234 réponses à ce sujet

[Elhanan]

In one of the rare occasions when I did choose Bhelen, it was in the discovery that he was researching the elimination of the Assembly. For my DC Warden, the Casteless system had existed for centuries, and me and sis had found a couple of rare ways out of it. But the corruption of the entire system was making it possible, and by dismantling the current system seemed to be the best way to reboot; that is my armored boot into Bhelen's backside which is easier done with his men and political allies removed.

And if Bhelen is chosen, be certain to speak to those in House Harrowmont both before and after the decision. You gain more proof of Bhelen's corrupt nature, and while most there condemn your final choice, Lady Harrowmont does not. This is part of the imaginary support I use for my secret conscription of the General into the ranks of the surface armies.

[Sarah1281]

MariSkep wrote...

Giggles_Manically wrote...

I agree that he is too tradition bound to be a good king.
But as a DC I serioulsy wanted to strangle him.

My mage wanted to strangle him, too but out of pure frustration with him. How messed up do your social views have to be for you to seriously fall second to a man who murders his family, manipulates a young and desperate girl and is willing to forge legal documents like regular men make tea?

Are you talking about Rica? I don't see how he manipulates her, really. By all accounts, he treats her far better than anyone else treats their casteless concubine and if anyone was taking advantage of her, it was Beraht.

[Sarah1281]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

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!

By almost fifty percent do you mean just the casteless? Do we actually get any information on what percentage of the population they are? I don't think there could be nearly that many.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Sarah1281 wrote...

Costin_Razvan wrote...

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!

By almost fifty percent do you mean just the casteless? Do we actually get any information on what percentage of the population they are? I don't think there could be nearly that many.

We can defianely count merchants in the mix (and surface merchants, though Harrowmont hypocritically does not even consider Orzammar's lifeline as his people).

Not sure about numbers, but the status quo favors only two castes, nobles first, warriors second.

[Obadiah]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

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). 

Significantly more since he trying to uplift the castless, which is clearly generally unpopular.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

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 insitutional, 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.  

Yes, but that is metagaming knowledge you gain after the fact. Their intentions and that outcome is not clear when speaking to either of them. All that comes across from Bhelen is "me want power by any means necessary" and Harrowmont is "status quo consensus builder, Bhelen baaad."

KnightofPhoenix wrote...





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).

It is pretty obvious that the situation was constructed by the developers and writers for the Warden to have to choose between the conservative nice guy (within the current norms of dwarven society, so bad for castless), and tyrant bad-guy power hungry reformer.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...






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). 

That actually best illustrates the one who is more ruthless (which is a running theme between the two), not the one that is more loyal.

[Sarah1281]

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.")

Wait...you mean that a politician is going to be, dare I say it, less than honest? That fiend!

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.

You realize that staus quo means that something is the current state of affairs? If basically all of the nobles feel that they can go around killing lesser mortals for whatever reason and so do this then it is the existing state of affairs and thus the status quo. That's not to say that there aren't consequences if they kill the wrong person. In the DN origin if you let Bruntin Vollney kill that influential scholar then his patrons get pissed and it's implied that they'll go after him. It doesn't stop Vollney from doing it anyway.



And there's really no basis for the 'well, the Assembly is just trying to kill Bhelen because he's trying to kill them all first!' argument you're making. ONE cousin of Harrowmont's suspects that he will be killed but we never find out, Harrowmont's supporters are the having their children be sent off to fight the Blight. Guess what? SOMEBODY has to do it so the fact that Bhelen is punishing those who sided against him by getting their children killed instead of his own supporter's children doesn't make the death toll any higher.



And of course Bhelen has support. He has a lot of support in the Assembly, even, but when he starts to grant the casteless rights to get them to fight the darkspawn then he loses that support among the noble and warrior castes. Those are the only ones we hear are against him. That still leaves the smiths, artisans, miners, merchants, servants, and casteless who can support him.

[Sarah1281]

Yes, but that is metagaming knowledge you gain after the fact. Their intentions and that outcome is not clear when speaking to either of them. All that comes across from Bhelen is "me want power by any means necessary" and Harrowmont is "status quo consensus builder, Bhelen baaad."

Well if the status quo is killing Orzammar...

[Costin_Razvan]

You know, how is Harrowmont any less "corrupted" and "evil" then Bhelen when he uses the Anvil to brutally suppress those who had been loyal to Bhelen, huh? ( And screw the metagame argument, seriously ).

[Obadiah]

Sarah1281 wrote...
You realize that staus quo means that something is the current state of
affairs? If basically all of the nobles feel that they can go around
killing lesser mortals for whatever reason and so do this then it is the
existing state of affairs and thus the status quo.

Yes, I was under the impression that public attributable assassinations were not the status quo in Orzammar. It just wasn't  unheard of, and there are reprecussions (norms/revenge) that cause people to not do it.

Modifié par Obadiah, 02 septembre 2010 - 08:39 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Obadiah wrote...
Significantly more since he trying to uplift the castless, which is clearly generally unpopular.

Seeing how only some warrior and noble houses tried to assassinate Bhelen, I think it's safe to assume that the others remained in line, even if they disagreed with the decision.

But Bhelen, being the smart man that is is, probably realises that favoring merchants, opening up trade and paving the way for prosperity in Orzammar is going to silence dissent. Reforms + prosperity / growth is a devastating combo, as it leaves little room for dissent.
 
Bhelen defiantely does rule with the stick, but also with the carrot.

Obadiah wrote...
Yes, but that is metagaming knowledge you gain after the fact. Their intentions and that outcome is not clear when speaking to either of them. All that comes across from Bhelen is "me want power by any means necessary" and Harrowmont is "status quo consensus builder, Bhelen baaad."

I realise it's not clear, but as many others said, criers, what people say and what the merchants say can help you form a more complete opinion. Not saying it's clear as the sun, it's not like both canditates have their program written somewhere.
But imo, it can be inferred.

It is pretty obvious that the situation was constructed by the developers and writers for the Warden to have to choose between the conservative nice guy (within the current norms of dwarven society, so bad for castless), and tyrant bad-guy power hungry reformer.

Regardless of how the devloppers wanteds me to see it (I don't really care how they want me to see things, I am the judge of that), what I saw is a conflict between a stagnant conservative lord and a much needed progressive leader.

The only argument I consider very valid in favor of Harrowmont over Bhelen is experience. Harrowmont has experience, is a general and was an admnistrator. Bhelen, for dwarven standards, is barely considered an adult.
So I can definately see people picking Harrowmont for that reason. Of course as it turns out, Harrowmont's experience doens't stop him from embracing destructive policies, while Bhelen knew what Orzammar needs. But I realise it may not be obvious at first.

In terms of actual results however, I think the epilogues speak for themselves.

Obadiah wrote...
That actually best illustrates the one who is more ruthless (which is a running theme between the two), not the one that is more loyal.

Being ruthless and commanding loyalty are not necessarily exclusive (as a matter of fact, they are often inclusive).
I am not denying ruthleness. I just don't see it as negative thing to be honest, when it comes to such a thing. I would rather have a ruthless leader than a weak one whose own guards can't be bothered to defend him (unless of course I stand to benefit from the weak leader).  

To make myself clear, I am not saying that picking Harrowmont is not a valid choice and that there are no reasons to do so. There are. In fact, I picked him on my first playthrough, as it made sense for my conservative human noble who knew very little about the dwarves and figured that Harrowmont was already experienced.

But I could not deny that Harrowmont was the bad decision when I read the epilogue. And that Bhelen was infinately better as king. I think that's the point of the thread. 

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 02 septembre 2010 - 06:09 .

[mousestalker]

I had the impression that the factions were better behaved while the king was still alive. Orzammar seems to be organized on the classical Roman patron-client model with the Hindu caste system thrown in as well. A poor slob without a patron or carta protection (in case of the casteless) is food for wolves.

[testing123]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

The only argument I consider very valid in favor of Harrowmont over Bhelen is experience. Harrowmont has experience, is a general and was an admnistrator. Bhelen, for dwarven standards, is barely considered an adult.
So I can definately see people picking Harrowmont for that reason. Of course as it turns out, Harrowmont's experience doens't stop him from embracing destructive policies, while Bhelen knew what Orzammar needs. But I realise it may not be obvious at first.

To make myself clear, I am not saying that picking Harrowmont is not a valid choice and that there are no reasons to do so. There are. In fact, I picked him on my first playthrough, as it made sense for my conservative human noble who knew very little about the dwarves and figured that Harrowmont was already experienced.

Harrowmont is considered a great compromiser and 'wins' many battles in the assembly.  The US senate also had great compromisers, they came up with the 3/5th's law regarding slaves.  Everybody wins!  

The only real issue I have with the criticism of Harrowmont is that he's blamed for a lot of the things that happen while he is king.  Which is fair, it is his responsibility, but if you understand the character at all it's far more likely that anything that he proposed was chewed up and spit out by a bickering assembly until it lost all meaning rather than him actually putting forth ideas that subjugated his people.  Harrowmont is a weak ruler and accomplishes nothing, the things that get done during his short rule are things that every noble can agree on, and that tends to be some pretty terrible things.  I don't think they should necessarily be interpreted as his ideas though.  To sum it up, I think Harrowmont fashions himself as a democratic leader, problem is he lives in a fascist society.

I maintain that Harrowmont's greatest attribute is compassion, however, it could also be considered the source of his greatest weakness.  He is unwilling to use a firm hand when necessary and force through reforms that their society desperately needs.  

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
In terms of actual results however, I think the epilogues speak for themselves.

But I could not deny that Harrowmont was the bad decision when I read the epilogue. And that Bhelen was infinately better as king. I think that's the point of the thread. 

We agree.  My question is, since you chose Harrowmont the first time, were you expecting him to fail?  Or was that not readily apparent to you until you played another game with the epilogue in mind?  I like to think that most of us believe a compassionate leader is valuable, in this particular case the game does not support that.  Once you know for certain who is better for the country the only question is, how much are you willing to sacrifice to achieve that greater good?

Modifié par jvee, 02 septembre 2010 - 08:24 .

[Obadiah]

What jvee said.

Another thing that bugs me about the Harrowmont/Bhelen choice is that the Warden never gets to ask them directly what they plan do once they are in power. You have to kind of get the vibe of who they are and what they might to do from others, which is kind of odd for politicians in an assembly (who love to argue).

Some codex entries with history of the two of them from the Shaparate would have gone a long way towards making the decision a more informed one.

Modifié par Obadiah, 02 septembre 2010 - 08:38 .

[ejoslin]

I don't think the decision was really supposed to be informed. I just figured I was a Gray Warden, there was a blight going on, which would most likely be able to get troops to the surface.

[Obadiah]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

You know, how is Harrowmont any less "corrupted" and "evil" then Bhelen when he uses the Anvil to brutally suppress those who had been loyal to Bhelen, huh? ( And screw the metagame argument, seriously ).

Just once I have to not destroy the anvil. I was going to do it on my last playthrough, but reloaded that decision once I discovered the Anvil held the souls of all of the dead dwarves trapped, and they appeared to be making Branka nuts  (or nuttier than usual.)

[jpdipity]

My first playthrough was with my extra, naive, sweet female mage. I purposedly had her make a naive choice and pick Harrowmont. I thought that it was pretty clear that Bhelan was the stronger, more progressive leader by talking to merchants and listening to the criers. I haven't played a naive character since; so, everyone else has picked Bhelan. I usually have Zevran in my party now and he makes it pretty clear that Harrowmont is a poor leader. My PCs typically trust the opinion of their companions with the exception of Morrigan.



Even my betrayed DN picked Bhelan - he had more respect for Bhelan's ability to outwit him than Harrowmont's failure to keep him from exile. In fact, to a DN, Harrowmont seems to fail on all fronts to do anything.

[Sarah1281]

jpdipity wrote...
Even my betrayed DN picked Bhelan - he had more respect for Bhelan's ability to outwit him than Harrowmont's failure to keep him from exile. In fact, to a DN, Harrowmont seems to fail on all fronts to do anything.

 At least he's consistent about his take on the whole exile thing, unlike certain other people I could mention...

Although if you want to find a non-fail on Harrowmont for the DN there's always talking to Nerav and she tells you that, as you should know from the ease of your exile, the fact that Bhelen only owns have the Assembly means his support is dropping. Granted, that's likely because of all the bribes and the fact that the other houses want a turn on the throne but still.

[KnightofPhoenix]

jvee wrote...
 To sum it up, I think Harrowmont fashions himself as a democratic leader, problem is he lives in a fascist society.

Ignoring what I believe to be a false and anachronistic use of terms, this is all speculation on Harrowmont as a person. It might be true, and it might not. I personally believe that he genuinely is a traditionalist, but without him realising what those traditions imply in practise.
 
We do not have enough info on Harrowmont as a person to truly discern him. But this is all not really relevent to the topic at hand, for we are discussing his capacity as a leader and not as a person.

We agree.  My question is, since you chose Harrowmont the first time, were you expecting him to fail?  Or was that not readily apparent to you until you played another game with the epilogue in mind?  I like to think that most of us believe a compassionate leader is valuable, in this particular case the game does not support that.  Once you know for certain who is better for the country the only question is, how much are you willing to sacrifice to achieve that greater good?

To make myself clear, it's my first character that chose him and not I, because it made sense for him to. This was the first ever RPG where I consciously attempted to create a character and put myself in his shoes. This specific character valued experience, which Harrowmont had and Bhelen didn't, and in addition to being ignorant of the dwarves, didn't care much for their fate. My "Canon PC", aka the one I based on myself, picked Bhelen with no hesitation.

To be honest, I did not expect Harrowmont to fail that badly no. I expected him maintaining the status quo, without changing anything or doing anything. Him making things that much worse was unexpected to me, but not surprising. 

But it was clear to me from the very beginning that Bhelen was the better politician and I did expect a better epilogue from him.

The greater good for the dwarves here can be seen as their very survival as a species and as a nation, because of their desperate situation. So to rephrase your question. How much am I willing to sacrifice for self-preservation? A lot, so long as it's not self-defeating.  

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 02 septembre 2010 - 09:31 .

[testing123]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
Ignoring what I believe to be a false and anachronistic use of terms, this is all speculation on Harrowmont as a person. It might be true, and it might not. I personally believe that he genuinely is a traditionalist, but without him realising what those traditions imply in practise.
 
We do not have enough info on Harrowmont as a person to truly discern him. But this is all not really relevent to the topic at hand, for we are discussing his capacity as a leader and not as a person.

Well I don't want to turn this into a political theory debate so I'll just say that I disagree with the assessment that fascism would be an anachronism in a game like this, but I concede that it is far more accurate to describe the dwarven government as an oligarchy.  I just felt that fascism would be a more easily understood for any readers.

Yes, this is pretty much all speculation.  I'm forced to speculate because the game doesn't give me any solid evidence.  You cannot make an informed decision without speculating or basing your decision on obtained meta-gaming knowledge.  

Thanks to the epilogue, it has become incredibly popular to choose Bhelen and defend him as if he were a champion of equality and a dwarven humanitarian.  That is complete bull****.  He is a terrible person and a successful leader.  If we were only discussing their capacity as leaders then Harrowmont is completely worthless and that is fairly evident even without the epilogue.  When you first walk into Orzammar, Bhelen's men are defending his 'honor' while Harrowmont and his men are fleeing like cowards.  They are weak, and would almost certainly lose without Warden intervention.  I have never argued that Harrowmont is a better choice, only that he is by far the better person.  Of course, that is likely influenced by your point of view.  I have not had the chance to speak with him as a dwarven commoner, I can only relay his behavior as a mage and a human noble.  It is certainly possible that he is a bigot but it is far from definitive.  There is much more evidence of Bhelen's character when playing through Orzammar.  Giving a man of his character a position of authority when I can't possibly know what the future holds seems infinitely more risky.  What I do know is that I'm going to have to implicate myself in the deaths of many presumably innocent people to ensure his rule so I had better believe in him.  And without the epilogue, I do not. 

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
The greater good for the dwarves here can be seen as their very survival as a species and as a nation, because of their desperate situation. So to rephrase your question. How much am I willing to sacrifice for self-preservation? A lot, so long as it's not self-defeating.  

You're answering a question that the game doesn't present to you.  Choosing Harrowmont doesn't damn dwarven society to extinction, they just don't move forward.  His failure potentially provides the opportunity for another less shady character to institute reform, perhaps with less bloodshed along the way.  Bhelen's actions were not strictly necessary to implement change, they were only necessary to ensure his absolute power.  

Bhelen is the quickest, most sure way of implementing reform, but you must pay a heavy price for making the change happen now.  And all of that is not necessarily clear to the player, depending on the origin.  Bhelen represents change but it is hardly clear what that would mean.

If I'm expected to believe what the ridiculous town criers say, Bhelen is 'non-traditional' and is involved with a casteless woman.  Neither of those things are negatives against him, but neither can they be assumed as positives with any degree of certainty.  To better understand what reform under Bhelen would mean, I am forced to look at him as a person.  

There is a great deal of evidence to support that he murdered his two elder siblings to put himself in position for succession.  Every decision he makes shows he is willing to do whatever it takes to attain personal power.  Reform for the sake of personal power seems dangerous to me.  Obviously, everything worked out better than expected.  But I don't think the game really portrays what Bhelen's changes would mean in the moment.

It is a difficult decision, what would you sacrifice for the perceived 'greater good'?  In my games the answer is most often, 'as little as humanly possible.'  If you are willing to sacrifice half of the population to ensure that the other half lives on, can you really feel satisfied with that decision?  It is likely the smart one but you can't help but second guess yourself.  Especially in a game that prides itself on denying you access to the whole picture. Suppose your perceived 'greater good' is really just an irrational paranoia regarding Orlesians.  As many people, if not more, are condemned due to your certainty as are doomed by my inaction.  Why do we do anything at all? lol..

[Sarah1281]

Thanks to the epilogue, it has become incredibly popular to choose Bhelen and defend him as if he were a champion of equality and a dwarven humanitarian. That is complete bull****. He is a terrible person and a successful leader.

Who thinks Bhelen is a good person? Some disagree with Harrowmont being a good person but no one really thinks Bhelen is. We just don't see how that really matters when it comes to choosing the King.

You're answering a question that the game doesn't present to you. Choosing Harrowmont doesn't damn dwarven society to extinction, they just don't move forward.

So if they're ALREADY on the path to extinction he keeps them there.

[ejoslin]

Sarah1281 wrote...

Thanks to the epilogue, it has become incredibly popular to choose Bhelen and defend him as if he were a champion of equality and a dwarven humanitarian. That is complete bull****. He is a terrible person and a successful leader.

Who thinks Bhelen is a good person? Some disagree with Harrowmont being a good person but no one really thinks Bhelen is. We just don't see how that really matters when it comes to choosing the King.

You're answering a question that the game doesn't present to you. Choosing Harrowmont doesn't damn dwarven society to extinction, they just don't move forward.

So if they're ALREADY on the path to extinction he keeps them there.

Exactly.  Orzammar is already in a population decline.  Falling birth rates and war with the darkspawn are taking their toll.  More of the same means Orzammar becoming weaker and weaker.

[KnightofPhoenix]

I am passing over the arguments concerning who is the better person, as I do not think they are relevent to this discussion.

jvee wrote...
  Giving a man of his character a position of authority when I can't possibly know what the future holds seems infinitely more risky. 

I don't know. I think betting on someone who can barely secure the loyalty of his own men, not to mention willing to do whatever the assembly, that proved itself time and time again to be inefficient, wants to be riskier. 

Risk is a necessity in politics, and I think we can both agree that both canditates have a certiain amount of risk involved with picking them. I personally believe that Harrowmont is riskier and sure enough, without golems he can't even remain on the throne.  
 

You're answering a question that the game doesn't present to you.  Choosing Harrowmont doesn't damn dwarven society to extinction, they just don't move forward.  

The Dwarves are already on the path of extinction, with their entire lifeline based on a few surface traders that they consider as nothing, coupled with population decline and never ending darkspawn incursions.
Harrowmont doesn't just not move forward, he makes things worse, as Orzammar becomes even more isolationist and more caste rigid. Definately the path of extinction there.

 And what heavy price? The death of a few stubborn fools who lack vision for the future is well within the acceptable parameters. And the dissolution of the Assembly is not seen by me as payign a heavy price, I was actually surprised he didn't do it sooner. 

Anyways, we can discuss in-game logic all we want, we can find hundreds reasons to support either candidate and most reasons are legitmitate, including yours. 
 But the only way to objectively answer the question that this thread raises, we must look at the results and it's clear that Bhelen is the better ruler. Many saw that when playing the game, others did not. I don't like to argue about how people play their own games (as it ends up tryign to dictate how people "should" play). But I think we agreed that Bhelen is the better ruler already, and that's what the op wanted to know (I think).    

EDIT: Oh and I don't think reforming for the sake of personal power to be dangerous. Many reformers were like this (like Peter the Great, Napoleon I and III, Frederick the Great...etc etc) and kudos for them.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 03 septembre 2010 - 12:56 .

[testing123]

ejoslin wrote...
Exactly.  Orzammar is already in a population decline.  Falling birth rates and war with the darkspawn are taking their toll.  More of the same means Orzammar becoming weaker and weaker.

I also agree.  I don't see how it is contrary to what I said.  It is impossible to argue against the results Bhelen brings. That isn't my objective.  My posts are meant to accomplish three things.  Explain why Harrowmont most definitely is a better person by comparison, explain why choosing Bhelen while pointing to unknowable results is faulty logic, and why I chose Harrowmont even though I knew he would fail.  I would like to reiterate, I really really want to choose Bhelen, but the game has yet to give me a reason prior to the epilogue to do so.  If you are comfortable sacrificing lives for Bhelen's very personal pursuit of power, that's fine.  Canon states that this was probably the right choice.  But without really understanding what reform means under Bhelen it is impossible for me to place my faith in his leadership.  Strength may provide stability but there was no guarantee it would improve lives.  

KnightofPhoenix wrote...I don't like to argue about how people play their own games (as it ends up tryign to dictate how people "should" play). But I think we agreed that Bhelen is the better ruler already, and that's what the op wanted to know (I think).    

If you want to answer the original poster's question, the sobering reality is that the answer is, 'it doesn't matter.' Or I suppose more truthfully, 'we don't know.'  Though he is expressly asking how he 'should' play the game, I understand your hesitation.  I didn't join this debate to tell people what decision they should make, only what decision I made and why.  I think it is intriguing, and I thought it might be interesting for people to recognize the decision's role in the primary theme of the game. How much will you sacrifice for the greater good?  It's nice that at least one of the story decisions supported 'necessary sacrifices.'     

Oh and I don't think reforming for the sake of personal power to be dangerous. Many reformers were like this (like Peter the Great, Napoleon I and III, Frederick the Great...etc etc) and kudos for them.

Then you and I really, really, really disagree.  But I get the impression that you are as tired of this argument as I am, so I'll leave it at that.  

[KnightofPhoenix]

jvee wrote...
If you want to answer the original poster's question, the sobering reality is that the answer is, 'it doesn't matter.' Or I suppose more truthfully, 'we don't know.'  Though he is expressly asking how he 'should' play the game, I understand your hesitation.  I didn't join this debate to tell people what decision they should make, only what decision I made and why.  

He expressly asked what we thought is the better choice, for him to import to DA2 (taken in context "better" here would mean better for DA2 I believe). I think we both agreed that Bhelen is, all things considered, the better choice, no?

Then you and I really, really, really disagree.  But I get the impression that you are as tired of this argument as I am, so I'll leave it at that.  

Not a question that I am tired perse and you are one of the few that I actualy enjoyed discussing things with recently. It's just that from experience, all these discussions end up going in circles after a while.
Yes, we disagree on fundamentals here (we have different paradigms I suppose). Which isn't bad really. Just different perspectives. Which the game manages to illustrate quite well    

[testing123]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
He expressly asked what we thought is the better choice, for him to import to DA2 (taken in context "better" here would mean better for DA2 I believe). I think we both agreed that Bhelen is, all things considered, the better choice, no?

He asked which is the best decision to have in reference to DA2, and we don't know.  It may not come up at all, you may be punished or rewarded depending on your choice, that is entirely up to the game designers.  He said he had played through with both choices so I assumed he knew the epilogue for both and was asking a question we don't really have an answer to.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
Not a question that I am tired perse and you are one of the few that I actualy enjoyed discussing things with recently. It's just that from experience, all these discussions end up going in circles after a while.
Yes, we disagree on fundamentals here (we have different paradigms I suppose). Which isn't bad really. Just different perspectives. Which the game manages to illustrate quite well    

Yeah, I suppose they eventually go in circles.  I am a little disappointed that there aren't more threads debating decisions and discussing the themes the game presents.  Seems like most of the threads anyone posts in any more have devolved into pages and pages of character tributes.  That's to be expected I suppose, I am pretty late to the party.

Just to wrap things up, the thing I like most about Bhelen is he doesn't take **** from anyone.  When you first meet Vartag, his response is essentially, 'We can do this with or without you warden, I don't really give a ****.' Unfortunately for him, they couldn't do it without me.  I can certainly respect a decision to side with Bhelen, particularly given how that decision can mirror  Loghain so well...  it does give me pause to realize how little I would actually sacrifice for the greater good.  It certainly doesn't make me feel like a 'good' person.  Still, interesting to discuss.       


   

Modifié par jvee, 03 septembre 2010 - 02:10 .