blah the Prussian

IN THE NAME OF THE EMPEROR! WE SHALL DESTROY THE BISHOP OF ROME AND SONY!

Once you've sacked Constantinople, even the heinous act of putting wonderful game cartridges in one's mouth is child's play. Seriously, this is FFTF, Monarchist and Venice bashing shitposts are my way of life here

I have just watched the first episode of across Ange, to my eternal shame. The creators appear to be in a running competition with Zack Snyder for "who can include the most elements that make blah the Prussian want to kill himself" in the shit they squeeze out of their assholes after eating Taco Bell. I mean, between anti-Monarchism, bigotry handled with no nuance whatsoever, this fucking moronic Empire apparently having the legal provisions for immediate dethrone,net of the Emperor with no challenge if the Prince says so, the fact that the police have a baby sized cage they use specifically for abducting children (although that was kind of hilarious), the part where this genetic defect that gets you sent to raped prison only exists in women (fuck me), and, of course, the gratuitous rape with the quite nasty ha ha undertones due to the irony of the situation, I can only conclude that this was the product of a sexually perverted lobotomized Orangutan given far too much money.

The perifidous influence of the Serene Republic of Venice.

We can presume, though, that Gayle doesn't have that much of a problem with conquering the continent, because he doesn't explicitly state otherwise. Murdock and Brunya, though, do know Zephiel's endgame, and go along with it.

Meh, I don't personally count Gayle.

The problem with Rommel is that we can't really know the extent to which he was aware of the Holocaust, or what he thought about Fascism. I personally think he was overrated especially compared to the Generals who actually risked life and limb to take out Hitler. If he knew about the Holocaust and did nothing he'd fit with the archetype; if he didn't know I'd say he wouldn't, because part of fitting the trope is that they're making the choice to support evil despite being good. If they think that evil is good they aren't making that decision, they're being deceived.

If they had just run off without renouncing their claim then yes. And to add to the rest, have the parents be abusive to the younger sibling because they always wanted their older son, who they preferred, to rule. That opens the door for a complicated villain. Also, May I suggest having the protagonist be based on Tsar Peter the Great? He also ran off to see the more developed Western Europe (he worked in the ports of Amsterdam) before going back to Russia and reforming it. The hero's adventures could take him to a more developed kingdom that doesn't have the problems with corruption, and the monarch of that kingdom could convince him to get off his ass and do his duty. But yeah, overall this is a pretty kickass idea.

Don't know if sarcasm or not, but if not that's absurd. You can easily come up with a justification for invading. Maybe the people are crying out for blood after some atrocities.

What's the Umayyad's decadence level?

We exist to survive long enough to pass down our genes, contributing to the evolution of the human race. That doesn't have to be genetic, it can also come in the form of culture, philosophy, technology, learning, etc.

Why of course she does, thereby providing employment to a part of the population and improving the economy in the long run! Soon Begin will be a Keynesian utopia!

Get your work done right the fuck now, you pathetic creature. Your mother and I are very disappointed that my sperm and her eggs were so shit as to create such a lazy, procrastinating moron as you.

I feel like no historical ruler ever has the evil plan "And THEN I'll give him as bunch of wives to make him decadent and have a revolt!"

Ishtar in FE5 is an interesting take on a Camus that can be even better with good writing. Basically, have the Camus support the villain due to being in an abusive relationship. Alternatively, you could have a Black and Grey morality setting; others have mentioned this, but that's basically Augustria vs Grandbell. Maybe the Camus legitimately doesn't want their country to lose the war, because they have reason to believe that, should they lose, their country would get treated just as badly by the heroes as it treated the good country. To reinforce this, there can be a general ripper style leader on the hero's side.

There is a mod that has all of Eurasia, called Umbra Spherae, but it's incomplete and East Asian societies aren't represented properly. It's a good start, though!

I'm pro abortion until such a time as free birth control is made available. If/when literally any birth control that isn't abortion is made widely available for free, abortion should be heavily restricted, however until then abortion being legal is neccesarily. Against the death penalty.

I love it when CKII gives you these stories.

Also a shout out to TWEWY. I WISH I could put it on here, as that would mean it got a sequel, but alas. 1. Paradox games. I love Paradox Interactive, and their four history simulation franchises- Crusader Kings, about the Middle Ages, Europa Universalis, about the ages of exploration and Revolution, Victoria, about the Victorian era and WWI, and Hearts of Iron, about WWII, should be taken together. In fact, in one of my favorite things about them, you can take a game from Crusader Kings all the way to Hearts of Iron, allowing you to simulate an alternate history of humanity from the rise of Charlemagne to the Cold War. It kicks ass. 2. Metal Gear Solid. I love it. 3 is my favorite, because I think it has the tightest feel, and it feels like you're actually on a mission, but they all kick ass. 3 also has my favorite cutscene in video game history. The story can get confusing at times (2, looking at you) but the gameplay is some of the most perfect I've ever played in the later installments. It's a game based entirely around the style of gameplay, and it works well basically without exception. 3. Legend of Zelda. It's Zelda. I love it. I love the sense of exploration, and, speaking as someone who has played all Zelda games with the exception of the first two, I love all the games. I also resent the idea that linearity makes a game bad, so I like Skyward Sword, although Majora's Mask is my favorite. That's set to change, though, with Breath of the Wild about to release. 4. Pokemon. This series was the first game I ever fell in love with. Nothing can or will beat my first playthrough, but Pokemon is on this list for being by far the most replayable series I've ever played. There are so many different Pokemon and team combinations, and the different styles of each Pokemon means that each playthrough is genuinely different. 5. Civilization. While Paradox makes my favorite strategy games, Civilization was my first strategy series. Yes, it is as addictive as everyone says. I don't think it's a good simulation of history, but damn if it isn't fun to play. 4 is probably my all time favorite for the sheer amount of differing scenarios, but hopefully 6 will top that.

I think that in practice the way America will become a Monarchy is in the style of Rome in a century or so; people will lose faith in democracy, there will be widespread chaos, eventually the strongest General will become Emperor. I don't think it's likely, but it is the most likely way Monarchy comes to America. And, while I think that it would be the best way for the scenario I laid out to end, I would prefer that the scenario not happen in the first place. Thus, if I had a wand, the British monarchy would rule over America. But the President is elected and I don't want that, for reasons already stated.

Legitimate monarch. Basically the only one with any kind of legal legitimacy, if America was to become a Monarchy. Monarch nominates people, either Congress or the people can confirm it. I too want democracy with checks and balances, but more secure checks and balances.

Things are overall looking up. Could you possibly press the claim of one of the Umayyad kids?

Actually, no, I'm providing an example of the relevance of Monarchy in modern society. I'm even prepared to reconsider some of my proposals.\ Well, she's the legitimate ruler from a Monarchist perspective. I'm going out on a limb and saying you'd have the same reaction to anyone I'd suggest. Which is why I don't support an elected official appointing the Supreme Court. I feel like at this point we're at an impasse then, because we can't really debate on differing philosophies. I'll still try, though. I believe that mob rule has the potential to lead to an autocrat anyway; some of the worst dictatorships in history were born of faulty democratic systems. Revolutionary France, to be specific. I think talking about democracy as the most moral system is pointless, because government should ultimately not be about morals. The people voting on nominees might actually work. I do think that the ability to say no to an appointee is very important; so long as they can't take initiative in choosing, that removes most of the chance for abusing the system. Never said I wanted a 2 party system, I explicitly said PARLIAMENTARY deadlocks.

I'm aware. I'm outlining a proposal, not claiming that it exists.