-It all seems too wrong, because even a selfish ruler, just for the sake of his province being better, needs a better kd, and thus has to work for the kingdom not himself , because working for the kingdom will give him a far superior province than if he doesnt rule properly
So its not a matter of selfishness ,because for both the selfish and unselfish ruler, the best thing is to pimp the kd as good as possible.
But really, a kingdom that depends on his king 100% to rule properly is what i dont like. Example the simians, anri was there so many years as a ruler, after all this ages and all this wars, shouldnt every player have around the same skills and knowledge that anri has and even more , thus make it easier for everyone to know what to do and what not to do. Wouldnt the simians be the perfect example of the kd where everyone knows a lot and should do well without a monarch ?
I mean 25 heads combined .
Then again , if this is not the case, even after so many wars together, why is it that a kd will fail without a strong monarch or disband?
And this is where im saying that they have taught us and educated us since we are very little to look up to people, to idolize others whom we deem superior instead of taking charge by ourselves .And thus this is one of the many ways how i relate utopia to the real world and see that the way utopia is being played and what happens here , is in big part a reflection of the world.