>Evil Empires need to be an empire so the heroes have a villain with a face they can hate and fight
>Good Kingdoms need to be a kingdom so the heroes have a king with a face they can serve and aid
But what are faceless entities good for? Corporations made up of countless shareholders, Republics made up of countless officials and bureaucrats, Oligarchies made up of their faceless councils and orders. Are they just there to be neutral?

>>95873450 (OP)
>corporations
evil if they're plot relevant, otherwise neutral
>republics
good
>oligarchies
evil

>>95873473
Republics are hard to categorize as 'good' because they have nothing to offer heroes except maybe a medal, whereas a kingdom can give them titles, nobility, land, and princesses.

Corporations and oligarchies usually exist within republics anyways.

>>95873450 (OP)
See it in a smaller context. Better senator vs worse senator. Better executive vs worse executive. Better oligarch vs worse oligarch. You're not working for the organization as a whole necessarily, just a particular individual in the morass.

>>95873498
That just sounds extremely tedious.

>>95873487
>they have nothing to offer heroes except maybe a medal, whereas a kingdom can give them titles, nobility, land, and princesses.
A Republic can absolutely offer land. It's less likely too, the only historical example I can think of was the US' Villain Arc, but it's still possible especially in a fantasy setting.

>>95873487
They can offer them land, citizenship, privileges and just myriad material rewards. That's enough.

>>95873626
>was the US' Villain Arc
You're gonna have to be more specific.

>>95873635
What's going to sound more appealing to a knight:
Having legal nobility given to them, empowering them with a dynastic claim over lands, serfs, legal power, and wealth, along with being given a higher status of being, which will be transferred to his children in perpetuity?

Or getting to be citizen #230529 in a countless hoard of other citizens and maybe getting to have some land and wealthy but it doesn't really set you above everyone else.

>>95873652
If it is enough money and land it will sound way more appealing then the titles to a non-retarded knight.
>but muh kids-
The kids can inherit the money.

>>95873652
NTA, but I'll chime in. I know it's a rhetorical question, but it depends on the scale of reward and its implications. Becoming a baronet of Bumfuck and Nowhere villages might be less appealing than getting a decent estate in republic's heartlands with a sizable wealth and status that allow you to join their high society. Especially if the title of the baronet comes with a new set of feudal obligations, essentially binding you to Bumfuck and Nowhere.

>>95873652
Read about how Italian city-states rewarded the best condottieri for an idea of how a republic can win over knights and similar men. Money, land, fancy titles, palaces, statues in the town square, etc. were all available. Premodern republics invariably had an oligarchic patrician ruling class, and membership in that class could be awarded in a manner similar to a king awarding people nobility. Princesses were just about the only thing they didn't have to offer.

>>95873652
>republic of Venice couldn't offer much to offer skilled knight
Anon are you dense? In history republics were created by rich merchants in big cities, they had no "divine right" so instead republics relied on being wealthiest power in area that could afford hiring big armies. But of course king can give you small village that get burned to ground by first maruder band and some forest.

>>95873652
>Having legal nobility given to them
All knights are by definition nobles anon.

>>95873664
>The kids can inherit the money.
Fun fact:
Most children of millionaires lose their wealth within a generation, with the vast majority having lost it by the 2nd generation.

But the average lifespan for a noble dynasty is around 325 years or so.

So if you REALLY want to set up your kids and grandkids, you'll accept nobility over money.

>>95873703
>>95873727
The question is whether these oligarchical positions are hereditary. If they're not, they're worthless.

Additionally, republican lands and positions inherently come with WAY less prestige than monarchical ones. Just look at how much people love the Queen of England vs how much people despise politicians and businessmen.

>>95873774
The existence of genuinely impoverished nobles in Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth is a good counterpoint. As the commonwealth grew, so grew the set of nobles wealth closer to wealthy freemen in other countries, or in case of gołota, having nothing but their title and related right. And I mean nothing as in "no wealth and no land".

>>95873818
Still, if you're a nobleman who runs out of wealth and land, you're still a nobleman. That title carries with it legal privileges. If you're a wealthy commoner who runs out of wealth and land...you're no better than any peasant.

>>95873827
Impoverished nobles in Commonwealth wereno better than pesants, outside of having nice surname they were pesants.
>>95873774
>Just look at how much people love the Queen of England vs how much people despise politicians and businessmen.
Queen/King of England was figurhead with no real power, monarchs role was to look nice for Parlament, British Empire/UK was and is republic masquerading as monarchy since royalists lost civil war. People loved Elizabeth II because she behaved nicely and did nothing wrong and she did nothing wrong because she had no real power to do anything wrong.

>>95873827
The point is that if you are a knight looking for a reward, then there are a lot of rewards that can be enticing beside hereditary title, especially since the titles usually come with obligations. Not to mention that in many cases losing all your wealth would likely open you for dérogeance, meaning chance of losing your title too.

>>95873879
I agree with your point but I feel a need to correct one point - gołota did have rights coming with the title, which included voting rights. Which still made them genuinely poor and looking for a job, but also meant that they usually flocked to wealthier nobles offering to support them during council/sejm with their votes.

>>95873827
>Still, if you're a nobleman who runs out of wealth and land, you're still a nobleman.
Worth jack shit if you can't back it up, by wealth or by force of arms. If you're poor and lucky, maybe you'll get to be part of some wealthy aristocrat's entourage and slum it up Lord Byron style. If you're unlucky, you'll die a drunk and be no different from any other dead drunk.

>>95873827
There's historical examples of noble families degenerating to peasantry because of being too impoverished to fulfill their duties in the contract of their titles. It happens, but I get what you are saying.

This is all missing the point anyways that soldiers follow men, not institutions. Who would you rather fight and die for, a king who fights beside you on the battlefield and was chosen by God (or the gods) himself? Or a faceless bureaucracy?

>>95874279
Unironically, the point is that besides compensation and survival you either fight for a person or for an idea. So in case of the institutions that lack the embodiment who fights on the same battlefield, your side better be having a proper ideals to fight for. This is why almost no propaganda for republics mentions anything about fighting for institutions but about fighting for your country, your values and your freedom as a citizen of a free country.

>>95873450 (OP)
What system were you guys playing and how did you end up in this scenario?

for my homebrew setting?
the empire is good, the kingdoms are half and half, the republics are always bad.

>>95874434
YWNBAJ

>>95874279
Usually people fight for one who pays them.
Knights weren't fighting because King was choosen by God and fighting alongside them, they were fighting because of feudal obligation(land for military service) and loot. Feudalism is just system where broke monarch found way to have professional army without paying them, he gave them land instead of salary. Often obligation was for limited amount of time and when said time ran out King was forced to pay his knights monetary compensation for each day, or they just go home.
Republics usually are just rich enough they can straight up pay professional soldiers to fight for them. This is why all italian republics got best soldiers from all of Europe, they had enough money to pay condottieri. You will follow army commander in both real historical context and fictional and sci fi republics.
In defence it doesn't matter because if you lose you get looted and raped by invaders so you form militia anyway.

In any case soldiers weren't follower men but money and their own self intrest and of course self defense.
Time when people stopped following money was when we got rid of kings, replaced ruler with faceless bureaucracy and added national pride and myths.

>>95874475
Good post

>>95874448
daring today, aren’t we

>>95874279
Bureaucracy won't get me killed so it can schmooze with the other kingdom's queen mother during peace talks.

>>95873450 (OP)
>>95873473
>corporations
Usually have an evil or at least neutral (but rarely if ever good) CEO middle manager to put a face to it.
>Republics
Have a good/evil president
>Oligarchies
Have the good/evil council

In summation, you're retarded. Every government has some form of representative.

I know fantasy is just labels and archetypes but I think you are doing your fantasy world a huge disservice if you just label the bad guys an empire or the corporations as evil. There are a lot of details people love in world building that putting labels on entire systems for "good" and "bad" is just reductive. I can think of a hundred reasons why an expanding empire can be the good guys or why the rebels are the bad guys for a change.

>>95874279
Fantasy is full of idealism and even in a historical sense people were more likely to uphold their beliefs. All your going to get today, fantasy or as an answer to historicism, is cynicism and money as your answers. Just look at how many people think that rape was widespread and that peasants worked themselves to death before age 25 because its more "gritty" that way.

>>95873450 (OP)
Corporations have execs, managers and board members. Cyberpunk 2020 while dealing with megacorps most faceless organisations possible still had big faces in form of Saburo Arasaka for Arasaka and Donald Lundee for Militech.
Republic usually have someone who is in charge, like prime minister, president, doge, there is always man on the top, or at least small council of most influencial people.
Every system have countless officials and bureaucrats, this is how system fucking work, someone have to collect taxes and count crops, but they are of no consequence to people on top, if he is king, emperor, CEO or prime minister/president/first councilor.
You always have someone on top who is giving orders.
Republic and corporation give you opportunity to join them and reform it from within, voting out corrupt minister/ceo instead of going military/assassination route to take over kingdom/empire.

>>95878072
>I think you are doing your fantasy world a huge disservice if you just label the bad guys an empire or the corporations as evil
>t. imperialist corposlave

>>95882773
>T. bumpfag

>>95883883
That's some serious accusation anon.

>>95873879
>People loved Elizabeth II because she behaved nicely and did nothing wrong and she did nothing wrong because she had no real power to do anything wrong.
She could fire and reappoint all of Parliament.

>>95873450 (OP)
Corporations are even more evil than empires because it's a faceless oligarchy with a thousand names & subsidiaries. You kill a CEO or a shareholder & they're replaced before the body is cold. It's endless work. Even if you expose the Corp as evil to the public all it takes is for a shell company to take over & it's back to the same old tricks.

Republics are a mixed bag, just like Monarchies. While a king can be good or evil, they may have a honorable commander or scheming duke that serves as a counter to monolithic stereotypes. Republics are similar as there can always be a good or evil senator to be a foil.

>>95875149
I find it hard to believe given the amount of evil viziers & scheming ministers

>>95875149
Modern geopolitics alone disagrees with your assertion

what about an empire with an equally powerful company as their historic frenemies

>>95873450 (OP)
>The empire is neither entirely evil or entirely good.
>It just exists as the predominant power in the setting, with all the bureaucracy and mundane shit that entails, and the players can interact with it however they want.
>Even if it's flawed & corrupt, it at least protects it's people from outside threats and maintains some kind of stability.
>Some of it's members are assholes, some are useless nobodies, and some are genuinely cool.
>Throughout the story you can both help the empire succeed and actively harm it depending on your personal objectives/desires.

>>95873450 (OP)
The other /pol/ bait thread isn't even cold and you're making another one.

Disregard and if you must post, use sage.

>>95873689
>>95873703
>>95873727
So Republics are just oligarchies of plutocrats.

>Aw cool art of fem-Sauron
>Find artist
>its normal male sauron

Oh well.

>>95895500
Yes.
In republic always men in charge are either rich elites or are in bed with rich elites. There is no randoms from the street, if you are going into politics you had to be connected.
Look at US elections they had choice between career prosecutor and politician backed up by billionares and rich billionare backed by diferent billionares.
No matter who win it's guy with debt do richest.

>>95896017
>oh no, i thought this was tranny art, not twink art!
Lmao, you're a doublefag

Lawful Neutral Kingdoms?

>>95896831
What alignment are Bumpfagocracies?

Cannot think of anything more cucked than serving a king.
This guy, with no accomplishments of his own, gets to make the decisions of your people for life? Nah fuck that

That fuck in office better be working to improve our conditions and nothing else, otherwise he's joining the king in the grave.

>>95896850
True neutral.

>>95896798
>Art of a female version of a character
>"tranny"

You leaped over a few steps.

>>95873450 (OP)
How about you fight the ceo.
The ceo is the final boss, bam, you grab your katana, the ceo is prepared for this and has a katana. It is an epic fight and you win and the building gets destroyed and then you burn it.

>>95901418
That wouldn't do anything to stop the corporation though. The shareholders would just pick a new CEO, and a new building would be chosen as an office (since 99% of their wealth isn't even in the office building).

>>95901462
uhh. One of your party members takes place of the CEO and tries to head the company in a good direction. The shareholders sure get mad at this and try to interfere and sabotage your plans. That's when you show up and slash the council of shareholders with a katana.

>>95896017
Fem-Sauron is literally built for carrying Celebrimbor's half-Maiar babies.

>>95895478
Cyrodil Empire is honestly pretty well characterized. Though, even as early as Morrowind, it basically being on it's last leg is largely a given.

>>95901536
This guy fucks.

>>95901462
If there are bad guys you hit them with swords. It's not rocket science.

>>95873827
The best use a poor person has for a noble title is that they can sell it to an upwardly mobile merchant who is looking for status.

>>95901294
>male to female fetish art
>not trannyshit
lol

>>95873450 (OP)
Republics have presidents, though.

>>95873450 (OP)
Corporations are usually led by a chief executive officer, who, given the nature of corporatism, is probably evil as fuck.

>>95903930
>even as early as Morrowind, it basically being on it's last leg
If I remember my TES lore correctly wouldn't it mean that Empire is on it's last leg for last 500 years?

>>95905925
>t. Champagne socialist

>>95911494
He's not wrong tho.

>>95911537
Xhe's mistaking a symptom for a cause, which is about as wrong as you can be while still saying something factual.