Fabricant451

(High Casual) An Age Old Feud

Mines go fast when you have every man mining it or else. Compounded with death payments and whatever is being traded, mining doesn't come off as the best course for long term sustainability. Your example with the old man is basically saying the mines work as assisted suicide and you don't see the problem with that in terms of keeping a people content?

People are not so easily controlled. It is stretching the absolute limits of disbelief to assume that every person in the kingdom is absolutely okay with how things are done there.

(High Casual) An Age Old Feud

Does Jack think everyone is in favor of him? In the loosest sense of the word he is, at this moment in the RP, surrounded by enemies given where he's at and he's done absolutely NOTHING to earn favor with them or show that he's a decent person let alone king. By all accounts this is a diplomatic undertaking and it's been all of ten minutes and Jack's murdered for no reason. What does that say to the witnesses? What does that say for the tension between the kingdoms? It doesn't make Jack look strong. In the event of war, something like that could absolutely be used to inspire Maddox's kingdom. Hence he is surrounded by enemies. And even back in his home turf he'd be crazy to think everyone there is in favor of him. Even good kings have people in the opposition.

What happens when the mines run dry. Jack isn't creating jobs so much as he's forcing people to work. Every man. What about people who have other professions? Are they taken from their businesses and forced to the mines? What if they have a condition that makes them unfit to work the mines? Are they told "Oh it's fine you can do something else?" Because when you suggest that every man is forced to work the mines, it starts sounding like slavery despite claims to the contrary.

And again, money is not infinite and if elderly or unfit people are dying in the mines, that's going to bleed through money because forcing people to work like that is not sustainable long term. Trade alone won't keep a kingdom flourishing, not if there's constant settlements because people develop black lung and die.

You can't possibly assume that every citizen is happy with this arrangement.

As for where the revolution would start, how about people that have been spurned by Jack? People that see him for what he is? Why not someone closer to home even? Public opinion changes on a whim and he can't possibly control the masses with "But I give you money when your family dies" when he's also having people killed because they dare voice a negative opinion of the guy. Treat people like cattle and don't be shocked when they start a stampede.

What Are You Listening To?

(High Casual) An Age Old Feud

Who says they have to reveal the information publicly? Jack is surrounded by enemies and information has a way of spreading even without the advent of technology. And even if some people did go public, congrats now they're martyrs to the cause of 'Usurp King Jack'. It only takes a few sparks to set a fire and at the moment it seems like Slibah is sitting on tinder and leaves.

As far as revolutions go, the basis of Jack being no better than a tyrant. Forcing people to work with questionable and harsh conditions, suggestions of literally killing people for being like "Man, FUCK Jack" and any number of atrocities that are sure to come up. Someone being publicly executed for speaking up might have some cheering, but it could also have some using that as further fuel. Hence the martyrdom clause. If people are forced to shovel shit, don't be surprised when they start flinging it back.

And if he doesn't want to kill, maybe he should show some restraint going forward.

(High Casual) An Age Old Feud

Yeah, I'm sure the people that saw him openly kill a guy for no reason are just dying to keep that fact private. And I'm sure 'changing minds' is doing wonders for his reputation back home. Generals and lords do not outnumber soldiers. Nor do they outnumber a population of people who could revolt. Revolutions are a very real concept and it's not too far a stretch to think a people that have been shit upon and who live in fear couldn't be brought together to change things. And as of now, Jack isn't doing his people any favors nor has he been shown to be good at ruling.

How does Jack plan to keep his legacy when he's doing everything possible short of straight up stabbing Maddox to ensure it all crumbles at the slightest provocation. Jack isn't acting like a king, he's acting like what a child assumes a king is like.

(High Casual) An Age Old Feud

It'd be interesting to see how many people share these 'visions' when the literal actual crazy psycho king man is out of the picture. You can't buy loyalty, especially not in citizens and especially not by forcing men to work long, harsh hours in mines. Money doesn't buy happiness and it sure as shit doesn't buy loyalty. Nor is money an infinite thing. Wars are expensive. "Oh my husband and sons died in the labor camp mine but I got a huge insurance policy so I'm over it, hail Jack".

Jack can't control the people with money and fear only gets you so far. Earlier you mentioned Hitler so that cat's out of the bag. Hitler had secret police and after the war it was declared a criminal organization. So much for Jack's secret police in the event of death.

As far as religion goes, what about the citizens who aren't religious? What about if the religious sorts get a bit too over-zealous? Control is not an absolute thing, especially when the king is going out of his way to make himself look like the worst person possible. Be a heartless tyrant long enough and people are going to want change. And they won't mind getting violent to make it happen. Jack can't just be a ruler that solves problems with money and murder.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

I've always assumed when people were like "I like an intelligent partner" what they were really saying was "I like someone that can contribute to a topic or conversation even if it's outside their wheelhouse. Sapiosexual is often used to indicate that the most attractive quality to a person is the mind of their partner. Physical appearance certainly plays a factor in it, when it comes to dating or physical intimacy there's always some level of appearance, but the mind of a person is the important bit. On certain dating sites and apps it's also used as a sort of statement against what some perceive to be superficiality, namely the whole 'looks are the most important thing'.

It's kind of a pretentious thing to see on a profile in most cases.

But sapiosexual people tend to not be attracted to a person from the start, like they don't look at a person and go "Shit, they're attractive I want to sling that D" but rather they build up an attraction the more they get to know them and their mind and they become more beautiful in return. If that makes sense. It probably doesn't because I'm bad at this. Sapiosexuals don't always value a deeply physical intimate relationship either.

A lot of sapiosexuals seem like the worst people to date though but that's just me being a bitch.

(High Casual) An Age Old Feud

Does "loyalist" mean anything to you? The people don't need to like him, the general in charge of his absence needs to support him.

@Bishop

It's easy to be loyal to someone when they're alive. People don't have to remain loyal to someone that's dead. Roose Bolton was loyal to Robb Stark. Randyll Tarly was loyal to Olenna Tyrell. House Tyrell was loyal to Renly Baratheon. House Tyrell was loyal to House Lannister. And those are just the obvious fictional examples. Loyalty often results in betrayal for a variety of reasons, most commonly because moral principles or personal interests take precedence. Putting faith in loyal soldiers in a setting like this is just asking for an 'Et tu, Brute' moment.

In a setting like this, 'loyalist' means 'when are they going to betray you'. And honestly a hypothetically dead Jack no longer holds any leashes so there would be no consequence for some disloyalty in that situation. People are complex beings and short of brainwashing how is he going to ensure loyalty, especially if he's dead and thus has zero leverage.

Errr...his generals? Is there even that big a vacuum?

Depending on the number of houses and desires, yes. And again, generals aren't infallible and they don't outnumber an army of people who might not have any loyalties to their now dead king. What's keeping the generals so loyal if Jack's dead? Brainwashing? You brought up the Game of Thrones thing so I'll continue that: The War of the Five Kings was fought when Robert Baratheon died and two of the factions weren't even fighting for the throne specifically. People that see an opportunity for power often will make every attempt to get it when the opportunity arises.

Contingency plan.
Only the leaders that take the crown in his absence needs to support his plan.

I'm sure a leader that takes the crown in the wake of Jack dying would happily be "No yeah I'll stick to the plan, Jack, you dead man." This contingency plan is putting a lot of faith in people that shouldn't have a lot of faith put in them.

Come on now...he is not that bad. I mean hell, it's not like he beheaded Ned Stark or killed Robb and his men at a wedding. He is not a heartless mo..oh wait he is.
But here's the thing. He doesn't kill without reason and he never has. If no one messes with him, if no one ticks him off then it'll all be good...I promise.

He killed an innocent man in front of an audience because he stood near a door. If that's reason enough to kill a person then he is that bad. And it's not at all how you inspire loyalty in your people. The thing about people like Jack in tales like these is that they don't get happy endings. You want to play the Joffrey figure, don't expect everyone to just let you run free without consequence.

Dear Gamer: Let's Seek Each Other Out

I'll have a post up before the weekend.

One Piece: Eternal Pose (OPEN)

I'm gonna have a post up by Wednesday!