969 réponses à ce sujet

[Giggles_Manically]

The reason that Han and Leia worked out so well was because:
Kreshner let the actors well act.

Plus Han Solo was played by Harrison Ford.

Modifié par Giggles_Manically, 30 novembre 2010 - 04:24 .

[naledgeborn]

 Did I do that? 

[Addai]

Morrigans God son wrote...

Oh my god, Alistair is a babe! Wtf I'm confused, Is Fiona Alistair's mother or that dead woman from Origins, that we never got to meet because she's dead. (I've never read any books.)

I think someone answered your question.  Fiona as Ali's babymama is not confirmed but popular fanon.

I just have to scold you about not reading the novels.  Read the books!  They're good, but also, if the game fans don't buy the books then there won't be any more.  More books= deeper lore.

[ejoslin]

Addai67 wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

Eamon is a noble by birth. His father was Arl. There's even a book in the game about his family's genealogy.

(husband)

The problem is Eamon in game at some point refers to himself as "Commoner".   Which left me scratching my head a year ago, I was trying to figure out how he could be Rowan's brother and still be a Commoner (I thought for a while you had to be a noble to marry royalty).

The game social rules and history I think are all messed up.

where does Eamon refer to himself as a commoner?  I'm looking for that and can't find it.

Edit; Ah, I see a lot of people have asked that.  what sarah says, about the claim by marriage, is all i can find either, and he's certainly not calling himself a commoner there -- just saying that Alistair is of the Theirin bloodline and he and Teagan are only related to royalty through marriage.  That doesn't make them commoners, though; they're noblemen, just not of the royal line.

Modifié par ejoslin, 30 novembre 2010 - 06:23 .

[Wereparrot]

Since I believe that Alastair is no true heir and Anora the rightful queen, Eamon is a traitor.

Loghain was right.

Quote: Treason Act 1702

• "if any person or persons ... shall endeavour to deprive or hinder any person who shall be the next in succession to the crown ... from succeeding after the decease of her Majesty (whom God long preserve) to the imperial crown of this realm and the dominions and territories thereunto belonging".

Modifié par Wereparrot, 06 décembre 2010 - 05:53 .

[Sarah1281]

Except...Anora is not a true heir either. She is not the rightful queen. She CAN be the rightful queen the minute a Landsmeet is called to confirm her as rightful queen but until then she's just the wife of the dead king. Eamon isn't a traitor for this and he needed to put Alistair up as possible monarch or else Loghain could have ignored his call for a Landsmeet.



Ferelden does not really have a line of succession and Cailan had no heir. He didn't even name someone his heir in the event that he died childless.

[Wulfram]

The treason act of 1702 would be intended to deal with those rascally jacobites who denied parliament's right to regulate the succession.

[Wereparrot]

Wulfram wrote...

The treason act of 1702 would be intended to deal with those rascally jacobites who denied parliament's right to regulate the succession.

You do realise I'm applying it to the game?

Anora has a stronger claim than anyone else, even though she wasn't heriditary.

[Sarah1281]

Anora has a stronger claim than anyone else, even though she wasn't heriditary.

Having a stronger claim to the throne but not actually being an heir does not make someone else putting someone else up for the throne treason.

[Addai]

Wereparrot wrote...

Anora has a stronger claim than anyone else, even though she wasn't heriditary.

In Fereldan terms, that's debatable.  Other than the usurpers, there hasn't been a break in the Theirin line in all of its national history.

[Wereparrot]

Sarah1281 wrote...

Anora has a stronger claim than anyone else, even though she wasn't heriditary.

Having a stronger claim to the throne but not actually being an heir does not make someone else putting someone else up for the throne treason.

Anora is already queen; she does not need to be heir.

[Wulfram]

Wereparrot wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

The treason act of 1702 would be intended to deal with those rascally jacobites who denied parliament's right to regulate the succession.

You do realise I'm applying it to the game?

I realise that.  I found it amusing that you're using trying to use it to assert the opposite to what was intended by the act.

Anora has a stronger claim than anyone else, even though she wasn't heriditary.

What matters is what the landsmeet decides.  Eamon accepts the landsmeet's verdict.

[Sarah1281]

Wereparrot wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...

Anora has a stronger claim than anyone else, even though she wasn't heriditary.

Having a stronger claim to the throne but not actually being an heir does not make someone else putting someone else up for the throne treason.

Anora is already queen; she does not need to be heir.

No, she was the wife of the king. When the ruling monarch dies, an heir needs to be found. That heir can be his wife. Cailan did not make Anora his heir. She DOES need to be his heir or else she has no automatic legal right to the throne and needs to fight for it which she does and never once does she say that she shouldn't have to be doing this becauase being a consort automatically makes her queen in the event of Cailan's death.

[Wereparrot]

Wulfram wrote...

Wereparrot wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

The treason act of 1702 would be intended to deal with those rascally jacobites who denied parliament's right to regulate the succession.

You do realise I'm applying it to the game?

I realise that.  I found it amusing that you're using trying to use it to assert the opposite to what was intended by the act.

Anora has a stronger claim than anyone else, even though she wasn't heriditary.

What matters is what the landsmeet decides.  Eamon accepts the landsmeet's verdict.

Which is effectively determined by me anyway.

This an exceptional circumstance whrich our laws haven't foreseen and therefore haven't provided for. Maybe it should also come under the 1351 act about making war on the monarch, as a variant thereof. In fact, it almost certainly does; I apologise for the misquote.
Whatever, it is treason.

Modifié par Wereparrot, 06 décembre 2010 - 07:25 .

[Sarah1281]

Why is it treason if Anora is not a ruling monarch? Loghain claims the regency so you could claim the Bannorn were committing treason by fighting him but he had not legally seized power since he bypassed the Landsmeet which is required to confirm the new monarch. Ferelden had no legal monarch from the time of Cailan's death until you put one on the throne yourself.

[Wereparrot]

Sarah1281 wrote...

Why is it treason if Anora is not a ruling monarch? Loghain claims the regency so you could claim the Bannorn were committing treason by fighting him but he had not legally seized power since he bypassed the Landsmeet which is required to confirm the new monarch. Ferelden had no legal monarch from the time of Cailan's death until you put one on the throne yourself.

'Anora's regent', is the term, implying that she is queen. Anora's queenship thereby seems legal. And all civil wars are by there nature treasonous.

[Addai]

Wereparrot wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...

Why is it treason if Anora is not a ruling monarch? Loghain claims the regency so you could claim the Bannorn were committing treason by fighting him but he had not legally seized power since he bypassed the Landsmeet which is required to confirm the new monarch. Ferelden had no legal monarch from the time of Cailan's death until you put one on the throne yourself.

'Anora's regent', is the term, implying that she is queen. Anora's queenship thereby seems legal. And all civil wars are by there nature treasonous.

Well Loghain's regency isn't legal, so there you have it.    Anora is not the ruling monarch until the Landsmeet confirms the Warden's choice of her as monarch.

[erilben]

An NPC says the throne goes to Anora now that Cailan is dead. She either "keeps her throne" or is "deposed" after the Landsmeet. Even David Gaider once said she doesn't have claim to the throne because she's already on the the throne, and that she's the ruling queen.

[LupusYondergirl]

Wereparrot wrote...
This an exceptional circumstance whrich our laws haven't foreseen and therefore haven't provided for. Maybe it should also come under the 1351 act about making war on the monarch, as a variant thereof. In fact, it almost certainly does; I apologise for the misquote.
Whatever, it is treason.

You do realize Ferelden isn't actually England, right?  They don't have the same laws, so everything you're citing wouldn't apply.
And even if it did, they're roughly based on an England where the Saxons drove the Normans out, with the year 1200 mentioned by the developers.  Again, making laws from the sixteenth and eighteenth century not really topical.  We're talking pre Magna Carta era here.

You know what happened to queens when the king died in those days?
They didn't become the monarch!
When Henry II died who became monarch?  Eleanor of Aquitaine? Hells no.  His oldest living son Richard did.  When Richard I died without a child who became monarch? His wife, Berengaria of Navarre? Nope. His brother.
Since being queen CONSORT does not give someone an automatic place anywhere within the line of succession towards being queen REGENT.

I'm thinking you may not really understand the difference between queen consort and queen regent.  The former, which Anora is, is just "spouse of the monarch, who has no power of their own other an any personal titles they may hold."
IE had Loghain died before Cailan Anora could have been Queen Consort of Ferelden and Teryna of Gwaren, and her only real power would be in Gwaren.
Queen Regent is an actual rulling monarch, such as Elizabeth I.

[ejoslin]

*cough* That is, Queen Regnant, not regent. But other than that, you're right. It surprises me that the Cousland is not considered a possibility as regnant but only as consort to the monarch. Really, a Cousland may have a stronger claim than Anora, and possibly Alistair as well (oooh, I know 100 people will tell me how wrong I am about that).

[Sarah1281]

ejoslin wrote...

*cough* That is, Queen Regnant, not regent. But other than that, you're right. It surprises me that the Cousland is not considered a possibility as regnant but only as consort to the monarch. Really, a Cousland may have a stronger claim than Anora, and possibly Alistair as well (oooh, I know 100 people will tell me how wrong I am about that).

Well, your family is dead, your teynir was taken over by Howe and still occupied by his men, and unlike Anora and Eamon you do not have powerful poliitical allies. Anora's faction wants Anora on the throne. Eamon's faction wants Alistair. No one wants random Cousland on the throne so they won't let it happen.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Couysland would not really have any claim to the throne if Alistair or Anora are still alive. In fact, since it usually (but not always) tends to follow bloodlines, Eamon or Teagan would have stronger claims on the throne, being the only remaining legit next of kin to Cailan. The Couslands might be an old, powerful family, but as far as bloodlines and marriage goes, they have no ties to the throne, where as the Mac Tirs and Guerrins do.



Rank and status does not have much effect in determining succession. Alliances through marriage and blood have stronger influences. As well as support from the Landsmeet. Which, at the time of the Landsmeet, house Cousland does not really exist anymore, since Howe demonized and destroyed it.

[Wereparrot]

LupusYondergirl wrote...

Wereparrot wrote...
This an exceptional circumstance whrich our laws haven't foreseen and therefore haven't provided for. Maybe it should also come under the 1351 act about making war on the monarch, as a variant thereof. In fact, it almost certainly does; I apologise for the misquote.
Whatever, it is treason.

You do realize Ferelden isn't actually England, right?  They don't have the same laws, so everything you're citing wouldn't apply.
And even if it did, they're roughly based on an England where the Saxons drove the Normans out, with the year 1200 mentioned by the developers.  Again, making laws from the sixteenth and eighteenth century not really topical.  We're talking pre Magna Carta era here.

You know what happened to queens when the king died in those days?
They didn't become the monarch!
When Henry II died who became monarch?  Eleanor of Aquitaine? Hells no.  His oldest living son Richard did.  When Richard I died without a child who became monarch? His wife, Berengaria of Navarre? Nope. His brother.
Since being queen CONSORT does not give someone an automatic place anywhere within the line of succession towards being queen REGENT.

I'm thinking you may not really understand the difference between queen consort and queen regent.  The former, which Anora is, is just "spouse of the monarch, who has no power of their own other an any personal titles they may hold."
IE had Loghain died before Cailan Anora could have been Queen Consort of Ferelden and Teryna of Gwaren, and her only real power would be in Gwaren.
Queen Regent is an actual rulling monarch, such as Elizabeth I.

Do we know all Ferelden's laws and customs? The English monarchy was established before the Normans. Treason was merely clarified by Edward III; he never thought of it. I have just discounted a quote of a law from 1702 for one made in 1351.

I know full well what happened when Henry II died, but Richard only succeeded because he was legitimate. Richard wasn't even Henry's oldest living son. You must understand that in the event of a king's death the crown goes to the closest living relative. Forget that Anora was Cailin's Queen Consort. No legitimate heir, no blood relative; Anora is closest. Alastair's bastardom rules him out.
As for the Landsmeet, I think you may putting too much store by it? Maybe I am putting too much store by my own culture, but rarely has the monarch been decided by the people. King John, for one, by William Marshall.