>high resolution image >image hash search has no results >google image search had no results initially, and now has results leading to reddit almost exactly on the hour OP posted (16 hours ago) >there's at least one fa/tg/uy who spams his commission pictures on threads and creates overall low quality threads using his commissioned pictures
I'm a fan of a classic humble kingly figure, who recognizes his position on the throne as ultimately a form of servitude. Understanding of noble culture, and his need for sovereignty over the common masses, yet not above them as a common man. Think Aragorn / Elessar II.
I wouldn't particularly say this thread is low quality. At the very least, the question invites actual discussion, and the image is pretty good. Then again, I haven't seen the other alleged low quality threads.
>humble kingly figure
I’m trying to think of a good historical example for this. I’m sure there is one because the trope exists just can’t seem to think of a specific example though.
A king that dresses in modest robes, eats simple food and maintains a functional but minimally furnished palace gives an impression of modesty, severity and a confidence that he is the king without having to advertise it.
I mean if everything's running smooth most people probably won't complain either way. Government's like trash pick up. You really shouldn't pay much heed to it unless things are really wienered up.
eh idk about that in a pre modern society. symbology and decorum and the apreciation of wealth/power is extremly important. there are hundreds of pages of papers on it.
What narrative role would an non-extravagant king have?
Could be a particularly religious king, or one that wants to cultivate such an image of peity. like a quaker whaler might be revoltingly rich, but might not even were buttons as it is seen as a nono in his sect for excess.
>I mean if everything's running smooth most people probably won't complain either way
Most people don't matter. The ones who keep a king in power are the ones who themselves are rich enough to afford an army they choose not to use to depose the king. A king that is not giving out generous gifts and living ostentatious is vulnerable to a duke/prince/noble who is more willing to provide largesse, because the nobility is fundamentally built around financial loyalty.
Not at all. They must be as cleanly dressed as possible, but their accoutrement should reflect that these are leaders of war, meant to be taken seriously.
No luxuries needed or wanted. Just be the war chief, the chief priest, and the supreme judge. Luxuries make you decadent and weak.
Also, it helps reduce expenditure. Which in turns means less taxes and a wealthier populace, which means a richer and more disciplined realm that knows to be austere and practical.
The system louis the XIVth had set up was pretty brilliant, but it could only work when managed by a man of Louis the XIVths caliber.
The system in question consisted of bunching up all the nobility in versailles and making them captive there, not much intrigue could be done if you all lived in the same house as the king and the other quintillion courtiers, this system also requiered someone like louis to make it work properly.
The Japanese did something similar during the Tokugawa shogunate and it lasted for several hundred years, until social unrest from renewed Western contact caused the Meiji Restoration.
The king should be going hard in one direction or the other, if you want your players to pay attention to him at all. Hearing about him openly berating the Duke of Ponceton for daring to complain there were no pork pies being served in the palace on Good Friday because "it's technically a fish!" is good. is good. Other strong traits like zeal, greed, or degeneracy are good, and can be expressed with his trappings of office. Otherwise he'll just be a background character, for better or worse.
He did bring an entire monastic order into his circle and virtually made it the primary religion of the kingdom. The only controversy (which is a hush hush matter within the Church itself) is that the god like idol is possibly the Emperor himself which may or may not have lead to his untimely death/assassination.
I have a king modeled on Ludwig II of Bavaria, he's crippling the entire economy of his lands to build a magnificent palace. He's a lover of arts and likable person, yet naive and ruinous ruler. Ultimately he needs to be ousted, but I'm letting the players come to that realization themselves without too much railroading.
They're obviously a great trope and have their place in stories, but I've been on a kick for the more no nonsense "I got a kingdom to run" kind of kings. More like Lord Vetinari, the Patrictian from the Discworld books.
I love the idea of a leader that understands their people at a foundational level and knows how to compromise to keep everything running in a way that keeps things STABLE. Not good, but stable. The kind of king that allows organized crime because it's certainly better than disorganized crime.
Lord Vetinari let the old crime bosses go legitimate because it made them easier to control and he could fold them into his government as enforcers and administrators. It also made them easier to deal with as they grew complacent and started living in mansions rather than hideouts, started hiring butlers rather than thugs and then Vetinari informed them that they would have to start abiding by some standards and also that he now knew where they lived, what school their children went to and where their wives went to get their hair done. He liked organized crime because it was easier to deal with.
The other good kings on Discworld were King Verence I & II of Lancre. The former didn't seem to go in for the usual royal bling because his hobbies were drinking, hunting and fathering bastards. The second Verence lived very austere due to his former life as the court jester. Neither Verence were really very good rulers but that was fine because the people of Lancre weren't good at being ruled.
Depends honestly. If the Kingdom is decadent you bet the King is a fatfrick decked out in israeliteels and status symbols. Though not always, I usually like to set my standard with Foltest from Witcher 2, as he just seems so fuggin' cool to me. But once again not always, just depends on my tastes at the time, what kind of Kingdom he runs, and whatever art/commissions I've horded
Depends. If I want to portray a corrupt, ineffective monarch, then yeah, usually I make them pretty extravagant. Otherwise I have a lazy tendancy to portray them as humble
Nice commission bro
Thank you!
How do you know it is a commission?
>high resolution image
>image hash search has no results
>google image search had no results initially, and now has results leading to reddit almost exactly on the hour OP posted (16 hours ago)
>there's at least one fa/tg/uy who spams his commission pictures on threads and creates overall low quality threads using his commissioned pictures
I'm a fan of a classic humble kingly figure, who recognizes his position on the throne as ultimately a form of servitude. Understanding of noble culture, and his need for sovereignty over the common masses, yet not above them as a common man. Think Aragorn / Elessar II.
I wouldn't particularly say this thread is low quality. At the very least, the question invites actual discussion, and the image is pretty good. Then again, I haven't seen the other alleged low quality threads.
>humble kingly figure
I’m trying to think of a good historical example for this. I’m sure there is one because the trope exists just can’t seem to think of a specific example though.
Frederick The Great, self proclaimed First Servant of Prussia.
he said that in the art thread
he always posts his commission in the art thread, and then just makes a thread with it
every time
Not at all
If they're not extravagant, they're not a king.
Depends on their narrative role.
What narrative role would an non-extravagant king have?
Beggar King
A seemingly pointless poor old man, who's actually a king, is a troupe that goes back a very long time.
A king that dresses in modest robes, eats simple food and maintains a functional but minimally furnished palace gives an impression of modesty, severity and a confidence that he is the king without having to advertise it.
However, he may make people start wondering whether they even need to obey him.
So he will need to make up for his lack in extravagance by being a famed soldier and administrator.
I mean if everything's running smooth most people probably won't complain either way. Government's like trash pick up. You really shouldn't pay much heed to it unless things are really wienered up.
eh idk about that in a pre modern society. symbology and decorum and the apreciation of wealth/power is extremly important. there are hundreds of pages of papers on it.
Could be a particularly religious king, or one that wants to cultivate such an image of peity. like a quaker whaler might be revoltingly rich, but might not even were buttons as it is seen as a nono in his sect for excess.
>I mean if everything's running smooth most people probably won't complain either way
Most people don't matter. The ones who keep a king in power are the ones who themselves are rich enough to afford an army they choose not to use to depose the king. A king that is not giving out generous gifts and living ostentatious is vulnerable to a duke/prince/noble who is more willing to provide largesse, because the nobility is fundamentally built around financial loyalty.
How much did that commission cost?
5 bills
Not at all. They must be as cleanly dressed as possible, but their accoutrement should reflect that these are leaders of war, meant to be taken seriously.
No luxuries needed or wanted. Just be the war chief, the chief priest, and the supreme judge. Luxuries make you decadent and weak.
Also, it helps reduce expenditure. Which in turns means less taxes and a wealthier populace, which means a richer and more disciplined realm that knows to be austere and practical.
If they're not as ostentatious as the Sun King, Louis XIV, then they are in need of renovation.
Exactly. The French monarchy knew how to rule in style.
Didn't their expenses drive the kingdom into crippling debt?
Only sometimes. They definitely knew how to handle being a king. Probably the greatest monarchy that ever existed to be honest.
The system louis the XIVth had set up was pretty brilliant, but it could only work when managed by a man of Louis the XIVths caliber.
The system in question consisted of bunching up all the nobility in versailles and making them captive there, not much intrigue could be done if you all lived in the same house as the king and the other quintillion courtiers, this system also requiered someone like louis to make it work properly.
The Japanese did something similar during the Tokugawa shogunate and it lasted for several hundred years, until social unrest from renewed Western contact caused the Meiji Restoration.
Looks like an effeminate gay.
Probably one of the greatest kings in history next to Charlemagne
Still looks an old homosexual I could heem in a 1 vs 1.
By that time kings weren’t warriors anymore.
You're just jealous he's a 60 year old man with better calves than you
Frick! He does have good calves.
People back in the day had good calves.
The king should be going hard in one direction or the other, if you want your players to pay attention to him at all. Hearing about him openly berating the Duke of Ponceton for daring to complain there were no pork pies being served in the palace on Good Friday because "it's technically a fish!" is good. is good. Other strong traits like zeal, greed, or degeneracy are good, and can be expressed with his trappings of office. Otherwise he'll just be a background character, for better or worse.
At what point did she perform her duties?
Depends. Warrior Kings tend to be grizzled and spartan. Same with Philosopher kings.
Most others tend to foppishness and overly ostentatious.
He did bring an entire monastic order into his circle and virtually made it the primary religion of the kingdom. The only controversy (which is a hush hush matter within the Church itself) is that the god like idol is possibly the Emperor himself which may or may not have lead to his untimely death/assassination.
Looks like someone started slapping plates on him in GMod.
My king is a brutal warrior and not some foppish oaf.
I have a king modeled on Ludwig II of Bavaria, he's crippling the entire economy of his lands to build a magnificent palace. He's a lover of arts and likable person, yet naive and ruinous ruler. Ultimately he needs to be ousted, but I'm letting the players come to that realization themselves without too much railroading.
They're obviously a great trope and have their place in stories, but I've been on a kick for the more no nonsense "I got a kingdom to run" kind of kings. More like Lord Vetinari, the Patrictian from the Discworld books.
I love the idea of a leader that understands their people at a foundational level and knows how to compromise to keep everything running in a way that keeps things STABLE. Not good, but stable. The kind of king that allows organized crime because it's certainly better than disorganized crime.
Lord Vetinari let the old crime bosses go legitimate because it made them easier to control and he could fold them into his government as enforcers and administrators. It also made them easier to deal with as they grew complacent and started living in mansions rather than hideouts, started hiring butlers rather than thugs and then Vetinari informed them that they would have to start abiding by some standards and also that he now knew where they lived, what school their children went to and where their wives went to get their hair done. He liked organized crime because it was easier to deal with.
The other good kings on Discworld were King Verence I & II of Lancre. The former didn't seem to go in for the usual royal bling because his hobbies were drinking, hunting and fathering bastards. The second Verence lived very austere due to his former life as the court jester. Neither Verence were really very good rulers but that was fine because the people of Lancre weren't good at being ruled.
The Queen is dead. Long live the king.
Nice tie frickface.
Not yet jug ears.
That's King Jug-Ears III to you.
I take it back, it does appear that she's departed. Long live king Big Ears.
DING DONG THE WITCH IS DEAD
That’s really only acceptable to say if you’re Irish.
We know he isn't. The Irish aren't literate.
Americans can say whatever they want about her.
Depends honestly. If the Kingdom is decadent you bet the King is a fatfrick decked out in israeliteels and status symbols. Though not always, I usually like to set my standard with Foltest from Witcher 2, as he just seems so fuggin' cool to me. But once again not always, just depends on my tastes at the time, what kind of Kingdom he runs, and whatever art/commissions I've horded
Depends. If I want to portray a corrupt, ineffective monarch, then yeah, usually I make them pretty extravagant. Otherwise I have a lazy tendancy to portray them as humble
Very. Cheers from Ganker
OG chad.
Like all monarchs, she was a parasite on society.
It is actually society that is the parasite on the monarch.
>She had three sons.
You know what, fair play.
If a King is extravagant beyond public ceremony he should be killed.