blah the Prussian

I also think there's no contradiction; people who sing the praises of meritocracy are usually the ones who believe, correctly or not, that they are the best in society. Of course Ashnard believes in a strong survive system when he is strong. I think it adds to him as a character, and to a general point about ideology that I don't think the game was trying to make, but death of the author.

I think Sonic 1 is a bad game. Green Hill Zone is good, but far too much of the game is devoted to precision platform ing, which is a terrible idea for Sonic. Marble Zone is where I stopped playing after reading that it didn't get any better. Sonic 2, on the other hand, is a great game, and one of my favorite games ever.

Ironically actually. But I am a Monarchist, definitely, and I also think that FE generally isn't feudal, because most of the trappings of feudal society don't exist in most FE countries. Jugdral is the main exception, and FE4 ends with feudalism being abandoned in favor of absolute monarchy, and it's shown to be a leading factor in the rise of the Lopt Sect, so that's hardly glorifying it. The other games, though, don't have lords; they don't have feudal levies. Most of the other countries function more as enlightenment era absolute monarchies, with some exceptions (Lycia is a federation of city states ala Ancient Greece, Sacae is a tribal federation, Daein is more like a military dictatorship), and Begnion is pretty clearly based on the Roman Empire, which was not feudal (at least until Diocletian, but the Senate didn't have power under Diocletian). So overall I don't think FE actually glorifies Feudalism, it just glorifies Monarchy when ruled by a good person, and condemns Monarchy when ruled by a bad person.

Well that isn't a problem for me.

Quite literally like comparing a massive pile of shit to Kobe beef. That is not an exaggeration. No matter how ASOIAF ends, it will end with better writing, better characters, and a better plot than Fates, all of it. Look, some of the antagonists are more sympathetic than Conquest Corrin. What does that tell you?

Well, yeah, but that's on command, not on physical strength. Plus, Napoleon kept that in the army, with the civil service largely based on appointment. Elincia is a gray area, but my reasoning is that she starts out her reign inexperienced as she was never meant to be Queen to begin with, she just inherited because Renning was given psycho drugs. As such, she is unwilling to use proper force to discipline her people, and is unable to control her nobility. Why I think it's a grey area is because her character arc is focused on her improving as a Queen, and I love it, but, well, Renning would have kicked Ludveck's ass easier. And yet, I still would have wanted the throne to go to Elincia, because a merit based system in practice becomes either corrupt or tyrannical much faster than a stable succession system where leaders don't need to prove anything.Again, the issue isn't that the Laguz have good government, but that the Laguz system has good government at all. I do not think that a system where leaders need strength to win is good, because any intelligence would be merely a coincidence. I also think that evil Laguz would have made the plot better, and a much more nuanced examination of racial tensions and conflicts. If you look at history, with the exception of American slavery, it was NEVER the case that one side was in power for all of history. You have Serbs killing Turks when Turks killed Serbs 100 years ago. You have the Germans killing Poles and Czechs, and then those ethnically cleansing Germans. A feature of basically any conflict is that both sides are guilty to an extent, and we don't get that with the Laguz. Throughout the enlightenment, most monarchs tried, and some succeeded, to emancipate the Serfs, secularizing society, and institute a more merit based military and civil service. The two most successful examples of this were Frederick the Great and Joseph II. The French Monarchy tried this, specifically by raising taxes on the rich and lowering them on the poor, but failed because the nobility was more powerful than it was in the rest of Europe, largely because France's previous King had been the moronic Louis XV. Louis XVI also initially supported the Revolution, before an angry mob almost murdered his wife based on a rumor, and the army did nothing. Slow and steady reform, which is what almost all monarchs of the enlightenment supported, has demonstrably killed less people and been more stable than rapid reform. To put this in FE terms, Sanaki doesn't break the power of the entire Begnion nobility at once, because if she did there would be no one to run the country. Instead, she tried for a policy of slow reconciliation, before the Senate coup stopped her, but, come on, that was practically divine intervention from Lehran, it doesn't count. Micaiah, meanwhile, kicked the Imperial Army out of Daein, but relied on a bunch of terrible, terrible people, like Izuka, to do it, and now she has an army full of racists. Note that the Daein army seems thrilled to hunt subhumans again; blame Micaiah's rapid, uncompromising revolution for that. When you destroy the old order completely, you can no longer use it to shape your new order, and thus you get less control over what that new order will be.

An evil Laguz King would definitely go a long way towards resolving the issues I have with the world building, basically because if you're going to have different systems you need to show, rather than tell, in your analysis. Different characters might have different beliefs, but in the narratives the hereditary system is shown to be bad in the cases of Pelleas being unprepared for the throne, Elincia being unprepared for the throne, and how shit Begnion is (though Begnion is more give and take, because while the nobles are evil, the hereditary monarch is the main force for reform, which is actually a very historically accurate depiction of how things went in Monarchies). The Laguz basically only have Skrimir, because Naesala was justified and Tibarn killing innocent sailors was apparently justified because of a massacre perpetrated by different people. Heck, you don't even need to have it be part of the narrative; have, say Caineghis's backstory be that he killed the previous Laguz King, who was a tyrant, anti-Beorc, and overall just an asshat. What we get instead, however, is "The Laguz have no weak Kings".

So the military is glorified (which seems to be the case based on Skrimir)? That, again, sounds a lot like Daein. Basically, you are never going to convince me that a system where the leader comes to power due to their strength is effective.

But native tribes in general, at least historically, held elections for their leader, or the position was hereditary. If a person was to dethrone the chief in a fight, it would be a coup. Native tribes also had at the very least basic buildings, and certainly practiced agriculture.

If Gallia was based off of real life lions it would be even worse. Not only do head lions get a harem of every other female, when a new male comes to power they kill all of the Cubs of the old male. That's hardly a model for a stable and successful society. If the Laguz live in tandem with nature, does that mean they don't have agriculture? If you don't have agriculture, you fundamentally cannot survive as a civilization, because you don't have a constant source of food.

Woohoo!

Team Skull aren't Communist, but they're symptoms of the Pokemon system, as Communism argues organized crime is a symptom of Capitalism. Plasma are Communist, Galactic is a cult, Aqua and Magma are ecoterrorists, and Team Rocket is just the Mafia. Team Skull are more like street gangs, while Team Rocket is more big league.

So, terribly sorry for the wait with the response, but my wifi got fucked. Anyway: Yes, I admit that Gallia does not invade other countries, and thus it is better than Daein (Tibarn's impersonation of Somalia, on the other hand...) However, Daein's Social Darwinism is stated to be a bad system, or at least implied to be, and Gallia's isn't. Any system where you select your leader on strength is bound to fail in the real world. You might speculate on what "strong" and "weak" mean in this context, but the game doesn't explicitly state something different from their normal definitions, so I think we're forced to see a horse as a horse, so to speak. If Gallia's monarchy is elective, that makes the situation worse; elective monarchies have historically done rather poorly. See Poland-Lithuania, where the King relying on the electorate to get in power meant in practice a puppet monarchy ruled by factions of the nobility. Overall, I fail to see how any society that values strength over intelligence in leadership would be left with something more than a bunch of brutes with no idea how to run a country in power. Now, to the credit of RD, it does show some nuance in this system by having Skrimir, who got his position thanks to strength rather than intelligence, be a strategic fuckup and lose to Zelgius, who was promoted thanks to intelligence and, being a noble, also got the opportunity to study the campaigns of the greatest Generals in Tellius's past. But IMO that's too little, too late, especially since Skrimir is basically the only instance of a flaw in this system.

So I've been having several team ideas for a while, and I wanted to create a general thread to discuss themed team ideas. Here are mind: Chess theme: Slowking(King), Tsareena(Queen), Bisharp(Bishop), Aegislash/Rapidash(Knight), Pallosand(Rook), Pawniard(Pawn) Game of Thrones theme: Hydreigon(Targaryen), Mighteyena(Stark), Pyroar(Lannister), Roserade(Tyrell), Seaking(Tully), Sawsbuck(Baratheon) Also substitute in: Tentacruel for House Greyjoy, Solrock for House Martell, Braviary for House Arryn, Frosslass for the White Walkers, Mamoswine for the Wildlings, and Mudsdale for the Dothraki. Calvin and Hobbes theme: Incineroar(Hobbes), Clefable(Spaceman Spiff), Abomasnow(snowmen), Tyrantrum(the dinosaur fantasies), Hawlucha(a bit of a stretch, but Stupendous Man), Cacturne(again a stretch, but Tracer Bullet) So what are your team ideas? Any suggestions for mine?

First point: fair enough, but I still think that if you try to do something, however minor, you should do it well.Second point: That would be fair, but the problem is that we are presented with a society in the form of Ashnard's Daein that tries to be what Gallia is but with Beorc, and is portrayed as a horrific dictatorship, which is what a country using Gallia's system would be. The double standard is clear.

Forgot to say this; I disagree with this vehemently. POR tries to be an examination of the various systems of transferring power, but falls flat because inheritance is the only one that actually gets fairly looked at. The Laguz are portrayed as a utopia, and the consequences of having a system where Kings rise to power based explicitly on their physical strength is never really explored. The social implications of that isn't explored either; what would having claimants fight for the throne do for the stability of the realm. It gets especially ridiculous when you realize that Ashnard's system is basically the same as what the Laguz have, but the game rightly condemns the system when the Beorc do it. They also could have connected how resentment for being 11th in line for the throne could have led Ashnard to have those beliefs in the first place. So overall, I get what Tellius was trying to do, but the execution was badly mismanaged.

I think it's probably because all the other stories are worse. Tellius at least has some great characters (Elincia, Sanaki, Soren especially) a badass villain, and the best worldbuilding. The other FE stories are either too safe, (FE6, FE13, FE7), too bloated (RD) or morally disgusting (Conquest, and, hey, Serenes's Law!). Personally, I prefer Sacred Stones and the original, but I'd say that Tellius was the last time an FE story wasn't horseshit, so that counts for something. I also think people give Ike too much credit; again, biased towards royalty, but whatever. He should have been at the very most the Watson to Elincia's Holmes, IMO. I also despise the Black Knight for being a redundant, confused, Darth Vader ripoff but without all the stuff that made Darth Vader cool. Ashnard, though, is great, being the only human big bad in Fire Emblem. So overall, Tellius is less incompetant than most of the rest of FE, and what it gets right, it really gets right. It shouldn't be put on a pedestal, but it has some good stuff.

Pah. You see snobbery, I see raising money for the crown. Seriously, though, a lot of what Louis did was create a personality cult around the monarchy to defang he nobility, and it worked. And yeah, generally you do have to pay in Europe, because of higher taxes. It's worth it, IMO.

I don't know, it just doesn't seem like something I'd put on my resume.

Wait, was that the King's bathroom or the tour bathroom? If the former congratulations, and I guess I have a new, incredibly sad life goal.

Oh, please. Historically, monarchies have been forces of emancipation for the serfs as a means to break the power of the nobility. Plus, they would have been allowed to take a dump.

Nintendo is basically House Hapsburg: they get their asses kicked again and again, but keep soldiering on in spite of it. Nintendo has survived worse than this, and I think they'll keep making games and consoles for many years to come.

Nah, monarchy would have betrayed you if the vile Republican traitors hadn't abolished Portugal's monarchy in 1910. Unfortunately, or fortunately if you're a "don't want Monarchism to be implicated in causing constipation" kind of guy, it was.

The problem with International Vacations is that they are fiendish vactions that encourage the plague of International Bolshevism in your vacation. You need to take a good Monarchist vacation instead. Maybe then you won't get constipation.

Have you read the Thrawn Trilogy? At least read those; Grand Admiral Thrawn is considered one of the greatest magnificent bastards ever with good reason. Also, the stuff surrounding the Fel Empire is good, although I'm biased because I'm a Monarchist.