What is the angriest you've ever seen someone at a game table?Maddest I ever seen was when two players got into a debate over whether the newly freed ghosts of some ancient and respected King and his councillors/knights should be be installed as the eternal leaders of a kingdom. Neither would back down, and the argument was so complicated that everyone else couldn't really follow it.One just started shouting "THE DEAD SHOULD NOT RULE THE LIVING. THE DEAD SHOULD NOT RULE THE LIVING-" and seemed to be on the verge of passing out from pure rage.
>>98910711That seems like an awesome debate lmao. I wish the angry moments at the tables I used to play were like that.Nah, for me, most of the angry moments in the games I've played were more mundane, with players arguing between themselves or the DM over rules, or that they were being too harsh, or that this and that was unfair, or that something a player did was dumb and resulted in someone getting killed, etc.Personally, unless the person is acting like a jackass on purpose to ruin the fun, I can't bring myself to actually be pissed with someone over a game
>>98910711>One just started shouting "THE DEAD SHOULD NOT RULE THE LIVING. THE DEAD SHOULD NOT RULE THE LIVING-" and seemed to be on the verge of passing out from pure rage.-MFWAnyways the angriest I've ever seen someone was either me when the GM and I were arguing over if I could enchant a pistol or not and he said it was too complicated to enchant or another player when he died after wandering off into a dungeon room filled with cobwebs and assumed there would be no spider monsters inside because "cobwebs are abandoned spiderwebs" (We were both right but both also should have known better than to get that mad for that long. Such were the days high school gaming)
>>98910711inb4 woyafag reborn jizzes his pants
>>98910711During an actual game? I seem to remember an incident where some poor bastard rolled like shit the whole night and just gave up on doing anything substantial that session.Outside of the game (but still relevant)? I gave a player a deal where he could roll on the ship quirks table for bonus points for the ship during character creation. He got a roll that essentially meant his ship didn't have a proper ability to send/receive calls. He got upset, so I said he could clear the roll and stop gambling on this shit. He was still upset about the whole thing, ranted for a bit before I got tired of his behavior and kicked him from the campaign.
>>98910837>During an actual game? I seem to remember an incident where some poor bastard rolled like shit the whole night and just gave up on doing anything substantial that session.I've seen that happen a few times. It's so weird how the least rational things to get mad about somehow manage to get people so upset. Dice have no memory and streaks only exist after the fact, and yet people can't help themselves.I guess the flipside is that a lot of what makes people happy also isn't that rational.
>>98910934NTA but I can understand feeling frustrated over it if it keeps happening. You feel like you're not helping the group or sometimes that you're doing the opposite, even.
>>98910807>"cobwebs are abandoned spiderwebs"Only for orb weavers. In my area most "cobwebs" are recently made by daddy-longlegses that just dont make very neat or regular webs. They still live and catch prey in them and use them for sensory functions, they just look ugly because they're sheet webs
>>98910952That's why you gotta remind people (and yourself) that good luck is just as likely to start coming up as bad luck is.I have one long time player that gets mad at dice and switches them out if they keep rolling low, and I actually feel a little bad for the dice, because it's not they're fault and they're just as likely to start rolling well from that moment on, but they're never given a chance to redeem themselves.Though, at the point where I'm feeling bad for objects is where I can't say anything about other people having irrational emotions.https://youtu.be/Nix6tC3vvjs?si=45suQxHpzFlRJo4v
>>98910711>One just started shouting "THE DEAD SHOULD NOT RULE THE LIVING. THE DEAD SHOULD NOT RULE THE LIVING-" and seemed to be on the verge of passing out from pure rage.Paladin/Inquisitor build players be like
>>98910711I was at a GW, and one guy was at the tables when his girlfriend walked up to him and starting arguing with him for no apparent reason. She snatched up his Necron Monolith from the table and flung it to the ground. He slapped her so hard she went reeling; the store assistant wanted to call the police, but they left shortly afterward.I have no idea what they were arguing about, I only saw the girl break his model.I did tell the guy "Hey man, don't forget your model case" before he left (so he didn't leave his models behind), but that's just courtesy. I made sure he got all his models before they left, or they 100% would've been stolen. And that was like a 2,500-pt army of Necrons.
>>98910782>Nah, for me, most of the angry moments in the games I've played were more mundane, with players arguing between themselves or the DM over rules,I almost miss those times.I remember back when 3rd edition was brand new and I was new to RPGs in general, my group of friends would endlessly get caught up in night-ending rules disputes. Just hours spent on the dumbest arguments of so little consequence that I can't remember what a single one was about.We cared so much about the rules back then, making sure we were getting things right, and treating the rules like they were unyielding laws that were vital to uphold. But, as we matured, the rules got softer and fuzzier and their purpose and meaning changed. By now, with so many more editions and different games and different GMs and just a better understanding how rules work, it's pretty much impossible to try to use the argument "We have to do it this way because it's what it says in the book" when that used to be the highest standard people would reach for.I haven't had a rules argument in over a decade now. "Trust the GM" has replaced pretty much any at-the-table arguments, with games just quietly losing momentum if people begin to lose faith in the GM's decisions. It's much better this way, but I can't help but remember how passionate we all were when we thought there was only one system of rules, one group of people we'd ever be playing with, and missing that slightly.
>player who got a natural 2 on both of his character's attacks for that turn, slapped his dice tray, sent a metal die flying that hit another player in the face>player who went to negative hit points and yelled at the rest of the party, got told it was his own fault for running in ahead, got so angry he slammed the door then kicked the shit out of the host's dryer and it didn't work after that>player who we offered him to join our Magic game, he joined, lost, threw a fucking fit and told us to never ask him to play Magic again and it was our fault, then dropped his cards on the floor while trying to put them away, and stormed out of the house for 30 minutes>player who cast a spell on four creatures and they all made their saving throw and someone pointed out his spell choice was shit, so he said "fine guess I'm not necessary" then walked out, and when no one followed, he lost his shit and kicked the host's cabinets in>player who got told not to fuck with a trapped chest, he did it anyway, got 2 wraiths summoned to attack him, and the other player had told him they were not going to help him if he didn't cut it out, so he died to 2 wraiths cause he didn't have a magic sword, and he literally ripped up his character sheet, his face turned BEET red, and he screamed FUUUUUUUCK FUUUUUUCK and he stormed out of the house for 2 hours, then he came back after dark and sat down and quietly made a new characterAll the same player btw
>>98910991>player that gets mad at dice and switches them out if they keep rolling lowTo be fair I think everybody does that if the dice rolls keep being consistently shit lmao
>>98911042Yeah same. Back then EVERYTHING was a reason to discuss. Here's an example that kept happening and happening, but there were others:>mage wants to cast a spell>says the spell does this and that>another player says otherwise>both argue until someone pulls the book>reads it as the book says>people start arguing hypothetical scenarios and why it doesn't make sense in this or that scenario>discussion increases as other players take sides>someone suggests checking 'sage advice' to see what the 'official answer' is>discussion goes on as people says the answer in there contradicts this and that>people start shitting on the game designers for not knowing their own game>this goes on until the DM loses patience and just opts to handle things however he feels is betterMost of the time they were about rules, since a bunch of the players were a bunch of powergamers that wanted to bend and break the game as much as they could get away with.
Ive witnessed an unironic table flip before. Was in a hole in the wall game store looking for minatures and there was a table in the back corner where three guys were playing kitchen table (on an actual kitcken table) magic. A big fat guy and two skinny guys. As I was looking at stuff and talking to the owner I hear the big fat guy bellow out. "YOU ALWAYS FUCKING DO THIS!" As he flips the table over ontop of the two skinny guys who fell or pushed back out of their chairs. I really only saw the after math of the fat guy standing there red faced, breathing hard and staring down at the two skinny guys pulling themselves out from under the table and chairs. The store owner was pissed and pulled a baseball bat out from behind his counter and told fatty to fuck off from his store.Was pretty funny.
>>98911762I'm ride or die with my dice.I've rolled my main set of dice hundreds of thousands of times and I'm aiming for millions.
>>98911095Why the fuck do you retards keep inviting him back?
>>98911095If those are chronological, he would've been banned after the first time, which he wouldn't have found out until after he had bought me a new dryer.
>>98911095>>98912251I mean it's funny to read it now, but I imagine I'd be pissed at the guy if it happened in my presence, specially if it was my house and my stuff he was breaking.
>>98910711I saw a legit tableflip at the FLGS over a Blood bowl game. I don't know the details but the guy who did the flip eventually ran out crying .I was a storyteller in a large vampire LARP in a major west coast city in the 90s and the amount of petty disputes, bickering and relationship drama was off the charts. The single biggest incident was when one of our Ventrue elders got caught cybering with another chick from the game "in character" by his irl gf who he lived with. She threw his ass out computer first, straight down the stairs, and we had a homeless Ventrue primogen for a few months lol.
>What is the angriest you've ever seen someone at a game table?I've had the clichéd experience of watching someone literally hurl a d20 at someone else. It was a fairly innocuous moment: their party was searching an abandoned village, they came upon spiderweb, a player walked into the web, and a fight with spiders started. The fight went poorly and one player said something like, "Told you the spiderweb was a bad idea," and the other player fucking hurled a d20. In another group, I witnessed classes between a true OSR bro and common 5e players. The OSR guy would berate the 5e players for their gameplay style and enjoyment of combat, while the 5e players called the OSR guy a no-fun-allowed control freak. The mismatch between their styles was huge, but the OSR player was truly condescending and controlling.
When my female players asked me to cancel the session and just fuck after I had spent a whole week preparing a dungeonAlso when they demand to rp out their pcs being prostitutes
Had a player and the gm get into a pumchup which resulted in us pulling them apart, them going in for round 2, a chair being fought over, then the player leaving and the game breaking up.
>>98910711>THE DEAD SHOULD NOT RULE THE LIVINGhe is right though, he better have won that argument
A TrenchCrusade play got so mad at a bad roll they shit ze pants before storming out
>>98914112It wasn't quite that simple. The King was the greatest and wisest king in the history of the country, a man so universally revered and respected that he is the only person that the leaders of the two factions contesting for the right to rule the kingdom would be willing to put aside their claims to the throne for. Not installing the Ghost King would mean one of two far worse men would take the throne, and only after a potentially long and bloody civil war.The King was a man so noble that he sacrificed not only his life for his country, but the chance to go to the afterlife, with his spirit trapped within a circle of standing stones. He was so beloved, that eleven of his closest knights likewise gave their lives to aid him in his final task.As a ghost freed and faced with the current situation in his country, the King conveyed his intention to maintain the oaths he swore during his coronation, and to do what he thinks is best for his country. No one living or dead had his qualifications, and he was willing to admit with blunt honesty that him taking the throne would result in him becoming the country's eternal ruler, because it would likely be impossible for anyone ever to be more experienced, to be more revered, or who could prove greater devotion to the country.
>>9891411290%+ of legislation worldwide was written by people no longer alive. Current borders of countries were (with few exceptions) also established by those who have perished since. Like it or not, the dead rule us already.
>>98913500He was banned for 6 months then ended up coming back at the decision of the homeowner. Wasn't my house, wasn't my business.
>>98914445Yes, but what guarantee does this guy have that his morals won't corrode with time? I get that he's a fictional character with decent Christ/Arthurian parallels so it's solved by DM fiat, but the (N)PCs don't know if he'll ever go full Arthas. To say nothing of what happens the next time he has to sacrifice his unlife for his country.
>>98915380I'd say the main problem is even more fundamental than whether or not the ghost might degrade over time. It comes down to a question of whether a ghost has any right to make decisions for the living, when it's up to each new generation to make its own mistakes and learn its own lessons and grow and develop for itself. Even if the ghost was absolutely perfect and remained perfect, that would mean that the responsibility that is supposed to belong to the living is not being taken up by them. It would be like a country of children that refuse to grow up and instead rely on their parents.
>>98913980Underage virgin post.
>>98914112Emotionally driven retard.
>>98914445>he was willing to admit with blunt honesty that him taking the throne would result in him becoming the country's eternal ruler, because it would likely be impossible for anyone ever to be more experienced, to be more revered, or who could prove greater devotion to the country.Dude, that sounds like the kind of statement a tyrant would make and the makings of a BBEG for a future campaign.Which I hope you're planning to get on once your current campaign is over.
>>98910711Work on your art
>>98910934It being completely out of one's control can make it worse, honestly. If you fucked up because of your inability or because you built your character wrong that's something you can learn from or cope about, but when everything is in your favor to succeed but you keep rolling poorly it just leaves you sour.>>98910991>>98910952It also usually comes in tandem with someone else having a hotstreak on rolls (or at least feels that way) or only rolling well on inconsequential things/things outside your character's area of expertise (i.e. a socially awkward engineer character who fails all their engineering rolls but somehow passes most social checks, but still not as well as the socially adept PC). So you start feeling like your character is irrelevant at best or the dice are turning your character into a joke at worst.
>>98915621>Dude, that sounds like the kind of statement a tyrant would make and the makings of a BBEG for a future campaign.It's just factual though, and there's no real point in being modest about it when anyone can come to the same conclusions. It's going to become impossible for a mortal to be more experienced than a ghost without a finite lifespan, and it's really hard to prove greater devotion than someone that sacrificed their own life.
>>98910711>King and his councillors/knights should be be installed as the eternal leaders of a kingdomWere you playing in North Korea?
>>98910711Worst I had was a whole table upset at me (except for a few who allied with me).Was the last game of a several years campaign, MJ used to play in the same setting with 2 groups and for the last session, we played all together.And I kinda backstabbed them all to attain godhood, ruining their long standing plan.But I had an evil (rather self-serving and opportunist) character, it was to be expected.
>>98915737No, it sounds like the kind boasting of someone who believes themselves infallible and beyond reproach would use as rhetoric. And it’d be the exact reason I wouldn’t just blindly trust them without any form of counterbalance to their power.
>>98910711>What is the angriest you've ever seen someone at a game table?Me. I once took a swing at my DM over a WoD game because he decided to pull the whole 'Stop squaring up to me you won't do shit' line. I can't even remember what it was over by this point. Just two fatties with egos going at it.On the one hand, petty as fuck, on the other hand theatre kids shouldn't talk shit and the look on his face was worth the ticket alone.Being a teenage boy is a hella a drug.
>>98915927>No, it sounds like the kind boasting of someone who believes themselves infallible and beyond reproach would use as rhetoric.It sounds like boasting because if a regular person said it, it would be boasting. But, in the case where facts are facts, it's just being upfront about what will happen. I'd actually be more concerned about a being that either couldn't foresee or more concerningly wouldn't admit that if placed in control it would be incredibly difficult to remove them from power.
>>98915975You might be a bit too attached to this ghost king character to grasp that the crux of the issue is that some dude thinking he’s the best doesn’t make him so, and that even some kind of super ghost king is bound to make a mistake or two in his judgement. And that if he does end up doing something bad fir the country, congratulations, they’ve just made deposing him impossible without getting an exorcist or another adventuring group to come by and stop him outside of him just agreeing to. Which, considering he thinks he’s so perfect and the bestest boy, is super unlikely.Don’t get me wrong though, it sounds like great soil for the origins of a tyrant ghost king campaign villain for the future though!
>Nuh-uh, he has to be a tyrant because no one gains experience through life, great man theory is wrong so any individual who says they're anything but worthless shit is clearly delusional, dangerous and a dictatorShoo. Away with you, collectivist subhumanoid.
>>98916020Lol not today monarchist bootlicker
It's remarkable how easy it is to spot the communist whenever these discussions come up.The old 'How do you know someone is a Vegan, they'll tell you' couldn't be more true for their cult.
>>98916070Op, I’m sorry one burgerlander posting on a Mongolian knitting forum agreed with that one over dramatic player in your group who thinks the dead shouldn’t rule the living, but you don’t have to get upset about it.
>>98914445>him taking the throne would result in him becoming the country's eternal rulerWhich is why he should be rejected. No one is flawless, and any problem you can't get rid of is bound to get worse.
>>98916070You either die a hero or live long enough to become the villain is a tale as old as time. Now combine that with an eternally living ghost and you get a quite obvious setup.Furthermore old / ansieht people are often stuck in their old ways and might not adapt to new things. It's usually the explaination given in a lot of fantasy why humans are so capable. Compared to elves they do not live long and therefore NEED to adapt asap.
>>98916168Know what's also a tale as old as time?The good king sleeping under the mountain, waiting to return in a nations time of most dire need.Funny innit how the cult of eternal revolution doesn't like that one as much as 'My dad-uh, I mean, any old ruler, has to be evil because he's old and shit and old people don't know anything, so we should probably hang them from lamp posts'
>>98911038>I made sure he got all his models before they left, or they 100% would've been stolenWell done m8, but what kind of shithole you live in?
>>98916172Well, if you are so attached to you undead King so be it, you are the DM I assume. You can of course write an eternal charachter who is impossible to corrupt and stays perfectly smart and never falls for the many traps humans usually fall into. Also the entire becomming a ghost thing had apparently no detrimental impact on him whatsoever, even though it sounded like becomming a ghost was some sort of sacrifice.But even then, your players cannot know that. Nor can their PCs. Also the "sleeping king/ knight" stories usually have the hero only turn up for one last hurray, usually defeating the evil which binds them to this place and then proceed to find eternal rest.Rarely have i heard about a story were the undead become eternal rulers after their help was asked for. On an unrelated note, there wouldn't be much of a story to tell / play left over if you were to implement that specific solution.
>>98916214>You disagree with my gaylord position by pointing out my interpretation of the mythic archetypes at place is stupid? Clearly you must be the DMHere's your (you), don't spend it all in one place.
Punched my now-brother-in-law in the face for being a cunt.
>>98915680I think the art is pretty neat. It looks spontaneous, it came from the heart.
>>98910711>What is the angriest you've ever seen someone at a game table?I've had a few mental breakdowns personally as a GM just because the players are complete fucking retards. Though I think I only started generally yelling about once or twice.
>>98916172Even King Arthur made mistakes and ultimately lost Camelot, anon.
>>98910711I've had boomers threaten me over Warhammer games because they think it's the 1970s and they'll be out of jail in the morning with a ticket. Learn to read you fat old fucks.
>>98916432Read what?
>>98915998>You might be a bit too attached to this ghost king character to grasp that the crux of the issue is that some dude thinking he’s the best doesn’t make him so, and that even some kind of super ghost king is bound to make a mistake or two in his judgement. I think you're not looking at what the alternative is, ie. it's not about the ghost king being flawless and perfect and unable to make mistakes, just the ghost king being a better candidate than virtually any form of mortal leadership. Ghost King would inevitably make mistakes (or simply decisions that would benefit some people over others), but a wise, experienced, and selfless king would likely make far fewer mistakes and be less prone to corruption and similar flaws than a mortal king would.
>>98910711I had a dude call me a racist fascist once because I told him I'd have to nick him if he smoked weed at the table in the game store.Store owner ended up banning him a few days later because he tried to smoke weed in the store so clearly had some mental health/addiction issues.
Installing a permanent ghost king is arguably necromancy. It gives neighboring nations a reasonable excuse to invade and is sure to piss off one or more religious institutions.But seriously, can you imagine being ruled forever by an immortal boomer? Lmao
>>98916172>Know what's also a tale as old as time?The Anti-Christ?>The good king sleeping under the mountain, waiting to return in a nations time of most dire need.The Anti-Christ.
>>98916667>He thinks someone that old is a boomer>He doesn't realize he's currently ruled by immortal boomers who have gone full Lich to avoid giving up their power and that putting the King in would be replacing themBoy someone sure is short sighted
>>98916614>it's not about the ghost king being flawless and perfect and unable to make mistakes, just the ghost king being a better candidate than virtually any form of mortal leadershipThat's not an argument, that's just kicking all the potential problems of an undead ruler later down the road for your descendants to deal with>but a wise, experienced, and selfless king would likely make far fewer mistakes and be less prone to corruption and similar flaws than a mortal king wouldAnd the first time he does make a fatal error worthy of condemnation, how are you supposed to remove him from power? Hope he just agrees to himself? Or is it more likely he's going to say "fuck no, I'm going nowhere" and now you're stuck with him?
>>98916667If he rules well, why the hell would I want him out? An eternal, benevolent monarch with near-total powers has always been the ideal form of government.
>>98916818No it isn't.
>>98916789>That's not an argument, that's just kicking all the potential problems of an undead ruler later down the road for your descendants to deal withYou're still doing that "he wouldn't be absolutely perfect, so he shouldn't rule" thing, and acting like placing a mortal ruler on the throne wouldn't also be kicking potential problems down the road, ie. all the problems that come from less capable rulers being in charge>And the first time he does make a fatal error worthy of condemnationWhy would that be inevitable? It's considerably more likely that less-wise/less-experienced/less-devoted/etc. mortals would make those sort of mistakes, only to be replaced by people who are likely to make even further mistakes. The benefit of having mortal rulers is definitely not that they can be swapped out for potentially worse rulers.
>>98916940>You're still doing that "he wouldn't be absolutely perfect, so he shouldn't rule" thingI'm not. I'm saying that there's an obvious issue to consider, that being what happens if the worst case scenario happens of the king turning bad and having no way to realistically remove him from rule other than outright emptying the country. And your only rebuttal is "But that'll never happen because he's perfect" in the same manner someone would go "Pffffft, I don't need insurance, I'll just never get involved in a car accident ever". Redundancies and emergency options exist for a reason, dingus. Unless the intended solution is to undergo another bloody civil war, which was the exact reason this ghost king was brought back in the first place.>Why would that be inevitable? Why wouldn't it?
>>98910711>THE DEAD SHOULD NOT RULE THE LIVINGWell, I mean... he isn't wrong
>>98916959I feel like you might be arguing just to argue a bit here.>the worst case scenario happens of the king turning bad and having no way to realistically remove him from ruleEven an unkillable Ghost King can be deposed and replaced. While it would be harder than killing a mortal king, there's no signs there's a shortage of clerics or enchanted swords, and there's already precedent for ghosts being capable of being trapped. There's even the possibility that people just refusing to listen to him would be enough to neuter whatever power he might wield. What would make the Ghost King so hard to remove would be the unlikelihood of a better alternative to the Ghost King. The level of mistake the King would have to commit for people to even consider replacing him after he establishes himself would be likely far beyond what even a half decent king would be capable of (let alone a good king), and then there would be the question of who could replace the Ghost King.Arguing that something is bad because you need to imagine it from the absolute worst case scenario, one that's unlikely to occur and goes against the established precedents, is not really much of an argument, and could be flipped on any potential alternative. The worst case scenarios of mortal kings can be just as bad or far worse than the unlikely case where a character defined by three traits goes against all three."What if Good Ghost King... TURN BAD?!" is something a lazy writer that painted themselves into a corner would come up with after realizing he's only in the middle of Act 2 and still needs an Act 3.
>>98917405No, I think that "What if ghost king turned bad" is probably the most natural question in the world to ask, and going "BUT HE WOULDN'T, DUH" over and over again in lieu of proposing an actual solution or debating the merits of some kind of check to the king's power to prevent a second bloody civil war is probably the reason why your player got so heated. Also, you're an idiot.
>>98916831What is then little timmy? Go on, give us your answer so we can all laugh at you.
>>98917561If you're so confident, you can go first.
>>98917433Your argument is weak because you're demanding worst case scenarios be evaluated for only one side, and even then your worst case scenario demands ignoring all established precedent for an effort to say "WELL, ANYTHING COULD HAPPEN."We're talking about a king where what we know about him is that he was respected in his time and is still respected in the current age even by two competing factions, and was even willing to die for his country. Expecting him to perform a Face-Heel Turn for the sake of a soap opera dramatic narrative twist is pretty ridiculous, and also a bit of a non-issue because if he ever did truly become "bad", then there are solutions for how to remove a Ghost.You're inventing an unlikely problem which has an easier solution than the real issue, ie. what happens if the Ghost King does a good enough job to remain in power indefinitely. That's a more nuanced and less straightforward issue than "GOOD GHOST KING TURNS BAD.">in lieu of proposing an actual solution or debating the merits of some kind of check to the king's powerI'm not arguing for or against the Ghost King, and I'm also not whoever set up this scenario. I'm pointing out the weakness in your arguments, particularly because they exist in Bad Cliche Land, and it's hardly worth debating something if the discussion falls into the logic used by the last season of Game of Thrones.
>>98917586Anon, this whole thread you've basically been going "But it won't happen, the ghost king is good!" on repeat whenever someone questions the viability of such a scenario. And you're the one claiming others have a weak argument?
>>98917602Like, putting aside the lack of nuance in the scenario of "the perfect ghost king that's just smarter and wiser than everyone", the long and short of it is that it's a poor king that does not prepare for the day he must abdicate the throne some day. We have actual historical precedent of dynasties that centralized too much power within the position of leader, only for the kingdom to go to shambles once he leaves. And ghost king is no different, since beyond the merit of not dying of old age, he's still got the capabilities of an ordinary man. He can't be everywhere at once, he can't magically see through lies, he can't brainwash people into always doing what he wants, and inevitably once he's gone whether by his own hand or by force via internal strife, if he has no successor than his works will be undone just the same as any other. A good king does everything possible for his countrymen in the here and now. A great king does everything possible to prepare for the future of his kinsmen in his country, even if he won't be there to see it personally.Like frankly, if we're talking about an immortal in politics, a more effective use of his time and power to ensure less strife is to make himself a successive advisor to the throne so that he has both the clout to influence the successors to the throne and the freedom to act on/look into things that the reigning monarch wouldn't. It's not even that far out from reality, plenty of dynasties recycle court officials from older ones for the fact that they were the ones who knew all the paperwork to ensure the trade shipments arrived on time.
>>98917579>Nuh-uh, you have to tell me your perfect political system before I, who have been slating everyone elses, say mineImmortal Philosopher King whose interests in running the country are virtuous.Your turn retard-kun, go on, give it the ol' college try and try to avoid mentioning Marx by name or spirit while you dribble all over his cock.
>>98917684Nah, you're clearly too upset to bother with. Go take your meds, Plato-kun. And refine your definition of man to be more than featherless biped.
>Absolutely bitches out at every possible juncture to do soGo suck cocks in a truckstop bathroom for (you)s if you're so desperate for them like any other self-respecting whore.
>98917700lol, does the philosopher king have an upset tummy?
>>98917602I'm not saying it's an impossibility, I'm saying it's less likely than a random mortal being a bad king. Considerably less likely.On one hand, there's some sort of legendary king who seems highly qualified for the position. Comically over-qualified.>The King was the greatest and wisest king in the history of the country, a man so universally revered and respected that he is the only person that the leaders of the two factions contesting for the right to rule the kingdom would be willing to put aside their claims to the throne for.On the other hand, it's a long succession of mortals of varying capabilities, with endless opportunities for corruption, incompetence, onset of diseases, and even just relative inexperience. Asking to evaluate the former as negatively as one can and not do the same to the latter makes for a weak argument.>>98917664>he's still got the capabilities of an ordinary manExcept he's some sort of King Arthur Jesus. He's very likely going to do a better job than an "ordinary man".The reason he'd be perpetually in power isn't because he'd by a tyrant or a military dictator, but because if it was an open democracy he would always be re-elected, a popular incumbent with an unmatchable record and no term limit. It actually being a monarchy instead is just an extra layer on top of having the support from the public.>Like frankly, if we're talking about an immortal in politics, a more effective use of his time and power to ensure less strife is to make himself a successive advisor to the throne so that he has both the clout to influence the successors to the throne and the freedom to act on/look into things that the reigning monarch wouldn't. That would essentially be just ruling via proxy. The Ghost King is ultimately in charge, it's just who's face is on the coins would change.
>>98910711Great argument OP, it made at least two retards mad ITT.
>>98917789> I'm not saying it's an impossibility, I'm saying it's less likely than a random mortal being a bad king. Considerably less likely.> Except he's some sort of King Arthur Jesus. He's very likely going to do a better job than an "ordinary man".The reason he'd be perpetually in power isn't because he'd by a tyrant or a military dictator, but because if it was an open democracy he would always be re-elected, a popular incumbent with an unmatchable record and no term limitYeah, you’ve basically stacked things so ridiculously far in the other direction this is no longer a hypothetical but you outright trying to justify OP’s scenario. Like sure, if we just accept that putting ghost king on the throne will have everything magically work out and forever no strings attached, then sure. That’s cool. It then just comes down to whether or not you personally are conforming being ruled by someone unliving. But then that’s not worthy of a debate, that’s the equivalent of DM fiat to make the players choose his option over any others. Or suggesting something like ghost king becomes temporary leader until a worthy successor is found and he can pass on in peace. At that point, there’s nothing worth discussing because that’s just the DM writing a novel he wants his players to act out, I’m sorry to say.
>>98917664>A great king does everything possible to prepare for the future of his kinsmen in his country,According to their own wisdom and ability, balanced with the needs of the immediacy, and so on and so on. A great king does not have to be a perfect king.>the long and short of it is that it's a poor king that does not prepare for the day he must abdicate the throne some day.I don't think "he doesn't have a successor" is really a concern here. Aside from never aging out of the job, he could very easily plan for scenarios where he is incapacitated and could even set up a successor for the unlikely event they're needed. The fundamental issues with a ghost for a king really don't stem from just failings that ordinary kings could have.
Guy, I have the perfect solution, have the ghost king be a figure head like the British Monarch, who mainly just advises and have the people choose who king, we can even call a “ constitutional monarchy”
>>98910711>Game was going on for a year and a half>Dipshit DM gave his best friend a ring of wishes>Everyone had to give up their weapons for one minute because of going through customs>DM's pet refused to and sperged the fuck out using his wishing ring to wish everyone was dead>Being the DM's pet his wish happened with zero drawbacks, causing a TPK and him being promoted by the big bad evil guy for killing said hero's.And the worst thing about all of this was the DM was a real piece of shit who would constantly twist actions and words of people, like if you wanted to jump behind cover he would have you jump off the balcony to your near death. Or if in a cut scene you say you want to get as far as away from somebody the DM will only make you move your walk speed and then quickly jump to the next person to fuck you over.
>>98910711I had a party member privately message me because he was pissed as hell about how we were treating bandits in our Fallout game (e.g. my PC was game for executing raiders out of hand). I managed to get myself mad as shit over this conversation too, because he just kinda would gloss over/didn't understand that said bandits had been dismembering the local townsfolk and feeding said limbs to their dogs and had also just headcanoned that I had executed a surrendering combatant when that wasn't true. I'm pretty sure like half the things he was mad about only existed in his head and I had no idea what to even say to him.
>>98917982Well if it was a fallout game then i would assume the game follows the rules of the fallout (PC) games. Therefore all bandits are little else but braindead enemies. Bareley sentient one would argue. (With maybe a handfull of exeptions)
>>98910711Board game? Seeing someone rage quit a game of Monopoly when I was like 10 (my cousin).TTRPG? Friend quit in a fit back in 3e because the DM was a prick and demanded EVERYTHING be rolled unless it was a spell, in which case he would say "I am not reading all the spells, so that spell just does this" and then describe absolutely crazy things.Card game? Literally saw someone pull a knife on someone because they lost a MtG match. Cops got called and he went to jail and perma banned from the store.
>>98917831>everything magically work out and forever no strings attached, then sure. That’s cool.You're still on the whole "He has to be perfect or he's bad" thing.Personally, the reason I think a ghost for a king would be bad extends well beyond just a question of "does everything work out" and actually gets worse the better he is as a king. A bad ghost king just leaves a problem of "how to get rid of the bad ghost king", while a good ghost king creates the problem of "how can a populace free itself from a gilded cage?"Since that might take generations to solve or even prove there's an issue in the first place, if we just want a more typical Act 3, >>98916667 includes "pissed off neighboring nations" and that's really all the impetus needed to bury the Ghost King. Back when France decapitated its nobility, instead of finding allies in the surrounding countries that had been doing their best to plot against and kill those nobles themselves, the new republic government found itself as a pariah state. Every other monarchy wanted the new republic to fail, because the very last thing they wanted was for their own disgruntled populations to rise up.A Ghost King that makes all the nearby living dynasties look bad in comparison will invite trade wars or even outright wars. They'll justify it with anything from religious dogma to just making up lies, just out of fear of being swallowed up in a ghost-lead empire or having their peasants start looking for rituals to revive the spirits of their own legendary leaders.A Ghost-lead utopia is narratively shit. Idealized wish-fulfillment already is cringey territory, and it's hard to get cringier than political wish-fulfillment. The Ghost part is more of a long-term issue than an immediate one though, so something that rapidly escalates the situation is needed. I don't know if "The world is just not ready for how perfect you are, Ghost Daddy" is the right answer, but it's at least better than "GHOST KING ,,,BAD?!"
>>98917831>Yeah, you’ve basically stacked things so ridiculously far in the other direction this is no longer a hypothetical but you outright trying to justify OP’s scenario.The core of the question shouldn't be "Is the king good or is he bad". It's "Is the king being a ghost a problem?", and it's one you're conflating with the first question. The king just being good and leaving no room to really dispute that let's the focus be on what does it really mean for the dead to govern the living.
>>98918099Given thar you’ve tilted argument to start and end with “this king is a perfect ruler and always does what’s right”, it doesn’t leave any real nuance to discuss shit with.
>>98910711A heated, angry argument between 3 players when playing Eldritch Horror over the optimal strategy for their turn that just started.This is a co-op game and those people basically were ready for a fist fight on how to play it and who misunderstood what
>>98918004It was an alternative (and magical) New Vegas timeline where the Courier died in Goodsprings so everything had gone to shit. So the bandit groups weren't literally just killbots, but the ones we encountered were not really sympathetic. >first ambush was a Viper using hired mercs to kill people on the road >second group were the convicts at Prim who had one the standoff and were actively raping, pillaging, and cutting arms and legs off the townsfolk when we got there He was mad about the first one because we gave the Viper a magic drug that would figuratively burn the evil out of her (or just kill her) and he found that problematic (I didn't like that plan either and had voted to just kill her, but got overruled). The purgative did wind up working. She had a seizure, horked up a slug of all her evil/negative emotions or somesuch, which we killed because it attacked us, and woke up majorly mellowed out but still seemingly herself. My PC and her actually got along after that. He was mad about the second one becaue he had zoned out I guess and just did not notice all the pillaging and shit, so when they gave their obvioisly false excuse of being refused food or whatever he bought it hook, line, and sinker. He fully believed we were violently persecuting some group of desperate randos and just ignored us every time we tried to explain it to him, even after we spent a whole session crafting simple prosthetics and movement aids for the crippled townsfolk.
>what is the angriest you've ever seenThe anons butt-blasted about your king, OP. Lmao
>>98918569No need to fluff yourself, OP, I’m sure your self-insert was a lovely king back in his day.
>>98918181Whether the king is perfect or not is just your fixation you can't let go.
>>98918660Well, you’re the one who insisted on setting the table, anon. Bit late to be complaining others are repeating what you said.
>>98916303More like came from a fart cuz its so ass lmao
>>98918757It's very funny how he admitted earlier in the thread that he can't imagine anyone advocating for a system that isn't immediately about them gaining power for themselves.>A philosopher king who works to my benefit would be fine>Har-har, look at Mr Brainlet imagining he's a philosopher kingActual unironic brainworm behaviour.
>>98919079You're a weird guy.
>>98919079>>98919167I chuckled a bit, gotta admit
>>98916831Just to be clear the other guy that answered you wasn't me, but I do think it doesn't get better than a wise monarch as an eternal ruler. In theory, at least.
>>98919328If we're talking ideals, I lean more towards the ideal state of government being one that just quietly gets shit done. And not in some dippy communist "everyone is in charge" way, as in one where everyone knows what they need to do and can just do their jobs without their boss even needing to do more than the minimum needed to let them do it. But much like finding some kind of wise eternal monarch that's infallible and all-perfect and installing him as leader for life, human nature keeps that from being anywhere close to realistic, so I don't even pretend to insist it's the best form of governance.
>>98919328Depends on what you mean as better.Standard QoL would be hard to beat. The efficacy and efficiency of the government would also be pretty darn close to ideal.But, like everything, you can have too much of a good thing, and the internal strife, inefficiency, and hardships that come along with flawed governments helps private and personal development. People being able to resolve disputes and satisfy their own needs instead of relying on a 3rd party may be considerably more difficult to achieve, but it is technically more ideal.The ultimate ideal form of government may actually be a society advanced enough that government functions were no longer neccesary (ie. no government), and a wise eternal monarch could be a considerable obstacle towards reaching that state of society.
>>98919385>human nature keeps that from being anywhere close to realistic,I believe humans are, at their core, fundamentally good. Not entirely from practical evidence, but partly because that belief is require to ultimately lead to better, more meaningful results. The belief that we can be better is quite vital to be able to become better, considering the odds and challenges presented and the high amount of motivation required to overcome those.Whether everyone joining together and singing kumbaya around the campfire is achievable in any actually "realistic" capacity is hard to say, but the belief that it is possible is a required component of it ever being possible, so I think that belief should be encouraged.
>>98918580>so keyed up for OPkek.
>>98919463Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that people aren't fundamentally good. I'm saying that right now, we're not at the stage where we can just innately trust each other to get shit done to the best of our ability or to not be plotting on each other. The massive levels of surveillance and law enforcement are a testament to that. People probably would be innately good to each other even if there wasn't outside pressure to be, but atm they're still convinced the world could be out to get them on some level even in their own domains.
>>98919490>The massive levels of surveillance and law enforcement are a testament to that.That's mostly a testament to how rich people in power like to see money being spent.
I've seen grown men almost come to blows while playing the Game of Thrones board game. It's a game for ending friendships.
