[ a / cm / ic / sci / tg / v / vg / vip / y ] [ index / top / statistics / report bug ]

/tg/ - Traditional Games

View Post

File: 161KiB, 1228x868, IMG_5937.jpg [View Same] [Google] [iqdb] [SauceNAO]
69297780 No.69297780 [Reply] [Original]

Would putting a democratic government in a fantasy setting be a good idea or would it just be stupid?

>> No.69297797
Quoted By: >>69297808 >>69298100

It's neither a good idea nor is it stupid.

>> No.69297808


>> No.69297847

Well, we've had democracy since at least antiquity. Of course it wouldn't be anything like modern democracy.

>> No.69297851
Quoted By: >>69298100

Depends on how deep you're willing to go in on it, like how do people vote? (if voting matters) What type of democracy is it?
How much does the state influence the world?
Pure 'democracy' or just a republic like Venice or something?

>> No.69297947
Quoted By: >>69298046

IDK, much of the US federal structure was ripped off the Iroquois Confederacy.

>> No.69298010

It would definitely work on a village level with surrounding farms. You might even be able to make it work in larger towns or cities, though it's far more likely the same few rich people would be elected every time there and noone else would even bother trying. But if you want democracy for something the size of a country or nation, you need an efficient means of communicating, and I don't just mean sending instantaneous magical messages that only the wealthy can afford. No, you need something at least so affordable that newspapers or similar can get access to reports of events from anywhere in the country and then report them in their own village. If you don't have that communication everyone is just going to be all "why should they have a say in who rules us, we've got nothing in common with them." Even if "they" in this case is just 30 miles away. For democracy to work you need people to feel they're part of the same thing at least, and even then it's no guarantee. The disjointed states of America have a hard time with it even today despite all agreeing on "America! Fuck Yeah!".

>> No.69298046

Well, it's a good thing we can, once again, blame all our problems on non-whites.

>> No.69298074
File: 5KiB, 259x194, Papal.png [View Same] [Google] [iqdb] [SauceNAO]
Quoted By: >>69298254

What kind of democracy? An elected monarchy? A republic? The de facto democracy of feudalism?
What percentage of the populace gets to vote? All adults? Landowners? The rich? Those within an appointed committee? Foreign aristocrats?

>> No.69298076


>> No.69298100

What is it then?
Democractic Republic, I think. I was thinking just taking America's system and dropping it in a fantasy world.
I was thinking about taking a functionalist approach, meaning things will be more liberal as time passes. For now, nobles will be the only ones voting.

>> No.69298173
Quoted By: >>69298207 >>69299380

I model my democracies as very left leaning and kind of extremist, usually highly militant and focused on a Liberal or Communist revolution. They have extremely large armies and near universal drafts, and thus have extremely huge militaries compared to similar population sizes. This makes them a pretty dangerous force, but I usually have them hell-bent on eliminating the aristocracy and enabling appropriately universal suffrage (depending on the setting and the societal structure, i.e. a realistic one will only implement suffrage for the majority race’s men, while a high fantasy one will implement it for every race and both genders). They have a strong sense of moral superiority, so the gods they choose to worship tend to get some REALLY dedicated followers out of these societies.

Tl;dr make them extremist revolutionaries on a moral and philosophical and religious crusade, and give them enormous “peoples’ armies”

>> No.69298192
Quoted By: >>69298583

>What is it then?
Depends on the details

>> No.69298199
Quoted By: >>69298583

>I was thinking just taking America's system and dropping it in a fantasy world.

Modern or like old timey where the right to vote was for land owners? Would imagine fantasy world not having the same government bureaucracy to handle voter registration, ensuring fair vote, etc. A simplified system where land owners vote for local matters and for representatives to go to the capital once in a while to vote on issues regarding the whole state.

>> No.69298207
File: 76KiB, 370x320, 843D3D99-9B30-4750-85EF-EE92D74426FA.png [View Same] [Google] [iqdb] [SauceNAO]
Quoted By: >>69298236 >>69298323


>> No.69298208

It's plausible, democracy as a concept has existed at least since Athens and prototypical versions probably existed earlier. Just do a little research first, democracies are highly varied and most of them were radically different from what we consider to be democracy these days.

>> No.69298210

Nobles voting makes sense and was a thing that happened. They have a lot of power to bargain with.

Commoners voting (on matters that affect nobles) would be actively resisted by the Nobles, and the nobles usually make sure that the guards, knights, and other people with a capacity for violence are loyal to them directly.

Historically, that means a system where common people have a say in national matters, or choose who is above them, wont come about without a lot of bloodshed.

>> No.69298217
Quoted By: >>69298294

Read the Federalist Papers.

>> No.69298236

Not him but at least in theory a democracy can decide on communistic organization, of course in practical reality every example results in totalitarianism and the complete elimination of democratic decisionmaking from the society.

>> No.69298254
Quoted By: >>69298676 >>69298938

Why not? Rome was as democratic as it gets prior to France's introduction of unweighted universal (male) suffrage so it's perfectly doable. Every male Roman citizen got a vote proportional to his wealth and a few plebs even made it to consul.

>Of course it wouldn't be anything like modern democracy.
Because modern democracy was a mistake.

>Foreign aristocrats?
Sounds absolutely retarded, but I wouldn't be surprised if that actually happened somewhere in history.

>> No.69298294

Not him, but I have and the Federalist Papers were written to defend a system where only the top 6% could vote. This system has been fully dismantled since at least Jackson.

And that's presuming you actually follow the Federalist's definitions of Democracy and Republic, which would make the Roman Republic a democracy and Athenian democracy a republic. It's also a dichotomy I've never seen used outside of the Federalist Papers.

>> No.69298323
Quoted By: >>69298432

Don’t worry, I’m not a commie. But when they organize like in ww1 and ww2 they make a good military powerhouse.

>> No.69298432
Quoted By: >>69298597 >>69298704

No a Communist system is anathema to democracy. To be communist is to eliminate anything like a democracy or dictatorship

>> No.69298583
Quoted By: >>69299103 >>69299458

Hm. I was thinking that this democratic nation is somewhat new and built from the ashes of a tyrannical leader that was overthrown after a bloody civil war. Most of other kingdoms on the continent would be pretty hostile towards them as they are absolute monarchies. These are idea are kind of fresh.
Secomd thing.

>> No.69298597
Quoted By: >>69298820 >>69299276

False. Comunism, where property is nonexistant, is anathema to human nature.

Say what you will about capitalism, but trade and buying things is something that toddlers understand. If a kid wants a toy that some other kid has, they're probably gonna try and swap it with another toy. In places where currency isn't available, like prison, they use something else, like cigarettes. Those things are ingrained in our DNA.

>> No.69298606


>> No.69298676
Quoted By: >>69298699 >>69298795

>Because modern democracy was a mistake.

Only when you don't get what you want.

>> No.69298699
Quoted By: >>69298759 >>69298789

Nah, when women vote everybody loses. Including women.

>> No.69298704
Quoted By: >>69299235

The reds during the russian revolution organized into local democratic councils called “soviets”

It’s where the fucking name came from. Again, I agree that communism is a horrifyingly destructive ideology, but to say that it’s never democratic is to blatantly ignore history.

>> No.69298754

No, though it makes less sense in settings where kings and emperors really do have divine right.

>> No.69298759
Quoted By: >>69298872

Imagine being this retarded

The same people pushing this shit are the ones whining about that canadian law that said employers can’t discriminate based on gender identity and thought it meant you could be jailed for accidentally calling an ugly tranny the wrong name.

Which never happened. Just like societies never collapsed because half the population got the right to vote. The idea that women are somehow less capable than men is hilarious to anyone whose brain hasn’t been rotted by conspiracy-tier pseudoscience.

>> No.69298785
File: 564KiB, 1920x1080, rome 1464635320085.jpg [View Same] [Google] [iqdb] [SauceNAO]


>> No.69298789
Quoted By: >>69299120

Are you saying women are beating men in voter turnout, so they have to ban them instead of improving? That sounds like whiny SJW logic to me. If you can't compete, get out of the race, m8.

>> No.69298795
Quoted By: >>69298880

Nobody but the government and the relatively small fraction of society who are it's exclusive dependents get what they want. Modern """democracy""" is more quasi-socialist with a "mixed" command economy directly inspired by fascism, it's practically an inversion of the ideal of democracy and also a perversion of constitutional representative republics in which the representatives have usurped control by modifying the system to allow the majority of people in power to be elevated to power without being elected by their people.

>> No.69298820


No it isnt.

>> No.69298832

Make it interesting and its fine, like maybe an elf dwarf resistance fighting for the right to vote, or maybe only literal gods vote for the king

>> No.69298872
Quoted By: >>69299000

That's right, goy, you wax those female balls.

>> No.69298880
Quoted By: >>69298984

Yeah, the rurals did hijack the US system. Rural life is subsidized by city populations, from gas subsidies to infrastructure spending, rural areas get massively more in welfare than they put in. This should be seriously reversed to cause people to move to economically productive areas instead of continuing to be a drain on the economy.

Neither party will ever do that though, because it gives the republicans a massive electoral advantage and the dems are spineless. Since rural voters’ votes are worth more than urban ones due to the electoral college, you get a consistent pattern of republican candidates losing the popular vote but being propelled into positions of authority regardless.

I disagree about the US having a command economy though, that’s just nonsense.

>> No.69298938

>Sounds absolutely retarded, but I wouldn't be surprised if that actually happened somewhere in history.
Commonwealth had this system after their king died without heirs.

>> No.69298984
Quoted By: >>69299033

>farmer getting subsidies is equal to a junkie picking up his welfare check and free needles

>> No.69299000
Quoted By: >>69299023

Brilliant argument. Now tell me about how rome collapsed because of women getting the vote, and not a process covering hundreds of years with dozens of critical moments and societal trends.

>> No.69299023
Quoted By: >>69299044

Why would I defend an argument you strawmanned?

>> No.69299033
Quoted By: >>69299129

It’s not farmers, it’s people who work at a rural walmart and bitch about it while they suck up more dollars than they pay in taxes.

Rural areas do not contain the industries that represent modern economically viable means of production. They do not deserve to be subsidized on the backs of urban professionals so that Billy Redneck can stay home drinking all day.

>> No.69299044

Make an argument, then.

>> No.69299079
File: 18KiB, 500x375, 1459901644079.jpg [View Same] [Google] [iqdb] [SauceNAO]

Why is your OP american if the thread is about democracy?

>> No.69299103

Any given ruling system isnt inherently bad or good. An absolute monarch can be fine if they make sure their populace has basic needs fufilled. Healthcare, food availability, jobs, etc. If they start limiting personal freedoms, there gets to be problems.

Likewise, democracies can be bad if improperly structured. If it is too easy for the rich and powerful (like the US system today) to gain traction, then you have corrupt leaders who cater to big business, damage our education system and send jobs overseas to turn a quick profit, all while damaging our environment, making healthcare unaffordable and selling out to other world leaders.

The reason the US got powerful was due entirely to how our country was led. We were led by the best and brightest for decades, causing a period of rich expansion. our major hiccup was the civil war. once that was over, other than some societal problems in the south, we had almost a century of straight growth, even when dealing with a terrible economy and two HUGE wars. 1950's-1980's America was the pinnacle of our country.

>> No.69299120
Quoted By: >>69299142

no. women decided 2016. had more voted for hillary, she'd have won. the gender support wasnt there. women vote against their own interests as much as for them. but so do men.

>> No.69299129
Quoted By: >>69299189

So, we should force unemployed people from rural areas into cities, which already have tons of unemployed people smooching off of the system, and this'll fix everything... how exactly? Or would you instead like to dismantle the welfare system itself, so all those hard working people can keep more of their money?

>> No.69299142
Quoted By: >>69299255

>so do men

But women are the problem.

>> No.69299189
Quoted By: >>69299261

Neither. Subsidize rural areas less while massively relaxing zoning laws (especially in cities) to enable massive urban growth to handle the incoming population. Strike down rent control. Encourage the market to create more high density housing and attract new businesses wherever possible. If you absolutely HAVE to, subsidize government moving assistance to get people the fuck out of rural areas.

Essentially, the money used for rural subsidies is better spent making cities bigger and more productive. I think the current welfare system should be abolished and replaced by a negative income tax as well, since people are better at budgeting and spending money themselves than the government is trying to organize and voucherize everything for them.

>> No.69299235

Yeah so they weren't communist. About as communist as the Chinese are now.

>> No.69299255
Quoted By: >>69299391

Yeah, because women are leeches who (as a group) neither pay taxes nor are able or willing to defend the country. You don't put your national integrity in the hands of people whose first instinct when threatened is to spread their legs. That's just begging for your country to be taken over and your men to be executed in the streets. Between that and the utter contempt women feel for men in general, female suffrage means we aren't going to have a good time.

Islam is winning because it knows the place of women and keeps them there. Muhammad even went as far as establishing the idea that women are mentally deficient as Islamic doctrine.

>> No.69299261
Quoted By: >>69299391

And all the people who don't want to move into your utopian police city state?

>> No.69299276
Quoted By: >>69299446

Communism is the establishment of a society of common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money, and the state. The moment you have a governing class, you don't have communism

>> No.69299380

This or make a Republic of merchants

>> No.69299391

What is utopian about wanting people to be productive instead of leeches? The people that lick the boots of the police are almost universally right wingers in the USA and cities lean to the left.
Women do a shitload of unpaid labor by raising children and maintaining households that contributes massively to the economy, and your defense comment ignores the Kurdish women fighters that everyone knows about and the historical laws against women serving in the military. There are enormous amounts of counter-examples. And plus, for every woman who “opens her legs when threatened” there’s a man who’s unzipping his dick... so if your point is about it being disloyal to fuck the enemy then it doesn’t make sense because men do the same thing.

>women feel contempt for men
Women feel contempt for men who say women are awful. Men feel contempt for women who say men are awful. This is just basic human instincts.

There’s no conspiracy here, but I doubt this will get through to you.

>> No.69299446

people mix us socialism and communism all the time

>> No.69299458
File: 100KiB, 600x421, Republic of St Mark.jpg [View Same] [Google] [iqdb] [SauceNAO]

>Hm. I was thinking that this democratic nation is somewhat new and built from the ashes of a tyrannical leader that was overthrown after a bloody civil war. Most of other kingdoms on the continent would be pretty hostile towards them as they are absolute monarchies. These are idea are kind of fresh.
I think that's a great premise, and you have plenty of historical examples to draw inspiration from, OP!

Keep in mind that, other than very, very few exceptions (for instance, the US is not a good example of your "typical" democratic uprising), virtually none of these republican/democratic revolutionary governments ever meet a good end. Even arguably very successful ones (like Florence's "our several politicians literally trapped in a building for several months doing politician stuff until they're allowed to go free"-style plutocracy) never end well, and eventually fall prey to bigger fish. More often they end up the target of drastic "punitive expeditions", which I feel is a great situation to dump your players in. That sense of tragedy is just part of the fun!

If you can capitalize on that inherent feeling of corruption and imminent, overwhelming danger, a fledgling democracy is an absolutely amazing setting. Personally, I'd recommend leaning more towards the likes of Revolutionary France and the various city-state democracies in Italy (Florence or the Ambrosian Republic in particular) for prime plot hooks for the kind of "new democracy" flavour you seem to be going for.

Again, America is a bit too much of an outlier to serve as a reasonable example of how such a government would go, especially in a medieval fantasy world.

>> No.69299464

>Women do a shitload of unpaid labor by raising children
Stopped reading there. Not even going to bother with the rest because it's guaranteed to be equally retarded and I can only handle so much tonight. I'll instead just entertain your thought experiment: what if we made raising children paid labor? Whom would they be working for? Surely the one who isn't raising HIS children, ie. the father. So should we redefine marriage as a labor contract where one side -the employer- holds authority over the other -the employee- in exchange for financial compensation proportionate to the labor given? Because honestly that does sound a lot like a patriarchal marriage, where the father rules the household and the mother only has as much money available to her as the father deems suitable.

But oh wait, I shouldn't take your "unpaid labor" analogy all the way to its logical conclusion because that's double plus ungood.

>> No.69299517

>What is utopian about wanting people to be productive instead of leeches?

I dunno, maybe thinking that if you just force millions of people into the same area that it'll solve all your problems somehow.

>The people that lick the boots of the police are almost universally right wingers in the USA and cities lean to the left.

Cities like LA, Chicago, Detroit, etc.?

>> No.69299544

>Women do a shitload of unpaid labor by raising children and maintaining households that contributes massively to the economy
>contributes to economy
Okay I just stumbled on this post, what?

>> No.69299550
Quoted By: >>69299567

>taking care of your own house and children is unpaid labour

So what's the hourly wage of washing my penis and cleaning my room?

>> No.69299562

No? Why would it be a bad idea or stupid?

>> No.69299567

>So what's the hourly wage of washing my penis and cleaning my room?
White privilege.

Theme [ FoolFuuka - Default / FoolFuuka - Midnight / Fuuka / Yotsubatwo - Yotsuba / Yotsubatwo - Yotsuba B ]