Speaking of the people, this brings me to another point, why exactly do the people have so much power? Generally, they just follow their nobles, who have the actual power. If the nobles want a rebellion, they’ll get the rebellion and the people will follow their liege lords, what they want is not a factor. That SOR doesn’t use this concept is why so much of this is confusing, it tries to play like a feudal system, but without using the actual traditions of one. that lack of respect for higher authority, the inability of the monarch to react, all of this is because there’s no defined hierarchy beneath the king. It just seems that if the people want something, they’ll get it, without much of a consequence.
17 Likes
That’s because you are thinking of the feudal system in European monarchies, where the common people were directly bound to their noble lord and indirectly to their monarch. In Rhivenia, it is rather the reverse. The people consider themselves directly bound to their monarch rather than the nobles. The author may have been influenced by Asian monarchies and modern times type of governing (Personally, I see the Rhivenian type of governing as a mix between absolute monarchy and a direct democracy).
As for the " SOR doesn’t use traditional elements of feudal system", you really should be reading more on the history of how monarchs throughout the world used to govern their kingdoms in order to understand how limited and cautious the monarch is in the actions they can take, when dealing with their subjects. The subjects (peasants), were free citizens of the kingdom, not slaves. They were the backbone of the kingdom’s economy, not the king or the nobles. And they made up most of the population. You can execute one or two or a dozen of them, but you can’t execute them all or the economy, military, the very power and prestige of the kingdom would plummet (not to mention the many rebellions you’d have to crush.
I think what guides the monarchical philosophy of rulership in Rhivenia is: The king is the servant and protector of the people and the kingdom".
1 Like
Even then, I don’t know many empires in Asia that was comparable to this. In Japan, yes, they had a strong sense of national identity, but that was less about the nation itself, and more about the emperor, who they saw as a descendent of the gods. Going against the emperor, in any way, was essentially like pissing off the gods. Something similar in China, as well, although it was much more unstable. Even then, the common people didn’t have any power, it was still the nobility, and the military officers and dynasty shifts usually came from those groups.
8 Likes
Ya but not because he an asshole it because i want the same girl
Not to their face…
2 Likes
Their God actually chose us?? How do you explain insulting Your monarch when your God choses them?
2 Likes
It’s not like people always blindly obey their gods. Quite the opposite, questioning gods’ judgement or even defying them is part of being human.
1 Like
I think part of the discontent might be the fact that the kingdom is a lot worse off than the reader sees.
You don’t have any allies unless you buy them with marriage. People are poor enough to resort to thievery despite the penalty being death. Pirates are apparently rampant enough that your sister can meet and fall in love with one. The guards are apparently terrible at their jobs if pirates are common enough in the main city and can get close to your sister. The royal treasury is poor enough that the cure for Astryn’s poison apparently bankrupts the royal family(?). Wages for people outside the castle servants are apparently quite low.
On top of all of that, the people never really get to see the king/queen since they only ever leave the palace in disguise.
14 Likes
Damn, and Father wants to lecture me on leadership…
7 Likes
At this rate I want two things, either let the enemy army kill everyone under us, so that they get the blood they want, just maybe not how they wanted, or let me go full vlad the impaler and heads on sticks, because if we continue letting anyone bully the monarch chosen by the sword no matter if they please their nonsensical people, not even modding will be able to save the game
13 Likes
Yeah, what’s a hypocrite.
Is ASIA made of only China and Japan?
3 Likes
Does that mean the monarch is god’s representative in Rhivenia? No.
No it doesn’t, indeed it also includes the Indian subcontinent and the middle East along with a whole lot more diverse ethnicities.
But good luck openly criticising the House of Saud.
And game is apparently set in middle ages where the monarchs ruled by divine right.
They were in essence divinely ordained tyrants ( according to themselves).
The Mughals and ottomans used the titles such as " the Shadow of allah on earth ".
Rhivenia is not democracy or hell not even constitutional monarchy, and the mc is literally chosen by their patron deity.
Openly insulting the ruler ( like the peasants in the story) would have resulted in the offender loosing their head if they were lucky or if it was in mughal India and the offender was unlucky then they will be
crushed under the foot of a an elephant or cooked alive.
Even the benevolent rulers like Ashoka the Great would have taken the offender’s right hand as punishment for high treason. ( highest punishment was in Mauryan Empire was loosing your right hand for treason , there was no provision for capital punishment)
I won’t even need to mention the mongols or Timurids.
It was not much different in medieval Europe or
anywhere really.
In Africa or Pre colonial America it resulted in slavery or brutal death.
16 Likes
First, Rhivenia is fictional so the exact mechanics are “whatever the author says they are” regardless of real world counterparts.
Second, it doesn’t seem like Rhivenia really has a religion, nor to they put much faith in the sword aside from its sole job of saying which of the king’s children and the only people who really care about what the sword says are the nobility, and even then there are more than enough people who are willing to disregard that. In general, peasants don’t care who sits in the chair as long as they’re not poorly off because of it.
Third, if one person starts talking against you, its easy to execute them. If its everyone its a lot harder. If its your army and guards talking shit, its nearly impossible. The problem presented is that as ruler, you don’t really have the loyalty of anyone, including your military which makes enforcing anything kind of impossible.
You could start executing people, but from the moment you take the throne, numbers are against you. You grew up isolated with few friends and connections outside of your immediate siblings. Richard and his mother have had however many years to secure friends and allies and make him appear to be the “better” choice while your family has remained isolated.
I’m not saying its particularly good writing, just that with the writing we’re given, you could on paper. In practice, enough people are against you that you probably don’t have the ability to execute everyone because you’re lacking manpower/support required to get rid of that many detractors.
Does the monarch have the right to execute a hundred people? Probably. Can the monarch actually execute 100 people if none of the guards are willing to help? Probably not.
4 Likes
Again you are projecting modern sensibilities influenced democratic world view .
Regardless of the time period all dictatorships revolves around a distinct mode of operation,
Which is rooted in fear and both psychological and
Physical dominance of the population.
And every absolute monarchy both real or fictional is a dictatorship.
And about religion the Rhivenians accept a ruler choosen by an in animate object for gods sake.
And regarding excecuting 100 people you have no idea dude.
Ever heard of Cathar genocide?
18 Likes
Idk how to break this to you, but it sounds like Sword of Rhivenia just isn’t for you?
It sounds like what you want is something that Sword of Rhivenia just… isn’t. You’re looking for a dark, historically accurate monarchy simulator. Sword of Rhivenia isn’t that. Its whatever system the author comes up with using the aesthetic of feudal monarchy. It doesn’t need to be realistic, it can just be “because the author wanted it to happen”.
I don’t think Sword of Rhivenia is ever going to be what you want out of it because what you want is fundamentally different from what the author wants to write.
2 Likes
I think you can think that it’s a fun pulpy romance story while also critiquing the worldbuilding. I thought the first book was fun, even if some of it was a bit goofy.
3 Likes
It does because he chooses us. To lead his country. Like what are you on about?
Now you are just shifting the goal post.
I have said nothing about whether the game is for me or not.
I have followed development of this game since it’s inception and also liked the author’s previous work.
As I have already bought the game, I do have interest in the game.
I have cited some legit historical precedents about how a dictatorial society works.
The main problem with the game is that it doesn’t really give articulate picture about the rhivenian society as a whole, neither the size of the realm nor it’s socio political quirks.
Which the author’s previous works "The Unwanted warrior " was able to convey and allude to.
And of late I am also witnessing an worrying trend in the society as a whole, where constructive and legit
criticism is simply being brushed of by saying " May it really isn’t for you, duh"
Which is a bit disingenuous and worrying to be honest.
The problem with this game is that world building is less than coherent in some places.
Seems like society with 21st century morals and 14 th century tech.
Which begs the question why did even accept an absolute monarch in the first place ?
With out any religious or social dogma
20 Likes