Also, fantasy is just fantasy, so they probably are monarchs on a level that's as phantastical as them regaining their kingdom by slaying a thousand year old dragon by poking it with what's the equivalent of a toothpick to the dragon?

Technically, it's "suspend your disbelief" (🤓☝️)

Yeah fantasy needs to be fantastical, and a lot of people don't understand it, also come on, more whimsical or epic settings are cooler than gritty and boring ones

Yeah, you also can suspend your disbelief that said Monarch's children will not immediately fuck everything up after the current one dies. Unless that's the sequel.

@@plague_doctor0237 I take issue with the idea that "gritty" has to be boring. "Gritty" is just when you explore the ramifications of the things that happen in the story more thoroughly. It's a way of deepening immersion. The term "gritty" even comes from the idea that it has texture that you can feel. Fear and Hunger has become one of my favorite dungeon crawling games precisely for this reason. If you step on a rusty nail or get bitten by a wild dog, you will get an infection, and if you don't treat it by either finding the appropriate medicinal herb or sawing off the infected limb, (which will cause you to be missing that limb for the rest of the game, meaning no shields or two handed weapons if you lose an arm) you will die of infection. Exactly the opposite of boring, this kind of grit drastically heightens the stakes of surface level interactions such as fighting starter enemies or just walking around without looking where you're going. It says, "you're in a DUNGEON. Act like it. Feel it. And look where you're going because not paying attention is deadly." And frankly I love that. The game can be dark and depressing and particularly brutal, but by being "gritty" it keeps you locked and laser focused, and above all deeply immersed.

Same reason ACAB doesn't include Sam Vimes. The books acknowledge he has "darkness" inside him, but he literally has a subconcious watchman construct inside him to watch him, the watchman.

@@TheShattubatu Vimes's inner watchman has always been one of my favorite "things". Whatever the hell you call it. Made me really like him more growing up knowing that he was always battling with what he thought was right, what he thought was lawful, and what he just felt like doing when angry.

"Why watches the Watchmen?" "I do" "Well who watches you?" "I do that too."

real

I mean, everyone who gets in on a vote-based system has to specialize in being able to manipulate lots of people, not ruling, sooo... not great for being worthy.

What if one god agrees and another one doesn't

@@feuerling well, which god do they consider to be *their* god?

They often say as such It's does the god show up? In any way?

@@feuerling Who cares what that other god things? This is our patron god. We let Aphrodite choose out god, not Athena, and we may respect her opinion, but we have our Monarch who was chosen by our god.

I’m a Christian but being a godslaying maniac is amazing, like “Haha screw you asshole you got killed by a human”

As you should!! SLAY!! 🗡️🩸

The good kind of atheist. Had a DM once who would punish any character who was religious, real frustrating shit considering Paladin is my go-to.

@@DemigodoftheSea but But dnd canonically has gods???? What was the thought process???????

@@apersonontheinternet6018 Oh it does, he just portrayed them all as catty and selfish, with not even an interest in their respective domains.

Minigame? My brother in Christ, i believe you mean "core mechanic."

Buying property is only moral if you make Nugget the Chicken the manager.

on that same note me: I despise massive companies treating their workers as nothing more than disposable automatons also me: man I love Satisfactory, Lethal Company, and Ship Breaker

@@johnnycovenant2286 he ain't dead hes in a coma

This is literally me.

This is me, reality is a complicated thing where something like the monarchy basically always leads to ruin, pain and corruption but it’s a dang fun fantasy to live out now and again in fiction

@@supermoo7087 Of course it is; because in fiction good is often a tangible force and you know for a fact that the hero is good and will do good things.

I mean it's also worth noting that Aragorn proves he's a good leader and a good person before taking his place as king. It wouldn't feel nearly as good if he was just hungry for power or if he was lazy and took advantage of others to gain his authority

Horus technically fits the criteria.

Yup. Reality is you get a random dice roll of a person who gets more power than they have capacity to handle. And a power structure that incentives playing favorites valuing loyalty above competency and dynastic infighting. Also it doesn't incentive to what's best for the people but for what's best for those who hold power.

Plot twist: your mom uses her newfound royal authority to forbid you from adventuring.

@@TheShadowSentinel "You better go back to your room, or I swear to Abadar..."

​@@TheShadowSentinel Months later the queen mysteriously dies

When the divinely chosen king is given their crown, it's an awesome moment because that whole scene is analogous for the victory of good over evil, and it says nothing about the monarchy itself. It'd be different if say, Aragorn quashed a nascent democratic town because it wasn't part of his Monarchy.

Aesthetics of Monarchy are fucking baller. It's why I ruthlessly aim to empower aesthetics in any civilization I write about.

Hell, it could just be a result of the King being a good and competent person. Monarchies fail when the leader is incompetent and doesn't listen to the people.

@@prehistoriccreator9600 monarchies also fail if they listen to the people too much, sometimes what someone asks for isn't what they need, or what would be good for them. Monarchies usually fail because the decisions made from the top down don't appropriately react to the dynamic environment they are required to rule over. It's not just that they don't listen to people, its that even if they do listen the solutions they propose don't actually address the underlying issues

@@prehistoriccreator9600 Monarchies don't just rely on the leader tho. In real life every single lord, baron, count, etc... matters, and guaranteeing every single one is a wise and just ruler is downright impossible.

@@tvflynn Anti-Democratic opinions detected. Listening to the people "too much" isn't a real thing. People who don't know what's best for them by and large, are a myth. Most of the time, the problem isn't the people, it's the people in power who lies to them in order to misinform and manipulate them, then they cite such examples for why democracy is bad. Brexit is a fine example. People were largely against it until a mass ad campaign covered all of Britain, and the people were highly misinformed about the consequences of Brexit, and the whole thing started as functionally a political stunt to do what else? But maintain the power of one guy. At least when people are lied to in a democracy, there are more often people telling the truth, and it takes massive will and effort from the powerful to really start gaslighting people, but at that point the culprit is not democracy, but the mechanisms that allow individuals to hold such power, typically financial and over the economy.

Yeah, and it's not like some of the concepts and structures still stuck to this day, just adapted a bit. Cuz not having: hierarchical structures with economic/financial &social classes, and systems &rules easily manipulated and navigated around by the people holding(->hoarding)power(political/economic/financial/etc), inherently putting people at the top above others - would be...well that would be total anarchy?! We can't have that, no,no,no! Aragorn might be a 'great' king, but he will still be just 1 person with the task of overseeing a gigantic mass of land & all who live on it. That's too much for 1 person to oversee. Like... I love you Aragorn, but u might wanna start dismantling this monarchy, while strengthening the rights & social bonds of the people, and lifting up the worth of the individuals at the bottom, balancing shit out & letting people make decisions in their communities where they know the problems,etc...Oh and making sure people know their worth, and that others may not stand above them in everything, and how to help eachother,etc. and how to make sure no one takes & abuses power, oppressing others,... Shit....uhhhh sorry for the rambling!! Stay safe, healthy & hydrated

​@@Bucket_full_of_Fandoms A problem soon presents itself: Orcs

@@mercwiththemouthsnewphone6798 I mean it's not like people can't support eachother & come together to aid & defend eachother... + (I know I know me again with my idealistic anarchist communist-leaning radical leftist feminist & whatever else views) But like... what do the Orcs actually want? I don't mean Saruman or Sauron or anyone holding power and commanding em. Tolkien was biased as fuck when he wrote these tales. Like if you think about it the concept of a race being entirely evil and will spread said evil if they were allowed to live... that's like ... Yikes. And No. I am not saying that the Orcs where the true victims. In any story with a war of "good" Vs "evil" in which the "good guys" win, there won't be anyone worrying about the blood of the"bad guys" spilled by hands of the "good". ...it also just mirrors war propaganda. Again not saying that this makes Tolkien, his work or anyone who likes it bad. Heck,I'm a fan myself! But we gotta be aware & able to see things critically (if I criticise something I don't do it because I wanna destroy it , but because I like the thing &wanna see it grow & potentially gain even more to love about it)

​@@Bucket_full_of_Fandoms Have you heard of mosquitoes or viruses, or tics these are beings that fundamentally require damaging another being to exist, while their action from their perspective they aren't evil their just trying to survive, to those who they harm they are evil, it makes complete sense why in a fantasy world their could be beings that exist like that, that it simply isn't possible to coexist with and who wouldn't have any reason to want to coexist with us, it's a very human centric mindset that's shows a lack of imagination to think that beings who act differently and have conflicting goals that can't mean we can't coexist can't, it's not a "Yikes" it's you reading to much into a fantasy races to derive meaning for real life And on another point as a Libertarian as much as I can also enjoy the idea of Anarchism, I don't think that a decentralized military can actually be effective in these fantasy setting where war could come at any moment from other races or beasts, and you need an organised, well equipped and well trained army to be able to mobilise on a moment's notice, which I don't think any form of AN can provide.

this is what people are missing when they call One Piece Monarchist

Alastor from hazbin hotel

Dexter?

It's shocking how stupid the plot of Romeo and Juliet is once you strip away the drama. Not that this makes it bad, mind you: the 2 lovebirds were 12 and 14, barely sentient let alone able to make adult decisions, and they were 'madly in love' like only a teenager can be. It makes sense for them to be utter idiots, but it's always hilarious to see the theme is 'doomed love' and 'love conquers all' and think: "none of this would have been necessary if Romeo or Juliet had stopped to think about his/her actions for longer than 2 minutes..." Like, doomed love is a popular trope worldwide, like the Tale of the Bamboo Cutter, or the entirety of the Trojan War, and yet the flagship of the genre is 2 (barely) teenagers being idiots together dying an unnecessary death because they could only see the world in pink and black.

A proper monarchy that actively tries to give a damn about its citizens. Much more enjoyable than the real world equivalent

there are many good monarchies in the world today, best examples being the nordic countries :)

​@@Sesadre You think it's ok for some people to live in a palace just because of a lucky birth whilst many more starve?

@@alexjames7144 wh- what?

@@Sesadre Is it really wild to you for someone to suggest that hoarding wealth whilst others starve is inherently immoral?

hey, the way i see it, we already have plenty of fantasy where the monarchy is a good thing. if you’re writing fantasy, there’s no problem with making the monarchy corrupt! being able to enjoy varied literature is one thing, but you don’t have to explore every possible theme in your own writing.

Monarchy can seem like a good idea, depending on what you're comparing it to. The way the plebeians were treated in the Roman republic was pretty abhorrent, so when Caesar went against the wishes of the senate, he had a lot of popular support, and when he was stabbed to death, it wasn't by common people wanting democracy, it was by senators from the wealthiest families trying to maintain a state of exploitative oligarchy. Then in the middle ages, the system was obviously not designed for the benefit of commoners, but that wasn't always the king's fault. It was mainly the lords oppressing the peasants, and the king oppressing the lords, making him, in a weird way, kind of on the same side as the commoners. Since history is written by the upper classes, we hear a lot about the oppression under monarchist/imperial government, because powerful rulers tended to reduce the privileges of senators and lords, but that doesn't necessarily mean it was more oppressive from the perspective of the majority of people. I'm not saying I'd be eager to trade a liberal constitutional republic for an absolute monarchy, because I think that would be an enormous risk, but from the perspective of a peasant who has no rights whatsoever, and has never even considered the possibility that he might ever be allowed to vote, I don't think being loyal to the king is necessarily a stupid choice. With that said, I think there's also room in the world for non-monarchist fantasy, so if that's what rings true for you, then it's probably what you should write.

I've recently read a gay smut webcomic that invokes those ideas a bit.

I dunno, for me its easy. A benevolent dictator/monarch is literally the most effective and efficient form of government, moral or sustainable is different. If someone who actually wants to help people for the sake of helping and being good is in power and actually understands how to do that, they're ana amazing leader, and their kingdom/state will prosper while they reign. Once they are too old and must retire, or they die, the whole thing goes to shit, who becomes leader? Do we do it hereditary, do we just pick the best leader, do we pick the most moral leader? Historically, the effective monarchs are overshadowed and outnumbered by bad monarchs, but they are there.

I mean, I don’t know what kind of governmental system you expect from a fantasy story, and the quality of a monarchy really depends on the monarch

Absolutely. Democracies are more fair than monarchies, undoubtedly, but I think we tend to forget that having someone who has been trained in how to manage a country since they were a child will usually turn out better than average in running a country. That's not to say that this makes the system better than picking the most qualified leader among the people to rule the country, but that's not how democracy works either. People tend to vote based on charisma more than qualities, and while being likable is important for a leader, it's only one facet in it. Every system works great when it's working as intended, but getting it to work is the real challenge. People are rightly suspicious of monarchs and dictators abusing their power, but we now see that democracies are also susceptible to this, and unlike with a monarch, getting rid of a bad leader doesn't give as much chance for improving conditions, as the rest of the governing bodies are still targeted by lobbies and bribes. Democracy is a more complex power structure. It means it's more difficult to abuse power, but also that (ironically) it's more difficult to reform or reorganize power once it's being abused.

The issue lies in how the power is transferred, and to whom it's transferred. Cyrus the Great was one of the best kings and emperors of all time. The Persian empire couldn't go for even a couple generations, though. It started going downhill the moment Cyrus left power and given up to his son, but began to collapse after Xerxes.

To be the "Best form of government" it needs to last more than one generation. Also, look somebody brought up Communism, what a surprise.

Um... it worked for longer than our democracies have been around. Just because we progressed past monarchies, doesn't mean they were not well suited for their time. Also to be frank, don't take your history or politics advice from tumbler.

Nah, I don't think "I am the son of God" as a good argument

​@dirtydeeds4free553 dude, wrf you are talking about. Peasant rebellions are as old as time. Something "working" doesn't mean it is good and different leaders rule differently. The difference I that when a president is bad we have the option to get then out while being stuck with a bad monarch was not a bug in the system, it was a feature

@theGhostSteward many things to get out of the way. Monarchies. Do you mean the political structure of feudalism? Also, no, those are not bugs. And no violent rebellions have not magically disappeared because democracy. We are not the first republic or democracy, and those that have fallen throughout history are often times less suited for the challenges they had to face. I am not making a moral argument, on which is better or worse, im taking a historical lens to deconstruct the modern idea we have around politics. From culture, economics, warfare, and technology, many things influence how other societies construct their governments. The most popular, largest, and well maintained of these can often be said to be the best at any given point in time, survival of the fittest. Sometimes, the fit becomes fat, and sometimes, the fattest gets overthrown. You are literally thinking of just the french Revolution, as most rebellions were not peasants, but nobles. Even then, still, many intellectuals have influenced the french revolution, making them again, not peasants. Unless you want to talk and compare to the governments that came before feudalism. You take too much of modern life for granted when looking into the past and must disassociate from your modern life to try and holistically understand what you are talking about. This cozy talk of democracy in its current form is not new, but the federal and state government interactions and balancing are new, and i do believe it is the best, i do not believe it would be the best in a world with significantly more war... which would be most of world history

@theGhostSteward again.... no, they often did abdicate the throne, this isnt something hard baked into the system, and monarchies are not a political system. Feudalism is, monarchy is describing who is head of state. And again, becausw democracy exists doesn't mean democracies cannot have civil wars just like feudalism. You sound like you have no idea about either political system

and it pretty much *emphasizes* the issues. Which, to be fair, is very compelling writing.

@@joeycubed5888 for good and bad. Shows both virtue and cruelty in the houses. Also being fuckin arab inspired is dope, not enough love is given to the arab conquests in the 6th and 7th century, they went ham

In this case usually meaning chosen by god ala the divine right of kings

Monarchy, technically, does not need to be about blood-relations. In my TTRPG campaigns I have entire empires where the chosen King or Emperor is specifically chosen by a single deity.

They’re a constitutional monarchy, not a proper one really, that being said they have their use

@@ezrafriesner8370 It's still a form of monarchy.

And they still remain a black hole of wealth in your country.

@@DemigodoftheSea I'd say true, but my country isn't much better. Secret services defend all former First Families and I heard a rumor that they even guard foreign assets of former presidents. I don't know the veracity of the foreign assets thing though.

@@DemigodoftheSea How so? I've heard they give way more to the country from all the assets they own as indivduals that they allow the country to use than they cost in living expenses.

divine right of kings is cool when the divine beings are actually pretty clearly real and frequenly prove that they exist

@@elizathegamer413 and Gandalf placed the crown on his head

@@cadendance976 definitely fair, but my point is the gods have plenty of chance to intervene and say "hey this guy fucking sucks as king get him out"

That's cause in royalty media they're actually cool and embody the best in humanity.

Yeah, depressingly, too many people feel that way now days. Fantasy is fantasy. Have fun with it because it isn't real.

All ideas of what constitutes a good versus bad direction for a story to be taking are to some degree intersubjective and therefore “ideological.” I understand that you’re saying that certain real-world concerns should get some leeway but this buzzword of “ideology” is silly, you literally cannot parse a story in a meaningful way without your worldview being a factor in some way or another.

The problem with Monarchy is in real life gods don't literally descend to rectify a bad Monarch and guide good ones to the throne.

@@DemigodoftheSea real

Is that a bionicle mask in your pfp?

@@ChucktheSpicyChicken yep!

@@icarusavery5691 hell yeah! I love bionicles.

@@icarusavery5691woooooo bionicles were my childhood 😂

Or we just like incredibly simplified feel good stories with monarchism as a set piece and don’t really care to think about the inherent structural issues that monarchy inherently creates, creating an environment where corruption is endemic

The issue with monarchy is not that good things can't be done by kings. There's plenty of kings that have revolutionized the living conditions of their countries in less than a single lifetime, that's the power of autocracy. The issue is that just as often, if not more so, the heir is a stupid brat who fucks everything up and undoes all the progress from the last good king. Change happens quick, and it's done without any input from the governed, not even a peep under threat of beheading. When absolute power is hereditary, you're gambling with the lives of hundreds of thousands. That's why you can participate fully in the fantasy of a good king who is noble, wise, and kind. It's the nature of the system that makes it inhumane, not the individual kings.

Monarchies are inherently corrupt, it’s nepotism as a system incarnate

The Legend of the Galactic heroes does a great job of exploring the pros and cons of democracy and monarchy/dictatorships.

Exactly

Not really, even “great” kings usually don’t show up archaeologically, we find impoverished peasants feeding a tiny number of immensely rich aristocracy all the same

Democracy isn't about leaders tho. Democracy is meant to be about the people who are voting. Liberal democracies just toss this to the side in favor of corporate power-brokering and outright rigging elections.

@@DemigodoftheSea You’re right. Pure democracy places all the decision-making power in the hands of the electorate. Most people these days associate democracy with a constitutional republic that democratically elects its leaders, so that’s the context I’m using here.

Any king who is ready to step down to prevent civil war from tearing his country apart already has a plus point in my book.

What?

@@Alexander59059 man says monarchies are bad, and cannot enjoy fantasy with monarchies

Acting like. Monarchies were tge only bad is soo fucking stupid, ww2 alone killed off more people then all monarchies in human history combined, the monarchy isn't evill, POWER is evil, be it a democracy or dictatorship, a monarchy or what have you, people will kill each other for power and they'll burn men women and children to get it, the only deffrence is now governments has to do this song and dance playing like the people are in power when in reality it's them and them alone, your vote doesn't matter, you have no power over the system, if you are soo mad about monarchies, then you should be as mad about every system of government ever

​@@lemonlupinreuben5362 Yeah, he is exactly the person that OP is talking about.

Dude all forms of government that have been tried have committed terrible crimes. I ain't gonna stop watching a series based on medieval Europe cause of some fictional human rights abuse

And Rohan shall answer!

Monarchies are only fun when they don’t have any actual power

Because we learn about monarchies in schools and what monarchies are doing via world news? I wouldn’t judge someone living under a monarchy for having an opinion on democracies assuming your taught about them personally.

Because even your piddly little King functions as a black hole of wealth and thus power and stands opposed to the prosperity of all free people.

if that’s the case, then you don’t get to have an opinion on anyone else.

Queen Elizabeth II. Prevented a nuclear war between the USSR and USA after the "democratic" way failed and they were refusing to even communicate. How? By bringing both to dinner, kicking out anyone else and not letting them leave until they had a deal in place.

@@avroarchitect1793 and that completely fixes every bad thing she did.

@@kermitthefrog5446 give me a serious list other than she was queen while country x was still an imperial holding.

@@avroarchitect1793 Malayan Emergency Mau Mau Rebellion Bloody Sunday

You rather live in a oligarchy?

@@hagnartheviking6584 depend is the people that has the power doing for the people or them self

@@nightwolfnordberg9476 like any system it starts out "for the people" but after a century or so the ruling class is self interested.

Didn't he cheat on his wife?

@@theanimekid7839 didn't know that

@@theanimekid7839 no his wife cheated on him. he did however sleep with his sister before he was married.

@@DreZato12 So...when he was engaged? Is that not still cheating on a significant other?(I am genuinely curious)

@@theanimekid7839 depends on the version of the story but usually Arthur is tricked into sleeping with his sister (whom he has never met) before his future wife Guinevere is even introduced. this leads to the conception of Mordred who is a major antagonist to Arthur

...For therapeutic reasons we need a Actually Divine Mandated Royalty to come down hard on a Fakely Divine Mandated Royalty like a inverted version of Gate.