211 réponses à ce sujet

[Giggles_Manically]

So because you think the ending slides cant ever be possibly correct because they contradict your views..... you ignore them?

Even though they were written by the people who wrote Bhelen and Harrowmont and Orzamar?
Even though in one of the developer chats pre-DA2 Gaider said:
"The ending slides helped people to see better that Harrowmont was not that good of a choice for Orzamar"

[Raonar]

Giggles_Manically wrote...

So because you think the ending slides cant ever be possibly correct because they contradict your views..... you ignore them?

Even though they were written by the people who wrote Bhelen and Harrowmont and Orzamar?
Even though in one of the developer chats pre-DA2 Gaider said:
"The ending slides helped people to see better that Harrowmont was not that good of a choice for Orzamar"

And the fact no one said this about Bhelen (as far as you know) HAS to mean he is the good choice, yes?

I didn't say the endings contradict with my views. I said I see a lot of character derailment in them.

[Giggles_Manically]

What derailment?

Harrowmont is so blinded by tradition that he cant see what is coming.
Bhelen is so direct that he steam rolls over everything left and right.

Seems to be spot on.

What you cant stand the fact that someone you dont like does a good job as the king and actually moves Orzamar ahead?

[KnightofPhoenix]

Raonar wrote...
 I said I see a lot of character derailment in them.

Let me tell you a nice little story.

During the French Revolution, debates raged on the death penalty and whether it should be legal or not. You know who was the most outspoken critic of passing such a law? Robespierre.
You know who was the most ardent critic of adopting the guillotine as an instrument of the death penalty? Robespierre.

I dare to assume that you know what happened afterwards. So is the Terreur a character derailement of Robespierre? Or rather, a change of circumstances, both political and personal, domestic and external, that pushed the man into doing things that he was strongly against?

I am assuming that "character derailement" is Harrowmont crushing the casteless. You forget that traditions dictate that the casteless are not even people. The Shaper said, officially they do not exist. They are non-persons. Harrowmont saying he wants to be remembered as a kind and compassionate king has nothing to do with the casteless as they are not even people.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 21 avril 2011 - 07:44 .

[Addai]

Giggles_Manically wrote...

So because you think the ending slides cant ever be possibly correct because they contradict your views..... you ignore them?

Even though they were written by the people who wrote Bhelen and Harrowmont and Orzamar?
Even though in one of the developer chats pre-DA2 Gaider said:
"The ending slides helped people to see better that Harrowmont was not that good of a choice for Orzamar"

It's an overt way to make good intentions produce bad results, i.e. the good man is not always the good king.

I do find it a bit hamfisted.  If Harrowmont were more competent, it would make for a subtler and better plot.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Except even the intentions are not good.

[Addai]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Except even the intentions are not good.

I'm talking about the Warden's intentions.  You're slapped pretty heavily with Bhelen=bad the minute you walk in the big stone doors.

[KnightofPhoenix]

My first reaction is Harrowmont = weak.

[GSSAGE7]

I'll be endlessly amused if it turns out that the epilogue slide saying Bhelen was a reformer turns out to be an example of "Epilogues are hearsay and rumor"

[KnightofPhoenix]

GSSAGE7 wrote...

I'll be endlessly amused if it turns out that the epilogue slide saying Bhelen was a reformer turns out to be an example of "Epilogues are hearsay and rumor"

That would be pushing the idea a bit too far.
There is a big difference between the whereabouts of a character, and the state of a polity.

[LobselVith8]

Saibh wrote...

AwesomeEffect2 wrote...

Giggles_Manically wrote...

@KoP

I take it you didn't watch Citizen Kane, right?

Oh no, super special important clapping scene taken out of context on the internet!

Damn, I better prove what a clever and cultured thinker I am by telling you you're doing it wrong. Did I mention I watch Citizen Kane? Yeah, I'm kinda deep and stuff.  

Let's all pretend he's not doing a slow handclap. No big deal.

Back to the topic at hand, I share Giggles_Manically's applause for KoP, because I didn't think anyone was going to tackle as many points about the OP as KoP did.

[Rexiselic]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Rexiselic wrote...
The only thing worse than a benevolent prince is an evil prince (which he happens to be). His single act of dissolving the assembly solidifies that he is not going to be good for Orzammar in the long run, despite whatever else he might achieve in the short term.

And how is dissolving the Assembly not good for Orzammar in the long run? Why assume that Bhelen wouldn't be able to reform the Assembly? Or one of his heirs? The Assembly was reconstituted after Bemot afterall.

Furthermore, you are confusing a regime, with the polity. Bhelen's regime might collapse quickly. It may not even survive his death. That's not that important. The reforms he is initiating can outlive his death and can be used as the foundation for further reforms.

Alexis de Tocqueville argues in L'Ancient Regime et la Revolution that the reforms of the the absolutist monarchy and of Louis XIV (Richelieu and Mazarin as well) not only survived the collapse of the Bourbons, but in fact was a solid foundation for the Revolution and its subsequent reforms. The reforms were more meritocracy (yes Louis XIV did that), more centralization of power and administration, and military reforms.

After Orzammar reaping the benefits of Bhelen's reforms, both militarily and economically, and after the casteless, for the first time in history, experienced something other than being less than scum, a complete reversal of Bhelen's reforms would be unfeasible.

That's why his regime does not need to survive long. Just long enough to set the reforms in stone. And I contest the idea that an oligarchic assembly is necessary for long term progress, since all they think about is short term private interest. 

Interesting food for thought.

Setting aside my own hatred for Bhelen and my longing to avenge my brother Trian, a part of me still hears that in order for Bhelen's rule to have a long lasting positive effect then a stringe of events (of which I cannot gauge the probablity of occuring) must occur and the final step is that the assembly must be reformed? (Or some other form of it.)

Maybe I am just not getting it.

Maybe I am just confusing regime with polity as you said...

Are you saying that his regime, if short lived, would be postive? And that his polity would be bad, but that would be rectified because the polity would change after his short lived regime ends?

Modifié par Rexiselic, 22 avril 2011 - 05:42 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Rexiselic wrote...
Are you saying that his regime, if short lived, would be postive? And that his polity would be bad, but that would be rectified because the polity would change after his short lived regime ends?

No, I think the state of Orzammar would also be relatively good under his reign, with lessened caste restrictions, more trade and expansion, unless extreme measures need to be taken (like massacring one's own people like Harrowmont), which I doubt.

What I meant rather is that the wellfare of Orzammar, though initiated by Bhelen's policies, can outlive his regime. That his reforms can outlive his regime, and perhaps even expanded upon. Can, not necessarily will mind you. It would be very difficult for anyone to roll back and reduce trade when Orzammar propsered, and force the casteless back into being scum after they experienced another way and after Orzammar benefited from their service. 

So that's why, even if Bhelen's regime would be short lived, the benefits he would bring via his reforms can still outlive him and be expanded upon. Mind you, I do not think Bhelen's regime has to necessarily be short lived. It can last for a long time. Eventually though, it will have to collapse like any other regime. The important thing is that Orzammar's wellbeing remains relatively intact and preferrably improves in the long run, with each passing regime. 

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 22 avril 2011 - 05:52 .

[Rexiselic]

So, basically, Bhelen is awesome? I don't say that with any malice, mind you, I just want to make sure I understand.

Modifié par Rexiselic, 22 avril 2011 - 07:38 .

[Loki330]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

My first reaction is Harrowmont = weak.

Harrowmont is a good king. For peacetime.

Since Orzammar has effectively been at war for the past how-ever-many-hundred-years, he does not make a good king. Which is confirmed by the ingame epilogue and by the head writer of the game.

Let me make that clear since certain peoples have trouble accepting it: Word of God specifically says Bhelan is the better king, so just deal with it.

Rexiselic wrote...

So, basically, Bhelen is awesome? I don't say that with any malice, mind you, I just want to make sure I understand.

Agruable. Is the Res Augustae (effectively a big list of 'wot i did' he had inscribed into special monuments towards the end of his reign) Augustus paints himself as a man who restored the liberty and freedom of the Roman Republic. As one scholar dryly noted: "A more sober interpretation has him as the winner of a very bloody civil war."

Orzimmar is slowly dying. The old traditional ways are Not Working. The dwarves have been losing ground steadily until only two cities are left. Harrowmont is a traditionalist, Bhelen is... well it depends. If you want a similar parrallel look at the Roman Republic towards it's fall. Octavius\\Bhelen seized control and you could say it was s he could lead the republic\\Orzimar to Gloriness and all that jazz, or because he was a powerhungry little s**t and his reforms were to secure his position.

Your milage may vary but the end is the same: they revitilised the dying systems and lead them to presperity.

Modifié par Loki330, 22 avril 2011 - 10:46 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Rexiselic wrote...

So, basically, Bhelen is awesome? I don't say that with any malice, mind you, I just want to make sure I understand.

Yes.

[PaulSX]

wow, this is too long for me to read at this time. mark this and come back later

[GreenDragon37]

Bhelen is awesome. He's not blinded by tradition. He gets **** done, and he cares about improving Orzammar by reforming it, not bowing to the traditionalists.

[yaw]

I picked Harrowmount just because Bhelen seemed like a ******, but after reading that (and yeah, I read it all) seems I made the right choice.

[Wereparrot]

Costin_Razvan wrote...


But you already did that Knight, and did it well indeed. Though I would not compare Bhelen to Augustus, but more to Manuel I

Bhelen's treachery and failure to unite the nobles reminds me of King John.

[Wereparrot]

Loki330 wrote...


Since Orzammar has effectively been at war for the past how-ever-many-hundred-years, he does not make a good king. Which is confirmed by the ingame epilogue and by the head writer of the game.

And Bhelen is the one to bring Orzammar out of this civil warfare? If he were, he would either have seized the throne or made a far better job of uniting the nobles.

[sissysouthpaw]

yaw wrote...

I picked Harrowmount just because Bhelen seemed like a ******, but after reading that (and yeah, I read it all) seems I made the right choice.

I'm on my second playthrough and was thinking I'd support Bhelen this time but... I'm forced to lie and cheat in order to even talk to him? Ick.

[Fred_MacManus]

Wereparrot wrote...

Bhelen's treachery and failure to unite the nobles reminds me of King John.

That pretty much covers it for me, even if I don't take into account all the plot holes and idiot balls mentioned in the OP.

[Elmara]

The main point that everyone seems to bring up to support Bhelen is the whole "He wants to help the casteless!!" which while true, is not a completely good move. We as players might be invariably placing all of the horribly treated people the same category, for example city elves = casteless. This is sadly a mistake, while both are clearly mistreated the elves are not criminals. At least, not like the casteless, where most of the population are thieves, thugs, murderers, etc. They are criminals because the society they live in is ****ed and made them that way. However, this does not detract from the fact that they are criminals.

[GSSAGE7]

Elmara wrote...

The main point that everyone seems to bring up to support Bhelen is the whole "He wants to help the casteless!!" which while true, is not a completely good move. We as players might be invariably placing all of the horribly treated people the same category, for example city elves = casteless. This is sadly a mistake, while both are clearly mistreated the elves are not criminals. At least, not like the casteless, where most of the population are thieves, thugs, murderers, etc. They are criminals because the society they live in is ****ed and made them that way. However, this does not detract from the fact that they are criminals.

That assumes they are all criminals. Granted, 90% of them are, but that nug wrangler you meet in Dust Town wasn't a criminal. Plus, what about the children of the castless, who continue to be castless? They're more or less deemed criminals before they can even think about crime.