39010 réponses à ce sujet

[Giggles_Manically]

Both Alistair and Anora as solo rulers concern me.

Anora has no heir/2ic meaning a great risk of civil war undoing what she has done.

Alistair seems to focused on being popular meaning little advancement.



Which is why I marry them to each other and get a much better ending.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Addai67 wrote...
It might always be "backward" to the countries that care about empire, but so the **** what.

Yea, that's the source of all our differences Addai.

Perhaps our perspectives would have been different, had you lived in a backward country and I in a developped one (except I am living in one right now. I tried both). 

[Tigress M]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Tigress M wrote...

Why do you think dependency on the expertise of others is a bad thing, klarabella? I see this a strength and not a weakness

There is a keen difference between listening to advice, which is imo the mark of any good leader, and depending on it (in other words being mostly useless without it). That dependency can be used against him and time and time  again we have seen chancellors and viziers taking power for themselves because the rulers relied on them too much (making them in effect the real decision makers).

Agreed.  But, I don't see Alistair overly depending on advice.  I see him taking awhile to learn the ropes, so to speak, but he's not stupid and I don't think it would take years and years for him to get the gist of what he needs to know to aptly run a kingdom.  

He does have a backbone and isn't a complete pushover so I don't think anyone would be able to grab the power out from under him.  I think he's smart enough and strong enough to put his foot down when and where needed.  

Modifié par Tigress M, 07 janvier 2011 - 06:34 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Tigress M wrote...
 he's not stupid 

He might not be stupid, but I didn't see anything about him that showed  anything other than average intelligence at best.

So I personally would rather not risk it. But that's just me.

He does have a backbone and isn't a complete pushover so I don't think
anyone would be able to grab the power out from under him.  I think he's
smart enough and strong enough to put his foot down when and where
needed. 

That requires more than just backbone. The power taken from him can be very subtle.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 07 janvier 2011 - 06:46 .

[Maria13]

Re Anora, I despair of leaders who have not experienced the lives lived by most of their subjects. They tend to believe in their heart of hearts either that everyone really lives like them, or, if they don't, that they don't deserve to.

Modifié par Maria13, 07 janvier 2011 - 06:42 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Maria13 wrote...

Re Anora, I despair of leaders who have not experienced the lives lived by most of their subjects. They tend to believe in their heart of hearts either that everyone really lives like them, or, if they don't, they don't deserve to.

Now I wonder why the commoners love her more than Cailan.

[Maria13]

Tigress M wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Tigress M wrote...

Why do you think dependency on the expertise of others is a bad thing, klarabella? I see this a strength and not a weakness

There is a keen difference between listening to advice, which is imo the mark of any good leader, and depending on it (in other words being mostly useless without it). That dependency can be used against him and time and time  again we have seen chancellors and viziers taking power for themselves because the rulers relied on them too much (making them in effect the real decision makers).

Agreed.  But, I don't see Alistair overly depending on advice.  I see him taking awhile to learn the ropes, so to speak, but he's not stupid and I don't think it would take years and years for him to get the gist of what he needs to know to aptly run a kingdom.  

He does have a backbone and isn't a complete pushover so I don't think anyone would be able to grab the power out from under him.  I think he's smart enough and strong enough to put his foot down when and where needed.  

He showed both backbone and healthy scepticism in his reluctance to be coerced into becoming a Templar.

Modifié par Maria13, 07 janvier 2011 - 06:44 .

[inclemency]

When did Anora ever live the life of a Commoner?

[Maria13]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Maria13 wrote...

Re Anora, I despair of leaders who have not experienced the lives lived by most of their subjects. They tend to believe in their heart of hearts either that everyone really lives like them, or, if they don't, they don't deserve to.

Now I wonder why the commoners love her more than Cailan.

I doubt 'commoners' are the font of all political wisdom. 

[KnightofPhoenix]

Maria13 wrote...
I doubt 'commoners' are the font of all political wisdom. 

They certainly are not, but I'd trust them more than banns.

Point is, if commoners are not complaining about a mostly meaningless issue, and if Anora's reforms are directed towards improving their lot, I don't see where the problem is.

[Reika]

The commoners love her because her father came from the same background they did and he made good. I think they love what she represents, but don't know what she's really like.

[Addai]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Addai67 wrote...
It might always be "backward" to the countries that care about empire, but so the **** what.

Yea, that's the source of all our differences Addai.

Perhaps our perspectives would have been different, had you lived in a backward country and I in a developped one (except I am living in one right now. I tried both). 

It's not a question of development.  Ferelden is "backward" to Orlais and Tevinter because it doesn't have an autocratic government.  The codex says foreign rulers are appalled by the Landsmeet system and the unseemliness of a king having to satisfy the nobles rather than the other way around.  Well of course they're appalled by that.  The idea might spread around that something like that can actually work, as opposed to having a political class that keeps all the power for itself.

There's no reason why Ferelden can't develop itself both infrastructure-wise and economically without becoming more authoritarian and losing its cultural heritage.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Reika wrote...

The commoners love her because her father came from the same background they did and he made good. I think they love what she represents, but don't know what she's really like.

A mostly irrelevent issue. Anora's reforms will show them what she is as a ruler and that's all that matters.

[Giggles_Manically]

Yep Anora does make reforms that directly threaten to weaken Banns.



Which is a very, very good things. An educated (university), rich (markets/reforms/trade) group of people dont need banns.



Fereldan is not weak because of it being divided, its weak because they have self interested people (banns) who hold loyalty only to themselves. Once they become meaningless then Fereldan can move forward.

[Addai]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Maria13 wrote...
I doubt 'commoners' are the font of all political wisdom. 

They certainly are not, but I'd trust them more than banns.

Point is, if commoners are not complaining about a mostly meaningless issue, and if Anora's reforms are directed towards improving their lot, I don't see where the problem is.

People always love queens just as they always love our First Ladies.  She's pretty, she's from a commoner background, and ultimately she's not responsible.  If she had been having babies, they would have loved her even more.  But when she is ruling alone and there are food riots, then we see that popularity is always a relative and rather fickle thing.

Besides, Alistair is also popular with common people if he rules.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Addai67 wrote...
It's not a question of development. 

Yes it is and the codex question the civilised status of Ferelden. It's not only due to the political system.
We see it, it's barely civilized.

Addai67 wrote...
There's no reason why Ferelden can't develop itself both infrastructure-wise and economically without becoming more authoritarian and losing its cultural heritage.

Yes, there is. A system where banns kill each other over apple trees is an idiotic system at its very core, because they can actually employ armies in their petty squabbles.

All development, even in so called "Western democracies", has its origin in a centralised administration and bureacracy. Democracy, authoritarianism, oligarchies. That's not what we are talking about. What we are talking about is the complete lack of any real centralised authority in Ferelden, making it a backward system that has no hoper whatsoever in developping. A centralised administration will necessitate marginalizing the banns.

And "cultural heritage"?
I guess that's why you'd support Harrowmont?

Well truth is, some culture heritages are stupid, should not exist and should be replaced. Simple as that. Every culture has its stupid things and I see no reason to keep them if they are detrimental.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 07 janvier 2011 - 06:56 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Addai67 wrote...
 But when she is ruling alone and there are food riots, then we see that popularity is always a relative and rather fickle thing.

Food riots amongst the elves who are mostly irrelevent in the larger scheme of things.

And I know popularity is fickle. I was addressing the issue that Anora not having lived like a commoner is supposed to make her bad, where I don't see what's the corrolation.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 07 janvier 2011 - 07:00 .

[Reika]

After digging through the epilogue slides in the toolset, I did see where Anora pushed for more trade and such, but I didn't really see where she enacted reforms for the commoners. Just that she disregarded the nobility.



There was a university built, but again we don't know who is allowed to use it.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Reika wrote...

After digging through the epilogue slides in the toolset, I did see where Anora pushed for more trade and such, but I didn't really see where she enacted reforms for the commoners. Just that she disregarded the nobility.

There was a university built, but again we don't know who is allowed to use it.

Trade and laws that favor the middle class and freeholders are what will benefit the commoners in the long run.
Certainly not flaterring the nobles, who have long since outlived their usefulness.

Anyways, gtg, cheers!

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 07 janvier 2011 - 07:08 .

[Giggles_Manically]

All we know about Alistair is that he is popular and he learns about how to rule.

We know that Anora is affecting wide sweeping changes and making good reforms.



So while yes there are food riots, she is moving the WHOLE country forward. Riots and chaos happen especially after war, but if the entire country is moving forward, they dont matter. If she was doing nothing much and the riots happened then it would be bad.

[Addai]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Addai67 wrote...
 But when she is ruling alone and there are food riots, then we see that popularity is always a relative and rather fickle thing.

Food riots amongst the elves who are mostly irrelevent in the larger scheme of things.

And I know popularity is fickle. I was addressing the issue that Anora not having lived like a commoner is supposed to make her bad, where I don't see what's the corrolation.

I'm sure that depends entirely on if you're an elf or not.  LOL  Obviously the prosperity Anora is supposed to be bringing about is costing one segment of the population, and she's choosing to make the lower classes feel the pain rather than, say, raising taxes on the nobility and endangering herself politically.  I think it's a sign that Anora puts herself and her own power first in most cases.  As for why she is more popular than Cailan, he seems to have had a reputation as being unserious.  That's not something she'll ever have to worry about.

Really I think the game is set up so that no matter which ruler you choose, it works out to about the same outcome, and it becomes a matter of player preference and/or roleplay factors.

Modifié par Addai67, 07 janvier 2011 - 07:09 .

[Zjarcal]

Addai67 wrote...
Really I think the game is set up so that no matter which ruler you choose, it works out to about the same outcome, and it becomes a matter of player preference and/or roleplay factors.

This.

Kind of like how regardless of who's the ruler, the wardens are always given Amaranthine. The game sort of makes them both play out the same way in the end, with only minor differences.

Addai67 wrote...
I'm sure that depends entirely on if you're an elf or not.  LOL  

Too true.

Modifié par Zjarcal, 07 janvier 2011 - 07:21 .

[rak72]

Zjarcal wrote...

Addai67 wrote...
Really I think the game is set up so that no matter which ruler you choose, it works out to about the same outcome, and it becomes a matter of player preference and/or roleplay factors.

This.

Kind of like how regardless of who's the ruler, the wardens are always given Amaranthine. The game sort of makes them both play out the same way in the end, with only minor differences.

Double This.  And no matter who you choose, no one is having any babies.

[Giggles_Manically]

Makes it easier for Fereldan to implode when DA2 happens I guess.

[CeboCabo]

As doubtful as I am with DA2, I'm curious as to what the outcome will be for the two rulers and how well they fared before the sh!t hit the fan.