RPC has moved! These pages have been kept for historical purposes

Coatleque · **04-20-2015, 01:10 PM**

So the recent shift of power in Ul'dah has gotten me thinking more in-depth about what it means to be either Royalist or Monetarist. I suppose I should shine the Sounsyy Signalâ„¢ right away.

When talking about Royalists I think it is important to distinguish what exactly they believe in. The term itself would imply that they believe Ul'dah should be lead exclusively by the monarchy, whoever that would be. I think there is a pretty large difference between a "Royalist" and a "Nanamoist". Think about those two terms briefly.

In contrast would be the Monetarists whom favor the "council of 6" style of government with the Syndicate. I think they would clearly prefer the monarchy be dissolved into just another seat on the board of directors. That they are all wealthy is secondary to the principal.

So comparing these views, who has actually come out ahead with Lolorito's power grab? Do we think he is the kind of man who would share power? Looking at some of the rumors around the city, it certainly paints a picture of consolidation rather than disbursement. If we see a new dynasty emerge, who's position has actually been weakened here?

The facts as I see them show that Nanamo was a very weak leader. The Royalists have everything to gain from this, barring a civil war. And the Sultansworn (assuming they aren't all fired for incompetence) have a new boss.

OttoVann · **04-20-2015, 01:15 PM**

My only thoughts about Monetarists and Royals was that Monetarists almost looked to governance as...democratic in nature, sort of. Certainly not being lead by a royal family who inherited power and didn't at all earn it, within memory. You would think Monetarists would be happy if the royal family was nixxed and replaced with something more meaningful.

Melkire · **04-20-2015, 01:16 PM**

I'd argue that Lolorito ascending to the throne, if that indeed happens, would be the ultimate vindication of Monetarist beliefs, ideologies, philosophies, values, and what-have-you. You'd have someone who rose in prominence on the strength of their coin, and then parlayed their resulting influence and power into the greatest sociopolitical position in the land.

I don't see how that would constitute a win for Royalists. A dissolution of the Syndicate might qualify.

Mind you, this is coming from someone who sees Monetarism as an extreme case of "the worst of capitalism" and Royalism as an extreme case of "the best of monarchies".''

EDIT: Slight edit from "totalitarianism" to "monarchies". The former would imply that a sultanate sans Syndicate wouldn't have anyone or anything to keep them in line.... which might be true, but I don't want to go making that assumption without anything to back it up.

V'aleera · **04-20-2015, 01:20 PM**

I don't think the Monetarist mindset for rulership is remotely democratic. An extraordinarily generous appraisal might call it meritocratic. I would say that Monetarist values veer more toward oligarchy or plutocracy.

Melkire · **04-20-2015, 01:23 PM**

Plutocratic oligarchy? Is that a thing? Can it be a thing?

Warren Castille · **04-20-2015, 01:24 PM**

From my understanding, the Syndicate wants to run the nation because they have the most money, so they clearly know the best.

Combine that with the fact that there's post-2.55 dialogue discussing that certain businesses and organizations are being completely disbanded or consumed and it paints the picture that this is solely a power play. "We deserve the most power because we have the most money, which allows us to amass more power with our influence and more money, which allows us to..."

Aduu Avagnar · **04-20-2015, 01:24 PM**

(04-20-2015, 01:20 PM)Intaki Wrote: I don't think the Monetarist mindset for rulership is remotely democratic. An extraordinarily generous appraisal might call it meritocratic. I would say that Monetarist values veer more toward oligarchy or plutocracy.

Oh, it's definately Plutocratic, not Democratic.

(Demos being people, Plutos being wealth.)

Aduu Avagnar · **04-20-2015, 01:26 PM**

(04-20-2015, 01:23 PM)Melkire Wrote: Plutocratic oligarchy? Is that a thing? Can it be a thing?

Well, Oligarchy is simply when the power rests upon a small number of people, most royalty is Oligarchic.

Chris Ganale · **04-20-2015, 01:27 PM**

That murkiness, and the absolute truth that, by definition, a 'royalist' would support the idea of a monarchy regardless of who holds the seat (even though I think the vast majority of royalists would revolt if it was Lolorito) is why I prefer to self-describe with the term 'loyalist', beholden to Ul'dah and the shining beacon she can be to the people.

Gegenji · **04-20-2015, 01:29 PM**

It definitely sounds like a good push for a new Sultan regime under Lolorito -Â it doesn't sound much unlike him to use the power of the Syndicate to put himself into a position of power greater than the Syndicate. The question is how great this culling that's going on behind the scenes is going to go - I'm assuming this is happening to keep someone from doing the same to him. And I wonder whether the Royalists might fracture into two "sects" - ones that just want "a" Sultan on the throne, and those who were loyal subjects of solely the Ul Namo family. If that occurs, technically only the former of those two sects would be the ones set to gain from this.

There's one thing that gets me, though. And that's the Chekov's Gun about making Ul'dah a republic. They had that whole thing about Nanamo being about to dissolve the Sultanate and put the power in the hands of the people. It seems odd that - a plan devised "in secret" (no one outside Nanamo really knows about it) would be shown to the player. To endear Nanamo to us as a kind ruler... or something more?

I wonder if there's going to be a situation where the fact she was going to do this is made public. Maybe it was written down somewhere - a speech, a proposal, something. And it gets discovered and brought to the light. She's still being toted as "sick" and not "dead," so that would be a dangerous piece to have in play.

I would assume Lolorito would be against it, since it would be dissolving the position he just gained - but would the Royalists support that position? Would the Monetarists - who would've likely been against it at first - be for it in a grab for what little power remains after Lolorito's consolidation?

With that matter still up in the air, I don't think Lolorito's position is going to be as stable as he thinks it is. Not to mention the backlash from the Syndicate if he tries to instate himself as Sultan/acting regent for the Sultana (which, again, might be why there's that consolidation going on) and the WoL and crew likely trying to mess things up for him.

OttoVann · **04-20-2015, 01:34 PM**

(04-20-2015, 01:20 PM)Intaki Wrote: I don't think the Monetarist mindset for rulership is remotely democratic. An extraordinarily generous appraisal might call it meritocratic. I would say that Monetarist values veer more toward oligarchy or plutocracy.

I see nothing wrong with this, especially for Otto IC. It makes sense, why should people run the show when they can't even dress themselves or manage to make coin from a stall.

With that said, lots of Syndicate and Monetarists we can assume are born into wealth, but that money came from somewhere originally. It also doesn't maintain itself or grow by simply existing.

Remove royals.

Kellach Woods · **04-20-2015, 01:36 PM**

He'd never sit on the seat himself.

Plays like his tend to end up being exclusive counsel or any other "I'm not the monarch honest" title. Sounds more like how you'd handle government in the Three Kingdoms than anything else.

I'm a "burn it all to the ground"-ist.

Kell himself comes from a land where you essentially grow/raise your own shit and only commerce to get what you can't do yourself. Ul'dah is pretty much the antithesis of his homeland.

Melkire · **04-20-2015, 01:39 PM**

[removes moderator hardhat for a moment]

(04-20-2015, 01:34 PM)OttoVann Wrote: Remove royals.

Fighting you.

[replaces moderator hardhat]

Wiping out an entire opposing end of the political spectrum rarely ends well, as far as I know. The sudden radical swing to the left or right or whichever-direction-you're-using can be painful for a population unless the transition is smooth and seamless.

Kellach Woods · **04-20-2015, 01:41 PM**

also, removing royals would affect the bottom line.

Warren Castille · **04-20-2015, 01:42 PM**

(04-20-2015, 01:34 PM)OttoVann Wrote:
(04-20-2015, 01:20 PM)Intaki Wrote: I don't think the Monetarist mindset for rulership is remotely democratic. An extraordinarily generous appraisal might call it meritocratic. I would say that Monetarist values veer more toward oligarchy or plutocracy.

I see nothing wrong with this, especially for Otto IC. It makes sense, why should people run the show when they can't even dress themselves or manage to make coin from a stall.

With that said, lots of Syndicate and Monetarists we can assume are born into wealth, but that money came from somewhere originally. It also doesn't maintain itself or grow by simply existing.

Remove royals.

I suspect the tune would be different were Otto's power base and wealth be one of the things they were gunning for. And since Otto isn't one of the Six (Four, now?) I imagine it's only a matter of time. You'd represent a threat, and it's established that those threats are being destroyed systematically.

« Next Oldest \| Next Newest »
Pages (5): 1 2 3 4 5 Next »

Royalist vs Monetarist [Spoilery]

RPC has moved! These pages have been kept for historical purposes