267 réponses à ce sujet

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

[quote]klarabella wrote...

ced, Anora is not just the king's wife, at his death, she's the queen, the monarch, and ruler of the country.[/quote]
Popular fanon (and much more logical) is the idea Anora was the queen-consort only (something that fits her story about how she only could rule in Cailan's shadow). I see the time between Cailan's death and the Landsmeet as an interregnum.

Everything else just seems idiotic and only makes Anora look weak and incompetent. Why would she let her father rule, especially if she's not convinced he's doing the right thing?

[/quote]

Popular fanon does not canon make. Anora is constantly refered to as queen, and throught the game, we learn that as queen, she has plenty of support. According to Gaider, she is the reigning queen, and I've seen nothing in game lore or codex to suggest she is anything but. So, she's the reigning queen, not just queen consort. otherwise, a Landsmeet would have been called much earlier by the nobility, since technically, the throne would have been empty. But it wasn't, and Eamon's challenge is directly against Anora, who currently occupies the throne.

Anora originally did believe her father was doing the right thing. She knows nothing of what occurred in Ostagar, only what her father has returned to tell her. What reason would she have to disbelieve him? He comes back talking about threats and plots, he needs to deal with them, ect ect ect. Why wouldn't she, at that point, trust her father? It is later on, as she sees the mess he is making, that she decides something must be done. But until then, why wouldn't she initially support her father? He is a national hero, a revered general, and rabid patriot. There is no reason at that point to disagree with him, because he hasn't done anything...yet.

[TJPags]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

TJPags wrote...


As for Eamon and his "plot" against the queen.  This confuses me.  Should he not have loyalty to his king and his country above that of the king's wife? 

Above the king's wife? In case you hadn't noticed, Anora is not just the king's wife, at his death, she's the queen, the monarch, and ruler of the country. Eamon is plotting against the queen, the legit ruler of the country. He is not serving the best interests of the country by making such a blatant big for power.

She was not.  Ferelden law requires a ruler to be selected by a Landsmeet.  There was no Landsmeet.  Thus, she was no ruler.

Besides, I'm petty sure Persephone was referring to Eamon's "plot" to have Caillan divorce Anora, which took place before Caillan's death.  Even if you dispute that she wasn't the ruling monarch after Caillan's death, you have to accept that she wasn't such before he died.

[TJPags]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Well I would agree that I do not understand Loghain's fascination with Maric. It would have made a lot more sense if he just wanted to put a Therein on the throne and run the show from behind the scenes. Sadly Loghain is not smart enough for this.

In this situation, I think, once again, Loghain put Ferelden above the king and thought that withholding info from the king was in Ferelden's interests.

That's the thing. maric told Loghain never to put one single person above the country. Including the king.

Loghain witholding the information was an example of that. Maric was still to emotional and lovestruck to be the king Ferelden needed at the time. Had he known everything, the idiot might have let his feelings for Katriel override what needed to be done. And his relatiship with an Orlesian elf bard/spy who betrayed the rebels....I don't think it needs to be said what that could do to an already weak and shaky alliance of the rebellion.

So yeah. Loggy actually did what Maric made him promise to, and served Ferelden, not the king.

So this allows Loghain to decide what facts the king needs to make a decision?

Sorry, no.  The man who everyone seems to think is an idiot, and clearly unsuited for the throne, shouldn't have been put on the throne.

I'm astounded by the number of times lately I'm seeing Maric basically called an idiot who isn't fit to be king when he's crowned, yet somehow feel Loghain should have done what he had to in order to put him on the throne.  Add that to the common perception of Caillan as an idiot (which I don't take issue with) and, basically, we have a series of morons running this country - morons constantly being put there by the people they rule.

Yet somehow Ferelden is worthy of continuing as a sovereign nation? 

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

TJPags wrote...


She was not.  Ferelden law requires a ruler to be selected by a Landsmeet.  There was no Landsmeet.  Thus, she was no ruler.

Besides, I'm petty sure Persephone was referring to Eamon's "plot" to have Caillan divorce Anora, which took place before Caillan's death.  Even if you dispute that she wasn't the ruling monarch after Caillan's death, you have to accept that she wasn't such before he died.

Ferelden "law" is pretty amibguous at best. That no one calls a Landsmeet to decide on a new ruler right after cailan dies should tell you something.

As far as Eamon's plot to have Cailan divorce Anora and remarry to produce an heir, it really depends on his motives and plans, and whether or not Celene was a direct part of it. He is quick to blame the fertility problem on Anora, as is common in medieval times, even though we don't know exactly why the royal couple were childless. If Eamon simply wanted Cailan to marry another noble for the sake of heir production, then he would indeed be considering the future of ferelden above personal ambitions/desires, because an heir is important for stable succession.

But was this Eamon's motivation? Did he truly believe Anora was hopelessly barren, and decide cailan must find a new wife? Given the whole fiasco with Alistair, I doubt it. Eamon wants to put Alistair forth as king, and he knows Alistair will be little more than a puppet, who will do what Eamon suggests regardless. This leads me to believe that Eamon, who, until Cailan's death, was largely respected, but ignored politically, probably wanted to be the major influence behind Cailan, something that wasn't going to happen as long as Anora, and by extension, Loghain, were in the picture.

So Eamon's overall motives remain debateable, but I lean strongly towards Eamon being another noble with his own aspirations for power, and posessing a level of cunning and influence to possibly make it happen. I do not see Eamon's desire to remove Anora as being motivated by any greater good for the country, but he is not exceptional in that respect. The whole Bannorn is like that.

[TJPags]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

TJPags wrote...


She was not.  Ferelden law requires a ruler to be selected by a Landsmeet.  There was no Landsmeet.  Thus, she was no ruler.

Besides, I'm petty sure Persephone was referring to Eamon's "plot" to have Caillan divorce Anora, which took place before Caillan's death.  Even if you dispute that she wasn't the ruling monarch after Caillan's death, you have to accept that she wasn't such before he died.

Ferelden "law" is pretty amibguous at best. That no one calls a Landsmeet to decide on a new ruler right after cailan dies should tell you something.

As far as Eamon's plot to have Cailan divorce Anora and remarry to produce an heir, it really depends on his motives and plans, and whether or not Celene was a direct part of it. He is quick to blame the fertility problem on Anora, as is common in medieval times, even though we don't know exactly why the royal couple were childless. If Eamon simply wanted Cailan to marry another noble for the sake of heir production, then he would indeed be considering the future of ferelden above personal ambitions/desires, because an heir is important for stable succession.

But was this Eamon's motivation? Did he truly believe Anora was hopelessly barren, and decide cailan must find a new wife? Given the whole fiasco with Alistair, I doubt it. Eamon wants to put Alistair forth as king, and he knows Alistair will be little more than a puppet, who will do what Eamon suggests regardless. This leads me to believe that Eamon, who, until Cailan's death, was largely respected, but ignored politically, probably wanted to be the major influence behind Cailan, something that wasn't going to happen as long as Anora, and by extension, Loghain, were in the picture.

So Eamon's overall motives remain debateable, but I lean strongly towards Eamon being another noble with his own aspirations for power, and posessing a level of cunning and influence to possibly make it happen. I do not see Eamon's desire to remove Anora as being motivated by any greater good for the country, but he is not exceptional in that respect. The whole Bannorn is like that.

I don't think it's ambiguous at all.  Caillan had to be voted in as king (over Bryce Cousland in a close vote, IIRC).  I'm pretty sure Maric needed that too.

That nobody called a Landsmeet I chalk up to Loghain not allowing it, and is why I think there was, in fact, a civil war (no, I don't want to discuss or argue that, just stating my opinion).  I don't think it adds to any ambiguity.

Further, if Anora was the ruling monarch, then why need a Landsmeet?  Why was Eamon able to call one?  And why was it's focus choosing a new ruler for Ferelden?

Eamon clearly is a traditionalist, at best, and a scheming old man who wants more power at worst - I can easily see either view.  In fact, I personally think he's a combination of both - he wants a Thierin on the throne, and one he can easily influence.  But there is nothing to suggest he was leading or persuading Caillan to marry Celene.

Again, I question the whole "greater good for the country" line being thrown out, given that people seem to think the last 2 kings of Ferelden were virtual morons, how is putting someone like that on the throne remotely a good idea???

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

TJPags wrote...

So this allows Loghain to decide what facts the king needs to make a decision?

If Loghain is the only one with a brain in the vicinity, then yeah. I don't see anyone else stepping up to the plate, or anyone with a decent grasp of what needs to be done.

Sorry, no.  The man who everyone seems to think is an idiot, and clearly unsuited for the throne, shouldn't have been put on the throne.

Under normal circumkstances, I'd agree. But the rebellion was far from normal circumastances. And they had no other options. the nobility was divided, with half licking Orlesian rump, the other half losing everything and having to go on the run. The Therins, who are considered the rightful rulers of Ferelden, are the only unifying point for a rebellion, a figure that everyone can rally behind. Otherwise, whose going to be the focal point/driving force behind a successful rebellion? Joe Blow noble? Which one? You'd have about 1000 tin pot Banns all trying to declare themselves leaders and kings, and of course, about 1000 other Banns thinking everyone should rally behind them. Thus, no organized rebellion. Orlais stays.

The Therin line, however, has been ruling ferelden unbroken for some 400 years, it was Calenhad that united the country under one banner. Such history and symbolism is far more powerful than the random claims of this noble or that. Unfortunately, the only Therin left is Maric. Certainly not the best option, but its all they got, so they have to work with it.

I'm astounded by the number of times lately I'm seeing Maric basically called an idiot who isn't fit to be king when he's crowned, yet somehow feel Loghain should have done what he had to in order to put him on the throne.  Add that to the common perception of Caillan as an idiot (which I don't take issue with) and, basically, we have a series of morons running this country - morons constantly being put there by the people they rule.

Like I said, Maric was all they had to work with. It was a choice between hardening up an unwilling boy king of your own people, or continue living under the bootheel of an oppresive, foreign power. Moire, Maric's mother, had she lived, would have been a far better choice, as she was the one who started the rebellion, and had the brains and drive to see it through. Sadly, her own idiot subjects betrayed her, so blame them for leaving us stuck with Maric.

Yet somehow Ferelden is worthy of continuing as a sovereign nation? 

To the Fereldens, yeah. They seem to like their idiot system, where wars start over dog names and trees, and the future of the country is decided by a Thursday Night Smackdown in the Landsmeet. Their worthieness to continue as a soverign nation will be determined by their ability to ditch old, stupid, ineffecient policies of governance, and move on to something more advanced. If the current system continues, it's only a matter of time before someone else overruns the country.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

TJPags wrote...

Further, if Anora was the ruling monarch, then why need a Landsmeet?  Why was Eamon able to call one?  And why was it's focus choosing a new ruler for Ferelden?

To challenge her rule. If the sitting monarch is deemed unfit, a Landsmeet can be called to decide a new ruler. That's what Eamon did.

Eamon clearly is a traditionalist, at best, and a scheming old man who wants more power at worst - I can easily see either view.  In fact, I personally think he's a combination of both - he wants a Thierin on the throne, and one he can easily influence.  But there is nothing to suggest he was leading or persuading Caillan to marry Celene.

I agree with you here. I think Cailan's hair-brained idea to marry Celene was his own idea. He got the letter from Eamon saying "find new spouse" and took it upon himself to indeed find a new spouse....Celene. I highly doubt that is what Eamon intended, since he would know exactly what that would mean for the country, and Eamon isn't an idiot.

Again, I question the whole "greater good for the country" line being thrown out, given that people seem to think the last 2 kings of Ferelden were virtual morons, how is putting someone like that on the throne remotely a good idea???

During the rebellion, you really had no choice. An idiot king of your own people is still better than a sadistic, oppresive foreigner raping and pillaging your country. Your stuck with only two feasable options at this point, and unfortunatly, at least for the time being, you're stuck with idiot king.

Now after the rebellion is a different matter. Which is why I leave Anora as sole queen at Landsmeet, since Alistair, I feel, is too much like his father to be an effective ruler. I value competance and intelligence over bloodlines, but there are a number of nobles, like Eamon, who don't. Bloodlines mean little in terms of ruling ability, and had Ferelden not been under occupation, I certainly would have voted someone other than Maric.

[TJPags]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

TJPags wrote...

So this allows Loghain to decide what facts the king needs to make a decision?

If Loghain is the only one with a brain in the vicinity, then yeah. I don't see anyone else stepping up to the plate, or anyone with a decent grasp of what needs to be done.

Sorry, no.  The man who everyone seems to think is an idiot, and clearly unsuited for the throne, shouldn't have been put on the throne.

Under normal circumkstances, I'd agree. But the rebellion was far from normal circumastances. And they had no other options. the nobility was divided, with half licking Orlesian rump, the other half losing everything and having to go on the run. The Therins, who are considered the rightful rulers of Ferelden, are the only unifying point for a rebellion, a figure that everyone can rally behind. Otherwise, whose going to be the focal point/driving force behind a successful rebellion? Joe Blow noble? Which one? You'd have about 1000 tin pot Banns all trying to declare themselves leaders and kings, and of course, about 1000 other Banns thinking everyone should rally behind them. Thus, no organized rebellion. Orlais stays.

The Therin line, however, has been ruling ferelden unbroken for some 400 years, it was Calenhad that united the country under one banner. Such history and symbolism is far more powerful than the random claims of this noble or that. Unfortunately, the only Therin left is Maric. Certainly not the best option, but its all they got, so they have to work with it.

I'm astounded by the number of times lately I'm seeing Maric basically called an idiot who isn't fit to be king when he's crowned, yet somehow feel Loghain should have done what he had to in order to put him on the throne.  Add that to the common perception of Caillan as an idiot (which I don't take issue with) and, basically, we have a series of morons running this country - morons constantly being put there by the people they rule.

Like I said, Maric was all they had to work with. It was a choice between hardening up an unwilling boy king of your own people, or continue living under the bootheel of an oppresive, foreign power. Moire, Maric's mother, had she lived, would have been a far better choice, as she was the one who started the rebellion, and had the brains and drive to see it through. Sadly, her own idiot subjects betrayed her, so blame them for leaving us stuck with Maric.

Yet somehow Ferelden is worthy of continuing as a sovereign nation? 

To the Fereldens, yeah. They seem to like their idiot system, where wars start over dog names and trees, and the future of the country is decided by a Thursday Night Smackdown in the Landsmeet. Their worthieness to continue as a soverign nation will be determined by their ability to ditch old, stupid, ineffecient policies of governance, and move on to something more advanced. If the current system continues, it's only a matter of time before someone else overruns the country.

You know, this is a very interesting topic, related to but not exactly the same as the discussion we were having.

Does Ferelden - or any other nation - have a right to exist?  Sure, the citizens may say so, but should that be more important than, say, a better life?  Is it better to say "I am a free Ferelden citizen" and live in poverty, for example, than to say "I am a citizen of the Orlesian empire who comes from Ferelden" and live in prosperity?  (yes I know the Orlesian puppet king treated Ferelden like crap - I'm changing that analogy )

Many ancient empires actually improved life for those they conquered, at least briefly.  Greece brought governments and a degree of rights, Rome brought infrastructure, as examples.  Stable forms of government are good, right?  Roads and bridges are good, right?  (yes, perhaps eventually the bad outweighed the good, but for some period, the good outweighed the bad, no?).

Is it better to put a moron in charge, simply to say "we chose him, because we're free and have that right!!" than to have a competant ruler who makes this better, but is chosen by someone else?

And in direct response - if Loghain is the only one with a brain in the vicinity, perhaps HE should have been in charge.  Or at least someone other than Maric should have been.  I can't accept "he's all they had to work with" as a reason to put a guy on the throne if we all think he's an idiot.

It's a large reason why I never put Alistair on the throne (and I've seen many others argue this as well, in various ways) - he's an idiot who is blinded by vengeance, with no desire for the throne, and no indication he would know what to do if put on the throne.  To me, his blood matter little in the face of that, especially when I'm given an option who is clearly competant (Anora).

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

TJPags wrote...

You know, this is a very interesting topic, related to but not exactly the same as the discussion we were having.

Does Ferelden - or any other nation - have a right to exist?  Sure, the citizens may say so, but should that be more important than, say, a better life?  Is it better to say "I am a free Ferelden citizen" and live in poverty, for example, than to say "I am a citizen of the Orlesian empire who comes from Ferelden" and live in prosperity?  (yes I know the Orlesian puppet king treated Ferelden like crap - I'm changing that analogy )

Many ancient empires actually improved life for those they conquered, at least briefly.  Greece brought governments and a degree of rights, Rome brought infrastructure, as examples.  Stable forms of government are good, right?  Roads and bridges are good, right?  (yes, perhaps eventually the bad outweighed the good, but for some period, the good outweighed the bad, no?).

Is it better to put a moron in charge, simply to say "we chose him, because we're free and have that right!!" than to have a competant ruler who makes this better, but is chosen by someone else?

And in direct response - if Loghain is the only one with a brain in the vicinity, perhaps HE should have been in charge.  Or at least someone other than Maric should have been.  I can't accept "he's all they had to work with" as a reason to put a guy on the throne if we all think he's an idiot.

It's a large reason why I never put Alistair on the throne (and I've seen many others argue this as well, in various ways) - he's an idiot who is blinded by vengeance, with no desire for the throne, and no indication he would know what to do if put on the throne.  To me, his blood matter little in the face of that, especially when I'm given an option who is clearly competant (Anora).

A very good question, and one that opens up alot of political, philisophical, or religous debates.

As I said, while Maric was not the optimum choice, he was the only viable one. Loghain certainly isn't. he is neither charismatic enough, nor does he have the sort of family history/breeding that would at least get the nobility interested in rallying behind him. he makes a good right hand man, but as we see in Origins, he makes a lousy politician/leader. Maric was an idiot, but the orlesian were brutal. Had the orlesians been like the Romans, and attempted integration of ferelden instead of outright abuse, the premise and need for a rebellion would have been alot harder to promote.

In the eyes of the fereldens, they have a right to exist without having their female kin systematically raped and abused freely by occupying forces, their lands and livelyhoods stipped away, making many people homeless outlaws for no good reason. So an idiot king in that respect, is better.

However, lets say the Orliesians, as you syggested, were actually fair towards Ferelden, allowed nobles to keep lands and titles in exchange for support of Orlesian rule, promoted schooling and learning, and overall, improved the standard of living, the cultural wealth, and the general health of the populace.

In that case, then it's a question of who would be best served by the overthrow of a competant, benevolent foreign power who has improved life from what it was before occupation, and replacing it with a backwards, homegrown regime that will reverse the course of progress?

[Addai]

And personally, without a swift kick to his posterior that Loghain
delivered, Maric would not have "matured" or grown up. The fact that he
even started the relationship with Katriel shows he was still mentally
an adolescent being ruled by his loins and heart rather than head.
Furthermore, he even considered marrying her and making her queen. Yeah.
Brilliant idea. An Orlesian elf as future queen of a country that hates
both elves and Orlesians. Not even adding the fact that she was a spy.

(husband)

It's worse then even that.   Just before all this happened, Maric at the time had pretty much completely walked away from his kingly duties period.   And if you recall he seriously contemplated abandoning his position altogether just to be with Katriel.     So I personally can't take the treason charge seriously.    To me its like giving a person a pay check and other job benefits when they're playing hookey from work.

[DPSSOC]

Persephone wrote...
I can only speak for myself but I can see much of Gaider's intent and interpretation in the character. Recruiting him and taking him back to Ostagar rounded everything up.

 
Indeed it does, I have recruited Loghain in the past, I even like the character, but I'm struggling to find any good reason to let him live beyond "We could use another Warden" before the decision is made.  And since when decision time comes we're forced into a position where we won't be getting another Warden (+1 -1 = 0) there's no sound reason to let him live.  Were we given the option to let him live, serve as a General, and face trial after the fact maybe but we aren't playing to his strengths here; we're trading one swordarm for another older swordarm.

Let's be honest pre-recruitment what redeeming qualities do we see in Loghain?  I can't think of any.

Persephone wrote...
Since I despise Eamon for his plotting against the queen, his ruthless forcing Alistair into becoming his puppet....his grand-fatherly act doesn't fool me. As far as I am concerned, sedating him was a bad idea, were I Loghain, I'd have killed him.

Whether or not you like Eamon doesn't change the fact what Loghain did was a crime.  Prior to poisoning the only plotting he does against the Queen is suggesting to Cailan that he go Henry VIII on her.  Horrible perhaps but certainly not a crime warranting an execution (and Loghain's hardly the impartial judge to decide regardless).

Persephone wrote...
Don't give me the Katriel apologies. Katriel committed the crime Loghain is accused of and there is NO doubt as she admits it. So she dies. Yet those who execute Loghain for the same reason, excuse Katriel's betrayal? Her death was necessary. Surely those who execute Loghain for the same reasons...???

Loghain sacrifices the woman he loves for Ferelden's survival. A tragedy. But the marriage between Maric and Rowan was necessary. And it wasn't loveless.

I agree that what Loghain did was necessary and right but being right doesn't make someone less of a psychopath.  Loghain lies to Maric so Maric will make the decision he thinks is right.  He does so without consideration or conscience for what that means for Maric.  Similarly with Rowan, he knows Rowan doesn't want to marry Maric, hasn't wanted to since the Deep Roads at least, and uses her guilt to force her to make the decision he thinks is right.  Again without consideration or conscience for the harm done to Rowan.

And from talking with him post recruitment you see evidence that this behaviour continued.  Alistair is a perfect example; Maric wanted to acknowledge him, to do the right thing, and Loghain had him hand him over to Eamon.  Because it was necessary, for the good of Fereldan, etc., etc.

Someone who can set aside their own feelings and well being to do what they feel is necessary is good to have around.  Someone who disregards everyone else's feelings and well being to do what they feel is necessary is dangerous and needs to be locked away; right or not.

[sevalaricgirl]

If I were playing as a HNM, I still wouldn't spare Loghain. Just the thought that he accused the wardens of killing Callain (sp) when he turned his back on the armies, gets him killed in my book. General of the armies of Fereldon stays and fights to the death with his men.  I always play as a female and always in love with Alistair whether mage or noble and my love for Alistair and knowing what Alistair wants and knowing that Duncan was a father to Alistair, I kill Loghaine every time. I see no reason to spare Loghain and in my 10 playthroughs, I never have.

Modifié par sevalaricgirl, 31 décembre 2010 - 10:15 .

[Addai]

TJPags wrote...

I don't think it's ambiguous at all.  Caillan had to be voted in as king (over Bryce Cousland in a close vote, IIRC).  I'm pretty sure Maric needed that too.

It was probably not a serious challenge.  Dairren says it was only because people loved Bryce so much, making it sound like it was a sentimental thing rather than serious politics.  My guess is that it was some of Bryce's own liegemen, probably self-interested as well.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Addai67 wrote...

And personally, without a swift kick to his posterior that Loghain
delivered, Maric would not have "matured" or grown up. The fact that he
even started the relationship with Katriel shows he was still mentally
an adolescent being ruled by his loins and heart rather than head.
Furthermore, he even considered marrying her and making her queen. Yeah.
Brilliant idea. An Orlesian elf as future queen of a country that hates
both elves and Orlesians. Not even adding the fact that she was a spy.

(husband)

It's worse then even that.   Just before all this happened, Maric at the time had pretty much completely walked away from his kingly duties period.   And if you recall he seriously contemplated abandoning his position altogether just to be with Katriel.     So I personally can't take the treason charge seriously.    To me its like giving a person a pay check and other job benefits when they're playing hookey from work.

The treason charge, for me, is not against the king himself, but the nation of Ferelden. The losses at West Hill wer of Fereldens fighting to reclaim their homeland, so, in my own view, Katriel betrayed the men and women of Ferelden, not Maric specifiocally. Maric isn't the country, as he even made Loghain, ironically, after the loss at West Hill and the daring but dangerous rescue of Maric, promise never to put one single man, even the king, above the country.

Which in my opinion, was one of Maric's better more lucid moments.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...
Which in my opinion, was one of Maric's better more lucid moments.

I think that line was more there to help define Loghain as a character and not really Maric, who systematically does the opposite.

[Addai]

 The treason charge, for me, is not against the king himself, but the nation of Ferelden.


(husband)

Well if you want to technical it would an espionage charge, you can't commit treason against a country that you are not a citizen of.

Modifié par Addai67, 01 janvier 2011 - 04:06 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Glaucon wrote...

Ok, I know that this is a left of field theory but I cannot describe Cailan as stupid. I am happy to describe him as naive but not stupid. I think that there is merit in the notion that Orlais and Ferelden could unite under a common banner. I don't suggest deference but I would like to hear KoP's opinion on this matter (@ KoP I trust you understand my enquiry).

I really don't see why Ferelden and Orlais should unite at all.

But even if they should, let's call that plan by what it really is. Annexation and assimilation. Why?
Because weak nations allied with much stronger nations will sooner or later lose their independence, for a whole mess of reasons (Ask Athens' or Rome's allies and how they ended up being absorbed into an Empire, losing their independence).

Few things to consider:
A- Orlais' demographic advantage. Its population can swallow Ferelden whole, via ressetlements and migrations.

B- Orlais' military superiority. With that in mind, Ferelden has no real political leverage and its provision of manpower, while it can be used as a pressure tool, will only be to delay the inevitable (assimilation).

C- Orlais' economic superiority. It's the most powerful nation in Thedas today and I presume the richest. Ferelden is a poor backwater. Orlais is bound to already have some economic influence that I believe will only increase with any sort of "union". It is entirely possible that Fereldans would in fact start migrating to Orlais itself, because I presume there is more economic activity there. 

D- Orlais' cultural superiority. It's the seat of the Chantry and evidently more sophisticated than Ferelden. With Orlesian merchants and migrations (in either side) will inevitably expose Fereldans to a much superior culture. They might be resilient to Orlesian brutality (because the Orlesians were stupid), but such a simple minded (and sometimes very idiotic) people will be influenced quite easily. 

E- Orlais' system itself vs that of Ferelden. Whatever one might feel about either system, it's seems clear that the nobility in Orlais, while pitted against each other by the Emperors, are still pretty loyal to the Crown and indebted (otherwise why fight for his / her favor). Compare that to Ferelden nobility, most of whom accepted an Orlesian occupation despite its brutality. Now what will happen if the Orlesians decided to coopt the nobles and not brutalise them? Most will stfu and not bite the hand that feeds them. Instantly rendering Ferelden's political system under Orlesian control.  Add how divisive they are (and because they control armies, their pettiness is more dangerous than Orlesian in-bickering), and you don't have a political system in Ferelden capable of resisting any encroachement, whether in the short or long term. The Landsmeet is quite frankly a joke and a few bribes and infighting will silence it.

F- Orlais' leadership vs that of Ferelden. I think it's pretty obvious that Cailan is a moron, or at the very least inept. Everyone knows that it's Anora who rules and even controlled Cailan. Now add the hints about Empress Celene assassinating her way to the throne and being considered a good ruler. Now who do you think will rule this happy "union"? Cailan? Recieving an Emperor's crown on one's empty head does not make one the real ruler. It might simply satisfy a poor child's inferiority compex that is hidden by a childish lust for glory.
Now with everything I just said, what do you think wil be the capital? Denerim? Or Val-Royeaux? Clearly the latter. Where will Cailan's children be raised? The backwater Ferelden? The most likely outcome is that the heirs to the "union" are going to be Orlesian in both mind and spirit and will probably want to distance themselves from their barbaric ancestry (If I was the ruler of Nevarra and I saw those upstarts ruling Orlais without acting like Orlesians, I'd laugh).

So with all that in mind, for the king of a country to willingly give up his country's independence to put a "gloriest" crown on his empty head (only to be controlled by Celene, so it's not even pragmatic lust for power), or worse, for the king to actually think that he is bringing peace while in reality is probably only dooming his nation unnecessarily, this I can only see as idiocy of the highest order. The only results I can see are either another civil war, or Ferelden assimilated by Orlais, or both. Even if Ferelden remains officially independent (just like my country was just officially being "mandated" by a benevolent western power because that's how much they love us), its loss of real sovereignity is almost axiomatic. 

Now in the larger scheme of things, this is not a catastrophe. And it's no secret that I find Ferelden semi-civilized and unimpressive in general and idiotic occasionally. However, despite it all, I can't help but feel something for that pathetic excuse of a country (damn you Bioware). I believe it has potential. So from that perspective and from the perspective of Fereldans who are actually smart enough to realize what is going on (which I suspect will be a tiny minority, most of whom not nobles), such a plan is undesirable and unnecessary and from a Ferelden's interest point of view, stupid.

Rapprochement with Orlais is necesssary, Orlais is just next door and that's the reality of it. However, Ferelden has much more options that do not involve forsaking the independence that it fought hard to achieve.

I am all for Empires, believe me. I like them. But when a people willingly subjugate themselves for no real reasons and no real emergency, I can't feel anything for them except disrespect (and fake respect of course if I happen to be part of that Empire).

And don't tell me the blight was the emergency. Cailan is not only unsure of it, but the only reason why he thinks there is a blight is because he actually wants one. Also, accepting foreign aid (which I would consider to be unwise initially) does not mean forming a "merger". Cailan could have gotten his assistance from Orlais, perhaps with concessions and an alliance, without even considering such a plan that benefits Orlais much more than it would Ferelden. It's all about relative power and not absolute gains. No matter how much the weak might benefit, if the stronger nation benefits more (which it inevitably will unless it's actually stupid enough to get itself into a deal that weakens its relative position), the status quo is not only maintained, but is shifted even more to the strong's benefit (while the weak enjoy the illusion of absolute gain).  This plan is so brilliant that I think Celene masterminded it completely and I love her for it. 

Whew, all this talk is making me want to play RtO and throw that clumsy idiot of a king to the poor wolves.
 

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 01 janvier 2011 - 05:25 .

[Persephone]

sevalaricgirl wrote...

If I were playing as a HNM, I still wouldn't spare Loghain. Just the thought that he accused the wardens of killing Callain (sp) when he turned his back on the armies, gets him killed in my book. General of the armies of Fereldon stays and fights to the death with his men.  I always play as a female and always in love with Alistair whether mage or noble and my love for Alistair and knowing what Alistair wants and knowing that Duncan was a father to Alistair, I kill Loghaine every time. I see no reason to spare Loghain and in my 10 playthroughs, I never have.

Since I couldn't care less about Cailan, that doesn't matter to most of my Wardens. And I wouldn't kill someone for love or to save my love or because my lover demands it. Besides, Duncan himself would have recruited Loghain, of that I am certain. (Just listen to Riordan)

[TheRevanchist]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Glaucon wrote...

Ok, I know that this is a left of field theory but I cannot describe Cailan as stupid. I am happy to describe him as naive but not stupid. I think that there is merit in the notion that Orlais and Ferelden could unite under a common banner. I don't suggest deference but I would like to hear KoP's opinion on this matter (@ KoP I trust you understand my enquiry).

I really don't see why Ferelden and Orlais should unite at all.

But even if they were, let's call that plan by what it really is. Annexation and assimilation. Why?
Because weak nations allied with much stronger nations will sooner or later lose their independence, for a whole mess of reasons (Ask Athens' or Rome's allies and how they ended up being absorbed into an Empire, losing their independence).

Few things to consider:
A- Orlais' demographic advantage. Its population can swallow Ferelden whole, via ressetlements and migrations.

B- Orlais' military superiority. With that in mind, Ferelden has no real political leverage and its provision of manpower, while it can be used as a pressure tool, will only be to delay the inevitable (assimilation).

C- Orlais' economic superiority. It's the most powerful nation in Thedas today and I presume the richest. Ferelden is a poor backwater. Orlais is bound to already have some economic influence that I believe will only increase with any sort of "union". It is entirely possible that Fereldans would in fact start migrating to Orlais itself, because I presume there is more economic activity there. 

D- Orlais' cultural superiority. It's the seat of the Chantry and evidently more sophisticated than Ferelden. With Orlesian merchants and migrations (in either side) will invetibaly expose Fereldans to a much superior culture. They might be resilient to Orlesian brutality (because the Orlesians were stupid), but such a simple minded (and sometimes very idiotic) people will be quite easily influenced. 

E- Orlais' system itself vs that of Ferelden. Whatever one might feel about either system, it's seems clear that the nobility in Orlais, while pitted against each other by the Emperors, are still pretty loyal to the Crown and indebted (otherwise why fight for his / her favor). Compare that to Ferelden nobility, most of whom accepted an Orlesian occupation despite its brutality. Now what will happen if the Orlesians decided to coopt the nobles and not brutalise them? Most will stfu and not bite the hand that feeds them. Instantly rendering Ferelden's political system under Orlesian control.  Add how divisive they are (and because they control armies, their pettiness is more dangeorus than Orlesian in-bickering), and you don't have a political system in Ferelden capable of resisting any encroachement, whether in the short or long term. The Landmxseet is quite frankly a joke and a few bribes and infighting will silence it.

F- Orlais' leadership vs that of Ferelden. I think it's pretty obvious that Cailan is a moron, or at the very least inept. Everyone knows that it's Anora who rules and even controlled Cailan. Now add the hints about Empress assassinating her way to the throne and being considered a good ruler. Now who do you think will rule this happy "union"? Cailan? Recieving an Emperor's crown on one's empty head does not make one the real ruler. It might simply satisfy a poor child's inferiority compex that is hidden by a childish lust for glory.
Now with everything I just said, what do you think wil be the capital? Denerim? Or Val-Royeaux? Clearly the latter. Where will Cailan's children be raised? The backwater Ferelden? The most likely outcome is that the heirs to the "union" are going to be Orlesian in both mind and spirit and will probably want to distance themselves from their barbaric ancestry (If I was the ruler of Nevarra and I saw those upstarts ruling Orlais, I'd laugh).

So with all that in mind, for the king of a country to willingly give up his country's independence to put a "gloriest" crown on his empty head (only rto be controlled by Celene, so it's not even lust for power), or worse, for the king to actually think that he is bringing peace while in reality is probably only dooming his nation unnecessarily, this I can only see as idiocy of the highest order. The only results I can see are either another civil war, or Ferelden assimilated by Orlais. Even if Ferelden remains officially independent (just like my country was just officially being "mandated" by a benevolent western power because that's how much they love us), its loss of real sovereignity is almost axiomatic. 

Now in the larger scheme of things, this is not a catastrophe. And it's no secret that I find Ferelden semi-civilized and unimpressive in general and idiotic occasionally. However, despite it all, I can't help but feel something for that pathetic excuse of a country (damn you Bioware). I believe it has potential. So from that perspective and from the perspective of Fereldans who are actually smart enough to realize what is going on (which I suspect will be a tiny minority, most of whom not nobles), such a plan is undesirable and unnecessary and from a Ferelden's interest point of view, stupid.

Rapprochement with Orlais is necesssary, Orlais is just next door and that's the reality of it. However, Ferelden has much more options that do not involve forsaking the independence that it fought hard to achieve.

I am all for Empires, believe me. I like them. But when a people willingly subjugate themselves for no real reasons and no real emergency, I can't feel anything for them except disrespect (and fake respect of course if I happen to be part of that Empire).

And don't tell me the blight was the emergency. Cailan is not only unsure of it, but the only reason why he thinks there is a blight is because he actually wants one. Also, accepting foreign aid (which I would consider to be unwise initially) does not mean forming a "merger". Cailan could have gotten his assitance from Orlais, perhaps with concessions and an alliance, without even considering such a plan that benefits Orlais much moe than it would Ferelden. It's all about relative power and not absolute gains. No matter how much the weak might benefit, if the stronger nation benefits more (which it inevitably will unless it's actualyl stupid enough to get itself into a deal that weakens its relative position), the status quo is not only maintained, but is shifted even more to the strong's benefit (while the weak enjoy the illusion of absolute gain).  

Whew, all this talk is making me want to play RtO and throw that clumsy pathetic excuse of a king to the poor wolves.
 

While I think that was a very well thought out post backed by strong logic. I have to question it if for nothing else the sake of argument. I don't think accepting foreign aid is a bad thing all the time. Look at the American Revolution...they got assistence from France...a country many times more powerful then themselves...and what became of it? only good things for the country that made the request...while I admit they had basicly already won by the time France arrived, the point I defend is not the relevence of the support...but the consequences of the said support. Did France move in and assimilate their entire culture? no not in the slightest. What did they do? they simply provided military assistence to a country that requested it and went home. While Cailen's apparent plans with Celene make this something altogeather different. I argue the fact that simply rejecting foreign aid simply because they are foreign is rather unfair. I also think Ferelden needs to eventually make some sort of peace with Orlais if they don't want a repeat performance somewhere down the road. I know some Emperor or Empress down the road somewhere might attack them again simply due to the cold demeanor they are shown. While you might also argue that France only supported them because it hurt an enemy of theirs. I counter with the fact that the Blight would be a common enemy they share with Ferelden much like the situation I present. In fact the Blight is a threat to the the whole of Thedas. While I could go on to say The British Empire also did in their own way with their endless conquests I won't make that compairison because they don't obliterbate the population of everyone they meet.

Like many on these forums state...you have to do what is nessisary to stop the Blight at any cost. While I don't particularly support this point of view I will say something that comes from that viewpoint. In Blight's past the only way victory was possible was with the armies of half of Thedas fully commited to the effort. With this being recorded in the history books, why would someone who is supposedly a good military commander...simply ignore this fact and reject another country's assistence simply due to past complications? Afterall I am pretty sure many countries that had a dirty past with it's neigbors put those petty differences aside at least until the Blight was delt with. Like Riordan says...if Ferelden is too foolish to save itself the rest of Thedas will already be armed and ready when the Archdemon is ready to move farther. 

They offered 4 legions of Chevaliers and their entire army of Grey Wardens for the cause. There was two legions of Chevaliers at River Dane...and they were utterly destroyed...I don't see four offering that much more trouble. In regards to the Grey Wardens...like I have said three times now...they only care about the Blight and certin actions by a select few in their past does not damn the whole organization or change their primary objective. Letting Orlaisian Grey Warden's in can only help the cause. 

While some may argue this demeanor is well deserved. I say it no longer is because the Emperor responsible for that no longer sits on the throne of Orlais. Not every ruler of a country is exactly the same...and simply lumping Celene into the same catagory because that was her father is also unfair because look at Anora. She honestly admit her father's actions are unaccetable. ( I am going to ignore her possible public support of him just for powers sake because in private she clearly does not) While I am not acuseing anyone of these things I am stateing them ahead of time as possible argumentive counters.

Modifié par kylecouch, 01 janvier 2011 - 05:51 .

[jpdipity]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...
Which in my opinion, was one of Maric's better more lucid moments.

I think that line was more there to help define Loghain as a character and not really Maric, who systematically does the opposite.

Maric did not do the opposite when it came to fighting or fleeing from battles.  Rowan, her father and Loghain frequently suggested that Maric flee at the expense of his rebels.  Whereas Maric would insist on taking the stand and fighting so as not to lose troops and everything else simply to save him.  He did not flee or make attempts to save himself above anyone else and did not want Loghain to continue doing so.

Although the concept is nice, given the times, I think it was not a smart comment by Maric, but the words of a man who did not feel worthy enough to have men die as a means to save him.  Per Gaider, the rebellion was "faltering" under Moira when she was betrayed.  If the rebellion died, Orlais would be viewed as the legimate ruler of Fereldan.  "Therin blood and royal blood are considered synonymous" per Gaider; so, without Maric, I highly doubt that the rebellion could have survived.  Maric needed to be protected at virtually any cost.  He simply did not feel himself worthy enough to be given that type of consideration.

Modifié par jpdipity, 01 janvier 2011 - 05:44 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

kylecouch wrote...
Did France move in and assimilate their entire culture?

It's simply unable to do so and in fact by that time, it was losing much of its previous colonial power (in fact it lost most of it with the seven years war and with Napoleon). French colonial power was in Africa at the time (and will remain until the 1950-60s), and Asia. They had no means whatsoever to assimilate the USA. Orlais is right next door to Ferelden. 

kylecouch wrote...
I also think Ferelden needs to eventually make some sort of peace with Orlais if they don't want a repeat performance somewhere down the road.

Peace, yes. That does not have to involve selling Ferelden independence.

kylecouch wrote...
Not every ruler of a country is exactly the same

Sure they are not, but the political and geo-strategic context of the time, which will remain unchanged, wil influence their decision making and that's what political scientists (at least neo-classical Realists) and historians look at in order to discern trends that will problably repeat themselves under similar circumstances.

Ferelden request for Orlesian reinforcements is besides the point we are talking about now, I am talking about Cailan's plan for merger and I see nothing about this that is really beneficial to Ferelden (and by that I mean its relative position), nor is it urgent / necessary.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 01 janvier 2011 - 05:51 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

jpdipity wrote...
Although the concept is nice, given the times, I think it was not a smart comment by Maric, but the words of a man who did not feel worthy enough to have men die as a means to save him.  Per Gaider, the rebellion was "faltering" under Moira when she was betrayed.  If the rebellion died, Orlais would be viewed as the legimate ruler of Fereldan.  "Therin blood and royal blood are considered synonymous" per Gaider; so, without Maric, I highly doubt that the rebellion could have survived.  Maric needed to be protected at virtually any cost.  He simply did not feel himself worthy enough to be given that type of consideration.

Which is precisely why he is acting in opposite to what he said. His life is more valuable to Ferelden interests than hundreds of peasants, so risking it like any other life is risking Ferelden's fate. The death of a peasant is not like the death of Maric during the rebellion and it has nothing to do with Maric being inherently superior. It's only because he is a symbol (and wars are often won by symbols).

There is a certain point where the monarch and the state have to be differentiated. And yes ultimately, the interets of the country, imo, should be superior to its monarch. But that does not mean that the monarch's life is as valuable as the life of the average joe. Or hundreds of them even.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 01 janvier 2011 - 05:51 .

[TheRevanchist]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

kylecouch wrote...
Did France move in and assimilate their entire culture?

It's simply unable to do so and in fact by that time, it was losing much of its previous colonial power (in fact it lost most of it with the seven years war and with Napoleon). French colonial power was in Africa at the time (and will remain until the 1950-60s), and Asia. They had no means whatsoever to assimilate the USA. Orlais is right next door to Ferelden. 

kylecouch wrote...
I also think Ferelden needs to eventually make some sort of peace with Orlais if they don't want a repeat performance somewhere down the road.

Peace, yes. That does not have to involve selling Ferelden independence.

kylecouch wrote...
Not every ruler of a country is exactly the same

Sure they are not, but the political and geo-strategic context of the time, which will remain unchanged, wil influence their decision making and that's what political scientists (at least neo-classical Realists) and historians look at in order to discern trends that will problably repeat themselves under similar circumstances.

Ferelden request for Orlesian reinforcements is besides the point we are talking about now, I am talking about Cailan's plan for merger and I see nothing about this that is really beneficial to Ferelden (and by that I mean its relative position), nor is it urgent / necessary.

Indeed however Louis XVI was still King of France during this time and the American victory is what inspired the French to revolt to begin with...which brought Napolean to power. So much of the power they lost from Napoleans defeat is still in fact intact during this time frame.

Simple military support does not mean the lose of Ferelden independence. However I never disagreed that Cailen's plan would have been a horrible idea for Ferelden as a whole. Before you edited your post...you mentioned that if Celene did indeed devise the plan that you believed her to be awsome...I agree as well. I think Celene as a whole seems like a really good ruler and is a total BA that deserves screen time.