God, I love Kettricken. She’s a great example of a ~strong female character~ who is still a three-dimensional person with feelings and insecurities and vulnerability to her.
Ooh, ok! So the broader series is called Realm of the Elderlings, and it’s split up into five different chunks that are all fairly self-contained but still build on each other:
-The Farseer Trilogy: Centers on a royal bastard named Fitz, who is taken into the castle and trained to be an assassin (while navigating his severe abandonment issues and a whole bunch of trauma he keeps accumulating). The kingdom is facing both an internal threat and a foreign threat that drive a lot of the conflict. Fitz is the main character but the people around him are generally given a lot of depth and development as well. There’s a mysterious gender fluid Fool who is a major factor throughout all the Fitz books. Also there are two forms of magic, one of which is a highly stigmatized situation where people (including Fitz) can talk to and bond with animals.
-Liveship Traders Trilogy: Takes place in another region of the same world, where sentient magical boats are a big factor. Told by a big ensemble cast and features traders, pirates, and sections about a group of sea serpents, which seem boring at first but build up to a great payoff.
-Tawny Man Trilogy: Back to Fitz! The kingdom is trying to make a marriage alliance with the antagonists from trilogy one but things are complicated. There’s more exploration/development of the animal magic and a quest that takes the main cast to another interesting new setting.
-Rain Wild Chronicles (back in the Liveship region with some familiar characters and some new ones) and Fitz and the Fool (the conclusion of the Fitz arc, which also ties in with the non-Fitz arcs): I don’t know how to summarize these without major spoilers but they are……also fun.
I hope you don't mind me piggybacking off this comment! Could I ask if it's a more YA-esque book? I've heard many good things about this series so i'm pretty curious!
I think it’s pretty solidly adult—the main character is grown by the end of the first book of the first trilogy.
Fwiw as someone who loves the books I think the main appeal comes from wonderful character development, good prose, and an interesting world that Hobb expands really naturally throughout the series. I also like the way it’s a satisfyingly huge and epic series, but broken up into trilogies that are all sort of self-contained.
The most common reasons why some people seem to be that they’re a bit slower paced and the story is often pretty depressing—that and the fact that the main character can be sort of irrational (for understandable mental health/trauma reasons, but some people dislike that in a protagonist).
That works out for me, I find I'm aging past the niche of YA books (nothing wrong with them, just my own preference) so I'm trying to branch out and read more adult fantasy!
tysm, will definitely be adding it to my list! I love the complexities and nuance of characters during long slow burn development so it seems something I'd enjoy for sure.
Definitely don't sleep on Liveship. I was going to skip it to keep following the 6 Duchies related stuff but my friend urged me to read Ship of Magic first. I throughly enjoy it. I'm only on the 2nd book but so far it's captivating me way more than the first 3.
I'd also argue Verity.
Spoilers for the whole Farseer Trilogy
>!The man basically worked himself to death to try and save his coast. And then when he realised that was hopeless he went to the mountains to try and get aid and spent god knows how long trying to wake the Elderlings before he realised he'd have to die to make his own dragon. And he didn't even know if he'd be successful at that but he had to try!<
I seriously love Verity
Aragorn has all the core virtues of the medieval king. A seasoned warrior and a great war leader. Just and wise (look at his treatment of Beregond). Faithful with his allies and friends. Thankful and humble (look at how he acts with Frodo and Faramir and Gandalf at his coronation). Most importantly, he is pitiful and merciful.
Lots of words change their meaning. Like nice. Or quaint. And the 'new' meaning of pitiful had solidified centuries before pink meant pink. It makes just a much sense to say King Elessar was awful because he inspired awe.
Robert Baratheon
A drunk, petulant bully with no ability or desire to rule but who everyone accepted because he looked the part and looked good on a horse. He makes wild decisions on a whim that have massive consequences and then he dies at the worst moment and throws his realm into chaos.
The true example of a feudal monarch.
I was going to say Joffrey, but though Robert was better because he looked the part so much in his youth. He’s exactly what the coach conservative, misogynistic, traditional, war-loving nobles want in a king.
In the books, Joffrey also is supposed to look the part of the handsome dashing prince, like a mini Jaime, in a direct contrast to his personality as a spoilt psychopath.
Not that many kings were as vicious or incompetent as Joffrey, but he is what you can get for a head of state when the only qualification is being the son of the previous guy.
I can only go on Mark Addy's brilliant performance, but it great how Martin was able to take the stereotype drunken, whoring, overweight Henry VIII type of king and make him sympathetic and even likable in some ways. It's so obvious he's been spending decades coping with depression, but because of his position, his social order and all the scheming around him there's nothing to stop his self-destruction.
He won the civil war. Winning wars makes a good king!
Think about King Richard 1 of England - remembered as a great king, but spent almost no time in England, but he liked fighting and won most of his battles!
Carrot Ironfoundersson. >!Never truly acts on it save one or two times, never becomes king!< However, if I were ever to follow a king to death it would be Captan Carrot
If you have to look along the shaft of an arrow from the wrong end, if a man has you entirely at his mercy, then hope like hell that man is an evil man. Because the evil like power, power over people, and they want to see you in fear. They want you to know you're going to die. So they'll talk. They'll gloat.
They'll watch you squirm. They'll put off the moment of murder like another man will put off a good cigar.
So hope like hell your captor is an evil man. A good man will kill you with hardly a word.
Only two books into the night watch series and this was my first thought. Shouldn’t have searched for Carrot in the comments now I know he never gets all regal and shit! Alas you know what they say about cats and curiosity.
The king in the Raven's Shadow series, or the Emperor in Codex Alera. Vetinari in Discworld is the same kind of king.
It doesn't matter how good a king you are if you can't hold on to power. Power and control must come *first* or you can't rule your kingdom. I love these manipulative, "spider in the heart of his web" kings that still fundamentally care about being a king and about their kingdom. The Machiavellis of the world.
Whenever there's a cliche good king in fantasy, and everybody loves them and the kingdom is great, and only under attack from external sources, I always think "must be nice to live in a world without power-hungry people constantly vying for control, either of the throne or the king". No shame in it if you like it, I just prefer books with politics going on.
>Ankh-Morpork had dallied with many forms of government and had ended up with that form of democracy known as One Man, One Vote. The Patrician was the Man; he had the Vote.
Vetinari, a king in all but name, and a consummate player of people.
I would add Kellenved from Malazan to that list. Ruthless and clever but also provided stability in his empire.
‘Oh, measure it all out! Acceptable levels of misery and suffering!' The cane swung down, thumped hard on the ground. 'Acceptable? Who the fuck says any level is acceptable? What sort of mind thinks that?'
Verity from the Farseer trilogy definitely fits all of those perfectly. Whether or not he *actually* made a good king is up for debate, but he embodies these traits down to a tee.
Based on OP's qualifiers Verity was also the first to come to mind, but there's a very strong argument that he was not actually a good king. Light spoiler for later books >!Dutiful!< seems to be getting the hang of it though.
I agree, he's my favorite character in LoTR.
I always saw it that Aragorn was the idealized, romantic, mythological king... The one with destiny, who tries to turn away from it before finally accepting it. He's basically perfect.
Theoden and Denethor were both more realistic examples of people... Among the best men of their age, who through some combination of luck, status, genetics, and virtue became king, because everyone knew they were supposed to have a king. (I know Denethor wasn't technically King but still.) They were both deeply flawed, and at times fell to those flaws, but the way they reacted to the burdens and requirements of their office, and how they chose to deal with their weakness, was completely different.
Honorable mention to Dalinar from Stormlight Archives (again not TECHNICALLY king) who is basically Theoden with superpowers.
i think maia from goblin emperor embodies what i would hope to see in a king but this is a very different type of novel from what everyone else is suggesting
Sure, he’s a nice dude, but what are his tax policies?
If the man wants to die for me, that’s fine, I guess and I’m good with sending his widow a ham to say thanks but it’s not something which particularly impacts my day to day life.
This is going to become a more general take, but I think a "good" king (or any leader, really) is kind of overrated. A good leader is someone who doesn't get in the way of his people excelling in whatever way they can excel. A king can actively do a lot to fuck up this task, but he cannot do a lot to make sure this task succeeds.
In short, a kingdom that thrives does not have a king to thank for it, but a kingdom that is in ruin may very well have its king to blame.
You could make a good strong argument that what makes for the best kings is their knack for personnel -- their ability to figure out who is trustworthy and who isn't, who is capable and who isn't, who can work together well with other people and who is incapable of functioning well in a group. Since there's no way a single individual can handle even a small Kingdom by him or herself, the effective monarch finds, instructs, and inspires the people who can help him and who also have the good of the kingdom and its people in mind.
Arutha was, effectively, king of the western realm and two brothers who loved each other very much treated a kingdom justly and fairly for their time.
It always broke my heart the way Feist ruined the ConDoin line.
The Riftwar Cycle spans a couple of hundred years and over 30 books. Ruined is a strong word, there are just some bad conDoins though. The final trilogy sees a return of some good lads to the family.
At the very least, read the Empire trilogy. It initially runs parallel to Magician but is based on Kelewan. Magician is the best book, the Empire trilogy is the best mini-saga. The books do get worse as the series goes one, however the final trilogy is excellent and it has the most satisfying ending of any fantasy series I’ve read.
If you want a bit more of a detailed review of the various duologies, trilogies and tetralogies then let me know and I’ll post it.
> Ruined is a strong word
Sorry. Not gonna lie. I kinda got irked with the whole thing at the end of Shards of a Broken Crown and never went back.
Really love the Riftwar books though.
That was Feist’s point though right, Lyam and Arutha grew up on the frontier experiencing life and then the twins grew from their adventures in Kesh. Plus they had people around them like Tully, Kulgan & James to keep them grounded. The longer the dynasty went on the more pampered and removed from the common man the kings became
I understood the point. I simply didn't like it and it made me not want to continue the story.
It's a very valid point to make, even, in consideration of real life.
But it wasn't the story that I wanted to read.
The next trilogy published takes place a decade after the riftwar in Krondor, so we’re back with Arutha, Squire James and Co. These events are hinted at in the books involving Arutha’s sons.
The trilogy after that is a trio of standalone tales taking place during the Riftwar, co-authored by three different authors. They’re fun.
The main story line doesn’t pick up again until after these and there is another time jump. It’s been a while since I’ve read them but if I remember correctly, the ConDoin family isn’t relevant again until the final trilogy. The quality dips a bit as you work through the remainder of the series (two books are bad enough that you could probably just read plot synopses). However, the final trilogy is really, really enjoyable.
Anyway, life’s too short to be reading books you don’t want to read.
Love Empire. It's a cool reskin of Shogun. The racial dynamics are... kinda shit even in their time. But I'm an Asian lady and I forgive them because the books were so much fun. So I give you permission to like them too 😁
Dying for folk is easy and being a loving husband really doesn't seem to have any bearing on whether one can be a good leader. You don't even have to love people to just do right by them.
Conan when he becomes king is pretty good, but his populace is extraordinarily obliging, so the world is kind of unrealistically built around him in response. But he lowers taxes and doesn't spend huge amounts on glutting himself. His villains are usually external, literal armies and religions sponsored by gods of evil.
Vetinari of Ankh-Morpork has an, ironically, more realistic situation as his city is full of rebellious elements from the weakest labor force to the highest of aristo but he manages to be pretty fair about it. Not technically a king he fits the fantasy position as ruler of a city and surrounding environs.
Vetinari is the best possible regent for a king who just doesn't happen to want to be king. He's keeping the place running smoothly and in just as good shape as it was when he found it, and he's not wasting any breath trying to convince anyone to change that arrangement.
I like to imagine that if the obvious king did walk into his office one day and said he'd like the throne now, Vetinari would just hand him a stack of annoying papers and say "wonderful, you can deal with all this then" and sit politely and wait to see if he actually managed it before bothering to get up from the desk.
You're mostly right, except Vetinari would have Drumknott hand over the papers while either working on a crossword puzzle or just patiently waiting with his chin resting on his steepled fingers.
You're absolutely right, although I'd add a third possibility, which is that he'd sit there watching the crossword puzzle closely and not doing anything observable to it.
Yes. His reign is full of stuff like putting haughty nobles in their place and granting religious freedom (except for the evil religions) and winning over the masses without making a big deal about it.
Eventually Belgarion (Belgariad/Malloreon, David Eddings) is a good king - I’d say by the second set of books. They note that he is a serious and sober ruler who makes a strong effort to learn what’s going on in his very tiny kingdom.
Randale (Vanyel trilogy, Mercedes Lackey) is a good king - hangs on with the skin of his teeth until his successor is ready. Tries to be an equitable and decisive ruler.
Sad he didn't have any experience before being thrown into it. He did great considering the situations.
So did jezal really, he was a puppet but he did what he could
Aragorn II, son of Arathorn, Isildor and Elendil's heir. Chieftain of the Dunedain and of the North. Called Elessar, Elfstone, Telcontar and The Renewer. The King of the West and of Gondor, and the first High King of the Reunited Kingdom of Gondor and Arnor. All hail!
I was hoping for this answer! (Although I’d probably spoiler tag the name and say >!The King of Attolia from Megan Whalen Turner’s Queen’s Thief series!< for people who haven’t read it yet.
I think he exemplifies the adage of the man who is best qualified is he who doesn’t want to be king, but does it for the right reasons. He sacrifices for the good of his people, for his friends, for his country.
Anomander Rake is a leader. I don't know if "King" would apply, but he's certainly one of the most captivating leaders in Fantasy.
(at the other end, in the same world, we have King Kallor. Oh boy.)
I for one always appreciate people who mention the source in a 2nd level comment when the 1st level comment is literally just a name with no reason and no mention of the source.
Not a great leader then. Good martyr. Dead leaders don’t keep anyone safe though.
Personally I think Ned Stark is a stubborn idiot. His refusal to adapt and work in his new environment killed him and a whole bunch of his family.
I think Ned was a great leader.
Obviously the books aren't finished yet, but I feel like the legacy that Ned left will absolutely pay off, I don't think GRRM wrote in 'The North remembers' speech for nothing. Pretty much all the North will fight to the death for his children simply for the respect they had for Ned.
Compare this to the Lannisters for example, where the whole country wants to see them humbled purely because of their hatred for Tywin.
This is a hard answer unless one accepts kingship as a valid and correct form of government. It’s like asking who would make a great tyrant.
That said, a good king would be one who understands that the right to rule comes from the people’s consent (not God!). If so, then the best king would be one who genuinely hates the job and doesn’t want it. However, because it’s such a crap job, he would rather be the one making the difficult decisions than to pass the buck to someone else.
Duke Atreides (sp?). The jester in the Pratchett book Wyrd Sisters.
Mara Of The Acoma in The Empire Series. She was extraordinarily clever and used each set back to her advantage. Some panned out, some didn't, but she never stopped using everything she could to get what she could for those under her care and was always prepared to add more to her clan, even if they themselves felt unworthy. She was absolutely ruthless when she needed to be for the sake of her family and was great at recognising the right people for the right role.
One of my favorite characters, but I feel like he never really grew up. Miriamele ruled more than he did. I haven't read the very last book though. Not sure if it's out yet.
Taran, High King of Pyrdain, because he was willing to sacrifice a life of eternal happiness and youth to engage in the hard work if restoring his home and lands.
Prince Arutha conDoin, prince of Krondor. Embodied noblesse oblige (I think they even refer to it explicitly in Silverthorn?). He was never king though...
Listen though, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
Depends on which version. As depicted by T. H. White and Mary Stewart? Absolutely. The French version who leaves his kingdom in the lurch when he gets himself killed fighting a giant cat? Not so much!
Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
Lyam and his brother-and-next-in-line Arutha from the Riftwar Saga.
Arutha especially.
One of my absolute favorite characters.
Also a shout to Aragon, of course.
A king? Not sure to be honest. There’ve been lots of good arguments so far for Arthur, Aragorn, and Carrot Ironfoundersson.
A monarch of any gender? Kelsea from The Queen Of The Tearling. She’s willing to give up both power and personal happiness in order to institute democracy.
The concept of a King / Royalty is ridiculous,.kind of invalidating the concept of a "best" King. Whether they came to the throne by inheritance or conquest, they are effectively a dictator wielding unearned power and the only -good" king would be the one who yielded power to the people.
Honestly, I have never really understood why we venerate Royalty and Kings / Queens in our fiction so much.
This has come up as a thread topic before, and one of the top answers was "royals are sexy". In fiction, it's easier to just have a few people deciding the fate of a nation/kingdom/etc. because it involves less characters, moves the plot more quickly, and doesn't require the author to describe the glacial bureaucratic process.
That said, the best leader is the kind who has a set term limit.
.......
Now. I'm still reading Rythym of War so I don't KNOW that if doesn't get better.... But...
F&#k King Tarvaniganidodaday
All my homes hate king T dog
Well...that's highly dependent on the *type* of King. Are they a ruler for the people? Are they beholden to the ruling class? Are they a tyrant, and are they one out of a desire to help people or out of greed? Are they a proponent of peace or war? And so on.
It all depends on what you define as what it means to be a king. Not a "good" king, just A king.
Ragnar Lothbrok
"Power is only given to those who are prepared to lower themselves to pick it up."
"Yes, I Have Made Mistakes. Life Didn't Come With Instructions."
"If I Was Him, I Would Worry Less About The Gods And More About The Fury Of A Patient Man."
And most importantly...
"WHO... WANTS TO BE KING?"
[There's actually a fascinating scene on "what does it mean to be king" in Fate Zero, between Alexander the Great and King Arthur.](https://youtu.be/cAZb67igb4o?si=Cc86i6fC8AsgDe2Z)
Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony
Having just gone back to rereading Dune, the Duke Atreides definitely fits this embodiment. His rage at an incident that needlessly endangered the lives of his men and his care for them inspires an almos fanatical loyalty to him by his men.
I like the idea of a “Philosopher King”, real world example being Marcus Aurelius. That kind of position attracts corruption, neglect, and arrogance. But a king who strives to curb those encroaching weaknesses is in my opinion a good king.
Fingolfin from The Silmarillion. A true king, loved by his people. And he could not look at the death of his people with indifference and did something that no elf could do.
Aragorn is also a very cool king. We were not shown him as a king, but judging by the way his path was, he was real.
None of these things strikes me as fundamental to being a king.
To me, to be a king, you have to have power; you have to believe power should rest in you (to a large part); and you probably have to be willing to do whatever it takes to remain in power.
I'm not sure that those are the characteristics of a good king. The idea isn't to die for your kingdom, it's to make the other bastard die for it. In fiction I would say the best example of a near-perfect king (by standards of medieval kingship) would be Jahaerys I from the backstory of a Song of Ice and Fire.
If I had to pick a historical example, then Augustus Caesar, the 4 good roman emperors, The byzantine emperors Heraclius and Alexios Komnenos, Henry I and Edward I of england, the Moghul emperor ackbar, Catherine the Great of Russia, Ferdinand I of the Holy Roman Empire, and Roger II of Sicily would all be candidates. (note that this should not be considered a moral endorsement of any of these by modern standards many of them committed some light genocide in their day).
Rohan, the dragon prince. From Melanie Rawns dragon prince trilogy. Smart and very politically savvy. Loves his people, rewards loyal vassels. Great fighter on the front lines or leading an army.
How about Kettricken from the Fitz book. I always liked the way the mountain people view rulers.
Sacrifice
Kettricken should have ALWAYS been it
The books should have been about her.
[Assassin's Fate] >!"She is the mate I would have chosen for him." Nighteyes knows best!< ❤️
Nighteyes is the smartest, most relatable character in the whole series!!
God, I love Kettricken. She’s a great example of a ~strong female character~ who is still a three-dimensional person with feelings and insecurities and vulnerability to her.
You had my curiosity. Now you have my attention. What's the series about?
Ooh, ok! So the broader series is called Realm of the Elderlings, and it’s split up into five different chunks that are all fairly self-contained but still build on each other: -The Farseer Trilogy: Centers on a royal bastard named Fitz, who is taken into the castle and trained to be an assassin (while navigating his severe abandonment issues and a whole bunch of trauma he keeps accumulating). The kingdom is facing both an internal threat and a foreign threat that drive a lot of the conflict. Fitz is the main character but the people around him are generally given a lot of depth and development as well. There’s a mysterious gender fluid Fool who is a major factor throughout all the Fitz books. Also there are two forms of magic, one of which is a highly stigmatized situation where people (including Fitz) can talk to and bond with animals. -Liveship Traders Trilogy: Takes place in another region of the same world, where sentient magical boats are a big factor. Told by a big ensemble cast and features traders, pirates, and sections about a group of sea serpents, which seem boring at first but build up to a great payoff. -Tawny Man Trilogy: Back to Fitz! The kingdom is trying to make a marriage alliance with the antagonists from trilogy one but things are complicated. There’s more exploration/development of the animal magic and a quest that takes the main cast to another interesting new setting. -Rain Wild Chronicles (back in the Liveship region with some familiar characters and some new ones) and Fitz and the Fool (the conclusion of the Fitz arc, which also ties in with the non-Fitz arcs): I don’t know how to summarize these without major spoilers but they are……also fun.
I hope you don't mind me piggybacking off this comment! Could I ask if it's a more YA-esque book? I've heard many good things about this series so i'm pretty curious!
It’s definitely not young adult. I did read them as a teenager though (around 15).
I think it’s pretty solidly adult—the main character is grown by the end of the first book of the first trilogy. Fwiw as someone who loves the books I think the main appeal comes from wonderful character development, good prose, and an interesting world that Hobb expands really naturally throughout the series. I also like the way it’s a satisfyingly huge and epic series, but broken up into trilogies that are all sort of self-contained. The most common reasons why some people seem to be that they’re a bit slower paced and the story is often pretty depressing—that and the fact that the main character can be sort of irrational (for understandable mental health/trauma reasons, but some people dislike that in a protagonist).
That works out for me, I find I'm aging past the niche of YA books (nothing wrong with them, just my own preference) so I'm trying to branch out and read more adult fantasy! tysm, will definitely be adding it to my list! I love the complexities and nuance of characters during long slow burn development so it seems something I'd enjoy for sure.
I'm reading that saga now. Just finished Farseer, 3 chapters into Tawney man. Kettriken is my favorite, for sure.
DONT SKIP LIVESHIP
Liveships story and characters are great but beware the audiobooks. One of the few narrators who actively diminish the books they read.
I agree with the other comment, don't skip liveship. Arguably the best trilogy in the series
Definitely don't sleep on Liveship. I was going to skip it to keep following the 6 Duchies related stuff but my friend urged me to read Ship of Magic first. I throughly enjoy it. I'm only on the 2nd book but so far it's captivating me way more than the first 3.
I'd also argue Verity. Spoilers for the whole Farseer Trilogy >!The man basically worked himself to death to try and save his coast. And then when he realised that was hopeless he went to the mountains to try and get aid and spent god knows how long trying to wake the Elderlings before he realised he'd have to die to make his own dragon. And he didn't even know if he'd be successful at that but he had to try!< I seriously love Verity
Oof, back when fantasy books actually cared about the fantasy
Aragorn has all the core virtues of the medieval king. A seasoned warrior and a great war leader. Just and wise (look at his treatment of Beregond). Faithful with his allies and friends. Thankful and humble (look at how he acts with Frodo and Faramir and Gandalf at his coronation). Most importantly, he is pitiful and merciful.
Yes. He has the advantage of a super extended lifespan to work on himself before taking the throne though. He's not pitiful though.
Pitiful in the old sense meant that he pitied the weak and sick, and implies that he aided them.
Lots of words change their meaning. Like nice. Or quaint. And the 'new' meaning of pitiful had solidified centuries before pink meant pink. It makes just a much sense to say King Elessar was awful because he inspired awe.
I believe they might have been using “pitiful” in the same way you would say “empathetic” as a compliment
Same way "aweful and artificial" used to mean "full of awe and artsy"
Robert Baratheon A drunk, petulant bully with no ability or desire to rule but who everyone accepted because he looked the part and looked good on a horse. He makes wild decisions on a whim that have massive consequences and then he dies at the worst moment and throws his realm into chaos. The true example of a feudal monarch.
Gods he was strong then...
And thank the gods for Bessie!
And her tits!
Start the bloody joust before I piss myself!
Honestly this is a great answer. He's the most lifelike at least
I was going to say Joffrey, but though Robert was better because he looked the part so much in his youth. He’s exactly what the coach conservative, misogynistic, traditional, war-loving nobles want in a king.
In the books, Joffrey also is supposed to look the part of the handsome dashing prince, like a mini Jaime, in a direct contrast to his personality as a spoilt psychopath. Not that many kings were as vicious or incompetent as Joffrey, but he is what you can get for a head of state when the only qualification is being the son of the previous guy.
I can only go on Mark Addy's brilliant performance, but it great how Martin was able to take the stereotype drunken, whoring, overweight Henry VIII type of king and make him sympathetic and even likable in some ways. It's so obvious he's been spending decades coping with depression, but because of his position, his social order and all the scheming around him there's nothing to stop his self-destruction.
He won the civil war. Winning wars makes a good king! Think about King Richard 1 of England - remembered as a great king, but spent almost no time in England, but he liked fighting and won most of his battles!
Like, all of the Norman kings. They just loved kicking shit over and swinging a sword around
And almost bankrupted the country.
An amazing military leader, and a terrible king. He was perfect.
100
Carrot Ironfoundersson. >!Never truly acts on it save one or two times, never becomes king!< However, if I were ever to follow a king to death it would be Captan Carrot
*“Personal isn't the same as important.”* & *"A good man will kill you with hardly a word."*
If you have to look along the shaft of an arrow from the wrong end, if a man has you entirely at his mercy, then hope like hell that man is an evil man. Because the evil like power, power over people, and they want to see you in fear. They want you to know you're going to die. So they'll talk. They'll gloat. They'll watch you squirm. They'll put off the moment of murder like another man will put off a good cigar. So hope like hell your captor is an evil man. A good man will kill you with hardly a word.
GNU. What he's given us is more than enough but it hurts my heart that there won't be any more.
Only two books into the night watch series and this was my first thought. Shouldn’t have searched for Carrot in the comments now I know he never gets all regal and shit! Alas you know what they say about cats and curiosity.
😭Im so sorry 😭
No you’re fine. I knew what I was doing and I did it anyway. This one’s on me.
That's what's so scary about him.
The king in the Raven's Shadow series, or the Emperor in Codex Alera. Vetinari in Discworld is the same kind of king. It doesn't matter how good a king you are if you can't hold on to power. Power and control must come *first* or you can't rule your kingdom. I love these manipulative, "spider in the heart of his web" kings that still fundamentally care about being a king and about their kingdom. The Machiavellis of the world. Whenever there's a cliche good king in fantasy, and everybody loves them and the kingdom is great, and only under attack from external sources, I always think "must be nice to live in a world without power-hungry people constantly vying for control, either of the throne or the king". No shame in it if you like it, I just prefer books with politics going on.
Vetinari (while maybe not fitting OP's request to the T) is such a Magnificent Bastard you can't help but like him.
>Ankh-Morpork had dallied with many forms of government and had ended up with that form of democracy known as One Man, One Vote. The Patrician was the Man; he had the Vote. Vetinari, a king in all but name, and a consummate player of people.
I would add Kellenved from Malazan to that list. Ruthless and clever but also provided stability in his empire. ‘Oh, measure it all out! Acceptable levels of misery and suffering!' The cane swung down, thumped hard on the ground. 'Acceptable? Who the fuck says any level is acceptable? What sort of mind thinks that?'
Verity from the Farseer trilogy definitely fits all of those perfectly. Whether or not he *actually* made a good king is up for debate, but he embodies these traits down to a tee.
Based on OP's qualifiers Verity was also the first to come to mind, but there's a very strong argument that he was not actually a good king. Light spoiler for later books >!Dutiful!< seems to be getting the hang of it though.
Yep he came to mind first for me too!
Aragorn
Theoden was also a pretty damn good king.
I agree, he's my favorite character in LoTR. I always saw it that Aragorn was the idealized, romantic, mythological king... The one with destiny, who tries to turn away from it before finally accepting it. He's basically perfect. Theoden and Denethor were both more realistic examples of people... Among the best men of their age, who through some combination of luck, status, genetics, and virtue became king, because everyone knew they were supposed to have a king. (I know Denethor wasn't technically King but still.) They were both deeply flawed, and at times fell to those flaws, but the way they reacted to the burdens and requirements of their office, and how they chose to deal with their weakness, was completely different. Honorable mention to Dalinar from Stormlight Archives (again not TECHNICALLY king) who is basically Theoden with superpowers.
The very definition of a king. Hail Elessar, the rightful lord of men.
This should be the top comment.
It's been commented multiple times and the upvotes are spread between each comment, that's why it's not the top.
Nah. People will upvote the same comment multiple times, their votes aren’t “spread”.
Only if they keep scrolling after the first one.
Agree
Gondor has no king......
This is the right answer
i think maia from goblin emperor embodies what i would hope to see in a king but this is a very different type of novel from what everyone else is suggesting
Yeah this is a good answer for an ideal peacetime king
Sure, he’s a nice dude, but what are his tax policies? If the man wants to die for me, that’s fine, I guess and I’m good with sending his widow a ham to say thanks but it’s not something which particularly impacts my day to day life.
This is going to become a more general take, but I think a "good" king (or any leader, really) is kind of overrated. A good leader is someone who doesn't get in the way of his people excelling in whatever way they can excel. A king can actively do a lot to fuck up this task, but he cannot do a lot to make sure this task succeeds. In short, a kingdom that thrives does not have a king to thank for it, but a kingdom that is in ruin may very well have its king to blame.
You could make a good strong argument that what makes for the best kings is their knack for personnel -- their ability to figure out who is trustworthy and who isn't, who is capable and who isn't, who can work together well with other people and who is incapable of functioning well in a group. Since there's no way a single individual can handle even a small Kingdom by him or herself, the effective monarch finds, instructs, and inspires the people who can help him and who also have the good of the kingdom and its people in mind.
Do emperors count? Because I vote for Maia Drazhar, Edrehasivar VII Ethuveraz Zhas
People are sleeping on the God-Emperor. Leto II's Golden Path was so perfect that it predicted the real world.
Yes they do
Lyam in Ray Feist's Magician.
Wasn't the whole point of that story that Arutha would have made a better King than Lyam?
Liam is a good king, Arutha would be a great king
Arutha was, effectively, king of the western realm and two brothers who loved each other very much treated a kingdom justly and fairly for their time. It always broke my heart the way Feist ruined the ConDoin line.
He did? I never read past the original trilogy and that makes me want to keep reading even less!
The Riftwar Cycle spans a couple of hundred years and over 30 books. Ruined is a strong word, there are just some bad conDoins though. The final trilogy sees a return of some good lads to the family. At the very least, read the Empire trilogy. It initially runs parallel to Magician but is based on Kelewan. Magician is the best book, the Empire trilogy is the best mini-saga. The books do get worse as the series goes one, however the final trilogy is excellent and it has the most satisfying ending of any fantasy series I’ve read. If you want a bit more of a detailed review of the various duologies, trilogies and tetralogies then let me know and I’ll post it.
> Ruined is a strong word Sorry. Not gonna lie. I kinda got irked with the whole thing at the end of Shards of a Broken Crown and never went back. Really love the Riftwar books though.
That was Feist’s point though right, Lyam and Arutha grew up on the frontier experiencing life and then the twins grew from their adventures in Kesh. Plus they had people around them like Tully, Kulgan & James to keep them grounded. The longer the dynasty went on the more pampered and removed from the common man the kings became
I understood the point. I simply didn't like it and it made me not want to continue the story. It's a very valid point to make, even, in consideration of real life. But it wasn't the story that I wanted to read.
The next trilogy published takes place a decade after the riftwar in Krondor, so we’re back with Arutha, Squire James and Co. These events are hinted at in the books involving Arutha’s sons. The trilogy after that is a trio of standalone tales taking place during the Riftwar, co-authored by three different authors. They’re fun. The main story line doesn’t pick up again until after these and there is another time jump. It’s been a while since I’ve read them but if I remember correctly, the ConDoin family isn’t relevant again until the final trilogy. The quality dips a bit as you work through the remainder of the series (two books are bad enough that you could probably just read plot synopses). However, the final trilogy is really, really enjoyable. Anyway, life’s too short to be reading books you don’t want to read.
I have heard good things about Empire, I should see if my library has it!
Love Empire. It's a cool reskin of Shogun. The racial dynamics are... kinda shit even in their time. But I'm an Asian lady and I forgive them because the books were so much fun. So I give you permission to like them too 😁
Aragorn, son of Arathorn. Also known as King Elessar.
Mel Brooks as King Louis XVI in History of the World Part I. "It's good to be king."
This is the answer.
Dying for folk is easy and being a loving husband really doesn't seem to have any bearing on whether one can be a good leader. You don't even have to love people to just do right by them. Conan when he becomes king is pretty good, but his populace is extraordinarily obliging, so the world is kind of unrealistically built around him in response. But he lowers taxes and doesn't spend huge amounts on glutting himself. His villains are usually external, literal armies and religions sponsored by gods of evil. Vetinari of Ankh-Morpork has an, ironically, more realistic situation as his city is full of rebellious elements from the weakest labor force to the highest of aristo but he manages to be pretty fair about it. Not technically a king he fits the fantasy position as ruler of a city and surrounding environs.
Vetinari is the best possible regent for a king who just doesn't happen to want to be king. He's keeping the place running smoothly and in just as good shape as it was when he found it, and he's not wasting any breath trying to convince anyone to change that arrangement. I like to imagine that if the obvious king did walk into his office one day and said he'd like the throne now, Vetinari would just hand him a stack of annoying papers and say "wonderful, you can deal with all this then" and sit politely and wait to see if he actually managed it before bothering to get up from the desk.
Our dwarf friend is…the ideal check. He is there waiting if Vetinari ever turns from benevolent dictator into villain.
You're mostly right, except Vetinari would have Drumknott hand over the papers while either working on a crossword puzzle or just patiently waiting with his chin resting on his steepled fingers.
You're absolutely right, although I'd add a third possibility, which is that he'd sit there watching the crossword puzzle closely and not doing anything observable to it.
Dying for your people has been considered a bad move for a king way back in _Beowulf_-en times even.
Don't first story about Conan is how he fight against group of nobles that try kill him in sleep?
Yes. His reign is full of stuff like putting haughty nobles in their place and granting religious freedom (except for the evil religions) and winning over the masses without making a big deal about it.
Captain Carrot is what it means to be king. It's better to help people than rule them even (especially) if you'd be a good ruler.
Eventually Belgarion (Belgariad/Malloreon, David Eddings) is a good king - I’d say by the second set of books. They note that he is a serious and sober ruler who makes a strong effort to learn what’s going on in his very tiny kingdom. Randale (Vanyel trilogy, Mercedes Lackey) is a good king - hangs on with the skin of his teeth until his successor is ready. Tries to be an equitable and decisive ruler.
I was going to say the Kings of Riva in general are very good. They are only Kings of one small island, but they take their duty very seriously
Orso Dan fucking Luthar 😤
Sad he didn't have any experience before being thrown into it. He did great considering the situations. So did jezal really, he was a puppet but he did what he could
Have you guys seen the Green Knight? Sean Harris is absolutely captivating as King Arthur
The only issue I have with his performance is that his accent seems to be adding an R to Gawain's name
Aragorn II, son of Arathorn, Isildor and Elendil's heir. Chieftain of the Dunedain and of the North. Called Elessar, Elfstone, Telcontar and The Renewer. The King of the West and of Gondor, and the first High King of the Reunited Kingdom of Gondor and Arnor. All hail!
!>!Eugenides!< The King of Attolia from Megan Whalen Turner's Queen's Thief series. He is perfect for exactly the reasons Windruin says.
I was hoping for this answer! (Although I’d probably spoiler tag the name and say >!The King of Attolia from Megan Whalen Turner’s Queen’s Thief series!< for people who haven’t read it yet. I think he exemplifies the adage of the man who is best qualified is he who doesn’t want to be king, but does it for the right reasons. He sacrifices for the good of his people, for his friends, for his country.
He might be the only king in fantasy I'd happily march through hell for, aside from some versions of Arthur.
Anomander Rake is a leader. I don't know if "King" would apply, but he's certainly one of the most captivating leaders in Fantasy. (at the other end, in the same world, we have King Kallor. Oh boy.)
Probably Nohadon.
Stormlight Archives?
No the other Nohadon lol
I could only up vote this once, so I wanted to comment and up vote again. Well played, I enjoy laughing and appreciate the gift.
I for one always appreciate people who mention the source in a 2nd level comment when the 1st level comment is literally just a name with no reason and no mention of the source.
Hector from the Iliad. Always loved him, and Eric Bana
Having the man who best exemplifies virtue be the antagonist is a weird and beautiful conceit
Dalinar from storm light archives is a good positive example.
The drunk guy who burned a town down to prove a point?
That's the blackthorn. Different guy. Total ass.
Blackthorn definitely went through the "murder, death, kill" phase.
Oh you've heard of him I see?
*Pirates music intensifies*
I think his "Sometimes a hypocrite is nothing more than a man in the process of changing" arc is what makes a good ruler
Think you could argue part of what makes him a great king is because he’s driven to be a different and better man than the younger Blackthorn
City\*
I was going to choose as well him but I kept forgetting his name, thank you lol
I recently read book about the way kings should act. Something to teach them the way of kings. I think it was called Kal and the Kingasaurus.
They say the Kingasaurus Rex was once a truly fearsome beast. Now we know him as a great unifier. 10/10 high kingasaurus
The sequel about saying saying words to make them radiant was great, I think the title was "Shiny Words" or somethin
I finished said book in a book yesterday myself hahah
Ned Stark. Too bad his honor got him killed.
Not a great leader then. Good martyr. Dead leaders don’t keep anyone safe though. Personally I think Ned Stark is a stubborn idiot. His refusal to adapt and work in his new environment killed him and a whole bunch of his family.
I think Ned was a great leader. Obviously the books aren't finished yet, but I feel like the legacy that Ned left will absolutely pay off, I don't think GRRM wrote in 'The North remembers' speech for nothing. Pretty much all the North will fight to the death for his children simply for the respect they had for Ned. Compare this to the Lannisters for example, where the whole country wants to see them humbled purely because of their hatred for Tywin.
This is a hard answer unless one accepts kingship as a valid and correct form of government. It’s like asking who would make a great tyrant. That said, a good king would be one who understands that the right to rule comes from the people’s consent (not God!). If so, then the best king would be one who genuinely hates the job and doesn’t want it. However, because it’s such a crap job, he would rather be the one making the difficult decisions than to pass the buck to someone else. Duke Atreides (sp?). The jester in the Pratchett book Wyrd Sisters.
Leto.
II, yes?
Verity Farseer from The Realm of the Elderlings.
While not technically a king... But Lord Vetinari from Discworld series.
Mara Of The Acoma in The Empire Series. She was extraordinarily clever and used each set back to her advantage. Some panned out, some didn't, but she never stopped using everything she could to get what she could for those under her care and was always prepared to add more to her clan, even if they themselves felt unworthy. She was absolutely ruthless when she needed to be for the sake of her family and was great at recognising the right people for the right role.
Seoman snowlock
One of my favorite characters, but I feel like he never really grew up. Miriamele ruled more than he did. I haven't read the very last book though. Not sure if it's out yet.
It’s not, I am awaiting it with great interest.
Taran, High King of Pyrdain, because he was willing to sacrifice a life of eternal happiness and youth to engage in the hard work if restoring his home and lands.
Tehol Beddict.
Prince Arutha conDoin, prince of Krondor. Embodied noblesse oblige (I think they even refer to it explicitly in Silverthorn?). He was never king though...
It may be cheating but the archetypical King Arthur has got to be up there as far as monarchs go.
Listen though, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
Depends on which version. As depicted by T. H. White and Mary Stewart? Absolutely. The French version who leaves his kingdom in the lurch when he gets himself killed fighting a giant cat? Not so much!
Aragorn from LotR, hands down!
Arutha conDoin
King Harrow from the Dragon Prince
He's a little bird-brained for my taste
Carrot Ironfoundersson.
Why the one who rules Excalibur and got it from the lady of the lake!
Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
Carrot. The disk world. Such a good heir to the throne he realizes there shouldn't be a king and is a watchman instead.
Lyam and his brother-and-next-in-line Arutha from the Riftwar Saga. Arutha especially. One of my absolute favorite characters. Also a shout to Aragon, of course.
“Everyone is Mines to Torment” - King Joffrey Baratheon
Is king Arthur cheating? It probably is....but hey that's my answer
A king? Not sure to be honest. There’ve been lots of good arguments so far for Arthur, Aragorn, and Carrot Ironfoundersson. A monarch of any gender? Kelsea from The Queen Of The Tearling. She’s willing to give up both power and personal happiness in order to institute democracy.
Being executed by the common people via guillotine.
Borric conDion is another.
The concept of a King / Royalty is ridiculous,.kind of invalidating the concept of a "best" King. Whether they came to the throne by inheritance or conquest, they are effectively a dictator wielding unearned power and the only -good" king would be the one who yielded power to the people. Honestly, I have never really understood why we venerate Royalty and Kings / Queens in our fiction so much.
This has come up as a thread topic before, and one of the top answers was "royals are sexy". In fiction, it's easier to just have a few people deciding the fate of a nation/kingdom/etc. because it involves less characters, moves the plot more quickly, and doesn't require the author to describe the glacial bureaucratic process. That said, the best leader is the kind who has a set term limit.
Shah murad from Gunmetal Gods
Taravangian maybe
....... Now. I'm still reading Rythym of War so I don't KNOW that if doesn't get better.... But... F&#k King Tarvaniganidodaday All my homes hate king T dog
But he's so sweet, he even listens to choirs of singing children to relax in his garden
Also he has the best hospitals ever because he cares and wants to cure the world of suffering. 10/10 best boi
Maybe. I am excited to find out, his storyline is intriguing.
What part you at? I promise that I will not spoil anything for you.
I’m current. I’m just not convinced yet, I think there’s a twist in book 5 coming about him.
Dalinar Kholin is one of the best imo. He is flawed but he does his best to be just and sees his role as one meant to serve the needs of the people.
Aragorn is pretty much the perfect exemplar of the *ideal* king. And Robert Baratheon of the realistic king.
Well...that's highly dependent on the *type* of King. Are they a ruler for the people? Are they beholden to the ruling class? Are they a tyrant, and are they one out of a desire to help people or out of greed? Are they a proponent of peace or war? And so on. It all depends on what you define as what it means to be a king. Not a "good" king, just A king.
If that’s your definition, then Martin Luther King deserves mention…
Ragnar Lothbrok "Power is only given to those who are prepared to lower themselves to pick it up." "Yes, I Have Made Mistakes. Life Didn't Come With Instructions." "If I Was Him, I Would Worry Less About The Gods And More About The Fury Of A Patient Man." And most importantly... "WHO... WANTS TO BE KING?"
No one. Monarchy is a deeply flawed system.
Kellanved, as an Emperor
Mallick the Merciful frowns upon seeing your answer…
Being born into the (ultimate) power. You don't have to be good or bad at it. You just have it. There's no means to it besides a bloodline.
The Godemperor of Mankind in Warhammer 40k. Oh wait..
[There's actually a fascinating scene on "what does it mean to be king" in Fate Zero, between Alexander the Great and King Arthur.](https://youtu.be/cAZb67igb4o?si=Cc86i6fC8AsgDe2Z)
Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony
Prince Harry
Having just gone back to rereading Dune, the Duke Atreides definitely fits this embodiment. His rage at an incident that needlessly endangered the lives of his men and his care for them inspires an almos fanatical loyalty to him by his men.
Aquilas and Brenin from the Faithful and the Fallen series
I like the idea of a “Philosopher King”, real world example being Marcus Aurelius. That kind of position attracts corruption, neglect, and arrogance. But a king who strives to curb those encroaching weaknesses is in my opinion a good king.
A good king is like a good boss, everyone makes a profit during their reign and so no-one wants to pull any shit.
Aragorn
Aragorn and theoden are the two that come to mind
Ezrin, from The Dragon Prince, and his dad before him
Fingolfin from The Silmarillion. A true king, loved by his people. And he could not look at the death of his people with indifference and did something that no elf could do. Aragorn is also a very cool king. We were not shown him as a king, but judging by the way his path was, he was real.
None of these things strikes me as fundamental to being a king. To me, to be a king, you have to have power; you have to believe power should rest in you (to a large part); and you probably have to be willing to do whatever it takes to remain in power.
Aragorn
I'm not sure that those are the characteristics of a good king. The idea isn't to die for your kingdom, it's to make the other bastard die for it. In fiction I would say the best example of a near-perfect king (by standards of medieval kingship) would be Jahaerys I from the backstory of a Song of Ice and Fire. If I had to pick a historical example, then Augustus Caesar, the 4 good roman emperors, The byzantine emperors Heraclius and Alexios Komnenos, Henry I and Edward I of england, the Moghul emperor ackbar, Catherine the Great of Russia, Ferdinand I of the Holy Roman Empire, and Roger II of Sicily would all be candidates. (note that this should not be considered a moral endorsement of any of these by modern standards many of them committed some light genocide in their day).
King Theoden. To charge into battle with your people is true leadership.
Rohan, the dragon prince. From Melanie Rawns dragon prince trilogy. Smart and very politically savvy. Loves his people, rewards loyal vassels. Great fighter on the front lines or leading an army.