| abstract
| - Suppose that we live in The Kingdom. Our wise king hires a treasurer -- to mint coins, balance the Kingdom's budget, raise revenue, borrow funds cheaply, and all of the other Boring but Practical essentials of keeping the Kingdom running. Our treasurer does an exemplary job. Then The Usurper comes, murders the king, and converts our kingdom into The Empire, with the requisite torture chambers, Gladiator Games, and all that. The Usurper realizes, though, that in addition to torturers, he still needs a treasurer -- and no one has proven himself more capable than the old treasurer from his predecessor's days, so the treasurer stays on, and continues minting coins, accounting for funds, and all that. Eventually, La Résistance overthrows The Empire, and introducing democracy and creating The Federation. Elections are held, delegates are sent to the parliament, a president is elected -- and someone still needs to run the treasury. Who is better qualified to handle the shaky finances of the newborn federation than the experienced elder statesman who served the old king and the usurper, our old treasurer? The treasurer holds onto his job, as always, and continues doing an excellent job of keeping finances in order. A character who is Loyal to the Position is adept at surviving Regime Change with position intact. It is possible that he is simply very adaptable, or possible that he has Ultimate Job Security or Vetinari Job Security. This character is not necessarily The Quisling, or lacking principles. It is possible that the Position Loyalist regards himself as above the fray of factionalism, and would describe himself as "loyal to the kingdom, not the king." He might regard keeping the practical aspects of the state functioning as far more constructive and beneficial to the populace than involving himself with factional loyalties -- and he could be right. Then again, it could be that he's just an opportunist or The Quisling who fights for what he perceives to be the strongest side, and even if he doesn't start out that way, it's possible that the character Loyal To The Position will cross serious moral boundaries -- if not a Moral Event Horizon -- thanks to loyalty. If being a dutiful treasurer means signing the checks to cover the costs of building death camps, however, then a character Loyal to the Position who does that can easily become Obliviously Evil. The lower in the hierarchy of government you go, the more likely members of the old regime are to continue into the new regime. At the bottom, an ordinary postal worker or accountant will almost always hold onto the old job. At the top, the head of government pretty much must change by definition for it to be a regime change. The question lies in the middle and near-top of the hierarchy -- the directors, assistant secretaries, deputy ministers, colonels, and other fairly high ranking personnel. These usually change, but the Position Loyalist is distinguished by his ability to hold on to these positions in spite of such changes. Such a character will often (but not always) be Lawful Neutral. Compare Professional Butt-Kisser. Related to I Fight for the Strongest Side and My Country, Right or Wrong. Examples of Loyal to the Position include:
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)