12857 réponses à ce sujet

[KnightofPhoenix]

Addai67 wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

The unrest in Denerim is mostly in the Alienage.
Unrest in Gwaren can be attributed to the hardships of war. The Warden had to deal with riots in Awakening too. Or due to Loghain seemingly abandonning the southern territories (Gwaren is south of the country).

Anora says all Denerim is in turmoil, and the templars at the Chantry talk about the high death toll and the Chantry being closed because of all the funerals.  In a time of war, there's going to be unrest no matter who the ruler is.  Regardless, it is obvious that the resistance to Loghain is not only among a few nobles.

I was under the imrpession that the funerals the Templars are talking about are for those who fell at Ostagar (one of them says it's hard to do it without bodies if I recall correctly). But I never got the impression that Denerim had seen many riots and massacres, except the elven purge. 
 

[phaonica]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

Monica21 wrote...

The player is forced into viewing Loghain through a black and white lens. Your first conversation about Ostagar is "why did Loghain abandon the field." The player doesn't have the opportunity to consider it a tactical retreat.

Because especially in a feudal view, abandoning the king's army is unthinkable, it's treason.  Then there is the fact that he's trying to blame the Wardens and kill you.  It rather does enforce a point of view.

Ferelden does not operate like most feudal systems. At least in Maric's head, Ferelden is much more important than its king and if he had to be sacrificed for it, then so be it.

For all that Maric thinks this, it doesn't seem to be the pervading stance of his kingdom.

[Costin_Razvan]

Addai67 wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

The unrest in Denerim is mostly in the Alienage.
Unrest in Gwaren can be attributed to the hardships of war. The Warden had to deal with riots in Awakening too. Or due to Loghain seemingly abandonning the southern territories (Gwaren is south of the country).

Anora says all Denerim is in turmoil, and the templars at the Chantry talk about the high death toll and the Chantry being closed because of all the funerals.  In a time of war, there's going to be unrest no matter who the ruler is.  Regardless, it is obvious that the resistance to Loghain is not only among a few nobles.

Depends on what kind of resistance there is to his rule. Is it because of what he did by making himself Regent, or simply due to the harsh lifestyle they have to endure due to war.

As for abandoning your ruler in a feudal time, not so unthinkable as one might think in that time and not necessarily treason.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 26 août 2010 - 06:15 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

phaonica wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

Monica21 wrote...

The player is forced into viewing Loghain through a black and white lens. Your first conversation about Ostagar is "why did Loghain abandon the field." The player doesn't have the opportunity to consider it a tactical retreat.

Because especially in a feudal view, abandoning the king's army is unthinkable, it's treason.  Then there is the fact that he's trying to blame the Wardens and kill you.  It rather does enforce a point of view.

Ferelden does not operate like most feudal systems. At least in Maric's head, Ferelden is much more important than its king and if he had to be sacrificed for it, then so be it.

For all that Maric thinks this, it doesn't seem to be the pervading stance of his kingdom.

But the battlecry of Fereldans is "For Ferelden" and not "For king and country".
While they may not think exactly what Maric thinks and their love for the Thereins is clear, I do nto think that they are that attached to the Monarchy.

Afterall, the daughter of a commoner can become Queen with relative ease and the last Therein executed with no opposition.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 26 août 2010 - 06:16 .

[CalJones]

The gossips seem to be 50-50 on the Loghain issue, as do tavern rumours.



What Phaonica says about wanting choices is very true...but a lot of us still want those choices regardless. Still, the majority of players are, like it or not, one time players, and most of them would likely have viewed Loghain as the villain and executed him at Landsmeet. It's only us ODC repeat players who explore all the nuances and start analysing the characters, scenarios and motivations.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Costin_Razvan wrote...
As for abandoning your ruler in a feudal time, not so unthinkable as one might and not necessarily treason.

Yea. Salah Al Din essentially backstabbed his Sultan and protege Noor Al Din and took Egypt for himself and he was never thought of as a traitor.

[Addai]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I was under the imrpession that the funerals the Templars are talking about are for those who fell at Ostagar (one of them says it's hard to do it without bodies if I recall correctly). But I never got the impression that Denerim had seen many riots and massacres, except the elven purge. 
 

Yes, the funerals are for those who died at Ostagar, and the templar mentions the high death toll.  I didn't mean there were riots in Denerim- it seems to be more a case of unrest and low morale.  It would make sense since it's the king's army that got crushed that a lot of the dead were from Denerim.

[adneate]

Addai67 wrote...

Because especially in a feudal view, abandoning the king's army is unthinkable, it's treason.  Then there is the fact that he's trying to blame the Wardens and kill you.  It rather does enforce a point of view.

As a Medievalist the European Feudal system that is taught in Western Civ style textbooks doesn't really exist, it's a set of rules written at a time when said "system" is already dead. Feudal loyalties are not an orderd pyramid, they're more like a complex intertwined web with people owing loyalty to many people who often are at each others throats. Nobles regularly betrayed their King and rose up in open rebellion against him, in fact abandoning the King's army in battle was fairly common particularily if The King was facing a superior force. The Holy Roman Empire was the best example of this, Nobles regularily rose up in open rebellion against the King if only to force him to prove himself worthy of the title and any organized attempt to raise an Army from the Holy Roman Empire was a trickly proposition since nobles were likely to pull their support at the last minute or join up with the enemy if they felt it was more to their advantage.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Addai67 wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I was under the imrpession that the funerals the Templars are talking about are for those who fell at Ostagar (one of them says it's hard to do it without bodies if I recall correctly). But I never got the impression that Denerim had seen many riots and massacres, except the elven purge. 
 

Yes, the funerals are for those who died at Ostagar, and the templar mentions the high death toll.  I didn't mean there were riots in Denerim- it seems to be more a case of unrest and low morale.  It would make sense since it's the king's army that got crushed that a lot of the dead were from Denerim.

Yea, naturally I would expect the morale to be very low. Darkspawn invasion from the south, a perceived invasion from the west, civil war, taxes, conscription, death tolls...etc. That's the case in all wars and can't be attributed to Loghain *personally*.

[phaonica]

adneate wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

Because especially in a feudal view, abandoning the king's army is unthinkable, it's treason.  Then there is the fact that he's trying to blame the Wardens and kill you.  It rather does enforce a point of view.

As a Medievalist the European Feudal system that is taught in Western Civ style textbooks doesn't really exist, it's a set of rules written at a time when said "system" is already dead. Feudal loyalties are not an orderd pyramid, they're more like a complex intertwined web with people owing loyalty to many people who often are at each others throats. Nobles regularly betrayed their King and rose up in open rebellion against him, in fact abandoning the King's army in battle was fairly common particularily if The King was facing a superior force. The Holy Roman Empire was the best example of this, Nobles regularily rose up in open rebellion against the King if only to force him to prove himself worthy of the title and any organized attempt to raise an Army from the Holy Roman Empire was a trickly proposition since nobles were likely to pull their support at the last minute or join up with the enemy if they felt it was more to their advantage.

Maybe it would be more appropriate to term the "feudal" system depicted in a lot of games as "feudal mythology" or "fantasy feudal"?

Modifié par phaonica, 26 août 2010 - 06:41 .

[Addai]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Yea, naturally I would expect the morale to be very low. Darkspawn invasion from the south, a perceived invasion from the west, civil war, taxes, conscription, death tolls...etc. That's the case in all wars and can't be attributed to Loghain *personally*.

He's the regent, of course it is personal.  As I said, whoever was in charge would have had a rough go, but I'm responding to the statements made earlier that the only ones who were seen opposing Loghain during Origins were Teagan and a few unruly banns.

[Costin_Razvan]

He's the regent, of course it is personal. As I said, whoever was in charge would have had a rough go, but I'm responding to the statements made earlier that the only ones who were seen opposing Loghain during Origins were Teagan and a few unruly banns.

There is a rather large difference between wishing Loghain be taken down as Regent and people unhappy with how his handles his rule. It does not necessarily imply that the latter wish him removed from power, but rather that they want him to change a few things.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 26 août 2010 - 06:59 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Addai67 wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Yea, naturally I would expect the morale to be very low. Darkspawn invasion from the south, a perceived invasion from the west, civil war, taxes, conscription, death tolls...etc. That's the case in all wars and can't be attributed to Loghain *personally*.

He's the regent, of course it is personal.  As I said, whoever was in charge would have had a rough go, but I'm responding to the statements made earlier that the only ones who were seen opposing Loghain during Origins were Teagan and a few unruly banns.

Not necessarily. People can hate the situation they are in, without hating the ruler, at least on a personal level, or hate his choices / concerns. We know that Howe was hated, but I do not think Loghain was by the majority of people. Even Eamon does not demonstrate hate towards him. 

Of course, many opposed Loghain. But I do not think it was the majority of people who did oppose him personally.
Indeed, the Landsmeet votes in favor of him, if certain things were not exposed. And they don't buy the "he betrayed us at Ostagar" argument.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 26 août 2010 - 06:59 .

[Costin_Razvan]

And they don't buy the "he betrayed us at Ostagar" argument.

Oh, they would buy it I think, but they couldn't care less about Cailan's death.



Medieval Nobility at it's finest.

[Giggles_Manically]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

And they don't buy the "he betrayed us at Ostagar" argument.

Oh, they would buy it I think, but they couldn't care less about Cailan's death.

Medieval Nobility at it's finest.

I got a snicker when Cailian and the Ogre, did their best impression of a ketchup packet and an angry fatman.

[phaonica]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

phaonica wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Ferelden does not operate like most feudal systems. At least in Maric's head, Ferelden is much more important than its king and if he had to be sacrificed for it, then so be it.

For all that Maric thinks this, it doesn't seem to be the pervading stance of his kingdom.

But the battlecry of Fereldans is "For Ferelden" and not "For king and country".
While they may not think exactly what Maric thinks and their love for the Thereins is clear, I do nto think that they are that attached to the Monarchy.

Afterall, the daughter of a commoner can become Queen with relative ease and the last Therein executed with no opposition.

But Ferelden is the country in "For King and Country". And some would argue that so is the king. So arguably the two battle cries you mentioned say the same thing. And they do seem to place a lot of merit on bloodline, even if it's not noble blood. Kings/Queens answer to the Landsmeet, but are traditionally determined by blood. Teyrn Cousland was raising Fergus to be the next teyrn. The Theirin bloodline stems from Calenhad. You can be raised to nobility by merit, but once you are a noble, your heirs maintain that status.

You say a daughter of a commoner can become Queen with relative ease, but Loghain is not your typical commoner, either. If Anora named a commoner who was not blood-related as her heir, I wonder how well-received that person would be.

And there is very little proof that Alistair is a Theirin (we have Eamon's word against his agenda, and we might assume that Alistair and Maric physically resembled one another).

Whether they're more attached to the kingdom than the crown, or vice versa, their lack of understanding Loghain's suspicions against the Orlesians, imo, puts into question their sense of political self determination.

Modifié par phaonica, 26 août 2010 - 09:08 .

[CalJones]

Giggles_Manically wrote...
I got a snicker when Cailian and the Ogre, did their best impression of a ketchup packet and an angry fatman.

Chortle!

Regarding commoners...then no. Alistair, if named king, can only marry a Cousland warden.
Anora gets special treatment because Loghain was made teyrn and also because he was Maric's BFF and the idea of their kids marrying seemed like a good one.
I suppose that if there was a human commoner origin, and Alistair made you teyrna, then he might be able to marry you... But there isn't, so we'll never know if that would fly.

[Monica21]

phaonica wrote...
It's probably a mechanics thing too. If the player is given too much reason to doubt, then they start wanting choices and options that could potentially branch the story too drastically.

I don't know. Even Anora supported bringing in the Orlesians for help early in the game, and of all people you'd think that she had the most exposure to considering them with a political wariness.

I understand that it's partly mechanics, but for a character who's so richly developed in a prequel book, the way he's presented in DA:O is disappointing. Players shouldn't have to read the book to even partially understand his motivations, because the game doesn't give you much beyond thinking Orlais is a happy neighbor. The player is given no reason to share, on any degree, Loghain's fear of reoccupation.

I guess what disappoints me is that the first time I played through I sympathized with Loghain but had no reason, either through the codex entries or dialogue, to spare him. He's presented as a fallen, paranoid general, but you don't know what he's afraid of because it's barely mentioned.

[KnightofPhoenix]

phaonica wrote...
But Ferelden is the country in "For King and Country". And some would argue that so is the king. So arguably the two battle cries you mentioned say the same thing.

This is not the case in the feudal era and definately not the case for Ferelden. Only Louis XIV could claim to say: "L'Etat, c'est moi / The state, it's me". The absolute monarchy era started in the 17th century or so. This would not have been a mantra of feudal monarchies.

[Addai]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

phaonica wrote...
But Ferelden is the country in "For King and Country". And some would argue that so is the king. So arguably the two battle cries you mentioned say the same thing.

This is not the case in the feudal era and definately not the case for Ferelden. Only Louis XIV could claim to say: "L'Etat, c'est moi / The state, it's me". The absolute monarchy era started in the 17th century or so. This would not have been a mantra of feudal monarchies.

Do you have in-game support for that?  In the HN origin, for example, if you question Bryce about sending troops south, he says that it would be a very bad thing not to when the king calls for them.

[Giggles_Manically]

It was not uncommon for lower ranked nobles in Feudal systems to run away from battles.

They would desert for many reasons, and a king had to really bully them into line.



If I was in Loghain's position and was going to have to risk half the royal army to save an idiot who would then do the same thing again, I would do what loghain did.

[Monica21]

Addai67 wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

phaonica wrote...
But Ferelden is the country in "For King and Country". And some would argue that so is the king. So arguably the two battle cries you mentioned say the same thing.

This is not the case in the feudal era and definately not the case for Ferelden. Only Louis XIV could claim to say: "L'Etat, c'est moi / The state, it's me". The absolute monarchy era started in the 17th century or so. This would not have been a mantra of feudal monarchies.

Do you have in-game support for that?  In the HN origin, for example, if you question Bryce about sending troops south, he says that it would be a very bad thing not to when the king calls for them.

Would that have been more likely because the Couslands had sworn fealty to them rather than holding a belief that the king was the state?

[KnightofPhoenix]

Addai67 wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

phaonica wrote...
But Ferelden is the country in "For King and Country". And some would argue that so is the king. So arguably the two battle cries you mentioned say the same thing.

This is not the case in the feudal era and definately not the case for Ferelden. Only Louis XIV could claim to say: "L'Etat, c'est moi / The state, it's me". The absolute monarchy era started in the 17th century or so. This would not have been a mantra of feudal monarchies.

Do you have in-game support for that?  In the HN origin, for example, if you question Bryce about sending troops south, he says that it would be a very bad thing not to when the king calls for them.

And what does this have to do with the idea that the king is the state?
The king calls and the nobility answers. Or they don't. It has nothing to do with the idea that the king is the state, otherwise the king orders and does not ask. And Bryce does not say that it's a bad idea simply because it would be against the king's call. It might be a bad idea to let the darkspawn reach highever, so the smart move is to fight them outside. In fact, a Ternir by definition is quasi-independent and I would be hardpressed to believe that Bryce thinks that Cailan is Ferelden.

Also, Landsmeet dynamics cannot function in an absolutist sense of a monarchy. If there is even a small semblance of election, then the King is by definition no longer the state, but the first servant of the state. Ferelden politics in general is not favorable to an absolutist monarchy.

And there is what Maric said. If he was taught by his mother that the king is the state, he wouldnt' tell Loghain that Ferelden is more important than he is.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 27 août 2010 - 01:03 .

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

KOP has the right of it. In Medieval time, the king really ruled at the behest of the nobility. "First amongst peers" sort of thing. Remember, nobles had their own armies, and basically, if a king tried pushing his weight around too much, he'd have alot of angry armies at his castle walls. And it happened quite a bit in medieval times. Kings were very careful not to push their weight around too much to where it would ****** the nobility off, especially in Medieval England.



Sending troops because Cailan asked was a practical move, both for darkspawn, as well as further securing status as loyalists to the Crown.

[Monica21]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
And what does this have to do with the idea that the king is the state?
The king calls and the nobility answers. Or they don't. It has nothing to do with the idea that the king is the state, otherwise the king orders and does not ask. And Bryce does not say that it's a bad idea simply because it would be against the king's call. It might be a bad idea to let the darkspawn reach highever, so the smart move is to fight them outside. In fact, a Ternir by definition is quasi-independent and I would be hardpressed to believe that Bryce thinks that Cailan is Ferelden.

Also, Landsmeet dynamics cannot function in an absolutist sense of a monarchy. If there is even a small semblance of election, then the King is by definition no longer the state, but the first servant of the state. Ferelden politics in general is not favorable to an absolutist monarchy.

And there is what Maric said. If he was taught by his mother that the king is the state, he wouldnt' tell Loghain that Ferelden is more important than he is.

Not that I supported it, but this idea of what a feudal monarchy really was can be used to argue against the idea that Loghain committed treason. He withdrew his troops because he had the right to do so and the desire to spare them. His commitment to Cailan could be withdrawn whenever he wanted to.