574 réponses à ce sujet

[maxernst]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

But as it stands, I can see no logical way for them to make Bhelen's rule more disastrous than Harrowmont.
Even if they kill off Bhelen (who already survived assassination attempts before and seems to have everything under control, so those who kill him have to be genuises), his reforms will not be something easily reversed. An Orzammar on a progressive path will be different from one on a regressive path.

First of all, surviving assassination attempts in the past is no guarantee of surviving future ones.  Henry IV of France survived assassination attempts in 1593 and 1594, but was assassinated in 1610.  Be****r Bhutto also survived at least one previous assassination attempt. 

He isn't able to get himself crowned king without the player's help.  The fact that he hasn't managed to win Helmi over to his cause (despite his obvious sympathies with Bhelen's objectives) makes me wonder how politically savvy he really is.  He can't handle Jarvia without the player's help.  I don't see Orzammar collapsing into civil war when he tries to dissolve the assembly as a particularly hard thing to imagine. 

(While the above is true of Harrowmont as well, Harrowmont doesn't have big plans, so he doesn't need to be particularly strong.)

I think it depends somewhat on whether you believe in the Great Man theory of history.  If history is shaped primarily by economic forces and social structures rather than by individuals,  somebody else will come along and do what Bhelen would have done.  It's worth noting that in the case of Rome, before Augustus, there were the Gracchi, Marius, Sulla,and  Julius Caesar all of whom tried to reshape the system in various ways.  The days of the Republic were clearly numbered.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Elhanan wrote...
You go ahead and gossip about Harrowmont all you wish, but it don't change the facts in game that the known Death Toll score is Bhelen: 2 brothers, and an assist on Pop; Harrowmont: 0 - zip, zero, zilch.

Except you know, razing dust town to the ground with golems.

Harrowmont got promoted simply for his friendship with Endrin. Without that, he would have probably amounted to nothing. Or less than nothing, as his epilogue shows how much of a failure he is. 

Addai67 wrote...
@KoP, I am still going to bet on the writers
living by the law of unintended consequences.  DA-land seems a lot like
Song of Ice and Fire, where just when you think you're on the right
path, it all goes to hell.  I'm sure that's why Harrowmont is treated as
the "good" choice and then gets a bad epilogue.  Just sayin, expect the
unexpected.  And until we see the outcome there's no call for comparing
Bhelen to any great world leaders.

There is a difference between unintented consequences and consequences that don't make sense.
Harrowmont gets the bad epilogue because it makes perfect sense, him being "good" (to those who have a superficial and barely coherent way of thinking about it) has nothing to do with it. It's rather his idiocy.

And there is more than enough for me to compare Bhelen with the great world leaders, as far as their similarities go. I see no reason at all for him to fail. His regime might ultimately fail. He might even get killed. That's of little importance when compared to the fate of Orzammar itself. Many regime fail to maintain themselves into power but what they create serves as a foundation used by successor regimes.

As much as the French Revolutionaries loathed the absolutist monarchy, they used the exact same foundations and basis for their own government and expanded on the trend of centralization, all while hating on its predecessor, as Alexis de Tocqueville explained. So even if Bhelen does get overthrown (which I doubt would happen), his reforms cannot be easily reversed and I see them being used as a basis to be expanded upon, for Orzammar's benefit. With Harrowmont, he doesn't even preserve the status quo, he makes it worse.

So yes I think it's justified to consider Bhelen great for the simple reason that all of his policies are the right ones that Orzammar needs, when compared to Harrowmont's, whose every single policy is wrong and idiotic.

[Addai]

maxernst wrote...

I think it depends somewhat on whether you believe in the Great Man theory of history.  If history is shaped primarily by economic forces and social structures rather than by individuals,  somebody else will come along and do what Bhelen would have done.  It's worth noting that in the case of Rome, before Augustus, there were the Gracchi, Marius, Sulla,and  Julius Caesar all of whom tried to reshape the system in various ways.  The days of the Republic were clearly numbered.

Good point and I for one don't tend to look at individuals as the most important forces, which is also why I dislike the Warden being put on a pedestal.  Charismatic individuals do make for better stories which is why we remember them.

[Addai]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

So yes I think it's justified to consider Bhelen great for the simple reason that all of his policies are the right ones that Orzammar needs, when compared to Harrowmont's, whose every single policy is wrong and idiotic.

You talk as though politics is like a science or math problem.  Do A and B and C will result.  Human (dwarven) endeavors are never that simple.  What if greater contact with the surface actually causes a backlash that drives dwarves even further into xenophobic withdrawal?  What if dissolving the assembly leads to a civil war and there's a pogrom in Dust Town because they're made scapegoats?  Just to throw out some examples of what I mean by unintended consequences.

[KnightofPhoenix]

maxernst wrote...
He isn't able to get himself crowned king without the player's help. 

We don't know that. Had the Warden decided not to help anyone, I think it's far more likely that Bhelen would have won. Harrowmont was getting screwed in every way possible (proving, losing allies).
Even Gavorn outright says that they are not desperate for the Warden's help.

maxernst wrote...
I think it depends somewhat on whether you believe in the Great Man theory of history.  If history is shaped primarily by economic forces and social structures rather than by individuals,  somebody else will come along and do what Bhelen would have done.  It's worth noting that in the case of Rome, before Augustus, there were the Gracchi, Marius, Sulla,and  Julius Caesar all of whom tried to reshape the system in various ways.  The days of the Republic were clearly numbered.

There are obviously trends and systemic realities that help shape these individuals. These however are also shaped by great men, as they themselves are shaped. That's why I believe that Bhelen is the man of his time and a product of his time simultaneously. 

I do believe that history is influenced by great individuals, but they are obviously grounded in the reality of their time. And I do not believe that they are inevitable. Perhaps someone like Augustus would have tried to do the same thing he did, but would he have been as succesful? We can't know. So I think that suggesting that his achievements were inevitable, to not be giving that brilliant man what he should be rightfully acredited for. I think we all know that Rome would have been very different, if it was Mark Antony who won.

So if given the choice between Bhelen, who might or might not be unique, I think is less risky than picking Harrowmont (and the Assembly behind him) who clearly doesn't have a clue about what is necessary.
Because at least with the Gracchi, while the Senate did have the brothers killed, they ended up adopting their policies and methods because they realized it makes sense. I don't see the Assembly doing that. 

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 10 janvier 2011 - 05:28 .

[Giggles_Manically]

If Mark Anthony would have won then Rome would have gone down much quicker.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Addai67 wrote...
You talk as though politics is like a science or math problem.  Do A and B and C will result.  Human (dwarven) endeavors are never that simple.  What if greater contact with the surface actually causes a backlash that drives dwarves even further into xenophobic withdrawal?  What if dissolving the assembly leads to a civil war and there's a pogrom in Dust Town because they're made scapegoats?  Just to throw out some examples of what I mean by unintended consequences.

It's a large part of politics yes. We can't know for sure, but we can think about most possible consequences and plan ahead reasonably well. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that what Bhelen does, even if it might have some unintended consequences, to be what is necessary. And at the end, every policy has pros and cons. Some policy's pros far outweigh the cons and vice versa.   

Why would it cause xenophobic withdrawal? That can happen if Orzammar has nothing to export and its domestic market is flooded with imports. But seeing how the merchants themselves support Bhelen, and seeing how they have Lyrium and high quality smithing, Orzammar does have the capacity to export reasonably well for its size. Even if there was a backlash, you think it's going to be on the same scale as Harrowmont's policy of isolationism that will cut Orzammar's lifeline?

And why would disolving the Assembly lead into civil war? He already did it and there was no mention of it. The sons of Harrowmont supporters have been sent to the surface to be useful for once in their lives and he already delt with most of the opposition already. And why would Bhelen kill the casteless to please the nobles? The casteless are more useful to him and he realizes they are needed as manpower. Unless you are suggesting that all of society is going to rebel. Why? The Merchants are going to be happy. I assume the smiths are going to be happy (they are going to be exporting their goods). Many noble houses (whom we know are linked to surface trade) are going to be happy. Some warrior houses (and organizations) are already allied with Bhelen + he ha the casteless.
The fact that his opponents resorted to assassination (generall a tool for the desperate) instead of civil war, and how they failed to stop Bhelen from disolving the Assembly, points to their inability to do so.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 10 janvier 2011 - 05:29 .

[Wereparrot]

Addai67 wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

So yes I think it's justified to consider Bhelen great for the simple reason that all of his policies are the right ones that Orzammar needs, when compared to Harrowmont's, whose every single policy is wrong and idiotic.

 What if greater contact with the surface actually causes a backlash that drives dwarves even further into xenophobic withdrawal?  What if dissolving the assembly leads to a civil war and there's a pogrom in Dust Town because they're made scapegoats? 

Then that will be Hawke's problem to sort out, and to adress the follies of the warden-kingmaker.

[Elhanan]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

Morality is a terribly shaky  ground on which to make important descisions that determine the fate of an entire race.

Not to mention it is awfully ambigious and relative. One person's "morality" is another person's "evil".

Perhaps for some. I not only believe in it, but I studied it for my B.A. And I personally try to avoid using a sliding scale of relativity, and prefer to judge by a proper canon.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...


It's a large part of politics yes. We can't know for sure, but we can think about most possible consequences and plan ahead reasonably well. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that what Bhelen does, even if it might have some unintended consequences, to be what is necessary. And at the end, every policy has pros and cons.  

Why would it cause xenophobic withdrawal? That can happen if Orzammar has nothign to export and its domestic market is flooded with imports. But seeing how the merchants themselves support Bhelen, and seeing how they have Lyrium and high quality smithing, Orzammar does have the capacity to export reasonably well for its size. Even iif there was a backlash, you think it's going to be on the same scale as Harrowmont's policy of isolationism that will cut Orzammar's lifeline?

And why would disolving the Assembly lead into civil war? He  did it and there was no mention of it. The sons of Harrowmont suporters have been sent to the surface to be useful for once in their lives and he already delt with most of the opposition already. And why would Bhelen kill the casteless to please the nobles? The casteless are more useful to him and he realizes they are needed as manpower. Unless you are suggesting that all of society is going to rebel. Why? The Merchants are going to be happy. I assume the smiths are going to be happy., Many noble houses (whom we know are linked to surface trade) are going to be happy. Some warrior houses (and organizations) are already allied with Bhelen.
The fact that his opponenets resorted to assassination (generall a tool for the desperate) instead of civil war, and how they failed to stop Bhelen from disolving the Assembly, points to their inability to do so.

Not necessarily. There are more factors at stake, and human/dwarf nature will always play a bigger part in things than you give credit for. The Chaos factor is always present, and you never know when it will strike, or what sets it off.

Like Addai said, there is no formula or logical precession of events that lead inevitably to solution a or b. What worked in one time/place/culture in history will be an epic fail in another. Politics play a part in the grand scheme of things, but only one part. There are alot more forces at work, alot of factors that can signifigantly change things.

I don't think Bhelen is the messiah, but I think his changes and actions are the start of a major shift in dwarven politics. The end of the old, and the dawn of the new.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Elhanan wrote...


Perhaps for some. I not only believe in it, but I studied it for my B.A. And I personally try to avoid using a sliding scale of relativity, and prefer to judge by a proper canon.

It is using a "proper canon" of morality, and using that as a guiding force in politics, is the reason we have 90% of the problems in the world today. One group of individuals beliving their "moral canon" to be superior to that of another group, and forcing said moral canon on people who already have a very different system in place anyway.

[Elhanan]

LobselVith8 wrote...

We know that Bhelen orchastrates the downfall of Trian, but that can be because the middle sibling either kills Trian or is framed for it. That's dwarven politics; even Bhelen's father killed in order to get the throne. And we're never told how his father died, if it was really illness or if someone poisoned him, it's all speculation.

We know from the testimony of witnesses that Enderin was on his deathbed because of Bhelen's maneuvers. As I mentioned, he had an assist in the death.

As for Bhelen vs. Harrowmont, the only one who will improve the lot of the casteless is Bhelen. Bhelen makes the effort to retake the lost thaigs and improve trade with the surface world. Harrowmont can't handle Branka, he's not going to make any changes to help the casteless, and he isolates Orzammar. Bhelen institutes reforms that allow the casteless to have rights. Harrowmont wants to keep everything the same, where the casteless have no rights and often have to turn to crime in order to survive. How is Harrowmont better than Bhelen when Bhelen is the only one who will make the necessary changes that Orzammar needs to survive?

Looking back from the epilogues, Yep; all is in 20/20 clarity for Bhelen as doing something for Dust Town. We also know that Harrowmont dies soon, and another King is sought. This still matter little to me when I am playing someone other than a precognative Warden, or a DC looking out for Rica.

The rest of the time, I judge by what is indicated to me by these men and their chosen staff. And Bhelen chose poorly, as Gavorn keeps giving away evidence that something stinks in their campaign. So I go with the more honest, and less criminal pick of Harrowmont.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...
Not necessarily. There are more factors at stake, and human/dwarf nature will always play a bigger part in things than you give credit for. The Chaos factor is always present, and you never know when it will strike, or what sets it off.

Let's assume that the "chaos" exists, I do not believe that it is so prelavent as to cause one policy to have the exact opposite result unless it was implemented very poorily (which is part of politics), which I don't think will be the case with Bhelen.

And I see nothing about the Dwarves that leads me to believe that if their bellies were full and they are entertained, that they would stand against Bhelen just on principle. Some might and I doubt they will be relevent.

And while yes, we cannot universalize policies and say they work all the time, which is wwhat I have been saying the whole time when I argued that tyrannies are justified in my view depending on the circumstances, I think it's obvious that what Orzammar needs is not more isolation, more caste restriction and casteless being treated worse (what Harrowmont is doing), but rather more relations with the surface, less caste restrictions and the casteless being harnessed as the manpower Orzammar desperately lacks (what Bhelen is doing).

With all that, I cannot see how Bhelen can possibly cause an outcome that is as disastrous as Harrowmont.

And while I joke about Bhelen being the Dwarven Messiah, it's obviously a hyperbole. But I do think he is on the right path and he is what Orzammar needs currently.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 10 janvier 2011 - 05:50 .

[maxernst]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

And why would disolving the Assembly lead into civil war? He already did it and there was no mention of it. The sons of Harrowmont supporters have been sent to the surface to be useful for once in their lives and he already delt with most of the opposition already.

Fine, sure, if your Warden is pyschic, Bhelen is obviously the better choice.  But if you have to argue the decision based on what you know prior to crowning a king, it's a lot less clear cut.  You don't really know what Bhelen will do when he becomes king.  You might have heard that he plans greater ties with the surface and freeing the casteless, but lots of people say they're going to do things when they have power and then don't do them. 

Modifié par maxernst, 10 janvier 2011 - 05:50 .

[Elhanan]

Addai67 wrote...

Elhanan wrote...
Harrowmont seems to equate strong with tyrant (one wonders why), and goes with compassionate instead. While a honorable goal, the flaw is found in his comprehension of strength. I do not fault him for his goals; simply am saddened by his passing without instituting the needed reforms.

I wonder how Harrowmont got where he is and kept his position in the Aeducan orbit.  His character doesn't seem that realistic to me.  Not very "dwarven," if you get me.

Think of Harrowmont as the True Reformer; laying a foundation of honesty, civility, and morality from which Orzammar may use to rebuild....



* I slay me*

[KnightofPhoenix]

maxernst wrote...
Fine, sure, if your Warden is pyschic, Bhelen is obviously the better choice.  But if you have to argue the decision based on what you know prior to crowning a king, it's a lot less clear cut.  You don't really know what Bhelen will do when he becomes king.  You might have heard that he plans greater ties with the surface and freeing the casteless, but lots of people say they're going to do things when they have power and then don't do them. 

And that's fine. I never said those who pick Harrowmont in the game are stupid. There are reasons to want to pick him and yes it's not that clear cut (though for me it was still pretty easy. Bhelen can do what he is saying or has a better chance, question is would he or would he not vs Harrowmont who not only wouldn't but can't).

We are talking about the two in a metagaming perspective, and here I question the sense of people who think that Harrowmont is better or Bhelen is not much better.

[Elhanan]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Elhanan wrote...
You go ahead and gossip about Harrowmont all you wish, but it don't change the facts in game that the known Death Toll score is Bhelen: 2 brothers, and an assist on Pop; Harrowmont: 0 - zip, zero, zilch.

Except you know, razing dust town to the ground with golems.

Again, using epilogues to look back from the post-game, and ones I have yet to see in play as I have ony chosen to save the Anvil once; maybe twice for Bhelen. *whistle* Flag on the play; clock already ran out....

Harrowmont got promoted simply for his friendship with Endrin. Without that, he would have probably amounted to nothing. Or less than nothing, as his epilogue shows how much of a failure he is. 

And how swell Enderin may have been before Bhelen helped kill him. So I still choose the honest statesman over the conniving scavenger.

Modifié par Elhanan, 10 janvier 2011 - 06:00 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Elhanan wrote...
 So I still choose the honest statesman over the conniving scavenger.

Good for you. Something to be proud of.

[Elhanan]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

It is using a "proper canon" of morality, and using that as a guiding force in politics, is the reason we have 90% of the problems in the world today. One group of individuals beliving their "moral canon" to be superior to that of another group, and forcing said moral canon on people who already have a very different system in place anyway.

Your figures seem to differ from mine, as I am informed by that canon that I am part of the vast minority. I believe todays world troubles stem mostly from man's constant acts of inhumanity, and immoral behaviour.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Elhanan wrote...
 I believe todays world troubles stem mostly from man's constant acts of inhumanity, and immoral behaviour.

Which will lead to this:

"To punish the oppressors of humanity is clemency; to forgive them is cruelty." - Maximilien Robespierre.

And finally to this:

"Terror is only justice: prompt, severe and inflexible; it is then an emanation of virtue; it is less a distinct
principle than a natural consequence of the general principle of democracy, applied to the most pressing wants of the country." - Maximilien Robespierre.

So I think I'll be content with how the world is, thank you.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 10 janvier 2011 - 06:10 .

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Let's assume that the "chaos" exists, I do not believe that it is so prelavent as to cause one policy to have the exact opposite result unless it was implemented very poorily (which is part of politics), which I don't think will be the case with Bhelen.

Circumstances, forces of nature, one random whackjob,unintended discoveries,  there are many things that can randomly screw up the best laid plans. Domino effect should also not be underestimated.

And I see nothing about the Dwarves that leads me to believe that if their bellies were full and they are entertained, that they would stand against Bhelen just on principle. Some might and I doubt they will be relevent.

I wasn't refering to people actually rebelling against Bhelen (the average Joe dwarf, that is). Yes, the dwarves seem very much a people who don't care whose in charge, so long as the gold keeps flowing. Nobles, certainly, I would expect to. But nobles mean nothing to me in this or the broader scheme of things

And while yes, we cannot universalize policies and say they work all the time, which is wwhat I have been saying the whole time when I argued that tyrannies are justified in my view depending on the circumstances, I think it's obvious that what Orzammar needs is not more isolation, more caste restriction and casteless being treated worse (what Harrowmont is doing), but rather more relations with the surface, less caste restrictions and the casteless being harnessed as the manpower Orzammar desperately lacks (what Bhelen is doing).

I personally think Tyrannies are warranted only in the most dire of circumstances, when one's species/race is threatened with total and complete annihilation. Which is why I support Bhelen in this circumstance. Under other circumstances that were less dire, i would not support him. For example, if it was politics as usual for a surface country like Ferelden, I would oppose such a leader, since national prominence/power are not reasons enough for me to justify a tyrannical leader.

With all that, I cannot see how Bhelen can possibly cause an outcome that is as disastrous as Harrowmont.

As things stand now, with what we know of DA lore and the state of things, I agree. Orzammar was pretty much close to rock bottom, the dwarves in danger of dying out.

And while I joke about Bhelen being the Dwarven Messiah, it's obviously a hyperbole. But I do think he is on the right path and he is what Orzammar needs currently.

I know you were joking. I was refering to the fact that I think, in the long term, I do not think Bhelen will be the actual savior of the dwarves, but I think he is paving the way for something bigger and better to happen. An eventual Golden Age, because Bhelen's policies he started could make it possible in the future for someone else to take up the banner.

[Elhanan]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Elhanan wrote...
 So I still choose the honest statesman over the conniving scavenger.

Good for you. Something to be proud of.

Thank you. But like Sten, I try and avoid acts of pride; could lead to madness. And parades.

 

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Elhanan wrote...


Your figures seem to differ from mine, as I am informed by that canon that I am part of the vast minority. I believe todays world troubles stem mostly from man's constant acts of inhumanity, and immoral behaviour.

To you. What you consider moral and right was, and still is, considered immoral, wicked, or indolent by other cultures.

When it comes to morality, there is no true canon. It only becomes "canon" when someone has the guns and guts to shove said morality down the throats of others, which is considered to be a moral act in itself.

[Addai]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
The fact that his opponents resorted to assassination (generall a tool for the desperate) instead of civil war, and how they failed to stop Bhelen from disolving the Assembly, points to their inability to do so.

Does that mean Bhelen fails as a leader because he resorts to assassination and tyranny?  Had to ask.

Why would a tyrant forcing his political opponents into exile and making them into golems provoke a civil war?  Hmm.  Why does Loghain forcing a regency on Ferelden provoke a civil war?  Because sooner or later people realize that unbridled power in the hands of one man is dangerous, they get tired of being pushed around, and decide to take him down.  Et tu Brute!

I'm not saying it will happen or how likely it is.  I just obviously don't possess the crystal ball that you do.

Modifié par Addai67, 10 janvier 2011 - 06:15 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...
Circumstances, forces of nature, one random whackjob,unintended discoveries,  there are many things that can randomly screw up the best laid plans. Domino effect should also not be underestimated.

Well if Bioware is going to resort to something like that to justify its laziness, then meeh.

I think mots long term plan succeeded in our history reasonable well. Of course they have tto always be flexible, if possible.

Sure, anything can happen. Still, Bhelen has a better chance of succeeding than Harrowmont unless som,ethign extraordinary happens. Actually Harrowmont succeeds very well in his policies, he just doesn't seem to realize how idiotc they are.

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...
I know you were joking. I was refering to the fact that I think, in the long term, I do not think Bhelen will be the actual savior of the dwarves, but I think he is paving the way for something bigger and better to happen. An eventual Golden Age, because Bhelen's policies he started could make it possible in the future for someone else to take up the banner.

I actually don't think the Dwarves will ever get a golden age (as in be what they once were) really. Not Orzammar by itself anyways. The best they can hope for is to preserve their identity and be somewhat of a major power (thanks to lyrium and technology). 

But their options are very limited.