>no divine right to rule
>in fact most good gods seem to be anti-hierarchy egalitarians, those who rule 'because they have a right to' often worship evil gods
>there are still monarchies
>some of them are treated as capital G Good
>fantasy setting. >no divine right to rule
This phonograph "reads" a rock’s rough surface and transforms it into beautiful ambient music pic.twitter.com/PYDzYsWWf8— Surreal Videos (@SurrealVideos) March 3, 2023
Have you tried not playing DnD?
it's people like you that are the reason any time fantasy is mentioned that DnD is presumed you know, YOU are directly responsible for the omnipresence of DnD in the hobby at the expense of all other systems,YOU are complaining about the problem YOU perpetuate and YOU are too stupid to realize it
Don't shit your pants, OP is so dumb he couldn't even google a setting where what he's whining about is true.
imagine blaming Ganker posts for humanity's average IQ
Divine right to rule is based. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxwv8-oAasI
Gods in fantasy settings are too often literally just hyperpowered immortal mages anyways. What exactly is "religious" about following rule of concrete beings that can be consistently observed and their powers are objectively true? Shouldn't religions in that setting be formed around things that remain as unknown supernatural mysteries without rational explanations?
It was killed by nationalism, which was originally considered liberal degeneracy because conservatives of the 18th and 19th centuries thought that nation states will destroy European status quo. They were right about that too to be fair.
The idea that nationalism was in any way new in the 18th/19th centuries is fucking retarded, people were motivated by uniting their nations for millenia. Alfred was motivated by wanting to unite the English after being inspired by Bede, and that was well over 1000 years ago.
It had antecedents much as democracy did, but it didn't become the formalized standard for governments until the Treaty of Westphalia.
Never happened to me but I don't play D&D past 1E.
Most annoying thing to me is relatively common though, when Kings and nobility as a whole are portrayed as worse than the common man in most respects, when they're the ones with actual resources and clannish incentive to raise people to be as useful as they can. Also a bit lacking in flaws like actually not responding kindly to jibes when they're actually powerful kings who can have rude people defenestrated, but I get that can get in the way of the game with some groups.
>a few kings agree on common borders on paper
>this means there weren't nations prior
>just ignore all the primary sources
lol pop historians are always like this
Even worse when they pretend national racialism is a modern invention when reading any of the classics any many different culture mythical stories would disabuse them of the notion.
The multiple greek racist writings on scythians and africans from their hellene heyday, roman lawyers using rethoric against garden gnomes as fundamentally ungodly dishonest people or the depictions of brutus soldiers killing black merchants purely for their skin colour giving them a bad omen, gnomish priests warning people against close relations with kushites and mocking the egyptians for allowing a slave people to live in their land, berber poets agitating murder against gnomish sephardis for their role in royal politics, arab scholars writing how the zanj being the lowest of mankind or the norse lawspeakers threatening to drown their king if he wants to go to war with the friendly norwegians instead of the finns.
Finding this out isn't particularly hard if you're interested in the subject but i've found the people who are most ardent about "education" tend to be the least keen on actually educating themselves for real.
>rethoric against garden gnomes as fundamentally ungodly dishonest people
Things truly do never change, do they?
The ungodly part mainly refers to them being hostile everyone else's religious beliefs in a pantheistic society.
The dishonesty remarks were mostly aimed at their usury though.
>What exactly is "religious" about following rule of concrete beings that can be consistently observed and their powers are objectively true?
The state cults of Rome and ancient Egypt incorporated their human rulers as aspects of the divine and we can still call those "religions".
>What exactly is "religious" about following rule of concrete beings that can be consistently observed and their powers are objectively true?
There never was any necessity for gods to be distant, unknowable or even all powerful throughout history until Christianity and Co came about with their "My god super impossible to even imagine, all powerful, omniscient and he 100% can beat all of your gods".
In a D&D fantasy setting if you try something like this your neighbour will say "okay, cunt" and then his god will smite you with lightning.
You also really overestimate how much people in fantasy settings know about their gods or their abilities. Even clerics.
how come people tend to like the idea of monarchies and autocracies UNTIL they live under one?
For the same reason as commies: you just pretend that nothing will go wrong.
>like the idea of monarchies and autocracies
how come people think that just because you like something in a made up setting you'd like that thing in real life?
Do you think that people who like wargames want to go to war in real life you retard?
>how come people think that just because you like something in a made up setting you'd like that thing in real life?
It’s easy to be a retard when you don’t have to suffer the consequences
The same is true of democracies. Everyone just wants a shift in government because the government is always ineffectual--and this has been true since the bronze age.
There's a reason Christ advised people not to waste time worrying about the State, because the "I want to improve things somewhat" attitude invariably leads to despair as you realize, gradually, that every walk of life is bedeviled by imbeciles and you're lucky if you aren't one of them.
Monarchy does not always mean autocracy. You could have a diet, a council of lords, vassals, what-have-ye.
But in general it stems from alot of reasons.
Tiredness of partisan political bickering from parties.
Seemingly no real interest in the nation and its people from the ruling institutions.
A love of history and lore
The positive accounts of Kings and Lords where great things were accomplished.
And a bit of spite at the "Middle ages were mud covered shit and drap all the time" crowd of revisionists.
Modern monarchists are more constitutional monarchists. They want guaranteed freedoms and rights, as well as some form of representation, while still yearning for a proper captain of the ship of state. One free from all political bickering and partisan nonsense. Whos self interest and legacy is the well being of state and its people and them alone.
We got constitutional monarchies. They do nothing to prevent any of the issues you have with societies.
I also don't see why people wouldn't just push for democracy again once times are good. Western monarchies declined once. How are the monarchist expecting that things would go any different in the long run now?
Monarchies declined due to strain under serfdom and a growing merchant class that challenged the lords who kept it in place.
Even then, Most monarchies adapted. it was not until ww1 that monarchies fully fell out of favor due to the ideals of a certain american president who was rather notorious about pushing his will onto others.
>We got constitutional monarchies.
Not really. The monarchs today are mostly national pets. ALL the power is held by the various parliaments or whatever your nation calls them.
I think what that anon refers to is where the parliament and the monarch have equal power. each being a check on the other.
>Monarchies didn't/don't have partisan bullshit
Anon, I have some bad news.
>Tiredness of partisan political bickering from parties.
Cool, instead you'll get constant political bickering from various nobles over property rights and who gets to inherit what when someone croaks.
>Seemingly no real interest in the nation and its people from the ruling institutions.
Do you consider events such as the Thirty Years War to be an "interest in the nation and its people"? It wiped out 1/3rd of Germany's population at the time, after all.
>A love of history and lore
Most monarchs were inbred retards who could not care less about their history or lore beyond maybe memorizing what inheritances they'll get from various people. For instance, King James VI and I, who bankrolled that famous bible people like so much (to be fair its pretty well-written), was a moron who believed witches were out to get him (even though most learned Christians of Catholic or Protestant faiths would say that magic was under God's will only) and committed several murders of his own people under that delusion.
>Monarchy does not always mean autocracy. You could have oligarchy, oligarchy, oligarchy, or even oligarcy
Here's your king bro
I live in a Monarchy, we're not the ones who arbitrarily decided that child eunuchs were a thing worth bringing back. That was you guys. We have an actual civilization, the only monument to your existence will be a hazardous waste landfill where the last abortion clinic dumps your final generation.
Holy fucking shit.
>I live in a Monarchy, we're not the ones who arbitrarily decided that child eunuchs were a thing worth bringing back. That was you guys. We have an actual civilization, the only monument to your existence will be a hazardous waste landfill where the last abortion clinic dumps your final generation.
Why are you posting like you're an anime villain? You that gassed up by living in Saudi Arabia or some other religious shithole like that?
You don't even have monuments.
Ours are free to become eunuchs because we have so many of them.
That sand you scrub your ass with isn't working, by the way - I can smell you from here.
Same reason college kids still romanticize socialism despite it consistently resulting in the worst genocides in history followed by starvation and systemic collapse: the ideal is pretty
this is your brain on propaganda
If you went to college, you'd know how dumb and wrong you are.
Instead, you're just bitter, stupid and lonely. And you don't know why you're lashing out, but to everyone else around watching you do it, it's so pitiful. We understand what's wrong with you and it's so easy to resolve but you refuse it because you're afraid of what you don't understand. It's only human. But it's still sad when it happens.
You're a victim.
But you still deserve your suffering because it is of your own making.
Stop smoking meth
That was 20 century socialism. You see, 21 century socialism is about dressing as a woman to apologize for being white. Get your definitions updated, don't be a chud.
Monarchy is a simple system where only 2 things need to go right. The ruler just needs to be benevolent and competent.
Any system can go bad if something goes wrong.
Because I've seen enough """Elected""" politicians do worse shit than my monarch and then swan off into the sunset to make more money after they swap seats with the other coloured party.
At least a monarch might have to think about the long term and an heir instead of 4-8 years to make as much bank as they can.
But mostly, because it feels like it can't get much worse.
>At least a monarch might have to think about the long term and an heir instead of 4-8 years to make as much bank as they can.
Human don't think long terme at all anon, it is the act of a very few like Mazarin.
>But mostly, because it feels like it can't get much worse.
Oh boy you are for a ride.
People want their problems solved for them, put a big man in charge and have him take care of everything and fix the nation. What they fail to remember is no one has the exact same opinions you do so eventually your wishes diverge from those of monarch... but you gave them absolute power, your input no longer matters.
That's not true. Literally thousands of monarchies have had loyal subjects who viewed it as the best option
based on what
The gods pimp-slapped every stupid motherfucker who mistook the divine responsibility to rule for a divine right. Consequently, every king either realizes that he has the Sword of Damocles hanging over his head if he acts like a tyrant, or runs to the dubious shelter of a tyrannical god.
Third post best post but the hytnpdndtoads will never get it
This. Noblesse oblige. Your rights of authority, especially hereditary responsibility come with duties and obligations. The king is the father and protector of his people, if he behaves as a tyrant he loses the support of the gods.
Please stop it with the dumb greentext threads.
>God being good or evil
Shit thread is shit.
There are multiple gods in Conan and some of them are EXPLICITLY real. Jhebbal Sag is 100% a real thing for example. Mitra is implied in The Phoenix in the Sword to be as well.
This you would know if you had ever actually read Conan, which of course you have not because you are a brainlet. It is LITERALLY all free. You can go read it right now.
>Jhebbal Sag is 100% a real thing for example
"Jhebbal Sag" is not a name that appears in any of the Conan material that was written by Robert E. Howard (AKA the only Conan material that matters)
You sound like an ignorant gay who has never read "Beyond the Black River"
>Beyond the Black River
Based, that was my favorite story of his as a kid. My dad had all the old Conan books in paperback.
Why has there been such a rise is stupid opinionated people about Conan?
Conan does have multiple gods and some of them are VERY clear cut good or evil. Most in fact tend towards blatantly evil.
>medium has a very low bar for entry
>all you need is an imagination and a set of simple, agreeable rules for your game and how key aspects of the setting functions
>there are still retards who get hung up on what others do
>they spam threads all day instead of making games how they want
>arrogant humans being hubristic enough to claim that the gods want them to rule while actual gods, demigods, and other powerful beings potentially walk the land, have a greater claim, or can dispute them violently
What the fuck
AI in training, plz understand
>ai can now make a human and a dog sitting side by side with the only mistake being the hands
damn ai is fucking good these days
Yeah, massive improvement over the past few years. It isn't done yet.
the improvement just over the last six months has exceeded what people a few years ago called impossible
not to be ai-doomer but it’s kind of worrisome. Not because Skynet or HAL, but because it’s going to start massively affecting society and culture in ways we likely won’t even be capable of tracking
afaik, companies already have plans to limit available compute power to their training models in the near future. Which is interesting as implications go. It's good to consider what you can do, but I think it's too late to be worried.
Godrick the Grafted's early years
>no divine right to shit
>in fact most fat shitters seem to be anti-street shitting, those who shit 'because they have a right to' often worship Big Toilet
>there are still public shitting streets
>some of them are treated as capital S Shitters
>It is LITERALLY all free. You can go read it right now.
nice to know, do you have any link?
I’d argue it might be less Divine Right of Kings and more like the Chinese Mandate of Heaven.
A ruler has the divine right to rule, and is supported by the gods up until the point they become cruel and corrupt, at which point natural disasters and plague and famine all happen as the gods are displeased and the king has lost the favor of the gods. This means it’s time for a new king.
That's still Divine Right. The King is the Land
I would say the difference between Mandate of Heaven is Mandate basically says “The Gods have given a responsibility to rule so rule well” vs Divine Right’s “My rule is absolute as ordained by God.”
Mandate was about responsibility. A bad ruler was unfit to rule, and thus rightfully able to be deposed.
>zero relation to actual games
>in fact, zero relation with anything at all, just random rambling and non-issues
>still not banned
>some treat him as just a feature of /tg
Just going to say this plainly. Dumbfuck moral relativists and even dumber fuckers that equate good with stupid in /tg/ need to stop posting... period.
Look, moral relativism is the most stupidly sophomoric ration of shit that all kiddos pos 1980 have ever bought into. No, it's not a valid philosophical viewpoint, it's been repudiated thoroughly and people who discover it and think it's "cool and edgy" are basically the brainlets and the sort of people that just want to excuse their utter lack of any sense of personal responsibility for their own acts and don't want to believe that they're bad people. And as for people that think good= stupid.... or that good = pacifistic nonsense. Clue in dipshits, good only started equaling this pacifist bs around the 1950s and 1960s following two monumental world wars. Prior to that good has always meant that the good didn't tolerate the evil out there and that people would go after it with the proverbial flaming fucking sword of vengence. So no... in a fantasy setting good should be militant motherfuckers out to stamp out evil. If you're not portraying them like that, then you're a fuckup.
>Clue in dipshits, good only started equaling this pacifist bs around the 1950s and 1960s following two monumental world wars.
I had no idea that Jainism didn't exist until the 1950s and 1960s
Most of the LG are pro-divine rights
Only the CG hippies hate it
Divine right to rule only works under a monotheistic system.
Divine right to rule was not a thing in the middle ages. It is Louis XIV propaganda. The thirty years war lead to a massive increase of the power of the European states and the divine right to rule was their propaganda machines justifying absolutism.
"Divine right" does not necessarily mean that a given individual is divinely ordained to act as monarch, but to the institution of monarchy.
it's pretty simple
>existence of God or Gods is an unknown factor
you're allowed to do this you know
The divine right to rule is a central part of a story i'm working on. It's scifi fantasy though.
This is an interesting topic because I pondered upon this for an idea for a fantasy setting.
To get to the point, the divinity of the right to rule wasn't beholden to gods so much as the act itself because I hate the idea of One True Gods like the Christian god so the right to rule for monarchs came from making a covenant with their people and their divine power stemmed from that covenant which could also take the form of a being that could be a god.
That said, the strength of the covenant can and would falter so if it wasn't maintained and fell out either because the people no longer believed or the monarchs themselves became shit then the Covenant would break and lead to their downfall.
The divine right of rule stems from the contract between ruler and their people and did not require a god to enact.
I assume you've heard of the Mandate of Heaven. Basically as long as the ruler is just he has the support of the gods. If he lets the power get to his head and start acting corrupt, the gods withdraw their support, disasters strike the land, and people are given a divine go-ahead to rebel and overthrow the ruling dynasty. Then the mandate is passed on to a new person who has been found worthy (probably be leading the rebellion to overthrow the previous ruler) and the cycle begins anew.
Gross "ai" art.
This shit will never look good.
Such a good portrait, ruined by the AI completely not understanding hands and fingers.
>setting has benevolent and powerful gods
>people can actively interact with the gods
>somehow nobody has thought of just getting rid of the inbred middle man and just letting the gods rule
In my setting, that's how it worked in the first age, but in the second age the father of the gods was dead and the gods, with nobody telling them what to do anymore, fucked off and left designated kings in charge, which then led to people saying "fuck that guy, he doesn't have magic powers, he can't tell us what to do" and splitting up into separate kingdoms. Especially since the kings were sometimes being told to fight wars with each other in service of the gods' petty personal disputes, as things up in heaven got kinda dramatic back then.
>All power is held by hyper-muscular gigachads who rule with an iron fist
>The morality of the society entirely revolves around the right of the strong to do what they please and the duty of the weak to suffer what they must
>All of the societies religions fully support, justify, and buttress these attitudes
>The entire thing makes a Boris Valejo painting look effete and prudish
Well done OP, just add a bit about all the women being mindbroken and permanently naked slaves/broodmares and you'll have your Gor themed magical realm ready to go in no time.
That's kind of gay.
Your mom's kind of gay.
Like why would you want to live in a world where guys are all muscular and half-naked and girls are objects and not like... People you love and want to build your life with?
To me Conan is gay af. You can only have so much testosterone til you start to like it waaay too much.
Was my first post (
) not obviously sarcastic enough?
Clearly not, but I feel some guys literally are unable to see the homoerotic under tones in Barbarian shit. Like my dude, if your fantasy art is indistinguishable from gay porn erotica, don't you think it's at least A LITTLE gay? Specially if you yourself is very out of shape?
Meet a guy like that the other day and he got angry at me for pointing it out.
I think some of it might be aspirational/vicarious wish fulfilment - but it still gets pretty fucked up if it is, as I was trying to point out in the clearly not sarcastic enough post above.
t. Never read Robert E Howard Conan
I actually read a lot of Conan, both the books and the comics.
It's what made me like fantasy in the first place, my favorite short story is the tower of the elephant.
It's true that the stories themselves are not very gay but the art and the aesthetics are very homoerotic.
That's mostly because Frazetta spent so much time learning anatomy he was like "I'll be damned if I hide all that under clothing" so half-naked barbarian dudes everywhere. Also half-naked women, but hey.
>Races were all created by separate gods who were bored and just want to see which race can claim Earth