591 réponses à ce sujet

[Augustei]

"I will not allow my warriors to go defend the surface" the head of one of the noble houses says. So its not a matter of trusting them its a matter of relying on them.. its necessity. Both Harrowmont and Bhelen need the Lords and Ladies of the houses to agree to send their soldiers

[KnightofPhoenix]

XxDeonxX wrote...

"I will not allow my warriors to go defend the surface" the head of one of the noble houses says. So its not a matter of trusting them its a matter of relying on them.. its necessity. Both Harrowmont and Bhelen need the Lords and Ladies of the houses to agree to send their soldiers

And so you will rely on people who say something like this to change their minds? Why? How would Harrowmont be able to change their minds, when he is barely holding off, clumsy fool that he is?

It's not really necessity. Sometimes, what's necessary is to force the issue, or give them sweet deals. Bhelen does both (alliance with merchants).  The only reason Harrowmont is able to convince the Assembly is that Bhelen's Deshyr supporters are killed. If they weren't, Harrowmont would have problably never been able to do it. 

It's really obvious who is more likely to force the issue. Both have half the Assembly. But Bhelen is clearly the one who has a higher chance of forcing the issue, than Harrowmont who wouldn't even want to do that.
And so in a time like this, I'll pick the one willing and capable of forcing the issue.

And now, I gtg sleep.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 24 janvier 2011 - 05:32 .

[Elhanan]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

- His guards practically deserting him on the streets.
- His champions deserting the fight at the proving and Harrowmont thinking it's a good idea to send the person who came here expecting military support, to deal with that embarrasing situation.
- Harrowmont being on the defensive.
- Harrowmont saying he doesn't want to be a strong king, but a compromiser, also evident from his codex entry.
- Harrowmont saying he'll put the issue of military assistane to the Assembly, when we know he doesn't have to.

vs

- Bhelen's men strongly devoted to him
- Bhelen not really desperate for your assistance.
- Him being on the offensive, neutralizing Harrowmont's support from the nobility and champions.
- Bhelen saying that he will not be a compromiser. Also evident from the codex.
- Bhelen saying he will send assistance without putting it to the Assembly.
- If DN: Bhelen's ability to turn the Assembly on the DN, Orzammar's rising star, is a testemony of political genius.

 
- Bhelen's men murder others in the streets, and may be killed if they are not loyal.
- Bhelen's camp uses deception to try and fix the Proving.
- Harrowmont seems unwilling to cheat to take the offensive.
- Harrowmont & Bhelen have the same preconception of strength in a King: a tyrant.
- Harrowmont tells the truth at that point in the election; Bhelen speaks as one that has it locked.

And lying IS strength in an environment of cuthroat politics. Strength is not only beating people into submission. It's playing the political game and Bhelen clearly surpasses Harrowmotn in that regard, and this is made even mroe obvious with the DN.

Without the Warden, it's clear that Bhelen would have been able to create a debacle for Harrowmont at the provings and remove at least 2 houses supporting him. He was on the offensive, while HArrowmont was on the defensive. Bhelen didn't really need the Warden, Harrowmont did. Without the Warden interferring, the most likely winner would have been Bhelen.

So yes, it's pretty evident. In an environment like that of Orzammar, the person who is on the offensive is the one who has strength. The one desperately on the defensive, is the weakling.

And I choose one that is stronger morally; not one that is using the traditional tactics that has placed Orzimmar in the situation where such methods are commonplace.

[Augustei]

Elhanan wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

- His guards practically deserting him on the streets.
- His champions deserting the fight at the proving and Harrowmont thinking it's a good idea to send the person who came here expecting military support, to deal with that embarrasing situation.
- Harrowmont being on the defensive.
- Harrowmont saying he doesn't want to be a strong king, but a compromiser, also evident from his codex entry.
- Harrowmont saying he'll put the issue of military assistane to the Assembly, when we know he doesn't have to.

vs

- Bhelen's men strongly devoted to him
- Bhelen not really desperate for your assistance.
- Him being on the offensive, neutralizing Harrowmont's support from the nobility and champions.
- Bhelen saying that he will not be a compromiser. Also evident from the codex.
- Bhelen saying he will send assistance without putting it to the Assembly.
- If DN: Bhelen's ability to turn the Assembly on the DN, Orzammar's rising star, is a testemony of political genius.

 
- Bhelen's men murder others in the streets, and may be killed if they are not loyal.
- Bhelen's camp uses deception to try and fix the Proving.
- Harrowmont seems unwilling to cheat to take the offensive.
- Harrowmont & Bhelen have the same preconception of strength in a King: a tyrant.
- Harrowmont tells the truth at that point in the election; Bhelen speaks as one that has it locked.

And lying IS strength in an environment of cuthroat politics. Strength is not only beating people into submission. It's playing the political game and Bhelen clearly surpasses Harrowmotn in that regard, and this is made even mroe obvious with the DN.

Without the Warden, it's clear that Bhelen would have been able to create a debacle for Harrowmont at the provings and remove at least 2 houses supporting him. He was on the offensive, while HArrowmont was on the defensive. Bhelen didn't really need the Warden, Harrowmont did. Without the Warden interferring, the most likely winner would have been Bhelen.

So yes, it's pretty evident. In an environment like that of Orzammar, the person who is on the offensive is the one who has strength. The one desperately on the defensive, is the weakling.

And I choose one that is stronger morally; not one that is using the traditional tactics that has placed Orzimmar in the situation where such methods are commonplace.

I second this

Anyway

Long live King Harrowmont!

[Graspiloot]

You moralists are such hypocrites. Using lying and deception is morally wrong (and killing 2 rivals), but killing entire dust town and supporting an oppressive system is morally right.



The only comfort that I have is that with your attitude you'll never gain any place of prominence in real life, therefore having no say in what happens in the world.

[Augustei]

Graspiloot wrote...

You moralists are such hypocrites. Using lying and deception is morally wrong (and killing 2 rivals), but killing entire dust town and supporting an oppressive system is morally right.

The only comfort that I have is that with your attitude you'll never gain any place of prominence in real life, therefore having no say in what happens in the world.

Killing entire dust town means nothing because that is not what this discussion is about.. You would have to use metagaming to know he kills dust town this discussion is about who is the better choice without using Metagaming.

So Hypocrites we are not

Modifié par XxDeonxX, 24 janvier 2011 - 12:34 .

[Urazz]

Master Shiori wrote...

in any normal society, where the concept of common good is accepted, Harrowmont, who's willing to compromise rather than just force his will upon others, would seem like a great choice for a leader.
Sadly, in dwarven society every House is only looking out for it's own interests, without care about what's good for the society as a whole. In that kind of scenario Harrowmont comes across as completely ineffective ruler.
Bhalen, by using blackmail, threats and publicly displays of strength, comes across as someone who can get the Noble Houses in line and actualy rule the city. Therefore he can improve the society by giving the casteless better rights and can force the Dwarves to focus on bigger things like reclaiming their lost thaigs, rather than petty political infighting.

Sure Bhelen's methods can be evil, but he is basically only doing that stuff to the dwarven noblility mostly and the dwarven nobility have been basically driving Orzammar to ruins slowly and surely with all their infighting and selfishness.

Harrowmont would be a good leader in a democracy but the dwarves aren't really a democracy other than in how the kings are elected.

Modifié par Urazz, 24 janvier 2011 - 12:47 .

[Graspiloot]

XxDeonxX wrote...

Killing entire dust town means nothing because that is not what this discussion is about.. You would have to use metagaming to know he kills dust town this discussion is about who is the better choice without using Metagaming.

So Hypocrites we are not

Yes you are, you are still supporting a candidate who stands for an oppressive system and calling yourself moral.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Elhanan wrote...
- Bhelen's men murder others in the streets, and may be killed if they are not loyal.
- Bhelen's camp uses deception to try and fix the Proving.
- Harrowmont seems unwilling to cheat to take the offensive.
- Harrowmont & Bhelen have the same preconception of strength in a King: a tyrant.
- Harrowmont tells the truth at that point in the election; Bhelen speaks as one that has it locked.

All good.

And I choose one that is stronger morally; not one that is using the traditional tactics that has placed Orzimmar in the situation where such methods are commonplace.

And hence why you not only picked the epic failure, but you also picked the more oppressive of the two.

Well done. Congrats. Your sense of morality is all that Orzammar needs.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 24 janvier 2011 - 01:08 .

[Urazz]

Cutlass Jack wrote...

thesuperdarkone wrote...

Does the whole Civil war thing or Orzammar being permanently sealed off literally from the surface or anyone else ring any bells? Maybe you should reread those epilogue slides

You're not understanding the thread. Its not the metagame endgame view that's in question. Its making the decision with the knowledge your character actually has at the time.

From the endgame view, I think most people agree on who turns out better.

Yeah and you can come to that assumption based on asking around Orzammar.  You gotta basically ask yourself, is dwarven society in a good position at the moment and if it's not, who is going to be the best for the dwarves.

Bhelen is a selfish dictator, but he's one that is looking out for his people's interests overall as well.  I basically questioned all the things he wanted done and was thinking, 'what does he get out of this?'

All his decisions help himself somehow.  From getting the casteless rights so he has a bigger army to reclaim lost thaigs, to opening up trade to the surface for increased wealth flowing into Orzammar.

Modifié par Urazz, 24 janvier 2011 - 01:07 .

[Lloydie2006]

Bhelen may not necessary be the good option but he is what Orzammar needs, Harrowmont may be a better man in many respects but he also lacks the ruthless streak needed to rule effectively and will hold Orzammar back by holding onto tradition.



The Dwarfs are fighting a losing war and yet refuse to make full use of the resources available to them, The castless are a whole section of their society that is left unused and a fairly large section as a guardsmen puts it "Castless bread like rats". Orzammar need to move forward but those at the top will never willingly allow such changes to occur, they befit to much from the status quo. Bhelen is quite a revolutionary leader in that respect a man at the top willing to institute change that will damage his rule as we see later with the assassination attempts, however change is ultimately in the dwarfs best interests.

[Augustei]

Turning Orzamaar into a lands ruled by a dictatorship may pay off in the short term as seen in the epilogue.. But will cause catastrophic failure in the long run.

He means to pass down the crown through bloodline and so the hand of the tyrant will not end with him, It will pass to his son which he had with rica and so on. And just because one tyrant was beneficial for the dwarven people does not mean all of them will be, you will get a corrupt evil bastard who will bring the dwarven society to its knees.

You pathed the way for that tyrant by selecting Bhelen who reformed the dwarven society to suit his needs and his legacy. So if metagaming is taken into account then sure you improve Orzamaar and the dwarves... For a time. But how long will it last?

In fact there have been many various cases of a great reformist being suceeded by a power hungry maniac who almost brought the country to ruin... In fact there was one very recently who I will not name who almost lead not only his country but his actions could have brought Many countries to ruin with full scale war as a major possibility for his poor choices.

Modifié par XxDeonxX, 24 janvier 2011 - 02:19 .

[Ken555]

No offense towards people who liked the Dwarf story line in DA:O but every single way you could have chosen for the Two kings Harrowmont and Bhelen they were both unhappy in the end. Harrowmont lost out being old. Bhelen as a tyrant. No happy ending in the stone halls.

[Augustei]

Ken555 wrote...

No offense towards people who liked the Dwarf story line in DA:O but every single way you could have chosen for the Two kings Harrowmont and Bhelen they were both unhappy in the end. Harrowmont lost out being old. Bhelen as a tyrant. No happy ending in the stone halls.

yeah... and they were short. Didn't have much going for em'

[MilleyCastfire]

I agree with Lloydie2006, Bhelen is not really the "good" choice, however, he is always the one I pick now.



When I first played through, I did pick Harrowmant, then when I read the ending my jaw was on the floor. Harrowmant, where is the "good" option, he brings the dwarfs demise sooner than Bhelen (lets face it, in the end, both Kings are going to kill them all).



Harromant is too soft and sticks too closely to the old ways. He isolates the Dwarfs, this is retrosepct is NOT what the Dwarfs needed right?



Bhelen is the choice to make, becuase even though he isn't "good" he does what is GOOD for his people. He may end up as tyrant, but he is smart enought to out wit two brothers, in the end kill the king (his father) and get over half the assembly room in his pocket.



When Bhelen becomes King, he opens the doors and has the Dwarfs social with everyone else. Thus lengthing the life the Dwarfs have.



In the end though...they are all going to die.

[ejoslin]

XxDeonxX wrote...

Turning Orzamaar into a lands ruled by a dictatorship may pay off in the short term as seen in the epilogue.. But will cause catastrophic failure in the long run.

He means to pass down the crown through bloodline and so the hand of the tyrant will not end with him, It will pass to his son which he had with rica and so on. And just because one tyrant was beneficial for the dwarven people does not mean all of them will be, you will get a corrupt evil bastard who will bring the dwarven society to its knees.

You pathed the way for that tyrant by selecting Bhelen who reformed the dwarven society to suit his needs and his legacy. So if metagaming is taken into account then sure you improve Orzamaar and the dwarves... For a time. But how long will it last?

In fact there have been many various cases of a great reformist being suceeded by a power hungry maniac who almost brought the country to ruin... In fact there was one very recently who I will not name who almost lead not only his country but his actions could have brought Many countries to ruin with full scale war as a major possibility for his poor choices.

Holding on to tradition will cause worse failure in the long run.  Orzammar is LOSING the war to the darkspawn.  The deeproads at one point belonged to the dwarves, centuries of fighting has the frontlines pushed WAY back, to the entrances of the two remaining dwarven cities.

And once Orzammar falls, what happens to Ferelden?  Society as a whole will undergo massive change when suddenly the lyrium supply is cut off.  Darkspawn will have far more surface raids, and in fact will become far more powerful (though the dwarves are losing, they DO keep the population of the darkspawn somewhat in check).

The current dwarven system does not work.  It just doesn't.  It will kill the dwarven population, and that crisis point is close.  I would argue a despotism is better than the total collapse of a civilization.

Bhelen wants to save Orzammar.  Harrowmont wants to preserve the status quo.  

Ok, off my soapbox!

Modifié par ejoslin, 24 janvier 2011 - 02:58 .

[Elhanan]

Graspiloot wrote...

You moralists are such hypocrites. Using lying and deception is morally wrong (and killing 2 rivals), but killing entire dust town and supporting an oppressive system is morally right.

Again that is the epilogue you may see, but it has not occured yet. Plus I have never chosen this option w/Harrowmont as I am a moralistic hypocrite.

The only comfort that I have is that with your attitude you'll never gain any place of prominence in real life, therefore having no say in what happens in the world.

I vote in every election. and try and choose candates that have not killed their family. And I take comfort in that DAO is a solo game.

[Sarah1281]

He means to pass down the crown through bloodline and so the hand of the tyrant will not end with him, It will pass to his son which he had with rica and so on.

If the Assembly votes that way. And if Bhelen or Endrin Jr. manage to bribe Endrin's way to the throne despite everyone hating both of them then the Assembly haa only themselves to blame.

No offense towards people who liked the Dwarf story line in DA:O but every single way you could have chosen for the Two kings Harrowmont and Bhelen they were both unhappy in the end. Harrowmont lost out being old. Bhelen as a tyrant. No happy ending in the stone halls.

Dragon Age doesn't actually HAVE happy endings. You can save the mages but their status won't have changed and the templars are still addicted to lyrium with some quite corrupt. You can end the curse but the Dalish are still hated by everyone and losing their culture while the former wolves have no idea how to live among humans and will probably end up really poor and struggling to survive. You can put whoever on the throne but they won't have an heir and the banns are all causing problems by looking to Redcliffe for their leadership instead.

I really do hate it how everyone automatically accepts that Bhelen is a tyrant. Here's his epilogue:

In Orzammar, King Bhelen quickly proved himself a reformer. Trade with the surface lands increased and caste restrictions were loosened. The casteless were permitted to take arms against the darkspawn in exchange for new freedoms. For the first time in generations, the line in the Deep Roads was pushed back, and a few thaigs were reclaimed. Bhelen's reforms quickly found him enemies within the warrior and noble castes, however, and after several assassination attempts, the Assembly was dissolved. The king then ruled alone--some said as a tyrant, others said as a visionary determined to drag Orzammar into the modern world.

Now, I think all of those reforms are great. Trade with the surface makes Orzammar more prosperous, caste restrictions loosening improves lives for those below noble and warrior castes, the casteless actually have their life improve as well without having to 'die' first and more people are fighting the darkspawn, and for the first time in generations (which goes to show how much trouble Orzammar has been in) the dwarves retook land. In light of this, I don't care HOW many family members he had to kill to take the throne.

The epilogue does not call Bhelen a tyrant. It says that some people thought he was a tyrant and others thought he was a visionary determined to drag Orzammar into the modern world. The first definition for tyrant I found doesn't fit because it described someone who illegally seized power and Bhelen didn't. The second was one who ruled 'a sovereign or other ruler who uses power oppressively or unjustly.' I don't think just dissolving the Assembly and ruling alone qualifies as this since there is a legal precedent and it can't last forever. It's what he does with his increased freedom to act that could make him a tyrant.

It seems to me that the people who call him a tyrant are those enemies within the warrior and noble castes who aren't happy that they are losing their monopoly on anything approaching rights. They might approve of the darkspawn being pushed back but they won't all agree on increased trade and they certainly won't agree on the loosened caste restrictions and rights for casteless. Do you really think any of the lower castes who have their lives made unequivocally better are the ones accusing Bhelen of tyranny? No, it's just those that don't like what he's doing.

Modifié par Sarah1281, 24 janvier 2011 - 03:11 .

[Joy Divison]

XxDeonxX wrote...

Turning Orzamaar into a lands ruled by a dictatorship may pay off in the short term as seen in the epilogue.. But will cause catastrophic failure in the long run.

He means to pass down the crown through bloodline and so the hand of the tyrant will not end with him, It will pass to his son which he had with rica and so on. And just because one tyrant was beneficial for the dwarven people does not mean all of them will be, you will get a corrupt evil bastard who will bring the dwarven society to its knees.

You pathed the way for that tyrant by selecting Bhelen who reformed the dwarven society to suit his needs and his legacy. So if metagaming is taken into account then sure you improve Orzamaar and the dwarves... For a time. But how long will it last?

In fact there have been many various cases of a great reformist being suceeded by a power hungry maniac who almost brought the country to ruin... In fact there was one very recently who I will not name who almost lead not only his country but his actions could have brought Many countries to ruin with full scale war as a major possibility for his poor choices.

LOL you should write the President's speeches.  "Dictatorship" "catastrophic failure" "evil bastard" "power hungry maniac".

And what evidence do you have that Orzammar will head for this catastrophic failure?  You don't have to answer that, I'll tell you - Behlen isn't a proper democrat and is a mean guy.

[Elhanan]

Ken555 wrote...

No offense towards people who liked the Dwarf story line in DA:O but every single way you could have chosen for the Two kings Harrowmont and Bhelen they were both unhappy in the end. Harrowmont lost out being old. Bhelen as a tyrant. No happy ending in the stone halls.

Agreed; no good results here.

[Xilizhra]

If the Assembly votes that way.

I support Bhelen, but there is no Assembly under him. I'm guessing that he can pick whomever he likes as heir.

[Sarah1281]

Xilizhra wrote...

If the Assembly votes that way.

I support Bhelen, but there is no Assembly under him. I'm guessing that he can pick whomever he likes as heir.

The Assembly had been dissolved once before Bhelen for a period of two years during the last Blight. I think Bhelen will probably have it dissolved for longer but if nothing else, once Bhelen dies the Assembly will reform because they HAVE to vote on a new king. The Assembly could have been dissolved for fifty years while Bhelen ruled but eventually they will have to reform and pick an heir.

[Xilizhra]

True enough, I suppose.

[Augustei]

Graspiloot wrote...
The only comfort that I have is that with your attitude you'll never gain any place of prominence in real life, therefore having no say in what happens in the world.

Geez dude calm down no need to get personal. We are simply having a discussion about a video game.. no need to drag real life into this.

Besides, if you really must drag reality into this then you should come to the realisation that Orzamaar politics and the democracy found in modern countries today are quite different and Harrowmont's view of Compromise is far more likely to get places in a modern democracy than a Tyrant. So I take comfort that you'll never gain a place of prominence in real life. And if you did you would most likely be killed by those who didn't agree with you

Modifié par XxDeonxX, 24 janvier 2011 - 03:54 .

[Graspiloot]

It shows how you think on these issues. You rather oppress thousands of people than choose someone who is "mean".

And secondly, do you think modern day politicians are clean? They may not have killed, but are far from actually being honest.
Thirdly, who needs politics do be in power. Major companies do not work democratic you know, and the nice moralists never make it to the top there, whereas the reformers have a decent chance.
Finally, Bhelen is not a tyrant, look at Sarahs post above.

Modifié par Graspiloot, 24 janvier 2011 - 04:16 .