Neither
Too lazy to change my profile picture
Easy choice, loved.
I can't think of any advantages fear would have over it
If love comes easy through being subby and meek, they'd find value in wanting to feel feared.
Fear gets shit done, can make you rich, and fear doesn't have to be destructive and evil, it can just be the display of a good leader. If your enemies fear you, they'll leave you and those in your charge alone, while love is pretty easy to squash.
"King of the North" logic is basically a fusion of the two: Respect. Fear does not have to be a sign of compensation, it's tactical, it's practical, it's useful, and it can lead to larger gains for more than just yourself if you're benevolently feared.
You can be a loved salesman and make just as much. People can love you for your ideas/innovations, etc. Fear is not a good way to be left alone, people grow to hate the things they fear and inevitably will lash out. It is much easier to gather support against a tyrant than a beloved emperor.
We are pack animals, the people's approval is the sharpest sword and the same goes for their scorn.
I am with you, even unto the end of the age
Easy choice, loved.
I can't think of any advantages fear would have over it
If love comes easy through being subby and meek, they'd find value in wanting to feel feared.
Fear gets shit done, can make you rich, and fear doesn't have to be destructive and evil, it can just be the display of a good leader. If your enemies fear you, they'll leave you and those in your charge alone, while love is pretty easy to squash.
"King of the North" logic is basically a fusion of the two: Respect. Fear does not have to be a sign of compensation, it's tactical, it's practical, it's useful, and it can lead to larger gains for more than just yourself if you're benevolently feared.You can be a loved salesman and make just as much. People can love you for your ideas/innovations, etc. Fear is not a good way to be left alone, people grow to hate the things they fear and inevitably will lash out.
If those who respect the person cause their enemies to fear them, then it's practical. They'll follow them because it feels safe and because it works.
The guy who is all about love and throws away his wealth will not win wars.
It is much easier to gather support against a tyrant than a beloved emperor.
And yet it's the "beloved emperor" that gets trounced by legions of fear.
Think of back when you enjoyed leaders in History, it was respect that garnered the masses, not love.
We are pack animals, the people's approval is the sharpest sword and the same goes for their scorn.
All animals respond to fear, and humans are pushed further than most by it.
If the fear is not directed towards their friends, it's good. Being about fear doesn't mean it must be directed at everyone, just how it being about love doesn't mean you love everyone.
Ę̵̚x̸͎̾i̴͚̽s̵̻͐t̷͐ͅe̷̯͠n̴̤̚t̵̻̅i̵͉̿a̴̮͊l̵͍̂ ̴̹̕D̵̤̀e̸͓͂t̵̢͂e̴͕̓c̸̗̄t̴̗̿ï̶̪v̷̲̍é̵͔
last edit on
4/8/2019 4:44:35 AM
Easy choice, loved.
I can't think of any advantages fear would have over it
If love comes easy through being subby and meek, they'd find value in wanting to feel feared.
Fear gets shit done, can make you rich, and fear doesn't have to be destructive and evil, it can just be the display of a good leader. If your enemies fear you, they'll leave you and those in your charge alone, while love is pretty easy to squash.
"King of the North" logic is basically a fusion of the two: Respect. Fear does not have to be a sign of compensation, it's tactical, it's practical, it's useful, and it can lead to larger gains for more than just yourself if you're benevolently feared.You can be a loved salesman and make just as much. People can love you for your ideas/innovations, etc. Fear is not a good way to be left alone, people grow to hate the things they fear and inevitably will lash out.
If those who respect the person cause their enemies to fear them, then it's practical. They'll follow them because it feels safe and because it works.
The guy who is all about love and throws away his wealth will not win wars.
A leader does not need to be about love or administer it in mass to receive it. That's for mother teresa types, minorities.
It is much easier to gather support against a tyrant than a beloved emperor.
And yet it's the "beloved emperor" that gets trounced by legions of fear.
Think of back when you enjoyed leaders in History, it was respect that garnered the masses, not love.
All overthrown leaders are trounced by fear, not just the loved ones. The loved ones just last longer. If George III had shown more love, instead of instilling fear in the colonists by shooting them when they rebelled, we would be UK citizens right now. Instead peasant farmers defeated the worlds strongest military at the time. One of our biggest hurdles were the british loyalist in the colonies still.
Respect is the precursor for love. Imo, you cannot have actual love without it. Respect even on its own i'd say is weaker than fear or love.
All animals respond to fear, and humans are pushed further than most by it.
If the fear is not directed towards their friends, it's good. Being about fear doesn't mean it must be directed at everyone, just how it being about love doesn't mean you love everyone.
If you rule with fear, the people fear you. You must instill fear for there to be fear. In doing this, you will anger the people. This is not the case with earning the love of the people or the pack. Even with most animals they value the ones they love far more than what they fear.
The only advantage fear has is it's start up costs. It's easy, quick and for those without resources. This is even further reinforced by the fact that it's implemented in times of desperation by bodies of power. Love's got more benefits and less downsides, takes more to acquire however
I am with you, even unto the end of the age
last edit on
4/8/2019 5:35:48 AM
Kestrel said:All overthrown leaders are trounced by fear, not just the loved ones. The loved ones just last longer. If George III had shown more love, instead of instilling fear in the colonists by shooting them when they rebelled, we would be UK citizens right now. Instead peasant farmers defeated the worlds strongest military at the time. One of our biggest hurdles were the british loyalist in the colonies still.
Yet if a ruler simply allows rebellion without consequence, they'll be seen as weak and the opportunists, the power hungry will devour them. A passive level of fear is needed. Love isn't enough.
Especially since the love of the people is fickle, it can be overturned by one bad PR move. Fear has substance. It's less subject to others whims. In that way, it's stronger than love.
last edit on
4/11/2019 3:04:24 AM
Kestrel said:All overthrown leaders are trounced by fear, not just the loved ones. The loved ones just last longer. If George III had shown more love, instead of instilling fear in the colonists by shooting them when they rebelled, we would be UK citizens right now. Instead peasant farmers defeated the worlds strongest military at the time. One of our biggest hurdles were the british loyalist in the colonies still.Yet if a ruler simply allows rebellion without consequence, they'll be seen as weak and the opportunists, the power hungry will devour them. A passive level of fear is needed. Love isn't enough.
At that point it's too late to show any sort of consideration for the rebelling side. If they are accommodated and represented properly before then the rebellion would never have existed. You're basically telling me that love can't be used to detur a situation that occured because of a lack of it. That is a no brainer
Especially since the love of the people is fickle, it can be overturned by one bad PR move. Fear has substance. It's less subject to others whims. In that way, it's stronger than love.
Fear is far more fickle, like I said it inevitably turns to backlash and rather quickly. As I mentioned before it is a lot easier for your enemies to weaponize fear against a tyrant than an appreciated, elected and beloved ruler.
I am with you, even unto the end of the age