234 réponses à ce sujet

[Costin_Razvan]

mass234 wrote...

 Bhelen is a douchbag. I chose Harrowmont.

You say that the man who chooses to ignore the suffering of almost fifty percent of Orzammar's entire population is NOT a douchebag!

Hurray for logic here!

[KnightofPhoenix]

“The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.” Sadly the fate of the dwarves is also up to their vote

[Costin_Razvan]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

“The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.” Sadly the fate of the dwarves is also up to their vote

I wonder what Churchill would say about Democracy if he knew what was going on these days. 

[Wulfram]

MariSkep wrote...

People respond to kind words and the perception of honor. It's why so many people hate Morrigan but like Leliana despite Leliana having led the more 'sinful' lifestyle and still not seeing what's wrong with manipulating people and taking advantage of their feelings.

Nah, that's because Morrigan Disapproves whenever you do something even vaguely nice.

[KnightofPhoenix]

I find it very surprising how people can associate Harrowmont with "democracy". No offense intented, but anyone with very basic knowledge should be able to distinguish an oligarchic government from a democracy.

[Obadiah]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
...
And I am curious. Where does it ever mention Bhelen killing people en masse?
...

Speak to Harrowmont's fighters after Bhelen's ascension. There is a clearly a purge underway at that point.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Obadiah wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
...
And I am curious. Where does it ever mention Bhelen killing people en masse?
...

Speak to Harrowmont's fighters after Bhelen's ascension. There is a clearly a purge underway at that point.

That's it?
That's not a lot really. Harrowmont is forced to do the same when he has golems in order to maintain order. Without golems, he fails to do what Bhelen is capable of doing.

To answer your question then, yes I believe their deaths are well worth the reforms Orzammar needs.

[Obadiah]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

If I'm a Grey Warden, I've killed a lot of the people in the street. Infact, no matter which king I choose the other has followers who will do their best to kill me.

Why would anyone expect just terror and the word of Bhelen, when no one, least of all his enemies, treats him as some two-dimensional villain who just kicks puppies and poor defensless nobles?

Because Bhelen does not seek to build consensus for this opinions. He eradicates/executes his enemies and opponents and moves forward with his agenda.

[Obadiah]

Giggles_Manically wrote...

Obadiah wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

There's a historical precident for an Orzammar King to dissolve the Assembly during a time of Blight as the Shaperate himself tells you.

Bhelen dissolves the assembly AFTER the blight is stopped and AFTER the thaigs have been retaken. It's clearly a power grab because he can.

Would you let a group of people who keep sending assassians after you sit around, if you had the power to stop them.

That "assassin" thing tends to happen when you start shedding blood in order to achieve your goals, which is what Bhelen does. What possible other response can his enemies have? I mean, Harrowmont's execution shows what happens when Bhelen's enemies try to surrender honorably.

Modifié par Obadiah, 02 septembre 2010 - 04:40 .

[Obadiah]

Costin_Razvan wrote...
Bull, ****ing, ****. Because he can? Do you realize that he could have dissolved it the moment he gained the crown and no one could have done squat about it?

Bhelen couldn't have because he didn't have the assembly's support to take the thrown, which he needed. That is why he needed the Warden to perform those supporting tasks. That much is clear.

Giggles_Manically wrote...

If you ever need a reason to pick Bhelen:
Try talking to Harrowmont or for that matter ANY other dwarf as a DC.

Gives you a whole new perspective really.

I'm looking forward to it. I'm hoping to get the full on castless hate to get me to support Bhelen.

Modifié par Obadiah, 02 septembre 2010 - 04:39 .

[Costin_Razvan]

Bhelen couldn't have because he didn't have the assembly's support to take the thrown, which he needed. That is why he needed the Warden to perform those supporting tasks. That much is clear.

And all those supporting tasks mean zero when faced with the word of a Paragon. You just crowned King with the support of someone who holds more sway over the Assembly then eighty noble houses, good luck trying to take him down.

Seriously, I studied politics quite in-depth ( tough not nearly as much as Knight ) so I know quite a bit on how it works.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 02 septembre 2010 - 04:40 .

[Obadiah]

MariSkep wrote...
Not to belittle just how much of an evil tool, Bhelen is but that was sorta the status quo under the old guard too. As a DN you can have someone executed just for giving you lip and going off what that herbalist tells you poisoning political rivals is common place.

It's not the status quo, it's an option that the nobles have, which they can chose to use. Using it, leads to people trying to the assassinate you, which is the reason the dwarves don't always use it, or when they do, they use it secretly.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Not to mention that the DN is praised for killing the son of the noble who tried to fool you. Eliminating opposition is standard practise (Endrin is definately not innocent of it). Bhelen is just an expert at it.

[Costin_Razvan]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Not to mention that the DN is praised for killing the son of the noble who tried to fool you. Eliminating opposition is standard practise (Endrin is definately not innocent of it). Bhelen is just an expert at it.

Seriously, I think that's just boot licking.

Though obviously any monarch worth their salt did eliminate their opposition through various means.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 02 septembre 2010 - 05:09 .

[Obadiah]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Obadiah wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
...
And I am curious. Where does it ever mention Bhelen killing people en masse?
...

Speak to Harrowmont's fighters after Bhelen's ascension. There is a clearly a purge underway at that point.

That's it?
That's not a lot really. Harrowmont is forced to do the same when he has golems in order to maintain order. Without golems, he fails to do what Bhelen is capable of doing.

To answer your question then, yes I believe their deaths are well worth the reforms Orzammar needs.

Yes, well if your point is that in larger scheme of things people have to die order to achieve drastic unpopular but just political change, then I concede the point. Though it is hard to argue that to someone who's loved one is executed to achieve that. However, killing people to achieve one's end without trying to build support leads to a boatload of bad blood that lasts an awefully long time. The ruthless reformer Bhelen might succeed for years, but will have people seeking revenge against him and his successors over their lifetimes. Change through the building of consensus is slow, but it leads to lasting institutions to perpetuate reform, and do not rely soley on the will of a tyrant. Try telling that to the castless though.

Really, I don't support Bhelen because, unless you have some skin in the outcome, personality wise he and his minions come across as complete tools ("hey, go lie to these two guys please, what? of course they're forged!") compared to Harrowmont's request ("Oh, please help me figure out why my loyal fighters won't fight for me, pweeees.")

Modifié par Obadiah, 02 septembre 2010 - 05:18 .

[Obadiah]

MariSkep wrote...

Obadiah wrote...

MariSkep wrote...
Not to belittle just how much of an evil tool, Bhelen is but that was sorta the status quo under the old guard too. As a DN you can have someone executed just for giving you lip and going off what that herbalist tells you poisoning political rivals is common place.

It's not the status quo, it's an option that the nobles have, which they can chose to use. Using it, leads to people trying to the assassinate you, which is the reason the dwarves don't always use it, or when they do, they use it secretly.

It can't just be wholly secretly though. Gorim literally tells you he'll have the guy dead within the hour. I'm not sure if he was exaggerating but it's a scary thought knowing the lives of others carried such little weight in dwarven society.

Hmm, perhaps that is a social norm that my humans and elves didn't quite pick up on or accept....

Modifié par Obadiah, 02 septembre 2010 - 05:09 .

[Costin_Razvan]

I don't support Bhelen because unless you have some skin in the outcome, personality wise, he and his minions come across as complete tools

How does he come as a complete tool, huh?

Sure his minions are tools, but so are we these days in the hands of your "competent" governments. Welcome to reality.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 02 septembre 2010 - 05:11 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Obadiah wrote...
Yes, well if your point is that in larger scheme of things people have to die order to achieve drastic unpopular but just political change, then I concede the point. 

Unpopular? Unpopular to whom? 5-10% of the population?
Even if we concede that all nobles and warrior houses are against Bhelen (which I do not believe is true. Just a lot of them), he should be very popular with the other castes, especially the merchants and castless (the two most important groups for the dwarves at that point. Castless for their manpower and merchants for obvious economic reasons). 

Obadiah wrote...
However, killing people to achieve one's end without trying to build support leads to a boatload of bad blood that lasts an awefully long time. The ruthless reformer might succeed for years, but will have people seeking revenge against him and his successors over their lifetimes. Change through the building of consensus is slow, but it leads to lasting institutions to perpetuate reform, and do not realy soley on the will of a tyrant. Try telling that to the castless though.

Otto Von Bismarck said something like (paraphrasing): "Laws are like sausages. They taste good, as long as you don't know how they are made".
I think it's naive to believe that institutions, especially ones in a medieval era, are not founded on some bloodshed in one way or the other.

True, Bhelen's reforms may not last. They also might. It depends on what Bhelen and his successors do. Institutions are not reserved by non-authoritarian regimes. Many authoritarians built very strong lasting institutions, on blooshed, that survived even the fall of their own regime. Alexis de Tocqueville argues for instance, that the French revolutionary regime and the First Empire were all built on institutions founded by the absolutist Monarchy. Indeed to this very day, French centralism is based on old absolutist thinking (that was expanded with each passing regime). Another example can be the Abassids using the institutions of the Umayyads that they hated and overthrew.

So even if Bhelen's regime does fall, his reforms might outlive him and his regime. Or they might not. Such things are hard to predict. Reforms are not only institutional, they are also social. If Bhelen can break the stigma and show to Orzammar that casteless can have honor and can fight, and that being a merchant and trading with the surface is not a dishonor, then this potential change in mentality can outlive him.

So with Bhelen as king, the possibility of change and betterment is there. With Harrowmont, it is not, for not only does he preserve the status quo (which is against change by its very nature, or at the very least nearly impossible to change without forcing it), he actually makes it worse, as caste restrictions are worsened and the merchants are treated more like crap.  

So I do not understand the logic of picking Harrowmont, who makes things worse, because Bhelen's reforms might not work (not saying you think like this, but many arguments dsound like this to me). With Bhelen, Orzammar might change in the long run. Or it might not. With Harrowmont, I cannot see any avenue for change on the horizon.

Obadiah wrote...
Really, I don't support Bhelen because, unless you have some skin in the outcome, personality wise he and his minions come across as complete tools ("hey, go lie to these two guys please, what? of course they're forged!") compared to Harrowmont's request ("Oh, please help me figure out why my loyal fighters won't fight for me, pweeees.")

That's precisely why I thought Harrowmont was the worse politician. Bhelen is *active*, while Harrowmont is *reacting* defensively to his opponent's aggressive politicking. This is really best illustrated in the fight scene, where Bhelen's guards loyaly stood by him and killed the one who insulted him, while Harrowmont's men fled like cowards (if you watch closely, they flee even before Harrowmont does), not even the least bit concerned about their lords safety (Bhelen could have killed him very easily right there and then). 

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 02 septembre 2010 - 05:35 .