Costin_Razvan wrote...
Obviously not. But I would stick with what Zevran says about Harrowmont, that is by far the most convincing argument to side with Bhelen.
"So is this to be your king? A man who cannot even get his own troops to fight."
You can say he is an assassin, but an assassin who knows the workings of the political system very well. So do you really want a king who cannot even get troops to fight? Especially when you are recruiting an army for the Blight?
That is of course a very strong argument against Harrowmont. The fact he does not command full loyalty. But that's not the army, those are fighters. If Harrowmont is king, then he could (and he does) command the army regardless. And the house that defects, does so under both Bhelen and Harrowmont (though I suspect Bhelen would punish it much more severly).
And this does not show that Bhelen is a better administrator than Harrowmont or if he understands anything about economics, trade and all that (turns out Harrowm ont clearly doesn't either).
But of course, if you are looking at who commands more loyalty, it's definately Bhelen. And when asked about helping against the Blight, Bhelen says that he will committ his forces, while Harrowmont promises to put the matter up to the Assembly (the same Assembly that couldn't bloody do anything a few hours ago).
I am not making a case for Harrowmont here. But it's not clear that Bhelen is a good administrator and ruler, even if he does inspire loyalty and is a good schemer. Of course it turns out that he is all those things. And I personally want Bhelen and Anora to have a kid.