78 réponses à ce sujet

[Xilizhra]

So, by this point, it's fairly obvious that Harrowmont is a terrible king. However, what I wonder is how much a DN character could help counterthe bad aspects of his reign, if she returned to Orzammar. Being a Paragon would mean a lot of influence; how much could it be?

I ask for DN and not DC because the DN is the origin who has the most solid reasons to support Harrowmont.

[ejoslin]

You know, the DN also has the most solid reasons to support Bhelen. It depends if you think of revenge for your little brother, or if you think of your house and its power. House Aeducan is more than just the monarch.



That said, there is no indication that the DN does anything differently, so you can write that ending anyway you please.



Even if Harrowmont is to name the DN his heir, there's no guarantee that the assembly will vote the DN onto the throne. Yes, s/he is a paragon, but s/he is also basically a surface dwarf and a gray warden. You will be head of house Harrowmont in that case as well as your own house I suppose.



It really is up in the air. It depends on how much damage Harrowmont as done as well. If you saved the anvil, forget it. Orzammar is sealed from Ferelden.

[Xilizhra]

I suppose one could be a family-oriented DN, but it seems like a major betrayal of Harrowmont... it's not just about revenge on Bhelen. Playing dwarven politics again so that I could be elected by the Assembly might be a pain, but I don't think it'd be as bad as the Bhelen/Harrowmont crisis was.

[ejoslin]

Ah, a DN did not necessarily leave Orzammar on good terms with Harrowmont either.



And it really does depend on how much damage Harrowmont has done. There is a LOT of damage done, no matter what, Dust Town is in ruins after rioting (losing that great potential that Bhelen took advantage of), possibly a war with the surface where Orzammar ends up being sealed away. And even if you could mitigate some of that damage, there's no guarantee you'd be elected king/queen either.



That doesn't mean there'd be civil war again -- it just means, well, the assembly has reasons for not wanting to elect a surface dwarf/gray warden, paragon or no, and elects someone else. Harrowmont I believe has other family.

[Xilizhra]

Perhaps you're right. I do wish Harrowmont sucked less...

[Wulfram]

I'd have thought the DN would be trying to stop Harrowmont from screwing everything up to start with. Really, Paragon DN should be able to walk all over Harrowmont as far as I can see.

[Xilizhra]

I thought that too, especially if s/he brings human military aid to the Deep Roads.

[ejoslin]

Well, Harrowmont will not allow the human military aid -- he turns them away, only accepting supplies, no troops. So there's no go there.

Again, even if you're able to push Harrowmont around, you need to get things past the assembly. And Harrowmont is not strong enough a leader to do so.

Edit: Here is that slide.

When the first human armies arrived from Ferelden, they found themselves blocked at the city gates. Harrowmont feared the disruption the humans would cause and permitted only limited aid in the form of equipment and herbal medicines.

With Bhelen, he welcomes them with open arms and they are able to reclaim some of the lost thaigs.

There's just no indication in the slides that the DN has an influence.  That doesn't mean you can't look beyond that.  However, here is another Harrowmont slide:

In time, Harrowmont's health began to fail. Some claimed it was poison, while others said it was a flagging spirit. Either way, after a protracted illness, the king finally passed away. The wrangling in the Assembly for a successor began almost immediately.


Nothing there is said about the DN taking charge.

Modifié par ejoslin, 04 novembre 2010 - 03:04 .

[Sarah1281]

Even if Harrowmont is to name the DN his heir, there's no guarantee that the assembly will vote the DN onto the throne. Yes, s/he is a paragon, but s/he is also basically a surface dwarf and a gray warden. You will be head of house Harrowmont in that case as well as your own house I suppose.

Being a GW shouldn't be an issue for them given how respected they are, I think, and going to the Surface as a GW or to fight darkspawn is perfectly legit. If you go back to Orzammar afterwards, I don't think you'd be considered a Surface dwarf. And I don't see why, if Harrowmont picks you as his successor, you'd be the head of House Harrowmont. You'd still be the head of House Aeducan or, if you gave that up, the head of House DN.



I think that the reason you're not listed as becoming the next monarch is twofold. One: sequel complications. Two: not every DN would want to be the monarch, even if they did return to Orzammar. The slides say next to nothing about what you do no matter who you are.

[ejoslin]

Oh, very possibly it's all the plot hammer. And really, people can write whatever ending they want. And epilogue slides are discounted even by the writers.



But still... There's nothing that indicates, other than in fan fics, that the DN changed the course of history and averted Harrowmont's mistakes through manipulating him. Though it does make fora good story.

[Sarah1281]

If Harrowmont doesn't have the Anvil he doesn't really do all that badly. He basically gets nothing done but some easily fixable isolation policies and then quickly dies and the Assembly has to find someone else. The reason that's a bad idea is because the dwarves are in desperate need of an intervention and his stagnation ending is juxtaposed with Bhelen the Dwarven Messiah. The DN doesn't even have to be the one to take over, all Orzammar needs is someone who sees the need for some changes. They wouldn't even need to be as skilled as Bhelen, just slowly trying to get Orzammar going down the right path. Even if Harrowmont is succeeded by someone just as close-minded as he is, I believe that sooner or later a reformer will take the throne and succeed in changing things at least a bit...it's just that these things are really a case of 'the sooner, the better.'

[Wulfram]

Do we have a clear idea what a paragon can and can't do? Presumably there is some limit to what they can get away with - Branka can't have been the first to go nuts - but I'm pretty unclear where the line is.



The most dwarvish thing I can think of is that paragons who need to be put out of the way are quietly assassinated, but I can't see Harrowmont going for that.

[Harid]

Give Harrowmont the Anvil of the void. He generally fares better with it.

[Sarah1281]

Harid wrote...

Give Harrowmont the Anvil of the void. He generally fares better with it.

If by 'Harrowmont fares better with it' you mean 'Orzammar gets into a war with Ferelden and then completely cuts itself off from the Surface, Branka kidnaps surfacers left and right to be forced into becoming golems, golems strictly enforce castes, and Dust Town is so thoroughly reduced to rubble that even those with castes complain' then yes, he does do better.

[Harid]

Sarah1281 wrote...

Harid wrote...

Give Harrowmont the Anvil of the void. He generally fares better with it.

If by 'Harrowmont fares better with it' you mean 'Orzammar gets into a war with Ferelden and then completely cuts itself off from the Surface, Branka kidnaps surfacers left and right to be forced into becoming golems, golems strictly enforce castes, and Dust Town is so thoroughly reduced to rubble that even those with castes complain' then yes, he does do better.

By fares better with it, I mean doesn't get assassinated months into his term.

In terms of that other stuff, unless I am Dwarven Noble Warden, who I assume harrowmont is just keeping the bench warm for, I personally see it that it isn't my responsibility as a Warden to get Dwarves out of their rut, it's theirs.

Dust Town dwellers are dumb for not just leaving for the surface and deserve everything they get.

You act as if Bhelen is some sort of White Knight in comparison.

Modifié par Harid, 04 novembre 2010 - 08:33 .

[Sarah1281]

No I don't. I act like Bhelen does not provoke a war with Ferelden, get Orzammar completely cut off from the Surface (which, as a non-DN Warden who gives a damn about trade I would definitely care about), or reduce Dust Town to rubble. Which he doesn't. In fact, he retakes lost land from the darkspawn, increases trade, and makes life better for the casteless. Out of curiousity, if it isn't your responsibility to get the dwarves out of their rut then why is it your responsibility to keep Harrowmont from being assassinated (which we don't know happened) months into his term?



And I find your 'well, it's the poor and deeply oppressed people's fault for not moving to a place they know little about where they might be less oppressed if they can believe vague rumors and since they don't they deserve what they got' to be both ignorant and offensive.

[Harid]

Sarah1281 wrote...

No I don't. I act like Bhelen does not provoke a war with Ferelden, get Orzammar completely cut off from the Surface (which, as a non-DN Warden who gives a damn about trade I would definitely care about), or reduce Dust Town to rubble. Which he doesn't. In fact, he retakes lost land from the darkspawn, increases trade, and makes life better for the casteless. Out of curiousity, if it isn't your responsibility to get the dwarves out of their rut then why is it your responsibility to keep Harrowmont from being assassinated (which we don't know happened) months into his term?

And I find your 'well, it's the poor and deeply oppressed people's fault for not moving to a place they know little about where they might be less oppressed if they can believe vague rumors and since they don't they deserve what they got' to be both ignorant and offensive.

My responibility to not get him assassinated only hinges on me being Dwarven Noble Warden, because like I stated, he's keeping the bench warm.

Bhelen Kills Harrowmont, kills harrowmont's supporters, kills the first born sons of those who do not agree with him to send troops, possibly kills his brother and possibly his father, dissolves the Assembly directly, and rules as a Tyrant.

The man isn't a saint and as a Dwarven Noble I play the same politics he does to ensure he doesn't get what he wants.  As far as I am concerned an Aeducan will rule again.  And if not my Dwarven Paragon's new noble house will rule in their place.  If I gave Bhelen the throne, whats to say he won't try to get his Paragon sibling assassinated, given the fact that he's willing to have you assassinate Branka if she chooses Harrowmont?  He cannot be trusted.

When playing a non Dwarven warden I couldn't care less what happens to the dwarves, they deserve pain for making me do fetch quests for 5+ hours straight.  I give them Harrowmont, let them kill him, and let them continue to do what they have done for over 1000+ years, choose their own damn leaders, as it wasn't my responsibility as a warden to choose their leaders in the first damn place.

You honestly think Bioware is going to lock out Orzammar for people who chose Harrowmont to rule?  That locking out surface trade is going to persist in a place that's foothold is crumbling and flooded with Darkspawn, given Dwarves get most of their food from the surface?  These consequences that Bioware put in place are implausible, and some outright proven wrong by Awakening.

And yes, if you are being abused by an abuser and you have a way out that is infinitely better, and you don't take it, to stay and continue your abuse,  you are an idiot, and you do deserve what you get.  Dwarves lose their caste and clan when they go to the surface, guess what, they don't have caste or Clan.  They aren't allowed upward mobility in orzammar and are on the surface.  They are stupid for staying in Orzammar, and they have an option that is infinatelly better to improve their lives and choose not to take it.  

Modifié par Harid, 04 novembre 2010 - 09:17 .

[Sarah1281]

The man isn't a saint

No one says he is. Seriously. I'm not saying he is. You don't need to tell me that Bhelen is not a nice person. But he doesn't kill the ' first born sons of those who do not agree with him to send troops.' He sends them to the Surface where they'll probably die in the Blight but if not them then someone else would have died instead.

My responibility to not get him assassinated only hinges on me being Dwarven Noble Warden, because like I stated, he's keeping the bench warm.

One would think if he's just a placeholder then it would be in your best interest to just let him die so you can hurry up and take over.

And yes, if you are being abused by an abuser and you have a way out that is infinitely better, and you don't take it, to stay and continue your abuse, you are an idiot, and you do deserve what you get. Dwarves lose their caste and clan when they go to the surface, guess what, they don't have caste or Clan. They aren't allowed upward mobility in orzammar and are on the surface. They are stupid for staying in Orzammar, and they have an option that is infinatelly better to improve their lives and choose not to take it.

Seriously? No one DESERVES to be abused. Why the **** does the fact that they stay there mean that they deserve it? That's utter bull****. There are plenty of reasons people stay in abusive situations. They might have children to think of, be financially dependent on their abuser, the abuser may have given them psychological issues, whatever. They don't DESERVE abuse!



In Orzammar specifically, we get the chance to ask several people why they don't go to the Surface. They know next to nothing about the Surface. It's not even confirmed that their are no castes up there. People are told that they'll fall into the sky if they go up there. They're scared. They might not think their life would get any better. They may be wrong but it is not necessarily stupid for them not to have the knowledge of what the Surface is like given that even dwarves with castes don't know much about the Surface and members of the Assembly purposely try to keep the casteless in Dust Town and hopeless so they'll join the Legion. And, once more, they don't deserve what they get! This is really sounding dangerously close to social darwinism.

[ejoslin]

Kills the first sons? Where is that stated?

You're right that Awakening did some retconning to the epilogues. But I have a feeling you may be a bit too quick to dismiss some of those choices. Awakening happened soon after Origins. There's no real time frame given in the epilogues.

And you talking about abuse that way... it tis not always that easy to get out. But the plight of the casteless is not the same. This is more of the hopelessness of being poor, uneducated, unable to work, and being taught, from the beginning, that you're less than nothing. You're taught that the surface is a dangerous, scary place, and you have no clue whether it will be better or worse. You do know that you will be cut off from everyone and everything you have ever known.

Ah well, I'm not going to try to convince you differently than how you believe. Hopefully you're never in an abusive situation where it is impossible to leave without endangering the people you love. Hell, when a dear friend left her abusive husband, MY husband had to get in on it when he tried intimidating me to get to her. And when you think your children may be in more danger if you leave, then you're a bit stuck.

The laws for abused women are pretty bad in the US. If you leave, you can't do anything about being stalked until the abusive ex slips up. If you stay, you can be charged with crimes, and there have been cases of women actually losing their children to their abusive ex's due to crappy laws. A woman gets busted for "failure to protect" and her abusive husband pleads down so there's no child abuse on his record? Gah, yeh, women have lost their children because of this.

BUT that's a whole different topic

Modifié par ejoslin, 04 novembre 2010 - 09:26 .

[Harid]

As I don't want this post to divulge into page absorbing quote wars, I will handle each point individually.

Point 1: Killing first sons is stated by noble NPCs in the diamond quarter once you make Bhelen king. Go talk to them, and see what your choice does to people. If you like Bhelen so much you should know what he is doing to the people you leave him to rule.

Point 2: You tend to want a place holder to remain in power long enough for you to return to Orzammar, letting them die before you get there would allow another king to get elected, and instead of having a king you could influence, you get a new guy you may or may not have to eliminate.

Point 3: I am not talking about battered wives. I am talking about Battered dwarves. Slaves fleed plantations in droves in the underground railroad not knowing what awaited them once they were free. Do you know why? Because freedom is worth it. Fear is not a good enough answer. These people have nothing to lose and everything to gain. And if they despite knowing that continue to stay to be abused, I don't weep for them. They have to know people don't fall into the sky when they go to the surface. People have come back from the surface. It is in Dwarven History that it has happened. Your Warden has done it. Countless nameless Surface merchants have done it. Anything is better than the life they live, and staying in Orzamaar when the people have treated you like dirt for 1000+ years is stupid. You know you will be cut off from everything you have ever known? Arguably as a casteless, you already are.  Part of being an adult is having choice.  And choosing to stay abused is not a choice I abide by, or feel sympathy for.

Point 4: Unless the woman is unemployed, drug addicted, or a prostitute, or have stolen their children, courts tend to side with the mother in all cases regarding children. You two are acting like a wife is gonna wake up one morning, after a perfect marriage and all of a sudden a husband is gonna start smacking the **** out of his wife. Generally speaking, you were getting abused before you were married, you were getting abused before you had children, and you are getting abused after you had children, abusers don't just spontaneously become abusers, like cheaters, they were abusers the whole time.  There are many cases of mentally unstable women gaining custody of children in divorces and doing terrible things to them. Don't act like this is some kind of one way street, the court system is inherently flawed when it comes to this, so yeah. We can continue this particular argument over private message, do not let it sidetrack the thread.

I would never be in an abusive situation, because you know what smart people do when they have been abused, they leave and never look back, you do not set the precedent that it is ok to be abused, and guess what? You won't be abused.

Modifié par Harid, 04 novembre 2010 - 10:20 .

[ejoslin]

Hmmmm, you really do not realize how bad things are for women with laws on the books to protect children. Failure to protect is a scary charge. But I really don't feel like arguing it with you. I'm older (I'm reasonably sure) and have seen strong, independent women get torn down. It's not like on the first date he hits you.

BUT enough about that. I'm going through the toolset now to see what is said by the nobles when Bhelen is made king (no saves where your'e talking about).

Adal Helmi: I would not have voted for Bhelen, but I trust my mother's judgment. He may be just what Orzammar needs in these modern times.
Lady Dace: So, I hear we have you to thank for putting a new Aeducan on the throne. How is the surface managing without you?
Loilinar: I need to set an audience with the new king. He'll understand that my bad knees exempt me from fighting, right? (either is king)
Ambient noble f 1: My family has always supported the Aeducans. I have nothing to fear from King Bhelen.
Ambient noble f 1: The ancestors have always favored the Aeducans.
Ambient noble f 2: At least we have a king again.
Ambient noble f 2: King Bhelen will be good for Orzammar, won't he?
Ambient noble f 3: King Endrin chose Lord Harrowmont, but the ancestors spoke differently.
Ambient noble f 3: I shouldn't say anything bad about the new king...
Ambient Noble m 1: Long live King Bhelen!
Ambient Noble m 1: It's wonderful to have a king again!

Gah, I'll put the rest in in an edit. It's possible I haven't gotten to these lines yet.

Ambient Noble m 2: I always supported King Bhelen. I swear!
OOOOH< found what you're talking about!
Ambient Noble m 2: They're sending the sons of every Harrowmont supporter for some sort of surface war!

YOUR ARMY!  That's what it's about!  Bhelen is sending the sons of Harrowmont supporters to fight the blight on the surface!  I'll continue digging.  That sounds about right though.  That's different from killing the first born son by a long shot!

More edit coming for more dialog.  Let's see what else, if anything, is said about this.  I think it is taken for granted that warriors are sent to the surface already though?

Edit:
Ambient Noble m 3: King Bhelen promised me a role among his advisors.
Ambient Noble m 3: Bhelen promised if my aunt supported him, I could open a new mine in the Deeps.

oooh, I have to add this one.  She ONLY appears if Harrowmont is king.  She's named, well, nobleb!tch in the toolset.

Soooo, here is the strength of Harrowmont's rule!
Nobleb!tch: I will not allow the warriors that serve my house leave to defend the surface!
Nobleb!tch: Why should our strong dwarven men die for these humans?
Nobleb!tch: And that wife of Harrowmont's! She doesn't deserve to be queen. I've even seen her wearing the same dress twice! Shameless.

ANYWAY, there's only one comment, FAR different from what you said, and it's about how Bhelen is selecting his troops to go to the surface.  He sends a good sized army, though, so it's probably not ONLY the sons of Harrowmont supporters.

Modifié par ejoslin, 04 novembre 2010 - 10:32 .

[Sarah1281]

Point 1: Killing first sons is stated by noble NPCs in the diamond quarter once you make Bhelen king. Go talk to them, and see what your choice does to people. If you like Bhelen so much you should know what he is doing to the people you leave him to rule.

I do talk to them. I do know what he does. He does not outright kill them. He sends them off to fight the darkspawn where he knows they will probably die. Is this the quote you were talking about?

"They're sending the sons of every Harrowmont supporter for some sort of surface war!" He's not killing them. He is, as I've been saying, sending them as troops to face the Blight. If he did not send the children of his political opponents, he'd still have to send somebody. If you're blaming him for getting these people killed, blame your Warden as well for bringing the treaty requiring them to help.

Point 2: You tend to want a place holder to remain in power long enough for you to return to Orzammar, letting them die before you get there would allow another king to get elected, and instead of having a king you could influence, you get a new guy you may or may not have to eliminate.

He doesn't get assassinated before you can return unless you take years to return to Orzammar.

Slaves fleed plantations in droves in the underground railroad not knowing what awaited them once they were free.

And plenty of them didn't. Let me guess: you think that they deserved it, too?

You two are acting like a wife is gonna wake up one morning, after a perfect marriage and all of a sudden a husband is gonna start smacking the **** out of his wife. Generally speaking, you were getting abused before you were married, you were getting abused before you had children, and you are getting abused after you had children, abusers don't just spontaneously become abusers, like cheaters, they were abusers the whole time.

No, because if you went on a first date with someone and he beat the **** out of you, virtually every single person in the world would dump his sorry ass. Long-term abuse cases tend to be far subtler and aren't there the whole time or guess what? They're SHORT-TERM abuse cases.

I would never be in an abusive situation, because you know what smart people do when they have been abused, they leave and never look back, you do not set the precedent that it is ok to be abused, and guess what? You won't be abused.

Or self-righteous victim-blamers. I cannot believe I am even having this conversation in 2010.

[Harid]

Sarah1281 wrote...

Point 1: Killing first sons is stated by noble NPCs in the diamond quarter once you make Bhelen king. Go talk to them, and see what your choice does to people. If you like Bhelen so much you should know what he is doing to the people you leave him to rule.

I do talk to them. I do know what he does. He does not outright kill them. He sends them off to fight the darkspawn where he knows they will probably die. Is this the quote you were talking about?
"They're sending the sons of every Harrowmont supporter for some sort of surface war!" He's not killing them. He is, as I've been saying, sending them as troops to face the Blight. If he did not send the children of his political opponents, he'd still have to send somebody. If you're blaming him for getting these people killed, blame your Warden as well for bringing the treaty requiring them to help.

Point 2: You tend to want a place holder to remain in power long enough for you to return to Orzammar, letting them die before you get there would allow another king to get elected, and instead of having a king you could influence, you get a new guy you may or may not have to eliminate.

He doesn't get assassinated before you can return unless you take years to return to Orzammar.

Slaves fleed plantations in droves in the underground railroad not knowing what awaited them once they were free.

And plenty of them didn't. Let me guess: you think that they deserved it, too?

You two are acting like a wife is gonna wake up one morning, after a perfect marriage and all of a sudden a husband is gonna start smacking the **** out of his wife. Generally speaking, you were getting abused before you were married, you were getting abused before you had children, and you are getting abused after you had children, abusers don't just spontaneously become abusers, like cheaters, they were abusers the whole time.

No, because if you went on a first date with someone and he beat the **** out of you, virtually every single person in the world would dump his sorry ass. Long-term abuse cases tend to be far subtler and aren't there the whole time or guess what? They're SHORT-TERM abuse cases.

I would never be in an abusive situation, because you know what smart people do when they have been abused, they leave and never look back, you do not set the precedent that it is ok to be abused, and guess what? You won't be abused.

Or self-righteous victim-blamers. I cannot believe I am even having this conversation in 2010.

Point 1:  Witch Hunt is something like 2 years after Origins, so, yeah, takes you years to get back to Orzammarr.  And no, that's not the quote I am talking about.  It went something like  "Bhelen has threatened to kill my son if I don't send him troops to suppport his surface war", loosely parapharased.  Your quote doesn't paint a better picture of him anyway, as he should arguably be sending every able bodied dwarf, instead of shattering the noble houses of a man he has already had executed.  I am not even going to bring up the secret 'meetings' (killings) he had with some Harrowmont supporters in the Proving.  Dude is scum.

Point 2:  Don't feel sorry for slaves that, upon given the option to flee, stayed with massa, no.  Feel sorry for slaves that had no options, yes.  To correlate it to Dust Town, Dust Town should not exist, those dwarves should have left to the surface hundreds of years ago.

Point 3:  Long term abuse is hardly ever subtle, and the woman generally all stay with the abuser for the same reason.  They hope for change that isn't going to happen, because they set the precedent it was ok for them to be beaten.  If you set the precedant it's ok for your husband to cheat on you, your husband will keep cheating on you, the same occurs with abuse.  I am not talking about first date abuse, that generally won't occur, but generally abuse begins while you still have a way out, not after you have given birth to two of the abusers children.  Price Charming doesn't become Ike Turner.  You fell in love with Ike in the first place.

Point 4: I am not blaming the victim, insofar as not leaving in the first place.  They should not be getting beaten, and it's a travesty that they are.  However, they generally have the choice to get out of their situation, and they choose to stay out of some misguided hope that things will change.  They never do.  People by in large, don't change.   And if you have the choice to get away from abuse and you don't.  Sorry, I don't weep for you.

Modifié par Harid, 04 novembre 2010 - 10:54 .

[ejoslin]

I have the quote in MY post. What you write is not "loosely paraphrased." It's wrong.

And all I can say about your point of view -- you are quite sheltered, and quite lucky.  I know plenty of intelligent, educated people who have found themselves in abusive relationships.  It happens.  You do not understand the dynamic, and that's ok.  But you should understand that there IS a dynamic there that you don't understand.

Or you can remain ignorant.  Many people choose that. And hopefully or someone you love does not end up in an abusive situation.  I really hope that, because NO ONE deserves it.

Modifié par ejoslin, 04 novembre 2010 - 10:44 .

[Harid]

ejoslin wrote...

I have the quote in MY post. What you write is not "loosely paraphrased." It's wrong.

Addressed.

Real mature on the passive-agressive insults, by the way.

Modifié par Harid, 04 novembre 2010 - 10:49 .