On the Treatise of Rule

Every object and concept holds a structure and partakes in a greater structure, with the exception of ''nothing'' and ''everything.'' With so many structures, it is perfectly normal to see them within hierarchies. This holds true for the relation between rulers and those who are ruled, be they minions, slaves, citizens, or servants.  With this article, I will elaborate on my own thoughts on this relationship and what problems and solutions, in the broadest sense, could be found in this concept.

I shall begin with my own views as well as general views upon the relationship between ruler and servant.  I then continue with particular problems that many systems might hold, as well as with the particular problem of how the success of a leader can be his or her own downfall, or at least the subsequent generation(s).
I shall end with how these particular systems can be best applied or adapted to MagicDuel, and I will also end with my own solutions to the last particular problem.

If you wish to know about other writers who talked about such political subjects, one should try the ancient philosophers, such as Plato or Confucius, or more Renaissance-thinkers, such as Machiavelli. The relationship between ruler and servant (1/2)

Great thinkers have talked and written on this subject, all with the purpose of explaining how to be a great leader. I am nothing compared to them, but nonetheless, I shall aspire to be like them. My focus is thus on the ruler and how he should behave.  I shall speak here of a single ruler, as this is a simpler example.

Many leaders have had trouble with their servants: great uprisings, civil wars, revolutions, and other situations. These leaders have failed in my eyes, failed in the aspect that the people had not only questioned their rule, but that they had openly fought against it. The most common cause of this is because the leader has neglected the woes and pains of the servants.
Indeed, the hierarchy of the system of rule is a simple but delicate thing.
The people serve some sort of middle man, like mayors, governors, or generals, and they in turn serve the ruler. The people have to explain their actions to these middle men and have to comply with their will. In turn, the middle men do the same in respect to the ruler.  But the ruler has to do the same in respect to the servants, as dissatisfied servants will vent their rage and frustration on the only one who can be held responsible.

One may think that the ruler may do as he pleases then, as long as the people are not dissatisfied or unhappy. This is false, as people may grow envious of the luxury and power the ruler holds, and will be quick to betray the leader and seize the prize for themselves.  What I say here, then, is how I believe a ruler should behave in respect to one particular goal (there are others, but will not be discussed here). That goal is the to keep his servants loyal and unified.  Mind you, this is not the purpose of a leader (will also not be discussed here).

A leader can be generous, helpful, good and could continuously try to work for the betterment of all the servants. But this does nothing to deter some lone wolves who may betray the ruler, as acts of kindness will not work on the wicked, irrational, or jealous. Being kind to all the servants at the same time is also extremely hard to achieve, as the servants themselves may have differing opinions about who deserves what. A beggar or someone from a different social group would be granted equal treatment by the ruler and some may find this unfair. Conclusively, being kind will not keep servants unified or loyal for certain, nor will it deter any lone wolves. The relationship between ruler and servant (2/2)

A viable solution is to be feared. Fear can certainly keep servants loyal. The ruler can easily use the power he or she wields to instil fear through cruel treatment of servants or enemies, with the certain possibility of future cruelty. But to use fear is to create dissatisfaction amongst the people, with the subsequent result that there will be backlash against the ruler. Besides that, the only way fear could unify servants is if the ruler is detested so much that they rise as one against the ruler.

A question arises. That question was asked by Machiavelli (readers of Machiavelli will have recognized this, but don't worry, this won't all be about him) and it was whether it was better to be loved or to be feared. His answer was that the best solution was to take the best of both and be loved and feared. To do so however is quite difficult. I refer you to http://www.constitution.org/mac/prince17.htm for the chapter in question
To quickly, but perhaps ineffectively, summarize a good solution to finding the balance between fear and love, it is that a ruler should slowly, prudently, and with humility, act to let the servants love him according to their own will and fear according to the ruler's will, as long as he avoids gaining hatred from his servants. Thus cruelty should be aimed at enemies, enemies from within, such as criminals, however they need be approached with consistent prudent consequences.

The most intriguing thing here is the quote he took from Virgil, who spoke in the form of Dido:
Res dura, et regni novitas me talia cogunt
Moliri, et late fines custode tueri
Meaning: Against my will, my fate,
A throne unsettled, and an infant state,
Bid me defend my realms with all my powers,
And guard with these severities my shores

This is where I am actually starting to speak upon something of my own, for I wish to apply this quote that laments on the fate of not just new rulers, but also new states, as these newlings may sometimes need to be exceptionally cruel to protect the integrity of the state or power of the ruler. I wish to apply this quote, and all it implies, onto the new states of MagicDuel and their rulers.

A great example is Khalazdad, first king of Necrovion. He was loved by his servants, he even managed to marry three wives in a realm where emancipation is a given. But he was also revered, which borderlined on fear, as he was liaison to the terrible Shade Sentinel and other masters of Necrovion. Interestingly enough, he found a balance between love and fear, in the way Machiavelli meant it. He did nothing to try to win the love of his people, he simply acted prudently and wisely. Love cannot be taken, it must be received. The fear part was perhaps not his intention, which led to the great advantage of avoiding hatred, or at least some of it, from others. The fear arrived from the seemingly suspected cruelty of the Sentinel. Behold here what I see as an absolutely beautiful example of roleplay and efficiency. Khalazdad, due to his actions in Necrovion, became half-shade and half-human. In doing so, his human side could be loved and his shade side feared, while funneling the hatred to the Sentinel. He acted accordingly and showed either a grey neutral side, a white human side, or a black shade side. This, while it had the greater balance as its main purpose, had the side effect of greatly increasing the effects of being loved and feared at the same time. Systems and their adaptation (1/2)

I will continue here with different systems, different structures of rule, leadership, and hierarchy. I will however, only speak of the systems that have the most perceived success so far. And where applicable, I will analyze that system with a comparable reign in MagicDuel.

Hereditary Rule
One of the earliest forms of government. This is the form of rule where one person holds absolute power and all the middle men simply borrow the power to execute orders. The power switched down to the designated heir, bounded by blood. A good example is a monarchy. The first kings, or chiefs, were, with few exceptions, great leaders in the aspect that they unified their people and could forge a new state. An advantage was that the servants who could identify with the leader, or his or her ethnic, social, or national heritage, would far sooner come to accept and love the leader. Another advantage was that the leader could choose who he or she wanted to be the next leader. The prince, or princess would be loved and feared sooner, taking into mind that the apple does not fall far from the tree. The next leader in the start usually, but not always, had inherited some of the reputation of the former leader, and this could be beneficial. But sometimes this could also end up in worthless leaders being chosen, who could undo almost everything their predecessors worked for. Think of Nero.

In MagicDuel, the only hereditary rule still in play is the dynasty of Khalazdad, with Peace now being the current leader. There is not much to say, except that, in my opinion, the reputation of Khalazdad has helped Peace consolidate her rule. She, however, being named Peace and being very peaceful, is not as fear-inducing as Khalazdad, nor does she hold claim to a fractured being, which could instil fear and gain love. Her forte is love; one would say that her weakness would be that she is not feared. But the deficiency of fear is still adequately being negated due to the nature of being a Necrovion leader, namely being associated with the Shade Sentinel. So far, she is a stable and, in my opinion, she will reign long.

Dictatorship
A variant on the hereditary rule is the dictatorship. Similarly a single person holds all the power, and this person has gained this power through meritocratous means, such as victories in war and charismatic speeches. There are exceptions to this, such as the ancient Roman dictators, who held power for six months in times of extreme danger for the Roman Republic. But after Julius Caesar, who never gave the power back to the senate, dictators have become known for gaining power after killing or destroying the old system of government. It holds the advantage of increased fear and love, but the ruler is also hated by the ones who loved the deposed government.

In MagicDuel there is no real dictatorship, in the sense that the current leaders actively worked to depose the previous leader. There are dictatorships in the sense that they rule alone and hold all the power, though in Golemus, they sometimes rule in pairs. In general there is nothing to add, nor to commend, on any single individual, or individual dictator. They rule predictably, in the way that no one seriously doubts their rule, nor that they are exceptionally loved by all their servants. But seeing as none of them actively worked to remove their predecessor, it means they avoid hatred from their servants. As such, their rule is stable. as well. and. in my opinion, it could be expected that their reign is long. Systems and their adaptation (2/2)

Democracy and Representative Democracy
Democracy entails that the people rule directly. On each pressing case they vote on what action to take. Free speech and freedom of the press is essential to the efficacy of a democracy. This, however, is cumbersome and extremely slow to work in a nation with a large population. It thus had only worked in the ancient city of Athens, with the exception of slaves, females, and men who were not born in Athens or who did not pay their taxes. Representative Democracy removes this problem. The people simply vote on representatives who then make decisions for the ones who voted for them. The same problems still exist, except on a far smaller scale. Decisions could be made too slow, but the risk of a faulty leader, and thus faulty decisions, is smaller.

In MagicDuel, Loreroot is ruled in such a way. A representative democracy, however, when there is a lack of enemies from the outside, could turn on each other, on the rival representatives. While this is not the case in Loreroot, it still remains a liability. Love is easily gained, but fear is not. The rule is more fair than a single ruler, however, as every person has a vote. This could still turn into a tyranny of the majority, however, if the representatives turn on each other. Then it would be akin to a faulty hereditary leader. The effects of such would be akin to being hated by their citizens. Currently, this is not the case in Loreroot and, as such, a long and stable rule is highly plausible. The lack of fear could be compensated by the great love they gain, as well as the spreading of risks that would come with absolute, single rulers.

Mandate
I hear you thinking, "The way people come to power in MagicDuel is not at all like the way that people on Earth gain power." In the way that the rulers in MagicDuel usually get their mandate directly from Muratus del Mur, however, let it be obvious that people who have not proven themselves will have a hard time gaining such a mandate. Muratus del Mur is mostly a non-intervening power, so that also means that via the loyalty systems, power could be wrested away from the original ruler. As such, gaining the approval, love, and fear from the servants is still a goal for the rulers in MagicDuel. A unique problem

I come now to the last page where I wish to discuss a particular problem.
The problem is that the rulers in MagicDuel usually have very few or no outside enemies on whom they could perform cruel deeds. While this is naturally a good thing for the servants, it could pose a problem for the leaders. To be feared is hard and, without enemies, it is difficult to prove yourself as someone who should be feared, if a particular ruler wanted to be feared, that is. To unify your people against a great threat, or an "enemy of the state," is also a problem when there is no enemy. When there is no enemy, the people can easily focus on their own goals. And sometimes this leads to domestic trouble, and the leader is then stuck with having the task of executing punishment within the land's ranks, risking hatred. Should this happens, the people also show themselves to be far less united.

A leader without an enemy could also fall into a dull state and simply focus on his or her own selfish goals. This could lead to a slow but steady decline in power and reputation of the land itself, and the servants could no longer feel any loyalty towards the land and simply leave. I, having witnessed this before, find it absolutely deplorable and it should be avoided at all costs. Thus I give you some solutions.

To ignore the fact that one has almost no enemies and to think that one should just focus on selfish goals instead of the broader goals of the land is, in my opinion, a bad move in. But there is a way one could try to make this work: it is to realize that a leader has to change. The land's goals should become the ruler's goals, or should, at least, share some. This way, the leader or leaders stay up-to-date on what is going on in the land, and they keep their servants loyal and united, as long as there is a clear goal. The goal of course, should not invite hatred, but that should be obvious. Do not be mistaken, though, that line is very thin. If a ruler does the opposite and makes his or her goals the goals of the land, he or she could swiftly, and without noticing it, incur the hatred of the servants who do not wish to follow such a selfish ruler.

There is another option, but it could be seen as ethically wrong, although that is debatable. One could, as a ruler, create a group, person, or object and turn it into an enemy. The land is sure to be united in the face of a common enemy, and while this would allow the ruler to be cruel and gain the love and fear of his or her people, the energy put into it could have been put to use in finding the solution mentioned above. Besides that, this solution, while potentially very effective, is, at the very least, ethically debatable. It is certainly for the good of the land in the aspect that they follow their ruler. But there is always a chance of getting caught in the lie. One must also wonder if the ruler is comfortable with lying to your servants.
Realize thus that the road to hell be paved with good intentions.

While I usually end with a summary of all I have written, I will end with a simple thank you for reading it. And please, let it be clear that I did not intend to slander, make fun of, or damage the reputation of anyone, directly or indirectly, mentioned in this article. If so, I apologize, but these are my own opinions and I would be hard-pressed to edit them.
Hopefully you have enjoyed it, and even though there are better thinkers out there with superior writing skills, I hope you found this article useful.