574 réponses à ce sujet

[Giggles_Manically]

It may be fiction but the blood eagle if it was practiced is flat out one of the worst.

[Wereparrot]

Giggles_Manically wrote...

I finally remember what my prof said:

"Show me a just and fair medieval leader who changed history while never doing something "bad" and I will show you a great liar, and/or someone with really good PR.

To truly understand the characters of the past you must judge them by the standards of the age and not the standards of the modern age. To do otherwise is to do them a great disservice.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Giggles_Manically wrote...

It may be fiction but the blood eagle if it was practiced is flat out one of the worst.

Eh, I personally reject torture fundamentally unless there is a specific purpose to it.

Other than for deterrence or interrogation, I see no point except brutish sadism.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Giggles_Manically wrote...

Yep anyone who lived in that time period got their hands into various nasty things:
Excommunications led to people being butchered.
Assassins wiped out whole families.
Towns were raised to the ground or starved.

Never underestimate how brutal leaders had to be, even Roman Emperors who mainly built roads had to do many things to keep order. Read about decimation under Roman Legions or how slave revolts were put down.

Hell Bhelen is like Mr Rogers compared to most ancient leaders. He kills one brother and/or frames the other. OH NOES!

Or boiling alive in oil, or forcing helpless people into retraining cages to have their bodies devoured by rats while still alive..

yeah, the medieval folks got pretty damned creative with their instruments of pain and death.

[Costin_Razvan]

Or the more common practice of burning people alive.

[White_Buffalo94]

bcooper56 wrote...

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

No, most people I know of on the forums do pick Bhelen, at least for their canon playthroughs. In fact, Harrowmont supporters seem to be more in the minority.

So is this going be one main import choices in da2?

Will there actually be any difference in world if you choose bhelen or harrowmont

We will be traveling into the Deep Roads so it might impact that part of the story.

[Hukari]

 I think one thing people are forgetting is that there is a third player here: The Warden. Namely, a Dwarven Warden can change the political landscape immensely. And it proves that Harrowmont is superior for one very specific reason: A weak King and an infighting Assembly means a very much stronger Paragon.

That is one thing about Dwarven culture. While the King is normally automatically superior in all cases, a Paragon is the thing that is higher than a king. They are, in essence, living gods to the Dwarves, and any that move against a Paragon would be destroyed. It would be political suicide.

So, by supporting the rule of law, the civility of government, the righteousness of the Dwarven people with Harrowmont, who decentralizes the government, allows a Dwarf Warden to return to Orzammar and set it right as both a just -and- strong ruler, as political opposition is nil.

Whereas, if you sided with Bhelen, and let him rule and solidify his power, he would be bold enough to move against a Paragon. He would lower that tradition in a violent, destructive manner; the fact that he actively destroys Dwarven culture would cause a shift that would be inherently destabilizing.

Thus, with Harrowmont, you are in essence choosing not only the 'good' choice, but the smart one... because you are putting the choice in -your- hands, rather than a murderer's. It is the ultimate 'take that' to Bhelen, because you can attain power, preserve your integrity, and have the power necessary to reform. As that part of the Warden's tale hasn't been written yet, we can only imagine what comes from that.

Edit: As to Non-Dwarf Wardens, let me say this; Bhelen or Harrowmont continue to gain ground in the Deep Roads, as long as you send military aid to Orzammar. So that cannot be given in Bhelen's favour, as both the Blight and the aid achieved the same result as arming the casteless.

Which comes to the question of the casteless, a sudden reintroduction into society would prove inherently destabilizing. To use a historical reference, the Reconstruction period in the South would be equivalent; disenfranchised people suddenly thrust into co-existance with what they percieve as oppressors. Hint: It didn't end well.

Any change must be undergone with a slow deliberance, but there must be change. And, economically speaking, supporting the nobles might prove beneficial to surface trade. Considering the fact that Orzammar's economy is based upon nobles providing patronage, disenfranchising the nobles would cause havoc with the Smith and Artisans. As well, alienating the military via the Warrior caste has -never- been a politically sound move.

Modifié par Hukari, 10 janvier 2011 - 10:31 .

[Addai]

Wereparrot wrote...

Giggles_Manically wrote...

I finally remember what my prof said:

"Show me a just and fair medieval leader who changed history while never doing something "bad" and I will show you a great liar, and/or someone with really good PR.

To truly understand the characters of the past you must judge them by the standards of the age and not the standards of the modern age. To do otherwise is to do them a great disservice.

Besides the fact that a lot of stuff has been played up in our movies and TV that just isn't true.  For instance, the widespread use of torture, which is fiction.  Torture was late medieval, arising out of southern Europe, and was probably used only on a small number of defendants even where it was used.

A lot of the horrors imagined of the Middle Ages in popular culture were developments of the modern era.

[Zjarcal]

Giggles_Manically wrote...
Hell Bhelen is like Mr Rogers compared to most ancient leaders. He kills one brother and/or frames the other. OH NOES!

*peaks in*

Sure, but that doesn't mean we have to like his actions or consider them acceptable. That others have done worse doesn't mean what he did was right.

*goes back to lurking*

[Sarah1281]

Hukari wrote...

 I think one thing people are forgetting is that there is a third player here: The Warden. Namely, a Dwarven Warden can change the political landscape immensely. And it proves that Harrowmont is superior for one very specific reason: A weak King and an infighting Assembly means a very much stronger Paragon.

That is one thing about Dwarven culture. While the King is normally automatically superior in all cases, a Paragon is the thing that is higher than a king. They are, in essence, living gods to the Dwarves, and any that move against a Paragon would be destroyed. It would be political suicide.

So, by supporting the rule of law, the civility of government, the righteousness of the Dwarven people with Harrowmont, who decentralizes the government, allows a Dwarf Warden to return to Orzammar and set it right as both a just -and- strong ruler, as political opposition is nil.

Whereas, if you sided with Bhelen, and let him rule and solidify his power, he would be bold enough to move against a Paragon. He would lower that tradition in a violent, destructive manner; the fact that he actively destroys Dwarven culture would cause a shift that would be inherently destabilizing.

Thus, with Harrowmont, you are in essence choosing not only the 'good' choice, but the smart one... because you are putting the choice in -your- hands, rather than a murderer's. It is the ultimate 'take that' to Bhelen, because you can attain power, preserve your integrity, and have the power necessary to reform. As that part of the Warden's tale hasn't been written yet, we can only imagine what comes from that.

I think you're overestimating the power of a Paragon. Technically, they have no more power than any other deshyr and it's only the fact that they are greatly respected that gives their word any more weight. You start trying to be some big reformer and take power from the nobles then see how long their reverence for you will last. I can't imagine that Bhelen would be the only noble willing to disregard the wishes of a Paragon if it goes too much against his own interests.

[KnightofPhoenix]

How is Bhelen destroying Dwarven culture? Because he is adapting to modernity?

He didn't abolish the caste system. He didn't abolish ancestor reverence.

Is it because he has the gall to bring Branka down when she gets out of control and when she threatens Orzammar? Is that him destroying Dwarven culture? Would you rather have him do what Harrowmont did (aka nothing)?

Or is the Assembly for you Dwarven culture?

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 10 janvier 2011 - 10:49 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Hukari wrote...
Edit: As to Non-Dwarf Wardens, let me say this; Bhelen or Harrowmont continue to gain ground in the Deep Roads, as long as you send military aid to Orzammar. So that cannot be given in Bhelen's favour, as both the Blight and the aid achieved the same result as arming the casteless.

No in fact Harrowmont doesn't without golems and with golems, he end up failing miserably.

Hukari wrote...
Which comes to the question of the casteless, a sudden reintroduction into society would prove inherently destabilizing. To use a historical reference, the Reconstruction period in the South would be equivalent; disenfranchised people suddenly thrust into co-existance with what they percieve as oppressors. Hint: It didn't end well.

Except Bhelen is not thrusting them into complete co-existance.. He is being slow and giving them some freedoms. He is not being an egualitarian, either because he doesn't want to or because he thinks it's unwise and too fast. In either case, it's the sound move.

Hukari wrote...
Any change must be undergone with a slow deliberance, but there must be change. And, economically speaking, supporting the nobles might prove beneficial to surface trade. Considering the fact that Orzammar's economy is based upon nobles providing patronage, disenfranchising the nobles would cause havoc with the Smith and Artisans. As well, alienating the military via the Warrior caste has -never- been a politically sound move.

Look at it from the other way around. If Bhelen provides opportunity for merchants to trade, their noble patrons benefit. Most of them, especially the nobles who weren't in the Assembly, have little reason to oppose Bhelen who is giving them economic incentives. They weren't represented in the Assembly in the first palce so they lost nothing and gained something.

As for the warriors. Disolving the Assembly makes all of them under his direct command. And using the casteless provides him with a military force outside the ocntrol of the noble houses. Add to that that many nobles and warriors houses who sided with him already.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 10 janvier 2011 - 10:57 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

When did Branka threaten Orzammar when you pick Behlen as king?

[KnightofPhoenix]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

When did Branka threaten Orzammar when you pick Behlen as king?

She was acting independetly thinking that she has her own kingdom and refusing to obey orders. And she has a very powerful army under her.

That's direct threat to Orzammar and its authority. And as we see in the Harrowmont epilogue, if she is left alone, she almost sparks a surface invasion. Yes, she is a threat. 

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 10 janvier 2011 - 11:01 .

[Sarah1281]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

When did Branka threaten Orzammar when you pick Behlen as king?

 That might be the point. Under Harrowmont, she keeps kidnapping surfacers to force to become golems and starts a short war with Ferelden that leads to Orzammar cutting itself off from the surface. Under Bhelen, she retreats into the Deep Roads and doesn't bother anyway except presumably those foolish enough to wander into her lair.

With Harrowmont, the problem comes when he stops sending volunteers. With Bhelen, it is because she won't make golems exclusively for him (and I don't feel that's an unreasonable request). I do not see any other possible reason besides the response each monarch makes to their falling out with Branka that leads to Branka threatening Orzammar under Harrowmont and not doing it undre Bhelen.

[Giggles_Manically]

Paragonhood is such a dumb idea for Orzamar.



Giving a person power over anyone and everything just because they did something cool is dangerous.

Branka proves that.



They were given to ME they had no right to resist!! The anvil is MINE!

Kill her in most games.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Or the more common practice of burning people alive.

or breaking wheels, stretch racks, iron maidens, burial alive, slow disembowelment, drawing and quartering, ect.

And if I remember correctly, Vlad the Impaler got his name from his prefered form of punishment, which involved impaling people on large pikes through their rectums and then leaving them on display.

Bhelen offing a brother? Pheh.

The ancient times were one big sadist's dream come true.

[Giggles_Manically]

I object to people getting angry over Bhelen sieging Branka when she wont only make Golems for him.

Thats like getting pissed at a President for attacking a tank manufacturer who is making tanks for the highest bidder, or arming themselves.

[Sarah1281]

Giggles_Manically wrote...

Paragonhood is such a dumb idea for Orzamar.

Giving a person power over anyone and everything just because they did something cool is dangerous.
Branka proves that.

They were given to ME they had no right to resist!! The anvil is MINE!
Kill her in most games.

I guess they have to have a way to keep the number of noble families up and it is very, very rare. Branka was the first in four generations, after all. She really wasn't particularly interested in politics, either, so she wasn't a threat to them and we don't know how much actual influence they have for all that they are lauded as 'living ancestors.'

I think Branka going off the deep end and feeding her entire house to darkspawn is rather the exception and not the rule.

[Hukari]

If I may, the epilogue clearly states that he alienates the noble and warrior castes by his actions. He was never popular with nobles to begin with, as his power base lay with the casteless due to his reform policies. His further alienation of them via the removal of their voice, and thus the voice of their houses (Which include scores of smiths, warriors, artisans, servants, et al) proves his complete lack of savvy.



He can dissolve the Assembly, sure. He can -say- the army serves him and him alone. But the fact is, at the end of the day, much like Gorim to the Aeducans, the Warrior caste will always answer to the Noble. And when you alienate the noble cast (I.E. the military commanders), and the professional soldiery, no matter how many thugs and footpads you give a sword, they're still at a heavy military disadvantage.



Remember, though, that even -Bhelen-, anti-traditionalist that he is, let the right of the Paragons decide who was king. It's simply the fact that he wasn't chosen that caused his little hissy fit, revealing the true personality of the man.



So the respect for Paragons is pretty ingrained into the culture, and the fact that the epilogue mentions that you were elected -unanimously- gives even more gravitas to you being far superior to a King. You are the hero that defeated the blight, appointed the King, single-handedly either discovered the Anvil of the Void, or freed the Paragon Caridin from his torment...



Any deshyr that dared to go against you would be committing political suicide in the eyes of the average Joe dwarf, who is still pretty dang traditional. The only other radicals for Bhelen's side I found, were one merchant and one lord, who -still- sided with Harrowmont as the better choice.



As for Bhelen destroying Dwarven culture, the fact that he dissolves the Assembly, opens up the surface, and begins a hereditary monarchy... yeah, that's kind of big. It would be like going up to Congress and declaring yourself Emperor of the United States. And as you are so fond of referencing Robespierre... well, we see how he ended up, didn't we? A victim of his own machinations.

[EmperorSahlertz]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

When did Branka threaten Orzammar when you pick Behlen as king?

She was acting independetly thinking that she has her own kingdom and refusing to obey orders. And she has a very powerful army under her.

That's direct threat to Orzammar and its authority. And as we see in the Harrowmont epilogue, if she is left alone, she almost sparks a surface invasion. Yes, she is a threat. 

If anything, that's an indirect threat. She isn't going to war with Orzammar or actively working towards its weakening. And as a Paragon she DO have her own house that she, and she alone, rules over, no king or assembly can deny her that right.
Actually, it is more likely that she provided Orzammar with an indirect defense in her actions pre-anvil. Her house distracted even more Darkspawn away from Orzammar (with most being on the surface allready)
Afterwards she only becomes a threat when Harrowmont doesn't bring enough "volunteers" to her. Behlen sends too many "volunteers", and she cuts herself off from the world.
So, in the case of Behlen as king, she weren't a threat to Orzammar.

Modifié par EmperorSahlertz, 10 janvier 2011 - 11:14 .

[Sarah1281]

If I may, the epilogue clearly states that he alienates the noble and warrior castes by his actions. He was never popular with nobles to begin with, as his power base lay with the casteless due to his reform policies.

He has most of the Assembly on his side in the DN origin and still half of it during the Orzammar quest. That is NOT unpopular with the nobles.

His further alienation of them via the removal of their voice, and thus the voice of their houses (Which include scores of smiths, warriors, artisans, servants, et al) proves his complete lack of savvy.

I don't think that the smiths, warriors, artisans, servants, et al are actually a part of the noble houses. At all. They are just allied with them. Gorim, for instance, is from House Saelac.

He can dissolve the Assembly, sure. He can -say- the army serves him and him alone. But the fact is, at the end of the day, much like Gorim to the Aeducans, the Warrior caste will always answer to the Noble. And when you alienate the noble cast (I.E. the military commanders), and the professional soldiery, no matter how many thugs and footpads you give a sword, they're still at a heavy military disadvantage.

The casteless most likely outnumber the warriors and not all the warriors are going to turn against him. They might not like him but there's no indication they attempt a coup, just assassination.

Remember, though, that even -Bhelen-, anti-traditionalist that he is, let the right of the Paragons decide who was king. It's simply the fact that he wasn't chosen that caused his little hissy fit, revealing the true personality of the man.

Bhelen doesn't let the right of hte Paragons decide who is king. He, like Harrowmont, knows that most people (including Harrowmont) will accept the word of a Paragon. If Branka says he should be king, why shouldn't he welcome the support? Being anti-tradition doesn't mean throwing away valuable resources when available. He also hints that you should kill her if she backs Harrowmont.

So the respect for Paragons is pretty ingrained into the culture, and the fact that the epilogue mentions that you were elected -unanimously- gives even more gravitas to you being far superior to a King. You are the hero that defeated the blight, appointed the King, single-handedly either discovered the Anvil of the Void, or freed the Paragon Caridin from his torment...

Of course respect for Paragons is ingrained into culture. That doesn't mean that any noble who opposed them would be stupid enough to openly denounce you. That doesn't mean that your unofficial power would be greater than that of the king.

As for Bhelen destroying Dwarven culture, the fact that he dissolves the Assembly, opens up the surface, and begins a hereditary monarchy... yeah, that's kind of big.

The Assembly has been dissolved before for a period of two years. The Assembly will probably not be dissolved forever (if only because they need to pick the next king) and they are not a good part of dwarven culture. Why in the world should they blindly cling to traditions that are hurting them because it is a part of their culture? If it were part of dwarven culture for any casteless children born of a casteless/non-casteless pairing (like if Rica and Bhelen had a daughter) to be killed and Bhelen decided to outlaw that, would that be 'destroying their culture' and a bad thing as well?



Opening up the surface is vital to their survival. Trade is their lifeblood and they import most of the things they need to survive. How, exactly, does Bhelen make the monarchy a hereditary monarchy? By dissolving the Assembly? Precedent has shown it won't be forever and you realize that Bhelen is the tenth Aeducan king, right? Sounds pretty hereditary to me.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Hukari wrote...
He was never popular with nobles to begin with, as his power base lay with the casteless due to his reform policies.

Nope, half the Assembly was with him (more than that in the DN) and if you talk to nobles in the Diamond Quarter, before and after you crown him, many of them were supporting him. And no, his main source of legitimacy is emphasiuzing that he is an Aeducan. His reformist agenda is not something he emphasized on.

Hukari wrote...
His further alienation of them via the removal of their voice, and thus the voice of their houses (Which include scores of smiths, warriors, artisans, servants, et al) proves his complete lack of savvy.

The merchants, smiths and warriors were not represented in the Assembly to begin with even if their patrons were there. Furthermore, the Assembly only represents 80 houses or so. There are more nobles out there.

Hukari wrote...
He can dissolve the Assembly, sure. He can -say- the army serves him and him alone. But the fact is, at the end of the day, much like Gorim to the Aeducans, the Warrior caste will always answer to the Noble. And when you alienate the noble cast (I.E. the military commanders), and the professional soldiery, no matter how many thugs and footpads you give a sword, they're still at a heavy military disadvantage.

Again, many warriors are with Bhelen already. See Proving, see House Gavorn, see Silent Sisters. And many noibles, and thus their warriors, support him.

Hukari wrote...
Remember, though, that even -Bhelen-, anti-traditionalist that he is, let the right of the Paragons decide who was king. It's simply the fact that he wasn't chosen that caused his little hissy fit, revealing the true personality of the man.

Because it's irrational to believe that a paragon, especially one who has dissapeared for two years, has to be right. He doesn't mind taking advantage of this irrationality (call it hypocrisy if you want), but it is stupid at its core. 

Hukari wrote...
So the respect for Paragons is pretty ingrained into the culture, and the fact that the epilogue mentions that you were elected -unanimously- gives even more gravitas to you being far superior to a King. You are the hero that defeated the blight, appointed the King, single-handedly either discovered the Anvil of the Void, or freed the Paragon Caridin from his torment...

And that respect is irrational and stupid. Can't cultures evolve and abandon some of their irrational ways? Does that have to consitute betraying a culture?

"Paragon right or wrong?" Is that something worth preserving?

Hukari wrote...
Any deshyr that dared to go against you would be committing political suicide in the eyes of the average Joe dwarf, who is still pretty dang traditional. The only other radicals for Bhelen's side I found, were one merchant and one lord, who -still- sided with Harrowmont as the better choice.

People only care about two things. Bread and  circus. If they are well fed and are entertained, they will not care about the oligarchs who monopolized power for their selfish interests.

With trade, he is feeding. And with territorial gains, he is impressing them.

Hukari wrote...
As for Bhelen destroying Dwarven culture, the fact that he dissolves the Assembly, opens up the surface, and begins a hereditary monarchy... yeah, that's kind of big. It would be like going up to Congress and declaring yourself Emperor of the United States. And as you are so fond of referencing Robespierre... well, we see how he ended up, didn't we? A victim of his own machinations.

A victim of his own idealism and naivetee. A person who was obsessed with morality and virtue and his fixation on how the world ought to be instead of how it is, that made him fail utterly.

Are you saying that the French Revolutionaries, not necessarily Robespierre, betrayed their French culture when they rose up against the absolutist monarchy?
It might have been stupid, but you consider that a betrayal of French culture? Seeing how the French celebrate the taking of the Bastille every year, I bet they would be very offended.
Do you consider the "Glorious Revolution" in England to have been a betrayal of English culture?

Or does it constitute a betrayal only if they do something you don't like? But if they do something you like, you don't mind it?
That seems more like it.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 10 janvier 2011 - 11:27 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
So, in the case of Behlen as king, she weren't a threat to Orzammar.

She was a threat for taking the anvil as if it's her own property. What if she decides to invade Orzammar one of those days if Bhelen left her alone?

An indirect threat is still a threat.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 10 janvier 2011 - 11:24 .

[maxernst]

I don't think one man can possibly save a society that would let an ignorant outsider and a madwoman determine their ruler.