Thank you for explaining what you meant. I can see what you mean, and it is true that we cannot tell how the game ends up being but we can start discussions based on assumptions to inspire toady.
Now, when I said that by having a king you already have a class system, I meant to point out that a king ultimately has the last word in all matters therefore rendering the rest of the people second class citizens. They might be allowed to shape society however they want, but if king does not agree then he can stop them how he seems fit.
Therefore the existance of an all powerful king implies that the rest are powerless naturally.
The king has the last word because it is his job to have the last word. That does not imply that he is a different class to you and you are second-class, any more than the master carpenter having the last word as to how the tables and chairs are to be assembled. There is a group, the group has functions, you are part of that group and the king has the job of making certain decisions, while you have other decisions to make, possibly ones delegated to you by the king.
What's the deal of you constantly being worried about portrayal of class oppression in game?
I know you are probably into some PC stuff, but seriously - what the hell? Not portraying/portraying it in game does not put it into higher moral standard. Also, subjugating art to ideology is always something I consider a bad thing.
I have some remnant left of a conscience, therefore I am naturally concerned about oppression of folks and depictions thereof.
I actually was not arguing against the implementation of class oppression, merely saying that we cannot simply assume that the devs will go through the history book to find out what oppressions they ought to add in, so as to be true to 'history'. That means there is little point is discussing certain political details like enfranchisement, since those things depend upon the class oppression's in society.
Art is inseparable from ideology, it does not need subjugating since it is automatically subjugated by it's very nature. From my perspective it is fine to add in oppression provided that this is not the protagonists role but that of antagonists. It is immoral to make a game where the player is cast in the role of the oppressor, that is because playing *as* the oppressor will cause you to think as the oppressor thinks and that will inevitably promote empathy with the oppressors perspective and lack of empathy with the victims perspective in real-life.
The interesting question for is what happens if we play *as* a card-carrying villain, that is the game explicitly tells us that we are wrong/bad/evil. Does the characterisation overcome the protagonist-empathy or does the player end up simply becoming like a card-carrying villain in real-life?
No thats not how rebublics work. Your confusing republics with democracy. Democracy is when everyone votes not just leaders no country at the moment exists that is a democracy. Republics is just when the people vote in leaders and the leaders vote on issues and what not, which is the system most countries currently use.
Children don't vote in a democracy nor do foreign visitors; so it not exactly everyone voting.
And now I feel myself a little autistic because I were not able to tell right-away if this post was meant as a a clever irony or not. 
To answer your question. My criticism was not meant to be argument-filled complex discussion about society and classes, because I find these discussions generally not guiding game development at all. DF developers take general ideas and try to put them inside the framework of the game while not trying to follow every single philosophical implication that it brings along.
My criticism was only meant as a metaphorical *smack* to GoblinCookie's head, because I don't find the guy dumb and I wouldn't even care if GC was dumb. But the problem is that he is very obsessive about certain ideas. And I actually find it kinda fascinating how this obsession leads him to react to things and ideas very specific way. Like in the topic of "Dwarven Social Lives" he brought out some existential ideas he found horrifying and I compared his existential fears to mine concluding that he is probably metaphysical opposite of me 
since, I am also obsessed with different philosophical ideas and ideals, but they are located in opposite spectrum.
I have realised that these obsessions are unhealthy when not controlled. And in case of myself, when I find out that I act on behalf of obsession, I metaphorically smack myself and ask - "Is this me or is this my obsession acting out right-now?" This simple Cognitive-behavioral technique has helped me to find out if my behaviour is unconstructive and save huge amount of my time and energy. Otherwise I fear I might be really annoying person in every social circle
I hope this explained my post and my emotionally motivated need to smack GC while telepathically yelling him that "Hey, you don't have to take these things obnoxiously seriously!"
Certain things in life are quite serious. Taking those things obnoxiously seriously is not being an annoying person in every social circle, it is called being a decent person, to whom other people's miseries are not funny.
Author
Topic: Government Types (Read 31871 times)