Guild Wars 2

Konig Des Todes.2086:

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.

Do we need any evidence at all? Trial by Combat.

Or does only the accused have the right to suggest that? Caudy probably wouldn’t be stupid enough to suggest challenging the PC now that we have a reputation for killing anything and everything, and a few other things just because we felt like it.

fenre.7891:

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.

Machiavelli’s opinion is this: If you don’t have power yet, act like Caesar Borgia to seize power. If you already have power, defend yourself against guys like Caesar Borgia.

Queen Jennah is the latter case.

“Pessimistic view on human nature” isn’t a bad thing. The LA’s council is a clear example:

Players: Scarlet is coming to attack LA!!!
LA Council: No she won’t! We are optimistic about the future. Nothing bad will ever happen. “My Little Pony!”
Players: Great. Now we have to clean up your mess.

Kryta is indeed Machiavellian. Caudecus is as Machiavellian as it gets. Queen Jennah will be foolish not to remove this threat asap.

Egon Vidar.9125:

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.

Your example consist of leader who suppress their general population. Machiavelli warned against this by saying “That One should Avoid being Despised and Hated.”

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/machiavelli/works/prince/ch19.htm

“But concerning his subjects, when affairs outside are disturbed he has only to fear that they will conspire secretly, from which a prince can easily secure himself by avoiding being hated and despised, and by keeping the people satisfied with him, which it is most necessary for him to accomplish, as I said above at length.”

A leader always want the majority of the population (e.g. the poor, lower classes) to support him/her. So instead, propaganda should be used to make the general population fall in love with the leader.

Instead, what needs to be suppressed are the directly enemies to the throne. These enemies need to be controlled or destroyed.

General population=>make them fall in love with you.
Powerful enemies=>control/fear/destroy them.

You seem to keep missing the links I keep posting about The Prince being a satire written by a man who was tortured and imprisoned by people who held the very ideals written about in that book.

Therefore I can’t take any references to it in that sort of context even remotely seriously, apologies.

CHIPS.6018:

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.

An outfit doesn’t make a faction. Ideals, motives, and actions do.

The Jackdaws weren’t hired by Caudecus to kidnap Demmi. If they were, they wouldn’t have been ransoming her to Landon – and if they were doing a double-cross then their letter would have made mention of such. Furthermore, the Jackdaws would know Caudecus wouldn’t care because Landon was given the order of taking back alive or dead.

In a more broad note on the topic – you seem to be taking the Machiavelli viewpoint as “the best for politicians” when that’s what folks tend to call a tyrant.

Fluffball.8307:

Konig Des Todes.2086:

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.

Do we need any evidence at all? Trial by Combat.

Or does only the accused have the right to suggest that? Caudy probably wouldn’t be stupid enough to suggest challenging the PC now that we have a reputation for killing anything and everything, and a few other things just because we felt like it.

You need to have 3 pieces of evidence to even bring someone to trial. In the trial, a trial by combat can be called by the defendant (unknown if prosecutor can call trial by combat), and the residing judge (in most cases the Legate Minister but obviously not in this case) would have to accept such call – or so the noble storyline shows us.

CHIPS.6018:

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

Hell yeah. Well My Little Pony is a class above Destiny Edge and Queen Jennah… not speaking about types like Keeper Jonez, agent Spire and others. .. kitten I can’t say that there is a NPC I like.

What about THIS prince?

http://media.blogapuntate.it/W/Wil/WillyilprincipediBelAir.jpg

Egon Vidar.9125:

You seem to keep missing the links I keep posting about The Prince being a satire written by a man who was tortured and imprisoned by people who held the very ideals written about in that book.

Therefore I can’t take any references to it in that sort of context even remotely seriously, apologies.

By that argument:

-A soldier is unfit to write a book on battle tactics because he had seen the horrors of war and had suffered during the war.

-A chef is unfit to write a book on cooking because he had been burnt by fire and burning oil when he was cooking.

-A basketball player is unfit to write a book on basketball because he suffered from a career ending injury.

Just because someone suffered due to his experience with a subject, it doesn’t mean that person is unfit to write a book on that subject.

Konig Des Todes.2086:

In a more broad note on the topic – you seem to be taking the Machiavelli viewpoint as “the best for politicians” when that’s what folks tend to call a tyrant.

What Tyrant? Machiavelli highly recommend that the leader make his subjects fall in love with himself. In fact Machiavelli supports the idea of republic.

It is the political enemies that should be destroyed/intimidated/feared.

“the prince to be generous, merciful and honest when he can. But the prince must be adaptable and ‘know how to do wrong when he must’.”

Treat one’s subjects differently from one’s enemies. Is this so hard to understand?

CHIPS.6018:

Egon Vidar.9125:

You seem to keep missing the links I keep posting about The Prince being a satire written by a man who was tortured and imprisoned by people who held the very ideals written about in that book.

Therefore I can’t take any references to it in that sort of context even remotely seriously, apologies.

By that argument:

-A soldier is unfit to write a book on battle tactics because he had seen the horrors of war and had suffered during the war.

-A chef is unfit to write a book on cooking because he had been burnt by fire and burning oil when he was cooking.

-A basketball player is unfit to write a book on basketball because he suffered from a career ending injury.

Just because someone suffered due to his experience with a subject, it doesn’t mean that person is unfit to write a book on that subject.

You’re misunderstanding Egon. They’re not saying that Machiavelli was unfit- that’s a term that you brought into this. Machiavelli clearly knew his subject matter, that’s not up for question. The question is why he wrote The Prince.

Egon was saying (as I understand their point) that Machiavelli would not seriously endorse, let alone attempt to encourage, something that had caused him so much needless hardship.

Aaron Ansari.1604:

CHIPS.6018:

Egon Vidar.9125:

You seem to keep missing the links I keep posting about The Prince being a satire written by a man who was tortured and imprisoned by people who held the very ideals written about in that book.

Therefore I can’t take any references to it in that sort of context even remotely seriously, apologies.

By that argument:

-A soldier is unfit to write a book on battle tactics because he had seen the horrors of war and had suffered during the war.

-A chef is unfit to write a book on cooking because he had been burnt by fire and burning oil when he was cooking.

-A basketball player is unfit to write a book on basketball because he suffered from a career ending injury.

Just because someone suffered due to his experience with a subject, it doesn’t mean that person is unfit to write a book on that subject.

You’re misunderstanding Egon. They’re not saying that Machiavelli was unfit- that’s a term that you brought into this. Machiavelli clearly knew his subject matter, that’s not up for question. The question is why he wrote The Prince.

Egon was saying (as I understand their point) that Machiavelli would not seriously endorse, let alone attempt to encourage, something that had caused him so much needless hardship.

Machiavelli suffered during his career in politics. But that doesn’t mean he hates politics. In fact it doesn’t even mean he disagrees with those who caused him to suffer. Because if given the chance, he may have done the same thing.

There was a phase “This is business. No hard feelings.”

A soldiers who seen all the horrors of war might still love war, and want to teach others the best way to win a war.
A chef who got burnt and injured a lot might still love cooking, and want to teach others the best way to cook.
A basketball player, who after a career ending injury he can’t even walk properly, might still love basketball. He might want to teach others the best way to play basketball.
A disgraced politician who fell from power might still love politics, and want to teach others how to succeed in politics.

If you read The Prince, you can clearly see how much passion Machiavelli have for politics.

CHIPS.6018:

fenre.7891:

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.

Machiavelli’s opinion is this: If you don’t have power yet, act like Caesar Borgia to seize power. If you already have power, defend yourself against guys like Caesar Borgia.

Queen Jennah is the latter case.

“Pessimistic view on human nature” isn’t a bad thing. The LA’s council is a clear example:

Players: Scarlet is coming to attack LA!!!
LA Council: No she won’t! We are optimistic about the future. Nothing bad will ever happen. “My Little Pony!”
Players: Great. Now we have to clean up your mess.

Kryta is indeed Machiavellian. Caudecus is as Machiavellian as it gets. Queen Jennah will be foolish not to remove this threat asap.

You miss my point. Because of his view on the human nature it tells us what kind of political system you will preach. My main question is why we are talking about Machiavelli, and not Plato, St.Augustine, John of Salisbury, Marsilio of Padua, Hobbes, Locke, Montesquiu, Hume, Rousseau, Burke, Kant etc etc. All these had different political system that in their eyes would be ideal, and none of them is more right than the other one.

I for example want to erase your Prince ideal with a Krytan nation based on Schumpeters elite society. Where the Queen is overthrown and there is installed a way to elect the top leaders. This is however not a democracy in the classical sense, rule by the people, but just a rule approved by the people. The mechanism to make competent bureaucrats elected will make them legitimate. It would be a competitive elitism. Would it be “better” then Machiavellian version? Well, it would have elements from Kant and others when it comes to a democratic society and research shows that democracy is more capable to be fighting wars than other nations (source: almost everything in the academic field of Political Science discussing the Democratic Peace)

I don’t want to write much about this, since it completely the wrong place to do it.
I agree however that the GW-universe needs more depth when it comes to the political stage.
Introducing an oversimplified version of Machiavelli is however not the way to go.

Regarding your last point, act of one man does not define a system.

fenre.7891:

CHIPS.6018:

fenre.7891:

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.

Machiavelli’s opinion is this: If you don’t have power yet, act like Caesar Borgia to seize power. If you already have power, defend yourself against guys like Caesar Borgia.

Queen Jennah is the latter case.

“Pessimistic view on human nature” isn’t a bad thing. The LA’s council is a clear example:

Players: Scarlet is coming to attack LA!!!
LA Council: No she won’t! We are optimistic about the future. Nothing bad will ever happen. “My Little Pony!”
Players: Great. Now we have to clean up your mess.

Kryta is indeed Machiavellian. Caudecus is as Machiavellian as it gets. Queen Jennah will be foolish not to remove this threat asap.

You miss my point. Because of his view on the human nature it tells us what kind of political system you will preach. My main question is why we are talking about Machiavelli, and not Plato, St.Augustine, John of Salisbury, Marsilio of Padua, Hobbes, Locke, Montesquiu, Hume, Rousseau, Burke, Kant etc etc. All these had different political system that in their eyes would be ideal, and none of them is more right than the other one.

I for example want to erase your Prince ideal with a Krytan nation based on Schumpeters elite society. Where the Queen is overthrown and there is installed a way to elect the top leaders. This is however not a democracy in the classical sense, rule by the people, but just a rule approved by the people. The mechanism to make competent bureaucrats elected will make them legitimate. It would be a competitive elitism. Would it be “better” then Machiavellian version? Well, it would have elements from Kant and others when it comes to a democratic society and research shows that democracy is more capable to be fighting wars than other nations (source: almost everything in the academic field of Political Science discussing the Democratic Peace)

I don’t want to write much about this, since it completely the wrong place to do it.
I agree however that the GW-universe needs more depth when it comes to the political stage.
Introducing an oversimplified version of Machiavelli is however not the way to go.

Regarding your last point, act of one man does not define a system.

Machiavelli isn’t talking about political systems in The Prince. He is talking about how to get power and then held onto power.

BTW, Machiavelli supports the idea of Republic.

He is literally talking about the political system he will take on in the first chapter of the Prince, where he defines the basic of the rest of his writing.

Well… yes? As I mentioned, he actually wrote another book called The Discourses on Livy which is dedicated to the whole idea of the Roman Republic

I will leave this thread now…

Egon Vidar.9125:

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.

Show me anything you want about NK. But understand this, those people are being starved intentionally. The leadership of NK is not being starved, only the people are. It is intentional. It’s part of the whole fear thing and keeping the people powerless to do anything about it.

Lenin did pretty good also. His machine lasted 70 – 80 years. Stalin also did well. The Khmer Rouge screwed up though. You’re confusing the well being of the country with the well being of the individual. History is full of examples of evil rulers that lived very well while their country suffered.

Also, a recommend you read up on the biography of Rockefeller. This man would have made Machiavelli proud.

Sorry. I have no intention of going on at length about NK as I find the topic a bit too raw and distasteful in this sort of discussion when going in-depth. In my opinion, a group’s leader is not successful as a leader of a group unless the group (country, in this case) s/he is leading is successful in majority with him/her, Darc. As individuals? Yes, they certainly did well for themselves from a 100% objective point of view (ignoring assassination attempts), I definitely won’t ignore that point. Successful individuals, but not the greatest leaders the world has seen by any stretch of the imagination. And some fashion of leadership is, it seems, what we’re talking about. Or conquest. But you don’t want those you conquer to hate you, either, unless you savor the idea of your own head on a pike as the result of a violent and bloody rebellion.

CHIPS.6018:

Egon Vidar.9125:

You seem to keep missing the links I keep posting about The Prince being a satire written by a man who was tortured and imprisoned by people who held the very ideals written about in that book.

Therefore I can’t take any references to it in that sort of context even remotely seriously, apologies.

By that argument:
[snip]

Just because someone suffered due to his experience with a subject, it doesn’t mean that person is unfit to write a book on that subject.

This would be a very legitimate point and I would agree wholeheartedly were it not that the book is a satire.

It would be akin to taking Stephen Colbert seriously. Which.. is actually a thing I have seen happen, depressingly.

Aaron Ansari.1604:

Egon was saying (as I understand their point) that Machiavelli would not seriously endorse, let alone attempt to encourage, something that had caused him so much needless hardship.

This is what I’m saying, in part.

CHIPS.6018:

Machiavelli suffered during his career in politics. But that doesn’t mean he hates politics. In fact it doesn’t even mean he disagrees with those who caused him to suffer. Because if given the chance, he may have done the same thing.

There was a phase “This is business. No hard feelings.”

[snip]

If you read The Prince, you can clearly see how much passion Machiavelli have for politics.

No, he did love politics. A lot! That’s a point I am certainly not arguing. And if you check his entire body of political work, you’ll realize The Prince is the odd one out and feels very different from everything else he wrote regarding politics, before and after. He also wrote comedy and was adept at it, and was a clever man, so most certainly knew how to write satire.

Imagine a known left-wing author, who is also skilled at comedy, suddenly writing a book about right-wing politicians (after being tormented by them) that paints them as heartless and merciless, then resumes writing books for an audience of his own political leanings again. What do you suppose is going on here?

CHIPS.6018:

BTW, Machiavelli supports the idea of Republic.

… Yes?

“The Discourses on Livy describes the historical events that the Roman historian Livy wrote about and commented on in his history of Rome (Ab Urbe Condita); Machiavelli’s work is an “extended meditation on maintaining republican rule,” quite the opposite of The Prince.”
from here: http://eaglefeather.honors.unt.edu/2007/article/233

Anyway, this topic is beginning to veer around wildly and become a historical discussion. I would like to reply to your original argument with a The-Prince-as-sincere approach with this speech from another political satire (though the speech is genuine), The Great Dictator.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FMNFvKEy4c

A bit serious for a gaming discussion, I will very freely admit, but it does address the heart of your the point, and does it well. And it is a video that I honestly believe every person needs to see.

Helping your fellow man (or Tyrian) will often get you much further, much more loved, and therefore, much more support, than relying on ruthlessness, fear, and others in your court who just might be as treacherous as you are, because that sort of thing tends to breed like-minded company. I’d rather follow a leader I can relate to and who I feel actually cares for people like me, and try to dodge anything I would pessimistically view as a wasted effort that, what I feel is an unworthy tyrant-king, might throw my way.

Erukk.1408:

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.

No it doesn’t. He’s a guest, he does what he wants, not what she wants.

Erukk.1408:

1. It heavily restricts his actions.

Like Caudecus was walking around stealing supplies from the centaurs or poisoning the water supply himself? No, he has lackeys and his lackeys are free to come and go as they please.

Erukk.1408:

1. It allows them to monitor any of his remaining actions much more closely.

What are they going to do? Listen to his every conversation? Deprive him of any privacy? He’s a guest, not a prisoner. They have to treat him with respect, they can get a Shining Blade “maid” to follow him around and report back to Anise but as a guest he has privacy and autonomy. He’s free to come and go as he likes and interact with whoever he chooses, wherever he chooses.

Erukk.1408:

1. 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

I agree another leader would pop up but I don’t think the bandits lack clear leadership. I don’t think Caudecus is much less capable of leading them in the city than he was in his manor. He’s more removed now but there are examples in the real world where prisoners can still exercise influence from behind bars. Caudecus isn’t even behind bars, all he needs is a second in command, a few messengers and discreet meetings (neither of these things the Queen is currently depriving him of). He also has support from the other minsters so aside from being able to keep a more watchful eye on Caudecus himself (which is a very minor inconvenience for him) the Queen accomplishes very little by keeping him around. If anything, Caudecus will appear even less guilty because he’s in the city now. A good criminal leader knows to keep their hands clean and leave the dirty work to the expendables, if keeping in the city causes Caudecus to perfect his underground chain of command Jennah is actually making him stronger.

fenre.7891:

He is literally talking about the political system he will take on in the first chapter of the Prince, where he defines the basic of the rest of his writing.

Well… yes? As I mentioned, he actually wrote another book called The Discourses on Livy which is dedicated to the whole idea of the Roman Republic

I will leave this thread now…

Chapter 1 said there is only 2 type of states. “Either republics or principalities”. Then he stated that the rest of the book deals with principalities. Republic is dealt with in another book.

And so as he promised, the rest of the book deal with “how to gain power and hold power” in principalities.

So the book is not about the “different political systems”. It is about “how to gain power and hold power”.

Shiren.9532:

No it doesn’t. He’s a guest, he does what he wants, not what she wants.

He isn’t a guest in the formal sense. He’s very much a guest in the political sense. It’s basically where a lord or ruler takes a person into their home, but they aren’t allowed to leave. A gilded cage if you will.

It was mostly used against rival political opponents as an insurance policy. The lord/ruler takes some of their rival’s family members into their home as “guests”, and if the rival ever acted against the lord… Let’s just say it wasn’t good for the family members.

The insurance policy method wouldn’t work on Caudecus, but the thought is still the same. He’s a “guest” of the Queen in the most hostile sense of the word.

Shiren.9532:

What are they going to do? Listen to his every conversation? Deprive him of any privacy? He’s a guest, not a prisoner. They have to treat him with respect, they can get a Shining Blade “maid” to follow him around and report back to Anise but as a guest he has privacy and autonomy. He’s free to come and go as he likes and interact with whoever he chooses, wherever he chooses.

Yes, basically.

Queen Jennah: “Caudecus is guilty of many things, Captain, but he was not responsible here. The Separatists were planning to capture him as well.”
Caudecus: “Capture…me? Then I am in your debt for keeping me safe, your Majesty.”
Queen Jennah: “Also, for your own protection, you should stay at my palace. Temporarily of course. I insist.”
Caudecus: “There’s no…I mean…I’m sure…Certainly, your Majesty. I would be honored.”

For his own “protection”, his actions with others might be limited now as well, since the bandits are supposedly trying to get him. That means he will need constant protection around him at all time, because you never know when an assassin might strike or a kidnapper might come out of the shadows.

Queen Jennah might also spare no expense and suggest/order using some of her own expert Shining Blade for the job, since the Ministry Guard obviously weren’t enough. Caudecus got abducted from his own manor after all. We can’t have the Legate Minister under protected now can we?

Erukk.1408:

We can’t have the Legate Minister under protected now can we?

Sure we can. Let me just get a moment to get a couple warriors with Kill Shot lined up and ready.

@ Egon Vidar.9125

I cannot say if The Prince is a satire or not. Some people say it is, others say it isn’t.

I personally do not think it was a satire. The reason is Machiavelli wrote it for Lorenzo de’ Medici, as a resume/cover letter for a job in court. Machiavelli genuinely want a job, not trying to get himself killed. So there is little reason for Machiavelli to write a satire for Lorenzo.

That said, I am not ruling out the possibility of it being a satire. Either way it doesn’t matter. The Prince got some good points in there.

Helping your fellow man (or Tyrian) will often get you much further, much more loved, and therefore, much more support, than relying on ruthlessness, fear, and others in your court who just might be as treacherous as you are, because that sort of thing tends to breed like-minded company. I’d rather follow a leader I can relate to and who I feel actually cares for people like me, and try to dodge anything I would pessimistically view as a wasted effort that, what I feel is an unworthy tyrant-king, might throw my way.

Oh I totally agree that it is better to have a kind hearted leader than a tyrant. But there is a condition:

The kind hearted leader must hold onto to power against his/her enemies.

You see, a kind hearted leader is only good if he/she do not lose power to these tyrants. Else this kind hearted leader will never get to fulfil his/her vision of his nation.

A dead kind hearted leader is useless.

No one can deny this fact. This is a literal fact. If a kind hearted leader got himself/herself killed, this leader just failed his/her nation.

Now, you may say that :“But Queen Jennah is holding onto her power!”

Nope. Not true at all. It is just that the living story hasn’t reach Queen’s Jennah’s story arc yet. I mean come on. We all know what is going to happen in the future:

Caudecus will defeat Queen Jennah. And only the players/Logan can save her

We can all see this story from a million miles away.

Having dumb/useless/“My Little Pony” kind of NPC that are waiting to be saved great for game play. This gives us players something to do (e.g. something to kill). However as a story it fall flat on its face.

You can also read this another way:

Scarlet’s underlings cannot do anything without Scarlet.
Ally NPCs cannot do anything without the players.

You get where I am going with this?

That’s why the story needs someone like The Prince; someone who is on the good side but is extremely ruthless. The “My Little Pony” NPCs can keep their ideals, while The Prince says what needs to be done.

These contrasts in polar-opposite opinions are great in driving the story and character forward. Think Batman vs Superman in Justice League.

I said elsewhere that "It is ok for some NPCs to be dumb and useless. But it is unrealistic for all NPCs to be dumb and useless.

Conclusion: It isn’t about who is right and who is wrong. It is about the NPCs having different opinions and argue with each other on how to get things done. This builds character.

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

Erukk.1408:

We can’t have the Legate Minister under protected now can we?

Sure we can. Let me just get a moment to get a couple warriors with Kill Shot lined up and ready.

Yes, it would be just tragic if something would to befall the Minister during of a… changing of the guard? Especially if it was during the time his own personal Ministry Guards were on duty as well. They just keep proving themselves more and more unreliable.

Tisk tisk.

Erukk.1408:

Yes, it would be just tragic if something would to befall the Minister during of a… changing of the guard? Especially if it was during the time his own personal Ministry Guards were on duty as well. They just keep proving themselves more and more unreliable.

Tisk tisk.

Oh indeed, it’s a sad state. But on the bright side, with Scarlet confirmed dead and her command codes changed the Watchknights can take over for those terribly trained guards. And out of generosity, Captain Thackeray will consider taking on training some of those Ministry Guard who wish to become Seraph. After all, we can always use more posted to places like the Harathi Hinterlands . . .

Or better yet, they can be sent to Lion’s Arch to help stabilize the area as a joint operation with the Lionguard. Since the Captain’s Council clearly has had a considerable problem handling the matter of Scarlet Briar and her alliance of thugs, perhaps it is time to reach out to our fellow residents in Kryta.

But what do I know? I should report back to the Pact and try to see about that little problem to the west. I hear there’s a need to turn over the Orr cleanup to other volunteer talent and mobilize a move west past Brisban Wildlands.

What do you mean I should talk with Trahearne? Who’s he?

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 . . .

If all of Tyria had but a single neck…
Also instead of a talking-cat let’s put a horse in charge of the Black Citadel!

CureForLiving.5360:

If all of Tyria had but a single neck…
Also instead of a talking-cat let’s put a horse in charge of the Black Citadel!

I’m all for that, let’s kick out Rytlock and those other walking rugs and hand it to the Harathi in return for them getting out of the hinterlands. Then the charr can know how it feels to constantly have centaurs messing with your stuff.

It’s payback for Ascalon . . . Settlement, because it’s always contested.