Sixth Candelbram - Voice

[firstofthefallen]

What is strength to you, or what it is to be strong?

Alternatively, who is it that has right to rulership, or to command? Do you agree with the sentiment that those who are strong are superior and thus have greater rights than those who are weak?

And if that is the case: may the weak become strong?

Comments

[nonacquiescent]

There are different kinds of strength, physical strength is the one people put more weight in, but it's actually the lesser. Mental strength of any kind is far superior. Whether that's use of magic, intelligence or control over your emotions and all that is irrelevant because all are. Anyone can gain any sort of strength if they work hard enough, it can be difficult, but it's not at all impossible. The ones fit to rule are those who understand that, and who can be true leaders. A ruler should be admired by his subjects, beloved by them so his dreams become the dreams of the people, and the dreams of the people become his. Someone who can work hand-in-hand with his subjects while portraying his own strength to give them hope and trust in him. Someone who simply rules isn't fit for the job. They can't be selfsacrificing or the people will depend on them too much, and become dissatisfied. They can't isolate themselves as something of a living god to be feared. A true ruler knows how to create a medium of friend and command.

[firstofthefallen]

You're right. Anyone can gain any sort of strength. That is why the greatest strength is excellence in all of them.

Does admiration play that big a role in deciding who is fit to rule? Even tyrants have people who truly admire them because of the way they were brought up in their lives, or taught. A liar might win admiration by hiding his nature and adapting a facade.

That being said, I'm impressed. I agree a great deal with your idea of what would make a suitable rule.

[nonacquiescent]

It's not exactly entirely my own words, but...thanks. Obviously they should have good intentions, that goes without saying. But if they're not admired, the people don't trust them. Tyrants are able to keep power by having followers who admire them and will therefore fight for them, but it's just the same with a good ruler, it's all in how they choose to use that admiration. Being admired by the masses goes hand-in-hand with being beloved by them, which is about the most important part of being a good ruler.

[firstofthefallen]

I'm quite tired of hearing about good intentions. What are good intentions? The intentions that benefit you? That benefit the whole?

I disagree. The most important part is to do what your convictions demand you do. Only a coward would leave his own people to suffer and die when it could be prevented but a ruler otherwise owes them nothing, nor needs nothing. If some should admire him that is their business.

In the end the ruler will be displaced by another, and another, as he should. No man or line should rule forever, even if they were to be admired.

[nonacquiescent]

But that's the thing, admiration will keep bonds between the ruler and his people. If they admire him, they'll gladly follow his dreams and convictions. It's when a king is not admired that the people grow dissatisfied and he loses his followers. That hurts his people, they want the king to be someone to look up to. A true king doesn't stand alone, that's the point.

[firstofthefallen]

Let me ask this then.

Who is more admirable? The one who wishes to rule, or the one who wishes to be ruled over?

Some would say these are the only two choices any being really has in life.