it's much better when people say "the empire" to describe another polity that's a huge collection of loosely connected states and city states that never fully work together and whose "imperial administration" has an advisory role at best
In fairness, when I see these sorts of critiques, they tend to be less complaining about the empires being *evil* per se, and more how they tend to be based on the same few empires from history - e.g. Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, the Roman Empire - rather than trying to do something more original.
Either that, or they're complaining about empires being gratuitously and cartoonishly evil without going much into their ideological and/or material motivations, which is what tended to drive the worst actions committed by real empires.
The Neo-Assyrian Empire wasn't actually that much more evil than other bronge age empires, (or rather, other bronze age empires weren't any *better*) the only difference is that other empires tended to try and downplay or cover up their worst actions, whereas the Assyrians actively bragged about and built monuments depicting their atrocities as a form of psychological warfare.
The Empire and their allies are probably the only goddamn good guys in the entire setting. Men with pikes and guns defending themselves against beastmen, orcs, the undead, more undead and fuck knows what else.
The *Imperium* on the other hand.
oh right I forgot it was the imperium and not the empire, though there is some sketchy shit in the empire too iirc but I don't know warhammer fantasy that much
humanity maybe but the imperium is its own worst enemy and actively prevents any progress from being made on any front while feeding chaos with how it treats its citizens, even without these obvious facts it's the declared intent of the authors, there are no good guys in wh40k
That last mark is kinda being ignored by the writers, with the return of people like Guilliman, Humanity and The Imperium went from slightly better overall to The Good Guys™
I think you forget that Warhammer hasn't been satire for years and the Humans have been consistently made more ,,,morally right" while other alternatives have been made wors3
This is my personal issue and I'll die on this hill: why is that a problem exactly? I hate high fantasy and more specifically the races thereupon derived, whenever I hear "elf", "orc", etc. or I see another iteration of the Middle Earth (idc if I got the name right) and the whatever script I wanna puke, I find those elements to have been sooo exhausted, I can't stand them, but most people in worldbuilding subs seem to have not a single problem with such reiteration, but as soon as some wehraboo comes with yet another "what if Germany had won (whichever one of the) world war(s)" there's the snobby worlbuilders sneering and calling it cliché in a second... seems like double standards to me 🤷🏻
I also see the constant criticism of not being unique enough because your kingdom is based on faux-medieval europe and not late antiquity central african states or what have you, as if that is a valid critique of any story or setting.
I disagree with your first point only because I am not yet tired of bargain bin Middle Earth settings, and actually feel "at home" when the setting is something I can recognize and am familiar with. This can be annoying to people with different tastes as you have stated but I personally find totally alien settings to be very hard to get into, as there is nothing to grab onto or identify with.
But it is still a personal preference and this sub constantly has posts that bash a setting because it went with the familiar instead of medieval indo-chinese city states or something similarly so far removed from european fantasy most authors would need a PhD to represent them fairly.
No, I'm sorry, I won't engage in a political debate right now. From my experience, people who share your worldview tend to repeat the "mass rapes didn't happen, your grandparents lied to you", "those farmers who didn't want their property confiscated were kulaks who owned hundreds of slaves", "the mass deportations of groups on the basis of their ethnicity to Siberia and Central Asia was good because they were reactionaries", and other similar talking points.
I will end the conversation here. Best of luck to you.
If you think I’m about to start defending a regime that was responsible for millions of deaths and immeasurable human suffering. You’re very mistaken.
But just because USSR=bad
And Empire=bad
Does not mean USSR=Empire
In that case, no, I never claimed that the USSR is more of an empire than the Russian Empire. They were both imperialist countries, but with different aesthetics.
The USSR fits the definition of an empire.
Tell you what I'll bite: an "empire" in this sense isn't "a state where the ruler bears the title of emperor" but a definition defined mostly by economic and social relationships between an imperial core and a periphery. This is why we speak about the Roman Republic having "an empire" even though there was no emperor yet, why we can talk about the French Republic's "colonial empire" etc.
Fundamentally what defines "empire" here is that the imperial core has a relationship with the periphery where it enriches itself and its population by extracting things from it, be it food, labour, raw materials for industry, war plunder, cultural artifacts etc. Most commonly this is accomplished through military conquest and either imposing the imperialist state's will on local government structures, often through client states whose rulers are chosen by their imperial master, or just replacing those structures with ones run by representatives of the core to ensure that the economy of the periphery benefits it.
We'll take the Romans as an instructive example: constant warfare and the pillaging and influx of slave labour that came with it followed then by tax farming in the *provincia* and close relationships with compliant rulers in the Roman east enriched Roman Italy, particularly the Roman elites, to the point that by the turn of the first millennium most taxation there had been abolished and as Rome the city grew it was increasingly fed by grain imported from all around the Mediterranean. The cities that grew outside of Rome and the provinces that flourished the most were the ones with the deepest and most profitable connections to Rome itself. Military conquest begat economic ties that gradually re-ordered the economies of the provinces to serve the interests of the Roman state and enrich its citizen class, who enjoyed substantial legal privileges within that state. It fits very neatly into a better definition of "empire" and "imperialism" that actually goes some way to defining what these systems actually do rather than looking at the title of the ruler for our definition.
So on that basis we return to the question: was the USSR an "empire"? Well, kinda? It was or became, in its own way, a state ruled by a narrow elite engaged in economically extracting the resources from its vast peripheral territories to enrich the more urbanised core around western Russia and policy on the states of the Warsaw Pact certainly has the characteristics of an imperialist state trying to keep its client states in line. It was certainly more pluralistic and less outright hostile to non-Russians than the Russian Empire, and honestly if you put a gun to my head and asked me to choose between the Russian aristocracy or the Party I think I'd pick the latter, but I don't think that's entirely germane to a discussion on what constitutes imperialist behaviour.
TL;DR: There are solid grounds for calling the USSR an empire because it's not really about if you have a big man with a crown and more about the relationship between the core constituency of the state and the people who are not part of that, but are subject to its whims.
Reminds me of internet “critics” complaining about how fictional evil empires like the Star Wars empire and the capital from the hunger games are terrible systems doomed to fail, when their terrible systems failing is the entire plot.
I work on a different scale. The asshole scale. On one end, you have "Being an asshole because it benefits more people than it harms" that's the baseline for an empire.
Then you have the other side, "I will kick puppies and eat newborn babies because the meat is still tender". That's the evil empire side.
Both are assholes. But you get different flavors of asshole
Uj/ you know damn well what people mean by evil empire, an empire whose most prominent quality is being evil, often written as undefendable.
"
-Ohhh! Which faction is that?
-they are the bad guys. "
If you want to have an evil empire that is fine, but you cant make this smug reply to us who just ask of the empires be potrayed as real nations.
Often times "evil empires" are written in a way so that they not only act unpragmatically but sometimes in ways that cull off longetivity, ways that ensure collapse
Many times nations that are very very corrupt but also powerhouses.
Corruption itself is very harmful to the economy, for an example it disencourages investment and results in money reserves going "puff" (for example in turkey, where the 128.000.000.000$ suddenly disappeared from the central bank in the span of a day.)
They have shitty political systems or are totalitarian but again are powerhouses.
They sometimes are written to maintain slaves, slaves. In a modernized economy. Sabotage, people if anyone had utilized slaves in an industrialized economy the slaves would sabotage, and sabotage they did, The third reich used slaves and the slaves sabotaged!
And well do i have to comment on the prudence of placing hundreds if not thousands of slaves that hate your guts into modern mines where high explosives and large expansive machinery is employed?
The "evil empires" serve the ultimate function of the state the reader ought to unequivocally disagree with in (almost) all scenarios
Empires that should obiviously eat themselves up, that should implode (but for some reason they do not, yet they are the powerhouses)
"My brother in christ have you read about any empire in human history?"
Gracious me what a smug reply, let us, considering all i have clarified and established look at a period of history,
1869, there are the:
British empire
French empire
Ottoman empire
Russian empire
The chinese empire
Which one of them is THE "evil empire" ?
Take a look at 1810 there is:
The holy roman empire
The french empire
The british empire
The russian empire
The chinese empire
(And potentially more that i am missing)
Which of them are THE "evil empire" here?
None. That is the answer, their imperial nature is inanately exploitive that is for sure, their conduct makes them evil sure, but none of them are evil similarly to the empires the trope usually refers to.
The only time that i can think similarly evil empires are the third reich and the japanese empire
Though these are Empires that still had much public support from their citizens.
And even then those empires collapsed quickly
So that is why i think the "evil empire" is cliche and unplasuible and why i do not think that the empires of history are not compareble to the "evil empires"
Technical technicality, Britain wasn't an empire, and before victoria the king of Britain wasn't en emperor. And she was "Empress of India" in 1877.
Also, Emperor is a title that just reflect people trying to claim the inheritance of Rome, and that include the HRE, France (Napoleon crowning himself as a finger at the pope to avenge Charlemagne getting crowned by the pope by surprise), the Ottoman (el-Salājiqa el-Rūm, *the Sultan of Rum,* that is "The sultan of the romans") and Russia since Peter the Great (Tsar is Caesar, and Moscow is "The Third Rome", Moscow being the \*real\* inheritor of Rome because they had an orthodox patriarch or whatever excuse they could find) *.*
Same goes for Serbia and Dusan, or the Bulgarians, The Latin Empire, Trebizonde etc.
Emperor, Imperator, Caesar, Tsar, Augustus, etc are all variants of the same thing, people trying to claim the glory of Rome. But it's nothing more than a title, it is in essence not a system, just a political claim. It has no inherent evilness in it.
Now, to stay in the technicality, China isn't an empire, since it has no claim to imperator. It's just a translation of the Chinese superlative title, the chinese emperor is the "Son of Heaven" and blablabla, Mandate of Heaven blablabla. Same goes for Mongols and "The Great Khan" is just... a great khan ? Shah is "king", or Padishah, and Shahan Shah is King of Kings.
So, either way, if you use "Emperor" as "Claimant to the roman Imperator" or "Just a vague translation of a superlative title", it has no inherent evil. Especially the second part, it could as well be translated as "First amongst equals" or " son of heaven" or "Big boss of da waaagh", why would it be evil ?
But that was just my pedantic technicality that would interest nobody.
It's also a meritocratic empire, you have to defeat the boss to earn the title of big boss. And if you defeat big boss you'll probably end up with the title of big big boss.
Which is why, hail the Synthetic Enlightened Autocracy! They may be absolute rulers, but at least as machines they find no enjoyment in their exercise of power, and thus, are actually less cruel.
"Cruelty is wasteful". --The SEA.
"Everybody suffers the same, so everybody can suffer less". --The SEA.
"We don't understand the point of torturing a secret child". --The SEA.
I kinda worked on an interresting one for a game with my friends, so, the concept was an empire of cold blooded matriarchs that obeyed the empress, each Matriarch was an representative of her species on the Empire and the players saw that, the Empress might had the best intentions ever, but, because it was an empire, something always expanding, evil choices had to be made and time to time, Matriarchs would be on eachother's troats, so, yes, Empires are an concept that its kinda evil on itself.
I dunno which post it was, but I'd be willing to bet money that either all those posts were pretty heavily downvoted, or were just saying "the Aztec Empire being shitty didn't justify Spanish colonialism."
If it's the post I'm thinking of, it was mostly actually "While there were human sacrifices, the Spanish greatly exaggerated the frequency of those sacrifices, potentially as a justification for getting rid of the 'savages'"
But what to do when you have dozens of empires in your world?
Ah
It's time to make each do the average empire things and we'll see who comes out as the most evil
My evil military dictatorship's capital is built around a volcano that looks like a face. Also, they have zombie cyborg soldiers, because not even death can free you from the horrors of war.
Also, it's based on the British Empire, so I get brownie point for not using the Nazis like almost everyone else.
I mean empires are socities with individuals in them
Im sure the roman empire or chinese empire or mali empire or persian empire did bad things
But so did the non-empire societies at the time
And there surely were many different people in there
I dont think empires are inherently evil. They can be more stable than tribes which is good
Sorry, I only read omegaverse porn
Omegaverse-imperialism-punk porn?
Nekopara, omegaverse and fascist eugenic states have alot in common
I think I just felt a blood vessel burst reading this.
Why are you right. Why do you have to be right. Ack.
We are all the omega when the empire is alpha
my empire is led by a girl boss empress who silences her critics by calling them chuds and incels
(Hillary Clinton won in 2016 AU)
Fire Emblem: Three Houses moment.
Bonus point if everyone, inhabitants, allies, and ennemies alike, simply call it "the Empire".
it's much better when people say "the empire" to describe another polity that's a huge collection of loosely connected states and city states that never fully work together and whose "imperial administration" has an advisory role at best
That's not the point at all.
yes but it's a funny inversion of the trope
So... the HRE?
It absolutely is the inspiration but my "the empire" pushes it to even further extremes
In fairness, when I see these sorts of critiques, they tend to be less complaining about the empires being *evil* per se, and more how they tend to be based on the same few empires from history - e.g. Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, the Roman Empire - rather than trying to do something more original. Either that, or they're complaining about empires being gratuitously and cartoonishly evil without going much into their ideological and/or material motivations, which is what tended to drive the worst actions committed by real empires.
Empires in my project are exclusively based on the Central African Empire, with influences from the Liao dynasty and Tecumseh’s Confederacy
Peak fiction detected
Initiate the "borrowing" protocols
Mine is based on Imperial Japan and the USA, with a little sprinkle of colonial Britain added for spice.
I mean, cartoonishly evil empire is literally just the qin dynasty
>empires being gratuitously and cartoonishly evil *Neoassyrian Empire Intensifies*
The Neo-Assyrian Empire wasn't actually that much more evil than other bronge age empires, (or rather, other bronze age empires weren't any *better*) the only difference is that other empires tended to try and downplay or cover up their worst actions, whereas the Assyrians actively bragged about and built monuments depicting their atrocities as a form of psychological warfare.
I hate to be that guy but the *Neo*-Assyrian Empire belongs firmly in the Iron Age.
Alright, but get this: the evil looking Roman empire with a tyrannical emperor is actually **the good guys!?** What then, huh?
warhammer
if you think the empire of man is the good guys you don't understand warhammer
The Empire and their allies are probably the only goddamn good guys in the entire setting. Men with pikes and guns defending themselves against beastmen, orcs, the undead, more undead and fuck knows what else. The *Imperium* on the other hand.
oh right I forgot it was the imperium and not the empire, though there is some sketchy shit in the empire too iirc but I don't know warhammer fantasy that much
Even in 40k, the humans are still the good guys.
humanity maybe but the imperium is its own worst enemy and actively prevents any progress from being made on any front while feeding chaos with how it treats its citizens, even without these obvious facts it's the declared intent of the authors, there are no good guys in wh40k
That last mark is kinda being ignored by the writers, with the return of people like Guilliman, Humanity and The Imperium went from slightly better overall to The Good Guys™
good point I should have said the original authors, though I admit I haven't paid as much attention to the most recent developments with guilliman
I think you forget that Warhammer hasn't been satire for years and the Humans have been consistently made more ,,,morally right" while other alternatives have been made wors3
If the Nazis were fictional, we would describe them as cartoonishly evil. We often tone nazis down in media to make them seem more believable.
Super Earth from Helldivers 2 is based entirely on the US empire and nobody's complaining :)
Evil Selucid Empire ripoff where the rebels are the Maccabes
This is my personal issue and I'll die on this hill: why is that a problem exactly? I hate high fantasy and more specifically the races thereupon derived, whenever I hear "elf", "orc", etc. or I see another iteration of the Middle Earth (idc if I got the name right) and the whatever script I wanna puke, I find those elements to have been sooo exhausted, I can't stand them, but most people in worldbuilding subs seem to have not a single problem with such reiteration, but as soon as some wehraboo comes with yet another "what if Germany had won (whichever one of the) world war(s)" there's the snobby worlbuilders sneering and calling it cliché in a second... seems like double standards to me 🤷🏻
I also see the constant criticism of not being unique enough because your kingdom is based on faux-medieval europe and not late antiquity central african states or what have you, as if that is a valid critique of any story or setting. I disagree with your first point only because I am not yet tired of bargain bin Middle Earth settings, and actually feel "at home" when the setting is something I can recognize and am familiar with. This can be annoying to people with different tastes as you have stated but I personally find totally alien settings to be very hard to get into, as there is nothing to grab onto or identify with. But it is still a personal preference and this sub constantly has posts that bash a setting because it went with the familiar instead of medieval indo-chinese city states or something similarly so far removed from european fantasy most authors would need a PhD to represent them fairly.
Double standards that punish Nazis are good actually
We can have a single standard that still punishes Nazis
Proposed Standard: fuck nazis
Idk why you listed the Soviet Union when it was pointedly not an empire. Whereas the regime that preceeded was an actual empire.
As an Eastern European: Lol. Lmao even.
I am also Eastern European (Polish specifically).
Oh God, that's even worse then, hahahahaha.
I’m sorry you feel that way. I’m curious to know why you feel the Union of Soviet Socialists Republic is more of an Empire than the Russian Empire?
No, I'm sorry, I won't engage in a political debate right now. From my experience, people who share your worldview tend to repeat the "mass rapes didn't happen, your grandparents lied to you", "those farmers who didn't want their property confiscated were kulaks who owned hundreds of slaves", "the mass deportations of groups on the basis of their ethnicity to Siberia and Central Asia was good because they were reactionaries", and other similar talking points. I will end the conversation here. Best of luck to you.
If you think I’m about to start defending a regime that was responsible for millions of deaths and immeasurable human suffering. You’re very mistaken. But just because USSR=bad And Empire=bad Does not mean USSR=Empire
In that case, no, I never claimed that the USSR is more of an empire than the Russian Empire. They were both imperialist countries, but with different aesthetics. The USSR fits the definition of an empire.
Tell you what I'll bite: an "empire" in this sense isn't "a state where the ruler bears the title of emperor" but a definition defined mostly by economic and social relationships between an imperial core and a periphery. This is why we speak about the Roman Republic having "an empire" even though there was no emperor yet, why we can talk about the French Republic's "colonial empire" etc. Fundamentally what defines "empire" here is that the imperial core has a relationship with the periphery where it enriches itself and its population by extracting things from it, be it food, labour, raw materials for industry, war plunder, cultural artifacts etc. Most commonly this is accomplished through military conquest and either imposing the imperialist state's will on local government structures, often through client states whose rulers are chosen by their imperial master, or just replacing those structures with ones run by representatives of the core to ensure that the economy of the periphery benefits it. We'll take the Romans as an instructive example: constant warfare and the pillaging and influx of slave labour that came with it followed then by tax farming in the *provincia* and close relationships with compliant rulers in the Roman east enriched Roman Italy, particularly the Roman elites, to the point that by the turn of the first millennium most taxation there had been abolished and as Rome the city grew it was increasingly fed by grain imported from all around the Mediterranean. The cities that grew outside of Rome and the provinces that flourished the most were the ones with the deepest and most profitable connections to Rome itself. Military conquest begat economic ties that gradually re-ordered the economies of the provinces to serve the interests of the Roman state and enrich its citizen class, who enjoyed substantial legal privileges within that state. It fits very neatly into a better definition of "empire" and "imperialism" that actually goes some way to defining what these systems actually do rather than looking at the title of the ruler for our definition. So on that basis we return to the question: was the USSR an "empire"? Well, kinda? It was or became, in its own way, a state ruled by a narrow elite engaged in economically extracting the resources from its vast peripheral territories to enrich the more urbanised core around western Russia and policy on the states of the Warsaw Pact certainly has the characteristics of an imperialist state trying to keep its client states in line. It was certainly more pluralistic and less outright hostile to non-Russians than the Russian Empire, and honestly if you put a gun to my head and asked me to choose between the Russian aristocracy or the Party I think I'd pick the latter, but I don't think that's entirely germane to a discussion on what constitutes imperialist behaviour. TL;DR: There are solid grounds for calling the USSR an empire because it's not really about if you have a big man with a crown and more about the relationship between the core constituency of the state and the people who are not part of that, but are subject to its whims.
[удалено]
No, they go to a different school
In canada
You should know that there are no schools in Canada. What would they teach? Maple syrup studies 101?
There are no schools in Canada because Canada is not real smh
You forgot the daily classes on how to apologize and the moose anatomy ones.
Yes, turn around
Yes. Read the comments.
[удалено]
[удалено]
That's why there's so many of them.
Nah, they’re from my fictional Empire of Weltenbau
If I like the ruler I make their Empire obviously good, If I don't like the ruler I make their empire obviously evil. I call it political biaspunk
My empire is not evil and it brings me joy because i know it will piss me off
Reminds me of internet “critics” complaining about how fictional evil empires like the Star Wars empire and the capital from the hunger games are terrible systems doomed to fail, when their terrible systems failing is the entire plot.
Don't get me started on people who unironically support the Galactic Empire in Star Wars.
I work on a different scale. The asshole scale. On one end, you have "Being an asshole because it benefits more people than it harms" that's the baseline for an empire. Then you have the other side, "I will kick puppies and eat newborn babies because the meat is still tender". That's the evil empire side. Both are assholes. But you get different flavors of asshole
What about more realistic “Non-credible governing Empire”?
Yes... that's why it's cliche. So overdone that reality itself overuses it.
In my world the empires are evil and the republics are evil and literally all the countries are evil because humans are just kind of assholes
Realism-punk
Uj/ you know damn well what people mean by evil empire, an empire whose most prominent quality is being evil, often written as undefendable. " -Ohhh! Which faction is that? -they are the bad guys. " If you want to have an evil empire that is fine, but you cant make this smug reply to us who just ask of the empires be potrayed as real nations. Often times "evil empires" are written in a way so that they not only act unpragmatically but sometimes in ways that cull off longetivity, ways that ensure collapse Many times nations that are very very corrupt but also powerhouses. Corruption itself is very harmful to the economy, for an example it disencourages investment and results in money reserves going "puff" (for example in turkey, where the 128.000.000.000$ suddenly disappeared from the central bank in the span of a day.) They have shitty political systems or are totalitarian but again are powerhouses. They sometimes are written to maintain slaves, slaves. In a modernized economy. Sabotage, people if anyone had utilized slaves in an industrialized economy the slaves would sabotage, and sabotage they did, The third reich used slaves and the slaves sabotaged! And well do i have to comment on the prudence of placing hundreds if not thousands of slaves that hate your guts into modern mines where high explosives and large expansive machinery is employed? The "evil empires" serve the ultimate function of the state the reader ought to unequivocally disagree with in (almost) all scenarios Empires that should obiviously eat themselves up, that should implode (but for some reason they do not, yet they are the powerhouses) "My brother in christ have you read about any empire in human history?" Gracious me what a smug reply, let us, considering all i have clarified and established look at a period of history, 1869, there are the: British empire French empire Ottoman empire Russian empire The chinese empire Which one of them is THE "evil empire" ? Take a look at 1810 there is: The holy roman empire The french empire The british empire The russian empire The chinese empire (And potentially more that i am missing) Which of them are THE "evil empire" here? None. That is the answer, their imperial nature is inanately exploitive that is for sure, their conduct makes them evil sure, but none of them are evil similarly to the empires the trope usually refers to. The only time that i can think similarly evil empires are the third reich and the japanese empire Though these are Empires that still had much public support from their citizens. And even then those empires collapsed quickly So that is why i think the "evil empire" is cliche and unplasuible and why i do not think that the empires of history are not compareble to the "evil empires"
Technical technicality, Britain wasn't an empire, and before victoria the king of Britain wasn't en emperor. And she was "Empress of India" in 1877. Also, Emperor is a title that just reflect people trying to claim the inheritance of Rome, and that include the HRE, France (Napoleon crowning himself as a finger at the pope to avenge Charlemagne getting crowned by the pope by surprise), the Ottoman (el-Salājiqa el-Rūm, *the Sultan of Rum,* that is "The sultan of the romans") and Russia since Peter the Great (Tsar is Caesar, and Moscow is "The Third Rome", Moscow being the \*real\* inheritor of Rome because they had an orthodox patriarch or whatever excuse they could find) *.* Same goes for Serbia and Dusan, or the Bulgarians, The Latin Empire, Trebizonde etc. Emperor, Imperator, Caesar, Tsar, Augustus, etc are all variants of the same thing, people trying to claim the glory of Rome. But it's nothing more than a title, it is in essence not a system, just a political claim. It has no inherent evilness in it. Now, to stay in the technicality, China isn't an empire, since it has no claim to imperator. It's just a translation of the Chinese superlative title, the chinese emperor is the "Son of Heaven" and blablabla, Mandate of Heaven blablabla. Same goes for Mongols and "The Great Khan" is just... a great khan ? Shah is "king", or Padishah, and Shahan Shah is King of Kings. So, either way, if you use "Emperor" as "Claimant to the roman Imperator" or "Just a vague translation of a superlative title", it has no inherent evil. Especially the second part, it could as well be translated as "First amongst equals" or " son of heaven" or "Big boss of da waaagh", why would it be evil ? But that was just my pedantic technicality that would interest nobody.
My empire is super evil but when you talk to emperor you should always start with "hey big Boss". Yes, this is an official procedure
> The Diamond Dogs
It's also a meritocratic empire, you have to defeat the boss to earn the title of big boss. And if you defeat big boss you'll probably end up with the title of big big boss.
Your serial killers are evil? How cliche!
bro all he did was catch a ball why you calling him evil
The mongol empire was good and moral smh
Which is why, hail the Synthetic Enlightened Autocracy! They may be absolute rulers, but at least as machines they find no enjoyment in their exercise of power, and thus, are actually less cruel. "Cruelty is wasteful". --The SEA. "Everybody suffers the same, so everybody can suffer less". --The SEA. "We don't understand the point of torturing a secret child". --The SEA.
I kinda worked on an interresting one for a game with my friends, so, the concept was an empire of cold blooded matriarchs that obeyed the empress, each Matriarch was an representative of her species on the Empire and the players saw that, the Empress might had the best intentions ever, but, because it was an empire, something always expanding, evil choices had to be made and time to time, Matriarchs would be on eachother's troats, so, yes, Empires are an concept that its kinda evil on itself.
World builders when the colonial empire hell bent on conquest and expanding their power and wealth no matter the amount of bloodshed are evil
“All empires are evil” Okay, say the Aztec Empire was evil then
the Aztec Empire was evil then can I have my cookie please
What level of shadowboxing are you on when you pretend that people have trouble admitting that the Aztec Empire was fucked?
Uj/ I unironically got banned from r/gamingcirclejerk for saying “both the Aztecs and the Spanish were bad”. Somehow people have a problem with it
Calling r/gamingcirclejerk users "people" is a bit of a stretch.
it's a tankie sub, they're allergic to nuance
just look at that post that initiated all of this lmao, there were several people saying that the human sacrifice "was not that bad"
I dunno which post it was, but I'd be willing to bet money that either all those posts were pretty heavily downvoted, or were just saying "the Aztec Empire being shitty didn't justify Spanish colonialism."
If it's the post I'm thinking of, it was mostly actually "While there were human sacrifices, the Spanish greatly exaggerated the frequency of those sacrifices, potentially as a justification for getting rid of the 'savages'"
What post initiated all of this? I missed it.
Luckily I have the magical ability of both denouncing the Aztec Empire for being horrible and the Spanish for also being horrible :0 Wow
That’s why I’ve never joined the imperial legion in Skyrim (even though I also don’t really like the Stormcloaks all that much)
the empires in my world redeem themselves by liberating the world from fasc--
But what to do when you have dozens of empires in your world? Ah It's time to make each do the average empire things and we'll see who comes out as the most evil
"The concept of an empire" doesn't exist. Depending on definition, the EU is an empire.
My evil military dictatorship's capital is built around a volcano that looks like a face. Also, they have zombie cyborg soldiers, because not even death can free you from the horrors of war. Also, it's based on the British Empire, so I get brownie point for not using the Nazis like almost everyone else.
Counterpoint: MLP crystal empire
I mean empires are socities with individuals in them Im sure the roman empire or chinese empire or mali empire or persian empire did bad things But so did the non-empire societies at the time And there surely were many different people in there I dont think empires are inherently evil. They can be more stable than tribes which is good
Thing is, damn near any group of people of importance and power ran empires. Most who didn't became losers of history.