason to do what he did.

Go back to drinking tea and getting anal-raped by muslims, Grandpa.

It is a system that works in certain circumstances.

Those circumstances are not present.

...

Truly the Angela Merkel of Berserk.

...

>is a jew demon himself
It's only a matter of time before he sacrifices everyone to become an even bigger jew and out jew the Jew Hand

We all know the weaknesses of democracy because thats the dominant political system of our day while there hasn't been a true monarchy in a long time. Tell me what advantages would going back to a monarchy serve?

We know the weaknesses of democracy (Despite all the 'strengths' being shoved down everyone's throat) through logical analysis and demonstration. We've had several centuries of monarchism to study and see demonstrations of its effectiveness, and yes, it has some obvious flaws in its way of choosing a leader, but that's about it.

Monarchy just generally works better in a time of dismay like today, while democracy might work and keep the populace happy in a time of stability, both systems will eventually become tyrannical and corrupt, but that's a case with every political system ever.

How does one peacefully convert from a monarchy to democracy or vice versa, though?

You could try reading European history for starters.

...

As I said, might want to start by reading some European history.

...

Imageboard circlejerking isn't high level discussion, user.

Griffith did some things wrong, but guts gets even more things wrong.

Griffith>Guts

It's higher than sucking each other's dicks on reddit.

That's really not saying much.

Why are you here then?

What'd guts do wrong exactly?

>>>/reddit/
There, problem solved. Enjoy your shit-tier circlejerk there.

Because I love Holla Forums. Everywhere else is shitty.

Failed to get paid properly when working as a prostitute.

So glad I never got into this shit

Crusader Kings 2 and Europa Universalis IV

He is a globalist though. He lets Kushan sandniggers live in Falconia with actual Aryans.

Next you are going to say Casca isn't white.

Well, Kushans have Aryan ancestry since they are supposed to be poo in loo's, and Indians descend from Aryans. But, they aren't Aryans, because they race mixed with Dravidians. The only remaining Aryans in this world are the Germanics (including Nordics).

And yes, Casca is white. She's an Italian, at least her name suggests that. It's an over two thousand year old Italian name.

drink some beer

dubs of truth

Yours as well

Literally a mad fag

So… just a fag ?

Sauce on the last track in that webm?

For one thing the west could have a future again, for another it would give us a chance to be lead not by jews and traitors but by our own. Even if the decline is inevitable I'd still rather go out in the service of a true king in battle than to slowly wither away while the barbarians deface the last remains of our once glorious culture. A monarchy has the freedom of action necessary to enact true change.

Sounds like a good system for transitioning between other, more stable modes of governance.

Old system begins to break, king rises up, puts shit back together, uses power to build longer lasting system, relinquishes. Since so much depends on the king having too many successive kings makes having one fuck up catastrophically inevitable.

...

Why not just go for National Socialism, the perfect system fam.

What are games where democracy is retarded and corrupt and monarchies are actually good places to live because the king actually isn't a faggot?

I think it's an acceptable alternative but as another creation of modernity it's an already tainted system, the premise upon which it is built is highly flawed. In these highly troubled times however it would be a massive improvement.

Relinquish the power to whom exactly? Someone always rules, it's either the people themselves, the aristocracy or a sovereign. Personally I don't think true self governance is even something desirable even if we could achieve it.

Play Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri. Some faction ruler would be up your alley. You can call them dictators, because they don't need the consent of their subjects expressed as majority vote.

He is still right, hypersensitive or not.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night-watchman_state

The only flaw it has is the same as monarchy's: one man has a lot of power, and man is corruptible.

National Socialism and Monarchism are both amazing, given the ruler is righteous and good. Either way, both are infinitely better than democracy in every scenario.

The optimal form of government needs to represent the will of the people yet simultaneously have efficiency. Maybe this would be a more refined version of Constitutional Republicanism similar to the United States, but with greater separation between the federal and state level?

Also it's false to say National Socialism is a creation of modernity. What foolishness? It was born as a movement against modernism and for bringing back tradition. It is directly opposing to modernism.

Arguably, you could say that universal social benefits is more harmful to society than helpful, as it puts more control in the hands of the government. Privatized business can work just as well if not more efficiently if the government cultivates the environment for it and ensures it doesn't overtake them.

It's funny because I can't think of a single one. I wouldn't expect games made in America to do that but I can't think of any game made in Europe that puts monarchism in a good light while showing how corrupt democracy is either.

Victoria 2.

Be a monarch and you can choose political parties to suit the nation.

Be a democracy and your idiot pops vote in liberal faggots who immediately ruin half your industry and send your budget millions into the red.

Why? When are the people ever correct in their will? Most people want gibs and that's it. Man is a simple creature in general.

Lord British in the Ultima games is pretty benevolent, compared to the others characters in the series at least.

Kings in the Dragon Quest games are also benevolent for the most part, if a bit absent minded at times. In some of them you even become a prince and/or king yourself.

The Fire Emblem games usually portray princes and kings in a positive light while portraying emperors in a negative one. Republics are usually portrayed as well meaning, but at the same time very weak, and end up being conquered by whoever the bad guys are(with the exception of Fire Emblem 6.)

That's Fascism. Each group of people makes a corporation. The corporation wants to improve the life of its members, but for that it has to work together with other corporations, improving the country as a whole (hence the name totalitarianism, which has been distorted since then).

Excuse me? No benevolent monarchs? Play the right kinds of games, you pleb.

In some ways yes but in others not so much. It was much too materialistic to be proper traditionalist. Also too Nietzschean and pagan in my view. Fascism was a better example of defiance against modernism. However the way it is modernist is in how it views the world and society, it doesn't offer the individual a chance to prosper spiritually but promises physical prosperity for the collective group.

That's partly why I advocate monarchy, the so called feudal societies in the medieval ages were a golden age for traditionalism since their social order allowed people to reach enlightenment.

A king mustn't be deaf to his subjects for his subjects are what makes him king. The reason as to why the will of the people needs to be at least audible is because the leader is the eyes of government, and they will look too far into the distance if they aren't told to refocus on what is in front of them.

Fascism only allows room for a singular ideology because it relies on strong unity. As efficient as it is, its inflexibility is dangerous when the wind blows too hard in the wrong direction.

Representative democracy doesn't allow for any real ideology to be put into practice.

madmonarchist.blogspot.nl/p/myths.html

Monarchy is the best form of government.

How so?

Guaranteed that everything will go to shit when Linus dies.

There isn't really a perfect, everlasting form of government because people are not perfect and will eventually pervert the system. The advantage of a stable democracy is that it's far harder for one bad man to do major damage, but even a good system will eventually get decadent, rotten and die from the inside.

That was the intention behind the office of dictator in ancient Rome. Worked out well for a few hundred years, before Sulla.

To me, free speech (and all it implies) is the most important human right. A society that respects this will become unrestful if their particular interests get ignored by the government, so the government has to represent the will of the people up to some point just to be regarded as a legitimate government.

It's designed that way, the government doesn't have any real power, the people who got them elected do and those are not the voters. Think about it, it's the system of status quo with the illusion of choice.

As for free speech it has been killed in Europe to make people shut up about the ongoing genocide but I've yet to see any unrest so far. Instead it is the privileged groups that can say anything that go allahu ackbar.

"Freedom of speech" is a silly librul meme and they don't even believe in it themselves.
Tell that to Soros or any other influential Jew.
Maybe not but monarchies have a much better track record of lasting.

Did you know you can be a king in M&B? Just be warned, it's going to take quite a while for it to be viable.

And you are saying this as the entire European continent is burning simply because of democracy.

t. zhao yun

...

Feel free to prove me wrong mudslime.

Monarchies sure stopped Rothschilds

...

They could have prevented the Jews from ever gaining power in the first place if they would have had the foresight to do so. Alas despite the protests of the Church these usurer vermin were practically given their current position.

However bad feeding the kikes with shekels in the first place were we still didn't let them run our countries as they now do under "democracy". They control the financial and legal systems almost completely, they have corrupted all the most vital professions.

Monarchies could have stopped the Rothschilds by simply going "that was the previous king you kike fucker we don't owe anything".

They should have done more than that.

They should have done more than that.

Don't forget he fucked a nigger too.

Cowardly parasite makes problem, calls the problem they've created to blame.

A coward calling themselves king after constant betrayal of all is in no position to offer advice.

Anyone who'd listen to a mob dishonours the country they should know from being part of.

total war series

Because liberals.

They don't understand that sometimes you have to do bad things with good intentions to keep order, because they spend their entire lives trying to destroy the order that law and tradition uphold.

Then they blame the new problems they created on the old order.

I just realized there's never been a good game about King Arthur.

...

damn, good thing i never played the third one.

The main advantage of democracy is the fact that it can uphold the status quo for a long time. Changes are far slower in democracy, so you can extend the period of prosperity and happiness for a longer time.

This becomes a disadvantage the moment the situation changes for the worse, and can lead to stagnation rather than to progress.

I will never understand people who claim that freedom of speech is a bad thing only because it is a double edged sword. Freedom of speech might be used as a weapon against society, but it is also a fine tool in upholding society. If free speech is really so helpful to the establishment, then why does the establishment try everything in it's power to restrict free speech? A country in which free speech is restricted only works well if the government itself is good, but if the government becomes corrupted and tyrannical, the lack of free speech gives the government power to indoctrinate the populace. Freedom of speech is not a factor working against systems like monarchy, but a safe measure in case something goes wrong. Not only that, but we must remember that free speech helps cultures share ideas and develop by influencing one each other, and I don't mean this in a globalist way, cultures were influenced by each other throughout history, they shared some elements with each other and used them in their own way. This ensures a faster development of humanity in general and is one of the ways by which cultures can still learn from each other without destroying each other by multi-culturalism and shit like that. For example, imagine a world with tight border control, with small amounts of immigrants and emigrants, but which also has completely free internet, and still allows for tourism

And the most important thing is, if the government get taken over by globalist multi-cultural movements, those against globalism would not be able to freely voice their opinions in a world with no free speech, so as I said, it is still a measure that allows us to counteract such a possibility.

I don't see any burning here in Poland, chickenshit.

This was pretty good.

...

I don't mean it in a SJW kind of way.
Don't tell me that scientific research, developing culture and economy cannot be called progress

also

I wouldn't call any of that progress.

Derin my Brendan, satisfactory derin.

Ted was right you know.

It won't be long until they all will see that.

Then why are you posting on Holla Forums? Ted hates video games, and people who use computers often.

Trips confirm.