12857 réponses à ce sujet

[ddv.rsa]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I was much more idealistic too, I was a communist. I am not joking.

Yet now you praise imperialism.

[KnightofPhoenix]

ddv.rsa wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I was much more idealistic too, I was a communist. I am not joking.

Yet now you praise imperialism.

Yes.

[ddv.rsa]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

ddv.rsa wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I was much more idealistic too, I was a communist. I am not joking.

Yet now you praise imperialism.

Yes.

Heh. At least you're open about it, that deserves respect. Not like the "comrades" who attacked capitalism during apartheid, but have sports cars and wear Armani today.

[Addai]

Persephone wrote...

Guys, guys....I was so happy to see this thread arise from its slumber.... Don't fight.......

It's all good, I've been around long enough to know how it works.  It would be better if it could be done over bourbon and cigars. 


No new Loghains, but Moira by ladywinde




Oh and here's a Rowan I haven't seen before.

Modifié par Addai67, 13 février 2011 - 12:28 .

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I was much more idealistic too, I was a communist. I am not joking.

KoP...a Commie? That's like discovering that Loghain was once an Orlesiaphile.

Yeah, I held somewhat different views when I was younger. Morality can play an important part in politics. Even a ruthless politician can be moral, if he is ruthless and unwavering in pursuit of a goal beyond personal fulfillment or greed. But it is because morality is very subjective, that it becomes a problem in politics. What is right or wrong? What is right for one is totally wrong for another. People have different ethics, different values. That is why morality is generally a fail point when discussing objective things. Though politics itself can be very subjective, as people have varying ideas of what is the best way to run a country or build upon a system.

I personally believe that a good politician must be ruthless as well as long-sighted. They should be willing and able to deal with each problem in an efficient, detatched manner, and be capable of using proportional methods of solving problems, whatever they may be. Morality is an important thing in matters such as personal relationships and dealing with others in my immediate sphere. In otherwords, the mundane life. But when it comes to the command and influence of millions of people, and issues with broader reaching consequences, it is a different realm alltogether, and in that realm, emotional and moral detatchment are far more important. As well as reason and vision.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I was much more idealistic too, I was a communist. I am not joking.

KoP...a Commie? That's like discovering that Loghain was once an Orlesiaphile.

Yea. As a 14 year old from a upper-middle class bg, I couldn't understand the concept of inequality.
Now not only do I understand, but I see it as necessary and desirable for a variety of reasons. 

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...
Yeah, I held somewhat different views when I was younger. Morality can play an important part in politics. Even a ruthless politician can be moral, if he is ruthless and unwavering in pursuit of a goal beyond personal fulfillment or greed.

Indeed, I don't think they would be immoral either. It's just that discussing it is moot. I am more interested in talking about their achievements, accomplishments, legacies and mistakes, rather than judge them morally.
The great leaders are usually motivated by much more than just greed or lust for power.

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...
Though politics itself can be very subjective, as people have varying ideas of what is the best way to run a country or build upon a system.

But they can be discussed objectively and provided with material concret arguments. 
It is true that all systems have pros and cons, but for the most part they can be assessed.

There is subjectivity in there like any social "science". But there is also things that can be discussed objectively. 
Like the political / economic / military / social value and merits of a centralized state vs a decentralized / feudal one. I think history showed that while the former is far from being flawless, it generally ends up being more productive, more efficient and more accomplished than the latter.

I am far from suggesting that there is one universal absolute best regime, that's a myth. Every time and every place has its own adequate regime. But I do believe that centralization of power (which can take many forms and different scales) is something shared by the greater states and that any culture / people can have a degree of centralization. 

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...
I personally believe that a good politician must be ruthless as well as long-sighted. They should be willing and able to deal with each problem in an efficient, detatched manner, and be capable of using proportional methods of solving problems, whatever they may be. Morality is an important thing in matters such as personal relationships and dealing with others in my immediate sphere. In otherwords, the mundane life. But when it comes to the command and influence of millions of people, and issues with broader reaching consequences, it is a different realm alltogether, and in that realm, emotional and moral detatchment are far more important. As well as reason and vision.

Agreed. I don't think the morality of the average joe can be applied to someone who is responsable for the lives of millions and has a completely different (broader) perspective.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 13 février 2011 - 03:19 .

[Joy Divison]

Any argument which supports political decentralization during a historical time period in which kingdoms/states are hostile and in competition needs to look at at map of Poland in 1550 and another one in 1815.

Modifié par Joy Divison, 13 février 2011 - 03:37 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Joy Divison wrote...

Any argument which supports political decentralization during a historical time period in which kingdoms/states are hostile and in competition needs to look at at map of Poland in 1550 and another one in 1815.

Or look at what happened to the Muslims in al Andalus. As they got more and more decentralized, Christians were getting more and more united (compared to before, when the Muslims were under one centralized regime vs the Christians fighting each other). And we all know how that ended.   

Idiot short sighted local notables. I can really understand why Al Hakam I slaughtered a lot of them during the so called "massacre of the ditch".

Any argument that fails to look at the international context can be justifiably rejected as false just because of that.   

To bring this back in DA:O. Ferelden proved its inability for self defense and to enact economic reforms to make it competitive. Orlesian hegenomy is now challenged (multipolarity means more competition) and whatever happens in DA2 is supposed to bring Thedas to the brink of war. In a situation like this, Ferelden rettaining its irrational inefficient system is virtually suicidal.  

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 13 février 2011 - 03:48 .

[Addai]

Chapter 22 of The Arrangement just published.

[CalJones]

Great stuff, Addai - it's picking up a pace.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Question for KoP: Where do your screenshots from Sins go when you take them? I had a few taken, but don't know where they go. I looked in various folders, but could not find them.



Just got done finishing a TEC campaign. They certainly have some cool things (self destruct space stations and the novalith canons just kick so much ass) but I definitely prefer the Advent, hands down. It was actually more of a tedious struggle gaining ground with the TEC, as opposed to the virtual blitzkrieg once the advent gets going. I also prefer advent capital ships.

[KnightofPhoenix]

It's in username / AppData / Ironclad games / SOASE / screenshot.

I think AppData is supposed to be a hidden file, so you have to make hidden files visible.

And yea TEC function best in wars of attrition, with their powerful economy and cheap ships. Also because their culture can eventually cause rebels to atttack enemy planets anywhere, which can be a pain in the butt.  
My favorite capital ships are Advent also. But I really lke the TEC Sova carrier for its embargo ability.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 14 février 2011 - 03:17 .

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

It's in username / AppData / Ironclad games / SOASE / screenshot.

I think AppData is supposed to be a hidden file, so you have to make hidden files visible.

And yea TEC function best in wars of attrition, with their powerful economy and cheap ships. Also because their culture can eventually cause rebels to atttack enemy planets anywhere, which can be a pain in the butt.  
My favorite capital ships are Advent also. But I really lke the TEC Sova carrier for its embargo ability.

Yeah,  inciting rebels to attack was one of my favorite moments of the TEC playthrough. Though when playing Advent, the rebels really weren't a problem, since every plat I had by then had been so heavily fortified and amped up, at most, rebels supplied experience points for my capital ships. I could pretty much ignore them while doing other things. But it seems the computer AI doesn't pay the same amount of attention that I do to firtufying, so when it was my turn to incite rebellions, it worked quite well.

I prefer the Vasari, especially that talent of being able to shift midway in phase jumps and change course. Makes hit and run/guerilla warfare not only possible, but a feasible policy. I actually like it better than creating my own phase lines.

And thanks for the info, when I find my screenies, I'll post my favorite.

Modifié par Skadi_the_Evil_Elf, 14 février 2011 - 10:32 .

[Habelo]

People who are discussing communism and such, i am the wisest man alive and if you are confused about anything i can help you with answers

[KnightofPhoenix]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...
I prefer the Vasari, especially that talent of being able to shift midway in phase jumps and change course. Makes hit and run/guerilla warfare not only possible, but a feasible policy. I actually like it better than creating my own phase lines.

What? The Vasari can do that? Since when? lol I always max out my research and I never seemed able to do that.

And yea post screenies!

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

[quote]KnightofPhoenix wrote...

[quote]Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

[quote]KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Yea. As a 14 year old from a upper-middle class bg, I couldn't understand the concept of inequality.
Now not only do I understand, but I see it as necessary and desirable for a variety of reasons.  [/quote]

Ironically, it was something I learned when I was homeless once. Which of course, surprised alot of my very socialist/liberal minded friends. They expected someone as destitute as I was to be a fan of a large social welfare state. How wrong they were.


[quote]Indeed, I don't think they would be immoral either. It's just that discussing it is moot. I am more interested in talking about their achievements, accomplishments, legacies and mistakes, rather than judge them morally.
The great leaders are usually motivated by much more than just greed or lust for power. [/quote]

True, though as I said before, I'm more interested in the unusual, exceptional individuals in history who were odd for their time and place, or even now. it is why the lives of scientists, artists, and religous founders/figures. It is those people who really were wonderfully odd and fascinating to me.


[quote]There is subjectivity in there like any social "science". But there is also things that can be discussed objectively. 
Like the political / economic / military / social value and merits of a centralized state vs a decentralized / feudal one. I think history showed that while the former is far from being flawless, it generally ends up being more productive, more efficient and more accomplished than the latter.

I am far from suggesting that there is one universal absolute best regime, that's a myth. Every time and every place has its own adequate regime. But I do believe that centralization of power (which can take many forms and different scales) is something shared by the greater states and that any culture / people can have a degree of centralization.  [/quote]

In most of the world, yes, centralized governments are the best course of action. Most cultures benefit from having a strong, centralized government, and it runs more efficently that way. But in the US, we have very decentralized government, with individual states having laws and regulations that often conflict with federal ones. it's almost like moving from country to country, when one goes state to state, because of the vast differences in law. Each state even has it's own army (National Guard) under the control of individual state govenors. They have their own constitutions, own supreme courts, own tax systems, own law enforcement agencies. About the only thing truly centralized is foreign policy and interstate affairs. Alot of factors are involved, in whether a decntralized state is functional or not.

I think this is why, given that there are alot of American posters on here, is why so many equate centralization with a system that is oppressive or undersirable. I once, long ago when I was young, felt the same, and still do, in regards to the US. But I have lived in countries with more centralized rule, and understand why in most places in the world, centralization is not only desirable, but really, the only way for a country to be stable and prosperous. And many people I know find the idea of decentralization to be horrid, almost anarchic. Again, I think this might be a cultural thing. I certainly have to remind myself often enough, when talking to friends over here about politics, as I tend to instinctively argue from a decentralized point of view.


[quote]Agreed. I don't think the morality of the average joe can be applied to someone who is responsable for the lives of millions and has a completely different (broader) perspective.
[/quote]

Again, another lesson I learned the hard way. It even applies in basic levels of leadership in several areas of life. The boss has different, and bigger, things to consider than the average worker does. The squad leader/commander, if they want to be successful in their tasks, must focus on a larger picture and make some pretty uncomfortable descisions regarding their troops, because there's a broader objective that can't be ignored.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...
I prefer the Vasari, especially that talent of being able to shift midway in phase jumps and change course. Makes hit and run/guerilla warfare not only possible, but a feasible policy. I actually like it better than creating my own phase lines.

What? The Vasari can do that? Since when? lol I always max out my research and I never seemed able to do that.

And yea post screenies!

Yeah, I think they can. They certainly did it on enough playthroughs of mine. I'd watch them leave a planet I just hit and run, and I'd sneak my nearby forces right back in, and 1/4 way through the phase jump, the whole friggin fleet suddenly turns back and jumps back to the planet I just snuck into. I've seen this several times, and was like "WOW". This one asteroid I took was a really short phase jump from this ice planet, which the vasari owned. I waited until I could draw their fleet elsewhere, and watched as the planet completely emptied of vasari ships. The phase jump to this other planet was pretty long, which is why I made this descision: by the time any ships could come to this ice planet's aid, due to the long phase lines coming from it, I'd have taken it and probably fortified it pretty well.

Nope. Like I said, 1/4 out on the phase line, the whole friggin fleet turned back mid jump and mobbed my rather ill fated attempt to take the planet. It was a very small fleet, so as soon as the vasari returned, I bailed. Quick. Because I had 3 virgin capital ships I didn't want to lose.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...
In most of the world, yes, centralized governments are the best course of action. Most cultures benefit from having a strong, centralized government, and it runs more efficently that way. But in the US, we have very decentralized government, with individual states having laws and regulations that often conflict with federal ones. it's almost like moving from country to country, when one goes state to state, because of the vast differences in law. Each state even has it's own army (National Guard) under the control of individual state govenors. They have their own constitutions, own supreme courts, own tax systems, own law enforcement agencies. About the only thing truly centralized is foreign policy and interstate affairs. Alot of factors are involved, in whether a decntralized state is functional or not.

It's sort of different, it has modern federal institutions to pull it off, it's not feudal. States in the USA don't fight each other. And I would say that the civil war brought a degree of cenrtralization, but I could be wrong. Plus, had the USA been in the middle of Europe (ignoring cultural differences), it would have been suicidal to have that kind of system. The USA is not surrounded by potential enemies or very competitive states (there came a time when Santa Anna's Mexico was a bit, tis true). Furthermore, it's democratically elected governors. It's not idiot nobles who think they own the land. Plus, the USA is a very big country, a degree of decentralization is desirable, all things considered.  I am not sure if I would refer to the USA as a decentralized state perse (the classical interpretations of federalism are not what's in the US), but more like a federal state with a large degree of decentralization, but also with a healthy dose of centralisation (it being a presidential system with a lot of executive power invested in the president...etc). But I am not that knowldegeable about the USA.

That's obviously not the case in Ferelden. It's a chaotic unstable decentralized system, in a volatile Thedas, that needs to go away. And I am not sure if it's Addai's culture talking, since she doesn't seem to like modern states and modern democracies, if I recall correctly.

And agreed on the other points.

And holy smokes I didn't know the Vasari can do that! Will have to check it out.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 15 février 2011 - 12:05 .

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
It's sort of different, it has modern federal institutions to pull it off, it's not feudal. States in the USA don't fight each other. And I would say that the civil war brought a degree of cenrtralization, but I could be wrong. Plus, had the USA been in the middle of Europe (ignoring cultural differences), it would have been suicidal to have that kind of system. The USA is not surrounded by potential enemies or very competitive states (there came a time when Santa Anna's Mexico was a bit, tis true). Furthermore, it's democratically elected governors. It's not idiot nobles who think they own the land. Plus, the USA is a very big country, a degree of decentralization is desirable, all things considered.  I am not sure if I would refer to the USA as a decentralized state perse (the classical interpretations of federalism are not what's in the US), but more like a federal state with a large degree of decentralization, but also with a healthy dose of centralisation (it being a presidential system with a lot of executive power invested in the president...etc). But I am not that knowldegeable about the USA.

States do fight each other. In the Western US, where I am originally from, it is mostly desert or very arid climates, and water is a HUGE issue. Due to things like agriculture and ranching, as well as the boom in desert cities, water is the new petroleum out there. I remember spending much of my child hood in the 80's under water rationing, because California had a drought. The south, which is mostly desert or near desert (Los Angelas metro, San Diego Metro,ect) had a larger population than the north, and through the California aqueduct, was taking a pretty large amount of the north's water, which had climate ranging from coastal rainforest to Mediterranian climates, but a lower population density. The battles over water just between north and south were mad, with a serious popularity for splitting California into two states. In even drier states further inland, ranchers have been known to shoot rivals over water.

Anyway, there is alot of in-fighting between states, though it's all done through courts and other civil channels. Obviously, not like ferelden where actual blood and guts wars are shed over stupid things like dog names and trees. Though in some cases, I wonder if the only thing keeping one state from invading it's neighbor is the fact their population is less than what a proper army would require.

There is a degree of centralization due to the constitution. But these are very general, and constitutionally, the federal government really only has authority over national security, foreign policy, regulating foreign trade and tariffs, and the postal service. Everything else is under the authority of the states. The Federal government's authority has increased a certain amount over the years in various areas, but still minor in comparison to what I've seen in real centralized countries. But in centralization, you mean a common foreign policy and a very centralized military and defense wing, then yes, it could be seen as a generally centralized state with alot of decentralization internally. Though my European friends would scoff at such a notion of anything resembling centralization (or civilization for the snooty ones) in the US, and view it as a disturbing experiment in anarchy. After living here, I can see why it would appear that way.

That's obviously not the case in Ferelden. It's a chaotic unstable decentralized system, in a volatile Thedas, that needs to go away. And I am not sure if it's Addai's culture talking, since she doesn't seem to like modern states and modern democracies, if I recall correctly.

I wouldn't call the US a democracy (though the term is thrown around without understanding by even learned scholars who should know better), it's actuaully a represenetive republic. Democracy, in it's most basic sense, boils down to mob rule. Two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. A represenetive republic declares, whether the wolves like it or not, eating sheep is forbidden, and they shall have to find something else to eat. The sheep, even though it is outnumbered, gets a represenetive to even his vote power to those of the wolves. So, just because there is less sheep, does not mean the wolves will always win out in the vote. 

Perhaps that's what she meant? But I agree, Ferelden's scenario is way different. I was just pointing out, in a long winded way, how our own cultural perceptions and biases color how people view various systems in Thedas. 

Of course, I personally am apathetic to ferelden's political fate, since it and every place else in Thedas is going to be devoured by Morrigan's God Child at the bidding of Ser Pounce-a-Lot, who plans nothing less than complete world domination. I mean, the signs are right there in front of our faces. The mystery doom-kitteh army in Denerim market, Ser Pounce-a-Lot's inexcplicable ability to survive awakened darkspawn invasions, Anders possesion by "Jusitce", Morrigan's uncanny resemblence to a feline, the fact that children and dogs vanish in the marketplace when the cat-army is launched, ect.

The writing is on the wall. Repent, my friends, the Day of the Pounce is at hand!

And holy smokes I didn't know the Vasari can do that! Will have to check it out.

Yeah, I know, I was like "WTF? I'm playing these guys next, lol". But like you, I didn't see it in the research tree, and didn't know what caused it. I didn't max out my research, because I beat the scenario before that, so maybe something high up? Whatever it is, it's a pretty badass trick. Really makes sneak attacking their planets a real b*tch.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...
Anyway, there is alot of in-fighting between states, though it's all done through courts and other civil channels. Obviously, not like ferelden where actual blood and guts wars are shed over stupid things like dog names and trees. Though in some cases, I wonder if the only thing keeping one state from invading it's neighbor is the fact their population is less than what a proper army would require.

Yes naturally, that's what I meant. Actual fighting. Competition between regions / provinces...etc has always been there, even in the most centralized systems. 
It is possible (perhaps even likely) that the USA could collapse in civil wars in the future as the economy starts to go down and natural ressources like water become scarcer. The alternative is more centralization to prevent such a thing. But in the present and forseable future, the USA is not chaotic and its states do not fight each  other where actual military force is used, nor do they immobilize national politics with their infighting. Not yet at least.  

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...
I wouldn't call the US a democracy (though the term is thrown around without understanding by even learned scholars who should know better), it's actuaully a represenetive republic. Democracy, in it's most basic sense, boils down to mob rule.

Yes yes of course, I was just saying that for simplicity's sake. My point was that governors are elected representatives, and not privileged nobles. Are they for the most part rich, already part of a certain group of elites and tied to special interest groups? Of course. But they don't think they own the land and their mandate is too short for them to be able to destablize the entire system via petty infighting. They are too busy preparing for elections and for the most part, I think party discipline (on the federal level) keeps them in line. That's what happens in Canada at least, party discipline is very strong.

But yes, I know what "democracy" means and no country today is a democracy. Rather different shades of republics with a bit of oligarchy and corporatism in there. 

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...
The writing is on the wall. Repent, my friends, the Day of the Pounce is at hand!

Feline Imperium. Awesome.

Yeah, I know, I was like "WTF? I'm playing these guys next, lol". But like you, I didn't see it in the research tree, and didn't know what caused it. I didn't max out my research, because I beat the scenario before that, so maybe something high up? Whatever it is, it's a pretty badass trick. Really makes sneak attacking their planets a real b*tch.

Kosutra cannon is also pretty good. Keeps defensive fortifications offline indefinately (if you have a lot of cannons) and makes the planet you are attacking a stabilizer node , which means you can send reinforcements there at will.
Makes up for the lack of a Vasari siege cruiser.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
Yes naturally, that's what I meant. Actual fighting. Competition between regions / provinces...etc has always been there, even in the most centralized systems. 
It is possible (perhaps even likely) that the USA could collapse in civil wars in the future as the economy starts to go down and natural ressources like water become scarcer. The alternative is more centralization to prevent such a thing. But in the present and forseable future, the USA is not chaotic and its states do not fight each  other where actual military force is used, nor do they immobilize national politics with their infighting. Not yet at least. 

Civil war in the future is always a possibility, and there are even seperatist nutjobs who actually think this would be a good thing. Thankfully, they have little political power, though they committed the most acts of domestic terrorism before 9/11. Though nothing like what the IRA was doing in the 70's and 80's, or what the ETA (Basque seperatist  group) does here in Spain. And certainly nothing like the Bannorn, especially what we see in Witch Hunt.

Yes yes of course, I was just saying that for simplicity's sake. My point was that governors are elected representatives, and not privileged nobles. Are they for the most part rich, already part of a certain group of elites and tied to special interest groups? Of course. But they don't think they own the land and their mandate is too short for them to be able to destablize the entire system via petty infighting. They are too busy preparing for elections and for the most part, I think party discipline (on the federal level) keeps them in line. That's what happens in Canada at least, party discipline is very strong.

Yes, true. Though party politics are very loose and unstable, and you
get alot more dissent within the ranks over alot of things. Party line
politics is extremely fluid.  But no, no nobility, and I've always believed that such systems were worthless anyway. I think inheriting rule by birthright is one of the worst ideas in government ever invented,  for numerous reasons. Getting rid of the noble class and replacing them with individuals selected on competance and ability to keep order would be far more feasible. Not democratically elected ones, but ones chosen by a council or something, based on talent. It would certainly cut down on inbreeding and it's related defects, if nothing else.

Feline Imperium. Awesome.

The first country to fall to this unstoppable awesomeness will be those filthy cat-hating heathens of Ferelden and all their unholy canine idolatry.

Kosutra cannon is also pretty good. Keeps defensive fortifications offline indefinately (if you have a lot of cannons) and makes the planet you are attacking a stabilizer node , which means you can send reinforcements there at will.
Makes up for the lack of a Vasari siege cruiser.

Yeah. I've seized planets well within enemy lines pretty with little effort as a Vasari. And those orkulus star bases....I kid you not, I jumped the firt time I saw one charging my fleet. I didn't know what the hell it was, but I wasn't going to find out at that point, and retreated. Popping a couple in a star's gravity well is complete cheese win.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...
Yes, true. Though party politics are very loose and unstable, and you
get alot more dissent within the ranks over alot of things. Party line politics is extremely fluid. 

I guess party discipline is stronger in Canada then.

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...
But no, no nobility, and I've always believed that such systems were worthless anyway. I think inheriting rule by birthright is one of the worst ideas in government ever invented,  for numerous reasons.

If applied to one monarchical family and dynasty to act as a Leviathan, I think it makes sense, even if it isn't completely rational. There is a reason why this system of government was widespread and many dynasties did last for quite some time. Many of them were stable, and many were quite producitve and efficient. But the important thing is that the administration, bureaucracy, army and the state apparatus in general be based on meritocracy as much as possible, and that should take power away from the nobility completely (and gradually if necessary).  In essence, I prefer one family claiming to be special as logn as they preserve order and are reasonable, rather than have dozens who need to fight each other to prove how especially pathetic they are. 

Ideally though, yes I would prefer a fully meritocratic regime, but without proper insitutions, it can be very unstable. 

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...
Getting rid of the noble class and replacing them with individuals selected on competance and ability to keep order would be far more feasible. Not democratically elected ones, but ones chosen by a council or something, based on talent. It would certainly cut down on inbreeding and it's related defects, if nothing else.

My sentiment exactly. For the concept of two drunks having more say than an intellectual or experienced political veteran is a system that doesn't make much sense at all.

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

The first country to fall to this unstoppable awesomeness will be those filthy cat-hating heathens of Ferelden and all their unholy canine idolatry.

Yes their infatuation with dogs is probably another reason why I am not that impressed.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...


If applied to one monarchical family and dynasty to act as a Leviathan, I think it makes sense, even if it isn't completely rational. There is a reason why this system of government was widespread and many dynasties did last for quite some time. Many of them were stable, and many were quite producitve and efficient. But the important thing is that the administration, bureaucracy, army and the state apparatus in general be based on meritocracy as much as possible, and that should take power away from the nobility completely (and gradually if necessary).  In essence, I prefer one family claiming to be special as logn as they preserve order and are reasonable, rather than have dozens who need to fight each other to prove how especially pathetic they are. 

Ideally though, yes I would prefer a fully meritocratic regime, but without proper insitutions, it can be very unstable.

The problem is, is that competant offspring and heirs are not a gurantee. Since marriages are political in such situations, based on family ties and not actual competance or genetic fitness, succesion is not always a certain thing. Even worse if no heirs are produced. I think the reason such governments remained in power as much as they did were due to the times and attitudes. Though there have definitely been long standing successful dynasties, and those we remember most because they succeeded. 

My sentiment exactly. For the concept of two drunks having more say than an intellectual or experienced political veteran is a system that doesn't make much sense at all.

What do you expect from a country that settles national disputes via no-holds barred brawls?

Yes their infatuation with dogs is probably another reason why I am not that impressed.

I find their constant refferences to swinging dead cats unforgivable blasphemy. No wonder they were inflicted with a Blight. Divine retribution! :innocent:

[Morwen Eledhwen]

Your world. . .I pounce on it.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...
The problem is, is that competant offspring and heirs are not a gurantee. Since marriages are political in such situations, based on family ties and not actual competance or genetic fitness, succesion is not always a certain thing. Even worse if no heirs are produced. I think the reason such governments remained in power as much as they did were due to the times and attitudes. Though there have definitely been long standing successful dynasties, and those we remember most because they succeeded. 

The state apparatus, if established well enough, is usually immune to a bad or mediocre heir, unless he / she was really really bad, or the system itself was very fragile and too dependent on one individual. Yes, sometimes one individual holding a large amount of power is necessary to move things forward, but that person should try to establish institutions and rules to make sure what he built survives him / her. 

One problem of a meritocracy in a fragile system is that it would split the country into several factions, each claiming to support the person who has the most merit.  And we have to take into account elites that every system in one way or the other ends up creating that would focus on things other than merit (their own interests).

But that's the beauty of humanity. You'll never reach perfection and you'll always have flaws. So having some form of flexibility to change and adapt would be a good thing, without too much dogma being put into the system (unless used as a tool for public consumption). But eh, I see humanity advancing through strife, competition and creative destruction. Systems that cannot adapt (either via flexibility, or a good old war or someone to force reforms a la Augustus, Abd Al Malik and Bhelen) must end and be replaced by something new and the cycle of empires should continue (until we find aliens and the cycle becomes on a larger scale). And life goes on.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 15 février 2011 - 03:25 .