12857 réponses à ce sujet

[DragonRacer13]

Addai67 wrote...

I think the story developments in Legacy are very iffy. I'm suspicious of everything that comes at us now though, I guess. It all smells of retcon and/or them making **** up as they go along. But I admit I haven't grasped fully what they're trying to do- frankly can't be cheesed to do so at this point. I did put in a pre-order for David Gaider's new book. I guess that comes out in August?

Does it? Goodness, didn't think it was so soon... just remembered catching that totally random thread where he confirmed (in code) he was doing another book and its subject matter.

Where did you pre-order? I took a quick cruise of the Bioware store and Amazon, but only saw Stolen Throne and Calling... no title for new book or pre-order option.

[Bitenomnom]

I saw the book (Asunder, yes?) on Amazon and it says it will be released December 20th. Assuming what I'm seeing is the right thing, it's available for pre-order.

Modifié par Bitenomnom, 28 juillet 2011 - 08:51 .

[Addai]

Yeah, it was Dec 20th- I'm jumping the gun. I pre-ordered on Nook.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Looking forward to the reviews of those who do read it. I personally struggled to read Stolen Throne, so I am not interested in reading it.

[CalJones]

I liked Stolen Throne for the mostpart - The Calling was alright but I didn't really feel invested in the characters. Plus it didn't have nearly enough Loghain for my tastes.
Gaider is readable enough but I'll wait and see, I think.

[KnightofPhoenix]

I could only read Stolen throne if I pretended that Loghain was the only main character.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Yeah, when it went to Maric's PoV, it got really boring for me. I found Katriel as a character was your typical honey pot trap and 2 dimensional, Maric as a tool. Meghren was more comically inbred petty tyrant than a real decent villian. Still, I've read much worse, and it's a very quick read. And if nothing else, it still gave valuable insight into the setting, and really helped to Flesh out Loghain as a game character and make people at least understand his PoV, which was not really delved into in the game.

I also found that it showed for me, while Maric was a fool, he was a powerful symbol, and that symbol seemed to have the power above all to keep the rebellion focused and moving. There were likely many more suitable candidates for king, as far as personal talent and knowledge, but they lacked Therin bloodline the nobility so highly regarded. Yet he would have never made it were it not for Loghain.

[KnightofPhoenix]

The power of symbols is addressed in The Witcher 2 actually, though imo in a much more mature way. In some ways (not all), Philippa Eilhart is to Saskia what Loghain was to Maric. Though the reality is that the former duo is generally more competent (especially Eilhart), and also surrounded by competent aversaries (the Orlesians acted like imbeciles).

I will write about the Pontar state in the 3rd part of my Witcher blogs in the future, after dealing with the nonhuman question.

But yes, though hereditary systems are fundamentally irrational, they also historically proved to be the most stable and long lived. For a reason.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 29 juillet 2011 - 11:26 .

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

There were alot of reasons why such systems lasted as long as they did. Mostly due to people being idiots. Of course, I've found such systems, as they end up developing, being counter intuitive to improving the species. In otherwards, the more "noble" one was, the more inbred, since after so many generations of marrying cousins and within the blue bloods, the whole genepool is going to go stagnat. And you end up breeding more and more mutant morons. Which the nobility is supposed to represent the cream of the human crop, not pond sludge.

And yet people stilled followed them. Boggles the mind, really.

[KnightofPhoenix]

I was referring more to a dynastic monarchy, and not the concept of nobility perse. There is little that is fundamentally rational about the principles of a dynastic monarchy. But it's sometimes invaluable as a Leviathan, to borrow Thomas Hobbes' expression. A figure where power can be centralized, either symbolically or better yet, in practice.

No state can really exist without some Leviathan holding the monopoly on power (and legitimate use of force as Weber would say), whether it's a person, or family, or group or government. And, for a lot of reasons, dynastic monarchies were pretty efficient Leviathans.

Ironically, more centralized and empowered monarchies were generally much more meritocratic than when nobles held power. It was of course in their interest to bypass the nobility and seek support from commoners. Many historical examples attest to this, even absolutist ones (example would be Louis XIV. One of the main politicians who helped create the system was Mazarin, who himself was a commoner IIRC).

The DA example would be Bhelen of course. I believe that in addition to him genuinely seeking Orzammar's interests, he also wants to increase his own personal power. Both require humbling the arrogant imbecile nobles and relying on commoners to counter balance them.
To bring examples from TW2, there is a reason why King Foltest promoted a commoner to be commander of his special forces, part of whose job is to keep the nobility in line.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 30 juillet 2011 - 03:04 .

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Yeah, balance of power. Necessary for the smooth running of any state. I think the reason hereditary monarchies were so popular, is because it is family/birthright centered, something that has intristic value to humans all over the world. The idea of familiy inheritance, including power, is something the majority of humans can relate to, and it is appealing for that reason. Even power being something inherited seems acceptable, the old adage of "keeping it in the family" in terms of inheritance and passing on a legacy being something most humans understand. My theory, at least.

King Foltest was clever, in employing a commoner to head is special forces, he pretty much cuts out the middle man and instead, gets commoners to swear their fealty to him, rather than some lordling. Good idea, though I'm sure the nobility aren't to happy. But I don't really care about them.

[Costin_Razvan]

Well they did wage a civil war against him "whistle"

[KnightofPhoenix]

Just like Nilfgaard lost because of its stupid nobility.
And we saw what the vulture nobles did to Temeria after Foltest died.

When you start giving privileges to people for just being born, they will inevitably think they are entitled to more.

@ Skadi
Also, keeping it in one family makes succession smoother and reduces the risk of many families fighting over the throne. It certainly can and did provide stability.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 30 juillet 2011 - 04:35 .

[DragonRacer13]

Skadi, I think you hit the nail on the head. Humans, in general, seem to inherently lean towards a powerful family and expect that each succeeding generation of that family will be just as awesome/insightful/effective/what-have-you. Examples of this abound from some of the highest pecking order -- I know a lot of people that voted for George W. Bush because they loved when his daddy was president -- to us common folk, such as expecting the son of a great college football player to be like an exact repeat of his father. Can't tell you how many times I have heard fellow University of Florida Gator fans get excited because some recruit out of high school is the son/nephew/cousin of a former star player.

Hell, humans just seem obsessed, in general, with those families we inexplicably put on a pedastel. How else do you explain the fascination with the entire Kennedy family (often dubbed America's "royal family") or how people over here in America were obsessed over the British royal family wedding a few months ago. Um, why?

I can't figure it out, but it seems to be a commonplace, majority sort of thing. Me, I couldn't care less where you're from or what blood runs in you -- I'd rather know who you are as a person and what you're capable of yourself. Period. No preconceived expectations needed.

Anywhos... so, that Loghain, eh?

Here's a new one I hadn't seen posted before... shirtless Loghain shining his armor (no, NOT related to pike twirling... minds out of the gutter, you!  )


Source: sleepyowlet

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

@Dragon Racer: yeah, that's very true. I mean, look at people's fascination with the European Royalty/Nobility even today, in more "enlightened" times. People, I guess, like to believe certain families are more "special" or genetically superior, representing the best of the "tribe". In theory, that's what it's supposed to represent. In practice, however, we know what happens: stupidity. Noble families married almost solely for political power and security, instead of marrying for individual genetic qualities and personal merit, thus in the long term improving both the line from fresh, healthy blood, as well as making the most of the outsider's own potential. In the long term, we know the effects. Instead of expected natural awesomeness, you get, well, a bunch of drooling idiot freaks with serious mental problems. But the ideal and illusion still exists today, as people still expect various royalty to somehow be "special".

@KoP: Well, somewhat smooth succession, depending on the type of govornmental framework and society it's in. For more centralized systems, then yes, it's the best course, provided the dynasty remains strong and focuses power upon itself. In more decdentralized/fragmented systems, however, it becomes a friggin nightmare. Just look at all the petty wars of medieval/rennisance Europe faught over successions and marriages between kingdoms and other political entities. It only worked well when there was a more central base of power to keep the fighting to a minimum.

Love the fan art, by the way. Shirtless Loghain=Man nipples begging to be electrocuted.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Indeed.

And agreed with Dragonracer. People have a fascination for bloodlines. I admit I am not above using that sometimes (being a Hashemite), though I do not find it has any intrinsic meaning and to do so, imo, would contradict my ancestor's message.

Perhaps it's still a vestige of tribal mentality. Perhaps it's an "anchor" used by us, as social animals, to define our relationships and anchor ourselves in society, in the same way culture, race, nation...etc are used. Perhaps a mix of both.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

You're right, actually. The tribal mentality runs deep in our species, and will probably remain so for the forseeable future. It's an instinct we have because we are social/collective animals. I do understand the fascination for bloodlines, though I've never shared it. I come from no remarkable lineage and grew up in a very loose knit society, and have always found the ideal of so casually breeding people like pedigreed horses or dogs a bit creepy and unnerving. But people like strong connections to the past, hence why so many people world wide are interested in their own ancestry. People need an anchor, and family/extended geneteics are equal to religion in the top spot for people, as far as unification factors. Which in turn, increse survival likelyhood of the whole group.

I tend to only be interested in families when a particular one continually produces many remarkable talented individuals. Then it becomes something more tanglible, as it seems clear certain positive genetic tendancies towards a particular set of talents (arts, science, ect) have some genetic basis.

[Bleachrude]

Well, actually, Orlais's Emperor Drakon saw the same problems as KoP mentions and cut the knees off of the nobles so that Orlais is very centralized...

As for Ferelden, one of the things that I think holds the country together _IS_ the Theirin line..Remember, Ferelden was simply a collection of smaller tribes until Calenhad physically beat down every single one of them until they submitted...Ferelden wasn't founded on an idea or principle or even by location so much as the strength of arms of one person. Remember, it was the belief in the Theirins (both Moira and Maric) that gave Fereldens the will to fight the Orlesians..

(It's why I never considered Cailan *stupid* for fighting on the front lines given that the entire history of Ferelden is of the nobles/kings physically proving themselves worthy by being on the front lines. Indeed, Cailan commanding from the back would be an aberration IMO..hell, even Loghain is in the thick of the fighting and he's supposed to be a general as well...))

Without that commonality, I can see quite easily Ferelden fracturing into a pseudo Free Marches country. (It's why the epilogue where Anora rules alone and NEVER marries is arguably the most disastrous long term outcome for Ferelden...

As for democracy, I think that only works if you have an educated populace and in most medieval societies, this WILL be the nobles by and large.

[Addai]

There's an interesting short story I just read in the Warriors anthology. I'll try to be vague so as not to spoil if anyone reads that (which you should- it's pretty good), but... aliens are invading earth and find that unlike other planets, earthlings continue to fight them even when it means certain doom. The alien sociologists reason that it is because humans align themselves in families, and slightly larger extensions of that (clans), and they will fight to protect their families even if it means that the race as a whole is extinguished. Less individualistic species would surrender and be made client races. It was an interesting picture, I think fairly insightful.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Bleachrude wrote...

Without that commonality, I can see quite easily Ferelden fracturing into a pseudo Free Marches country. (It's why the epilogue where Anora rules alone and NEVER marries is arguably the most disastrous long term outcome for Ferelden...
.

Not really. Alistair is highly unlikely to breed, and will probably die much younger than Anora due to the taint. Both epilogues specifically suggest there will be no heir after the current monarch/s die or disappear. Ferelden's future is pretty much open, regardless of who takes the throne.

[Mike3207]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

Bleachrude wrote...

Without that commonality, I can see quite easily Ferelden fracturing into a pseudo Free Marches country. (It's why the epilogue where Anora rules alone and NEVER marries is arguably the most disastrous long term outcome for Ferelden...
.

Not really. Alistair is highly unlikely to breed, and will probably die much younger than Anora due to the taint. Both epilogues specifically suggest there will be no heir after the current monarch/s die or disappear. Ferelden's future is pretty much open, regardless of who takes the throne.

Where exactly is this mentioned in the epilogues? The Warden isn't mentioned as disappearing until 10 years after the Blight, at least if you don't follow Morrigan thru the mirror. I would think 10 years would be long enough to produce a heir with a Anora marriage, even if she's initially reluctant.The only obstacle to children I'm aware of is if 2 Wardens marry.

Modifié par Mike Smith, 01 août 2011 - 02:11 .

[Bleachrude]

None of the epilogues mention children but only the Anora rules alone epilogue mentions that she never remarries and explicitly mentions that her bar for a consort is her "sainted" father.

It's why it is very strange that the level-headed Anora doesn't find a consort and gets some heirs....A lot of people give Eamon grief for harping on this but Eamon is right that the longer there is no heir, the more agitated/in-fighting the nobles will become as they all jockey for position to be heir-apparent...

[Giggles_Manically]

There have been plenty of leaders in human history who simply named an heir when they felt they had to.

Having a child may be nice to assure a new leader but a good leader can simply name their heir.

[Costin_Razvan]

Addai67 wrote...

There's an interesting short story I just read in the Warriors anthology. I'll try to be vague so as not to spoil if anyone reads that (which you should- it's pretty good), but... aliens are invading earth and find that unlike other planets, earthlings continue to fight them even when it means certain doom. The alien sociologists reason that it is because humans align themselves in families, and slightly larger extensions of that (clans), and they will fight to protect their families even if it means that the race as a whole is extinguished. Less individualistic species would surrender and be made client races. It was an interesting picture, I think fairly insightful.

Is it the one by G.R.R. Martin?

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Mike Smith wrote...


Where exactly is this mentioned in the epilogues? The Warden isn't mentioned as disappearing until 10 years after the Blight, at least if you don't follow Morrigan thru the mirror. I would think 10 years would be long enough to produce a heir with a Anora marriage, even if she's initially reluctant.The only obstacle to children I'm aware of is if 2 Wardens marry.

Even one Warden posseses very low fertility, and having a kid after being tainted signifigantly reduces one's chances of having a kid. It can happen, but it is very uncommon, and given the epilogues, not gonna happen. Wardens as a rule generally fire blanks due to the taint.

As far as the DA timeline, it is completely borked. DA2 takes place for 7 years from the start of origins, Varric's "interview" being 10 years after. However, given that witch hunt takes place some 4 years after origins, your Warden disappeared alot earlier than you think. Like I said, DA2's timeline is borked.Anders is in Kirkwall with his clinic before the Blight ends, and thus, is in Kirkwall when he shouldn't be, if you go by DAO timeline.

regardless, none of the epilogues mention children or heirs, regardless, so canonically, I don't think anyone's Warden's are gonna have babies, except if the did Morrigan's ritual. And somehow, naming a child concieved illegally with an apostate which carries the soul of an ancient god is not gonna really happen.

So no, regardless of who gets picked, the future of Ferelden has been deliberately left open and uncertain.