969 réponses à ce sujet

[LobselVith8]

ejoslin wrote...

While Maric may not have, Ferelden nobles would most likely have a say in it.

I don't see many nobles openly having an issue with the Hero of River Dane being made Teyrnir of Gwaren, especially given how Loghain is still well-received thirty years after the occupation ended.

ejoslin wrote...

Anora does not consider Gwaren hers. she does not say, if you ask for them, that you may have her Teyrnir.

She says her father's teyrnir stands empty if the Warden asks for the teyrnir, which it does because she's busy being Queen.

ejoslin wrote...

And then this is further complicated by Loghain being stripped of his titles. He's not a noble by the time he dies. This actually is most likely why Anora is not the Teyrna of Gwaren. But then, well, what is she? She's not noble (just as Nathaniel Howe is no longer a noble), yet she can be made queen. Most likely because of her popularity with the nobles.

True, Loghain's not a noble, and technically the role of Teyrna would fall with Anora with Loghain's defeat, but she's fighting to be Queen of Ferelden. It seems to me that she's setting her sights on the throne, and ignoring Gwaren entirely. The same people who dismiss Anora as not being noble also blame the lack of an heir on the fact that she's a commoner, which is absurd. Anora is technically a noble by the fact that her father's a noble until the Landsmeet is over and Loghain is defeated, and if she accepted Alistair's role as the new King, there's little doubt that she would be the new Teyrna of Gwaren, but she makes it clear that she wants to be the ruler even if it means her execution.

ejoslin wrote...

And having an elf/mage/dwarf Teyrn(a) of Gwaren I cannot imagine would last more than one generation, if that.

I ask for the Magi boon (regardless of what the Chantry says to the ruler of Ferelden), but while I think the Hero of Ferelden would start off well, I can imagine a family of mages being one of the most powerful nobles in the entire nation would end up becoming a problem down the road.

[Addai]

Sarah1281 wrote...

He gives a finer speech then Anora before the battle of Denerim, and in Awakening - well, he seems to know what he's doing.

...You do realize that they give the exact same speech, right. I don't think it's fair to say that Alistair is a better king than Anora is queen because he has a better shouting voice.

Edit: And what is with all this 'Anora has a claim and Alistair doesn't' and 'No, Alistair has a claim and Anora doesn't!' It is complete bull. They have about equal claim (they both aren't heirs but have a sizeable political backing) which is the whole point. If Anora had the right to rule and Alistair didn't or vice versa then the Landsmeet would just tell the unqualified candidate that they were SOLD and crown their legitimate ruler.

(husband)


I think if you brought the matter before a real life judge, Anora would have a better claim based on implied intent.

The fact that Maric did not in any way recognize him would be a pretty big ommision.   Especially when you consider "the heir and a spare" rule of thumb for royalty.


Anora on the other hand would be a different story.   Not just being a wife, but really having a foot in the door as far as doing the actual job.  


So if this was decided in the same way a real life Will and Testament were made with Allistair, you would have to make a case for him and the burden of proof would be on him, Eamon and the Warden.    With Anora, it would be the opposite.    It would normally be assumed that she should continue to go on, the only way to make a case would be to try enter in evidence like the RTO letters that might suggest that Cailan was changing his mind about Anora.

[Sarah1281]

ejoslin wrote...



While Maric may not have, Ferelden nobles would most likely have a say in it.

Why would the nobles have a say in it? If a noble holds lands then we've seen that they can be taken away under certain circumstances (Meghren did it all the time, the Drydens lost their land because of Sophia's rebellion, Maric didn't have to give Cerolic his father's bannorn) and if they are empty then the king would choose who to give the title to. It's not like the nobles would have to vote on whether they were going to let Loghain join their ranks and whether he could have heirs.



I really hate the boons, by the way. They just cause a huge mess. The mages can't be free, the Dalish would have gotten land regardless, the Howes would still be stripped of their land, a mage isn't legally allowed to be a noble...ugh.



My best guess on the heir front is that Anora doesn't want to be both in charge of her entire nation and also a teynir if she's queen and if she's not then she won't swear fealty so she can't take the land.

[ejoslin]

Sarah1281 wrote...

ejoslin wrote...

While Maric may not have, Ferelden nobles would most likely have a say in it.

Why would the nobles have a say in it? If a noble holds lands then we've seen that they can be taken away under certain circumstances (Meghren did it all the time, the Drydens lost their land because of Sophia's rebellion, Maric didn't have to give Cerolic his father's bannorn) and if they are empty then the king would choose who to give the title to. It's not like the nobles would have to vote on whether they were going to let Loghain join their ranks and whether he could have heirs.

I really hate the boons, by the way. They just cause a huge mess. The mages can't be free, the Dalish would have gotten land regardless, the Howes would still be stripped of their land, a mage isn't legally allowed to be a noble...ugh.

My best guess on the heir front is that Anora doesn't want to be both in charge of her entire nation and also a teynir if she's queen and if she's not then she won't swear fealty so she can't take the land.

Actually, the dalish getting the land is a bug that happens when Lanaya is keeper -- that slide is not supposed to appear except for the Dalish boon.

LobselVith8 wrote...


True, Loghain's not a noble, and technically the role of Teyrna would fall with Anora with Loghain's defeat, but she's fighting to be Queen of Ferelden. It seems to me that she's setting her sights on the throne, and ignoring Gwaren entirely. The same people who dismiss Anora as not being noble also blame the lack of an heir on the fact that she's a commoner, which is absurd. Anora is technically a noble by the fact that her father's a noble until the Landsmeet is over and Loghain is defeated, and if she accepted Alistair's role as the new King, there's little doubt that she would be the new Teyrna of Gwaren, but she makes it clear that she wants to be the ruler even if it means her execution.

And again, Loghain was stripped of his titles.  I don't think that means it goes to his heir -- I think that means he lost his titles and lands. 

Then again, I try not to think about this stuff too much.  I don't want an argument, tbh; there's quite a few things about the ferelden nobility that don't make too much sense, and it's easy to latch onto one aspect to bolster an argument and ignore others that contradict it.

I do know that the city elf boon does not make the family of the new noble a noble -- and when that new noble is killed, it does not pass onto their heir.

Modifié par ejoslin, 13 janvier 2011 - 10:17 .

[DPSSOC]

Wereparrot wrote...

DPSSOC wrote...
Now maybe it's different elsewhere, but where I live if you're wife and your brother (even half-brother) are the only relatives living you're closest living relative is your (half)brother.  Your spouse, regarldess of gender, is not a relative they're a partner, similar in many ways to a business partner, they have many of the same rights and privledges as relatives (and even a few extra) but they are not related to you.  You adopt their family as relatives by law, as they adopt yours, but the two of you are not related.  Furthermore in matters of royal succession blood supercedes law (usually).  For example when King George died it was his daughter (Elizabeth) who became Queen, not his wife.  Anora is the reigning Queen because the King died and the Landsmeet has not been allowed to convene to decide on how to proceed.  I've little doubt the Landsmeet would have chosen to let Anora continue to rule had circumstances been different (no other Therin and no civil-war) but that wasn't the case.

My point is that Anora is the only living relative of any kind eligible to the throne. I do not recognise Alistair due to his illegitimacy. Therefore what I have said stands as my opinion. Note that it's my opinion (although based on constitution).

A fair point.  I guess if any bastard could claim the throne you'd have droves of people claiming to be the king's illegitimate son/daughter.

Wereparrot wrote...
If you must bring history into this, may I point out that the throne may only be inherited by legitimate heirs of Sophia of Hanover. Legitimacy has always been a factor in the succession to the throne, although admittedly not all heirs' legitimacy has been without question.

Another fair point.  However doesn't Eamon's endorsement grant him some legitimacy?  Not saying it immediately makes him the legitimate ruler but Eamon, a well respected nobleman of considerable influence, is standing behind this son of Maric.  It'd be different if Alistair tried to claim it one his own but Eamon supports him as a legitimate heir.  Isn't that worth something?

Wereparrot wrote...

DPSSOC wrote...
As for Eamon's treason I ask this, is a man a traitor for opposing a ruler willing to plunge the lands they rule into Civil War simply to maintain they're position?  Especially if there is an external threat of anihilation on their doorstep?  Anora is responsible, and punishable in my eyes, for the actions of her father because she did nothing to stop it.  As her regent Loghain could be dismissed, replaced by another or Anora herself, Anora did not and as such holds full responsibility for everything Loghain did (IMO).  So given what can be laid at Anora's feet, what she has allowed to happen, I don't view it as treason anymore than I would Loghain's actions at Ostagar taken on their own.

All rebellions are treason by their very nature. The English Civil War, the Glorious Revolution: both rebellions against undesirable kings, but nevertheless treason. Anora is, however, not an undesirable queen, which is why I believe the rebellion should have centred around Loghain entirely.

I suppose that's true about treason, one could say he's being loyal to his principles and his nation rather than the throne but I see your point.  I agree but Loghain is acting as regent, which means any opposition to him is indirect opposition to the queen so they're kind of stuck.  I disagree that she's not an undesirable Queen though.  By allowing Loghain to do what he's doing she's offerring two possibilities.  Either she supports what her father's doing in which case she's no better, or she's afraid to act against him in which case she's a coward at best and a puppet at worst.  Neither of those paint a positive picture of her rule.  Not that Alistair's an ideal ruler either by any means but if I have to choose between the monster/coward and the fool with a strong moral compass I'll side with the fool, he'll make mistakes but the body count should stay low.

Wereparrot wrote...
How do you hold Anora responsible for Loghain's actions? That's like holding Edward III responsible for Roger Mortimer. Edward, despite being king, was in no position to overide Mortimer (although he eventually did), and Anora is in no position to overide Loghain.

Ok I gotta look that up I'll get back to you.  However I hold Anora responsible for Loghain's actions the same way I hold Loghain responsible for Howe's; the same way I hold everyone responsible for the criminal actions of their subordinates.  Loghain was acting as Anora's regent; when his actions began harming Fereldan it was her responsibility to pull him down.  That she did not shows tacit endorsement making her culpable.  Anora was not powerless, she could have publicly denounced Loghain, stripped him of his title and command, and demanded he step down.  I'm not saying it would have gone over well but she had the power to do it and a duty to try.

Even if she'd been completely ignorant of everything Loghain was doing it wouldn't matter.  Loghain answered to her, it was her responsibility to keep herself apprised of what he was doing.  The only difference is ignorance makes her criminally negligent rather than an accessory to her father's actions.

[ejoslin]

I think Anora's position was made far more delicate as she had no military -- Cailin's troops were wiped out in Ostegar -- leaving only Loghain's military.

[LobselVith8]

Sarah1281 wrote...

Why would the nobles have a say in it? If a noble holds lands then we've seen that they can be taken away under certain circumstances (Meghren did it all the time, the Drydens lost their land because of Sophia's rebellion, Maric didn't have to give Cerolic his father's bannorn) and if they are empty then the king would choose who to give the title to. It's not like the nobles would have to vote on whether they were going to let Loghain join their ranks and whether he could have heirs.

I agree completely. There's a line of succession when it comes to inheriting titles and land. Fergus gets the teyrnir of Highever because his father died, and even Vaughan could represent the city of Denerim at the Landsmeet as the new Bann because his father was killed, so I don't see why it would be any different for Anora as Loghain's only child.

Sarah1281 wrote...

I really hate the boons, by the way. They just cause a huge mess. The mages can't be free, the Dalish would have gotten land regardless, the Howes would still be stripped of their land, a mage isn't legally allowed to be a noble...ugh.

I really hate that the mage boon doesn't happen and instead of this being addressed in Awakening or Witch Hunt, we get informed on the messageboard. It's a big WTF for me. I understand the reasoning, but why exclude this important story element completely from the actual games? Why make it seem like it's going to happen at the end of the game (especially the US ending where the ruler actually orders Greagoir to allow the mages to have the tower for themselves) but relinquish it without even saying anything about it in the following expansion and DLCs?

I'm also really surprised there's no mention of a mage becoming the new Teyrn of Gwaren, given the laws against this, since even though the Grey Warden mages are freed from the Chantry, I'd imagine there'd be some issue about a family of mages becoming one of the most powerful families in Ferelden.

Sarah1281 wrote...

My best guess on the heir front is that Anora doesn't want to be both in charge of her entire nation and also a teynir if she's queen and if she's not then she won't swear fealty so she can't take the land.

Yeah, Anora's concerned with being Queen. The fact that she's willing to die rather than stand down shows how committed she is to that path.

ejoslin wrote...

And again, Loghain was stripped of his titles.  I don't think that means it goes to his heir -- I think that means he lost his titles and lands.

Since she won't sweat fealty to Alistair, I do think it means she'd likely be executed after the Blight is over. I always pair her with a personality hardened Alistair, so it's never really an issue for me. Pro-elven Alistair with an Anora who wants to build a university (in what amounts to medieval times) and refill the royal coffers, and things are looking pretty good for Ferelden.

ejoslin wrote...

I do know that the city elf boon does not make the family of the new noble a noble -- and when that new noble is killed, it does not pass onto their heir.

Why do you say that? I know there was supposed to be an elven Bann epilogue, but it got scrapped, yet I don't remember any mention of the Warden or Shianni being Bann only being for them. And the Hinterlands being handed over to the Dalish is a bug? That's sad to hear.

[Wereparrot]

ejoslin wrote...

@Wereparrot Hah, with that massive quoting, why did you edit out my first line without indicating it was snipped?

And anything you say about Alistair can be applied to Anora.

I know it can and I said Anora would be c-in-c. It's not the same thing as a general. The queen is c-in-c of all forces in all her realms, and as such is in overall command, although the monarchy works differently now so in practice her authority is usually exercised by the prime ministers, although she retains the power to command troops and declare war. The title king or queen is synonymous with the rank of commander-in-chief, a higher rank than general or field marshal. Medieval kings used to fulfill the role of general and c-in-c, and I would expect much the same from Alistair.

[Wereparrot]

LobselVith8 wrote...

I agree completely. There's a line of succession when it comes to inheriting titles and land. Fergus gets the teyrnir of Highever because his father died, and even Vaughan could represent the city of Denerim at the Landsmeet as the new Bann because his father was killed, so I don't see why it would be any different for Anora as Loghain's only child.

Fergus inheriting Bryce's lands is debateable. I think someone said in another thread that he was adopted; if so, this would rule him out of any inheritance, including the kingdom, if indeed the Couslands are eligible.

[Wereparrot]

DPSSOC wrote...

Not that Alistair's an ideal ruler either by any means but if I have to choose between the monster/coward and the fool with a strong moral compass I'll side with the fool, he'll make mistakes but the body count should stay low.

Who said anything about a body count? Are you implying that Anora would be a tyrant, even without Loghain's domineering presence?

For me morality has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

Modifié par Wereparrot, 14 janvier 2011 - 11:59 .

[ejoslin]

LobselVith8 wrote...

ejoslin wrote...

I do know that the city elf boon does not make the family of the new noble a noble -- and when that new noble is killed, it does not pass onto their heir.

Why do you say that? I know there was supposed to be an elven Bann epilogue, but it got scrapped, yet I don't remember any mention of the Warden or Shianni being Bann only being for them. And the Hinterlands being handed over to the Dalish is a bug? That's sad to hear.

The epilogues weren't scrapped, they have a couple of bugs (understandable ones, actually -- I won't bore you with the technical details unless asked) that prevent them from firing.  However, I deliberately chose an example that is in the vanilla game -- where you choose someone as a bann, but not the warden or Shianni; that one DOES appear.  In that one, the new Bann is stoned to death, and no new Bann is appointed.  Hence, the position is not for the family -- just for the newly appointed noble.

The Dalish slide appearing for everyone is a bug, and doesn't happen if Zathrien is keeper.  Someone missed setting the condition of the dalish boon if whatsherface is keeper though it is in the scripting comments.

If you click on Zevran Dialog Fix in my sig, there's a list of the bugs on the front page there.

[ejoslin]

Wereparrot wrote...

ejoslin wrote...

@Wereparrot Hah, with that massive quoting, why did you edit out my first line without indicating it was snipped?

And anything you say about Alistair can be applied to Anora.

I know it can and I said Anora would be c-in-c. It's not the same thing as a general. The queen is c-in-c of all forces in all her realms, and as such is in overall command, although the monarchy works differently now so in practice her authority is usually exercised by the prime ministers, although she retains the power to command troops and declare war. The title king or queen is synonymous with the rank of commander-in-chief, a higher rank than general or field marshal. Medieval kings used to fulfill the role of general and c-in-c, and I would expect much the same from Alistair.

Ferelden is not medieval England.  And the warden is taking Loghain's place as the king's general no matter who is royalty.  The role Loghain had had under Cailin and under Maric.  This isn't a new role.

What it means is the warden, consort or not, is not given the power as ruler at that Landsmeet, but that as general of the armies.  When you get to redcliff castle, whomever is royalty is certainly spoken to like they're the one in charge, not the warden.

[Wereparrot]

ejoslin wrote...

Wereparrot wrote...

ejoslin wrote...

@Wereparrot Hah, with that massive quoting, why did you edit out my first line without indicating it was snipped?

And anything you say about Alistair can be applied to Anora.

I know it can and I said Anora would be c-in-c. It's not the same thing as a general. The queen is c-in-c of all forces in all her realms, and as such is in overall command, although the monarchy works differently now so in practice her authority is usually exercised by the prime ministers, although she retains the power to command troops and declare war. The title king or queen is synonymous with the rank of commander-in-chief, a higher rank than general or field marshal. Medieval kings used to fulfill the role of general and c-in-c, and I would expect much the same from Alistair.

Ferelden is not medieval England.  And the warden is taking Loghain's place as the king's general no matter who is royalty.  The role Loghain had had under Cailin and under Maric.  This isn't a new role.

What it means is the warden, consort or not, is not given the power as ruler at that Landsmeet, but that as general of the armies.  When you get to redcliff castle, whomever is royalty is certainly spoken to like they're the one in charge, not the warden.

I realize that. I was just using the queen to demonstrate my point, which is that if a king is not c-in-c of his own forces then he is not king. There may be a general in the field but even he must be answerable to the king. 

[ejoslin]

Wereparrot wrote...

ejoslin wrote...

Wereparrot wrote...

ejoslin wrote...

@Wereparrot Hah, with that massive quoting, why did you edit out my first line without indicating it was snipped?

And anything you say about Alistair can be applied to Anora.

I know it can and I said Anora would be c-in-c. It's not the same thing as a general. The queen is c-in-c of all forces in all her realms, and as such is in overall command, although the monarchy works differently now so in practice her authority is usually exercised by the prime ministers, although she retains the power to command troops and declare war. The title king or queen is synonymous with the rank of commander-in-chief, a higher rank than general or field marshal. Medieval kings used to fulfill the role of general and c-in-c, and I would expect much the same from Alistair.

Ferelden is not medieval England.  And the warden is taking Loghain's place as the king's general no matter who is royalty.  The role Loghain had had under Cailin and under Maric.  This isn't a new role.

What it means is the warden, consort or not, is not given the power as ruler at that Landsmeet, but that as general of the armies.  When you get to redcliff castle, whomever is royalty is certainly spoken to like they're the one in charge, not the warden.

I realize that. I was just using the queen to demonstrate my point, which is that if a king is not c-in-c of his own forces then he is not king. There may be a general in the field but even he must be answerable to the king. 

I guess what I'm confused about, then, is are you still condemning Alistair for making the warden general?  Or are we past that and in agreement?

[Wereparrot]

ejoslin wrote...

Wereparrot wrote...

ejoslin wrote...

Wereparrot wrote...

ejoslin wrote...

@Wereparrot Hah, with that massive quoting, why did you edit out my first line without indicating it was snipped?

And anything you say about Alistair can be applied to Anora.

I know it can and I said Anora would be c-in-c. It's not the same thing as a general. The queen is c-in-c of all forces in all her realms, and as such is in overall command, although the monarchy works differently now so in practice her authority is usually exercised by the prime ministers, although she retains the power to command troops and declare war. The title king or queen is synonymous with the rank of commander-in-chief, a higher rank than general or field marshal. Medieval kings used to fulfill the role of general and c-in-c, and I would expect much the same from Alistair.

Ferelden is not medieval England.  And the warden is taking Loghain's place as the king's general no matter who is royalty.  The role Loghain had had under Cailin and under Maric.  This isn't a new role.

What it means is the warden, consort or not, is not given the power as ruler at that Landsmeet, but that as general of the armies.  When you get to redcliff castle, whomever is royalty is certainly spoken to like they're the one in charge, not the warden.

I realize that. I was just using the queen to demonstrate my point, which is that if a king is not c-in-c of his own forces then he is not king. There may be a general in the field but even he must be answerable to the king. 

I guess what I'm confused about, then, is are you still condemning Alistair for making the warden general?  Or are we past that and in agreement?

I was questioning Alistair's commitment to the kingship if he delegates so much power to his consort. We are essentially in agreement, but I for one would question Alistair's motivation, and therefore suitability to rule.

Modifié par Wereparrot, 14 janvier 2011 - 01:01 .

[ejoslin]

Wereparrot wrote...

I was questioning Alistair's commitment to the kingship if he delegates so much power to his consort. We are essentially in agreement, but I for one would question Alistair's motivation, and therefore suitability to rule.

but this is a role that is not new to Alistair and the warden.  You know at least Maric and Cailin had Loghain in this role.

[Wereparrot]

ejoslin wrote...

Wereparrot wrote...

I was questioning Alistair's commitment to the kingship if he delegates so much power to his consort. We are essentially in agreement, but I for one would question Alistair's motivation, and therefore suitability to rule.

but this is a role that is not new to Alistair and the warden.  You know at least Maric and Cailin had Loghain in this role.

Yes, but Loghain was still answerable to Maric and then Cailin as his military superior. I don't really see your point here since I have already explained the role of c-in-c in relation to general.

Might I add that it is very unwise to appoint his wife as general, since the relationship may compromise missions and put lives in danger, especially if they fight in the same unit.

Modifié par Wereparrot, 14 janvier 2011 - 01:17 .

[ejoslin]

Wereparrot wrote...

ejoslin wrote...

Wereparrot wrote...

I was questioning Alistair's commitment to the kingship if he delegates so much power to his consort. We are essentially in agreement, but I for one would question Alistair's motivation, and therefore suitability to rule.

but this is a role that is not new to Alistair and the warden.  You know at least Maric and Cailin had Loghain in this role.

Yes, but Loghain was still answerable to Maric and then Cailin as his military superior. I don't really see your point here since I have already explained the role of c-in-c in relation to general.

Might I add that it is very unwise to appoint his wife as general, since the relationship may compromise missions and put lives in danger, especially if they fight in the same unit.

the warden is still answerable to Alistair.  I honestly am not sure why you think any differently.

And it's no more unwise to appoint the queen-consort general than the king-consort -- I'm not sure where that is coming from at all (keep in mind, Alistair can enter a political marriage with the warden, so there's not even necessarily a romance going on there).  You know, the relationship doesn't change just because the landsmeet has been called, and they've been fighting together for awhile at that point, whatever the relationship is.

There is no reason for Alistair to decide, suddenly, that the warden CAN'T lead when the warden has been leading the entire time.  I'm not even sure that Alistair could make that decision -- only one army is his, the rest are not.  King of Ferelden does not equal Gray Warden leader.

Look at it this way -- the Gray Wardens is a separate entity than the Ferelden nobility.  As a gray warden, the PC warden has been in charge, and even Riorden, the senior Warden, allows the PC warden to have the final say.  The armies gathered by the Gray Warden are lead by the Gray Warden, and Alistair in addition allows them to take charge of the Ferelden troops.  However, Alistair, as king, is the one that rallies the troops.

Modifié par ejoslin, 14 janvier 2011 - 01:25 .

[Wereparrot]

ejoslin wrote...

Wereparrot wrote...

ejoslin wrote...

Wereparrot wrote...

I was questioning Alistair's commitment to the kingship if he delegates so much power to his consort. We are essentially in agreement, but I for one would question Alistair's motivation, and therefore suitability to rule.

but this is a role that is not new to Alistair and the warden.  You know at least Maric and Cailin had Loghain in this role.

Yes, but Loghain was still answerable to Maric and then Cailin as his military superior. I don't really see your point here since I have already explained the role of c-in-c in relation to general.

Might I add that it is very unwise to appoint his wife as general, since the relationship may compromise missions and put lives in danger, especially if they fight in the same unit.

the warden is still answerable to Alistair.  I honestly am not sure why you think any differently.

And it's no more unwise to appoint the queen-consort general than the king-consort -- I'm not sure where that is coming from at all (keep in mind, Alistair can enter a political marriage with the warden, so there's not even necessarily a romance going on there).  You know, the relationship doesn't change just because the landsmeet has been called, and they've been fighting together for awhile at that point, whatever the relationship is.

There is no reason for Alistair to decide, suddenly, that the warden CAN'T lead when the warden has been leading the entire time.  I'm not even sure that Alistair could make that decision -- only one army is his, the rest are not.  King of Ferelden does not equal Gray Warden leader.

Look at it this way -- the Gray Wardens is a separate entity than the Ferelden nobility.  As a gray warden, the PC warden has been in charge, and even Riorden, the senior Warden, allows the PC warden to have the final say.  The armies gathered by the Gray Warden are lead by the Gray Warden, and Alistair in addition allows them to take charge of the Ferelden troops.  However, Alistair, as king, is the one that rallies the troops.

The warden has been leading the whole game because that is the point of the game, and as a fantasy game Bioware can do what they like; but from a strictly military point of view and imagining that the game was actually real life, it is unwise to have women in the infantry at all, because of the whole relationship and chivalry thing, regardless of Alistair's relationship with the female warden, be it romantic or platonic. It's not, as some believe, about strength and ability to do the job.

I don't for a moment suggest that fantasy games should go all realistic and ban women from fighting in armies and then give this as an excuse.

Modifié par Wereparrot, 14 janvier 2011 - 01:55 .

[ejoslin]

Wereparrot wrote...

The warden has been leading the whole game because that is the point of the game, and as a fantasy game Bioware can do what they like; but from a strictly military point of view and imagining that the game was actually real life, it is unwise to have women in the infantry at all, because of the whole relationship and chivalry thing, regardless of Alistair's relationship with the female warden, be it romantic or platonic. It's not, as some believe, about strength and ability to do the job.

I don't for a moment suggest that fantasy games should go all realistic and ban women from fighting in armies and then give this as an excuse.

well, leaving aside that women DO serve, and serve well in military services (I am NOT about to debate that here), your argument fails since you're now judging Alistair by your standards rather than by the standards set in the game, where women can serve in the military and can rise high within the ranks (Ser Cauthrien, for example).

I think that you really liked the idea of Anora handing off the military to her Consort, and felt that that was showing that she considered her Consort as co-leader.  I think (correct me if I'm wrong) that you're elevating that position to one that was higher than it actually is in the game (one of equal to the regent rather than the general).  The fact is, though, that all wardens are appointed to general of Ferelden's armies (as well as the other armies they gathered), and it's only that -- the position that Loghain had occupied.

[mousestalker]

Wereparrot wrote...


Might I add that it is very unwise to appoint his wife as general, since the relationship may compromise missions and put lives in danger, especially if they fight in the same unit.

Would you mind explaining this? I'm not sure I follow your reasoning.

[Wereparrot]

ejoslin wrote...

Wereparrot wrote...

The warden has been leading the whole game because that is the point of the game, and as a fantasy game Bioware can do what they like; but from a strictly military point of view and imagining that the game was actually real life, it is unwise to have women in the infantry at all, because of the whole relationship and chivalry thing, regardless of Alistair's relationship with the female warden, be it romantic or platonic. It's not, as some believe, about strength and ability to do the job.

I don't for a moment suggest that fantasy games should go all realistic and ban women from fighting in armies and then give this as an excuse.

well, leaving aside that women DO serve, and serve well in military services (I am NOT about to debate that here), your argument fails since you're now judging Alistair by your standards rather than by the standards set in the game, where women can serve in the military and can rise high within the ranks (Ser Cauthrien, for example).

I think that you really liked the idea of Anora handing off the military to her Consort, and felt that that was showing that she considered her Consort as co-leader.  I think (correct me if I'm wrong) that you're elevating that position to one that was higher than it actually is in the game (one of equal to the regent rather than the general).  The fact is, though, that all wardens are appointed to general of Ferelden's armies (as well as the other armies they gathered), and it's only that -- the position that Loghain had occupied.

Did you even read what I said? Women do not serve in infantry roles. I did not say they cannot serve in the forces period.

I really don't know what your point is. I am speaking hypothetically; I am not referring to the customs of Ferelden or events of DAO. While I did elevate king-and-queen-consort's position to the regency, I did not elevate their military role to the rank of commander-in-chief.

Aren't I allowed to compare a fictional world to reality now?

[LobselVith8]

Wereparrot wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

I agree completely. There's a line of succession when it comes to inheriting titles and land. Fergus gets the teyrnir of Highever because his father died, and even Vaughan could represent the city of Denerim at the Landsmeet as the new Bann because his father was killed, so I don't see why it would be any different for Anora as Loghain's only child.

Fergus inheriting Bryce's lands is debateable. I think someone said in another thread that he was adopted; if so, this would rule him out of any inheritance, including the kingdom, if indeed the Couslands are eligible.

There's no evidence that he was adopted from the game, and he clearly inherits Highever in the Noble Human storyline since he's the eldest son during the royal ceremony at the end. He becomes the new Teyrn. He's even granted Amaranthine by the new ruler of Ferelden because of what Arl Howe did, but he hands it over to the Grey Wardens. His status as the new Teyrn even allows Nathaniel Howe to gain back a portion of Amaranthine if he has approval with the Warden Commander in Awakening.

ejoslin wrote...

The epilogues weren't scrapped, they have a couple of bugs (understandable ones, actually -- I won't bore you with the technical details unless asked) that prevent them from firing.  However, I deliberately chose an example that is in the vanilla game -- where you choose someone as a bann, but not the warden or Shianni; that one DOES appear.  In that one, the new Bann is stoned to death, and no new Bann is appointed.  Hence, the position is not for the family -- just for the newly appointed noble.

The Dalish slide appearing for everyone is a bug, and doesn't happen if Zathrien is keeper.  Someone missed setting the condition of the dalish boon if whatsherface is keeper though it is in the scripting comments.

If you click on Zevran Dialog Fix in my sig, there's a list of the bugs on the front page there.

I think I remember you making a post about this before and mentioning that Soris was also mentioned in the Epilogue as a potential new Bann, but if this wasn't scrapped, why isn't Soris or the nameless Bann an option during the royal ceremony? I'm genuinely curious. And if the epilogues are bugged (like the Dalish boon being handed regardless of who is the Warden) do you think that means DA2 would read it as having happened?

[ejoslin]

Wereparrot wrote...

ejoslin wrote...

Wereparrot wrote...

The warden has been leading the whole game because that is the point of the game, and as a fantasy game Bioware can do what they like; but from a strictly military point of view and imagining that the game was actually real life, it is unwise to have women in the infantry at all, because of the whole relationship and chivalry thing, regardless of Alistair's relationship with the female warden, be it romantic or platonic. It's not, as some believe, about strength and ability to do the job.

I don't for a moment suggest that fantasy games should go all realistic and ban women from fighting in armies and then give this as an excuse.

well, leaving aside that women DO serve, and serve well in military services (I am NOT about to debate that here), your argument fails since you're now judging Alistair by your standards rather than by the standards set in the game, where women can serve in the military and can rise high within the ranks (Ser Cauthrien, for example).

I think that you really liked the idea of Anora handing off the military to her Consort, and felt that that was showing that she considered her Consort as co-leader.  I think (correct me if I'm wrong) that you're elevating that position to one that was higher than it actually is in the game (one of equal to the regent rather than the general).  The fact is, though, that all wardens are appointed to general of Ferelden's armies (as well as the other armies they gathered), and it's only that -- the position that Loghain had occupied.

Did you even read what I said? Women do not serve in infantry roles. I did not say they cannot serve in the forces period.

I really don't know what your point is. I am speaking hypothetically; I am not referring to the customs of Ferelden or events of DAO. While I did elevate king-and-queen-consort's position to the regency, I did not elevate their military role to the rank of commander-in-chief.

Aren't I allowed to compare a fictional world to reality now?

(women do serve in the infantry in at least one nation I can think of off hand -- Israel -- and they serve in combat situations as fighters, though not infantry, in many others -- again, not something I'm going to debate here)

You're allowed to do many things -- including that!  But if you're holding Alistair to a standard that is not valid to the world he was written in, it does make your arguments, well, weak.  I'm actually trying to figure out what your arguments ARE.  I assume, perhaps wrongly, that we're talking about Dragon Age.  I thought you were saying (again, perhaps I'm misreading) that Alistair should not have handed off the general role to the warden.  What I say to that is that Alistair is acting in a dual role, both as king and a gray warden.  As a king, he is in charge of his military; as a gray warden, he continues to follow the warden who took up command.  For sake of ease, I would imagine, just like the other armies, he leaves his armies in the hands of the gray warden for the fight for the blight.  However, Alistair is very much the king, down to rallying the troops at the gate.

[ejoslin]

LobselVith8 wrote...

ejoslin wrote...

The epilogues weren't scrapped, they have a couple of bugs (understandable ones, actually -- I won't bore you with the technical details unless asked) that prevent them from firing.  However, I deliberately chose an example that is in the vanilla game -- where you choose someone as a bann, but not the warden or Shianni; that one DOES appear.  In that one, the new Bann is stoned to death, and no new Bann is appointed.  Hence, the position is not for the family -- just for the newly appointed noble.

The Dalish slide appearing for everyone is a bug, and doesn't happen if Zathrien is keeper.  Someone missed setting the condition of the dalish boon if whatsherface is keeper though it is in the scripting comments.

If you click on Zevran Dialog Fix in my sig, there's a list of the bugs on the front page there.

I think I remember you making a post about this before and mentioning that Soris was also mentioned in the Epilogue as a potential new Bann, but if this wasn't scrapped, why isn't Soris or the nameless Bann an option during the royal ceremony? I'm genuinely curious. And if the epilogues are bugged (like the Dalish boon being handed regardless of who is the Warden) do you think that means DA2 would read it as having happened?

Nameless Bann IS an option, and is not bugged.  you can choose warden, Shianni, or someone else (nameless Bann).  If you choose someone else, you get the epilogue where they're stoned to death.  Soris, I can't tell you as i can't open the post_coronation file (it's corrupted in the toolset and in the core resource files).  The reason why the other epilogues don't appear is twofold -- the flag isn't set for warden as bann if Alistair grants the boon (it works for Anora if the fix I'm about to describe in implemented) and again, since the file where that flag is set is corrupted, I can't do anything about it.  The other problem is the flag used to go to those slides is EPI_SOMEONE_IS_BANN -- which is the flag for, well, if you choose someone else for bann (which is why that particular condition works in the vanilla game).  I wrote a new flag so that any of the city elf boon flags will go to those slides.  

As far as the Dalish, someone just didn't set the condition for the flag showing, so it shows for everyone.  It's not that a flag is set or cleared -- it's just that it got missed.  It's in the scripting comments that that slide should only go for the Dalish boon.

As far as DA2 and such -- if you make yourself Bann in the city elf ending when talking to Alistair, my guess is it won't be registered.  If you make Shianni bann or someone else bann or a warden Bann when the boon is from Anora, it will be registered.