374 réponses à ce sujet

[Augustei]

I sort of want to marry her and Alistair but i really hesitate to because well... I hate Anora, She is dead in my playthrough.. Regardless of what people say, she died up in Fort Dragon when a 3 hurlocks ran into her cell, ripped her arms off and left... She bled to death lol. Brutal I know

[Sarah1281]

XxDeonxX wrote...

I sort of want to marry her and Alistair but i really hesitate to because well... I hate Anora, She is dead in my playthrough.. Regardless of what people say, she died up in Fort Dragon when a 3 hurlocks ran into her cell, ripped her arms off and left... She bled to death lol. Brutal I know

Why can't you be happy with an execution? Hardened Alistair (the only Alistiar I can see any sense in putting on the throne) tells Anora specifically when he names her his heir if he dies during the Blight that he won't execute her while he's about to die in battle. Once he doesn't do this, there is no reason not to and he's already implied that he's planning on it since she won't swear fealty. Even ignoring the fact she's alive if Alistiar dies, it's just unreasonable to think that, given the advance warning Denerim had, they wouldn't move such a high-profile prisoner. If nothing else, the Blight might be an opportunity for her to escape.

[Aeowyn]

Um, right, because giving great speeches is everthing that is needed to give good speeches >.>



She's a good Queen, better than Alistair IMO. She pushes Ferelden forward. She builds a University, and has vision. Alistair tours around the land and gets the love of his people while Eamon rules behind the curtains. Eamon should stay in Redcliffe.

[Augustei]

Unless he is hardened.. And you get a more epic final battle with Alistair when he gives the speech before it.. Anora's is terrible

[Aeowyn]

No, Eamon is still there if he is hardened. Eamon is always there. And seriously, giving an epic speech has nothing to do with being a good leader

[Perjorative]

I don't know about anyone else, but I found Alistair ... irritating. While his wit and sarcasm at least elevated him above the likes of Carth Onassi in the Bioware canon, his goody-goody attitude and tendency to whine meant that I'd have put a darkspawn on the throne if it meant I got to have Alistair executed.

Being able to induct Loghain into the Wardens was just an added bonus, and added a welcome dose of pragmatism to proceedins.

Modifié par Perjorative, 28 janvier 2011 - 05:07 .

[Wereparrot]

Leaving aside what I think about Alistair's claim, I would still say Anora is better suited for governance.

For me, Alistair doesn't show any kingly qualities whatsoever:

• His diplomatic skills and political reasoning are poor, as evidenced by his tantrum if you spare Loghain. He needs to learn that his word alone is not sufficient to convict a man of a crime for which there is no compelling evidence (treason). He lets Eamon lead him like a dog on a lead and the Warden run rings around him at the Landsmeet without so much as a word of dissent (unless you spare Loghain and that doesn't count, as it isn't constructive or reasonable criticism but an arrogant whine at not getting his own way),
• His lack of conviction is frightening. Not once is he anything other than indecisive, unless he is made king and he is hardened, but even then the improvement is negligible,
• Sure he is idealistic, but this is nothing without the strong leadership to enforce his ideals, and Alistair shows no leadership skills (speeches notwithstanding, but these are hardly indicative of good leadership). The fact that he follows the Warden about for the whole game hardly endears him (although I recognise that this is mainly just due to gameplay),
• He has nothing like the authority of Anora. Due to the above points and regardless of the epilogue, he would be a walkover at the Landsmeet. His attitude to the kingship if he marries the HNF is most telling-he lacks vision and motivation, further decreasing his authority.

By contrast, Anora demonstrates all of the above qualities except good leadership, which is due entirely to her father (although I don't blame her for Loghain. The transition from Queen-Regent to Queen-Regnant would be difficult even without Loghain's presence). 

[Augustei]

No Compelling Evidence? The Warden was there when hit quit the field.. A Crime Punishable by death, And by doing so Commited Regicide.. I Crime Punishable by Death. He stopped a templar from doing his duty and let a Maleficar go free.. A Crime Punishable by death. Jowan is evidence of that event as well as the templar in howes estate
Alistair is right in demanding Loghains death. The fact that his crimes can be overlooked so easily is rediculous.

Thanks to my landsmeet, her political reasoning is anything but good.. the entire sided against her and her father, and that wasn't hard to acomplish.

Modifié par XxDeonxX, 28 janvier 2011 - 06:37 .

[Wereparrot]

XxDeonxX wrote...

No Compelling Evidence? The Warden was there when hit quit the field.. A Crime Punishable by death, And by doing so Commited Regicide.. I Crime Punishable by Death. He stopped a templar from doing his duty and let a Maleficar go free.. A Crime Punishable by death. Jowan is evidence of that event as well as the templar in howes estate
Alistair is right in demanding Loghains death. The fact that his crimes can be overlooked so easily is rediculous.

Thanks to my landsmeet, her political reasoning is anything but good.. the entire sided against her and her father, and that wasn't hard to acomplish.

I was talking about the crime of treason. This is a very serious and consequently very delicate crime.

Loghain deserted. So what? He didn't kill the king and no one can claim that he did. That his actions lead to Cailin's death is irrelevant unless you can prove beyond reasonable doubt that he intended Cailin's death. You cannot, so therefore you cannot convict him of treason, regardless of what else he may or may not have done. I am not belittling his crimes. But treason cannot be one of them. Hang him for desertion if you want, but nothing else.

And the business with Jowan and the poison? It's only common sense to take out someone who may be a threat to you. And Jowan is only a maleficar in the eye of the beholder. He is no danger, because he is essentially a good person.

What is your point about Anora's political reasoning? The Landsmeet only sided against her because you made it so. It doesn't mean she has any less political understanding and reasoning.

Edit: treason/regicide-same thing. Bit more to treason, but even so.

Modifié par Wereparrot, 28 janvier 2011 - 07:57 .

[Persephone]

XxDeonxX wrote...

No Compelling Evidence? The Warden was there when hit quit the field.. A Crime Punishable by death, And by doing so Commited Regicide.. I Crime Punishable by Death. He stopped a templar from doing his duty and let a Maleficar go free.. A Crime Punishable by death. Jowan is evidence of that event as well as the templar in howes estate
Alistair is right in demanding Loghains death. The fact that his crimes can be overlooked so easily is rediculous.

Thanks to my landsmeet, her political reasoning is anything but good.. the entire sided against her and her father, and that wasn't hard to acomplish.

The Warden was NOT there but at the Tower of Ishal, lighting a very delayed beacon. The Warden finds out about it through Morrigan & Flemeth and also knows nothing of the cutscene the player sees. Huh...regicide? He shape-shifted into an ogre, did he? Or wait....NO, it was actually Cailan's idiocy and fighting the front lines that got him crushed. Had Loghain charged on horses after (your) delayed signal, both Cailan and Duncan would still be dead. So every Warden who lets Jowan go rather than allow Eamon to execute him/deliver him to the mercy of the Chantry should be executed too? Alistair can demand whatever he likes, his motives however are personal and selfish. (He (Loghain) "killed" Duncan, OGZ! Alistair even makes a grab for the crown he is unfit to wear and doesn't want......... to sate his bloodlust....not qualifications for a king) 

Modifié par Persephone, 28 janvier 2011 - 11:52 .

[Zjarcal]

HolyAvenger wrote...

People have to make sacrifices. Personal happiness is quite low down on my things-that-are-important list when making decisions like that which affect the whole nation/society.

Bringing back and old post just to say how much I PERSONALLY disagree with this view, something that is reflected on my wardens.

We already made enough sacrifices risking our lives to stop the Blight. Let someone else take the throne.

Then again at the last minute Alistair wants to be King because of me sparing Loghain but that's another story. 

[Ryzaki]

I wonder if we'll see traveling Warden Alistair in DA2? I hope so.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 28 janvier 2011 - 09:29 .

[Sarah1281]

He needs to learn that his word alone is not sufficient to convict a man of a crime for which there is no compelling evidence (treason).

Actually...I don't think Alistair was overstepping himself by calling for Loghain's execution even if he reacted poorly to being denied it. If Loghain wins the duel you die. If you lose the vote Loghain tries to kill you. If you or Alistair kill Loghain no one cares. The duel seems to let the winner decide your fate so if Alistair can convince you to kill Loghain, you are well within your rights to do so. It doesn't necessarily mean that you SHOULD but since Alistair thinks that you should it's perfectly legal. Barbaric, maybe, but legal.

No Compelling Evidence? The Warden was there when hit quit the field.. A Crime Punishable by death, And by doing so Commited Regicide.. I Crime Punishable by Death. He stopped a templar from doing his duty and let a Maleficar go free.. A Crime Punishable by death. Jowan is evidence of that event as well as the templar in howes estate

Compelling evidence is something that can be proven and the Landsmeet is the jury. If you are trying to get rid of Loghain then your testimony carries little weight because of the obious bias. Bring up Loghain fleeing and leaving Cailan to die and Loghain will refute that he couldn't have saved Cailan and that the GWs goaded him into fighting on the front lines. Since you can't prove your case, you lose support if you do this. It honestly doesn't matter what "really" happened, only what you can prove. You cannot prove anything about Ostagar and your word is not enough.



Jowan is a different story. While no one would trust the word of a maleficar and if that's all you have to offer then bringing it up won't gain you any support. If you save Alfstanna's brother, however, then you have the testimony of the templar who was cornering Jowan when Loghain's men intervened to back you up and people believe that.

Thanks to my landsmeet, her political reasoning is anything but good.. the entire sided against her and her father, and that wasn't hard to acomplish.

That is absolutely not true. What arguments can you give the Landsmeet?



Here's what you can do without Anora: Bring up Loghain stealing power from Anora and the debate stops and it cuts to Loghain accusing you of kidnapping her. Bring up leaving Cailan to die and you never get support. Bring up Alistair being the rightful king and you need a lot of persuade skills to get anywhere. Bring up the Blight being the true threat and you get support.



Then there's the bulk of the argument. Bring up the slaving. How do you find that out? Anora told you. Bring up Eamon's poisoning. No one believes you unless you have Alfstanna's brother and how do you get him? By exploring the dungeon's after Anora sends you after Howe. Bring up Howe torturing nobles. You don't even know about that without Anora sending you after Howe.



Loghain is weakened by the recent death of his second-in-command and what's come out about him. Why does this happen? Anora sends you to kill him.



If Anora hadn't contacted you, Loghain would have won the Landsmeet hands down. Even Eamon admits how hopesless it looks before Anora contacts you.

[ArawnNox]

My first game I played the honest-to-a-fault goody-two-shoes character (since that's how I tend to play games with morality choices) and I had much the same reactions.

I revealed Anora was with me when I rescued her, and got turned on. That ticked me off.

I refused to support her claim ('cause I wanted to put my Cousland and Alistair on the throne), got turned against in the landsmeet and hated Anora for it.

Now, I've had time to think and I find myself rather surprised at how much hatred people have for Anora.

Let's put some of this in perspective. Arnora is Queen-Consort. I really need to stress this: Queen-Consort. Kings and Queens are not joint-rulers (though it can and did happen). The -consort half of the pair did not share their spouces power. In theory, at least. In practice, it may not have always been true.

Case in point. Anora, as Queen-Consort is credited as being a very able ruler (and no NPC refutes that). This speaks volumes of Cailan's ineffectiveness as an administrator.

Earlier in the thread there were some very vicious comments about Anora being "power hungery" and "ruthless". I say she's not stupid. The Warden and an unrecognised bastard prince show up in the capital and she knows that Alistair is going to be put forward as a claim to the throne. Why wouldn't she try to protect her position? She knows she's good at what she does, while Alistair has been fighting darkspawn. He, for all intents and perposes, has no ruling ability whatsoever (and try to prove me wrong on that, seriously).

As to the argument that she should have stood up to Loghain, I believe it was Sarah who brought up the issue of the army. She has a good point. A powerful general (and a hero) just marched his army into the capital and effectivley stripped the ruling monarch of her power. What was she supposed to do? This sort of event isn't limited to the world of Thedas, either. Dong Zhuo did the exact same thing to the Han Emperor in ancient China after the Yellow Turban Rebellion was put down.

TL;DR
Anora is a good ruler, Alistair has no qualifications to be one. (I'd even go as far as to question the Cousland Warden as well)

[Persephone]

Sarah1281 wrote...

He needs to learn that his word alone is not sufficient to convict a man of a crime for which there is no compelling evidence (treason).

Actually...I don't think Alistair was overstepping himself by calling for Loghain's execution even if he reacted poorly to being denied it. If Loghain wins the duel you die. If you lose the vote Loghain tries to kill you. If you or Alistair kill Loghain no one cares. The duel seems to let the winner decide your fate so if Alistair can convince you to kill Loghain, you are well within your rights to do so. It doesn't necessarily mean that you SHOULD but since Alistair thinks that you should it's perfectly legal. Barbaric, maybe, but legal.

No Compelling Evidence? The Warden was there when hit quit the field.. A Crime Punishable by death, And by doing so Commited Regicide.. I Crime Punishable by Death. He stopped a templar from doing his duty and let a Maleficar go free.. A Crime Punishable by death. Jowan is evidence of that event as well as the templar in howes estate

Compelling evidence is something that can be proven and the Landsmeet is the jury. If you are trying to get rid of Loghain then your testimony carries little weight because of the obious bias. Bring up Loghain fleeing and leaving Cailan to die and Loghain will refute that he couldn't have saved Cailan and that the GWs goaded him into fighting on the front lines. Since you can't prove your case, you lose support if you do this. It honestly doesn't matter what "really" happened, only what you can prove. You cannot prove anything about Ostagar and your word is not enough.

Jowan is a different story. While no one would trust the word of a maleficar and if that's all you have to offer then bringing it up won't gain you any support. If you save Alfstanna's brother, however, then you have the testimony of the templar who was cornering Jowan when Loghain's men intervened to back you up and people believe that.

Thanks to my landsmeet, her political reasoning is anything but good.. the entire sided against her and her father, and that wasn't hard to acomplish.

That is absolutely not true. What arguments can you give the Landsmeet?

Here's what you can do without Anora: Bring up Loghain stealing power from Anora and the debate stops and it cuts to Loghain accusing you of kidnapping her. Bring up leaving Cailan to die and you never get support. Bring up Alistair being the rightful king and you need a lot of persuade skills to get anywhere. Bring up the Blight being the true threat and you get support.

Then there's the bulk of the argument. Bring up the slaving. How do you find that out? Anora told you. Bring up Eamon's poisoning. No one believes you unless you have Alfstanna's brother and how do you get him? By exploring the dungeon's after Anora sends you after Howe. Bring up Howe torturing nobles. You don't even know about that without Anora sending you after Howe.

Loghain is weakened by the recent death of his second-in-command and what's come out about him. Why does this happen? Anora sends you to kill him.

If Anora hadn't contacted you, Loghain would have won the Landsmeet hands down. Even Eamon admits how hopesless it looks before Anora contacts you.

*Braaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaavooooooooooooooooooooooooooo* Agreed 100%.

[Wereparrot]

ArawnNox wrote...


Let's put some of this in perspective. Arnora is Queen-Consort. I really need to stress this: Queen-Consort. Kings and Queens are not joint-rulers (though it can and did happen). The -consort half of the pair did not share their spouces power. In theory, at least. In practice, it may not have always been true.

Anora is Queen-Regnant at the time of the Landsmeet. You have the opportunity to put the illegitimate son of Maric on the throne as a userper.

Modifié par Wereparrot, 29 janvier 2011 - 12:25 .

[Sarah1281]

Wereparrot wrote...

ArawnNox wrote...


Let's put some of this in perspective. Arnora is Queen-Consort. I really need to stress this: Queen-Consort. Kings and Queens are not joint-rulers (though it can and did happen). The -consort half of the pair did not share their spouces power. In theory, at least. In practice, it may not have always been true.

Anora is Queen-Regnant at the time of the Landsmeet. You have the opportunity to put the illegitimate son of Maric on the throne as a userper.

It is your opinion that she is the legal ruler. If she is the illegal queen-regnant who isn't even ruling but has a regent then I really don't see how it matters. Unless the Landsmeet approves of her rule - and we know from the lack of a Landsmeet being called that that didn't - then it doesn't matter if she's the one technically sitting on the throne. It makes her the usurper that Alistair is apparently trying to usurp the throne from.

[Persephone]

Sarah1281 wrote...

Wereparrot wrote...

ArawnNox wrote...


Let's put some of this in perspective. Arnora is Queen-Consort. I really need to stress this: Queen-Consort. Kings and Queens are not joint-rulers (though it can and did happen). The -consort half of the pair did not share their spouces power. In theory, at least. In practice, it may not have always been true.

Anora is Queen-Regnant at the time of the Landsmeet. You have the opportunity to put the illegitimate son of Maric on the throne as a userper.

It is your opinion that she is the legal ruler. If she is the illegal queen-regnant who isn't even ruling but has a regent then I really don't see how it matters. Unless the Landsmeet approves of her rule - and we know from the lack of a Landsmeet being called that that didn't - then it doesn't matter if she's the one technically sitting on the throne. It makes her the usurper that Alistair is apparently trying to usurp the throne from.

A queen having a regent does not stand for her not ruling. And I don't remember anyone objecting to Anora being the queen after Cailan dies.

[Zjarcal]

Sarah1281 wrote...
If Anora hadn't contacted you, Loghain would have won the Landsmeet hands down. Even Eamon admits how hopesless it looks before Anora contacts you.

But you can always win in a duel... 

[Wereparrot]

Sarah1281 wrote...

Wereparrot wrote...

ArawnNox wrote...


Let's put some of this in perspective. Arnora is Queen-Consort. I really need to stress this: Queen-Consort. Kings and Queens are not joint-rulers (though it can and did happen). The -consort half of the pair did not share their spouces power. In theory, at least. In practice, it may not have always been true.

Anora is Queen-Regnant at the time of the Landsmeet. You have the opportunity to put the illegitimate son of Maric on the throne as a userper.

It is your opinion that she is the legal ruler. If she is the illegal queen-regnant who isn't even ruling but has a regent then I really don't see how it matters. Unless the Landsmeet approves of her rule - and we know from the lack of a Landsmeet being called that that didn't - then it doesn't matter if she's the one technically sitting on the throne. It makes her the usurper that Alistair is apparently trying to usurp the throne from.

Yes it is my opinion.

I have continually likened Anora's situation to that of Edward III and Roger Mortimer; Edward and Anora both being supposed monarchs being strangled by their regents.

The reason a Landsmeet wasn't called was nothing to do with Anora, but Loghain's paranoia. The Landsmeet was never given the chance to agree or disagree.

[Sarah1281]

Persephone wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...

Wereparrot wrote...

ArawnNox wrote...


Let's put some of this in perspective. Arnora is Queen-Consort. I really need to stress this: Queen-Consort. Kings and Queens are not joint-rulers (though it can and did happen). The -consort half of the pair did not share their spouces power. In theory, at least. In practice, it may not have always been true.

Anora is Queen-Regnant at the time of the Landsmeet. You have the opportunity to put the illegitimate son of Maric on the throne as a userper.

It is your opinion that she is the legal ruler. If she is the illegal queen-regnant who isn't even ruling but has a regent then I really don't see how it matters. Unless the Landsmeet approves of her rule - and we know from the lack of a Landsmeet being called that that didn't - then it doesn't matter if she's the one technically sitting on the throne. It makes her the usurper that Alistair is apparently trying to usurp the throne from.

A queen having a regent does not stand for her not ruling. And I don't remember anyone objecting to Anora being the queen after Cailan dies.

They may not have objected to her and they may have been willing to confirm her as a legal ruler but since a Landsmeet was not called, she was not the legal ruler.

And I think the whole point of having a regent is that the person with the regent is not ruling. Regents are there if the monarch is too young to rule, is not physically present to rule, is too sick to rule, is otherwise unable to rule...what do you think a regent is but someone ruling in place of the monarch? Anora having a regent when she's healthy, of age, and right there means she's not ruling and Loghain is. Maybe Anora agreed she wasn't fit to rule in the immediate aftermath of Ostagar due to grief or something but that's still giving up the right to rule.

[Sarah1281]

The reason a Landsmeet wasn't called was nothing to do with Anora, but Loghain's paranoia. The Landsmeet was never given the chance to agree or disagree.

That's the point! If a Landsmeet has to be called to make a reign legal and legitimate then it doesn't matter why it wasn't called. It might not be called because there was a freak blizzard and no one could get to Denerim. Until the Landsmeet is called and they recognize her as their legal queen, she is not the legal queen. At best, she is the interim ruler seeking to retain the throne when a real one is chosen.

[Wereparrot]

Sarah1281 wrote...

Persephone wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...

Wereparrot wrote...

ArawnNox wrote...


Let's put some of this in perspective. Arnora is Queen-Consort. I really need to stress this: Queen-Consort. Kings and Queens are not joint-rulers (though it can and did happen). The -consort half of the pair did not share their spouces power. In theory, at least. In practice, it may not have always been true.

Anora is Queen-Regnant at the time of the Landsmeet. You have the opportunity to put the illegitimate son of Maric on the throne as a userper.

It is your opinion that she is the legal ruler. If she is the illegal queen-regnant who isn't even ruling but has a regent then I really don't see how it matters. Unless the Landsmeet approves of her rule - and we know from the lack of a Landsmeet being called that that didn't - then it doesn't matter if she's the one technically sitting on the throne. It makes her the usurper that Alistair is apparently trying to usurp the throne from.

A queen having a regent does not stand for her not ruling. And I don't remember anyone objecting to Anora being the queen after Cailan dies.

They may not have objected to her and they may have been willing to confirm her as a legal ruler but since a Landsmeet was not called, she was not the legal ruler. 

I thought the heir-apparent began their reign as soon as the old monarch died??

[Sarah1281]

Wereparrot wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...

Persephone wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...

Wereparrot wrote...

ArawnNox wrote...


Let's put some of this in perspective. Arnora is Queen-Consort. I really need to stress this: Queen-Consort. Kings and Queens are not joint-rulers (though it can and did happen). The -consort half of the pair did not share their spouces power. In theory, at least. In practice, it may not have always been true.

Anora is Queen-Regnant at the time of the Landsmeet. You have the opportunity to put the illegitimate son of Maric on the throne as a userper.

It is your opinion that she is the legal ruler. If she is the illegal queen-regnant who isn't even ruling but has a regent then I really don't see how it matters. Unless the Landsmeet approves of her rule - and we know from the lack of a Landsmeet being called that that didn't - then it doesn't matter if she's the one technically sitting on the throne. It makes her the usurper that Alistair is apparently trying to usurp the throne from.

A queen having a regent does not stand for her not ruling. And I don't remember anyone objecting to Anora being the queen after Cailan dies.

They may not have objected to her and they may have been willing to confirm her as a legal ruler but since a Landsmeet was not called, she was not the legal ruler. 

I thought the heir-apparent began their reign as soon as the old monarch died??

I don't know enough about how that works in England but this is Ferelden. A Landsmeet has to confirm a new ruler. A Landsmeet was called to confirm Cailan as ruler once Maric died and that's when people tried to put Bryce on the throne instead. And there wasn't actually an heir-apparent, remember? That's why there can be a succession crisis. Maybe Cailan should have named Anora his heir but he didn't.

[ArawnNox]

Wereparrot wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...

Persephone wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...

Wereparrot wrote...

ArawnNox wrote...


Let's put some of this in perspective. Arnora is Queen-Consort. I really need to stress this: Queen-Consort. Kings and Queens are not joint-rulers (though it can and did happen). The -consort half of the pair did not share their spouces power. In theory, at least. In practice, it may not have always been true.

Anora is Queen-Regnant at the time of the Landsmeet. You have the opportunity to put the illegitimate son of Maric on the throne as a userper.

It is your opinion that she is the legal ruler. If she is the illegal queen-regnant who isn't even ruling but has a regent then I really don't see how it matters. Unless the Landsmeet approves of her rule - and we know from the lack of a Landsmeet being called that that didn't - then it doesn't matter if she's the one technically sitting on the throne. It makes her the usurper that Alistair is apparently trying to usurp the throne from.

A queen having a regent does not stand for her not ruling. And I don't remember anyone objecting to Anora being the queen after Cailan dies.

They may not have objected to her and they may have been willing to confirm her as a legal ruler but since a Landsmeet was not called, she was not the legal ruler. 

I thought the heir-apparent began their reign as soon as the old monarch died??

Not necissarily. It's like being a president-elect. The heir apparent, I don't think, is technically the ruler until they are coronated. Don't qupte me on this, however, I'm not positive.