Guild Wars 2

Anyone tired of having these idealistic “My Little Pony” types leading us around?

Queen Jennah: I was nearly captured by bandits in Caudecus’ mansion. But Caudecus’ won’t betray me so I am keeping him alive.
Logan: WTH? Kill him to end this threat!
Queen Jennah: No! I am keeping him alive so he can betray me again next time.

Everyone: Hi council. We have almost 100% evidence that Scarlet will attack LA.
LA Council: LOLWUT? No we will do nothing.
Everyone: Ok no worries. We will just clean up your mess after Scarlet arrives.
LA Council: See you in two weeks! ^^

With leaders like these, the “good guys” have no chance of protecting the people. What the good guys need right now is a strong and tough leader as described by Niccolo Machiavelli.

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/n/niccolo_machiavelli.html
https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/16201.Niccol_Machiavelli

Niccolo Machiavelli:
-It is far better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both. It is much more secure to be feared than to be loved.
-Men should be either treated generously or destroyed, because they take revenge for slight injuries, for heavy ones they cannot. If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared. Whoever conquers a free town and does not demolish it commits a great error and may expect to be ruined himself.
-There is no avoiding war; it can only be postponed to the advantage of others. War should be the only study of a prince. He should consider peace only as a breathing-time, which gives him leisure to contrive, and furnishes as ability to execute, military plans. You cannot have good laws without good arms, and where there are good arms, good laws inevitably follow.
-It is necessary for him who lays out a state and arranges laws for it to presuppose that all men are evil and that they are always going to act according to the wickedness of their spirits whenever they have free scope.

GW2 translation:
-If the Pact want to hold onto its power over Kryta and survive as an organization, it can go 2 ways: Ether be loved, or be feared. It is obvious that the current and future enemies of Kryta do not love the Pact. So fear is the only way to control them. Some of the potential future enemies will fear the Pact so much, that these enemies will never exist at all. This reduces the size of the future threats and make them easier to control and destroy.
-When the Pact wins a battle against a strong enemy, it must push forward until that enemy is utterly destroyed so it will never be able to seek revenge. If not, the Pact will face its own destruction in the future. Look at the White Mantle. Clearly Machiavelli was right.
-War cannot be avoided. The key is the push when the Pact have the advantage, instead of waiting until the advantage belongs to the enemies. And in times of “peace”, the Pact should equip itself for the next future threat.
-It is the job of a good leader (The Pact), on behave of his/her people, to assume that the enemies are purely evil. And when uncontrolled and unbounded, these evil forces will act in the most evil and wicked ways in the future. If the Pact do not assume and act according to this, the Pact cannot protects its people and faces its own demise.

A documentary for those interested.

Yay or nay?

lol A bit of both here. Machiavelli is a really bad example. A WWII reference may have been a better approach.

The villains played follow-my-leader too. I wouldn’t have minded if they wanted to “act according to the wickedness of their spirits whenever they have free scope” but instead they did everything Scarlet asked, all the time, whatever it was, just because she was such a Nemesis.

Jennah isn’t really doing anything to stop Caudecus. He can still go about his business in Divinity’s Reach. I kind of imagined Divinity’s Reach to be similair to King’s Landing from GoT, there are spies everywhere and if Caudecus wanted to keep putting in motion his plans behind the scenes he can continue to do so.

I don’t get what’s so smart about her offer, what does she accomplish? Do you really think Caudecus doesn’t have contacts within the city that will allow him to do what he wishes regardless of whether he’s under “house arrest” or not? He has a lot of support in the city and he’s been very sneaky up till now, I wouldn’t be surprised if he had members of the Shining Blade on his pay roll.

Konig Des Todes.2086:

Do I want the good guys to stop holding the idiot ball? Yes.

Do I want a Machiavellian? Only if it gives a good plot. But it alone wouldn’t make a good plot.

On a side, Jennah’s actions make sense. She’s basically placing Caudecus under house arrest without actually arresting him. She cannot have him killed, otherwise his followers will use Jennah removing her political enemies “without proper cause” (true or not, they’d argue that or the like) as a reason why she is not a reliable ruler; similarly, she couldn’t arrest him because there’s just no evidence – Krytan law states that there must be at least three pieces of evidence provided to call a Minister to trial, and furthermore if the trial fails then all evidence cannot be used against the Minister in future trials (see noble storyline). Caudecus is a very cautious kitten – as far as I know, Logan and Anise had zero evidence on him, let alone three. And even if they did have three, his influence would likely bring the trial in his favor, thus the evidence would get tossed out should he be proven not guilty.

So Jennah was actually really smart in her actions. Clearly it was above the simplemindedness of Logan and CHIPS though.

Well a true Machiavellian would never even let Caudecus to climb so high to cause a threat in the first place. But what’s done is done. Now she have to deal with the aftermath. A Machiavellian have many ways to get rid of Caudecus.

Caudecus will not be executed. He will instead found to have hung himself or died of a mysterious disease or died during a robbery.

There will never even be a trial. In fact Queen Jennah never suspected Caudecus of anything. He will get a huge state funeral that his loyal services so deserved. You catching my drift?

Queen Jennah’s political enemies never loved her, and they never will love her. So to keep them in check these enemies must fear Queen Jennah. Their families. Their friends. None is safe if they chose to plot against the queen. All of them will be utterly destroyed to prevent any chance of a future revenge plot.

These is a saying: “Kill one man to set an example and warning to hundreds.” And this my friend is fear.

None of these dirty work need to be done by Queen Jennah herself. That’s what henchmen like Arise are for; they do the dirty work so the Queen can keep her hands clean.

The Queen did get one thing right: Appear nice and kind to the poor and lower classes. This is a great image to have. The Queen is against ambitious nobles and hunting them down, while give the poor a chance to become middle class. The poor and lower classes, the majority of the population, couldn’t care less about the Queen’s anti-corruption campaigns. In fact they will love it.

CHIPS.6018:

Well a true Machiavellian would never even let Caudecus to climb so high to cause a threat in the first place. But what’s done is done. Now she have to deal with the aftermath. A Machiavellian have many ways to get rid of Caudecus.

Jennah didn’t let Caudecus rise to power either.

After Jennah’s father’s death, the Ministry was put in charge for a time because Jennah was too young to rule. During this time, the Ministers were given a lot more power than they normally had, and this likely includes Caudecus. Since then, even with Jennah being crowned, they didn’t want to give up the power they got so they’re fighting to deminitize Jennah as an incompetant ruler – this is stated if you talk to Logan during the final Dead Sister step. He also explains the origins of the Ministry Guard – private guards hired because the Seraph were spread too thin, and they’ve since dug a niche for themselves, becoming a united group.

CHIPS.6018:

These is a saying: “Kill one man to set an example and warning to hundreds.” And this my friend is fear.

And this, after a time and with a brave enough fool, leads to an uprising. In the end, this is the cycle of leaderships throughout history and civilization – form of government is made; form of government becomes corrupt; form of government is brought down in rebellion/reformation; rebellion/reformation makes new government; new government becomes corrupt; etc.

CHIPS.6018:

None of these dirty work need to be done by Queen Jennah herself. That’s what henchmen like Arise are for; they do the dirty work so the Queen can keep her hands clean.

You don’t get how politics work, do you? Or at least, the undersided part of it. If her top ranking underling – or in fact, anyone in the Shining Blade – were to do dirty deeds, then since the Shining Blade answers only to the throne and only do the throne’s duties, well… What the Shining Blade did is effectively “What Jennah did”. Even outside of the Shining Blade, if it was someone who’s tied to her, it could easily be pointed by others – backed or not – that Jennah ordered the action. This is why even gang leaders have to keep tight leashes on their underlings – because their actions trace back to the leaders, regardless of whether the leader did it, or ordered it.

As nice as this would be, you cannot easily have Game of Thrones-esque serious themes (how one truthfully behave during a war, the cost of honor and your decisions, all these things) in a game of this rating and genre. Well, you can, but it would take a lot of care, skill, and cleverness, and it would be unavoidably dark in some aspects, so I don’t see it happening.. I was actually legitimately surprised (but pleased) when we killed Scarlet, because it seems too grey for the kid-friendly theme Anet almost seems to be trying to cultivate at this point.

That aside, Machiavelli’s The Prince was more than likely a scathing satire, so it probably shouldn’t be used as a source to back this kind of thing..
http://www.historytoday.com/vincent-barnett/niccolo-machiavelli-%E2%80%93-cunning-critic-political-reason

Konig Des Todes.2086:

CHIPS.6018:

Well a true Machiavellian would never even let Caudecus to climb so high to cause a threat in the first place. But what’s done is done. Now she have to deal with the aftermath. A Machiavellian have many ways to get rid of Caudecus.

Jennah didn’t let Caudecus rise to power either.

After Jennah’s father’s death, the Ministry was put in charge for a time because Jennah was too young to rule. During this time, the Ministers were given a lot more power than they normally had, and this likely includes Caudecus. Since then, even with Jennah being crowned, they didn’t want to give up the power they got so they’re fighting to deminitize Jennah as an incompetant ruler – this is stated if you talk to Logan during the final Dead Sister step. He also explains the origins of the Ministry Guard – private guards hired because the Seraph were spread too thin, and they’ve since dug a niche for themselves, becoming a united group.

CHIPS.6018:

These is a saying: “Kill one man to set an example and warning to hundreds.” And this my friend is fear.

And this, after a time and with a brave enough fool, leads to an uprising. In the end, this is the cycle of leaderships throughout history and civilization – form of government is made; form of government becomes corrupt; form of government is brought down in rebellion/reformation; rebellion/reformation makes new government; new government becomes corrupt; etc.

CHIPS.6018:

None of these dirty work need to be done by Queen Jennah herself. That’s what henchmen like Arise are for; they do the dirty work so the Queen can keep her hands clean.

You don’t get how politics work, do you? Or at least, the undersided part of it. If her top ranking underling – or in fact, anyone in the Shining Blade – were to do dirty deeds, then since the Shining Blade answers only to the throne and only do the throne’s duties, well… What the Shining Blade did is effectively “What Jennah did”. Even outside of the Shining Blade, if it was someone who’s tied to her, it could easily be pointed by others – backed or not – that Jennah ordered the action. This is why even gang leaders have to keep tight leashes on their underlings – because their actions trace back to the leaders, regardless of whether the leader did it, or ordered it.

-And hence, Queen Jennah wasn’t a Machiavellian when she was younger. Of course age isn’t really an excuse, as there were plenty of Machiavellian teenagers in history. But that’s beside the point.

If Queen Jennah still isn’t a Machiavellian by now, or at least knows how to defend herself against one, she will be destroyed by Caudecus. Because Caudecus is clearly Machiavellian, and he will eventually win this Game of Thrones. Perhaps Logan and us do good heroes will be able to clean up her mess and save her at the end. But that would be lame, boring and predictable.

In short: She need to wise up if she want to survive!

-Ruling by fear doesn’t directly mean evil. The leader (Queen Jennah) may have very noble goals. But unless she can suppress, fear and control her enemies, she will eventually face her own demise.

-Of course at the end it will be some un-linkable guy that do the dirty work, so it cannot be traced back to Queen Jennah. However Queen Jennah will not directly ask the un-linkable guy. Instead she will ask Anise to do it.

E.g.
Queen Jennah: Anise, I believe that Caudecus need to be removed, permanently.
Anise: Yes my queen.

That’s it. The Queen has given his order. Anise will see it though. Caudecus will be found to have hung himself or died of a mysterious disease or died during a robbery. The Queen doesn’t need to plan every single details out. Her underlings will get it done.

You want which prince? Prince Rhaegor Targaryen? Prince Josua Lackhand?

Personally I’d rather see it be Emperor Gregor Vorbarra.

CHIPS.6018:

Snip.

You’re a bit blindsighted on wanting the Queen to be a Machiavellian when A; Machiavellians aren’t perfect and B; Machiavellians don’t fit certain personalities.

Also, what Konig said. Politics are a bit more complicated then

-Queen: ‘Oy you, get this done’
-Anise: ‘Ok’

There are a lot of things to keep in mind when giving orders.

It’s not enough for just Caudecus to die. He must also be discredited, shown to be a traitor. Also, his wife and children must also die.

DarcShriek.5829:

It’s not enough for just Caudecus to die. He must also be discredited, shown to be a traitor. Also, his wife and children must also die.

No, he needs to have what they pulled on Sejanus pulled on him.

CHIPS.6018:

-And hence, Queen Jennah wasn’t a Machiavellian when she was younger. Of course age isn’t really an excuse, as there were plenty of Machiavellian teenagers in history. But that’s beside the point.

They make it sound like she wasn’t even a teenage, that she had no power. It isn’t a case of a teenager going “my father died, I call the shots now!” but more seemingly a, idk, 12 year old perhaps? Maybe younger? losing her father and all the grown ups outright refusing to let a child on the throne (and rightfully so, since a child couldn’t rule a nation). She was crowned 10 years ago, but that isn’t when her father died.

CHIPS.6018:

If Queen Jennah still isn’t a Machiavellian by now, or at least knows how to defend herself against one, she will be destroyed by Caudecus. Because Caudecus is clearly Machiavellian, and he will eventually win this Game of Thrones. Perhaps Logan and us do good heroes will be able to clean up her mess and save her at the end. But that would be lame, boring and predictable.

There’s a pretty huge difference between being a Machiavellian and being smart. Even then, being Machiavellian does not necessitate being smart. Politics is a battle of brain and subterfuge, not evil deeds.

CHIPS.6018:

-Ruling by fear doesn’t directly mean evil. The leader (Queen Jennah) may have very noble goals. But unless she can suppress, fear and control her enemies, she will eventually face her own demise.

Doesn’t need to be evil. Suppression is what leads to revolts, done for the better or the worse. This is why dystopias are viewed as “bad” even if they really aren’t.

CHIPS.6018:

-Of course at the end it will be some un-linkable guy that do the dirty work, so it cannot be traced back to Queen Jennah. However Queen Jennah will not directly ask the un-linkable guy. Instead she will ask Anise to do it.

E.g.
Queen Jennah: Anise, I believe that Caudecus need to be removed, permanently.
Anise: Yes my queen.

That’s it. The Queen has given his order. Anise will see it though. Caudecus will be found to have hung himself or died of a mysterious disease or died during a robbery. The Queen doesn’t need to plan every single details out. Her underlings will get it done.

It is still more complicated than this, y’know…

DarcShriek.5829:

It’s not enough for just Caudecus to die. He must also be discredited, shown to be a traitor. Also, his wife and children must also die.

His wife is dead. His daughter is working for the Order of Whispers, supposedly having given them dirt on his actions.

Dirt we never learned what it was.

Konig Des Todes.2086:

Dirt we never learned what it was.

I heard you were meddlesome, Konig, but until you need to know that information is going to remain very closely held.

Konig Des Todes.2086:

Doesn’t need to be evil. Suppression is what leads to revolts, done for the better or the worse. This is why dystopias are viewed as “bad” even if they really aren’t.

She does not need to suppress the poor people. She is already highly popular with the poor people. There is no rebellion from this group, hence no suppression/fear is needed.

But She does need to suppress/fear/control/destroy her enemies in court. That means those nobles/ministry members who are already plotting against her. They are going to rebel either way. They do not love her, so fear and destruction is the only way left.

Egon Vidar.9125:

As nice as this would be, you cannot easily have Game of Thrones-esque serious themes (how one truthfully behave during a war, the cost of honor and your decisions, all these things) in a game of this rating and genre. Well, you can, but it would take a lot of care, skill, and cleverness, and it would be unavoidably dark in some aspects, so I don’t see it happening.. I was actually legitimately surprised (but pleased) when we killed Scarlet, because it seems too grey for the kid-friendly theme Anet almost seems to be trying to cultivate at this point.

That aside, Machiavelli’s The Prince was more than likely a scathing satire, so it probably shouldn’t be used as a source to back this kind of thing..
http://www.historytoday.com/vincent-barnett/niccolo-machiavelli-%E2%80%93-cunning-critic-political-reason

Hmm. Does the story affect the rating? I thought it is blood and violence that affect the rating.

Again I say, look at Queen Jennah’s character, she’s not one to suppres/fear her enemies. That’s just not who she is. If you’d take her profession and character in to account, controlling would be more likely as opposed to destroying.

Jelle.4623:

CHIPS.6018:

Snip.

You’re a bit blindsighted on wanting the Queen to be a Machiavellian when A; Machiavellians aren’t perfect and B; Machiavellians don’t fit certain personalities.

Also, what Konig said. Politics are a bit more complicated then

-Queen: ‘Oy you, get this done’
-Anise: ‘Ok’

There are a lot of things to keep in mind when giving orders.

Machiavellian isn’t perfect. But it is believable. There are some very valid reasons to act like Machiavellian.

I do agree that Machiavellian may not fit everyone. Queen Jennah maybe too nice of a person to pull this off. But perhaps Anise can be a Machiavellian. Livia can be a Machiavellian. etc

I don’t want to be led by a bunch of ideal “My Little Pony”, who sees the world with rose-coloured glasses, every single time. I want some Machiavellian allies/leaders to make this whole thing more believable.

As for killing Caudecus, there are ways to get it done. Caudecus himself tried to kill Queen Jennah and hid it behind a robbery/separatists.

Murder in the ancient political world happens very often. It isn’t that hard to pull off.

There is a quote I want to say, but for the life of me I can’t remember how it goes or where it came from. And google is no help, since it only brings me to pages related to terrorism.

Kill a man, and he becomes a martyr.
Wound a man, and he becomes a hero.

I can’t remember the last part, but it went something like…

Discredit a man, and he becomes no one.

Jennah can’t really kill Caudecus for these reasons. Because if any harm comes to him, no matter the circumstance, he will be used as a rallying point for Jennah’s enemies to gather under. Her keeping him under her watch offers more advantages.

1. It puts him entirely at her disposal.
2. It heavily restricts his actions.
3. It allows them to monitor any of his remaining actions much more closely.
4. As long as he’s alive, it constricts the bandit actions through lack of clear leadership. His death would only allow for another leader, outside of her knowledge and “care”, to take his place

CHIPS.6018:

-If the Pact want to hold onto its power over Kryta and survive as an organization, it can go 2 ways: Ether be loved, or be feared. It is obvious that the current and future enemies of Kryta do not love the Pact. So fear is the only way to control them. Some of the potential future enemies will fear the Pact so much, that these enemies will never exist at all. This reduces the size of the future threats and make them easier to control and destroy.

In essence the pack exists to fight dragons, dragons don’t love or hate. The individual pack members however have a wider MO, and they themselves rather do a good job of being feared (or in the case of the Priory… not always taken too seriously).

CHIPS.6018:

-War cannot be avoided. The key is the push when the Pact have the advantage, instead of waiting until the advantage belongs to the enemies. And in times of “peace”, the Pact should equip itself for the next future threat.

According to lore, after the war with Zhaitan they’re licking their wounds and preparing to go after the next dragon. So they’re kinda doing that.

CHIPS.6018:

-It is the job of a good leader (The Pact), on behave of his/her people, to assume that the enemies are purely evil. And when uncontrolled and unbounded, these evil forces will act in the most evil and wicked ways in the future. If the Pact do not assume and act according to this, the Pact cannot protects its people and faces its own demise.

The dragon are pure evil, there’s no need assume.

CHIPS.6018:

Anyone tired of having these idealistic “My Little Pony” types leading us around?

Queen Jennah: I was nearly captured by bandits in Caudecus’ mansion. But Caudecus’ won’t betray me so I am keeping him alive.
Logan: WTH? Kill him to end this threat!
Queen Jennah: No! I am keeping him alive so he can betray me again next time.

Everyone: Hi council. We have almost 100% evidence that Scarlet will attack LA.
LA Council: LOLWUT? No we will do nothing.
Everyone: Ok no worries. We will just clean up your mess after Scarlet arrives.
LA Council: See you in two weeks! ^^

With leaders like these, the “good guys” have no chance of protecting the people. What the good guys need right now is a strong and tough leader as described by Niccolo Machiavelli.

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/n/niccolo_machiavelli.html
https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/16201.Niccol_Machiavelli

Niccolo Machiavelli:
-It is far better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both. It is much more secure to be feared than to be loved.
-Men should be either treated generously or destroyed, because they take revenge for slight injuries, for heavy ones they cannot. If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared. Whoever conquers a free town and does not demolish it commits a great error and may expect to be ruined himself.
-There is no avoiding war; it can only be postponed to the advantage of others. War should be the only study of a prince. He should consider peace only as a breathing-time, which gives him leisure to contrive, and furnishes as ability to execute, military plans. You cannot have good laws without good arms, and where there are good arms, good laws inevitably follow.
-It is necessary for him who lays out a state and arranges laws for it to presuppose that all men are evil and that they are always going to act according to the wickedness of their spirits whenever they have free scope.

GW2 translation:
-If the Pact want to hold onto its power over Kryta and survive as an organization, it can go 2 ways: Ether be loved, or be feared. It is obvious that the current and future enemies of Kryta do not love the Pact. So fear is the only way to control them. Some of the potential future enemies will fear the Pact so much, that these enemies will never exist at all. This reduces the size of the future threats and make them easier to control and destroy.
-When the Pact wins a battle against a strong enemy, it must push forward until that enemy is utterly destroyed so it will never be able to seek revenge. If not, the Pact will face its own destruction in the future. Look at the White Mantle. Clearly Machiavelli was right.
-War cannot be avoided. The key is the push when the Pact have the advantage, instead of waiting until the advantage belongs to the enemies. And in times of “peace”, the Pact should equip itself for the next future threat.
-It is the job of a good leader (The Pact), on behave of his/her people, to assume that the enemies are purely evil. And when uncontrolled and unbounded, these evil forces will act in the most evil and wicked ways in the future. If the Pact do not assume and act according to this, the Pact cannot protects its people and faces its own demise.

A documentary for those interested.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQ9a_iIuDHs

Yay or nay?

Actually, I think the Pact should act the same way with the people it protects:

Not only the enemies, but ALL of Tyria must fear the Pact. All kingdoms must be afraid off of belittling its power.

When the Pact acts, it mast be taken for granted that ALL Tyrians are evil and will act for their advantage when given the occasion. Only the Pact knows what is right and wrong, and everyone must be protected from him or herself.

And everyone in Tyria can be the enemy of the Pact. At the first sign of disagreement, his will must be broken.

Yeah, that would be pretty brutal.
I’d love it to happen, going from this:

http://25.media.tumblr.com/286b7b9f968431fef87ed1880afb8b1d/tumblr_mfmdnsk8EL1rmcyoko1_400.jpg

To this:

https://www.blastr.com/sites/blastr/files/styles/blog_post_media/public/images/Judge_Dredd_01.jpg?itok=-7_l8r7i

Forget Machiavelli, try Sun-Tzu. “Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer”.

Machiavelli’s philosophy may suit war and intrigue but it sacrifices everything valuable in life to achieve its aims. Why have friends when you can have enemies?

Konig Des Todes.2086:

CHIPS.6018:

-And hence, Queen Jennah wasn’t a Machiavellian when she was younger. Of course age isn’t really an excuse, as there were plenty of Machiavellian teenagers in history. But that’s beside the point.

They make it sound like she wasn’t even a teenage, that she had no power. It isn’t a case of a teenager going “my father died, I call the shots now!” but more seemingly a, idk, 12 year old perhaps? Maybe younger? losing her father and all the grown ups outright refusing to let a child on the throne (and rightfully so, since a child couldn’t rule a nation). She was crowned 10 years ago, but that isn’t when her father died.

CHIPS.6018:

If Queen Jennah still isn’t a Machiavellian by now, or at least knows how to defend herself against one, she will be destroyed by Caudecus. Because Caudecus is clearly Machiavellian, and he will eventually win this Game of Thrones. Perhaps Logan and us do good heroes will be able to clean up her mess and save her at the end. But that would be lame, boring and predictable.

There’s a pretty huge difference between being a Machiavellian and being smart. Even then, being Machiavellian does not necessitate being smart. Politics is a battle of brain and subterfuge, not evil deeds.

CHIPS.6018:

-Ruling by fear doesn’t directly mean evil. The leader (Queen Jennah) may have very noble goals. But unless she can suppress, fear and control her enemies, she will eventually face her own demise.

Doesn’t need to be evil. Suppression is what leads to revolts, done for the better or the worse. This is why dystopias are viewed as “bad” even if they really aren’t.

CHIPS.6018:

-Of course at the end it will be some un-linkable guy that do the dirty work, so it cannot be traced back to Queen Jennah. However Queen Jennah will not directly ask the un-linkable guy. Instead she will ask Anise to do it.

E.g.
Queen Jennah: Anise, I believe that Caudecus need to be removed, permanently.
Anise: Yes my queen.

That’s it. The Queen has given his order. Anise will see it though. Caudecus will be found to have hung himself or died of a mysterious disease or died during a robbery. The Queen doesn’t need to plan every single details out. Her underlings will get it done.

It is still more complicated than this, y’know…

DarcShriek.5829:

It’s not enough for just Caudecus to die. He must also be discredited, shown to be a traitor. Also, his wife and children must also die.

His wife is dead. His daughter is working for the Order of Whispers, supposedly having given them dirt on his actions.

Dirt we never learned what it was.

His daughter still needs to die with him. Machiavelli states that the entire family must be neutralized. His daughter can very well become a danger to the queen if the Minister is killed.

Whoa, whoa whoa. When did The Prince become some sort of inviolable canon? As I recall my history, it was written in a time and place where family connections among the nobles were very important, and a wrong to one member reflected on the whole. That is why he made that recommendation.

Demmi has already turned against her father, so that point is moot.

Aaron Ansari.1604:

Whoa, whoa whoa. When did The Prince become some sort of inviolable canon? As I recall my history, it was written in a time and place where family connections among the nobles were very important, and a wrong to one member reflected on the whole. That is why he made that recommendation.

Demmi has already turned against her father, so that point is moot.

This is a story. I don’t care if it’s right or not, I care that it’s cool.XD

I’d like to see some character similar to Macbeth maybe when we approach classics.

If not, Andrzej Sapkowski writing >>> G.Martin “GoT” . I highly suggest reading some of his books besides Witcher series only. He wrote outstanding Hus triology

Aaron Ansari.1604:

Whoa, whoa whoa. When did The Prince become some sort of inviolable canon? As I recall my history, it was written in a time and place where family connections among the nobles were very important, and a wrong to one member reflected on the whole. That is why he made that recommendation.

Demmi has already turned against her father, so that point is moot.

Only if she’s the one that kills him. She may have turned against him, but she decides Jenna had him killed, it may justify his actions in her mind. Best to kill her also. To quote the move Casino, “Why take chances?”.

Erukk.1408:

There is a quote I want to say, but for the life of me I can’t remember how it goes or where it came from. And google is no help, since it only brings me to pages related to terrorism.

Kill a man, and he becomes a martyr.
Wound a man, and he becomes a hero.

I can’t remember the last part, but it went something like…

Discredit a man, and he becomes no one.

Jennah can’t really kill Caudecus for these reasons. Because if any harm comes to him, no matter the circumstance, he will be used as a rallying point for Jennah’s enemies to gather under. Her keeping him under her watch offers more advantages.

1. It puts him entirely at her disposal.
2. It heavily restricts his actions.
3. It allows them to monitor any of his remaining actions much more closely.
4. As long as he’s alive, it constricts the bandit actions through lack of clear leadership. His death would only allow for another leader, outside of her knowledge and “care”, to take his place

That method is a very honourable way to govern. Unfortunately it is too idealistic, in believing that the wicked enemies will have a change of heart due to the Queen being honourable. No they won’t. They will merely take advantage of the Queen’s kindness and honour.

You said “If Caudecus is killed, the Queen’s enemies will rally around him as a martyr.” Well actually we don’t have to worry about that anymore. Why? These enemies already gathered to plot against the Queen. Your worries has already happened.

There is no way to change their hearts to make them fall in love with her. They will keep plotting against her until either the Queen is removed/dead, or they themselves are killed.

We are dealing with the aftermath by this point.

Machiavellian believes "It is far better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both. "

In this case, love is clearly out of reach. So fear is the only thing left to keep these enemies under control.

Don’t get me wrong. I think it is great that the Queen is kind and is specially nice to the poor and lower classes. However she must be ruthless against her enemies if she wants to survive.

Machiavelli never spoke against noble goals a leader may have. But to fulfil those noble goals, a leader must first destroy/control his enemies to maintain power. Without keeping power, a leader cannot change anything nor protect anyone.

Long story short: The ends justifies the means.

redslion.9675:

Actually, I think the Pact should act the same way with the people it protects:

Not only the enemies, but ALL of Tyria must fear the Pact. All kingdoms must be afraid off of belittling its power.

When the Pact acts, it mast be taken for granted that ALL Tyrians are evil and will act for their advantage when given the occasion. Only the Pact knows what is right and wrong, and everyone must be protected from him or herself.

And everyone in Tyria can be the enemy of the Pact. At the first sign of disagreement, his will must be broken.

Yeah, that would be pretty brutal.
I’d love it to happen, going from this:

http://25.media.tumblr.com/286b7b9f968431fef87ed1880afb8b1d/tumblr_mfmdnsk8EL1rmcyoko1_400.jpg

To this:

https://www.blastr.com/sites/blastr/files/styles/blog_post_media/public/images/Judge_Dredd_01.jpg?itok=-7_l8r7i

That wouldn’t make much sense. The Pact exists solely for the purpose of defeating the Elder Dragons under a unified banner. Peace between most nations seems to be doing well so far, so they don’t even need to consider taking action against the various factions.

They also rely on recruits from those peoples, so trying to go all Machiavellian on them would only lead to their own demise by making EVERYONE their enemy.

I’d like to see this added to the mix of the storyline myself, as these kinds of thinkers can be the bringers of great change, but it doesn’t suit many (if any at all) of the current cast of characters we have been given. Not to mention that a Machiavellian way of thinking is doomed to fail in the long run, as eventually the people who love you will come to fear you, which will inevitably breed revolution.

Soldiers who fight out of fear of their leaders are essentially caught between a rock and a hard place: fight and die, or retreat and die. A self-motivated man has no such decision to make; he is able to retreat without fear of being cut down by his own men, because his COs will know that he will just fight all the harder to take that ground back, and then some more!

Keyce.8137:

redslion.9675:

Actually, I think the Pact should act the same way with the people it protects:

Not only the enemies, but ALL of Tyria must fear the Pact. All kingdoms must be afraid off of belittling its power.

When the Pact acts, it mast be taken for granted that ALL Tyrians are evil and will act for their advantage when given the occasion. Only the Pact knows what is right and wrong, and everyone must be protected from him or herself.

And everyone in Tyria can be the enemy of the Pact. At the first sign of disagreement, his will must be broken.

Yeah, that would be pretty brutal.
I’d love it to happen, going from this:

http://25.media.tumblr.com/286b7b9f968431fef87ed1880afb8b1d/tumblr_mfmdnsk8EL1rmcyoko1_400.jpg

To this:

https://www.blastr.com/sites/blastr/files/styles/blog_post_media/public/images/Judge_Dredd_01.jpg?itok=-7_l8r7i

That wouldn’t make much sense. The Pact exists solely for the purpose of defeating the Elder Dragons under a unified banner. Peace between most nations seems to be doing well so far, so they don’t even need to consider taking action against the various factions.

They also rely on recruits from those peoples, so trying to go all Machiavellian on them would only lead to their own demise by making EVERYONE their enemy.

I’d like to see this added to the mix of the storyline myself, as these kinds of thinkers can be the bringers of great change, but it doesn’t suit many (if any at all) of the current cast of characters we have been given. Not to mention that a Machiavellian way of thinking is doomed to fail in the long run, as eventually the people who love you will come to fear you, which will inevitably breed revolution.

Soldiers who fight out of fear of their leaders are essentially caught between a rock and a hard place: fight and die, or retreat and die. A self-motivated man has no such decision to make; he is able to retreat without fear of being cut down by his own men, because his COs will know that he will just fight all the harder to take that ground back, and then some more!

Yeah, I was just pointing out that if the Pact goes Machiavelli, it should go either way.

Too bad there is no place for it in this story, because everyone is nice and happy.XD

I mean, if it was so easy to unify the three orders, why did it take them so long?

(It is the reason why lore about Warhammer 40k is so loved, though)

DarcShriek.5829:

Konig Des Todes.2086:

CHIPS.6018:

-And hence, Queen Jennah wasn’t a Machiavellian when she was younger. Of course age isn’t really an excuse, as there were plenty of Machiavellian teenagers in history. But that’s beside the point.

They make it sound like she wasn’t even a teenage, that she had no power. It isn’t a case of a teenager going “my father died, I call the shots now!” but more seemingly a, idk, 12 year old perhaps? Maybe younger? losing her father and all the grown ups outright refusing to let a child on the throne (and rightfully so, since a child couldn’t rule a nation). She was crowned 10 years ago, but that isn’t when her father died.

CHIPS.6018:

If Queen Jennah still isn’t a Machiavellian by now, or at least knows how to defend herself against one, she will be destroyed by Caudecus. Because Caudecus is clearly Machiavellian, and he will eventually win this Game of Thrones. Perhaps Logan and us do good heroes will be able to clean up her mess and save her at the end. But that would be lame, boring and predictable.

There’s a pretty huge difference between being a Machiavellian and being smart. Even then, being Machiavellian does not necessitate being smart. Politics is a battle of brain and subterfuge, not evil deeds.

CHIPS.6018:

-Ruling by fear doesn’t directly mean evil. The leader (Queen Jennah) may have very noble goals. But unless she can suppress, fear and control her enemies, she will eventually face her own demise.

Doesn’t need to be evil. Suppression is what leads to revolts, done for the better or the worse. This is why dystopias are viewed as “bad” even if they really aren’t.

CHIPS.6018:

-Of course at the end it will be some un-linkable guy that do the dirty work, so it cannot be traced back to Queen Jennah. However Queen Jennah will not directly ask the un-linkable guy. Instead she will ask Anise to do it.

E.g.
Queen Jennah: Anise, I believe that Caudecus need to be removed, permanently.
Anise: Yes my queen.

That’s it. The Queen has given his order. Anise will see it though. Caudecus will be found to have hung himself or died of a mysterious disease or died during a robbery. The Queen doesn’t need to plan every single details out. Her underlings will get it done.

It is still more complicated than this, y’know…

DarcShriek.5829:

It’s not enough for just Caudecus to die. He must also be discredited, shown to be a traitor. Also, his wife and children must also die.

His wife is dead. His daughter is working for the Order of Whispers, supposedly having given them dirt on his actions.

Dirt we never learned what it was.

His daughter still needs to die with him. Machiavelli states that the entire family must be neutralized. His daughter can very well become a danger to the queen if the Minister is killed.

Machiavelli actually suggest that a ruler should “assume everyone is evil and wicked, and plan for it.” In GW2, that means assuming Demmi Beetlestone is evil and plan for it.

Think about it. Demmi suddenly decided to offer her services to the Order of Whispers. And she was found captured by pirates (when many bandits/pirates works for her father in the first place). And then her father only send a few guards to chase her down.

There are hints in what she told us, if you read between the lines:

“My father raised me. Even if I dislike him, I still learned from the best political mind in Kryta.”
(But why are you betraying him? It is just because he is evil? Well all politicians are evil.)
“I’m not betraying Kryta! He is! Oh… you wouldn’t understand. Just get me to safety, and I’ll tell the order everything.”
(Oh, look who is getting worked up over the word betrayal.)
“You’re putting your life in danger for my safety. I won’t forget this. Thank you. Thank you all.”
(Yeah, you certainly won’t forget how foolish we are.)
“Absolutely, Never been more sure of anything in my life.”
(Why are you so sure?)
“Do you really think there’s anywhere in Tyria that my father can’t reach? He even has spies in the Black Citadel.”
(Exactly.)
“My father taught me more than he knew, and I’m going to turn all of those lessons to benefit the Order.”
(Yes, we know you are just as dangerous.)

If she can betray her own father so easily, what loyality can she have for the Pact?

Of course, it would be great if Demmi is indeed loyal to the Pact. But a successful leader must plan for the worst. So if Demmi does betray us, we are prepared for it.

To rule with fear is to become a slave to fear. One will become more and more paranoid of the people they are suppose to lead, which in turn leads them to set the foundations of their own demise. A truly great leader won’t automatically decide total annihilation for an enemy. They will know what enemies must be completely annihilated and what enemies can be manipulated into actually switching allegiance or at least aiding them in their own plans. They wouldn’t necessary have plans put in place in case a given person decides to become an enemy, they will however have the mind to quickly adapt to the change in situation.

Darkbattlemage.9612:

To rule with fear is to become a slave to fear. One will become more and more paranoid of the people they are suppose to lead, which in turn leads them to set the foundations of their own demise.

Thats looks like a cool setup for a living story, don’t you agree?XD

CHIPS.6018:

Egon Vidar.9125:

As nice as this would be, you cannot easily have Game of Thrones-esque serious themes (how one truthfully behave during a war, the cost of honor and your decisions, all these things) in a game of this rating and genre. Well, you can, but it would take a lot of care, skill, and cleverness, and it would be unavoidably dark in some aspects, so I don’t see it happening.. I was actually legitimately surprised (but pleased) when we killed Scarlet, because it seems too grey for the kid-friendly theme Anet almost seems to be trying to cultivate at this point.

That aside, Machiavelli’s The Prince was more than likely a scathing satire, so it probably shouldn’t be used as a source to back this kind of thing..
http://www.historytoday.com/vincent-barnett/niccolo-machiavelli-%E2%80%93-cunning-critic-political-reason

Hmm. Does the story affect the rating? I thought it is blood and violence that affect the rating.

Story can, indeed, affect rating.

CHIPS.6018:

Think about it. Demmi suddenly decided to offer her services to the Order of Whispers. And she was found captured by pirates (when many bandits/pirates works for her father in the first place). And then her father only send a few guards to chase her down.

Pirates don’t work for Caudecus. Only bandits. And bandits != pirates.

Though they may act the same, and one can call pirates bandits of the seas and vice versa, while traditionally true in the GW2 case it is not. This is the issue with Anet using general terms for the bandits rather than calling them a united faction with a name – but that’s kind of the point behind the bandits’ lore; to everyone other than those who look into it, they appear as just a large number of individual groups of bandits and gangs.

Darkbattlemage.9612:

To rule with fear is to become a slave to fear. One will become more and more paranoid of the people they are suppose to lead, which in turn leads them to set the foundations of their own demise. A truly great leader won’t automatically decide total annihilation for an enemy. They will know what enemies must be completely annihilated and what enemies can be manipulated into actually switching allegiance or at least aiding them in their own plans. They wouldn’t necessary have plans put in place in case a given person decides to become an enemy, they will however have the mind to quickly adapt to the change in situation.

Do you have any examples or are you just making this stuff up as you go? Feel Free to use North Korea as an example if you wish.

DarcShriek.5829:

Do you have any examples or are you just making this stuff up as you go? Feel Free to use North Korea as an example if you wish.

There is plenty of examples in both history and fiction of this being the case. I won’t name one specifically as I feel the question is a trap.

redslion.9675:

Thats looks like a cool setup for a living story, don’t you agree?XD

I have to disagree based on how the current season has been presented. I don’t feel this content could be done properly in the format the Living Story is produced.

Darkbattlemage.9612:

DarcShriek.5829:

Do you have any examples or are you just making this stuff up as you go? Feel Free to use North Korea as an example if you wish.

There is plenty of examples in both history and fiction of this being the case. I won’t name one specifically as I feel the question is a trap.

Darkbattlemage.9612:

DarcShriek.5829:

Do you have any examples or are you just making this stuff up as you go? Feel Free to use North Korea as an example if you wish.

There is plenty of examples in both history and fiction of this being the case. I won’t name one specifically as I feel the question is a trap.

redslion.9675:

Thats looks like a cool setup for a living story, don’t you agree?XD

I have to disagree based on how the current season has been presented. I don’t feel this content could be done properly in the format the Living Story is produced.

The problem you have is that many leaders have successfully led through fear and intimidation, despite your claim of the opposite.

DarcShriek.5829:

The problem you have is that many leaders have successfully led through fear and intimidation, despite your claim of the opposite.

Yup, worked really well for Caligula . . .

CHIPS.6018:

Erukk.1408:

There is a quote I want to say, but for the life of me I can’t remember how it goes or where it came from. And google is no help, since it only brings me to pages related to terrorism.

Kill a man, and he becomes a martyr.
Wound a man, and he becomes a hero.

I can’t remember the last part, but it went something like…

Discredit a man, and he becomes no one.

Jennah can’t really kill Caudecus for these reasons. Because if any harm comes to him, no matter the circumstance, he will be used as a rallying point for Jennah’s enemies to gather under. Her keeping him under her watch offers more advantages.

1. It puts him entirely at her disposal.
2. It heavily restricts his actions.
3. It allows them to monitor any of his remaining actions much more closely.
4. As long as he’s alive, it constricts the bandit actions through lack of clear leadership. His death would only allow for another leader, outside of her knowledge and “care”, to take his place

That method is a very honourable way to govern. Unfortunately it is too idealistic, in believing that the wicked enemies will have a change of heart due to the Queen being honourable. No they won’t. They will merely take advantage of the Queen’s kindness and honour.

You said “If Caudecus is killed, the Queen’s enemies will rally around him as a martyr.” Well actually we don’t have to worry about that anymore. Why? These enemies already gathered to plot against the Queen. Your worries has already happened.

There is no way to change their hearts to make them fall in love with her. They will keep plotting against her until either the Queen is removed/dead, or they themselves are killed.

We are dealing with the aftermath by this point.

Machiavellian believes "It is far better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both. "

In this case, love is clearly out of reach. So fear is the only thing left to keep these enemies under control.

Don’t get me wrong. I think it is great that the Queen is kind and is specially nice to the poor and lower classes. However she must be ruthless against her enemies if she wants to survive.

Machiavelli never spoke against noble goals a leader may have. But to fulfil those noble goals, a leader must first destroy/control his enemies to maintain power. Without keeping power, a leader cannot change anything nor protect anyone.

Long story short: The ends justifies the means.

I think you’re utterly mistaken about Queen Jennah’s intentions. She’s not a “MLP lovey-dovey all is sunshine and rainbows”-kinda ruler. She’s trying to get a dying race back on track, everything’s about as brown as it gets what with the constant war, bandit raids and the occasional Elder Dragon. Everyone is free to bash her all they want, but the simple fact that Human society has not degraded into corruption and savagery already speaks volumes about both Jennah’s and the Ministry’s ability to run a country.

But back to my point, Jennah’s not keeping Caedecus alive out of Compassion or some self-percieved sense of Justice, she’s keeping him alive because of Politics. As has been stated before, you Can’t just kill a politically important figure, covertly or by making it look like an incident, without causing a giant rupture in a frail system. If Caedecus were to die, no matter who caused it, All blame will be thrown at Queen Jennah in one way or the other, because she’s Caedecus’ greatest enemy and the Ministry wants him on the throne.
That’s why Caedecus is so openly “hostile” to the queen, it puts her in a catch 22:

• She can’t remove him, because then the entire Ministry will cry out and turn it against her.
• She’s forced to allow him his position at a place of power as a result of the above statement.

As such, Caedecus being alive has nothing to do with Jennah being soft-heartened. It’s only because Caedecus himself is a political Genius with years of experience on intrigue compared to Jennah. I’m going to use the quote from Sun Tzu here:

“Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.”

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

DarcShriek.5829:

The problem you have is that many leaders have successfully led through fear and intimidation, despite your claim of the opposite.

Yup, worked really well for Caligula . . .

Congratulations, you had to go back in time 2000 years to find an example. Here’s a more contemporary example. North Korea is in it’s 3rd generation of terror. Seems to work there. Terror doesn’t work everywhere, but it does work. It has worked and will continue to work despite the claims of the romantics.

Darkbattlemage.9612:

To rule with fear is to become a slave to fear. One will become more and more paranoid of the people they are suppose to lead, which in turn leads them to set the foundations of their own demise.

A truly great leader won’t automatically decide total annihilation for an enemy. They will know what enemies must be completely annihilated and what enemies can be manipulated into actually switching allegiance or at least aiding them in their own plans.

They wouldn’t necessary have plans put in place in case a given person decides to become an enemy, they will however have the mind to quickly adapt to the change in situation.

Fear of dangers and enemies is what keep people alive. Fear is what drove the Ascalonians to build that wall, which was successful in stopping the Charrs until the Searing.

Fear till paranoia is indeed bad. But paranoia only happens if a threat isn’t real. People like Caudecus are real threats. This isn’t paranoia. This is reality that Queen Jennah got to deal with.

As for the second part of your response, that’s pretty much what I said. Kill a few figurehead enemies to set an example. Fear/bully/manipulate the rest into submission.

As for the third part, I disagree. A great leader must always plan for the worst well ahead of time. They don’t start off assuming “this guy” will be a friend. They start off assuming “this guy” will be a traitor one day. What damage can this guy do? What power does this guy have? Who does this guy know? etc etc. Only by doing this can they plan ahead of time.

Konig Des Todes.2086:

CHIPS.6018:

Think about it. Demmi suddenly decided to offer her services to the Order of Whispers. And she was found captured by pirates (when many bandits/pirates works for her father in the first place). And then her father only send a few guards to chase her down.

Pirates don’t work for Caudecus. Only bandits. And bandits != pirates.

Though they may act the same, and one can call pirates bandits of the seas and vice versa, while traditionally true in the GW2 case it is not. This is the issue with Anet using general terms for the bandits rather than calling them a united faction with a name – but that’s kind of the point behind the bandits’ lore; to everyone other than those who look into it, they appear as just a large number of individual groups of bandits and gangs.

But it is hard to tell though. A person in pirate suite in the game doesn’t mean that person is actually a pirate.

My human character can put on a pirate suit today and he is a pirate. If he put on a bandit suit he is a bandit. If he put on a Separatist suit he is a Separatist. etc etc.

The way I see it all these pirates were (knowingly or unknowingly) hired by Caudecus to kidnap Demmi, to sell her story to the Order of Whispers. So was Landon and his men.

I am indeed speculating. But that’s what Machiavellian should do. These leaders would speculate about who can betray them, what can do wrong and plan for the worst.

DarcShriek.5829:

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

DarcShriek.5829:

The problem you have is that many leaders have successfully led through fear and intimidation, despite your claim of the opposite.

Yup, worked really well for Caligula . . .

Congratulations, you had to go back in time 2000 years to find an example.

I don’t have to, but you know, it’s a lot easier when one doesn’t have to think about modern-day politics . . . who have missiles and possibly are crazy enough to send one my way.

Plus, I think you missed the mark by the better part of a century, but what the heck.

But, if you insist, I’ll go more contemporary. We could talk about Temujin, I suppose. Dude conquered through fear.

TheSwede.9512:

I think you’re utterly mistaken about Queen Jennah’s intentions. She’s not a “MLP lovey-dovey all is sunshine and rainbows”-kinda ruler. She’s trying to get a dying race back on track, everything’s about as brown as it gets what with the constant war, bandit raids and the occasional Elder Dragon. Everyone is free to bash her all they want, but the simple fact that Human society has not degraded into corruption and savagery already speaks volumes about both Jennah’s and the Ministry’s ability to run a country.

But back to my point, Jennah’s not keeping Caedecus alive out of Compassion or some self-percieved sense of Justice, she’s keeping him alive because of Politics. As has been stated before, you Can’t just kill a politically important figure, covertly or by making it look like an incident, without causing a giant rupture in a frail system. If Caedecus were to die, no matter who caused it, All blame will be thrown at Queen Jennah in one way or the other, because she’s Caedecus’ greatest enemy and the Ministry wants him on the throne.
That’s why Caedecus is so openly “hostile” to the queen, it puts her in a catch 22:

• She can’t remove him, because then the entire Ministry will cry out and turn it against her.
• She’s forced to allow him his position at a place of power as a result of the above statement.

As such, Caedecus being alive has nothing to do with Jennah being soft-heartened. It’s only because Caedecus himself is a political Genius with years of experience on intrigue compared to Jennah. I’m going to use the quote from Sun Tzu here:

“Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.”

Actually I think you mistaken the current situation. Here it is, in your own words:

Queen Jennah is Caedecus’ greatest enemy and the Ministry wants him on the throne. That’s why Caedecus is so openly “hostile” to the queen

Exactly.

The situation isn’t “If Queen Jennah do this, then in the future the Ministry will be her enemy”
The situation is “The Ministry is already Queen Jennah’s enemy”

People will only obey Queen Jennah for two reasons: Either they love her, or they fear her.

These ministers are already enemies of Queen Jennah. There is not appeasing them. No matter what Queen Jennah do they will never love her. Fear is the only thing left to control them.

Machiavelli: “It is far better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both.”

Next, it is foolish to try to appease the Ministry in hope of preventing a war. Because:

Machiavelli: “There is no avoiding war; it can only be postponed to the advantage of others.”

The power base of the Ministry need to be utterly destroyed to prevent an open rebellion and future revenge. That means the all the figureheads need to be removed. Their followers controlled by fear/intimidation/manipulation to prevent a rebellion.

Machiavelli: “If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared.”

As for the point of “The Queen cannot do this. The Queen cannot do that.”, here is something to read that may change your mind on the power of monarchy and the fear they can potential do against their enemies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine_familial_exterminations

" Typically associated with offenses such as treason, the punishment involved the execution of all relatives of an individual, which were categorized into nine groups.

Typically seen as an inhumane method of upholding rule, where innocent family members are killed for the crime of a relative, the punishment also acts as a deterrent against offenses such as treason, rather than as a punishment itself. As family members have the obligation to maintain the wellbeing of their family, such a punishment would prevent individuals from committing acts of treason. The punishment is also related to the ancient cultural tradition that the action of one shames the whole family, according to the works of Confucius and his disciples, so that in the case of an act of treason, by tradition the family bears the burden of punishment."

How about this:

- Queen Jennah does have a Machiavellian mind and set Anise against Minister Caudecus some time ago. He’s dead and buried, and in his place is a carefully trained exemplar mesmer, a protege of Anise’s who has been instructed to maintain enough animosity between the Ministry and the Crown that the bolder allies of the Ministry are more inclined towards overt treason. It makes them easier to catch. All these ‘near misses’ are just the dragnet Jennah has created to thin the rebellion.

- Jennah needs the the Ministry to remain a functioning institution, for the maintenance of the kingdom, and for her peoples’ peace of mind. She just needs to outlive the threat that (the much older) “Caudecus” poses. He’s more useful to her as as puppet opposition – a debate she can control – than whoever his successor might be, for now. His vitriolic attacks actually help her look more innocent and kind hearted, which makes her seem incapable of the acts she’s secretly undertaking.

- Demmi’s defection was orchestrated by Anise and The Order of Whispers, to provide the necessary distance between father and daughter. There was true fondness between them at one point, and Demmi was the person Caudecus trusted most – and trained to possibly succeed him. She stood the best chance of discovering the doppleganger, so a wedge had to be driven between them. Those unspeakable secrets are largely lies she was made to believe, to hasten the betrayal.

I don’t see why Machiavelli is used in this context. Machiavelli was not interested in all forms of state, and not in all forms of power. He was mostly interested in the dynamics of illegitimate power. Hereditary monarchy and other states whose authority was legitimate were in no interest for him. That is evident when you see who The Prince actually is, as is it mostly based on a person he knew personally, named Caesar Borgia, who assassinated his older brother and murdered the husband of his sister.

Also, there is used a lot of quotes from websites to back arguments up here. I absolutely hate using those sites, because they usually take something juicy, and put it out completely out of context.

Machiavelli was a pessimist and had a very pessimistic view on the human nature. However, he is not an extremist and in both the Prince and in the Discourses Machiavelli writes numerous passages were he counsels rulers to be temperate, not uselessly cruel.

Most importantly, stop using Machiavelli like its a statement of fact. In Queen Jennahs example, its not something we want to build up arguments around, because she simply is not a leader in the Machiavellian world. If it was used it in explanation of Charr-relations, then I could follow the logic more.

DarcShriek.5829:

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

DarcShriek.5829:

The problem you have is that many leaders have successfully led through fear and intimidation, despite your claim of the opposite.

Yup, worked really well for Caligula . . .

Congratulations, you had to go back in time 2000 years to find an example. Here’s a more contemporary example. North Korea is in it’s 3rd generation of terror. Seems to work there. Terror doesn’t work everywhere, but it does work. It has worked and will continue to work despite the claims of the romantics.

I could invoke Godwin’s Law and not have to go back 2,000 years, either.

Oh, Stalin didn’t go over very well, either. How are we measuring success here?

I will set the bar and say that vast quantities of your people dying and absolutely despising you does not count in a success, doubly so if they try to or succeed in getting you killed or yanked (rightfully) out of office. So.

Robert Mugabe, Lenin (so many assassination attempts..), Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot, Nicholas II of Russia (aka Bloody Nicholas..), Leopold II, Mao Zedong.

There are many more men like these, and history does not look kindly on any of them, for very good reason.

Allow me to point this out a second time regarding Machiavelli.
http://eaglefeather.honors.unt.edu/2007/article/233

DarcShriek.5829:

North Korea is in it’s 3rd generation of terror. Seems to work there.

I think our definitions of “seems to work” might be fundamentally different.

I would link you to the things going on in North Korea right now, but I can’t because the content is too.. extreme to link. I will say “people are starving to death in large numbers in NK and worse things are happening to them than that” and leave it there. You can google if you feel inclined to learn more.