325 réponses à ce sujet

[Tirigon]

Willowhugger wrote...

This answer means essentially: "Because I feel that way, there is no real reason."
A valid opinion, but no way any more true than mine.

A more valid note is the Orlaisians are an Empire that has a culture of exploitation and self-entitlement amongst its nobility.  We see that with the previous false King of Felderan, the Baroness, and the girl in the marketplace talking about chevaliers raping with impunity.  Also, they're a deadly decadent court with lots of ridiculous levels of intrigue.

Feldaran's people are not likely to benefit by being absorbed into such a dysfunctional union.

True, that´s why I hate orlaisian nobles. But as said, Howe and Vaughan aren´t better (talk about rape...).

And if you play Awakening with an Orlaisian warden you can see that Orlaisians can rule good, too.

[Tirigon]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...


In politics and political science and hsistorically, of course it is.
You can't rule a nation and not care about its sovereignity. All political theories and paradigms (Realist. Neo-Realist. Neo classical Realist. Even Liberals and neo-liberals grudgingly admit that State soviereignity is not something they can part with) agree that sovereignity and independence, coupeld with security, are the nubmer one things all State seek to preserve.

This is true for a republic or democracy, but not for a monarchy.

[phaonica]

Tirigon wrote...

I hate Anora, but I also respect her., because she is a worthy enemy.

The thing is, I do not hate her for her actions, but for taking them against me. If she´d use trickery to help me it´d be fine.
So: her attitude is ok, but she chose the wrong side. Oh, and she´s ugly:sick:

So it's personal, and has nothing to do with saving the country.

[Tirigon]

phaonica wrote...

So it's personal, and has nothing to do with saving the country.

Partly. But considering that the warden is the one who saves the country, it has a bit to do with it.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Tirigon wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...


In politics and political science and hsistorically, of course it is.
You can't rule a nation and not care about its sovereignity. All political theories and paradigms (Realist. Neo-Realist. Neo classical Realist. Even Liberals and neo-liberals grudgingly admit that State soviereignity is not something they can part with) agree that sovereignity and independence, coupeld with security, are the nubmer one things all State seek to preserve.

This is true for a republic or democracy, but not for a monarchy.

Not at all. all States, regardless of political system, seek to preserve their soveregnity and independence.
China is neither of those things in a Western sense, and htey will not compromise on this. Iran isn't and they wil not compromise. Saudi Arabia isn't, and they wouldn't.

Germany from 1870 to 1914 was a moanrchy / reich and it was not enthusiastic to compromise on its sovereignity and indepedence. Before that, Prussia was a monarchy and it certainly didn't.
Italy was a monarchy at unification. It didn't compromise.
France had always been a monarchy before 1789. It never comrpomised on such things.
The Islamic Caliphates definately didn't.

Give me an example of a monarchy willingly abosrbing its kingdom to another dynasty, sacrificing its sovereignity and indepedence.
Even the Habsburg dynasty, who ruled several countries at one time including Spain and Austria, never abosrbed them into one kingdom.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 01 mai 2010 - 11:37 .

[phaonica]

Tirigon wrote...

phaonica wrote...

So it's personal, and has nothing to do with saving the country.

Partly. But considering that the warden is the one who saves the country, it has a bit to do with it.

If you decided she was your enemy because she betrayed you, not because she was bad for the country, that's personal. If she's not bad for the country, she's just not *you*, that's personal... and prideful...

[phaonica]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Give me an example of a monarchy willingly abosrbing its kingdom to another dynasty, sacrificing its sovereignity and indepedence.

I will concede that I am in over my head when it comes to backing anything that I theorize with any true life historical precedents.

[Tirigon]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Give me an example of a monarchy willingly abosrbing its kingdom to another dynasty, sacrificing its sovereignity and indepedence.

Scotland to England.

Poland to the Habsburg empire.

[Tirigon]

phaonica wrote...

If you decided she was your enemy because she betrayed you, not because she was bad for the country, that's personal. If she's not bad for the country, she's just not *you*, that's personal... and prideful...

Betraying the only one able to stop the Blight is bad for the country, isn´t it?

[Willowhugger]

It's good for CALIAN if he becomes Emperor.

Assuming he gets any power whatsoever out of the deal.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Tirigon wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Give me an example of a monarchy willingly abosrbing its kingdom to another dynasty, sacrificing its sovereignity and indepedence.

Scotland to England.

Poland to the Habsburg empire.

Scotland was invaded by Edward I of England, after he tried to put a puppet on the throne of Scotland.
Furthermore, the dynasties were conntecte4d, as a Socttish king ended up inherriting the English throne. Not the case with Orlais and Ferelden.

Poland was divided in the Congress of Viena in 1815 by the major powers.

Next.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 01 mai 2010 - 11:57 .

[sleepingbelow]

I think KoP is right, sovereignty is something that countries don't like to surrender. It is hard for us as Americans to really think about that because we're normally on the Orlesian side of the equation (er, the offering aid part). Most countries who allow their sovereignty to be seriously compromised are on the brink of being failed states.

I like Canada lots, but hypothetically if the U.S. government allowed a Canadian police force to come into... say Michigan to battle crime, but were answerable to nobody, I would be like, "WTF, we gotta do something about all these freaking chevaliers, I mean mounties."

Modifié par sleepingbelow, 02 mai 2010 - 12:01 .

[Willowhugger]

Suffice to say, actually, James I is actually a very good example of why this is NOT a good idea.  At least from the Scottish people's sake.

James pretty much abandoned Scotland wholesale for England.

A generation or two later, the English also kicked off the monarchs that the Scottish liked and replaced them.

[Tirigon]

[quote]KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Scotland to England.

Poland to the Habsburg empire.

[/quote]

Scotland was invaded by Edward I of England, after he tried to put a puppet on the throne of Scotland.
Furthermore, the dynasties were conntecte4d, as a Socttish king ended up inherriting the English throne. Not the case with Orlais and Ferelden.[/quote]
But later Scotland gave in. Against Edward I they rebelled.

[quote]Poland was divided in the Congress of Viena in 1815 by the major powers.

Next. [/quote]

Damn wrong country^^. I meant hungary (I think - you know, the one of which Sissi became Queen).

[Willowhugger]

Calian is like James in this end.



He stands everything to gain, dynastically.

[Tirigon]

sleepingbelow wrote...

I think KoP is right, sovereignty is something that countries don't like to surrender.

But I don´t care for the country. I care for the people. And I don´t see the difference between a Fereldan tyrant and an Orlaisian one.

[Raiil]

Willowhugger wrote...

Calian is like James in this end.

He stands everything to gain, dynastically.

Or lose everything, since his wife would be the bigger partner in the deal. Perhaps Cailan doesn't mind being more of a figurehead under Anora's rule, because he got to run around being ~glorious~ and doing what he wanted, for the most part. There's nothing to suggest he'd have that freedom or that power with Celene.

[Raiil]

Tirigon wrote...

sleepingbelow wrote...

I think KoP is right, sovereignty is something that countries don't like to surrender.

But I don´t care for the country. I care for the people. And I don´t see the difference between a Fereldan tyrant and an Orlaisian one.

Nationalism is a Very Important Thing to most citizens. :/ It's how they view themselves.

[Willowhugger]

Nationalism is a Very Important Thing to most citizens. :/ It's how they view themselves.

There's usually very practical reasons for nationalism as well.

The Orlais occupation shows that the Fereldan people were the "other" and to be treated as cattle.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Tirigon wrote...
But later Scotland gave in. Against Edward I they rebelled.

They didn't. One of their king inherited the throne of England.
Sctoland and England were mostly equal, making such a political union feasable and truly a union.  Not an invasion.

Furthermore, this is British particularity. The Scotts and English had many things in common, including a very close royal dynasty. Such is not the case for Orlais and Ferelden.

Damn wrong country^^. I meant hungary (I think - you know, the one of which Sissi became Queen).

Hungary was abosrbed by the Habsburgs after they "freed" it from the Ottomans.

[Willowhugger]

They didn't. One of their king inherited the throne of England.
Sctoland and England were mostly equal, making such a political union feasable and truly a union.  Not an invasion.

Furthermore, this is British particularity. The Scotts and English had many things in common, including a very close royal dynasty. Such is not the case for Orlais and Ferelden

Again, a reminder. Scotland THOUGHT they were getting the better of this deal.

Instead, it proved to be the biggest disaster for Scotland in history.

[phaonica]

Tirigon wrote...

Betraying the only one able to stop the Blight is bad for the country, isn´t it?

You don't know you are the only one who can do it, at the time, any better than she does. If she is declared Queen, the civil war ends, and she gets rid of you and combines your armies with hers, she thinks she will have as much of a chance to beat the Blight as you, and when it is over, she will be a better Queen because she has more experience than you or Alistair do. If you don't know at the time, that you are required to stop the archdemon, then that particular argument against her doesn't work. She doesn't have any problem with you helping to stop the Blight, she only has a problem with giving up the crown to someone with no experience.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Willowhugger wrote...

They didn't. One of their king inherited the throne of England.
Sctoland and England were mostly equal, making such a political union feasable and truly a union.  Not an invasion.

Furthermore, this is British particularity. The Scotts and English had many things in common, including a very close royal dynasty. Such is not the case for Orlais and Ferelden

Again, a reminder. Scotland THOUGHT they were getting the better of this deal.

Instead, it proved to be the biggest disaster for Scotland in history.

True.

[sleepingbelow]

Tirigon wrote...

But I don´t care for the country. I care for the people. And I don´t see the difference between a Fereldan tyrant and an Orlaisian one.

You might if somebody let a foreign power run the country for them.  Particularly one like Orlais.  And the difference between a Fereldan tyrant and an Orlesian one is a big one.  Severan and Meghren have Loghain topped for dastardly and brutal.  They might have Howe topped.

[phaonica]

Tirigon wrote...

But I don´t care for the country. I care for the people. And I don´t see the difference between a Fereldan tyrant and an Orlaisian one.

I don't understand the distinction here. The people make up the country. We're not talking about saving the land that the people live on, we're talking about saving the people who make up the country of Ferelden.