234 réponses à ce sujet

[Obadiah]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
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.

Harrowmont secured enough loyalty to have a rebellion start after he is executed. Both he and Bhelen inspire loyalty, Harrowmont's is simply not the desperate ruthless bloodthirsty kind.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
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.

I disagree. Bhelen's ascension leads to a bloodbath among Harrowont's supporters starting with Harrowmont, not "the death[s] of a few." Chosing Bhelen is part of the "cost" Duncan's voiceover mentions at the end. Some may be able to justify that with the few sentences that gloss over the tyranny and oppression in Orzammar, and it certainly beats the Harrowmont "further castless restrictions, noble priveleges" outcome. I hope the next time Bioware puts that kind of option/outcome in a game they give the players a better chance to shape the outcome (Harrowomont with Bhelen's advisors for example)..

[KnightofPhoenix]

Obadiah wrote...
Harrowmont secured enough loyalty to have a rebellion start after he is executed. Both he and Bhelen inspire loyalty, Harrowmont's is simply not the desperate ruthless bloodthirsty kind.

Is it loyalty for Harrowmont that fueled the rebellion, or hatred of Bhelen / reform?
From what I have seen (guards cowering from their duty to protect him), I think it's the latter.

I disagree. Bhelen's ascension leads to a bloodbath among Harrowont's supporters starting with Harrowmont, not "the death[s] of a few."

Harrowmont and his supporters are a few in the larger scheme of things. Definately not what I would consider a heavy cost. But that depends on each individual perspective.
 

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 03 septembre 2010 - 05:35 .

[Obadiah]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Obadiah wrote...
Harrowmont secured enough loyalty to have a rebellion start after he is executed. Both he and Bhelen inspire loyalty, Harrowmont's is simply not the desperate ruthless bloodthirsty kind.

Is it loyalty for Harrowmont that fueled the rebellion, or hatred of Bhelen / reform?
From what I have seen (guards cowering from their duty to protect him), I think it's the latter.

Couldn't you ask the same thing about Bhelen's rebellion/supporters being for him because they hate Harrowmont's support of the status quo? The game portrays their supporters with equal loyalty.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I disagree. Bhelen's ascension leads to a bloodbath among Harrowont's supporters starting with Harrowmont, not "the death[s] of a few."

Harrowmont and his supporters are a few in the larger scheme of things. Definately not what I would consider a heavy cost. But that depends on each individual perspective.
 

By that logic you could justify killing anyone, which is wrong and evil. So "yes," I consider it a heavy cost.

Modifié par Obadiah, 03 septembre 2010 - 06:05 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Obadiah wrote...

Couldn't you ask the same thing about Bhelen's rebellion/supporters being for him because they hate Harrowmont's support of the status quo? The game portrays their supporters with equal loyalty.

Except that Bhelen's men stood by him, while Harrowmont's men cowardly fled even before Harrowmont did. I don't really think of loyalty when seeing this, but maybe that's just me.  

And without golems, Harrowmont can not deal with the rebellion. Bhelen can deal with it without golems. 
Either that shows that Harrowmont's supporters are weaker, or Bhelen is more efficient in securing the throne. Both are in favor for him.   

Obadiah wrote...
By that logic you could justify killing anyone, which is wrong and evil. So "yes," I consider it a heavy cost.

I don't really know how you made that leap in logic.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 03 septembre 2010 - 06:07 .

[Sarah1281]

Obadiah wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
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.

Harrowmont secured enough loyalty to have a rebellion start after he is executed. Both he and Bhelen inspire loyalty, Harrowmont's is simply not the desperate ruthless bloodthirsty kind.

What rebellion? The fanatics that attack you? That's hardly the full-scale rebellion that you hear about in Harrowmont's epilogue not to mention that not only does Bhelen's death have the same isolated fanatics but it also causes half the Assembly to attack, Vartag and several palace guards to, half the fighters in the Proving arena...basically, more people are pissed and willing to do something about it when Harrowmont becomes King.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Eh, I think Bhelen culls all seeds of rebellion right there and then. It's true Sarah, I remember no mention of large scale rebellion. Just the dissention of a few. I thought I forgot something seeing how I haven't played in a long time and went along with the argument.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 03 septembre 2010 - 06:17 .

[Obadiah]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Obadiah wrote...

Couldn't you ask the same thing about Bhelen's rebellion/supporters being for him because they hate Harrowmont's support of the status quo? The game portrays their supporters with equal loyalty.

Except that Bhelen's men stood by him, while Harrowmont's men cowardly fled even before Harrowmont did. I don't really think of loyalty when seeing this, but maybe that's just me.  

Well, in my opinion, fleeing a group of bloodthristy armed men who have
suprised and killed one of yours (and now have you at a disadvantage), so you can live and fight another day
(preferably with overwhelming force on your side), is not really
disloyalty. It's just fleeing. Though it may look bad, I don't think it really implies anythingother than common sense. They seem perfectly loyal and willing to suicide on the Warden later on in the quest before the crowning.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
And without golems, Harrowmont can not deal with the rebellion. Bhelen can deal with it without golems. 
Either that shows that Harrowmont's supporters are weaker, or Bhelen is more efficient in securing the throne.
Both are in favor for him.   

I think it's been pretty much established that Bhelen is ruthless and powerhungry, hence he quashes the rebellion much quicker and firmer than Harrowmont. Bhelen probably violated a couple of Geneva Conventions to do that.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Obadiah wrote...
By that logic you could justify killing anyone, which is wrong and evil. So "yes," I consider it a heavy cost.

I don't really know how you made that leap in logic.

You're making an argument that a few people could be killed for some greater good that Bhelen brings. Killing people who aren't trying to kill you, but because they don't support you, is murder. It is within Bhelen's legal authority at that point, but it's still wrong and evil. Since you're arguing a "few" as justifiable, Bhelen could kill anyone in pursuit of his goals, and by that logic, it would be worth it.

Modifié par Obadiah, 03 septembre 2010 - 06:35 .

[Obadiah]

Sarah1281 wrote...

Obadiah wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
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.

Harrowmont secured enough loyalty to have a rebellion start after he is executed. Both he and Bhelen inspire loyalty, Harrowmont's is simply not the desperate ruthless bloodthirsty kind.

What rebellion? The fanatics that attack you? That's hardly the full-scale rebellion that you hear about in Harrowmont's epilogue not to mention that not only does Bhelen's death have the same isolated fanatics but it also causes half the Assembly to attack, Vartag and several palace guards to, half the fighters in the Proving arena...basically, more people are pissed and willing to do something about it when Harrowmont becomes King.

I don't think you can equate violence loyalty. Bhelen's supporters are more violent - that doesn't make Harrowmont's supporters less loyal, it just means they're less violent.

Hmm... think I'm trolling here. Gonna stop on this thread.

Modifié par Obadiah, 03 septembre 2010 - 06:41 .

[testing123]

Obadiah wrote...

Hmm... think I'm trolling here. Gonna stop on this thread.

Pfft, it isn't trolling, it's merely offering a different opinion, which was sorely needed.  Personally, I appreciate someone other than me arguing for Harrowmont.  That side of the debate desperately needs some new perspective.

[Sarah1281]

Well, in my opinion, fleeing a group of bloodthristy armed men who have
suprised and killed one of yours (and now have you at a disadvantage), so you can live and fight another day
(preferably with overwhelming force on your side), is not really
disloyalty. It's just fleeing. Though it may look bad, I don't think it really implies anythingother than common sense. They seem perfectly loyal and willing to suicide on the Warden later on in the quest before the crowning.

Except...only one of them does anything violent. Maybe the others are perfectly willing to, but they don't. An entire group of people fleeing for fear of one not-that-impressive man? Lame. And cowardly. Not to mention that there's no way that all of Bhelen's men are armed and none of Harrowmont's are unless they're really just that stupid. Plus, the 'fanatics' are unlikely to be Harrowmont or Bhelen's own men and I doubt they think that they're committing suicide.

Obadiah wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...

Obadiah wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
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.

Harrowmont secured enough loyalty to have a rebellion start after he is executed. Both he and Bhelen inspire loyalty, Harrowmont's is simply not the desperate ruthless bloodthirsty kind.

What rebellion? The fanatics that attack you? That's hardly the full-scale rebellion that you hear about in Harrowmont's epilogue not to mention that not only does Bhelen's death have the same isolated fanatics but it also causes half the Assembly to attack, Vartag and several palace guards to, half the fighters in the Proving arena...basically, more people are pissed and willing to do something about it when Harrowmont becomes King.

I don't think you can equate violence loyalty. Bhelen's supporters are more violent - that doesn't make Harrowmont's supporters less loyal, it just means they're less violent.

Hmm... think I'm trolling here. Gonna stop on this thread.

Did I say violence equals loyalty? I'm asking what evidence you have of Bhelen having to deal with a rebellion launched in Harrowmont's name. All we see are more fanatics. Do those fanatics that are just like the ones we've been dealing with ever since choosing a side mean that Harrowmont's supporters are so loyal that they launched a rebellion before there was even anything to rebel against? Bhelen has the rebellion. Harrowmont has either less loyal and passionate supporters or Bhelen's more ruthless actions of executions and conscription prevent one. Possibly both.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Obadiah wrote...
Well, in my opinion, fleeing a group of bloodthristy armed men who have
suprised and killed one of yours (and now have you at a disadvantage), so you can live and fight another day
(preferably with overwhelming force on your side), is not really
disloyalty. It's just fleeing. Though it may look bad, I don't think it really implies anythingother than common sense. They seem perfectly loyal and willing to suicide on the Warden later on in the quest before the crowning.

Flee even before Harrowmont does is fleeing to fight for another day?
It's Harrowmont, their lord, who is supposed to decide twhether they flee or stand. But maybe Zevran is right and they are following the example of a coward. 

I think it's been pretty much established that Bhelen is ruthless and powerhungry, hence he quashes the rebellion much quicker and firmer than Harrowmont. Bhelen probably violated a couple of Geneva Conventions to do that.

He can't violate something that doesn't exist at his time and universe.

Obadiah wrote...
You're making an argument that a few people could be killed for some greater good that Bhelen brings. Killing people who aren't trying to kill you, but because they don't support you, is murder. It is within Bhelen's legal authority at that point, but it's still wrong and evil. Since you're arguing a "few" as justifiable, Bhelen could kill anyone in pursuit of his goals, and by that logic, it would be worth it.

Harrowmont's supporters are his enemies, it's not like he is killing random people on the streets.
And sure enough, his actions bring swift order and peace and avoids a full scale rebellion that would have vost more lives. Well worth it for me.
You must think that 99% of ancient world leaders are wrong and evil then.  

[Obadiah]

Sarah1281 wrote...
I'm asking what evidence you have of Bhelen having to deal with a rebellion launched in Harrowmont's name.

The rebels attack you in a random encounter after Bhelen or Harrowmont take the thrown. If either takes the thrown there is a rebellion they have to deal with.

[Elhanan]

Harrowmont is the better moral choice; Bhelen for the lucre. Neither is good for Orzammar which makes all the bickering over the last few pages a tad off target.

As for your Warden, choose what would be best for that character, be it self based or big picture.

[Sarah1281]

Obadiah wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...
I'm asking what evidence you have of Bhelen having to deal with a rebellion launched in Harrowmont's name.

The rebels attack you in a random encounter after Bhelen or Harrowmont take the thrown. If either takes the thrown there is a rebellion they have to deal with.

Bhelen's rebellion is larger than just the fanatics that attack no matter what (and more people attack in-game wise to boot) and is remarked upon. For all the game tells us, Harrowmont's 'rebellion' is just some pissed fanatics who attack you and who you personally deal with leaving no violent fanatics left for Bhelen to crush.

[Jacks Smirking Revenge]

MariSkep wrote...

Elhanan wrote...

Harrowmont is the better moral choice; Bhelen for the lucre. Neither is good for Orzammar which makes all the bickering over the last few pages a tad off target.

How is Bhelen not good for Orzammar?

Kind of what I was thinking lol.

Bhelen did some nasty things to get to his spot, but he wasn't a bad King.

[testing123]

MariSkep wrote...

I've plenty of perspective, thank you.

Well, since you have so much perspective feel free to debate this with yourself and we can all go. =P

Elhanan wrote...

Harrowmont is the better moral choice; Bhelen for the lucre. Neither is good for Orzammar which makes all the bickering over the last few pages a tad off target. 

That depends entirely on your own set of morals does it not?  According to the epilogue, Harrowmont is an utter failure as king, no matter what decisions you make to surround him.  Bhelen forces many beneficial reforms at the cost of a dictatorship.  Whether you think those reforms was worth the cost of a Bhelen dictatorship could influence whether or not you think he was 'good' for Orzammar I suppose...

This thread is hardly bickering, people are debating a story point in the game and justifying their choice.  I suppose we could all agree to say that each side has good points and neither choice is wrong but that is incredibly boring and doesn't really give anyone insight into why others chose as they did, which is potentially far more interesting.

[ejoslin]

Jacks Smirking Revenge wrote...

MariSkep wrote...

Elhanan wrote...

Harrowmont is the better moral choice; Bhelen for the lucre. Neither is good for Orzammar which makes all the bickering over the last few pages a tad off target.

How is Bhelen not good for Orzammar?

Kind of what I was thinking lol.

Bhelen did some nasty things to get to his spot, but he wasn't a bad King.

I'm still stuck on Harrowmont being the moral choice.  His voice is nice, and he sounds gentle and wise, but what he stands for and defends is not very moral in my opinion.

But, yes, in the Origins slides, it shows Orzammar not only prospering financially, but finally making headway in the war with the darkspawn, reclaiming several lost thaigs under Bhelen's rule.

Modifié par ejoslin, 03 septembre 2010 - 05:38 .

[Sarah1281]

I'm still stuck on Harrowmont being the moral choice. His voice is nice, and he sounds gentle and wise, but what he stands for and defends is not very moral in my opinion.

I think that he's a nicer guy than Bhelen but the traditions that he's so in favor of are definitely NOT moral.

[ejoslin]

Sarah1281 wrote...

I'm still stuck on Harrowmont being the moral choice. His voice is nice, and he sounds gentle and wise, but what he stands for and defends is not very moral in my opinion.

I think that he's a nicer guy than Bhelen but the traditions that he's so in favor of are definitely NOT moral.

I think putting a weak leader on the throne, one who cannot even keep his men around to defend him when he's immediately threatened, when the country is at war, is pretty immoral.  He does seem nice, and kindly -- but he has been the general for Orzammar for how long, and even though they're losing the war, cannot bring himself to make any changes.

[LobselVith8]

As long as you're not casteless, I'm certain Harrowmont can be seen as being nicer than Bhelen.

[KnightofPhoenix]

LobselVith8 wrote...

As long as you're not casteless, I'm certain Harrowmont can be seen as being nicer than Bhelen.

And not a merchant (both surface and under) whose entire business is ruined because of Harrowmont's isolationism.

[Elhanan]

Yes; placing a murdererous criminal on the throne is best for the city because it places coins in our pockets, jobs for our lower class citizens who will still be considered as lessers, and he is such a darn witty politician. Such a rascal.....

Only thing missing is the flushing sound.