591 réponses à ce sujet

[Joy Divison]

Cutlass Jack wrote...

Joy Divison wrote...

By "him" do you mean Harrowmont?  He certainly is untrustworthy as his incompetence and weakness make it foolish to trust him to do anything notable.  Aside from destroying dust town, that is, which makes him a murderer.

Admirable try but but you're condemning him in advance for things not done yet. The view from endgame is another discussion entirely and not one many would disagree with. (Well probably someone would...) At the time of decision, Harrowmont has done nothing untrustworthy while Bhelen is hitting his third strike.

I am condemning him for his incompetence and weakness which is amply on display when I make the decision.  That makes him untrustworthy.  I'm not sure Bhelen is untrustworthy as he is adept at Dwarven politics.

[Elhanan]

Joy Divison wrote...

I am condemning him for his incompetence and weakness which is amply on display when I make the decision.  That makes him untrustworthy.  I'm not sure Bhelen is untrustworthy as he is adept at Dwarven politics.

Just to be kinda clear in this murky mudhole of logic: Harrowmont seems more corrupt as Bhelen to have made it in "Dirty Dwarven Politics", and has done things as vile as bribery which is recorded by the Shaperate, yet has not a ready blemish on the record in which to pin him for anything within the Assembly, so some must be manufactured via Gavorn which is easily tied back to him and possibly Bhelen due to close association

And he seems more ruthless than Bhelen because he will eventually brutally murder his opponents, critics, and those that rebel against him if he were to get a hold of some golems, yet is considered to also be weak (ie; not efficient).

And he rises from being the Second of an aged King with no direct ties to the Throne to best the remaining heir apparent, both on the word of a Warden, and in combat vs said opponent, but is judged incompetent.

Why it appears I may have been blind to the truth all along: Harrowmont is really the Puppetmaster of Orzammar. That scamp!

Modifié par Elhanan, 21 janvier 2011 - 07:11 .

[ejoslin]

is it that bribery is recorded in the shaperate, or the land transfer? It's perfectly possible that the land transfer is what is recorded, not the fact that it's bribery. I mean, property transfers HAVE to be on paper or else they don't happen.

*sigh* It seems that anything Harrowmont does is a Good Thing, even though it leads to the ruin of orzammar. And that there are clues that that will happen is irrelevant.

A nice man does not equal a good king. A king who supports a system which is killing the people is never a good thing.

twist words as you want -- it's not good debating, and does not make your case stronger at all. building strawmen to tear down is one of the weakest debate tactics that there are.

BUT!  Gah, this has ceased being interesting though it's still pretty funny

Edit: Took out the snark!

Modifié par ejoslin, 21 janvier 2011 - 07:38 .

[Giggles_Manically]

You know what finally pushed me over the edge?



I went into Dust Town and did the casteless kid quest. Learned that Dwarven TRADITION wanted that.

Then I heard that Harrowmont supports tradition like that.



Then I heard that Bhelen did not.



Making me go up to Bhelen first and laugh at the thought that I almost ended up supporting Harrowmont. Dodged ze olde bullet on that one.

[Bigdoser]

Giggles_Manically wrote...

You know what finally pushed me over the edge?

I went into Dust Town and did the casteless kid quest. Learned that Dwarven TRADITION wanted that.
Then I heard that Harrowmont supports tradition like that.

Then I heard that Bhelen did not.

Making me go up to Bhelen first and laugh at the thought that I almost ended up supporting Harrowmont. Dodged ze olde bullet on that one.

I don't know how anyone can support a man who agree's with dust town and the treatment of that kid thats just horrible

[Giggles_Manically]

Yeah:

HURR DURR HERR! Lets throw an innocent child into lava or the deep roads because of who the parents were!



DURR HUEERR! Lets all keep a whole part of society in poverty as wh!res and criminals because they dont EXIST!



Every chance I could take at kicking Dwarven tradition in the head I did. Minus Brother Burkel since he is wearing a dress.

[Joy Divison]

Elhanan wrote...

Just to be kinda clear in this murky mudhole of logic: Harrowmont seems more corrupt as Bhelen to have made it in "Dirty Dwarven Politics", and has done things as vile as bribery which is recorded by the Shaperate, yet has not a ready blemish on the record in which to pin him for anything within the Assembly, so some must be manufactured via Gavorn which is easily tied back to him and possibly Bhelen due to close association

And he seems more ruthless than Bhelen because he will eventually brutally murder his opponents, critics, and those that rebel against him if he were to get a hold of some golems, yet is considered to also be weak (ie; not efficient).

And he rises from being the Second of an aged King with no direct ties to the Throne to best the remaining heir apparent, both on the word of a Warden, and in combat vs said opponent, but is judged incompetent.

Why it appears I may have been blind to the truth all along: Harrowmont is really the Puppetmaster of Orzammar. That scamp!

Ehh?  I'm not nearly as hung up on Behlen's ethics as those who are crying "murderer."  Quite frankly, my GW doesn't care.  My GW cares about who is a superior leader and is most apt to get the Dwarves to fulfil their obligations.  I don't think it is a coincidence the epilogue shows Harrowmont as the (potentially murderous) incompetant reactionary he is.

[Sarah1281]

It also makes me laugh when people point to the information you get from the Shaper as proof that Bhelen's documents are forgeries.... as if it wasn't possible that the Shaper might secretly be a Harrowmount fanatic that could be lying to you...

That is a good point. Vartag does warn you that the Shaper is a kinsman of Harrowmont and the Shaper admits that but claims that he's related to everybody and so it's not an issue. I also detected a slight anti-Bhelen bias. Just taking his word might not be the best plan. On the other hand, you do get to confront Vartag about it.



PC: I talked to the shaper of memories. These papers are forged.

Vartag: Forged? W-well, naturally they're forged. There is no legal way for Harrowmont to sell the same land twice-over, is there? (Taken aback, making a fast recovery)

PC: Tell me where you really got these.

Vartag: You want to know how the game is played? I wrote the papers, and left a sizable fee with the registry office to back them. (Scornful -- telling the player outright that he was lying and no one cares) But if you think figuring it out gets you off the line, you don't understand how this works. (Pointed) I'm asking for a show of loyalty. So, exactly how much truth is involved shouldn't matter in the slightest. (Pointed -- it's even a better test of loyalty to spread these rumors *knowing* they're lies)

And he rises from being the Second of an aged King with no direct ties to the Throne to best the remaining heir apparent, both on the word of a Warden, and in combat vs said opponent, but is judged incompetent.

So you don't believe that Harrowmont was picked as a rallying point to try to finally get House Aeducan off the throne because they'd been on for nine entire generations (and many RL dynasties didn't last that long) and Harrowmont was old and weak so once he died in a few years the throne was free to fight over?

I don't know how anyone can support a man who agree's with dust town and the treatment of that kid thats just horrible

Not to mention Nadezda. I know that she used to work for the carta but given that it's not legal for her to have any legal work, I can't hold her morally responsible for that. She had both of her kneecaps broken by Orzammar guards after she was caught and couldn't afford to bribe them and then was made to kneel in dung for hours until infection set in for the express purpose of her never healing property. This is perfectly legal because it's not a crime to hurt or kill a casteless.

[KnightofPhoenix]

I do think that Bhelen was able to use this "assembly wants a weak king" to his advantage when he turned more than half the Assembly against Orzammar's rising star. He's subtle and I think he purposely showed himself weak and played with their short sightedness, until a large number realized that he's stronger than they thought. enter Harrowmont.

[Elhanan]

Bigdoser wrote...

Giggles_Manically wrote...

You know what finally pushed me over the edge?

I went into Dust Town and did the casteless kid quest. Learned that Dwarven TRADITION wanted that.
Then I heard that Harrowmont supports tradition like that.

Then I heard that Bhelen did not.

Making me go up to Bhelen first and laugh at the thought that I almost ended up supporting Harrowmont. Dodged ze olde bullet on that one.

I don't know how anyone can support a man who agree's with dust town and the treatment of that kid thats just horrible

I agree that such ignorance of life is horrible, as it was in Rome, I believe. Changing minds is going to take work. Thus, most of my Wardens do not choose Bhelen who kills his own family to gain power.

[Giggles_Manically]

Nope.



You just chose the man who thinks that a good chunk of society is scum who should not exist.

Who thinks they have no rights, and encourages that belief.

[AbsolutGrndZer0]

Really I think what it boils down to is, do the ends justify the means? Bhelen does some pretty underhanded things to gain the throne, but what choice does he really have? He's the 3rd heir, so there's really no legit by tradition way to gain the throne and make the changes he believes are for the better of the dwarven people.

Again, that's why even on my Dwarven Noble, I put Bhelen in charge because my character realizes his betrayal of me was not out of hatred of me or Trian or IMO a desire to be on the throne for his own glory, so much as to be the reformer and HELP his fellow dwarves. His betrayal of his family is because he thought neither of his siblings would defy tradition and help dwarven society to get out of the 'dark ages' so to speak. Truly, if Bhelen just wanted the power he would NOT have done the reforms he did.

Modifié par AbsolutGrndZer0, 22 janvier 2011 - 10:57 .

[Elhanan]

AbsolutGrndZer0 wrote...

Really I think what it boils down to is, do the ends justify the means? Bhelen does some pretty underhanded things to gain the throne, but what choice does he really have? He's the 3rd heir, so there's really no legit by tradition way to gain the throne and make the changes he believes are for the better of the dwarven people.

Again, that's why even on my Dwarven Noble, I put Bhelen in charge because my character realizes his betrayal of me was not out of hatred of me or Trian or IMO a desire to be on the throne for his own glory, so much as to be the reformer and HELP his fellow dwarves. His betrayal of his family is because he thought neither of his siblings would defy tradition and help dwarven society to get out of the 'dark ages' so to speak. Truly, if Bhelen just wanted the power he would NOT have done the reforms he did.

Nope.

You just chose the man who thinks that a good chunk of society is scum who should not exist.

Who thinks they have no rights, and encourages that belief.

Bhelen considers any that do not hold his POV as his lessers, and has proven he is willing to kill any that stand in his way. So I use one reply to respond to another.....

[AbsolutGrndZer0]

Elhanan wrote...

AbsolutGrndZer0 wrote...

Really I think what it boils down to is, do the ends justify the means? Bhelen does some pretty underhanded things to gain the throne, but what choice does he really have? He's the 3rd heir, so there's really no legit by tradition way to gain the throne and make the changes he believes are for the better of the dwarven people.

Again, that's why even on my Dwarven Noble, I put Bhelen in charge because my character realizes his betrayal of me was not out of hatred of me or Trian or IMO a desire to be on the throne for his own glory, so much as to be the reformer and HELP his fellow dwarves. His betrayal of his family is because he thought neither of his siblings would defy tradition and help dwarven society to get out of the 'dark ages' so to speak. Truly, if Bhelen just wanted the power he would NOT have done the reforms he did.

Nope.

You just chose the man who thinks that a good chunk of society is scum who should not exist.

Who thinks they have no rights, and encourages that belief.

Bhelen considers any that do not hold his POV as his lessers, and has proven he is willing to kill any that stand in his way. So I use one reply to respond to another.....

So, I'm confused... are you for Bhelen or Harrowmont?

[IanPolaris]

Giggles_Manically wrote...

Nope.

You just chose the man who thinks that a good chunk of society is scum who should not exist.
Who thinks they have no rights, and encourages that belief.

But other than that (and the slaughter of Dusttown) Lord Harrowmount is a terrific guy!

-Polaris

[KnightofPhoenix]

Elhanan wrote...
I agree that such ignorance of life is horrible, as it was in Rome, I believe. Changing minds is going to take work. Thus, most of my Wardens do not choose Bhelen who kills his own family to gain power.

There was nothing remotely similar to "casteless" in Rome. All Romans were citizens. And citizenship was extended gradually to non-Romans.

While infanticide had been practised accross the ages, it was mainly for economic reasons. Never because of an ideology / system like that of Orzammar. Perhaps the Indian Caste system was an exception, but I am not familiar with how it functionned. I do not know if the untouchables had it worse or better than the casteless.

EDIT: and slaves in Rome had it better than the casteless.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 22 janvier 2011 - 03:33 .

[Sarah1281]

You know, aside from moral reasons it is still REALLY horrible that they practice infanticide in Orzammar. I mean, they already are facing a population shortage with their lack of fertility, loss of men to the surface, and Deep Roads deaths and they still feel perfectly fine throwing away perfectly good babies?

[Dean_the_Young]

Sounds like they need a 'Modest Proposal' of their own.



I mean, just the waste! Surely they could feed brontos with those babies instead! Think of the war potential!

[KnightofPhoenix]

That's my primary objection against this whole thing and Harrowmont. The practice is stupid.

Heck, if they could take those babies and raise them to be obedient soldiers, that would have made much more sense (until those slave soldiers ultimately either rebel or take power).

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 22 janvier 2011 - 03:37 .

[Graspiloot]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
While infanticide had been practised accross the ages, it was mainly for economic reasons. Never because of an ideology / system like that of Orzammar. Perhaps the Indian Caste system was an exception, but I am not familiar with how it functionned. I do not know if the untouchables had it worse or better than the casteless. 

I would disagree with that. The Spartans did so on a ideology. And it worked, because for hundreds of years they were one of the most powerful countries in the known world and they are still legendary. Of course moralists and ethical people would go beserk over what happened in Sparta, but in my opinion the ideology behind it made sense and actually helped their society.
The closest humans have ever gotten to a utopian society.

But Orzammar is not similar in any way. Whereas Sparta was conquered rapidly, Orzammar is dying for generations now and the only way to turn it around is with manpower.

Also, Elhanans arguments are getting ridiculous now. Supporting a system like that apparently is better than just killing two people. Everything Harrowmont does is seen through positive glasses and said: yes it could be better, but wth. And everything Bhelen does, they don't even have to be bad things (killing Trian, dissolving the assembly) and the whining starts that it's so horrible.

Modifié par Graspiloot, 22 janvier 2011 - 03:41 .

[mousestalker]

I think we all agree that the smart solution is to take the unwanted dwarves (casteless) and allow them to redeem themselves by fighting.



We have no numbers as to how many fighters that adds, but I don't think the dwarves should be turning down any help, especially help with so few strings attached. If anything, such a plan strengthens the caste system by providing a safety valve for underclass discontent.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Graspiloot wrote...
I would disagree with that. The Spartans did so on a ideology. And it worked, because for hundreds of years they were one of the most powerful countries in the known world and they are still legendary. Of course moralists and ethical people would go beserk over what happened in Sparta, but in my opinion the ideology behind it made sense and actually helped their society.
The closest humans have ever gotten to a utopian society.

Actually, modern historians are disputing this. The bones found in the pit where kids were supposedely thrown to die, turned out to be adult bones.
But for the sake of argument, ok consider Sparta. It still wasn't the same as in Orzammar.
But the Messanian helots can be seen as somewhat casteless.

And I am not sure I would consider a society with no art, no sense of history, no literrature, no philosophy or culture or science or anything really, other than complete and pure devotion to warfare (and they got bested by Thebes anyhow) to be a quasi-utopia. But tastes I guess.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 22 janvier 2011 - 03:49 .

[mousestalker]

Also, all of the Greeks got their clocks cleaned by the Romans once the Romans got their act together. Having a really great bunch of elite type soldiers is all very well, but how do you replace casualties?



The Romans used a broad based definition of citizenship, enlisted the lower classes to fight in the wars (even before the Marian reforms) and could lose armies then replace them. The classical era city state army was essentially irreplaceable (see: Pyrrhic victory).

[KnightofPhoenix]

mousestalker wrote...

Also, all of the Greeks got their clocks cleaned by the Romans once the Romans got their act together. Having a really great bunch of elite type soldiers is all very well, but how do you replace casualties?

The Romans used a broad based definition of citizenship, enlisted the lower classes to fight in the wars (even before the Marian reforms) and could lose armies then replace them. The classical era city state army was essentially irreplaceable (see: Pyrrhic victory).

Macedonia before Rome.

And the fact that a battle such as Cannae did not break Rome, is testemony to this. The sheer manpower of Rome and its allies was astounding.

[Graspiloot]

Well yeah that was the problem in the end for them as well. A slow decline because of a failing system (Orzammar anyone?). After their glory days were over and they were no longer the power centre of Greece they declined, in their hayday they would have never lost to thebes. They were conquered after by the Romans (And Sparta was about the only Greek state not conquered by Macedon), but they were allowed to continue their way of life and were only destroyed in the 13th century by the ottomans.

Also when I mean closest, it doesn't mean close. Just more utopia than all the other self-proclaimed utopia's in history. Even the athenians admitted to that.

Also, as if the Romans didn't copy their way of warfare, only improving it (like they did with all things greek).

Modifié par Graspiloot, 22 janvier 2011 - 04:05 .