118 réponses à ce sujet

[Persephone]

Wulfram wrote...

Persephone wrote...

It's the most logical decision on her part. The choice any smart monarch would make. Besides being a rival, Alistair wants her father dead. Monarchs have to execute pretenders, possible rivals to the throne. If she doesn't, the Epilogue will tell of an uprising in his name. No smart monarch wants that. Whether said rival WANTS the throne is sadly irrelevant, his presence must be dealt with.

Openly murdering the son of Maric for no real reason is stupid, and will create far more difficulties than it solves.  Her claim to the throne is weak, and acting in such an arbitrary manner would unite the realm against her.

edit: if she were to quietly arrange for his death, that would be sensible

Executing a pretender who is a bastard child of the former king won't get her into trouble. (Didn't in my one Epilogue where I allowed the execution). No real reason? Read what I said. Pretenders and rivals are a serious danger to an already weakened kingdom.

[ejoslin]

It's stupid NOT to execute him. This is not a fairy-tale, kumbaya type world where we all hold hands and sing songs and live together in harmony. There are nobles who will follow Alistair because he is a Theirin and he is a real threat if he refuses to swear fealty and relinquish all rights to the throne.



If he swears fealty and such, his execution isn't even an issue.

[Wulfram]

Persephone wrote...

Executing a pretender who is a bastard child of the former king won't get her into trouble. (Didn't in my one Epilogue where I allowed the execution). No real reason? Read what I said. Pretenders and rivals are a serious danger to an already weakened kingdom.

Bioware generally seemed intent on pushing the idea that randomly murdering people is a good trait for rulers in DA:O.  Part of the whole "Dark Fantasy" thing, presumably.  They no doubt intend killing Alistair to make sense.  But it just doesn't.

There's no legal or moral justification for killing Alistair.  At least, none that wouldn't equally apply to Aemon, the Warden and a good chunk of the bannorn.

Practical reasons only make sense if you think the Bannorn will happily follow the murderer of the last of Theirins, and won't consider who next this tyrant will find convenient to dispose of.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Note to self...don't mention Loghain in a non-Loghain thread unless you want to drag it off topic.



My apologies to the OP. :/

[ejoslin]

Wulfram wrote...

Persephone wrote...

Executing a pretender who is a bastard child of the former king won't get her into trouble. (Didn't in my one Epilogue where I allowed the execution). No real reason? Read what I said. Pretenders and rivals are a serious danger to an already weakened kingdom.

Bioware generally seemed intent on pushing the idea that randomly murdering people is a good trait for rulers in DA:O.  Part of the whole "Dark Fantasy" thing, presumably.  They no doubt intend killing Alistair to make sense.  But it just doesn't.

There's no legal or moral justification for killing Alistair.  At least, none that wouldn't equally apply to Aemon, the Warden and a good chunk of the bannorn.

Practical reasons only make sense if you think the Bannorn will happily follow the murderer of the last of Theirins, and won't consider who next this tyrant will find convenient to dispose of.

It's treason, not murder, if Alistair refuses to swear fealty and relinquish all rights to the throne.  Not to mention calling for the death of a Teyrn before having a trial and such.  As justified as he is for wanting Loghain dead, there are plenty of legal reasons to execute him really.

Edit: As far as I know, Eamon doesn't refuse to swear fealty.  The warden actually appoints the power to the queen, so I doubt that's an issue either.

Modifié par ejoslin, 04 octobre 2010 - 12:07 .

[Persephone]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

Note to self...don't mention Loghain in a non-Loghain thread unless you want to drag it off topic.

My apologies to the OP. :/

Loghain seems to take over a lot of threads.

Modifié par Persephone, 04 octobre 2010 - 12:38 .

[ejoslin]

I'm so terribly guilty of this! *grin* As far as Elenor's decision goes... Who knows how much time she was able to buy them. Probably not enough to make a huge difference, but perhaps enough to delay the search for her younger child by quite a bit, especially if they decide to search the castle for the HN first because the mother was still there.

[Corker]

Wulfram wrote...
Bioware generally seemed intent on pushing the idea that randomly murdering people is a good trait for rulers in DA:O.  Part of the whole "Dark Fantasy" thing, presumably.  They no doubt intend killing Alistair to make sense.  But it just doesn't.

There's no legal or moral justification for killing Alistair.  At least, none that wouldn't equally apply to Aemon, the Warden and a good chunk of the bannorn.

Practical reasons only make sense if you think the Bannorn will happily follow the murderer of the last of Theirins, and won't consider who next this tyrant will find convenient to dispose of.

Well, neither Eamon, the Warden, nor the bannorn claimed to be king.  Although if there wasn't a Blight and Eamon's troops weren't desperately needed, it should have been his head, too, for organizing the thing as Lord Dudley was in the case of the Nine Days' Queen.

I mean, if Queen Mary of England can sign off on the execution of a sixteen-year old girl who was similarly put forward as a puppet queen by domineering adults, then I think Anora's got some precedent.  It didn't particularly damage Mary's reign (not that it lasted much longer).

[Persephone]

Corker wrote...

Wulfram wrote...
Bioware generally seemed intent on pushing the idea that randomly murdering people is a good trait for rulers in DA:O.  Part of the whole "Dark Fantasy" thing, presumably.  They no doubt intend killing Alistair to make sense.  But it just doesn't.

There's no legal or moral justification for killing Alistair.  At least, none that wouldn't equally apply to Aemon, the Warden and a good chunk of the bannorn.

Practical reasons only make sense if you think the Bannorn will happily follow the murderer of the last of Theirins, and won't consider who next this tyrant will find convenient to dispose of.

Well, neither Eamon, the Warden, nor the bannorn claimed to be king.  Although if there wasn't a Blight and Eamon's troops weren't desperately needed, it should have been his head, too, for organizing the thing as Lord Dudley was in the case of the Nine Days' Queen.

I mean, if Queen Mary of England can sign off on the execution of a sixteen-year old girl who was similarly put forward as a puppet queen by domineering adults, then I think Anora's got some precedent.  It didn't particularly damage Mary's reign (not that it lasted much longer).

And poor dear Lady Jane was actually in a more justified position than Alistair: She wasn't some starry-eyed maid's bastard daughter AND Edward VI actually endorsed her as his successor. (Against his dead father's will, but still!) 

[Wulfram]

ejoslin wrote...

It's treason, not murder, if Alistair refuses to swear fealty and relinquish all rights to the throne.  Not to mention calling for the death of a Teyrn before having a trial and such.  As justified as he is for wanting Loghain dead, there are plenty of legal reasons to execute him really.

Edit: As far as I know, Eamon doesn't refuse to swear fealty.  The warden actually appoints the power to the queen, so I doubt that's an issue either.

Alistair is willing to renounce his claim to the throne.  He does so, when given the opportunity.

Alistair argues for justice to someone the landsmeet seems willing to allow to decide Loghain's fate - someone who may in fact just have said something along the lines of "You'll die for what you have done" to Loghain.  He puts forward his claim to the throne to the landsmeet which was called by Arl Eamon for that very purpose.  I do not see how either of these can be construed as crimes.

Opposing Loghain's rule, or killing Howe, may be construed as a crimes, but they're not ones for which Alistair can be singled out.

[Persephone]

Wulfram wrote...

ejoslin wrote...

It's treason, not murder, if Alistair refuses to swear fealty and relinquish all rights to the throne.  Not to mention calling for the death of a Teyrn before having a trial and such.  As justified as he is for wanting Loghain dead, there are plenty of legal reasons to execute him really.

Edit: As far as I know, Eamon doesn't refuse to swear fealty.  The warden actually appoints the power to the queen, so I doubt that's an issue either.

Alistair is willing to renounce his claim to the throne.  He does so, when given the opportunity.

Alistair argues for justice to someone the landsmeet seems willing to allow to decide Loghain's fate - someone who may in fact just have said something along the lines of "You'll die for what you have done" to Loghain.  He puts forward his claim to the throne to the landsmeet which was called by Arl Eamon for that very purpose.  I do not see how either of these can be construed as crimes.

Opposing Loghain's rule, or killing Howe, may be construed as a crimes, but they're not ones for which Alistair can be singled out.

Deposing the ruling monarch through a coup with the replacement being an unheard of bastard child of a dead king.....reeks of treason and Eamon's agenda. Said ruling queen has every right to have these people executed. Just as, I suppose, the Warden has the right to have Loghain executed if his coup is successful, and to have Anora imprisoned to be executed later if Alistair survives the final battle.Alistair making a power grab for the throne just to get his way also doesn't increase my confidence in his ruling abilities.

[CalJones]

Exiling Alistair seems like a good compromise though, according to the epilogue, a rebellion is still raised in his name (and then quashed) which doubtless cost a few more lives. Then again, the bannorn are (to use a Zaeed-ism) incredibly goddamn stupid.

Anyway, lets not make this into another Loghain vs Alistair at Landsmeet thread. Maker knows we have enough of those.

[Persephone]

CalJones wrote...

Exiling Alistair seems like a good compromise though, according to the epilogue, a rebellion is still raised in his name (and then quashed) which doubtless cost a few more lives. Then again, the bannorn are (to use a Zaeed-ism) incredibly goddamn stupid.
Anyway, lets not make this into another Loghain vs Alistair at Landsmeet thread. Maker knows we have enough of those.

Good point.

So, back to Eleanor's decision! 

[Wulfram]

Persephone wrote...

Deposing the ruling monarch through a coup with the replacement being an unheard of bastard child of a dead king.....reeks of treason and Eamon's agenda. Said ruling queen has every right to have these people executed. Just as, I suppose, the Warden has the right to have Loghain executed if his coup is successful, and to have Anora imprisoned to be executed later if Alistair survives the final battle.Alistair making a power grab for the throne just to get his way also doesn't increase my confidence in his ruling abilities.

But the thing is, the "coup" succeeded.  The bannorn and the landsmeet asserted their right to regulate the succession, and defeated the arbitrary tyranny of Loghain.  Almost the whole of the political nation of Ferelden backed Eamon and the Warden, in the end.  If Anora wishes to keep her precarious throne, she should refrain from endorsing a version of history which would declare them traitors for doing so.

[ejoslin]

Wulfram wrote...

ejoslin wrote...

It's treason, not murder, if Alistair refuses to swear fealty and relinquish all rights to the throne.  Not to mention calling for the death of a Teyrn before having a trial and such.  As justified as he is for wanting Loghain dead, there are plenty of legal reasons to execute him really.

Edit: As far as I know, Eamon doesn't refuse to swear fealty.  The warden actually appoints the power to the queen, so I doubt that's an issue either.

Alistair is willing to renounce his claim to the throne.  He does so, when given the opportunity.

Alistair argues for justice to someone the landsmeet seems willing to allow to decide Loghain's fate - someone who may in fact just have said something along the lines of "You'll die for what you have done" to Loghain.  He puts forward his claim to the throne to the landsmeet which was called by Arl Eamon for that very purpose.  I do not see how either of these can be construed as crimes.

Opposing Loghain's rule, or killing Howe, may be construed as a crimes, but they're not ones for which Alistair can be singled out.

If you spare Loghain, Alistair demands the throne; he doesn't renounce it.  

And you seem to have this view of things that life is "fair" and that everything should be balanced.  That's not the way it works.  Eamon will swear fealty to Anora, np.  He'd swear fealty to Loghain (and said as much -- if Alistair didn't want to take the rule, Eamon would support Loghain).

The point is to end the civil war, not give it yet another breath of life (which leaving Alistair alive but not married to Anora does).

Alistair is in a very different situation than the Warden.  The warden is not only the arbitrator that the landsmeet elected to back, but is not a threat to the crown (though a HN SHOULD have a claim, for story reasons does not).  Alistair, alive, not king, refusing to swear fealty, is a complete threat to the stability of the country.  It's treason.  Just as the landsmeet accepts the execution of Loghain from the person they appointed arbitrator, they will accept the execution and/or exile from their new ruler.

You may think it's unfair, and it is.  But executing him is actually the smarter move.

[nos_astra]

Alistair never refuses to swear fealty to Anora, in this one outcome he's simply not given the chance to do so.



Anyway, the topic is ELEANOR!

[Wulfram]

ejoslin wrote...

If you spare Loghain, Alistair demands the throne; he doesn't renounce it. 

He, quite properly, renounces it after the Warden decides against him, if Anora gives him the chance.  If the Warden does not intervene, he doesn't get that chance.

And this is nothing to do with fairness, except perhaps it's appearance.  If Anora was able to have Alistair quietly murdered then that would be sensible enough - as long as she took some decent precautions that she couldn't be proven to be behind it.  Making your first act on taking the throne the open murder of the last Theirin is foolish.  It is worse than a crime, it is a mistake.

edit: Eleanor would be an awesome queen.

Modifié par Wulfram, 04 octobre 2010 - 02:10 .

[Sarah1281]

I hate Eleanor's decision. I understand that she was emotional at the time but while that makes what she did understandable, it doesn't make it smart. She's throwing her life away and abandoing both of her children. If the younger child is being forced to become a GW, which is the last thing Bryce wanted for her, so that she'd live then the least Eleanor could do was not basically commit suicide. She couldn't buy much time anyway and if the doors could be blockaded to buy more time then it could happen before they all left together.

[Wulfram]

Sarah1281 wrote...

I hate Eleanor's decision. I understand that she was emotional at the time but while that makes what she did understandable, it doesn't make it smart. She's throwing her life away and abandoing both of her children. If the younger child is being forced to become a GW, which is the last thing Bryce wanted for her, so that she'd live then the least Eleanor could do was not basically commit suicide. She couldn't buy much time anyway and if the doors could be blockaded to buy more time then it could happen before they all left together.

Bryce isn't that opposed to the Grey Wardens.  He does say that if Duncan asked to recruit then he'd consider it, and also that there is no higher calling.

[ejoslin]

klarabella wrote...

Alistair never refuses to swear fealty to Anora, in this one outcome he's simply not given the chance to do so.

Anyway, the topic is ELEANOR!

Edit: NVM, very much OT.  This post just rubbed me the wrong way for a variety of unimportant reasons.  Not enough coffee for me or something.

Modifié par ejoslin, 04 octobre 2010 - 02:38 .

[nos_astra]

But it singles out their youngest child as the heir of Highever. Which means you leave your youngest child and your eldest child (who is in a war that might mean his death) to deal with an Arl who has just attacked the second highest ranking noble family. Never ever is this foreshadowing something, Arl Howe just thought it would be a cool idea to kill the Cousland family.



And the dutiful Teyrna thinks it's a good idea to die now. Really smart.

[Sarah1281]

Wulfram wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...

I hate Eleanor's decision. I understand that she was emotional at the time but while that makes what she did understandable, it doesn't make it smart. She's throwing her life away and abandoing both of her children. If the younger child is being forced to become a GW, which is the last thing Bryce wanted for her, so that she'd live then the least Eleanor could do was not basically commit suicide. She couldn't buy much time anyway and if the doors could be blockaded to buy more time then it could happen before they all left together.

Bryce isn't that opposed to the Grey Wardens.  He does say that if Duncan asked to recruit then he'd consider it, and also that there is no higher calling.

And yet if you try bringing it up earlier he challenges Duncan on the rite of conscription and appears thrilled if you say you're not interested. He feels it's a higher calling...but also a harsh life that he doesn't want for his own child. He says they can 'talk about it when I get back' if you keep pestering him. He's pretty against it.

[Wulfram]

Sarah1281 wrote...

 And yet if you try bringing it up earlier he challenges Duncan on the rite of conscription and appears thrilled if you say you're not interested. He feels it's a higher calling...but also a harsh life that he doesn't want for his own child. He says they can 'talk about it when I get back' if you keep pestering him. He's pretty against it.

It's not his preferred choice, but it's also not the last thing he wants for his child.

I think he would be proud, if he was convinced that this was what the PC actually wanted, rather than just a whim or a reaction to being left behind.

The situation where the PC was forced into the wardens to save their life would be very sad for him though

[Addai]

klarabella wrote...

I thought her choice was a bit melodramatic and rather pointless. How much time could she possibly buy them against Howe's army? A minute? Two minutes?

It's a nice sentiment to stay with your husband when he's dying but at that cost? You leave your children to deal with Howe's treachery alone? What about her duty as a Teyrna to the Teyrnir? Um, not a smart choice. It felt like an arbitrary choice to get rid of the character rather than something the character would actually do.

I disagree.  Eleanor is an ace archer, defending a narrow passage, so she could hold off Howe's men for at least a little while, especially since you had bloodied them already.  A few minutes and a distraction could make all the difference.

As for her duty as teyrna, you could argue that she was doing it by defending her teyrn to the death and trying to secure the life of an heir. 

[Zy-El]

I agree with Eleanor's decision. Three good points come to mind:

1 > She's staying with her beloved to the end - how else would you want to die?

2 > She's buying time for her only surviving child to escape - wouldn't you do the same for your child, if only for a minute or two?

3 > By staying behind, Eleanor does not slow down her child's escape. Remember, Eleanor's not as young as she used to be and no doubt, the fighting up to that point would have tired her to some extent. Not to mention her low morale at seeing her only grandchild slain. Eleanor may have simply lost the will necessary to press on in an escape attempt.