this post was submitted on 09 Oct 2025
981 points (98.6% liked)

RPGMemes

13936 readers
1208 users here now

Humor, jokes, memes about TTRPGs

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
all 45 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] But_my_mom_says_im_cool@lemmy.world 58 points 2 days ago (1 children)

It’s almost as if the stories of dragons were an allegory for the king or the one sin charge

[–] faythofdragons@slrpnk.net 12 points 1 day ago

I too have played the Shadowrun Returns series

[–] Susaga@sh.itjust.works 110 points 2 days ago (2 children)

I wanna run an adventure where a dragon secretly runs a bank, and nobody can tell because it acts exactly like every other banker.

[–] TheBat@lemmy.world 63 points 2 days ago (1 children)

In Shadowrun universe, many corpos are run by dragons.

[–] Mirshe@lemmy.world 18 points 2 days ago (1 children)

In actuality, most corpos are run by people. Lofwyr, whose corporate umbrella includes 4758 companies, is an outlier and should not have been counted. /s

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 10 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

But Lofwyr literally controls 95% of the GDP with those companies, who are run by his extended family!

[–] spittingimage@lemmy.world 10 points 2 days ago (1 children)

No spoilers, but you should check out the Sword Interval webcomic.

[–] ceenote@lemmy.world 86 points 2 days ago (3 children)

The king answering with anything other than some variation of "Because I ordered you to" broke my immersion.

[–] TheObviousSolution@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 day ago

Ironically, this king was the one exception that was benevolent and fair. The knight, of course, was a member of MAGA - Make Arcadia Great Again.

[–] tetris11@feddit.uk 22 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

One of the reasons I can never stomach Nick Bostrom's Fable of the Dragon Tyrant because it depicts the idea of a stoic king who cares about his people.

(Also, glosses over completely how an ageless soceity would be stacked under feudal-capitalism)

[–] rumschlumpel@feddit.org 15 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Many powerful people like to make people believe (and possibly believe themselves) that they're just rulers. And it's just plainly more effective when your underlings are well-informed of your intentions (assuming you're not trying to set them up). e.g. imagine if the knight thinks that a dragon is a direct threat to the king and burns down the countryside to hunt it (any means necessary etc.), when in reality it's not a direct threat to the king at all and you were just supposed to keep the countryside safe from dragonfire.

Of course, the entire premise is that it's not obvious to the knight why a dragon must be killed and what are acceptable means to achieve that. e.g. in Faerun's Sword Coast, you'd expect that every knight is well-informed about this.

[–] rumschlumpel@feddit.org 43 points 2 days ago

A+ character concept.

[–] Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works 11 points 2 days ago (5 children)

Did kings hoard all the wealth? I thought kings had a monopoly on violence, not necessarily wealth

[–] psud@aussie.zone 5 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Under feudalism the king owned everything. He would delegate some rights to lesser nobles so they would hold and manage lands in his stead, but the king owned everything and everyone

[–] SkunkWorkz@lemmy.world 4 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

While that’s true, kings often went into massive debt to fund a war. Like Edward III borrowed significant sums from Italian banks to fund his wars.

[–] psud@aussie.zone 1 points 1 hour ago

I don't think Edward III was feudal.

[–] Trevita17@lemmy.world 43 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

You need massive amounts of wealth to gain and maintain a monopoly on violence. So they did both.

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 24 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Also if you possess a monopoly on violence wealth is not difficult to obtain

[–] edgemaster72@lemmy.world 14 points 1 day ago

And once you have that wealth you NEED a monopoly on violence to maintain it, which requires more wealth, and so on.

[–] faythofdragons@slrpnk.net 12 points 1 day ago (1 children)

IIRC everything you had was considered to be used by permission of the king. Like, he ostensibly owned everything and was just letting you use it.

[–] m4xie@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

There have been various degrees of absolutely and constitutional monarchies throughout history. One famous example is the limits imposed by the Magna Carta, which only benefited nobles.

There has often been a distinction between royal property and the personal property of the royal family or members of the royal family.

For instance, many of the palaces of the British royal family are national property and Parliament has a say in their use and must provide a budget for their upkeep. The total family privately owns a significant percentage of the rented agricultural land in England, and vast amounts of residential rentals in London.

[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 6 points 2 days ago

Armies are expensive, and war is REALLY expensive.

[–] WanderingThoughts@europe.pub 3 points 2 days ago

The wealth was needed to pay soldiers. You needed soldiers to make sure people did what the king wanted, such as people paying taxes to get wealth. The whole thing with taxes and needing gold as money was basically invented for supporting militia, according to some.

[–] Sam_Bass@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

Here there be

[–] weirdbeardgame@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/-d29z8G6U28 And here this exact post is, animated with the original voice acting!

[–] finitebanjo@piefed.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Well

No

the voice acting comes from a different channel @ZacSpeaksGiant‬ but the animator and him have a mutually beneficial relationship.

[–] weirdbeardgame@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

True, and he does link the source.