156 réponses à ce sujet

[Costin_Razvan]

 We got a big problem with em in Dragon Age, they have no sort of rationality behind their actions...hell they waged war for a TREE once ( yes, a tree )...and now they are planning to start another Civil War. "Sighs"

So they need to be dealt with.

There are 2 ways that I see...play them against each other ( it could work since they are very divided ), or make a deal with the Arls and Teryns ( In this case Fergus and I from Gwaren ) to divide their lands, then do a A Night of Long Knives 2.0 at the Landsmeet.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 01 novembre 2010 - 02:21 .

[Addai]

Costin_Razvan wrote...
A Night of Long Knives 2.0 at the Landsmeet.

You would seriously use that as your analogy.  Seriously?  I think the comparison speaks for itself.

Freeholders are Ferelden's backbone.  You don't "deal with them" in a tyrannical manner.  The Orlesians found this out.  You respect their rights, mediate any large disputes and otherwise stay out of the way.

[Costin_Razvan]

Freeholders are Ferelden's backbone. You don't "deal with them" in a tyrannical manner. The Orlesians found this out. You respect their rights, mediate any large disputes and otherwise stay out of the way.

And how will that work when they start a civil war again? ( Implied by Witch Hunt and Dragon Age 2 info ).

The whole Fereldan system is flawed. Orlais kept it but placed an iron fist on each individual noble...and Meghren failed, which wasn't surprising.

 You would seriously use that as your analogy.  Seriously?  I think the comparison speaks for itself.

And yes I would use the analogy. Kill them, divide their lands amongst the Arls and Teryns who will each place individuals they trust to control the lands ( but answerable to their lord unlike the current situation ), this way Fereldan would be divided among a few nobles rather then hundreds of minor ones.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 01 novembre 2010 - 02:38 .

[TJPags]

Fights and raids between minor landholders or minor nobles are hardly a war.  Maybe to them it is, but in the grand scheme of things?  Nope.

You let them have their petty squabbles, step in with more troops when things get out of hand.  Get the more influential/stronger ones to keep order to a degree.

Doing what you suggest - well, you're on the road to tyrant.  And those have a habit of being overthrown or assasinated.

[Costin_Razvan]

The Bannorn is ruled by a bunch of minors bans who each have a handful of freeholders who ask for protection in exchange for a tithe.

And their petty squables aren't so petty when they start looking to Redcliff for a united leadership. One could just assassinate Eamon and Teagan I think...but then there is the issue with Catheri- eh Pardon, Celene.

Each Fereldan noble, be it minor or higher, has a fierce independence and that's actually a BAD thing as Fereldan has been plagued by civil wars for quite a while. ( Whenever a king dies without an assigned heir, then you can bet the **** will hit the fan ). It needs a centralized government.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 01 novembre 2010 - 02:43 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

I am too tired to go into this in detail even though I have thought about it. I'll keep it brief.

A- The Coastlands must be firmly united. The economic future of the country lies with them and money = power if well used.

B- in the mean time, the bannorn must not be given reason to unite. Their divisions could be taken advantage of and with the money the Coastlands have, they can act as mediators and shut both of them up.

C- Coopt some of them with economic benefits, especially the ones near the Coastlands. The carrot before the stick. Redcliffe cannot provide as much benefits as the Coastlands.

D- The strength of the bannorn is in the freeholders. Remove the freeholder support, and banns are useless. Focus on the middle class and trade, entice freeholders to swear fealty to Coastland Terns. Try to establish direct links between freeholders and the Coastland lords. Merchant guilds are essential.

It's essentially a pincer strategy. Deal with the nobles by *making* them fight each other and then mediating, enticing them with economic benefits (which they will need to rebuild after the blight). Also, focus on the freeholders and middle class to weaken the nobility and have the middle class strongly linked to the Coastlands and the central authority of Denerim. Anora's reforms are the way to go.

For instance, Arcturus would create a bureau in Gwaren where any person can submit ideas, complaints...etc, essentially creating a bond between the Teyrn and its middle class and thus weakening the nobility's role as representatives of those people. Furthermore, Arcturus would encourage and entice (or forcibly resettle if he has to) many Alienage elves to deal with the overpopulation in Denerim, but also have a cheap labour force in Gwaren (for ship building and wood cutting) that is loyal to him and not to any noble.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 01 novembre 2010 - 02:48 .

[TJPags]

You know Costin, your solution to almost everything seems to be, kill them.



I'd HATE to live under your rule, and I'd venture to say most Fereldens would agree.

[Costin_Razvan]

You know Costin, your solution to almost everything seems to be, kill them.



I'd HATE to live under your rule, and I'd venture to say most Fereldens would agree.

You do realize it was ONE of two solutions I proposed right? Yes, it is one I would rather take then deal with a long term plan, but the other one I do consider.

Most Fereldans would probably be happy to be rid of idiotic lords who wage civil wars for the most irrational reasons. Even Knight's plan would have him deal with assassination attempts on him. Me? Take care of the problem quickly and establish political dominance while appeasing the Arls by giving them land under their direct control.

Knight: Your plan does entail having to deal with the Guilds+Antiva/Orlesian Assassins ( whoever controls the sea currently )+The Bannorn at the same time. So eh, I don't like it for that reason ( though I would also seek to create a Fereldan trading fleet ).

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 01 novembre 2010 - 02:55 .

[TJPags]

Yup - most of them were so happy they rebelled against the mad Orlesian who did pretty much the same thing - killed anyone who disagreed with him.



Hey, you're welcome to roll with it - I'll just pack up and move somewhere else.

[Costin_Razvan]

Yup - most of them were so happy they rebelled against the mad Orlesian who did pretty much the same thing - killed anyone who disagreed with him.



Hey, you're welcome to roll with it - I'll just pack up and move somewhere else.

Unless you have a better a solution then preserving the status quo ( which is a recipe for disaster as it is currently )., then I would suggest you leave here.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Costin_Razvan wrote...
Even Knight's plan would have him deal with assassination attempts on him.

Those are to be expected. Heck, they can even be used as an excuse to liquidate some banns. Not all of them, I prefer using the carrot over the stick.

Or as Muawiyah said:
"I do not use my sword when my whip suffices. Nor do I use my whip when my tongue suffices"

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 01 novembre 2010 - 02:57 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Costin_Razvan wrote...
Knight: Your plan does entail having to deal with the Guilds+Antiva/Orlesian Assassins ( whoever controls the sea currently )+The Bannorn at the same time. So eh, I don't like it for that reason ( though I would also seek to create a Fereldan trading fleet ).

Well if Zevran can control the crows, problem solved lol.

Or, I could organise assassinations on Free March, Nevarran and Orlesian traders and blame the Crows (use crow poison). Then a coalition can be formed, since all of us are poor victims, to deal with Antiva, the "rogue state".  Gunboat diplomacy if necessary.

[Costin_Razvan]

Those are to be expected. Heck, they can even be used as an excuse to liquidate some banns. Not all of them, I prefer using the carrot over the stick.

Or as Muawiyah said:
"I do not use my sword when my whip suffices. Nor do I use my whip when my tongue suffices"

True enough, but the larger problem to your plan ( beyond Eamon ) is Celene...and eh, I wouldn't like to try playing the game against her, especially if Fereldan allies Nevarra then it will lead to war certainly, latter if not sooner. That's why I want to get rid of the Bannorn, the fewer nobles in Fereldan the better, especially if I can make strong alliances with them.

Eamon needs to be rid of though, asap.

 Well if Zevran can control the crows, problem solved lol.

If Zevran takes control then I suppose one could control Antiva indirectly.

 Or, I could organise assassinations on Free March, Nevarran and Orlesian traders and blame the Crows (use crow poison). Then a coalition can be formed, since all of us are poor victims, to deal with Antiva, the "rogue state".  Gunboat diplomacy if necessary.  

The Qunari would blow that plan to hell, but there's merit to it though. I would be careful though, I don't think the leader of Nevarra is someone you can manipulate to fight against Antiva.

One important thing though. Those islands near Fereldan need to be reclaimed from the Pirates that inhabit them.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 01 novembre 2010 - 03:11 .

[TJPags]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Yup - most of them were so happy they rebelled against the mad Orlesian who did pretty much the same thing - killed anyone who disagreed with him.

Hey, you're welcome to roll with it - I'll just pack up and move somewhere else.

Unless you have a better a solution then preserving the status quo ( which is a recipe for disaster as it is currently )., then I would suggest you leave here.

Personally, I don't see what the crisis is.  They've always oprated this way, and it's never brought down the country before.

Let them have their petty squabbles.  Get involved only when it starts to drag on, or get out of hand.  Move in with troops at that point, stop the fighting, hear the grievance, make a ruling.  Fine the responsible party, payable to the crown, and compensate the aggrieved party in some way - tax break, land grant, maybe money.

You forget - Ferelden is not an absolute monarchy, as you say often when it comes to Loghain leaving Cailan to die at Ostagar.  You have no right to kill, imprison, or strip titles from nobles just because they talk to someone you don't like.

[Costin_Razvan]

Get involved only when it starts to drag on, or get out of hand. Move in with troops at that point, stop the fighting, hear the grievance, make a ruling.

And have them unite to wage war against you? Wise idea. You try and step in and they WILL ally together, with Eamon at their head. 

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 01 novembre 2010 - 03:15 .

[TJPags]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Get involved only when it starts to drag on, or get out of hand. Move in with troops at that point, stop the fighting, hear the grievance, make a ruling.

And have them unite to wage war against you? Wise idea and the irony is that Loghain pursued the same policy.

Okay, yup, civil war.  Got it.  Recipe for disaster. 

Okay, I'll leave you to your megalomania now.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Costin_Razvan wrote...
True enough, but the larger problem to your plan ( beyond Eamon ) is Celene...and eh, I wouldn't like to try playing the game against her, especially if Fereldan allies Nevarra then it will lead to war certainly, latter if not sooner.

Eamon needs to be rid of though, asap.

If it happens, it happens. I won't try to preempt and cause it. An alliance with Nevarra is the deterrent we need for now, while a rapprochement with Orlais can remove the fear of containement. War is inevitable, but it can be later rather than sooner if played right.

Dealing with Eamon abruptly might speed the process of Bannorn unification and that's what will help Celene immensely, another civil war. I believe Eamon can be coopted and his useless village is useless. Making a martyr out of him would not help.

If a confrontation does become necessary, which I don't think will happen necessarily, then Eamon must not be martyred. As much as I dislike it, torturing him to madness and throwing him on the streets to live as an old begger would humiliate him so much as to destroy his reputation entirely and not make a martyr out of him. But it depends on Ferelden itself and if they wouldn't be outraged by this. It needs to be done in the right moment, should it come to that, which I wouild prefer if it doesn't.   

Costin_Razvan wrote...
The Qunari would blow that plan to hell, but there's merit to it though. I would be careful though, I don't think the leader of Nevarra is someone you can manipulate to fight against Antiva.

I don't see the Qunari caring that much, or if they would try their luck against 4 fleets. If we can weaponise Lyrium on Ferelden ships a la Dworkin explosives (hence the alliance with Orzammar is crucial), we can rival the Qunari at the sea.

If Nevarra is suffering from constant assassinations all involing crow poison, then I'd say he has no choice.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 01 novembre 2010 - 03:18 .

[Costin_Razvan]

If it happens, it happens. I won't try to preempt and cause it. An alliance with Nevarra is the deterrent we need for now, while a rapprochement with Orlais can remove the fear of containement. War is inevitable, but it can be later rather than sooner if played right.

A preemptive strike can have some advantages in a war though, some big advantages even. With your plan of dealing with the Bannorn I do agree it wise to wait though...but even so I do think the war will spark sooner then latter, and there is nothing worse then having to deal with problems back home while in a war.

Dealing with Eamon abruptly might speed the process of Bannorn unification and that's what will help Celene immensely, another civil war. I believe Eamon can be coopted and his useless village is useless. Making a martyr out of him would not help.

If a confrontation does become necessary, which I don't think will happen necessarily, then Eamon must not be martyred. As much as I dislike it, torturing him to madness and throwing him on the streets to live as an old begger would humiliate him so much as to destroy his reputation entirely and not make a martyr out of him. But it depends on Ferelden itself and if they wouldn't be outraged by this. It needs to be done in the right moment, should it come to that, which I wouild prefer if it doesn't.

The largest factor with Eamon is whether he is sold to the Empress or not. If he isn't then it might need to be a problem to be solved in a such a manner.

I don't see the Qunari caring that much, or if they would try their luck against 4 fleets. If we can weaponise Lyrium on Ferelden ships a la Dworkin explosives (hence the alliance with Orzammar is crucial), we can rival the Qunari at the sea.

If Nevarra is suffering from constant assassinations all involing crow poison, then I'd say he has no choice.

From what I see, the Waking Sea has a very narrow shipping lane around the Free Marches, a shipping lane the Qunari will likely seek to control once they invade, which will be a problem

You would also need to protect Dworkin, so that he doesn't feel the need to vanish.

As for the Nevarran ruler....yes he has no choice, unless he finds you are responsible.

 Okay, yup, civil war.  Got it.  Recipe for disaster. 

Okay, I'll leave you to your megalomania now.

You have a way to prove the Bannorn wouldn't unite the moment you tried to tell them what the hell to do directly by rushing your troops in? They have done it in the past and they would do it again.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 01 novembre 2010 - 03:31 .

[Addai]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Freeholders are Ferelden's backbone. You don't "deal with them" in a tyrannical manner. The Orlesians found this out. You respect their rights, mediate any large disputes and otherwise stay out of the way.

And how will that work when they start a civil war again? ( Implied by Witch Hunt and Dragon Age 2 info ).

It suggests they are looking to Redcliffe because Denerim failed them so badly.  The answer is to have a better administration than Loghain had.  That is the problem, not the system itself.

The whole Fereldan system is flawed. Orlais kept it but placed an iron fist on each individual noble...and Meghren failed, which wasn't surprising.

My suggestion to you would be to move to Tevinter or Orlais and set up your little megalomaniac potentate there.  It would be healthier than trying to remake an entire people with very ingrained mindset.

And yes I would use the analogy. Kill them, divide their lands amongst the Arls and Teryns who will each place individuals they trust to control the lands ( but answerable to their lord unlike the current situation ), this way Fereldan would be divided among a few nobles rather then hundreds of minor ones.

Recall that these were the men and women who defeated Orlais.  Good luck with that.

[Addai]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

It's essentially a pincer strategy. Deal with the nobles by *making* them fight each other and then mediating, enticing them with economic benefits (which they will need to rebuild after the blight). Also, focus on the freeholders and middle class to weaken the nobility and have the middle class strongly linked to the Coastlands and the central authority of Denerim. Anora's reforms are the way to go.

 

Don't you have any sense that you serve these people and not the other way around?

Your "reforms" are exactly the sort of thing that led to the unrest in the first place.  Ferelden will never have a strong central government.  Its strength is that it does not.  Instead of trying to reinvent the wheel, act as a responsible ruler and don't treat your free citizens as thralls.

Edit:  And, what "Anora's reforms"?  Other than trade and a university, what are you referring to?

Modifié par Addai67, 01 novembre 2010 - 03:54 .

[Costin_Razvan]

It suggests they are looking to Redcliffe because Denerim failed them so badly. The answer is to have a better administration than Loghain had. That is the problem, not the system itself.

Oh certainly. The system itself is without flaws so much that Fereldan has only been united for 200 years and has been known to face Civil Wars because of it.

My suggestion to you would be to move to Tevinter or Orlais and set up your little megalomaniac potentate there. It would be healthier than trying to remake an entire people with very ingrained mindset.

And I think you can take your conservative attitude and go right into Orzammar, you would fit perfectly there with the Deshyrs and Harrowmont.



And the population? Well here is a shocker: The Banns are not a majority, they are a minority, a minority which I plan to almost completely remove except for a few nobles that I can trust as allies.



The Freeholders are not the problem here, the minor Banns are.

Recall that these were the men and women who defeated Orlais. Good luck with that.

No. Loghain defeated Orlais at River Dane then Maric won battles with armies given to him by various nobles. Loghain defeated the Bannorn in the Civil War in Origins.

Don't you have any sense that you serve these people and not the other way around?

Rulers don't serve, they lead.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Addai67 wrote...
Don't you have any sense that you serve these people and not the other way around?

Nope. If I serve anyone, it's Ferelden as a whole and its people. Not its nobles.

Addai67 wrote...
Your "reforms" are exactly the sort of thing that led to the unrest in the first place.  Ferelden will never have a strong central government.  Its strength is that it does not.  Instead of trying to reinvent the wheel, act as a responsible ruler and don't treat your free citizens as thralls.

If Ferelden remains like this, it will always remain the semi barbaric under-developped nation that it is. If it wants a future as a power that cannot be ignored, reforms have to be set in place and a centralised authority must be established. If everytime Ferelden is threatened a civil war abrupts, that country is going nowhere. A country where its nobles spend most of the time killing each other over apple trees is not a country that has a future. 

And I am not treating free citizerns as thralls, infact my idea is to include them into the political process more. My targets are the nobles and I am not planing to harm most of them. Just make sure they know their place. 

I am not even suugesting a centralised authority that controls everything. That's not the point. But it should be an authority capable of instauring peace, order and unity throughout the kingdom, as well as an authority capable of initiating a common economic and domestic policy.

Addai67 wrote...
Edit:  And, what "Anora's reforms"?  Other than trade and a university, what are you referring to?

That plus encouraging the development of the middle class.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 01 novembre 2010 - 04:21 .

[ddv.rsa]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

No. Loghain defeated Orlais at River Dane then Maric won battles with armies given to him by various nobles. Loghain defeated the Bannorn in the Civil War in Origins.

It's easy to attribute the victory at River Dane to Loghain, but remember he had the Legion's help in that battle. Without the Legion of the Dead one wonders how successful he would have been. They were easily the best trained and equipped troops on either side of that fight.

Loghain makes so many incompetent decisions in Origins it's hard to take him seriously. Especially when you arrive at the Landsmeet, with half the country taken by darkspawn, and this clown starts talking about Orlais. Oh yes, he's a great general. 

Modifié par ddv.rsa, 01 novembre 2010 - 05:43 .

[Addai]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

And the population? Well here is a shocker: The Banns are not a majority, they are a minority, a minority which I plan to almost completely remove except for a few nobles that I can trust as allies.

Obviously they constitute a pretty powerful section of the population, and a resistant one.  But I think we are mixing terms here.  When I say freeholders, I include the banns.  They are, after all, only the leaders among other freeholders.  This is your constituency.  And you're going to murder them?

No. Loghain defeated Orlais at River Dane then Maric won battles with armies given to him by various nobles. Loghain defeated the Bannorn in the Civil War in Origins.

Two men alone?  LOL  They only gained traction when the populace began to rise up.  What you are proposing is to repeat Loghain's mistakes from Origins.  Look how well that worked out for him.  Oh, and Loghain won some battles with the bannorn, not the war.

Rulers don't serve, they lead.

Well therein lies the main problem.

Modifié par Addai67, 01 novembre 2010 - 06:40 .

[Addai]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Addai67 wrote...
Don't you have any sense that you serve these people and not the other way around?

Nope. If I serve anyone, it's Ferelden as a whole and its people. Not its nobles.

Its nobles are part of its people.

If Ferelden remains like this, it will always remain the semi barbaric under-developped nation that it is. If it wants a future as a power that cannot be ignored, reforms have to be set in place and a centralised authority must be established. If everytime Ferelden is threatened a civil war abrupts, that country is going nowhere. A country where its nobles spend most of the time killing each other over apple trees is not a country that has a future. 

The bannorn's conflicts rarely spread beyond their own territory.  It is a central authority in Denerim that unleashed civil war.

And I am not treating free citizerns as thralls, infact my idea is to include them into the political process more. My targets are the nobles and I am not planing to harm most of them. Just make sure they know their place. 

You inspire loyalty, you don't demand it.  That never works.

That plus encouraging the development of the middle class.

And how is that "Anora's reforms"?  I'm just curious how you place that in her epilogues.

BTW how do you know that Ferelden's population wants to be a "power that cannot be ignored"?  That sounds like your ambition, not theirs.  What I gather from them is that they want to be left alone, starting with their own government.

Modifié par Addai67, 01 novembre 2010 - 06:29 .