574 réponses à ce sujet

[KnightofPhoenix]

maxernst wrote...

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

Or a country that decides all its policies on duels.

Sigh.

[Hukari]

To the issue of his political support, remember that it was before Bhelen decided to go forward with his plans. The epilogue specifically says that he angers the warrior and noble castes, thus triggering the assassinations directly, which in -turn- causes him to dissolve the Assembly. Though the epilogue doesn't go into what happens next, there is civil war looming for the supposed King Aeducan. A civil war entirely of his making.



And the fact that you have political invulnerability by being a Paragon means that you -do- have more power than a king. A King can be denounced, debated, and criticized freely. If you do that to what amounts to the Dwarves as a god-figure, you'd be alienating yourself completely. Hell, they -beat to death- the one dissenting voice in Aeducan's rise to paragonhood. For a similar feat as one the Warden has done.



To the noble houses not being in direct control of their patrons, in that, I admit you have me. While Gorim may not be able to call himself of House Aeducan, he is still a -retainer- of House Aeducan, and his own house is one of the subservient houses to the clan, as I remember rightly. So while they're not part of it in any official sense, they are at the least considered conjoined or otherwise intertwined. It is a hierarchy, where the patrons rule over their various artisans, servants, and soldiers, and they in turn voice their opinions and loyalty to the Assembly.



Without that voice, it's going to cause the Nobles to act independently. We all know what happens when you try to disenfranchise noblemen. Things like the Magna Carta happen. So really, Bhelen is shooting himself in the foot with his heavy-handed tyranny. The subtle game is where the money is; any thug can try to sieze power through brute force.

[maxernst]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

maxernst wrote...

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

Or a country that decides all its policies on duels.

Sigh.

Well, the alternative may be a highly destructive war between Eamon and Loghain's forces.  The Assembly in Orzammar isn't acting under any sort of duress.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Hukari wrote...
Without that voice, it's going to cause the Nobles to act independently. We all know what happens when you try to disenfranchise noblemen. Things like the Magna Carta happen. So really, Bhelen is shooting himself in the foot with his heavy-handed tyranny.

Richelieu, Mazarin and Louix XIV would disagree.

If you want someone in DA, Emperor Drakon would disagree.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...


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. 

Bhelen's attitude toward Branka in that convo you have with him before you ehad off to the deep roads is just...awesome.

Where he says something along the lines, when you ask him if he's suggesting you kill Branka, that he would never suggest such a thing, but if the paragon's wish was that she remained in the deep roads, never to return, that you should "encourage this". In that sneaky, sly, conniving undertone of a devious politician.

it was one of those moments I wanted to hug my computer screen.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Ok here is the epilogue slide.



It says enemies within the noble and warriors castes. It does not say he makes enemies of the noble and warriors castes. In other words, the slide does not say he alienated all or even most the nobles and warriors.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 10 janvier 2011 - 11:45 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...
Bhelen's attitude toward Branka in that convo you have with him before you ehad off to the deep roads is just...awesome.

Where he says something along the lines, when you ask him if he's suggesting you kill Branka, that he would never suggest such a thing, but if the paragon's wish was that she remained in the deep roads, never to return, that you should "encourage this". In that sneaky, sly, conniving undertone of a devious politician.

it was one of those moments I wanted to hug my computer screen.

I think he says it like this

"Then we must assist her...by any means necessary" *with an epic sly glare*

He's awesome.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...



I think he says it like this

"Then we must assist her...by any means necessary" *with an epic sly glare*

He's awesome.

yeah, that was it!

Compare it to Harrowmont's idiotic take on the whole thing (can't remember since I've sided with Harrowmont only twice, and try to scrub it from my memory), where he believes Branka's word is the complete holy, irrefutable word of god...

Yeah. Bhelen wins. Big time.

[Hukari]

Eh, Bhelen is still far too heavy handed. Let us return to my original scenario: We have Harrowmont, dead of old age and stress. We have the Kingship weakened, and the Assembly squabbling. We have the rebels defeated, and only one huge overarching figure: The Paragon.

A Paragon who, rather than Bhelen, has -no- enemies. He has preserved both justice and strength, by letting the natural instability play itself out, and he has the authority of a god at his fingertips. He doesn't -need- to bully or bribe, to threaten or assassinate; he can get whatever he wants simply for the asking.

It is -this- position that true reform can be made, as the epitome of Dwarven-ness and the sole remaining big player. So, in essence, Bhelen's rashness has created the spectre of doubt.He has sown the seeds of his own demise in the impending civil war; his actions merely delayed it.

There is also the fact, that even if the noble houses of Orzammar march against a paragon, as few as they may be, said Warden-Paragon would be able to call on allies in Amaranthine, Ferelden, and lands abroad. So the question is not between strength or virtue; the latter, in this case, has inevitably led to the former. -That- is a convincing argument that can be made for why Harrowmont, even with metagame information, has proven superior to Bhelen.

Edit: As to references of revolution in culture as a 'betrayal', let us turn away such neat things. The death of Louis XVI brought down a system that had given us Charlemagne. Yet the 'modern' French monarchy of the Ancien Regime was applicable, probably, until Louis XIV. Perhaps a better reference for what Bhelen is doing is akin to Oliver Cromwell, and we know how -that- ended, now don't we?

Modifié par Hukari, 11 janvier 2011 - 12:00 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Hukari wrote...
-That- is a convincing argument that can be made for why Harrowmont, even with metagame information, has proven superior to Bhelen.

No, it shows that the choice of Harrowmont might be better (let's assume for the sake of argument) for a DN who wants power for himself, counting on the fact that Harrowmont will fail badly and he will replace him.

That does not mean that Harrowmont is superior to Bhelen. That means Harrowmont's weakness is more favorable to an ambitious DN, something that can't happen under Bhelen because he, unlike Harrowmont, is too strong.

And that's something I don't mind. If a DN wants to rule over Orzammar, picking Harrowmont is the smart option. that doesn't mean, at all, that Harrowmont is a better ruler than Bhelen ,quiite the contrary the choice is based on his incompetence.

But I think you are overestimate the worth of a paragon too much. Nothing suggests that anyone cared about Bhelen  launching a war against Branka.  And nothing suggests anything about a civil war brewing, most of his opponents were already beaten and punished and his successes will silence dissent.

[Sarah1281]

A Paragon who, rather than Bhelen, has -no- enemies. He has preserved both justice and strength, by letting the natural instability play itself out, and he has the authority of a god at his fingertips. He doesn't -need- to bully or bribe, to threaten or assassinate; he can get whatever he wants simply for the asking.

Why do you keep taking the possibility that a Paragon will not have anyone dare to oppose them as fact?

[sevalaricgirl]

I pick Harromount because my warden only knows that she's been lied to, and Bhelen killed his brother and blamed his other brother for it. Screw him. He doesn't deserve the throne and any dwarves that wants to can go to the surface, there are many there already. I have played the game 12 times and half I put Bhelen on the throne because of what he does to improve the lot of the dwarves then I thought about it and figured that it my warden doesn't like to be lied to so he wasn't getting the throne just because he was blood.

Modifié par sevalaricgirl, 11 janvier 2011 - 12:08 .

[LobselVith8]

Hukari wrote...

Eh, Bhelen is still far too heavy handed. Let us return to my original scenario: We have Harrowmont, dead of old age and stress. We have the Kingship weakened, and the Assembly squabbling. We have the rebels defeated, and only one huge overarching figure: The Paragon.

A Paragon who, rather than Bhelen, has -no- enemies. He has preserved both justice and strength, by letting the natural instability play itself out, and he has the authority of a god at his fingertips. He doesn't -need- to bully or bribe, to threaten or assassinate; he can get whatever he wants simply for the asking.

Even when the dwarven kingdoms were nearly obliterated, and only Orzammar remained, they still held on to their traditions, even though it's stifling their economy and culture. If the near death of their civilization isn't going to change them, I doubt Harrowmont's inept handling as King will, either. The Assembly is going to fight change, as it does if Bhelen becomes King. The dwarven people don't care about truth and justice, and Harrowmont's role as King has left the casteless men, women, and children in poverty and hopelessness. How is supporting a man who wants the casteless to remain exactly where they are any form of justice or strength? And even a Paragon isn't going to be able to change the traditionalist culture of Orzammar without a fight, because the Assembly doesn't work that way. Bhelen went against tradition, and made enemies out of the noble and warrior castes, and they tried to kill him several times.

Hukari wrote...

It is -this- position that true reform can be made, as the epitome of Dwarven-ness and the sole remaining big player. So, in essence, Bhelen's rashness has created the spectre of doubt.He has sown the seeds of his own demise in the impending civil war; his actions merely delayed it.

Except there have even been members of the casteless who have become Paragons in the past, and the fate of the people of Dust Town remains the same. Words alone aren't going to change things.

Hukari wrote...

There is also the fact, that even if the noble houses of Orzammar march against a paragon, as few as they may be, said Warden-Paragon would be able to call on allies in Amaranthine, Ferelden, and lands abroad. So the question is not between strength or virtue; the latter, in this case, has inevitably led to the former. -That- is a convincing argument that can be made for why Harrowmont, even with metagame information, has proven superior to Bhelen.

Why would the people of the surface go to war for the Warden? Even the Chantry wouldn't risk a war with Orzammar, regardless of whether it crushes the Chantry in Orzammar or if they harbor apostates and an independent Circle.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Hukari wrote...
Edit: As to references of revolution in culture as a 'betrayal', let us turn away such neat things. The death of Louis XVI brought down a system that had given us Charlemagne. Yet the 'modern' French monarchy of the Ancien Regime was applicable, probably, until Louis XIV. Perhaps a better reference for what Bhelen is doing is akin to Oliver Cromwell, and we know how -that- ended, now don't we?

And Cromwell is a traitor to his culture?

Is Caesar a traitor to his culture? Is Augustus? Is Napoleon?
Does anyone who *dare* change a regime, when it clearly isn't working, a traitor to his culture?

That's ridiculous.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 11 janvier 2011 - 12:09 .

[Elhanan]

Just side with the other Paragon in Caradin, and things are better on both sides.

[Sarah1281]

sevalaricgirl wrote...

I pick Harromount because my warden only knows that she's been lied to, and Bhelen killed his brother and blamed his other brother for it. Screw him. He doesn't deserve the throne and any dwarves that wants to can go to the surface, there are many there already. I have played the game 12 times and half I put Bhelen on the throne because of what he does to improve the lot of the dwarves then I thought about it and figured that it my warden doesn't like to be lied to so he wasn't getting the throne just because he was blood.

You realize that what you just said is that you are willing to condemn Orzammar (which is the first defense against the darkspawn) because you don't like being lied to? How is that not petty and irresponsible in the extreme? 

[Elhanan]

Sarah1281 wrote...

sevalaricgirl wrote...

I pick Harromount because my warden only knows that she's been lied to, and Bhelen killed his brother and blamed his other brother for it. Screw him. He doesn't deserve the throne and any dwarves that wants to can go to the surface, there are many there already. I have played the game 12 times and half I put Bhelen on the throne because of what he does to improve the lot of the dwarves then I thought about it and figured that it my warden doesn't like to be lied to so he wasn't getting the throne just because he was blood.

You realize that what you just said is that you are willing to condemn Orzammar (which is the first defense against the darkspawn) because you don't like being lied to? How is that not petty and irresponsible in the extreme? 

Because that title of infamy might be better placed on the one that knocked off his family to gain the crown.

[Hukari]

Cromwell? I have quite a bit negative to say about him, indeed. Simply that his actions are quite similar to that which Bhelen has done, and no doubt will lead to the same result. Ever wonder why nobody cites Robespierre and Cromwell as great leaders? Yet those such as Jefferson, who gave all of one speech, are ranked among some of the highest political minds in human history?



But I digress. I suppose I have danced around the point long enough, so here it is: The centralization of government is bad for a society. Monarchy gave way to republics, mercantilism to capitalism, serfdom to freedom. It is in places where the individual has been given free reign that societies have flourished, not under the iron hand of a self-proclaimed visionary.



To condense (quite a bit, I dare say) the summarization of my argument as thus: Harrowmont is a King that prefers utilizing the rule of law, the slow, gradual change, and the concentration of power in a (marginal) representative form. This empowers individuals, by empowering the noble caste to handle it in a more local level. One does not achieve individual freedoms via a monarchy, they achieve it via the transition from monarchy, to republic, to confederacy, to statelessness.



And it is this rationale that allows Harrowmont to be the finer choice. Bhelen doesn't take the shackles -off- the casteless. He puts the shackles -on- everyone else, to condense it down to a pithy phrase.



It is thus why I propose the DN, with the paragon option, can change things subtly whilst still having the -cultural- strength, as dictated by tradition. It is deference to his knowledge that drives the change, not concentrated central authority.

[LobselVith8]

Elhanan wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...

sevalaricgirl wrote...

I pick Harromount because my warden only knows that she's been lied to, and Bhelen killed his brother and blamed his other brother for it. Screw him. He doesn't deserve the throne and any dwarves that wants to can go to the surface, there are many there already. I have played the game 12 times and half I put Bhelen on the throne because of what he does to improve the lot of the dwarves then I thought about it and figured that it my warden doesn't like to be lied to so he wasn't getting the throne just because he was blood.

You realize that what you just said is that you are willing to condemn Orzammar (which is the first defense against the darkspawn) because you don't like being lied to? How is that not petty and irresponsible in the extreme? 

Because that title of infamy might be better placed on the one that knocked off his family to gain the crown.

So Bhelen did exactly what his father did to gain the throne of Orzammar.

[blothulfur]

Yep athens went to hell under the tyrants rule, not one iota of advancement or culture there.
Death to kings.

Modifié par blothulfur, 11 janvier 2011 - 12:28 .

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Hukari wrote...
 Perhaps a better reference for what Bhelen is doing is akin to Oliver Cromwell, and we know how -that- ended, now don't we?

Parliamentary democracy/constutitional monarchy, and the rise of British political power and influence?

And Crommwell ended up dying from old age/natural causes.

Sounds good to me.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Hukari wrote...

Cromwell? I have quite a bit negative to say about him, indeed. Simply that his actions are quite similar to that which Bhelen has done, and no doubt will lead to the same result. Ever wonder why nobody cites Robespierre and Cromwell as great leaders? Yet those such as Jefferson, who gave all of one speech, are ranked among some of the highest political minds in human history?

Did Bhelen get to power via a military coup d'etat? Did he commit public regicide? His legitimacy is based on the precendents of Aeducans. 
The similarities are very superficial.

And that's barring the fact that Cromwell was in an environment of civil war.

And do you want to know about the highest political minds in our history?
Someone like Augustus, who had some of his own political allied senators proscribed.

Hukari wrote...
But I digress. I suppose I have danced around the point long enough, so here it is: The centralization of government is bad for a society. Monarchy gave way to republics, mercantilism to capitalism, serfdom to freedom. It is in places where the individual has been given free reign that societies have flourished, not under the iron hand of a self-proclaimed visionary.

And this is where you get it wrong.

I suggest reading Alexis de Tocqueville's argument and other literrature concerning the rise of modern nation-states. It was based on the centralization of power, regardless of the type of regime. Revolutionary France (and not only the First Republic, but also the 2nd and the third and even the Fifth) was based on centralization.

Capitalism and republics =/= decentralization. In fact it's almost the contrary, at least in Europe. Even Britain witnessed more and more centralization, though perhaps not as much as France, that was more Republican minded.  As Alexis de Tocqueville argued, the centralization of the French Monarchy was expanded upon by the Republican regimes.

Perhaps federalism is what you are looking, and I think it's obvious today that the USA and Canada are not following the classical liberal federal model. In Canada, they are, as one PM called them "overglorified provinces". And the USA, they were denied their right of secession. And with dual partism in the USA and the strength of the executive, it's hardly federal in its classical meaning.

Hukari wrote...
To condense (quite a bit, I dare say) the summarization of my argument as thus: Harrowmont is a King that prefers utilizing the rule of law, the slow, gradual change, and the concentration of power in a (marginal) representative form.

Where does it state that Harrowmont even want gradual change? His policies are that of regression (enforced with the iron fist of golems) and not even slow gradual change at all.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 11 janvier 2011 - 12:37 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

blothulfur wrote...

Yep athens went to hell under the tyrants rule, not one iota of advancement or culture there.
Death to kings.

Actually, no. Greece moved from the Archaic age thanks to Tyrants like Pheidon. They were the ones who stirred up the cultural and economic advancement and solved many of Greece's problems, paving the way for the classical age.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 11 janvier 2011 - 12:35 .

[Graspiloot]

Elhanan wrote...

Because that title of infamy might be better placed on the one that knocked off his family to gain the crown.

This argument is getting really old really fast. Please really answer to these points:

1. How can you be sure Harrowmont has never done similar things to political opponents?
2. How is this not a part of Dwarven and even a medieval court life?
3. How is killing your family better than razing dust town to the ground?

Hukari wrote...

But I
digress. I suppose I have danced around the point long enough, so here
it is: The centralization of government is bad for a society. Monarchy
gave way to republics, mercantilism to capitalism, serfdom to freedom.
It is in places where the individual has been given free reign that
societies have flourished, not under the iron hand of a self-proclaimed
visionary.

This is not true, societies have flourished under monarchies, mercantilism and serfdom. Societies evolved because systems can't last. The fact that in hereditary systems you eventually face bad rulers is most often part of the downfall of the system.
Especially the fact that I'd rather have a strong, good absolute monarch than a weak, failing people-pleaser.

To condense (quite a bit, I dare say) the
summarization of my argument as thus: Harrowmont is a King that prefers
utilizing the rule of law, the slow, gradual change, and the
concentration of power in a (marginal) representative form. This
empowers individuals, by empowering the noble caste to handle it in a
more local level. One does not achieve individual freedoms via a
monarchy, they achieve it via the transition from monarchy, to republic,
to confederacy, to statelessness.

The nobles are only in for themselves and don't care for the fate of Orzammar, this wouldn't be so harmful had Orzammar not been on the brink of destruction.
And don't pretend as if Harrowmont wants slow change, he doesn't want change at all. Your argument fails in every aspect, but this one is just blatantly untrue.


Also you fail in saying that decentralisation is necessarily good and centralisation is bad. European countries like France and Britain and the USA prove that this is an invalid argument.

Modifié par Graspiloot, 11 janvier 2011 - 12:39 .

[Sarah1281]

Elhanan wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...

sevalaricgirl wrote...

I pick Harromount because my warden only knows that she's been lied to, and Bhelen killed his brother and blamed his other brother for it. Screw him. He doesn't deserve the throne and any dwarves that wants to can go to the surface, there are many there already. I have played the game 12 times and half I put Bhelen on the throne because of what he does to improve the lot of the dwarves then I thought about it and figured that it my warden doesn't like to be lied to so he wasn't getting the throne just because he was blood.

You realize that what you just said is that you are willing to condemn Orzammar (which is the first defense against the darkspawn) because you don't like being lied to? How is that not petty and irresponsible in the extreme? 

Because that title of infamy might be better placed on the one that knocked off his family to gain the crown.

If you'll look at the bolded part again, the reason that Bhelen didn't get the crown was not because he killed his family members. It is because he lied to the Warden. Don't you think that demanding complete and utter honesty about everything is rather high standards? It's  not even like he lies about anything important, either, just some forged documents.