169 réponses à ce sujet

[KnightofPhoenix]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Harrowmont has charm.

Yes he is a traditionalist who would sink his city into the ground but he definitely is a charmer ( assuming one can ignore that little episode at the gate )

He sounds kind of dull though. A charmer usually attracts undivided attention, in a good way. In that sense, Bhelen is more charming imo, unless you're a DN going back to Orzammar. Then he is deliberately trying to anger you.

[Addai]

Yeah, Bhelen is a real charmer- the first time you meet him, his goons are threatening people and gutting them for insolence to the "rightful king."

I just think your idea of charm is a bit different than most other people, KoP. lol

[KnightofPhoenix]

For a context like Orzammar's, Bhelen is somewhat charming. In fact I think a few commoner females said so.
Outside that, he wouldn't be as charming.

For me, charm has to come with intelligence. Bhelen sounds intelligent. Cailan sounds like an imbecile.Of the two, I would definitely ocnsider the former more charming.

That doens't mean I think Bhelen is the apex of charm, he isn't.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 26 avril 2011 - 04:49 .

[Giggles_Manically]

After Cailan left from the first meeting we had with him I literally thought:
Oh... my.... buddha.
We are so very, very ****ed aren't we?

[Maria13]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

If one is willing to consider idiocy and childishness as charming, then yea sure. It's subjective.

Thanks for so objectively defining the parametres of charm, KoP...  Of course you know more than I do about this... Even with it being subjective... Not.

[KnightofPhoenix]

I didn't. I defined Cailan's character as childish and idiotic. If you see that as charming, it's your prerogative.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

I wouldn't call Cailan charming so much as I'd call him cute, in the way that blond airhead Cali guys are: amusing eyecandy but mostly ornamental. I'd actually like him more if he wasn't a king, as his personality would make me go "awwwww" instead of >>>facepalm<<< when refering to battle strategies as "boring". At most, I tend to pity him more than anything, because he's like The Fool Tarot Card: Whistling merrily as he is about to step over the edge of a cliff.

But I think I can see why others would find him charming, even if I don't. His friendliness and openess towards people could certainly be considered charming, as amicable people usually are seen as such. He is easy on the eyes, as well.

[Maria13]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I didn't. I defined Cailan's character as childish and idiotic. If you see that as charming, it's your prerogative.

So you persist in objectifying something that is subjective (your idea of what defines Cailan) and then using that to disqualify myself and all those that agree with me... Well, that's your prerogative, I guess.

But I don't agree that it's in any way reasonable. It's simply a way of saying that your views supercede mine and those of others, with which, I cannot, of course, concur. And which is something I would not have the arrogance to argue the opposite way around, but then I tend to try and respect other people and their tastes, for what that's worth...

Modifié par Maria13, 26 avril 2011 - 09:02 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Maria13 wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I didn't. I defined Cailan's character as childish and idiotic. If you see that as charming, it's your prerogative.

So you persist in objectifying something that is subjective (your idea of what defines Cailan) and then using that to disqualify myself and all those that agree with me... Well, that's your prerogative, I guess.

By any objective meaning of the words, Cailan is both childish and stupid. Heck, that's even what his name means "Child".

So yes, I will persist in obejctively describing Cailan with those adjectives. If you think that's charming, good for you.

[Maria13]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Maria13 wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I didn't. I defined Cailan's character as childish and idiotic. If you see that as charming, it's your prerogative.

So you persist in objectifying something that is subjective (your idea of what defines Cailan) and then using that to disqualify myself and all those that agree with me... Well, that's your prerogative, I guess.

By any objective meaning of the words, Cailan is both childish and stupid. Heck, that's even what his name means "Child".

So yes, I will persist in obejctively describing Cailan with those adjectives. If you think that's charming, good for you.

I expect no less. Based on the above I shall hence forward objectively classify you as a totally close-minded individual who takes his own value judgments as absolute truth. Oh well, it's your funeral...

[KnightofPhoenix]

Maria13 wrote...
Oh well, it's your funeral...

Still too young for that, thank you.

[Giggles_Manically]

Here lies dearest KoP.
Who hoped to much, and fought one rabid fangirl to many.

To young was he taken from us gentle people.
To soon.

[Addai]

Um, yeah... I do think that Cailan is naive, and fits the pampered prince trope. However it's not mutually exclusive *for everyone* to have that coincide with sympathizing with and/or liking the character. When I think of what Cailan's name means, I think of Rowan, and how much she probably desperately wanted to hang on for her child's sake. She lingered in her illness for a long time. So while to you, KoP, the name is an insult, that's my association with it.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Well this is the first one to actually say that my description of Cailan is going to lead me to my funeral.

I would have found it funny if it wasn't so...weird.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Addai67 wrote...

Um, yeah... I do think that Cailan is naive, and fits the pampered prince trope. However it's not mutually exclusive *for everyone* to have that coincide with sympathizing with and/or liking the character.

Nor did I say that everyone has to dislike Cailan, nor do I care.
What I am saying is that his idiocy and childishness are obvious. If people can tolerate that and find that charming, good for them.

[tmp7704]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Since you did study history I want you to name a leader that was planning on doing what Cailan had been planning and which actually improved the situation of his/her country without screwing their culture and traditions.

Try the opposite -- name a notable country of today which isn't a result of much smaller tribes, countries and/or states merging together at some points in the past.

[KnightofPhoenix]

It rarely had leaders willingly allowing their country / tribe / group to be absorbed when the need was not dire and / or if they were not coerced in one way or the other (second / passive or first / active faces of hegemony).

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 26 avril 2011 - 11:09 .

[Costin_Razvan]

Knight was faster then me. But pretty much what he said.

I would also add that smaller tribes rarely did benefit from such actions. I could go at length about the tribes that threw themselves at Rome's feet and how well that worked out for them but i'll just cut it short and say this:

It never ended well.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 26 avril 2011 - 11:15 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Costin_Razvan wrote...
I would also add that smaller tribes rarely did benefit from such actions. I could go at length about the tribes that threw themselves at Rome's feet and how well that worked out for them but i'll just cut it short and say this:

It never ended well.

Unifications / annexations were always headed by one dominant group.

The major reason why Bismarck made sure that Austria was excluded from German unification. Because only Prussia should be the head of the Reich. 

The results in the larger scheme of things were positive (imo). But I see no need, or urgency or any sort of unavoidable pressure as to force Ferelden to "unify" with Orlais and suffer a weakening of its relative position. That was the move of an idiot who wanted to have an Emperor's crown on his empty head.

[Costin_Razvan]

Unifications / annexations were always headed by one dominant group.

The major reason why Bismarck made sure that Austria was excluded from German unification. Because only Prussia should be the head of the Reich.

The results in the larger scheme of things were positive (imo). But I see no need, or urgency or any sort of unavoidable pressure as to force Ferelden to "unify" with Orlais and suffer a weakening of its relative position. That was the move of an idiot who wanted to have an Emperor's crown on his empty head.

Yes true enough, things did end in a positive manner, but generally first for the dominant party and only after them for the smaller party/parties.

Though one could argue the German unification was in fact a reunification as all those smaller states had been part of the Holy Roman Empire until the thirty years war. Though how "united" the HRE really was can be debated.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 26 avril 2011 - 11:24 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Not an expert in this era and region, but by the 18-19th century, most German polities were useless on their own and very vulnerable. They had sufficient and very valid reasons to want to be subservient to Prussia (of course add to that Bismarck's genius for starting 3 wars to send the message).

Ferelden, despite its backwardness, is not under the same kind of pressure to do this and it has potential on its own.

[tmp7704]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

It rarely had leaders willingly allowing their country / tribe / group to be absorbed when the need was not dire and / or if they were not coerced in one way or the other (second / passive or first / active faces of hegemony).

Circumstances leading to merge could vary, but at the end of the day i can't really think off the bat of any particular situation where one could point finger and say "see, if only they remained separate they'd be much better off" and it wouldn't be debatable. Which, if it's supposed to "never end well" shouldn't be hard at all.

Modifié par tmp7704, 27 avril 2011 - 01:06 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

tmp7704 wrote...
Circumstances leading to merge could vary, but at the end of the day i can't really think off the bat of any particular situation where one could point finger and say "see, if only they remained separate they'd be much better off" and it wouldn't be debatable. Which, if it's supposed to "never end well" shouldn't be hard at all.

It's never that clear cut when we consider long term consequences that can span centuries, but I never heard of a country capable of developping on its own, and in no dire need, willingly entering a merger that is axiomatically going to make it the weaker party, and threatening its independence, sovereignity and relative position.

The world is not going to suffer with the loss of Ferelden independence, probably no one will care. Whether Fereldens themselves would benefit or not is debatable, though I do not see the majority benefitting (and I see a civil war as a very likely possibility). They may benefit as invidiuals, but the community at large probably won't, at least not as much as on their own with effective leadership. Sovereignity and independence are tangible things that many people fought for, even when they didn't really stand to gain that much from it. Add to that relative gains. Colonial Empires did provide absolute gains, but it's clear whose relative position was increasing and whose was getiting weaker, and it's clear who lost their self-determination.

It's not the end of the world, but it's an act of idiocy when a king who is not under pressure to compromise his nation's sovereignity in such a fashion, whose kingdom can progress if he actually does his job instead of being a child, and the nation with which he wants to join is much stronger than his own in almost every aspect. There is really only two possible explanations for this. Either Cailan just wants to be called emperor, making him a first grade infantile moron. Or he actually thinks he is a visionary with some sort of plan, also making him an idiot for assuming that Celene sincerily shares that vision, and that the Orlesian and Ferelden establishments share it, and that real material economic, political and military factors are somehow going to conform to his vision (when it should be vice versa), especially when we know that he doesn't even bother ruling his kingdom.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 27 avril 2011 - 01:20 .

[tmp7704]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Whether Fereldens themselves would benefit or not is debatable, though I do not see the majority benefitting (and I see a civil war as a very likely possibility). They may benefit as invidiuals, but the community at large probably won't, at least not as much as on their own with effective leadership.

Again, why would you think that? I mean, when you have a look at countries of today, how many is there which can be pointed at and said "see, these guys would be definitely, totally better off today if only x years earlier they weren't made part of this country"?

People fight for sovereignty and independence because they've been conditioned into it by literally thousands of years during which these things were praised as high ideals to strive for. In the meantime, in the world of cold, practical economy which focuses on profit and effectiveness first, there's natural tendency towards (global) conglomerates. Not the mom-and-pop shops which find themselves simply unable to compete. This isn't coincidence.

As for historical examples of such unions that didn't take conquers or a party being threatened... there's http://en.wikipedia....ia_Commonwealth (or more precisely, the personal union which existed before it, created by the Jagiellon dynasty)

Modifié par tmp7704, 27 avril 2011 - 08:03 .

[Maria13]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Well this is the first one to actually say that my description of Cailan is going to lead me to my funeral.

I would have found it funny if it wasn't so...weird.

Wow! KoP doesn't know everything...



Idiom Definitions for 'It's your funeral'
The other person has made a decision that you think is bad. However, it is their choice; it is their funeral.