101 réponses à ce sujet

[KnightofPhoenix]

@ Surely.
Of course, it could have turned out to be much worse. 

I am still of the opinion that a king that becomes so epically lost and hopeless after the death of a spouse, no matter how beloved she was, cannot be qualified as a good or great one.
Not trying to demean Rowon's death or reduce its importance (I love Roawn), but kings usually have to deal with much more emotionally charged and sensitive issues.  

If the death of the Queen almost broke him, I would hate to see wwhat would hapen to him in a graver matter.

[SurelyForth]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

@ Surely.
Of course, it could have turned out to be much worse. 

I am still of the opinion that a king that becomes so epically lost and hopeless after the death of a spouse, no matter how beloved she was, cannot be qualified as a good or great one.
Not trying to demean Rowon's death or reduce its importance (I love Roawn), but kings usually have to deal with much more emotionally charged and sensitive issues.  

If the death of the Queen almost broke him, I would hate to see wwhat would hapen to him in a graver matter.

I think it was probably still some residual guilt for the whole Rowan situation, too. She was a close childhood friend, she was instrumental in freeing Ferelden, and she married him even though she was in love with another man and she knew that he wasn't in love with her. Her death was such an undoing of who she was: a strong, vibrant woman slowly fading away, that it probably just wore at him over time until there was nothing left. Kings are human, too, and sometimes a situation is so devastating that even the strongest person can't clench their teeth and soldier on unaffected.

I'd say if he never came out of it, or he was so apathetic/stubborn that he even refused help, it would be totally damning. The fact that he recognized something was wrong and causing him to be ineffectual and sought out help from Loghain during this time helps mitigate some of the damage done by his "Blue Period."

Modifié par SurelyForth, 27 juillet 2010 - 10:21 .

[Lady Dino]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

@ Surely.
Of course, it could have turned out to be much worse. 

I am still of the opinion that a king that becomes so epically lost and hopeless after the death of a spouse, no matter how beloved she was, cannot be qualified as a good or great one.
Not trying to demean Rowon's death or reduce its importance (I love Roawn), but kings usually have to deal with much more emotionally charged and sensitive issues.  

If the death of the Queen almost broke him, I would hate to see wwhat would hapen to him in a graver matter.

 I'll agree that Maric tended to be a little wishy washy at times but I don't think that alone makes him a bad King. There are lots of ways to be bad Kings and very few ways to be good ones. Maybe he wasn't the greastest King ever, but at least the entire nation didn't catch fire with rebellion, or other similar wars, while he was ruling. 

I'll give, though, that I maybe biased as I love Maric:wub: to bits. You can hold that against me if you like. 

[Sarah1281]

Lady Dino wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

@ Surely.
Of course, it could have turned out to be much worse. 

I am still of the opinion that a king that becomes so epically lost and hopeless after the death of a spouse, no matter how beloved she was, cannot be qualified as a good or great one.
Not trying to demean Rowon's death or reduce its importance (I love Roawn), but kings usually have to deal with much more emotionally charged and sensitive issues.  

If the death of the Queen almost broke him, I would hate to see wwhat would hapen to him in a graver matter.

 I'll agree that Maric tended to be a little wishy washy at times but I don't think that alone makes him a bad King. There are lots of ways to be bad Kings and very few ways to be good ones. Maybe he wasn't the greastest King ever, but at least the entire nation didn't catch fire with rebellion, or other similar wars, while he was ruling. 

I'll give, though, that I maybe biased as I love Maric:wub: to bits. You can hold that against me if you like. 

True, nothing all that bad happened during Maric's reighn.Technically, though, nothing really bad happened in Ferelden until after Cailan's was over and are we really going to decide he was a good King because of it? 

[Lady Dino]

SurelyForth wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

@ Surely.
Of course, it could have turned out to be much worse. 

I am still of the opinion that a king that becomes so epically lost and hopeless after the death of a spouse, no matter how beloved she was, cannot be qualified as a good or great one.
Not trying to demean Rowon's death or reduce its importance (I love Roawn), but kings usually have to deal with much more emotionally charged and sensitive issues.  

If the death of the Queen almost broke him, I would hate to see wwhat would hapen to him in a graver matter.

I think it was probably still some residual guilt for the whole Rowan situation, too. She was a close childhood friend, she was instrumental in freeing Ferelden, and she married him even though she was in love with another man and she knew that he wasn't in love with her. Her death was such an undoing of who she was: a strong, vibrant woman slowly fading away, that it probably just wore at him over time until there was nothing left. Kings are human, too, and sometimes a situation is so devastating that even the strongest person can't clench their teeth and soldier on unaffected.

I'd say if he never came out of it, or he was so apathetic/stubborn that he even refused help, it would be totally damning. The fact that he recognized something was wrong and causing him to be ineffectual and sought out help from Loghain during this time helps mitigate some of the damage done by his "Blue Period."

Ah! There it is! You worded what I was trying to say better then I ever could have. Thank you <3

Now my other post just seems silly...

[KnightofPhoenix]

SurelyForth wrote...
Kings are human, too, and sometimes a situation is so devastating that even the strongest person can't clench their teeth and soldier on unaffected.

Of course, I never suggested he should have been unaffected. In fact, I would have despised him if he was unaffected by Rowan's death despite what she (and his friend) sacrificed so that she could be with him and support him. In addition to being the mother of his child.

But his reaction was, imo, excessive and very irrational / irresponsable. My first reaction would have been to get closer to the now motherless Cailan, but instead he does the opposite. It's an understandable reaction to be sure, but it's not a praiseworthy one or a kingly one, imo. Kings are human that is true, but sometimes they need to be "more" (or "less", depends on perspective) for the sake of their subjects. 

But yea I agree, things could have been much worse and Maric did alleviate the situation. But it was a situation that could have, imo, been avoided all together.      

[phaonica]

It seemed like from the moment Maric achieved the crown, he wanted nothing but to be rid of it. So many decisions that he made were charged with emotion and rarely with any sense of responsibility and consequence. When he decided to go into the Deep Roads at the beginning of the Calling, I wanted to throw the book out into the street.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Sarah1281 wrote...
 True, nothing all that bad happened during Maric's reighn.Technically, though, nothing really bad happened in Ferelden until after Cailan's was over and are we really going to decide he was a good King because of it? 

 
Some people would.

There is a bit of fantasy bs (pardon the bluntness) in Maric's story. I don't really imagine someone like him lasting for long as a real life king.   

But as a better explanation, Ferelden has, relatively speaking, a strong system based on tradition that would generate political stability even with a bad king (like Cailan). Ferelden seems like a pseudo-constitutional monarchy that does not require a great king to endure. That plus the symbolic strength of the Therein line, even if they like all other families can produce idiots. 

I guess this goes back to the genius of Calenhad. Assuming he was the one who came up with the idea.      

[Giggles_Manically]

It seems that unless someone really nuts up like Cailian or Loghain, Ferelden runs very well.



With Banns, Arls, and Teryn's all running chunks of the country I doubt that the King has much day to day problems in the country. He probably does have to deal with bigger issues, but the Bannorn looks like it can self-govern fairly well.



Also do people only pick the person right above them?

Like villagers pick their bann, and then the banns picks their arl?

[errant_knight]

Avilia wrote...

Miri1984 wrote...

I think the Templar thing was all a calculated way to make sure Alistair never challenged Cailan for the throne - it might well have come about after Cailan was of an age for Eamon (possibly in consultation with Loghain) to realise that he would always be a weak King and challenges would be likely. Locking Alistair up in the Tower where only mages who've never seen the king and never talk to anyone outside - but he'd know exactly where he was all the time sounds pretty good. Also, restrained from having his own bastards by the vow of chastity and easily controllable through lyrium? Sound political thinking.

Eamon's a bastard in my opinion.

I knew I liked you - I so much want the option to stick a dagger in Eamon.  What self serving, conniving, two faced....(the bad language filter prohibits complete expression of my thoughts)!

What makes you think Eamon was calling the shots?

[Addai]

phaonica wrote...


It seemed like from the moment Maric achieved the crown, he wanted nothing but to be rid of it. So many decisions that he made were charged with emotion and rarely with any sense of responsibility and consequence. When he decided to go into the Deep Roads at the beginning of the Calling, I wanted to throw the book out into the street.

I think it is a misreading to say that Maric went with the Wardens because of his midlife crisis alone.  There was an actual situation, a large one.  It could have resulted in the darkspawn finding all the old gods at once.  If one Blight = bad news...?  I think if you're faced with the end of the world, and there are two men in Thedas who could guide the Wardens and he's one of them, this is on one side of the coin an absolutely prudent thing to do.

The fact that he was empty and weary plays in, as well as Flemeth's prophecy, but you have to keep in mind that he became Maric the Savior more concretely in The Calling than he was in TST.

And what are the other irresponsible decisions that mark his kingship??

Modifié par Addai67, 27 juillet 2010 - 11:23 .

[Sarah1281]

Also do people only pick the person right above them?



Like villagers pick their bann, and then the banns picks their arl?

Freeholders are the ones who pick who they owe allegiance to, not villagers. And I'm not positive but you'd think that if Banns could choose their Arl that there would be quite a few defections once you take over Amaranthine in Awakening.

[Addai]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
But as a better explanation, Ferelden has, relatively speaking, a strong system based on tradition that would generate political stability even with a bad king (like Cailan).      

Uh.... that is almost exactly the opposite of how Fereldan politics is described in the codex. 

To our neighbors, Ferelden seems utterly chaotic. Unlike other monarchies, power does not descend from our throne. Rather, it rises from the support of the freeholders.

The Fereldans have a decentralized, federalist, and meritocratic view of government.  Their national identity is pretty thin.  And they like to argue amongst themselves- a lot.  When Alistair says he has to run off to deal with a situation in the Bannorn, you get the feeling kings had to do that a lot.

Modifié par Addai67, 27 juillet 2010 - 11:21 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Addai67 wrote...

Uh.... that is almost exactly the opposite of how Fereldan politics is described in the codex. 

To our neighbors, Ferelden seems utterly chaotic. Unlike other monarchies, power does not descend from our throne. Rather, it rises from the support of the freeholders.

Bolded part is key. Ferelden's political system is not understood by neighbours, as they have a compeltely different system.
 
The institution of the Landsmeet is designed to settle internal disputes. Unlike Orlais and Antiva for instance, Ferelden's nobility seemingly does not resort to assassinations and bards en masse, but seems to prefer negotiation (accompanied by the politicking that is expected in any system).

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 27 juillet 2010 - 11:26 .

[Addai]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Bolded part is key. Ferelden's political system is not understood by neighbours, as they have a compeltely different system.
 
The institution of the Landsmeet is designed to settle internal disputes. Unlike Orlais and Antiva for instance, Ferelden's nobility seemingly does not resort to assassinations and bards en masse, but seems to prefer negotiation (accompanied by the politicking that is expected in any system).

But that still doesn't imply any kind of political stability.  It just shows that they do not accept an autocratic ruler.  The king must actually prove himself worthy to be first among equals, so there is even less room for a bad king to skate by than in an autocratic system.  The game's plot itself should demonstrate how fragile Fereldan national identity and unity is.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Addai67 wrote...
But that still doesn't imply any kind of political stability.  It just shows that they do not accept an autocratic ruler.  The king must actually prove himself worthy to be first among equals, so there is even less room for a bad king to skate by than in an autocratic system.  The game's plot itself should demonstrate how fragile Fereldan national identity and unity is.

It does. A system is much more stable if there is room for negotiations, and when the nobility doesn't resort to assassination by instinct.

And I disagree. A bad autocrat essentially means the end of his regime, it's axiomatic as the autocrat is assumed to be the one holding everything together. But, what can essentially be described as an aristocratic system that is enrooted in tradition and relatively strong institutions, does not require a good king to operate (a good king wouldn't hurt though).    

The game's plot was an extra-ordinary case that involved a darkspawn horde in the south, a perceived invasion from the west, the lack of an heir to the throne, economic problems due to those events....etc. 
I never suggested the system is perfect and under extreme pressure, it would collapse.

And Ferelden national identity is never put in question in th game. No one doubted or questioned what being a Fereldan meant. Their unity however was indeed put in question but as I said, it was under not so ordinary circumstances.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 27 juillet 2010 - 11:40 .

[Addai]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Addai67 wrote...
But that still doesn't imply any kind of political stability.  It just shows that they do not accept an autocratic ruler.  The king must actually prove himself worthy to be first among equals, so there is even less room for a bad king to skate by than in an autocratic system.  The game's plot itself should demonstrate how fragile Fereldan national identity and unity is.

It does. A system is much more stable if there is room for negotiations, and when the nobility doesn't resort to assassination by instinct.

And I disagree. A bad autocrat essentially means the end of his regime, it's axiomatic as the autocrat is assumed to be the one holding everything together.

Not if it's a dynasty- he appoints his heir and that's the end of that.  Not that there aren't revolutions in systems like that, either, but just look at Orlais.  There is plenty of intrigue, but the intrigue is all to gain the favor of the Empress rather than to challenge her.

But, what can essentially be described as an aristocratic system that is enrooted in tradition and relatively strong institutions, does not require a good king to operate (a good king wouldn't hurt though).   

Ferelden doesn't really have an aristocratic system, however.  They have nobility, but especially after the occupation, the nobility itself is quite fluid.  They seem to me to have a more Germanic, meritocratic system.  In one sense this does make for greater stability because power is devolved into smaller entities.  But these individual entities will always compete and can easily fracture.

And Ferelden national identity is never put in question in th game. No one doubted or questioned what being a Fereldan meant. Their unity however was indeed put in question but as I said, it was under not so ordinary circumstances.

What's the difference?  The Bannorn would no longer consent to being ruled by Denerim because the freeholders see themselves as independent and only loosely associated to any national loyalty.

Modifié par Addai67, 28 juillet 2010 - 12:22 .

[Miri1984]

errant_knight wrote...

Avilia wrote...

Miri1984 wrote...

I think the Templar thing was all a calculated way to make sure Alistair never challenged Cailan for the throne - it might well have come about after Cailan was of an age for Eamon (possibly in consultation with Loghain) to realise that he would always be a weak King and challenges would be likely. Locking Alistair up in the Tower where only mages who've never seen the king and never talk to anyone outside - but he'd know exactly where he was all the time sounds pretty good. Also, restrained from having his own bastards by the vow of chastity and easily controllable through lyrium? Sound political thinking.

Eamon's a bastard in my opinion.

I knew I liked you - I so much want the option to stick a dagger in Eamon.  What self serving, conniving, two faced....(the bad language filter prohibits complete expression of my thoughts)!

What makes you think Eamon was calling the shots?

I said it might have been in consultation with Loghain - I wouldn't be surprised in fact. Maric was around at the same time, but although I'm not fond of him overly - I think the business with Katriel proved he was a bit of an idiot to be honest - I don't think Maric would have been happy about Alistair going to the Chantry. 

Still, if Maric was involved I wouldn't be surprised if he'd then asked Duncan to intervene at the right time so that Alistair managed to become a Grey Warden rather than a Templar. I don't think that idea had anything to do with Loghain or Eamon.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Addai67 wrote...
Not if it's a dynasty- he appoints his heir and that's the end of that.  Not that there aren't revolutions in systems like that, either, but just look at Orlais.  There is plenty of intrigue, but the intrigue is all to gain the favor of the Empress rather than to challenge her.

And if the heir is a bad autocrat, the regime won't last.

And that's because the Empress is a good autocrat. If she wasn't, then she wouldnt have reached the position in the first place (Celene had to work to become Empress).

We don't really know that much of Orlais' political system, but if we are to go with Aristotelian terms, I believe it would be qualified as oligarchic (rule of the few for the few) in addition to despotic (or monarchic, depending on each individual emperor). But it too has strong traditions and insitutions (like the Chantry) that help with stability.

Ferelden doesn't really have an aristocratic system, however.  They have nobility, but especially after the occupation, the nobility itself is quite fluid.  They seem to me to have a more Germanic, meritocratic system.  In one sense this does make for greater stability because power is devolved into smaller entities.  But these individual entities will always compete and can easily fracture.

I am using "aristocratic" in Aristotelian terms. As in "rule of the few for the many", considering how the banns answer to freeholders.
And whatever competition and fracture happen, which is inevitable, can be addressed and solved in the Landsmeet, instead of by themselves via violence.

Pseudo-Federalism is perfect for Ferelden, as it is for Canada for instance (French / English divide). Whatever tensions exist within individual territories can be addressed and solved via negotiations thanks to institutions that are deliberately designed to do so by representing all those territories.

Notice how the whole Ferelden civil war was solved in a single landsmeet and with one duel. And without needing a Therein on the throne.   

What's the difference?  The Bannorn would no longer consent to being ruled by Denerim because the freeholders see themselves as independent and only loosely associated to any national loyalty.

It was not a fight for independence, but rather them not liking to be bossed around by Loghain, who was acting like an autocrat. But the Landsmeet has this settled with ease and the Bannorn never claimed it was fighting for independence.

Futhermore, only Ternirs can be autonomous enough to even consider not being associated to a national identity, as per Calenhad's compromise. I did not get that impression from Arls and certainly not banns.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 28 juillet 2010 - 12:38 .

[phaonica]

Addai67 wrote...

phaonica wrote...


It seemed like from the moment Maric achieved the crown, he wanted nothing but to be rid of it. So many decisions that he made were charged with emotion and rarely with any sense of responsibility and consequence. When he decided to go into the Deep Roads at the beginning of the Calling, I wanted to throw the book out into the street.

I think it is a misreading to say that Maric went with the Wardens because of his midlife crisis alone.  There was an actual situation, a large one.  It could have resulted in the darkspawn finding all the old gods at once.  If one Blight = bad news...?  I think if you're faced with the end of the world, and there are two men in Thedas who could guide the Wardens and he's one of them, this is on one side of the coin an absolutely prudent thing to do.

The fact that he was empty and weary plays in, as well as Flemeth's prophecy, but you have to keep in mind that he became Maric the Savior more concretely in The Calling than he was in TST.

I felt like he was using the potential blight situation as more of an excuse to get away from Ferelden than anything. He wanted to run away and a situation presented itself. He didn't have to go himself. He shouldn't have gone himself. And the fact that if Maric had not been there everyone would have been doomed was more about luck than about Maric's skill or character.

And what are the other irresponsible decisions that mark his kingship??

Going into the Deeproads at the beginning of the Calling was the big one, for me, there were *so many* reasons why he shouldn't have gone. Going in there the first time was kind of insane, too, no matter what the alternatives were or weren't. As Xanderpein said, his solo fight with Severan was an unnecessary risk. For all that Rowan's death was sad and their relationship was complicated, he had a responsibility to his child and to his subjects to not let his depression destroy him or to neglect his duties as king.

And then there is the whole situation with Alistair. If Fiona didn't want Alistair's life complicated with the crown, Maric should have let her take the baby far away from Ferelden, or put him in his own household anyway, or Fiona should have *not slept with the king in the first place*. If it comes to light that Fiona is not Alistair's mother, and that there is yet another bastard child out there somewhere, that just makes Maric look even worse. 

[Giggles_Manically]

Does Maric spend more time running around/fooling around than actually being a King.

Or is it just me?



What is so important about the Therin's if Maric, Calian, and Alistair all seem to be disintrested in actually being a king?

[errant_knight]

Miri1984 wrote...

errant_knight wrote...

Avilia wrote...

Miri1984 wrote...

I think the Templar thing was all a calculated way to make sure Alistair never challenged Cailan for the throne - it might well have come about after Cailan was of an age for Eamon (possibly in consultation with Loghain) to realise that he would always be a weak King and challenges would be likely. Locking Alistair up in the Tower where only mages who've never seen the king and never talk to anyone outside - but he'd know exactly where he was all the time sounds pretty good. Also, restrained from having his own bastards by the vow of chastity and easily controllable through lyrium? Sound political thinking.

Eamon's a bastard in my opinion.

I knew I liked you - I so much want the option to stick a dagger in Eamon.  What self serving, conniving, two faced....(the bad language filter prohibits complete expression of my thoughts)!

What makes you think Eamon was calling the shots?

I said it might have been in consultation with Loghain - I wouldn't be surprised in fact. Maric was around at the same time, but although I'm not fond of him overly - I think the business with Katriel proved he was a bit of an idiot to be honest - I don't think Maric would have been happy about Alistair going to the Chantry. 

Still, if Maric was involved I wouldn't be surprised if he'd then asked Duncan to intervene at the right time so that Alistair managed to become a Grey Warden rather than a Templar. I don't think that idea had anything to do with Loghain or Eamon.

I don't see why Eamon would consult Loghain about Maric's son. It seems much more likely to me that Maric instructed Eamon as to how to proceed. They may very well have thought it a good solution for a boy who was more knightly than servant-like. It's not like either of them knew about the lyrium addiction. That's a Chantry secret that Alistair spilled the beans on. But I'm spoiling my own story that I haven't even posted yet, so I shall bow out of this now.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Giggles_Manically wrote...
What is so important about the Therin's if Maric, Calian, and Alistair all seem to be disintrested in actually being a king?

It's their symbolic power.
People cried at the very sight of Maric in the Stolen Throne. And it was not because of any personal trait really. But only because he was a Therein. At least initially. 
So there is no denying that the Thereins have symbolic power. 

But judging from the three examples you list, they don't strike me as brilliant individually or particurarily smart.  
I think Anora beats all three in that regard. Combined.

[Giggles_Manically]

Anora is one cool dame thats for sure.



I hate the Landsmeet though, since everyone is going all power crazy.

[phaonica]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Giggles_Manically wrote...
What is so important about the Therin's if Maric, Calian, and Alistair all seem to be disintrested in actually being a king?

It's their symbolic power.
People cried at the very sight of Maric in the Stolen Throne. And it was not because of any personal trait really. But only because he was a Therein. At least initially. 
So there is no denying that the Thereins have symbolic power. 

But judging from the three examples you list, they don't strike me as brilliant individually or particurarily smart.  
I think Anora beats all three in that regard. Combined.

Part of what I like about the story, is that when you consider these heroic titles--Hero of River Dane, Maric the Savior, Hero of Denerim-- it's not that these titles aren't deserved, but there is a darkness and a sadness to the titles that the people who bestow them don't really *get*. It's a pretty cool spin on a video game hero/protagonist.

Modifié par phaonica, 28 juillet 2010 - 01:09 .