Quote:
Originally Posted by Nappa
No matter how you try to change kingdoms, by names, by supposedly "giving others power", it will always be a monarchy.
|
A monarchy is a system of government in which the power to govern the state is inherited and is given undividely to a single person usually for life. Monarchy also does not have a constitution which restricts that monarch's powers, this would be a "constitutional monarchy".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nappa
You can't escape it. Zormite basically has Dustari ranks (I.E. Eldakhan -> Chancellor) with different names.
|
Why do you consider Chancellor to be a Dustari rank? Why cant Dustari be taking it from Zormite? Its a common title, just like king. Are you going to yell at Forest for copying Dustari if Chris were to use King for his title? It has no air of creativity to it because its simply an english word. Chancellor has been used for a very long time in Zormite, as the 2nd highest office--an important position. In Dustari, I had to look it up, and it was not near as important. Dustari is meant to be a medieval kingdom, yet Chancellor is a considerably more widely used modern term -- so you'd think a title like that would not fit in with the 12th century so well as compared to the 19th or so.
In fact, Chancellor is actually the "Elder" position, but I changed the name to purposefuly sound more modern when reforming to the republic! lol. If anything, Chancellor does not fit as well with our medieval friends across the seas.
Also, what the hell? She just changed it to something more creative and unique, and you are attacking it for being too Dustarian? lol. The Aegis Knight stuff sounds Dustari specific, but general terms such as king, Chancellor, Citizen, etc, are not words which should only be allowed to show up in one kingdom. Those cant "belong" to any group specifically.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nappa
Zormite already has no mind of it's own, and it's names contradict one eachother, which is quite stupid(Zormite Republic with a Dictator, What ?).
|
No matter how hard you try at this, there is no real basis for your position. You are simply used to the more common examples of Republics. Most republics have only existed in the more recent past, and these are probably all that you are considering. For a country to be a republic, all that is nessisary is that the people elect representatives to make decisions for them. That is it. If the representatives decide that it is in the interest of the country to allow for an individual to be given the title of Dictator and a certain range of powers, that does not violate the foundation and basis of the Republic. In essence, the Dictator is put in power indirectly by the people, through the elected representatives.
Such examples of a Republic with the head of state having absolute or near autotomic rule would include the French Republic (Emperor Napoleon) and the Roman Republic (Ceasar, who was infact given the title of Dictator by the Roman Senate).
So, having a dictator as head of a republic does not nessisarily denote a contradiction.
Quote:
Britannica entry for DICTATOR:
In the Roman republic, a temporary magistrate with extraordinary powers.
Nominated in times of crisis by a consul, recommended by the Senate, and confirmed by the Comitia Curiata, the dictator's term was six months or the duration of the crisis, and he had authority over all other magistrates. By 300 BC his powers were limited; no dictators were chosen after 202. The dictatorships of Sulla and Julius Caesar were a new form with almost unlimited powers. Caesar became dictator for life just before his assassination; afterward the office was abolished.
|