(Untitled)

[x_autnihil]

*what an interesting book someone has found in the library*

Do you think it is better for a ruler to be feared or to be loved?

(Sorry, fell asleep. Back!)

Comments

[gagas_lady]

They should be feared! People should bow down in terror before them!!

((placeholder!!))

[x_autnihil]

And how should they make themselves feared?

[gagas_lady]

Their presence, their appearance, their atmosphere should be totally threatening! Also, they have to prove that they can kick butt so anyone who goes up against them is going to get crushed like a gnat!

[x_autnihil]

*...like a gnat,*

It sounds like you are presuming that this ruler already has the resources to do this. What if he or she was still trying to attain power?

[studyinglate]

A ruler should strive to be loved, rather than feared, as fear is indicative of a tyrant. But that doesn't mean being soft, and it doesn't mean you can always take the actions that you want to.

[x_autnihil]

How are you defining tyrant?

[studyinglate]

A tyrant is someone who rules purely through strength; her citizens must obey her whims, or be severely punished. Perhaps even face execution.

[x_autnihil]

Is it not possible for someone to rule through strength and yet still be a good ruler? Perhaps even well-liked by the people?

[andrebirth]

I don't know much about ruling ... but wouldn't it be good to make good decisions for the place that you love? Things that make people happy?

... I guess my answer would be loved, then.

[x_autnihil]

What if in order to secure the well-being of your domain it was necessary to take steps that people disagreed with?

[andrebirth]

If you believed that was best, then you'd have to do it.

[x_autnihil]

Even if by doing so you lose the opportunity to be loved?

[justblend]

[he hasn't met Machiavelli just yet...]

A strange question, Signore.

[x_autnihil]

*it's okay, he hasn't written this yet anyway*

Is it?

[mythbusting]

Duh.

[x_autnihil]

Duh?

[mythbusting]

Duh, number two.

[x_autnihil]

Why?