1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Greetings Guest!!

    In order to combat SPAM on the forums, all users are required to have a minimum of 2 posts before they can submit links in any post or thread.

    Dismiss Notice

(RP) How do you manage a Kingdom using Chaos as the guiding principle?

Discussion in 'UO Europa' started by Bobar, Oct 8, 2012.

  1. Bobar

    Bobar Babbling Loonie
    Stratics Veteran Stratics Legend

    Joined:
    May 20, 2004
    Messages:
    2,043
    Likes Received:
    577
    So we now have a King. Not my first choice I freely admit, I favoured Dupre as I would much rather be ruled by a King dedicated to Honour and the other standard virtues rather than Chaos. This also leads me to question if a Kingdom can be ruled effectively by such a leader.

    Chaos by definition means lack of order as can be seen by its antonyms - order, orderliness. This means that order of any kind is the antithesis of chaos. Using chaos for its guide any rule must therefore be chaotic. I fail to see this being beneficial to our realm.

    Its near autonyms also demonstrate the same. - method, plan, pattern, system.

    So my question is as stated above, I suspect Esca may have a few words on this subject. I further suspect that we will see very little evidence supporting Chaos in actions that will be taken by our new King, especially as action is needed to restore ORDER to our cities.
     
  2. EM Emile Layne

    EM Emile Layne UO Event Moderator
    UO Event Moderator Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2010
    Messages:
    201
    Likes Received:
    114
    Chaos the Virtue is not the opposite of order, it isn't even opposed to order. It is a principle, it stands for Freedom and Individuality.

    Make sure you don't miss the next event ;)
     
  3. Bobar

    Bobar Babbling Loonie
    Stratics Veteran Stratics Legend

    Joined:
    May 20, 2004
    Messages:
    2,043
    Likes Received:
    577
    Kingship by its very nature is autocratic. The King desires something to be done and it is done. There is no place for individuality in his subjects responses. Do we really have a King who desires something to be done but will happily sit back and do nothing when his subjects say 'We have thought about it but decided we dont want to do it?'.

    As to freedom one could discuss for hours what this might mean and indeed what it might mean to each of us. But in a Kingdom the subjects have an obligation to a King. This obligation probably overrides individual freedom, one example would be the right of the King to conscript citizens to fight should the country be at war. Could a citizen refuse to fight with no retribution from above? I think not.

    Could Blackthorn, the preponent of Chaos, take retributive action in either of the above scenarios? If he did he would not be holding to his alleged principles. If he did not the Kingdom would soon disintegrate. The principles of Chaos do not sit well with the role of King. Simply to be a King restricts the rights of his subjects to those principles.

    These are only examples of what might occur if individuality and freedom is the ruling principle. They do demonstrate chaos though and that what might happen would be chaotic without a doubt.

    Individuality and freedom are all very well and nice high-sounding ideals but we are all constrained by the restrictions imposed by the society in which we live. Not to do so would, of course, result in anarchy.
     
    #3 Bobar, Oct 9, 2012
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2012
  4. Shakkara

    Shakkara Slightly Crazed
    Stratics Veteran Stratics Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,274
    Likes Received:
    475
    There are several ways to govern in a way that values freedom and individuality. Under traditional rulership, mandates come from the crown and a council of nobles, composed of individuals that more often than not got their positions based on heritary tradition instead of personal qualities, merit or intents which align with the wishes of the general populance. I think that chaotic leadership would be much more local, with cities having much more autonomy and having more say in who their noble leaders be. Nation-wide affairs can still be dicated by a monarch and his inner council, but their jurisdiction wouldn't extend far local affairs. People would also be more responsible for handling their own affairs, if a trading guild requires infrastructure, they would now have the means of building it themselves and sorting it out on a local level, instead of endlessly petitioning with far-away nobility, wading through a morass of bureaucracy, taxation regulations and so on.

    I think that under such a system, the way leadership functions would indeed change. In an autocratic society, people will follow their king for the simple reason that he is king. They do hardly question the king's decissions, and the king makes sure that society is structered in such a way that disobedience is discouraged or punished. Under a chaotic system, leadership is still possible though. Instead it would be based on consensus and merit. People will choose to follow the king, because they know he is wise, they agree with his arguments, or because he made decissions in the past that turned out to have good results.

    What if we choose not to obey our king? If everyone runs off chasing the winds, and the king sits in his splendid throne room with no subjects to obey him and no-one to dish out punishments? Is this not what Chaos will lead to, you may ask.

    But is this not the same situation as it has always been? People can always choose to reject the law and the people that use the law to claim power and authority over others. Many institutions have been erected throughout history for no other purpose than to prevent this from happening by granting apparant unquestionable legitimacy to those in power. Many more a system has been built to insinuate that those in power have in fact the mandate of the people, while more often than not that mandate is bought by nothing more than lots of gold and a tight control over the people's means of communication, where any message to the contrary is drowned in propaganda of slick con artists that want nothing more than to pry that mandate of power from your little fingers. The message to the people is then, that THEY put these rulers in place, thus THEY are responsible for any idiotic policies that the leaders come up with (policies which more often than not harm the people that mandated these rulers in the first place). But lo and behold, the next time a mandate from the people is required, people once again empower the very same group of con artists (because of carefully applied gold, control over communication and relentless propaganda campaigns), with good-hearted new candidates for lordship not getting any chance to get their message out.

    In fact, the simple truth is, that even the most deviously constructed system still requires the people's consent every day. Rulers need the people to enforce their will on others. They need the people to wage their wars. They need the people to build their castles. And as impressive as their armies and castles may seem, they need the people to keep them fed. Ironically, it is the people that often belong to the lowest castes, the peasants and fishermen, the bricklayers and the thatchers, those that serve our most basic needs of food and shelter, that are the ones with the power over life and death. Not the lords and ladies in their shiny castles or their armies with their swords and spears.

    Any lawful system, no matter the claims of benevolence, will try to threaten deviants, threaten to lock them up, beat them into submission or even threaten to kill them. But it is an idle threat, never forget that. After all, they want your labor and your tax money. They don't want to lock you up or take your life, as there is no benefit in that, in fact it even COSTS them labor and tax to do so.

    Power is always given, never taken.

    I think that what King Blackthorn means with Chaos, is getting exactly this message out to the people. Empowering the people and allowing them the freedom to make their own decission who to give their power to. If King Blackthorn is true to his own principles, he cannot be an autocratic king, as he will need to prove himself worthy of the continuous support of the people to keep him in power under the new system he seems to advocate. He would have to stay in power based on his own merits and his deeds. He will have to work hard to serve the interests of the people he holds power over. He will not remain king for the simple reason that someone arbitrarily decided to put a crown on his head.

    Signed,

    Hotep Shakkara, Duchess of Trinsic, Lady of Mottecreek
     
  5. Alaster The Insane

    Alaster The Insane Journeyman
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2010
    Messages:
    109
    Likes Received:
    24
    even if i had been a passive lord protector, well, not totally, i saved few people for the claws of dungeons they should never put a foot on, i have resurected people on weird situations, but never had the time to manage to built such a thing i'm going to explain here, well, i'll try.

    I explained one day to someone "a group is only relying on what each of his members do". For example, we build a group with a person awesome in cartography, but he dies from pirates on the way to our loot. We'll never find the treasure.
    We have a guy awesome at sword fighting, but we stumble upon archers, and we all dead. It's, i think you got the idea, the point.
    A whole Kingdom can't work with only a King, it needs local people taking care of things going, and local people to be sure they don't peek in our purse.
    Having a King is cool : it spreads a lot of shining and so ; and what if the kingdom is full of robbers ?
    To me, and it's just a preliminary idea : screw the King, screw the Lord Protector that i am : build your own things. Build your own roads. I know it's close to anarchy, but after all, it's been a while we live in. Be yourself.
    Me, as Alaster, i build, something, a very little part of that Kingdom.
    And with that, we come back to the group question. Gather all. Build stuff. Make stuff. Don't wait for the Lords to put food in your mouth, cause you can only count on your group, and your group counts on you.

    Don't wait a King. Don't wait a Lord Protector. Wait yourself, and what you will do.