Villains

[rklenseth]

Dictatorships is usually a general term for any government where one man or a group of men have total power. Facism is an ideal of socialistic Conservatism (most of us know it from the Nazis) but has many forms and isn't restricted to a dictatorship or tyrannical type government. An Empire is considered any culture that has great influence in the world or in it's own region of the world. Many of us consider an Empire being some sort of government that controls everything which is untrue. Today, America is an Empire because of the great influence we have on the world. A tyranny is in a democractic society where the people within that society give full power to one person (who is called the tyrant). This was developed in the Greek democracy and was later adopted by Roman democracy. Being a tyrant isn't a bad thing but actually an honor. Today, though, the definition has been warped and tyranny has come to be more of a bad term used to express non-democratic societies but that is not the proper use of the what tyranny is. Juilius Caesar would have been considered a tyrant when he was given power in Rome though he did turn Rome into a dictatorship later. The same goes for Hitler who was given power in Germany but later turned it into a dictatorship.

[Zoot]

Perhaps I should have chosesn a better word.

By 'villain' I don't mean a cackling, hand-rubbing pure evil
type of character.

I mean the sort of characters who 'stir things up.'
The sort of characters who usurp governments,
stage ambushes in the hills, rob caravans, et cetera.

I used the term 'villain' because most would see them that way.

Remember, one man's highwayman is another's Robin Hood.

[Meh]

[rklenseth]

There you are wrong. Tyranny isn't always bad and was meant to be good. And Julius Caesar was given power as Consul. In a time of crisis, Rome would elect two Consuls. Each would divide the power between each other so they were equal. Unfortuantly for Rome, the other Consul, when Julius was Consul, died. All the power then went to Caesar who quickly took the opportunity to take full power and at that point he became a dictator and molded Rome into an Empire.

And to call tyrants bad is incorrect. Some of the greatest and most respected Greek people were tyrants at one point including people such as Solon (one of the most highly respected person among all the ancient Greeks). As I said before, the modern age has warped the definition of what tyranny is by marking every person that stands for dictatorships and the such which is untrue. To be a tyrant, you must come to power through the will of the people not by force. This mostly happens in democratic states though I'm not saying it isn't possible in other areas but highly doubtful it will nor do I believe has it ever happened.

Spain was facist during World War II. It stayed mostly democratic and didn't help the Axis Power like Hitler wanted. Facists came to power by democratic means (though there was extreme dirty politics) and didn't become dictatorships until after they took full power. Facism cannot be considered a government because it worked within a democratic government and later became a tyranny when Hitler was made chancellor and the tragedy that led to him invoking the Constitution that stated during times of crisis that the chancellor would be given full power of the German State. Hitler really actually never became a dictator in the sense to the Germans because they wanted him in power until the end of World War II but to the peoples he took over he was a dictator. And you're right that Germany was an Empire during this time (no matter how short it was) because of the influence it had in the region. Italy I don't consider an Empire during this time because it was pretty much controlled by Germany and did what they told them to do and they never really had any great influence. Japan would be considered an Empire during this time but they were not really facist as much as Germany. They were mostly nationalistic.

Napoleon can be considered a tyrant as well who came to become a dictator and later built an Empire but Napoleon was not a facist (he was acutally a very Liberal person and created sweeping Liberal reform in France during his time as Emperor). Though I would like to make a point that to be Empire doesn't mean you have to conquer another place and control it. Empire's can form cultural as well. America has really become a cultural Empire more than a conquering Empire type. We influence through our cultural.

Facism was mostly a reaction against socialism, Marxism, and Communism but facism was socialistic as well. There were many German Conservatives who hated the Facists but saw it as courting the lesser evil next to the socialistic people. They thought they could control Hitler and the Nazi Party but boy were they wrong. Facism also rose in Italy at the same time due to the same reasons of Liberal socialistic ideals and in Spain a war broke out (Called the Spanish Civil War) between Facists and Communists. The Communists were supported by the Soviet Union (which was Communism) while the Facists were supported by Hitler. The Facists won but at a high price that pretty much destroyed the infrastructure in Spain to the point where they were useless to the Axis Powers during World War II. Facists were not so much for Imperialism in that most of the places they were taking over weren't for economic gain but for cultural purposes. Hitler wanted to reunite the 'German States' and get revenge on France and Britain for World War I and the terms of the treaty they were forced to sign. Italy Facists wanted to 'reclaim the glory of the Roman Empire'. Japanese, who as I said before weren't really Facists, were mostly doing things for economic gain. Hitler did have to take over some places for oil because he knew he needed it for his war machine but he used this imperialism as a means to his end of reuniting the German People (which is any person that speaks a dialect of Germanor was at one point part of the German Culture).

And to be nationalistic is to have pride and great loyalty to one's culture. Nationalism can rise in Cantr and I believe it has. One great example is the Alexian Empire. And you don't need to be born in a particular place to be nationalistic. All you have to do is accept the culture you live and have pride and deep loyalty to that culture and you are nationalistic.

[Meh]

[rklenseth]

If you ever look back on real history, you will see dictators coming to power by gaining the trust of the people. They use the peoples' dreams to disillusion them.

Hitler promised to reunite the German People as well as bring back the economy and bring back Germany to its former glory.

Mussolini promised to bring back 'the glory of Rome'. Since the fall of Rome, the Italians never accomplished anything except reunite their tattered country and they were losing people to immigration to the US. There was also a bad economy at the time.

Napoleon promised to make France great and to protect the Liberal ideas that many other European countries saw as a threat.

Caesar promised to bring Rome glory and to defeat the enemies that wished to destroy them.

Now if a Cantr Character can appeal those kind of ideas to a people then it is quite possible but it would take a lot of good role-playing to do so from everyone or almost everyone.

[Meh]

[Meh]

[rklenseth]

You appeal to the people and take out your competition.
I don't understand why you think that isn't a good personality. Isn't that how the people I stated above came t power. They acted nice to the people they are using but at the same time were down right nasty to the people that won't go along with their plan.

[Meh]

[Meh]

[Meh]

[Meh]

[rklenseth]

Purple wasn't a tyrant. She came to power by force.

I think Emperor Alexi Romanov was the best so far. He was played real well and didn't kill everyone. Only those that refused to obey by his rule. I know, because my character survived and actually rose up through the Ladvicitavoi scoiety (and might be now the most powerful character in the area).

rklenseth wrote:
You appeal to the people and take out your competition.
I don't understand why you think that isn't a good personality. Isn't that how the people I stated above came t power. They acted nice to the people they are using but at the same time were down right nasty to the people that won't go along with their plan.


That is what you said and it is inprecise.
They were nice to their circle.
They had good PR with the people they considered "worth it".
This excluded a certain group of people no matter how hard the begged and went along with everything.
They had a constant opinion on cerain things that would not be "niced over" ever.

They probably felt threatened by those people and decided to get rid of them. How do you know everything that goes through the minds of these characters?

Alright, my character is General Sester Gartaf of the Alexian Empire. He loves and breathes the Empire like if it was some sort of drug. All he cares about is the Empire and what he can do to get rid of what he believes are her enemies and bring her back to the glory that she was once at. He doesn't care about power but would be wiling to take it if he had to. To people he feels is a threat, he kills or locks away. People he doesn't, he befriends and either lets them live or allows them into his circle. Tell me how this is a bad personality?

[Meh]

Your absolutely correct in every conceivable way.