84 réponses à ce sujet

[Dean_the_Young]

I don't even see Branka and Bhelen as so bad. The problem was that Bhelen and Bhelen alone doesn't get all the Golems... which actually strikes me as a better idea, since the benefits of golems can apply to other nations/peoples as well.



Yes, future unwilling victims is bad, but the costs of no golems to fight the darkspawn are almost guaranteed to be higher come the next Blight.

[AntiChri5]

Golems are bot the only way to fight the Blight.



Darkspawn to not develop militarily or technologically, humans, dwarves and most certainly qunari do.



There is a reason each Blight has been successively easier to deal with.

[Giggles_Manically]

Yah, the problem is that Branka is actually insane, since one of the endings in the Anvil you get her to commit suicide, and total the anvil to atone. Plus you get some of the best lines from Oghern here and a lot of approval.



Since Orzamar has mages through Dagna, Bhelen will probably use them, and a mage is easily more powerful than a golem. I would have like to keep the Anvil but the Legion of the Dead, and the reforms of Bhelen will do a good job.



However why you need to kill a person and cant put say a Darkspawn or animal on the anvil I dont know.

[Dean_the_Young]

AntiChri5 wrote...

Golems are bot the only way to fight the Blight.

Darkspawn to not develop militarily or technologically, humans, dwarves and most certainly qunari do.

There is a reason each Blight has been successively easier to deal with.

They're easier to deal with because people know to expect them and are better ready to respond. Not technology.

Stick technology development to Qunari. Technology in Thedas is pretty much stagnant (minus the abnormal dwarven inventor: lyrium sand bombs and smokeless coal are the only two I can think of, and they were both made by mad dwarves), hence why centuries-old armor and weapons remain good (and even superior) to modern arms and armor. And the Qunari aren't sharing their tech, nor have they faced a true blight. About the only field of advancement might be the magical ones... when they aren't controlled by the Chantry and kept from benefitting society as a whole.

[Dean_the_Young]

Giggles_Manically wrote...

Yah, the problem is that Branka is actually insane, since one of the endings in the Anvil you get her to commit suicide, and total the anvil to atone. Plus you get some of the best lines from Oghern here and a lot of approval.

Since Orzamar has mages through Dagna, Bhelen will probably use them, and a mage is easily more powerful than a golem. I would have like to keep the Anvil but the Legion of the Dead, and the reforms of Bhelen will do a good job.

However why you need to kill a person and cant put say a Darkspawn or animal on the anvil I dont know.

One on one mages are more powerful, but mages are rare while anyone can be made into a golem. And, as Golems of Amgarrok shows, those any-one golems can be made to have magical powers.

[Last Darkness]

Wow people are reading far to much into this. Using the info on hand is good enough lol.



Ill solve this right now, Harrowmont = George Bush. lol oh and ****s....thats obviusly the Templars right?



In all seriusness though show me a list of good, deserving, moraly just Leaders vrs a list of everyone else. This topic is making think about the entire new mechanic to Fable 3 lol



Oh and for historical refrences, looks at Vlad Tepes, or some of the evil roman emperors who were great for their people and soeciety. Ive always view it as a good man is incapable of leading, he would refuse to do what has to be done instead of whats right and would doom his people and soeciety for his beleifs. How selfish I think.

[Sarah1281]

Elhanan wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...

Elhanan wrote...

... There is no good ending for these Dwarves....

It is also beneficial for the dwarves militarily and for the good section of the population that is completely discarded. Being a good man has nothing to do with being a good king and as Harrowmont confesses he sees the King as a figurehead and the Assembly won't stop squabbling over who should be King until you step in - repeatedly - while they know a Blight is coming, how can this be seen as a good thing? 

See above quote....

While Bhelen does add to the military by allowing the Casteless to serve, does anyone believe that Bhelen is doing this for the good of anyone save himself? And this also adds to the economic benefits which I mentioned.

My fave playthrough of this was done by my second DC Warden. He placed Bhelen on the throne, but also illuminated every dirty secret of his to every Dwarf in Orzammar by working with Harrowmont, made certain the Assembly would disband, helped his sister become an ambassador, and in my vision he conscripted Harrowmont into the Warden's to help guide the assault in Denerim. That said, this is not a good ending; just the best one I could devise for that Warden.

And while being a good man does not make a good King, an evil man most certainly will not be either.

The above quote? You mean the one where someone else also said that there was no good ending for dwarves without even explaining why? 

Your reasoning for the dwarves not having a good ending seems to be (going by just what you posted) that Bhelen is a self-serving bastard. This is true. If his self-serving bastard ways bring Orzammar into a new age of prosperity and the biggest problems we've seen are the nobles and warriors getting pissed that the casteless are gaining rights (their subsequent assassination attempts are why Bhelen finally dissolves the Assembly. He may have been interested in doing so before his father even died but he doesn't actually do it until they try to kill him repeatedly). Bhelen likes power. He rules Orzammar. Orzammar gaining power gets him power. Maybe there is no 'moral' ending but that doesn't mean that the dwarves can't have a good one. By good no one else is actually referring to moral. I'd say the increased military and economic benefits as well as loosening the stranglehold that tradition has over the city can only be a good thing for these people.

What, exactly, would you see as a good ending? Lord Helmi taking the throne? 

[Dean_the_Young]

The good man would hardly last a week before he quit in disgust.

[KnightofPhoenix]

For the vast majority of the dwarves, Bhelen's rule is beneficial. As for Harrowmont's, only the warriors and nobles get to be satifisfied while the other castes suffer from idiotic traditions and isolationist policies (the merchant caste will be ****ed under Harrowmont). Not to mention the castless "dogs".

Anyone honestly thinking Harromont's rule is good and moral is just being delusional. I am pretty sure the castless and lower castes will not think of him as a just and moral ruler, let alone a good one.

[Elhanan]

Sarah1281 wrote...

The above quote? You mean the one where someone else also said that there was no good ending for dwarves without even explaining why? 

Your reasoning for the dwarves not having a good ending seems to be (going by just what you posted) that Bhelen is a self-serving bastard. This is true. If his self-serving bastard ways bring Orzammar into a new age of prosperity and the biggest problems we've seen are the nobles and warriors getting pissed that the casteless are gaining rights (their subsequent assassination attempts are why Bhelen finally dissolves the Assembly. He may have been interested in doing so before his father even died but he doesn't actually do it until they try to kill him repeatedly). Bhelen likes power. He rules Orzammar. Orzammar gaining power gets him power. Maybe there is no 'moral' ending but that doesn't mean that the dwarves can't have a good one. By good no one else is actually referring to moral. I'd say the increased military and economic benefits as well as loosening the stranglehold that tradition has over the city can only be a good thing for these people.

What, exactly, would you see as a good ending? Lord Helmi taking the throne? 

I did make an assumption; my bad. Thought others that would respond had played the same game I did.

Bring Orzammar into a new age of prosperity? So increased wealth makes murder, blackmail, forgery, and ripping the heart out of of their own family all OK like a band-aid for a boo-boo? Oh, I forgot; some also think Loghain is OK, too. The whole end justifying the means really seems to be appealing for some. Just hope they do not seek election anytime soon, or get any position of responsibility like.. I don't know... becoming parents or something.

Some folks may find Bhelen all warm and fuzzy. I did too, when I set the Assembly on fire with Inferno. Does not make it right either, but that was my Evil mage. At least I try to keep those roles seperate.

Modifié par Elhanan, 22 août 2010 - 07:23 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Elhanan wrote...

I did make an assumption; my bad. Thought others that would respond had played the same game I did.

Bring Orzammar into a new age of prosperity? So increased wealth makes murder, blackmail, forgery, and ripping the heart out of of their own family all OK like a band-aid for a boo-boo?

Who claimed any of that? But then, none of those have anything to do with the ability for good leadership, good policy decisions, or good effects for the greater population.

All things equal, I'd prefer a selfish man who did good for others than a good man who stood by. I mean, I'd rather my child be safer, more comfortable, and have the potential to advance in life.

Not, you know, poorer, discriminated against, and freely abused by anyone born to richer parents.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 22 août 2010 - 07:30 .

[Sarah1281]

Elhanan wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...

The above quote? You mean the one where someone else also said that there was no good ending for dwarves without even explaining why? 

Your reasoning for the dwarves not having a good ending seems to be (going by just what you posted) that Bhelen is a self-serving bastard. This is true. If his self-serving bastard ways bring Orzammar into a new age of prosperity and the biggest problems we've seen are the nobles and warriors getting pissed that the casteless are gaining rights (their subsequent assassination attempts are why Bhelen finally dissolves the Assembly. He may have been interested in doing so before his father even died but he doesn't actually do it until they try to kill him repeatedly). Bhelen likes power. He rules Orzammar. Orzammar gaining power gets him power. Maybe there is no 'moral' ending but that doesn't mean that the dwarves can't have a good one. By good no one else is actually referring to moral. I'd say the increased military and economic benefits as well as loosening the stranglehold that tradition has over the city can only be a good thing for these people.

What, exactly, would you see as a good ending? Lord Helmi taking the throne? 

I did make an assumption; my bad. Thought others that would respond had played the same game I did.

Bring Orzammar into a new age of prosperity? So increased wealth makes murder, blackmail, forgery, and ripping the heart out of of their own family all OK like a band-aid for a boo-boo? Oh, I forgot; some also think Loghain is OK, too. The whole end justifying the means really seems to be appealing for some. Just hope they do not seek election anytime soon, or get any position of responsibility like.. I don't know... becoming parents or something.

Some folks may find Bhelen all warm and fuzzy. I did too, when I set the Assembly on fire with Inferno. Does not make it right either, but that was my Evil mage. At least I try to keep those roles seperate.

Are you missing the part where I called Bhelen a self-serving bastard? Twice? No one finds him 'all warm and fuzzy.' Maybe you're right: maybe we did play different games and ours is more ground in reality than the 'oh, and I conscripted Harrowmont and Bhelen totally let it happen' game you apparently played.

Murder, blackmail, forgery, and ripping the heart out of their own family is pretty much par for the course in Orzammar. It's not nice, neither are they. I still don't see why that's a bad ending for the dwarves as a whole. The nobility all know what they're getting into by seeking power and they've had to do much of the same things to gain it. Maybe everyone with any power in Orzammar sucks. That doesn't mean Bhelen on the throne isn't good for Orzammar as a whole. Honestly, Bhelen is the King not the spiritual adviser. If the dwarves' morality is out off whack it's really not his job to sort it out.

And Loghain has nothing to do with whether or not Bhelen is good for Orzammar.

[Elhanan]

A lack of moral compass makes for a poor guide, captain, leader, king, and parent. While some may believe they will be fine and comfy with such stern hand on the wheel, nobody in that vehicle is safe with someone that believes in the importance of safety for only the one driving. Such a parent will only be likely to reproduce said thoiughts into the minds of their children. And like the game, it simply will happen over and over again.

[Dean_the_Young]

Elhanan wrote...

A lack of moral compass makes for a poor guide, captain, leader, king, and parent. While some may believe they will be fine and comfy with such stern hand on the wheel, nobody in that vehicle is safe with someone that believes in the importance of safety for only the one driving. Such a parent will only be likely to reproduce said thoiughts into the minds of their children. And like the game, it simply will happen over and over again.

If Bhelen were the only person people looked to for their morals, you might have a point. But he isn't, and many people realize that if you only worked with, for, and employed morally great people, you wouldn't have anything in the first place.

The effects for his people, not the example, is what leaders are judged by. If  the poor example leads to poor effects, that is the verdict, but if it is not and the effects are far better then so is the leader.

To say Bhelen has no moral compass is to say the Dwarven nobility, which Harrowmount preserves, has no moral compass. He isn't exceptional in his character. What his moral character is exceptional in is a tolerance for the casteless and social reform, a virtue I'd much rather have children and students learn.

[Elhanan]

Yes, I would much rather have a murdering reformer on the Throne since he will be making jobs for the poor fighting Darkspawn, than the general that leads the current forces who has enough guts to stand up to his murdering opposition: the one that eliminated his two brothers and placed his father in a deathbed position to try and make certain the self-serving nug hugger never gets the crown. After all, it creates work and allows the poor to die elsewhere doing something important. By the way, how did that Harvester and Golem thing work out for everyone?

But as many have pointed out repeatedly, neither option fixes the problems experienced for this flushing society. By deleting and omitting the names of everyone condemned as criminals against the cultural sewer makes it easier for things to spiral downward and history to continue to repeat itself. There is no good ending.

[Sarah1281]

If that murdering reformer is effective and helps Orzammar while the courageous general with a strong moral fiber utterly fails then yes, yes I would rather see him on the throne. Unless you are a DN, metagame, or initially side with Bhelen then switch sides pre-Jarvia you don't KNOW that Bhelen did anything and Endrin is hardly one of his victims. He chose to allow it to happen to keep the throne and then changed his mind. And the Harvester is a false analogy. Bhelen's not stupid enough to think fleshy golems that can't be controlled and who would quickly use up the casteless is a good idea.

[Dean_the_Young]

Elhanan wrote...

Yes, I would much rather have a murdering reformer on the Throne since he will be making jobs for the poor fighting Darkspawn, than the general that leads the current forces who has enough guts to stand up to his murdering opposition: the one that eliminated his two brothers and placed his father in a deathbed position to try and make certain the self-serving nug hugger never gets the crown. After all, it creates work and allows the poor to die elsewhere doing something important. By the way, how did that Harvester and Golem thing work out for everyone?

Given that Bhelen's position against the Harvester-sort of experiments on the casteless, what was your point again? That Bhelen is bad, exploitive even, for giving the casteless a 'fight for citizenship' option?

But as many have pointed out repeatedly, neither option fixes the problems experienced for this flushing society. By deleting and omitting the names of everyone condemned as criminals against the cultural sewer makes it easier for things to spiral downward and history to continue to repeat itself. There is no good ending.

That analogy makes no sense.

[Sarah1281]

By 'there is no good ending' do you mean 'there is no ending that is both beneficial for the dwarves AND allows for a morally upstanding leader'? I could agree to that.

[Giggles_Manically]

Who cares about morally upstanding?

Bhelen is the Dwarven Messiah.

[Sarah1281]

Giggles_Manically wrote...

Who cares about morally upstanding?
Bhelen is the Dwarven Messiah.

Indeed. But as all of the objections seem to run along the lines of 'Bhelen is a horrible person' then that seems like it's what he's talking about.

[Giggles_Manically]

Sarah1281 wrote...

Giggles_Manically wrote...

Who cares about morally upstanding?
Bhelen is the Dwarven Messiah.

Indeed. But as all of the objections seem to run along the lines of 'Bhelen is a horrible person' then that seems like it's what he's talking about.

Harrowmont supports a system that opresses people, is very stupid, and he himself is woefully shortsighted.

Sure Bhelen lies, cheats, and steals like well most politicans, but the mere fact that he sees how stupid the caste system is, moves him way up in my book.

[Elhanan]

Sarah1281 wrote...

If that murdering reformer is effective and helps Orzammar while the courageous general with a strong moral fiber utterly fails then yes, yes I would rather see him on the throne. Unless you are a DN, metagame, or initially side with Bhelen then switch sides pre-Jarvia you don't KNOW that Bhelen did anything and Endrin is hardly one of his victims. He chose to allow it to happen to keep the throne and then changed his mind. And the Harvester is a false analogy. Bhelen's not stupid enough to think fleshy golems that can't be controlled and who would quickly use up the casteless is a good idea.

Funny thing mentioning meta-gaming, as this is generally the main source of intel that Bhelen will bring any kind of prosperity to the kingdom, or allow the Casteless to fight. Be that as it may, one can believe the rumors heard on either side to justify taking a stance.

But for Bhelen, one may discover that his campaign is willing to forge documents to set up Harrowmont; twice. The Shaperate will authenticate the first set as forgeries, so this is direct evidence. So working for Bhelen does show what kind of a 'great man' he is, and how 'stupid' he is willing to be in such matters of gaining the throne. There are also documents available that King Endrin opposed his son's rule; more evidence, and these are open to those working Harrowmont's side, if not both.

Playing the game will reveal the criminal side of Bhelen if one cares to look.

And both sides are stupid enough to use Golems, as the source of Caradin's work is not yet revealed. I have not yet chosen to side with Branka, so I do not have direct knowledge of what is exposed after returning to Orzammar, but I have little doubt of Bhelen simply sticking to volunteers. This is based on his past ethical and moral behaviour; a telling point of the kind of leadership for both possible rulers.

[Sarah1281]

It seems like Bhelen does stick to volunteers because he and Branka are only on good terms for so long. Then she refuses to make golems just for him and runs back to the Deep Roads with the Anvil. Still, since when Harrowmont stops sending volunteers Branka starts kidnapping surfacers and this causes a lot of conflict before contact with the surface is completely cut off, Bhelen + Anvil is the better ending.

[Last Darkness]

wow this is getting out of hand, I like how imedietly Harrowmont became lionised and Bhelen demonised. This is what created religous wars people.

The part no one is considering is that Both are "bad" people. Harrowmont is guilty of the same crimes Bhelen is. Remeber its the illusion of honour, not actual honour. You dont become powerful in dwarvern politics by being the 100% pure straight arrow. Individualy neither of them deserves to rule the dwarves but one is worse for their people then the other particulary when the Anvil is involved "Bhelen asks for volenteers, Harrowmont forces castless and slaves" for example.
Also I like how everyone takes Harrowmonts words at 100% truth when your experince with every dwarvern noble is lies, backstabs, and betrayals. You learn alot during your side quests for either side what exactly they are doing to win power and using you as a pawn.

The people who choose Harrowmont fell for his lies, the people who choose Bhelen fell for his treachery.

Modifié par Last Darkness, 23 août 2010 - 03:25 .

[TJPags]

Giggles_Manically wrote...

Bhelen with no Anvil, and an ignored Brother Burkel is the best ending really.
Also do the Legion side quest while in the Deep Roads.

Harrowmont, with the anvil and a chantry is the worst thing for Orzamar period.

Which quest do you mean?  The one in the Legion temple (or whatever it is) that spawns that shade/revenant?